My present feelings are the sole reality!

we should look upon the world as it is

It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

I have wanted to start a thread dedicated to this topic for several months but the difficulty to verbalise my thought did not allow me to do that. Now it seems as if the time has come. Frankly speaking I don't know how to start, so let it be this:
Every knowledge we get, we get through our senses. I know that book is red because I perceive it as such, I know that water is called because I perceive that as such and so on.
But it seems that we claim that we know not only these simple things that red is red, this water is this water and so on. We claim that we know a certain reality which is beyond that. We call that causality. How does it come into being? We see that a certain actions are often followed by another certain actions and so it happens every time in our life. So we call the first "causes" and the last "effects" and we start believing that it is reality that one thing gives birth to another. It is very important to notice that this is BELIEF which has nothing to do with reality. Reality is always certain, I see what I see, and that's how it really is, I cannot mistake in it. Causality is an idea which is always liable to reconsideration. (Aristotle noticed that stones are falling faster than feathers and said that bodies with bigger mass are falling faster, according to modern conceptions it is wrong. But who said that tomorrow there won't come someone and say that all what we think of "natural laws" is wrong?) Science and religion has very much in common, I should even say they have the same basis -- belief that there is reality beyond what we see -- the difference lies only in method of getting truth. The idea that there is God is just as well wrong (or true) as the idea that atoms exist. No, I have to appologise, science doesn't believe that, it just takes that as a working hypothesis for reaching pragmatic goals, it is so-called science based philosophy or materialism that believe in that.
Time is also a joke. We notice that within our mind (let us call that so) there are some things called memories. We think that we were little, then started going to school, working etc. (Buddhism even created the idea of anatman, the absence of soul on the grounds that everything changes and so do we.) In reality there is only memory and the now, there is no time. Time seems to be a chain of memories and nothing more.
So in the light of everything said before, I think we should look upon the world as it is, and upon us as we are, without trying to align everything with made up theories.

1. Perception is not sensuous: it is intelligent. That what I see and touch affect the senes of my body is a matter for the Understanding, that is, the faculty which deals with representation. Seeing can be described as sensuous, insofar as the object present affects my body (my eyes in particular) in a certain fashion so as to make my body react in a certain way. Perception deals with the representation of the object proceeding into the understanding, where it no longer becomes simply sensuous.

2. Casuality never has anything to do with science itself; it is a tool used by the scientist to understand the phenomena around him. When a man observes the world, he sees that the world acts in a certain fashion; that the representations of objects (if we are still following from my explanation of perception and seeing) rise and fall through our perception of the world. When we see such events, we ask "why?" and further investigate. We immediately look for the cause of a certain effect to better explain the event. For example: say you see a blind open up unexpectedly. You are startled and try to find the source from which the blind was open. This source (the cause) is the origin to the effect. If we really wanted to we could go even further than this. Say we find that the cause of the blind opening suddenly was a man, we may ask "how did that get there?", and we can continue on ad infinitum through all the causes and effects. In essence, causality is not directly related to science. Just because scientists get certain things wrong does not prove causality to be a mere farce; it just means that we made an error in our assertion that this certain effect was caused by x,y, or z. But causality always remains. We always ask "why"?

4. Keep in mind that the objects percieved are not of the things themselves, but of the mere representation of the objects.

I have wanted to start a thread dedicated to this topic for several months but the difficulty to verbalise my thought did not allow me to do that. Now it seems as if the time has come. Frankly speaking I don't know how to start, so let it be this:
Every knowledge we get, we get through our senses. I know that book is red because I perceive it as such, I know that water is called because I perceive that as such and so on.
But it seems that we claim that we know not only these simple things that red is red, this water is this water and so on. We claim that we know a certain reality which is beyond that. We call that causality. How does it come into being? We see that a certain actions are often followed by another certain actions and so it happens every time in our life. So we call the first "causes" and the last "effects" and we start believing that it is reality that one thing gives birth to another. It is very important to notice that this is BELIEF which has nothing to do with reality. Reality is always certain, I see what I see, and that's how it really is, I cannot mistake in it. Causality is an idea which is always liable to reconsideration. (Aristotle noticed that stones are falling faster than feathers and said that bodies with bigger mass are falling faster, according to modern conceptions it is wrong. But who said that tomorrow there won't come someone and say that all what we think of "natural laws" is wrong?) Science and religion has very much in common, I should even say they have the same basis -- belief that there is reality beyond what we see -- the difference lies only in method of getting truth. The idea that there is God is just as well wrong (or true) as the idea that atoms exist. No, I have to appologise, science doesn't believe that, it just takes that as a working hypothesis for reaching pragmatic goals, it is so-called science based philosophy or materialism that believe in that.
Time is also a joke. We notice that within our mind (let us call that so) there are some things called memories. We think that we were little, then started going to school, working etc. (Buddhism even created the idea of anatman, the absence of soul on the grounds that everything changes and so do we.) In reality there is only memory and the now, there is no time. Time seems to be a chain of memories and nothing more.
So in the light of everything said before, I think we should look upon the world as it is, and upon us as we are, without trying to align everything with made up theories.

