Does Logic Equal Truth? - What Do You Think?

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
See, if you want to take philosophy back to the dark ages, then you can assert anything as a premise and then go on a reasoning lark.

I think this post is very unfair LW. Firstly; I base my arguments upon facts (such as that 'existence' is known via sensation and then reason). And secondly, if I had any authority in philsophical-circles, I'd be doing my utmost to drag philosophy out of what I consider to be the dark-ages of materialism. Please note that I said 'materialism' - and not science. Do not make the mistake - like most members in this forum - of believing that the death of materialism renders all physical-knowledge as useless. It doesn't. That's why I use it in most of my arguments.

But today we accept the principle of the empirical method for establishing a premise, and that is it must be verified by experience.

I build my arguments upon what can be seen & reasoned, also.

How do you verify "We can never experience anything, outside of our own conscious awareness"?

You verify it with the Laws of physics themselves. For the Laws of physics should really be called The Laws of our sensations. That's exactly what they are.

 

[FZ+]

And secondly, if I had any authority in philsophical-circles, I'd be doing my utmost to drag philosophy out of what I consider to be the dark-ages of materialism. Please note that I said 'materialism' - and not science. Do not make the mistake - like most members in this forum - of believing that the death of materialism renders all physical-knowledge as useless. It doesn't. That's why I use it in most of my arguments.

Precisely the problem. Since you have created yourself this mission and goal to discredit a philosophy, and then seek proof for this belief, you have ceeded your objectivity. And nothing is wholly reason, and objective facts simply do not exist.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely the problem. Since you have created yourself this mission and goal to discredit a philosophy, and then seek proof for this belief, you have ceeded your objectivity. And nothing is wholly reason, and objective facts simply do not exist.

The 'mission' is an effect of my philosophy. Not the reason for it.
I find no fault in scientific-knowledge. I find fault in the belief that all effects have a material-cause. I think that this 'belief' is stagnating future-progress... scientific & philosophical. Not to mention spiritual/theological.
Edit: Ultimately, I think that all three will meet at the same destination. And that's when humanity will come of age. Imo.

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
The 'mission' is an effect of my philosophy. Not the reason for it.
I find no fault in scientific-knowledge. I find fault in the belief that all effects have a material-cause. I think that this 'belief' is stagnating future-progress... scientific & philosophical. Not to mention spiritual/theological.
Edit: Ultimately, I think that all three will meet at the same destination. And that's when humanity will come of age. Imo.

I agree, but it is most pointedly a question of attitude than of anything else. Change someone's heart, and the rest will follow. Change their behavior or beliefs, and likely they'll just find something else to attack and drag their feet over.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
LW Sleeth, you cannot disprove the Mind hypothesis, by talking about empirical testing. What's the use of empirical testing in a universe where the Mind produces all of our reality, and thus everything that we see will just be a "Mind-ful" projection?

Besides, it was just the only example I could think of at the time. Other members have come up with much better examples, in other threads. I'm just making the point that logic can be used to prove things that the same logic, but with different reasoning systems can disprove. IOW, logic is always the same, but the reasoning systems used can be differen, even contradictory, and thus none of them can be "right" or "true".

I am not saying one can disprove it, nor should anyone have to -- the burden of proof rests with those who assert a hypothesis. I am saying LG cannot make his case using the standards of reason prevalent today.

The standard today for premises is experiential validation; that is, you make a hypothesis with the explicit commitment to find supporting experience, and it has to be experience others can repeat and observe. The nature of LG's argument is such that I cannot see how it can be tested.

Remember, I am speaking solely about the ideal of reason. What I said was that reasoning with correct logic and correct premises always lead to a correct conclusion. I did not say we are always able to tell what premises are correct, but I did say we can know if the logic is correct because for that there are very strict rules. It doesn't mean clever people can't manulate logic so it only seems they are being logical; but that still doesn't violate the trustablity of correct logic principles.

One last point about LG's theory. Even if it is true, what then is science doing? It clearly achieves things, and more effectively than any mental discipline ever has. Even if it all is within Mind, something at least appears external which allows us to alter it to our advantage. If someone wants to say little parts of the Mind are altering other parts of the Mind, okay. But whatever is going on still works in very specific ways which logic is able to follow quite well or, that is, when one logically reasons with correct premises or, that is, when one logically reasons with all the correct premises needed to reach a correct conclusion.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think this post is very unfair LW. Firstly; I base my arguments upon facts (such as that 'existence' is known via sensation and then reason). And secondly, if I had any authority in philsophical-circles, I'd be doing my utmost to drag philosophy out of what I consider to be the dark-ages of materialism. Please note that I said 'materialism' - and not science. Do not make the mistake - like most members in this forum - of believing that the death of materialism renders all physical-knowledge as useless. It doesn't. That's why I use it in most of my arguments.

