Implications of particulate knowledge

So, what’s the big deal? What impact does this have on the scientific process? It has a dramatic impact: we can only ask scientific questions about that which we have the capacity to observe. What we have the capacity to observe – what particulate knowledge we then go on to form – is a direct and explicit result of the mechanisms of the mind: programming, intent, and knowledge we’ve already formed. These all contribute to where we’ll look, how we will investigate, and what conclusions we will draw.

Our working paradigm for what is – our expectation of what can be known – is shaped entirely by our input. We have 5 sensory input pathways. That’s all. And yet, people will become violent in defense of the purity and totality of what can be known through scientific process, which only works with particulate knowledge. We do not know what lies beyond the veil of our 5 input pathways. We cannot even conceive of another sense that we could then search for it or test it.

I’ll restate it because it’s so important: we can only ask scientific questions about that which we have the capacity to observe, and what particulate knowledge we then go on to form, is a direct and explicit result of the mechanisms of the mind.

(more…)

A basic framework for the mind

So we have total data – the entirety of existence. I would now like to move on from there to talk about humans, and our capacity to apprehend.

It is my belief that the only thing humans are capable of working with is knowledge. Where we’re talking about logic, history, shopping lists, faith, or hatred, all of this I’ defining as knowledge – the contents of the mind. The analogy of binary – the 1′s and 0′s a computer uses – helps to illustrate what I mean. The exclusive and internal language or processing. Yes, the category of knowledge is far more abstract, open to debate, and uncertain as far as any fundamental property is concerned, but I think it’s fairly safe to say that a mind can only use knowledge. This would seem to be somewhat self-evident – the mind creates and interprets knowledge, and in turn, knowledge only exists in the mind.

(more…)

A basic framework for reality

I generally agree with the Kantian concepts of noumena and phenomena. That is there are things-in-themselves (noumena), but we are only able to apprehend certain properties via our senses (phenomena). There is a rough correlation here between what we would typically call objective (the thing in itself) and the subjective (what a viewer is able to experience of that thing).

I personally believe that noumena deals with objects and must therefor have some phenomenal
expression Thus, I would not include the mind, the soul, rational thought, love, or God in the noumena box. However, some people would do so as they believe the concept noumena is nothing more than a bucket for all “objects of inquiry,” regardless if any perception is possible or not. Granted. I’ll concede that my definition might be too narrow, and maybe even flat out wrong. In the scope of this discussion, the distinction is not critical.

(more…)