What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
- ThamiorTheThinker
- Posts: 281
- Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Yoda
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
Here's an excerpt to chew on for a bit: "In some remote corner of the sprawling universe, twinkling among the countless solar systems, there was once a star on which some clever animals invented knowledge. It was the most arrogant, most mendacious minute in "world history", but it was only a minute. After nature caught its breath a little, the star froze, and the clever animals had to die.---Once could invent a fable like this and still not have illustrated sufficiently how miserable, how shadowy and fleeting, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect appears in nature."
What he was getting at there is that, regardless of how it may seem to our clever, complex brains, it is still at least possible that we aren't actually making sense to anything or anyone but ourselves. It is, as Nietzsche believed, not the case that were are describing reality - but rather describing a clever, internally consistent conception of reality.
Later on, he writes the following: ". . . nothing is as incomprehensible as how an honest and pure drive to truth could have arisen among men. They are deeply immersed in illusions and dream images; their eyes glide only over the surface of things and see "forms"; their sensations nowhere lead to truth but content themselves with registering stimuli and playing a touching-feeling game, as it were, on the backs of things.""
Do any of you agree with Nietzsche? Do any of you think that the nature of consciousness, physical stimuli and our senses are not actually sufficient to inform us about reality? I, for one, think that he was onto something in his writings. Of course our intellect appears to be clever and reflective of reality - of course our science and philosophy seem to be capable of progressing us toward truth. However, it could be the case that senses do nothing but create "images" of reality, and those "images" or "forms", as he put it, are what we speak of and are referring to when we speak of the universe.
His writing actually reminds me a bit of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, to the degree that it doubts our very capacity to even know what truth is.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
Relative truth: the sky is blue.
r6
Rr6 wrote: "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse
2) Universe: Occupied Space aka God, Cosmos, UniVerse etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons
......aka observed physical/reality as observed time aka spirit-2.........
......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......
......2c} dark energy
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4...........
r6
-- Updated April 6th, 2016, 12:18 pm to add the following --
Conscience stems from experiences{ spirit-2 } of how we see we or others are being treated, and from moral teachings passed on to us from the previous and specifically metaphysical-1{ spirit-1 } as our spirit-of-intent.
God = "U"niverse, and many believe God equals only a the occupied space part of "U"niverse i.e. for them, God equals only Universe and not the greater whole as "U"niverse
Non-occupied space, occupied space and mind/intellect/concept eternally exist in complement to each other.
Comprehension of the whole excludes no parts. "U"niverse is the terminology used to embrace the most comprehensive and wholistic point of view.
View the following as the beginnings of a table of contents of a book, entitled as, "U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy
"U"niverse: The Cosmic Hierarchy
....1a} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
-----line---of---demarcation---------------------------------------------------
...1b} macro-infinite non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2
....1c} finite, occupied space Universe aka UniVerse
2) Universe: Occupied Space aka God, Cosmos, UniVerse etc....
....2a} fermions and bosons
......aka observed physical/reality as observed time aka spirit-2.........
......2b} gravity
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3......
......2c} dark energy
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4...........
r6
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
I think he's right, but that the problem he's identified is largely irrelevent.ThamiorTheThinker wrote:Do any of you agree with Nietzsche? Do any of you think that the nature of consciousness, physical stimuli and our senses are not actually sufficient to inform us about reality? I, for one, think that he was onto something in his writings. Of course our intellect appears to be clever and reflective of reality - of course our science and philosophy seem to be capable of progressing us toward truth. However, it could be the case that senses do nothing but create "images" of reality, and those "images" or "forms", as he put it, are what we speak of and are referring to when we speak of the universe.
His writing actually reminds me a bit of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, to the degree that it doubts our very capacity to even know what truth is.
It's always possible that the information we have is insufficient to work out the ultimate truth. We could always be brains in a jar, being tricked by a wicked demon, fated by powers beyond our comprehension, or dealing in a few insiginificant corner-case dimensions while most of reality rushes on unobserved.
But for that to be true, it must, by definition, be incapable of effecting our observable reality. So why would we care?
