Is Science Non-sense?

Use this forum to discuss the philosophy of science. Philosophy of science deals with the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science.
Post Reply
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 712
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 23rd, 2017, 9:42 pm

Don Quixote fought against windmills with dagger and sword. I wonder what he could have done if faced with a real enemy, also armed with art of war.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Synthesis » August 23rd, 2017, 11:51 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:Synthesis:
Has not mankind consistently engaged in technological improvement without having the slightest idea how things really work?
Actually, no. One could not make technological improvements if one did not have the slightest idea of how that thing really works. Scientists could not send a man to the moon if they did not have the slightest idea of how things work.

Would you not agree that 99.999...% of everything that has ever been thought true has been dis-proven over time? If this is the case, what do you believe are the odds that anything that is thought to be true today, actually is? About zero, I would say.
Of course time is math. Sixty seconds, sixty minutes, 24 hours, etc. Since time is dependent on distance, there must be an infinite number of time references going on simultaneously. How does that work?
This is like saying a fish is math because it can be divided or a barrel of monkeys is math because they can be counted.

Math is the language of science. If it can be quantified [and what can't], it is math. All these things are illusory. You simply can not accept this notion which is why you can not accept the existence [or non-existence, if you please] of a non-intellectual sphere.
I am not a fan of math because it really doesn't exist in any material way. The simplest way to show this is the following. Since all coordinates in space are subject unique forces, there can be no similar objects. Therefore, everything is de facto unique. Technically, two [of anything] does not exist.
This is a mass of confusion of concepts and semantics that I am not going to even bother to disentangle.

Seems pretty straight-forward to me.
Again, in order to participate in the human intellectual sphere, you must engage the relative. This is not dualistic.

Claiming that there are two “truths” one in flux and knowable and one absolute unknowable and constant is dualism. Curiously, you claim that the Absolute cannot be accessed due to temporal limitations. That can only mean that we cannot access the real truth because of limitations that do not actually exist. Further you say that impermanence lacks true existence. And so, the world we life in, the world in flux, the world in which we and everything else changes, is not the real world which is unknowable and constant.

Two truths exist in the relative world. In the Absolute, only void. Reality can not be accessed because of temporal limitations. In the Absolute there is nothing to access. The world we live in is knowable and impermanent, but the impermanence acts from moment to moment and this exists outside of our ability to know. Moments are not time. The Absolute is only a name given to a sphere that can not be understood. There is no such thing as "The Absolute."
Unless we have full attainment, we all have impediments. The non-intellectual can not be conveyed, it can only be experienced.
The problem here is not that you cannot convey what you have experienced but rather that since you have not experienced “Absolute Reality” you only confuse yourself by talking about it.

I am not confused. I think that you worry too much about what I have or have not done. The key is to believe in yourself 100%. What is it that you believe?

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 2734
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Fooloso4 » August 24th, 2017, 9:46 am

Synthesis:
Would you not agree that 99.999...% of everything that has ever been thought true has been dis-proven over time?
Absolutely not. You are just making stuff up. I know that you think that this is the equivalence to doing science but it is not. 99.999…%? If that were the case we would not be here.
Math is the language of science. If it can be quantified [and what can't], it is math.
The quantification of something is not the thing quantified. Although you can be regarded as just a number you are not. Are you?
All these things are illusory.
You have been told they are illusory and accept that. You provide flawed arguments in an attempt to show that. Your claim itself is illusory since you have not seen the ‘suchness’ of things as they are. You have no experience other than that of what you call illusion.
You simply can not accept this notion which is why you can not accept the existence [or non-existence, if you please] of a non-intellectual sphere.
I cannot accept it is illusory because I have evidence or no experience to support the claim. Our being in the world is limited to what you call the intellectual sphere. Is feeling the heat of the sun on my skin an illusion? Is enjoying the sunset illusion?
The world we live in is knowable …
If it is knowable then what we know is not delusion. If it was there would be no difference between true and false, it is all just made up stuff and anything you make up no more true or false than anything else.
… and impermanent, but the impermanence acts from moment to moment and this exists outside of our ability to know.
If it exists outside our ability to know then how is the world we live in knowable? Does knowledge mean delusion?
Moments are not time.
Moments are an arbitrary division of time. They are conceptual constructs. Intellectualization. You are trying to think your way out of thinking.
The Absolute is only a name given to a sphere that can not be understood. There is no such thing as "The Absolute."
Two spheres = dualism. How do you know that there is this sphere you have given a name to?
I think that you worry too much about what I have or have not done.
This is a philosophy forum. If you make claims on the forum other members will examine those claims. If you make claims on one hand about the distinction between intellectual and experiential knowledge and on the other claims about Absolute Reality but reject the possibility of intellectual knowledge of Absolute Reality, then any credible claims you make about Absolute Reality must be based on your own experience. But you do not have such experience, do you? And so your Absolute Reality is only delusion.
The key is to believe in yourself 100%.
What does this mean in the context of this discussion?
What is it that you believe?
I think I have made myself clear as to what I believe with regard to your claims. What else do you want to know?

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2511
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by LuckyR » August 24th, 2017, 5:15 pm

Synthesis wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Well, when you propose a particular outlook in a thread of your own creation, yet provide no examples or proof in the OP, then blow off Fooloso4 when he asks you for them... you get, what you get.
Could it possibly be that you just do not understand what I am saying?

What question would you like answered?
Could be. Clarity is an often uncommon quality.

Here's a roundabout question. In my experience knowledge or understanding is proven by the ability of using such knowledge to predict future events. If the knowledge or understanding is absent then the ability to predict the future should be no better than what statistics would assign to randomness. Similarly if one can forecast future events better than statistical randomness, that proves some level of knowledge/understanding.

The weather service predicts the weather 5 days out with 77% accuracy. Obviously even this well known and appreciated inaccuracy is way, way better than random prediction. Thus meteorology has a partial knowledge and understanding about the weather.

Question: do you dispute this scientific knowledge and understanding? If so what do you propose as your alternative to science?
"As usual... it depends."

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Synthesis » August 24th, 2017, 5:39 pm

LuckyR wrote:
Synthesis wrote:
(Nested quote removed.)

Could it possibly be that you just do not understand what I am saying?

What question would you like answered?
Could be. Clarity is an often uncommon quality.

Here's a roundabout question. In my experience knowledge or understanding is proven by the ability of using such knowledge to predict future events. If the knowledge or understanding is absent then the ability to predict the future should be no better than what statistics would assign to randomness. Similarly if one can forecast future events better than statistical randomness, that proves some level of knowledge/understanding.

The weather service predicts the weather 5 days out with 77% accuracy. Obviously even this well known and appreciated inaccuracy is way, way better than random prediction. Thus meteorology has a partial knowledge and understanding about the weather.

Question: do you dispute this scientific knowledge and understanding? If so what do you propose as your alternative to science?
How do you account for the fact that other species are so good at what they do? Do they understand the science behind any of these things?

There are ways of "accomplishing things" that do not involve understanding. I would suggest that using the intellect is probably a lower order process.

As far as weather prediction is concerned, I am sure you can observe that there is a confluence of factors that cause such and such outcome. If it happens 77% of the time, that's what it is. This doesn't mean anybody understands why. Imagine the variables ["known" and unknown] involved in weather prediction.

Steve3007
Posts: 4576
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Steve3007 » August 25th, 2017, 7:12 am

It's difficult to tell whether the OP is about the scientific method or about the US healthcare system. Which is it?
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 712
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 25th, 2017, 11:10 am

Steve3007 wrote:It's difficult to tell whether the OP is about the scientific method or about the US healthcare system. Which is it?
He or she is about the impossibility of knowing anything empirical. He or she denies knowledge of the empirical world exists. He denies even that time exists. He denies everything.

As a police captain, I always investigate those first, who deny everything. Nobody does nothing. Everybody does something. If you deny everything, then you don't be, and that's suspicious when you do be right in front of my eyes.

For the record, I am not a police captain.
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Synthesis » August 25th, 2017, 12:51 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:Synthesis:
Would you not agree that 99.999...% of everything that has ever been thought true has been dis-proven over time?
Absolutely not. You are just making stuff up. I know that you think that this is the equivalence to doing science but it is not. 99.999…%? If that were the case we would not be here.

