Knowledge and Opinions

[Veritas Aequitas]

Hi Veritas
The question you need to ask yourself, is why are you so focused on a top-down approach re the soul, god, and whatever supernaturals?
It is a pandora box if you venture to open the question up.
The bottom up approach hasn't answered my basic questions concerning the meaning and purpose of the universe and human life within it
For example, the bottom up approach asserts life as evolving and supplies facts that substantiate it. However it cannot explain the origin of this marvelous living machine called organic life on earth that is sustained through everything eating everything else and reproduction. How does something so intricate come about?
I explain it through the ancient idea of involution which is the top down descent of life forces. Consider organic life as a form in potential at the level of reality Plato refers to as "sun" It involutes into fractions of this whole we call life forms necessary for the living machine to serve its purpose as a whole. Naturally then they are all related and can feed on each other. Evolution isn't an accident but just the return of what was created through involution
Yin is the involutionary force providing the foundation from which yang evolves. It reaches its height and than falls back through involution into the foundation. "Dust to dust." Then the process repeats.

You mentioned Meno's. Isn't what we have on hand, i.e. experience, better than something that is speculated by reason and which is not substantiated by solid evidence. In this case, the bottom-up is more realistic than top-down. We need not have to take evolution too seriously but rather as a means for various interpretation of life.

There is no teleological meaning of life nor can one find out the absolute answers to the origin of life.

I also adopt the top-down approach for the above questions, but one must know its limits and not stretch too far from experience. When one stretch too far from experience by using pure reason and speculation, one is venturing into illusions, e.g. teleological meaning of life, soul, freedom, immortality, god, etc. (Kant).

Humans are programmed (with good reasons) for certainty and closure. Whenever the above questions are raised in their minds, the faculty of pure reason is always everyready to seduce them into certainty and closure. And they are often done by a leap of faith into these 'necessary' illusions. The only basis is emotionality, not evidence and rationality.

I agree emotionally with Simone Weil where she wrote:
Some people have a need of the heart that is not a conditioned or bodily need. This cannot be a matter of bodily knowledge but has a higher conscious origin our higher emotions respond to.

At least you are answering the basis of why you resort of god, soul, and the likes, i.e. your basis is emotion.

If you read Kierkegaard, you would get a better picture. According to Kierkegaard, human beings are so fallible that they are in no position by themselves, as an individual, to deal with the fundamental emotions arising from the emotional fear of inevitable death, anxieties, despairs and an existential crisis.
As such, K propounded, the individual must reach beyond themselves for some thing (even if it is absurd or false) which is presumably greater than themselves for salvation.

Plato is in the right direction to create ideals but his ideals has too high degrees of independence from the subject and for some, such ideals are given agency and imbued with anthropomorphic qualities.

I agree we should develop higher levels of cognition but they should not be stretched too far by emotions and pure reasons into illusions, .e.g. god, freedom, immortality and other supernaturals.

However, I do understand the majority of human beings has an emotional state that require such crutch for emotional salvation as propounded by Kierkegaard. Thus if you have such inclinations, then you do not have much of a choice other than to adopt that sort way of thinking and life.

Nevertheless, 'know thyself' is critical to understand one's own needs and that there are others who do not share one's way of life, with very good reasons to do so.

"Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God ..." Meister Eckhart

Rather than a fully formed soul, I believe that a human being contains the seed of something that Christianity calls the "New Man." So from this point of view Hume is right. However can the seed mature into something that wouldn't be just a bundle of reactions?

As long as your concept of 'soul' is not an entity that survives physical death, I can agree with it in some ways.

However, whenever the topic of 'god' and 'soul' are brought up, I am very aware of their limitations.

Can we even know what they realistically mean through bottom up reason? If we cannot, how can we speak of limitations? Jacob Needleman writes in the preface to his book "Lost Christianity:"

I believe such a new understanding is possible. I'm in a minority but I believe it to be a healthy meaningful minority since it is open to the idea that there is a quality of conscious knowledge that has devolved into "opinions" normal for life in Plato's cave. The question becomes how to open to it.

