Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[Thumpalumpacus]

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?

If what we perceived didn't comport with an objective reality, do you think for a moment natural selection would've let that slide for 250,000 years? How is it that millions of people all see the same tower in the middle of Paris? Do you think the ground at the foot of the cliff gives a shit about your perceptions?

Be it known, I reject solipsism as internally contradictory. If you're going to make an argument for it, you'd best not use the Argument from Ignorance, as well.

[robvalue]

I'd never argue for solipsism, I just can't find any way to rule it out. I see it as the very final frontier of philosophy, one that ultimately potentially undermines everything else. But at the same time, it makes fuck all difference if it's true or not. Things are as real as they seem to be.

I'd only apply solipsism to myself, not to everybody. This is (for example) my dream, and none of you guys exist anywhere else. Sorry about that But I'd never argue that this is actually my dream, any more than I can argue that it isn't.

My best guess though is that all forms of consciousness are the universe somehow experiencing itself, split into parts which are unaware of the whole experience. It doesn't make much sense, but it makes more than anything else I've heard or thought of.

[FatAndFaithless]

Is there any concise and clear definition of what 'spiritual knowledge' means?

[GrandizerII]

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?

If what we perceived didn't comport with an objective reality, do you think for a moment natural selection would've let that slide for 250,000 years? How is it that millions of people all see the same tower in the middle of Paris? Do you think the ground at the foot of the cliff gives a shit about your perceptions?

Be it known, I reject solipsism as internally contradictory. If you're going to make an argument for it, you'd best not use the Argument from Ignorance, as well.

Given that we experience illusions on a regular basis, then I don't see why natural selection had to let our perceptions accurately reflect reality. If accuracy was so important, then why didn't natural selection over all these millennia equip us with more error-free ways to observe "objective reality"? As long as it's practical, that's really what matters.

Do you literally see atoms by the way? That's what "objective reality" would probably be like. Instead, we see objects that are arrangements of these atoms, but that the forms we perceive might slightly differ from one individual to another, and even more from one species to another. Many dog species see things in limited colors compared to us, and bees see colors we can't. Sure, being of the same species, we observe common things, but this doesn't absolutely confirm that our common perceptions accurately reflect what "objective reality" is like.

Objects that you see of the color red may be seen as some different color by those who have a form of color-blindness. Whose observation would be more in line with objective reality in this case? Putting aside colors, how about something like the Muller-Lyer illusion? Did you know in a few cultures, this illusion is not experienced? Whereas among us, the illusion is hard to even resist experiencing when looking at the lines. Perhaps you'll respond by saying this is a flaw in our mental perceptual system, but if so, then isn't that the point?

We see what we see because of how our brains are wired, but that does not mean our brains have been made perfect via evolution in making our subjective reality be in harmony with objective reality.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If what we perceived didn't comport with an objective reality, do you think for a moment natural selection would've let that slide for 250,000 years? How is it that millions of people all see the same tower in the middle of Paris? Do you think the ground at the foot of the cliff gives a shit about your perceptions?

Be it known, I reject solipsism as internally contradictory. If you're going to make an argument for it, you'd best not use the Argument from Ignorance, as well.

Given that we experience illusions on a regular basis, then I don't see why natural selection had to let our perceptions accurately reflect reality. If accuracy was so important, then why didn't natural selection over all these millennia equip us with more error-free ways to observe "objective reality"?  As long as it's practical, that's really what matters.

Because at a certain point, it makes little difference. If the cliff is an eighty-three- or eighty-four-foot drop doesn't matter. The fact that we cannot get a measurement exact enough to convince you doesn't mean that the cliff is created in our minds. This is a strawman argument, and you need to abandon it. You aren't answering my point, but rather, one you're imputing to me. Please stop it.

Additionally, the fact that humans have illusions doesn't mean perceptions are inaccurate. A change of perspective reveals the illusion, and that is powerful evidence against your argument. In other words, an illusion is reportage from one angle, but when you move, the view changes, and the illusion is given away ... as we would expect, knowing that rabbits don't live in tophats and disappear up sleeves.

Do you literally see atoms by the way? That's what "objective reality" would probably be like. Instead, we see objects that are arrangements of these atoms, but that the forms we perceive might slightly differ from one individual to another, and even more from one species to another. Many dog species see things in limited colors compared to us, and bees see colors we can't. Sure, being of the same species, we observe common things, but this doesn't absolutely confirm that our common perceptions accurately reflect what "objective reality" is like.