I build my arguments upon what can be seen & reasoned, also.

You verify it with the Laws of physics themselves. For the Laws of physics should really be called The Laws of our sensations. That's exactly what they are.

First let me say that only after you responded did I realize what I said about "going on a reasoning lark" could be interpreted as me talking about you. I wasn't. I was referring to the old rationalistic style of reason when I said "dark ages." There are people who still buy that old stuff, Heusden seems taken with it. But even if someone is, what's the problem?

One might admire Hegel, for example, but then what do you do with all his intellectualizing? How is it applied to reality? If you can't apply it in any way, then how do we know it is real, and what good is it? Or take Marx. He figured all this stuff out in his head without testing parts of it to see if it worked. This is the problem with rationalization . . . it just goes on and on without validation.

So where we tend disagree (I agree with you about materialism, as you know, and the sensation point as well) is how far one can go with inference without supporting evidence. It is one thing to propose a model of creation, and then try to support it by showing how elements of creation fit your model. But it is another to try to prove your model that way.

Proof has much stronger standards than simply modelling; it requires more evidence, and the standard for evidence is experience. Yet you have openly said you believe that you can prove your hypothesis through reason alone. I assume that's because you think there already is enough evidence around, and so all that's required is for someone to put it together properly to show it proves something.

So I object, to try to stay within the theme of this thread, when I think you leap (inferentially) too far from the evidence to your statement of proof. Science reasoning is more conservative than rationalistic thinking, more "step-by-step." To be allowed the stamp of "proof" all the premises need to be experientially verified and logically connected every step of the way, and there cannot be equally or better alternate conclusions from the facts.

This is why the answer to the question of if logic equals truth is not exactly simple. Establishing realistic premises is of first order importance, and that can be very difficult. Then there's the issue of completeness. Does one use cold temperature and cream to make ice cream? Yes. So does that mean ice cream can be made by joining coldness and cream? No. That example does not reveal anything wrong with logic as a discipline; what it shows is that reason can operate without all the elements needed to make the answer come out right.

 

[Ted Lew]

THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN BE CERTAIN OF IS OUR IGNORANCE .
WE ARE INFLUENCED IN OUR LOGIC BY
MANY THINGS-HEALTH-AGE-ENVIRONMENT ETC. TRUTH LIES HIDDEN IN HOW WE THINK

TED LEW

 

[Iacchus32]

Forgive me if I seem out of line for posting here, as I was responding to LW Sleeth's post without realizing the thread was about truth vs logic ...

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But then, what is science doing? It clearly achieves things, and more effectively than any mental discipline ever has. Even if it all is within Mind, something at least appears external which allows us to alter it to our advantage. If someone wants to say little parts of the Mind are altering other parts of the Mind, okay. But whatever is going on still works in very specific ways which logic is able to follow quite well or, that is, when one logically reasons with correct premises or, that is, when one logically reasons with all the correct premises needed to reach a correct conclusion.

If in fact it's all within the mind, then science must all be within the mind as well, therefore all that science is capable of confirming is "all that's within the mind."


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1649&perpage=15&pagenumber=4" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Hmm ... I was just telling Mentat that our feelings allow us to validate and give definition to what we perceive. Maybe you need to take some time out from all this brain work and listen to your heart for a change?

Originally posted by FZ+
But that isn't validation. Validation requires objectivity. Here's my model...

The heart, or irrational self creates the system of virtual concepts in the mind from sensations, impulses, memories, instincts etc, defining our assigned essences to existent form. Ie. the irrational pins our internal universe to the external one.

What is the ability to see, touch, smell or whatever, without the sensation that goes along with it? These are the sensations which comprise "the experience," which then becomes the validation.

Originally posted by FZ+
The brain, or really rational self performs deductive logic on the created concept-web of the internal image, and transforms it into decisions. Ie. it sifts the jigsaw and makes patterns, compares data, balances inputs.

And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

But then we have the five senses, which exist outside of the brain, and therefore "must" be concrete which, we describe as irrational? Now how rational does that sound?

Originally posted by FZ+
Touch smell etc are sensations. Rather, my use of sensation here is rather broad. Basically anything that deals with sensed notions and inductive reasoning is a product of what you refer to as the "heart".

Please refer to the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1719" ...

Originally posted by FZ+
I am being figurative... By brain I really refer to the processing side of the mind. By this I mean the find that does not create data, but merely transforms it. Ok, objective is the wrong word. But basically, this system processes the data, that is supplied as abstractions. It is linked to the real world via the irrational mind. It uses only deduction... not induction. Our understanding of the concrete can only come through the abstraction data. Only by creating the ideals and glossing over the details we do not know can we come to a conclusion. As an analogy, let me use the example of using analogies in discussions. The analogy itself is always simply a hypothetical scenario, that probably does not exist. But it is useful in furthering understanding. In the same way, the deductive mind can only deal with concepts and if thens. The data can only be taken in virtual form - plugging the photon impacts on the retina directly onto the cortex does not achieve useful results, as neuroscientists can tell us.

