Is GOD In The 'Multi-verse'?

Good post,dear friend. Nicely done.

I ahve been following along with interest but have yet to feel I can offer anything usable by others. However, seeing as to how this is all winding down, I will offer this:

LogicWings said

I scrupulously, honestly (more than you can know) analyze my own thought processes - and I know you are wrong.

But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.

Well see there, now we agree. Few people understand their own thinking and critical analysis does seem to increasingly become a lost art.

I am going to post this without much copy editing because I have to go. I will amend as necessary. But it is enough to get us going, I THINK.

I fear LogicWings indulges in premature self-exhaltation. He frequently calls most anything Begging the Question because of the (usually) necessary assumptions in the premises. In an effort to avoid that you will eventually end up with a grammatically and logically correct statement but a very stilted and dull conversation. It also amazes me that he can find such frequent fault with the statements of others while remaining sublimely confident in his ability to evaluate his own thinking, a particularly hard thing to do without making assumptions.

I am reminded of another occasional gadfly who prided himself in being able to "falsify" anything, as if that semantic trick had any value at all.

Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term, or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.

As to multi-verses, there can be many multi-verses within a universe. Again, it is all semantics or labeling. Regardless God is outside and all-encompassing. As is said often, God said, I AM. So, if it is not God created then it AIN"T.

One last thing, the early discussion of the BEFORE as NO THING, meaning eliminating principles and laws along with things, I don't agree with that. I see all our scientific and spiritual laws existing with God as He looked out upon the void. As He created, He incorporated those principles within his creation but they existed with Him all the while. That is why I refer to it as the BEFORE rather than NOTHING.

You missed the fact that I wasn’t arguing the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena—the point was that to assert we don’t know the substance of life is logically consistent with this proposition.

(by the way, please give extra attention to post # 178)

And surely you see that you can’t have knowledge of the subconscious mind when limited to your criteria “sensory perception/observation/measurement.”

As for the task of proving a negative, atheists face the toughest example. But their faith solves this problem.

Of course, the faith of the atheist only reinforces the most important problem.

That is just a perfect abstraction, LogicWings, referring to nothing identifiable in the actual world of experience. "Reason" isn't doing the sensing, mobilizing, and integrating here. A cognitive/cognizing Self is, hopefully utilizing the criteria of reason in the process.

Since I was quoting a rather sloppy piece of work to quote a portion would suffer from the affliction you identify. To be more precise, in answer to your criticism - The person, which you term Self, does the actual sensing, with the brain perceiving that information and integrating it by means of reason into a coherent, understandable whole. You are correct, 'reason' is not directly responsible for the 'sensing' function but it is for the 'integrating' aspect, so I erred in quoting the whole section intact. Sorry I didn't split hairs finely enough for you.

Of course, the problem for the scientific method is this Self is immaterial, intangible, immeasurable, and thus unisolatable as a datum of scientific observation and experiment.

Then how do you know it exists? Zen Buddhists would say it doesn't, that it is an illusion. And I would quibble with the immeasurable claim since, by definition, it is unitary, thus one.

Yet since it appears we need this Self to explain our own thought processes — as the source that can discern, identify, collect, integrate, analyze, and attempt to explain its findings — indeed, for "science" to occur at all, it hardly seems that science can just dump it down the memory hole of a superstitious human past without at the same time permanently putting itself "out of business."

I guess psychology doesn't exist then? This 'source' (curious wording) is somehow different than the 'ego' of said discipline? The idea expressed after the words “seems that science” appear to be a complete non sequitur. “The memory hole of a superstitious human past” means what exactly? Very poetic though.

And this goes to Robert Godwin's poignant question: "Does science really understand what it purports to know?" A question which you, LogicWings, completely dismissed in a recent post.

Yes, I dismissed it because it is a sloppy Reification. “Science” doesn't understand anything. It is an abstract concept representing a system of study via a set discipline and method to gather knowledge about reality. Individuals understand things, and some individuals understand things more clearly than others. And since individuals disagree about any number of aspects within that system of study to say science 'understands' anything, or should, is fallacious.

Which tells me, you missed two points: (1) that words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally. They are (in a certain way) "stores" of a shared cultural heritage, expressions of actual human historical experience, passed down from generation to generation through time. If you think you can make words mean other than what they actually do mean in this context, then you are taking an ax to the foundation of human communication. The Tower of Babel (redux) is before our eyes....

