# How does Nature inform your Spirituality?



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2006)

How does Nature inform your Spirituality?

There are alot of different faith traditions out there and Nature is a common thread among them all.  Whether by metaphor or by actual description, somehow, Nature is informative upon people's spirituality.  

How does this occur in you?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 12, 2006)

Oftentimes by email.  Other times, it just sidles up and whispers in Spirituality's ear.

Joking aside, nature and my spirituality are intrinsically entwined.  Spirituality is a natural phenomenon; being in nature or near it (even a small part like a potted plant)  enhances my spirituality by allowing me to be reminded I am a part of nature, not above or beneath it.

As I've said in other threads, I feel my spirituality is all about returning to a greater force or, as heretic has intimated, being reminded I'm already part of the greater force.  Experiencing the natural world is part of that, naturally.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2006)

I often describe myself as an atheist, but that is just an easy way out.  The reality is that the most accurate description would be an agnostic non-theist.  What does this mean, and how does this relate to nature?

First off, an agnostic non-theist is someone who is utimately unsure regarding the presence of a higher, supernatural, power, however, if forced to take a bet, they would hedge that there is not anything like this in the universe.  

This belief comes from the careful observation of nature.  When one strips away the careful layers of anthropromophization that humans have used to protect our social groups from the blind machinations of forces that we call nature. the observation that our lives are nothing more then the unfeeling transformation of energy emerges.  

The Lion King eats Bambi and we are part of that process.  There is no concept of morality that dovetails into this.  Nature makes no judgements.  It does not care.  This is the universe in which we live, IMO.

With that being said, I must say that there is a capacity for wonder and awe in which all humans are capable.  I'm not sure of its evolutionary purpose, but in my observations, it seems to occur frequently in natural settings.  I find that I am more connected to the systems that created my consciousness in nature and I can understand how some would make this feeling into a Mother or Father metaphor.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 12, 2006)

First off, define "nature".



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This belief comes from the careful observation of nature. When one strips away the careful layers of anthropromophization that humans have used to protect our social groups from the blind machinations of forces that we call nature. the observation that our lives are nothing more then the unfeeling transformation of energy emerges.



Myth of the Given.

The problem with your explanation is that this "careful observation" that you are doing which "strips away the careful layers of anthropomorphization" is just as much of a social construction as that which you are rejecting.

This is why I have problems with any kind of identifiable "bottom line" or "omega point" that we can hold all of existence against, whether that be mythological theism or "scientific" materialism.

Then, of course, there's the little wrinkle that any observation is only as good as the methodology that creates it. As such, positivism is hardly the only methodology in science.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Lion King eats Bambi and we are part of that process. There is no concept of morality that dovetails into this. Nature makes no judgements. It does not care. This is the universe in which we live, IMO.



Except that, when we look over the course of natural history in general and human history in particular, we see increasing trends for cephalization, socialization, and "morality". Social animals are bigger-brained animals and bigger-brained animals tend to flourish in most environments. 

The "dog eats dog" paradigm that you are invoking applies, at best, only to the simplest of organisms. And, even then, it really exists in gradations.

Now, maybe this trend is a result of some ontological Other or Higher Power operating on existence "from the outside". Or, maybe it is just internal constraints within the natural system itself. Or, maybe it is some combination of the two. I couldn't tell you.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 12, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> First off, define "nature".


 
That which is observed.



> Myth of the Given.
> 
> The problem with your explanation is that this "careful observation" that you are doing which "strips away the careful layers of anthropomorphization" is just as much of a social construction as that which you are rejecting.
> 
> ...


 
I don't buy it.  There are alot of philisophical viewpoints that argue against a physical world that we can detect and interpret, but I think that each of them fail to take into account the things that we have actually identified about the universe.  For instance, a physical constant is just what it is.  It is not just a relativistic social construction.  



> Except that, when we look over the course of natural history in general and human history in particular, we see increasing trends for cephalization, socialization, and "morality". Social animals are bigger-brained animals and bigger-brained animals tend to flourish in most environments.


 
A cursory examination of the fossil record shows that varying degrees of cephalization have occured in the past.  When environmental conditions changed to make cephalization too energetically expensive, then it disappeared.  Consciousness among living things is not in any way special.  It is just another adaptation.  

Also, wouldn't socialization = morality?  



> The "dog eats dog" paradigm that you are invoking applies, at best, only to the simplest of organisms. And, even then, it really exists in gradations.


 
I would say that underneath the layers of complexity, the godless transformation of one energy into another exists in every living thing.  This is based on physical laws and probably nothing else.  



> Now, maybe this trend is a result of some ontological Other or Higher Power operating on existence "from the outside". Or, maybe it is just internal constraints within the natural system itself. Or, maybe it is some combination of the two. I couldn't tell you.


 
There isn't any evidence of a higher power operating from the outside.  The only thing that has been observed are the internal constraints of the system.  I'm not even sure if one can logically say that there "is" an outside.


----------



## hapki68 (Jun 12, 2006)

Upnorth,

I always enjoy your posts cause they're so cerebral and deliciously pagan.  If you ever lead a revolution, let me know and I'll send you a check.

Nature -- the observable world -- informs my view of life.  I don't trust that which I can't experience with the senses or a shaman, priest, mullah or whatever has to explain to me.   

I think for many people nature alone leaves too many unanswered questions or provides answers they don't want to hear.  (Simba eats Bambi.  You're Bambi.)  Religions, on the other hand, can say whatever you want... as we know from the billions of interpretations.  

Patrick


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 12, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That which is observed.



In which case, "nature" simply becomes a synonymn for phenomena in general.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't buy it. There are alot of philisophical viewpoints that argue against a physical world that we can detect and interpret, but I think that each of them fail to take into account the things that we have actually identified about the universe. For instance, a physical constant is just what it is. It is not just a relativistic social construction.



Social constructions are not intrinsically relativistic. You're conflating two very different ideas here, that of relativism and that of constructivism.

Unless, of course, you think guys like Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg were "relativists". . . 