- ThamiorTheThinker
- Posts: 281
- Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Yoda
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
However, I was not implying that reality is something Matrix-like, simply that it is not as we perceive it. Rather, I think, Nietzsche was suggesting that perceptions are nothing more than metaphors, that when we speak of them we are not speaking of what is actual, but what is experiential. This, of course, is not a new idea, but let me explain a bit further before you tell me that this has already been said a thousand times.
For example: it is consistent and seemingly intuitive to say the statement "this dog is black" is true - that is, it lines up with what our perceptions are, and our perception of a dog whose fur coat Reflects all of the EMR visible spectrum is the experience of blackness.
However, that statement is only consistent with the visual perception of blackness. That is, the perception is a limit; it is a barrier. The perception of blackness in a dog's fur is something like a shroud pulled over our eyes, Nietzsche thought. It prevents us from experiencing the dog's fur coat any other way.
Why would we want to experience a dog's fur any other way? Well, let's relate this to the topic at hand, which is metaphysics. Metaphysics is all about going past the perceptions of what is and tries to extend into what "actually" is (I don't like that term, hence I put it inside quotation marks). If metaphysics is trying to push the boundaries of perception, and all we have to reference reality is perception, then metaphysics is posed with quite the challenge, is it not?
I would like to know if you have any arguments which could solve the dilemma between our perceptions and our desire to push past them when discussing metaphysics. Hopefully what I wrote made sense; I tried to be as concise as possible.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
....1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
.....2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2 exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe/UniVerse
-------------------------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------------------
......3} gravity{ ( ) }---I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space,
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3-- I speculate as positive curvature......
......4} dark energy{ )( } --I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space.
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4,-- I speculate as negative curvature...........
r6
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
But what if it's a brown dog?ThamiorTheThinker wrote:For example: it is consistent and seemingly intuitive to say the statement "this dog is black" is true
.
Isn't it more usual to experience whiteness under such conditions?and our perception of a dog whose fur coat Reflects all of the EMR visible spectrum is the experience of blackness.
That would seem to be true in your case.The perception of blackness in a dog's fur is something like a shroud pulled over our eyes
To avoid having people think we are crazy would be one reason.Why would we want to experience a dog's fur any other way?
-- Updated April 20th, 2016, 7:59 pm to add the following --
This is incomplete. You haven't written anything in yellow. How can you describe what lies beyond the physical without having one or two yellow words. Furthermore: The buffer zones would be more effective if they were "B"uffer zones.Rr6 wrote:There exists four kinds of metaphysical{ beyond the physical }
....1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
.....2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2 exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe/UniVerse
-------------------------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------------------
......3} gravity{ ( ) }---I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space,
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3-- I speculate as positive curvature......
......4} dark energy{ )( } --I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space.
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4,-- I speculate as negative curvature...........
r6
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
What I offered is complete so you are in error. No surprise's there. There exist four primary kinds metaphysical exists. You only provide malarkey because of your lack of access to rational, logical common sense statements, that, invalidate my comments as stated.Alec Smart---This is incomplete. You haven't written anything in yellow. How can you describe what lies beyond the physical without having one or two yellow words. Furthermore: The buffer zones would be more effective if they were "B"uffer zones.
As a matter of fact, no one here at Philo Forums-- or elsewhere --- have ever offered any rational, logical common sense statements that, invalidate my cosmic hierarchy or statements associated with and to it.
I think you should change your Philo identity to Alec, the Malarkey, Smart so as to better represent what you have to offer here at Philo, at least in my regards.
r6
Rr6---There exists four primary kinds of metaphysical{ beyond the physical }
....1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
.....2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2 exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe/UniVerse
-------------------------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------------------
......3} gravity{ ( ) }---I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space,
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3-- I speculate as positive curvature......
......4} dark energy{ )( } --I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space.
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4,-- I speculate as negative curvature...........
- Newme
- Posts: 1401
- Joined: December 13th, 2011, 1:21 am
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
Those who insist on denying metaphysical influences experienced on human bodies are denying the method used by pharmaceutical companies to test against the placebo effect. Why is it that the placebo is so powerful to use as a standard test for medication effectiveness, yet it is often ignored in philosophical circles?
Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence." What study can be more influential on YOU, than the effects of belief on your own physical body?
I personally, I'm not interested in philosophy for the sake of pedantic mental masturbation.
Philosophy, to me, is only worthwhile if it is practically useful.
It is acknowledged that there are many scams that attempt to use metaphysical concepts to make money - and have no credibility. Yet, if believing in, ie: a crystal's healing power, creates real healing without all of the side effects so common in many medications, than more power to that individual! Still, personally, I'm too logical to be swayed to believe in something just for the sake of believing - but I sometimes wish it were otherwise. Of all the healing arts, there is only one that proves to be effective independent of placebo effect - that is Chinese medicine, particularly acupuncture and acupressure, based on the body's circadian clock, which the medical field is finally acknowledging more.
There is no doubt that our bodies ARE influenced by belief - by emotion - and by a type of 24-hour routine - much of which goes on without conscious awareness. How is it that when hypnotized to believe contrary to reality, our minds are so powerful to override the "real" environmental signals around us? Our bodies are not Newtonian machines, but are dynamic and influenced by belief more than many want to acknowledge.
What type of beliefs affect which parts of our bodies? And why? Can this be proven using the usual scientific method? If not, ought it be dismissed, simply because nobody has discovered an approach to study it?
The way we learn is not by ignoring, but by exploring - even if it is not completely immediately understood.
I see experiential truth in this searchable website about possible (partial) metaphysical causes of illness, yet I'd like to know and understand the principles by which they came to such conclusions. http://www.vitalaffirmations.com/health ... xfcso-cG1s
- ThamiorTheThinker
- Posts: 281
- Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Yoda
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
1) But I'm not referring to a brown dog, so that question isn't relevant.Alec Smart wrote:But what if it's a brown dog?ThamiorTheThinker wrote:For example: it is consistent and seemingly intuitive to say the statement "this dog is black" is true
.Isn't it more usual to experience whiteness under such conditions?and our perception of a dog whose fur coat Reflects all of the EMR visible spectrum is the experience of blackness.That would seem to be true in your case.The perception of blackness in a dog's fur is something like a shroud pulled over our eyesTo avoid having people think we are crazy would be one reason.Why would we want to experience a dog's fur any other way?
2) That's correct. I had my terms confused about the EM spectrum. Thank you for the correction.
3) Insults do not constitute philosophy; I would like to request that you add something relevant or not add comments at all.
4) You didn't see my point: my point was that, metaphysically, we are kept from objective truths by being blinded with our perceptions. We cannot be exposed to, as it were, reality; for our only exposure to it is through perception. If you had the opportunity to step outside of your sense perceptions, wouldn't you take that opportunity?
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
If their spirit-of-intent is to show that the placebo effect is positive 10% of the time in lab studies, then they have made us believers in more than one way.
What is Bruce Lipton's thing about, power of belief?
Reliability of placebo belief system at crunch time is also a consideration.
There is an ole saying, the world is full of people, and someone once replied that as a comment to me. And I thought of replying them, yeah, and thank goodness for that. What would our wold look like if not filled with people with good intentions?
There is no guarantee that humans will survive another 100-1000 years on Earth. We turned around some degree of nuclear annihilation but that possibility still exists.
Now we ever increasing additional global threats to humanity. So we did not close one door and open another. We left one door open slightly and continue to open another, or more doors, wider and wider openings. imho
r6
Newme wrote:Those who insist on denying metaphysical influences experienced on human bodies are denying the method used by pharmaceutical companies to test against the placebo effect. Why is it that the placebo is so powerful to use as a standard test for medication effectiveness, yet it is often ignored in philosophical circles?
Philosophy is "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence." What study can be more influential on YOU, than the effects of belief on your own physical body?
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
I am providing malarkey as the fifth metaphysical. If you think of it like this: Mal~arkey then you will see the necessity for it's inclusion.Rr6 wrote: What I offered is complete so you are in error. No surprise's there. There exist four primary kinds metaphysical exists. You only provide malarkey because of your lack of access to rational, logical common sense statements, that, invalidate my comments as stated.