I am not responsible for what your erroneously infer from what I write. I missed nothing, you didn't understand what I said. It doesn't matter how concepts are arrived at, whether words actually have meanings that persevere over time, multigenerationally or not. There is a certain hierarchy to conceptual development that determines the meaning of the word. I am not attempting to make words mean other than what they are, I am noting their place in the hierarchy of conceptual development.

names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" are all abstractions that subsume a set of concretes or other abstractions. That science has its own set of names for things it does not understand is irrelevant. The 'naming' is part of the process of attempting to understand . It is required for making this attempt. What you dismissed, or just missed, was the meaning of my statement “If our understanding were complete there would be no reason to investigate anything, an absurd situation.” Godwin is complaining that we don't know everything about everything. A silly complaint.

As to Godwin's second point — "what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?" — I gather you missed it entirely, dear LogicWings.

You only appear to be gathering wool. Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! It is a concept, an abstract concept, so no one has to stand 'athwart' it, any more than one can stand athwart a society. To think you can is to Reify the concept. Which is what I said.

Let me give you an example that may be simple enough for you to follow, since this seems to be proving difficult for you. Suppose I say, “Hand me a furniture.” What do you do? What can you do? The abstraction 'furniture' is being Reified, so the statement is meaningless. This is the inverse of “Can't see the forest for the trees” which is a failure to see the abstraction.

Godwin, and apparently you as well, are making just the same sort of error. Committing the same Fallacy.

People do it all the time. Especially in discussions like this.

One more clue: Why is it said, “A house is not a home?”

Man’s ‘knowledge of God’ is merely the product of faith and the belief in some supernatural power that operates outside the realm of reason or the scope of man’s intelligence. That is NOT ‘knowledge’, that is the denial that ‘knowledge’ is possible.

Perhaps it would be helpful if you could first give an account of something implicit in your claim, which you take for granted; namely, "the realm of reason" itself.

How do you justify or account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities - those laws of thought in the realm of reason - in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?

Cordially,

I fear LogicWings indulges in premature self-exhaltation.

What is it with you guys that when someone rationally challenges your illogically held views you invariably respond with adolescent insults? Oh, never mind, the question answers itself.

He frequently calls most anything Begging the Question because of the (usually) necessary assumptions in the premises.

Assumptions are never “necessary”, axioms are. When the existence of something is claimed where there is no evidence of that existence, it is Begging the Question. Just because most people assume (and you know what they say about those who 'assume', don't you?) things to be true that are not, is not my problem. It is theirs. But I am not going to let it pass simply to get along. That is a major factor of what is wrong in these discussions, the assumption that things that don't exist do. It is mistaking fantasy for reality. (The one necessary qualification is a thought exercise where the assumption is obliquely stated, such as: Imagine you are riding a beam of light.)

But this talk about assumptions reminds me of an old joke.

Three friends are hiking through a forest: an office manager, a truck driver and an economist. They all fall into a deep bear trap. The start pondering, “Now what are we going to do?” The office manager and the truck driver turn to the economist and say, “Hey, your the smart guy here, with all the degrees. How do we get out of here?” And the economist thinks a moment and says, “Well, first, assume a ladder . . .”

In an effort to avoid that you will eventually end up with a grammatically and logically correct statement but a very stilted and dull conversation.

As opposed to illogical, irrational, pedantic, ponderous and overblown as they are now?

It also amazes me that he can find such frequent fault with the statements of others while remaining sublimely confident in his ability to evaluate his own thinking, a particularly hard thing to do without making assumptions.

Easy to do when one bases one's thoughts and arguments upon axioms rather than assumptions and unfounded assertions.

Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term, or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.

That you do not understand or are not carefully reading what I have written is revealed by this statement. I will parse:

Concerning intuition, it is either knowledge from a realm outside our senses which is communicated to us in a yet to explain fashion or it is spirit as we commonly use the term . . .

The phrase: knowledge from a realm outside our senses is precisely the type of conjecture that I term Begging the Question. By definition it assumes something that cannot be verified nor proven, therefore is not a true proposition. Period. Same goes for “spirit”. That your suppositions, or presuppositions as boop termed them are entirely illusory is exactly my point. They have no more meaning than 'Leprechauns plant all mushrooms' does.

The second part:

. . . or it is a new association of previously learned knowledge, some of which itself may be new associations, which we make subconsciously.

