jamest wrote:

Fenrir wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Incidentally, you're saying here that reality is independent of mind.

No, I'm saying that reality is independent of (transcends) facts about our observed universe. ...

reality
/rɪˈalɪti/

1.
the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.
"he refuses to face reality"

Hmmmmm

The one thing missing from that definition is that which actually exists.

Like falls from 3rd floor windows? Like poorly driven cars heading towards you at 60 MPH? Like walls... I mean, what even are walls if they're not what they seem to be?

jamest wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BWE wrote:Then again, the parallel postulate seemed to be a law for a long time.

There's another postulate, of course, which is that mathematics can inform philosophy.

Sorry, nope. Belly-button fluff informs philosophy, which is not about assessing and incorporating facts, but is about how to identify when reasoning has failed, and facts just don't help with that. Because: denial. Can I pick 'em, or what?

If we keep contesting philosophical points with facts, we have discovered neither facts nor philosophy, let alone improved them.

Joe Biden is president of the USA.
Bugs Bunny achieved a rank of Master Sergeant in the US marines.

Both facts. Both meaningless/irrelevant from the perspective of contemplating reality with an open mind.

I challenge you to present a list or group of 'facts' (a short list will suffice) which have ANY relevance whatsoever to such an endeavour.

Let me save your head from imploding with the effort, for there's not a single fact about the whole universe which has any such relevance.


You can't just sweep philosophy under the rug on the basis of facts or lack thereof. Have a word with yourself.

This too, seems a caricature of a ridiculous position. Philosophy involves the construction of models. Models without facts as well as facts without models are meaningless.

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

contemplating reality with an open mind

Incidentally, you're saying here that reality is independent of mind.

No, I'm saying that reality is independent of (transcends) facts about our observed universe. That there are no such facts relevant in any endeavour to contemplate reality (try naming one!). Also, that any such endeavour can only proceed upon the basis of reason alone... philosophy. Bottom line:

The ontological value of facts about the observed universe is zero.

Few, seemingly, ever fully realise this fact. A fact not about the world, but about the limits of empirical knowledge. A fact unveiled by reason alone.

The true value of philosophy goes right over most people's head because they have not considered this, or understood it.

Fact, the universe appears to be consistent. Ie logic works. Any model which is not grounded on that fact isn't a model and has no philosophy

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

contemplating reality with an open mind

Incidentally, you're saying here that reality is independent of mind.

No, I'm saying that reality is independent of (transcends) facts about our observed universe. That there are no such facts relevant in any endeavour to contemplate reality (try naming one!). Also, that any such endeavour can only proceed upon the basis of reason alone... philosophy. Bottom line:

The ontological value of facts about the observed universe is zero.

Few, seemingly, ever fully realise this fact. A fact not about the world, but about the limits of empirical knowledge. A fact unveiled by reason alone.

The true value of philosophy goes right over most people's head because they have not considered this, or understood it.

Fact, the universe appears to be consistent. Ie logic works. Any model which is not grounded on that fact isn't a model and has no philosophy

I'm not denying that our observations/experiences are ordered and therefore predictable, but these are reducible to internal events within ourselves, none of which informs us about what we actually are or whether there's a reality beyond that.

Ultimately, believing that the reality of whatever you are is that of a finite body within the material universe, can be demonstrated to be a massive assumption with zero 'facts' to support the claim and certainly no sound reasoning. And as long as you hold on to that belief, then you're no more open-minded to metaphysics than most, including the religious.

BWE wrote:
This too, seems a caricature of a ridiculous position.

I concur... it's essentially placed itself outside of any form of reasoned discourse - there's nothing more to say to such a belief when knowledge isn't gained by observation - it's not just provably wrong, the claimant disproves it by their existence, by their participation, by the act of making the claim.

To me, it's a lot like an attempt to assert the existence of an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire - a constructed falsehood carefully placed outside of scrutiny.

Whatever it is, it's damn well not floating in a site specifically focused on rational skepticism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scientific skepticism or rational skepticism (also spelled scepticism), sometimes referred to as skeptical inquiry,[1] is a position in which one questions the veracity of claims lacking empirical evidence.