Does that mean objectivity doesn't exist then? Or, does it only exist with respect to what is subjective? But then again if you can view them in terms of form (outer dimension) and the space within form (inner dimension), then maybe it isn't such a difficult idea to grasp? In fact one might say one is capable of being objective if one could see the form (three dimensional) of anything, even if it occurs within "the form" of our brain? Much like picking up an apple and looking at it round abouts and "observing" its form (as an object). Hmm ... Is this a valid means to prove that objectivity exists? Of course you would have to be able to look at it in the "ideal sense."

Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed, the brain may not be actually separated in the way I imagine. But I think the evidence points to the idea that it carries out these two distinct functions. Just excuse me when I heinously misuse rational and irrational again...

Well excuse you and everybody else!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If in fact it's all within the mind, then science must all be within the mind as well, therefore all that science is capable of confirming is "all that's within the mind."

I am fine with it all being in the mind. I don't think you are LG can prove it, but let's assume you are correct. How does it follow that science is only capable of confirming it is all within the mind? Even your mind works certain ways, and if you were to isolate its various functions so you could understand them better, then you would be ]understanding mind, not verifying it's happening inside the mind (since you already know that).

Whether we are in a Mind or not has nothing to do with the fact that sound reasoning leads to predictable results. Science is a method for reasoning about materiality, and so far it has proven itself very well indeed. Whatever "materiality" is makes no difference to the fact that science "works" by way of reason and personal experience.

Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet how can you say the brain is rational or, capable of being objective, when we turn around and say everything that stems from the brain, at least in terms of thought, is abstract? While we also say everything that exists outside of it is concrete? And yet here we are using "abstractions" to define what is concrete. Hmm ... must be another one of those "paradoxical moments."

We can say it because that is what the brain does, that is how it works. Why resist that? Everything outside is concrete relative to abstract thought.

It might be, using the all-is-mind hypothesis, that "ouside" is merely a more concentrated thought (say of God) than your brain type thought, but the differences are still apparently there. If all we get to work with are appearances, then so be it. But since we cannot do any differently on the material level (whatever that is), then logic and personal experience are all we have.

The point is, if you make everything the same we cannot think or work. It is the distinctions which allow us to use our brains. The fact that there is a reality "outside" us does not diminish the reality of "inside" us. Why not keep the two distinct, even if it's strictly for the purpose of developing expertise in each?

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
First let me say that only after you responded did I realize what I said about "going on a reasoning lark" could be interpreted as me talking about you. I wasn't.

Okay. It did look as though you were; hence my comment.

I was referring to the old rationalistic style of reason when I said "dark ages." There are people who still buy that old stuff, Heusden seems taken with it.

Heusden is a diehard materialist. There's no possible way you can label him a rationalist.

This is the problem with rationalization . . . it just goes on and on without validation.

'Knowledge' is derived via reason of sensation. I.e., we contemplate our sensations, and then make judgements about them, using reason.
This is a fact, so it appears.
Hence, 'knowledge' is about the sensations. 'Knowledge' is a reflection of things perceived (sensed). Hence, I also state as fact that 'knowledge' is about internal-reality - things perceived.
Sensations are representations of 'a reality'. Reality is not the sensations themselves. Sensations are distinctly different to the physical-processes they mirror.
Thus 'knowledge' is centred within sensation. And this is why 'knowledge' must be verified via sensation.
And so, your objection is a little naive; because any argument which seeks to find the origin of all sensation, is obviously going to have to look outside of the box, and to look beyond 'knowledge' & visual-verification.
This is pure philosophy here. Philosophy which seeks to find the origin of all sensation, rather than what is in those sensations.
Anybody who wishes to step outside of the box (including yourself), must release this burden of physical-verification, and get down to some pure-reasoning. The essence of sensation is not those sensations themselves. Therefore it is 'daft' to impose scientific-criteria upon meaningful philosophy.
The 'essence' does not reside "within the box". The box resides within It.

So where we tend disagree (I agree with you about materialism, as you know, and the sensation point as well)

It's impossible for you to agree with me on the one-hand, and then continue to impose scientific-criteria as the standard for all 'fact', with the other.

is how far one can go with inference without supporting evidence. It is one thing to propose a model of creation, and then try to support it by showing how elements of creation fit your model. But it is another to try to prove your model that way.

My argument mirrors all known knowledge. I.e., it is compatible with all known laws. It can even "make sense" of quantum mechanics. I.e., I can explain the indeterminancy of fundamental-energy, in relation to my own argument.
My argument makes use of "knowledge within the box", to reason about the origin of all sensed-existence.

