Religion
Related: About this forumPart of Reality Cannot be Perceived
It can, however, be conceived.
- Henri Poincare
We can make an analogy: grasping is like perceiving. You can say that grasping an idea is like perceiving light or sound. However, it's no more than an analogy. Ideas are neither physical objects nor perceptions of physical objects. Ideas occupy their own realm. So the claim that only what can be perceived is real is self-defeating for people who value science.
Saying that ideas are nothing but electro-chemical processes in human brains isn't a way out. If you say that, then you're going way beyond the old notion of the universe merely physically revolving around the Earth. When alien mathematicians in other galaxies have occasion to refer to the number 3.141592..., they aren't considering the simple idea of a circle that naive people think is available to almost any intelligent being in the universe. No, there aren't any ideas. Those aliens are studying the electro-chemical processes in human brains. We the people of the planet Earth pwn the realm of ideas. All your pi are belong to us.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Deep13
(39,154 posts)Not sure what you mean with your alien example.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)... to arrive at the conclusion that reality consists of only what is dreamt of in atheistic philosophy.
One recent example:
A particular statement (call it "S"
is either true or false.
Some people claim, "S is true." They rely upon it and reach the conclusion that all religion is necessarily false.
Other people claim, "S is false." It is lucky indeed for the cause of atheism if the claim can be ruled inadmissible on the grounds that the topic is religion and the claim is off-topic.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)...since your line of thinking is going in a different direction from what I thought. I guess I'm not familiar with the back story. The idea that only dreamed-of things are real sounds more like postmodernism than atheism (though admittedly there is probably some overlap). It reminds me of the distinction between signifiers (words) and the signified (ideas that represent reality). In this paradigm, the most we can hope to do is to describe the mental representation of reality as conveyed by our senses and apprehended by our minds. The objective reality never comes within our experience.
While there is some truth to that, I think it is overstated. If our senses and minds did not create at least a close approximation of reality, they would not have created a survival advantage and we would not have survived to this point. Most skeptical atheists, therefore, tend to believe in the objective reality of your example and assume that anything beyond our perception is imagined (something we are abundantly capable of doing) unless a real reason is found to accept it. What you are suggesting--that reality only consists of what is dreamed of, is a lot more like the ontological argument as proof of god: that if there is a word for something, it must be real. I refute that idea with one word: Godzilla.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)Most skeptical atheists, therefore, tend to believe in the objective reality of your example
What do you the words "your example" in the above excerpt refer to?
What you are suggesting--that reality only consists of what is dreamed of
I didn't intend to suggest that. Could you quote part of my message that gave you this impression?
I'm somewhat surprised that we don't seem to understand each other in this thread, but I anticipate a constructive outcome because we both seem interested in clarifying our thoughts and giving reasons for our point of view, rather than doing what some people do: reaching for the most convenient pretext (usually a very unsound pretext) to arrive at a predetermined destination.
Deep13
(39,154 posts)And "...to arrive at the conclusion that reality consists of only what is dreamt of in atheistic philosophy."
MarkCharles
(2,261 posts)several fallacies and false statements in the premise you are presenting. I'd like to know what the context of these remarks are.
Fallacious concept number 1 and 2: "Ideas are neither physical objects nor perceptions of physical objects. Ideas occupy their own realm. So the claim that only what can be perceived is real is self-defeating for people who value science. "
Ideas can be perceptions of physical objects, (e.g. picture an elephant in your living room), or perceptions of other ideas, (e.g. think of what your idea of a good Christian system of ethics is, and compare it to someone else's ideas of the same.)
My suggestion is that you investigate and do some reading in the areas of philosophy called "realism" and "nominalism", for starters
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)perceptions of physical objects, (e.g. picture an elephant in your living room),
If you instruct me to picture in my mind an elephant in the room, and I imagine an elephant there, then what will happen? I won't actually perceive an elephant there. There's a difference between imagination and perception.
or perceptions of other ideas,
Maybe if you have synesthesia, then you can perceive ideas. Personally, I perceive with my sense organs, and conceive with my mind.
The word "idea" (like many words) has a number of different meanings. Surely this kind of thing isn't surprising if you are familiar with the difference between your right hand, a right angle, and the right answer to "1+1=?". In future, it might be more constructive to think about the imperfection of language and the possibility that you are misinterpreting a message before you make accusations about "fallacies", "false statements" and some alleged "Fallacious concept."
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)I am impressed. If I had gone to the SEC when its investigation of Madoff had barely started, and had mentioned the name "Madoff" and somebody at the SEC had immediately told me, without consulting any records, Madoff's mother's maiden name, Madoff's date of birth, and a lot of other data about Madoff, then I would have been impressed at how well they knew who he was. However, familiarity with a topic doesn't guarantee that an investigation of the topic will reach a correct conclusion.
Kotz concludes that the agency's repeated investigations and clearing of Madoff served to increase Madoff's credibility with investors who believed that if the SEC had found no wrongdoing then Madoff's business had to be clean.
From:
Watchdog: SEC Screwed Up on Madoff
By Laura Strickler
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/02/cbsnews_investigates/main5282205.shtml
Jim__
(14,075 posts)For instance, you say:
But, we can find human intelligence that sees pi very differently from the way most of us see it. Daniel Tammet is a savant, he sees pi as a landscape. From wikipedia :
Tammet holds the European record for reciting pi from memory to 22,514 digits in five hours and nine minutes on 14 March 2004.[16] Tammet's record currently ranks 6th in the world.[17]
Tammett can also talk about the digits in pi but that may be because he lives around people who refer to those digits and he is able to do the translation. How do we know that an alien intelligence won't see things more the way Tammet sees things and do computations as some form of blending landscapes? I don't believe we can know that.
I don't believe that you can claim human ideas are definitely other than some neural networks in the brain that represent knowledge. Saying this does not eliminate the possibility that non-human civilizations could have knowledge of pi; it's just that their mental representation of it may be quite different than ours.
I don't believe that you can claim neural networks in the brain that represent knowledge are definitely other than some human ideas.
That's how we can see that monism reduction either way, idealism to materialism or materialism to idealism, is unsatisfactory, as is also essential or ontological dualism.
PS: a philosophy group or forum would be nice.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)My point is that neural networks map our experience, both experience of the world and our experience of thinking about our experience of the world. So, my take on this is that the storage of experience can be recorded in a purely material medium.
I don't understand how neural nets can lead to the qualia of experience. But, I consider that a different question.
I agree that a philosophy group would be nice.
How do neural networks manifest in our experience, primarily, phenomenologically? As theories or ideas that are linguistically communicated and shared.
As questions, what is the relation between ideas about neural networks and other ideas and experiences? Rational inquiry of that question should not start from the conclusion of belief that mental states reduce causally to neural networks, as there are also many other possibilities to consider. Questions about memory storage are also highly relevant here, and instead of already jumping to conclusions, there is lot to consider also in this respect.
I've been thinking that a good starting point for rational inquiry of these questions would be discussing the theory of mind.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)... our experience manifests in neural networks.
The relation between ideas about neural networks and other ideas and experiences is essentially an equivalence relation. IOW, ideas about neural networks belong to the category of ideas. The basis for these ideas, the ones about neural networks, is the study of the brain and how the brain changes based on experience.
It is because there are so many possibilities to consider that we have to pick some particular possibility in order to begin our rational inquiry. Stating that neural networks are relevant to the storage of memory is not really jumping to a conclusion; it is referring to known information - long known information - for instance, see In the Palaces of Memory.
Discussing the theory of mind is a fine idea; but that does not preclude having alternative discussions.
It's easy to get trapped into chicken-or-egg questions, or grinding axe over reductionisic either-or positions, where not necessary and where both-and type approaches of codependency might work better. The role and function of neural networks with mental states is very interesting question and the available evidence also highly relevant. But a better and more funda-mental starting point would be theory of mind, which I assume we both share and act according to. Maybe there are alternative discussions also to theory of mind (such as eliminative materialism?) and of course discussions can go many ways from the theory of mind as shared starting point.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)If there is a realm of ideas, then there can be a human mental representation of an idea. However, if there is no realm of ideas, then there is nothing to be represented. There is merely an electro-chemical process that by luck somehow allows human beings to dominate the world.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)You say:
Each human mind is a realm that contains mental representations of our experiences. The human mind has representations of a circle, circumference and diameter. Our mind also has the ability to mentally rearrange our experiences. Based on our experience, we can come up with the idea of pi, a relationship between the diameter of a circle and its circumference.
As to:
There is a highly structured electro-chemical process where the structures are formed through experience. The mental processes are not based on luck, but rather on selection.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)If each human mind is a separate realm, then we can ask what if anything is the connection between a concept in one person's mind and a concept in another person's mind. After all, it seems that shared concepts are a prerequisite for communication. For example, hearing spoken language of no apparent significance isn't enough to allow an infant to acquire language. An infant is spoken to and hears other people speak to each other in contexts involving various kinds of non-verbal interaction.
What was your motivation for choosing the word "realm" in the above excerpt? I see mental functioning as necessarily involving change, an active process. Of course, we might describe somebody as having been "mentally passive" at some time, but I think that is a relative matter. Consider an analogy: running involves an active process, and as bipeds we need an active balancing process merely to stand still, but lying still is inactive and isn't analogous to any mode of mental functioning. Even the unconscious mind dreams.
In the above excerpt, does the word "experiences" include not only perceptions, but also conceptions? If thinking is an experience, then the word "experiences" already encompasses the conceptual realm. In that case, it wouldn't make sense to suggest that the mind merely stores and rearranges perceptions.
Jim__
(14,075 posts)I can't. I can picture a circle or a 3 dimension sphere. I believe the difference is that I have experience with 2 and 3 dimensional space. I don't have any experience with 4 dimensional space. But, if our ideas come from a "realm of ideas" rather than from our experience, why can't I picture a 4-dimensional sphere?
The connection between a concept in one person's mind and the same concept in another person's mind is common experience, with one person being able to enhance the experience of another person through communication. For instance, if each of two people has a concept of an elephant and of the color pink, then person A can claim to have seen a pink elephant, and person B, even though she has never seen a pink elephant, will have an understanding of what person A means, even though her concept of a pink elephant may not exactly match what person A is claiming to have seen.
I don't believe that a person born blind has any experience of the color blue. I don't believe that I can describe blue to him in such a way that he can experience it. I can tell him about the interval of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans perceive as blue, and I believe that he can grasp that. But, I don't believe he can experience blue.
Basically, it was a response to what you said: If there is a realm of ideas, then there can be a human mental representation of an idea. However, if there is no realm of ideas, then there is nothing to be represented. The human mind can serve as the realm of ideas.
Each human mind is a realm that contains mental representations of our experiences. The human mind has representations of a circle, circumference and diameter. Our mind also has the ability to mentally rearrange our experiences.
In the above excerpt, does the word "experiences" include not only perceptions, but also conceptions? If thinking is an experience, then the word "experiences" already encompasses the conceptual realm. In that case, it wouldn't make sense to suggest that the mind merely stores and rearranges perceptions.
It includes direct perceptions and modified versions of perceptions - modified either through conversations with others, or through mental rearrangement of perceptions. An example of mental rearrangement of perceptions would be someone who had seen an ellipse, but not a circle; yet that person can modify his image of an ellipse by making the major axis and minor axis be equal in length and so can conceive of a circle even though he has never seen one.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the mind merely stores and rearranges perceptions. I believe the mind does store and rearrange perceptions; but it does much more than that.
tama
(9,137 posts)Them clever scientists calculate that others than 3D (spatial dimensions) would be more unstable and unsupportive of life like us.
pscot
(21,024 posts)whether an experience is real. So we are told, by scientisys who study such things.
deacon_sephiroth
(731 posts)How short our memory. Rug recently posted the spectrums of light and sound to demonstrate how BIG the universe we CAN'T percieve might be.
Now the world of imagination is boundless..... yes it is...... So there are gaps, and what do you think is in them?
Also, let me put forth the innacuracy of this statement: "...the claim that only what can be perceived is real is self-defeating for people who value science."
Negative on last, let me explain basic science and logic to you...
The CLAIM is that only that which can be percieved/measured/proven/demonstrated/predicted/tested/etc should get CREDIT for being real.
Is it possible that things exist that we cannot percieve? Yes.
Does that mean that any silly thing you can dream up IS real because you can't disprove it? No.
See Russell's Teapot - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)I don't recall seeing it, but of course my failure to recall it could be additional evidence in support of your "short memory" supposition.
Are you making that claim right now? It doesn't look familiar to me. Should I recognize it as being identical to or a slight variation of some famous claim?
Regarding the statement that you introduced with the words "The CLAIM", if I cannot disprove it, then should I take that as good enough reason to accept it? I presume that you have available a rigorous demonstration that "The CLAIM" isn't silly, because if it is silly then, as you say, if it's silly then even though I might not find or construct a disproof of "The CLAIM", the absence of a disproof isn't very significant if the thing to be disproved has been shown to deserve the label "silly."
Is "The CLAIM" something that you consider to be self-evident? Alternatively, is there some process for deriving it from self-evident assumptions?
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)No it's not.
Your imagination is wholly dependent on your experiences. Things you have never experienced, directly or indirectly, cannot be imagined. You may be able to imagine a griffin, for example, which doesn't exist, but an eagle and a lion DO exist. You may be able to imagine a tune that has never been played, but the tones that make up that tune already have been.
Try imagining a quantum state, say a particle that is also a wave at the SAME TIME. Or spinning clockwise and counterclockwise at the same time.
Or, as mentioned earlier, a 4-d sphere.
We can talk about these things, and their existence, but it is impossible to pin them down to anything "real" in our world of experience.
