What the Blind Cannot See

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_S_Saint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James_S_Saint

Guest
The thought that has sciencism “stuck” is that because the mind is a biologically based mechanism, it is necessarily incapable of seeing past its senses.

They get stuck on that thought because they fail to understand what consciousness actually is. It requires more intellect than they have to see it clearly. Thus they go preaching what they think makes perfect sense and deny that there is anything but biological processes.

What they have failed to see is that those biological processes of the human and of Man have exceeded those of the animal instincts. This is the accomplishment most easily recognized as “Logical Thought”. The conscious is more than merely logical thought, but the ability to construe logic in planning is something easily seen as above the biological instinct level of the animal mind.

You can “know” that Schrödinger’s cat is either alive or death and not both, not because you can see any evidence, but because you can deduce from the logic that what is cannot also be what isn’t (by definitions of thought).

It is in that realm of awareness (consciousness) beyond the perceived, that higher philosophies and religions form. The brighter people can see clearly what the lesser minds and certainly those of animals cannot grasp. A great deal of awe and mystery gets attached as those who cannot see clearly begin to greatly admire and even worship what those who could see clearly tried to say and show. Misunderstandings lead to presumptuous logic that is accepted with certainty as the blind gain what they feel they lack.

The Atheist tries to claim that “they just made it all up” because most people, and certainly the Atheist cannot comprehend clearly what those brighter people were trying to convey. It is easy to jealously accuse when one is blind to the true intent.

The only problem that Mankind has EVER had is his relative inability to express himself clearly to others (Clarity), to make the blind man see. With the correction of that one problem (not that far away) ALL other problems that Man has ever had will quickly fade into an almost forgotten past of struggle.

If merely knowing that clear expression was the only fundamental problem repaired the disorder, Man’s problems would have all gone away already. Such requires a talent for speaking in the “tongues” of others that requires a healthy brain.

You can bring more sight to the blind by using the “consciousness” you are given to see past their words and appearances to their real intent and confused needs even when not clearly evident. By using *their *words and thoughts rather than merely your own when speaking to them, they can see with their ears and mind what they could not see in the cloud. But don’t put words in their mouths or intentions in their hearts.

Pray (e.i. humbly seek) for careful guidance if your intent is holy. And most importantly, pray for their neurological health, as their psychological and spiritual health will soon follow.
 
I refute everything you have to say. It’s all semantics…

Oh wait…
 
The thought that has sciencism “stuck” is that because the mind is a biologically based mechanism, it is necessarily incapable of seeing past its senses.

They get stuck on that thought because they fail to understand what consciousness actually is. It requires more intellect than they have to see it clearly. Thus they go preaching what they think makes perfect sense and deny that there is anything but biological processes.

What they have failed to see is that those biological processes of the human and of Man have exceeded those of the animal instincts. This is the accomplishment most easily recognized as “Logical Thought”. The conscious is more than merely logical thought, but the ability to construe logic in planning is something easily seen as above the biological instinct level of the animal mind.

You can “know” that Schrödinger’s cat is either alive or death and not both, not because you can see any evidence, but because you can deduce from the logic that what is cannot also be what isn’t (by definitions of thought).

It is in that realm of awareness (consciousness) beyond the perceived, that higher philosophies and religions form. The brighter people can see clearly what the lesser minds and certainly those of animals cannot grasp. A great deal of awe and mystery gets attached as those who cannot see clearly begin to greatly admire and even worship what those who could see clearly tried to say and show. Misunderstandings lead to presumptuous logic that is accepted with certainty as the blind gain what they feel they lack.

The Atheist tries to claim that “they just made it all up” because most people, and certainly the Atheist cannot comprehend clearly what those brighter people were trying to convey. It is easy to jealously accuse when one is blind to the true intent.

The only problem that Mankind has EVER had is his relative inability to express himself clearly to others (Clarity), to make the blind man see. With the correction of that one problem (not that far away) ALL other problems that Man has ever had will quickly fade into an almost forgotten past of struggle.

If merely knowing that clear expression was the only fundamental problem repaired the disorder, Man’s problems would have all gone away already. Such requires a talent for speaking in the “tongues” of others that requires a healthy brain.

You can bring more sight to the blind by using the “consciousness” you are given to see past their words and appearances to their real intent and confused needs even when not clearly evident. By using *their *words and thoughts rather than merely your own when speaking to them, they can see with their ears and mind what they could not see in the cloud. But don’t put words in their mouths or intentions in their hearts.

Pray (e.i. humbly seek) for careful guidance if your intent is holy. And most importantly, pray for their neurological health, as their psychological and spiritual health will soon follow.
The trouble with this view is that is could quite easily be construed as you saying that ‘consciousness’ consists of the ability to invent and abstractly discuss that which isn’t actually there in any physically perceptible sense. Only those with superior intellect can tell that the emperor is not really naked…

Another problem is that this view tends to induce a kind of philosophical snow-blindness whereby the philosopher is so focussed on the abstract that he or she ignores the concrete evidence, which clearly points to the understanding that we are indeed animals with instincts, as well as highly developed cognitive abilities, all based upon the physical and chemical properties of our large, wrinkly brains.

Science and philosophy ought to work hand-in-hand, each informing the other, instead of what frequently happens - philosophy that ignores science becomes empty and detached; science that ignores philosophy becomes cold and mechanistic.
 
The trouble with this view is that is could quite easily be construed as you saying that ‘consciousness’ consists of the ability to invent and abstractly discuss that which isn’t actually there in any physically perceptible sense.
You mean like those words that you type before you have actually typed them, the road trip route before you actually start driving, the bank balance before you start spending, and the state of the country before you vote? Those kinds of things?
Another problem is that this view tends to induce a kind of philosophical snow-blindness whereby the philosopher is so focussed on the abstract that he or she ignores the concrete evidence, which clearly points to the understanding that we are indeed animals with instincts, as well as highly developed cognitive abilities, all based upon the physical and chemical properties of our large, wrinkly brains.
Is this from evidence that you have actually seen or from speculation of something that “isn’t actually there in any physically perceptible sense”?
Science and philosophy ought to work hand-in-hand, each informing the other, instead of what frequently happens - philosophy that ignores science becomes empty and detached; science that ignores philosophy becomes cold and mechanistic.
Yes they should as they used to before they decided to make a religion out of Science with sciencism telling the population what to believe of what “Science says” even though Science hadn’t really said anything of the sort. But of course, Science cannot tell the wisdom of anything until after the fact. It can only tell you how to do it, not if you should.

So who stops the protectionism and ego driving Science to invent things unwise? The wise all-knowing ministers of sciencism?

The answer is in the logic that they don’t see and of course, would not want seen until they say it first. “If we didn’t say it, it isn’t true.” “If we don’t see it, it doesn’t exist.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top