The Philosophy Thread

[Louanne Learning]

Time is the setting.

With an equal mix of change and constancy?

 

[GrahamLewis]

With an equal mix of change and constancy?

What happens, happens. Time is merely the backdrop, or, more likely, the mode of perception by which we observe change.

 

[Stuart Dren]

What happens, happens.

He said the thing!

 

[GrahamLewis]

The ultimate endpoint of empiricism might be deemed to be futility or madness: "A brilliant neuroscientist I was reading recently said . . .. we never really encounter the world; all we experience is our own nervous system." Eknath Easwaran, Introduction, The Bhagvad Gita, p. 41 (Nilgiri Press 2007).

I recall having that same thought during one of my earlier philosophy courses, back in my personal dark ages. The realization David Hume led us down a dead-end alley, that if we rely solely upon our physical senses to understand the world, we ultimately end up with nothing. We are only fooling ourselves if we think we know anything at all empirically, because whatever is "really" there, if anything, is unknowable except by and through our admittedly limited sensory framework. We know only what our eyes make of reflection, what our fingers sense from the nerve endings, what our ears translate from air vibrations -- though to speak of reflections, of touch sensations, and of auditory interpretations is ultimately circular -- we are simply saying we know what we know based on what we know we sense. What lies beyond, if anything, is beyond darkness or feel or sound (or silence).

We can argue that there must be something there, from which we make our interpretation, flawed or limited though it may be. But it is equally likely, if not more likely, that there is nothing there in every sense of the word, that we are building a world based on illusion. Of course, that way lies solipsism, in which I can know only that I exist (because I sense myself) and can never know for certain that you exist. And may well have doubts as to my own existence, at least late in a restless night.

Yet I find myself at heart believing that I exist, and equally that you, the reader, exist as more than my imagined reading of words on my imaginary laptop. That I'm not making this all up. Which tosses me into some form of religious belief (though of course that may be the ultimate illusion). As in

"Our persona is known by the sensations . . . which we cause in other persons [and of course sense in ourselves]. But the exact character of our own feelings, seeings, and hearings cannot be communicated. . . . But in spite of these limitations . . . we do have a kind of mystic knowledge of each other. . . The knowledge of what might be called the 'inside' of the other person is possible only because we all share in the Logos of God." Howard Brint, The Religious Philosophy of Quakerism, p. 70 (Pendle Hill 1979).

 

[Louanne Learning]

we never really encounter the world; all we experience is our own nervous system."

I love this. But, if we have perception, and are able to take in information from the environment, should we not trust it?

that if we rely solely upon our physical senses to understand the world, we ultimately end up with nothing

But, what else do we have? I guess this gets into the different theories of consciousness - physicalism vs. dualism. Is there something else besides the highly complex electrochemistry of neuronal networks in brains? It seems like such a leap, for that to account for subjective experience, but it seems to me that imagining there is some a priori explanation is more far-fetched.

we are building a world based on illusion.

Some go so far as to claim that human free will is an illusion. that we are in effect a manifestation of all the "causes" that came before us - that we think we make choices, but really do not. But, I dunno, we do come up with novel responses to random change?

and can never know for certain that you exist.

This (and earlier mentions of time and change) is a nice segue to an Aeon article I read today about the philosophy of Mexistentialism

A core concept of this “philosophy of Mexicanness” is “nada es seguro” = nothing is certain - a reminder that “our humanity is fragile and accidental.”

It’s connected to nepantla = being between spaces, times, destinations, life and death … so we recognize our zozobra = our indeterminacy, instability and radical uncertainty

Mexistentialism is associated with Mexican philosopher Emilio Uranga (1921-88) - a founding member of el groupo Hiperión, a group of young Mexican philosophers influenced by German and French existential phenomenology …

At the centre of Uranga’s ‘ontology’ is the scholastic distinction between substance and accident. A substance is that which endures and survives change. It is what remains the same despite change – the thing itself, which is characterised by permanence. By contrast, an accident depends on a substance for its existence – x must be an accident of something – and is by definition impermanent. Applied to the human being – something that the phenomenologist Martin Heidegger does not do – this ontological difference manifests itself in the feeling of power, a sense of self-sufficiency and permanence on the one hand, and a fundamental sense of insecurity and impermanence on the other hand.

makes me wonder how much does cultural history impact cultural philosophy

et I find myself at heart believing that I exist,

Me too! There's just too much evidence!! A lot of it made up of connections to other people.

