"The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Again that is experiential.

And again, what isn't? What information do we have that is not experienced in some way?

Peace
Dan

korby

too many words. make Homer's eyes tired and head ache

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

And again, what isn't? What information do we have that is not experienced in some way?

Peace
Dan

If you want to nit-pick at words.

Gravity. Everyone experiences it. No one can say that gravity does not exist because everyone experiences it. We can objectively prove it through external stimulation. You can't prove to me that God exists because I have never and will never experience God. Because first you must believe God exists and convince yourself. Whereas I don't need to believe gravity exists for it to still exist.

You still haven't quantified how you discriminate between truth and falsehood when it comes to experience.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

If you want to nit-pick at words.

Gravity. Everyone experiences it. No one can say that gravity does not exist because everyone experiences it. We can objectively prove it through external stimulation. You can't prove to me that God exists because I have never and will never experience God. Because first you must believe God exists and convince yourself. Whereas I don't need to believe gravity exists for it to still exist.

Exactly. Since everyone experiences gravity, we are fairly certain of that. (although we may not really know how it works, we just sense it)
I am not proving god to you, as that is impossible. Equally impossible to disprove of course, which makes it a rather uninteresting debate. But all information we have and receive is filtered through human minds, our own or others. Since all information is filtered, it makes no sense to talk about "objective" evidence, as thew only way we can know it, is through a subjective account. This is where the chasm of phenomenology and logical positivism starts in philosophy. Everything is experienced.

You still haven't quantified how you discriminate between truth and falsehood when it comes to experience.

I judge from my own experience on the one hand, and in relation to other information I possess on the other. What you are going at is criteria for when an experiential account solidifies into "solid evidence". It never does. However, just because something isn't hard evidence, does not mean it's nonsense and can be automatically discarded either. What counts is the number of accounts, and their consistency.

Much research is based on asking people of their experiences. For side-effects of drugs for instance. The entirety of social sciences pretty much, or should it suffice to say that any field or subject concerning humans at some point rely on experiences of test subjects.

There are no clearcut line between "scientifical evidence" and "the rest" as you would have it. The use and breakthrough of qualitative methods in science corroborates that.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Exactly. Since everyone experiences gravity, we are fairly certain of that. (although we may not really know how it works, we just sense it)
I am not proving god to you, as that is impossible. Equally impossible to disprove of course, which makes it a rather uninteresting debate. But all information we have and receive is filtered through human minds, our own or others. Since all information is filtered, it makes no sense to talk about "objective" evidence, as thew only way we can know it, is through a subjective account. This is where the chasm of phenomenology and logical positivism starts in philosophy. Everything is experienced.


I judge from my own experience on the one hand, and in relation to other information I possess on the other. What you are going at is criteria for when an experiential account solidifies into "solid evidence". It never does. However, just because something isn't hard evidence, does not mean it's nonsense and can be automatically discarded either. What counts is the number of accounts, and their consistency.

Much research is based on asking people of their experiences. For side-effects of drugs for instance. The entirety of social sciences pretty much, or should it suffice to say that any field or subject concerning humans at some point rely on experiences of test subjects.

There are no clearcut line between "scientifical evidence" and "the rest" as you would have it. The use and breakthrough of qualitative methods in science corroborates that.

Peace
Dan

That's a poor system of discrimination in my opinion. What counts to me is reproducability. A person can drop a ball in-front of me and say "Look, gravity" and I will go "Oh ok". But you cannot say "Look God", "Look Aliens", "Look Bigfoot" or anything like that. Those experiences are not reproducible.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

That's a poor system of discrimination in my opinion. What counts to me is reproducability. A person can drop a ball in-front of me and say "Look, gravity" and I will go "Oh ok". But you cannot say "Look God", "Look Aliens", "Look Bigfoot" or anything like that. Those experiences are not reproducible.

Well, if I said "look bigfoot" and pointed at bigfoot, then I guess you would have to believe it... Bigfoot will not appear from me just saying the words, but if i point it out to you while i say it, it would be another matter. I can't reproduce the World Trade Center collapsing, and going there in a while won't show a trace of them or their fall. Doesn't mean it isn't true.

It (our senses) is a poor system of discrimination, but sadly the only one we have. If you claim knowledge seperated from experience (or experience related to you, and this telling would thus be the experience), then you are in effect claiming god.

That the discrimination does not satisfy the scientifical ideals I am well aware.

(edit) Well, gotta go sleep now. Work is on in 7 hours again.

Peace
Dan

Byrnzie

Ahnimus wrote:

You can't prove to me that God exists because I have never and will never experience God.

Depends what you mean by 'God'.

Ahnimus

Byrnzie wrote:

Depends what you mean by 'God'.

If I look at the Rocky Mountains in B.C. I look in awe. But I do not feel God. That's entirely perceptual.

OutOfBreath

I'll give this one a final bump too. Read this book people! It's inspiring in many ways while laying out a model for existence.

Peace
Dan