Chapter 4

From Plato

Mon Dec 29, 2003 7:22 pm:

Quote:

I can't read any further than this because the distinctions you make here don't make any sense to me - which means that, for me, the rest of your argument lacks a foundation. The main problem I have with your distinctions is that empirical (perceived) reality is actually conceptual in nature and therefore a part of noetic reality. In my eyes, then, you've artificially divided knowable Reality into two realms and then pretended that one of them is somehow not a division of knowable Reality.

Granted, science education is pretty bad these days, but it is an obvious shortcoming on your part to assume that everything in science can be accounted for based on things you perceive. Even simple things, like gravity, cannot be perceived directly. You perceive an apple falling on your head, but you cannot perceive gravity. You can only hypothesize it based on what you perceive. Listen carefully now. Your senses reveal to you an image of the world around you. You walk outside at night and you look up at the night sky. You see a sphere of large radius, with you at the center, and with stars positioned on the surface of that sphere. This is what is known as a Sensorium or the conceptual view of the universe that is based on your sense-perception. This is what I call perceptual reality. In this view of reality, you already have cause and effect, but causes are mediated by some other object in that reality (i.e. efficient cause). For example, one domino falls and hits another. However that view of reality is incomplete, since you begin to notice various paradoxes. For example, you notice that your friend is also claiming that he is at the center of the universe. Maybe the celestial "sphere" is not a sphere after all? You notice two types of motion in the sky - regular motion of fixed stars and irregular motion of planetary bodies. You are taken by the "powerful sense of wonder to look into causes" that are not apparent to you from simple observation (i.e. final causes). You begin to hypothesize. Over time, these validated hypotheses form a body of scientific knowledge. Each hypothesis proposes an agent that is beyond your Sensorium, but which acts on and organizes objects within it. These hypotheses taken together, form the basis for a different conceptual view of reality, which i called noetic reality. In noetic reality you deal with objects that do not exist in your Sensorium, things like forces, fields, space-time curvature, waves and particles, symmetries and anisotropies, principles and laws. You must introduce these "imaginary" constructs which I call thought-objects into your conceptual view of reality in order for it to be complete at any moment in time. This parallels the development in mathematics, in which sense-perceptible principles govern counting numbers, but other numbers begin to appear, like complex numbers, which are related to principles that govern evolution and transformation of physical systems. Science strives to develop the most truthful image of reality possible, which is why it views reality as noetic reality or reality that is composed of thought-objects. If you fail to see that I recommend remedial college physics and Plato readings.

Quote:

You're making this up, surely. It is like saying that ordered systems cannot produce randomness and chaos - which is plainly absurd.

I thought I was very clear on what I said. I said logical systems cannot produce something that is illogical, it is not the same at all. If the system generates an illogical output, then it can no longer be logical. As your computer what it thinks about that.

Quote:

I've done it by creating definitions that necessarily apply to all things in the Universe. An example is the definition of a "thing" - namely, that which is bounded and falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. Reasonings about this definition can then lead to knowledge which applies to all things - e.g. that all things are causally created, that all things lack inherent existence, that nothing ultimately exists, etc. And it is through this process that one can finally begin to gain an understanding of the nature of Reality itself.

You call this philosophy, where you sit on a toilet and come up with postulates as a path to ultimate truth? Give me a break! These things are at best conjectures. And you call this understanding reality? Based on a few amorphous conjectures? Science gives you an image of reality that is as clear as your face in the mirror. You are offerring a muddled reflection. The human race would long be extinct if we followed your advice. Besides, all the things you state are hypotheses which have been proven because they are an integral part of a scientific method. "All things short of totality" is a restatement of "a whole is greater than a part", which is a scientific principle, proven to be valid by scientific inquiry into everything from planetary orbits to the biosphere. "All things are causally created" is a hypothesis on which all science is dependent and thus has been post factum validated. Logic is a powerful tool, but it is only an accessory.

