There are no material objects

[Ichneumonwasp]

I was thinking in practical terms about a real prediction that a 'mystic' has made.

Thosse are generally based in substance dualism (mind and body are different fundamental substances) when examined closely. If there is a way to make substance dualism work I haven't yet seen it. There is no way to support one monism over another 'from the inside'.

 

[tsig]

My major insight is the truth of the situation.

Anyway with humility dumb is not all that bad.

How can you know that? Humility? Yet you have the effrontery to deny all knowledge, this is not humility but the arrogance of ignorance.

ETA: You claim to know the truth then claim humility. You should really read what you write.

 

[AlBell]

I was thinking in practical terms about a real prediction that a 'mystic' has made.

Wasp's #201 is as good an answer as is possible.

 

[Chunol]

Okay, so let's suppose I just dump science then. I really care nothing about science, and can do without. The only thing I care about is truth, but I care intensely about it.

So instead of being like science, where I would presume that nature operates independently from me, I'm going to just say that I don't know if it does or not. So what I'm going to do instead is look at it and figure it out. Whatever methods I use, I'm going to make up (instead of following strict formulas)--but my goal is that I'm going to try to make sure the method reveals the correct answer. If nature is dependent on me, I'm going to want to find out exactly how, under what conditions, and so on; if it's not, I'm going to want to find out under what conditions it's not just in case I missed something.


chunol...
OK lets say you drop science and logic and go on a quest to find out the truth about nature.
If you are going out on this quest would you not first have to assume Nature exists?
How would you go about checking nature out if you assumed it did not exist.
You would be looking for information that you "assumed" did not exist.

It seems to me that after you say you are dropping science, your first step is the same as science, both have to assume nature exists.

Also, If you say you are going to drop science and logic than I would suggest having a good grasp on what these two metods entail, just so you don't accidently use some of these methods without realizing it.

I wonder what would happen if I followed this kind of non-scientific approach at things, rather than start with all of the assumptions that science makes.

Chunol...
This is method that has been tried in the past. The idea is that you start with questioning every thing and everyone. However, there is no way to find out where it will bring you, unless you try it yourself.

thanks again for your time
Chunol

 

[Chunol]

Sorry I was using "critical thinking" to refer to the skeptical philosophy espoused on this forum and the skeptical community at large. This is a separate school of thought to science as practiced by scientists.



chunol
Thanks for the heads up, I was starting to get a little worried.

I agree with your fundamental assumption, that nature exists and can be seen to exist, known and experienced. Everything we are aware of is nature.

However, my point is that what it appears to be to us is not necessarily what it actually is, or that what we perceive as existing is what actually exists.

I accept that it is unlikely that we are aware of the true nature of affairs due to our limited position within the scheme.

My position on this issue is that we are in the position of having very little knowledge of nature, and of the relevance of what we do know.
While at the same time knowing of nothing other than nature every moment and in every detail of our experience. Therefore science along with any other of our endeavors is profoundly limited within our limited position within the scheme.

We know nature and yet we do not know what we know.

Chunol
Your quick overview of the situation seems fairly accurate to me.
But I think there may be a reason for it.

My point is this, does acceptance of the methods and formulas of Science and logic force us into this position of limited knowing from within this position founded on science and logic?

thanks again for your time.
chunol

 

[Chunol]

Yes. Nothing exists outside of Nature in any of these schemes. In each there is only a single substance. In one scenario nature is as we see it and we model it correctly -- vibrating strings of energy. In another what we see as nature is actually an effect, an action of the mind of God. God would not be outside nature, but rather would be nature (or his thoughts would be nature). In the computer simulation we would see something that we think is nature, but we would simply be wrong. The 'real nature' would be outside the computer simulation but could just as easily be composed of the stuff that we have decided to call 'matter' and may work as we have modelled it.



Three scenarios…

Ichneumonwasp…
In one scenario nature is as we see it and we model it correctly -- vibrating strings of energy.

I think you are jumping from “what can exist”, to “what it is that exists”.
Before you can go on to describing nature, you must first either PROVE that it exists or ASSUME that it exists. As far as I can see you have bypassed this step and have gone on to offer an explanation of what nature is, which you feel is the “correct” one.

Ichneumonwasp…
In another what we see as nature is actually an effect, an action of the mind of God. God would not be outside nature, but rather would be nature (or his thoughts would be nature).

Here you are offering that “God” is equal to Nature, the Physical World, the Universe.
Although there are traditions that do accept this, it is still another optional explanation of what Nature is, not whether it exists or not.
However, if it is Gods thoughts that are Nature, wouldn’t that put God “outside” of nature?

