Knowledge! What is it?

[o_mlly]

The question is: “how do you know that conformity without sensory (name removed by moderator)ut”?

No. The correct question is: how can you know that conformity with only “sensory (name removed by moderator)ut”? The sense information is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge.

Senses → Information → processing → verification → knowledge . It is the verification which allows one to affix the “true” or “false” label to the processed information. Oh, and “truth” is a concept, not an ontological entity… despite the “Quid est veritas…”

No. Your scheme would elevate all knowledge to the realm of truth. And that is, well, not true. For example, all science knowledge remains in the realm of doubt.

… some of the new information can be assigned a physical location.

There is no “new information” to be assigned. We’ve agreed that the organization of the all information is knowledge. This organizing operation is in the mind, not the brain. No physical location can be assigned to knowledge, an immaterial object.

Sensations of pleasure or pain are immediate and not in any sense organized. However, the pleasure/pain information in the brain can, on reflection, be organized into knowledge by the mind, understood by reason as to cause and effect.

Just because something cannot be assigned a precise physical location, it is not “spiritual”. “Spiritual” would be something that is independent of the physical reality…

No, the spiritual or immaterial need not be independent of physical reality, it merely transcends it.

 

[Abrosz]

No. The correct question is: how can you know that conformity with only “sensory (name removed by moderator)ut”? The sense information is necessary but not sufficient for knowledge.

Knowledge comes from sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and processing it.

Your scheme would elevate all knowledge to the realm of truth.

There is no “realm” of truth. There are true and false propositions.

No physical location can be assigned to knowledge, an immaterial object.

The brain is a distributed processing device.

No, the spiritual or immaterial need not be independent of physical reality, it merely transcends it.

Whatever that might mean. And “immaterial” is NOT a synonym for “spiritual”.

 

[o_mlly]

Knowledge comes from sensory (name removed by moderator)ut and processing it.

Yes, and the processing, i.e., organizing of the information is a function of mind, not brain and the resulting knowledge is immaterial, i.e. spiritual.

There is no “realm” of truth. There are true and false propositions.

? If there are true propositions then there is a realm of truth.

In science there are only two realms of knowledge: Impossible and probable. Truth, as positive knowledge that conforms to reality, cannot be obtained via the scientific method.

The brain is a distributed processing device.

Imagine “triangle”. You used your brain. Imaginations are brain functions.

Think “triangle”. You just used your mind. Conceptions are mind functions.

Whatever that might mean. And “immaterial” is NOT a synonym for “spiritual”.

Fine. Call knowledge and understanding “immaterial” things; you end up in the same place.

 

[Gorgias]

Not obligated. Promised. And promises made, promises broken are not a good foundation for trust or being worshiped.

You’re still working off of your (invalid) personal interpretation of Scripture. That’s not what the “promise” means, as I’ve demonstrated in our little thought experiment. (In fact, I’d propose to you that the promise is that, when we ask for the Holy Spirit and His gifts, then Christ provides them. That’s what’s in play here!)

Again, not “interpretation”, quotation.

You’ve interpreted the quotation in a very rigid, fundamentalist way. I’m sorry, but the Church does not agree with your personal interpretation of those passages. Again, please read the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a better understanding of what those passages really mean.

Abrosz:

And it is STILL not my fault that Jesus did not include the qualifiers.

Ahh… but it is your fault that you’re not willing to listen to the Church’s explanation of what it means (nor my explanation of what the Church teaches on the matter).

By the way, the only authority of the church is self-proclaimed. Also has no evidence.

And what’s your authority to interpret Scripture, then?

Abrosz:

Not to mention that you left out the “ghosts” and “poltergeists” and other assorted figments of imagination.

That’s because they’re imaginary. You asked me about spiritual realities. They’re not it.

Abrosz:

And you don’t have the epistemological “right” to call figments of imagination to be “reality”.

And you don’t have the epistemological ‘right’ to call spiritual realities “figments of imagination.” So… where does that leave us?

Abrosz:

Your error is called “ the fallacy of the stolen concept ”.

It’s really not, although I appreciate that you wish it were so. I’m not contradicting myself or ignoring the validity of my claims. You, on the other hand, want to assert that my claims are invalid, but the only leg you have to stand on is “they’re not physical.” Which, when it comes right down to it, actually is the act of ignoring the validity of the claim (which is, incidentally enough, “they’re not physical”). So… “stolen concept”? Pot… meet kettle?

