What We Call 'Knowledge', Is Really ...

[PureX]

All we know is how it happened within it's physical context. Yet that tells us nothing about the origin or purpose of that physical context.

Please provide evidence that a volcano must have a purpose beyond venting pressure from the Earth's core. I'd also love to see what evidence you have that a volcano (or anything else for that matter) exists in any context other than the physical.

The volcano is just one more 'domino' in a chain of phenomenological causes and effects that extend far beyond the comprehension of humans. In fact, it's only "one domino" because that's how we have chosen to divide the phenomenon of existence up into physiological 'parts'. In truth, it's all of a whole, with all the 'parts' we designate playing their role. So the 'evidence' for the volcano's purpose in that it is an integral representative of a highly complex inter-related phenomenological 'happening'. Existence is an event taking place. An event that includes ourselves, the volcanoes, and every other perceived "part" of the whole. It's purpose is our purpose. It is the purpose of everything that is.

 

[PureX]

Why do you assume that physical things must have a purpose, though?

Because I can. All those causes and effects point us conceptually to the end and the beginning of their ongoing phenomenological process. And the magnitude of sophistication involved in their interactive 'set-up' clearly leads us to contemplate the intelligence of their 'design'.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The volcano is just one more 'domino' in a chain of phenomenological causes and effects that extend far beyond the comprehension of humans. In fact, it's only "one domino" because that's how we have chosen to divide the phenomenon of existence up into physiological 'parts'. In truth, it's all of a whole, with all the 'parts' we designate playing their role. So the 'evidence' for the volcano's purpose in that it is an integral representative of a highly complex inter-related phenomenological 'happening'. Existence is an event taking place. An event that includes ourselves, the volcanoes, and every other perceived "part" of the whole. It's purpose is our purpose. It is the purpose of everything that is.

Oh, we seem to be comprehending it rather well. We've figured out how the sun came to exist and how it spawned the creation of the planets and that volcanoes are a nature feature of a planet like ours. It's all part of an intricate collection of phenomenon we call the universe.

 

[WalterTrull]

Matthew 7:7-11
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: …

Matthew 18:19
Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 21:22
And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

 

[Tambourine]

Because I can. All those causes and effects point us conceptually to the end and the beginning of their ongoing phenomenological process. And the magnitude of sophistication involved in their interactive 'set-up' clearly leads us to contemplate the intelligence of their 'design'.

So your misgivings about science can be summed up as science not conforming to your assumptions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What we call "knowledge" is really just control. The more we "know" of our environment, ourselves, and each other, the better we are at controlling their affect on us. Which is WHY we "seek knowledge". What we're really seeking is greater control.

So, ... what we so often refer to as "truth", is really just relative functionality. If an idea of something "works" for us (gives us control over our environment), we accept it as being "true". If it doesn't "work" for us, we consider it "false".

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Any thoughts?

Think youre in control all you want, Nature will still slap you silly and toss your carcass six feet in the ground. Physics will still toss your about like a rag doll. People and their x factors and variables and them not being robots can see to it that the heads of kings roll.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Because I can. All those causes and effects point us conceptually to the end and the beginning of their ongoing phenomenological process. And the magnitude of sophistication involved in their interactive 'set-up' clearly leads us to contemplate the intelligence of their 'design'.

Or it could just be that **** happens.

 

[PureX]

Oh, we seem to be comprehending it rather well. We've figured out how the sun came to exist and how it spawned the creation of the planets and that volcanoes are a nature feature of a planet like ours. It's all part of an intricate collection of phenomenon we call the universe.

You're not listening.

 

[PureX]

So your misgivings about science can be summed up as science not conforming to your assumptions.

That's a bizarre response to my post. I have no idea how to answer it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You're not listening.

I've listened to everything you've had to say... perhaps you need to find a better way of saying it.

 

[Straw Dog]

Knowledge and truth are all about functional control. And not at all about gaining an accurate understanding of 'what is', as we are all so often telling ourselves.

Any thoughts?

Knowledge is logical and truth achieves mathematical harmony in a system.

2+2=4

This is true whether or not we gain greater or lesser control.

 

[Tambourine]

That's a bizarre response to my post. I have no idea how to answer it.

In other words, you lack the knowledge to control this conversation.

Your purpose is just another attempt to control existence, to mold what you experience into a corset of meaning, an intellectual act of violence against inner and outer worlds to combat the despair of individual/individualized existence.

But instead of engaging in futile struggle against despair, in a desperate attempt to gain power and control, you could just as easily abandon these pretensions of control and purpose, and free your existence from the confining corset of teleology.

 

[PureX]

Knowledge is logical and truth achieves mathematical harmony in a system.

2+2=4

This is true whether or not we gain greater or lesser control.

Human logic is based on functionality. Not on truth. Our logic assumes truth is determined by functionality.

Math is a purely intellectual system that only applies to our experience of existence by ignoring our bias. 2+2=nothing. Because 2=nothing. 2 does not exist except as an abstract concept in our heads. To apply this concept to our experience of existence we have to willfully ignore how nothing can "equal" anything else. And how nothing exists apart from anything else, except through our own biased perceptions.

