RE: On naturalism and consciousness
August 29, 2014 at 3:23 pm
(This post was last modified: August 29, 2014 at 4:03 pm by Mudhammam.)
(August 29, 2014 at 1:18 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: At this point I ask myself, about what kind of knowledge are we talking. What part of the object remains unknowable that could not conceivably be known?
This makes me think back, perhaps ironically, to my favorite chapter of The God Delusion in which Dawkins' writes:
"'Really' isn't a word we should use with simple confidence... 'Really,' for an animal, is whatever its brain needs it to be, in order to assist its survival. And because different species live in such different worlds, there will be a troubling variety of 'reallys.' What we see of the real world is not the unvarnished real world but a model of the real world, regulated and adjusted by sense data--a model that is constructed so that it is useful for dealing with the real world.The nature of that model depends on the kind of animal we are."
Although Dawkins concludes the chapter with the statements, "I am thrilled to be alive at a time when humanity is pushing against the limits of understanding... we may eventually discover that there are no limits," I think he in fact eloquently outlined that there are unbreakable limits: that we are human, and can only experience a human model of the world. So, to answer your question, "What kind of knowledge are we talking?" My answer: knowledge of the "unvarnished real world," that unregulated domain that is free from the adjustments that our brain has made, our conception of "physical brains" also being a part of that "model" that the brain has somehow, almost paradoxically, itself created.
Quote:However, anyone can learn by experience that similarities between some bodies comes from their shared participation with non-physical attributes, like 'unity' and 'extension'. This type of knowledge, because it is based on things that do not change, forms and/or categories, is both definitive and certain.True, but those categories are only useful for the world of experience, which is only to say, I don't see how it could be possible for metaphysics to aid us in an ultimately fruitless search of the Truth (with a capital T) of the origins of our physical existence. (That's a lot of "ofs" there...Sheesh. And I'm not really down with being so pessimistic...so if anyone has a solution out of this knot I have tied myself in, feel free to cut it loose!)
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza