The Bible; Divinely Inspired?

Post Reply New Topic

Umm, ok, and you can see philosophy interacting with science based upon the experimental philosophy movement, however, my point is not refuted by your point. The epistemology of Kant, as ruveyn said, really seems more influenced by Hume, and traditionally Hume gets the credit for causing Kant to think.


Correctly is the subject of the debate, and frankly, I don't have to be a disciple of Bacon to have a stance. Unless Bacon is the new church, or some theologian, then he can be dissented with.


Well, no. It does not assert that. But it is not logically impossible for the 2 to be separated, as noted by the notion of philosophical zombies. If this statement is made, there is no need to measure, or quantify, as the knowledge of the former is prior to the knowledge of the latter. We know about anger before we can quantify OR measure. A first-hand experience is a result of neuron activity perhaps, but it isn't the same thing as neuron activity, and there is the issue. What we have is a mental process, and while mental processes and physical processes can be connected, it seems questionable to say that they are exactly the same, as they have very different characteristics. Mental processes, for instance, refer to non-material things so often that claiming that they are the same as physical processes seems questionable, and claiming that the mental process is fake is almost like saying that you do not exist.


No, the instrument of measuring our anger first-hand is our perception and self-reflection. You can say that this is a result of neurons, but to say that this *is* neurons is an odd thing to say, because neurons are physical cells, but the perceptions are not physical or cells. In any case, there is a reason to say that there are non-material things, because we directly experience them, but there is little reason to say that these exist independently of the material things.


No, because that itself depends logic. There is no measurement without a logical process. Naive empiricism is usually not much considered given the need for the interpretation/logical analysis of data.


Umm.... that says nothing about logic. If the logic of our brain has a clear material basis, then what says that the logic of our brain is correct? Can our epistemology survive if there is a possibility that the logic of our brain is fundamentally wrong? I'd say that your response says that there is no necessary connection of our brain's logic to correctness, and I would argue that based upon our own logic, our logic is untrustworthy.

You are right. And our experiences are not infallable and could be far from reality. However, I think that they are all we have - there are NO self evident principles, except perhaps that 'something' must exist for us to have this experience - even that can be interpreted many ways (Is it a physical universe that exists, or our minds, or God or another mind or something else I havent thought of yet?). And even the existence of our 'minds' (in whichever form this may be) is dependent upon our natural senses - I think without any input at all from senses, the mind would not develop to start with.

I see what you are trying to say.


my comment was intended to be quasi-independent of the debate. not about religion or an attempt to prove religion. Just because we prove science faulty does not mean we prove religion correct. It was just about science.

Kant's problem was to defend Netwon's physics against Hume's scepticisms. Because Newton's physics is not anly longe our valid model of the world, Kant's epistemology is in wide areas outdated. But Kant's epistemology did not outdated because of logical flaws, but physics outed Kant. Kant's ideas are consistent within the context of scientific knowledge of his time.



He is not a "new church", but I quoted him, because he formulated first the scientific method clearly and rigid. This method seems to be right, because the use this method result in the explosion of knowledge and progress for humanity since.

The results prove the correctness of this approach.



There no such a think like a "mental process" outside the physical process of changed states of neurons in our brain. So long there no hind to such a process, there no need to introduce anything separated from the material world. So why we should introduce such a notion?



Our perception and self reflection are just interactions neuron - nothing more. So those switches in our brain are the basis of what we are.



It say a lot about logic: Because our brains, how produce this logic are the products of the same material world we describe with our logic. Therefore it would surprising if the logic would not express the interaction of the material world.



Our epistemology seems to be quite correct, because we survive. If our logic would not reflect to very high degree the material world, we could not make prediction and therefore we would fail in our struggle for survival very soon.

I actually like Hume's skepticisms for the most part.


Well, ok, influential figure, but still, this method is not a method for knowing about all things, but rather knowing about the natural world. I don't think anyone has denied the application of science to the natural world, but even in things closely connected to the natural world, there are questions that are non-natural, about things non-material.

In any case, if the results prove the correctness of something, then I could argue that same point about religious experience or a number of other things that people do that they perceive to have good results, as it certainly seems that the good results criterion can justify almost any action, including placebos, without regard for any literal truth.


Well, the issue is really logical sameness, they aren't the same. A hyperlink isn't the same as a grouping of electrons, and a computer program isn't the same as a grouping of chips, there is a difference between reductionism and greedy reductionism. To be honest, I don't think I am introducing some full-blown dualism where we are controlled through the pineal gland, but rather a recognition that self-perception is not best understood as neurons, but rather better understood as self-perception. There is an argument out there, that if there was a scientist who studied everything about neuroscience, perception, and electro-magnetic waves but lived in a black and white room their entire life, that if one accepts that her seeing the color yellow is a new bit of knowledge, they accept a variant of dualism. The idea being that if just the perception of the color yellow is new knowledge, then immaterial perceptions are knowledge, and thus immaterial things must exist. To me, it seems clear that seeing the color yellow is a new bit of knowledge, and that feeling anger or other emotions constitute new bits of knowledge as well, even if one reads a lot about them.


Our perception and self reflection are also immaterial qualities. Whether or not neurons are involved is meaningless, the perception is immaterial. I perceive immaterial things, and I bet you do too, you have not refuted their existence, only pointed to their emergence, which is not a disproof at all. Therefore, it seems to be that if we take our own perceptions as valid(which we generally do in all other instances) then immaterial things exist, these may be dependent upon physical processes, but arbitrarily saying that perceptions are less valid in certain instances seems an epistemic inconsistency.


No, it really doesn't. It wouldn't be surprising no matter what the conclusion was. I mean, given that there are millions of material things that do not explain the interaction of the material world, it seems odd that our logic would suddenly be so privileged.


Dussel, your logic tells you that, but the issue is that I claim that it is already untrustworthy by it's own standards. Can you, without invoking logic, prove that logic is trustworthy? And if you can only prove it's trustworthiness through logic, then don't you have an inconsistency in a principled pursuit of truth, as you just have circularity.

Our logic is right often enough to help us survive.

Perfection is an illusion and the Best is the enemy of the Good Enough.

ruveyn

Well, a lot of effective enough for survival, in any case, if we are only concerned about surviving, then there is no reason to rethink the views that were sufficient in the past.

DentArthurDent posted (in part): Do you believe that the bible is divinely inspired.
---
Tend to view the Bible as a most unusual book (collection) of inspired stories. Tend to view some translations of the Bible as being a little more inspirational than others. Tend to view several translations of the Bible as being translations which appear to be well done with the hope that the translations appear to be divinely inspired. What makes the Bible (to me) quite different is that it invents the word - God - and that invention of the word God (to me) is divine inspiration/fits my definition of how the two words - divine inspiration - can be defined.