Which I already stipulated, to quote myself, I love to quote myself:

I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.

which is why I said you either aren't understanding what I said or not carefully reading it.

As to multi-verses, there can be many multi-verses within a universe.

Many ways to refute this, Begs the Question that there are multi-verses (unprovable by definition ) or Assertion Without Proof, but fallacious on the face of it either way.

Again, it is all semantics or labeling.

Or, more accurately, nonsense.

One last thing, the early discussion of the BEFORE as NO THING, meaning eliminating principles and laws along with things, I don't agree with that.

Of course not. This is where logic goes out the window. You make my point beautifully.

“You are correct, ‘reason’ is not directly responsible for the ‘sensing’ function but it is for the ‘integrating’ aspect”

For the very sake of reason, you must acknowledge that this statement is false. Reason is merely the tool used by the self. This point is essential. Reason doesn’t do the integrating in your mind in the same sense that mathematics doesn’t compose or process computer algorithms.

“Then how do you know it (the self) exists?”

If you claim the subconscious mind exists, and your reasoning is based on the acceptance of fundamental principles of conventional psychology, then by the same reasoning you must accept the existence of the self. To establish a premise for the purpose of one discussion but deny it for another reveals the distinct possibility that you don’t believe your own claims. This error is prominent in the thinking of those whose world view is founded on the equally erroneous belief that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

You missed the fact that I wasn’t arguing the proposition that life is not reducible to material phenomena—the point was that to assert we don’t know the substance of life is logically consistent with this proposition.

I didn't miss it, it is just dueling negatives, and you can't prove a negative i.e.,
life is not reducible to material phenomena

It is logically consistent to say:

No mammals have hair.
No Unicorns have hair.
Therefore
No Unicorns are mammals.

but unverifiable, thus moot.

Your point is, by definition, unverifiable, thus moot.

And surely you see that you can’t have knowledge of the subconscious mind when limited to your criteria “sensory perception/observation/measurement.”

Infer: to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence.

I have a fairly extensive experience with people with mental health issues. So the straight-jacket you seek to put me in isn't going to happen. The "sensory perception/observation" part of this equation can lead to the conclusion there is a subconscious mind.

See, the problem here isn't what I am questioning, it is what you are projecting upon what I am saying, because of your pre-conceived notions (your assumptions) that if I challenge this statement I must embrace that. These are the blinders you wear, your sepia colored glasses.

To quote Robert McCloskey:

I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

"Which I already stipulated, to quote myself, I love to quote myself: 'I will postulate that we receive information via the senses that is integrated in the subconscious mind and is then presented to the conscious mind in a symbolic form that needs to be interpreted by the conscious mind but this is not direct apprehension of the Universe via “intuition” but a process rooted in the sensory world first.'"

The nature of logic is, as you are well aware, highly contested. Logic itself is a closed system -- for its conclusions arise necessarily from its premises -- but becomes doubly closed when one applies it only to the shifting empirical world of secondary causes.

Logical positivism, also known as logical empiricism, is a philosophical attitude which holds, among other things, that metaphysics, more or less, is bunk. Critics of logical positivism have pointed out that since the verifiability principle itself cannot be proved true or false by means of experience, it is therefore meaningless.

"...There are only four sources of knowledge, 1) empirical (through the senses), 2) rational, 3) pure intellection, and 4) revelation.

For a metaphysical naif such as Sam Harris, whom we briefly discussed yesterday, there is only empiricism and reason, which is the beginning and end of his startling contribution to philosophy. As if we haven't known for the past couple hundred years that the absurd philosophy of materialism exists. For how absurd is it to employ a faux version of intellection to prove that intellection does not exist?

In other words, we have access to no empirical data that tells us that only empirical data exist. There is no knowledge at the level of the senses. Likewise, no rational operation can provide its own content. Rather, a person decides the purposes for which he will use his powers of reason. Evidently, it does not go without saying that this personal decision cannot be reduced to reason.

Not only that, but so much is now known about "emotional intelligence," that this alone should suffice to put the kibosh on any form of unalloyed rationalism. Knowing is a deeply personal experience, both in telling us what is important to know and in assimilating the depth of the truth of what is known. It is possible to be deeply stupid, but in order for that to happen, you generally have to be quite intelligent. ...

Importantly, because of the nature of UNCONSCIOUS LOGIC ......"

I can already see that we are NOT going to have any kind of ‘meeting of the minds’ here, implicit in the sophistry you employ in inviting my response. But ... on the off-chance a wider audience may be attending, I’ll take an ‘at-bat’ here — no reason why LogicWings should have to do ALL the heavy lifting for our side ...

“... give an account of something implicit in your claim, which you take for granted; namely, “the realm of reason” itself.”

Reason, as I applied the term, is an orderly, disciplined and purposeful exercise of the conscious human mind intended to integrate whatever we have observed or experienced into useful methods for dealing with the World / Universe we inhabit to further our survival or improve the quality or quantity of our lives.

There are MANY other activities or behaviors our minds are capable of which do NOT constitute ‘reasoning’ and which, if introduced into this little discourse, would serve only as distractions or misdirections away from the actual topic at hand.

For example, our minds can ‘imagine’ the desirability of having a captive genie on-hand to grant us the fulfillment of three ‘wishes’ unrestricted by any ‘inconvenient’ limitations with respect to the way the World / Universe seems to actually be organized or function. But ... the likelihood that the World / Universe will actually provide us with such a boon is vanishingly small.

Any time or effort expended in pursuit of such an ‘imagined’ FEATURE of the World / Universe would be pointless and certainly NOT a demonstration of ‘reason’ in action.

In fact, ANY exercise of the mind which requires the admission of ‘unreal’ or ‘supernatural’ or other components that are not subject to any ‘rules of evidence’ or any other connection to actual experience or observation, while potentially entertaining or amusing, CANNOT be considered within the so-called ‘realm of reason’.

Of course, the World / Universe presents us with innumerable instances of events / experiences / observations that, for a time at least, defy our ability to comprehend or respond appropriately. Until Newton correctly applied a prism to a beam of light, the ineffable light of a rainbow defied human understanding. Pretty, yes, but strangely beyond our capacity to touch or measure. Magically impressive, no doubt. However, the human application of a prism reduced its mystery to a simple set of principles any school child can easily comprehend.

In total ignorance of the principles of optics underlying the appearance of the so-called ‘rainbow’, superstitious minds have constructed ‘Signs of a covenant’ between God and Man never again to drown the entire world in order to punish the wicked and preserve the good. Elsewhere, Norse mythology attribute it to an actual ‘bridge’ between Earth and Heaven, guarded by Heimdall, who allows only Heroes entry into a blessed afterlife. As fundamental as these conjectures might be to the belief systems of their practitioners, they are NO demonstration of ‘reason’ or the successful application of the attributes of the human mind to the processing of ‘reality’.

You make further demands in your post —

“How do you justify or account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities - those laws of thought in the realm of reason - in a materialistic, constantly changing universe, not subject to the control of a personal God?”

The simple fact is, I DON’T. I saw you palm that card, Bud. When you refer to ‘ ... those laws of thought in the realm of reason ... ‘ as instances of ‘ ... the existence of abstract, universal, invariant entities ... ‘, you just swallowed your own tail in a Circular ( beggin’ the question ) fallacy. ( How’m I doin’, LogicWings ??? )

Since this is a strawman of your own conception, NOT mine, I don’t see any purpose in figuring out whatever that gobbledy-gook is supposed to mean — it certainly means nothing to me.

One profound difference between us is that MY Universe is not uselessly cluttered with Noahs and Heimdalls and leprechauns and such. I’m quite content with Newton and his ilk to illuminate ‘reality’ and provide me with entirely human means to cope — with reason — with the World / Universe I inhabit.

I don’t require certain knowledge of “Why does the Universe exist, as it is, and what is MY part in the overall grand scheme of the Universe or the purpose of its supposed Creator ?” in order to live a completely satisfying, meaningful, purposeful and moral existence. All that other ‘stuff’ is well above MY pay-grade ...

But, then, I really don’t expect you to grasp, let alone AGREE with what that actually means, to ME ... You might try examining the concepts of modesty and humility for starters.

One Man’s Opinion

21stCenturion

Thank you for your response. I have been dreading it because I knew I was going to take a beating. You were kinder than I expected.

What is it with you guys that when someone rationally challenges your illogically held views you invariably respond with adolescent insults?

Please don't associate the others with me. Those who are familiar with me know that I don't have the educational or intellectual background to even participate in these discussions. However, I am often invited in and I greatly appreciate it because I learn a lot. I am an old guy and a Christian, a belief I came about through much thought, effort and finally the gift of Grace.

