Whatever they are, I firmly believe scientific studies are a good way to understand the universe and live in it, and I'll follow this principle until its absurd conclusion at a later date . Personally, I think that reifying reality according to mathematical frameworks IS allowing the data to dictate. That's why science and mathematics are so fascinating. The big picture they paint is very compelling, if a little rough around the edges.Metacrock wrote:Yes, but see the reason for that is those studies are not truly empirical in the original sense of the word. They are inductive but not empirical in Cartesian sense. In other words they reify reality according to statistical frameworks rather than allowing the data to dictate. Thus they are actually "metaphysics" in Heidegger's sense.Ok, but usually it's not considered part of the same framework as, say, physics or neurobiology, but I put it in that context. This is high praise coming from me
I actually think you're right about science being metaphysics, in the sense that metaphysics is concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of being and the world, but I do not know what Heidegger thought.
Whenever I learn a new fact, open my eyes, or hear a sound, sense data goes into my brain and integrates with this big picture of the world that I have in my head. I thought this happens for everyone.No. Only the inductive kind. The original term meant "I experince this first hand, I've seen it myself" from the Greek Episteme meaning first hand knowledge.Any empirical approach involves categorizing data and putting it in a contextual or theoretical framework.
That big picture is a framework, and adding sense data to it constitutes (I guess) inductive empiricism. Isn't it?
That is not what I am trying to say at all. If we told the data what to say, we would never learn anything new, yet we clearly do.No you are trying to say it can only speak when we tell it what to say. That's not true.Data can only speak for itself when it is linked together with the rest of the cosmos.
Which categories and possibilities do the phenomena suggest, which are ignored by my concept of God and phenomenology? And don't forget that the categories I use are also suggested by a set of phenomena, namely the natural world outside. Why is this invalid?It speaks for itself when you let the phenomena suggest the categories.
Yes, data requires interpretation, but interpretation depends upon the categories you allow the data to fall into. If you select the categories in advance you only get the answers you want. If you allow the phenomena to suggest the categories then you see more possibilities.
The difference in data and phenomena is that data is already refined. Data is phenomena that has been sifted and refined and polished into "data," information that tells us what we want to hear. But Phenomena includes qualia and all kinds of things. So its' data in its raw state. You allow the categories to be suggest by the raw state of experience then you obviously more open to greater possibilities.
Cool, I am looking him up. Your description of his argument sounds consistent with the beliefs I'm forming. We shall see if that's superficial or notOne of my God arguments, one that I have not used on boards since I first began on message boards (because it's too subtle for most people) is Gabriel Marcel's personal argument for the existence of God. Marcel argued that he found God in the human consciousness, he saw God in other people's personal natures. That's a first person perspective.
Marcel was the leading Christian existentialist of the 20th century.
Neato. "Developing consciousness" sounds like a worthwhile endeavor in its own right, actually. However, I'm about to cultivate a period non-consciousness. (this would be a good place for a sleepy smiley, but awkward and tiny text in parentheses will have to suffice)I have been slowly coming a new position beyond God arguments. I'm now trying to formulate a way of stating my position. We don't need God arguments. It's not a matter of proving, it's a matter of developing consciousness.