Experience rather than experiment is the basic source of human knowledge

[paarsurrey]

Basically, instinct and emotion brought us here.

To where we are now, and in life.

Instinct and emotion are a part of our life; they cannot exist without us.

 

[Orias]

Instinct and emotion are a part of our life; they cannot exist without us.

What does this have to do with what I said?

 

[jasonwill2]

I don't get you; please elaborate.

Most of our goals are driven by an emotion or instinct, but we use logic or reason to help us get to that goal.

For example, it's an instinct to want to learn about the world around you, as knowing more means you can better see dangers and possible things that can help you. If you have a instinctual disposition to curiosity, it might lead you to discovering fire, or of how pullies work, and you might also discover by watching that alligators live in that river as your curosity had you paying close attention to all the interesting looking stuff. I'm talking about pre-historic man in this example.

If you have an instinct to kill your enemies to preserve your life, you might use logic and trial and error experiments to make the sharpest kind of weapon. This is a more ancient example.

I'm saying that emotions and instincts are our motivations for doing much of anything, but that we use logic, skills and reasoning to help us get what will satisfy those instincts or emotions, such as a guy learning how to seduce women to sleep with them to satisfy lust, or that a scientist uses formal logic to satisfy his instinct to learn, or use science to channel his desire to observe and his need to feel inspired or in awe of the world around him. many scientists marvel at nature, and it is why many go into science, it is just facinating to them and it fills them with this feeling of appreciation of how aesthetic they see it as. Thus science becomes a way for the scientists who love nature an avenue to feel all those nice feelings of discovery and awe. Many say they do the work that they do because they "love" it, and love is an emotion after all, learning and discovery makes them feel good.

 

[paarsurrey]

Most of our goals are driven by an emotion or instinct, but we use logic or reason to help us get to that goal.

For example, it's an instinct to want to learn about the world around you, as knowing more means you can better see dangers and possible things that can help you. If you have a instinctual disposition to curiosity, it might lead you to discovering fire, or of how pullies work, and you might also discover by watching that alligators live in that river as your curosity had you paying close attention to all the interesting looking stuff. I'm talking about pre-historic man in this example.

If you have an instinct to kill your enemies to preserve your life, you might use logic and trial and error experiments to make the sharpest kind of weapon. This is a more ancient example.

I'm saying that emotions and instincts are our motivations for doing much of anything, but that we use logic, skills and reasoning to help us get what will satisfy those instincts or emotions, such as a guy learning how to seduce women to sleep with them to satisfy lust, or that a scientist uses formal logic to satisfy his instinct to learn, or use science to channel his desire to observe and his need to feel inspired or in awe of the world around him. many scientists marvel at nature, and it is why many go into science, it is just facinating to them and it fills them with this feeling of appreciation of how aesthetic they see it as. Thus science becomes a way for the scientists who love nature an avenue to feel all those nice feelings of discovery and awe. Many say they do the work that they do because they "love" it, and love is an emotion after all, learning and discovery makes them feel good.

Mostly I agree with you; it shows that knowledge or truth already exists around us and we only discover it; we don't create it. Experiments are only a tool to discover the truth or knowledge but truth already exists and is not created by way of experiments.

 

[Curious George]

I only say that experiment is a tool to get experience mostly in the things material and physical; experience is the basic for human knowledge in all fields; experiment is not.

I thought that I detected a larger distinction between the two in you OP.

I can understand this reasoning though. Would you suggest that there are other tools? And, if so what are they? are any tools better than the others? is there any knowledge that is innate? If so, would this knowledge still qualify under experience because it was genetically transferred knowledge that has been won by our ancestors?

 

[paarsurrey]

I thought that I detected a larger distinction between the two in you OP.

I can understand this reasoning though. Would you suggest that there are other tools? And, if so what are they? are any tools better than the others? is there any knowledge that is innate? If so, would this knowledge still qualify under experience because it was genetically transferred knowledge that has been won by our ancestors?

In the things which are not physical or material there cannot be any experiments; yet there are other tools to get knowledge like Word of Revelation from the creator God.

 

[Tristesse]

In the things which are not physical or material there cannot be any experiments; yet there are other tools to get knowledge like Word of Revelation from the creator God.

If you can't perform experiments to verify it's existence, than by what criteria do you determine it exists?

 

[Thales of Ga.]

Paarsurrey, hardly. No evidence comes forth for any revelation, and all are mere manifestations of personal mental states as are all religious experiences, and to argue that the supernatural intrudes, begs the question.
Unconfirmed intuitions fare no better?
What then are those other venues of knowledge then of which haughty John Haught begs the question in his objurgation of naturalists not allowing such?

 

[gnostic]

Look, paarsurrey. Let's get something straight.

Experiment, as in the realm of science, is more formal process in methodology (scientific method) of testing if a (specific) hypothesis is verifiable (or not).

But as someone already point out to you, there are more than one mean of experiments. Not all experiments are done in the labs. The other is done informally for variety of reasons, contexts, or scopes. Experiment is one method of learning or gaining knowledge.

Whether you approach experiment - formally (scientific approach) or informally (everything else) - both of them are one way to gain EXPERIENCE. All experiments are EXPERIENCES, but not experiences are EXPERIMENTS.

For you to dismiss experiments as not being experience, showed your lack of appreciation of this type of experience.

Lastly, religious experience.

Religious experience is actually extremely limited.

You can experience religion in your interaction with others, your reading or learning religion from sacred books or teaching by someone. And you may take up the calling as a priest, cleric, scholar, imam, rabbi, etc (I don't know what religion you have).