Also, constructivism does not hold that the physical world does not exist. Rather, it holds that we (as individuals and as societies) create constructs or schemas which allow us to perceive and interpret that world in the first place. If it wasn't for the constructions, you wouldn't even be able to _know_ about a "physical world" to begin with.

The notion that our observations are somehow free of any type of contextualism or schema is precisely the Myth of the Given, the fantasy of positivism. This worldview implicitly states the physical world, the "real world", is basically just sitting out there in a pure, undistilled, undisturbed, unfiltered manner just waiting for us make our observations and recordings.

Positivism does not take into account, however, the very first principle of scientific method: data doesn't just happen. You actually have to do something to make an observation, you have to engage a methodology (what Thomas Kuhn called a "paradigm"). It isn't "just there" all by itself, independent of your actions.

I would suggest reading some of Jurgen Habermas's writings on the subject.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> A cursory examination of the fossil record shows that varying degrees of cephalization have occured in the past. When environmental conditions changed to make cephalization too energetically expensive, then it disappeared.



In the short term, yes. In the long term, no.

Of course, that shouldn't come as any surprise. . . 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Consciousness among living things is not in any way special. It is just another adaptation.



Can't disagree with you there. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Also, wouldn't socialization = morality?



Yes. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I would say that underneath the layers of complexity, the godless transformation of one energy into another exists in every living thing. This is based on physical laws and probably nothing else.



Based on, yes. Reducible to, no. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There isn't any evidence of a higher power operating from the outside. The only thing that has been observed are the internal constraints of the system. I'm not even sure if one can logically say that there "is" an outside.



Of course not, I was just playing Devil's Advocate. 

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In which case, "nature" simply becomes a synonymn for phenomena in general.


 
That wasn't what I originally intended for this thread, but what the heck...



> Social constructions are not intrinsically relativistic. You're conflating two very different ideas here, that of relativism and that of constructivism.
> 
> Unless, of course, you think guys like Jean Piaget and Lawrence Kohlberg were "relativists". . .
> 
> ...


 
The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it does insert a "loose" definition of reality.  And I understand how it can be used to justify many viewpoints.  However, there is such a thing as consensus, which is an integral part of the coming to grips with reality.  With that being said, I still would say that "reality" is something that humans can "know" and it is something that we can observe and it is something that can shape our spirituality.



> Based on, yes. Reducible to, no.


 
I disagree.  I think that social constructions, ultimately, won't matter and that the universe's physical laws do "determine" everything.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> That wasn't what I originally intended for this thread, but what the heck...



Well, if that's how you define nature. . .



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The problem I have with this line of reasoning is that it does insert a "loose" definition of reality. And I understand how it can be used to justify many viewpoints. However, there is such a thing as consensus, which is an integral part of the coming to grips with reality. With that being said, I still would say that "reality" is something that humans can "know" and it is something that we can observe and it is something that can shape our spirituality.



Again, I really don't think you quite understand the idea here. . .

The basic idea behind constructivism is that we know "reality" through schemas and constructs. There is no "knowing", as such, that does not take place through such filters or interpreters.

One such construct is language. If you don't learn language, then you can't fully grasp representational or symbolic thought. If you don't grasp representational thinking, then you can't move on to concrete roles and rules. If you don't grasp concrete operations like this, then you can't move on to third-person hypothesizing and "if-then" critical thinking, which is the cornerstone of science.

Now, what I just explained is a brief summary of Piagetian developmental psychology. It illustrates how we cannot know anything without such constructs or schemas but, at the same time, it shows how these schemas are themselves "constrained" and "ordered" in certain ways (specifically, in a cognitive hierarchy). Therefore, the system is not just completely "open" or "relative", which would be the hallmark of a psychosis.

Anyways, the point is that the "scientific" materialism you cling to so religiously is based upon such constructs and schemas. You can't even begin to think about something like it unless you have the schema for reflective thought in the first place. This is why "the world" looks differently at different stages of personal development. This is also why those rare cases of "wild" children that were never taught language behave, quite literally, like animals.

Again, I'm going to have to come out and say that this notion that we have somehow gotten to the "bottom line" of reality is not only a social delusion, but it is also decidedly anti-scientific. Scientific knowledge is self-correcting. It's hard to self-correct when you claim you have discovered the absolute truth of the universe, the "bottom line" or "omega point" that eveything is to be universally weighed against.

That is the difference between science and scientism. The former holds its knowledge to be propositions based on socially-based methodologies and constructs that are liable to be corrected or deconstructed in the future. The latter holds its knowledge to be the absolute truth, "reality" as it is, and anything that deviates from this vision is simply "wrong".



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I disagree. I think that social constructions, ultimately, won't matter and that the universe's physical laws do "determine" everything.



Well, now we're getting into two different things entirely. . .

I don't have to even bother invoking constructivism or the Myth of the Given to point out that the physical stuff can't all be reduced down (without remainder) to a few basic components. I mean, the physical science itself rejects that approach and has done so for the better part of the 20th century.

For example, see: Reductionism and Evolution.

In this context, we're not even talking about the reduction of the subjective to the objective. We're talking about the reduction of one level of the objective to another level of the objective. Very wacky stuff.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Anyways, the point is that the "scientific" materialism you cling to so religiously is based upon such constructs and schemas. You can't even begin to think about something like it unless you have the schema for reflective thought in the first place. This is why "the world" looks differently at different stages of personal development. This is also why those rare cases of "wild" children that were never taught language behave, quite literally, like animals.


 
The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that what "we" "think" matters at all.  The universe would exist whether we were in it or not and this level of "scale" clearly trumps whatever is created by our own internal schema.  The world may "look" different as we grow developmentally, but this "look" has very little influence on the universe as a whole.  It "exists" regardless of the constructs our mind use to understand it.

With that being said, I do think that we can "know" what is in the universe via the scientific method.  Often, our internal schema can obscure this knowledge, but it is not impossible to circumvent these short circuits.  Most often, the methodology of the scientific method is used to strip away obscuring paradigms allowing us to glimpse what we "think" is really there...and that is the best we can do because "science" is a schema in and of itself.  In essence, it is the final veil between us and the "truth" and I cannot see how that schema alone would obscure reality.