Have you studied science from a historical context?
Math is the language of science. If it can be quantified [and what can't], it is math.
The quantification of something is not the thing quantified. Although you can be regarded as just a number you are not. Are you?

My point exactly!
All these things are illusory.
You have been told they are illusory and accept that. You provide flawed arguments in an attempt to show that. Your claim itself is illusory since you have not seen the ‘suchness’ of things as they are. You have no experience other than that of what you call illusion.

And you know all of this because...
You simply can not accept this notion which is why you can not accept the existence [or non-existence, if you please] of a non-intellectual sphere.
I cannot accept it is illusory because I have evidence or no experience to support the claim. Our being in the world is limited to what you call the intellectual sphere. Is feeling the heat of the sun on my skin an illusion? Is enjoying the sunset illusion?

Are your dreams real or an illusion?
The world we live in is knowable …
If it is knowable then what we What is knowable is not theknow is not delusion. If it was there would be no difference between true and false, it is all just made up stuff and anything you make up no more true or false than anything else.

What is knowable is not the truth.
… and impermanent, but the impermanence acts from moment to moment and this exists outside of our ability to know.
If it exists outside our ability to know then how is the world we live in knowable? Does knowledge mean delusion?

Yes, all knowledge is delusion.
Moments are not time.
Moments are an arbitrary division of time. They are conceptual constructs. Intellectualization. You are trying to think your way out of thinking.

Moments exist outside of time.
The Absolute is only a name given to a sphere that can not be understood. There is no such thing as "The Absolute."
Two spheres = dualism. How do you know that there is this sphere you have given a name to?

There isn't.
I think that you worry too much about what I have or have not done.
This is a philosophy forum. If you make claims on the forum other members will examine those claims. If you make claims on one hand about the distinction between intellectual and experiential knowledge and on the other claims about Absolute Reality but reject the possibility of intellectual knowledge of Absolute Reality, then any credible claims you make about Absolute Reality must be based on your own experience. But you do not have such experience, do you? And so your Absolute Reality is only delusion.

I do have experience.
The key is to believe in yourself 100%.
What does this mean in the context of this discussion?

Believing in yourself 100% means following your heart and understanding your true nature.
What is it that you believe?
I think I have made myself clear as to what I believe with regard to your claims. What else do you want to know?

I would like to know if you have answered the question, "Who I am?"

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 2734
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Fooloso4 » August 25th, 2017, 2:18 pm

Synthesis:
Have you studied science from a historical context?
Yes, I have. I might ask you the same question but I doubt you will answer because a) you have a habit of refusing to address such questions, and b) it is obvious that you have not. I doubt you can cite a single credible source on the history of science that claims as you do that 99.999...% of science has been dis-proven over time.
Math is the language of science. If it can be quantified [and what can't], it is math.

The quantification of something is not the thing quantified. Although you can be regarded as just a number you are not. Are you?
My point exactly!
Your claim is that what can be quantified is math. If you can be quantified but deny that you are just a number then you are not math and therefore the fact that something can be quantified does not mean that it is math. Recall you claim that time is math because it can be quantified.
You have no experience other than that of what you call illusion.
And you know all of this because…
You talk yourself in circles. You claim that the Absolute cannot be accessed, that in the the Absolute there is nothing to access, that the Absolute is a sphere that cannot be understood, that there is no such thing as the Absolute. So, tell us about your experience of the Absolute. Tell us of your enlightenment. Tell us about the dharma of transmission and your inheritance, and document of succession. Without those your experience is of this world as it is here and now in all its flux and glory.
Are your dreams real or an illusion?
Do you mean in the same way that you claim all knowledge is delusion or some other sense of illusion?
What is knowable is not the truth.
And you know this because …

If you know this then since what is knowable is false then it is false that what is knowable is not the truth. If, on the other hand, you do not know this then we can just dismiss it because it is something you do not know. And, if you do not know it you cannot say that it is either true or false.