Again, I'm not arguing that our perceptions are perfect. This is a strawman built by you. I'm arguing that they comport with reality. That is a different statement, and one you have not addressed

Objects that you see of the color red may be seen as some different color by those who have a form of color-blindness. Whose observation would be more in line with objective reality in this case?

Define red.

Hint: you're going to have to appeal to objectivity in order to do so.

Putting aside colors, how about something like the Muller-Lyer illusion? Did you know in a few cultures, this illusion is not experienced? Whereas among us, the illusion is hard to even resist experiencing when looking at the lines. Perhaps you'll respond by saying this is a flaw in our mental perceptual system, but if so, then isn't that the point?

And again. I've never argued that our perceptual systems are perfect measuring systems. What I've argued is that the comport with reality.

We see what we see because of how our brains are wired, but that does not mean our brains have been made perfect via evolution in making our subjective reality be in harmony with objective reality.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

You're belaboring the obvious, and taking issue with an argument I haven't presented.

[robvalue]

Is there any concise and clear definition of what 'spiritual knowledge' means?

Nope. It doesn't mean anything. It's the ridiculous idea that "other methods" take over where science leaves off. Otherwise known as making shit up, based on emotions and weird experiences.

[LadyForCamus]

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 Mary's room' thought experiment doesn't really disprove physicalism though. The study designer claims that in her black and white room, with her black and white tv, Mary learns "all the physical information there is" to know about how humans see color. But, Mary was -intentionally- deprived of the PHYSICAL experience of seeing color! If her tools of observation are withheld, and she is unable to physically experience color, how can we say she has acquired "all the information there is"? To me, it's not that she learned something new upon leaving the room and experiencing the color red, it's just that her knowledge base was incomplete from the start. I mean, isn't observation step one in the scientific method?

Yes, experience is one step in the information gathering process, and it IS a facet of knowledge acquisition, but my point in the OP was that experience -alone- can never be equal to knowledge. Suppose it went the other way around; if Mary (like many of us) could see colors just fine, but never learned any of the neurophysiological science behind -how- she sees them. What is the practical significance of her experience of color to anyone but her? I can't even say for sure that red looks the same to everyone else as it does to me.

[LadyForCamus]

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?

The question posed by the study is not 'what is the nature of the knowledge she has learned,' but rather, DID she actually learn anything new.

[phil-lndn]

What is knowledge that is not testable, not measurable against anything, not reproducible, not able to be objectively confirmed, and not demonstratable to others?  It is simply NOT knowledge.  How can theists justify using that word when speaking of metaphysical or spiritual subject matter?  

Depends a bit on the specific definition of "knowledge" you are wishing to apply: Information, or Awareness

If the latter, you do have knowledge of something that is none of the things you've listed, and it's a knowledge I doubt you would refute because you have direct experience of it.

Knowledge of your own consciousness, your own subjective experience of being an aware being.

Consciousness itself is a bit weird, it's not an object, not demonstrable to others, not measurable against anything, not reproducible (because we don't really know what it is)

---

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?

It's not wholly meaningful to consider an objective reality in an absolute sense because humans can only experience reality through a perspective. 

In a sense, the universe we live in is just a projection of our own mind. 

It seems that there are aspects to human projections that all humans can agree with which we call "objective reality", there's nothing really objective about it in an absolute sense though.

[LadyForCamus]

[quote='LadyForCamus' pid='1159776' dateline='1451835564']

What is knowledge that is not testable, not measurable against anything, not reproducible, not able to be objectively confirmed, and not demonstratable to others?  It is simply NOT knowledge.  How can theists justify using that word when speaking of metaphysical or spiritual subject matter?  

Depends a bit on the specific definition of "knowledge" you are wishing to apply: Information, or Awareness

If the latter, you do have knowledge of something that is none of the things you've listed, and it's a knowledge I doubt you would refute because you have direct experience of it.

Knowledge of your own consciousness, your own subjective experience of being an aware being.

Consciousness itself is a bit weird, it's not an object, not demonstrable to others, not measurable against anything, not reproducible (because we don't really know what it is)

---

[quote='Irrational' pid='1179267' dateline='1453190884']

Well, I would argue that my consciousness IS demonstrable to others. I am demonstrating my consciousness to you right now, in writing this post. I am demonstrating that I have read and comprehended your points, and am able to formulate my own in response. Sure, the evidence is indirect, but I'd say it's sufficient for any rational person to be reasonably certain that I, "LadyCamus", am a conscious being.

Awareness by itself is not equal to knowledge. I'll mention my example in the OP. Does a schizophrenic who is having auditory hallucinations of the devil possess knowledge of Satan based on his experience?