A problem I have with the rigidity of your approach to life is its inability (To me at least. Perhaps you can dispel that for me.) to accommodate values and subjective judgements. You can say, "If you do A the likely outcome is B but if you do X the likely outcome will be Y." However, that can't tell you whether B or Y will be good or bad or even satisfying.

How does logic determine the appreciation of music, art, poetry, etc.? Is that something beyond the senses or is simply primal reaction? If primal, what accounts for differences in taste. If something else, what?

Easy to do (evaluate one's own thinking) when one bases one's thoughts and arguments upon axioms rather than assumptions and unfounded assertions.

Do you run a quick pretest before you think or say something? Can you parse your thoughts before you think them? How do you account for engrained knowledge from your early life which may be subjective instead of objective? I think we often make assumptions which we don't recognize as such. I assume (Yes I said It) you think you have overcome that by intuiting the truth of everything. Yet, with your definition of Intuition that can't be the answer either .

The phrase: knowledge from a realm outside our senses is precisely the type of conjecture that I term Begging the Question. By definition it assumes something that cannot be verified nor proven, therefore is not a true proposition.

Whether something is a true proposition is dependent upon knowing the truth. Being outside the realm of our senses does not negate its truthfulness. It could easily be a truth we have yet to discover. It may not lead to a logical syllogism but it could be truth nonetheless. Is E+MC2 a valid syllogism? What do our senses say about that?

which is why I said you either aren't understanding what I said or not carefully reading it.

Some of what I said was directed to the thread in general rather than to you specifically. That is true of Intuition, of Multi-verses and of NOTHING. What was directed to you was fairly obvious but not all of it was directed to you.

What is your thought about conjecture? Is it a valid way of thinking or a waste of time? Don't the quantum sciences do a lot of that? Aren't many problems solved that way? To you, how is conjecture different from imagination?

I see strict logic as useful in much of our lives but not in its entirety. To adhere rigidly to formal logic is very sterile and anti-creative.

M-PI: "Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception."

LogicWings: "Another sentence that has very little meaning. It is just a pile of words. "

Really?

ON KURT GÖDEL'S PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS
by MK Solomon

"... in Gödel's well-known analogy of mathematical intuition to sense perception (see the .... kind of perception, i.e., in mathematical intuition

ABSTRACT

".... We compare Gödel's philosophy of mathematics to Steiner's "epistemological structuralism."

§1. Introduction

"We show that Gödel's philosophy of mathematics, as presented in his published works, with possible clarification and support provided by his posthumously published drafts, can be considered as being formulated by Gödel as an optimistic neo-Kantian epistemology (obtained from Kant's epistemology regarding the physical world in terms of sensory appearances as distinct from things in themselves, not obtained from Kant's epistemology of mathematics as being synthetic a priori knowledge) superimposed on a platonic metaphysics. By Platonic metaphysics, we of course mean that abstract objects have an objective existence. By neo-Kantian we mean obtained from the Kantian epistemology with one important modification, namely, removing the doctrine of the unknowability of things in themselves.

"Indeed, we will see in section 2.2 that Gödel thought that abstract things in themselves may be progressively knowable. Furthermore, it is pointed out in section 2.4 that he explicitly indicated that the knowability of physical things in themselves is possible through the progressive advancement of modern science. ...."

<><><><><><><><><>

"I’ll begin by reminding the reader that I am a mathematician. The way that mathematicians use logic is different from the way that it is often used in philosophy. Some people distinguish between the two by using the expression “philosophic logic” to refer to the use of logic within traditional philosophy. The reader should be warned that my view of the limitations of logic is colored by my background as a mathematician. .....

"...most mathematicians see logic as a branch of mathematics. Many, self included, see logic as a relatively minor branch of mathematics. I don’t think this is just a territorial dispute (as in “who owns the territory of logic”). The way we mathematicians use logic is different from the way that philosophers use it. Once we have an axiom system, we use logic to explore the consequences of those axioms. But coming up with axioms systems is itself an important part of mathematics, but seems to be outside the scope of logic. ...."

Here:

Reduction, mechanism and all that

The limitations of logic

M-PI:"Since the physical world exists prior to our exploration of it, so do the higher worlds. This is easy to prove to anyone who goes there. But for those who wish they were mere animals no proof is enough to convince them otherwise."

LogicWings: "A human being is not a mere animal ..."

How do you know this?

M-PI: ".....our access to the realm of beauty is a key that unlocks many cosmic mysteries."

