People claiming "personal" surety of gods existance.

Memnoch

mangaroosh wrote: »

You are totally correct, the proof of the pudding is be " in the eating via tastebuds, another process documented and identified scientifically". This might perhaps, give us a foundation on which to understand the disconnect between science and spirituality, and how they are complementary as opposed to competing.

While the process of taste, is indeed a well scientifically, documented process, it does not provide a complete and thorough description of what it is actually like to taste something.

To paraphrase [some dude I had never heard of before] Swami Satchidananda,


While science can give us the detailed, scientific account of what happens during the baking process [of the blueberry pie], spirituality deals with our own experience of actually eating the pie.

So while the emotions that are described, might have their origins in our evolution history, it does not change the fact that we experience them. Knowing scientifically what happens to the body, when we experience them, doesn't change the fact that we experience them.

The ironic thing is, that the practice of spirituality is such, that it teaches us to try and look at our emotions more objectively, and not interpret them subjectively. The practice of meditation is focused on cultivating non-attachment and non-judgement towards our experiences, that is, not to label them as good or bad, nice or not nice (or according to any other conceptual scheme). Spirituality is focused on becoming aware of the physical sensations, and not interpreting them as anything other than physical sensations - the practice is focused on cultivating a more objective state of mind.

We can only do this ourselves, no one else can train our minds for us. Scientific information can help in the process of looking at things more objectively, but it is still us who have to look at things more objectively.

Don't buy it. You're making a subjective claim for which you have no real proof or backing, beyond your claim, and you're trying to make it seem like there is some objectivity to it by trying to define spirituality as some kind of equal measure, when it is not.

At the end of they day you just can't get around the whole lack or proof or emperical evidence issue because the standard for actual proof is what raises something beyond endless debate to accepted fact or at least reasonably accepted fact.

You want all the benefits of objectivity, logic and proof, without actually having to apply their underlying principles. Convincing yourself that your "spirituality" is objective is all part of the con.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

So while the emotions that are described, might have their origins in our evolution history, it does not change the fact that we experience them. Knowing scientifically what happens to the body, when we experience them, doesn't change the fact that we experience them.

Of course not, science is explaining a phenomena (the pie, you, your reaction when eating it).

Spirituality adds nothing to this knowledge.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The ironic thing is, that the practice of spirituality is such, that it teaches us to try and look at our emotions more objectively, and not interpret them subjectively. The practice of meditation is focused on cultivating non-attachment and non-judgement towards our experiences, that is, not to label them as good or bad, nice or not nice (or according to any other conceptual scheme). Spirituality is focused on becoming aware of the physical sensations, and not interpreting them as anything other than physical sensations - the practice is focused on cultivating a more objective state of mind.

And it fails miserably. So why not just use science.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

While we know that "experience exists", the content of the experience can change, so while any logical inferences from "experience exists", would be based on assumptions, they could potentially be verified against the changing content of experience.

This would depend on what is logically inferred, and how the inferences are conceptualised. If the concepts used, have an inherent assumption of existence, they would probably be incorrect and only "verifiable" through a mistaken [conceptualisation of an] experience.

So do you agree that, if the existence of anything other than experience is claimed, then it is an assumption, or follows from assumptions, and is not necessarily true?

roosh

Memnoch wrote: »

Don't buy it. You're making a subjective claim for which you have no real proof or backing, beyond your claim, and you're trying to make it seem like there is some objectivity to it by trying to define spirituality as some kind of equal measure, when it is not.

At the end of they day you just can't get around the whole lack or proof or emperical evidence issue because the standard for actual proof is what raises something beyond endless debate to accepted fact or at least reasonably accepted fact.

You want all the benefits of objectivity, logic and proof, without actually having to apply their underlying principles. Convincing yourself that your "spirituality" is objective is all part of the con.

It's good that you don't buy it, because you are not being asked to.

We need to separate out the two premises here, because they appear to be getting blurred, that is the validity of spiritual empiricism and the claim that God exists. While the latter depends on the former, proving the former, does not prove the latter. That is, even if spiritual empiricism is valid, it doesn't mean that God exists. Spiritual empiricims can be valid, but God might still not exist.

And just so we are clear, this discussion has not been an attempt to "prove" the existence of God, as has been stated countless times over and over, no amount of colourful language can do that. The central topic of this thread is the validity of personal experience, when it comes to acquiring knowledge, and therefore knowing whether or not God exists. Again, verifying the former, does not prove the latter.

I have been guilty of overstating the comparisons between the scientific approach and the spiritual approach, in terms of empiricism, when it may have been more fruitful to show where the two do not overlap, and thereby verify the inapplicability of scientific empiricism in matters of a spiritual nature, that is, in matters that concern the nature of the mind, and "the self".

The first thing we can do is ask a number of questions, to try to establish this:

• Do you believe that you exist?
• If yes, why?
• If so, can you carry out a scientific experiment to verify this?

• Do you believe that you are conscious?
• If so, why?
• Can you outline a scientific experiment to verify this?

• Do believe you have "a mind"?
• If yes, why?
• Can you outline a scientific experiment to verify this?

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course not, science is explaining a phenomena (the pie, you, your reaction when eating it).

Spirituality adds nothing to this knowledge.

Nor does it try to, with one notable exception, and that is explaining and examining the phenomon that is "you", to give "you" a better undertanding of "your self", what you perceive to be "your self", and who "you" are in reality, or perhaps, who "you" are not. In this area, it adds quite a bit.

Wicknight wrote: »

And it fails miserably. So why not just use science.

Quite the opposite, it succeeds very well, unless of course that is the voice of experience speaking?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

So do you agree that, if the existence of anything other than experience is claimed, then it is an assumption, or follows from assumptions, and is not necessarily true?

Not quite. If the existence of anything, other than experience, is inferred from the statement "experience exists", then it is that inference that is based on an assumption(s).

This does not mean, that it is not necessarily true. It could quite possibly be true, the person who infers it, however, cannot know that it is true, unless they verify it emprically.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

Not quite. If the existence of anything, other than experience, is inferred from the statement "experience exists", then it is that inference that is based on an assumption(s).

This does not mean, that it is not necessarily true. It could quite possibly be true, the person who infers it, however, cannot know that it is true, unless they verify it emprically.

Such inferences cannot be verified empirically, as empiricism cannot be used to establish necessary truths.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Such inferences cannot be verified empirically, as empiricism cannot be used to establish necessary truths.

empirically could be the wrong word so. The means by which we can establish the necessary truth, that [what is referred to as] "Experience exists", would be the same method used to verify any inferences.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

empirically could be the wrong word so. The means by which we can establish the necessary truth, that [what is referred to as] "Experience exists", would be the same method used to verify any inferences.

The nihilist in me wants to say there is no such method, but anyway: The way we have established "experience exists" is experience. We can get away with this because it is effectively tautology. If there is experience, then there is experience. However, this cannot be extended beyond experience, so it could not be used as a method to know any other necessary truths.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

The nihilist in me wants to say there is no such method, but anyway: The way we have established "experience exists" is experience. We can get away with this because it is effectively tautology. If there is experience, then there is experience. However, this cannot be extended beyond experience, so it could not be used as a method to know any other necessary truths.

The issue, again, is when we try to look at this from a purely conceptual standpoint. The manner in which we have established that experience exists, is not tautology, because it does not rely on purely conceptual logic to arrive at this necessary truth.

The issue may be with the conceptualisation of it. How we have established that "experience exists" is by attributing the label "experience" to what from thenceforth would become known as experience*.

That is, there was [what was referred to as] experience, which was unlabelled. Then, in an attempt to communicate, the label "experience" was developed* and applied, so that the expression "experience exists" was not proven by the conceptual idea of experience, but rather by the actual "physical thing", that is referred to as experience.