Do not, however, dismiss this as an example of the futility of thought. It just demonstrates the futility of what you are thinking.

This raises what is an ancient debate between different schools of Ch’an Buddhism regarding the logic of koans. It has been years since I read about this and I do not remember enough to identify specific schools, but some claim the point of the koan is simply to bring the mind to the recognition of the limits of logic, and others that the koans are eminently logical provided one understands the logic that informs them. This logic, however, is not disclosed through the use of standard logic.
Moments exist outside of time.
Well if time does not exist and moments do then they must exist outside of what does not exist. So, what is a moment and how does it relate to nonexistent time? How are moments related to temporal limitations? How can there be temporal limitations without time?
Two spheres = dualism. How do you know that there is this sphere you have given a name to?
There isn't.
There isn’t what? Two spheres? You distinguished between two spheres. Do you mean there isn’t the sphere you have given a name to, that you said cannot be understood or accessed? If there is only the sphere of the “relative world” then there cannot be, as you claimed “two truths” but only the truth of the relative world, only the truth of the temporal, impermanent, knowable world. But if what is knowable is not true then there cannot be two truths, there can only be an unknowable truth about the knowable world. And yet somehow you know that there is this unknowable truth. And you know this because …
I do have experience.
Tell us of your experience of the unknowable truth.
Believing in yourself 100% means following your heart and understanding your true nature.
Well that’s nice, but do you really think that your defence of the claim that all knowledge is delusion helps you understand your true nature? Is your true nature to be disputative?
I would like to know if you have answered the question, "Who I am?"
I suspect that any honest answer I give will be at odds with how you have been instructed to answer in terms of what you are told is not your true nature.

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Synthesis » August 25th, 2017, 3:16 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:Synthesis:
Have you studied science from a historical context?
Yes, I have. I might ask you the same question but I doubt you will answer because a) you have a habit of refusing to address such questions, and b) it is obvious that you have not. I doubt you can cite a single credible source on the history of science that claims as you do that 99.999...% of science has been dis-proven over time.

I have already stated that I am a physician. What do you believe will always thought to be true?
Math is the language of science. If it can be quantified [and what can't], it is math.



(Nested quote removed.)


My point exactly!
Your claim is that what can be quantified is math. If you can be quantified but deny that you are just a number then you are not math and therefore the fact that something can be quantified does not mean that it is math. Recall you claim that time is math because it can be quantified.

Math is the way people think, especially in science. In terms of spacial existence, time is critical. So, math and time are intimately inter-related in science. Unfortunately [or fortunately], neither exist.
(Nested quote removed.)


And you know all of this because…
You talk yourself in circles. You claim that the Absolute cannot be accessed, that in the the Absolute there is nothing to access, that the Absolute is a sphere that cannot be understood, that there is no such thing as the Absolute. So, tell us about your experience of the Absolute. Tell us of your enlightenment. Tell us about the dharma of transmission and your inheritance, and document of succession. Without those your experience is of this world as it is here and now in all its flux and glory.

I am not a teacher, so I am not in a position to "enlighten" you. If you are familiar with Dogen, he has a great deal to say on the subject, and after all, he is Dogen.

What I will tell you is that speaking of the Absolute is confusing to everybody. How does one describe something non-intellectual?
Are your dreams real or an illusion?
Do you mean in the same way that you claim all knowledge is delusion or some other sense of illusion?

All knowledge is delusion because we can not know the real truth. I would think this would make sense to you.
What is knowable is not the truth.
And you know this because …

If you know this then since what is knowable is false then it is false that what is knowable is not the truth. If, on the other hand, you do not know this then we can just dismiss it because it is something you do not know. And, if you do not know it you cannot say that it is either true or false.

Do not, however, dismiss this as an example of the futility of thought. It just demonstrates the futility of what you are thinking.

Again, what is knowable is subject to the errors of perception and intellection.

This raises what is an ancient debate between different schools of Ch’an Buddhism regarding the logic of koans. It has been years since I read about this and I do not remember enough to identify specific schools, but some claim the point of the koan is simply to bring the mind to the recognition of the limits of logic, and others that the koans are eminently logical provided one understands the logic that informs them. This logic, however, is not disclosed through the use of standard logic.

