The Futility of Reason

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

seeds
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote:
I’m not so confident that our savage nature isn’t still present and thriving. It has merely become a little more insidious and hidden in the form of “looking the other way” when, as you say, our “dirty work” is performed by hired ... “brainwashed somnambulants”?)
Greta wrote:
While “brainwashed somnambulants” is also too harsh IMO, the term's biggest problem is lack of specificity, including a huge proportion of society. The category may well include you, me and everyone else on the forum.
Hi Greta,

You are absolutely correct.

However, in an earlier statement, I did indeed include specificity. Here's what I said...
seeds wrote:
When I apply the word “illusion” to the universe, it is merely meant to suggest that the universe is a “dream-like” situation (not a dream, just dream-like) in that almost all humans exist in a somnambulistic state of awareness, completely oblivious of the fact that there exists a higher level of “wakefulness” above and outside of the dream.
And I do include myself amongst the “dreamers” by reason of the fact that none of us have any choice in the matter because we are all literally encapsulated within the fabric and details of the “dream” itself.

The only difference is that some of us are “lucid dreamers” who are aware of the fact that we are dreaming, but are still incapable of awakening completely.

Hence the realization (assumption) that the event of death must be the threshold that stands between our present state of “semi-consciousness” and that of the “full-consciousness” that awaits us on the other side of the threshold (as difficult as that may be to visualize).

(Continued in next post)
seeds
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by seeds »

(Continued from prior post)
Greta wrote:
Of course none of this detracts from the value of reason, even if what we know turns out to be purely relative, only of use to mammals. We are mammals, so reason is useful on that level, at least. I do find reason to be largely futile in social situations....
...Socially, it seems the most important thing is the capacity for producing and agreeing with obvious bullshit for the sake of reassurance, validation and other emotional buffering.
Yes.

The cohesion of any society demands that one not apply too much reason to the situation (as in critical thought).

If you are a member of a society (tribe) of head hunters, for example, and you start questioning the ethics of shrinking heads and wearing them as necklaces, you’ll probably not fit in.

Likewise, if you question the ethics of slaughtering thousands (if not millions) of other humans on earth in your society’s pursuit of oil and other resources, so that the members of that society can enjoy watching their favorite game shows or the latest antics of the Kardashians, then the same thing applies.

And if you think that “brainwashed somnambulant” is still too harsh of a label to apply to those described above...

...then just picture in your mind a predator drone operator who plays what is in essence a video game in which he fires a missile that inadvertently dismembers the bodies of little children, and then takes his honey out later that evening for dinner and a movie.

I am not meaning to rant here; I’m just pointing out what I personally believe are the consequences of the somnambulistic state of human consciousness, for clearly (to me, anyway) it is at the root of what we think of as being “evilness” on earth in its multifarious forms.

Greta, I will respond to the rest of your insightful and intelligent post later on.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Greta »

seeds wrote:And if you think that “brainwashed somnambulant” is still too harsh of a label to apply to those described above...

...then just picture in your mind a predator drone operator who plays what is in essence a video game in which he fires a missile that inadvertently dismembers the bodies of little children, and then takes his honey out later that evening for dinner and a movie.

I am not meaning to rant here; I’m just pointing out what I personally believe are the consequences of the somnambulistic state of human consciousness, for clearly (to me, anyway) it is at the root of what we think of as being “evilness” on earth in its multifarious forms.
Heh, okay, it's not too harsh - just too general and commonplace for targeted applicability. Is there an advantage to being aware of the game? Maybe more peace of mind, but that's perhaps offset by vacuous bonding games being more obvious and tedious. Blue pill, red pill, it appears to be largely a matter of taste.

I agree that naivete seems to lead to belief in evil. Psychopathy and cruelty are obvious signs of emotional immaturity - the morality of angry babies couples with adult capabilities. There is another type of "evil", institutional, whose relationships with individuals are exploitative. We humans are compelled by instinct and exigency to create organisational/technological structures that then begin their own evolutionary path. It would seem that organisations are around the caterpillar stage - interested only in consumption and growth. Organisations use individual humans as humans use other animals, a new hierarchy.
seeds
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by seeds »

Nick_A wrote:
I believe that the universe isn’t here to serve us but rather we are here to serve the universe.
I completely disagree with that, Nick.

In our prior agreement regarding the Panentheistic nature of the universe, we have speculated that the universe is in fact God’s “spirit body.”