From David Quinn

Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:07 pm:

Plato wrote:

Quote:

David, this simply reveals to me your ignorance in regards to the body of scientific knowledge.

The issue at hand is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. I am questioning your philosophical carving up of Reality into these distinct realms.

Quote:

Granted, science education is pretty bad these days, but it is an obvious shortcoming on your part to assume that everything in science can be accounted for based on things you perceive. Even simple things, like gravity, cannot be perceived directly.

Neither can mass-objects be perceived directly. What we call "mass-objects" are actually artifical constructs which the brain whips up in response to patterns of electro-magnetic frequencies and the like.

Quote:

You perceive an apple falling on your head, but you cannot perceive the true nature of gravity.

We can perceive the effects of gravity via the motion of the apple, just as we can perceive the effects of the apple via the light bouncing off it.

Quote:

Listen carefully now. Your senses reveal to you an image of the world around you. You walk outside at night and you look up at the night sky. You see a sphere of large radius, with you at the center, and with stars positioned on the surface of that sphere. This is what was known as a Sensorium or the conceptual view of the universe that is based on your sense-perception. This is what I call perceptual reality.

Okay.

Quote:

In this view of reality, you already have certain principles, like cause and effect. One domino falls and hits another. However, that view of reality is incomplete, since you begin to notice various paradoxes. For example, you notice that your friend that is walking together with you at night is also claiming that he is at the center of the universe. So which one of you is really at the center of the universe?

For all I know, my friend doesn't have any other existence apart from what I perceive of him inside my Sensorium. At bottom, all I ever really know is my own Sensorium, and, because of this, the "paradox" doesn't have any basis.

Quote:

You notice two types of motion in the Sensorium - regular motion of fixed stars and irregular motion of planetary bodies. You are taken by the "powerful sense of wonder to look into causes" that are not apparent to you from simple observation. You begin to hypothesize. Over time, these validated hypotheses form a body of scientific knowledge. Each hypothesis proposes an agent that is beyond your Sensorium, but which acts on and organizes objects within it. These hypotheses taken together, form the basis for a different conceptual view of reality, which i called noetic reality. In noetic reality you deal with objects that do not exist in your Sensorium, things like forces, fields, space-time curvature, waves and particles, symmetries and anisotropies, principles and laws. You must introduce these "imaginary" constructs which I call thought-objects into your conceptual view of reality in order for it to be complete at any moment in time. This parallels the development in mathematics, in which sense-perceptible principles govern counting numbers, but other numbers begin to appear, like complex numbers, which are related to principles that govern evolution and transformation of physical systems. Imaginary numbers are "thought-objects" that do not exist in the domain of real numbers, but nevertheless organize that domain, even when you had no idea these numbers existed. Science strives to develop the most truthful image of reality possible, which is why science views reality as noetic reality or reality that is composed of thought-objects.

I understand all of this. But it doesn't demonstrate why you think scientific principles are independently existing absolutes. How do you answer the objection that universal scientific principles are mentally infered and extrapolated from a small pool of observations carried out by the human race and, like all inferences, their universality is inherently uncertain? At bottom, you have no way of knowing whether or not they continue to exist beyond the observable universe.

From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:00 am:

Quote:

Plato: David, this simply reveals to me your ignorance in regards to the body of scientific knowledge. DQ: The issue at hand is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. I am questioning your philosophical carving up of Reality into these distinct realms.

David,
Do you get out much ? There is a continuum of interfacing between philosophy and Quantum mechanics which shows your division is bogus. Consider this, the indetermancy of probability states in quantum theory had more philosophical weight behind them than all of the post modern philosophy tomes ( I unfortunately read a good number of them too ! ) put together. HOWEVER, the starting point to this merging of philosophy and science was neatly categorialized by the dynamics of the Schrodinger equation which is NOT a philosophy statement ! Still though what you continue to over look is that good philosophy has a causality linkage as a starting which you appear to be ignoring.

From Andrew Beckwith

Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:08 am:

Quote:

You call this philosophy, where you sit on a toilet and come up with postulates as a path to ultimate truth?

Plato,

David does not believe in truth as something which can be inferred by trial and error. Not him. He is akin to the ancient Greeks who STARTED the scientific method but who had a weird distaste for the results only obtained via laboratory testing of postulates .

From David Quinn

Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:45 pm:

For some unknown reason, I failed to respond to the rest of Plato’s post.

He wrote:

Quote:

DQ: You're making this up, surely. It is like saying that ordered systems cannot produce randomness and chaos - which is plainly absurd. Plato: I thought I was very clear on what I said. I said logical systems cannot produce something that is illogical, it is not the same at all. If the system generates an illogical output, then it can no longer be logical. As your computer what it thinks about that.

Assuming this to be true (and I see no reason why it is), it doesn't have any bearing on the issue of whether or not the world is a simulation of some kind, for two reasons:

(a) There is no reason why the simulation has to be logical in nature.

(b) Even if the simulation was logical to begin with, there is always the possibility of bugs corrupting the system. We all know from personal experience with PCs that bugs in the programming can produce corrrupted data.

Thus, the objection that Sergei raised - namely, that illogical cognition cannot be produced from within a logical system - has no basis.

Quote:

DQ: I've done it by creating definitions that necessarily apply to all things in the Universe. An example is the definition of a "thing" - namely, that which is bounded and falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. Reasonings about this definition can then lead to knowledge which applies to all things - e.g. that all things are causally created, that all things lack inherent existence, that nothing ultimately exists, etc. And it is through this process that one can finally begin to gain an understanding of the nature of Reality itself. Plato: You call this philosophy, where you sit on a toilet and come up with postulates as a path to ultimate truth? Give me a break! These things are at best conjectures.

They're certainties. If you want to disagree, then please provide a demonstration of how an object or event in the Universe fails to fall into the category of a "thing".

Quote:

And you call this understanding reality?

It leads to the greatest knowledge there is.

Quote:

Science gives you an image of reality that is as clear as your face in the mirror. You are offerring a muddled reflection. The human race would long be extinct if we followed your advice.

How does heightened rational thought, which doesn't reject science, imperil our survival as a species?

Quote:

Besides, all the things you state are hypotheses which have been proven because they are an integral part of a scientific method. "All things short of totality" is a restatement of "a whole is greater than a part", which is a scientific principle, proven to be valid by scientific inquiry into everything from planetary orbits to the biosphere.

Where is the scientific experiement that proves without any shadow of a doubt that all objects and events in the Universe are "things"? Nowhere to be found. It cannot be done that way. It is purely a matter of logic.

Quote:

"All things are causally created" is a hypothesis on which all science is dependent and thus has been post factum validated.

Where is the scientific experiment that proves without any shadow of a doubt that all things have causes? Again, it's nowhere to be found. It is purely a matter of logic.

Quote:

Logic is a powerful tool, but it is only an accessory.

For science, maybe. It is central, however, to the conduct of philosophy.

Why do you guys constantly feel a need to demonize and dismiss philosophic logic? It doesn't threathen the practice of science in any way. It does, however, threaten to lower the status of science in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps this is what you are objecting to ......... ?

From David Quinn

Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:09 pm:

Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

Do you get out much ? There is a continuum of interfacing between philosophy and Quantum mechanics which shows your division is bogus. Consider this, the indetermancy of probability states in quantum theory had more philosophical weight behind them than all of the post modern philosophy tomes ( I unfortunately read a good number of them too ! ) put together.

God, what a conundrum, trying to decide which of the two groups are the more philosophically backward - postmodernist philosophers or modern physicists? A dead heat, I should think.

Quote:

HOWEVER, the starting point to this merging of philosophy and science was neatly categorialized by the dynamics of the Schrodinger equation which is NOT a philosophy statement !

I agree that it is not a philosophical statement and hence it follows that it doesn't have any relevence to the philosophic process of understanding Reality.

