You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[Acim]

Trust and Love certainly can't be. There wouldn't be any target.

Au contraire

Via distortions, especially of "self," there are multiple targets

 

[PolyHedral]

Yes.

Again, think of night dreams to try and make sense of the experience as mental process.

If you're trying to imply the Matrix hypothesis, then it's actually irrelevant. The world is what is being delivered to my senses. Whether that's ultimately "real" or not isn't actually a problem.

 

[Willamena]

The world is what is being delivered to my senses....

*knock* *knock*
"Who's there?"
..."Land shark."

The problem may simply lie in a meta-metaphor similar to the conduit metaphor.

 

[Acim]

Cool, science is actually irrelevant

 

[PolyHedral]

*knock* *knock*
"Who's there?"
..."Land shark."

The problem may simply lie in the conduit metaphor.

Oops, I meant something is being "delivered" to my brain.

Cool, science is actually irrelevant

 

[Willamena]

Oops, I meant something is being "delivered" to my brain.

The problem is that the image of delivery is itself a part of the package (the "delivered").

In dualistic terms, what lies beyond what our senses compose of the world is aformed.

 

[idav]

Provide links if you actually believe this. I observe you have not.



It has not shown this, and you are yet to substantiate this. Well you or anyone. Clearly, we do not physically see "things" as they are now.

Ok I will spell it out for you. What we see is actually a reflection of light off an object. Hence no light then no sight. Is this really what the object looks like if we are just seeing a reflection? Certainly not. However, as good as our sense of sight is it is only a piece of the bigger picture of what the object is. Touching the object should make it more real than just seeing the object. If we can't feel a physical object we may be able to sense the heat and maybe hear it if it makes a sound. The senses we use to observe the environment so we use machines to observe other things that emit from an object like heat variances and electromagnetism and various wavelengths that can't be observed with the naked eye. Science has more than explained what it is we are actually percieving and has been more than helpful in percieving even more.

Right back to where we started. Observed with what?

see above

Even the physical, when understood properly, is not physical or is non-material. When 'observed' in another method, it is arguably non material, but I am saying with use of Reason, when understood properly the physical is 'non-material,' though that takes a rather huge shift in perception, and one I'll let inner Guru sort out for all who care to go deeper.

In actuality all these things that you are defining as immaterial are part of the material universe. Just the building blocks are much smaller than we can see with the naked eye so we bust out with the telescopes and microscopes to get an even better glimpse.

Not even close, but you keep believing that if it works for you. I wish you well.

You can't back up that claim without pure speculation.

With what? "Proof is in the pudding" logic. Yeah, that didn't quite work for me. Sorry.

Results speak for themselves. If anyone didn't show their worth they would get fired as would any science department that wasn't proving it's worth.

Seeing in the physical sense is based on faith / trust. Once that is accepted, say as axiom, the extenuating proofs will potentially not be seen as resting on faith. Akin to accepting God exists. Pretend like that is accepted, rather than doubted / questioned. If God guides you do "go to that physical store, and buy some peanuts and cracker jack." Well the many subprocesses that are between "God spoke" and "now I am eating peanuts and cracker jack" will be within the framework, seen as reasonable, not just faith based. Though ultimately it rests on faith, and if paying acute attention, there is faith (more like wonder) in each sub-process.

This whole spill about needing to have faith in god in order for reality to be more objective is non-sensical. You can have faith in whatever you want as can anyone else but I'm certain I know when I need faith and when I don't. If I can see and touch an object I don't need faith to think it exists and I don't need to believe in god to make it more objective.

 

[McBell]

God is that higher authority. God is perfect and his Knowledge is perfect. Human knowledge is insignificant in comparison. God comes to this world Himself or he sends his representatives to impart that Knowledge to us.

And you know this how?

I would also like to know how I-Ching knows this..

 

[Acim]

Ok I will spell it out for you.

Thank you. I am glad you finally arrived.

What we see

Wait, see with what? Would your "seeing" here apply to say night dreams. I'll assume it does since you are essentially basing everything on this assumption, and since I 'see' in night dreams, see the physical world, I think it is reasonable to say it is the same, no?

is actually a reflection of light off an object. Hence no light then no sight.

Cool, there is an (objective) light in my night dreams. I knew there was! I just knew it. People said it was a projection of my mind, but now you and I know better. Thanks. Please continue.

Is this really what the object looks like if we are just seeing a reflection? Certainly not. However, as good as our sense of sight is it is only a piece of the bigger picture of what the object is. Touching the object should make it more real than just seeing the object.

Agreed. I touch lots of things in my dreams. This is how I know they are real. Senses are good like that. In fact, it is all I got.

If we can't feel a physical object we may be able to sense the heat and maybe hear it if it makes a sound. The senses we use to observe the environment so we use machines to observe other things that emit from an object like heat variances and electromagnetism and various wavelengths that can't be observed with the naked eye. Science has more than explained what it is we are actually percieving and has been more than helpful in percieving even more.

Agreed, this science is alive and well in my night dreams. I would estimate around 97.362% of the theories and laws known today, are parallel to those in my dreams. These processes occurring in my night dream, I now realize even more, via your teaching, that they are objective (not just my personal subjective imagination at work) and are real (senses prove this). Proof is in the pudding.

In actuality all these things that you are defining as immaterial are part of the material universe. Just the building blocks are much smaller than we can see with the naked eye so we bust out with the telescopes and microscopes to get an even better glimpse.

In actuality, these things are not found in material universe. In actuality. Like Reason for example. I tried using a telescope, and didn't see it. Tried using a microscope and correlated it to some brain activity, but didn't see Reason. Tried even using physical eyes, but learned that illusions do not make for reality. In actuality, these things are not found in the material universe.

Results speak for themselves. If anyone didn't show their worth they would get fired as would any science department that wasn't proving it's worth.

LOL, sounds like OT God here. Again, I truly believe you think this is accurate, so I'll let you believe this since its impact on me is negligible.

I'm certain I know when I need faith and when I don't. If I can see and touch an object I don't need faith to think it exists and I don't need to believe in god to make it more objective.

LOL, this nonsense is comical. I don't need faith to think my night dreams exist, and I don't need to believe in God (or Designer of the Dream) to make it more objective.

Even "more objective" is funny.

My God is more objective than your God!

 

[McBell]

Apparently in some cases, this seems to be true.

Rimshot
​

 

[idav]

Wait, see with what? Would your "seeing" here apply to say night dreams. I'll assume it does since you are essentially basing everything on this assumption, and since I 'see' in night dreams, see the physical world, I think it is reasonable to say it is the same, no?



Cool, there is an (objective) light in my night dreams. I knew there was! I just knew it. People said it was a projection of my mind, but now you and I know better. Thanks. Please continue.



Agreed. I touch lots of things in my dreams. This is how I know they are real. Senses are good like that. In fact, it is all I got.



Agreed, this science is alive and well in my night dreams. I would estimate around 97.362% of the theories and laws known today, are parallel to those in my dreams. These processes occurring in my night dream, I now realize even more, via your teaching, that they are objective (not just my personal subjective imagination at work) and are real (senses prove this). Proof is in the pudding.



In actuality, these things are not found in material universe. In actuality. Like Reason for example. I tried using a telescope, and didn't see it. Tried using a microscope and correlated it to some brain activity, but didn't see Reason. Tried even using physical eyes, but learned that illusions do not make for reality. In actuality, these things are not found in the material universe.




LOL, sounds like OT God here. Again, I truly believe you think this is accurate, so I'll let you believe this since its impact on me is negligible.



LOL, this nonsense is comical. I don't need faith to think my night dreams exist, and I don't need to believe in God (or Designer of the Dream) to make it more objective.

Even "more objective" is funny.

My God is more objective than your God!

When I was a kid I always thought "life was but a dream". Everyone is but a figment of my imagination.

You can compare observing reality to observing in a dream all you want but this has been addressed. Saying we are in a dream and when we dream we are in a dream within a dream gets a bit ridiculous and isn't worth debating. If there is a more valid reality I'd love to experience it. Speculating that a dream is the real reality doesn't do much for debating what we experience.

If you want illusions to be the source of objectivity then good luck with that. By more objective I mean we get more objective evidence which only adds to validity. You think you can live without the sense that percieve the outside world and live by god alone? What would you be able to intuitively know without ever experiencing reality?

 

[Acim]

You think you can live without the sense that percieve the outside world and live by god alone?

Didn't claim that and is where bias you demonstrate is being projected onto that which you disagree with. Ironic, really.

While not possible in ultimate way to follow two masters, you can live with general idea that you are in this world, but not of it. Akin to lucid dreaming. Akin to if one were on holo-deck, they could know all around them is not real, not material. Even while appearing to be full participant in said existence.

What would you be able to intuitively know without ever experiencing reality?

I think you mean without experiencing the physical. To which I would reply, you would know, intuitively, Reason, Trust, Knowledge, Self, Love, Justice, God, so on, and so forth.

 

[Willamena]

By more objective I mean we get more objective evidence which only adds to validity.

Yup... all swans are white.

 

[idav]

Didn't claim that and is where bias you demonstrate is being projected onto that which you disagree with. Ironic, really.

While not possible in ultimate way to follow two masters, you can live with general idea that you are in this world, but not of it. Akin to lucid dreaming. Akin to if one were on holo-deck, they could know all around them is not real, not material. Even while appearing to be full participant in said existence.



I think you mean without experiencing the physical. To which I would reply, you would know, intuitively, Reason, Trust, Knowledge, Self, Love, Justice, God, so on, and so forth.

What do you mean serving two masters? There is just one reality and we are able to only percieve a portion of it. I'm not one to that cares to be stuck in materialism but I am grateful for what I'm able to percieve. Those feelings you named off are just as much an illusion as what we are able to percieve. If we could experience god perfectly theists would never have reason to disagree but alas our perception of god is also flawed.

 

[Acim]

What do you mean serving two masters?

Within context of this thread: higher authority and lower authority.

There is just one reality and we are able to only percieve a portion of it.

That is not part of the one reality. That is part of the grand illusion.

I'm not one to that cares to be stuck in materialism but I am grateful for what I'm able to percieve. Those feelings you named off are just as much an illusion as what we are able to percieve. If we could experience god perfectly theists would never have reason to disagree but alas our perception of god is also flawed.

Perhaps. Perceiving God though makes about as much sense as intuitively studying the external world. With a little mental gymnastics and overlooking some semantics, it can be done. Anything is possible.

You are saying Reason is a "feeling?" Knowledge, Self and Justice are all feelings I named?

Please explain to me how science works without Reason? Without Self? Without Knowledge?

 

[idav]

Within context of this thread: higher authority and lower authority.

I don't see that way though. There is only reality and ways of finding out what it is. The OP tries to say that God is the best way of doing it however god is such an ambiguous notion you may as well say love is the way of finding the truth of the universe.

That is not part of the one reality. That is part of the grand illusion.

Reality is not an illusion. Reality is existence itself. What we experience is not an illusion of reality it is only a portion of what reality actually is.

You are saying Reason is a "feeling?" Knowledge, Self and Justice are all feelings I named?

Please explain to me how science works without Reason? Without Self? Without Knowledge?

If your getting this knowledge intuitively then it doesn't work out very well. We did that for thousands of years and science came along and squashed the ideas of what we thought we knew.

 

[Acim]

I don't see that way though. There is only reality and ways of finding out what it is. The OP tries to say that God is the best way of doing it however god is such an ambiguous notion you may as well say love is the way of finding the truth of the universe.

For you, God need not be ambiguous. Just like explaining science and atheism to others can lead to ambiguity, so can God. Really, explaining just about anything.

I can tell you that when you connect with God-within, ambiguity goes bye bye. Doubt melts. Clarity pings. And at a very acute level, you realize it has always been this way, even when you imagined (with strong sense of conviction) that there was / is no god.

Reality is not an illusion. Reality is existence itself. What we experience is not an illusion of reality it is only a portion of what reality actually is.

Would you say this applies to night dreams? Hopefully you can set aside whatever connotations you have around that concept, especially in way you might hear me continually reference it. But in YOUR night dreams, do you understand yourself as having an experience that is real, or do you disregard it (even within the dream) as unreal? I am talking about the experience, not the perceived reality.

If your getting this knowledge intuitively then it doesn't work out very well. We did that for thousands of years and science came along and squashed the ideas of what we thought we knew.

LOL. Not.

