tar

Neither the blind man nor the sighted, directly sense the ultraviolet and magnetic eminations. We "know" these in indirect ways.

Villain, Or perhaps the question is about one's knowledge of the world, compared with the abilities one has to internalize it. That is, what patterns do you notice and "remember". (Figuring that something has to change in ones brain, to record the pattern in some analog fashion, some representative arrangement that closely mirrors the original pattern.) The blind man "records" that of the Sun that he feels, and hears about from others. It is still the same sun, even in the mind of the blindman and the sighted, at least by virtue of its "common" characteristics. I myself have never looked at the sun long enough to study it, 'cause I was told it would burn out my rentinae if I did. I still have an "image" of it, that I can recall even on a cloudy day, or at night. I would imagine that a blind man is perfectly capable of holding such an "image" of the sun, that would be composed of the analogous patterns in his brain, to the patterns that the sun exhibits to him. Interesting that you say the blind man feels the heat, and sighted people sense the heat and light...when the "heat" is really light in the infrared range. The sighted person is able to focus light in the visible sprectrum onto the back of their eye, where the shape and color of the sun is reproduced, and this "pattern" is promoted into the brain, through the firing or non-firing of specifically arranged rods and cones. All the light from the sun is hitting the blind man, same as the sighted. The sighted man has the ability to resolve it to an objective image directly, through the use of the evolved apparatus of the eye. The blind man, I would imagine, could still retain an objective "image" of the sun, just not one derived through the focusing lens of a human eye. The analogies might need to be different, but the blind man could still know the distance to the sun, the actual size of the sun, the angular size of the sun, the shape of the sun, the radiation it eminates and the nuclear reactions going on inside it, its history and its projected future, the role it played in the formation of the solar system, and its importance to human life, through its role in photosynthesis in plants. Regards, TAR2

Moontanman, I have been arguing with Jehova Witnesses since I was 18. I have also "studied" religions here and there, by reading the texts they go by. So I am not adverse to your take. Many religions have "leaders" or priests or mullahs, or wisemen, or "teachers" who in one way or another, claim access to a special knowledge, that the ordinary folk don't have. I have rejected this approach, and have on my own, decided that we each of us humans, have equal access to reality. And we need no special key. We are already "in". So Immortal is right, that I have judged subjective idealism to be false. An individuals special take, a personal god, an "I am right and you are wrong" attitude, based solely on ones personal muses, and private "connection" with the universe, is not very sensible. There are currently about 9 billion examples of "subjective ideal" holders, and probably about the same number of departed humans who exist or existed in a rather similar fashion, to any other human. What is important to me, is that these people, you and me included, have and are witnessing the SAME universe. It is this "same" universe that I allude to, when describing my subjective views of it. It is objectively real, bigger than me and you, and quite a bit longer lasting. But most importantly I am not divorced from it. I am of it, and in it. Same as you. It does not love you more or less than it does me, and I love it no more or less than you. It is automatically mine, completely, and I am automatically it's, completely. You can not do this any better or worse than me. It's already true. Where we have some latitude in messing up, or doing well is how we act toward it, and each other. What rules we go by, and which parts of it we hold close and protect and maintain, and which parts of it, we reject and destroy. Inow, If, over the years, people have personified this supreme being we are all witnessing and created by, and built together ways of protecting each other, and surviving reasonably together, with the proper, workable mix of humbleness and responsibility, and camps are formed, that are called "religions", and the supreme being itself is given a name or names...these people are not broken. Nor do I think you are broken, or unable to witness the size and complexity and "wonderfulness" of the universe. I was turning the question around, to point out, like the George Carlin example, that each of us has a tendency to think we are the only one doing it right, and others, not so much. Seems pretty obvious to me, that none of us can be holding the only key. Sure I set up a strawman. But only to bring to the fore, the incorrectness, of you putting impossible Gods in other people's heads, and then pointing out how stupid and broken they must be, to accept such nonsense. Perhaps you could look for the middle ground, and give an other human the benefit of the doubt. Like they were your brother or sister, and try to figure out what they mean by God, that corresponds to your understanding. Regards, TAR2