Personally, I think jamest is just uncomfortable with the massive vista of knowledge he has no access to or capacity to master, so he essentially needs to find a way to dismiss it en masse. I suggest a more sensible response to a self-awareness of ignorance is to simply acknowledge that one doesn't know, without pretending there is nothing to know.

jamest wrote:
I'm not denying that our observations/experiences are ordered and therefore predictable, but these are reducible to internal events within ourselves, none of which informs us about what we actually are or whether there's a reality beyond that.

The internal event within ourselves of a car colliding with our meaty bodies at 60MPH?

jamest wrote:Ultimately, believing that the reality of whatever you are is that of a finite body within the material universe, can be demonstrated to be a massive assumption with zero 'facts' to support the claim and certainly no sound reasoning.

It can be, can it? Go ahead then.

jamest wrote: And as long as you hold on to that belief, then you're no more open-minded to metaphysics than most, including the religious.

Ahh acknowledging the existence of the empirical is a close-minded belief - have you heard about the New Age movement, jamest? You're espousing very similar claims - I believe you may need to acquire a tattoo of a fairy on your buttock though if you want to attain some cachet with your more ideologically related fellows.

People here are interested in rational skepticism - not the complete abandonment of sense.

jamest wrote:

BWE wrote:

jamest wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Incidentally, you're saying here that reality is independent of mind.

No, I'm saying that reality is independent of (transcends) facts about our observed universe. That there are no such facts relevant in any endeavour to contemplate reality (try naming one!). Also, that any such endeavour can only proceed upon the basis of reason alone... philosophy. Bottom line:

The ontological value of facts about the observed universe is zero.

Few, seemingly, ever fully realise this fact. A fact not about the world, but about the limits of empirical knowledge. A fact unveiled by reason alone.

The true value of philosophy goes right over most people's head because they have not considered this, or understood it.

Fact, the universe appears to be consistent. Ie logic works. Any model which is not grounded on that fact isn't a model and has no philosophy

I'm not denying that our observations/experiences are ordered and therefore predictable, but these are reducible to internal events within ourselves, none of which informs us about what we actually are or whether there's a reality beyond that.

Ultimately, believing that the reality of whatever you are is that of a finite body within the material universe, can be demonstrated to be a massive assumption with zero 'facts' to support the claim and certainly no sound reasoning. And as long as you hold on to that belief, then you're no more open-minded to metaphysics than most, including the religious.

What anything "actually is" is always up for grabs but I argue that not even reason can get us there.

I accept that strong physicalism was undone when Maxwell wrote his equations if not long before but there is tremendous utility in a physically based model. The mistake of trying to assume ontological status from the utility of a model is a hard one to avoid.

In my perspective, models serve two navigational purposes, each equally important. One is to navigate the orga ism through its environment to maintain its continuity, this is where gravity and physics have been tremendously useful. The other is to navigate the ego through its environment to maintain its satisfaction. This is where religious/mystical thinking occasionally succeed (and where religion falls flat). Models that try to bridge the two purposes almost always fail because the organism needs accurate physical predictions and the ego needs to be right. One very advantageous element of science as a methodology is that it can care for the ego by making the act of discovery into reward for discovering where it was wrong.

Buddhism does it better though.

I can't find a good link to this book, and personally don't care to link to amazon, so I'll drop ISBN and standard reference instead. This is a comprehensive study tracing the evolution of claims to knowledge since the Enlightenment, and it has the capacity to change peoples' lives and fundamental beliefs - people with an uninformed esotericism, itself an unwitting reaction to the grand complications of spirituality posed by modernity, are going to either flee or revise their internal reasoning reading this.

Claiming Knowledge: Strategies of Epistemology from Theosophy to the New Age
Olav Hammer, Brill Academic Pub, 2000
ISBN-10: 9004120165

Looks interesting but also something I am unlikely to read. I went through a religious analytical phase around the time of dover v kitzmiller but I feel like I've plumbed that well. It really was just an expression of my surprise that religious people still existed.

While its about religion in one sense, it's actually more about epistemology over the last 400 years... plus, the citation's not really for you! <--- that's not really as snooty an emoticon as I'd hoped

Ah. I occasionally notice that some parts of the universe are not all about me, but usually only after someone points it out.

Is this thread dead now?

BWE wrote:Is this thread dead now?

This part of the universe is actually all about you, so it's your responsibility now.

Whoa. This is some star trek shit going on here...

Rule wisely, my son.

I swear it