Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Synthesis]

Although science might be considered many things, it is certainly does not preform any task other than putting forth the currently accepted view of how the perception of our physical space is constructed. And, at that, it does a pretty weak job. But, people buy into it, just the same, especially the highly educated variety [and particularly those with serious science backgrounds].

It has always amazed me that within my own profession [medicine] just how incredibly narrow the conversation remains. When you think about it, is there any other way it could be and still have the depth of dys-function that defines the American health care system?

Any system of thought has [at its core] the same dilemma, complete and utter delusion. The human intellect is simply incapable of accessing Reality in any accurate way, so instead of taking what Nature gives us [the ability to see with clarity], we attempt to "figure it out," and what a mess we make of these attempts. At the head of the class are the scientists who promulgate their religion to the masses without as much an apology for the absurd methods by which they declare the existence of facts.

I don't know about you folks, but I am tired of hearing from these scientists whose non-sense is almost as ridiculous as the religionists from whom they took the baton. Reality suggests that things are the way they are for reasons we will never know [and thank God for that!]. Imagine what a mess people would make of the world if we really knew what was going on!!

[Fooloso4]

Synthesis:

It has always amazed me that within my own profession [medicine] …

I am curious as to what your medical field and training are.

… the depth of dys-function that defines the American health care system?

How does this relate to your claims about the poor job science is doing?

Any system of thought has [at its core] the same dilemma, complete and utter delusion.

How is it that you know this? Perhaps your claim is nothing more than your own complete and utter delusion.

The human intellect is simply incapable of accessing Reality in any accurate way …

A highly questionable assertion fraught with questionable assumptions. The term ‘reality’ is used to mean quite different things. Your assumption seems to be that it is independent of the ways in which we perceive of and conceive of it. The reality is, however, that if, as you suggest, we are incapable of accessing the existence of a “Reality” then "Reality" is nothing more than a fantasy, something you imagine but know nothing of. If we are incapable of accessing reality then you are incapable of accessing the accuracy of our assessment of it.

At the head of the class are the scientists who promulgate their religion to the masses without as much an apology for the absurd methods by which they declare the existence of facts.

Perhaps such high flown rhetoric might seem a bit more credible with specific examples. Could you provide them? Those who fear that science is a threat to their religion frequently resort to the rhetorical ploy of labeling science as a religion as if the distinction between science and religion is nothing more than where one puts his faith.

Reality suggests that things are the way they are for reasons we will never know …

This is nothing more than your suggestion is not the suggestion of a Reality you claim you will never know.

[Synthesis]

Synthesis:

It has always amazed me that within my own profession [medicine] …

I am curious as to what your medical field and training are.

… the depth of dys-function that defines the American health care system?

How does this relate to your claims about the poor job science is doing?

Any system of thought has [at its core] the same dilemma, complete and utter delusion.

How is it that you know this? Perhaps your claim is nothing more than your own complete and utter delusion.

The human intellect is simply incapable of accessing Reality in any accurate way …

A highly questionable assertion fraught with questionable assumptions. The term ‘reality’ is used to mean quite different things. Your assumption seems to be that it is independent of the ways in which we perceive of and conceive of it. The reality is, however, that if, as you suggest, we are incapable of accessing the existence of a “Reality” then "Reality" is nothing more than a fantasy, something you imagine but know nothing of. If we are incapable of accessing reality then you are incapable of accessing the accuracy of our assessment of it.

At the head of the class are the scientists who promulgate their religion to the masses without as much an apology for the absurd methods by which they declare the existence of facts.

Perhaps such high flown rhetoric might seem a bit more credible with specific examples. Could you provide them? Those who fear that science is a threat to their religion frequently resort to the rhetorical ploy of labeling science as a religion as if the distinction between science and religion is nothing more than where one puts his faith.

Reality suggests that things are the way they are for reasons we will never know …

This is nothing more than your suggestion is not the suggestion of a Reality you claim you will never know.

What my specialty is is not germane to this conversation. I appreciate and respect everybody's right to anonymity.

I am not going to play 20 questions with you but I will give you credit for realizing that what I put out there is more of the same, delusion. On my side is the "fact" that I realize it and move forward accordingly.

Specific examples are omnipresent. Can you give me an example of something written in stone?

[Fooloso4]

Synthesis:

What my specialty is is not germane to this conversation. I appreciate and respect everybody's right to anonymity.

It most certainly is germane. You claim to be in the medical profession, the implication being that you have specialized knowledge that those not in the profession generally do not have. A snake oil salesman or someone selling dietary supplements might claim to be in the medical profession but have no knowledge of medical science. A chiropractor might have little or no knowledge of biochemistry or pharmacology. As to anonymity revealing that you are a massage therapist or neurosurgeon does not identify who you are, but since you claim to be in the medical profession it does help us determining extent of your knowledge of the profession.

