Paradise (Where is it now?)

by dhw, Sunday, January 03, 2010, 23:13 (5437 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George: I'm only a materialist, i.e. a believer in the truth of chemistry, because that's what the evidence leads to.-A theist can also believe in the truth of chemistry. A materialist does not believe there is any truth beyond that of chemistry and the other physical sciences. Materialism is what your subjective interpretation of the evidence leads you to, and your subjective interpretation entails rejection of any evidence to the contrary.-George: It is not a matter of believing what I want to believe. It is a matter of what is real. No-one can rationally claim reality for something that is based on their subjective experience. [...] Certainly you are free to accept subjective experience as "valid" whatever that means, valid as poetry perhaps, but not as real knowledge.-This is an immensely complex field, which takes us far away from paradise and into the realm of earthly perception, but let's stay on this thread for the time being.
 
Firstly, our perceptions are subjective, interpretive experiences, but if we didn't act on them as though they were objectively real, we would live in a permanent state of paralysis. -Secondly, how do you define "real" knowledge? Generally, we rely on a consensus: if you and I and most other people agree that the Earth goes round the sun, we'll call that knowledge. If someone disagrees, we'll dismiss him as a crank, but that won't make our knowledge any more "real" for him, so who ultimately decides on the "reality" of knowledge? -Thirdly, you write: "Subjective experience, that is not communicable, verifiable, reproducible, is not acceptable as evidence of reality for anyone, whether materialist or not, because it is irrational." Try telling that to a psychiatrist. Just about every emotion we feel is subjective and entails some of the most profound realities of our existence. You write as if only the rational were real! So my love for my family is unreal, my grief at the death of a loved one is unreal, my joy at success is unreal. Science is as reliable an arbiter of certain kinds of reality as we can hope to have, but there are other realities which science cannot cover. I don't know if the scope of these can be extended to the "paranormal" or not, but "paranormal" perceptions are unquestionably real to many who experience them, and in some cases even provide information supported by independent observers. Like yourself, I am sceptical about many instances, but unlike yourself I don't claim to "know" that they are all "science fantasy".-This brings us back to "real knowledge". You are the one who has used the term. In my post I was discussing evidence, not knowledge. I would certainly prefer to consider these "paranormal" phenomena only as possible evidence of a reality beyond the known physical world. That is very different from "knowledge", let alone "real knowledge" ... whatever that means.