- #31
pocebokli
- 129
- 0
well you could try and enlighten me with arguements, other than that, don't worry i don't feel offended if someone doesn't agree with me, jeez:-)
Is Faith an Acceptable Means of Attaining Knowledge?
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the nature of faith versus reason in acquiring knowledge, sparked by a real-life case of a woman who killed her children due to a perceived divine sign. Participants argue that while reason can lead to consensus through logical deduction, faith lacks a similar mechanism for validation and agreement. The conversation touches on the differences between scientific and religious beliefs, emphasizing that science relies on empirical evidence while faith is often untestable. There is a consensus that faith, while potentially a precursor to knowledge, cannot itself be a reliable means of attaining true understanding. The complexities of faith and its implications for morality and decision-making are also debated, highlighting the dangers of blind faith.
- #32
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
Sorry, I was being lazy.
Not sure what you mean here.pocebokli said:
Many monastic practices are not based on faith (eg Buddhism, Taoism)
Agree, except I don't know what science has got to do with it.
That may be true for some people, but you cannot state it as a fact.
Don't understand you here.
I agree that faith is required when striving towards a goal. However your faith in science is just your personal thing. Most people have greater goals than reconciling the fundamental forces or building better refridgerators.
- #33
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
I had these notes on faith from a previous project so I though I'd post them. They're a bit lengthy so just ignore all this if you want. All objections welcome.
FAITH
Faith, what it is and whether one should have any, crops up in most arguments about religion. By one common view an act of faith is necessary to the achievement of ultimate knowledge and understanding, and by another it is not reasonable or rational to have faith, since one should not believe in things that haven’t been proved. People are often very sure of themselves on this question, but it’s actually a difficult one to settle once and for all. It is not even clear that these positions contradict each other.
Faith has many meanings. As it relates to religious belief the Collins English Dictionary gives these definitions:
- A strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence
- A specific system of religious beliefs
- A trust in God and in his actions and promises
- A conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp. when this is not based on reason
Roughly then we can define faith as conviction without proof or conclusive reasons, although not necessarily without any reasoning or evidence. In arguments for and against the need for faith this is what most people seem to mean by it.
Another definition comes from Buddhist teaching, which suggests that there are three kinds of faith.
- A longing or a wish that what you hope and believe to be true actually is true.
- A lucid faith in which you conclude that what you believe to be true actually is true.
- An unshakable faith, which is total conviction.
(Lama Suryadas ‘Awakening the Budha Within’.)
I’ll stick to the last two of these, since they present faith in its strongest and most controversial form. It is equivalent to the previous definition in that it also assumes a lack of any (third-person) proof.
There is some potential confusion between ‘faith’ and ‘belief’. Here I take ‘belief’ to be equivalent to ‘article of faith’.
The Importance of Faith
Faith is not simply a matter related to morality. It is a fundamental epistemological issue concerned with what we can know and how we can know it. Nevertheless it does relate particularly strongly to moral issues.
This is because our faith in our system of beliefs forms the basis of our behaviour, how we each live and act (or don’t act). This is as true for a materialist as it is for a Muslim. Our beliefs guide our every action from the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep. More accurately it can be said that to the precise extent that we have faith in our beliefs then to that extent those beliefs determine our actions.
Because of this the relationship between faith and morally correct behaviour might be stated like this: To the precise extent that a person believes that they are acting morally they are acting morally, since under no circumstances can a person behave more morally than this. This is true because it is not reasonable to suppose that it is ever morally correct to act other than in accordance with ones belief as to what is morally correct.
This does not entail that morality is entirely relative and subjective as is often argued. Rather it entails that there is a moral dimension to our pursuit (and judgement) of the knowledge on which we base our beliefs, a moral resposibility for forming our beliefs honestly and disinterestedly.
Faith and Knowledge I
If faith is a personal conviction of the truth of something that cannot be proved then there seems to be a good argument that it is not logical to have faith in anything at all. This is a pretty common view, and a standard charge against religious faith.
It is what is called ‘evidentialism’, the position that a belief is justified only just as far it is proportioned to the evidence. Evidentialism states that it is not justified to have a unshakeable religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for its truth. (This is also a Buddhist doctrine).
However the issue of what constitutes evidence is not simple. We could call our evidence our provably true knowledge. However if we assume that our knowledge is restricted to what we can prove to be true then we must conclude that faith is the very basis of our knowledge. Philosophers have puzled over this problem (and long before Goedel).