You may know more about this than I.
Moments exist outside of time.
Well if time does not exist and moments do then they must exist outside of what does not exist. So, what is a moment and how does it relate to nonexistent time? How are moments related to temporal limitations? How can there be temporal limitations without time?

Moments do not exist. When you speak of the non-intellectual, you are using words that point towards realizations than can only be experienced [e.g., in meditation]. Do you understand?
(Nested quote removed.)


There isn't.
There isn’t what? Two spheres? You distinguished between two spheres. Do you mean there isn’t the sphere you have given a name to, that you said cannot be understood or accessed? If there is only the sphere of the “relative world” then there cannot be, as you claimed “two truths” but only the truth of the relative world, only the truth of the temporal, impermanent, knowable world. But if what is knowable is not true then there cannot be two truths, there can only be an unknowable truth about the knowable world. And yet somehow you know that there is this unknowable truth. And you know this because …

Dualism only exists in the knowable [relative]. Up/down, hot/cold, etc. Relative/Absolute do not share this. Remember, the Absolute is simply a word that points to a deeper meaning.
I do have experience.
Tell us of your experience of the unknowable truth.

I believe you realize that this is not possible. Meditate with a clear mind and you will know it too.
I would like to know if you have answered the question, "Who I am?"
I suspect that any honest answer I give will be at odds with how you have been instructed to answer in terms of what you are told is not your true nature.

Give it a shot!

User avatar
LuckyR
Posts: 2511
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by LuckyR » August 25th, 2017, 4:05 pm

Synthesis wrote:
LuckyR wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Could be. Clarity is an often uncommon quality.

Here's a roundabout question. In my experience knowledge or understanding is proven by the ability of using such knowledge to predict future events. If the knowledge or understanding is absent then the ability to predict the future should be no better than what statistics would assign to randomness. Similarly if one can forecast future events better than statistical randomness, that proves some level of knowledge/understanding.

The weather service predicts the weather 5 days out with 77% accuracy. Obviously even this well known and appreciated inaccuracy is way, way better than random prediction. Thus meteorology has a partial knowledge and understanding about the weather.

Question: do you dispute this scientific knowledge and understanding? If so what do you propose as your alternative to science?
How do you account for the fact that other species are so good at what they do? Do they understand the science behind any of these things?

There are ways of "accomplishing things" that do not involve understanding. I would suggest that using the intellect is probably a lower order process.

As far as weather prediction is concerned, I am sure you can observe that there is a confluence of factors that cause such and such outcome. If it happens 77% of the time, that's what it is. This doesn't mean anybody understands why. Imagine the variables ["known" and unknown] involved in weather prediction.
Whom are you quoting with your red phrase? I did not address accomplishing things, I commented on the ability to predict future events. Please share which other species predict the future.

As to my gift of a softball target of weather prediction (a notoriously INaccurate prediction), it all depends on your meaning of the word "understands". If you mean at the granular (or quantum) level, you are right that a system as complex as the weather (again a softball target) has too many variables to ever get to 100% accuracy, however there is reasonable and growing understanding of the big picture of meteorology, thus there is a level of knowledge.

Your argument reminds me of a small child asking: "why?" to a statement from their parent, for example: "Rover likes his dog food." Then repeating the "why?" query endlessly regardless of the answer they just received until the parent doesn't know why anymore or just tires of the conversation (such as it is) then the kid declares triumphantly that his father doesn't know why things happen.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 712
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by -1- » August 25th, 2017, 4:07 pm

Synthesis wrote:
I have already stated that I am a physician.
This raises a whole bunch of eyebrows how a patient visit may play out in your office.

"What seems to be the problem?"

"I have a cough and a headache."

"Fine. Do you exist?"

"Pardon me?"

"I am asking because nothing exists in reality that we can know of. So am asking you, to tell me whether you exist, so I can be sure of that."

"Yes, doctor, I exist."

"Fine. Now say Aaaaaa... right. Can you tell me how old you are, without any reference to units of time?"

"Pardon me?"

"Well, you and I both know (and physician looks around suspiciously, to see if anyone is listening) that time does not exist. But I have to fill out this insurance form if I want to get paid."

"I'm twice as old as half of my age."

"Great. So you are 59 years of age. And what is your number?"

"My number?"

"Yes. Your number. If you are not a number, you don't belong to the realm of science, and in my practice I like to stick to scientific methods. So what's your number."

"Erm... square root of seventy-two."

"How do you spell that?"

(Patient stands up and starts to murmur as he slowly backs out of the room, his eyes constantly on the physician:) "eight... point... four... two... three... seven... five... zero... zero... six... four... (etc.)"

(Curtain)
"You can always live without a lover, but you can't love without a liver."

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 2734
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Fooloso4 » August 25th, 2017, 5:44 pm

Synthesis:
I have already stated that I am a physician.
Have you? All that I have seen is that you said you were in the medical profession but would not provide any details and questioned my motives for asking.

Do you treat patients or ever give treatment advice? Do you tell patients that they are delusional and send them on their way? Do you tell them that you are delusional and send them on their way? Are the textbooks you used in medical school 99.999 % different than contemporary texts? Is almost everything that was in the books on anatomy, physiology, respiration, circulation, neurology, pharmacology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, etc. wrong and replaced by newer books that are also almost completely wrong?
What do you believe will always thought to be true?
Some things that have been thought to be true for thousands of years: We will die. If we lose enough blood we will die. If we can’t breath for an extended period of time we will. If we go without nutrition and fluids for too long we will die. We cannot fly.
Math is the way people think, especially in science.
True (or if I follow your logic, not true), but epistemology is not ontology, although they are not always completely separate. I may think my wife is a math equation but she insists she is not. I told her that she is delusional.
In terms of spacial existence, time is critical.
How can time be critical for spatial existence if time does not exist? Does this mean that spatial existence does not exist? Does anything exist? What does it mean to exist?
If you are familiar with Dogen, he has a great deal to say on the subject, and after all, he is Dogen.
He does, but when I pointed out that he does not say that time is math your response was that it is fortune that you need not defer to anybody else. And yet, now you to defer to him.
What I will tell you is that speaking of the Absolute is confusing to everybody. How does one describe something non-intellectual?
Is the problem that you have no experiential knowledge of the Absolute or that you cannot describe your enlightenment? Is the Absolute confusing to those who are enlightened?
All knowledge is delusion because we can not know the real truth. I would think this would make sense to you.
In that case dreams are no more an illusion then waking reality. If all knowledge is delusion then what is the difference between knowing something and thinking you know something you do not? Thinking I can fly is a delusion but according to you, knowing that I cannot fly is also a delusion. Do I know the “real truth” if I jump off a tall building or is what happens also a delusion?
Again, what is knowable is subject to the errors of perception and intellection.
If there is error of perception and intellection then there must be a distinction between delusion and clarity. Is there a difference between seeing a pink elephant sitting next to me and not seeing a pink elephant sitting next to me, or are both perceptions equally delusional? Do you drive a car? Do you think it is only an illusion that you are driving and that you are deluded if you see a car coming right at you or someone crossing the road in front of you?
Moments do not exist.
Okay, I’ve got it now, moments exist outside of time but time does not exist and moments do not exist.
When you speak of the non-intellectual, you are using words that point towards realizations than can only be experienced [e.g., in meditation]. Do you understand?
How do you distinguish "realizations" from delusion?
Remember, the Absolute is simply a word that points to a deeper meaning.
How can it point to a deeper meaning that cannot be known? And how can you know what cannot be known?
I believe you realize that this is not possible.
I see no reason why you cannot tell us of your experience of enlightenment. Many of the Buddhas have shared their experience. In addition, Dogen talks extensively about the importance of authentication, the dharma of transmission, inheritance, and document of succession. So, even if you are reluctant to discuss your own experience of enlightenment, if you are in the Soto lineage you have a document of succession. Perhaps it is on the wall of your office in a frame next to you medical school diploma?
Give it a shot!
It is not clear to me that I have a “true nature” or what that even means. It might mean a nature that is unique to me or human nature or as some claim that the “I” is an illusion (what a surprise!). I follow the Socratic path of heeding the injunction to “know thyself” and its connection to living the examined life. It is, as I understand it, a matter of zetetic skepticism. It is rooted in a recognition of the limits of knowledge and reason, attends to what I do and say, and resisting idle talk about Absolutes and metaphysical claims that are beyond my knowledge and experience. If someone else claims to have knowledge or experience of these things I may question them. True to Socrates' own experience, I have never come across someone who seems to possess more than what he calls "human wisdom", that is, knowledge of our ignorance. And this includes claims of transcendent experience.

Steve3007
Posts: 4576
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Steve3007 » August 25th, 2017, 7:12 pm

Synthesis:
Math is the way people think, especially in science. In terms of spacial existence, time is critical. So, math and time are intimately inter-related in science. Unfortunately [or fortunately], neither exist.
Despite apparently believing that they don't exist, have you ever found them useful? Do you believe that it is possible for something to be useful whilst also not existing? What, in your view, does it mean for something to "exist"?

(-1-: drip, drip, drop little April showers. Sorry).
"When the seagulls follow the trawler, it is because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea." - Eric Cantona.

Synthesis
Posts: 189
Joined: July 15th, 2017, 12:54 pm

Re: Is Science Non-sense?

Post by Synthesis » August 25th, 2017, 8:23 pm

Fooloso4 wrote:Synthesis:
I have already stated that I am a physician.
Have you? All that I have seen is that you said you were in the medical profession but would not provide any details and questioned my motives for asking.

Do you treat patients or ever give treatment advice? Do you tell patients that they are delusional and send them on their way? Do you tell them that you are delusional and send them on their way? Are the textbooks you used in medical school 99.999 % different than contemporary texts? Is almost everything that was in the books on anatomy, physiology, respiration, circulation, neurology, pharmacology, biochemistry, organic chemistry, etc. wrong and replaced by newer books that are also almost completely wrong?

Fooloso4, you need a little perspective. Knowable things change every moment. Because of our limited intellects, we can only perceive the greatest of changes. Perhaps you might wish to compare contemporary knowledge with that of cultures a millennium or two ago. And, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt at 99.999...%. It's really 100% [every moment].
What do you believe will always thought to be true?
Some things that have been thought to be true for thousands of years: We will die. If we lose enough blood we will die. If we can’t breath for an extended period of time we will. If we go without nutrition and fluids for too long we will die. We cannot fly.

Perhaps, in the not too distance future, we will not have to die.
Math is the way people think, especially in science.
True (or if I follow your logic, not true), but epistemology is not ontology, although they are not always completely separate. I may think my wife is a math equation but she insists she is not. I told her that she is delusional.

One must carefully pick their battles! :)
In terms of spacial existence, time is critical.
How can time be critical for spatial existence if time does not exist? Does this mean that spatial existence does not exist? Does anything exist? What does it mean to exist?

Ah, the philosopher re-emerges.
If you are familiar with Dogen, he has a great deal to say on the subject, and after all, he is Dogen.
He does, but when I pointed out that he does not say that time is math your response was that it is fortune that you need not defer to anybody else. And yet, now you to defer to him.

If you want teaching, read one of the masters or seek out a qualified teacher.
What I will tell you is that speaking of the Absolute is confusing to everybody. How does one describe something non-intellectual?
Is the problem that you have no experiential knowledge of the Absolute or that you cannot describe your enlightenment? Is the Absolute confusing to those who are enlightened?

All things non-intellectual are experiential. Can you tell me what its like to be in love?
All knowledge is delusion because we can not know the real truth. I would think this would make sense to you.
In that case dreams are no more an illusion then waking reality. If all knowledge is delusion then what is the difference between knowing something and thinking you know something you do not? Thinking I can fly is a delusion but according to you, knowing that I cannot fly is also a delusion. Do I know the “real truth” if I jump off a tall building or is what happens also a delusion?