Inow, Perhaps we can approach this question from an objective view point, by asking the opposite question. Are people that don't believe in God...broken? There seems to be a certainty that people who do not believe in God have, that they have the "correct" approach to the universe. That it is all rather simple math, and the universe is explainable, measureable and understandable, from the smallest quark to the largest string of galaxies, from the moment time and space, matter and energy came into existence...to the "ultimate fate" of said simple non-thinking matter. Anything that looks like its on purpose, is really accidental, chance combinations of random activity. The universe can not be conscious, because there is no formula for consciousness. And they say this, and think this, while they themselves are made of nothing but universe material, as if they have come from somewhere else, a spirit, a ghost, that inhabits some dumb chemical mass, that they have dominion over, and know better than. Sounds to me like such a person is lying to themselves, removing themselves from the actual fray. Sounds cold and heartless, analytical and superior. These people must be broken. They do not understand that they are completely 100% of the universe, and not one particle of them is of their own creation. The universe made them, and they are just witnessing it. They imagine they hold the whole thing in their tiny heads. They must be broken. Regards, TAR2

General query. What do we mean when we say "ultimate fate"? That state that the universe will be in, when there is no "next" state? I am having a little trouble looking for the place to stand, even hypothetically, to witness that. Regards, TAR2 And wondering what senses one would need to witness such a thing happening...all at once. Seems you would have to break a few laws to do it. The speed of light, being one. In a sense, we do actually see the whole universe at once...but it is not the same once that one would need to see the entire "current" universe at one time. So an ultimate fate, would require the entire universe, to be at the same place, at the same time, with no distinctions between any parts. That would argue toward a singularity being the only possible ultimate fate. If the path of the universe does not end in a singularity, then it does not end...in which case the universe does not have an ultimate fate...it just would keep doing what it was going to do next. Regards, TAR2

Villian, I am not exactly sure what happened with this thread, but "evidently" I had assumed I missed something, and was responding to Arete's post, which brought in a "clarification" of what the thread question was. You attributed something Arete brought to the table to me...I think. But thats OK, nothing was said that I would be worried about. And it does bring up a point that I was sort of alluding to. The point is, that part of the question of "error" is the question of truth, or "non-error". And there is an inherent difference between what one expects to be the case, and what is actually the case. I would express the difference in this manner. What one expects to be the case is an approximation, a guess, a prediction, that is based on what has happened before, as to what is going to happen next. The "truth" on the other hand, is what actually happens. If your question is what amount of error is attributed to human expectations, I would have to answer that in light of the above expression of the issue, the answer is "all of it". After all, the world can not do anything "wrong". It either does it, or it doesn't do it, and it can not take anything back, once done. And everthing "fits" automatically with that which is in the area, now, and eventually with things farther away, as the impulses from the thing spread to the rest of the universe, like the ripples in a pond. So science is a matter of constantly improving our model of the world so we can more and more accurately predict what will happen, given certain starting situations, next. The starting situations have to be described, and the expectations of what will happen next, have to be described. If we are "surprised" by the results, it is not the "fault" of the world. It is the fault of our expectation, which we then automatically modify appropriately in determining what we expect to happen next. The world itself is always in possession of the truth. We on the other hand are only in a position to internalize such truth, a little at a time. We cannot make a model of the thing that is actually the thing. My favorite example is if you wrote the complete formula for a peanut butter cup, every atom, every quark, with its exact position and momentum, and took a bite of the formula, it would not taste like a peanut butter cup. Regards, TAR2

