Ontological Arguments (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 23:46 (5168 days ago) @ dhw

MATT asks how you handle experiences like love, creativity and aesthetic appreciation epistemologically. "That's my target here, and everyone seems to ignore it every time I ask it. Is it so obvious that you think I'm just dense?"
> 
> Ouf! Absolutely not, and I honestly thought we'd been discussing precisely this problem. Not having "a tool to study experience" doesn't preclude discussion, and our whole correspondence on consciousness, free will, identity etc. has revolved around what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't know. It may be that I've completely misunderstood what you mean by handling experiences "epistemologically". My understanding of this is basically: how do we know whether something is true? Not even an epistemologist can give you the answer, but I would split "truths" up into objective, subjective and intersubjective, and I thought that by taking the latter (love, creativity etc. which we both consider real) I'd be on safe ground. I'm now a bit uncertain, though, because it may be that what follows is so obvious that you'll think I think you're dense. So forgive me if I'm the one who is dense!
> -No no no... not at all! But "intersubjective" is a completely new word for my vocabulary. I will have to explore that dimension. (Maybe I already know it under another word." -> I "know" that something in me sends out messages which determine the interaction between parts of my brain, sends electrical impulses all round my body to control my actions, thoughts etc., and engenders the inexplicable phenomena I've mentioned. Nobody knows what this something is. Material or non-material? How do I find out the truth? Well, you did suggest one method: try to build a human brain. If you succeed, and if it manifests ALL the attributes we associate with humans, you will know as far as can be known that the sum is greater than the individual parts, and the mysterious something is entirely material. If you don't succeed, it won't prove anything, because you can go on trying to build the brain, but the non-material explanation will remain possible. 
> 
> So what do you do in the meantime? I myself move to subjective and intersubjective evidence for such a form of consciousness. I can't "know", but as with most other areas of life beyond the limits of objective scientific knowledge, I can make judgements or suspend judgement (e.g. about juju, NDEs, consciousness, love etc.) and still keep considering all the options and theories. That's what we're both doing. For instance, you agree with B-M's concept of God as energy (which also fits in precisely with BBella's, David's, and mine too, though I'd never have thought of it when I was ten years old!) If God exists, it's difficult to imagine him in any other form. I think we agree that the known universe consists of energy and mass/matter, and so B_M offers us a hypothesis: "All of our thoughts and feelings are created by energy. Therefore, if god is energy he would be capable of thought, i.e. intelligence and emotion." Whatever questions remain unanswered by materialism (which may eventually answer them all ... though I remain sceptical) can only be "handled" in the here and now by just such hypotheses, which we accept, reject, or suspend judgement on. And that, as I see it, is as far as any of us can go "epistemologically" until something like your robot, or God himself, comes along to prove to our satisfaction which hypothesis is true. 
> 
> My apologies again if all this is too obvious, or if I've misunderstood you.-No, not at all; I think in terms of systems, and for all of my supposed knowledge about philosophy, "intersubjective" may provide the avenue I need to allow me more foothold to reason.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"