Abrosz:

And how did that revelation “reach us”? Via our senses? Not to mention that this “revelation” is not available to us. Allegedly it was given to a selected few people. And there is no evidence of that

What evidence do you have that Hadrian crossed the Alps on elephants? Has that ‘revelation’ been given to a selected few? Is that revelation “not available to us”? And yet, I hope you aren’t suggesting that this is untrue, and mere allegation, and is simply speculation. Double standard much, eh?

Abrosz:

You just managed to throw out the “baby” with the bath water. Good job!

This, coming from a person who throws out “spiritual reality” because it’s not “physical”, is the height of self-unaware irony. Good job!

 

[Abrosz]

Ahh… but it is your fault that you’re not willing to listen to the Church’s explanation of what it means (nor my explanation of what the Church teaches on the matter).

I am not interested in the fallible human speculation compared to the explicit, crystal clear words of Jesus. One more time: “quotation is NOT interpretation.”

That’s because they’re imaginary. You asked me about spiritual realities. They’re not it.

Excellent. So what is the difference, and more importantly, HOW do you know it? This is the basic problem which you keep on avoiding. Concentrate on this question. How do you “know” is something is part of the “spiritual reality”?

And you don’t have the epistemological ‘right’ to call spiritual realities “figments of imagination.” So… where does that leave us?

Why not? There is no difference between the “spiritual reality” and the “fairy-tale reality”. Both are figments of imagination. But if you deny it, give us an algorithm how to separate them. I am willing to listen.

It’s really not.

Well, you just proved that you don’t even understand the fallacy. The “fallacy” is to use a concept in an environment, for which it is not applicable.

What evidence do you have that Hadrian crossed the Alps on elephants?

Such an old, tired nonsense. Was Hadrian a spiritual entity, who crossed the Alps on spiritual elephants?

This, coming from a person who throws out “spiritual reality” because it’s not “physical”, is the height of self-unaware irony.

Since you are unable to show “what that spiritual reality” might be, the problem is on your side. The only difference between “fairy-tale reality” and the “spiritual reality” is that only small children believe the former. Well, that is not precise. There are other differences. The “fairy-tale reality” is not supposed to interact with the physical reality, while this alleged “spiritual reality” is SUPPOSED to interact with the physical reality. This opens the question of HOW, and the question of interface. Until you can answer these questions, you have nothing to say.

Show us the difference between the “fairy-tale reality” and the “spiritual reality”. I am willing yo listen.

 

[Gorgias]

I am not interested in the fallible human speculation compared to the explicit, crystal clear words of Jesus.

They’re clearly not “crystal clear” to you, given that your interpretation leads to logical paradox. So… it’s your “fallible human speculation” that is failing here.

One more time: “quotation is NOT interpretation.”

If you had just quoted, I’d be ok. You made an assertion. That’s the interpretation.

Excellent. So what is the difference

This is getting tiring. Those other things are physical entities which are posited to exist… but they do not. God is a spiritual entity. See the difference?

But if you deny it, give us an algorithm how to separate them. I am willing to listen.

Did God share it, as part of His self-revelation? Did Jesus attest to it, during his life here on earth? If so, then it’s a spiritual reality.

Well, you just proved that you don’t even understand the fallacy.

Of course I did. Only you correctly understand everything. Got it.

Such an old, tired nonsense. Was Hadrian a spiritual entity, who crossed the Alps on spiritual elephants?

Nice try. But, it’s becoming “crystal clear”, to use your turn of phrase: you accept written evidence from antiquity when it serves your purpose, and reject written evidence from antiquity when it doesn’t. Double standards are wonderful, ain’t they?

 

[Abrosz]

They’re clearly not “crystal clear” to you, given that your interpretation leads to logical paradox.

Logical paradox? Like a married bachelor? The words are contradicted by reality! That is not a “logical contradiction”.

Did God share it, as part of His self-revelation? Did Jesus attest to it, during his life here on earth? If so, then it’s a spiritual reality.

He did not share it with me. And I see no reason to believe that he shared it with anyone. Some people assert that they received a revelation… some others assert that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale. Do you believe all of them? It is all just stories.

So what is the difference between “spiritual” reality and fairy tale reality? Do you consider Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also “spiritual realities”? Or, are they also assumed “physical entities”? Not according to the stories about them. On the other hand, the New Age concept of “extra-sensory perception” and “telekinesis” are definitely non-physical, and yet you reject them? I wonder, on what grounds? Because they are supposed to interact with the physical reality, but according to the measurements of physical reality, they are also just a figment of the imagination of their proponents.