I am not going to play 20 questions with you but I will give you credit for realizing that what I put out there is more of the same, delusion. On my side is the "fact" that I realize it and move forward accordingly.

This is extremely evasive. If you are going to make claims you should be able to back them up. If you goal is to simply inform others of your own delusion then that has no place on a philosophy forum.

Specific examples are omnipresent.

More evasion. If you make general claims then you should be prepared to show how specific examples are true to those generalities.

Can you give me an example of something written in stone?

Unlike the stone tablets of Judeo-Christian religion, science does not deal with eternal verities. This is not a weakness but a strength. It is self-correcting.

[Synthesis]

Synthesis:

What my specialty is is not germane to this conversation. I appreciate and respect everybody's right to anonymity.

It most certainly is germane. You claim to be in the medical profession, the implication being that you have specialized knowledge that those not in the profession generally do not have. A snake oil salesman or someone selling dietary supplements might claim to be in the medical profession but have no knowledge of medical science. A chiropractor might have little or no knowledge of biochemistry or pharmacology. As to anonymity revealing that you are a massage therapist or neurosurgeon does not identify who you are, but since you claim to be in the medical profession it does help us determining extent of your knowledge of the profession.

My friend, I am not sure as to your motivations, but you are owed nothing but my courtesy.

I am not going to play 20 questions with you but I will give you credit for realizing that what I put out there is more of the same, delusion. On my side is the "fact" that I realize it and move forward accordingly.

This is extremely evasive. If you are going to make claims you should be able to back them up. If you goal is to simply inform others of your own delusion then that has no place on a philosophy forum.

Again, all intellection is delusion. Do you believe that somehow you have tapped into The Truth?

Specific examples are omnipresent.

More evasion. If you make general claims then you should be prepared to show how specific examples are true to those generalities.

The issue isn't my evasion, instead, it is your mis-understanding. If all intellection is delusion, then it would follow that examples are omnipresent.

Can you give me an example of something written in stone?

Unlike the stone tablets of Judeo-Christian religion, science does not deal with eternal verities. This is not a weakness but a strength. It is self-correcting.

Only within the context of its dogma. There is nothing wrong with anything except when it is not seen as transient, moment to moment. This is where science morphs into religion.

[Fooloso4]

Synthesis:

My friend, I am not sure as to your motivations, but you are owed nothing but my courtesy.

My motive is to establish the credentials by which you have made tacit claims of professional knowledge. Your refusal to say anything more tells us all we need to know. You have paid what was owed, although it cost you more than you were willing to pay.

Again, all intellection is delusion.

Let me give you a few examples from your alleged profession that have proven to be efficacious. You need to explain that these examples demonstrate delusion either because they do not do what the are designed to do or that it is just a matter of coincidence rather than of medical and technological knowledge that they do in fact work: vaccines, antibiotics, drug therapy, rational drug design, surgery, organ transplantation.

Do you believe that somehow you have tapped into The Truth?

It is not either “The Truth” or delusion. The truth is we are able to build bridges and build complex machines to drive over them either with human drivers or machines that drive themselves. The bridge is not a delusion. Being on one side and then the other is not a delusion. Getting from one side to the other in a car is not a delusion. Delusion does not build bridges or cars.

The issue isn't my evasion, instead, it is your mis-understanding. If all intellection is delusion, then it would follow that examples are omnipresent.

It is difficult to attempt to show that something is the case to someone who believes that reason is delusion, but I will try, even though I am not under the illusion that I will succeed. You beg the question. First, it should be noted that you appeal to logic “if … then it would follow”, but if logic is a delusion then it is only a delusion that something follows from a premise. It is paradoxical to appeal to logic to show that logic is delusion. Second, what is at issue is the premise “all intellection is a delusion”. While it does follow logically that if the premise is true then what follows from the premise is true, what is in question, however, is whether the premise is true. Third, by your “logic” pigs can fly would follows from the premise ‘if pigs could fly’ and any pig would stand as an example of the truth of the premise.

Only within the context of its dogma. There is nothing wrong with anything except when it is not seen as transient, moment to moment. This is where science morphs into religion.

This is where your misguided caricature of science (or should I say your delusion about science?) morphs into religion.