Ichneumonwasp….
In the computer simulation we would see something that we think is nature, but we would simply be wrong. The 'real nature' would be outside the computer simulation but could just as easily be composed of the stuff that we have decided to call 'matter' and may work as we have modelled it.

If Nature / the physical world / every thing and event that exists, is now a computer simulation of Nature, where the computer sits “outside” of the “simulated nature” and actually resides in the “real nature’, than your idea of Nature has to be expanded to include the computer and whoever is running it.

Just to reiterate.
When I say Science assumes Nature exists, it is not my idea, it is what Science says about itself (along with another half dozen assumptions)
But here is what I get from that statement….

Science only deals with nature, which it assumes exists.
Science says there is no need for supernatural explanations or assumptions.
Science does not deal with a things or events that do not exist.

Why would science say of itself that it can only “assume” nature exists and not say that it can “prove” nature exists?

Thanks for your time.

Chunol

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ichneumonwasp…
In one scenario nature is as we see it and we model it correctly -- vibrating strings of energy.

I think you are jumping from “what can exist”, to “what it is that exists”.
Before you can go on to describing nature, you must first either PROVE that it exists or ASSUME that it exists. As far as I can see you have bypassed this step and have gone on to offer an explanation of what nature is, which you feel is the “correct” one.

I think you misunderstand my point. I gave you three different scenarios for what nature might be. There could be more. The important point is that we cannot know which of these is correct. I haven't made any jump to what actually is, only postulated what might be.

Ichneumonwasp…
In another what we see as nature is actually an effect, an action of the mind of God. God would not be outside nature, but rather would be nature (or his thoughts would be nature).

Here you are offering that “God” is equal to Nature, the Physical World, the Universe.
Although there are traditions that do accept this, it is still another optional explanation of what Nature is, not whether it exists or not.
However, if it is Gods thoughts that are Nature, wouldn’t that put God “outside” of nature?

I would have to say no to God being outside nature. Nature would be thoughts in the mind of God. There is no inside or outside. There is only God in that scenario.

That there are traditions that do not accept this is nice but totally irrelevant to the discussion. This is a discussion about different monisms.

Ichneumonwasp….
In the computer simulation we would see something that we think is nature, but we would simply be wrong. The 'real nature' would be outside the computer simulation but could just as easily be composed of the stuff that we have decided to call 'matter' and may work as we have modelled it.

If Nature / the physical world / every thing and event that exists, is now a computer simulation of Nature, where the computer sits “outside” of the “simulated nature” and actually resides in the “real nature’, than your idea of Nature has to be expanded to include the computer and whoever is running it.

Yes.

Just to reiterate.
When I say Science assumes Nature exists, it is not my idea, it is what Science says about itself (along with another half dozen assumptions)
But here is what I get from that statement….

Science only deals with nature, which it assumes exists.
Science says there is no need for supernatural explanations or assumptions.
Science does not deal with a things or events that do not exist.

Why would science say of itself that it can only “assume” nature exists and not say that it can “prove” nature exists?

Thanks for your time.

Chunol

Because there is no way to prove absolutely what nature actually is. It assumes there is something 'out there' to explain (where 'out there' is a misnomer since we are part of it all). All science does is try to work out how things work.

 

[yy2bggggs]

OK lets say you drop science and logic and go on a quest to find out the truth about nature.

Whoah there! I never said anything about dropping logic.

If you are going out on this quest would you not first have to assume Nature exists?

No.

How would you go about checking nature out if you assumed it did not exist.
You would be looking for information that you "assumed" did not exist.

False dichotomy there. Not assuming Nature exists isn't the same thing as assuming Nature does not exist. You cannot equate not having an assumption with assuming some other thing.

Regardless, the answer is the same way I would investigate it if I did make the assumption. That being so, what difference does the assumption make?

It seems to me that after you say you are dropping science, your first step is the same as science,

Interesting huh?

both have to assume nature exists.

Nope. Insofar as existence is a thing I have to assume and imbue Nature with, I can do without it. It doesn't change how I study Nature one iota. I'm still going to look for patterns, and prod it from time to time to see if my guesses about the patterns are consistent.

Also, If you say you are going to drop science and logic than I would suggest having a good grasp on what these two metods entail, just so you don't accidently use some of these methods without realizing it.

That would be if I try to avoid science; if I simply don't care for it, I wouldn't let it affect me one way or another.

If I were to accidentally use their methods, then you have a bit of explaining to do. I would be doing something equivalent to science, without starting from a point you say I must start at to do science. So why then must we start at that point?

 

[punshhh]

Chunol
Your quick overview of the situation seems fairly accurate to me.
But I think there may be a reason for it.

My point is this, does acceptance of the methods and formulas of Science and logic force us into this position of limited knowing from within this position founded on science and logic?

Not necessarily provided one accepts that we only know a proportion of the truth of existence and remain open minded.

When referring to the limited perspective of humanity, I am not thinking of science. Rather our evolutionary niche within the grand scheme of nature. It is this niche which defines our abilities and colours our perspective on reality.

 

[punshhh]

Thosse are generally based in substance dualism (mind and body are different fundamental substances) when examined closely. If there is a way to make substance dualism work I haven't yet seen it. There is no way to support one monism over another 'from the inside'.

Substance dualism is quite natural, rather like the wavelength of light there may be a spectrum of substances.

From the human perspective two different wavelengths may appear as a fundamental duality, for example mind and matter. While they are in fact two closely related aspects or expressions of one material, subtle and concrete.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Substance dualism is quite natural, rather like the wavelength of light there may be a spectrum of substances.

From the human perspective two different wavelengths may appear as a fundamental duality, for example mind and matter. While they are in fact two closely related aspects or expressions of one material, subtle and concrete.

What experiment could we do to detect these other aspects that you propose? What phenomena does proposing their existence explain?

 

[punshhh]

What experiment could we do to detect these other aspects that you propose? What phenomena does proposing their existence explain?

There are many routes of investigation practiced in religious and spiritual contexts. However I doubt any of them would stand up to scientific scrutiny. I can't at this time propose any experiments.

The existence of subtle materials might allow a synthesis of materialism and idealism in the understanding of consciousness.

 

[dafydd]

There are many routes of investigation practiced in religious and spiritual contexts. However I doubt any of them would stand up to scientific scrutiny. I can't at this time propose any experiments.

The existence of subtle materials might allow a synthesis of materialism and idealism in the understanding of consciousness.

What are 'subtle' materials? You are skating close to Theosophy again. The routes of investigation you refer to have been dead ends for hundreds of years. What benefits have these investigations brought to mankind? I'm not surprised that you can propose no experiments.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Substance dualism is quite natural, rather like the wavelength of light there may be a spectrum of substances.

From the human perspective two different wavelengths may appear as a fundamental duality, for example mind and matter. While they are in fact two closely related aspects or expressions of one material, subtle and concrete.

That has nothing to do with substance dualism.

 

[Sideroxylon]

There are many routes of investigation practiced in religious and spiritual contexts. However I doubt any of them would stand up to scientific scrutiny. I can't at this time propose any experiments.

The existence of subtle materials might allow a synthesis of materialism and idealism in the understanding of consciousness.

The modern scientific method is the best way we have of reliably testing a hypothesis. A hypothesis that cannot be tested by this method because it makes no predictions about what we should and should not observe in the world has zero utility. Without the scientific method we have no filter on our beliefs and any explanation seems as good as any other. In this way we get only the appearance of explanation and a feeling of understanding something but no practical benefit and consequently no confirmation of being right.

 

[punshhh]

That has nothing to do with substance dualism.

By substance dualism are you referring to the thoughts of Descartes?

 

[punshhh]

The modern scientific method is the best way we have of reliably testing a hypothesis. A hypothesis that cannot be tested by this method because it makes no predictions about what we should and should not observe in the world has zero utility. Without the scientific method we have no filter on our beliefs and any explanation seems as good as any other. In this way we get only the appearance of explanation and a feeling of understanding something but no practical benefit and consequently no confirmation of being right.

This may well be so.

If one seeks knowledge if only in principle of what may be beyond the reach of this scientific method, one has no choice but to look elsewhere.

There are people who have engaged in such endeavors and have reached an understanding of sorts. Are they to be tossed aside with all the other woo?

 

[Resume]

There are people who have engaged in such endeavors and have reached an understanding of sorts. Are they to be tossed aside with all the other woo?

What kind of understanding?

 

[Sideroxylon]

This may well be so.

If one seeks knowledge if only in principle of what may be beyond the reach of this scientific method, one has no choice but to look elsewhere.

There are people who have engaged in such endeavors and have reached an understanding of sorts. Are they to be tossed aside with all the other woo?

What is the measure of success used by these people? How do they know they have reached an understanding?

 

[Cheetah]

There are people who have engaged in such endeavors and have reached an understanding of sorts. Are they to be tossed aside with all the other woo?

Difficult to say (), who are these people and what understanding have they reached?