Nice try. But, it’s becoming “crystal clear”, to use your turn of phrase: you accept written evidence from antiquity when it serves your purpose, and reject written evidence from antiquity when it doesn’t. Double standards are wonderful, ain’t they?

I might accept SOME stories from the antiquity, but I do not accept fairy tales, no matter who tells them. And what would you KNOW about my purpose?

 

[Gorgias]

Logical paradox? Like a married bachelor? The words are contradicted by reality ! That is not a “logical contradiction”.

“Jesus answers prayers in a way that’s sinful” is a logical paradox. Yes. Glad you see the problem. Right…?

He did not share it with me.

Send me your address and I’ll mail you a Bible. That’s the self-revelation. If you ask nicely enough, I’ll include a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which represents the teaching of Jesus.

And I see no reason to believe that he shared it with anyone.

Yeah. 'Cause no one ever heard of the Scriptures. Riiiiiiiight.

Do you consider Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny also “spiritual realities”? Or, are they also assumed “physical entities”?

Why do you continue beating the dead horse, and resist addressing the real questions? Yes… “Santa Claus” and “the Easter Bunny”, if real, are physical. Is this really so hard for you to wrap your head around?

On the other hand, the New Age concept of “extra-sensory perception” and “telekinesis” are definitely non-physical, and yet you reject them?

Again: these are physical manifestations (and therefore, putatively empirically measurable, if real). Are you just sealioning now?

I might accept SOME stories from the antiquity, but I do not accept fairy tales, no matter who tells them.

So… what’s your criterion, then? Or, do you just get to declare some narratives from antiquity “stories” and others “fairy tales”, merely by your own personal say-so?

And what would you KNOW about my purpose?

When you reject Judeo-Christian narratives a priori, your bias becomes clear. Crystal clear.

 

[Abrosz]

Send me your address and I’ll mail you a Bible. That’s the self-revelation. If you ask nicely enough, I’ll include a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which represents the teaching of Jesus.

I have a bible, thank you. And the catechism is also written by fallible humans, NOT by GOD! According to Muslims, the Koran was personally dictated by Allah, but that is not assumed about the bible. That is why I say that there was no personal revelation from God to me.

And much as respect the believers (all the way up to the pope) their word is not sufficient. God does not speak through the mouths of anyone.

When you reject Judeo-Christian narratives a priori, your bias becomes clear.

No, not a-priori. After careful consideration. And “bias” does not translate into “purpose”. My only purpose is to have a stimulating conversation, nothing more. And unfortunately, you do not qualify.

 

[Gorgias]

I have a bible, thank you.

Well, there you go, then! You do have the self-revelation of God, shared with you!

And the catechism is also written by fallible humans, NOT by GOD!

Immaterial.

That is why I say that there was no personal revelation from God to me.

OK: so, by your standards, you don’t have the revelation of God unless He pops up in front of your face and hands you a book? Good luck with that…

My only purpose is to have a stimulating conversation, nothing more. And unfortunately, you do not qualify.

Shocked, shocked I am, that you don’t find folks who tell you you’re wrong “stimulating”!

No, not a-priori. After careful consideration.

Nice try. Yet, although you claim to want to “converse”, you reject all Christian arguments out of hand. Yes… that’s “a priori”, in the context of our interaction.

 

[Abrosz]

Well, there you go, then! You do have the self-revelation of God, shared with you!

Except the bible is also written by human beings - NOT by God. Does this come as a surprise to you?

Immaterial.

Then why did you offer me the catechism?

OK: so, by your standards, you don’t have the revelation of God unless He pops up in front of your face and hands you a book? Good luck with that…

And is willing to have a conversation. Yes. Well, that is it. No revelation, nothing… maybe God is too busy to accommodate such a minor request.

Shocked, shocked I am, that you don’t find folks who tell you you’re wrong “stimulating”!

If only those folks would have evidence, I would be glad to learn new things.

Nice try. Yet, although you claim to want to “converse”, you reject all Christian arguments out of hand. Yes… that’s “a priori”, in the context of our interaction.

“Arguments” dime a dozen. Heard them all (after all I used to be a Christian myself), after careful consideration, I rejected them. I am interested in evidence. None forthcoming. And yes, only material evidence counts… why, do you ask me? Because we are physical, material beings, who have no sensory organ for “immaterial” beings. Do you have a sensory organ to directly experience that alleged spiritual “reality”? Does anyone have such an organ? We can only perceive physical evidence. (And don’t even try to bring up math or the axiomatic sciences.)

Of course if you would claim that your acceptance is based on blind faith, that would be honest and satisfactory.