Proof has much stronger standards than simply modelling

That rule only applies inside the box.

I assume that's because you think there already is enough evidence around, and so all that's required is for someone to put it together properly to show it proves something.

Yes.

So I object, to try to stay within the theme of this thread, when I think you leap (inferentially) too far from the evidence to your statement of proof.

I don't mind objections. I just ask people to judge my philosophy correctly, using reason. Not 'knowledge', or knowledge-criteria required to validate sensed-knowledge (visual [sensed] verification).
Alot of people judge my philosophy like this. And everyone of them is in philosophical error. For some reason, people here just don't get the fact that the origin and essence of "the box", cannot be found within its contents (the sensations).

Science reasoning is more conservative than rationalistic thinking, more "step-by-step." To be allowed the stamp of "proof" all the premises need to be experientially verified and logically connected every step of the way, and there cannot be equally or better alternate conclusions from the facts.

Science is the reasoning of sensation. Philosophy (my philosophy) is the reason for sensation. Until you note the distinction, your own philosophy will suffer, I feel.

This is why the answer to the question of if logic equals truth is not exactly simple.

What is simple, is that logic sees that 'reality' is the essence of sensation. Therefore, essence is not those sensations. Therefore, it is impossible to confirm 'essential arguments' using the sensations.
Therefore, science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'.
Philosophy is. Namely: Rationalism.
Pure-logic does take us to a sound conclusion. The resistence to this conclusion, comes in the form of materialistic (external) bias, and incredulity at the conclusion itself.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am fine with it all being in the mind. I don't think you are LG can prove it, but let's assume you are correct. How does it follow that science is only capable of confirming it is all within the mind? Even your mind works certain ways, and if you were to isolate its various functions so you could understand them better, then you would be ]understanding mind, not verifying it's happening inside the mind (since you already know that).

Whether we are in a Mind or not has nothing to do with the fact that sound reasoning leads to predictable results. Science is a method for reasoning about materiality, and so far it has proven itself very well indeed. Whatever "materiality" is makes no difference to the fact that science "works" by way of reason and personal experience.

But the whole point, at least for me, is that if in fact confirmation only exists in our minds, then why can't we in the same "abstract sense," travel the same route "via reasoning" and determine the reality of God?

What's the difference between trying to prove that which is concrete and that which abstract, when in fact the only means we have available is through that which is abstract? No matter how you look at it, it's still abstraction! So I think the key word here is "reasoning."

And it's like I said before ... Is the acknowledgment of truth inborn? (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human). If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What is simple, is that logic sees that 'reality' is the essence of sensation. Therefore, essence is not those sensations. Therefore, it is impossible to confirm 'essential arguments' using the sensations.
Therefore, science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'.
Philosophy is. Namely: Rationalism.
Pure-logic does take us to a sound conclusion. The resistence to this conclusion, comes in the form of materialistic (external) bias, and incredulity at the conclusion itself.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with anything you said about the perception of the world outside of us. I don't think the essence is the sensation, and I do see the senses as providing us what to reason about when it comes to science.

But I don't see the relevance of "science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'." What difference does it make whether we are experiencing the essence of an object or an electromagnetic analog? It is all we have to work with, and it works well enough to be able to fly to the moon.

Maybe you are trying point out it is an illusion to believe material existence is something essential; that the essence, for a human, remains within because that is what experiences; i.e., for a human, that is reality. Again, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but it doesn't in anyway negate the reality outside ourselves, and the avenues we have (the senses) for perceiving it.

I also cannot see how pure rationalism gets at the essence of reality. No matter how profound, a thought is never more than an abstraction, an analog, a facimille -- it is an image that can never be more than a fleeting ghost. So I don't believe thinking, logically or illogically, is any way an experience of my essentiality. Thinking may make it more obvious that I exist, but I personally don't need to think to know I exist because I can (and prefer to) feel that. And what is more essential than existence?

 

[FZ+]

I also cannot see how pure rationalism gets at the essence of reality. No matter how profound, a thought is never more than an abstraction, an analog, a facimille -- it is an image that can never be more than a fleeting ghost. So I don't believe thinking, logically or illogically, is any way an experience of my essentiality. Thinking may make it more obvious that I exist, but I personally don't need to think to know I exist because I can (and prefer to) feel that. And what is more essential than existence?

Good post, LW Sleeth. I agree wholeheartedly...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I also cannot see how pure rationalism gets at the essence of reality. No matter how profound, a thought is never more than an abstraction, an analog, a facimille -- it is an image that can never be more than a fleeting ghost. So I don't believe thinking, logically or illogically, is any way an experience of my essentiality. Thinking may make it more obvious that I exist, but I personally don't need to think to know I exist because I can (and prefer to) feel that. And what is more essential than existence?

What about thoughts about those things which are concrete? You've just defeated what you're saying here.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
But the whole point, at least for me, is that if in fact confirmation only exists in our minds, then why can't we in the same "abstract sense," travel the same route "via reasoning" and determine the reality of God?

What's the difference between trying to prove that which is concrete and that which abstract, when in fact the only means we have available is through that which is abstract? No matter how you look at it, it's still abstraction! So I think the key word here is "reasoning."

And it's like I said before ... Is the acknowledgment of truth inborn? (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human). If not, then you will "never" know anything. Period.

Yes, I thought that is what you have been trying to say (as in your debate with Tom). But let me point out a couple of possible problems with this.

First, it is not just reasoning, it is reasoning with information. The empiricist says, I have experienced (i.e., observed) various things; those things which can be experienced are considered as providing information. So once again we are back to need for proper premises to be joined with proper logic in order for proper reasoning and conclusions to occur.

Now, what is the source of the information about God you are going to reason with? What is the experience you know of that we can investigate, and then use for ourselves to confirm what you say is true?

This is where the analogy between science reason and spiritual reason breaks down because spiritual experience can only be witnessed inside a single individual. Others cannot have access to that information, at least not inside you. They might be able to have their own inner experience, but there is no way to "objectify" that experience to create an objective proof.

And this is exactly what I see you and LG trying to do. You are mixing apples and oranges, as they say. The very meaning of proof has been devised for the objective setting, not the subjective setting. So you can't come along and demand that those using the objective standard of proof must allow a type of subjective proof in the game. And in my opinion, I don't think the two should be mixed up either. They are about completely differentiated aspects of reality (even if they share a common essence).

But this works both ways too. I am very critical of pure materialists who act as though they have all the answers, and if they don't they soon will. Such "scientism" proponents as I call them, talk like they've already explained the origin of life and what consciousnes is. But if you take apart their arguments, you find all they have is a few of the mechanics of life and consciousness, and then that is followed by a HUGE leap of faith that these mechanics are going to completely explain things. Maybe mechanics will, but they are still a long way from proving it. So I, as someone who doesn't think life and consciousness are purely material and mechanical, find it quite two-faced to hear them squealing about the lack of evidence of spiritually-oriented people while they commit the same sorts of sins.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
But I don't see the relevance of "science is not the benefactor of any 'essential knowledge'." What difference does it make whether we are experiencing the essence of an object or an electromagnetic analog? It is all we have to work with, and it works well enough to be able to fly to the moon.

My view is that science is the reasoned-analysis of the sensations.
We find order in those sensations, and have manipulated that knowledge-of-order to get us to the moon. But I am neither knocking scientific-knowledge nor being ungrateful for its achievements.
All I am saying is that science is solely concerned with our sensations... and therefore, that science pertains to knowledge of those sensations. Indeed, science is only concerned with knowledge which can be sensed. Therefore, theories must be validated by observation (sense).
But philosophy pertaining to the origin of sensed-existence is obviously free from the restriction that its 'facts' should be sensed.
As I've stated before: you cannot see the artist himself in his art. But you can see him because of his art.
I feel that your philosophy is 'contaminated' with scientific-criteria. You somehow feel that you cannot go beyond sensation. As such, you have not taken us beyond sensation. But there is no reason to confine reason within the sensations.
I like reading your stuff. But I feel that your bias confines your mind. I feel that you're flogging a dead horse; because you advocate an 'essential-energy' for everything. Yet you must know that such an essential-energy cannot be confirmed by 'sense' (because sensation is the product of this energy) . Therefore, your "criteria" for 'knowledge' means that you yourself should condemn your own argument.
I feel - with all sincerity - that you are "on the fence" (philosophically) - and that you need to make a jump to one side or the other. And if you truly do see the flaws of materialism, then you should not impose scientific-criteria upon all 'facts'. Just those that are centred "within the box".
I hope you aren't offended by my opinion. I'm trying to be honest and helpful. I regret that this isn't possible without criticism. Your opinions about my own philosophy are testimony to that... so I have to be objective about what you say, too. And I have been.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All I am saying is that science is solely concerned with our sensations... and therefore, that science pertains to knowledge of those sensations. Indeed, science is only concerned with knowledge which can be sensed. Therefore, theories must be validated by observation (sense).

Okay, no problem so far.

Originally posted by Lifegazer But philosophy pertaining to the origin of sensed-existence is obviously free from the restriction that its 'facts' should be sensed. . . . you advocate an 'essential-energy' for everything. Yet you must know that such an essential-energy cannot be confirmed by 'sense' (because sensation is the product of this energy) . Therefore, your "criteria" for 'knowledge' means that you yourself should condemn your own argument.