> Again, I'm going to have to come out and say that this notion that we have somehow gotten to the "bottom line" of reality is not only a social delusion, but it is also decidedly anti-scientific. Scientific knowledge is self-correcting. It's hard to self-correct when you claim you have discovered the absolute truth of the universe, the "bottom line" or "omega point" that eveything is to be universally weighed against.
> 
> That is the difference between science and scientism. The former holds its knowledge to be propositions based on socially-based methodologies and constructs that are liable to be corrected or deconstructed in the future. The latter holds its knowledge to be the absolute truth, "reality" as it is, and anything that deviates from this vision is simply "wrong".


 
I wouldn't say that scientific knowledge is absolute, but it is the best that we can do.



> I don't have to even bother invoking constructivism or the Myth of the Given to point out that the physical stuff can't all be reduced down (*without remainder*) to a few basic components.


 
As it stands now, I think that we can see that the physical stuff does reduce down to a few basic components.  However, this is not a perfect reduction simply because we do not know everything (and are perhaps incapable of knowing everything).  This is why I do not completely rule out the existance of the supernatural.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that what "we" "think" matters at all. *The universe would exist whether we were in it or not* and this level of "scale" clearly trumps whatever is created by our own internal schema. The world may "look" different as we grow developmentally, but this "look" has very little influence on the universe as a whole. It "exists" regardless of the constructs our mind use to understand it.


 
Not exactly agreeing, or disagreeing here, but-while this seems to be reasonably true, we have no real way of knowing that the universe would exist without us to observe it (assuming, of course, that we are the only observers) and quantum theory bears this out-it's completely counterintuitive, and probably not true, but there's no real way of knowing.  It's demonstrably true-in quantum mechanics, mathematically-that the moon is not in the sky when no one is looking at it.


What science gives us, rather than "answers" is _models_ for answersReasoning coinsists of taking fact "A", combining it with "B", and producing new fact "C," but what truly makes "C " emerge? Is it a product of A and B, or does it arise independently and coincidentally?The model is like a map that helps us negotiate reality, and what we are seeing in all our experimental models is not the reality, but the map. Newotnian physics, for example, is mostly wrong. Newtons "laws" are a pretty fair map for the territory we occupy and observe, and work well for everything from automotive design to riding a bicycle to the  yo-yo, but at the subatomic level, and the level of astrophysics, they're mostly wrong, and supplanted by an "Einstienian" model, which is also-we're finding now- mostly wrong. So we find ourselves in a universe where parallel lines can and do intersect; matter and energy are interchangeable; reactions do happen beore the action that causes them; there are many more than four dimensions;fundamental particles seem to have no purpose or real existence beyond the mathematical formulae that describe them ,things travel faster than the speed of light;time is reversible, etc., etc.,etc.-being both a religious person (and I'll answer your question in mo' upnorth, 'casue it's a good one) and a scientist, I'll state again that it is the job of neither of them to prove, disprove or support the other.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2006)

It is part of my religious practice to perceive life, nature and Spirit. The shamanistic world-view is animistic in essence, ie. to see life, or rather spirit, is within everything. This also incorporates the invisible world and non-ordinary reality, a realm that contains the spirits of land, ancestors, animals, gods & goddesses, and other various entities. Another core aspect is that of soul flight - journeying to engage with helpers, be they animals, or other, for the purpose of returning with some form of healing etc, for those in the ordinary realm. This is not a one-sided relationship. Rather, it is an interaction of spirit - each learning and gaining insight from the other in a mutually respectful manner. 
Parts of this practice include lucid dreaming and what is sometimes called the out-of-the-body experience Along with these techniques, the NDE or near-death-experience have played a significant role in shamanic practice and initiation for millenia.A journey that people who practice shamanism are often gifted with is one where they are able to deepen their understanding of and connection to the Natural world. It is a type of initiatory shamanic experience.

The shamanic focus has always included learning ways to know, observe, and learn from the *natural* world. Through shamanism one can learn to communicate with nature, to understand the needs of the trees or plants in your yard, and in your neighborhood


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 13, 2006)

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt

This stuff seems pretty exact and pretty precise.  And I believe that we could say that they are something we "know" about the universe.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 13, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt
> 
> This stuff seems pretty exact and pretty precise. And I believe that we could say that they are something we "know" about the universe.


 
THe speed of light in a vacuum has been found to  may be not be quite as constant as we thought:



> A University  of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science-- that the speed of light has always been the same - is wrong. Ever since Einstein proposed his special theory of relativity in 1905, physicists have accepted as fundamental principle that the speed of light -- 300 million metres per second -- is a constant and that nothing has, or can, travel faster. John Moffat of the physics department disagrees - light once travelled much faster than it does today, he believes.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There are quite a few other supportes since 1999, when this was written.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jun 13, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> THe speed of light in a vacuum has been found to may be not be quite as constant as we thought:
> .


 
"Possibly" 1 down, 308 to go.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

Xue Sheng said:
			
		

> "Possibly" 1 down, 308 to go.


 
More discussion like this on  this thread, so as not to hijack *this* one, which is a pretty decent topic itself.....


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

Okay, a little more on topic...

The capacity for awe is always something that gives my general bend towards atheism a pause.  I think that this is something that all humans experience and I experience it especially strongly in natural settings by myself or with a few good friends.  During these moments, a feeling of freedom and bliss settles in and it truly becomes a worthwhile and joyous moment.  Recently, I've been feeling this while playing with my kids.  The small things, you know, like catching a turtle, or a snake, or a frog, or a bug, and watching the awe form in them.  Again, the common thread is nature.

Is this a spiritual phenomenon or is it biological?  Is it both, and if it is, then does the spiritual part even matter?  I can think of a test for these questions.  Would it be possible for someone to take some form of chemical or alter themselves biologically so that they lose the capacity for awe?  I honestly don't know if I could live on if that were done to me, but I think this would show that awe is strongly rooted in our biology...our evolution.

Thus, spirituality would not be needed for humans to experience awe.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thus, spirituality would not be needed for humans to experience awe.


 
Just drugs?


