It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The cult of knowledge

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2018 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnorantGod




I would say that knowing is the illusion, we can believe though. Since I can doubt the links between my mind and the matter, I can doubt everything, even the doubt of the links. That brings me to believe that the only certitude is the absolute of the doubt, this absolute brings me to doubt the certitude of it, making it absolute, and then, I can be more certain of it.


You're believing that you cannot know. That's a matter of faith. If you were asked to doubt the fact that copper conducts electricity, you'd have to formulate some fantasy, without evidence, as to why you'd doubt it.




posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What we call evidence, based on our observations could be, in fact fantasy, if our observations aren't based on the nature of the object observed. Since we can't verify that our senses catch the true nature of the objects, we can't know if our evidences are the true form of the matter, if it react way we theorize it (which are also based on observations) or something completely different.
edit on 5 3 2018 by IgnorantGod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: IgnorantGod
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What we call evidence, based on our observations could be, in fact fantasy, if our observations aren't based on the nature of the object observed. Since we can't verify that our senses catch the true nature of the objects, we can't know if our evidences are the true form of the matter, if it react way we theorize it (which are also based on observations) or something completely different.

Yes, but our limited senses are better than no senses at all.

It's like the very old story of the blind men who each touch a different part of a very big elephant. Not only they are blind so they have to rely exclusively on their sense of touch, and not only they have to rely exclusively on their sense of touch but they also don't get to touch the whole of the elephant, only parts. They don't know what they are touching. Their experience of the whole truth is very limited, but is it better than nothing or is it equal to nothing ?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnorantGod




What we call evidence, based on our observations could be, in fact fantasy, if our observations aren't based on the nature of the object observed. Since we can't verify that our senses catch the true nature of the objects, we can't know if our evidences are the true form of the matter, if it react way we theorize it (which are also based on observations) or something completely different.


What you're asking for is how something should appear without anything to examine it. That's fantasy. There is nothing that suggests our observations are not based on the "true nature" of the object observed.
edit on 3-5-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I'm not asking for it, I'm just pointing the possibility of it. That from the nature of our senses, we can't be certain of them, making a doubt. The doubt doesn't nor shouldn't prevent anyone to use his/her senses to analyze what's surrounding us. After all, like gosseyn wrote : "our limited senses are better than no senses at all."



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: IgnorantGod

Would you say, for example, that the time that passes is a fantasy ? What happens if there are no entities or forms of life that are able to feel the passing time ? Wouldn't time become instantaneous ? After we die for example, is there still a difference between one second and one billion years ? Is time just an illusion made by the brain and directed at itself ?



posted on May, 3 2018 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: gosseynWell, for myself I don't see it as a fantasy. For time, I believe it is the consequence of the ever-changing state of the matter. By changing, time is perceivable, but at our scale of matter, we see it flowing, fluid, because the changes are too fast for us to perceive each of them. That's my theory based upon what I perceive, I must say I don't know much about time in atomic scale and smaller, nor in the cosmic scale and greater.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join