LogicWings: "That is an opinion, not fact. You write as if beauty were an objective fact. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder..

"Without a doubt, the ultimate Black Swan is whatever it was that permitted merely genetic human beings to emerge into full humanness just yesterday (cosmically speaking), some 50,000 years ago. .....

"....once man consciously enters the sensorium of time and space, he is implicitly aware of both Absolute and Infinite, and therefore Love, Truth, Justice, Beauty, Virtue, and Eternity. These are the things that define man, not his genome. ....."

Creation Myths of the Tenured

Universe is an abstract concept that represents what we have ascertained about the sum total of everything that exists. It Is Not A Thing! It is a concept, an abstract concept, so no one has to stand 'athwart' it, any more than one can stand athwart a society. To think you can is to Reify the concept. Which is what I said.

It's precisely here, LogicWings, where our "dialog" goes off the rails, every time it seems — in a clash of fundamental worldviews.

I do not believe the universe is merely an abstract concept. In philosophy, that sort of belief is called Idealism. (Kant is usually sorted into that school. I hope you're enjoying his company.)

But I am a philosophical Realist who recognizes that the substantial reality of the living universe is not dependent on me noticing it.

In other words, my answer to the question: If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? is: YES.

From my perspective, the universe pre-exists (and post-exists) me; and because I notice it as something independently real apart from myself, I can engage with it and think about it. IOW, It is something real without any help from me at all. And I am a part and participant in it. And so are you.

Definition of REIFICATION:
the process or result of reifying
Definition of REIFY:
transitive verb:
to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing

In short, you evidently regard the universe as an immaterial abstraction, a figment of thought, so to speak, and nothing more. And I do not. No wonder we have such difficulty understanding one another!

Which sheds light on your reaction to Godwin's question, "Does science really understand what it purports to know?" Your response:

I dismissed [the question] because it is a sloppy Reification. “Science” doesn't understand anything. It is an abstract concept representing a system of study via a set discipline and method to gather knowledge about reality. Individuals understand things, and some individuals understand things more clearly than others. And since individuals disagree about any number of aspects within that system of study to say science 'understands' anything, or should, is fallacious.

Well, at least you admit that science is somehow about gathering knowledge "about reality." But it seems according to your method, "reality" may be only a "reification" of your own. And, from your own statements, I gather you do not trust reifications. So, where does that leave you?

One might say that science, as it is currently understood and practiced, is excessively devoted to abstractions, in a sort of process of "reification" in reverse. But reification of what? Anomie? Mindlessness??? If science is not permitted — by its own method — to understand what it knows, then what is the point of science?

A typical answer nowadays is that science justifies itself because it gives us so many wonderful techniques for (in effect) exploiting Nature in the service of man. But such an answer is blind to the historical understanding of the mission of science (called "natural philosophy" before the 18th century): To discover the universal truths which inform and uphold the natural world.

As the mathematician/systems theorist/theoretical biologist Robert Rosen observed (in Life Itself):

It is not perhaps generally appreciated, especially by experimentalists (i.e., by those who actually perform measurements) that any measurement, however comprehensive, is an act of abstraction, an act of replacing the thing measured (e.g., the natural system N) by a limited set of numbers. Indeed, there can be no greater act of abstraction than the collapsing of a phenomenon in N down to a single number, the result of a single measurement. From this standpoint, it is ironic indeed that a mere observer [i.e., the experimentalist] regards oneself as being in direct contact with reality and that it is "theoretical science" alone that deals with abstractions.

Fortunately for us, the greatest scientific minds of all time did not follow your definition of science (above, bolds). I'm speaking of (for example) Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, oh so many others. Not even Charles Darwin followed your definition!

I don't know how you fit them into your "model," LogicWings.

What all these world-class thinkers had in common was: They practiced intuition-led science. They were not what I call "bean counters."

From which, a trial conclusion: Were it not for "intuition-led science," science could not advance at all.

I was perplexed by your question: "I guess psychology doesn't exist then?" It seems a complete non sequitur to what I was trying to say, to wit: "We need this Self to explain our own thought processes — as the source that can discern, identify, collect, integrate, analyze, and attempt to explain its findings — indeed, [we need this Self] for 'science' to occur at all."

And if we're talking "Self," then we are definitely in the mode of psychological investigation. By "Self," I intend psyche — which Plato "put on the map" for the very first time roughly four centuries B.C. Other people have had other names for it, e.g., Ego. Some people have actually empirically isolated it — e.g., William James — but will not give it a name. (James — perhaps the greatest American psychologist who ever lived, a rigorous experimentalist with — arguably — positivist leanings — just referred to it as "Thought" — with a capital "T".)

So, NO, I am not attempting to abolish psychology, for heaven's sake. Why would you even impute such a thing to me, LogicWings? I've spent a whole lot of time and energy with readings in psychology for a long time by now (since age 17) — Plato, Freud, Jung, James, Rosmini, Godwin, others. On the logic of your argument, the only reason I'm reading them is to dig up the dirt whereby "I" shall abolish psychology as a knowledge discipline. I can't even imagine how you could justify your conclusion that I am somehow trying to abolish psychology.

Especially in light of the fact that, for me, other than the problem of Life itself, the problem of Mind (psyche) is the single most important question in the world.

Then you argue that Self itself is something that I must prove to you. But that would be like asking me to prove that you exist: But I cannot even conceive of you absent the idea of a unique Self. So what do you want me to prove?

Must stop for now, though I could go on. Enuf's enuf for now. Please do get back to me, dear LogicWings, at your convenience. I don't know if we'll ever get "on the same page"; nonetheless I am enjoying our conversation very much, and thank you so very much for your participation!

You wrote: “...superstitious minds have constructed ‘Signs of a covenant’ between God and Man never again to drown the entire world in order to punish the wicked and preserve the good. Elsewhere, Norse mythology attribute it to an actual ‘bridge’ between Earth and Heaven, guarded by Heimdall, who allows only Heroes entry into a blessed afterlife. As fundamental as these conjectures might be to the belief systems of their practitioners, they are NO demonstration of ‘reason’ or the successful application of the attributes of the human mind to the processing of ‘reality’. ...”

You sound like Bill Maher. He takes Scripture literally, and then attacks it for being so literal. When Maher attacks religion, hi is really attacking his own stupidity. http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/09/god-is-joke-and-bill-maher-is-barbaric.html

<>

“...what eludes both atheists and religious literalists “is that form and meaning are complementary.” For example, in order to play music, harmony, melody and rhythm are necessary. In their absence, there is only disorganized noise, not music. But to think that music may be reduced to musical theory is also wrong, for form is simply the vehicle but not the substance of music. ....

“To stop at the literal level of the text as a Rev. Jerry Falwell or Sam Harris would, is to leave most of the meaning out, and [to] deify the Bible itself for their purposes (either pro or con) and to miss out completely on the doing of its meaning being actively threaded through the reader’s soul.” Exactly, for the modern deviation of “fundamentalism” is no less a form of debased materialism than materialism proper. In fact, it represents the reaction of a weak soul to the abnormal conditions of modernity — an attempt to combat materialism by fully conceding its assumptions.

“Quite obviously, the Bible is not “the word of God.” It is not the logos. Rather, it is inspired words — inspired (or even “authorized”) by the Word — about the Word. Once again, this conflation of the Bible and the Word — or bibliolatry — is a modern deviation that essentially concedes all ground to the horizontal flatlanders. It is a reduction of that which can only by understood by the nous to that which may be understood by the material ego. ....”

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/02/on-hearing-cosmic-suite-without.html

<>

“...one thing that was different about the past is that people were unaware of other religious traditions, let alone science. Therefore, they lived in a kind of “innocence” (which literally means “without knowledge”) that is impossible for us. ....This is why I [am] hesitant to “join a church,” for fear that one would actually be turning away from spirituality and toward the world. Certainly this is the problem with “fundamentalism,” which is mostly worldly (in a naive, or worse, sometimes cunning sense) and materialistic. It is definitely a response to the abnormal conditions of modernity, and therefore itself abnormal.” Here: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2007/11/tradition.html

<>

We might as well face the fact that we can never contain God, not in any human words, any institution, or any person, no matter how “realized.” Rather, God — the ultimate — will always shatter whatever you attempt to contain him with.

“....And you will gnotice how often the playful Word Himsoph played with language in such a way that it could never be “contained” by all of the future would-be scribes and pharisees. After all, he could have left an unambiguous “to do” list for humans, couldn’t he? Instead, he largely spoke in the form of parable, symbolism, metaphor, and allegory — all modes which require our own participation to realize their truth. In other words, they are not simple containers of information, i.e., .

Rather, in an odd way, they are always highly provocative and “disturbing” s that require our own to com-prehend, i.e., we must make the effort to wrap ourselves around his rap (even as it wraps around us).

But then it shatters our again! And again. And again. It’s hopeless. And therein lies our hope. For in being shattered and deprived of merely human meaning, we are resurrected and part-icipate in ultimate meaning. “

On Being Shattered, Battered, Scattered, and Made Whole
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-being-shattered-battered-scattered.html

<>

“...But in reality, “a metaphysical doctrine is the incarnation in the mind of a universal truth.” Right? If that weren’t the case, then there would be no way to prove anything. Which is why, prior to actualizing this or that seed, a kind of cultivation of the soil is necessary; one must “awaken the intellectual faculty in oneself,” and not just superimpose a man-made formulation upon realities that are not explained by, but rather, explain, reason itself. ...” Here: http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-give-enema-to-dead-atheist.html

<>

“.....When he says that the pastor had a knack for making scripture “accessible,” I’m going to take a wild guess and say that he probably had an even bigger talent for vulgarizing it. After all, truth is truth, and if he had been conveying anything deep and useful, [he] would still believe it. It would have “stuck.” [He would not now be an atheist]

On Keeping Faith Alive: The Intellect Doesn’t Slump
http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2008/08/on-keeping-faith-alive-intellect-doesnt.html

<>

Follow the depth. And avoid the deeply shallow false lucidity of the terrible simplifiers. ....
.... if you want to prevent people from knowing about that deeper truth, you don’t have to even argue. Rather, all you have to do is erect a barrier to depth. ....
Last week I quoted Gurdjieff, who said that I have very good leather to sell to those who wish to make shoes. Do you see the point? He doesn’t sell shoes. Rather, he only sells the good leather for you to make your own shoes, which is to say, to have a realization. Paradoxically, if he gives you the shoes, you cannot have the leather!

But it is absolutely no different with religion: if someone gives you the answer, you can’t have it. It will be like a museum piece, or like a couch covered with plastic, or like a toe with no body attached....

Human beings are mental beings, and to the extent that religion cannot offer a deep and satisfying vision to man’s intellect, then it has failed in its saving mission. A religion should not only illuminate your mind, but save it — and not just from “the world,” but from yourself. Can I get a witness? Thank you. Left to his own devices and voices, there is obviously no end to the nonsense man will come up with. ....

Knowledge vs. Realization: Follow the Depth
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8580258&postID=2070263310285273565

<>

The field of nature is a thophany, a meeting point of vertical and horizontal energies. The serpent-—the most horizontal of all beasts-—represents the self-enfolded world of scientistic materialism or Spinozean pantheism or Marxist dialectics. ....”

http://onecosmos.blogspot.com/2006/04/noble-raccoons-trousered-baboons-and.html

"....So, NO, I am not attempting to abolish psychology, for heaven's sake. Why would you even impute such a thing to me, LogicWings? I've spent a whole lot of time and energy with readings in psychology for a long time by now (since age 17) — Plato, Freud, Jung, James, Rosmini, Godwin, others.

Godwin:

"... most of the psychology journals I see are so dopey as to be laughable. And I mean that literally. (Let me say at the outset that there are a number of excellent psychoanalytic journals, but psychoanalysis is not exactly an academic discipline but a clinical one; it only becomes stupid in the hands of academics.)

"I don't subscribe to any of the big journals in my field. In fact, I'm not even a member of my professional association, the American Psychological Association, because it's just a front for a totolerantarian gang of leftist activists. "

"..A magazine such as Psychology Today represents stupidity squared, because it mostly boils down the nonsense of academia for a semi-literate audience, in the same way that Time or Newsweek purvey idiotarian liberal conventional wisdom to the 8th grade mass-mentality. " ...."

HERE

Yo, M-PI, that was one humdinger of a sermon, you betcha !

Seems a shame to waste it all by hitchin’ it so precariously to a randomly selected posting to which it doesn’t entirely seem to fit.

In another context, we would call this an ‘attempted thread hi-jack’. You know, somebody uses the phrase ‘Oh, Baby !’ and someone else comes along and uses that as an excuse to rant about contraception and abortion, regardless of what the original poster’s intent might have been.

If y’all don’t mind, I’m gonna simply neglect to engage with y’all on this’n, OKay ?

Regards,

21stCenturion

Thank you. :)

Thanks you!