(Non-dual philosophies escape this epistemological restriction, but that's another story).
Faith and Rationality
The problem with human reasoning is not simply that all formally logical systems of reasoning must be based on axioms that cannot be proved. It’s worse than that. These unproved axioms are the only theorems in the system of reasoning that are not self-referential, absolutely the only theorems that refer outside the system, and it is exactly these statements about reality that we are forced to take on faith alone.
The consequence of all this is that while any such system of belief, whether physics, mathematics, Christianity, analytic philosophy, Islam, alchemy or any other, may be judged individually better or worse at creating consistent structures of truths and falsities, it is logically inevitable that they all rest on a naïve faith in their axioms, their initial assumptions about what is true about reality. In theism or deism this is pretty obvious, but it is no less true for all other formal systems used to explain or describe reality.
For this reason it is very difficult to claim that having faith is irrational. One can quite logically argue that it is irational to claim that faith is irrational, since it can be shown that all rational knowledge depends ultimately on an act of faith. However it is an argument that should be used carefully, since it does not entail that all faiths are equally rational.
Science and Religion
From a metaphysical point of view religion and science are only in opposition to each other in a rather superficial way. Although the arguments may rage forever about which system of explanation is nearer the truth, in the end, at a metaphysical level, they are just different systems of faith. This is definitely not to say that everything a scientist or theist believes is just a matter of faith and, to say it again, it does not mean that these belief systems are equally rational.
Nevertheless at a metaphysical level, the level at which they refer to the truth about reality, theism, physicalism, idealism and Buddhism and so forth are all equally unprovable. The first three are metaphysical theories that must be taken on faith or not at all, and belief in the last depends ultimately on subective evidence inaccessible to third-persons. No system of strictly formal reasoning will ever decide between these three metaphysical positions or the assertions of Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism etc.
The Scale of the Problem
It may seem a rather trivial or arcane academic problem that we cannot prove the axioms of any formal system of reasoning capable of giving us knowledge of reality. Nobody seems to worry about it much except philosophers and mathematicians. Science makes good predictions, technology seems to work, and it is perfectly possible to compare the reasonableness of, say, the Baha’i faith with that of Christianity or Physicalism on logical grounds. However when it comes to metaphysics, the truth about reality, the problem of knowledge becomes serious.
The ultimate undecidability of our axioms, our inability to prove which of two possible answers to the fundamental questions about reality are true, entails that for every systematic explanation of reality there is always at least one other systematic explanation that seems equally correct, and both will agree equally with the evidence. That is, for all fundamental metaphysical questions there are always at least two rational answers, each of which gives rise to a quite opposite but equally consistent metaphysical system. Instances include physicalism/idealism, God/no-God, freewill/physical determinism etc.
What is more, the effect of this uncertainty as to the truth of any set of axioms infects the whole of any possible system of formal reasoning, inevitably making the whole system a matter of faith inasmuch as it asserts anything at all about reality.
All this is not to say that there is no true or knowable explanation of reality, but rather that the construction of a single, true and provable explanation of it is forever beyond the power of human reasoning or ability to explain.
Faith and Knowledge II
Knowledge is generally thought to be superior to faith in determining our actions, it is thought to be more ‘rational’. However this is only true to the extent that that knowledge is true, and only to the extent that our knowledge is provable and not itself simply a belief, and from the above it can be seen that provability is a tricky issue.
This does not mean that it is impossible to know things with certainty, or impossible to hold firm convictions that are completely rational. However, paradoxical as it seems, no formal system of proof can produce certain true statements about reality itself. Provable statements about reality, what lies beyond the self-referential system in which such statements must always be made, are true or false only ever in relation to some set of unproven assumptions, and in all cases there is an equally valid but quite contradictory set of possible assumptions that are equally consistent with the evidence.
Conclusion
In principle it is perfectly possible to argue that some faiths are more rational than others on the basis of their internal logical consistency and by their level of agreement with known empirical evidence. However it is not possible to argue that faith per se is irrational, for this is the reverse of the truth.
FAITH
Faith, what it is and whether one should have any, crops up in most arguments about religion. By one common view an act of faith is necessary to the achievement of ultimate knowledge and understanding, and by another it is not reasonable or rational to have faith, since one should not believe in things that haven’t been proved. People are often very sure of themselves on this question, but it’s actually a difficult one to settle once and for all. It is not even clear that these positions contradict each other.
