There’s is mystical union, theosis, which is said to be non inferential. — Wayfarer
What, too simple for you? I guess I should have translated the essence of consciousness and rationality into differential equations or something. Or too complex? Maybe I should write a children's book on quantum neuroscience! I'm amenable to suggestion... — Enrique
My comment was more general than specific but you seem to have got the message. — TheMadFool
An individual neuron in my brain can receive thousands of messages at once! Even so everyone seems to think their message is special, strange isn't it? — Enrique
We know God through His effects, the reality of physical existence, but we cannot see Him directly as the cause, His existence is inferred. — Metaphysician Undercover
Since our premises are derived from the observational, empirical knowledge,
How can you say that?? Based on what??I'm not saying you and some philosophers are wrong
(we ultimately do not know) — Tom Storm
Illusions can only be experienced by a subject, which points back to cogito ergo sum. — Wayfarer
(we ultimately do not know)
— Tom Storm
How can you say that?? Based on what?? — baker
Also, I'm not saying this to advertise theism. But if we are going to dismiss the one epistemic method that has been the primary epistemic method for what is probably the vast majority of the human population, then we're going to need some really good reasons for doing so. — baker
There’s is mystical union, theosis, which is said to be non inferential. — Wayfarer
That's natural and happens to everybody. — TheMadFool
Every self-respecting Christian has a personal relationship with God. — baker
Again, no, not in the case of God and people who believe in God (and whose knowledge of themselves proceeds from their knowledge of God).
Because these people's knowledge is not derived from the observational, empirical knowledge, but is a (directly) received revelation from God. — baker
It's immaterial whether you agree with this epistemic method. The point is that it avoids all the usual problems related to knowledge that is derived from observation, empiry. — baker
The question is how is this, what I described as a "cause", and "the fundamental capacity to anticipate the future", known to us. As explained, it cannot be observed in any way. We can call it a "mystical union" like Wayfarer did, but that does not validate it as a form of knowledge. All it is is a statement of fact, what is common to us all.
This is probably the same issue which Wittgenstein grapples with in the private language argument. What is known directly to a person, through the inner source, might actually be the highest form of knowledge; Aristotle classed intuition as the highest form of knowledge; but when it comes to validating this form of knowledge to others, through public language (justification), it does not even class as "knowledge". — Metaphysician Undercover
No, there's "know thyself" and then there's "know thyself according to someone else's idea of who you are". — baker
Socrates, at the Temple of Delphi.
Inside, he says, 'hey, I notice your neat slogan, gnōthi seauton, "know thyself". I like it, but there's a problem'.
'Oh yes? What?' says the Goddess.
'We don't have the technology yet. It's going to have to wait.' — Wayfarer
There's "know thyself" and then there's "know thyself better". — Janus
No, there's "know thyself" and then there's "know thyself according to someone else's idea of who you are".
— baker
Is there anything you know about yourself that is not couched in cultural terms? Or represented in a public language? Are these not ultimately "someone else's ideas"? — Janus
Again, no, not in the case of God and people who believe in God (and whose knowledge of themselves proceeds from their knowledge of God).
Because these people's knowledge is not derived from the observational, empirical knowledge, but is a (directly) received revelation from God.
— baker
The problem is, that even this sort of "knowledge" (I'll call it that, though it does not qualify as knowledge by epistemological standards) which one obtains from within, "intuition", or "mystical union", must be expressed in some sort of words, if one is to proceed in a logical manner from principles derived here. — Metaphysician Undercover
How can you possibly know it's pretense?Sure, it avoids all the epistemological problems, but that's just because it isn't real knowledge, it's pretense. The epistemological problems are involved with real knowledge, not pretend knowledge.
(we ultimately do not know)
— Tom Storm
How can you say that?? Based on what??
— baker
Based on the fact that philosophers hold different views on the subject. And there is no accepted definition of what consciousness is. — Tom Storm
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.