How does Nature inform your Spirituality?

[heretic888]

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".

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]

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".

And you still haven't answered my question.

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.

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

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.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

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

Should that be schemae?

 

[heretic888]

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.

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.

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]

Should that be schemae?

Good question, but I don't know.

 

[Makalakumu]

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]

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]

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.

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.