Questions of a philosophical nature.
Discussion
avinalarf said:
Simpo Two said:
I was being philsophical!
How about: 'This house believes there is no god, only an inverse reflection of the human condition'?
Looks like you and me Simpo. How about: 'This house believes there is no god, only an inverse reflection of the human condition'?
Will have a think and post this evening.
Expand a trifle .
I tried this on PH when I first joined up.
I postulated that the 'subject & object' metaphysics which is the norm for the way we are taught to think is fundamentally flawed.
I suggested that a metaphysics of quality as described by Pirsig was a much better framework on which to hang our understanding of the world around us.
I didn't get very far.... but I'm still a huge fan of Pirsig's work, you can read about it here.
A little Googling will find you the full book in PDF - well worth 10 or 20 reads; I threw out all the Readers Digests, and this is the only book on the shelf in the toilet!
I postulated that the 'subject & object' metaphysics which is the norm for the way we are taught to think is fundamentally flawed.
I suggested that a metaphysics of quality as described by Pirsig was a much better framework on which to hang our understanding of the world around us.
I didn't get very far.... but I'm still a huge fan of Pirsig's work, you can read about it here.
A little Googling will find you the full book in PDF - well worth 10 or 20 reads; I threw out all the Readers Digests, and this is the only book on the shelf in the toilet!
TheExcession said:
I tried this on PH when I first joined up.
I postulated that the 'subject & object' metaphysics which is the norm for the way we are taught to think is fundamentally flawed.
I suggested that a metaphysics of quality as described by Pirsig was a much better framework on which to hang our understanding of the world around us.
I didn't get very far.... but I'm still a huge fan of Pirsig's work, you can read about it here.
A little Googling will find you the full book in PDF - well worth 10 or 20 reads; I threw out all the Readers Digests, and this is the only book on the shelf in the toilet!
I have just had a quick look at the link.I postulated that the 'subject & object' metaphysics which is the norm for the way we are taught to think is fundamentally flawed.
I suggested that a metaphysics of quality as described by Pirsig was a much better framework on which to hang our understanding of the world around us.
I didn't get very far.... but I'm still a huge fan of Pirsig's work, you can read about it here.
A little Googling will find you the full book in PDF - well worth 10 or 20 reads; I threw out all the Readers Digests, and this is the only book on the shelf in the toilet!
It is obviously quite intense so needs much more than a quick look.
I find that if one reads to much on this subject one tends to become too influenced by the theories of others.
I am more interested in debating with others on a more personal and original way.
If you like a bit of mind gymnastics.
I read alot of popular science books, Gliek, sagan, gell-mann etc and on my list is Dawkins.
I think the demon haunted world by Carl Sagan is one of the most sensible and thought provoking books I've ever read.
That said however, I have as much difficulty in explaining the origins of the universe, pre-big bang etc as I denounce the existence of divinity and "creation".
I'm sure this question has vexed minds far superior to my own for a long time.
I can explain (i think) stuff like gravity, planets, stars, chaos theory in straightforward terms, but I can't explain feelings of Love or Grief or Loss. we are made of starstuff, we know this, all the elements in the universe that we know about make up everything we know about, but a very special mix of those elements make us human.
Science helps us to explain most things, but not everything.
Fascinating subject, nice one OP.
I think the demon haunted world by Carl Sagan is one of the most sensible and thought provoking books I've ever read.
That said however, I have as much difficulty in explaining the origins of the universe, pre-big bang etc as I denounce the existence of divinity and "creation".
I'm sure this question has vexed minds far superior to my own for a long time.
I can explain (i think) stuff like gravity, planets, stars, chaos theory in straightforward terms, but I can't explain feelings of Love or Grief or Loss. we are made of starstuff, we know this, all the elements in the universe that we know about make up everything we know about, but a very special mix of those elements make us human.
Science helps us to explain most things, but not everything.
Fascinating subject, nice one OP.
GokTweed said:
If I looked through your eyes at a colour known as green........would it look the same as it does through my own eyes? or would I see it as another colour because of the way your eyes send the signals?
Or see it as a smell.....From my own understanding.
Light is light and can be measured (I don't mean there is only one version of light....). That is the way the photons interact with stuff with colour and then your eyes see what is left. But change the colour of the illuminating light or filters bits out and green is not always green. But we do not calibrate our eyes but we can measure colour, but my guess it is not far out considering the differences in peoples eyes and other conditions and the way evolutions has made our eyes.
Waits for the shoot down in flames......
jmorgan said:
Light is light and can be measured (I don't mean there is only one version of light....). That is the way the photons interact with stuff with colour and then your eyes see what is left. But change the colour of the illuminating light or filters bits out and green is not always green. But we do not calibrate our eyes but we can measure colour, but my guess it is not far out considering the differences in peoples eyes and other conditions and the way evolutions has made our eyes.
Waits for the shoot down in flames......
There are three factors here. One is the wavelength of the light, which is precise and definable. Two is what your brain resolves it as (which we cannot know). The third is what you have been *told* each wavelength is.Waits for the shoot down in flames......
avinalarf said:
TheExcession said:
I tried this on PH when I first joined up.
I postulated that the 'subject & object' metaphysics which is the norm for the way we are taught to think is fundamentally flawed.
I suggested that a metaphysics of quality as described by Pirsig was a much better framework on which to hang our understanding of the world around us.
I didn't get very far.... but I'm still a huge fan of Pirsig's work, you can read about it here.
A little Googling will find you the full book in PDF - well worth 10 or 20 reads; I threw out all the Readers Digests, and this is the only book on the shelf in the toilet!
I have just had a quick look at the link.I postulated that the 'subject & object' metaphysics which is the norm for the way we are taught to think is fundamentally flawed.
I suggested that a metaphysics of quality as described by Pirsig was a much better framework on which to hang our understanding of the world around us.
I didn't get very far.... but I'm still a huge fan of Pirsig's work, you can read about it here.
A little Googling will find you the full book in PDF - well worth 10 or 20 reads; I threw out all the Readers Digests, and this is the only book on the shelf in the toilet!
It is obviously quite intense so needs much more than a quick look.
I find that if one reads to much on this subject one tends to become too influenced by the theories of others.
I am more interested in debating with others on a more personal and original way.
If you like a bit of mind gymnastics.
t properly sorted out once and for all... 
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff