I've moved my blog to Wordpress. You may now find articles at:
nowlos.wordpress.com
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Introduction to Nowlos
Introduction to the topic:
The following is a series of pieces I wrote up some years ago to explain a philosophical point of view in simple terms. I invented the word "nowlos", used just like the word "know" but with a deeper meaning: it isn't false. The word "knowledge" to some people implies that there can still be error, whether it be innately in what is "known" or in the person's interpretation of that. The idea beyond creating nowlos is an attempt to label what truth humans possess - what we can trust. At some point, I intend to speak about the difference between knowing and believing, which will attempt to argue away any objections to the idea of nowlos or anything I have said in this paragraph, but no guarantees. XD
========================
Limitation of Knowledge
------------------------
Introduction
We seek truth, we seek some connection with it, fact that is undeniable. Many of us who have explored various logical paths have realized that it is not only impossible to prove, that is, declare as truth beyond the shadow of a doubt, the existence of God, but it is also impossible to prove, according to the same such definition, the existence of oneself. Such men, particularly Soren Kierkegaard, believed such facts because they seemed to be consistent with man's knowledge of reality. Kierkegaard was one of them who did not find reason to deny the existence of God, but rather understood that it is equally impossible to prove that God does not exist. However, being that we live in a broad world full of many perspectives, there are undoubtedly people whose perspective differs from this, believing that man can know things. They think that, because an idea is in mind, it must be true. There are an innumerable number of errors in this - far too many to label. Nevertheless, only the aforementioned philosophers find this peculiar and an unacceptable definition. In the common man's eye, it is reasonable to accept that some knowledge may be faulty, and therefore not true, even if he denies such a claim. For example, a banker may state that he knows the money he put in the bank safe is still there even though, unbeknown to him, a thief came and took it. Rather than redefining the ordinary person's definition and having to explain why this redefinition makes the word inapplicable everywhere, I propose a simple definition for study:
Knowledge -- The possession of ideas believed to be true.
What determines whether some knowledge is considered as truth is science, or more precisely, study. On the most basic level, this means observation of phenomenon. Those of you who are scientists already probably have an understanding of the word "phenomenon", but for those who don't, I present an example: Consider throwing a rubber ball at a wall. Assuming you are in an isolated system (that is, one in which your experiment will not be interfered with beyond the ones normally expected such as gravity), the ball should bounce off the wall once you have thrown the ball with the proper amount of velocity in a direction towards the wall. I say proper amount of velocity because the ball does need enough speed to reach the wall so you can observe the collision. The collision will result in the reversal of the ball's direction. If you repeat this experiment, the ball will observe the ball bouncing off the wall every time they collide. Thus, we say that the ball consistently bounces off the wall when the two collide. In science, this would be called scientific law because, given that the circumstances remain the same (and for the most part, they do), the observation reveals the same result. It is important to note that scientific law, as we have just discussed, does not say anything about the cause of the result, that is to say, the law does not say anything about the underlying principle (in this case, the "transfer of momentum"). This is a very important fact as shall be presented.
Before we continue, you should be aware of the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. A law is a phenomenon - it has a condition (ex. a ball colliding with a wall) and a result (ex. the ball bounces away from the wall it collides with). A theory is an idea of the cause, that is, an explanation for the result (in our example, the cause was the principle of momentum transfer). Theory does not have to be true for the law to be true. The theory may be completely wrong, therefore, it is better to refer to a theory as a suggestion that explains a law (or explains another theory). It is important to note this because, as a matter of fact, all human observation is science, and much of what we believe is in fact only theory. Nevertheless, possession of information concerning the theory (that is, information about what the theory says or what it is) is, by academia, considered to be knowledge.
Of a Great Many Apples
The following is an analysis of scientific law and theory:
Suppose a scientist (or anyone in general) went out to observe what would happen if they left an apple on their back porch. Assuming they watch carefully and live in a wooded area, the person might observe a squirrel climb upon their porch and steal the apple. If the repeat this experiment day after day and they observe the same thing happens, they may conclude that a squirrel will steal an apple from off of their porch if they leave it there. This idea is consistent with reality, therefore, it is considered true. Suppose one day, a bird steals the apple. No longer is the person's past observation scientific law. Rather than throwing away the idea, however, scientists generally modify it, adding various restrictions so that the law will remain consistent with what is observed is reality. In the given example, the condition for the law to be true might be given the addendum: "as long as another animal does not take the apple first". Notice that the law (Squirrels steal apples) says nothing about the cause (Why squirrels steal apples).
Ideally, the law is true for a multitude of cases. However, the more we examine the scenario, the more restrictive the conditions in the law would be in order for it to remain consistent with reality. It the example, for instance, the person may discover another person taking their apple or the apple being eaten by fungus or the apple being blown away by the wind. There are an infinite number of scenarios that would lead to the law being violated, and thus the condition of the law would have to be restricted all the more. However, as human beings who cannot devise every possibly scenario (nor care about most of them), we settle for the most functional definition, that is, the one based off of the results from scenarios we have observed.
The Apple in a Room
Given that we observe what seem to be all possible scenarios of interest, or at least those that are most common, we make assumptions. It is fundamental to human nature to make assumptions. Without making assumptions, we would not be able to progress very far in pursuit of knowledge. However, with assumptions, we also skew our view of truth, or at the very least, skew our view of how truth should be attained.
Recall that if an idea is consistent with reality, we say that the idea is a law or, at the very least, we assume it is true for all scenarios of interest, that is, those scenarios whose explanations can be explained in terms of our past experiences. We turn our attention, now, to examine the possibility of this not being the case; we set there be the possibility that we have not observed all scenarios of interest or have forgotten them. There is nothing other than our faulty intuition to say that this is not the case. In fact, people often forget that is possible they have not considered (or believed in the possibility of) all of the possibilities. Hence, when they are informed of their error, they are surprised. This surprise occurs only when the person makes an assumption, regardless of whether they are closed-minded and confident about something but also when they are seeking truth (as do detectives).
Now, an attempt will be made to surprise you. Suppose there is an apple in an empty room with a table in the center. A person walks in the room and sets an apple on the table. The person leaves the room, noticing no one come in or out. When the person returns, they find the apple missing from the table. A good detective is also a good practical philosopher. This is why practical philosophers like G.K. Chesterton could write mystery books like Father Brown. These men ask practical questions and make themselves aware of the situation. In light of their example, there ought to be a thorough analysis of things. Such an analysis might reveal that the window in the back of the room in open. It would reveal footsteps of various shapes on the floor and leading up to the table. A variety of thieves come to mind; the natural assumption, based on past experiences of ours, might be to assume that another individual or creature stole the apple. How else could it be missing. How much time elapsed between when the person left the room and when they returned. At this point in the analysis, it may seem extraneous to speak of details outside of the room, considering we only want to know what happened within it. However, now we shift the analysis to things unquestioned. For example, where is the room? We learn it is in a house? How old is the person who entered the room with the apple? - Maybe age 8 or 9. What was going on at the time? - Someone was yelling. What was the yeller shouting? - "Bring it back!" After a thorough analysis, we discover that the simplest explanation for the disappearance of the apple was that the person who put it on the table proceeded to pick it up and return it to the person shouting at them. This is a practically reasonable explanation, but one often overlooked. Many people discover things in their pockets that they had put there and had simply forgotten about.
