Can mankind transcend the fabric of space and time?

  • Thread starter eextreme
  • Start date

can mankind transcend the fabric of space and time?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 35.3%
  • No

    Votes: 8 47.1%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Total voters
    17
514
0
Can mankind go beyond the limits of spacetime?
First off, this is an extremely vague and difficult question, like robertm pointed out.
But I will try to answer from my own perspective nevertheless.

First off, defining timespace is not that easy. We could define it as everything observable, but this brings numerous issues like the issue about subjective perception.
But let's say for arguments sake we define it as everything we can observe, and by observe I mean touch, see, hear, and also observe in the laboratory like with a hadron collider.

In that case, it gets a bit more easy. For one, humans cannot move their bodies into a dimension or spatial object that is not compatible with our senses and our bodies, so in the physical sense, if we can go there, we can 'transcend' to it.
But that of course brings the issue if we are even transcending, and if it's not just another dimension of reality.

Speaking of transcending too, the word of course implies that we change in order to enter this new reality, which could imply that we could create technology that fits with the new reality, but that our bodies originally do not fit.
If such is the case, the new reality would still need some tangible or other connection to the current reality, otherwise /nothing/ from our reality could enter into it.

And lastly, there is the subjective standpoint on the question.
The problem of awareness is that once humans are aware of something, we automatically get a choice.
So in the ultimate sense, if we become aware of our own inner workings, we should in theory be able to make a choice outside of physical reality.
Right now we are not aware on any level the inner workings of our brain, and most likely this is impossible, but if it isn't, maybe we can 'transcend' our brain, and become aware on a much deeper level, but that is only if the mind is capable of altering matter, but this is too complicated of an issue to get into here, and most likely it's not true either way.
 
248
0
Here is some science for you Crosson:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/" [Broken]

A very lengthy symposium on the Brain, Mind, and Consciousness. From 2005 I believe. Includes the likes of:

Michael Shermer executive director of the Skeptics Society,

Roger Bingham of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the U.Cal.,

Christof Koch Professor of Cognitive and Behavioural Biology at Caltech,

Alison Gopnik a proffessor of Psychology at the U.Cal. at Berkley,

Harvard Psychologist Richard McNally,

Terry Sejnowski Director of the Computational Neurobiology lab at the Salk Institute in San Diego,

Susan Blackmore a one-time paranormalist turned skeptic,

Caltech Neurologist John Allman,

Paul Zak professor of economics at Claremont Graduate University,

Hank Schlinger a psychologist at CSU, Northridge, and

Ursula Goodenough professor of biology at Washington University, St. Louis.

I believe most if not all of these people would disagree with you Crosson, and they have evidence to back it up. Do you have any counter evidence to present? Or just 'counter philosophy'?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
514
0
I will ask Moridin a simple question, about this immaterial mind, and then we can go from there.

When I look at a red surface, I see the color red. This color is manifested in physical reality as a set of frequencies in the visible electromagnetic spectrum.
However, no science/math/physics can calculate what a red color looks like.
Unlike a sphere, or a cube, which both can be described mathematically, the colorful appearance of neither object can be described.
There is then an immaterial property, the color red, which exists only as waves, but not as the color red.

To me this is the core of the discussion, because not only color is 'immaterial' in this sense, but also all other sensory perception.
Can math or physics describe how much it hurts to cut off an arm? Can it describe how good it feels to eat a chocolate bar?
No matter how much neuroscience pokes in the brain, there is at /a minimum/ a lower level (read quantum physics and beyond) set of rules that we must calculate and predict to understand these phenomena.
We could create a complete map of brain states, and the feelings/thoughts that arise from them, but the entire subjective side of it is still missing.
 
1,222
2
Here is some science for you Crosson:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/2005%20Skeptics%20Society%20Annual%20Conference/" [Broken]
This is worse then I feared, these scientist's are prematurely biased towards their desired conclusion. Far from showing me evidence, they are instead just repeating their conclusion over and again, as if the identification between brain states and thoughts was a fact of the language. At the very least this shows that they are too crude in style to present a deductive argument without shortcutting instantly to their conclusion every five minutes.

Also, that audio-visual has too many irrelevant anecdotes, I would prefer manuscripts that are as dense and to the point as possible.

I believe most if not all of these people would disagree with you Crosson, and they have evidence to back it up.
I don't care how many confused people disagree with me. What you see as evidence, I see as misguided and biased interpretations. Frequently they assume much more then they claim to show; they are not delicate enough in their use of concepts to be able to handle these issues.

Do you have any counter evidence to present? Or just 'counter philosophy'?
The grammar of your use of 'just' indicates that you think science to be somehow superior to philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with concept development, and science goes astray when its concepts are poorly understood. All the evidence you could present doesn't change anything if it involves premises that are stronger than its conclusion.

Concerning the argument from existence presented earlier, your two objections where

(1) skepticism against the application category of quality to the noumena

I would like to argue that the notion that the application of a category of quality to the noumena is a necessary presupposition in order to hold the concept of the noumena as meaningful in the first place.
But this presupposition is the same as your conclusion C3, that categories apply to things-in-themselves.

I disagree with you, and think that the concept of noumena is meaningful without it belonging to the category of quality. It's meaning is it's use (L.W.).

A similar argument can be made against your second objection, either because noncognitivism is enough to disprove a concept or because the asserted inability to prove or disprove a concept render it meaningless as well?
Noncognitivism is hardly a disproof of anything, this is a form of the appeal to incredulity.

A concept which cannot be proven or disproven (in a particular system) is called undecidable. Mathematical logic has succeeded in proving some theorems to be undecidable within it's standard framework, e.g. the continuum hypothesis, and Godel's incompleteness theorem asserts that any logical system of reasonable complexity will contain undecidable statements.

Furthermore, undecidability cannot make a concept meaningless, because it's meaning is it's use.

Naturally, a rejection of law of the excluded middle leads to the rather absurd conclusion that even if you could show that it was true that materialism was not true, this would not necessarily imply that materialism was false. If we allow that something can be true and false at the same time, then by the principle of explosion, everything goes, including
Your first sentence is true, but your second sentence does not necessarily follow from the first.

If we let go of the law of the excluded middle, but maintain the law of non-contradiction, then we are forced to let something else go and the prime candidate is the double negation law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuitionism

You may also want to read about the developments in mathematical logic that go beyond the law of the excluded middle. A good starting point is the theory of smooth infinitesimal analysis (not to be confused with Robinson's nonstandard analysis):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smooth_infinitesimal_analysis

Yes, holding such as distinction would be irrational if one hold as knowledge that any such a distinction is false.
I am a lucid dreamer, but even if I know that it is a dream-plane this does not make the feeling of separation go away. Remember that according to Wittgenstein knowledge is ultimately grounded in forms of life that stem from primitive reactions, and no amount of 'knowledge' is enough to rationally conclude that the dream-plane is a part of myself. We cannot hold 'rational' beliefs that are in discord with the way we go about our actions in the world!

Do you dispute the validity of the senses?
The fallacy of the loaded question, e.g. "have you stopped cheating on your wife yet? Yes or No?"

What do you mean by 'the senses', and what does it mean to say that they are valid or invalid?

Perhaps you mean "do you think that analyzing sense impressions is a valid way to learn about the world." If so then I agree, provided that 'the world' is short for 'the world of sense impressions.' And less you think this is an empty statement, I am merely asserting that the world of sense impressions has enough structure or logos that it can be organized to at least some extent in terms of concepts, as science has done to date.

How can an idealist commit to realism about other minds and at the same time don't find much value in empiricism? Seems like a rank contradiction to me.
I might have made a bad word choice, I didn't mean to fully assert realism towards other minds. For an idealist to deal with LW's private language argument we only need to assert the apparent existence of other minds.

I'm not sure that anything more than a straight solution is required. Now, I'm no Wittgenstein scholar, but didn't W. himself rejects the paradox as based on a misunderstanding and point to a distinction between interpretations and 'graspings' as the key to dissolving the paradox? I honestly do not see a threat to a classical realist account of meaning?
I agree with your highly accurate account of Wittgenstein's views towards this paradox, but as much as I admire his work I do feel that it was left unfinished.

Instead I am referring to the rule-following paradox as it struck Kripke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kripkenstein

All the both LW and Kripke himself eventually backed away from their paradox, I do not see it as satisfactorily resolvable in a materialist system.

In the idealist philosophy of Plato or Liebniz, there is an admittedly mystical connection to the eternal ideas, but here I only use mystical to mean 'not rigorously described' which applies exactly as well to the materialist connection between the mind and brain, the lack of the mathematical operator I suggested earlier.