 

[Straw Dog]

Human logic is based on functionality. Not on truth. Our logic assumes truth is determined by functionality.

Math is a purely intellectual system that only applies to our experience of existence by ignoring our bias. 2+2=nothing. Because 2=nothing. 2 does not exist except as an abstract concept in our heads. To apply this concept to our experience of existence we have to willfully ignore how nothing can "equal" anything else. And how nothing exists apart from anything else, except through our own biased perceptions.

Wouldn’t ‘control’ also just be an abstract concept in our heads based upon our own biased perceptions then?

“2+2“ and “4“ are two different ways of saying the same exact thing. Math is purely tautological in theory, ie true by necessity and virtue of its logical form.

I agree that numbers are not things, but mathematics is a knowledge about the quantity of and relationship between things.

 

[PureX]

Wouldn’t ‘control’ also just be an abstract concept in our heads based upon our own biased perceptions then?

Control is when our biased perceptions 'function' as we'd imagined them to.

“2+2“ and “4“ are two different ways of saying the same exact thing. Math is purely tautological in theory, ie true by necessity and virtue of its logical form.

There are no "exact same things", though. That isn't physiologically possible. The tautology is purely imaginary. It exists nowhere but in our minds.

I agree that numbers are not things, but mathematics is a knowledge about the quantity of and relationship between things.

But it's just a conceptual 'overlay'. A biased construct. Like framing a scene to create a "picture" of it that we then think has captured reality, for us. It's captured nothing. It's simply excluded everything beyond our preferred consideration. Applied mathematics does much the same thing.

 

[osgart]

Knowledge is precise and accurate approximations of reality that often also serve as being useful for human purposes, and often they do not.

Logic inferred from fact is often philosophy. Logic can be consistent and valid yet not necessarily true. Philosophy is more about the effort to ask pertinent and useful questions in regards to any topic. Philosophy is free to speculate.

Deduction serves as being undeniable fact because the correct deduction is obviously true. Inductions are probabilistic and speculative.

Fact is something that can not be denied given the right information in the proper context. Knowledge is understanding the facts.

I myself do not think that most physical things have purpose. Nor is knowledge necessarily serving any purpose. I do think intelligence manipulates the physical reality and has its own dimension to reality but that is a speculation and belief of mine.

 

[Tambourine]

Human logic is based on functionality. Not on truth. Our logic assumes truth is determined by functionality.

Math is a purely intellectual system that only applies to our experience of existence by ignoring our bias. 2+2=nothing. Because 2=nothing. 2 does not exist except as an abstract concept in our heads. To apply this concept to our experience of existence we have to willfully ignore how nothing can "equal" anything else. And how nothing exists apart from anything else, except through our own biased perceptions.

Nothing has intrinsic meaning, including the words you use, so I don't understand why that's the issue you get hung up on.

 

[Straw Dog]

Control is when our biased perceptions 'function' as we'd imagined them to.

I don’t know, man. Your argument seems self-defeating if you deny the use of logic in discerning truth from falsehood. This means you can’t use it to defend your perspective. We both just have our preferred conceptual overlays with no rational method to determine which is correct and which is incorrect.

I can agree that applied knowledge is mostly about gaining greater control over ourselves and environments. I think knowledge in itself is just about seeking an understanding. It may not be a perfect or complete understanding, but it’s still a possible understanding based on logic and evidence.

 

[PureX]

Nothing has intrinsic meaning, including the words you use, so I don't understand why that's the issue you get hung up on.

Using the phrase "hung up" is supposed to imply some sort of flaw, here?

 

[PureX]

I don’t know, man. Your argument seems self-defeating if you deny the use of logic in discerning truth from falsehood.

The point is that we are not discerning truth from falsehood. We are discerning functionality from dysfunction. Function is an aspect of truth, but it does not define truth. How something functions is not the truth of it's existence.

This means you can’t use it to defend your perspective. We both just have our preferred conceptual overlays with no rational method to determine which is correct and which is incorrect.

All perspectives are partial, and therefor partially "incorrect", because truth is a singular whole. The truth is 'what is'. And we have no way of knowing the degree to which we are incorrect because we do not have access to the whole of 'what is'.

Unfortunately, because we humans survive and thrive by knowing our circumstances well enough to manipulate it to our advantage, we are inherently frightened of anything we can't know well enough to control. And to alleviate this existential fear, we like to imagine that we 'know it all', or can, even when we clearly do not, and cannot. Hence, the recent emergence of 'scientism' replacing religious superstition, wherein science becomes the presumed fountainhead of all knowledge and truth, as opposed to divine revelations from "God". But science can only investigate functional relationships in the physical realm of existence. And so 'scientism' deliberately ignores and dismisses any other means or areas of existential investigation: art, philosophy, spiritualism, etc., and their methods: intuition, fantasy, superstition, emotion, and so on.