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.