Hi there,
Well, I've been debating Evolutionists (as some of you might even be aware, just check out the Physical and Life Sciences forum) and I've run into a bit of a problem that there is no clear answer to. You see, certain individuals who believe Evolution believe that somehow the "theory" which is based on time, is able to contradict something about time, that only time determines, ie. how great something is. The problem is that as far as I can tell, these people (let's just amalgamate them for a second yes?) believe that they "know" something on the basis of what they intuit their mind is capable of believing, but doesn't actually (believe). In other words, they "believe" from a position of ignorance, because they haven't actually made the transition from knowledge to understanding that knowledge requires to be more than dead.
When I was at uni I encountered this problem and I actually invented a term to highlight that there is more to know "norscomni" from the latin for know and everything, because when you know in principle, for even a moment, you have for a moment known everything. The point of this, is to stretch beyond what you merely intuit in relation to what you believe. The reason I came up with this word - which basically means "know that you know, without referring to yourself" - is that what you know is actually a hard problem, but also a minimum for discussing anything meaningfully.
Now I know what you are thinking, you are thinking "how are you going to go back to discussing Evolution if people don't even know that?" well I'm wondering that too. It seems there is more at work than simply persuading people that knowledge is more or less reasonable, more or less practical or impractical. Philosophy has its limits, I think we all know that, but what do you do when you discuss something that has even greater limits and yet no one even does the basic homework of making sure they are not just intuiting something that exists only in their imagination?
You might want to debate Evolution in this thread, but that's not what this is about. If you are an Evolutionist and you know what I'm talking about, you might want to contribute along the lines of the nature of different limitations, given by different contexts like Evolution and Philosophy. If you are not an Evolutionists but you're an atheist or something, you might want to discuss from personal experience in relation to the limitations you've placed on yourself, or what your sense of the power of intuition is, in relation to knowlege. From my experience, intuition never discerns more than you have a conscience to persist at, so for example if you believe time continues forever you will always be able to intuit something useful as long as you give more time. What's concerning I think, is the idea that this is ultimately just for selfish reasons, but I may need to go into that in another thread.
Thoughts?
Well, I've been debating Evolutionists (as some of you might even be aware, just check out the Physical and Life Sciences forum) and I've run into a bit of a problem that there is no clear answer to. You see, certain individuals who believe Evolution believe that somehow the "theory" which is based on time, is able to contradict something about time, that only time determines, ie. how great something is. The problem is that as far as I can tell, these people (let's just amalgamate them for a second yes?) believe that they "know" something on the basis of what they intuit their mind is capable of believing, but doesn't actually (believe). In other words, they "believe" from a position of ignorance, because they haven't actually made the transition from knowledge to understanding that knowledge requires to be more than dead.
When I was at uni I encountered this problem and I actually invented a term to highlight that there is more to know "norscomni" from the latin for know and everything, because when you know in principle, for even a moment, you have for a moment known everything. The point of this, is to stretch beyond what you merely intuit in relation to what you believe. The reason I came up with this word - which basically means "know that you know, without referring to yourself" - is that what you know is actually a hard problem, but also a minimum for discussing anything meaningfully.
Now I know what you are thinking, you are thinking "how are you going to go back to discussing Evolution if people don't even know that?" well I'm wondering that too. It seems there is more at work than simply persuading people that knowledge is more or less reasonable, more or less practical or impractical. Philosophy has its limits, I think we all know that, but what do you do when you discuss something that has even greater limits and yet no one even does the basic homework of making sure they are not just intuiting something that exists only in their imagination?
You might want to debate Evolution in this thread, but that's not what this is about. If you are an Evolutionist and you know what I'm talking about, you might want to contribute along the lines of the nature of different limitations, given by different contexts like Evolution and Philosophy. If you are not an Evolutionists but you're an atheist or something, you might want to discuss from personal experience in relation to the limitations you've placed on yourself, or what your sense of the power of intuition is, in relation to knowlege. From my experience, intuition never discerns more than you have a conscience to persist at, so for example if you believe time continues forever you will always be able to intuit something useful as long as you give more time. What's concerning I think, is the idea that this is ultimately just for selfish reasons, but I may need to go into that in another thread.
Thoughts?
