SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: WHAT WOULD LIFE BE LIKE WITHOUT RELIGION? |
Tue 11/04/08 08:36 AM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: God did not Create Religion.
Man did.
God wants a Relationship with
Us.......not Religion.
 "MorningSong" ..religion is the term used for the collection of laws set forth by God so that a perfect relationship can be formed with him ..which means that God did create religion
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Wiccans - part 2 |
Tue 11/04/08 08:17 AM |
I once had a roommate that had gone the organic raw route. She wasn’t a fanatic about it and would eat just about anything in social situations and when raw foods weren’t available. But for the most part her diet was about 95% raw foods. Most people when they hear that think of eating only whole fruits and vegetables. But there are a surprising amount of recipes available that simulate all types of “normal” foods.
But the main purpose and requirement of the raw diet is to retain the enzymes. And the enzymes can only survive in temperatures that are well below the boiling opint of water. So anything that has been pasteurized is out.
But even so, there were some foods that surprised me. For example, she found a sweetener that was like corn syrup but was made of the cold pressed extract of a cactus. And she made a dessert that was like ice cream or frozen yogurt, but was made from nothing but frozen fruit and pine nuts.
I don’t know a lot about it other than the emphasis on preserving the enzymes. She told me that one of the main reasons is that when we are young, the body manufactures its own enzymes, but as we get older, eventually the body stops manufacturing them so we need an outside source.
I don’t know if all that’s true, but I do know that she was 60 years old when I last saw here and I don’t think I’ve ever met a 40 year old that was any healthier or younger looking.
Personally, I'm with Ruth. About the best I seem to be able to achieve is to limit the processed foods. 
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: SPLENDED AND SKYHOOK SUCK |
Mon 11/03/08 10:25 PM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: IF IT GETS ANY MORE BORING ON HERE IM GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A VACATION. I hear ya. I was having fun till Redy smashed me flat and then eloped with Abra to shamanland! What IS UP with the lag in passion here?
Well, at least we're still sucking...
Yeah, but is it getting us anything we can swallow? (I'm still talking about milkshakes and you git yer mind outta that gutter! ) |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: SPLENDED AND SKYHOOK SUCK |
Mon 11/03/08 10:17 PM |
QUOTE: My most humble apologies Sky - sqashing, smashing and flattening happen when I get "cooking". But it's only purpose is to spice up the meal.
Well you sure "cooked" me!  But no need for apologies. It was a well prepared meal - for a cannibal.
(I'm saving the "WORDY" trump card for just the right moment though.  )
QUOTE: I know what you mean about the dang milkshakes. But I havn't had one in a couple years, no fast food for that long either - oh, I lied. I think I had two crunch wrap supremes from Taco Bell this year.
Try Steak & Shake they use icecream and milk and a real shake mixer.
Yes, when I lived in FL, Steak&Shake was the only place I knew of to get real milkshakes. But unfortunately, the nearest one to me now is over 1000 miles away.  |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Are you going up... or going down? |
Mon 11/03/08 08:17 PM |
QUOTE: I am kinda wondering why we are called by some scientists...
Decendants.
I allways thought that it was our responsibility to put the next generation up on our shoulders so they could see farther... Go farther... Climb higher... and do more.
That would make us ascendents... Would it not? 
Or is the human race falling not climbing?
I think not.
Else why leave us here.
The apparent paradox seems to lie in the concepts of "source " versus "destination".
We "come from" a source (descend), but "go toward" a destination (ascend).
et blah cetera. 
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Mon 11/03/08 07:59 PM |
QUOTE: Wouldn't you say that to want to be happy is to have known sadness.
Empiricism rears its ugly head! Dammit Bushi you are such a pain in the carpals! 
Ok, so if I use the example “I want <object>”, you’ll say that there must have been an observation of such an object (even if it were an imagined object) before there could be a desire for it.
So let’s take a different tack.
Loosely translated (in deference to Redy) with Empiricism, the observer is gaining knowledge through sensory input.
Now, what is it that transforms “sensory input” into “knowledge”?
Where did the “sensory input = knowledge” idea come from?
I maintain that it is that “sensory input = knowledge” idea that is the rationalistic idea upon which all empirical thinking relies.