In which case (and to reiterate what I have been asserting in my earlier statements), I believe that the ultimate purpose of the universe is to serve as God’s literal “womb” wherein he is able to "self-conceive" his very own progeny (us).

How much more “natural and organic” can the truth of the universe be than to be a situation where our minds have been individually conceived and awakened into existence within the “warm living essence” of a higher mind of which our minds are its "embryos"?

“For in him we live, and move, and have our being;...For we are also his offspring.” (Acts 17:28 – KJV)

It’s almost too simple, Nick.

We are agents of consciousness who are imbued with the capability of creating holographic-like manifestations of “reality” within the closed and subjective arena of our own personal universe (our mind), just as God (our ultimate parent) has done with his mind.

And through the process of death we will be “delivered” (birthed) into a higher context of consciousness and existence (literally "outside" of this universe) in which God and our ultimate form (the exact same form as God) will be openly revealed to us.

“...it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2)

Of course, you are free to disagree with that; however, I assure you that your use of language such as...
Nick_A wrote:
Man on earth doesn’t originate with the Source but rather at the level of the sun for a distinct purpose. That is why man on earth is considered fallen.
...is far too arcane and esoteric to be of any use in the context of a “new paradigm” of spiritual understanding.

_______
Nick_A
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Seeds wrote:
In which case (and to reiterate what I have been asserting in my earlier statements), I believe that the ultimate purpose of the universe is to serve as God’s literal “womb” wherein he is able to "self-conceive" his very own progeny (us).
Considering the enormous magnitude of our universe, the earth is less than a speck. If the earth and all life upon it including man were destroyed by an asteroid it wouldn’t make a bit of difference to the universe, the body of God, performing its complimentary functions. The cycles of involution and evolution would continue.

Yes evolved Man is in the image of God as a unified trinity but that is not us. We exist as an aggregate with no inner unity. Man on earth has the potential for inner unity however we are what we are. We are creatures of reaction motivated by imagination within Plato’s cave. That is a long way off from being in the image of God. Imagination doesn't consciously evolve. Only consciousness does.
seeds
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by seeds »

Greta wrote:
In the intellectual arena I have a problem with the word "God", also due to lack of specificity...

...In the public domain the word or title "God" can, and is, made to mean anything from a void that accidentally creates stuff to a large male [sic] spirit that deliberately creates stuff.
To paraphrase something I posted elsewhere, my recommendation would be to ignore all previous characterizations of God.

In order to have a true visualization of what God could possibly be, then it is essential that we pull our heads out of the "misty environs" that encapsulate the ancient mythologies and then view the universe precisely as science views it.

In other words, anyone who advocates the existence of a “Creative Intelligence” presiding over the universe needs to hold within their mind a kind of "encyclopedic vision" of the almost infinite structural features of the Earth and the solar system.

We then need to realize that not only does this amazingly structured order extend outward to a hundred billion other solar systems in the Milky Way Galaxy, but also to a hundred billion other galaxies — all of which are contained within what seems to be a “closed” and “bubble-like” dimension of reality that prompted Einstein to suggest:
Einstein wrote: “The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
And physicist/astronomer Sir James Jeans to suggest:
Sir James Jeans wrote: “Today there is a wide measure of agreement, which on the physical side of science approaches almost to unanimity, that the stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears as an accidental intruder into the realm of matter; we are beginning to suspect that we ought rather to hail it as a creator and governor of the realm of matter...”
The point is that "if" there is indeed a “Creator” of the universe, then in order to even begin to understand what this Being might be like, we need to imagine the incomprehensible level that it would literally have to exist at (ascending above us as we ascend above amoebas) in order to produce something as complex as the universe.

Therefore, if the above isn’t at least the “starting point” of our speculative attempts to visualize God, then all characterizations of God will be woefully lacking - as is seen in the world’s religions.

(Continued in next post)
_______
Last edited by seeds on Tue Aug 16, 2016 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
seeds
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by seeds »

(Continued from prior post)
Greta wrote:
Public advocacy regarding God is a sign of defeat IMO, a retreat to childhood, joyously throwing off the burden of intellectual attempts to understand reality...
Greta, I don’t think that it’s a sign of defeat, but more of an unwillingness to accept what the “other side” is offering in its stead.

Let me establish some context here by, again, paraphrasing some ideas I have stated elsewhere.

