Dussel wrote:
There are no such thinks like "non-material" sensations. A sensation we have as humans is signal which is transported via the nerves and processed in the brain - all with complex molecules interactions.
Sure there are, we know them through a first-person perspective. Molecular interactions are completely orthogonal to the existence of the artifacts of a first-person perspective.
Quote:
This is not what I said: I said this constitutes in our mind the particular category of e.g. a material. I used to the ideas of I. Kant how introduced the three categories "Ding ansich" ("the thing on itself") which causes the sensations ("phenomena") in the first place, the sensations (colours, dimensions, touch and other measures e.g. via instruments) and the process of the mind to construct out of this sensations our model of the world and recomposes our model of the world. In this particular idea Kant's philosophy is still a valid model to understand what really happens when we realize that this is chair or we measure that this particular material contains 0.0034% Carbon 14.
Well, I was looking at your previous comments as well. Kant's idea is orthogonal, if not supportive of a first person perspective, given his transcendental idealism, which emphasizes the need for subjectivity to organize data. I mean, you can say that we attribute certain qualities to the objects themselves, but an issue is still that the information from perception is not the same as the same knowledge expressed in other manners, and that some of these sensations are not directly related to any external thing. Saying "I am angry" is not equivalent to an expression about a brain state, in fact, the nature of the brain and neurons can be completely unknown to say "I am angry". This would then mean that knowledge of an underlying material reality and knowledge of myself would seem to be different sorts of knowledge found in different manners. Thus, the notion that anger is itself non-material seems apparent, because it is apprehended without addressing external realities.
Quote:
No - not by itself. It justified by the practical results it can produce. Firstly our plain survival, but on a higher level the functioning of civilisation. If our logic would that weak, not electrical device would work, not to speak of computer and software, which are the strongest current manifestations of our logic. If our logic would that false or weak - the whole system would break down within seconds.
Therefore our logic must be seen as quite reliable.
Well, you don't know that, because you are using logic to prove logic, as you cannot construct a counterfactual model without logic, and using logic to prove itself is nonsense, because it is a circularity that wouldn't be accepted in most other things. You can say that you innately know about logic, but when you get into innate knowledge the thesis of empiricism seems that it must be rejected. You can also say that you simply do not reject logic, but when you say that, you have ceded the ability to verify knowledge, and still moved away from empiricism.
Quote:
Mystical perception never produced reliable predictions, never explained the world in manner which produced any real progress. Mystical thinker never produced anything useful like the computer, penicillin or even the pendulum clock. From a pragmatic viewpoint mystical experiences are simply useless. From a personal viewpoint they may be interesting, but when it comes to real problems, they are still useless.
That depends on what is included in mystical perception and for the reliability of predictions. I mean, logically, mystical perceptions can predict life improvements that come about due to the mystical perception. A self-revealed prophecy perhaps, but not necessarily meaningless. As well, "real progress" is only your criterion, the explanations produced by mysticism can be argued as either being more important to some than your view of "real progress" or even not necessarily in conflict with "real progress". As for what mystical thinkers have done, they have created a richer reality, for instance artists are probably closer to mystics than rationalists, but the world is enriched by art, and some people find music to be of a highly useful to them. I meant pragmatic in terms of the Pragmatists, such as William James, who considered truth to be that which was useful to think. Real problems are subjectively defined, thus mysticism can still be valuable, perhaps even more valuable than rationalism. In fact, there is even a line of thinking that false beliefs are more important for human functioning than correct beliefs, this can be seen in the higher rates of success for those with a strongly internal locus of control, despite the analytical validity of an uncontrollable reality.
19 Feb 2009, 3:01 pm
