Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[ApeNotKillApe]

As a lover of mythology, I resent the comparison.

Be jaded by the truth.

I'm plenty jade-coloured, thank you. Knowledge of mythology is quantifiable, it's a thing, "spiritual knowledge" is not a thing, it's vague bullshit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about non-reality is knowable? And how do you know that?

I feel sorry for anyone who confuses beliefs and knowledge. That way lies illusion and self-deception.


And that is not knowledge, it's belief and emotion.

Are you saying that psychological facts don't count? (Mary's Room, Jackson).

The switches in the brain, those are facts. The thoughts in the brain, those are abstractions.

I trust you know the difference.

[Brian37]

Spiritual knowledge.. well spiritual being  that it's coming from a emotion so there
is no knowledge there to be learned. I mean what is spiritual knowledge in the first place
knowledge is knowledge.

On the other hand you have a good definition of knowledge being knowledge about the
world around you and the universe we live in I.E. scientific knowledge. That has hypothesis
and it can be studied, tested, verified. Where as the former spiritual knowledge has none.

Like I have said before, we can have "knowledge" of the stories of others and the pretty ideas in them, but that isn't the same as knowing the world in a scientific sense.  You are absolutely right, "spiritual knowledge" is simply mistaking what should be metaphor, and treating it as if it had real super natural powers. 

I find kind ideas in Harry Potter and Charlotte's Web, but what I don't do is turn those works of fiction into a religion. Religion is pretending the kaleidoscope can replace a telescope.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Are you saying that psychological facts don't count? (Mary's Room, Jackson).

The switches in the brain, those are facts. The thoughts in the brain, those are abstractions.

I trust you know the difference.

The thought problem raises the question as to whether there are facts about which someone can have knowledge that cannot be reduced to purely physical processes. Mary learns something. Of what does she learn? How does an independent observer confirm what she has learned?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The switches in the brain, those are facts. The thoughts in the brain, those are abstractions.

I trust you know the difference.

The thought problem raises the question as to whether there are facts about which someone can have knowledge that cannot be reduced to purely physical processes. Mary learns something. Of what does she learn? How does an independent observer confirm what she has learned?

By comparing what she reports to what others report, of course. It's not that difficult. You're overthinking it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The thought problem raises the question as to whether there are facts about which someone can have knowledge that cannot be reduced to purely physical processes. Mary learns something. Of what does she learn? How does an independent observer confirm what she has learned?

By comparing what she reports to what others report, of course. It's not that difficult. You're overthinking it.

Exactly, which undermines the point of Brian37. Intersubjective results are still subjective experiences for the individuals having them. Radical empiricism of the type Brian37 advocates isn't truly objective in the way that he demands for it to count as knowledge.

[Thumpalumpacus]

By comparing what she reports to what others report, of course. It's not that difficult. You're overthinking it.

Exactly, which undermines the point of Brian37. Intersubjective results are still subjective experiences for the individuals having them. Radical empiricism of the type Brian37 advocates isn't truly objective in the way that he demands for it to count as knowledge.

As a group, the subjectivity can be diminished proportional to the size of the reporting group -- especially given the paucity of our knowledge about the workings of the brain.

In short, this is a gaps argument you're mounting. Until more data are collected, dismissing either option -- or another possiblity which may arise as our knowledge expands -- seems premature, to say the least.

The evidence to hand, however, supports the hypothesis that subjective experience comports fairly closely with objective reality, absent mind-altering drugs or other outside influences.

[GrandizerII]

The evidence to hand, however, supports the hypothesis that subjective experience comports fairly closely with objective reality, absent mind-altering drugs or other outside influences.

Can we really know how close we are to objective reality? What is objective reality anyway? I see a reality beyond and around me, but can I trust that this reality I see closely resembles objective reality whatever it may be. I see objects with clear outlines and varying colors, but is that what objective reality is composed of?

[robvalue]

We can only say that there appears to be one, due to our general agreement. Even if there isn't one, whatever we experience resembles one anyway so it doesn't really matter.

[GrandizerII]

We can only say that there appears to be one, due to our general agreement. Even if there isn't one, whatever we experience resembles one anyway so it doesn't really matter.

Practically speaking, that's true.