From the modern perspective of the alleged "Big Bang," it is suggested that from “out of nowhere” there arose a tiny “kernel” of unthinkably dense matter that suddenly exploded into a vast and chaotic dispersal of primordial quantum particles.

Furthermore, without the slightest inkling of teleological impetus, this chaotic cloud somehow managed to blindly “self-arrange” its constituents into a context of order that absolutely defies comprehension.

In other words (and to put it into perspective)...

...science is pushing the notion that the blind processes of gravity and thermodynamics were somehow able to cause random particles of matter to simply come together (for no apparent “reason”) to form this...

Image

...which, by some remarkable coincidence, just so happens to be the “perfect setting and platform” upon which the essence of life (“life”? where did that come from?) could then effloresce from the very fabric of the setting itself, and eventually lead to us having this conversation.

I completely understand the need to distance oneself from the cringe-inducing baggage that accompanies the word “God,” however, to think that the amazing order of the universe could simply come about as a result of stochastic processes is utter nonsense.

It never ceases to amaze me in how our exponentially growing accumulation of knowledge is revealing mind-blowing levels of complexity and order in how the universe is constructed, yet the more complex and ordered it seems to be, the more willing some humans are to think that the order is somehow founded upon “serendipity.”

But you see, Greta, that’s the crux of the dream-like “illusion” of objective reality.

It is so perfectly executed with such rich and exquisite detail that the participants (us) who are literally held within the context of the illusion are completely fooled into thinking that nothing could exist above and outside of the illusion...

...hence my prattling on about the somnambulistic nature of our situation.
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Greta »

seeds wrote:It never ceases to amaze me in how our exponentially growing accumulation of knowledge is revealing mind-blowing levels of complexity and order in how the universe is constructed, yet the more complex and ordered it seems to be, the more willing some humans are to think that the order is somehow founded upon “serendipity.”

But you see, Greta, that’s the crux of the dream-like “illusion” of objective reality.

It is so perfectly executed with such rich and exquisite detail that the participants (us) who are literally held within the context of the illusion are completely fooled into thinking that nothing could exist above and outside of the illusion...

...hence my prattling on about the somnambulistic nature of our situation.
Yet order occurs blindly all the time. You grew from zygote to toddler with nary a thought. Dawkins fascinatingly describes the early development of the blastula in The Greatest Show on Earth.

It seems that reality simply does do things by itself based on knock on effects extending from an initial imbalance, and from then on the universe has chaotically moved towards a return to equilibrium. I am reminded of Leo's comment about physicists - "give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest".

Yet nothing in reality is perfectly balanced, at perfect equilibrium, so it should be no surprise that a slight imbalance of matter and antimatter should result in persistent knock on effects. Within primal chaos, probabilities (at least within the framework of known physical laws) made it inevitable that ordered structures would form. The structures that persisted were the ones that were able to persist - the rest fell back into chaos.

When people claim reality as an illusion, I think of it as scope creep. Illusions lack cause and effect, so the idea is poetic only. Still, our limited animal senses and brains miss most of the reality that passes us, too quickly too apprehend. So we live in a sea of practical abstractions - "path", "trees", "grass", "sky", "birds", "people" - entities with a vast array of complex qualities to reduced to simple abstractions and functionalities. So a path is for walking, not the very topmost layer of a planet with almost 13,000kms of material beneath your feet, with numerous life forms and unknown structures beneath your feet. That information is not normally needed for survival.

Trees are for shade or aesthetic pleasure, not beings in their own right that dominate their landscapes like apex predators, which grasp the ground tight with strong, porous roots that absorb water and chemicals needed to contribute to their physical systems, to the multilayered trunk and numerous branchings occurring in various areas. Or consider the slow motion battles for sunlight and nutrients trees conduct with their peers. Instead we ignore all this and might say, "let's sit under that tree", reducing everything around us to simple abstractions, almost completely unaware. Even the human relationships that take so much of our focus are based on abstractions, albeit more complex ones, which of course is the problem of other minds. Kant, of course, knew these things long before us.

I about the human tendency to dismiss that which they have not yet perceived. If not for so many reckless and unsubstantiated claims touted as "truth" then perhaps this would not be the case. As a result, the journey of humans has been one into an every larger and more complex reality. Once humanity lived on a central Earth surrounded by a nearby tiny Sun and tiny stars, run by God's clockwork. Today the most extreme postulation is a multiverse consisting of 10⁵⁰⁰ universes of unimaginable scale and complexity.

We are becoming ever less somnolent as a group while individually becoming more so as we increasingly change from being active agents to managers of active technological agents, from direct engagement to abstracted relationships. As individual skills and depth are lost, they are replaced by highly functional machines and the loss of individual depth is somewhat replaced by our growing bodies of knowledge. Swings and roundabouts, I guess.

It seems to me that, due to the limitations of the brain and its inability to control the extremely complex, eg. societies, governance, environment, the body, it seems that our brains will need to be augmented by AI to comprehend the ever more complex systems being created.
Nick_A
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Greta wrote:
It seems to me that, due to the limitations of the brain and its inability to control the extremely complex, eg. societies, governance, environment, the body, it seems that our brains will need to be augmented by AI to comprehend the ever more complex systems being created.
Simone Weil explained her criticism of algebra in her essay titled “Reflections on Quantum Theory” excerpted below The idea is that as both human reason and AI becomes more complex we lose the conception of value. The futility of reason refers to the potential acquisition of a human perspective. A human perspective isn’t the result of facts and reason but the ability to feel objective value. The more society becomes complex the more we lose the human capacity to emotionally perceive objective value: true conscience.. As we lose the ability to perceive objective value and experience emotions such as shame in relation to them, we become conditioned creatures of reaction in obedience to selfishness and societal norms lacking a human perspective that balances facts and objective values. Simone wrote:
“What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.”
seeds
Posts: 967
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by seeds »

Greta wrote:
Yet order occurs blindly all the time. You grew from zygote to toddler with nary a thought. Dawkins fascinatingly describes the early development of the blastula in The Greatest Show on Earth.
Greta, there is absolutely nothing “blind” in the procedure that transforms a zygote into a toddler.

Don’t allow yourself to "take for granted" the unthinkable order implicit in a solar “system” in which the energy supplied by a sun literally powers the processes in which the architectural design information embedded in DNA structures — mechanistically creates, and then stitches together — proteins that form something as amazing as this...

Image

...let alone, the rest of the body.

Furthermore, don’t allow yourself to make the same mistake that Dawkins makes by “leapfrogging” over the unfathomable array of prerequisite ingredients and circumstances that had to be in place before the blastula could even come into existence.

Not the least of which is this steadily rotating orb we are standing on whose position - relative to its DNA-powering source of energy - can be calculated with uncanny accuracy - thousands (if not millions) of years into the past or future.

And that’s not a tribute to our ability to calculate, but to the millisecond-by-millisecond precision with which this gigantic orb moves around the sun and turns on its axis – without which, nothing that Dawkins bases his “after-the-fact” theories on could have even begun.
Greta wrote:
It seems that reality simply does do things by itself based on knock on effects extending from an initial imbalance, and from then on the universe has chaotically moved towards a return to equilibrium. I am reminded of Leo's comment about physicists - "give us one free miracle and we'll explain the rest".
Image

:wink: :)
Greta wrote:
When people claim reality as an illusion, I think of it as scope creep. Illusions lack cause and effect, so the idea is poetic only.
Oh come on now Greta, you are intelligent enough to understand the analogical looseness with which I am applying the term “illusion” to our situation.

Nevertheless, if it would help you to visualize the illusory nature of the universe from the perspective of quantum theory, then allow me once again to paraphrase something I have posited elsewhere:
seeds wrote:
...physicists themselves have implied that matter is composed of a concentrated “light-like” substance consisting almost entirely of empty space, wherein its apparent “solidity and separateness” is created by the push and pull of electromagnetic forces.

In other words, our minds seem to be surrounded and encapsulated within amorphous fields of (illusion-creating) energy and information that, according to physicist Nick Herbert’s take on Heisenberg, are “...no more substantial than a promise...”

(From Herbert’s book, Quantum Reality: Beyond the New Physics)
So you see, even physics confirms the illusory-like way in which the universe presents its features to us.

However, as I suggested earlier, science can only report its “findings” regarding the material (nuts and bolts) structure of the universe.