What makes you think that all sense impressions are private objects, or that sense impressions are somehow fundamentally different from the objects they represent?
No two people in the room have the same point of view, they do not share each others sense impressions. If I smell a rose, you cannot see the sensation of how it smelled to me, that is a private sense impression.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
648
3
On the meaningfulness of the concept of noumena

If noumena does not belong to the category of quality, what possible meaning can it have? If it isn't possible to talk about affirmation or negation in regards to the noumena, what possible relevance can it have? Furthermore, I would argue that noncognitivism could be a successful approach in that it seems absurd to discuss the existence or validity of what a concept refers to if it cannot be given primary attributes. If I claim that 'jaxyplonk is dangfur', then it seems that you would inquire about the meaning of the terms before asking me to justify the claim? If I then cannot explain what I mean in a satisfactory way, we can stop right there, without going into justification of the statement, because we know that if a concept cannot be shown to be meaningful, then it cannot be shown to refer to anything that exists in reality. Surely, this is not an argument from incredulity?

I would like to argue that if a concept is meaningful and truth exists, then it is necessary for coherent propositions that include the concept to be true or not true (that is a weaker form, since even if there is a third truth value excluded middle can still hold, though bivalence will fail). This applies to undecidable propositions as well. Naturally, they cannot both be true and not true, since it violates the principle of non-contradiction as well as rendering the concept of truth void, since there would be no difference between a proposition that has the attribute of truth and lacks it.

P10. Truth exists.
P11. If a concept is meaningful and truth exists, then it is necessary for coherent propositions that include the concept to be true or not true, even if they are undecidable (if something is possibly true, it is necessarily true or not true).
P12. The concept of noumena is meaningful (if it isn't, it cannot refer to anything that exists in reality or make sense to talk about).
C6. It is necessary for coherent propositions that include the concept of noumena to be true or not true.
C7. If it is necessary for coherent propositions that include the concept of noumena to be true or not true, then surely a category of truth would apply to all coherent propositions that include the concept of noumena, in which case the categories do apply to thing-in-themselves.

Now, this argument may be a little bit shaky, and it does presuppose that a category of meaning apply to the concept noumena, but I've tried to argue that it is a necessary to hold the concept as meaningful in the first place.

Undecidability makes the positions that (1) the concept can refer to something that exists and (2) the concept cannot refer to something that exists in principle irrational, which in my book makes all discussion on the topic of whether or not the concept can refer to something that exists or not meaningless.

On the private language argument and idealism

You state that 'we only need to assert the apparent existence of other minds' in order to avoid it. The conclusion of the argument is of course that a 'language' that is only intelligible to its originating user is impossible in principle. The reason for this is that such 'language' would be unintelligible to its creator as well, since he would be unable to establish meanings for its putative signs. It seems to me that an assertion of only the apparent existence of other minds would not be enough and that the actual existence of other minds is necessary. If you just think that you share language with other minds does not mean that you actually do? A requirement of community agreement for meaning seems to remove the possibility of private language immediately and point to realism about other minds?

On the dream world

That seems completely contradictory. Surely, you cannot both hold as knowledge that there is a distinction between you and the dream world, and that you are the one generating the dream world? Moreover, to be justified that you are indeed experiencing a dream, would you not require to have something real (read: not part of the dream) to contrast it against? If you not, how would you know that you are, in fact, dreaming?

On the rule-following paradox

Could you please describe what you feel is unsatisfactory resolvable here? There seems to be somewhat of a controversy over interpretation on the issue.

On the senses
No two people in the room have the same point of view, they do not share each others sense impressions. If I smell a rose, you cannot see the sensation of how it smelled to me, that is a private sense impression.
Now, what would it take to be justified that sense impressions are private? Well, it would require you to take your own sense impressions and compare them to the sense impressions of others and note any discrepancies between them and check to see that they do, in fact, not share them with you. However, the moment you do this, sense impressions are no longer private, since you have access to the sense impressions of others and presumably vice-versa. So to argue that sense impressions are private presupposes that sense impressions are not private, and therefore, cannot stand. I have no problem conceding that interpretations of sense impressions may vary between people, but surely, sense impressions and the interpretations of sense impressions are not the same?

Also, if sense impressions are private, then yours' and mines' sense impressions of this discussion is different, i.e the sense impressions of that which you type is different from the sense impressions of that which I read. If you know that what you type is not what I read, it seems irrational for you to continue to argue in the same way it is irrational to argue with a television set knowing full and well that the television set does not share your sense impressions and cannot make any relevant responses.
 
248
0
This is worse then I feared, these scientist's are prematurely biased towards their desired conclusion. Far from showing me evidence, they are instead just repeating their conclusion over and again, as if the identification between brain states and thoughts was a fact of the language. At the very least this shows that they are too crude in style to present a deductive argument without shortcutting instantly to their conclusion every five minutes.
That was a conference specifically set up to allow each scientist to present his/her theory. Why would they not tell you their conclusions and try and support what they think to be the case? Also, remember this was an event hosted by the Skeptics Society, not just a bare-bones neurology lecture.

Also, that audio-visual has too many irrelevant anecdotes, I would prefer manuscripts that are as dense and to the point as possible.
Again, this was not a lecture series, each person supplied information to delve more correctly into the information. I agree that manuscripts and published works are preferable. I choose to post this because it gives a wide array of potential explanations for a materialistic consciousness. If you want manuscripts, just look them up.

I don't care how many confused people disagree with me. What you see as evidence, I see as misguided and biased interpretations. Frequently they assume much more then they claim to show; they are not delicate enough in their use of concepts to be able to handle these issues.
I am stumped at how you can believe in something there is not a single shred of evidence for, and then deny any attempts to describe what is going on with evidence. Even if every one of those people are completely wrong, their stances are better than yours.

The simple fact that there is no evidence for anything transcendent of spacetime of any kind anywhere, is enough for me to conclude with a very high percentage of probability that the universe (including this thought) is materialistic. I can not deny your position, but what I can do is say with almost absolute certainty, that it is incorrect.

The grammar of your use of 'just' indicates that you think science to be somehow superior to philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with concept development, and science goes astray when its concepts are poorly understood. All the evidence you could present doesn't change anything if it involves premises that are stronger than its conclusion.
At least there is evidence instead of empty words, when you use the methods of science. Even if it is interpreted incorrectly, the evidence exist independent of the observer.

The concepts of philosophy disappear in the absence of a human observer.

I am a lucid dreamer, but even if I know that it is a dream-plane this does not make the feeling of separation go away. Remember that according to Wittgenstein knowledge is ultimately grounded in forms of life that stem from primitive reactions, and no amount of 'knowledge' is enough to rationally conclude that the dream-plane is a part of myself. We cannot hold 'rational' beliefs that are in discord with the way we go about our actions in the world!
Through what manner do you experience your dreams? Any dream could be simulated through the direct control of the input from the senses to the brain i.e. virtual reality.
Your dreams can be explained in a materialistic manner through the use of the scientific method.

Perhaps you mean "do you think that analyzing sense impressions is a valid way to learn about the world." If so then I agree, provided that 'the world' is short for 'the world of sense impressions.' And less you think this is an empty statement, I am merely asserting that the world of sense impressions has enough structure or logos that it can be organized to at least some extent in terms of concepts, as science has done to date.
Are the measurements made be scientific instruments sense impressions? If so then there is no way to refute or confirm whether the universe is more than the impressions of senses, or whether the universe is the world of sense impressions. If not, then the scientific method should be able to determine which is the case.

I think this point is integral to the question.

No two people in the room have the same point of view, they do not share each others sense impressions. If I smell a rose, you cannot see the sensation of how it smelled to me, that is a private sense impression.
If we could measure (in the way that Christof Koch described) the biological activity of all the neurons in your body, I could see exactly what you think of the smell.

On a simpler plane, how do you explain the ability of lie detection devices to be around 80% correct? What about the new facial contraction detectors with the ability to detect slight muscle contractions that can point, fairly accurately, to a lair?
 
248
0
At least there is evidence instead of empty words, when you use the methods of science. Even if it is interpreted incorrectly, the evidence exist independent of the observer.

The concepts of philosophy disappear in the absence of a human observer.
I would like to clarify my position on philosophy.

I think philosophy is wonderful. It is a magnificent mode of critical analysis and harsh revision of logic and reason. It promotes excellent intellectual discourse, and can lead to truly great realistic boons (democracy, equality, secularism, humanism).

However, the domain of philosophy does not extend beyond the human. Meaning philosophy is a human creation and can deal only with questions arising from human life.

So when one tries to apply a philosophical methodology to a problem in the universal realm, it can not and does not work. What discovery in the nature of the universe has ever arisen from philosophy? Or any scientific discipline for that matter.

Ethics, morality, aesthetics, metaphysics, epistemology; none of these exist if there are no humans to apply them. Whereas the nature of matter is independent of the existence of life.
 