Transience or impermanence must be understood in terms of rate of change. Heraclitus could not speak of the river if it was a river in one moment and something else the next and something else yet again the next. Not only does it remain a river it remains this river (Greek - todi ti), that is, this something that can be pointed to and spoken about and stood in. There is no fixed center of the universe but this does not prevent us from saying things that are true. Nor does revision to what we take to be true indicate that what we take to be true is delusion. It simply means that we should eschew absolute claims.

[Synthesis]

Synthesis:

My friend, I am not sure as to your motivations, but you are owed nothing but my courtesy.

My motive is to establish the credentials by which you have made tacit claims of professional knowledge. Your refusal to say anything more tells us all we need to know. You have paid what was owed, although it cost you more than you were willing to pay.

Establish credentials? Please... . The fact that you believe you can understand another's motivation is telling. Remember, it is all delusion.

Again, all intellection is delusion.

Let me give you a few examples from your alleged profession that have proven to be efficacious. You need to explain that these examples demonstrate delusion either because they do not do what the are designed to do or that it is just a matter of coincidence rather than of medical and technological knowledge that they do in fact work: vaccines, antibiotics, drug therapy, rational drug design, surgery, organ transplantation.

Do you really believe that those in the medical community know how these things work? How they REALLY work? If so, then you have a very poor education yourself.

Do you believe that somehow you have tapped into The Truth?

It is not either “The Truth” or delusion. The truth is we are able to build bridges and build complex machines to drive over them either with human drivers or machines that drive themselves. The bridge is not a delusion. Being on one side and then the other is not a delusion. Getting from one side to the other in a car is not a delusion. Delusion does not build bridges or cars.

There are two "truths," the relative, always in flux and knowable, and Absolute Truth, unknowable and constant. Within the intellectual sphere, and since we can not access the real truth [due to temporal limitations], what we do know is in error. Add to this the notion that even the simplest of things [or events] are caused by an infinite number of things [events] preceding, what is the chance that we can understand anything? Zero.

So, we make stuff up [and call it the scientific method]. It's that simple.

The issue isn't my evasion, instead, it is your mis-understanding. If all intellection is delusion, then it would follow that examples are omnipresent.

It is difficult to attempt to show that something is the case to someone who believes that reason is delusion, but I will try, even though I am not under the illusion that I will succeed. You beg the question. First, it should be noted that you appeal to logic “if … then it would follow”, but if logic is a delusion then it is only a delusion that something follows from a premise. It is paradoxical to appeal to logic to show that logic is delusion. Second, what is at issue is the premise “all intellection is a delusion”. While it does follow logically that if the premise is true then what follows from the premise is true, what is in question, however, is whether the premise is true. Third, by your “logic” pigs can fly would follows from the premise ‘if pigs could fly’ and any pig would stand as an example of the truth of the premise.

You are starting to catch on...

Only within the context of its dogma. There is nothing wrong with anything except when it is not seen as transient, moment to moment. This is where science morphs into religion.

This is where your misguided caricature of science (or should I say your delusion about science?) morphs into religion.

Transience or impermanence must be understood in terms of rate of change. Heraclitus could not speak of the river if it was a river in one moment and something else the next and something else yet again the next. Not only does it remain a river it remains this river (Greek - todi ti), that is, this something that can be pointed to and spoken about and stood in. There is no fixed center of the universe but this does not prevent us from saying things that are true. Nor does revision to what we take to be true indicate that what we take to be true is delusion. It simply means that we should eschew absolute claims.

Impermanence is not about change, it is about a lack of true existence. Understand this and you will understand Truth.

[-1-]

On one hand we have someone who has iron-clad logic, clear thinking, and proper follow through, and who demands that his debating partner be same or similar.

On the other hand we have his or her debating partner, who makes claims without backing them up, both intricate and complex and simple and plain; and his refusal to back up his own claims is ridiculously evasive; his claims do not hold water intuitively, and when forced to explain or defend them, he claims further that his partner does not understand the "truth" whatever it may be. When finally cornered, he admits to be delusional, but denies all validity of empirical knowledge which is now his only possible defence. His claims have dwindled down to general sophistry, which in detail have nothing to do with the topic. His last claim, about impermanence, is childishly quizzical, while hifolutin and condescending at the same time.

This is so tiresome... oh, ever so tiresome. One's eyes bulge out in disbelief: this is on a philosophy forum?

[Sy Borg]

There are two "truths," the relative, always in flux and knowable, and Absolute Truth, unknowable and constant. Within the intellectual sphere, and since we can not access the real truth [due to temporal limitations], what we do know is in error. Add to this the notion that even the simplest of things [or events] are caused by an infinite number of things [events] preceding, what is the chance that we can understand anything? Zero.

Kant noted the impossibility of perceiving actual reality some time ago - the phenomena we observe and the underpinning noumena (the things in themselves).

To say we can understand nothing strikes me as pointlessly defeatist. We certainly understand more than we once did, eg. once exorcisms were performed on people who needed antibiotics. It's a long way from perfect, but it's where we are up to.

You seem to decry the eschewing of intuition for the sake of reliability. I do too but that is simply what happens in large, compact societies. Either that or there's chaos, as could be characterised by China and India.

[LuckyR]

Although science might be considered many things, it is certainly does not preform any task other than putting forth the currently accepted view of how the perception of our physical space is constructed. And, at that, it does a pretty weak job. But, people buy into it, just the same, especially the highly educated variety [and particularly those with serious science backgrounds].

It has always amazed me that within my own profession [medicine] just how incredibly narrow the conversation remains. When you think about it, is there any other way it could be and still have the depth of dys-function that defines the American health care system?

Any system of thought has [at its core] the same dilemma, complete and utter delusion. The human intellect is simply incapable of accessing Reality in any accurate way, so instead of taking what Nature gives us [the ability to see with clarity], we attempt to "figure it out," and what a mess we make of these attempts. At the head of the class are the scientists who promulgate their religion to the masses without as much an apology for the absurd methods by which they declare the existence of facts.

I don't know about you folks, but I am tired of hearing from these scientists whose non-sense is almost as ridiculous as the religionists from whom they took the baton. Reality suggests that things are the way they are for reasons we will never know [and thank God for that!]. Imagine what a mess people would make of the world if we really knew what was going on!!

A lot of sizzle... but, alas no bacon. Even when requested.

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

[Synthesis]

On one hand we have someone who has iron-clad logic, clear thinking, and proper follow through, and who demands that his debating partner be same or similar.

On the other hand we have his or her debating partner, who makes claims without backing them up, both intricate and complex and simple and plain; and his refusal to back up his own claims is ridiculously evasive; his claims do not hold water intuitively, and when forced to explain or defend them, he claims further that his partner does not understand the "truth" whatever it may be. When finally cornered, he admits to be delusional, but denies all validity of empirical knowledge which is now his only possible defence. His claims have dwindled down to general sophistry, which in detail have nothing to do with the topic. His last claim, about impermanence, is childishly quizzical, while hifolutin and condescending at the same time.

This is so tiresome... oh, ever so tiresome. One's eyes bulge out in disbelief: this is on a philosophy forum?

Most people beg [plead] for self-affirmation, but I will not give it, even to myself. Take your philosophy to the next level by seeing things as they truly are instead of how you would like them to be [even though you change your "mind" all the time].

You want so much for 1+1 to equal 2 that you will claim to know things that you can not, even to point of offering a personal critique of what you perceive my motivations to be.

My advice is to stop worrying so much about everybody else and start examining your "self." This is where your answers lie.

-- Updated August 17th, 2017, 11:52 am to add the following --

There are two "truths," the relative, always in flux and knowable, and Absolute Truth, unknowable and constant. Within the intellectual sphere, and since we can not access the real truth [due to temporal limitations], what we do know is in error. Add to this the notion that even the simplest of things [or events] are caused by an infinite number of things [events] preceding, what is the chance that we can understand anything? Zero.

To say we can understand nothing strikes me as pointlessly defeatist. We certainly understand more than we once did, eg. once exorcisms were performed on people who needed antibiotics. It's a long way from perfect, but it's where we are up to.

You seem to decry the eschewing of intuition for the sake of reliability. I do too but that is simply what happens in large, compact societies. Either that or there's chaos, as could be characterised by China and India.

Defeatist? Is this some sort of contest where we win or lose?

The relative nature of the human intellect insures that our take on the world is in constant flux. Yesterday, exorcisms, today antibiotics, tomorrow ?? Nothing can be known in its actuality so this process is never ending. It is with this acceptance [of the relative nature of all intellection] that we can begin to truly understand that which we confront.

Each time we depart the train of life [decide to figure something out], we are no longer present to see the unfolding. Attached to whatever it is that caused this detour, we have done ourselves two dis-services, one, the aforementioned grasping onto [fill in the blank], and two, the notion that we have missed out on what has taken place while we were obsessing.

I am not exactly sure what intuition is. Perhaps you could help me out on this one?

And as far as accepting controlled chaos [societies] v. uncontrolled chaos [individuals], I'll take my chances with the uncontrolled variety. It's easy to believe that society is this wonderful thing [having lived through a golden age in America], but not so much for the vast majority who [historically] have had to put up with kings, tyrants, presidents, etc., and all sorts of fools who believed that they should enjoy the fruits of everybody else's labors while the later eked-out barely a subsistence existence.

-- Updated August 17th, 2017, 11:56 am to add the following --

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Every group has one or two people who believe that it is their job to decide [not only for themselves, but for everybody else] what is worth considering.

Thank you for pointing yourself out!

[Ranvier]

Synthesis
There is a reason for our thoughts and everything that we say. Those especially in the medical profession operate in the realm of science and non-materialistic unknowable reality. That is understandable regardless of your specialty. Science had failed you in its claims of certainty and you look from above seeing bridges built along the cost line... I understand.

You don't have to do anything other than appreciate everyone that had responded to you in their posts but perhaps you should also realize that we do exist in our thoughts within some "reality". Science for most people is the only logical means of gaining perspective on that unknowable reality and you don't have to but perhaps you should appreciate everyone's "delusion". On a personal note, merit must find words to convey meaning otherwise there is nothing to talk about.

-- Updated August 21st, 2017, 1:47 am to add the following --

I can feel that this will not be enough... I can feel your frustration, especially with those who have the intellectual capacity to understand you. To that effect I wish that I could be of more use.

[LuckyR]

Move along folks, nothing to see here.

Every group has one or two people who believe that it is their job to decide [not only for themselves, but for everybody else] what is worth considering.

Thank you for pointing yourself out!

Well, when you propose a particular outlook in a thread of your own creation, yet provide no examples or proof in the OP, then blow off Fooloso4 when he asks you for them... you get, what you get.

[Synthesis]

Synthesis
There is a reason for our thoughts and everything that we say. Those especially in the medical profession operate in the realm of science and non-materialistic unknowable reality. That is understandable regardless of your specialty. Science had failed you in its claims of certainty and you look from above seeing bridges built along the cost line... I understand.

You don't have to do anything other than appreciate everyone that had responded to you in their posts but perhaps you should also realize that we do exist in our thoughts within some "reality". Science for most people is the only logical means of gaining perspective on that unknowable reality and you don't have to but perhaps you should appreciate everyone's "delusion". On a personal note, merit must find words to convey meaning otherwise there is nothing to talk about.

-- Updated August 21st, 2017, 1:47 am to add the following --

I can feel that this will not be enough... I can feel your frustration, especially with those who have the intellectual capacity to understand you. To that effect I wish that I could be of more use.

Ranvier
This is not about telling anybody else how or what to think, it is only presenting an alternative view of reality. Paradoxically, it is not that what I am saying is indecipherable because it is highly intellectual, just the opposite, people can not accept it because it is eminently simple. It is the giving up of the intellectual pov that people find so very difficult.

Science is simply a tool that we use in our every day lives, but we must understand its limitations. If you do not roll with the constant change of information then you get caught doing things that simply do not work. If you observe dys-functional people, you will see that they are lost in time, significantly out of touch with what is happening in the present moment.

Delusion should not be taken as a negative concept because we are all deluded to some extent. None of us can know Reality, so the difference between our personal reality and Reality is our delusion. Imagine feeling the relief of knowing that you can never figure it out, that the best we can do is just going with it as it happens. This is a wonderful thing.

And thank you for you comments. I mean no disrespect to anybody here, but I will not alter my pov, as well.

-- Updated August 22nd, 2017, 11:12 am to add the following --

(Nested quote removed.)

Every group has one or two people who believe that it is their job to decide [not only for themselves, but for everybody else] what is worth considering.

Thank you for pointing yourself out!

Well, when you propose a particular outlook in a thread of your own creation, yet provide no examples or proof in the OP, then blow off Fooloso4 when he asks you for them... you get, what you get.

Could it possibly be that you just do not understand what I am saying?

What question would you like answered?

[Ranvier]

Synthesis

I understand you and where you "come from" (figure of speech). It's as if an artist is attempting to explain art to a scientific mind...
Don't think that this doesn't require intellect to comprehend such abstract concepts, it's just different than most pragmatic minds can handle. This is similar to theoretical scientists attempting to explain the value of particle accelerator or going to Mars, without evidence of actual "benefit" from such ventures. Although it's much easier these days because scientists were able to present the evidence that such undertakings will generate knowledge that will sooner or later lead to tangible goods to be sold for profit, hence of value.

Similarly, in your quest to present your "valuable" insight you must find words to present the "benefit" in knowledge of the abstract. Otherwise we will continue to be amused by well engineered bridges along the cost...

-- Updated August 22nd, 2017, 1:38 pm to add the following --

I'm also in a constant search to find "words" to convey the abstract thought, I can perceive it but I'm also bound by the limits of my scientific mind.