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 14, 2006)

Nice tie-in to the fact that many naturally occurring psychedelics have been used, over the millennia, to bring us 'closer to God'.  I remember, especially, the Castaneda books on the Yaqui Indians and their use of mind-bending alkaloids.

Interesting spin on nature influencing spirituality.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The problem with this line of reasoning is the assumption that what "we" "think" matters at all. The universe would exist whether we were in it or not and this level of "scale" clearly trumps whatever is created by our own internal schema. The world may "look" different as we grow developmentally, but this "look" has very little influence on the universe as a whole. It "exists" regardless of the constructs our mind use to understand it.



Still clinging to the Myth of the Given, eh?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it is a metaphysical _a priori_ assumption. You have no more evidence that the universe would exist "without us" than you do for God's existence. Sure, it seems reasonable and self-evident to us --- but so does God's existence for a good number of people. Just because something is intuitively appealing does not mean it's true, it just means it's _axiomatic_.

And, no matter what you might like to believe, the notion that there is a single, objective "reality" that we can definitively weigh everything else against _is_ a product of your own schema. Recent research in developmental cognitive psychology indicates that this schema (characterized by formal operations) is displaced by postformal schemas with further cognitive growth, which are characterized by relativistic and dialectical modes of reasoning.

Similar lines of research have also been supported by recent research into the development of metacognition (thinking about thinking), as well. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> With that being said, I do think that we can "know" what is in the universe via the scientific method. Often, our internal schema can obscure this knowledge, but it is not impossible to circumvent these short circuits. Most often, the methodology of the scientific method is used to strip away obscuring paradigms allowing us to glimpse what we "think" is really there...and that is the best we can do because "science" is a schema in and of itself. In essence, it is the final veil between us and the "truth" and I cannot see how that schema alone would obscure reality.



Unfortunately, your assumptions are fundamentally flawed here.

Schemas do not "obscure" reality, they _construct_ reality. The "reality" that you perceive and talk about would not even _exist_ if not for the schemas and constructs which allow you to perceive and interpret it in the first place. When you talk about "reality", you are really just talking about your own observations and perceptions (both physical and intellectual) --- which are given to you by your schemas.

Furthermore, science does not "strip away" these schemas. Science _is_ a schema. The scientific method corresponds quite nicely with the schema associated with formal-operational thinking, which is the basis for any rational adult's way of seeing the world. If it wasn't for this schema, then no such "scientific" knowledge would exist in the first place.

A more accurate statement would be that a rational "schema" (characterized by third-person hypothesizing) displaces a mythological "schema" (characterized by concrete roles/rules and group mentality) in human development (both individually and collectively). However, that does not change the fact that this rational and scientific schema is still a schema.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that scientific knowledge is absolute, but it is the best that we can do.



If scientific knowledge is not absolute (which it's not), then people should really stop treating it as such.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As it stands now, I think that we can see that the physical stuff does reduce down to a few basic components. However, this is not a perfect reduction simply because we do not know everything (and are perhaps incapable of knowing everything). This is why I do not completely rule out the existance of the supernatural.



I don't even bother with speculation about "the supernatural" because, quite frankly, I find such speculation absurd.

The reason there it is not a "perfect reduction" is not because of a lack of information, it is because _that's not how reality works_. Reality is characterized by emergent properties, not reductionism. The components are necessary but not sufficient to create these emerging properties.

This is true whether we're talking about biology or cognitive development. While it is true that concrete operations are required to do formal operations, no combination or rearranging of concrete operations is going to result in third-person thought. Formal rationality is an emergent property. Likewise in the attempts to approximate population genetics from Mendelian genetics (as was described in the article I linked). It just don't work, because of the creative emergence of the new properties.

Laterz.


----------



## trueaspirer (Jun 14, 2006)

I never really thought about it, but nature is how I live...it might sound a little stupid, but I kind of go where the wind blows when I can...with some common sense mixed in along the way.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Not exactly agreeing, or disagreeing here, but-while this seems to be reasonably true, we have no real way of knowing that the universe would exist without us to observe it (assuming, of course, that we are the only observers) and quantum theory bears this out-it's completely counterintuitive, and probably not true, but there's no real way of knowing. It's demonstrably true-in quantum mechanics, mathematically-that the moon is not in the sky when no one is looking at it.



Exactly. 

Actually, a year or so back I read one of psychologist Jan Sinnot's books on the emergence of postformal thinking in adulthood. She drew some interesting parallels between postformal thinking and the development of postmodern philosophy, qauntum physics, systems theory, and so on. 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> What science gives us, rather than "answers" is _models_ for answers. Reasoning coinsists of taking fact "A", combining it with "B", and producing new fact "C," but what truly makes "C " emerge? Is it a product of A and B, or does it arise independently and coincidentally?The model is like a map that helps us negotiate reality, and what we are seeing in all our experimental models is not the reality, but the map.



Well said. 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Newotnian physics, for example, is mostly wrong. Newtons "laws" are a pretty fair map for the territory we occupy and observe, and work well for everything from automotive design to riding a bicycle to the yo-yo, but at the subatomic level, and the level of astrophysics, they're mostly wrong, and supplanted by an "Einstienian" model, which is also-we're finding now- mostly wrong.



This just highlights the fact that different levels of objective reality really do have different emergent properties.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt
> 
> This stuff seems pretty exact and pretty precise. And I believe that we could say that they are something we "know" about the universe.


 
Those "constants", of course, are calculated in numbers. Numbers are symbols. Symbols presume representational thought. Rep-thought is a schema associated with pre-operational thinking.

As such, any numerical value is really just a psychological construction we have developed to help us make sense of and interpret reality in an orderly way. Just like language.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Okay, a little more on topic...
> 
> The capacity for awe is always something that gives my general bend towards atheism a pause. I think that this is something that all humans experience and I experience it especially strongly in natural settings by myself or with a few good friends. During these moments, a feeling of freedom and bliss settles in and it truly becomes a worthwhile and joyous moment. Recently, I've been feeling this while playing with my kids. The small things, you know, like catching a turtle, or a snake, or a frog, or a bug, and watching the awe form in them. Again, the common thread is nature.