Quote:

Still though what you continue to over look is that good philosophy has a causality linkage as a starting which you appear to be ignoring.

Good philosophy starts with premises and concepts which logically relate to all things in the Universe. That is its causal linkage. It bypasses science and connects directly with Reality as we experience it.

Quote:

David does not believe in truth as something which can be inferred by trial and error.

Not empirical theories, no. There is always the possibility that an empirical theory can be overturned with the discovery of new evidence, no matter how well-established the theory seems to be.

Quote:

He is akin to the ancient Greeks who STARTED the scientific method but who had a weird distaste for the results only obtained via laboratory testing of postulates .

I've already stated numerous times that I have no problem with the practice of science or the theories it produces. It has no bearing upon the kind of knowledge that I deal with as a philosopher.

From Plato

Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:01 pm:

Quote:

The issue at hand is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. I am questioning your philosophical carving up of Reality into these distinct realms.

As Andy said, I don't see any distinction between the two. Philosophy divorced from science is just as impotent as sceince divorced from philosophy.

Quote:

Neither can mass-objects be perceived directly. What we call "mass-objects" are actually artifical constructs which the brain whips up in response to patterns of electro-magnetic frequencies and the like.

That's clearly true, yet how perceived reality is generated is none of my concern. All I need is that perceived reality is an image of Reality.

Quote:

We can perceive the effects of gravity via the motion of the apple, just as we can perceive the effects of the apple via the light bouncing off it.

That's clearly true, and is precisely the point - perceived reality, like shadows on a dimly fire-lit cave wall, is an image of effects of Reality on the sense-organs. The Nature of either apple or gravity does not lie within the bounds of that reality. However, their Nature can be grasped by the Mind through Hypothesis. This is the reason for separating a scientific view of Reality from that based on naive sense-perception. One can go through life without ever knowing or questioning the Nature of things, completely satisfied with his/her Sensorium. Yet, a scientific method is based on resolution of paradoxes generated by assumptions based on naive-sense perception. Naive-sense perception tells you that the Earth is flat, that the Sun rotates around the Earth, that the orbits of the planets are circular, that Space is infinite in extension and infinitely divisible, that there are three dimensions, that line is the shortest distance between two points, that time flows equably and homogeneously, and so forth. However, through hypothesis, we know these things to be false. The evolution of science is proceeding in the direction from more intuitive, based on experience, to more abstract, based on hypothesis. This abstract, imaginary, theoretical, however you please, view of the world, is what I called noetic reality. Each hypothesis comprising noetic reality is a single thought-object, in contrast to mass-objects that comprise perceived reality. At this point I do not care to determine how noetic reality is generated, only that it is a different image of Reality.

Quote:

I understand all of this. But it doesn't demonstrate why you think scientific principles are independently existing absolutes. How do you answer the objection that universal scientific principles are mentally infered and extrapolated from a small pool of observations carried out by the human race and, like all inferences, their universality is inherently uncertain? At bottom, you have no way of knowing whether or not they continue to exist beyond the observable universe.

Obviously we must use observations or the objects in perceived reality as a stepping stone because we cannot "sense" Reality with our minds. But it is fallacious to think cognition can only make (logical) inferences from those observations. If the only statements that could be made based on perceived reality were of logical (inductive/deductive) nature, then the noetic reality would fundamentally be constrained to operate within the bounds of perceived reality and your point that there is no difference between the two would be quite valid. However, that is clearly not so because cognition allows generation of propositions which are illogical. These hypotheses, therefore, can introduce thought-objects into noetic reality that lie outside of perceived reality.

