I decoded that link to the best of my admittedly pathetic abilities, and am wondering: if SB exists in every possible world, but the perceptions of that world are formed according to its rules, are there any worlds where SB (though extant) cannot be known? (the link seemed to indicate that the relation between possible worlds is somewhat hierarchal, i.e., not all arguments provable in S’ are provable in S, etc).
More to the point, if God transcends perception, how do we know God?
(i.e., is an experience of edification inherently an experience of God, regardless of perceptional rule-set? Along the lines of your deceased loving atheist saying to Jesus “oh, that was you?”)
Yes, that’s the meaning I meant. I just wanted to check and make sure so I could start noodling on it some more.
Well, in my opinion, the universe is real, but this word “real” is something our kind has created. To state in all honesty my true opinion of this conflict, I’d have to say that the universe (in our description) is not only ‘real’, but that it simply ‘is’. There is no true definition to the universe. You cannot call it real, just as you cannot call it fake. For these words have no true substance to them, as our kind has come up with them. We’ve developed the word ‘real’ for many different reasons. When it all comes down to it, this question you are asking of us is impossible to answer, as everyone’s view on what ‘real’ means is different. Thus, if you were to ask me if I thought the universe is real, according to my understanding of the human language, I would say yes, as the universe is something I obviously can see and can explain though a series of experiments upon mass and matter. As far as time and space goes, those seem to explain that the universe exisits further, as you cannot physically measure time or space (as you can with mass and matter). So if you are asking if the universe is physically real, I would say yes and use explanations from mass and matter to support my answer, as where if you asked if I thought the idea of the universe and anything outside of physical matter was real, I’d also say yes and use explanations from time and space to support that answer.
Knowledge would entail an epistemic modal claim, so if <>K(G), then <>K(G). But if ~<>K(G), then any epistemic assertion would be undefined. In other words, knowledge would indeed be subject to the rules of the world; but if knowledge is possible in a world, then it is necessary that it is possible to know God. You’re right about the hierarchic nature of modal relations. Note that without S5’s axiom <>A -> <>A, I could not have made the assertion I just made about knowledge. The assertion is appropriately made, however, since God’s existence is provable in S5.
Intellectually, we cannot. It is like talking about a dimension that we can’t experience. Consider the creatures from Fourdimland who can look at a closed box and see its insides just as we look at a closed square and see its insides. (We are privvy to a dimension that lifts our perception “above” the square.) A creature in Twodimland could not see both the inside and outside of the square because there is no dimension available to him for seeing “over” the square’s line. It is with this sort of reasoning that we come to know about God on an intellectual level. But spiritually, we have the same essence that He has. We indeed ARE He. He is multiplying the facilitation of goodness by creating free moral agents, some of whom will value the same aesthetic He values.
The worldview one chooses is by definition that which one considers “most accurate”, surely? If I thought that Lib’s was more accurate than mine, I’d hold it.
All I can do is write a bunch of words on the screen for you. My senses are processed by my cognitive modules, and this is the decision which is output: What is real to me is but a subset of what is real.
Does that mean “the dinosaurs weren’t real”, then? It’s as simple a yes or no question as I can conceive. If your definition of “real” doesn’t admit the dinosaurs, we disagree.
Now there’s an interesting and frustrating distinction. How do we know our essence? We can’t know it intellectually, because, de facto, that would not be our essence. The observer cannot observe the observer, the Tao which can be spoken is not the Tao, etc.
Huh.
Cross-checking several on-line dictionaries leads to a committee definition of “edification” as: improving one’s mind or spirit.
That’s dismally vague. I know essence cannot be captured in words, but could you flesh out your understanding of “edification” for me? I’m trying to catch the flavor of what edification means to you.
Liberal, when you give your intellectual arguments for unreality of the universe, which depend upon the existence of God, I confess they go right by me. They don’t even begin to persuade. When you start talking about apprehending Him spiritually, I believe you’re talking about something real. On the other hand, Sentient’s intellectual viewpoint is in line with my own, but when he characterizes his own epiphanies as “merely” the result of a shifting chemical balance in his brain I don’t find this credible. Can these conflicting apprehensions of reality be integrated?
Well, OK, “amazingly” would actually be more in line with my view of the action of the limbic system in ‘divine’ experiences, and even then, Lib would argue that this is just a correlation with temporal lobe synchronicity and that the cause is still divine. Like I said, I don’t pretend that neuropsychological explanations for our experiences aren’t complicated, just that they invoke entities we already have in biology and computation.
There is no need to know your essence — you ARE your essence. It is not an epistemic concern. Knowledge is all about how things differ. You cannot study A without a B to compare. Essence is A <-> A. It is an identity. A tautology. There is no new information, nothing to know.
Regarding edification, I think the idea of improvement suffices. Its etymology gives us a picture of building something. It’s why goodness is the most valuable aesthetic. The more it is facilitated the more good it is. It is like the anti-currency. The more there is to go around, the more valuable it is. An example is this discussion. I am edified by it, and I hope you are as well.
I believe that the epiphanies DO manifest as mere electrochemical activity. The question, as Ramachandran explains in his book, is not whether there is both an epiphany and a brain reaction. The question about epiphanic episodes — which reasonable people can argue either way — is this: did God by His presence cause the epiphany, or did the brain by its epiphany cause His presence? Ramachandran maintains that that question is outside the purview of science.
In this debate, there’s been a palpable sense of “But it’s so obvious” coming from both of us.
I want to try not arguing with you for awhile, and instead concentrate on understanding your viewpoint. And if I am going to understand your viewpoint, I think this statement is probably going to be the key: “What is real to me is but a subset of what is real”.
Two questions, to start:
You bolded “to me” and “subset”; why are these important enough to need bolding?
When I read your statement, my knee-jerk thought is “How can something be a subset of itself?”. What am I missing?
To more clearly express my position: The sand I have sat on is a subset of all the sand in existence. The things I have seen so far is a subset of visible things. My personal reality is all that can, by definition, “know”: a computer cannot store items that haven’t yet been input. But to conclude that there is no other reality, that there are no other real things, is simple solipsism. I cannot logically argue with solipsism: we must accept a difference of opinion.
If S is the set of things input to my senses, and U is everything that is real, the decision I output is that there is at least one element of U which is not in S. I’m running out of different ways to say exactly the same thing.
Which is met, of course, by the eternal seeker’s cry: “But I don’t feel like God”.
“Anti-currency”. Good word. I remember being pretty blown away the day I realized that a profound love for one person does not diminish by one iota a profound love for another. In fact, the opposite often occurs.
This essence you speak of, is it part of the universe, or is it separate? Is it real? How do you know? Is there more evidence for its existence than there is for the existence of the universe?
Sentient, thanks for the Ramachandran link. Reading it impelled me to my bookshelf, where I find my copies of the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita waiting patiently since last read about forty years ago. If I get a peek around the veil of illusion, I’ll try to report back.
That has to do with the restrictions that your physical nature imposes upon your spiritual essence. Your physical consciousness is inviolate and subjective. There is no other brain that is privvy to the consciousness of your brain. If you want to “feel like God”, give less attention to your brain and more attention to your heart. There, you will find His essence, Your own, and the essence of all Who are spirit.
Okay, this is the picture I get: U is everything that is real. S is some of that reality. Since you only have access to some reality, there must be more reality out there, therefore solipsism’s a bust, and dinosaurs are (or were) real.
More questions: What are you in this picture? I know you believe you are intrinsically part of reality, but I’m reading your viewpoint as creating almost a dualism; where reality is “out there” being fed to you, and you output (on a limited scale) more (or perhaps, merely changed) reality. If reality is “out there”, where are you?
(Forgive me for the cartoon version of your viewpoint. I’m trying on a new Weltanschauung here, and I have to start in the children’s section.)
Because it satisfies every philosophical question that I have.
Essence and existence are two different aspects of the same thing. A thing may have both essence and existence. Whether you are an existentialist or an essentialist is determined by which you believe must come first before the other can arise — essence or existence.
“I” am the computer receiving input. “I” is a symbolic/linguistic referent to a unique set of memories accrued from a particular location in time and space: those other temporal and spatial locations are my “out there”. I am my memories: the atoms of the hardware change over more or less continually.
In doing so, you force me to re-evaluate my own fit if I am not to become a set-in-his ways old fuddy duddy: truly, the young can teach the old just as much as the converse.
To answer your question as simply as I can: Where am I?
That is love. That is God.