 

[GrahamLewis]

I love this. But, if we have perception, and are able to take in information from the environment, should we not trust it?

That is exactly the problem. Can we trust our perception? What, for example, about people who have amputated limbs, but continue to have "phantom" pains in a limb they "know" is not there? The pain is as real as any other pain, but according to their other senses, the limb is gone. But to the nervous system, the limb is still there. Should we pick and choose the senses to trust?

And you talk of "tak[ing] in information from the environment," but that's presupposing that there is an environment to take information from, when in fact the only evidence you have of an environment at all is the sensory evidence (perception) that ends at the end of our nervous system. What evidence do you have that your sensory evidence is correct? It's a circular argument.

 

[Louanne Learning]

What evidence do you have that your sensory evidence is correct?

My responses?

 

[GrahamLewis]

My responses?

Those are not evidence. They are beliefs.

 

[Riddley Walker]

This whole concept of whether we can know that anything outside of us really exists or if we can trust our percptions, seems to be a hangover from Decarte's ideas that man and nature are separate. And following that, the mind is separate from everything else. But wild animals don't have this problem, and I would suggest that most indigenous cultures don't have this problem either, though I can't speak for indigenous philosophies. My point is that this dilemma arises from an assumption that we are primarily individuals and separate from the world around us. If you were to take the position that we are part of the world around us, part of nature like the sky is part of nature, then the dilemma dissolves into absurdity. The very act of perceiving is proof that we exist and that what we perceive exists as part of the same contiuum.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Decarte's ideas

yes, Descartes' dualism - the theory that mind and body are two separate substances. The problem with dualism is that it separates function from structure, which I think is not something that can be done for any part of us - including our brain

The very act of perceiving is proof that we exist and that what we perceive exists as part of the same contiuum.

the very fact that I can doubt or question my existence is proof of it.

 

[JLT]

I love this. But, if we have perception, and are able to take in information from the environment, should we not trust it?

Exactly. Not that perceptions are to be trusted always, but they are a starting point.

I feel a breeze in the room. Is air really moving? I ask my wife if she feels a breeze. She says (and this is my perception of her talking, right?) "Yes, I feel one, too." I conclude that air really is moving. I also posit that she really said something to me, and that it's not a hallucination. With these fragments of perception, I form a belief that there is a draft in the room that is independent of my sensing it.

A core concept of this “philosophy of Mexicanness” is “nada es seguro” = nothing is certain - a reminder that “our humanity is fragile and accidental.”

Odd that you mention it. There's a parallel in Islamic thought: "Inshallah" (roughly translated: "If it be the will of God"). It's usually, but not always, framed as a hope for something to happen in the future. It implies that our lives are subject to freak accidents and setbacks, and it should be taken as a sign that God had something else in mind for you.

Which in turn reminds me of a quote usually ascribed to Woody Allen: "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

(A footnote: A Muslim friend told me that there was an airline in one of the Islamic countries with such a spotty safety record that the locals called it "Inshallah Airlines." I loved that.)

 

[Louanne Learning]

our lives are subject to freak accidents and setbacks

Like the Canadian men's hockey team losing gold this morning.

 

[Louanne Learning]

The act of killing (or murder) implies sentience and volition, which time (being time) precludes.