 
Awe can also take place without observing the natural world, as in the case of some forms of Buddhist meditation. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Is this a spiritual phenomenon or is it biological? Is it both, and if it is, then does the spiritual part even matter?



Both. And, yes. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I can think of a test for these questions. Would it be possible for someone to take some form of chemical or alter themselves biologically so that they lose the capacity for awe?



Damaging the neurological system to impede spiritual experiences no more diminishes their validity than damaging the frontal lobe to impede rational thought diminishes the validity of arithmetic. 

Unless, of course, you think "2 + 2 = 4" is just a bunch of swirly neurochemicals having fun with no basis whatsoever in reality.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Thus, spirituality would not be needed for humans to experience awe.



That depends on how you define "spirituality". 

Peak experiences seem to happen to everyone, regardless of their religious backgrounds.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

Do you honestly believe that reality wouldn't exist without the schema in which we construct it?  What would happen if the human race went extinct?  Would the universe suddenly blink out of existence?  

Humans are animals like any animal species and we've experienced the extinction of several million species during our forays on the planet.  We are still here.  Thus, I would say that the postulation of the existence of the universe independent of any schema is well supported.  

What if we built a placed a satalite in space and then proceeded to eradicate all life on the planet?  What do you really think the satalite would sense?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Those "constants", of course, are calculated in numbers. Numbers are symbols. Symbols presume representational thought. Rep-thought is a schema associated with pre-operational thinking.
> 
> As such, any numerical value is really just a psychological construction we have developed to help us make sense of and interpret reality in an orderly way. Just like language.
> 
> Laterz.


 
The things these numbers represent would exist whether we are here or not.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The things these numbers represent would exist whether we are here or not.


 
No, they wouldn't.

They only exist as they do because we've agreed that's what they were.  If we were not here, our agreement on what those numbers were would be gone, too.  Another cephalized species might see them entirely different and laugh at how provencial we were/are.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do you honestly believe that reality wouldn't exist without the schema in which we construct it? What would happen if the human race went extinct? Would the universe suddenly blink out of existence?


 
If there were no other "observer" present, it is mathematically demonstrable, within the scheme of quantum mechanics, that it would, in fact, do that very thing-whether or not it actually would or wouldn't is irrelevant as well, or, at the very least, unprovable one way or the other.



			
				upnorhtkyosa said:
			
		

> What if we built a placed a satalite in space and then proceeded to
> eradicate all life on the planet? What do you really think the satalite would sense?


 
An interesting question-is the satellite an "observer?"


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> The reason there it is not a "perfect reduction" is not because of a lack of information, it is because _that's not how reality works_. Reality is characterized by emergent properties, not reductionism. The components are necessary but not sufficient to create these emerging properties.
> 
> This is true whether we're talking about biology or cognitive development. While it is true that concrete operations are required to do formal operations, no combination or rearranging of concrete operations is going to result in third-person thought. Formal rationality is an emergent property. Likewise in the attempts to approximate population genetics from Mendelian genetics (as was described in the article I linked). It just don't work, because of the creative emergence of the new properties.


 
It sounds like you've reduced the universe to Emergent Properties... 

The problem here is that evidence suggests that even those obey physical laws...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> No, they wouldn't.
> 
> They only exist as they do because we've agreed that's what they were. If we were not here, our agreement on what those numbers were would be gone, too. Another cephalized species might see them entirely different and laugh at how provencial we were/are.


 
I was attempted to talk about the "properties" the numbers represent.  Not the numbers themselves.  Whether or not we are around to create schema to represent these properties has no bering on their existance.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Do you honestly believe that reality wouldn't exist without the schema in which we construct it?


 
You're still pontificating the Myth of the Given.

What you haven't quite grasped yet is that what you _mean_ by "reality" are your observations, perceptions, and interpretations of it. Those are all created by the psychological and cultural schemas you have inherited (whether biologically or socially).

As I said before, the notion that there is a single "objective reality" or "objective truth" that everything else should be judged against is itself a product of the schema of formal operations. This schema is increasingly displaced in postformal development.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What would happen if the human race went extinct? Would the universe suddenly blink out of existence?



No. Human beings aren't the only things with schemas, in the broad sense. 

Everything "interprets" the world in its own way, no matter how simplistically it may seem to us. Even single-celled organisms have their own meager forms of sensation and perception, which create a different "world" to them than for us.  



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Humans are animals like any animal species and we've experienced the extinction of several million species during our forays on the planet. We are still here. Thus, I would say that the postulation of the existence of the universe independent of any schema is well supported.



Please see above. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What if we built a placed a satalite in space and then proceeded to eradicate all life on the planet? What do you really think the satalite would sense?



Satellites don't have senses or consciousness. They are aggregates, not holons.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The things these numbers represent would exist whether we are here or not.


 
Only if one accepts the metaphysical assumption that this is true.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> If there were no other "observer" present, it is mathematically demonstrable, within the scheme of quantum mechanics, that it would, in fact, do that very thing-whether or not it actually would or wouldn't is irrelevant as well, or, at the very least, unprovable one way or the other.


 
The assumption here is that "anything" can be an observer.  Even a hydrogen atom.  Thus, even hydrogen atoms have...um...schema.

Heh?



> An interesting question-is the satellite an "observer?"


 
Does the satalite, an unthinking recording device, have schema?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Satellites don't have senses or consciousness. They are aggregates, not holons.


 
What would the satallite record?


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> It sounds like you've reduced the universe to Emergent Properties...
> 
> The problem here is that evidence suggests that even those obey physical laws...


 
Well, I prefer the term 'holons' but you get the idea. . .

Yes, they observe physical laws. I never said otherwise.

However, as elder999 pointed out before, the "laws" of one set of emergent properties might not be the "laws" of another set of emergent properties. The "laws" of Newtonian mechanics don't apply to subatomic emergent properties. The "laws" of Mendelian genetics don't apply to the emergent properties of population genetics. The "laws" of concrete operations don't apply to the emergent properties of formal operations.

