Is Faith an Acceptable Means of Attaining Knowledge?

[pocebokli]

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.

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

 

[Canute]

yeah,
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...

Nobody knows the relationship between consciousness and brain. They should not be confused with each other. It is not known which causes which.

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"?

In Buddhism one focuses on Being, not computation.

god is all-powerful. i think Buda da enlightened is all-powerful, too?

I don't believe in God I'm afraid, and don't know what 'power' means in this context.

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.

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.

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.

You think you can achieve omnipotence by using the scientific method? Good luck.

perhaps as much material world is invisible to us as our hidden capabilities in our brain are.

The material world is visible to us. It's the immaterial one that is hidden.

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...)

You seem to be saying that particles and fields can accidently become omnipotent.

don't you have any imagination?:-)

What's that got to do with my question?

 

[pocebokli]

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.

 

[Canute]

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 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.

Sorry but can't disentagle the rest.

 

[pocebokli]

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:-)

 

[Canute]

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.

I was saying that it is not known whether matter or consciousness underlies existence. Science assumes it's the former but has no evidence.