Mudcat Café message #1563687 The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #78466   Message #1563687
Posted By: Bill D
14-Sep-05 - 02:55 PM
Thread Name: BS: why do we need religion
Subject: RE: BS: why do we need religion
" EVERYONE has a chosen set of assumptions..." hmmm...if you mean something like a "working hypothesis"...maybe I do, but the flavor of the remark is that of inflexible and pre-digested 'answers'. That, I do NOT do...and you suggest that you don't either. "I have been examining my basic assumptions, and challenging them, ever since my early 20's." ... yet, your usual way of formulating responses seems to state that "this is how it is" rather than "this is how it seems to me. You may consider this nit-picking, but to me it is important to not phrase things in such a way as to imply "...and if you'd just open up and allow yourself to see the truth, YOU'D see it my way, also"!
Perhaps I am over-sensitive to language that resembles, except for details, religious prosyletizing that I have struggled with for years. Plus, 6-7 years of serious study in philosophy also have attuned me to notice positions that don't include disclaimers when they make generalizations.

Do I think " mind arises from the body"?...well, I am not sure. I can, at least, describe a process that is internally consistant, compatible with most of the relevant scientific principles, and seems to account for all of the observable phenomena. You say you ARE sure of the opposite, but you never say quite 'how' a mind can 'build' a body. From what? Where is a mind located BEFORE it is "fully integrated"? How can we even conceptualize mind without body?

You ask, "What is your point?" (and make it brief ;>) )..ok, one brief try.
My point is,
1)we do have models for 'how' things work in my (current)view of reality, and we CAN measure and test them.
2)*IF* we postulate other views, we need some sort of test. If a view is postulated that, by definition, cannot BE measured or tested, then it IS merely a linguistic construction...even if it is ultimately true.
3)UNTIL there is a way to 'know', it remains a linguistic construction, like poetry.
4) *IF* more is claimed for a position than being linguistic poetry, the burden of proof is on the assertor. Poets do not claim universal application for their concepts. Coleridge never said "Xanadu" was a place in reality, just as Plato never really said his "forms" had independant existance.
5)..and here is the subtle part...IF one posts anything that LOOKS like claims of stuff that is not testable, measurable, repeatable, photographable, they are gonna get called on it..*grin*. A circular argument that "It's NOT provable, and I don't care to try, I just KNOW it!" is like a red flag. Some of us just can't resist.

(fingers itching to expound & enlarge...but I may already may be beyond 'brief') (you know the old college remark, "I don't have TIME to write a short paper"?)