648
3
Everything's philosophy.
 
248
0
Philosophy can be applied to everything (maybe not successfully though). Atomic nuclei are not philosophy. Neither is light. Or rocks. Or the sun. Or neuroscience. Science is something quite different.
 
648
3
What do you mean by "sun"? :D
 
248
0
Yeah I wasn't very clear with that one, :tongue:
My point being that simply using philosophy, no one could ever discovery the wealth of information we know about each of those subjects (and many others). Philosophy can not be used to derive integral facts about the physical universe, though it has many other significant applications.
 
648
3
So what do you mean by the term "sun"? Surely, explaining what that is require concept formation, i.e. philosophy, no? :D
 
1,222
2
At least there is evidence instead of empty words, when you use the methods of science. Even if it is interpreted incorrectly, the evidence exist independent of the observer.
Hilarious! Misinterpreted evidence is more dangerous then nothing at all. As I said, the evidence is weaker then the conclusion. Any proposition can be derived from any other, in the case that the premises are weaker then the conclusion.

It really is no different to me then the people who think that the bible is evidence, it's just that these neurologists are a tad bit more sophisticated in the art of proof.

You have failed to understand my criticisms so far, or at least you have failed to defend your position against them. Consider for a moment that your evidence is fatally flawed because you are missing some of the criticisms in this thread; how could we present it to you any differently?

If we could measure (in the way that Christof Koch described) the biological activity of all the neurons in your body, I could see exactly what you think of the smell.
I agree that is a popular premise of science fiction, but don't you see how (even if I assume it is true) it fails to answer the question of whether thoughts are immaterial? I could examine the process of a steam engine and determine it's output i.e. exhaust, but that does not show that the exhaust is the engine (absurd).

What discovery in the nature of the universe has ever arisen from philosophy? Or any scientific discipline for that matter.
Philosophy is the source of the scientific method, as well as the various concepts used throughout science. I agree that philosophy has played less of a role in the last 100 years, but that is because people are contented by the proliferation of technology and have temporarily slowed down on making fundamental progress.

Human beings take more pleasure in their representation than in
the thing, or rather we must say: Human beings take pleasure in
a thing only insofar as they conceive it. It must suit their turn
of mind. And try as they may to raise their way of conceiving
things ever so high above the common run, try as they may to
purify it ever so much, it nevertheless commonly remains but one
way of conceiving things: that is, an attempt to bring many objects
into a certain comprehensible relation that, strictly speaking,
they do not have, and hence the inclination to hypotheses, theories,
terminologies, and systems - which we cannot condemn, since they
must necessarily spring from the organization of our being.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
 
648
3
What does it mean for something to be "immaterial"?
 
248
0
Hilarious! Misinterpreted evidence is more dangerous then nothing at all. As I said, the evidence is weaker then the conclusion. Any proposition can be derived from any other, in the case that the premises are weaker then the conclusion.
It is dangerous when mandated as truth without clear evidence. I did not claim that any of the theories presented so far in modern neurology had enough clear evidence to be proclaimed as fact. However, I do argue that there is massive evidence in all fields of study pointing towards a materialistic world. Additionally there has never been any evidence to show anything transcendent or immaterial existing in any complex system. Until you can show me one single shred of physical evidence, I will fail to be moved by an argument based solely on a lack of evidence to explain a phenomenon.

By your logic above, the technique of trial by error is dangerous... I don't think so. As I said, misinterpreted evidence when taken as fact is dangerous. But an attempt to explain evidence, even if the conclusion is false, is a much bigger step in the right direction then not drawing any conclusions at all, or in your case just making one up.

It really is no different to me then the people who think that the bible is evidence, it's just that these neurologists are a tad bit more sophisticated in the art of proof.
This is just ridiculous. Religion has no parallel in science unless you consider metaphysics to be science...

Those scientists have ideas, clergy men have orders.

You have failed to understand my criticisms so far, or at least you have failed to defend your position against them. Consider for a moment that your evidence is fatally flawed because you are missing some of the criticisms in this thread; how could we present it to you any differently?
I have failed to accept your criticisms as valid. The only physical evidence you have presented is a lack of evidence. We seem to be on different pages here. I am not offering a full explanation of how the brain is capable of producing thoughts. I am by no means a neurologist. But I am asserting that there is no reason to turn to something immaterial for an explanation. Where do you think it would lead if we applied that reason to other aspects of life? Hhhmmmmm... (hint: starts with an R, ends with eligion)

The main reason there is a bible, or a Koran, or any religion at all is that people could not explain or justify natural phenomenon. So they fell back on metaphysics and the supernatural. And that is a historical fact. The same logical flaw repeated over and over in ancient human history. I think it is about time that we tried something else.