This just seems to be how reality is set up. Go figure.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The assumption here is that "anything" can be an observer. Even a hydrogen atom. Thus, even hydrogen atoms have...um...schema.
> 
> Heh?


 
In a manner of speaking, yes.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Does the satalite, an unthinking recording device, have schema?


 
No. Only holons have schemas. Aggregates do not.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> What would the satallite record?


 
I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This just seems to be how reality is set up. Go figure.


 
I don't buy it.  If two sets of "Emergent Properties" can both be "ultimately" correct, then why is there a conflict between quantum physics and Relativity?

The fact that they conflict seems to suggest that reality exists "outside" the boundaries of their schema.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion.


 
The Myth of the Given, as far as I understand it, states that reality is not just out there for us to grasp, it is constructed by our schema.  

I have postulated a thought experiment in which all living things are eradicated from Earth and a recording device has been placed in space to record what happens.  

If reality blinks out of existence, then the universe truly is depended upon the schema that we construct.  If not, then it doesn't.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't buy it. If two sets of "Emergent Properties" can both be "ultimately" correct, then why is there a conflict between quantum physics and Relativity?
> 
> The fact that they conflict seems to suggest that reality exists outside their schema.


 
_Because they are *models* of reality, *not* the reality themselves._ Why can't either of them be reconciled with demonstrably true (for particles like human beings, anyway) Newtonian model? Same reason........the fact that they conflict not only suggests that reality exists outside their schema (and a variety of newer theories bear this out) but also demonstrates how they are inherently-like most scientific models-_flawed_-not useless, not worthless, not wrong, or even in error-just insufficient in explaining the "ultimate nature of reality," and they always (IMNSHO) will be-constantly evolving and approaching but never reaching  at total explanation......ther is always going to be another layer of the onion called "reality" including realities outside this one.

Again, I believe that you can not completely reconcile religious/spiritual phenomena and science. One can certainly aid or inform the other, but as far as total proof, disproof or reconciliation goes, it is probably best avoided,_because of the inherent irreconcilabe conflicts between their models of reality._


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I don't buy it. If two sets of "Emergent Properties" can both be "ultimately" correct, then why is there a conflict between quantum physics and Relativity?



I don't remember saying that either holon was "ultimately" correct.

In any event, that the laws of one level of holons don't "make sense" to the laws of another level of holons is perfectly in agreement with what I outlined above. In fact, it is what I would expect.

It is, however, problematic for a reductionist universe.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The fact that they conflict seems to suggest that reality exists "outside" the boundaries of their schema.



Objective reality is separate from, but not independent of, subjective reality.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The Myth of the Given, as far as I understand it, states that reality is not just out there for us to grasp, it is constructed by our schema.


 
The Myth of the Given postulates that the notion that reality is entirely pregiven and that we can observe such reality without fundamentally influencing and changing what we observe. . . is, well, a myth. 

It is also supported by both physics and developmental psychology.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I have postulated a thought experiment in which all living things are eradicated from Earth and a recording device has been placed in space to record what happens.
> 
> If reality blinks out of existence, then the universe truly is depended upon the schema that we construct. If not, then it doesn't.



As long as there was a single atom, subatomic particle, quantum unit, string, m-brane, or whatever. . . then there will always be _some_ holon there.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> _Because they are *models* of reality, *not* the reality themselves._ Why can't either of them be reconciled with demonstrably true (for particles like human beings, anyway) Newtonian model? Same reason........the fact that they conflict not only suggests that reality exists outside their schema (and a variety of newer theories bear this out) but also demonstrates how they are inherently-like most scientific models-_flawed_-not useless, not worthless, not wrong, or even in error-just insufficient in explaining the "ultimate nature of reality," and they always (IMNSHO) will be-constantly evolving and approaching but never reaching at total explanation......ther is always going to be another layer of the onion called "reality" including realities outside this one.



Precisely.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Again, I believe that you can not completely reconcile religious/spiritual phenomena and science. One can certainly aid or inform the other, but as far as total proof, disproof or reconciliation goes, it is probably best avoided,_because of the inherent irreconcilabe conflicts between their models of reality._



I agree entirely, provided by "science" you are referring specifically to the natural sciences.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> As long as there was a single atom, subatomic particle, quantum unit, string, m-brane, or whatever. . . then there will always be _some_ holon there.


 
And that is why this is a theory of philosophy and not science because it is completely untestable.  For example, how can one show that a hydrogen atom has schema?  

I don't buy it.  There is no reason to believe that they do.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> ......there is always going to be another layer of the onion called "reality" including realities outside this one_._


 
Even an onion has a center.  It doesn't go on forever.  Why should we believe that it does?  Even infinite can be constrained.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And that is why this is a theory of philosophy and not science because it is completely untestable. For example, how can one show that a hydrogen atom has schema?
> 
> I don't buy it. There is no reason to believe that they do.


 
There is also no reason to believe that the "reality" you talk about exists independently of you observing it, but you assert this as fact anyway. In fact, based on the findings of quantum physics and cognitive psychology (or even the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis if you're into linguistics), there seems to be a lot of reason _against_ such an axiom.

Also, when I say something like all holons have schemas, I do _not_ mean they have the schemas of human beings. In fact, it is anthropomorphism to define consciousness and perception solely in human terms. We can clearly see that consciousness, as everything else, exists on a continuum. It is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon.

Furthermore, this attempt to dismiss philosophy at hand is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. Philosophical arguments are "tested" through the logic of their claims. If they were logically unfalsifiable, then such arguments would suffer the same fate in philosophy that "intelligent design" does in biology.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Even an onion has a center. It doesn't go on forever.


 
The "onion" in question here is an analogy.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Why should we believe that it does?



If you want to make the same _a priori_ assumptions that Thomas Aquinas did, then be my guest.

However, we have yet to encounter anything in the universe to lend us to believe it has either a well-defined "beginning" or "end". I really doubt we will ever find a "bottom line" in which we can start pointing to. Subatomic particles displaced atoms, and quantum units displaced subatomic particles. Now there's all this talk about "strings". . .