*Or rather whatever the etymological root of the word is.


The issue is, that Logic is based on assumptions, which are sometimes assumed to be necessarily true. These truth assumptions, are based on conceptualisations, of the content, of particular experiences. As we mentioned, the contents of experience can change, and indeed they always do, while at the same time there may be certain elements that are common to all experiences. It is on the basis of this changing content of experience, that we can move beyond "experience exists" to establishing other necessary truths. We can also establish necessary truths, based on those elements that are common to all of our experiences.

The issue again, however, is with how we conceptualise either these common elements, or the changing content.

ColmDawson

mangaroosh wrote: »

*Or rather whatever the etymological root of the word is.

Experience: late 14c., from O.Fr. experience, from L. experientia "knowledge gained by repeated trials," from experientem (nom. experiens), prp. of experiri "to try, test," from ex- "out of" (see ex-) + peritus "experienced, tested." The verb (1530s) first meant "to test, try;" sense of "feel, undergo" first recorded 1580s.

etymonline

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

The issue, again, is when we try to look at this from a purely conceptual standpoint. The manner in which we have established that experience exists, is not tautology, because it does not rely on purely conceptual logic to arrive at this necessary truth.

The issue may be with the conceptualisation of it. How we have established that "experience exists" is by attributing the label "experience" to what from thenceforth would become known as experience*.

That is, there was [what was referred to as] experience, which was unlabelled. Then, in an attempt to communicate, the label "experience" was developed* and applied, so that the expression "experience exists" was not proven by the conceptual idea of experience, but rather by the actual "physical thing", that is referred to as experience.

*Or rather whatever the etymological root of the word is.


The issue is, that Logic is based on assumptions, which are sometimes assumed to be necessarily true. These truth assumptions, are based on conceptualisations, of the content, of particular experiences. As we mentioned, the contents of experience can change, and indeed they always do, while at the same time there may be certain elements that are common to all experiences. It is on the basis of this changing content of experience, that we can move beyond "experience exists" to establishing other necessary truths. We can also establish necessary truths, based on those elements that are common to all of our experiences.

The issue again, however, is with how we conceptualise either these common elements, or the changing content.

But we cannot move beyond "experience exists" on the basis of changing content of experience. No matter how the content changes, it will always be experience regardless of how we further conceptualise it, and never anything beyond experience.

[edit]-expanded a sentence to clarify my point

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

But we cannot move beyond "experience exists" on the basis of changing content of experience. No matter how the content changes, it will always be experience regardless of how we further conceptualise it, and never anything beyond experience.

[edit]-expanded a sentence to clarify my point

I think we can agree on this, to a certain extent, but again we should invoke the Buddhist caveat

don't mistake understanding for realisation, or realisation for liberation

The problem is, that we can, and do, conceptualise the content of our experience. In the case of Decartes, he conceptualised his experience of thinking as, cogito ergo sum - "I am thinking, therefore I exist".

It is these conceptualisation which are subject to the concepts of true and false, just as the conceptualisation "[what is referred to as] God exists" is. Indeed, it is such conceptualisations which form the central part of the conceptual framework, through which we view the world, which form what we assume are necessary truths, and which therefore materially affect our reasoning, as well as our acutal perception of reality.

If we try the below exercise again, this time in two different locations, we can see how the content of our experience changes, but how there is "something" common to both experiences

It's better to actually do the "experiment", rather than assume we know what the outcome will be

take a moment to stop with the logical analysis, and just become aware of your surroundings.

Focus on the breath for a few moments, pay attention to it, and see if you can focus on 7 complete breath cycles (in and out).

As you breath in, become aware of the sensations associated with breathing in, maybe the feeling of the air flowing in through your nostrils or mouth, the rise of your chest or your diaphragm. Be aware of any other sense perceptions around you.

See if you can focus on 7 complete cycles of breath.