The limitations refer to the limits of the human mind and its reasoning powers.
Pure reason infers 'creations = creator'.
We can know creations but to infer "creator" from known creations is merely an inference/speculation and not reality.
Thus Meno's limits any reality of a "creator" unless the real evidence is observed and justified.

Re bottom up, I can see an apple and I can speculate the existence of an ideal perfect round apple, perfect red apple, and I can strive to grow and improve from the existing types of apples, but I know such 'perfect' apples do not exist.

In all cases, when we apply top-down approach as discussed above, we must always be aware of its limits and not to insists illusions are for real. Kant explain such illusions in great detail in his Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant allows for some provisions, that based on what we know of human beings and other things observed (justified), one can speculate on an ideal 'self', a perfect necessary being for various purposes as a guide, but one cannot insist the 'self', god and a necessary perfect being exists, has inherent existence, is an entity and can be known.

[Nick_A]

Hi Veritas
The question you need to ask yourself, is why are you so focused on a top-down approach re the soul, god, and whatever supernaturals?
It is a pandora box if you venture to open the question up.
The bottom up approach hasn't answered my basic questions concerning the meaning and purpose of the universe and human life within it
For example, the bottom up approach asserts life as evolving and supplies facts that substantiate it. However it cannot explain the origin of this marvelous living machine called organic life on earth that is sustained through everything eating everything else and reproduction. How does something so intricate come about?
I explain it through the ancient idea of involution which is the top down descent of life forces. Consider organic life as a form in potential at the level of reality Plato refers to as "sun" It involutes into fractions of this whole we call life forms necessary for the living machine to serve its purpose as a whole. Naturally then they are all related and can feed on each other. Evolution isn't an accident but just the return of what was created through involution
Yin is the involutionary force providing the foundation from which yang evolves. It reaches its height and than falls back through involution into the foundation. "Dust to dust." Then the process repeats.

You mentioned Meno's. Isn't what we have on hand, i.e. experience, better than something that is speculated by reason and which is not substantiated by solid evidence. In this case, the bottom-up is more realistic than top-down. We need not have to take evolution too seriously but rather as a means for various interpretation of life.

There is no teleological meaning of life nor can one find out the absolute answers to the origin of life.

I also adopt the top-down approach for the above questions, but one must know its limits and not stretch too far from experience. When one stretch too far from experience by using pure reason and speculation, one is venturing into illusions, e.g. teleological meaning of life, soul, freedom, immortality, god, etc. (Kant).

Humans are programmed (with good reasons) for certainty and closure. Whenever the above questions are raised in their minds, the faculty of pure reason is always everyready to seduce them into certainty and closure. And they are often done by a leap of faith into these 'necessary' illusions. The only basis is emotionality, not evidence and rationality.

I agree emotionally with Simone Weil where she wrote:
Some people have a need of the heart that is not a conditioned or bodily need. This cannot be a matter of bodily knowledge but has a higher conscious origin our higher emotions respond to.

At least you are answering the basis of why you resort of god, soul, and the likes, i.e. your basis is emotion.

If you read Kierkegaard, you would get a better picture. According to Kierkegaard, human beings are so fallible that they are in no position by themselves, as an individual, to deal with the fundamental emotions arising from the emotional fear of inevitable death, anxieties, despairs and an existential crisis.
As such, K propounded, the individual must reach beyond themselves for some thing (even if it is absurd or false) which is presumably greater than themselves for salvation.

Plato is in the right direction to create ideals but his ideals has too high degrees of independence from the subject and for some, such ideals are given agency and imbued with anthropomorphic qualities.

I agree we should develop higher levels of cognition but they should not be stretched too far by emotions and pure reasons into illusions, .e.g. god, freedom, immortality and other supernaturals.

However, I do understand the majority of human beings has an emotional state that require such crutch for emotional salvation as propounded by Kierkegaard. Thus if you have such inclinations, then you do not have much of a choice other than to adopt that sort way of thinking and life.

Nevertheless, 'know thyself' is critical to understand one's own needs and that there are others who do not share one's way of life, with very good reasons to do so.

"Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God ..." Meister Eckhart

Rather than a fully formed soul, I believe that a human being contains the seed of something that Christianity calls the "New Man." So from this point of view Hume is right. However can the seed mature into something that wouldn't be just a bundle of reactions?

As long as your concept of 'soul' is not an entity that survives physical death, I can agree with it in some ways.

However, whenever the topic of 'god' and 'soul' are brought up, I am very aware of their limitations.

Can we even know what they realistically mean through bottom up reason? If we cannot, how can we speak of limitations? Jacob Needleman writes in the preface to his book "Lost Christianity:"

I believe such a new understanding is possible. I'm in a minority but I believe it to be a healthy meaningful minority since it is open to the idea that there is a quality of conscious knowledge that has devolved into "opinions" normal for life in Plato's cave. The question becomes how to open to it.

The limitations refer to the limits of the human mind and its reasoning powers.
Pure reason infers 'creations = creator'.
We can know creations but to infer "creator" from known creations is merely an inference/speculation and not reality.
Thus Meno's limits any reality of a "creator" unless the real evidence is observed and justified.

Re bottom up, I can see an apple and I can speculate the existence of an ideal perfect round apple, perfect red apple, and I can strive to grow and improve from the existing types of apples, but I know such 'perfect' apples do not exist.

In all cases, when we apply top-down approach as discussed above, we must always be aware of its limits and not to insists illusions are for real. Kant explain such illusions in great detail in his Critique of Pure Reason.

Kant allows for some provisions, that based on what we know of human beings and other things observed (justified), one can speculate on an ideal 'self', a perfect necessary being for various purposes as a guide, but one cannot insist the 'self', god and a necessary perfect being exists, has inherent existence, is an entity and can be known.

I agree. Top down reason requires the ability to distinguish the "wheat from the tares," the real from the illusory. The scientific method offers its way to verify a hypothesis. The Socratic effort to "Know thyself" offers the way of inner empiricims to verify its top down hypothesis. The question IMO is what is really meant by "Know Thyself" as opposed to imagining oneself?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I agree. Top down reason requires the ability to distinguish the "wheat from the tares," the real from the illusory. The scientific method offers its way to verify a hypothesis. The Socratic effort to "Know thyself" offers the way of inner empiricims to verify its top down hypothesis. The question IMO is what is really meant by "Know Thyself" as opposed to imagining oneself?

Socrates stated to 'Know Thyself" to the extent of 'I know nothing'. This is deep and need a lot of explanations.

In one perspective of 'know thyself', say, you are a car with self-consciousness. In this case, you would know everything that is to know of how the car is made, its machinery and its working. As such you will know exactly the correlation of the behaviors, effects to every detail of the car.

The car has appx 200 years history and is man-made, so if you are a car, it is easy to know thyself totally and trace to the roots for any it effects.

However, humans has a 4 billion year history since the first single cell entity emerged. The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapses and thus the potential trillions of connection/combination sets. The viseral region also has another lot of 100 billion neurons.

In contrast to a car, for a human to know thyself and trace the roots of human behaviors (including why human believe in god, souls, and other supernatural) would seem like an impossible task. But nevertheless we must 'know thyself' and establish beach-heads into this exploration.

I believe, humans as to date has made some headways into the detailed and complex understanding of 'know thyself'. The human genome had already been mapped and next would be the seeming impossible task of mapping the neural connectivities of the 100 billion neuron and its 10,000 synapses. This will not be any imagination but based on real hard evidences.

To advance in knowing thyself, one need to adopt the both the top-down and bottom-up in complementary in a dynamic Yin-Yang approach.

The mystics approach is based on higher cognitions and it is refined, but it is uni-directional from top-down. While they discard one crude layer of illusion (note Maya), they are still stuck with some sort of refined illusion, e.g. pantheism.
As such, the mystics must dig deeper to get rid of the finest and all illusions and just "be".

[Satyr]

Knowledge/Experience is data gathered and interpreted by the nervous system, the brain being a part of it.

Opinion is the end result of this analysis of sensual data, either gathered first hand or acquired through second-hand sources - the former being experience and the latter being knowledge or education.

The complexity of the mind doing that processing of the data gathered determines how much understanding is produced.
The accuracy of this is determined by reality itself, against which all judgments are measured.

[Nick_A]

I agree. Top down reason requires the ability to distinguish the "wheat from the tares," the real from the illusory. The scientific method offers its way to verify a hypothesis. The Socratic effort to "Know thyself" offers the way of inner empiricims to verify its top down hypothesis. The question IMO is what is really meant by "Know Thyself" as opposed to imagining oneself?

Socrates stated to 'Know Thyself" to the extent of 'I know nothing'. This is deep and need a lot of explanations.

In one perspective of 'know thyself', say, you are a car with self-consciousness. In this case, you would know everything that is to know of how the car is made, its machinery and its working. As such you will know exactly the correlation of the behaviors, effects to every detail of the car.

The car has appx 200 years history and is man-made, so if you are a car, it is easy to know thyself totally and trace to the roots for any it effects.

However, humans has a 4 billion year history since the first single cell entity emerged. The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each with up to 10,000 synapses and thus the potential trillions of connection/combination sets. The viseral region also has another lot of 100 billion neurons.

In contrast to a car, for a human to know thyself and trace the roots of human behaviors (including why human believe in god, souls, and other supernatural) would seem like an impossible task. But nevertheless we must 'know thyself' and establish beach-heads into this exploration.

I believe, humans as to date has made some headways into the detailed and complex understanding of 'know thyself'. The human genome had already been mapped and next would be the seeming impossible task of mapping the neural connectivities of the 100 billion neuron and its 10,000 synapses. This will not be any imagination but based on real hard evidences.

To advance in knowing thyself, one need to adopt the both the top-down and bottom-up in complementary in a dynamic Yin-Yang approach.

The mystics approach is based on higher cognitions and it is refined, but it is uni-directional from top-down. While they discard one crude layer of illusion (note Maya), they are still stuck with some sort of refined illusion, e.g. pantheism.
As such, the mystics must dig deeper to get rid of the finest and all illusions and just "be".

One of the best explanations of "Know Thyself" I've read is expressed in the Gospel of Thomas. The conscious experience of oneself allows for the experiencer to be consciously experienced. this quality of vertical consciousness is what allows for transcending conditioned opinions

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

[Nick_A]

Knowledge/Experience is data gathered and interpreted by the nervous system, the brain being a part of it.

Opinion is the end result of this analysis of sensual data, either gathered first hand or acquired through second-hand sources - the former being experience and the latter being knowledge or education.

The complexity of the mind doing that processing of the data gathered determines how much understanding is produced.
The accuracy of this is determined by reality itself, against which all judgments are measured.

You seem to be a person who believes that opinions are the ultimate of human conscious expression. Those like Plato believed that conscious knowledge is the path to reconcile opinions revealing their common origin, the source of their devolution. Some are content with justifying opinions while others seek knowledge. We must choose our path.

[Satyr]

You seem to be a person who believes that opinions are the ultimate of human conscious expression. Those like Plato believed that conscious knowledge is the path to reconcile opinions revealing their common origin, the source of their devolution. Some are content with justifying opinions while others seek knowledge. We must choose our path.

Such word-play.

Knowledge is an opinion.

When one says "The sun will come up tomorrow" he is expressing an opinion based on the past and a pattern he considers predictable and timeless....but he does not have any knowledge that it will follow the pattern.


Knowledge is human codified information; a perspective or interpretation of reality using symbols and emtaphors of absoluteness trying to define a fluid reality.

[Nick_A]

Knowledge/Experience is data gathered and interpreted by the nervous system, the brain being a part of it.

Opinion is the end result of this analysis of sensual data, either gathered first hand or acquired through second-hand sources - the former being experience and the latter being knowledge or education.

The complexity of the mind doing that processing of the data gathered determines how much understanding is produced.
The accuracy of this is determined by reality itself, against which all judgments are measured.