Faith has many meanings. As it relates to religious belief the Collins English Dictionary gives these definitions:
- A strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp. without proof or evidence
- A specific system of religious beliefs
- A trust in God and in his actions and promises
- A conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp. when this is not based on reason
Roughly then we can define faith as conviction without proof or conclusive reasons, although not necessarily without any reasoning or evidence. In arguments for and against the need for faith this is what most people seem to mean by it.
Another definition comes from Buddhist teaching, which suggests that there are three kinds of faith.
- A longing or a wish that what you hope and believe to be true actually is true.
- A lucid faith in which you conclude that what you believe to be true actually is true.
- An unshakable faith, which is total conviction.
(Lama Suryadas ‘Awakening the Budha Within’.)
I’ll stick to the last two of these, since they present faith in its strongest and most controversial form. It is equivalent to the previous definition in that it also assumes a lack of any (third-person) proof.
There is some potential confusion between ‘faith’ and ‘belief’. Here I take ‘belief’ to be equivalent to ‘article of faith’.
The Importance of Faith
Faith is not simply a matter related to morality. It is a fundamental epistemological issue concerned with what we can know and how we can know it. Nevertheless it does relate particularly strongly to moral issues.
This is because our faith in our system of beliefs forms the basis of our behaviour, how we each live and act (or don’t act). This is as true for a materialist as it is for a Muslim. Our beliefs guide our every action from the moment we wake up to the moment we fall asleep. More accurately it can be said that to the precise extent that we have faith in our beliefs then to that extent those beliefs determine our actions.
Because of this the relationship between faith and morally correct behaviour might be stated like this: To the precise extent that a person believes that they are acting morally they are acting morally, since under no circumstances can a person behave more morally than this. This is true because it is not reasonable to suppose that it is ever morally correct to act other than in accordance with ones belief as to what is morally correct.
This does not entail that morality is entirely relative and subjective as is often argued. Rather it entails that there is a moral dimension to our pursuit (and judgement) of the knowledge on which we base our beliefs, a moral resposibility for forming our beliefs honestly and disinterestedly.
Faith and Knowledge I
If faith is a personal conviction of the truth of something that cannot be proved then there seems to be a good argument that it is not logical to have faith in anything at all. This is a pretty common view, and a standard charge against religious faith.
It is what is called ‘evidentialism’, the position that a belief is justified only just as far it is proportioned to the evidence. Evidentialism states that it is not justified to have a unshakeable religious belief unless there is conclusive evidence for its truth. (This is also a Buddhist doctrine).
However the issue of what constitutes evidence is not simple. We could call our evidence our provably true knowledge. However if we assume that our knowledge is restricted to what we can prove to be true then we must conclude that faith is the very basis of our knowledge. Philosophers have puzled over this problem (and long before Goedel).
(Non-dual philosophies escape this epistemological restriction, but that's another story).
Faith and Rationality
The problem with human reasoning is not simply that all formally logical systems of reasoning must be based on axioms that cannot be proved. It’s worse than that. These unproved axioms are the only theorems in the system of reasoning that are not self-referential, absolutely the only theorems that refer outside the system, and it is exactly these statements about reality that we are forced to take on faith alone.
The consequence of all this is that while any such system of belief, whether physics, mathematics, Christianity, analytic philosophy, Islam, alchemy or any other, may be judged individually better or worse at creating consistent structures of truths and falsities, it is logically inevitable that they all rest on a naïve faith in their axioms, their initial assumptions about what is true about reality. In theism or deism this is pretty obvious, but it is no less true for all other formal systems used to explain or describe reality.
For this reason it is very difficult to claim that having faith is irrational. One can quite logically argue that it is irational to claim that faith is irrational, since it can be shown that all rational knowledge depends ultimately on an act of faith. However it is an argument that should be used carefully, since it does not entail that all faiths are equally rational.
Science and Religion
From a metaphysical point of view religion and science are only in opposition to each other in a rather superficial way. Although the arguments may rage forever about which system of explanation is nearer the truth, in the end, at a metaphysical level, they are just different systems of faith. This is definitely not to say that everything a scientist or theist believes is just a matter of faith and, to say it again, it does not mean that these belief systems are equally rational.
