Most atheists would say that they prefere reason and evidence and not 'it's true, because the bible says so'.
And that's a very good criterium for reliable knowledge: evidence and logic reasoning.
But what about 'the content of a dream you had last night'.
Robot: You tell me you have an inner eye? Can you define that in measurable terms?
Me :I claim that I have an inner eye: I cannot define what it is, but I can see shemes and pictures 'in my mind' with it. I can see the content of a dream with it and so on.
Robot : only evidence and logic reasoning is allowed so 'an inner eye' is blubberling nonsense.
Me : but I really can see things with my eyes closed. Non-material one-dimensional things like 'the picture of a house in my mind' etc.
Robot : proof the existence of this nonsense or shut the f* up. Define at least 'inner eye' in material measurable terms or give me the math.
Me : I'm sorry: I have an inner eye, I can see things with it, these things are one-dimensional and I really see them, but I cannot define 'inner eye' for you in material terms and I cannot give you the math.
Robot : in order to discover everything there is to know in this unvierse there are only two tools allowed: evidence and reasoning.
Me : sorry, for me there is a third tool of knowledge: 'my own experience'.
Robot : What is that? Define 'experience' in material terms or give me the math.
Me : sorry, I can't. It's of an immaterial Nature. A spirtual Nature actually.
Robot: these things do not exist in this world because my scientific tools only allow to discover measurable things in this world.
Me: so, I (as an experiencing being) do not exist in your world. I'm gibberish nonsense to your ears. I'm not provable, nor can you find me in one of your mathematical descriptions of reality. Your model of the world can without me, as an experiencing being?
Robot: yes it is. You do not exist, when I use my tools of knowledge to discover laws in this universe.
Me: so, I'm of an immaterial Nature.
Robot : you, as an experiencing being, don't exist in my measurable material logical world.
I'm using this dialogue to explain that 'science', 'evidence' and 'reason' cannot discover us in their material models of reality.
We are not even needed. The subjective experience is the only tool of knowledge to know that you exist. To know that 'an inner eye' exists in this world. It's non-material, but it exists.
So, philosophers of science (or epistemology) need to redefine their instruments of knowledge. 'to experience' is one of the tools too. To be the biochemistry is to know that you are not only biochemistry, but an 'experiencing being', wordsalad to a materialist.
And that's a very good criterium for reliable knowledge: evidence and logic reasoning.
But what about 'the content of a dream you had last night'.
Robot: You tell me you have an inner eye? Can you define that in measurable terms?
Me :I claim that I have an inner eye: I cannot define what it is, but I can see shemes and pictures 'in my mind' with it. I can see the content of a dream with it and so on.
Robot : only evidence and logic reasoning is allowed so 'an inner eye' is blubberling nonsense.
Me : but I really can see things with my eyes closed. Non-material one-dimensional things like 'the picture of a house in my mind' etc.
Robot : proof the existence of this nonsense or shut the f* up. Define at least 'inner eye' in material measurable terms or give me the math.
Me : I'm sorry: I have an inner eye, I can see things with it, these things are one-dimensional and I really see them, but I cannot define 'inner eye' for you in material terms and I cannot give you the math.
Robot : in order to discover everything there is to know in this unvierse there are only two tools allowed: evidence and reasoning.
Me : sorry, for me there is a third tool of knowledge: 'my own experience'.
Robot : What is that? Define 'experience' in material terms or give me the math.
Me : sorry, I can't. It's of an immaterial Nature. A spirtual Nature actually.
Robot: these things do not exist in this world because my scientific tools only allow to discover measurable things in this world.
Me: so, I (as an experiencing being) do not exist in your world. I'm gibberish nonsense to your ears. I'm not provable, nor can you find me in one of your mathematical descriptions of reality. Your model of the world can without me, as an experiencing being?
Robot: yes it is. You do not exist, when I use my tools of knowledge to discover laws in this universe.
Me: so, I'm of an immaterial Nature.
Robot : you, as an experiencing being, don't exist in my measurable material logical world.
I'm using this dialogue to explain that 'science', 'evidence' and 'reason' cannot discover us in their material models of reality.
We are not even needed. The subjective experience is the only tool of knowledge to know that you exist. To know that 'an inner eye' exists in this world. It's non-material, but it exists.
So, philosophers of science (or epistemology) need to redefine their instruments of knowledge. 'to experience' is one of the tools too. To be the biochemistry is to know that you are not only biochemistry, but an 'experiencing being', wordsalad to a materialist.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire