BTW I can't answer for anyone else, and I should also add that I have equal scepticism toward the forced explanations of X-factor phenomena in scientific terms. But I do believe that the 'tricks' that can be played upon the mind, and which any individual mind plays upon itself, in experiential feedback, are an equal part of the multi-layered struggle for existence that drives us all.
These 'tricks' are part of the evolutionary process from which mind is derived. It is an inadequate instrument - the brain is not something designed by reason. It is and was emergent. And is still emerging!
I brought 'art' into that thread because I think it equally illustrates the 'sprirituality' argument without the polarising baggage of 'religion' and ritualistic belief. Art exposes both the inadequacy and banality of mind AND inspires the search for meaning. I believe art is empowering for that latter 'reason'.
But back to your point: scientific evidence is observable and, to a large extent, objective since the same results can be seen to 'fit the facts' in a large number of cases in which a theory is tested. It is also understood that ' fitting the facts ' is temporary. Science is always unfinished business. it is a map, but not the terrain.
And I happen to believe that the terrain that we are attempting to map ultimately comes to an examination of mind. And that the full mapping of mind will not concern 'reasoning' but 'unreasoning'.
Do I make myself clear? ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
And that the full mapping of mind will not concern 'reasoning' but 'unreasoning'.
Brilliant Sven, except that I might say rather that we may better say:
"Evidence-based" = reasoning
"Faith-based" = "un"reasoning; and
"Experience-based" is maybe what we need - in line with Pirsig, as I read him - ie "a"reasoning.
"Areasoning" is what you are doing when you are driving, based upon the accumulated experience and knowledge of driving, of the car and of the road/ environment. Thinking rationally on one level, but also acting "a-rationally", based upon experience, on another.
Pirsig, again...
You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.
...and strangely enough, I think that many of the defenders of Science may be fanatic in their defence of it because they are in doubt that another explanation, based upon another hypothesis, may in fact reduce their intellectual castles to their inadequate metaphysical foundations... "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
But you final Pirsig quote is a killer. To embrace doubt is also to embrace creativity IMO. It's about going to the edge, rather than congregating toward the center. It's about making mistakes as a learning experience. About accepting fallibility. I'm as proud of the times I fucked up as the times I have succeeded, because I have always learned from the fuck ups. Even here ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Hence Pirsig's illustration of sitting on a hot stove when the Subject (stove sitter) comes into contact with the Object (stove) in a bad "Quality event". "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
couldn't put it better...asexual in its brilliance...
what bemuses me is how humans grew to fear death so much, and then smell it threatening us whenever we meet something we can't control.
whatever demon-du-jour, it's always our frightened ego clutching for security, and the asperity of the attacks prove it.
if they were really so sure, they'd be able to relax and see the funny side of it.
but no, out comes the snide...
you'd be amazed how deep it can go. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
It would be interesting to know whether people on either side of this here debate correspond to Myers-Briggs Thinking/Feeling supertypes.
Do people know their Myers-Briggs types? Mine is INTP. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
That seems to make me a champion idealist ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Then again, I'd also have to take it purely sober, I migh turn out otherwise...
Seriously, I shift a lot on these self-tests, sometimes I turn up introverted. The only constants are the N and the P. I have never been sensing, or judging, as a Jungean trait of my general, idealised personality.
Then again, I never bought much stock in Jung or Freud...
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
But Myers-Briggs is my top example for why I can't take personality tests too seriously. These tests try to hammer people's personalities into crude stereotypes. The result in the case of Myers-Briggs and me is that at least a third of my choices aren't better than throwing dice, as the question is loaded or underdefined for me. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I haven't done one in decades and I was ENFP. Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
INFJ
As for the question I posed (Thinking vs. Feeling), we have:
T: migeru, poemless, dodo, colman, Jerome, JakeS F: fran, metavision, ceebs, turambar, sven
Draw your own conclusions. We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
...and strangely enough, I think that many of the defenders of Science may be fanatic in their defence of it because they are in doubt that another explanation, based upon another hypothesis, may in fact reduce their intellectual castles to their inadequate metaphysical foundations...
There are so many things that are wrong with that paragraph...
First, none of the pro-science people around here can be described as 'fanatical' by any stretch of the imagination. 'Exasperated' would be closer to home.
Second, I have no 'intellectual castle' to defend. I do, however, think that words should have meaning and that empirical reality should not simply be hand-waved away into a mist of obscurantist superstition.
Third, I do not have any emotional investment in 'the metaphysical foundations of science.' The results speak for themselves, and they speak louder than any philosophical musings. I do, however, hold an emotional as well as a rational objection to having my profession consistently and consciously misrepresented by charlatans like Michael Behe and Deepak Chopra who are looking to separate the easily impressionable from their money.
Firstly: Peace, brother - if you were a fanatic you wouldn't be here!
And I have no problem with your other two points except that I don't know enough about either Behe or Chopra to make a judgment on them. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
....Unless you count the 3 Smiths hammering out a consensus outside the Stockmann department store in downtown Helsinki. They've been at it since 1932. Not exactly what I would call forging ahead.
Making mistakes is how we learn, getting it right is the real uneducational status seeking. ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
Here, the Havis Amanda statue is getting her student hat in a similar ritual requiring the skills of the engineering students ;-) You can't be me, I'm taken
both/and...not either/or..
reason is like a cherry on the cake, the crown of creation.
some would have it be Everything.
that batter don't rise...too rich a mix.
the intellect is like a two-edged scalpel, used without enough care and understanding, it can cut its owner to ribbons.
used right it is a jewel beyond compare, shines like a diamond and cuts through crap like a laser...
there's a great saying that comes to mind: 'religion isto for those afraid of hell, spirituality is for those who have been there'.
i hope to hear more about what you've learned about the brain. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Comparisons of brain to computer are misleading. There is not 'one place' where all the 'information processing' ends up. There is no little man in the control room. There are many, many places where 'information processing' ends up: over 30 visual projection systems alone. In mind, the map is the terrain. Consciousness and a sense of 'self' are the product of complexity - the many, many places.
The oscillation between map and terrain is what is described in lots of different ways, and given lots of different names: it can be 'Dynamic Quality', Factor X, soul, spirit, belief, reason/unreason and all the rest. It is the oscillation that is so difficult to access rationally. I have never met anyone who knew in which state of transition between map and terrain they were in at any particular time. But I do believe that one can appreciate being in the paradoxical gestalt of both. You can't be me, I'm taken
without any central server?
all these cells know what to do, without centralised control?
if so, it reminds me of sympathetic resonance, which is that phenomenon that makes pendulums swing in the same rhythm if they're hung on a wall after a while, or ladies all menstruate together in the same household, or how schools of fish or flights of birds all turn on a dime.
one universal mind? simultaneously everywhere and everywhen?
starting to sound buddhist here...
if i were young again, i would aim for neuroscience as a career, it is just so incredibly interesting, now the tech is at the level it needs to be, and growing fast...
kudos for trying to explain it to an ignoramus like me! ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