We cannot even imagine "3". We must imagine 3 somethings. But we cannot just imagine "3".
You can't imagine 65 million years. You can get that it's a long time, but that's about it.
Indeed, I am sure that scientific concepts like quantum physics, and evolution are real, because we simply couldn't make that shit up!
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Whether things that can't be directly perceived are viewed as "real" depends on whether they are culturally defined as such. Within Australian aboriginal culture for example, "song lines" or "dreamtracks" are accepted as real. To us, not so much.
The definition of reality as encompassing only that which can only be directly perceived (or indirectly perceived with objectively validated techniques) is a European post-Enlightenment positivist definition that is not shared by everyone. To many of us it seems axiomatic, but that may be just our brain's attempt to agree with our tribe-mates and thereby avoid ostracism.
It's a useful definition in a materialist culture, but far from the only one.
I view anything that arises within my mind as "real".
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)That reminds me of this ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12187427
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)These are not absolutes. I reserve the right to decide for myself what my definition of truth is, as should we all.
Boojatta
(12,231 posts)I simply mentioned the notion of misconceptions. Surely you believe that such a thing as a misconception actually exists.
Anyway, I was simply agreeing with you that human thought is real. If one were thinking in a sloppy way, then one might confuse misconceptions with what is unreal. However, human misconceptions have an effect on the real world, and thus human misconceptions are themselves real. However, the fact that reality includes, among other things, the phenomena of human beings thinking isn't the point of this thread.
The point of this thread is that in conceiving of ideas we don't have complete freedom to bend them to our will. Ideas themselves are connected to each other in ways that form a structure with its own characteristic patterns and textures. To gain access to information about this structure requires patience, devotion, and effort. Patience is required to wait for insights to arrive on their own schedule. Devotion is required to retain insights when they arrive and not, merely because they may seem counter-intuitive, reject them in a knee-jerk manner when they arrive. Effort is required to personally think about and understand the insights that have accumulated over many generations of human civilization.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 5, 2012, 04:40 PM - Edit history (3)
No, actually I don't.
When a person has a conception - a thought, an idea, an interpretation of some perception - as far as I can tell it is always true to that person. It's based on their knowledge at the time, flavoured and coloured by their life experiences - the things they have been taught, and especially the ways they have learned to manage their feelings. They may suffer from insufficient information, or their experiences may have given them unhealthy patterns of interpretation or counterproductive emotional coping mechanisms, but from the viewpoint of the person having the conception, it is perfectly true - they could have no other conception under those circumstances.
Others may judge my ideas to be misconceptions, but those are their judgments, made from their point of view. Such judgments by others have nothing to do with the internal reality of my ideas.
On the other hand, I also think that every human idea is a misconception. That's because in the end none of us has a "true" conception of reality. Such a thing is literally impossible, because all of us filter external reality in many ways. First we filter it by passing it through sensory organs that have very limited bandwidth. Then it becomes nerve impulses that are prone to electro-chemical distortions. Then it somehow becomes an internal mental "image" by some poorly understood and potentially error-prone mechanism. That mental image is then acted on and modified by our internal algorithmic processes in conjunction with the contents of our memory - reason and logic combined with incomplete knowledge and those learned patterns and reflexive emotions I talked about above. Even worse, all this takes place in a brain that experiences a constant flux of perception- and judgment-altering hormones. In the face of all this, how valid is the judgment of misconception by others who only see limited external manifestations of that interpretive complex process?
From the internal point of view - the subjective, relative, personal view - there is no such thing as misconception. From the external point of view - the objective, impersonal absolute point of view - there is nothing but misconception.
We have complete freedom to bend ideas to our will. I agree that sitting with counter-intuitive insights is valuable, as is working to increase our ability to perceive reality in different ways. I don't agree that doing this will necessarily bring us closer to truth (IMO the existence of Truth is the main human misconception), and even the existence of structure as you define it is a human judgement. However, the effort to understand to reality more deeply will make us more flexible, increase our freedom of thought and our ability to cope with the vagaries of the world. And it's fun.
Assuming you're not too psychologically damaged, so long as you don't get stuck on some notion of absolute truth you'll be OK - no matter what or how you happen to think.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)But are they real?
Can they be measured by something other than someone who thinks they are real?... directly or indirectly
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)"Are they real" according to Western scientific positivism? Probably not.
"Are they real" according to a Western anthropological point of view? Possibly.
"Are they real" according to the people who use them every day? Absolutely.
The question "What is real?" is inherently cultural. The fact that we automatically interpret the question in terms of scientific verifiability is a cultural artifact. The fact that we can't even conceive of any other valid definition of reality is a result of our cultural indoctrination.