It is important that you extract from this the fact that our assumptions and opinions can error, and not only that, but see a practical example of it. There are many books of wisdom and science that explain, in one way or another, we can be wrong, have faulty knowledge (that is, knowledge that is inapplicable to reality), or make assumptions that were not useful. However, this principle is not often applied, despite how fundamentally it is to world view or personal perspective on everything ranging from core beliefs, to personal relationships to one's favorite kind of apple.
Expanding Consideration
There is a pressing question that is often overlooked because of its annoyance: Why not? It is the response question to "Why?" The latter question asks for a cause; the former question asks for the restrictions or the system. If there are no restrictions on a system, there is no cause nor need of it. The lack of restrictions is the cause or allows something to be the cause.
For example, suppose a bird dropped an apple into a bucket. The likelihood of that occurring is quite rare, and therefore unexpected. If someone who observed such an event were to be questioned by someone who did not wake the same observation, the latter might question why the apple is in the bucket. The observer can claim that a bird dropped the apple in, but the questioner might be in disbelief, given the unlikelihood of such an event, unless he makes such an observation himself. When he objects, the observer might ask "Why not?", questioning why the doubter thinks a bird could not have dropped the apple into the bucket. The observer is seeking for the limitations that would restrict a bird from dropping an apple in the bucket. In short, there is a lack of restrictions, which allows for the bird dropping the apple to be the cause of the apple in the bucket. The apple's arrival in the bucket is obviously no the only route an apple could have taken in order to enter the bucket. For instance, the observer could have dropped an apple in the bucket. However, the bird dropping the apple is nevertheless a viable explanation.
There are an infinite number of examples of unlikely causes resulting in events that could have been caused in simpler ways, but I have resorted to choosing these few and hopefully you will begin to understand the idea. Utilizing questions such as "why not?", we can begin to see the arising of a great number of absurdities having possibility. These possibilities are considered unlikely, not because they are impossible, but because we have neither experienced them nor are we able to contrive a "simple" explanation as to how they might come about. Unfortunately, this is the case with many ideas, silly ones or not. The phrase "today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality" comes to mind. Nevertheless, if a person cannot contrive or is unable to obtain from someone else a "simple" or reasonable explanation for something, they are not as likely to believe it. Notice, here, we make the assumption that something is only possible if it can be explained. This, however, is not the case, and by making that kind of assumption, we limit the options we are able to conceive as possibilities.
Examine for yourself the possibilities. Think of a scenario and begin to envision all of the things associated with it. To make it easier, insert something into the scenario something that you normally would not imagine in it. If you come up with an idea and decide to reject it, ask yourself why you rejected it. Then try to come up with viable reasons for why those things that you did include should or should not be present. In a sense, you are becoming a story writer, but at the same time, you are improving your philosophy. There is a paradox you ought to remember that some people have not yet applied to itself: The more you know, the more you know how little you know. Hence, Socrates said, "I know that I am wise because I know that I know nothing." The more possibilities you have, the more "why not?" questions you ought to have, and then you may begin to realize just how little you know and how many things are actually possible.
======================
Blur
----------------------
Knowledge can be flawed, as was already examined. If we disagree, we obviously are not sharing the same knowledge or the same perspective. One of us might be wrong. As discussed in Limitation of Knowledge, the definition of knowledge is the possession of ideas that one believes to be true. A translator (in other words, a perspective), is required to interpret these ideas. A person does not have knowledge of an apple if they cannot recognize one when they sense it (come into contact with it, touch it, taste it, smell it, etc.). They person has an idea of an apple that they believe to be true in reality. For those of us who can see, an apple is usually a red, smooth, rounded fruit with a stem. Apples vary in shape and size, but the general idea remains the same.
There is an inconsistency with the idea and reality. Though consistency is intended to be the proof of an idea (that is, what makes an idea knowledge), it ends up countering the definition. To perceive what I mean, consider an apple being morphed beyond recognition. The apple could be elongated from top to bottom for its morphing. The question of key importance is, At what point does the object cease to be an apple? When does it become merely a cylindrical fruit, or does it ever lose its apple nature? If you believe apples are forever apples, then consider it in your digestive tract or just consider an entirely different object. There are multiple examples like this that could demonstrate the same point. One example: What is the transition state of a person when they go from jogging to running? Or when does the jogging begin to become a run? Or is it always a run just less so than could be? The essence of each question asks for a boundary, a limitation, a definition. There are disagreements on this, but the fact is, it is easy for a person to distinguish someone in a full-fledged run from someone who is simply jogging. And yet, people disagree on this as well. The fact is, knowledge is limited to such definitions. And yet, we don't have a definition of "jogging" or "running" that is consistent amongst all people. What we do possess are similar enough ideas that we can communicate. That is why you can understand what I am saying to a certain degree despite the fact that you neither share my perspective nor possess the exact same idea, or at least, that's what I assume.
======================
Nowlos
----------------------
Sandstorm
A definition of knowledge was presented in Limitation of Knowledge that seems to be the most common one shared by people, but the definition is described in such a way that only the current writer of this document understands its intended meaning. (In the future, I will have probably forgotten the meaning of that phrase, even if I know the principle behind it.) Rather than altering this definition, I propose letting it (or whatever definition of knowledge you currently do have) remain unchanged. I do this not only to avoid conflict with redefinition of the word, but more appropriately because of the limitation of knowledge.
Psychology has greatly assisted us in understanding the human mind. Through it, we have studied what appear to be cases of insanity, that is, when a person is "out of touch" with reality. In some cases, a person can experience peculiar sensations: feeling, seeing, and hearing things that no one else is, and are thus considered by "normal" people as not representative of reality. However, we find that "normal" people are susceptible to experiencing similar delusions when traveling through the desert without haven eaten for many days. Considering that there is a possibility of everything, it is possible that humanity itself is delusional, or rather, believing things about reality that may be entirely constructs of our minds. The phrase "your mind can play tricks on you" points out the fact that there is a disconnect between our mind and reality. That is, when I see an apple, an apple could be in front of me or I could be dreaming of it. Nevertheless, I see the apple. This brings up an important point. But first, turn your attention to two-dimensional art.
Influence of Art
The realm of art has presented an important aspect about reality: it can be represented in two dimensions. If reality can be represented on a surface with two dimensions, then it should be obviously possible that reality itself might be two-dimensional. Why not? I have yet to find a reasonable answer to this question, even though I continue to believe in three-dimensional space. Reality, regardless of whether reality is two-dimensional or three-dimensional, it appears to act in a manner that we believe is three-dimensional. This, however, does not prove that reality is three-dimensional. Why should it? Why should it not? There seem to be no identifiable boundaries other than our own definitions of things, which may or may not be boundaries, depending on your perspective of reality.
Admittedly, one could assume that the two-dimensional nature of things is invalid, for even "two dimensional" works of art are conveyed through mediums possessing three dimensions. But that is not what is of interest. What we are interested in is the nature of the image to appear as though it had a dimensional aspect that it does not have. If someone drew an apple on a page and "made it look realistic", the apple would appear as though it were as wide in every respect as every other apple even though we believe it is flat. It is this aspect that we find of most interest and that to which have called attention in our comparison of two-dimensional art to reality.
Nowlos
So far, effort has been made to draw to your attention the possibility that the world may not be as you believe it to be. Everything could be just a myth of your mind. Admittedly, this is a discomforting feeling and many people I have spoken with will outright deny it: a response that is expected, especially considering that the human desire to know truth makes anything that would suggest they are far from it seem undesirable. Why even accept such ideas? Doesn't everything work anyways? Once again, we return to the idea of consistency: if something is repeated enough times with the same result, it is deemed as truth or being representative of reality.
What is of interest in this study, then, is not knowledge, but something far more fundamental than knowledge. Something that every human possessing the faculty for is capable of having - a starting ground. In other words, what is being sought by epistemologists and like-minded philosophers: something we "truly know" beyond the shadow of a doubt: truth. We are interested in possessing truth, but knowledge may or may not give it to us. Precisely, we want some connection that relates our ideas to reality. But all we have are the faculty we have been given: our senses.
As a philosopher searching for truth, I am not interested in sub-conscious knowledge - only in conscious knowledge. What I am not aware of is not of interest since I cannot sense it consciously. The good philosophers reading this will note that I have skipped a great deal of debate concerning sub-conscious knowledge and its role. I have done so precisely for the reason of avoiding contestation. If something can be reasonably contested then obviously that something is not an undeniable source of truth. This is particularly true for a blind man: he can deny that anyone else can see simply for the reason that he cannot see. What then is of most interest is that of the senses. Those with the senses cannot reasonably deny them. Granted, it is true that one can deny anything. But to deny something reasonably, the claim of reality that their denial makes must be consistent with reality. Recognize too there is a difference between denying an idea in name and denying an idea in concept. For instance, if someone told their friend that apples were square, orange boxes, the friend would be in disbelief if they believe that apples are round, red fruit. However, if the person were referring to orange boxes by the name of "apple", then whenever they say "apple", to them it means an orange box. I have discovered that this example can be misinterpreted easily, despite the fact that it is closely tied with the idea of different languages. A pattern of sounds may refer to something completely different in one language than it does in another. However, it seems people are more willing to accept this idea only in the context of comparing linguistics than they are in a simple example in their own language. Nevertheless, the problem does occur: various words take on various meanings as they are used. In search of truth, then there must be some way of avoiding having to put it in words, given that words are, as has been shown, rather vague in their definitions.
The point of presenting these limitations on "knowledge", as shown in the ambiguity of definitions words and faultiness of assumptions in perceptions of reality, was to demonstrate that the only truth we can possess (in the raw, undeniable form that philosophers want) is from our senses, specifically through the faculty that bring them about. Note that a person does not need eyes in order to see, but if one does not possess some faculty to bring about sight, then one cannot "see". In the same way, a person cannot hear if they do not have faculty for bringing about the sense, but they do not need ears to hear. By faculty, I do not mean an external mechanism that attaches directly to your brain. Your brain is perfectly capable of generating its own idea of sound. I wish to call to your attention the specific experiences associated with these senses. The experience a person receives from one sense is different from what is experienced with another sense. No one makes the mistake of believing that they heard the sunset when they merely watched the sun setting. The experience is entirely different. One can listen to sounds and visualize the things associated with them, but that visualization is nevertheless distinct from those sounds.
To describe not only the distinction between the experiences from the senses, but also to relate them to truth without conveying the notion that they may be flawed as knowledge is flawed, I have devised the word "Nowlos". Nowlos is similar to knowledge in that it speaks about reality. In contrast to knowledge, it does not imply the possibility of error. Nowlos refers to the experience of each sense. We nowlos that we see, even if we do not know what it is that we see. For example, I may be observing a red apple. I do not necessarily know that what I am seeing is indeed an apple or that it is real. I could be dreaming, I might be staring at a picture, or I could be mistaken about what an apple is (that is, the object in front of me is not the same as what I believe to be true of an apple). I do, however, see an area of red in my vision. I consider this splotch of red to be an apple because it has the shape I expect of an apple whether it be one or not. I nowlos what I see: I see a splotch of red. I cannot make any claim about the splotch of red other than that it is in my vision. The same can be said for that of smell: I nowlos the scent of apple, even if I do not know from what the scent originated. The principle carries over to the other senses, including smell, touch, and taste. There is question over whether we have more senses, particularly time or spiritual sense. Some have contested the sense of time, claiming that we are merely in a constant state. However, to state such is a contradiction in itself: which state are we possessing? Surely what I will learn in five days is not known now, otherwise it would be the time after five days. We are aware of the passing of time, that is, we have faculty for it (or at least some of us do), and thus we nowlos it: we nowlos the change in time, even if we do not know its rate or even what to label it. This brings up an important point: one does not have to have a label for a sense in order to nowlos something from utilizing that sense. That utilization provides nowlos. A person can see even if they do not have a word for "sight". A person can hear and nowlos what they hear even if they have no word or concept of hearing.
The definition of nowlos is deeper than as first presented. Nowlos refers to incontestable experience. For example, we experience differences in sounds. The key of "A" is obviously different than the key of "B" unless you are tone-deaf. Furthermore, it is true that the color of red is different than the color of green unless you are color blind. When the two keys are played together, a non-tone-deaf person can nowlos that there are two different sounds even if they do not know which sounds. This ability diminishes as the two sounds are brought closer in frequency. Until they are the same frequency, a person can nowlos the difference even if they do not notice it. There is thus a difference between noticing (or being aware of something) and nowlos. Where the former is what you can consciously detect, the latter is truth that you possess.
Given that nowlos speaks of truth and reality, there ought to be some questions arising in your mind.
First, what about those who are insane, or out of touch with reality, particularly those who see things that no one else sees. In such cases, each of these people does nowlos what they see. That is truth. However, what they nowlos will probably not help them outside of their bodies. (I can conceive of ways that it would, but all of which are special cases.) In other words, they do not nowlos anything in the world outside of the confines of their mind. Of course, neither do we, but at least we seem to have a functional, consistent model of what's going on.
The second question you might ask is if we have other senses. If we are not consciously aware of the sense, we probably do not know anything from it even if we nowlos it. There are two senses that I did not discuss, 1) because discussion of them is ambiguous, 2) because they are not necessarily senses in the ordinary sense of the word, no pun intended. One of these two is that of thought. We nowlos that we think, even if we do not know what we are thinking about. We do not have to visualize things, we merely are connecting ideas. We do not have to understand anything about those ideas; we just happen to nowlos that there are distinct things passing through our minds. These things we call "ideas". The other "sense" that we may possess is that of another realm. We may have many such senses, and I leave room for that possibility, but we are not as aware of them as we are the aforementioned. We do not nowlos that there are other senses, much less know that there are, but if we do possess them, we can nowlos things from them.
One last thing to note is that a sense can be lost. When such is the case, one can no longer obtain nowlos from that sense.
Extending Nowlos
What if one could nowlos the physical, that is, not just nowlos that they see and nowlos that they see color but nowlos what it is they see. This is not only beyond merely knowing aspects of an object, such as its dimensions or whether it tangible, but beyond asking for an innate sense of knowledge of an object. Someone already beat me to the best word for the term. It is called "grokking", though I'm afraid this particular word is not understood the same way that I have in mind. Nevertheless, it generally conveys the idea: that one possesses the raw truth about something, not merely an understanding of it.