The delusion is the idea that we can not access Reality, therefore our perception is delusional. If you decide to jump off a building, then you are not only delusional, but ignorant, as well. There are degrees of delusion, like everything else. Again, everything changes, every moment. How can we possibly understand even the most simple things?
Again, what is knowable is subject to the errors of perception and intellection.
If there is error of perception and intellection then there must be a distinction between delusion and clarity. Is there a difference between seeing a pink elephant sitting next to me and not seeing a pink elephant sitting next to me, or are both perceptions equally delusional? Do you drive a car? Do you think it is only an illusion that you are driving and that you are deluded if you see a car coming right at you or someone crossing the road in front of you?

You can look out into the heavens on a super clear night and see all kinds of things that we know little about. Everything is just the same way. We just believe we know when we can not. There is a difference between acting prudently and not so much. Acting ignorantly or without consideration is an altogether different matter. Within our delusion, you can still make better/worse decisions.
Moments do not exist.
Okay, I’ve got it now, moments exist outside of time but time does not exist and moments do not exist.

This is the difficulty of attempting to intellectual the non-intellectual. Think about it. :)
When you speak of the non-intellectual, you are using words that point towards realizations than can only be experienced [e.g., in meditation]. Do you understand?
How do you distinguish "realizations" from delusion?

You are in 7th grade and the girl you've had a crush on for the last six months gives you a killer smile. Realization.
You sit down and believe you have finally figured out why your wife is the way she is. Delusion.

Remember, the Absolute is simply a word that points to a deeper meaning.
How can it point to a deeper meaning that cannot be known? And how can you know what cannot be known?

You can not know it, only realize it. Are you a parent? If so, and if you were present at the birth of your child[ren], you know realization.
I believe you realize that this is not possible.
I see no reason why you cannot tell us of your experience of enlightenment. Many of the Buddhas have shared their experience. In addition, Dogen talks extensively about the importance of authentication, the dharma of transmission, inheritance, and document of succession. So, even if you are reluctant to discuss your own experience of enlightenment, if you are in the Soto lineage you have a document of succession. Perhaps it is on the wall of your office in a frame next to you medical school diploma?

Enlightenment is not what you think it is and is certainly not a subject any serious Zen student speaks of.
Give it a shot!
It is not clear to me that I have a “true nature” or what that even means. It might mean a nature that is unique to me or human nature or as some claim that the “I” is an illusion (what a surprise!). I follow the Socratic path of heeding the injunction to “know thyself” and its connection to living the examined life. It is, as I understand it, a matter of zetetic skepticism. It is rooted in a recognition of the limits of knowledge and reason, attends to what I do and say, and resisting idle talk about Absolutes and metaphysical claims that are beyond my knowledge and experience. If someone else claims to have knowledge or experience of these things I may question them. True to Socrates' own experience, I have never come across someone who seems to possess more than what he calls "human wisdom", that is, knowledge of our ignorance. And this includes claims of transcendent experience.

I wish you all the best on your search. Keep in mind that the historical Buddha proclaimed that he achieved absolutely nothing from his enlightenment experience. As Dogen said, the meditative state is enlightenment. There is nothing else.

-- Updated August 25th, 2017, 8:36 pm to add the following --
Steve3007 wrote:Synthesis:
Math is the way people think, especially in science. In terms of spacial existence, time is critical. So, math and time are intimately inter-related in science. Unfortunately [or fortunately], neither exist.
Despite apparently believing that they don't exist, have you ever found them useful? Do you believe that it is possible for something to be useful whilst also not existing? What, in your view, does it mean for something to "exist"?
We must all "exist" in the human sphere, i.e., the intellectual world. The key is in understanding it's limitation [like everything else]. When we drive, we must understand the limitations, otherwise, we perish. The same applies in the intellectual world. If we understand the limitations, then we can go with the flow [or the change] and not get hung up on our attachments [whatever they may be].

In driving, we may see a gorgeous woman walking down the street and find ourselves wrapped around a telephone pole two seconds later. Every other distraction [e.g., thought] works the same way. The key is to remain present at all times.

Existence is anything you want it to be, but if we can not access the present [because of the perceptual time-lag], then what could existence mean? If everything is changing moment to moment, what could existence mean?

Existence is something people made-up [like time].

Post Reply