The Ultimate "What Would Jesus Do?" Question?

[Questing Beast]

Well I am actually glad you brought this up, because Dr. Peterson actually brought up almost an identical objection elsewhere, in passing. It is kind of amazing that both you and he would have the same objection- I suppose I don't have to go into why it is surprising, but it is the case. I am going to spend some time on this because it comes up again and again and again and for me is based on a total misunderstanding of all of this which people just CANNOT get past. It seems that some see it and others do not. I think Kevin C actually has it pegged on this, but that is another story. http://www.cse.buffa....positions.html

I agree, and the philosophy I am trying to explain here does away with that problem by doing away with the whole idea of "certitude" in the first place. For someone who seriously wants to understand this very point I would recommend John Dewey's book The Quest for Certainty summarized here.

The bottom line is that once one realizes that certitude is an illusion, one uses the word "know" in it's common form which typically means "I'm sure for all practical purposes". That's about all it really means to anyone anyway. So get over the quest for certainty, and go with what you know works. That's the best you are going to get anyway.

I don't mean to yell but I am going to.

NO!

THIS DOES NOT IMPLY CORRESPONDENCE AT ALL- IN FACT IT IMPLIES THE OPPOSITE OF CORRESPONDENCE AND NO ONE SEEMS TO GET THIS. Ah, ok I feel better now, thanks for letting me spout off.

What we see repeated that works ARE THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HUMAN MINDS which allow us to fly to the moon and do all scientific endeavors. WE DO NOT SEE "THE WORLD" WE SEE OUR OBSERVATIONS OF THE WORLD, OUR EXPERIENCES OF OUR SENSES. We cannot know we are seeing anything "beyond" what we see feel taste touch- ADD AS MANY SENSES AS YOU LIKE- they are all HUMAN COGNITION- HUMAN EXPERIENCES.

AND SO ARE SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES. SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCES ARE AS MUCH HUMAN EXPERIENCES AS ANY OTHER. Yes, spiritual experiences are subjective and scientific ones are objective BUT ALL ARE HUMAN EXPERIENCES.

If you think it through you will see that correspondence doesn't actually "work" for anything. Correspondence implies a world which exists BEYOND HUMAN EXPERIENCE WE KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

What "works" is WHAT HUMANS HAVE EXPERIENCED WORKS. That is what "truth" is. It is what works!

Yes, but there is no correspondence bridge anywhere else either.

Totally backwards. How do you know anything about the brain and the empirical world when that "knowledge" is in YOUR and everyone else's HEAD?

How does the brain communicate with the world except through sense data? And what is sense data? A product of what your senses tell you!!!

Exactly right! Exactly!

Using your terms, "cause" is as much in the "imagination" as anything else. You can define anything as a cause of anything else. World War 2 was caused by the first amphibian who came ashore and evolved into mankind who start wars. How much sense does that make? What causes what effects is subject to definition and is totally arbitrary.

My but you are "exercised" on this topic, Bukowski.

You object that I am totally bassendackwards, then say "By Jove I think he's got it". How many times, by now, has this happened?

There is one "correspondence" that over-arches everything, and that is existence. No matter what your set of human senses tells you is reality, and how my own set of human senses differs in the details, we exist inside our own minds. Existence is Caused in the world of humans. What that Cause Is cannot be determined beyond what is in the mind. That is why I say "God relates to us as a human being." Of course the "Cause" is imagined! Everything, even our observations of "what works for humans," is imagined. It is doctrine that "God does not think a thing but that he does it". To "God", the "Cause", imagining a thing makes it become part of Existence, or reality, all of it, Infinitely and always and forever....

[mfbukowski]

My but you are "exercised" on this topic, Bukowski.

You object that I am totally bassendackwards, then say "By Jove I think he's got it". How many times, by now, has this happened?

Let me show you why that happens and why I am exercised.

No matter what your set of human senses tells you is reality, and how my own set of human senses differs in the details, we exist inside our own minds. Existence is Caused in the world of humans. What that Cause Is cannot be determined beyond what is in the mind. That is why I say "God relates to us as a human being." Of course the "Cause" is imagined! Everything, even our observations of "what works for humans," is imagined. It is doctrine that "God does not think a thing but that he does it". To "God", the "Cause", imagining a thing makes it become part of Existence, or reality, all of it, Infinitely and always and forever....

Good we agree on all this. Causation is an interpretation of data- but that of course is not what the First Cause is generally thought to be. In your sense, the "First Cause", was the first time you came up with that interpretation and understood it, to Aristotle it was an event outside in the world- definitely not something "in the mind"

But then you say this! Actually you started off with this-

There is one "correspondence" that over-arches everything, and that is existence.

What is THAT supposed to mean? What does existence "correspond" to- and how could you know anything about what it supposedly corresponds to???

You seem to keep flip-flopping and still need to use the word "correspondence" but then contradict your own use of the term!