Limitation of Knowledge
------------------------
Introduction
We seek truth, we seek some connection with it, fact that is undeniable. Many of us who have explored various logical paths have realized that it is not only impossible to prove, that is, declare as truth beyond the shadow of a doubt, the existence of God, but it is also impossible to prove, according to the same such definition, the existence of oneself. Such men, particularly Soren Kierkegaard, believed such facts because they seemed to be consistent with man's knowledge of reality. Kierkegaard was one of them who did not find reason to deny the existence of God, but rather understood that it is equally impossible to prove that God does not exist. However, being that we live in a broad world full of many perspectives, there are undoubtedly people whose perspective differs from this, believing that man can know things. They think that, because an idea is in mind, it must be true. There are an innumerable number of errors in this - far too many to label. Nevertheless, only the aforementioned philosophers find this peculiar and an unacceptable definition. In the common man's eye, it is reasonable to accept that some knowledge may be faulty, and therefore not true, even if he denies such a claim. For example, a banker may state that he knows the money he put in the bank safe is still there even though, unbeknown to him, a thief came and took it. Rather than redefining the ordinary person's definition and having to explain why this redefinition makes the word inapplicable everywhere, I propose a simple definition for study:
Knowledge -- The possession of ideas believed to be true.
What determines whether some knowledge is considered as truth is science, or more precisely, study. On the most basic level, this means observation of phenomenon. Those of you who are scientists already probably have an understanding of the word "phenomenon", but for those who don't, I present an example: Consider throwing a rubber ball at a wall. Assuming you are in an isolated system (that is, one in which your experiment will not be interfered with beyond the ones normally expected such as gravity), the ball should bounce off the wall once you have thrown the ball with the proper amount of velocity in a direction towards the wall. I say proper amount of velocity because the ball does need enough speed to reach the wall so you can observe the collision. The collision will result in the reversal of the ball's direction. If you repeat this experiment, the ball will observe the ball bouncing off the wall every time they collide. Thus, we say that the ball consistently bounces off the wall when the two collide. In science, this would be called scientific law because, given that the circumstances remain the same (and for the most part, they do), the observation reveals the same result. It is important to note that scientific law, as we have just discussed, does not say anything about the cause of the result, that is to say, the law does not say anything about the underlying principle (in this case, the "transfer of momentum"). This is a very important fact as shall be presented.
Before we continue, you should be aware of the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory. A law is a phenomenon - it has a condition (ex. a ball colliding with a wall) and a result (ex. the ball bounces away from the wall it collides with). A theory is an idea of the cause, that is, an explanation for the result (in our example, the cause was the principle of momentum transfer). Theory does not have to be true for the law to be true. The theory may be completely wrong, therefore, it is better to refer to a theory as a suggestion that explains a law (or explains another theory). It is important to note this because, as a matter of fact, all human observation is science, and much of what we believe is in fact only theory. Nevertheless, possession of information concerning the theory (that is, information about what the theory says or what it is) is, by academia, considered to be knowledge.
Of a Great Many Apples
The following is an analysis of scientific law and theory:
Suppose a scientist (or anyone in general) went out to observe what would happen if they left an apple on their back porch. Assuming they watch carefully and live in a wooded area, the person might observe a squirrel climb upon their porch and steal the apple. If the repeat this experiment day after day and they observe the same thing happens, they may conclude that a squirrel will steal an apple from off of their porch if they leave it there. This idea is consistent with reality, therefore, it is considered true. Suppose one day, a bird steals the apple. No longer is the person's past observation scientific law. Rather than throwing away the idea, however, scientists generally modify it, adding various restrictions so that the law will remain consistent with what is observed is reality. In the given example, the condition for the law to be true might be given the addendum: "as long as another animal does not take the apple first". Notice that the law (Squirrels steal apples) says nothing about the cause (Why squirrels steal apples).
Ideally, the law is true for a multitude of cases. However, the more we examine the scenario, the more restrictive the conditions in the law would be in order for it to remain consistent with reality. It the example, for instance, the person may discover another person taking their apple or the apple being eaten by fungus or the apple being blown away by the wind. There are an infinite number of scenarios that would lead to the law being violated, and thus the condition of the law would have to be restricted all the more. However, as human beings who cannot devise every possibly scenario (nor care about most of them), we settle for the most functional definition, that is, the one based off of the results from scenarios we have observed.
The Apple in a Room
Given that we observe what seem to be all possible scenarios of interest, or at least those that are most common, we make assumptions. It is fundamental to human nature to make assumptions. Without making assumptions, we would not be able to progress very far in pursuit of knowledge. However, with assumptions, we also skew our view of truth, or at the very least, skew our view of how truth should be attained.
Recall that if an idea is consistent with reality, we say that the idea is a law or, at the very least, we assume it is true for all scenarios of interest, that is, those scenarios whose explanations can be explained in terms of our past experiences. We turn our attention, now, to examine the possibility of this not being the case; we set there be the possibility that we have not observed all scenarios of interest or have forgotten them. There is nothing other than our faulty intuition to say that this is not the case. In fact, people often forget that is possible they have not considered (or believed in the possibility of) all of the possibilities. Hence, when they are informed of their error, they are surprised. This surprise occurs only when the person makes an assumption, regardless of whether they are closed-minded and confident about something but also when they are seeking truth (as do detectives).
Now, an attempt will be made to surprise you. Suppose there is an apple in an empty room with a table in the center. A person walks in the room and sets an apple on the table. The person leaves the room, noticing no one come in or out. When the person returns, they find the apple missing from the table. A good detective is also a good practical philosopher. This is why practical philosophers like G.K. Chesterton could write mystery books like Father Brown. These men ask practical questions and make themselves aware of the situation. In light of their example, there ought to be a thorough analysis of things. Such an analysis might reveal that the window in the back of the room in open. It would reveal footsteps of various shapes on the floor and leading up to the table. A variety of thieves come to mind; the natural assumption, based on past experiences of ours, might be to assume that another individual or creature stole the apple. How else could it be missing. How much time elapsed between when the person left the room and when they returned. At this point in the analysis, it may seem extraneous to speak of details outside of the room, considering we only want to know what happened within it. However, now we shift the analysis to things unquestioned. For example, where is the room? We learn it is in a house? How old is the person who entered the room with the apple? - Maybe age 8 or 9. What was going on at the time? - Someone was yelling. What was the yeller shouting? - "Bring it back!" After a thorough analysis, we discover that the simplest explanation for the disappearance of the apple was that the person who put it on the table proceeded to pick it up and return it to the person shouting at them. This is a practically reasonable explanation, but one often overlooked. Many people discover things in their pockets that they had put there and had simply forgotten about.
It is important that you extract from this the fact that our assumptions and opinions can error, and not only that, but see a practical example of it. There are many books of wisdom and science that explain, in one way or another, we can be wrong, have faulty knowledge (that is, knowledge that is inapplicable to reality), or make assumptions that were not useful. However, this principle is not often applied, despite how fundamentally it is to world view or personal perspective on everything ranging from core beliefs, to personal relationships to one's favorite kind of apple.