If you mean by senses the physical senses, then I would agree. If you mean there is no way to experience the origin or essence, I can't agree. I do believe it can be experienced, though it takes dedication and practice, because I make an effort every single morning to do so. Therefore I continue to believe you must reason with experiential information, whether it is "outer" info, or inner info. Minus that experiential information, it is all just speculation and bad philosophy.

Originally posted by Lifegazer I feel that your philosophy is 'contaminated' with scientific-criteria . . . I feel that your bias confines your mind . . .I feel - with all sincerity - that you are "on the fence" (philosophically) - and that you need to make a jump to one side or the other. And if you truly do see the flaws of materialism, then you should not impose scientific-criteria upon all 'facts'.

I am neither contaminated nor biased. What I am, however, is someone who wants to keep the inner and outer worlds separate. That's not because I don't think they share the same origin and essence, but because I think they have different rules. It is like saying because both the human body and cars are made of atoms, one should care for them both the same. But though they share the commonality of atoms, how they've differentiated during their development gives each fully separate rules for enduring.

So when you see me strongly advocating the rules of science or reason, it is because we are discussing things in that realm; talk to me about purely spiritual matters and you will find me just as strong of an advocate for those rules. It isn't fence-sitting, it is paying attention to how far the material and spiritual have differentiated.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What about thoughts about those things which are concrete? You've just defeated what you're saying here.

I don't see how [?]. A thought is not the thing it is representing whether it is a thought about material or God. One doesn't "know" by thinking alone. It is primarily through experience that one comes to know. Thinking is mostly a way of calculating, understanding, etc. It is like if you want to know love, but each time you try you freeze up. Now, no amount of thinking is going to give you love, but it might help you figure out why you freeze up, and then stop that. Then, the next opportunity you have for love, you can actually experience and so come to know love.

See, I am arguing against the rationalistic belief that one can come to knowledge through reason alone. I am trying to say that in addition to good logic, one needs to reason with information that has been acquired through experience. Something I see going on all the time at this forum is people reasoning so far beyond their experience, everything becomes just speculation.

 

[Iacchus32]

The Advent of Color

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Yes, I thought that is what you have been trying to say (as in your debate with Tom). But let me point out a couple of possible problems with this.

First, it is not just reasoning, it is reasoning with information. The empiricist says, I have experienced (i.e., observed) various things; those things which can be experienced are considered as providing information. So once again we are back to need for proper premises to be joined with proper logic in order for proper reasoning and conclusions to occur.

Now, what is the source of the information about God you are going to reason with? What is the experience you know of that we can investigate, and then use for ourselves to confirm what you say is true?

Well let's just say for starters, I were able to achieve a 90% percent success rate by getting people to achieve the effect I describe below? An effect which is totally created within the mind? Do you think that might turn a few heads?

And what about a lot of these "near death" experiences people experience? Aren't these pretty well documented?


From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1307&perpage=15&pagenumber=9" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you see my avatar to the left? Now this is an actual effect that I've been able to produce over and over again in my mind when I meditate. Now, unless you know how to do this for yourself, then the whole idea becomes pretty abstract. But, if I were to teach you how to do this (notice how I'm addressing "you" as an actual person?), i.e., you and so and so, and anyone else who was willing to participate, then we all might have what we term a "collective experience," and yes, then we would be able to compare notes ...

If you're interested, I briefly describe what it entails in the following thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=429" ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I don't see how [?]. A thought is not the thing it is representing whether it is a thought about material or God. One doesn't "know" by thinking alone. It is primarily through experience that one comes to know. Thinking is mostly a way of calculating, understanding, etc. It is like if you want to know love, but each time you try you freeze up. Now, no amount of thinking is going to give you love, but it might help you figure out why you freeze up, and then stop that. Then, the next opportunity you have for love, you can actually experience and so come to know love.

See, I am arguing against the rationalistic belief that one can come to knowledge through reason alone. I am trying to say that in addition to good logic, one needs to reason with information that has been acquired through experience. Something I see going on all the time at this forum is people reasoning so far beyond their experience, everything becomes just speculation.

Like you, I'm all for the experience itself, and yet as I explain above, I believe it's possible for people to achieve the same "abstract effect" in their minds, which is to say we all have a basis by which to start. If, anyone would care to take the test.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Well let's just say for starters, I were able to achieve a 90% percent success rate by getting people to achieve the effect I describe below? An effect which is totally created within the mind? Do you think that might turn a few heads?

And what about a lot of these "near death" experiences people experience? Aren't these pretty well documented?

You say, ". . . note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension)."

To you, those coincidences seem significant. Maybe they do indicate an underlying symmetry and maybe they don't. There's not enough there to prove anything either way. But to me, all of it gives me the feeling of "so what?" If such symmetry exists, how does that help me to know about it? I am already alive and able to partake in life. Likewise, so what if people have had near-death experiences? How does that help me? Soon enough I will be having my own real-death experience. It isn't death that I want to understand, but rather life while I still have it.