- Rr6
- Posts: 1034
- Joined: April 5th, 2015, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: R. Bucky Fuller
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
Rr6---There exists four primary kinds of metaphysical{ beyond the physical }Alec Smart wrote:I am providing malarkey as the fifth metaphysical. If you think of it like this: Mal~arkey then you will see the necessity for it's inclusion.Rr6 wrote: What I offered is complete so you are in error. No surprise's there. There exist four primary kinds metaphysical exists. You only provide malarkey because of your lack of access to rational, logical common sense statements, that, invalidate my comments as stated.
....1} metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ergo concepts of God, Universe, Space, Concepts etc.....
........spirit-1 aka spirit-of-intent........
.....2} macro-infinite, non-occupied space aka metaphysical-2 exists beyond our finite occupied space Universe/UniVerse
-------------------------------------------line-of-demarcation--------------------------------------------------------
......3} gravity{ ( ) }---I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space,
...........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-3 and spirit-3-- I speculate as positive curvature......
......4} dark energy{ )( } --I think of as buffer-zone between physical/energy{ ^v } and non-occupied space.
.........aka quasi-physical or metaphysical-4 and spirit-4,-- I speculate as negative curvature...........
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
Hm.. Let me float an idea past you. That Nietzsche's idea of perception being a shroud pulled over our eyes, is in itself a cultural construct preventing us from experiencing the truth. We can go down as many layers as you like on this.ThamiorTheThinker wrote:Interesting point there, Togo1. I agree that such propositions would not be relevant to our perception of reality.
However, I was not implying that reality is something Matrix-like, simply that it is not as we perceive it. Rather, I think, Nietzsche was suggesting that perceptions are nothing more than metaphors, that when we speak of them we are not speaking of what is actual, but what is experiential. This, of course, is not a new idea, but let me explain a bit further before you tell me that this has already been said a thousand times.
For example: it is consistent and seemingly intuitive to say the statement "this dog is black" is true - that is, it lines up with what our perceptions are, and our perception of a dog whose fur coat Reflects all of the EMR visible spectrum is the experience of blackness.
However, that statement is only consistent with the visual perception of blackness. That is, the perception is a limit; it is a barrier. The perception of blackness in a dog's fur is something like a shroud pulled over our eyes, Nietzsche thought. It prevents us from experiencing the dog's fur coat any other way.
Our perception is bound up with our understanding of the world. We can not perceive anything without at least some attempt to make sense of what we see. To achieve Nietzsche's ideal we need to dispose of perception, at which point we are blind. Perception is only possible with understanding, with context, with some idea of blackness. If we looked at a black dog with no conception of blackness, then our vision might in some metaphysical sense be purer, but we might well perceive less rather than more.
Which is why it's a logical discipline rather than an empirical one, and is concerned with coherence of models rather than observation and measurement.ThamiorTheThinker wrote:Why would we want to experience a dog's fur any other way? Well, let's relate this to the topic at hand, which is metaphysics. Metaphysics is all about going past the perceptions of what is and tries to extend into what "actually" is (I don't like that term, hence I put it inside quotation marks). If metaphysics is trying to push the boundaries of perception, and all we have to reference reality is perception, then metaphysics is posed with quite the challenge, is it not?
Well I think we need to be careful of your metaphor of 'pushing past' perceptions. Perception may or may not be relevant, but it needs to be accounted for either way. I don't think that metaphysics that defies our perceptions without explanation ends up being particularly credible. For example, it's easy to talk breezily about a sense of self being an illusion, but the actual mechanics that would be required to produce such an illusion, to keep it consistent and credible, would be immensely complicated, and the utility of doing so is very doubtful. That's all science, which means it's based on our (fallible, doubtful) perceptions of the world, but it's still important. Claiming our perceptions are inaccurate is not an out, allowing us to ignore those perceptions. It means that your metaphysical model has to explain both our perceptions and whatever reality is proposed that we can't properly perceive.ThamiorTheThinker wrote:I would like to know if you have any arguments which could solve the dilemma between our perceptions and our desire to push past them when discussing metaphysics. Hopefully what I wrote made sense; I tried to be as concise as possible.
-- Updated April 22nd, 2016, 5:54 am to add the following --
Well, of course they haven't. The model just proposes a set of definitions. Definitions can't be refuted or invalidated.Rr6 wrote:As a matter of fact, no one here at Philo Forums-- or elsewhere --- have ever offered any rational, logical common sense statements that, invalidate my cosmic hierarchy or statements associated with and to it.
There are a great many definitional models out there. Timecube is perhaps one of the most famous. No one ever offered any rational, logical common sense statements that refuted that, either, even though it was patently bonkers, and used even more colours than you do. That's just the nature of definitional models.
Other examples on this board include the thread on 'creationist philosophy', and my presentation of Spoon Theory, a model that divides everything into a mixture of four categories, Spoon, Bone, Cloth and Other. They're not wrong, they're not right, they don't have a truth value. They aren't valid or invalid validity only exists in a chain of reasoning. They're definitions. Use them or not as you please.
- Alec Smart
- Posts: 671
- Joined: June 28th, 2015, 12:28 pm
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
Why should I? You haven't put forward any logical common sense arguments that invalidate my malarkey ( Mal~arkey ) hypothesis.Rr6 wrote:Alec, pease share when you have rational, logical common sense statement that invalidates any of my comments as stated.
- ThamiorTheThinker
- Posts: 281
- Joined: October 21st, 2015, 9:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Yoda
Re: What does metaphysics tell us about the world?
This was Nietzsche's point, I think. He was asserting that images are metaphors and that, although useful, are not "truth" or "reality", per se. Indeed, we would perceive less, but that's precisely the point he was trying to make. To perceive is to be subjective.Togo1 wrote: Hm.. Let me float an idea past you. That Nietzsche's idea of perception being a shroud pulled over our eyes, is in itself a cultural construct preventing us from experiencing the truth. We can go down as many layers as you like on this.
Our perception is bound up with our understanding of the world. We can not perceive anything without at least some attempt to make sense of what we see. To achieve Nietzsche's ideal we need to dispose of perception, at which point we are blind. Perception is only possible with understanding, with context, with some idea of blackness. If we looked at a black dog with no conception of blackness, then our vision might in some metaphysical sense be purer, but we might well perceive less rather than more.
Indeed. Always has been, always shall be.Togo1 wrote: Which is why it's a logical discipline rather than an empirical one, and is concerned with coherence of models rather than observation and measurement.
I'm not so sure that the mechanics of an illusion of self are that complex. The brain perceives and takes in data from various senses, filters it through various processes and creates an ongoing, internal subjective sequence of experiences. The self arises from these senses, our memories and the ability to think and use cognition to create internal monologues.Togo1 wrote: Well I think we need to be careful of your metaphor of 'pushing past' perceptions. Perception may or may not be relevant, but it needs to be accounted for either way. I don't think that metaphysics that defies our perceptions without explanation ends up being particularly credible. For example, it's easy to talk breezily about a sense of self being an illusion, but the actual mechanics that would be required to produce such an illusion, to keep it consistent and credible, would be immensely complicated, and the utility of doing so is very doubtful. That's all science, which means it's based on our (fallible, doubtful) perceptions of the world, but it's still important. Claiming our perceptions are inaccurate is not an out, allowing us to ignore those perceptions. It means that your metaphysical model has to explain both our perceptions and whatever reality is proposed that we can't properly perceive.
But, turning away from the neuroscience, there's already a philosophical problem with saying that there is a "self" to which an individual may refer. What in your mind can you point to and say "that is me"? If you were devoid of perception, thoughts, senses and a body, would your brain still produce a disembodied core or self? That is, are our senses, perceptions what create "us" or is there an extra thing which we can point to in reference to ourselves? Answer that question simply in support of the belief that there is a self, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, I must accept that it is an illusion.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023