Expanding Consideration
There is a pressing question that is often overlooked because of its annoyance: Why not? It is the response question to "Why?" The latter question asks for a cause; the former question asks for the restrictions or the system. If there are no restrictions on a system, there is no cause nor need of it. The lack of restrictions is the cause or allows something to be the cause.
For example, suppose a bird dropped an apple into a bucket. The likelihood of that occurring is quite rare, and therefore unexpected. If someone who observed such an event were to be questioned by someone who did not wake the same observation, the latter might question why the apple is in the bucket. The observer can claim that a bird dropped the apple in, but the questioner might be in disbelief, given the unlikelihood of such an event, unless he makes such an observation himself. When he objects, the observer might ask "Why not?", questioning why the doubter thinks a bird could not have dropped the apple into the bucket. The observer is seeking for the limitations that would restrict a bird from dropping an apple in the bucket. In short, there is a lack of restrictions, which allows for the bird dropping the apple to be the cause of the apple in the bucket. The apple's arrival in the bucket is obviously no the only route an apple could have taken in order to enter the bucket. For instance, the observer could have dropped an apple in the bucket. However, the bird dropping the apple is nevertheless a viable explanation.
There are an infinite number of examples of unlikely causes resulting in events that could have been caused in simpler ways, but I have resorted to choosing these few and hopefully you will begin to understand the idea. Utilizing questions such as "why not?", we can begin to see the arising of a great number of absurdities having possibility. These possibilities are considered unlikely, not because they are impossible, but because we have neither experienced them nor are we able to contrive a "simple" explanation as to how they might come about. Unfortunately, this is the case with many ideas, silly ones or not. The phrase "today's science fiction is tomorrow's reality" comes to mind. Nevertheless, if a person cannot contrive or is unable to obtain from someone else a "simple" or reasonable explanation for something, they are not as likely to believe it. Notice, here, we make the assumption that something is only possible if it can be explained. This, however, is not the case, and by making that kind of assumption, we limit the options we are able to conceive as possibilities.
Examine for yourself the possibilities. Think of a scenario and begin to envision all of the things associated with it. To make it easier, insert something into the scenario something that you normally would not imagine in it. If you come up with an idea and decide to reject it, ask yourself why you rejected it. Then try to come up with viable reasons for why those things that you did include should or should not be present. In a sense, you are becoming a story writer, but at the same time, you are improving your philosophy. There is a paradox you ought to remember that some people have not yet applied to itself: The more you know, the more you know how little you know. Hence, Socrates said, "I know that I am wise because I know that I know nothing." The more possibilities you have, the more "why not?" questions you ought to have, and then you may begin to realize just how little you know and how many things are actually possible.
======================
Blur
----------------------
Knowledge can be flawed, as was already examined. If we disagree, we obviously are not sharing the same knowledge or the same perspective. One of us might be wrong. As discussed in Limitation of Knowledge, the definition of knowledge is the possession of ideas that one believes to be true. A translator (in other words, a perspective), is required to interpret these ideas. A person does not have knowledge of an apple if they cannot recognize one when they sense it (come into contact with it, touch it, taste it, smell it, etc.). They person has an idea of an apple that they believe to be true in reality. For those of us who can see, an apple is usually a red, smooth, rounded fruit with a stem. Apples vary in shape and size, but the general idea remains the same.
There is an inconsistency with the idea and reality. Though consistency is intended to be the proof of an idea (that is, what makes an idea knowledge), it ends up countering the definition. To perceive what I mean, consider an apple being morphed beyond recognition. The apple could be elongated from top to bottom for its morphing. The question of key importance is, At what point does the object cease to be an apple? When does it become merely a cylindrical fruit, or does it ever lose its apple nature? If you believe apples are forever apples, then consider it in your digestive tract or just consider an entirely different object. There are multiple examples like this that could demonstrate the same point. One example: What is the transition state of a person when they go from jogging to running? Or when does the jogging begin to become a run? Or is it always a run just less so than could be? The essence of each question asks for a boundary, a limitation, a definition. There are disagreements on this, but the fact is, it is easy for a person to distinguish someone in a full-fledged run from someone who is simply jogging. And yet, people disagree on this as well. The fact is, knowledge is limited to such definitions. And yet, we don't have a definition of "jogging" or "running" that is consistent amongst all people. What we do possess are similar enough ideas that we can communicate. That is why you can understand what I am saying to a certain degree despite the fact that you neither share my perspective nor possess the exact same idea, or at least, that's what I assume.
======================
Nowlos
----------------------
Sandstorm
A definition of knowledge was presented in Limitation of Knowledge that seems to be the most common one shared by people, but the definition is described in such a way that only the current writer of this document understands its intended meaning. (In the future, I will have probably forgotten the meaning of that phrase, even if I know the principle behind it.) Rather than altering this definition, I propose letting it (or whatever definition of knowledge you currently do have) remain unchanged. I do this not only to avoid conflict with redefinition of the word, but more appropriately because of the limitation of knowledge.
Psychology has greatly assisted us in understanding the human mind. Through it, we have studied what appear to be cases of insanity, that is, when a person is "out of touch" with reality. In some cases, a person can experience peculiar sensations: feeling, seeing, and hearing things that no one else is, and are thus considered by "normal" people as not representative of reality. However, we find that "normal" people are susceptible to experiencing similar delusions when traveling through the desert without haven eaten for many days. Considering that there is a possibility of everything, it is possible that humanity itself is delusional, or rather, believing things about reality that may be entirely constructs of our minds. The phrase "your mind can play tricks on you" points out the fact that there is a disconnect between our mind and reality. That is, when I see an apple, an apple could be in front of me or I could be dreaming of it. Nevertheless, I see the apple. This brings up an important point. But first, turn your attention to two-dimensional art.
Influence of Art
The realm of art has presented an important aspect about reality: it can be represented in two dimensions. If reality can be represented on a surface with two dimensions, then it should be obviously possible that reality itself might be two-dimensional. Why not? I have yet to find a reasonable answer to this question, even though I continue to believe in three-dimensional space. Reality, regardless of whether reality is two-dimensional or three-dimensional, it appears to act in a manner that we believe is three-dimensional. This, however, does not prove that reality is three-dimensional. Why should it? Why should it not? There seem to be no identifiable boundaries other than our own definitions of things, which may or may not be boundaries, depending on your perspective of reality.
Admittedly, one could assume that the two-dimensional nature of things is invalid, for even "two dimensional" works of art are conveyed through mediums possessing three dimensions. But that is not what is of interest. What we are interested in is the nature of the image to appear as though it had a dimensional aspect that it does not have. If someone drew an apple on a page and "made it look realistic", the apple would appear as though it were as wide in every respect as every other apple even though we believe it is flat. It is this aspect that we find of most interest and that to which have called attention in our comparison of two-dimensional art to reality.
Nowlos
So far, effort has been made to draw to your attention the possibility that the world may not be as you believe it to be. Everything could be just a myth of your mind. Admittedly, this is a discomforting feeling and many people I have spoken with will outright deny it: a response that is expected, especially considering that the human desire to know truth makes anything that would suggest they are far from it seem undesirable. Why even accept such ideas? Doesn't everything work anyways? Once again, we return to the idea of consistency: if something is repeated enough times with the same result, it is deemed as truth or being representative of reality.