I read that post of yours earlier about your avatar. You might have read in one of my previous posts that I've been meditating every day for nearly 30 years. So I know a little about it. From my practice I have become convinced that there is no way to "prove" objectively what one experiences in deep meditation. The proof is 100% personal, subjective. Only I occupy the little space known as "me." External reality, however, is apart from us in a way that allows us share it with billions of other people. We can all look at it and cooperate trying to figure out how it works.

In my opinion, as long as you want to mix the inner and outer worlds together, all you are going to have nothing but one big plate of mush.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
You say, ". . . note that this is my 373rd post, as corresponds to the colors yellow (3), violet (7) and yellow (3), which portrays both sides of the yellow rings (303) incorporating the "violet patch" within (373). I explain the relationship between the numbers and colors in the thread. Hence it's a synchronistic event (I didn't plan it this way) which seems to coincide with today being Easter, the Day of Ascension. For indeed once this effect is achieved (in my mind), it signifies a resolution or "coming to terms" of the things I had been meditating on, at which point I begin to experience the sensation of everything being "lifted up" to a higher level (i.e., ascension)."

To you, those coincidences seem significant. Maybe they do indicate an underlying symmetry and maybe they don't. There's not enough there to prove anything either way. But to me, all of it gives me the feeling of "so what?" If such symmetry exists, how does that help me to know about it? I am already alive and able to partake in life. Likewise, so what if people have had near-death experiences? How does that help me? Soon enough I will be having my own real-death experience. It isn't death that I want to understand, but rather life while I still have it.

I read that post of yours earlier about your avatar. You might have read in one of my previous posts that I've been meditating every day for nearly 30 years. So I know a little about it. From my practice I have become convinced that there is no way to "prove" objectively what one experiences in deep meditation. The proof is 100% personal, subjective. Only I occupy the little space known as "me." External reality, however, is apart from us in a way that allows us share it with billions of other people. We can all look at it and cooperate trying to figure out how it works.

In my opinion, as long as you want to mix the inner and outer worlds together, all you are going to have nothing but one big plate of mush.

Then please, by all means do not bother to bring up any more of your "personal relations," for indeed, they all do sound like mush!

If if on the hand mine were to taste like chocolate pudding, well that might be another story!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
In my opinion, as long as you want to mix the inner and outer worlds together ...

What are you talking about? We do it all the time! There is nothing about "how" we view the world which is concrete, period!

What was that song by Sting? (AKA, The Police) ... "We are all spirits living in the material world ..."

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
If you mean by senses the physical senses, then I would agree. If you mean there is no way to experience the origin or essence, I can't agree.

But that's a spiritual matter. And you know that. If you were to ever attempt to describe that experience, your words would become lost in un-scientific terms such as 'love'; 'awe'; 'beauty'; 'wholeness'; 'grandeur'; etc..
Science has no interest nor any means of explaining such an experience.

I do believe it can be experienced, though it takes dedication and practice, because I make an effort every single morning to do so. Therefore I continue to believe you must reason with experiential information, whether it is "outer" info, or inner info.

I won't doubt your testimony of experience. What I doubt is whether anything scientific is the reason for this experience.

Minus that experiential information, it is all just speculation and bad philosophy.

I use the information myself, remember. All I'm trying to point-out to you is that there is a distinction to be made between:-
1. Reason of the senses.
2. Reason for the senses.
... And it is clear that '2' produces 'facts' that cannot be sensed - for '2' talks about things which caused those sensations. They don't talk about things which can be verified by sensation.
This point is highly-relevant. I would ask you to ponder it carefully.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
I am not saying one can disprove it, nor should anyone have to -- the burden of proof rests with those who assert a hypothesis. I am saying LG cannot make his case using the standards of reason prevalent today.

Perhaps that is true. However, all progress in understanding has relied on changing the "prevalent" reasoning.

The standard today for premises is experiential validation; that is, you make a hypothesis with the explicit commitment to find supporting experience, and it has to be experience others can repeat and observe. The nature of LG's argument is such that I cannot see how it can be tested.

It really can't be (at least not to the extent that Lifegazer has currently postulated on the Forums). However, neither can the idea of infinite space, for example. Yes, that does definitely mean that Lifegazer's idea is not even a hypothesis (because a hypothesis must be testable), but neither is the idea of an infinite universe.

Remember, I am speaking solely about the ideal of reason. What I said was that reasoning with correct logic and correct premises always lead to a correct conclusion.

"Correct logic"? Logic is just the system of using reasoning systems, and who can judge which of these reasoning systems is "correct"?

I did not say we are always able to tell what premises are correct, but I did say we can know if the logic is correct because for that there are very strict rules.

