Empiricism vs. Logic

[mikiel]

Here's my take on that, shared here recently from my page "Conscious Unity: Contemplations on the One in All"
--------------
"Relative Reality is created by consensus among finite minds and hearts and lives in agreement about the world they share. Absolute Reality is created by the One in Whom we are all parts and participants.
Awakening is the quantum leap from relative to absolute."

A web page you mean? Where is it? I missed it.

http://www.consciousunity.org/page2.html

mikiel

[mikiel]

If this is your original challenge in question:
"And how can you prove empirically that "Empiricism is the way to validate the premise in any and all logic (that is relevant to "the world")... the missing edit.
I can prove *logically* the statement above, as follows:
Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world. that's what empiricism does which logic alone can not do.
Once you throw out empiricism, there is no world, and you are back to "pure logic" without reference to "the (irrelevant and questionalble) world"... back to solipsism.

If you totally disavow the validity of all our senses, what could you possibly consider "proof" anyway?

Purely logical proof is the only type of proof that is convincing to me. All other so-called "proofs" are only guesswork.

Here you again disavow "the world" because it requires the senses and empiricism, which you inherently distrust to vadidate. Back to the mind as the only reality and the world as pure illusion. (See my post about no-dual awareness.)

An old fave in the argument against such idealism/solipsism is this

I don't hold to the solipsistic ideas which you describe.

That is, I don't believe that everything is "in the mind" since the mind itself is caused by that which is not the mind.

I presume that you didn't answer my question because you can't. Doesn't that make you feel dissatisfied?

In similar vein, I challenged you, with no reply, as follows: In is ridiculous non-sense, literally to say (paraphrasing) "prove the sun exists without the empirical function of the senses."

You didn't answer, I presume, because it is a ridiculous challenge.

If you deny the most obvious realities of the manifest world/cosmos, what "proof" do you have that the logical mind is real? Same challenge in reverse.
But, as I've said, it ain't one or the other, but both. Empiricism and logic make a good balance between the world and all our cogitations about it, including the ultimate "meaning of life", mind's philosophical treasures.
mikiel

[mikiel]

Matt: "You need to think about what creation is. The belief that something can be created out of nothing is false."

First, I don't see the elevance of this statement to the argument against solipsism presented. In fact, I am arguing that my fist, the solipsist's face and the pain of impact are all very real, not "just in his mind"... ego, why not change your mind and create a new reality *out of nothing* if it hurts? My point exactly.

Actually, tho, you have almost quoted me verbatum from the "What is Time" thread, where I said that cosmologically speaking, something out of nothing is absurd. This in fact is one of the main arguments I've continually made for the oscillating, "Bang/Cunch" model of cosmos. If it all didn't implode after a gravitational reversal of the expansion phase, where did it all come from for the "Bang" in the first place?
No beginning, no ending. A contnual, eternal two-phaze cycling.

Well, a lot of people say they don't believe in something, they can apply that lack of belief in an isolated area, but they haven't for whatever reason applied it to their knowledge universally. If your argument depends on a belief that didn't come from your opponent, what else can I assume but that it came from you in the form of a belief that you've never examined and naturally assumed, as anyone in that situation would, that everybody holds it.

That argument you gave against the statement that things are created in the mind assumes that the mind can create something out of nothing, which the statement doesn't imply. The only thing it says is that the mind is one cause out of many, not that the mind is the only cause.

You are chasing your tail here, man.
I said plainly that the objective world of people beating up on each other is real. To deny the objective world is solipsism: a ridiculous philosophy purely on the "grounds" (or lack thereof) of disembodied metaphysical minds creating subjective fantasies in total denial of what their non-existent physical senses tell them. You'll find a picture of this bullshit in the dictionary under "delusional thinking" (in my book anyway.)
mikiel
Oopse... correction... that picture is in my encyclopedia of absurdities. My dictionary doesn't define phrases.

[Sage]

I would highly recommend that everyone in this thread read this article: http://www.quebecoislibre.org/06/060205-5.htm

In it he talks about how empiricism (such as the empirical sciences) cannot produce or refute absolute knowledge. But he also recognizes another sense in which empiricism is used. The key is to define the terms.
I think Kevin and mikiel would much clearer positions after reading the article.

[Matt Gregory]

I said plainly that the objective world of people beating up on each other is real. To deny the objective world is solipsism: a ridiculous philosophy purely on the "grounds" (or lack thereof) of disembodied metaphysical minds creating subjective fantasies in total denial of what their non-existent physical senses tell them. You'll find a picture of this bullshit in the dictionary under "delusional thinking" (in my book anyway.)

Well this bullshit is coming from your own head. I've never met anyone who believes that.

[Sapius]

Mikiel;

Gnosis is knowing the One Omnipresent Consciousness is Creator of all, a very real cosmos, including our physical brains and metaphysical minds.

“One Omnipresent Consciousness”, cannot be the Creator of any thing at all, since it would necessary be dependant on all creation itself, meaning, Thing-NESS (not Things itself) has to also then be necessarily Omnipresent for consciousness to be or mean anything at all.