I agree that is a popular premise of science fiction, but don't you see how (even if I assume it is true) it fails to answer the question of whether thoughts are immaterial? I could examine the process of a steam engine and determine it's output i.e. exhaust, but that does not show that the exhaust is the engine (absurd).
It seems so strange to me when people use simplified metaphors to make an argument. Sometimes it works, but I still don't normally feel they are valid.

Your logic is flawed. The output is no different than the input. That is why virtual reality and the like work so well. As I have said before. You can not experience thoughts in anyway that is different than you can experience external stimuli. That is a very big point you have so far failed to address.

Philosophy is the source of the scientific method, as well as the various concepts used throughout science. I agree that philosophy has played less of a role in the last 100 years, but that is because people are contented by the proliferation of technology and have temporarily slowed down on making fundamental progress.
If philosophical thinking lead to the scientific method, then why do you consider it to be less effective than philosophy? Why would philosophers work in reverse? If pure philosophy is better than empirical science, then why would philosophy lead to science and not the other way around?

I do not know enough about historical philosophy to say, but I can see how philosophy leads to science. And I will take your word that it in fact did. But I still maintain my earlier points on it's applications.

I don't know if you missed it, but I would also like to hear your response to this earlier point: Are the measurements made by scientific instruments sense impressions? If so then there is no way to refute or confirm whether the universe is more than the impressions of senses, or whether the universe is the world of sense impressions. If not, then the scientific method should be able to determine which is the case.
 
248
0
So what do you mean by the term "sun"? Surely, explaining what that is require concept formation, i.e. philosophy, no? :D
Ok I see your point. Concept formation is philosophy, and science does a whole lot of that, and language of any kind basically is concept formation. So I can not understand or communicate science without philosophy. However, the empirical evidence (which is what science is based on) will still exist independent of the concepts, and anything else humans try to apply to it. Agreed? :tongue2:
 
648
3
How do you justify the relevance of empirical evidence? Philosophy! :tongue:
 
248
0
Yes! But take away my justification and the relevance, and what do you have? My point being that gravity (or any natural process) still worked the way we know it works today, before any living organism had the opportunity to try and understand it. All we are doing is quantifying and reading information that was in existance long before human minds were around to do any sort of philosophical thinking!

I may agree with you that any human thinking is philosophy (im still not 100% on board though), but raw information exists independent of an observer. If it didn't, we could not apply our human philosophical deductive logic to the natural world!

If there is no context to empirical data, then it has no human meaning. So maybe we could agree that: logic, reason, rational, foresight e.ct. The higher facilities of conscious beings require philosophy to have any validity. But even if you take away the meaning the information still exists!
 
648
3
Yes! But take away my justification and the relevance, and what do you have? My point being that gravity (or any natural process) still worked the way we know it works today, before any living organism had the opportunity to try and understand it. All we are doing is quantifying and reading information that was in existance long before human minds were around to do any sort of philosophical thinking!

I may agree with you that any human thinking is philosophy (im still not 100% on board though), but raw information exists independent of an observer. If it didn't, we could not apply our human philosophical deductive logic to the natural world!

If there is no context to empirical data, then it has no human meaning. So maybe we could agree that: logic, reason, rational, foresight e.ct. The higher facilities of conscious beings require philosophy to have any validity. But even if you take away the meaning the information still exists!
You have reached all the conclusions above using philosophy. :smile:
 
248
0
You have reached all the conclusions above using philosophy. :smile:
I will agree with you there. I did reach them using a form of philosophical thinking, however, my conclusions would remain true had I not ever reached them. I gave context, reason, and logic to natural principles that exist independent of of my context, reason, or logic! If my conclusions were not true, then I would not be here to give them context!

So would you agree that philosophy arises from higher (human-like) consciousness? If not, then from whence?

Would you also agree that consciousness arises from biological materialistic functions?

If so, then philosophy is a predictable biological trait, measurable by a third party! Ha!

Knew definition: Philosophy is everything... consciously human!
 

Related Threads for: Can mankind transcend the fabric of space and time?

Replies
64
Views
21K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Last Post
7
Replies
166
Views
87K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
52
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
8K

Hot Threads

Top