Knowledge

[lkwalker]

The following is lifted from Amkon.

http://amkon.net/showthread.php/31388

What is the observable universe? What can we know and how can we know it?

In terms of rejecting any observations our point of departure is never anything more than the primordial Solipsist entrapment. The logical extension of such an admission of pure subjectivity is not simply doubt but the necessary rejection of all independent observation per se. All of it. I suppose that's ground zero for an ideological rational skeptic but it's also a sort of intellectual nihilism. Once one takes the initial leap of faith beyond our sensory prison every actual occasion becomes the subject of consideration. To then reject any given set of observations as false is based in categorical presupposition. And, of course, all observers have their own. Some apparently observed occasions are objectively true and others false. Which are which is a matter of filtered judgment. A truly reasonable person brackets his own prejudicial inclinations in deference to an open mind.

Epistemology 101™ courtesy of the Cartoon Syndicate.

A discussion worth considering...

[lkwalker]

Once one takes the initial leap of faith beyond our sensory prison every actual occasion becomes the subject of consideration.
How do you do this?

By an act of denial. The Original Sin is in fact our first enjoyment of bad faith.

Our reality is the bridge between Being and Nothing.

What this discussion has evolved into has to do with with problem of 'purpose.' (The Philosophical term for that is Teleology.) Specifically: does such a principle apply to existence or not? The existentialists (I've cited Sartre) would say that 'purpose' is our own to create; that it does not have an independent (transcendent) meaning apart from action. That is what is meant by, "Existence precedes Essence." That there is no 'essential meaning' to existence. The Platonists disagree. To them there pre-exist a set of eternal Forms or given Principles to which all of existence must ultimately, by necessity, conform- independent of action. Clear so far?

OK. Then I'll continue my stony rap- just for you. The interest of this thread is 'knowledge.' And both schools rely on the same method in attaining knowledge. That is Dialectic. Dialectic, simply described, is the process that proceeds on the basis of a premise, followed by a denial of that premise and and reconciliation that results in a new premise. (Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis.) For a Platonist the aim of the process is Recovery, while for the Phenomenologist/ Existentialist that aim is Discovery. Still with me?

There may be in the end less of a contradiction than there seems. Because for both schools the Dialectical Process has a transcendent meaningfulness in itself. The difference lies in the concept of Essence. Is there Essential Truth or is there not? Or is Dialectical Process, itself, all the the truth that can be known?

The larger question is- Does the Absurd have a nature? If so- acquisition of the novelty it contains is ultimately accessible. The truce you're referring to is actually what can be termed 'temporal abstraction.' A picture postcard from transcendent reality. Abstraction from reality is our greatest enemy because existence is a-temporal. By that I mean that time, itself, and therefore any given time, is a categorical imposition upon existence. That is the definition of 'abstraction.' Which brings us full circle back to the problem of Phenomenology as opposed to Platonism. Time is indeed a 'truth'- just not the most profound of truths.

Resolving the contradiction between Existentialist and Socratic thought...

There may be in the end less of a contradiction than there seems. Because for both schools the Dialectical Process has a transcendent meaningfulness in itself. The difference lies in the concept of Essence. Is there Essential Truth or is there not? Or is Dialectical Process, itself, all the the truth that can be known?

end of highlights.

[lkwalker]

From here- viewtopic.php?f=27&t=293&p=6678#p6678

Are you interested in the explanation of 'precognition?' The truth is that it doesn't exist in the manner that we generally consider. What the 'clairvoyant' is seeing is not the future but the present as it exists outside of time. To understand that one must realize that time, itself, is what I've termed 'a categorical imposition upon realty.' In plain terms- time does not exist in the most real world. It is brought to existence (imposed upon existence) by consciousness, not by the real stasis. In fact, that is what 'consciousness' actually is. It is the derivative principle of temporal order. Einstein had an interesting observation that he never thoroughly pursued- and that was that time prevents the actuality of everything happening at once. He was correct. In reality everything does, in fact, happen at once. Past, present and future are practical divisions of the universal stasis and not necessary actualities per se. What this means is that precognition is not a function of time but rather, in a very real sense, a function space. No-one is seeing the future because there is no future. What a clairvoyant is actually describing is an event or a series of events visited without the constraints of the categorical imposition temporal reality.

I think that Gary Schwartz and also Dean Radin have a rudimentary sense of the forgoing analysis.

[Pigeon]

I can't disagree with our reality and beliefs of it are tied to our perception using our senses. This is why I question our understanding of the universe. This tunnel vision we have might be extreme, but even a same amount could be quite significant.

[Egg]

I've been thinking about that more and more, BE. Our own consciousness creating the illusion of time. It makes sense more and more. Just the fact that time speeds up or slows down because of how we feel or what we're thinking seems to point out the truth of this.

[MrPenny]

Our own consciousness creating the illusion of time. It makes sense more and more. Just the fact that time speeds up or slows down because of how we feel or what we're thinking seems to point out the truth of this.

I think we'll slowly find that our brains work at quantum levels of entanglement that may never be fully understood. Some of the more advanced theories of particle physics seem to indicate that at small enough constructs, time, space, and dimensions are of such bizarreness that those concepts really have no meaning.

The sense that time speeds up or slows down depending on the circumstances has been well linked to cognitive processes.....for instance, high stress situations seeming to slow down......it feels that way because of the heightened perceptions that kick in.

And we just may be able to perceive time because it exists.

[Egg]

Our own consciousness creating the illusion of time. It makes sense more and more. Just the fact that time speeds up or slows down because of how we feel or what we're thinking seems to point out the truth of this.

I think we'll slowly find that our brains work at quantum levels of entanglement that may never be fully understood. Some of the more advanced theories of particle physics seem to indicate that at small enough constructs, time, space, and dimensions are of such bizarreness that those concepts really have no meaning.

The sense that time speeds up or slows down depending on the circumstances has been well linked to cognitive processes.....for instance, high stress situations seeming to slow down......it feels that way because of the heightened perceptions that kick in.

And we just may be able to perceive time because it exists.

Your last statement - you mean that time is not a construct of our consciousness but it exists on its own = 4th dimension. Absolutely possible.

Your first statement - absolutely true. Whole universes with their own laws within every particle of our being.

[MrPenny]

I guess it's best to state both propositions....

The universe exists because we perceive it.

We can perceive the universe because it exists.

At this point in the game.....either one is a viable candidate.

[lkwalker]

Fuck the lot of you.

[Egg]

Fuck the lot of you.

That's some deep philosophy right there