Nevertheless at a metaphysical level, the level at which they refer to the truth about reality, theism, physicalism, idealism and Buddhism and so forth are all equally unprovable. The first three are metaphysical theories that must be taken on faith or not at all, and belief in the last depends ultimately on subective evidence inaccessible to third-persons. No system of strictly formal reasoning will ever decide between these three metaphysical positions or the assertions of Buddhism, Advaita, Taoism etc.
The Scale of the Problem
It may seem a rather trivial or arcane academic problem that we cannot prove the axioms of any formal system of reasoning capable of giving us knowledge of reality. Nobody seems to worry about it much except philosophers and mathematicians. Science makes good predictions, technology seems to work, and it is perfectly possible to compare the reasonableness of, say, the Baha’i faith with that of Christianity or Physicalism on logical grounds. However when it comes to metaphysics, the truth about reality, the problem of knowledge becomes serious.
The ultimate undecidability of our axioms, our inability to prove which of two possible answers to the fundamental questions about reality are true, entails that for every systematic explanation of reality there is always at least one other systematic explanation that seems equally correct, and both will agree equally with the evidence. That is, for all fundamental metaphysical questions there are always at least two rational answers, each of which gives rise to a quite opposite but equally consistent metaphysical system. Instances include physicalism/idealism, God/no-God, freewill/physical determinism etc.
What is more, the effect of this uncertainty as to the truth of any set of axioms infects the whole of any possible system of formal reasoning, inevitably making the whole system a matter of faith inasmuch as it asserts anything at all about reality.
All this is not to say that there is no true or knowable explanation of reality, but rather that the construction of a single, true and provable explanation of it is forever beyond the power of human reasoning or ability to explain.
Faith and Knowledge II
Knowledge is generally thought to be superior to faith in determining our actions, it is thought to be more ‘rational’. However this is only true to the extent that that knowledge is true, and only to the extent that our knowledge is provable and not itself simply a belief, and from the above it can be seen that provability is a tricky issue.
This does not mean that it is impossible to know things with certainty, or impossible to hold firm convictions that are completely rational. However, paradoxical as it seems, no formal system of proof can produce certain true statements about reality itself. Provable statements about reality, what lies beyond the self-referential system in which such statements must always be made, are true or false only ever in relation to some set of unproven assumptions, and in all cases there is an equally valid but quite contradictory set of possible assumptions that are equally consistent with the evidence.
Conclusion
In principle it is perfectly possible to argue that some faiths are more rational than others on the basis of their internal logical consistency and by their level of agreement with known empirical evidence. However it is not possible to argue that faith per se is irrational, for this is the reverse of the truth.
- #34
pocebokli
- 129
- 0
well I'm really puzzled by you not saying what i meant there, i think that the first sentence you quoted was like obvious?:-) at least what i meant to say.
i don't think it has to be rephrased to be any more clear. just take it as it is.
ok, maybe, "we want to become god" sounds better, it is the primal wish. and such a wish to become true requires strong faith.
why is not buddhism or taoism based on faith? ok perhaps it is more of a philosophy, but you must believe in what you think if you want to pursue it, no?
Let me clear something out, as i see it is giving out misunderstood signals.
I am not referring to faith in strictly religious way, neither in a scientific, both scientist and monk and philosopher and common man require and have "faith". I am applying faith in it's broadest term that applies to all human beings.
what science has to do with it? let your thoughts loose. well here's an example... if you have "faith" or "belief" in that you can "discover" or achieve space travel or nuclear fission you must then work hard and apply scientific approach to achieve that what you believe can become true...but first there is an intinuitive hunch, a wish, where imagination allows you to even consider such impossible goals.
perhaps the scientific model that allowed flight is relatively modern, but the fundamental wish, the faith, is what has begun the pursuit. men dreamt of flight far before even basic geometry was discovered in ancient greece. this is de facto.
But without a wish, a belief that it can be achieved, to guide him, we would still be grounded.
Man's faith in god is also one of fundamental wishes. It's just that it seems so impossible to achieve this omnipotence that our sub-consciousness uses some safety-switches so we all don't commit suicide just by realising how many generations and aeons will have to pass to achieve it. So our sub-consciousness tells us : there IS a god. SEE? it's not impossible! just have FAITH.
i think i can state it as a fact through logic. but don't expect me to explain it to you so that you will be aware of it like you can be aware of a desk you're sitting behind or a chair you're sitting on. the rest is up to you.
and at point where you don't understand me, i applied the example, perhaps clumsily, to show the bond between faith and the image of god and human psychology, the same with the heaven-hell thingy. just think about it, but don't even try if your mind is not open to all kinds of seemingly absurd connections and if you are afraid to peek into the depths of your sub-consciousness (soul) here and there.