So clearly scientific principles do not exist in the observable universe - they exist in the mind. The more fundamental question though, is whether the image in the mind based on these principles is isomorphic to Reality or whether it is simply a mental construct. Now, listen carefully. Perceived reality is an incomplete image that is subsumed by noetic reality. Assume there is another image that subsumes noetic reality, but is unknowable to us. Thus, the map from R->S(Reality to Sensorium) is in the domain of N (noesis) that is in the domain of H (higher reality). Thus, there are objects in N that are not in P and in H that are not in N or P. Yet, since P,N,H all belong to R, objects that are in N but not in P map onto some objects in P. However, that creates an ontological inconsistency in P, that is resolvable if one identifies the corresponding object in N (i.e. existence of scientific principle is recognized due to some paradox in the Sensorium). Now, apply this to N and H. If there is an object in H that is not in N, it must be mapped to some object in N, creating an ontological inconsistency in N. However, N is ontologically consistent, thus H = N.

Essentially, the way we think is reflected in the design of the universe. Call it egoism or anthropomorphism, but scientific progress has increased man's power int he universe by at least 3 orders of magnitude so far (judging by our ability to sustain 10 billion people at present levels of technology, versus 10 million for a primitive hunter-gatherer society). How much of that has been generated by "toilet-bound" rationalizing? If cognition is out of correspondence with Reality, then this increase in power is what, accidental? People come up with all sorts of random principles and some of them just happen to please the little green men under the floorboards of the universe so they decide to give man a little more power? I mean there is a lawful process of discovery here. The universe is not indifferent to human creative thought.

From Plato

Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:11 pm:

Quote:

Why do you guys constantly feel a need to demonize and dismiss philosophic logic? It doesn't threathen the practice of science in any way. It does, however, threaten to lower the status of science in the larger scheme of things. Perhaps this is what you are objecting to ......... ?

It seems that Kitten has been able to unwittingly capture the essence of my thinking about various images of Reality in 7 lines versus my endless gibberish. Sometimes, David, I feel like both scientists and philosophers are on the loosing side here - when all the battles are fought and all the dust has settled, poets will own the day. This is an awesome poem and well worth thinking about in the context that I have presented (as well as in other contexts).

When abstract paintings are reflected in mirrors
It reminds me of trees bouncing off the surface of a lake.
And although my body cries out to dive in
My will forces my Mind to fall into itself.
As it reels, trying to find its person,
I realize that what it truly seeks is its reflection
In an abstract painting.

I am totally going to kill the poem here, but what she's really trying to say... its cuz i know better... *laughs* an abstract painting, a beautiful artwork that is the universe has many images, which is akin to reflections of trees on the surface of a lake; and although the body yearns to live in the shadow of reality, the Mind rejects it realizing that what it truly seeks is its own reflection in the universe. That is so perfect!!! Thanks sweets.

From Kitten

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:37 pm:

No problem sugar *giggles and kisses Plato* and thank you *kisses again slowly, looks at people watching, frowns and pulls him into another room smiling**pokes head out* He'll be back in a moment...*closes door, then reopens it* or two... *closes door again*

From RShah

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:41 pm:

David Quinn wrote:

DQ: I've done it by creating definitions that necessarily apply to all things in the Universe. An example is the definition of a "thing" - namely, that which is bounded and falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. Reasonings about this definition can then lead to knowledge which applies to all things - e.g. that all things are causally created, that all things lack inherent existence, that nothing ultimately exists, etc. And it is through this process that one can finally begin to gain an understanding of the nature of Reality itself. They're certainties. If you want to disagree, then please provide a demonstration of how an object or event in the Universe fails to fall into the category of a "thing".

Hmm...so energy isn't a "thing," correct? Is energy to "thing" as mass is to matter? What do you think? Are you suggesting that only energy exists, based on your above comments?

From Andrew Beckwith

Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:21 am:

Quote:

Good philosophy starts with premises and concepts which logically relate to all things in the Universe. That is its causal linkage. It bypasses science and connects directly with Reality as we experience it.

Garbage. You cannot by pass observational work and have a causal linkage.

Quote:

Why do you guys constantly feel a need to demonize and dismiss philosophic logic?

Because without genuine causal linkage( not your mis definition of the term ) it is slopism. Mainly you thinking you are the center of the universe. We don't make that mistake. You do. This is incoherent.