Ophiolite, While I find RAJA's speculation lacking in a few logical consistentcies, as a "thought" experiment, As in what causes the stretching limit to be reached? If black hole A is pulling black hole B to it, and C is pulling A and C...why do galaxies appear to be receding from us at a substantial rate? and so on, I would have to ask you about any evidence you have of what the universe is doing currently, any farther away from here than a couple thousand light years, (that may have been noted in recorded human history?) If we take some measurements that tell us that galaxy A is moving this way or that way at this or that speed, we only have evidence of what it was doing millions (or billions) of years ago. We are speculating to assume it is STILL in the same state, especially since it most likely has had millions of years to slow or speed up, or complete an orbital dance around some neighboring stuff. IF some combination of forces and material have actually caused the universe to be currently shrinking...we would have no evidence of it, for quite a while. Now would we? Considering the size and scale of the universe, it seems rather inappropriate to imagine it as doing any one thing, currently. There is no such vantage point from which such a statement would make any actual sense. If we are only building models, then only the models have to be internally consistent. We can not provide any current data for analysis, about something which is happening 2 billion light years away. Regards, TAR2 In fact, one of the only sure things we can say about a galaxy we measure to be 2 billion light years away, is that it has had 2 billion years to evolve into some other configuration, than the one we see now.

And where do bio-tars come from? Are they not the remnant of earlier bio-masses? ie. some carbon and compounds already amassed by life processes? Can't have earlier life setting the stage for the emergence of life, now can we?

Arete, Although I agree with you, that many methods have been developed to try and take subjectivity out of scientific investigations, it seems any investigation would be rather empty, if it did not have a human concern at its roots, and if the arguments, upon which the hypothesis that was under test were based, where not based on human assumptions and human understanding of the world. Regards, TAR2 Any fact that has no bearing on humans, and no way for a human to imagine it, is rather unknowable. I would hardly say that a claim that such a thing, which could not be understood by a human, would have any meaning at all. That being the case, I would vote against there being an "other" objective reality, than the one described by human peer reviewed science, that had any import to humans. That is, a single human can not possess an understanding that is MORE objective, than the understanding arrived at when everybody puts their models of the world together, and what is accepted as objective reality, is that portion that is common to any and all subjective human takes.

Villian, So what is the nature of the "error" that you are talking about? The extent of the difference between the "real" item referred to and the "model" of the thing? Or the accuracy in which the expression of the principles and rules, that seem to be present in the model, match the facts? For instance. If a thing in reality is to be 100% true. Then any analogy of it that we make is not complete. This error? Or if our expression of the fact is to be initially considered 100% true, to what extent is it not? This error? Regards, TAR2

literal component, that is

Villain, I would like to throw in, the phrases "it's evident to me", "it is becoming evident" and "evidently....such and such...is true". The "data" that provides us with these determinations, is what we ourselves notice or are told about by people we trust. It is not a matter of high science, or probabilty theory, or error rates to look at the broken lever and say "evidently it was not strong enough for the job". We learn about the world, as soon as we first sense it. Learning about it through our senses, and our movements through it. Building an accurate analogy of it, which improves in scope and detail as we age. There is no hesitation in modifying it (the model) immediately when a change in the real world, that the model is of, changes. That is the point. When we look at a tree, and see a tree, it is evidence enough, that the tree is there. Our model of the tree is real time, and adjusts automatically as we get closer to the tree, or farther away, or a branch breaks off in the wind. I am of the recently gained opinion that much of our "thinking" goes right along with the world we are thinking about. Sure we make metaphors and analogies, and map stuff and take ratios, but it is always from or about, or in reference to, the actual world, that we are part of. We take the "stuff" we are thinking about from the world. But that should be evident. Regards, TAR2

immortal, Interesting take of Kant. Perhaps that is what he is saying, I have not read Critique of Reason all the way throught yet. And that was not his only work. But I would not put, what I know of his thoughts in quite the manner you just did...But to each his own. There is probably a tendency we all have to cherry pick ideas and take them the way they could be taken that would fit into our already formed understanding of the way things are. But none-the-less, I think he was saying something different. To me, it makes perfect sense that there is an objective reality that exists, that I am in and of. My body and heart and brain are the reasons that my mind emerged. I am conscious of what is going on in and around my body/brain/heart group. I know that I do not "contain" the world around me, but that I do contain an analog representation of it. That you also contain an analog representation of it is also true. If I were to die, my analog representation of the world would be destroyed, along with the death of my brain. The objective reality that I had a model of, would still be existing. Objectively true, still, and the analog representation of it that you hold in your brain, your mind, would still be alive. If you were to reach nirvana, you would be the only one to make the trip. The rest of the world would not have any way of knowing such a thing occurred, unless you told them. However, if you where to climb to the top of a mountain, anybody looking at the top of the mountain could see you standing there. Because you really did that, on a real mountain, that exists in reality on a real Earth. Regards, TAR2

usually while you are in the tub, you are all wet just joking the idea is figuratively fine has no literature component that science could check on though

immortal, I don't know how anybody can say reality isn't real. What do you think they are referring to, when they say it doesn't exit? And who do they figure is making that determination? An interesting angle to this objective reality thing, that is rather obvious, but none-the-less just occurred to me, in reference to this life after death question, is that I am fully existent in your objective reality, with or without your thought of me. And vice-a-versa, of course. That means that you are a rather sound argument that there is more to reality than what is in my imagination. And vice-a-versa. If I should die. And you found out about it. That should prove to you, that there is such thing as life after death, because there you would be, an object in living TAR2's objective reality, still alive, after TAR2 has died. In fact it should already be obvious to us, because we all have witnessed living things die, and we are still alive. Proof beyond any reasonable doubt that objective reality goes on being real, even when and if a subject ceases to be viable in it. Regards, TAR2

immortal, But "what" is having that subjective experience? And where is it having it? and When? Is it having it in "this" reality? What is your opinion on the second sense of "life after death"? When I die, will you still be alive? Regards, TAR2

Genecks, "Philosophy attempts to try and understand or at least explain things." Sounds like a good, possible definition for the purposes of this thread. If taken as such, then the question would become is "trying to understand or at least explain things" essential and worthwhile, or a useless waste of time? To which I would have to say that most if not all people seem to be engaged in attempts to understand and explain things, so although that would put Philosophy in the "ubiquitous' camp, it would seem to, as well, make it an essential part of human nature. Which would shift the question to ones opinion on the worthwhileness of being human. Regards, TAR2 immortal, Interesting that you chose the reasonable definition for mysticism but defended the one I was framing as negative, as if that was the one you identified with. Regards, TAR2

immortal, I think you missed a "the" in the definition of Theology, which changes the meaning a lot. Shouldn't it be "the nature" of god, not "nature" that Theologists study? But anyway, so which of the definitions of Philosophy are we considering to be crapful exercises or not? And the myticism definition sounded a little like the definition of an epiphany I had, and I don't think that qualifies me as a mystic, so I am not quite sure we can go by that definition. I was looking at definitions in The American Heritage Dictionary last night, and noticed something interesting. For several of the concepts we are trying to pin down here, there were several or more definitions. And some were putting the concept in a good light, some in a questionable light and some in a negative light. Take these definitions of Mysticism. Three ways of expressing basically the same idea. Number 1 a little questionable, number 2 reasonable and number 3 foolish. Like the tendency we have to put the same idea in a good light when it pertains to us, a questionable light when pertaining to the second person (in grammar) and a bad light when pertaining to the third person. As in, "i am exploring my sexuality" "you are loose" and "she is a slut". Such a problem I think we are running into in this discussion. When I do mysticism its an epiphany. When you do it, you are misguiding yourself, and when mystics do it, they are delusional...so to speak. So the answer to the thread question is probably... Philosophy is fine and essential, when done appropriately as we intelligent, thoughtful people do it. Somewhat questionable when you misinformed confused people try to apply it. And down right useless crap when those delusional idiots do it. Regards, TAR2