It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

And, in a sense, doesn't our use of language imply, perhaps hidden in it lexicon and structure, a kind of theoretical underpinning holding it together and making it meaningful? We vote, we stop at red octagonal signs, we go to work; isn't there, lurking in the shadows, theoretical layers that we both understand and accept?

jgweed wrote:

It may be the causality is only a theory, but human life would be a very poor thing without being able to rely on it when planing for the future. I am not sure what is really meant by living in the here and now, but do human beings as opposed to brute animals ever live like that?

And, in a sense, doesn't our use of language imply, perhaps hidden in it lexicon and structure, a kind of theoretical underpinning holding it together and making it meaningful? We vote, we stop at red octagonal signs, we go to work; isn't there, lurking in the shadows, theoretical layers that we both understand and accept?

I simply love that phrase, "is only a theory". What does the "only" in that sentence mean? Of course, the theory of gravity is a theory, and so is germ theory a theory. But neither one of them is only a theory. To say that there is such a thing as molecular theory is, of course, true. But to say of it that it is only a theory is blatantly false. To say of a theory that it is only a theory is to say of it that it is a mere speculation, which little or no evidence to support it. But is that true of the theory of gravity, or the theory of germs? Absolutely not! There is a mass of evidence to support the theory of gravity, or the theory of germs. And, in fact, both theories, as well as atomic theory, Snell's theory of refraction, and a host of other well-established theories of science are well-established enough to be properly be said to be facts. Something can be a theory, and also a fact when the theory becomes well-established by evidence. So what does it mean to say that causality is "only a theory"? That we don't know that lowering the temperature of water to freezing causes water to turn to ice? Of course we know that. As well as we know our own names, or that planets orbit the Sun in elliptical orbits. Causality is a theory. But not only a theory. It is a fact.

If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity...

Ken --- We can never know any theory to be true. What is the criterion? That following it, we get a predicted result? Who on Earth told you that you've got it following YOUR theory (I wonder why should I recall the Aristotle example again), who told you that YOUR actions caused that, who told you that it has causes at all?

Fido wrote:

If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity...

See, this also only a theory. What will happen when we are open to the world no one can know.
Thanks for thy contibution, Fido.

Ken --- We can never know any theory to be true. What is the criterion? That following it, we get a predicted result? Who on Earth told you that you've got it following YOUR theory (I wonder why should I recall the Aristotle example again), who told you that YOUR actions caused that, who told you that it has causes at all?

Fido wrote:

If we would simply feel the pain we feel, and not rationalize it, and not forgive it, and file it away, and deny it, then we would be revolted, and destroy those who suffer us with indignity...

See, this also only a theory. What will happen when we are open to the world no one can know.
Thanks for thy contibution, Fido.

Why can't we know that a theory is true? Is your reason we cannot know a theory is true that later on we may find out that it is false? But that is no reason to think we cannot know a theory to be true, since it may very well be that we will never find out the theory is false because it is not false. It may indeed be true So, it cannot follow from the fact that we might find out that the theory is false, that we cannot know that it is true. For if it is true, we'll never find out that it is false, since it isn't false. Therefore, if this is your argument:

1. We might find out that the theory we thought we knew was true, is actually false.
2. If we might find out that the theory we thought we knew was true is actually false, then we cannot know any theory is true.
3. Therefore, we cannot know that any theory is true.

Then, your argument is unsound, because premise 2. is false. Do you see why premise 2 is false? (It is because just because we might find out that our theory is false doesn't mean that it is false, and it in fact may very well be true).

I think for some it does. If you were to say that a "theory is only a theory" might seem redundant to others, but the "only" part does seem to make a theory, well, something less than a theory. I think people have a problem differentiating between a "theory" and a "hypothesis". They take the former for the latter.

I have come to realize over the past few months that theories are just a tad bit harder to knock down than a hypothesis, because by the very definition of theory we assert that there is a coherent group of principles to describe a group of phenomena. Hypothesis is really only a conjecture or a guess that can aid in scientific investigation. The former is much stronger than the latter and for that reason I take theories much more seriously, as everyone else should. But for some reason people assert that "theories are only theories", as if the claim makes theories something less than what they really are.

If we live in the moment we cannot deny a certain indgnance over the mis-management of our affairs and resources, which is nothing but criminal... And when the government not only protects criminals but takes part in the crime we should be indignant...

Why can't we know that a theory is true?