I'm quite confident this is going to keep going on for centuries to come, assuming humanity lives that long.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

What about strings?  They certainly would qualify as the bottom line.  What if that theory plays out and they really are the root of everything?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> There is also no reason to believe that the "reality" you talk about exists independently of you observing it, but you assert this as fact anyway. In fact, based on the findings of quantum physics and cognitive psychology (or even the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis if you're into linguistics), there seems to be a lot of reason _against_ such an axiom.
> 
> Also, when I say something like all holons have schemas, I do _not_ mean they have the schemas of human beings. In fact, it is anthropomorphism to define consciousness and perception solely in human terms. We can clearly see that consciousness, as everything else, exists on a continuum. It is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon.
> 
> ...


 
How can you show that a hydrogen atom has "schema"?  You cannot, IMO.  Therefore, why would anyone believe this, no matter how logical it sounds?

Furthermore, how can you justify this claim by invoking schema when these schema could be wrong?  This is the same argument you are using against me, is it not?

There are plenty of things in this world that seem logical, but fall apart as soon as the rubber hits the pavement.  I see no reason to believe that our schema would have any effect on the universe at all.  I see no reason to believe that the universe wouldn't exist in the absence of our schema.  And I see the attempt to assign "schema" to non-living inanimate particles of matter as not only anthropromorphism, but also an attempt to shore up the logic of all this.  

There is no way to show that those things have schema, thus there is no reason to believe that they do.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is no way to show that those things have schema, thus there is no reason to believe that they do.


 
Equally, then, most especially in the case of "those things," i.e., particles, ther is no way to show they would exist without an "observer" in the context of quantum physics-in fact, it's mathematically proven that they do not.Remember, it's mathematically provable that the moon is not there when no one is "observing" it (that includes a great deal of territory in the moon's case, including the tides, but it is demonstrably true.)


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Equally, then, most especially in the case of "those things," i.e., particles, ther is no way to show they would exist without an "observer" in the context of quantum physics-in fact, it's mathematically proven that they do not.Remember, it's mathematically provable that the moon is not there when no one is "observing" it (that includes a great deal of territory in the moon's case, including the tides, but it is demonstrably true.)


 
I'm sure I don't know half as much about quantum physics as you do, but when I took the class for my physics degree, this kind of intuitive weirdness drove me batty...


----------



## elder999 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I'm sure I don't know half as much about quantum physics as you do, but when I took the class for my physics degree, this kind of intuitive weirdness drove me batty...


 
Don't believe me, while it's obviously not rational, and probably not _exactly_ true:



			
				N. David Mermin said:
			
		

> , _Horace White professor of Physics at Cornell University_
> *We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody
> looks.*


 
 N. David Mermin

Of course, it's just more scientific hyperbole, but with supporting mathematics that I'll spare you.......


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> How can you show that a hydrogen atom has "schema"? You cannot, IMO. Therefore, why would anyone believe this, no matter how logical it sounds?


 
Because I don't believe in "intelligent design" or "special creation".

You are still falling into the trap of believing I am suggesting that atoms have the same schema as humans ---- if you don't like "schema", by the way, feel free to replace it with "construct", "paradigm", "worldview", "subjectivity", or whatever you wish --- which is clearly not the case.

I see the evolution of schemas as being correlative with the evolution of objective complexity. This is why we cannot tease subjective and objective reality apart, they co-create one another. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Furthermore, how can you justify this claim by invoking schema when these schema could be wrong?



All schemas are both right and wrong. As I said, like everything else, they exist on a continuum. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This is the same argument you are using against me, is it not?



No.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> There is no way to show that those things have schema, thus there is no reason to believe that they do.



There is no way to show that reality exists independently of your observations of it, thus there is no reason to believe that it does.

This sword cuts both ways, y'see.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> There is no way to show that reality exists independently of your observations of it, thus there is no reason to believe that it does.
> 
> This sword cuts both ways, y'see.


 
Perhaps.  However, I think the weight of one cut is greater then the other.  

If "my" observations are the ones that determine "my" reality, I'm fairly certain that if I were to die at this moment, the universe would still exist.

And with that observation in mind, it certain follows that if one were to eradicate all life on this planet, the universe would still exist.

And if we were to take this even further, if one was to eradicate all life in the universe, I can see no reason why the universe would cease to exist.

Of course, you can come back with, "how in the heck would you really know, because you're dead!" and make a logical point.  Yet, I will still maintain that the former is far more probable.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> You are still falling into the trap of believing I am suggesting that atoms have the same schema as humans ---- if you don't like "schema", by the way, feel free to replace it with "construct", "paradigm", "worldview", "subjectivity", or whatever you wish --- which is clearly not the case.


 
Oh, and by the way, what do they have, if they are not schema, that suddenly create objective reality?  And if they have this "thing" how do you know they have it?


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Perhaps. However, I think the weight of one cut is greater then the other.
> 
> If "my" observations are the ones that determine "my" reality, I'm fairly certain that if I were to die at this moment, the universe would still exist.
> 
> ...


 
Or I could just point out that your scenario assumes the existence of linear time, which (like numerical symbol-values) is also a construct of the rational schema.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh, and by the way, what do they have, if they are not schema, that suddenly create objective reality? And if they have this "thing" how do you know they have it?


 
"Suddenly"? There is nothing sudden about it. 

As I said before, I do not believe in "intelligent design" or "special creation", which are the logical consequences of your worldview. I also see no reason in sight that the universe has a "beginning" or an "end".

Ergo, there is no immediacy to this construction. It just seem to be part and parcel of the universe.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Or I could just point out that your scenario assumes the existence of linear time, which (like numerical symbol-values) is also a construct of the rational schema.
> 
> Laterz.


 
Oh really?  How would that fit into the scenario?

It's not supposed to be a linear progression.  Each event described could occur and the result would be the same.  The universe would still exist.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> "Suddenly"? There is nothing sudden about it.
> 
> As I said before, I do not believe in "intelligent design" or "special creation", which are the logical consequences of your worldview. I also see no reason in sight that the universe has a "beginning" or an "end".
> 
> ...