Whereas it is up to the metaphysicians and philosophers to interpret what those findings could possibly mean with respect to the grand mystery of "how and why" we are even here to ponder such things.
_______
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Greta »

seeds wrote:
Greta wrote:Yet order occurs blindly all the time. You grew from zygote to toddler with nary a thought. Dawkins fascinatingly describes the early development of the blastula in The Greatest Show on Earth.
Greta, there is absolutely nothing “blind” in the procedure that transforms a zygote into a toddler.

Don’t allow yourself to "take for granted" the unthinkable order implicit in a solar “system” in which the energy supplied by a sun literally powers the processes in which the architectural design information embedded in DNA structures — mechanistically creates, and then stitches together — proteins that form something as amazing as this...

...let alone, the rest of the body.
Personally, I reckon the whole universe is alive in ways that we are not twigging on to, but I can't prove nuttin' and, alas, neither can you.
seeds wrote:Furthermore, don’t allow yourself to make the same mistake that Dawkins makes by “leapfrogging” over the unfathomable array of prerequisite ingredients and circumstances that had to be in place before the blastula could even come into existence.

Not the least of which is this steadily rotating orb we are standing on whose position - relative to its DNA-powering source of energy - can be calculated with uncanny accuracy - thousands (if not millions) of years into the past or future. And that’s not a tribute to our ability to calculate, but to the millisecond-by-millisecond precision with which this gigantic orb moves around the sun and turns on its axis – without which, nothing that Dawkins bases his “after-the-fact” theories on could have even begun.
You seem to be arguing that consciousness is fundamental. Many have made the argument, but we don't yet know what is fundamental. I sympathise, but I cannot reason it out. If someone asked me to cogently explain my intuitions, I couldn't.
seeds wrote:... it would help you to visualize the illusory nature of the universe from the perspective of quantum theory ... physicists themselves have implied that matter is composed of a concentrated “light-like” substance consisting almost entirely of empty space, wherein its apparent “solidity and separateness” is created by the push and pull of electromagnetic forces.

In other words, our minds seem to be surrounded and encapsulated within amorphous fields of (illusion-creating) energy and information that, according to physicist Nick Herbert’s take on Heisenberg, are “...no more substantial than a promise...”

So you see, even physics confirms the illusory-like way in which the universe presents its features to us.

Love the bolded perspective - beautiful! As a general rule of thumb in reality, the smaller the scale, the more ephemeral the entity. The bigger you are, the longer you live (excess Big Macs not withstanding). What are we individuals to the Earth but tiny bits of fizz right on the surface? If the Earth could think like humans it might argue that individual humans are too ephemeral to be considered real.

Seeds wrote:However, as I suggested earlier, science can only report its “findings” regarding the material (nuts and bolts) structure of the universe.

Whereas it is up to the metaphysicians and philosophers to interpret what those findings could possibly mean with respect to the grand mystery of "how and why" we are even here to ponder such things.

Philosophers need to be aware of new verified findings to avoid deal-breaking errors. Still, I'm a fan of meta-analyses. Let the boffins do the hard spade work and we can use their findings to construct what we hope are coherent mental models of reality, bearing in mind that every single one of those models will be tragically incomplete.

So the mystics jump in to claim that, since science doesn't have the answers, they do. They can't explain themselves because the answer is "unknowable", that you can only feel it. However, just because they give subjective experience its due importance (a problem with western science that's only recently being addressed) does not mean the mystics know what they're doing.

I know of no personal accounts of people leaving meditative retreats any happier or more functional. I do know of people who spent significant time on meditation retreats who didn't seem much changed by the experience, nor imbued with new, special qualities. No doubt the practice will resonate with some, but so could any kind of retreat.
sthitapragya
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by sthitapragya »

Nick_A wrote: Simone wrote:
“What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.”
Oh, so now she is an expert mathematician and physicist too? I can understand your love for her philosophy, but I think what you are doing now is blind idol worship. The woman might be a great philosopher ( which is open to debate but let us agree with you for now). But that does NOT repeat does NOT make her an expert in the field of mathematics or physics and definitely does not give her any authority to dictate how the two should do their jobs.