"Yellow is the representational content and yellowish and blueish are the experiences and we can no way say that whether my subjective yellow is also your subjective yellow or not." Immortal, Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps yellow hurts you and is just yellow to me. Perhaps blue is soothing to me and is just blue to you. The fact would remain, that when a canary flew by you would wince and I would say look at the canary. We are both seeing yellow. Or when the blue jay flies by I sigh and relax and you say look at the blue jay. We both see blue. (Given we both see the birds, and neither of us is colorblind) Fact remains that certain cones in your eye respond to yellow and certain to blue, and each of us knows the difference. And each of us knows which is which. There is a certain amount of my subjective experience that you already know about. Because we are both human, with human senses and human brains. Then there is additional similarities we learn about by talking to each other. Enough similarities that you might imagine what I mean by blue looking soothing, and I might imagine what you mean by yellow hurting. Yeah but you say there is no way to know its really the same thing. No there isn't, it is sure to not be exactly the same. Just close enough for any practical purpose. Need not be a mystery. Regards, TAR2

immortal, Wow, I read that passage about Kant as Kant saying exactly the opposite as you are taking it. Where is the quote from? Regards TAR2 I think we need to state again, or state primarily, what definitions of metaphysics, mysticism, and philosophy we are using in this discussion. Some of us apparently already know, but I am not one of them. Here is the first two paragraphs of Kant's introduction (Meiklejohn's translation) in Critique of Pure Reason. INTRODUCTION For me, Kant is evaluating reason itself. The form of our thought. What makes it possible that we think. He is not exploring the content. That is given to us empirically through the senses. I am not thinking that he would be a big fan of any "truth" that had no empirical content. I don't think flights of fancy, magic, and made up stuff with no basis in reality, was his cup of tea.

PeterJ, I am not likely to be the discussion partner you require. Not well read enough, and not enough grey matter. But someone might show up. But I am not sure that calling in mysticism is required to answer metaphysical questions. There is an area of our imaginations that is not bound by the rules of reality. Perhaps all of it, is someone that way, but I am talking about flights of fancy that adhere to some of the rules, but not quite all...like taking too large a serving, being that "your eyes were bigger than your stomach", or rehearsing what you will say to an important person in an important situation only to realize its not appropriate and isnt going to "work" in reality. The mind is capable of "partial" truth. "Works on Paper" but doesn't actually fly. Contrary to the way objective reality seems to work, where everything fits together, not only in ways we know, but probably in ways we have not noticed yet. There are unintended consequences to the things we do in reality. In our minds the omissions and unaccounted for variables are not alway obvious, but in reality the plan must mesh with everything else that is really going on. Like thinking that since your hand is mostly the empty space between the atoms and subatomic particles, and the steel door is the same way, there is no logical reason why you couldn't just reach through the door, or pass through the door, letting the atoms just pass each other by. But it doesn't work that way, there are some forces you did not account for. So I think it important to ground any metaphysical arguments in what we know to be true. Otherwise you run the risk of "just imagining it" which is not likely to be valuble to anybody but you. And since our main concerns are human concerns, I see no problem with, and in fact think it rather sensible to frame things in human terms. That is why I say that if you know a truth, but cannot point someone else to it, it is a subjective truth, and most likey does not fit reality and is therefore not very useful to anybody else. Now this does not have the same uselessness, even the same thought, if it is shared by others, and works for others, as in religion, or perhaps any number of community and group activities and institutions that have a creed, or goal, or common set of beliefs, like say America. Here a subjective thought can become objective, because it is commonly held, and institutions, real institutions are built and maintained, embodying the thought. Which opens up another level of distinction between what is subjective and objective. We can look at various collections of humans as subjective entities, that can be looked at objectively. As they themselves can take an objective look at their own activities. But can we "really" take an objective view on humanity itself? Like we are not likely to be just a little bit bias. I don't think so. If it cannot be expressed in human terms, there is no way to think it, and no way to say it to another human. So how in the world could we possibly take an objective view, other than the human one we already have, on the entire universe? Consider this. If you were to instantly dematerialize here, and rematerialize at the site of a super nova 6.8 billion light years from here, and you would look in the direction of the Earth, you would see either the region of Milky way, as it was when it was 6.8 billion years old, if you rematerialized in the present, or see the region just becoming a region if you rematerialized in the past. The universe would still be so darn big, you couldn't see it in any other fashion than the way we see it. Near stuff immediately, distant stuff with a lag proportional to its distance. This is the only way the universe is viewable. There is no looking at it all at once. It doesn't work that way. Its too immense. So a determination made at the speed of thought, may well not take into consideration, the actual things involved. And unity becomes a highly fanciful and most likely inappropriate description of "all there is". Regards, TAR2

In-form-ation. The universe, or at least a facsimile there-of, held in the synapses and firings of the neurons in our brain. Obviously we have to take a few metaphors and analogies and do a bit of mapping and frame shifting to hold such an image. But there it is, in all its glory, right before our eyes. Good job brain, I say, good job. I don't expect we have the equipment to do better than that. Fill in the blanks, sure. See how things look from a different vantage point, sure. But "all at once"? That doesn't make any sense. Other than in the sense we are already seeing the whole thing from here at once.

PeterJ, Although I think as well that we are on the same page, I think we each are reading in different text between the lines. I am leaning more toward immortal's take. After all we do obiously have distinctions to notice and think about. The universe is not one thing, happening at one place, at one time. Our representations of the universe are not causing this. It is already so. Looking for the ultimate truth in a manner that discounts space and time and distinctions, is somewhat useless. Its the fact that we are able to sense and remember and focus, that gives us knowledge of the universe in the first place. Subtract that and there is nothing to say, no one to say it, and no one to listen. So although we are only in possesion of analog representations or images of the world, as in the shadows on the wall of Plato's cave. They are none-the-less the way the universe looks from here and now. Which assures us that there is indeed something quite like what it appears to be, out there, that we have a nice model of, in here. Regards, TAR2

immortal, Indeed. But lets, acting as reductionists add several simple ingredients together. Memory, focus, and reflection. The grooves of a vinyl record can remember. An impression can be left in a muddy river bank. A softly folded leaf will spring back to its shape. A bent nail will retain the effects of the blow. A lens can focus, perhaps a bubble or drop as well. A pin hole in a sheet of paper can project an image of the sun on a surface shaded otherwise by the sheet. And perhaps there is reason why we call thinking about something, reflection. The "leap" to consciousness need not be the case. It need not have been instantaneous, but a gradual evolution, a repurposing of existing patterns, a folding over so to speak, to where we remembered remembering. Regards, TAR2

Yet and still, I am drawn toward the question of why I have a care for, and a feeling of belonging to, life after my death. That there is "something" that I know and am part of, that proceeded my birth, exists as I do, and will continue to exist, when TAR is dead. Perhaps the nature of our consciousness is not so isolated from all else as we seem to think. It often occurs to me, that in some senses we are like the surface of a still lake, with the trees and clouds and sky and sun and stars reflected in it. The lake does not produce or own the pattern of photons it receives. And it only remembers the photons by the energy gain and subsequent release. But it contains "information" from near and far, the tree and the star. Perhaps life evolved as the cycles of input created swirls and eddies in a repeating pattern, and the interplay became complicated enough that patterns took on a "life of their own". It is possible to imagine the human brain as simply a complicated, folded up lake surface. Capable of remembering patterns, and comparing patterns. And imagine life itself as an evolved continuation of the first pattern that found a way to reproduce itself. In this way, one could explain the feeling of being part of something larger, that you can not lose. Because you are completely made up of it, in the first place. Regards, TAR2