 
This doesn't answer the question.  I don't believe in intelligent design or special creation either and I don't see any reason to believe that every bit of matter has some "special" property that justifies the objective universe's existence.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Oh really? How would that fit into the scenario?
> 
> It's not supposed to be a linear progression. Each event described could occur and the result would be the same. The universe would still exist.


 
Your scenario assumes "historical" events which could hypothetically happen in the "past" and the "future". This presumes the existence of linear time, which is a construct of the rational schema.

"History" is a human psychological construction and so is "time".

That's one of the reasons I don't believe in a special "creation", nor a "beginning" or "end".

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This doesn't answer the question. I don't believe in intelligent design or special creation either. . .


 
That you don't consciously believe in them is irrelevant. Your worldview requires something like a metaphysical design or intervention in order to "make sense".



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> and I don't see any reason to believe that every bit of matter has some "special" property that justifies the objective universe's existence.



Schemas are neither "special" nor do they "justify" the universe.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> > That you don't consciously believe in them is irrelevant. Your worldview requires something like a metaphysical design or intervention in order to "make sense".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Schemas are neither "special" nor do they "justify" the universe.


 
Should that be schemae?


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> And you still haven't answered my question.



Because your question is absurd.

In essence, you are attempting to use the constructs of the rational schema (linear time and objective truth) to disprove that the rational schema exists. 

This is nonsensical. It is analogous to a man sawing off a tree limb that he himself is unknowingly sitting on. The man doesn't realize that he is sitting on the tree limb, nor do you realize that your very scenario itself is _impossible_ without the rational schema that constructs it.

The problem with your arguments is that you assume the observations and perceptions of the rational schema which informs your worldview are _absolute_ truth, that they see "reality" as it is, without modification or alteration. As to those that disagree with your perceptions, well, they're just wrong.

Well, the religious fundamentalist also assumes that the observations and perceptions of the mythological schema which informs his worldview is also absolute truth, that he truly sees "reality" as it is, and those that disagree simply lack "the eyes to see". There isn't a whole lot of difference here.

This is why your arguments falls apart. They require appealing to a philosophical paradigm that has been thoroughly rebuked since the early 1900's and increasingly so during the 1950's and 1960's. One cannot escape the fact that what one sees as "reality" are in part constructions erected upon one's biological, psychological, and cultural biases. 

Furthermore, it is not that these constructions "obscure" or "corrupt" reality as such, but that they are _necessary_ to perceive and make sense of reality in the first place. The only way that your arguments can possibly make sense is if you claim to somehow have achieved cognitive "perfection", which would be a rather absurd claim to make.



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> As far as my worldview goes, I don't think there is any reason to believe in anything other then a universe that an absolutely meaningless physical design. Somehow, because of this, I suddenly "believe unconsciously" in intelligent design and special creation? Interesting.



I never said you believe anything. I said that a metaphysical interventionism is a direct logical consequence of your worldview. 

Even you yourself have admitted that. Despite your professed leanings toward atheism, you cannot discount the existence of the supernatural on the grounds of the flaws and limitations within your own worldview (i.e., the inability of reductionism to explain emergent properties and physical novelty).

My philosophy, by contrast, has no such logical consequences nor does it require an ontological Other to explain creative emergence. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> True, the quotation marks on my part were tongue in cheek. I know you are saying that the subjective and objective co-create each other, but I see no reason why anyone should believe that and you haven't provided one.



I have provided several examples and elder999 provided his own example, as well. You simply chose to dismiss them at hand without engaging in their contents. However, to sum up a few points:
- The developmental constructivism of Jean Piaget and his followers
- The mathematical proofs of quantum physics
- The Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic anthropology
- The historical epistemes of Michel Foucault and his followers
- The deconstruction methodology of Jacques Derrida
- The constructivist philosophy of Jurgen Habermas
- The theories of long-term potentiation (LTP) and long-term enhancement (LTE) in developmental neurology and neuropsychology
- The theory of organic selection (or the Baldwin Effect) from evolutionary biology and computational evolution

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jun 14, 2006)

OnlyAnEgg said:
			
		

> Should that be schemae?


 
Good question, but I don't know.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Because your question is absurd.


 
This sounds like an excuse.  If you make a claim that something like schema for something like a hydrogen atom "exist" then you've got to be able to show how the universe blips out of existence if all of the "sudden" the item in question were to do the same.  This is a truth claim is it not?

This discussion can be summed up with the old "tree falling in the woods" adage.  Does it still make noise if "no one" is around to "observe" it?  Logically, I suppose we don't really know.  However, if we had to hedge our bets, I would say that even you would put your money down that it does.  

And I think that this type of (un)Certainty may be the best we can do.  Do I know absolutely that our universe will not blip out if "no one" is around to observe it?  No.  But I certainly know what side I'm betting on because of some very basic phenomenological observations.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> My philosophy, by contrast, has no such logical consequences nor does it require an ontological Other to explain creative emergence.


 
Well then, lets hear (or read) it...:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 14, 2006)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I have provided several examples and elder999 provided his own example, as well. You simply chose to dismiss them at hand without engaging in their contents. However, to sum up a few points:
> - The developmental constructivism of Jean Piaget and his followers
> - The mathematical proofs of quantum physics
> - The Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic anthropology
> ...


 
Many of these I know absolutely nothing about.  Some, however, I am rather well informed.  To start, I don't think that I'm the only one who is uncomfortable with subjective/objective duality.  Even Elder999 has said, "it's probably wrong, but that is what the model shows."

The common thread is that all reality is a construct...that the universe is depended upon these constructs.  

Well, here is a little exercise that we did in one of my college courses.  Imagine that the universe contains only two particles.  Now, imagine that one of those particles disappears.  What do you think should happen?  Most people would answer that you'd have one left.  The answer is that not only do both particles disappear, but the entire universe goes with it.  The answer is counter intuitive...and it is completely unobservable.  

So, which one do you go with in order to describe reality?  You can put two marbles in your hand, throw one away and have one left, or you can do some really sweet math problems and show that both particles are gone.  Most people would say that the universe would still exist even if there was only one particle in it...and I think the reasoning behind that choice is obvious.


----------