And this is typical of all self aggrandizing people. What they cannot understand or does not fit in with their theory (and of course their theory is perfect and not open to questioning) is a violent contradiction of common sense.
User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Hobbes' Choice »

sthitapragya wrote:
Nick_A wrote: Simone wrote:
“What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.”
Oh, so now she is an expert mathematician and physicist too? I can understand your love for her philosophy, but I think what you are doing now is blind idol worship. T
It's the only books he read except the bible,
The religiously inclined tend to read something and obey. Its in their nature.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8483
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Dontaskme »

Greta wrote: So the mystics jump in to claim that, since science doesn't have the answers, they do. They can't explain themselves because the answer is "unknowable", that you can only feel it. However, just because they give subjective experience its due importance (a problem with western science that's only recently being addressed) does not mean the mystics know what they're doing.
The unknowable is simply made up of itself. So what could possibly question itself - how would a question even arise? and what answer could possibly be without a question ?

So yes it's a subjective feeling...but not in the sense there is a someone who is feeling a feeling ..

....it would be correct to say ( there is only feeling )

Seems everything is energy...and that matter is dead stuff which can do nothing without live energy input.
Energy is also latent stuff just hanging around which is basically useless in and of itself ...it doesn't do a whole lot without the dead stuff...in the context ..a toaster on it's own does not toast the bread, the toasting of the bread depends on an electrical current passing through a lump of dead metal...

It's the same for matter, it can't function without an electric current passing through it...we can call that electric current consciousness.

This means that consciousness has always existed and is fundamental for existence to be.

It's not a body that makes a cup of tea, it's conscious energy making the tea, the body is the robotic instrument used by intelligent energy. The body in and of itself is as thick as a plank when it comes to making a cup of tea....but a cup of tea depends on it, such is the intelligence of the one operating the body.

When the body eventually dies, it just means the bodies battery has gone flat...it's gone to seed...it's served it's function, whereas energy is always looking to renew and replenish itself, it does not die it just seeks a new battery to power up...usually in the form of a seed...from seed to seed and endless spring...summer, autumn, winter...cycle :D :P
Greta wrote:Whereas it is up to the metaphysicians and philosophers to interpret what those findings could possibly mean with respect to the grand mystery of "how and why" we are even here to ponder such things.
This was never a mystery...it was more like an open secret.

Tis only the ego that seeks for the ''hows'' and ''whys'' ....as if there was something in this for me....and that's the cosmic joke...the joke was always on the ego....as if such a thing ever existed..
Nick_A
Posts: 5130
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Futility of Reason

Post by Nick_A »

Sthit wrote:
Oh, so now she is an expert mathematician and physicist too? I can understand your love for her philosophy, but I think what you are doing now is blind idol worship. The woman might be a great philosopher ( which is open to debate but let us agree with you for now). But that does NOT repeat does NOT make her an expert in the field of mathematics or physics and definitely does not give her any authority to dictate how the two should do their jobs.

And this is typical of all self aggrandizing people. What they cannot understand or does not fit in with their theory (and of course their theory is perfect and not open to questioning) is a violent contradiction of common sense.
You are a text book example of a person compelled to attack and destroy what they do not understand. This is just another example of partiality contributing to the futility of reason. You cannot appreciate Simone and insist on attacking her and others with your ignorance. Fortunately there are those like Vance Morgan who can introduce her ideas you and others seek to destroy in defense of your ignorance.

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Weaving-World ... 6223863/bd

Weaving the World: Simone Weil on Science, Mathematics, And Love
Vance G. Morgan
Synopsis: "Weaving the World" uses Simone Weil's philosophy of science and mathematics as an introduction to the thought of one of the most powerful philosophical and theological minds of the twentieth century. Weil held that, for the ancient Greeks, the ultimate purpose of science and mathematics was the knowledge and love of the divine. Her creative assimilation of this vision led her to a conception of science and mathematics that connects the human person with not only the physical world but also the spiritual and aesthetic aspects of human existence. Vance G Morgan investigates Weil's earliest texts on science, in which she lays the foundation for a conception of science rooted in basic human concerns and activities. He then tracks Weil's analysis of the development of science, particularly of the mathematics and science of the ancient Greeks. He especially explores Weil's interpretation of the Pythagoreans and their mathematical discoveries, giving special attention to the mathematical foundations of musical harmonies. Morgan pays particular attention to Weil's analysis of Greek geometry, which she believed reveals the importance of mediation between incommensurate in both geometry and the larger scope of human existence. Morgan's study not only challenges the metaphysical and spiritual poverty of contemporary scientific paradigms, but also sketches an outline of an alternative metaphysical foundation for mathematics and science that, according to Weil, opens the door to a reinvigorated dialogue between science, philosophy, art, and religion.
Post Reply