I disagree that understanding or proving either love or ‘God’ can only be achieved by intuition and belief. We can subjectively ‘prove’ or at least affect the probability of the awareness of both love and ‘God’ existing for others by how we relate to them and to the world. It’s not scientific (not yet), but the potential is there, at least. — Possibility

How or what are some of the cognitive tools we can access in proving or understanding the EOG?

What does it even mean to be intelligent without having no any information about anything? — Zelebg

That's a fantastic question!

I suppose the short answer would be, in that case, then all logic would become completely abstract. Like (first order logic/language) mathematics without any real world applications. Or, in theoretical physics; the 10th dimension. Or, in philosophy, the Platonic world and metaphysics, et al.

Would you care to start a new thread? (Maybe call it ' happiness and logic' AKA the tree of knowledge, LOL)

Well, I believe what cognitive science says: you must first recognize that you even have a problem before you can fix it.

I'm happy for you! LOL

...interesting...now in your case, I'm thinking more in terms of your 'pathological spirit'. LOL

I think calling it a ‘pathology’ is unnecessarily judgemental. It derives from a lack of awareness — Possibility

Agreed. Thus, at the risk of redundancy:

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . .. They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (Albert Einstein)

The concern there, relates to the many forms of extremism viz lack of self-awareness. So in that context, I would agree.

And, thank for the word picture/metaphor describing the challenges of apprehending this notion of love. I think that's a real phenomenon, even when one is in the trenches sort-a-speak. Like the 80's lyrics; been in love before..., the hardest part is when you're in it. It's in many ways paradoxical. The limitation's of language indeed presents us with challenges in expressing our so-called sentient sojourn. We seek love, yet we don't really understand that which we seek.

With respect to the definition of super natural I'll offer this:

It seems to me that the supernatural (whatever it may be) is outside of space and time and thus the laws of nature as we know them do not apply to the supernatural. By laws of nature I refer to strong force, weak force, gravity, EM force.

The 'supernatural' could describe anything which cannot be observed or proven by any classical means, but only by intuition and belief. Such as the presence of love, or for some people, the existence of God. You cannot classically devise a "proof" of neither but it exists only in our minds and in the way we believe. We can't prove we love someone, we just know that we do. And so I believe that love and God are examples of supernatural "entities".

To speak to one's logic of it all, I would have to default to Kant's idea of the noumenal realm, when trying to understand the true nature of this thing called Love and/or the super natural.

Yes indeed. I tell young people, where possible, always have a positive spirit. In one's personal and professional life, it will reap dividends. Accordingly, people tend want you on their team, or at least want to be around those who are part of the solution rather than part of the problem.... .

Who was Jesus?

I hope I'm wrong, but you seem to be perpetuating the Atheists mantra of yet another axe to grind... . And don't blame me, Einstein said it too...

Otherwise, how do you feel about 'in God we Trust'? Or maybe more notably; Faith Hope and Love(?). Or, to stay on topic, something to do with Metaphysics?????

In other words, how about a constructive argument instead of a mini-rant. LOL

asserted that "Love is a moral judgement" which drew some responses — jambaugh

I think you should consider, if you haven't already, the distinctions between volition and existential phenomena. Meaning, when you use the term 'judgement', you infer or convey choice; making a choice to Love. (And maybe you're not meaning to, not sure there... .) And then one could say there is also that which doesn't require making a choice, enter; the Metaphysical Will. The example there would be the law of attraction (the collective unconscious experience).

Try walking through the park or at the beach or hardware store sporting an obvious smile on your face. Then see how many strangers approach you. Then experiment with having a melancholy look on your face. See which condition attracts a caring or loving spirit towards you.

Now one could argue that in the aforementioned collective unconscious experience, that there was still volition involved. But there was also a force (or metaphysical will) that caused that need (or will) to choose and act.

In that scenario I submit this is not an exclusive 'moral judgement'' driving force that one consciously chooses.

My work seeks to explore and illuminate how truly bizarre, magical, and enigmatic this cosmos is. — Randy333

Sure, consider some of the works of Piccasso (Surrealism), and how it represents the Freudian nature of absurd existential elements about the human condition. And how seemingly bringing opposites or contradictory dissonances into reality, much like how consciousness works. Many didn't embrace that expression of reality.

Or music, where a steel guitar was arranged/incorporated into a non-country genre, yet sounded fantastic. (Or for those familiar with Fender; someone playing a Telecastor-country guitar- on a rock tune.)

Integrating opposite's can scare people who otherwise think that everything has to follow an established paradigm.