In my opinion it is the interdependent interactivity of Thing-ness itself, which is the self-creationary and destructive force infinitely omnipresent, which absolutely everything is ultimately interactively dependant on, in a yin/yang fashion. Even the knowing (Gnosis) itself is necessarily dependant on what it itself is not, hence not absolute in and off its-self either, but only comparatively, including against all other knowings.

Is it possible for OOC to be without Thing-Ness itself? Which of course is not it I take it.

Realizing that all manifestaion ("Thing-ness) is "the body" of One Omnipresent Consciousness, is enlightenment,

Well, the word ‘enlightenment’ does not really excite my senses, but knowing the truth does, and as I see it, Thing-ness has to necessarily be as Omnipresent as Consciousness, so assuming that OOC is the creator, or is that which manifests, is a mistake, because in that one assumes OOC to be the “first cause”, not realizing and forgetting the 'chicken or the egg' question/fallacy you mention below. Hence one cannot ask which came first, consciousness or thing-ness, or what is the manifestation of what either, and that is my point, for I see them both inter-creatively interdependent on the other, with no externality at all; purely an eternal ongoing strife with no beginning or end.

often, these days called non-dual awareness, merely the negative way to say "conscious unity", the title of my website.

Personal preferences as in calling ‘it’ (which is as you say a realization, and hence a change of perspective) a ‘non-dual awareness’ or ‘conscious unity’ does not really matter or bother me much; end of the day it still remains an emotional or say logical feeling towards all that is not “I”, but the not-I and the “I” remain however; it is just a change of perspective in my opinion, which I do not deny can be sensed of felt, but is exactly just that.

So both the transcendental OOC and the physical cosmos are real, simultaneous and interdependent. "Which came first?" is a question generated by the linear mind, which believes, erroneously in beginnings and endings.... the "chicken or the egg" question/fallacy.

Well, neither do I ask whether OOC came first or Thing-ness, nor do I assume what manifests what, for whatever one considers to be the creator of the other, will be making the mistake of actually imagining to have the answer to the “chicken or the egg” question/fallacy. I might as well say that Thing-ness manifests Consciousness, and I wouldn’t be wrong in your books, because you consider them to be equally real, but that wouldn't be the whole truth either. So why not say that they both are the creators of each other, or say interdependently manifest each other, and be done with it once and for all.

[Kevin Solway]

Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world.

By definition. So you're telling me that you don't have any empirical evidence to backup your claim.

Therefore it follows, logically, that your statement, "Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world" has no relevance to the world, according to you.

[divine focus]

You wrote:

The energy that makes up physical reality may be independent of perception, but the form and structure it takes as our universe is not. We create the universe in collective agreement, but we each agree individually to do so.

You're saying that physical reality is made up of energy, you're entertaining that this energy could be independent of perception, and you're talking about a collective agreement. These things are all speculative. All we can say for certain about what makes up physical reality is nonphysical reality. All we can say for certain about what is independent of perception is unperceived reality. We can't be certain of any collective agreement because we can't be certain about any physical object, including another person.

We can be certain of collective agreement when we are certain of our individual agreement in all matters that pertain to us, and when we are certain of a specific sameness or absolute that is shared among all things.

Also, I did not say that the energy making up physical reality was independent of perception, but that it may be. Therefore, we do not disagree in this area, although I would not say it is impossible to be certain.

[Sapius]

DF;

Also, I did not say that the energy making up physical reality was independent of perception, but that it may be.

If you consider ALL to be energy at its core, then why can’t ‘perception’ itself be just another form of energy, (hence not independent of energy itself), just as matter or light, or any thing for that matter, are but different forms of energy? So the doubt of ‘may be’ should not arise.

Hence, existence could be but interactions of different forms of energy, with at least two different forms ever present, for if they ultimately merged and become one, there would be no activity or motion possible, hence end of existence, but that is not possible since logically speaking existence itself cannot have a beginning or end.

Further more, what could ultimately be there is purely the interactivity of different FORMS (which is real however), where we define such interactivity, or say more appropriately the motion, as “energy”, which really cannot be there absolutely independent of forms, otherwise nothing could be happening. So once again we see the dualistic nature of existence – Energy (motion)/Forms (inter-sensed things), where one cannot be without the other.

Now one might talk about ‘experiencing reality non-dualistically’, but that is no more than simply realizing that there is no other fundamental process other than the dualistic nature of existence, in any which way one looks at it; but one is however bound in and off that dualistic process itself, irrelevant of ones grand or profound realizations, IMHO of course.

[brokenhead]

If you consider ALL to be energy at its core, then why can’t ‘perception’ itself be just another form of energy, (hence not independent of energy itself), just as matter or light, or any thing for that matter, are but different forms of energy? So the doubt of ‘may be’ should not arise.