What is of interest in this study, then, is not knowledge, but something far more fundamental than knowledge. Something that every human possessing the faculty for is capable of having - a starting ground. In other words, what is being sought by epistemologists and like-minded philosophers: something we "truly know" beyond the shadow of a doubt: truth. We are interested in possessing truth, but knowledge may or may not give it to us. Precisely, we want some connection that relates our ideas to reality. But all we have are the faculty we have been given: our senses.
As a philosopher searching for truth, I am not interested in sub-conscious knowledge - only in conscious knowledge. What I am not aware of is not of interest since I cannot sense it consciously. The good philosophers reading this will note that I have skipped a great deal of debate concerning sub-conscious knowledge and its role. I have done so precisely for the reason of avoiding contestation. If something can be reasonably contested then obviously that something is not an undeniable source of truth. This is particularly true for a blind man: he can deny that anyone else can see simply for the reason that he cannot see. What then is of most interest is that of the senses. Those with the senses cannot reasonably deny them. Granted, it is true that one can deny anything. But to deny something reasonably, the claim of reality that their denial makes must be consistent with reality. Recognize too there is a difference between denying an idea in name and denying an idea in concept. For instance, if someone told their friend that apples were square, orange boxes, the friend would be in disbelief if they believe that apples are round, red fruit. However, if the person were referring to orange boxes by the name of "apple", then whenever they say "apple", to them it means an orange box. I have discovered that this example can be misinterpreted easily, despite the fact that it is closely tied with the idea of different languages. A pattern of sounds may refer to something completely different in one language than it does in another. However, it seems people are more willing to accept this idea only in the context of comparing linguistics than they are in a simple example in their own language. Nevertheless, the problem does occur: various words take on various meanings as they are used. In search of truth, then there must be some way of avoiding having to put it in words, given that words are, as has been shown, rather vague in their definitions.
The point of presenting these limitations on "knowledge", as shown in the ambiguity of definitions words and faultiness of assumptions in perceptions of reality, was to demonstrate that the only truth we can possess (in the raw, undeniable form that philosophers want) is from our senses, specifically through the faculty that bring them about. Note that a person does not need eyes in order to see, but if one does not possess some faculty to bring about sight, then one cannot "see". In the same way, a person cannot hear if they do not have faculty for bringing about the sense, but they do not need ears to hear. By faculty, I do not mean an external mechanism that attaches directly to your brain. Your brain is perfectly capable of generating its own idea of sound. I wish to call to your attention the specific experiences associated with these senses. The experience a person receives from one sense is different from what is experienced with another sense. No one makes the mistake of believing that they heard the sunset when they merely watched the sun setting. The experience is entirely different. One can listen to sounds and visualize the things associated with them, but that visualization is nevertheless distinct from those sounds.
To describe not only the distinction between the experiences from the senses, but also to relate them to truth without conveying the notion that they may be flawed as knowledge is flawed, I have devised the word "Nowlos". Nowlos is similar to knowledge in that it speaks about reality. In contrast to knowledge, it does not imply the possibility of error. Nowlos refers to the experience of each sense. We nowlos that we see, even if we do not know what it is that we see. For example, I may be observing a red apple. I do not necessarily know that what I am seeing is indeed an apple or that it is real. I could be dreaming, I might be staring at a picture, or I could be mistaken about what an apple is (that is, the object in front of me is not the same as what I believe to be true of an apple). I do, however, see an area of red in my vision. I consider this splotch of red to be an apple because it has the shape I expect of an apple whether it be one or not. I nowlos what I see: I see a splotch of red. I cannot make any claim about the splotch of red other than that it is in my vision. The same can be said for that of smell: I nowlos the scent of apple, even if I do not know from what the scent originated. The principle carries over to the other senses, including smell, touch, and taste. There is question over whether we have more senses, particularly time or spiritual sense. Some have contested the sense of time, claiming that we are merely in a constant state. However, to state such is a contradiction in itself: which state are we possessing? Surely what I will learn in five days is not known now, otherwise it would be the time after five days. We are aware of the passing of time, that is, we have faculty for it (or at least some of us do), and thus we nowlos it: we nowlos the change in time, even if we do not know its rate or even what to label it. This brings up an important point: one does not have to have a label for a sense in order to nowlos something from utilizing that sense. That utilization provides nowlos. A person can see even if they do not have a word for "sight". A person can hear and nowlos what they hear even if they have no word or concept of hearing.
The definition of nowlos is deeper than as first presented. Nowlos refers to incontestable experience. For example, we experience differences in sounds. The key of "A" is obviously different than the key of "B" unless you are tone-deaf. Furthermore, it is true that the color of red is different than the color of green unless you are color blind. When the two keys are played together, a non-tone-deaf person can nowlos that there are two different sounds even if they do not know which sounds. This ability diminishes as the two sounds are brought closer in frequency. Until they are the same frequency, a person can nowlos the difference even if they do not notice it. There is thus a difference between noticing (or being aware of something) and nowlos. Where the former is what you can consciously detect, the latter is truth that you possess.
Given that nowlos speaks of truth and reality, there ought to be some questions arising in your mind.
First, what about those who are insane, or out of touch with reality, particularly those who see things that no one else sees. In such cases, each of these people does nowlos what they see. That is truth. However, what they nowlos will probably not help them outside of their bodies. (I can conceive of ways that it would, but all of which are special cases.) In other words, they do not nowlos anything in the world outside of the confines of their mind. Of course, neither do we, but at least we seem to have a functional, consistent model of what's going on.
The second question you might ask is if we have other senses. If we are not consciously aware of the sense, we probably do not know anything from it even if we nowlos it. There are two senses that I did not discuss, 1) because discussion of them is ambiguous, 2) because they are not necessarily senses in the ordinary sense of the word, no pun intended. One of these two is that of thought. We nowlos that we think, even if we do not know what we are thinking about. We do not have to visualize things, we merely are connecting ideas. We do not have to understand anything about those ideas; we just happen to nowlos that there are distinct things passing through our minds. These things we call "ideas". The other "sense" that we may possess is that of another realm. We may have many such senses, and I leave room for that possibility, but we are not as aware of them as we are the aforementioned. We do not nowlos that there are other senses, much less know that there are, but if we do possess them, we can nowlos things from them.
One last thing to note is that a sense can be lost. When such is the case, one can no longer obtain nowlos from that sense.
Extending Nowlos
What if one could nowlos the physical, that is, not just nowlos that they see and nowlos that they see color but nowlos what it is they see. This is not only beyond merely knowing aspects of an object, such as its dimensions or whether it tangible, but beyond asking for an innate sense of knowledge of an object. Someone already beat me to the best word for the term. It is called "grokking", though I'm afraid this particular word is not understood the same way that I have in mind. Nevertheless, it generally conveys the idea: that one possesses the raw truth about something, not merely an understanding of it.
Philosophical Coverage
I began exploring philosophy at age 18. It spawned out of my desire to prove the existence of God beyond the shadow of a doubt. That turned out to be a silly idea for a multitude of reasons, primarily beginning with the problem of defining "God", which isn't possible if one wishes to speak of the real one, and ending with the fact that nothing can be proven. I am not, however, agnostic - if I was to even accept agnosticism on the basis of philosophy, I would feel compelled to go the whole extent of denying the elements of reality were any bit distinguishable (which they are, as I intend to explain).
Epistemology is a very interesting subject. Yes, anyone can appreciate it once they understand it. However, I have yet to see someone put it in layman's terms. Therefore, I bestow on myself that task. This post will begin what will probably be a long series of posts to explain epistemology in understandable terms. As you read, you will probably have objections, but hopefully, you will have more questions, a sign that you are actually understanding what I'm saying and not just basing your interpretation of my words off of your first impression.
For speaking about epistemology, I've chosen a simple outline. It is important that, in examining my posts, you follow the logic pattern in the order of the outline. Note that by no means does this say that the subsequent posts will be in this order. Rather, I will select from these topics and proceed to develop what I've said about them. I would prefer that you "get the gist" of what I'm saying than trying to remember my exact words since the way I phrase things will probably not be how you are accustomed to seeing them (and the idea you perceive after reading each sentence will probably not be what I had in mind when I wrote it).
The outline I have chosen is as follows:
> Introduction to the topic
> Philosophical Chaos
> Practical applications
> What we can trust
Introduction to the topic
Articles in this category are meant to begin explaining philosophy and epistemology. Commonly-used terminology will be explained. Furthermore, the origins of philosophy (including examinations of ancient philosophical ideas, how they may have been developed, and what their implications are) will be presented.
Philosophical Chaos
Articles in this category are designed to explain the concept of what I call "philosophical chaos", an idea that describes the lack of truth and definition of things. It accounts for why proof of things is impossible and arguments can go either way. The implications of philosophical chaos and the consequences of its implications will be explored in articles discussing it.
Practical applications
The articles will attempt to present the practical applications of epistemology and philosophical chaos. These articles may also cover the abuses of epistemology, including both how people speak negatively about it and how people have misused it.
What we can trust
These articles will present ideas against having a purely existentialistic or nihilistic point of view. They will also present ideas that counter the applicability of philosophical chaos to the real world. In other words, there is such a thing as absolute truth. The concept of nowlos will be explored but only as much as it can be.
Epistemology is a very interesting subject. Yes, anyone can appreciate it once they understand it. However, I have yet to see someone put it in layman's terms. Therefore, I bestow on myself that task. This post will begin what will probably be a long series of posts to explain epistemology in understandable terms. As you read, you will probably have objections, but hopefully, you will have more questions, a sign that you are actually understanding what I'm saying and not just basing your interpretation of my words off of your first impression.
For speaking about epistemology, I've chosen a simple outline. It is important that, in examining my posts, you follow the logic pattern in the order of the outline. Note that by no means does this say that the subsequent posts will be in this order. Rather, I will select from these topics and proceed to develop what I've said about them. I would prefer that you "get the gist" of what I'm saying than trying to remember my exact words since the way I phrase things will probably not be how you are accustomed to seeing them (and the idea you perceive after reading each sentence will probably not be what I had in mind when I wrote it).
The outline I have chosen is as follows:
> Introduction to the topic
> Philosophical Chaos
> Practical applications
> What we can trust
Introduction to the topic
Articles in this category are meant to begin explaining philosophy and epistemology. Commonly-used terminology will be explained. Furthermore, the origins of philosophy (including examinations of ancient philosophical ideas, how they may have been developed, and what their implications are) will be presented.
Philosophical Chaos
Articles in this category are designed to explain the concept of what I call "philosophical chaos", an idea that describes the lack of truth and definition of things. It accounts for why proof of things is impossible and arguments can go either way. The implications of philosophical chaos and the consequences of its implications will be explored in articles discussing it.
Practical applications
The articles will attempt to present the practical applications of epistemology and philosophical chaos. These articles may also cover the abuses of epistemology, including both how people speak negatively about it and how people have misused it.
What we can trust
These articles will present ideas against having a purely existentialistic or nihilistic point of view. They will also present ideas that counter the applicability of philosophical chaos to the real world. In other words, there is such a thing as absolute truth. The concept of nowlos will be explored but only as much as it can be.
Blog revival
It's been a long time since I've posted on this blog. I've learned more about life, philosophy, and theology in that time, so some of this stuff has become outdated. Surprisingly, my philosophical wanderings haven't changed so much. Expect to see in this blog more philosophical musings as well as thoughts concerning interesting topics in theology and religion. Note that this blog is confined to ideas that have been well thought out as opposed to being recent news.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Song of Losoam
(written Aug 28, 2010)
==================
I peeked into a universe
where creatures don't understand
their universe like gelatin
their memory like sand.
I became thankful
that I know my God above
who comforts and teaches
by His everlasting love.
They needed a God so loving
so caring and so kind
but none could be found for them
in whose love they could reside.
The greatest mystery for me
was why they did exist.
They had no memory to tell of
by what cause they came to be.
To their world I gave a name
the mournful land of Losoam
and gave to them the title
of the creatures of Losoam.
I find no words to express
their pitiful estate
save to express in every sense
how no silence they could break.
They had no mouth to speak
no ears to hear a sound
no hands to clap or signal
to eyes they did not have.
But of all the things to notice
this one was important
that they had no understanding
but possessed a consciouness.
Their fate was forboding;
no future did they have.
The past was all forgotten,
the present now at hand.
Without a fear or worry
should be their lot in life;
yet they feared so immensely
their lack of purpose or plan.
Within them an emptiness,
a black pit of dispair:
no hope, no dreams, no pleasures
no reason for them to care.
How they longed for something,
I cannot even describe.
Their thoughts like ours vaguely;
they actually had minds.
One of them spoke out
to me who could hear.
With newly-granted voice he spoke;
this purpose was it for:
He sang to me a song:
the Song of Sad Losoam;
about their ever-forsaking god
who left them all alone:
Weep, weep
gone HE is
our one and only.
No one to care
no one to share
no love to all of us.
Fear, doubt, loneliness;
we fear the loneliness.
Emptiness without HIM;
no HIM to make us whole.
Dependent we are upon HIM.
HE made this vast expanse.
HE placed us in this space;
HE put us in emptiness.
Oh our hearts, our empty hearts;
nothing will us fill.
Lack we understanding;
freedom we do not know.
Then turn to me it did,
a creature of fear and woe.
To me he gave this command
that I must always obey:
Give thanks to your God
who reigns in heaven above
and bestowed on you the blessings
that come from faithful love.
I reflect upon this journey
into the Losoam land
and gratefulness fills my heart
to God for all He's planned.
No ignorance have I
in matters I should know:
not a type of omniscience
but enough to seek Him so.
No separation from God,
lest it be by my choice;
but not now that I know God,
who gave me this voice.
==================
I peeked into a universe
where creatures don't understand
their universe like gelatin
their memory like sand.
I became thankful
that I know my God above
who comforts and teaches
by His everlasting love.
They needed a God so loving
so caring and so kind
but none could be found for them
in whose love they could reside.
The greatest mystery for me
was why they did exist.
They had no memory to tell of
by what cause they came to be.
To their world I gave a name
the mournful land of Losoam
and gave to them the title
of the creatures of Losoam.
I find no words to express
their pitiful estate
save to express in every sense
how no silence they could break.