From Kitten

Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:03 am:

*walks clumsily out of the room in a bathrobe with a cup of chai latte* *grumbles something about it being morning and light out* *sits in the comfy leather couch and lights a smoke, looks at the disapproving faces and puts it out grumbling something about it being early* *rubs her eyes sleepily and smiles meekly* I agree with Andy, *blinks wildly and sips latte* It certainly would be a poorly thought out form of solipsism, *finishes latte and lights up a cigarette, looks at the disapproving faces* *sticks out her tongue* It’s so early in the morning, *grumbles* I should be permitted to self-poison in the library *pouts and walks towards kitchen*

From David Quinn

Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:04 pm:

RShah wrote:

Quote:

DQ: I've done it by creating definitions that necessarily apply to all things in the Universe. An example is the definition of a "thing" - namely, that which is bounded and falls short of constituting the totality of all there is. Reasonings about this definition can then lead to knowledge which applies to all things - e.g. that all things are causally created, that all things lack inherent existence, that nothing ultimately exists, etc. And it is through this process that one can finally begin to gain an understanding of the nature of Reality itself. They're certainties. If you want to disagree, then please provide a demonstration of how an object or event in the Universe fails to fall into the category of a "thing". RHash: Hmm...so energy isn't a "thing," correct? Is energy to "thing" as mass is to matter? What do you think? Are you suggesting that only energy exists, based on your above comments?

It depends on how this "energy" is defined or conceived. If it is conceived to be the Totality of all there is, then there is nothing else apart from energy. If it is conceived to be a phenomenon within the Totality, then obviously other things exist besides energy.

To my mind, "energy" and "matter" are generic terms that really don't apply to anything. No one ever observes pure energy or pure matter. We only observe varying kinds of phenomena which we categorize as being "forms of energy" or "forms of matter". Energy and matter are ultimately just as fictitious as "spirit" and "divine essence" and the like.

From David Quinn

Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:25 pm:

Andrew Beckwith wrote:

Quote:

DQ: Good philosophy starts with premises and concepts which logically relate to all things in the Universe. That is its causal linkage. It bypasses science and connects directly with Reality as we experience it. AB: Garbage. You cannot by pass observational work and have a causal linkage.

I said that philosophy bypasses science, not observation. Do you think that philosophers lack eyes?

When a philosopher comes up with a logical truth such as "all things are finite", or "all things are caused", he tests it both for its inner consistency from a logical point of view and also how it applies to the wider Universe. If he finds that it logically applies to everything in existence out of necessity, then it means that he has done the observational work and finds that it passes the test of being a meaningful piece of knowledge about reality.

Quote:

DQ: Why do you guys constantly feel a need to demonize and dismiss philosophic logic? AB: Because without genuine causal linkage( not your mis definition of the term ) it is slopism. Mainly you thinking you are the center of the universe. We don't make that mistake. You do. This is incoherent.

I've spent much of this thread trying to convince you guys not to ignore the possibility that the universe is a simulation and face up to the fact that the activities you are engaging in (scientiifc theorizing) may not have any universal or ultimate significance at all. In other words, I've been battling against your own anthropomorphisms. But it's been a real slog, I can tell you!

From David Quinn

Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:52 pm:

Plato wrote:

Quote:

DQ: The issue at hand is a philosophical matter, not a scientific one. I am questioning your philosophical carving up of Reality into these distinct realms. Plato: As Aaron said, I don't see any distinction between the two. Philosophy divorced from science is just as impotent as sceince divorced from philosophy.

It is a philosophical matter because the division that you make in an otherwise seamless Reality is a conceptual one and not verifiable (or falsifiable) by empirical/scientific testing.

Moreover, you're creating this division in order to lay down an intellectual basis for your philosophical view that science can access principles that are universal and absolute. Again, this view is philosophical in nature because it is not one that can be verified by empirical testing.

Quote:

DQ: But it doesn't demonstrate why you think scientific principles are independently existing absolutes. How do you answer the objection that universal scientific principles are mentally infered and extrapolated from a small pool of observations carried out by the human race and, like all inferences, their universality is inherently uncertain? At bottom, you have no way of knowing whether or not they continue to exist beyond the observable universe. Plato: Obviously we must use observations or the objects in perceived reality as a stepping stone because we cannot "sense" Reality with our minds. But it is fallacious to think cognition can only make (logical) inferences from those observations. If the only statements that could be made based on perceived reality were of logical (inductive/deductive) nature, then the noetic reality would fundamentally be constrained to operate within the bounds of perceived reality and your point that there is no difference between the two would be quite valid. However, that is clearly not so because cognition allows generation of propositions which are illogical. These hypotheses, therefore, can introduce thought-objects into noetic reality that lie outside of perceived reality.

Translation: We can imagine things.

Quote:

So clearly scientific principles do not exist in the observable universe - they exist in the mind. The more fundamental question though, is whether the image in the mind based on these principles is isomorphic to Reality or whether it is simply a mental construct. Now, listen carefully. Perceived reality is an incomplete image that is subsumed by noetic reality. Assume there is another image that subsumes noetic reality, but is unknowable to us. Thus, the map from R->S(Reality to Sensorium) is in the domain of N (noesis) that is in the domain of H (higher reality).

What is higher reality? What is the difference between it and Reality?

Quote:

Thus, there are objects in N that are not in P and in H that are not in N or P.

I cannot agree or disagree with this until you define what higher reality is and how it differs from Reality. The same goes for the rest of your argument

Quote:

Essentially, the way we think is reflected in the design of the universe. Call it egoism or anthropomorphism, but scientific progress has increased man's power int he universe by at least 3 orders of magnitude so far (judging by our ability to sustain 10 billion people at present levels of technology, versus 10 million for a primitive hunter-gatherer society). How much of that has been generated by "toilet-bound" rationalizing? If cognition is out of correspondence with Reality, then this increase in power is what, accidental? People come up with all sorts of random principles and some of them just happen to please the little green men under the floorboards of the universe so they decide to give man a little more power? I mean there is a lawful process of discovery here. The universe is not indifferent to human creative thought.

You're only guessing here. The world could well be a simulation run by demons, who "reward" humans with extra powers whenever they (the humans) discover new false principles. Again, you're pretending that this kind of possibility doesn't exist in order to maintain the illusion that you are accessing absolute principles with your scientific theorizing.

It is important to reach 100% certainty with one's knowledge. Being satisfied with 99.99% certainty isn't good enough, which is what you are doing. In many ways, this represents the difference between the philosopher and the scientist.

Quote:

How much of that has been generated by "toilet-bound" rationalizing?

Philosophy deals with mental and spiritual progress and cannot be judged by the same criteria that is used to measure scientific progress. One has to step back and take in the larger picture. For example, the very emergence of science itself as a discipline of thought is a by-product of humanity's philosophical progress, as is the emergence of enlightened people, great spiritual texts, the spreading of mental clarity and rationality throughout all sectors of society, and so on.

Quote:

When abstract paintings are reflected in mirrors It reminds me of trees bouncing off the surface of a lake. And although my body cries out to dive in My will forces my Mind to fall into itself. As it reels, trying to find its person, I realize that what it truly seeks is its reflection In an abstract painting.

It's a nice poem, but it really only reflects Kitten's desires and world-view ( and perhaps yours) and doesn't relate to my own situation in any way.

Quote:

I am totally going to kill the poem here, but what she's really trying to say... its cuz i know better... *laughs* an abstract painting, a beautiful artwork that is the universe has many images, which is akin to reflections of trees on the surface of a lake; and although the body yearns to live in the shadow of reality, the Mind rejects it realizing that what it truly seeks is its own reflection in the universe.

Ultimately, there is really no Mind, no universe, nor any reflections. One needs to go beyond all the reflections and realize this great truth.

Previous Contents Next

End of Chapter 4