But as to TRUE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, this is not really done. What I mean by true religious experience is this:

1. You don't have REVELATION like a real prophet would, therefore YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
2. You don't actually have INTERACTION with your god(s), angels, etc, so YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
3. You did not introduce new religious law or start a new religion like in the case of Muhammad, as a "Messenger", therefore YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
4. You did not write a new scripture or being dictated one, so YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
5. Nor have you eye-witness a prophet or messenger, so YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE TOO.
6. And you can't prove in any way that your deity exist.

If you're not a prophet or messenger, then how can you possibly say that RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE as being the "basic source of human knowledge"?

You may have read the scriptures and believe what the scriptures have to say, but taken on as faith; this is not truly a religious experience.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you can't perform experiments to verify it's existence, than by what criteria do you determine it exists?

Science has no existence except when it matches its results with nature; so nature is the mother of science, it existed when there was no science; the experiments only confirm what already in principle in existence and conform to nature, in my opinion.

 

[Thief]

For faith the experiment is in mind and heart.

There will be no photos, no equations, no fingerprints...
no repeatable experiments.

That's not to say there is no 'evidence'.

If anything repeats, it's this form we walk around in.
A device designed to generate unique spirits.
The creation of it is a reflection of it's Creator.

We are here to learn all we can and then...back to God we go.

 

[jasonwill2]

For faith the experiment is in mind and heart.

There will be no photos, no equations, no fingerprints...
no repeatable experiments.

That's not to say there is no 'evidence'.

If anything repeats, it's this form we walk around in.
A device designed to generate unique spirits.
The creation of it is a reflection of it's Creator.

We are here to learn all we can and then...back to God we go.

What do you mean no repeatable expirments? I can repeat the same type of rituals all the time.

 

[Willamena]

What do you mean no repeatable expirments? I can repeat the same type of rituals all the time.

Then where's the faith?

 

[painted wolf]

What do you mean no repeatable expirments? I can repeat the same type of rituals all the time.

The same type... but can you repeat the same conditions every time.

The same mental state, the same intonation, the same everything?

Do you get the same reproducible results every time?

wa:do

 

[jasonwill2]

Then where's the faith?

What? I don't understand the question; I work with what works for me, I don't put faith in anything that doesn't help me.

The same type... but can you repeat the same conditions every time.

The same mental state, the same intonation, the same everything?

Do you get the same reproducible results every time?

wa:do

Within a certain threshold, I can repeat the same types of magical practice and get the same results, given I get all the things down right. If I don't, the act really doesn't work. But when I do get them right, I get results. However they are not always the same results as many situations are different but the results are all similar in nature. Also "every time"? Considering that I can't control all the factors there is unpredictability in any magical act so no, but this is due to human error rather than the systems I use.

 

[Thief]

What do you mean no repeatable expirments? I can repeat the same type of rituals all the time.

That's quite a leap....comparing the scientific method to your rituals.

Perhaps you have an incantation to demonstrate?
And the results do need to be predictable.

 

[jasonwill2]

That's quite a leap....comparing the scientific method to your rituals.

Perhaps you have an incantation to demonstrate?
And the results do need to be predictable.

Yay! Everyone is asking me questions!

So you can try? Well it ain't gonna work with just mouthing the words by someone who doesn't understand or know how to set their mind into the altered state. The words are merely puppets, not the actual cause.

 

[paarsurrey]

What? I don't understand the question; I work with what works for me, I don't put faith in anything that doesn't help me.

Is it not a selfish approach? It should work for you and also to others, to be more correct.

 

[jasonwill2]

Is it not a selfish approach? It should work for you and also to others, to be more correct.

What? Why should it? What works for me may not work for you. And so what if you think I'm selfish? I'm a freaking Satanist after all lol. I'm very selfish because I do what benefits me, and even more selfishly I love others and would sacrifice so much of the world for them.

 

[paarsurrey]

Look, paarsurrey. Let's get something straight.

Experiment, as in the realm of science, is more formal process in methodology (scientific method) of testing if a (specific) hypothesis is verifiable (or not).

But as someone already point out to you, there are more than one mean of experiments. Not all experiments are done in the labs. The other is done informally for variety of reasons, contexts, or scopes. Experiment is one method of learning or gaining knowledge.

Whether you approach experiment - formally (scientific approach) or informally (everything else) - both of them are one way to gain EXPERIENCE. All experiments are EXPERIENCES, but not experiences are EXPERIMENTS.

For you to dismiss experiments as not being experience, showed your lack of appreciation of this type of experience.

Lastly, religious experience.

Religious experience is actually extremely limited.

You can experience religion in your interaction with others, your reading or learning religion from sacred books or teaching by someone. And you may take up the calling as a priest, cleric, scholar, imam, rabbi, etc (I don't know what religion you have).

But as to TRUE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE, this is not really done. What I mean by true religious experience is this:

1. You don't have REVELATION like a real prophet would, therefore YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
2. You don't actually have INTERACTION with your god(s), angels, etc, so YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
3. You did not introduce new religious law or start a new religion like in the case of Muhammad, as a "Messenger", therefore YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
4. You did not write a new scripture or being dictated one, so YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.
5. Nor have you eye-witness a prophet or messenger, so YOU DON'T HAVE THIS RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE TOO.
6. And you can't prove in any way that your deity exist.

If you're not a prophet or messenger, then how can you possibly say that RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE as being the "basic source of human knowledge"?

You may have read the scriptures and believe what the scriptures have to say, but taken on as faith; this is not truly a religious experience.

I did not dismiss experiments; but experiments (the formal ones) are limited in the physical and material realms; these cannot be extended to other realms.