They had no mouth to speak
no ears to hear a sound
no hands to clap or signal
to eyes they did not have.
But of all the things to notice
this one was important
that they had no understanding
but possessed a consciouness.
Their fate was forboding;
no future did they have.
The past was all forgotten,
the present now at hand.
Without a fear or worry
should be their lot in life;
yet they feared so immensely
their lack of purpose or plan.
Within them an emptiness,
a black pit of dispair:
no hope, no dreams, no pleasures
no reason for them to care.
How they longed for something,
I cannot even describe.
Their thoughts like ours vaguely;
they actually had minds.
One of them spoke out
to me who could hear.
With newly-granted voice he spoke;
this purpose was it for:
He sang to me a song:
the Song of Sad Losoam;
about their ever-forsaking god
who left them all alone:
Weep, weep
gone HE is
our one and only.
No one to care
no one to share
no love to all of us.
Fear, doubt, loneliness;
we fear the loneliness.
Emptiness without HIM;
no HIM to make us whole.
Dependent we are upon HIM.
HE made this vast expanse.
HE placed us in this space;
HE put us in emptiness.
Oh our hearts, our empty hearts;
nothing will us fill.
Lack we understanding;
freedom we do not know.
Then turn to me it did,
a creature of fear and woe.
To me he gave this command
that I must always obey:
Give thanks to your God
who reigns in heaven above
and bestowed on you the blessings
that come from faithful love.
I reflect upon this journey
into the Losoam land
and gratefulness fills my heart
to God for all He's planned.
No ignorance have I
in matters I should know:
not a type of omniscience
but enough to seek Him so.
No separation from God,
lest it be by my choice;
but not now that I know God,
who gave me this voice.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Impossibility of Proving - a basic summary
It is impossible to prove that something is true in an absolute sense, that is, prove it is innately true. To do so would first require that the mechanisms or arguments used in the proof do indeed lead to truth. However, that requires that those mechanisms or arguments, used to show the former mechanisms or arguments are true, be shown to lead to truth. Ad infinitum. At some point, we may even question whether the idea of proving leads to truth, yet that is not in question because the definition of proving is the assembling of mechanisms or arguments to reveal truth. However, that in no way means that there are mechanisms or arguments that will lead to truth (for reasons given above). We cannot even be sure that the mechanisms or arguments are innately true themselves.
If something were innately true, we would not have to prove that it were true because we would know it innately. This is true with the senses: sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell, and such. Though the blind and the deaf may not see or hear, it does not nullify the fact that it is true that the person reading this sees and possibly hears. I may be the only person who exists to experience such sensations, yet the person reading this might make the same claim. I cannot prove that they experience them, though it does not nullify the fact if they do. Likewise, I experience the sensations and someone else cannot prove that I do not, however, they are unable to prove the fact to themselves, the fact being that I experience such sensations. To them, I speak what they think is only true for them and thus they make think that I speak merely myth. Somehow, that is quite unlikely, thus if someone reads this and contemplates on the notion that I might not be capable of any sensations, they ought to reconsider the idea - for if I write these things, it does not prove that I can experience some sensations, but there is great evidence for another soul in the world like them.
Friday, October 29, 2010
What Matters
Consider two atoms moving back and forth. Does God truly care about the fact that those atoms are moving or how they move? There are two answers, and both are correct. First: Yes, but only inasmuch as the atoms play a role in affecting a person's life. By God's divine control, all of the complications of reality sum up in such a way that every particle plays an important role in affecting choice of the free will of each and every person in the universe. Hence, each particle is significant in that respect. The second answer: No. Particles are only a medium through which God conveys His love and we convey our love to God (via acts directed to please Him, especially such acts of loving neighbor). The motion of these particles is irrelevant. With respect to how I perform an act of love, God does not care if I move particular molecules of air around someone in order to perform the act of hugging or if I move the molecules of air a quarter inch above the other molecules in order to perform the same action. To summarize, in and of themselves, particle motion is meaningless or without significance.
Amongst theists, there are various points of view as to how God created the human race. Did God do things exactly according to a literal, six-24-hour-day interpretation of Genesis, or did it God use a more gradual process, perhaps macro-scale evolution? The answer to this question is hidden within the reason as to why God made the universe in the first place.
See "for-love-of-humanity".
So if God created humanity for their love, why would He watch the world build itself up, even if does seem instantaneous to Him? Why wouldn't God get started on what is significant immediately? Critics have commented that they don't like to put-thoughts-in-God's-mind, so-to-speak, implying that I might be doing so. Honestly, I am in a sense, but this is not because I think I know God inside out, but because we CAN know what God has revealed to us about Himself. It is not putting-a-thought-in-God's head to quote First John and say that God is loving and loving leads to self-sacrifice ("This is love: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins." - 1 Jn 4:10). Hence, since God is Love, it is not wrong to have certain expectations of that love. For example, love considers the beloved significant. Everything else is not necessarily insignificant, unless it has no meaning to the lover apart from the beloved. Hence, considering all this and the fact that the motion of the particles is meaningless, it is impossible to conclude that anything besides humanity is worth occupying God's attention before humanity's creation. Thus, the ideas of macro-evolution (in which creation progresses towards the point of humanity) or even six-24-hour-day creation are absurd theologically-speaking. It would make more sense for God to do everything instantaneously.
Concerning macro-evolution and six-24-hour-day creation, there are problems with each.
First, macro-evolution relies purely on scientific arguments. Instead of relying on God to instantaneously do His will, the viewpoint attempts to conform religion with science, essentially putting God in a box where the idea of God becomes the well-criticized model of "the god of the gaps". There are also some people who may take a different viewpoint and say that God was taking pleasure in forming creation. However, once again, forming creation is essentially the meaningless motion of particles. How long would God, an eternal being of infinite patience and creativity, "watch" His creation take shape via the meaningless motion of particles? It might be argued that, in this case, the motion of the particles is not meaningless since it is building up for the human race. However, this argument is flawed in that it fails to realize that God, when He instantaneously creates something, can arrange the particles in the exact setup they need to be in and with the exact speeds they need to have in order to fulfill the exact same role as if they had a 60 billion year head start. When "God saw that it was good" (various verses in Genesis 1 say this), it does not necessarily mean that God's creation was now an enjoyable thing to watch for its own sake. On the contrary, it simply points to the fact that God instilled Himself in His work, and He is thus visible in it. Notice that it never says, "God delighted in His creation" in the accounts of creation.
The 24-hour-day creation has similar problems. First is the time delay, which has already been accounted for. Second is the indescriptive nature of the word "day". The original word in Hebrew is "yom", meaning some indeterminate time period: anywhere from a moment to however long you wanted; it does not specifically mean "day". The word is used for "day" occasionally, but remember that the Hebrews only knew of a "day" with respect to the sun. A day for them could just refer to the morning hours (6 AM to 6 PM), and not restricted to 24 hours. Considering that Genesis is written to the Hebrews who would have interpreted "day" in that way, it would seem peculiar that the first "day" of creation would be over before the earth (dry ground) even existed, since light was created first.
In conclusion, there is little or no Biblical evidence to support either the macro-evolution hypothesis or the six-24-hour-day creation. What is most probable is that God instantly created everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)