How would you respond to this -

At time = 0 ... John is alive
At time = 1 ... John is dead

 

[GrahamLewis]

This whole concept of whether we can know that anything outside of us really exists or if we can trust our percptions, seems to be a hangover from Decarte's ideas that man and nature are separate. And following that, the mind is separate from everything else. But wild animals don't have this problem, and I would suggest that most indigenous cultures don't have this problem either, though I can't speak for indigenous philosophies. My point is that this dilemma arises from an assumption that we are primarily individuals and separate from the world around us. If you were to take the position that we are part of the world around us, part of nature like the sky is part of nature, then the dilemma dissolves into absurdity. The very act of perceiving is proof that we exist and that what we perceive exists as part of the same contiuum.

I suggest we are all really on the same page, and that page is that we are all ultimately mystics.

My original post was about the ultimate futility of pure empiricism, which arrives at a dead-end which Kant said "awakened him from his dogmatic slumber." Ultimately we cannot empirically know anything beyond what our senses tell us, and our senses are limited to being electrical impulses interpreted by our brains. And of course there is the unfolding science of quantum physics, for which and in which what seems solid on the gross physical level is anything but on the quantum level.

But we intuitively know, or at least are convinced we know, that there is a shared world out there that we are perceiving reasonably accurately. I am comfortably sure that I exist for the practical purposes of living, and am pretty damn sure that my wife and kids and bird exist, though not quite as solidly about them as I am about myself. All I know for sure about them is that I see them, sense them, and seem to share the world with them. We seem to have conversations, and I'd bet my life those are real. But I cannot know it empirically, beyond a doubt. I have to take their words that they exist; to use their reported experience as evidence of shared world is bit disingenuous, because the presupposes what I would be trying to prove, that they are really talking to me.

All my conversations with other people could all be imaginary; the other night I was with my father and mother, gone for 28 and 3 years respectively, in a dream, and though those conversations were real, I don't believe they are still in my waking world. I'm reminded of that Chuang Tsu story in which he says he dreamed one night he was a butterfly, and ever since wondered if he is a person who dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he is a person. In Buddhism our lives are called a waking dream.

I'm relatively sure that all of you exist, but am less sure about that than with people I see in person, because all I see of you guys are letters on a computer screen, and, especially in the burgeoning world of AI, there is some room for doubt, of which I give you the benefit.

Bottom line we cannot rationally "prove" that the physical world exists, much less that it is shared with anyone, and ultimately there is no point in trying to logically parse it out. You, Riddley, suggest that if we "take the position that we are part of the world around us, part of nature like the sky is part of nature, then the dilemma dissolves into absurdity." But that requires taking a logical leap of faith. If we don't take that position, then the dilemma still exists. Logic cannot come to the rescue.

We have to step over the line into faith, or at least into mysticism. Which makes all my arguments above so much useless chatter, wasted time and energy. As the The Tao te Ching concludes, "Good men do not argue/Those who argue are not good/Those who know are not learned/The learned do not know."

My apologies.

 

[Riddley Walker]

Good. So let's not argue about it.

 

[Louanne Learning]

The discussions on this thread have been very enlightening, and I love hearing other people's ideas and perspectives.

A bit of wisdom comes to me (I think from the ancient Greeks?) - that "the greatest compliment you can pay a person is to challenge them."

 

[Schism]

Sometimes it's not about building one's belief in isolation but deconstructing (thoroughly) someone else's. He understands, therefore he is.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Sometimes it's not about building one's belief in isolation but deconstructing (thoroughly) someone else's. He understands, therefore he is.

Go for it

 

[Schism]

Go for it

I'm watching my favorite TV show (even though I can't prove it philosophically) and might be too lazy for such deconstructions. However what I meant was building a more resilient belief structure could be based on pointing out logical flaws in someone else's reasoning rather than having a habit of defending one's viewpoints. So the effect of that would be built over time.

 

[Louanne Learning]

However what I meant was building a more resilient belief structure could be based on pointing out logical flaws in someone else's reasoning rather than having a habit of defending one's viewpoints. So the effect of that would be built over time.

Ah! the uncommitted critic