Also if you put your belief solely into scientific method and the present options that are based on our current knowledge of material world, you will never be able to understand what i mean. Your mind has already set it's course and an old dog is hard to learn new tricks or whatever it's said.
of course people have greater goals, that's just what I'm trying to tell you, but those goals can only be achieved and built through details. Just try to see the whole picture, use your imagination and move yourself a few hundred years in the past, where grandaddy canute tells you "man, people have greater goals than worrying how to store cattle, do you see the stars? i think it's impossible we will ever reach them". Or move yourself a few hundred years into the future where grandsonny canute tells you "man, you people were so primitive by trying to inhabit mars! we have a colony in alpha centauri system now!"
it is not just the imaginary text to consider, one must consider their feelings, put himself in their skin. when you join the present and the past in your imagination, which is the only thing NOT bound by time, you will be able to learn a very lot about yourself and human nature. And one must use this power to learn about himself and his relationship with the environment, and see in broader terms.
humans are only objective to their material environment when applying scientific methods, but the scientist usually forgets about his own head and usually never questions his psychology that actually forces him on sub-conscinouss level to build things with the help of science.
i don't think it has to be rephrased to be any more clear. just take it as it is.
ok, maybe, "we want to become god" sounds better, it is the primal wish. and such a wish to become true requires strong faith.
why is not buddhism or taoism based on faith? ok perhaps it is more of a philosophy, but you must believe in what you think if you want to pursue it, no?
Let me clear something out, as i see it is giving out misunderstood signals.
I am not referring to faith in strictly religious way, neither in a scientific, both scientist and monk and philosopher and common man require and have "faith". I am applying faith in it's broadest term that applies to all human beings.
what science has to do with it? let your thoughts loose. well here's an example... if you have "faith" or "belief" in that you can "discover" or achieve space travel or nuclear fission you must then work hard and apply scientific approach to achieve that what you believe can become true...but first there is an intinuitive hunch, a wish, where imagination allows you to even consider such impossible goals.
perhaps the scientific model that allowed flight is relatively modern, but the fundamental wish, the faith, is what has begun the pursuit. men dreamt of flight far before even basic geometry was discovered in ancient greece. this is de facto.
But without a wish, a belief that it can be achieved, to guide him, we would still be grounded.
Man's faith in god is also one of fundamental wishes. It's just that it seems so impossible to achieve this omnipotence that our sub-consciousness uses some safety-switches so we all don't commit suicide just by realising how many generations and aeons will have to pass to achieve it. So our sub-consciousness tells us : there IS a god. SEE? it's not impossible! just have FAITH.
i think i can state it as a fact through logic. but don't expect me to explain it to you so that you will be aware of it like you can be aware of a desk you're sitting behind or a chair you're sitting on. the rest is up to you.
and at point where you don't understand me, i applied the example, perhaps clumsily, to show the bond between faith and the image of god and human psychology, the same with the heaven-hell thingy. just think about it, but don't even try if your mind is not open to all kinds of seemingly absurd connections and if you are afraid to peek into the depths of your sub-consciousness (soul) here and there.
Also if you put your belief solely into scientific method and the present options that are based on our current knowledge of material world, you will never be able to understand what i mean. Your mind has already set it's course and an old dog is hard to learn new tricks or whatever it's said.
of course people have greater goals, that's just what I'm trying to tell you, but those goals can only be achieved and built through details. Just try to see the whole picture, use your imagination and move yourself a few hundred years in the past, where grandaddy canute tells you "man, people have greater goals than worrying how to store cattle, do you see the stars? i think it's impossible we will ever reach them". Or move yourself a few hundred years into the future where grandsonny canute tells you "man, you people were so primitive by trying to inhabit mars! we have a colony in alpha centauri system now!"
it is not just the imaginary text to consider, one must consider their feelings, put himself in their skin. when you join the present and the past in your imagination, which is the only thing NOT bound by time, you will be able to learn a very lot about yourself and human nature. And one must use this power to learn about himself and his relationship with the environment, and see in broader terms.
humans are only objective to their material environment when applying scientific methods, but the scientist usually forgets about his own head and usually never questions his psychology that actually forces him on sub-conscinouss level to build things with the help of science.
- #35
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
What you seem to be saying is that we want to become God and that because of this we believe in Him. I think there's some truth in that. But this has got no bearing on whether God exists or not. There are lots of reasons for believing that Being underlies existence and most of them are much better than this one.pocebokli said:
I agree that if you are pursuing a goal you must have faith that it is worth achieving, you must believe you're not wasting your time. This is a fundamental role of faith in Buddhism as it is tennis. You have to believe it is worth practicing, at least until you know it is.
But once you know it is then you know it is, you have seen the truth, (or so it is said to seem, if you see what I mean), so no faith is involved, you just know.
This is part of the reason why Advaita Vedanta, for instance, is known as an 'affirmation' rather than a religion, philosophy, theory or 'metaphysic'. It is said that once one has seen the truth then one knows it, one does not 'believe' in it. Belief is not necessary since the truth is self-evident, (as any certain truth has to be). This is why Buddhist practitioners are discouraged from believing anything they are told. Either you know something or you don't.
I think I get what you're saying and I'm not really disagreeing. I'm arguing that the issues are a bit deeper than you suggested they were.
I agree. This is a vital function of faith.
If we leave aside the issue of whether or not it might have been better for the world if the human race had stayed grounded then I agree completely.
Mind you, necessity can also drive us to do things, and perhaps faith has nothing to do with it. According to science everything happens of necessity, not because we 'strive' teleologically towards our 'goals'. It's just particles and fields interacting deterministically. It's hard to prove that this isn't true.
Yes and no, I would say. I agree that Man's wishes and faiths have no bearing on whether God exists or on whether Buddhism is true. What we believe or wish doesn't change what's true. I also agree that it would be ridiculous to believe that some greater state of Being is achievable just because you want to achieve it. It would be irrational. I also agree that becoming God is one of Man's fundamental wishes.
However none of this has any bearing on whether or not in reality we can achieve a greater state of Being or become God. This is a scientifically undecidable question.
That's an interesting and perhaps possible theory, but I think you'd have difficulty proving that it's not just your own opinion.
Fine. I know what you mean. Some things can't be put into words.
Keep going, most people back off this stuff, I'm all for it. I completely agree that human psychology is responsible for our traditonal western concept of Gods and all that heaven-hell stuff. This is what Buddhist teachings have always asserted.
Hang on. You've made some assumptions about where I coming from. I agree that it's impossible to understand the world by sticking to science.
I meant personal goals, achievable by us before we die, not later in some industrio-scientific vision of our glorious future.
I agree that it is necessary to you use one imagination and empathy to understand the world. I couldn't agree more. But all these things you are imagining are outside of yourself. Who or what is it that is doing the imagining? How can you know anything if you don't know that?
Last edited:
- #36
pocebokli
- 129
- 0
Canute said:
yeah, -*the reasons for existence-* but that's not what i meant, i will explain below
This is part of the reason why Advaita Vedanta, for instance, is known as an 'affirmation' rather than a religion, philosophy, theory or 'metaphysic'. It is said that once one has seen the truth then one knows it, one does not 'believe' in it. Belief is not necessary since the truth is self-evident, (as any certain truth has to be). This is why Buddhist practitioners are discouraged from believing anything they are told. Either you know something or you don't.
yeah but our consciousness (doh you have such a long word for this) consists of only a small portion of the brain i think? I read somewhere that humans "actively" use only 3-5 % of the brain or 5 or 10 i dunno, but even if it's 20%...I'm not sure what exactly this information represents but if we can't directly and at will access and *control* at least 80% of our brain functions...
hmm...perhaps the enlightenment stuff in buddhism, like budda was enlightened, just means that he managed to get his processor overclocked to 90% of it's potency hehe I wonder what cooling and operating systems he used..."microsoft omnipotence"?
it's obvious, too. we can't yet completely control any of basic instincts or needs. hunger? of course not. in most of the world it's in abundance. but we are not yet free of smelly public toilets. but where it's not in abundance, the feeling of hunger is a common guest. but in the eyes of western psychologist, scientist...is this need unconsiderable. so he looses a touch with one part of his instinct, which is merely surpressed by fullfilling it's needs. so he is changing his relationship with the environment (at this point mostly by changing the environment) in a way to satisfy his needs. safety, power, food, sex ... everything that comes to your mind and you know you were born with the desire, although somewhere deeeeeeeeeeep inside.
but that is not control. that is addiction. and we don't want to be addicted to nothing. Well perhaps to sex...but that is another trick, a nice trick:-) gives you the feeling of joy. endorphines are stirred a little bit and a chemical reaction starts to affect your body.
that's where a greater principle comes in; *the will to power*. that is a principle, it is not an instinct, need or feeling. it is also one of "fundamental wishes", the wish to claim the strenght of gods. full control over ourselves (sub-consciousness) and environment.
god is all-powerful. i think Buda da enlightened is all-powerful, too?
pictures and scenes from heaven and hell in holy books and beliefs depict to us what it would be like if we took a picturesque stroll through our psychology, our brain, if you will.
I guess the humanity's global sub-consciousness is set to work toward first securing the environment enough to be then able to focus on the human nature. our knowledge of surroundings and our knowledge of ourselves is expanding, but I'm not sure if proportionally or unproportionally. we are biological...so maybe it's unproportionally.
we work together to satisfy our needs. that's also where god jumps in. It seems that concerning the positioning of humans around the globe, their distinct (at least in detail) differences, differences amongst their environments, the image of god and philosophies vary. Also what varies is the set way to achieve the ultimate goal. so it comes to, khm, minor clashes like wws 1 and 2? :-). that is agression. adrenaline pumps in.
sadness and compassion make us want such safety that we could be able to prevent the loss of beings and things we like. we are shocked.
joy promisess fulfillment of every our desire. etc etc...
humans containing them all are caught withing the dynamics of relationships. Driving them somehow forcefully toward their fundamental goals.
we are still prisoners of our bodies. but we wouldn't be if we achieved omnipotence, with the help of our environment, materia, help cashed through appliance of scientific method and logic to shape environment and complete our understanding of human nature.
then we would be free of feelings and instincts. self-sustaining we would be, yes?:-)
and in that case we would be free of everything bounding us to the material world. except that we would retain complete control over our environment, time and space (and all of the elements that feed our senses and we can actually percieve), and would be able to shape them all to our will.
perhaps as much material world is invisible to us as our hidden capabilities in our brain are.
so if i continue...one of the things that is drawn from the pool of our sub-consciousness is faith. along with all the other feelings and instincts and needs (maslow's pyramid of needs for example). But as our analytical, conscious, side prevails ...the instincts are then *slowly* analyzed and put under control.
As for the reason for existence, that is a prerequisite for everything. not only for faith. also for principles. this is the most fundamental reason which we will be able to anwser when we achieve omnipotence. by transferring the energy of our feelings and instincts into branches of science.
I think I get what you're saying and I'm not really disagreeing. I'm arguing that the issues are a bit deeper than you suggested they were.
well i went a little bit deeper this time, don't you agree?;-
of course you can go into details, the depths. to achieve omnipotence you must be able to analyze everything, the ability that can only be gained by using our ful potency as beings.
If we leave aside the issue of whether or not it might have been better for the world if the human race had stayed grounded then I agree completely.
Mind you, necessity can also drive us to do things, and perhaps faith has nothing to do with it. According to science everything happens of necessity, not because we 'strive' teleologically towards our 'goals'. It's just particles and fields interacting deterministically. It's hard to prove that this isn't true.
the neccessity to survive and grow. the more we grow, the more we need to change the relationship beween our environment and ourselves. that is where your reason to exist rules the checkerboard. of course that the particles and fields are acting deterministically and their laws can be investigated! we are made of developed form of materia - biomass, and science investigates both (genetics, physics...)
because we also have to change ourselves to achieve anything, not just the environment.
I agree that it is necessary to you use one imagination and empathy to understand the world. I couldn't agree more. But all these things you are imagining are outside of yourself. Who or what is it that is doing the imagining? How can you know anything if you don't know that?
don't you have any imagination?:-)
doh i have this feeling I've written a confusing story
- #37
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
Nobody knows the relationship between consciousness and brain. They should not be confused with each other. It is not known which causes which.pocebokli said:
In Buddhism one focuses on Being, not computation.
I don't believe in God I'm afraid, and don't know what 'power' means in this context.
Probably, after all that's where the pictures came from. It is also true for all other pictures. Perceiving and conceiving are not a passive process.
You think you can achieve omnipotence by using the scientific method? Good luck.