Look at it this way. If mankind were destroyed by a large meteor hitting and destroying the earth, objective knowledge would still exist. However, subjective opinions would vanish.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One of the best explanations of "Know Thyself" I've read is expressed in the Gospel of Thomas. The conscious experience of oneself allows for the experiencer to be consciously experienced. this quality of vertical consciousness is what allows for transcending conditioned opinions

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

There are some refined passages in the Bible that can be reconciled to Eastern philosophies, but these verses are not based on the core and fundamental principles of Jesus.

In contrast, note the core principles of the Buddha and those of other Eastern philosophies.
The core principles of Buddhism are anicca (impermanence), anatta, co-dependent arising (sunyata). 'Anatta' represent non-self, and from this it implies, to skillfully know thyself is to realize there is no-self, no permanent and inherent self.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Knowledge/Experience is data gathered and interpreted by the nervous system, the brain being a part of it.

Opinion is the end result of this analysis of sensual data, either gathered first hand or acquired through second-hand sources - the former being experience and the latter being knowledge or education.

The complexity of the mind doing that processing of the data gathered determines how much understanding is produced.
The accuracy of this is determined by reality itself, against which all judgments are measured.

Look at it this way. If mankind were destroyed by a large meteor hitting and destroying the earth, objective knowledge would still exist. However, subjective opinions would vanish.

Objective knowledge is intersubjective knowledge.
Without subjects, there is no intersubjectivity and thus no objective knowledge.

[Thundril]

Look at it this way. If mankind were destroyed by a large meteor hitting and destroying the earth, objective knowledge would still exist.

How can knowledge can exist in a world that lacks things with brains?
Can running exist in a world that lacks things with legs?

[Nick_A]

One of the best explanations of "Know Thyself" I've read is expressed in the Gospel of Thomas. The conscious experience of oneself allows for the experiencer to be consciously experienced. this quality of vertical consciousness is what allows for transcending conditioned opinions

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

There are some refined passages in the Bible that can be reconciled to Eastern philosophies, but these verses are not based on the core and fundamental principles of Jesus.


In contrast, note the core principles of the Buddha and those of other Eastern philosophies.
The core principles of Buddhism are anicca (impermanence), anatta, co-dependent arising (sunyata). 'Anatta' represent non-self, and from this it implies, to skillfully know thyself is to realize there is no-self, no permanent and inherent self.

Of course they are. The essential goal of Christianity is re-birth. "Dust to dust" is classic impermanence. Granted, Christendom or man made Christianity, has other goals but the goal of Christianity is re-birth or a person to become themselves.

No self refers to the outer shell which Christianity agrees must be seen (experienced) for what it is.

[Nick_A]

Look at it this way. If mankind were destroyed by a large meteor hitting and destroying the earth, objective knowledge would still exist.

How can knowledge can exist in a world that lacks things with brains?
Can running exist in a world that lacks things with legs?

Yes, ideas exist even when they are not manifested. Ideas are forms of knowledge.

[Satyr]

Look at it this way. If mankind were destroyed by a large meteor hitting and destroying the earth, objective knowledge would still exist. However, subjective opinions would vanish.

What?

You believe in absolutes?

Reality is fluid, there is no objective knowledge because reality is ever-changing.
Knowledge is the deciphering, simplifying, generalizing, interpreting of a fluid world.

There is no knowledge outside a brain that codifies and simplifies and generalizes.
There is no consciousness...what is conscious if there is no conscious brain?

Reality, yes...there is a reality...but this reality is not static, nor can it be presumed to be eternal.

What kind of fuckin' word-games are you using to numb your tiny brain, boy?

Knowledge is a term, a human term, denoting codified information that can then be passed on...in the form of genes or memes (words, texts, pictures).

[Thundril]

Look at it this way. If mankind were destroyed by a large meteor hitting and destroying the earth, objective knowledge would still exist.

How can knowledge can exist in a world that lacks things with brains?
Can running exist in a world that lacks things with legs?

Yes, ideas exist even when they are not manifested. Ideas are forms of knowledge.

Where do these ideas exist? What are they made of? What is their relationship to anything else that exists? Are there some ideas 'out there' that are ideas about things that don't exist yet, but will exist at some point in the future?