Scientific materialism attempts, vainly, to disregard them. I would say many, and I believe majority, of proponents of science are not into actively squashing them. Of the active researchers I've met, they are for sure not into squashing such memes. Here in philosophy of science discourse, it comes up directly or indirectly, much of the time. But as I have cited numerous times on this thread, science can't even back up materialism, and rests on faith. It is between folly and arrogance to claim otherwise. And as long as that claim is being floated out there and I'm in the debate, count on me challenging it as directly as humanly possible. For sure, I am yet to see anything remotely resembling true objectivity when it comes to basis of scientific materialism, or what I think you are continuing to refer to as the "one reality."

 

[idav]

For you, God need not be ambiguous. Just like explaining science and atheism to others can lead to ambiguity, so can God. Really, explaining just about anything.

I can tell you that when you connect with God-within, ambiguity goes bye bye. Doubt melts. Clarity pings. And at a very acute level, you realize it has always been this way, even when you imagined (with strong sense of conviction) that there was / is no god.



Would you say this applies to night dreams? Hopefully you can set aside whatever connotations you have around that concept, especially in way you might hear me continually reference it. But in YOUR night dreams, do you understand yourself as having an experience that is real, or do you disregard it (even within the dream) as unreal? I am talking about the experience, not the perceived reality.



LOL. Not.

Scientific materialism attempts, vainly, to disregard them. I would say many, and I believe majority, of proponents of science are not into actively squashing them. Of the active researchers I've met, they are for sure not into squashing such memes. Here in philosophy of science discourse, it comes up directly or indirectly, much of the time. But as I have cited numerous times on this thread, science can't even back up materialism, and rests on faith. It is between folly and arrogance to claim otherwise. And as long as that claim is being floated out there and I'm in the debate, count on me challenging it as directly as humanly possible. For sure, I am yet to see anything remotely resembling true objectivity when it comes to basis of scientific materialism, or what I think you are continuing to refer to as the "one reality."

I've already shown that it does back itself up by showing us what we are actually percieving and then you go in hide in dream land. I've also noted that it shows results and that doesn't satisfy you either (as if you wouldn't lavish the thought of science falling on its face). I've shown that science shows us more reality than the intuition has over thousands of years. You can keep saying it rests on faith but I've shown that it is not the case. I've shown objectivity which is certainly not found in the feelings people get from god. Your just sticking to solipsism to justify god. Good luck with that.

 

[Acim]

I've already shown that it does back itself up by showing us what we are actually percieving and then you go in hide in dream land.

You haven't shown how perception occurs objectively. You keep skipping over the part that matters, and hence the dream land scenario, as rebuttal, fits very well with logical fallacy you continue to make. To help understand that fallacy, I can tell you God exists, because the bible says so. God, backs himself up as real, by putting that in the bible. You are saying the physical world exists, because we can perceive it. With what can we perceive it? With material senses (found in the physical world). That is not objective.

I've also noted that it shows results and that doesn't satisfy you either (as if you wouldn't lavish the thought of science falling on its face).

I'm not disputing that science shows results and this has not come up. You are not substantiating the basis for how 'science' (really materialism) finds evidence / sees evidence. Again, it is like saying, I have shown you the results of God's creation. Look at the world. See it? You do. Good. That's God's creation. I can describe the things in the world if you are having trouble understanding the results of creation.

I've shown that science shows us more reality than the intuition has over thousands of years.

You have not shown this. Link it if you feel you have. Perhaps you've claimed it. (Akin to) I've proved to you that God exists.

You can keep saying it rests on faith but I've shown that it is not the case.

You haven't even a little bit, sort of shown it. Or have shown it as much as I've shown you absolute, undeniable proof of God's existence.

I've shown objectivity which is certainly not found in the feelings people get from god.

And I've shown you why God is absolutely objective, able to be seen by all. I've shown you that you are the only one who doesn't see God, and I've shown you Schroedinger's Cat. All these things I've showed you. If you can't remember, that's not my fault. If you need me to show you again, I'll do so right after you remind me where you showed me these things you think you've showed me.

Your just sticking to solipsism to justify god. Good luck with that.

Luck not needed. Got Reason.

 

[I-Ching]

So God only empowers those who agree with you.
Convenient.

He only empowers theists obviously.