by slimboyfat 168 Replies latest jw friends
A religious believer says we just have to believe that God knows what he's talking about.
A scientific believer says we just have to trust that empirical methods deliver answers corresponding to the world in itself.
Both are bedrocks for sure, and equally unprovable.
A religious believer says we just have to believe that God knows what he's talking about.
No, only monotheist believers. And only those who believe at a personal God among them.
A scientific believer says we just have to trust that empirical methods deliver answers corresponding to the world in itself.
No! Not a single scientific will say "I am empirist"....
What you seem to be missing slimboyfat (giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're just being a pedantic twit) is that the worm's perspective of the earth being flat in no way alters the reality that the earth is really spheroid.
The worm can have his perspective, but it's incomplete even if it suffices for his needs. Humans used to have the same perspective but changed it because of knowledge and discovering facts of existence that could be relied upon.
Having a perspective in no way makes something true. Just because you see hands and feet sticking out of two boxes doesn't mean the lady has really been cut in two by the magician!
We continue to learn and build more things on the facts already recognized which are occasionally replaced with more refined definitions.
Both are bedrocks for sure, and equally unprovable.
Ah, the old stalwart "they are equal".
Except they are not, by a long way. One is the equivalent of a pink teapot circling mars. You can't prove there isn't one ... it's just really, really unlikely and anyone with a modicum of sense can acknowledge that.
Apart from the scientific process which itself is more likely to yield results that we can have confidence in (not faith, real confidence) the track record is that religion has been wrong, every time. It constantly and consistently retreats from it's claims while science almost always advances.
The worm is ignorant.
Such arrogance, Thats it I'm bailing out of this conversation.
But to the basic question: how do we know mankind is equipped to ask and answer questions about the world in a way that relates to the world in itself rather than simply our perspective? Since all sorts of creatures have variously developed senses of their surroundings, to accept that the perspective of the rational human represents objective reality, is to prioritise its perspective as being above all those other creatures. The human brain is therefore said to be the only known mind device in the universe capable of understanding the universe. But how can we be sure we are not misunderstanding the nature of the world in itself at such a basic level we can never see it?
Cofty's answer to this problem appears to be simply: I don't care to contemplate the possibility of a world in which the human mind is not capable of understanding reality at an objective level. And you're just being difficult asking for proof.
Well you might not care for such an uncomfortable thought, you might even think people who question it are ignorant asses. But that's not the same as ruling in or out. It's at bottom wishful thinking.
The human brain is therefore said to be the only known mind device in the universe capable of understanding the universe. But how can we be sure we are not misunderstanding the nature of the world in itself at such a basic level we can never see it?
I think the human brain is capable of understanding the universe in varying degrees some more than others as we explore it, but the knowledge is not absolute. Our sensual understand is admitted arbitrary as for instance the minds interpretation of colors is not according to reality it is according to visual interpretations of light wave lengths as is sound waves also producing in the mind what we hear, as in the old saying: 'if a tree falls in the forest and no one is their to hear it does it make a sound?'
In my idea of consciousness and I'm sure others as well will agree that it does not require complex thinking with all the details of the specific event in ones awareness. Instead I view it as some creatures are simply more aware than other creatures and respond differently to different stimuli according to their nature of existence with varying degrees of complexity.
There since a dog may not make plans for tomorrow and is more in the now than in the past or present doesn't constitute a lack of consciousness but simply a different form of degree of consciousness.
But to the basic question: how do we know mankind is equipped to ask and answer questions about the world in a way that relates to the world in itself rather than simply our perspective? Since all sorts of creatures have variously developed senses of their surroundings, to accept that the perspective of the rational human represents objective reality, is to prioritise its perspective as being above all those other creatures. The human brain is therefore said to be the only known mind device in the universe capable of understanding the universe. But how can we be sure we are not misunderstanding the nature of the world in itself at such a basic level we can never see it?The human brain isn't equipped for some questions for some pretty basic reasons. Captain Caveman has a habit of stopping and pondering the meaning of black and orange stripes and their relationship to the greater cosmos, Captain is now an ex-Caveman and that genetic line is extinct.