No, the strict rules = logic. That which must abide by the "strict rules" = reasoning systems.

One last point about LG's theory. Even if it is true, what then is science doing?

Studying the projections of the Mind.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
What are you talking about? We do it all the time! There is nothing about "how" we view the world which is concrete, period!

Where is the the "IMO" here? There is no evidence of this, it's just your opinion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Where is the the "IMO" here? There is no evidence of this, it's just your opinion.

IMO, I noticed you didn't bring it up here either. So put up or shut up! Or, better yet, why don't we all just put up or shut up! ... IMO, of course.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
IMO, I noticed you didn't bring it up here either. So put up or shut up! Or, better yet, why don't we all just put up or shut up! ... IMO, of course.

Please calm down, there is no cause for this.

Besides, my post has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that there is nothing supporting your view, except for other people who happen to believe the same way.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please calm down, there is no cause for this.

Besides, my post has nothing to do with opinion. It is a fact that there is nothing supporting your view, except for other people who happen to believe the same way.

Sure it does. And if you want to debate about it, then you obviously have an opinion about it.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sure it does.

No it doesn't, it's an observation about your opinion, and not based on my own personal opinion, but based on the lack of evidence that you have left me with (as have all others who have tried to convince me of similar beliefs).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Mentat
"Correct logic"? Logic is just the system of using reasoning systems, and who can judge which of these reasoning systems is "correct"?

You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

Logic is not arbitrary, but follows the structure of nature. It is we humans which can be arbitrary with reason by ignoring logic and the need for evidence in our thinking. If you think there is no "correct logic," I suggest you check out some books on it from the library. Math and every scientific pursuit is founded on it (along with observation of course). None of this is in dispute by any informed logician.

It seems you are projecting the average human's poor reasoning skills onto the process itself. For what reason is intended -- understanding the order of things -- it works perfectly when perfectly practiced.

Originally posted by Mentat
No, the strict rules = logic. That which must abide by the "strict rules" = reasoning systems.

Yes logic is the strict rules, and reason must obey the rules of logic and evidence. But within that there is incredible room for creative thinking. It is like you are saying the rules of football or other games are the entire system. But the rules really create the game because if literally everything were possible, then it would be insane and no fun at all. It is the structure which gives us the opportunity for creativity within it.

 

[Iacchus32]

Reality is like a two-edge sword. Be careful how you wield it, lest ye slice your own self ...

As far as this thing about my avatar is concerned, that's strictly general information (at least for now). While I can assure you, I have no intention of putting myself in the line of fire the way Lifegazer has, not at this time nor, anytime in the near future. You only need to crucify somebody once in order to demonstrate its effectiveness ... although it seems Lifegazer has developed a liking for it!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
No it doesn't, it's an observation about your opinion, and not based on my own personal opinion, but based on the lack of evidence that you have left me with (as have all others who have tried to convince me of similar beliefs).

I'm afraid all we have my kind sir, is our opinion. Which I'm afraid, amounts to very little.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
[You have it wrong Mentat. Logic is the "math" of reason. It is exactly the principle that helps you understand why if you have three chickens, and you give one away, then you have two chickens left. In reason, things have to "add up." Logic is the rules of order, an order which exists prior to and independent of us. It is why the inverse square law works, why atoms and EM oscillate rhythmically rather than chaotically, why cycles in nature tend to be steady, why the speed of light is constant, why the laws of physics are not subject to relativity . . .

You are missing the point. All I was saying was that reasoning systems are falsifiable, and all reasoning systems are within the framwork of "logic".

Logic is not arbitrary, but follows the structure of nature. It is we humans which can be arbitrary with reason by ignoring logic and the need for evidence in our thinking.

Or, it could be human folly that leads you to this conclusion (just teasing your mind).

I just don't think that all logic follows the structure of nature, because there are no reasoning systems that are outside the realm of logic, but many reasoning systems contradict each other, and thus many of them are probably not consistent with nature.

If you think there is no "correct logic," I suggest you check out some books on it from the library. Math and every all scientific pursuit is founded on it (along with observation of course). None of this is in dispute by any informed logician.

Yes, these are based on Logic. So are all religions, because they are reasoning systems, and no reasoning system exists outside of Logic.

Yes logic is the strict rules, and reason must obey the rules of logic and evidence. But within that there is incredible room for creative thinking. It is like you are saying the rules of football or other games are the system. But the rules really create the game because if literally everything were possible, then it would be insane and no fun at all. It is the structure which gives us the opportunity for creativity within it.

But Logic does not equal "rules".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I'm afraid all we have my kind sir, is our opinion. Which I'm afraid, amounts to very little.

Yes, it is sad that all you have is your opinion. I, OTOH, am not making an opinion about what you said, I am making an observation.