To those folks I say: slay your Gilligan's!

I don’t use the term ‘logically impossible’ because I don’t think it makes sense. Something can be illogical and still possible (like love), but not both logical and impossible without exposing some level of ignorance. The way I see it, there are two dimensional levels of awareness and existence outside of time that tend to get confused A LOT. And it’s understandable, because we need to be at least vaguely aware of existing outside of potentiality to be able to distinguish it from possibility. Most people tend to experience ‘phenomenon’ as whatever exists outside of a knowledge structure we call ‘logic’, but it’s more complex than that. And ALL the phenomenon you mention I believe are consistent with a fifth and sixth dimension to reality. — Possibility

Sure, the phenomenon called Love is beyond logical impossibility, yet to describe it in a proposition, puts it into an axiom or construct of logic and language. Thus, when trying to verbalize Love, it becomes a logically impossible (or ineffable) phenomenon. Or at least a metaphysical one, that in theory, would include a 5th dimensional force (as you suggested), as even Einstein would posit.

And so all we are really alluding to there, in an anthropic way, is the complex nature of consciousness, and the theory that conscious energy is 'out there' only being filtered by the brain. (That of course being in opposition to say the materialist view that the brain excretes substance to do its job of cognition-within itself as a self contained thing in itself.)

And that thought process of entropy would, I believe, also align with Schop's philosophy of a Metaphysical Will in nature.

So, to embrace logical impossibility (as a Christian Existentialist) as irony would have it, only supports my world view of the super natural existing-Love. (Which it turn, relegates Atheism to a pathology inconsistent with natural phenomena or otherwise in denial of the human condition.)

The confusion is that, for Aquinas, ‘God’ exists in actuality outside time, which is impossible. ‘God’ IS eternally, which is not the same as a dog or a rock IS. What this refers to is potentiality. ‘God’ IS infinite in potentiality, but NOT actuality - Aquinas argues that ‘God’ is purus actus, but this is an error of understanding that began with Aristotle: that pure potentiality is ‘nothing’ without form, necessitating an ‘uncaused cause’ as a ‘something’ in order to exist. The argument is based on an assumption that something cannot come from nothing, and that actuality is possible both in time AND eternally. — Possibility

Great analysis P!

My thought there would be that, isn't the concept of God-being outside of time-and thus logically impossible, consistent with other logically impossible phenomena associated with consciousness itself? Like various existential phenomenon including; contradiction, unresolved paradox/self reference, resurrection, love, metaphysical will, and so forth(?)

Or asked in another way: is creation ex nihilo logically impossible? And if so, is that consistent with conscious existence and timelessness(?).

Or in the alternative, would potentiality/eternity suggest theories of incompleteness that we hold to be true (Gödel), make the signposts for God's potentiality more likely, like time itself? (Meaning the unresolved paradox of past, present and future/being and becoming... .)

In other words (using logic), embracing the logically impossible is desired, otherwise we would already have a theory of everything and therefore there would be no need to invoke God in the first place.

But the idea is that mathematical knowledge was already there. Does this then mean that everything is already there, it only awaits our ability to see it; America was there before it was discovered, Einstein’s theory of relativity was there before he formulated it, viruses existed before we identified them. Over time we learn to see more as our knowledge expands. But even then, despite our advancement in science, are we still only comprehending one small aspect of a virus. Might we one day discover that a virus has a mind? — Brett

I think of it like the cosmic computer brain, in that, many things relating to knowledge (not all) are already out there. There's a predetermined scope of axioms that exist, it's our volition that brings them into existence and/or awareness.

A good analogy would be the classic game of Twenty Questions, and the most notable from' Wheeler's Cloud' where there is no predetermined subject matter; it evolves based on the questions that we ask...hence:

"In developing the participatory anthropic principle (PAP), which is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, theoretical physicist John Archibald Wheeler used a variant on Twenty Questions, called Negative Twenty Questions, to show how the questions we choose to ask about the universe may dictate the answers we get. In this variant, the respondent does not choose or decide upon any particular or definite object beforehand, but only on a pattern of 'Yes' or 'No' answers.

This variant requires the respondent to provide a consistent set of answers to successive questions, so that each answer can be viewed as logically compatible with all the previous answers. In this way, successive questions narrow the options until the questioner settles upon a definite object. Wheeler's theory was that, in an analogous manner, consciousness may play some role in bringing the universe into existence."