The material world is visible to us. It's the immaterial one that is hidden.
You seem to be saying that particles and fields can accidently become omnipotent.
What's that got to do with my question?
- #38
pocebokli
- 129
- 0
well the consciousness certainly can not be a cause to physical brain, so we'll have to assume it's the other way around. i think i explained that by explaining the role of instincts?
i did not mean it literally with the cooling system and OS, geeze, didn't you read anything else around that context??! I also explained what kind of power i mean around that other context. the will to power , read nietzche's antichrist or thus spake zarathustra and other stuff from him if my straightforward explanation that the "power to control ourselves and our environment" is not enough for you.
buda also applied this principle if he wanted to become enlightened. even if he just "knew", there must be this driving principle behind the *will to know*, if you are so picky.
through scientific method AND knowledge of ourselves, yes. again, you dropped out half of what i said.
visible to us, but how many things that were previously invisible we are discovering now to be able to manipulate them? but for that we first need a brain, a scientist if you will. a better brain to be able to see more of our environment. that's where knowledge of our nature comes in, to enable us to improve our capabilities.
we just have this nasty tendency to call invisible all that surpasses our sight at this moment.
why accidentaly? I've written about 10 times i think, it's even in the quote you present...we improve ourselves to be better able to shape our environment.
i don't think particles accidentaly clashed just so hiroshima could get a heat wave in the middle of winter, eh?
it's got to do a lot with your question. i am doing the imagining, which is not limited by anwsers you seek.
i did not mean it literally with the cooling system and OS, geeze, didn't you read anything else around that context??! I also explained what kind of power i mean around that other context. the will to power , read nietzche's antichrist or thus spake zarathustra and other stuff from him if my straightforward explanation that the "power to control ourselves and our environment" is not enough for you.
buda also applied this principle if he wanted to become enlightened. even if he just "knew", there must be this driving principle behind the *will to know*, if you are so picky.
through scientific method AND knowledge of ourselves, yes. again, you dropped out half of what i said.
visible to us, but how many things that were previously invisible we are discovering now to be able to manipulate them? but for that we first need a brain, a scientist if you will. a better brain to be able to see more of our environment. that's where knowledge of our nature comes in, to enable us to improve our capabilities.
we just have this nasty tendency to call invisible all that surpasses our sight at this moment.
why accidentaly? I've written about 10 times i think, it's even in the quote you present...we improve ourselves to be better able to shape our environment.
i don't think particles accidentaly clashed just so hiroshima could get a heat wave in the middle of winter, eh?
it's got to do a lot with your question. i am doing the imagining, which is not limited by anwsers you seek.
- #39
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
I think you ought to read some philosophy. Idealism, the idea that matter arises from consciousness, is unfasifiable. It's perfectly possible that consciousness causes brains.pocebokli said:
Sorry but can't disentagle the rest.
- #40
pocebokli
- 129
- 0
well I'm not sure what you mean, i understand it as if you would be saying that consciousness (thought processes) "produces" matter (brain)? if its that what you're saying i don't think I can agree, even if i tryed t:-) but an explanation would be welcome.
perhaps you meant that awareness is a necessity for the basic concievement of brain? chicken or the egg?
i believe you that you can't disentangle, as mere entangling was an extremely difficult process for me hehe:-) and I am actually attempting to entangle different views and knowledge of the world, philosophy psychology science etc.
to present the matters as i have them in my head and writings and to convince you i'd have to present numerous theories and logical conclusions, and that is obviously not a thing that can be made hastily. so i guess it did come our rather confusing, since i was trying just to pinpoint the directions in which to think, instead of elaborating and proving.
there's much stuff on not so little number of pages and this is a forum:-)
perhaps you meant that awareness is a necessity for the basic concievement of brain? chicken or the egg?
i believe you that you can't disentangle, as mere entangling was an extremely difficult process for me hehe:-) and I am actually attempting to entangle different views and knowledge of the world, philosophy psychology science etc.
to present the matters as i have them in my head and writings and to convince you i'd have to present numerous theories and logical conclusions, and that is obviously not a thing that can be made hastily. so i guess it did come our rather confusing, since i was trying just to pinpoint the directions in which to think, instead of elaborating and proving.
there's much stuff on not so little number of pages and this is a forum:-)
- #41
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
I was saying that it is not known whether matter or consciousness underlies existence. Science assumes it's the former but has no evidence.pocebokli said: