Originally posted by Deeviant
First of all, I don't have to justify my interest in anything, and my interest has no relevance to this discussion.
That's a funny thing to say. It is you who made assertions about the possibility, or not, of God, so I've assumed you are ready to defend your position. Anyway, I wasn't asking about your personal interests, I was asking about the ability of a human being to experience interest in general, and pointing out that it, along with other qualities of consciousness, cannot yet be explained by anything yet observed. By the way, you might relax a little. Having your ideas challenged in a debate, in a philosophy forum, is nothing to take personally.
Originally posted by Deeviant
Appreciation, like all emotions, comes from the brain. Most likely, on the course of human evolution, a trait in which a human would feel good about accomplishment would have been nurtured as it would motivate that human to accomplish more, thus have stronger survival characteristics.
Ha! Aren't you the one who said we need "conclusive facts" to proceed with our reasoning? Show me the conclusive facts which prove the basis of appreciation and caring are emotions. I wasn't referring to the sentimentality often associated those qualities, I meant the ability of consciousness to appreciate or care in general. Why should we appreciate (in the sense of deeply valuing) music, a sunset, food, wine, etc.? We don’t need appreciation to survive, as animals wolfing down a rotten carcass often demonstrate. Again, by “caring” I meant the trait of some human beings to care about every single thing they do -- to do things with great care and attentiveness, to care about every living thing, to care about all relevant issues of existence. That sort of caring is not necessary for personal survival, but rather seems done so the individual more deeply enjoys his own existence. And enjoyment too is another one of those strange traits unexplained by anything thus far observed.
Originally posted by Deeviant
"While you for all consciousness?" I can't make any sense of this.
That’s because you didn’t quote me correctly. I said, “While you might need observation to explain the physics/mechanics of the universe, other of its qualities have not yielded explanations through observation. . . .”
Originally posted by Deeviant
The reason that observation is important is because it validates theory. If your theory can never be validated it will forever remain a theory. A theory that is incapable of being validated is incapable of describing any real event or aspect, in or of, our reality.
The term “observation” is commonly interpreted to mean
sense experience, and it is the exclusive role you give sense experience that I am challenging. We know, beyond all doubt, that observation combined with judicious hypothesizing (empiricism) produces knowledge. We also know that the only sort of knowledge empirical endeavors produce is physical/mechanical.
A relevant question to ask is: are there valid human experiences other than sense experience? For example, there have been a great many individuals throughout history who have practiced withdrawing from the senses, and turning their attention inward. In fact, it is from these practitioners of inner experience that we get the most consistent reports about a realm other than the physical realm. Now, those enthralled with empiricism tend to either summarily wave off such reports as deluded, or attempt to subject them to empirical standards. In the case of subjecting them to empirical standards, how can that work? Empiricism is based on
external observation through the senses, while the true inner experience is based on withdrawal from the senses. It’s like the radiologist saying he is going to study the subtleties of fine music with his x-ray machine.
So often I’ve debated the empirical-minded at this site who neither have the slightest understanding of the inner experience (or its long and venerated history), nor are they willing to consider the possibility that observation may not be the only legitimate human experience which can produce knowledge. Because they’ve decided the senses are the only experiential avenue to knowledge, and because sense experience only reveals physical knowledge, they conclude they can explain everything in empirical or physicalistic terms, and if they can’t then the aspect of reality being scrutinized is “fiction,” as you put it. This is exactly what you are doing when you insist observation and conclusive facts (i.e.,
external observations and facts) are the only way to establish the veracity of a hypothesis.