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Mon 11/03/08 03:37 PM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: It is a "self-determined goal" as in "I've decided that I want to feel good."
Ok Sky,
I surrender to your pure rationale.
Owl give up on the math book and go back to writing pure poetic incantations for the spiritual shamans who just wanna be.
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Mon 11/03/08 02:55 PM |
QUOTE: As I've said, there are people who truly believe that pure thought alone has value without any empirical imput at all.
I have to disagree with your view that pure rational thought has no value.
As I see it, there is really only one type of knowledge that is based on 100% pure, no observation involved, rational thought.
It is called "free-will" - aka "self-determined decision".
It's not "a conclusion" as in "After doing a taste test, I've decided that this food tases better than that food".
It's not "the result of a calculation" as in "I've decided to take that that route because it's shorter."
It is a "self-determined goal" as in "I've decided that I want to feel good."
So contrary to your proposal about the value of purely rational thought, I think this type of purely rational knowledge is the most valuable of all because it is what determines the relative value of everything else. It is the source of "value". |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: SPLENDED AND SKYHOOK SUCK |
Sun 11/02/08 11:03 PM |
QUOTE: IF IT GETS ANY MORE BORING ON HERE IM GONNA HAVE TO TAKE A VACATION. I hear ya. I was having fun till Redy smashed me flat and then eloped with Abra to shamanland! |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: SPLENDED AND SKYHOOK SUCK |
Sun 11/02/08 11:01 PM |
QUOTE: MILKSHAKES THROUGH A STRAW - 
 |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sun 11/02/08 10:50 PM |
QUOTE:  Hi back to ya Sky. Can't stay long, but hey, it's philosophy, I had to stop in.
QUOTE: We are considering two “sources of knowledge”. In Empiricism it is observation or experience. In Rationalism it is thought or reason.
But I think we need to define knowledge for this to make sense. Since knowledge is the object. We need to know what we’re talking about.
If knowledge is defined as “scientifically demonstrable fact”, then it would appear on first look that empiricism can be the only way, since “demonstrable” specifically requires observation.
It's not so much a definition of knowledge that is the problem. It's more that you're misunderstanding how Rationalists believe knowlege is achieved.
There are three ways, according to rationalists that we attain new knowledge. Not in any order but here they are:
1. Innate knowledge: We are born with inherant knowledge, given by God. We draw on this knowledge when some event triggers our memory of that inborn information. Kind of like our mind was a computer and the progam was all-inclusive, however, we just need a trigger to help us remember what we have had all along.
2. Intuition Deduction: We have intuition or insight that suddenly makes us think about an issue or a problem or maybe a question. Then we think about it by simple deductive reasoning we will turn out thougts into knowledge. Sort of like coming up with some scientific equation without ever having had a math class. No need for testing your theory, no need for any prior knowledge, we just figure it out.
3. Innate concept thesis - we receive SOME of our knowledge innately and some through experience (our senses). The idea is that the ability to think abstractly comes from some innate knowledge that is pre-stored in our brain. The reasoning is that we can not expereince certain things, like a perfect triangle. But since we can think abstractly about a triangle it must be a priori knowledge.
But if you were blind and and you had never held, or touched anything triangular or ever heard of a triangel and never had any math what-so-ever and I asked you "What has three sides and equal angles" would you reason that it was a triangle? Would you be able to draw one? Would you be able to conceptualize a three-d triangle (pyramid)?
That's what rationalism is saying. That we are born with information (knowledge) and testing and science and even perception are not necessary to have access to that knowledge.
Now consider that the vast majority of philosophers that are considered rationalists have metaphysical concepts, and believe in the dualism of mind and body, and believe that God gave us this knowledge.
Does it become clearer why and how the philosophy of rationalism came about?
Does it make sense why empiricism is associated with science while rationalism can not be?  |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sun 11/02/08 08:46 PM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: Sky wrote:
What is esthetics if not purely rational thought? What "solid empirical premise" could possibly have given birth to the beauty of Michelangelo's "David"?
I would have to disagree with you on this one quite vehemently Sky.
Who rationalizes beauty? 
I don't believe that esthetics is based on thought at all. It's based more on intuitive feelings, pure primal desire. No rationalization required.
If anything, it's based on empiricism because without any sensory input what stimuli would you even have to base your decision on? |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: How do we Know..... |
Sun 11/02/08 08:24 PM |
QUOTE: ...However I would guess that everyone posting on this forum has had that WEIRD experience when you think you have woken from a dream and may even feel yourself moving and walking around and then you discover that you are still dreaming...
Very interesting. That is something that never occurred to me. I can honestly say that that has never happened to me - at least that I recall. I can recall being in a dream and realizing I was in a dream and thus being able to consciously controll what happened in the dream. But I don't recall ever thinking I had awakened and then realizing I was still dreaming. Thanksfor that new insight. 
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: How do we Know..... |
Sun 11/02/08 08:18 PM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: QUOTE: You must be alive in order to dream. "CreativeSoul"..that's not necessarily so...you may actually be dreaming because you are dead You've surprised me funches. I thought you were a hard-line materialist. "Skyhook" dreaming is not materialistic ...it's an illusion |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sun 11/02/08 07:23 PM |
QUOTE: Sky:
QUOTE: Empiricism starts with the premise that there is stuff already there and the only valid means of understanding it is through observation. But the fault there is that it cannot go beyond the original premise. So the most that can be said of it is that it is of no use outside it’s own box because, according to it’s own premise, there is no outside. And that is, quite literally, empiricism’s downfall. It starts with an observation, takes that as a premise, and then cannot go anywhere but down (or more precisely “in”) from there. It cannot get out of its own box.
Rational though, on the other hand, is the very basis of creativity. It’s “thinking outside the box” that has been the root of all greatness of any kind in the history of this planet.
You don’t even have to go as far as the spiritual. You only have to go as far as esthetics.
What is esthetics if not purely rational thought? What “solid empirical premise” could possibly have given birth to the beauty of Michelangelo’s “David”?
Hi Sky
MM – I sense skepticism…. I don’t empiricism the way you describe it. Consider the fact that philosophy has always been and remains today the for-runner of science. Therefore, re-consider your thoughts by questioning, how can science proceed if it were to use ONLY the rational philosophy?
I’m trying to catch up with the posts, so I think I’ll get back to this shortly. Just think about it a moment.
As for aesthetics – what is beauty if it is has no relation to a subjective value? Who would dare to tell others what must hold beauty? In what way do you associated the valuation method of aesthetics with science?
Hi Redy. Good to sse you back. :wave:
I think I addressed that in a later post. My stance is basically that knowledge can be gained by both observation and reason. But that goes back to the definition of "knowledge" which I also addressed in a previous poast. |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sun 11/02/08 07:09 PM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: I don’t I think Einstein “observed” time dilation before he came up with his theory. (The actual observation of time dilation was not accomplished until later.)
So the “knowledge” of time dilation could not have come about empirically.
And I’m willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that he did not “invent” time dilation either. (It appears to have existed before he came up with his theory.)
But since it could not have come from observation, where did the “knowledge” of time dilation come from?
I beg to differ.
Yes, it's true that Einstein didn't observe time dilation directly. But that isn't what I had said.
I say that Eintein observered that time dilation must be true. That's not the same thing as observing time dilation directly.
Ok, well now all you’re saying is that “Einstein observed some reason”. If that’s the case, then you’re right – by that logic rationalism is nothing but complete illusion.
QUOTE: But it was still empirical thinking, and the reason that it was empirical thinking is because his conclusion that time dilation must be true was entirely based on the empirical facts up to that point.
In fact, I hold that purely Rational thinking is truly impossible. Those people who believe that they are exercising "pure thought" are kidding themselves.
It seems we do have a semantic problem.
We are considering two “sources of knowledge”. In Empiricism it is observation or experience. In Rationalism it is thought or reason.
But I think we need to define knowledge for this to make sense. Since knowledge is the object. We need to know what we’re talking about.
If knowledge is defined as “scientifically demonstrable fact”, then it would appear on first look that empiricism can be the only way, since “demonstrable” specifically requires observation.
But if you do define it that way, then you must also allow that a fact need not actually be observed to be knowledge. It only need be observable. (Otherwise, the only people with “knowledge” would be those who actually observed it. Thus I, who have never even seen a particle accelerator, could not possibly know anything about nuclear physics.)
So now we have an observer (one who actually observed an event) and a student (one who did not observe it but is told about it.)
Does the student have “knowledge” of the event?
If he does, it cannot be the exact same knowledge as that which the observer has.
So what’s the difference between the two “knowledges”?
One is observed and the other is 100% pure unadulterated reason.
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sun 11/02/08 01:45 PM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: In fact, our language seems to support just exactly that same thought. You hear the phrase "great idea" a lot. But how often do you hear the phrase "great observation"?
Well that can be tricky semantics.
Did Einstein creatively 'invent' time dilation, or did he observe' that it must be so?
Ah yes, the semantics can be tricky indeed.
I don’t I think Einstein “observed” time dilation before he came up with his theory. (The actual observation of time dilation was not accomplished until later.)
So the “knowledge” of time dilation could not have come about empirically.
And I’m willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that he did not “invent” time dilation either. (It appears to have existed before he came up with his theory.)
But since it could not have come from observation, where did the “knowledge” of time dilation come from?
So I’m really only attempting to support what you’ve already said: It is a false dichotomy. The “pure” form of either excludes any possibility of the other. But neither can stand alone.
It’s like communication. There has to be a “from” and a “to”. Remove either one and communication ceases.
There are “dots” (observation) and there are “connections” (thought).
Rationalism and empiricism are truly symbiotic. The apparent dichotomy is false.
"The observer" and "the thinker" are the same entity. |
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sun 11/02/08 09:57 AM |
QUOTE: QUOTE: But if you want to create something new, empiricism just won't - actually, "can't" - do it. So then you're saying that men like Galileo, Kepler, Isaac Newton, Albert Eintein and just about every other scientist who ever made a new and creative discovery for their day were all Rationalists?
That's a quite interesting view.
I guess that would make Max Planck, Neils Bohr, Edwin Shrodinger, Werner Heisenberg and all the rest of QM crew Rationalists as well.
I hesitate to label any of those men as either, just as you do not label yourself as either.
I was attempting to differentiate between "discovery" and a "creation".
To me the difference between discovery and creation is the basic difference between empiricism and rationalism.
But to ignore either one in favor of the other, may be the very definition of stupidity.
There must be some sort of creative thought in order to "connect the observation dots". Without that creative "connecting", there is no knowledge - only "sensory input".
And the flip side of the same coin is, there must be some sensory input to connect. Without that, there is no "reality". Nothing but subjective ideas.
This is very closely related to the self-centric.vs.other-centric issue.
Does all knowledge come from "outside"? If so, then the reductio ad absurdum is "I" don't really exist because there is nothing but "outside".
Or does all knowledge come from "inside"? If so then the reductio ad absurdum is that "I" am the only thing that exists because there is no "outside".
The only practical reasoning is that there is both "I" and "other" and that knowledge can originate from either.
But it is the "new creation" that comes from rationalism that is the source of all the great advances of man.
In fact, our language seems to support just exactly that same thought. You hear the phrase "great idea" a lot. But how often do you hear the phrase "great observation"?
|
|
|
|
SkyHook5652
Joined Sat 08/23/08
Posts: 927
|
| Topic: Philosophy and Science and why we cant . . . |
Sat 11/01/08 11:51 PM |
Empiricism starts with the premise that there is stuff already there and the only valid means of understanding it is through observation. But the fault there is that it cannot go beyond the original premise. So the most that can be said of it is that it is of no use outside it’s own box because, according to it’s own premise, there is no outside. And that is, quite literally, empiricism’s downfall. It starts with an observation, takes that as a premise, and then cannot go anywhere but down (or more precisely “in”) from there. It cannot get out of its own box.
Rational though, on the other hand, is the very basis of creativity. It’s “thinking outside the box” that has been the root of all greatness of any kind in the history of this planet.
You don’t even have to go as far as the spiritual. You only have to go as far as esthetics.
What is esthetics if not purely rational thought? What “solid empirical premise” could possibly have given birth to the beauty of Michelangelo’s “David”?
Yes, if you want to know how to build a 2 mile long bridge that will hold up too 5,000 cars per hour, by all means use your empirical facts.
But if you want to create something new, empiricism just won't - actually, "can't" - do it.
In my opinion, rationalism is the chicken that gives birth to the empiricism egg.
|
|
|
|
