Re: Science and God

On Jun 6, 10:56 pm, Dave Smith <da...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 4 Jun, 12:02, Paul Grieg <pgr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





But in 'going beyond perception' does it give us a greater grip on
reality?

The inferred forces do not give you any greater insight into reality
because they are just that, inferences. They are not actualities that
can be present to us. Newton's laws were just models of reality, not
reality, and were shown to be incorrect by Einstein. And Einstein also
just provided another model that may someday be superceded by one with
'go faster' stripes.

So, in fact, 'forces' do get us any further than perception. In a way
they are a backward step. Immediate perceptions are closer to reality
in that they are immediately present to our faculty of perception.
Then we have concepts (like planets or apples) which are further from
reality that the actual perceptions, something we make up in our
heads. And then (even further away from reality!) are Newton's
invisible forces at a distance, an abstraction built upon
abstractions. Really unreal!

Also, if planets and apples (and other gravitating objects) did not
exist then Newton's 'forces' would not exist. The reverse is not
necessarily true.

Perceptions model the external world as well, and thinking of 'apples'
and 'planets' requires conceptualisation. Abstract thought can be
more powerful than concrete thought -- no doubt that is why it
evolved.

A waterfall is more powerful than still water, but you cannot have the
former without the latter. Abstract thought requires concrete thought.
In certain circumstances a particular abstract thought might be more
powerful than a particular concrete thought. So, the gravitational
force exerted by an average star (an abstract object) is greater than
that exerted by the apple in my kitchen. But that apple is 'more real'
than this average average star -- as ar the concrete stars form which
the average star was abstracted. So power (actual or explanatory) is
not fundamental, perceptions are.

Only as a hypothesis. We do not have as much certainty of the
existence of other minds as we have of our own. Have you had the
experience of seeing a really life-like manikin? I have. For a moment
I thought the beautiful girl had a mind like mine, and perhaps would
like me. I plucked up the courage to say hello. Then realised I was
about to talk to plastic. I slinked away slowly...

You had also formed the hypothesis that the manikin had a body like
yours in some respects, which is why you assumed she had a mind like
yours in some respects. (Incidentally, I was once shaken when a
figure I thought was a model suddenly 'came alive'.)

Yes I've had that as well! Attractive young women should not be
allowed to sit around in M & S. I wonder if they do it on purpose? :-)

Depends how loosely you define 'know'. I might say 'I know' you have
human mind like mine. But do I really? Maybe Google will announce that
the DSAI robot has been operating in newsgroups and fooling averyone
for the last few years.

Maybe neuroscientists will devise ways of linking brains together, so
that one person can tap into another person's experiences........

Would both brains still have their own motivations? Brain 1 might want
to go to the fair, and brain 2 to the cinema, even though they share
exactly the same experiences. Brain's 1 and 2 do have differences
though -- brain 1's store of experiences are physically closer to
brain 1's seat of consciousness. They are also stored in, brain 1! So
are they really 'the same' experiences to both brains?. By having
greater strength & closeness they are different. So brain 1 could
*never* have the same experiences as brain 2.

I would susggest the strongest form of knowledge we have, apart from
the Cartesian cogito, is knowledge gained from perception. That only
has the right to be called 'the best' knowledge, after the cogito,
that we have and can have.

As I commented above, abstract thinking can be very useful for some
purposes.

Yes but it's secondary knowledge, not the gold standard that
perceptions give you.

Anyway the argument appears to have turned round somewhat. i was
arguing that we have 'knwoledge' of the noumenon earlier. Obviously I
must now add that this is not the same as empirical knowledge, just as
the knowledge I have that you have a mind is another kind of knowledge
again. Three kinds of knowledge? And more! (E.g., Newton's laws. A
fourth kind.) So what is knowledge, ultimately? What do all these
knowledges have in common that makes us want to call them all
'knowledge'.

They are 'justified true beliefs' ? (discussed in previous posts)

OK. But what makes one more justified than another?

How do you know there are things-in-themselves? Our capacity to pick
out individual objects does not mean that 'ultimately there are
individual noumenal objects. Maybe there is only a thing-in-itself.
Ooops but even here I'm picking out one object.

From another angle: as empirical perception involves individuation,
and we are abstracting out everything that applies to empirical
phenomena, all I can say is the the noumenon does not have the
property of multiplicity.

Wholes can be regarded as having interacting parts (systems within
systems).

Only objects of perception can be divided into parts, or concepts
derived from objects of perception. By definition, the noumenom is not
such a beast. It cannot have parts.

It's always better to read something more considered to gain
understanding of a complex system like transcendental idealism. So I
would recommend reading Magee's 'Confessions of a Philosopher' to find
the examples you seek.

I started reading it today and am greatly enjoying it. I read
Magee's little book on Popper a short while ago and was impressed by
that, too.

I read his Popper book several decades ago, I must re-read it. I've
read his "Confessions" several times in the last decade (it's my
"touchstone" book). If you are tempted to read more about Schopenhauer
I'd recommend starting with Magee's "Schopenhauer". I'm re-reading it
at the moment. After that you may feel like plunging into
Schopenhauer's work. I read his WWR a few years ago, and am planning
to re-read soon. Just recently I went through his FFRPSR online at:

http://www.archive.org/details/onthefourfoldroo00schouoft





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WWOT: On what it means to be human (LONG!)
    ... beyond what you create out of your perceptions and experiences, ... reality in the biochemical and instinctual impulses that make up so much ... think the 'mountain' is a single thing, ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: Breaking the materialism part 2
    ... their own experiences have been. ... particular perceptions and interpretations of the things, ... what is this definition of reality you mention ...
    (soc.religion.bahai)
  • Re: Boots May Be Right
    ... for the a single brain like ours to form than a universe plus a brain. ... you create all of reality the concept of a "brain" (thinking ... perceptions and our conclusions about them feed one another. ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: WWOT: On what it means to be human (LONG!)
    ... Richard Burke wrote: ... Well...surely you are assuming that there is no ultimately real Richard beyond what you create out of your perceptions and experiences, and I am assuming that there is an ultimately real Cheryland there is no way to prove which of us is right. ... I have always had enormous difficulty with the idea that there is reality or even any halfway intellectually satisfying substitute for reality in the biochemical and instinctual impulses that make up so much of our being. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Sample of my SR model"s interpretation
    ... perceptual reality acts like a 3-D hyperplane screen, ... It is no wonder that perceptions made by such ... traveling twin makes his journey, ... The ship's front end is seen by a stationary observer to have ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)