marriage vs. partnership

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 11:44 am

Originally posted by fable

Alas, I think @Frogus has decided to move to greener pastures, in so far as green isn't a subjectively romantic value judgement but a statement of objective light waves based on pigmentation, of course. Sure you don't want to take a shot at it?

I'll try my best, dear fable...I'm sure we can work our way through this philosophical swamp...

So if I understand correctly, you're saying that some things can not be measured - even if one assumes that the technology advances at such a rate that all things that could be measured CAN be measured... ?

Just to clear the ground before we get into some serious haggling....

No worries,

Beldin

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Apr 08, 2002 12:50 pm

Originally posted by Beldin

I'll try my best, dear fable...I'm sure we can work our way through this philosophical swamp...
So if I understand correctly, you're saying that some things can not be measured - even if one assumes that the technology advances at such a rate that all things that could be measured CAN be measured... ?

I see quite a few things that can't be measured, and I have no expectations they ever will be. I have yet to hear anybody measure the substances needed to create Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, or the reason I smile when I hear a bird outside my bedroom window in the morning. Life has been analyzed, but its existence has never been explained.

This is, I think, one of the problems with a popular society that has fallen in love with the ease and luxury science has provided. Suddenly, all values that cannot be measured by science simply cease to exist.

Beldin · Post by **Beldin** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 8:33 am

Originally posted by fable
I see quite a few things that can't be measured, and I have no expectations they ever will be. I have yet to hear anybody measure the substances needed to create Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, or the reason I smile when I hear a bird outside my bedroom window in the morning. Life has been analyzed, but its existence has never been explained.

This is, I think, one of the problems with a popular society that has fallen in love with the ease and luxury science has provided. Suddenly, all values that cannot be measured by science simply cease to exist.

I wouldn't put it this way....I think there will be a time when even those things might be measurabe .

Just keep in mind that 200 years ago nobody could've measured the distance between the atoms in a molecule - but believe me - THEY where already THERE. So I'm confident that the remaining secrets of live, creation or art will be measurable sometime in the future - we'll just have to figure out HOW...

No worries,

Beldin

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 9:48 am

Originally posted by Beldin

I wouldn't put it this way....I think there will be a time when even those things might be measurabe .

Just keep in mind that 200 years ago nobody could've measured the distance between the atoms in a molecule - but believe me - THEY where already THERE. So I'm confident that the remaining secrets of live, creation or art will be measurable sometime in the future - we'll just have to figure out HOW...

They couldn't have measured the distance between the atoms in a molecule because they didn't have the measuring tools for very measurable substances. In the case of non-quantifiable things, there's nothing measureable about them. The tools for physical reality, however micro- or macro- that might be, will only work on physical reality. There never have been tools to explain the creativity that lies within a single Mozart symphony, although the work in question has been structurally analyzed dozens of times. Different order of existence altogether.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 10:00 am

ahh..hello again...didn't realise the discussion had moved on...

Frogus, I think you misunderstand me. I don't hear complexity in Mozart, and I'm not comparing Mozart to science. I'm saying that the analytical tools science has provided to study the physical parameters of the human brain will reveal that Mozart's looks just like any other. Yet Mozart produced something unique and considered to be a cultural artifact of priceless value by many. Whatever produced that artifact, cannot be seen when looking at Mozart's brain. Whatever it was that led to that result is intangible--a quality, not a quantifiable entity.

LOL..you are misunderstanding me! Damn, isn't English a crap language? anyway, I meant that when you hear Mozart, you think 'wow, scientific processes are not good enough to create something so sublime' or something to that effect, whereas I think 'wow, scientific processes must be incredibly good to create something so sublime'. I realise that 'good' is a useless word in these cases, but 'magical' seemed a bit New Agey(

) and 'advanced' sounded a bit quantifiable...

I have had this same debate with a bunch of Oxford D.Philers quite recently, but the swine used clever reasoning and (dare I say it) played with semantics to make the weaker argument defeat the stronger, and Socrates learned that we can't be having that...so here goes:

@ fable, if the magic which creates a priceless cultural or artistic work does not come from the brain, where does it come from?

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 10:09 am

I see quite a few things that can't be measured, and I have no expectations they ever will be. I have yet to hear anybody measure the substances needed to create Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream, or the reason I smile when I hear a bird outside my bedroom window in the morning. Life has been analyzed, but its existence has never been explained.

This is a somewhat different question fable... I thought we were talking about creators, rather than receptors. I think that the reason you enjoy the bird-song outside your window is that all creatures which didn't enjoy it just stayed in bed through the spring time and died out, instead of going out into the garden to hear the nice music and catch some food for their pack...I think the reason you like the sound of birdsong is not only biological, but quite simple (although I cannot explain it with authority, but you get the idea from the above example). The reason you like A Midsummer Night's Dream is similar. There are countless pleasure receptors in your head which used to be there for a very specific purpose (to make you eat properly, to drive you to protect your family, to encourage you to have sex and other, less well recognized biological neccesities). The thing is, humans have now climbed out of the big Natural Selection Bucket, and are affected very little by evolution anymore...chocolate still tastes better than other foods. It has no use, is as unneccesary as the theatre, but still preys on those now-redundant pleasure receptors to make you happy in ways you cannot understand.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 7:23 pm

Originally posted by frogus
ahh..hello again...didn't realise the discussion had moved on...

LOL..you are misunderstanding me! Damn, isn't English a crap language?

It's a very good language.

However, it is a poor language for dealing with subjective reality. I remember that John Woodroffe, in the intro to his translation of several Tantric Hindu texts (Shakti and Shakta), refers to there being 28 different Hindu words for the English word, "sleep." No language gets it all.

@ fable, if the magic which creates a priceless cultural or artistic work does not come from the brain, where does it come from?

What if I said that there was a spirtual component to the act of creation? Not a bunch of silly angels running around, but as in the word, spiritus. Now, you can't measure spirit, so I presume you don't believe in it--correct?

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 7:30 pm

). The thing is, humans have now climbed out of the big Natural Selection Bucket, and are affected very little by evolution anymore...chocolate still tastes better than other foods. It has no use, is as unneccesary as the theatre, but still preys on those now-redundant pleasure receptors to make you happy in ways you cannot understand.

No, I'm not talking about receptive pleasures, but about a certain undefineable something in a work that lies beyond structure, melody, harmony, rhythm, orchestration. When you've analyzed out all the elements in a symphony of Mozart, I'll repeat, there is left something which is neither good nor bad, but completely separate from pleasure, and unique to that work. If you don't find this, or have convinced yourself that it doesn't exist, obviously I won't convince you of its existence.

But the structural-analytical approach to classical music has been largely discredited in modern music for just this reason: it understands and explains everything, except the music.

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Wed Apr 10, 2002 11:01 pm

Originally posted by fable
What if I said that there was a spirtual component to the act of creation? Not a bunch of silly angels running around, but as in the word, spiritus. Now, you can't measure spirit, so I presume you don't believe in it--correct?

I recall reading/hearing something several years ago about proof the body has a spirit and that it actually ways something because people's bodies weighed slightly more before death than after death, signifying the spirit leaving the body. If this is true about a spirit having weight, it really gives a new meaning to "full in the spirit," ne?

BTW, I agree completely with fable about their being things that can not be quantified. There is no quantifiable explanation why I feel inspired when I read something by Edgar Allen Poe or Robert Frost, or why I can consider a fast-paced song too slow and, at the same time, consider a slow-paced song fast enough.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 3:01 am

I'd really like a more detailed description of what a spirit is...I'm not sure I can believe in it just yet, it all seems a bit vague...

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 7:42 am

Well, you can start with examining the one that already exists inside of you. The unexamined life, after all, is not worth living, and I think Socrates meant ALL aspects of human nature, not just the material, quantifiable elements, when he said this.

Objectively (I know this might sound crazy), but if there are any high hills or tors in your vicinity, climb to the summit of one and just stand there for several moments and feel the wind on your face. You can't see it, don't know where it came from, or where it is going, but it's hard to doubt that it really exists. 'Same thing with the spirit.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 8:09 am

Originally posted by frogus
I'd really like a more detailed description of what a spirit is...I'm not sure I can believe in it just yet, it all seems a bit vague...

Sly little amphibian!

We both know that a spirit can't be described, since it is unmeasurable and has no physical attributes. Like I said above, either you believe in it, or you don't. I could tell you to sit in a comfortable but non-slouching position and meditate for an hour or two; but even if you *did* end up feeling something, you could always claim it was the result of metabolic changes.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 9:25 am

I havent read the whole thread so perhaps im just spamming, but isnt there a difference between the ability to measure something and the ability to percive something. Emotions for example are easily percived by everyone, and if described they can also be communicated. But they still cant be measured.

Thats imo a good reason for not believing in anything spirital, wich many people(including me) cant even percive.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 9:34 am

Originally posted by Dottie
I havent read the whole thread so perhaps im just spamming, but isnt there a difference between the ability to measure something and the ability to percive something. Emotions for example are easily percived by everyone, and if described they can also be communicated. But they still cant be measured.

The philosophical materialist would still claim that emotions are caused by glandular changes and mental conditioning. The problem with that argument is that it only measures the ingredients of emotion. It doesn't, and can't, measure the emotion, itself.

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:10 am

The above arguments make me think about Immanuel Kant. He was able to resolve the great rift between science and philosophy/theology that was caused by the wrecking ball of the 18th c., David Hume--whose skepticism said that anything that could not be empirically verified through one's senses did not exist or was to be questioned. This not only undermined all metaphysical beliefs of the time, but also a lot of the fundamental assumptions behind mathematics and science at the time (esp. Euclidean geometry and Newtonian physics). Kant came along and said that there were two categories of things: phenomena (that which could be empirically verified through the senses) and numina (sp? those things which could not be sensed or measured, e.g. god, love, etc.). The endless confusion and conflict that still results from people trying to figure out whether or how science and religion should fit together is deftly avoided by Kant, who can say, for instance, that God and divine creation cannot be part of any truly scientific theory because both involve "unconditioned" realities (numina), while science can only deal with conditioned realities (phenomena).

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:17 am

... this kind of reminds me of a situation where Samuel Johnson and Boswell were discussing a philosophy that discredited materialism itself, inspiring Samuel Johnson to triumphantly state, "I refute thus!" by kicking a wall.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:23 am

Originally posted by EMINEM
... inspiring Samuel Johnson, in one of his conversations with Boswell, to triumphantly state, "I refute thus!" by kicking a wall.

No offense, but I think Dr. Jonson's reaction was in response to Bishop Berkeley's philosophical position of pure idealism: nothing exists apart from perception.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:39 am

Originally posted by fable

No offense, but I think Dr. Jonson's reaction was in response to Bishop Berkeley's philosophical position of pure idealism: nothing exists apart from perception.

Correct - post edited.

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:24 am

I like a good balance of spam and tnoughtful topics on the first page, and over the last 24 hours we've had tons of spam.

So I'm bumping this back up...

Sailor Saturn · Post by **Sailor Saturn** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:14 am

Originally posted by Dottie
I havent read the whole thread so perhaps im just spamming, but isnt there a difference between the ability to measure something and the ability to percive something. Emotions for example are easily percived by everyone, and if described they can also be communicated. But they still cant be measured.

Thats imo a good reason for not believing in anything spirital, wich many people(including me) cant even percive.

Have you ever felt moved by the reading of a poem, or the playing of a symphony, or some other thing?