Like I said, you weren't born knowing 3+0=3 because you needed to observe this rule in order to know there is a rule and then observe how such a rule is useful in the world. The rule itself stems from our own observations of individual things and the need to quantify those individual things that share similarities. So these "axiomatic" domains themselves require at least two observations - one to learn the rule and the other to learn what the rule is for. — Harry Hindu

Pardon me for interjecting HH, but I thought children could perform [a priori] mathematical abstracts/computation with little empirical observation? Meaning, we have the innate ability to comprehend abstract's without experiencing anything they relate to in the world.

I thought then,' learning the rule' a priori is mutually exclusive.

Personally, I think that ‘love’ at its most fundamental is the origin of the universe, but we don’t really understand what that means. I think a fundamental truth beyond logic is that the universe matters to the universe, regardless of anything. This truth brings meaning to interactions between potential, which realize a mutual capacity to develop and achieve by increasing awareness, connection and collaboration in the universe as it unfolds with each interaction. — Possibility

Could not agree more... ! Thank you kindly for sharing those thoughts above on this most intriguing topic. Well said!

It takes much less conscious effort to believe that we ‘cannot escape’ pleasure-seeking, than to understand that pleasure-seeking isn’t as ‘necessary’ as we think. — Possibility

I'm trying to understand your thought process there. I know you've repeated that statement, but I think you might be denying some basic existential phenomena. (A detour into Ecclesiastes' would make my point a little clearer from a philosophical view... .) But in any case, from a Kantian perspective, there are some things that are fixed properties of consciousness that have little to do with logic, philosophy, empirical truth, etc..

In that sense, how can we escape ( I'll use that wonderful word again, ha) the so-called intrinsic need for seeking gratification? To love a something, in part, means I'm both making a choice to do so, and I'm satisfying an existential or intrinsic need. Arguably to Love, is much like the need to eat or sleep. Albeit in this case, eating and sleeping would be first-tier hierarchical. To Love though, seems integral with all forms of behavioral needs. Thus I can love to eat steak, love my house, love my girlfriend, children, career, ad nauseum.

So, in thinking out loud here, I'm trying to understand why you believe pleasure-seeking would not be 'necessary' for human existence.

Well, we can escape it, it’s just less effort to roll with it, and justify it, and pretend that it’s somehow necessary. — Possibility

I thought those were your words based on your quote above..., can you please clarify this?

If you are saying it takes less conscious effort, isn't that the same as saying something like; intrinsic needs, or hardwired, or instinctual, etc..

What causes human's to seek pleasure and/or Love ? One plausible answer would be metaphysical will. Accordingly, that would be something existential that just is...otherwise, maybe other possibilities could include something else that is beyond logic; intrinsic, instinctual, phenomenal, genetic, emergent, et al .

Is love really a good thing, or is it selfish to love somebody/something? — Craiya

If one say's: 'I really love that car, house, guitar, boat, or person, etc..' , then one should in theory want to make that thing better by obviously maintaining it, making improvements to it, and all the rest. And even though the word love in that context can really be a misnomer, it still conveys an intrinsic need or passion to experience some level of joy and happiness.

It in some way begs another question of whether Love is a choice. Thoughts?

Yeah P., I take no exception to your approach or otherwise virtuous ideal of love. In theory, one should always aspire to a greater good in the name of Love. And I think you have articulated that well.

My issue is with your notion of 'just rolling with it'. I know Ayn Rand gets a bad rap with her theories of selfishness and all, but there is a nugget of existential truth associated with her premise of self-direction.

For example, as Maslow [inspired by Fromm's paper on healthy selfishness] once said (in paraphrase but pretty close) 'how could selfishness be opposed to altruism, when altruism became selfishly pleasurable'.

I think your 'just rolling with it' is more or less instinct or intrinsic needs for happiness. In other words, it becomes in a sense, logically necessary to want to love someone as a mutually beneficial, virtuous ideal in order to create a better sum of the parts. To better humanity.

In that way, I see being able to merge those dichotomies (contradictory or mutually exclusive opposites) as like merging duty with pleasure; pleasure with duty (head v. heart, wish v. fact, turning a hobby into a career or job, etc.).

So, rather than, as you say 'escape it', I submit one should integrate it. Embrace those hard wired needs for inner peace, joy and happiness with altruistic acts/types of unselfish love, to better the human condition.

I think Leo and Possibility really captured much of the answer relating to your OP.

At the same time, as others have alluded, we are self-directed individuals seeking happiness, thus cannot escape the self-serving interest component. Kind of like the need to procreate/aspire to have children of our own.

