Thursday, June 19, 2008
From the Organicum Files
Ontologic refers to what is real. Epistemic refers to what can be known about that which is real. Everything and nothing can be real, with the possibility, or no possibility, for knowledge, or no knowledge, of that which is, or is not, real. There are ranges here that delimit the limits of human existence, reason and understanding. Logic refers to the real nature of reasoning, as in making truthful knowing assessments about these ranges, and by extension, about that which is, or is not, real.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
My question is:
Can we have a system of inquiry into reality, which has no foundation of its own, and is not tied to any preconceptions, so that it can be free to follow truth wherever it may lead?
And, since this question is an epistemic question, it too is caught within an existing system, on an already-built foundation; already caught within this trap. Can we think about epistemology, without at the same time being inside epistemology???
I have no idea... <--- Is that ontology, or epistemology?
Understanding is not a point of view.
Actually, I think that it might be...
Understanding is point of view.
As to Sky's comment, I agree, with are ruled by our concepts, however close or far from 'the truth,' but that too is based on a foundation that thinks in terms of true and false, etc.
But to me, I rather collapse epistemology into ontology and state that all our concepts are fundamentally ontological, as they are analogs of reality, the conduit being the flesh.
In this sense, the notion that the fundamental ontology is mind, somehow makes sense to me.
Weird reversal in a way, but it solves the problem you speak of, or at least it eases it, as since our concepts are found in our flesh in a cognitive sense, and if the basis for this is mind, or information itself if you want to veer away from any religiosity, then concepts become very close to the flesh, from both sides if that makes sense.
So having no idea is ontology, as it just represents an empty set in your mind associated with neuronal patterns that are patterning, regardless if the set is empty. In a sense, to conceive of the empty set is to still represent in a positive way.
In short, I know there is objective truth because I can feel it.
Heh, is that subversive? I sure hope so.
It is!
Re: my earlier comment, I think that no idea might certainly be in the ontology department... it's the I have that I'm suspicious about!
P.S. Have you ever checked out a book called The Self-Aware Universe? I have it here somewhere... ah, here it is on Amazon.
"Consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, declares University of Oregon physicist Goswami, echoing the mystic sages of his native India. He holds that the universe is self-aware, and that consciousness creates the physical world. Calling this theory "monistic idealism," he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. Once people give up the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable".
I'm not sure how that explains quantum physics, but the idea of a self-aware universe sure is true, as far as I've been able to gather.
Here's another quote from Amit Goswami:
"The current worldview has it that everything is made of matter, and everything can be reduced to the elementary particles of matter, the basic constituents — building blocks — of matter. And cause arises from the interactions of these basic building blocks or elementary particles; elementary particles make atoms, atoms make molecules, molecules make cells, and cells make brain. But all the way, the ultimate cause is always the interactions between the elementary particles. This is the belief — all cause moves from the elementary particles. This is what we call "upward causation." So in this view, what human beings — you and I think of as our free will does not really exist. It is only an epiphenomenon or secondary phenomenon, secondary to the causal power of matter. And any causal power that we seem to be able to exert on matter is just an illusion. This is the current paradigm.
Now, the opposite view is that everything starts with consciousness. That is, consciousness is the ground of all being. In this view, consciousness imposes "downward causation." In other words, our free will is real. When we act in the world we really are acting with causal power. This view does not deny that matter also has causal potency — it does not deny that there is causal power from elementary particles upward, so there is upward causation — but in addition it insists that there is also downward causation. It shows up in our creativity and acts of free will, or when we make moral decisions. In those occasions we are actually witnessing downward causation by consciousness."
I think the point re: quantum physics is that there have been shown to be measurable experimental effects due to human observation i.e. consciousness. In Goswami's view, this is no big deal (probably your view too, I think!)
No doubt.
I have always said, if mind is nothing more than complexly organised matter, and this is all there is, then why does anyone in their right mind deny matter the property of mind!?
Ah!
I love you geeks!
Exactly, how did we come to know about these atoms and particles? The mind had to first gather data about the world around us to illuminate these truths that are said to be the building blocks of "reality". So in this light even upward causation stems from our consciousness and thus becomes a result of downward causation.
There is an esoteric sect of Hinduism called Tantrism or monistic Kashmiri Saivism which states that all facets of reality stem from some kind of sensory experience, which acquires meaning through the consciousness. If we had no mind, then all experiences of the five senses would be meaningless and have no truth value.
So, consciousness and matter are one and cannot exist independently of one another (which is a crazy thought!).
The theory then expands in a very idealistic way to say that if all reality stems from our mind,if we meditate on this "truth" we can acquire the power to manipulate reality. If you get good enough at it you can acquire "siddhis" or powers, such as claivoyance and mind reading.
This is a digression of course.
All this to say that I think the function of truth in everyday life is very different. It is not so much absolute truth as it is probability. We use this concept in order to navigate through life and maintain order in society. I saw this concept challenged when I was working with schizophrenic patients.
But that's another story.
But, I was thinking, imagine if there was no earth and there were no living beings around to gain sensory experience of matter? Would that mean that Mars and Jupiter and Saturn (etc) wouldn't really exist?
That doesn't seem right somehow. Is your attention span long enough for my comment, I don't think mine is. Somebody help.
anita said: "So, consciousness and matter are one and cannot exist independently of one another (which is a crazy thought!)."
Since this is "a thought", it is part of consciousness. I think that's the whole point. We human beings cannot fathom what exists outside of consciousness. We simply can't.
I was trying to get at this in my first comment. Anything we think is a thought. Whatever thought is, anything we think has the characteristics of it, whatever those are.
anita also said: "But, I was thinking, imagine if there was no earth and there were no living beings around to gain sensory experience of matter? Would that mean that Mars and Jupiter and Saturn (etc) wouldn't really exist? That doesn't seem right somehow."
Imagine if that's exactly what it means... imagine that!
But also, imagine if living beings with senses are not even required... imagine that, too!
Post a Comment