I used to laugh when Captain Kirk would say urgently, "What is it, Spock?" And Mr. Spock, leaning over his instrument visor, would make everything clear: "Some form of energy, Captain."

Isn't everything some form of energy? If all matter is just energy "bound up," what is left? Is there a way perception could not be another form of energy?

[Sapius]

If you consider ALL to be energy at its core, then why can’t ‘perception’ itself be just another form of energy, (hence not independent of energy itself), just as matter or light, or any thing for that matter, are but different forms of energy? So the doubt of ‘may be’ should not arise.

I used to laugh when Captain Kirk would say urgently, "What is it, Spock?" And Mr. Spock, leaning over his instrument visor, would make everything clear: "Some form of energy, Captain."

Isn't everything some form of energy? If all matter is just energy "bound up," what is left? Is there a way perception could not be another form of energy?

Or a 'part' of totality since that too is a conceived 'thing', hence logically, less than totality... problem solved.... hahahahaa... :D

[mikiel]

My computer is totally FUBAR. Just lost an in-depth reply to the below.
So, this will be brief.

Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world.

By definition. So you're telling me that you don't have any empirical evidence to backup your claim.

Therefore it follows, logically, that your statement, "Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world" has no relevance to the world, according to you.

You are making a circular argumet here, a tautology that assumes a premise (empiricism is invalid... we can not "know" the "real world) and then concludes that empiricism is invalid because our senses, including scientifically extended ones, can not be trusted. Then, of course there is no proof that empriicism can prove the relevance of logic to the "real world", which can not be "known" anyway.

My reply to you on 5/2 already addressed the above, and challenged you likewise, which you totally avoided in this reply.

You're spinning your wheels here, Kevin. "Pure logic" will have no relevance to the "real world" if you deny that we can know its reality. (Duh!)
So how is it again that you are not a solipsist?

mikeil
(computer still working, so Ill emphasise a point:)
K: " So you're telling me that you don't have any empirical evidence to backup your claim."
"What empirical evidence, inherently invalid, could possibly "back up a claim" that empirical evidence is what makes logic relevant to the "real world?, (my claim.)
Is your head really that far up your ass that you can not see the absurdity of your challenge here?
And what about verification that the sun does indeed exist. (Again, how are you not a solipsist?)
Oh, that was Quinn... something about the "objective world" is real but not the "physical world" is not...
Ok, fine... we all know that "the physical world" doesn't mean "solid stuff" but quanta of energy in very well defined and (usually) predictable patterns, which can be considered "tangible" to our senses.

m

[Kevin Solway]

Therefore it follows, logically, that your statement, "Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world" has no relevance to the world, according to you.

You are making a circular argumet here

It's your argument, not mine. You are the one arguing that is it "of no relevance to the world" that "Empiricism is required to establish relevance to the world".

I'm just restating your position to highlight its inadequacies.

If there is any empirical evidence that "Empiricism is required to establish relevance to the world", then I'm interested to see it, even though empirical evidence has its limitations.

[Peter L]

Empiricism vs. Logic?

Isn't that like saying something along the lines of this: water vs. the lake? There's really no issue, because whatever is observed is logical or in other words, it appears as so, perfectly aligned within logic. So, even a person who appears irrational, is in actuality, logically so (caused). Nothing escapes nature.

[Kevin Solway]

Empiricism falls within the realms of logic, but there's a lot more to logic than just empiricism.

[mikiel]

Therefore it follows, logically, that your statement, "Empiricism is required, by definition, to establish relevance to the world" has no relevance to the world, according to you.

You are making a circular argumet here

It's your argument, not mine. You are the one arguing that is it "of no relevance to the world" that "Empiricism is required to establish relevance to the world".

I'm just restating your position to highlight its inadequacies.

If there is any empirical evidence that "Empiricism is required to establish relevance to the world", then I'm interested to see it, even though empirical evidence has its limitations.

If you review my posts in this thread you wil find that I'm the one saying that empiricism is the info gathering branch which can verify (or not) the assumptions of a premise as to relevance to the "real world." It is inductive, from the particulars observed empirically to the generalization of the conclusion. (And, of course deduction goes the other way from the general to the particular.)
So, they go hand in hand. If one needs verification of relevance to the "real world" then, empiricism and its logical tool, inductive reasoning is required.
So, you see it is *not* I who is arguing that it is "of no relevance to the world" that "Empiricism is required to establish relevance to the world"... (one too many redundant repetitions of a tautology here :)

mikiel

[Steven Coyle]

Isn't everything some form of energy? If all matter is just energy "bound up," what is left? Is there a way perception could not be another form of energy?

Mind, with matter.

(1 2/3) < tiered fraction.

In your habitat: 1 (mind) ... 2 (eyes), to convert to 3 (build). I.E. ... re focus.

Picking up a 'compact disc' (how a cd makes one feel, or how it points to leverage, 4 music), I spot my spectrum.. A blue green ray. Then I let the circle spin.

%5ception into energy.

and vice versa.

(Within the center of an O, there lives a vacuum... where light can travel through.)