(Albeit adoption, seems to be more in line with an altruistic act or concept... .)

Much of art can be considered an abstract metaphor about existence. The beauty can be found in the artist's idealistic interpretations of same.

I don't think you have to understand all of art to create it ( or to be creative in anything for that matter). For example in music there are plenty of musicians who cannot read music or understand complete music theory, nevertheless, can be creative; improvise, embellish, or otherwise come up with truly novel ideas about same.

(With respect to music no contemporary philosopher that I'm aware of other than Schopenhauer, attempted to explore that kind of creativity and what effects it has on consciousness. Cognitive science generally has a bit more to say about the creative mind- AH Maslow... . )

If you have a sense of wonder, then explain it(?) Thus far, you haven't been able to explain it, have you(?)

In the context of the thread, why are you wondering about causation?

Sorry for all the questions... .

Thank you I believe we got your answer!
LOL

Be well,
Jim

...I'm sorry, were you not able to answer my questions?

Your suggestion that people can't have wonder if they don't believe in an all-powerful guy out there is wrong wrong wrong. You just think everyone is like you. You don't have to believe in anything higher than humans and other mammals. — Gregory

Okay, what is the purpose of the humanistic will to wonder? And explain to me what the will is, and what wonder is... ?

Are those features of consciousness important or unimportant, and do you yourself benefit from them?

Bonus question : does the will and the sense of wonder confer any biological advantages in Darwinism?

Sorry for all the questions... but let's at least start there... .

So, your Turtles must stop at the doorstep of the material world. The irony is that your sense of wonder about that very thing, is not material at all.

Okay. Is the Kantian judgement 'all events must have a cause' true or false?

And why should we care?

Love.

Not to sound dogmatic and Fundy, but may as well throw in the paradigm of Faith and Hope too.
LOL

Yep. And among many other questions is, why do we have a sense of wonderment when instinct would do us just fine.

And while we're at it, throw-in abstract thinking and mathematics...

Don't see any biological advantages there LOL.

So there must be a first cause — Devans99

Yep, I believe it was Kant who endorsed: All events must have a cause.

The synthetic a priori is alive and well!!!

Keep up the good work Devans. Don't be deterred by the naysayers. What do I mean by 'good work'?

Answer: embracing your God given sense of wonderment, and your Kantian intuition.

Why do I say 'God given'?

Answer: because wonder is a metaphysical/intrinsic attribute of consciousness.

Why do I associate wonder with the concept of God?

Answer: both are metaphysical concepts.

I challenge anyone here on this forum to explain the nature of wonder to me. How, why, what and where does wonder exist [in consciousness]. Pardon the mini-rant LOL.

Even God has to exist in time if God changes. Change is time. — Harry Hindu

Good point. Time is eternity; eternity time.

I suppose that's one of the vexing problems in making sense of an unchanging Being or thing, in a world of change. Time seems to be an abstract reality, yet no different than other abstract realities that exist and are perceived in consciousness [conscious existence] like the existence of mathematics itself, etc..

Nope, that's not what I meant. I appreciate your sarcasm, so I'll return the favor. Thus to underscore the perception you are giving by your response, unfortunately, that response represents the typical example Einstein talked about regarding disgruntled Atheist's who have an interminable axe to grind.

With all due respect, if you were listening/reading, what I'm talking about is, if you would read the OT Wisdom Books (Sirach, Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, etc...), you would find various pragmatic social norms that were recommended/established for human kind. Simple examples were how to act in relationships, friendships, dining etiquette, social environments, child rearing basics (spare the rod spoil the child), Aristotelian moderation, Existentialism... , otherwise basic yet practical wisdom, customs, social norms and advice useful for a happier lifestyle.

In the alternative, what I believe you are referring to are the human/intrinsic flaws of greed, ego, power, domination, insecurity, paranoia, phobia, fear and other related dysfunctional pathologies associated with the human condition.

Could the early settlers and native Americans have embraced each other better you think? Perhaps they should have smoked a little more of the peace pipe. Treat others as you would like to be treated goes along way-another Christian philosophy. Are people still not practicing that simple advice? What is Faith, Hope and Love to you?


Questions for you:

Was John Smith a good or bad leader?
Were the Chickahominy Indians adversarial or welcoming?
Were people scared, worried for their safety causing them to resort to cannibalism?

Using your words back at you, is this what you meant to say, in how Atheism can solve those existential motivations relative to the human condition? How would can you solve this problem in society viz the human condition? Can positive Atheism be a better alternative in helping humans achieve their goals in society?

There is of course much paradox/contradiction associated with language/self-reference, as you probably already know. Gödel's incompleteness/infinite theory speaks to that through both language and mathematics (liar's paradox and variations of same).

Also, that's a great question viz illogical or abstract. I wonder if it is simply an " illogical abstract " that actually exists in reality. Much like the metaphysical phenomenology of how the subconscious and conscious mind work together in an illogical manner (violating the laws of bivalence/LEM).

In a similar way, one answer to that question of abstract reality, I think, is the fascination with the conundrum of being and becoming. At the risk of redundancy from another thread, the paradox of time and your notion of infinity is very intriguing:

When it is changed, it is not changed

Surely this statement is a contradiction? Surely in our reality, when something is changed, it changes?

So I think we have to conclude that actual infinity is not part of our reality (or indeed any logical form of reality), it is just an illogical concept that exists in our minds (along with concepts like levitation, talking trees and square circles).

Interesting questions. I'm thinking the simple answer is that infinity is indeed part of our abstract reality. And that reality has contradiction and unresolved paradox.

Examples of abstract reality include the paradox of time, mathematics (Pi), cosmology (infinite universe theories), metaphysical phenomena, consciousness, so on and so forth..

Interesting discussion!

I'm not following you on that. Are you saying that the social contract as found in Christian philosophy/Judeo Christian old testament wisdom books is irrelevant?

For some human thinkers, something can only be true or false if it is open to verification, at least in theory if not also in practice. The truth of something lies at the end of our inquiry into that thing. But as our inquiry can have no end, the truth of something can never be more than our best opinion of that thing. If best opinion is all that we can have or hope for, then best opinion is as good as truth, and truth is a redundant concept. The best opinion is only best because, at least on average, it is closest to the truth, which, as well as instrumental value, has deep intrinsic value.

Then, there is the political self deception/lying to oneself: The very nature self-deception is hard to distinguish from the truth—whether our internal, emotional truth or the external truth. One has to develop and trust one’s instinct: what does it feel like to react in the way that I’m reacting? Does it feel calm, considered, and nuanced, or shallow and knee-jerk? Am I taking the welfare of others into consideration, or is it just all about me? Am I satisfied with, even proud of, my self-conquering effort, or am I left feeling small, anxious, or ashamed?

Self-deception doesn’t ‘add up’ in the grand scheme of things and can easily be brought down by even superficial questioning. Talk to other people and gather their opinions. If they disagree with you, does that make you feel angry, upset, or defensive? The coherence of your reaction speaks volumes about the character of your motives.

Consider the words 'in God we trust' on American currency. What does that mean to you?

Example: if one say's that Christian philosophy (i.e.; OT/Wisdom Books and the inspiration of Jesus/NT) helped America, would they be wrong?

Unless I'm missing something, there's really no debate or question as to, formal logic= a priori.

But in the context of your OP, accordingly, some crafty politician's and/or otherwise common-folk can perform the usual linguistic/semantic manipulation of words in such a way that its truth/meaning is deceptive. Remember, you asked the question as to whether 'formal logic' can win the war... .

That is one reason why running for public office is not easy, on many levels... . Public speaking; character, integrity, honesty, et al. are important leadership traits.

Cognitive science would say previous behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.

Otherwise, I'm not sure how Philosophy can avert or eradicate the nature of human's viz Propaganda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Traditionally, the short answer has been, no. And that is because formal logic concerns itself with purely the meaning of words (themselves) a priori. (Not to mention sentient Being... .)
One can move words around to manipulate meaning based upon context and get interesting results (contradictions & paradox). Hence, deductive reasoning v. indictive reasoning.

In a pragmatic way, as an alternative, I would recommend the approach of parsing the differences between subjective truth and objective truth.

I satisfied my curiosity this past summer and checked off a bucket list item by going to a nudist colony; does that count!?

I did it as a thought experiment. I wanted to see how comfortable or uncomfortable I would feel in that environment. It was interesting...yet very natural for me. There were families, children, etc.( I've sunbathed nude for years on my boat(s) naked...).

It's a fascinating topic nonetheless. The psychologist theory is that we are not born with a shame of nudity. Instead we learn it, as an important behavioral code that allows us to operate in human society.

I'm a bit on the fence about it. I think it is more existential in nature. Meaning, it comes back to higher levels of consciousness/self awareness. If we were made to be not aware through instinct only, why would we care to be ashamed? Why would we care to be self-conscious...

Please feel free to share my inconsistencies... ?

I'm happy to stand corrected.