[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[Micah]

Laird,

Snazzy tools are an extension of our senses. If there is an unknowable
reality, how do you know about it?

Kant's stated goal was to defend religion from the onslaught of science. He
somehow knows of an unknowable reality that science cannot explain, is the
answer Jesus?

Micah


-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Laird Bedore
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 1:16 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle


Hi guys, I can't resist butting in...

This is one of those things about reality that's SO directly in our
faces that we can't see it. It's too obvious and we take it for granted.

In your other reply, you said:

> [Micah]
> What we know of our biology comes from our senses. Our senses are our
> biology.

No dude, our senses are our senses. There's biological SQ "out there" in
that external reality. We may know _about_ it through our senses and
intellect, but our knowledge (intellectual SQ) OF the biological SQ is
not exactly the biological SQ. We may only "know" about the existence of
biological SQ through the use of our intellectual SQ version, but that
doesn't stop us from trying to act upon that biological SQ directly.

For example, surprising lab experiments. There are plenty of times when
a scientist does a controlled in the lab and gets VERY unexpected
results. If the biological or inorganic SQ the scientist is manipulating
in the experiment (external reality) was exactly the same as the
intellectual SQ rendition of it in his mind (internal reality), he would
never get unexpected results. But he does, and these are seen as
breakthroughs: situations when our (internal) interpretation of
(external) reality is improved.

So yeah. Reality beyond our senses. There's more to the universe than
what our senses make available to our minds. Infra-red that our eyes
can't see, supersonic frequencies that our ears can't hear, chemical
subtleties our smell/taste cannot distinguish. These things are "out
there" in external reality. We find out about them through snazzy tools
and thus create an internal rendition of what they're about, but our
senses still can't sense them.

What's the alternative? No reality beyond our senses? That reduces all
(real, not just intellectualized) quality to intellectual quality.
That'd invalidate the MoQ in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

-Laird

> [Micah]
> Case,
>
> What other sources? A reality beyond our senses?
>
> Micah
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:35 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle
>
>
> Not exactly, Kant agreed with the empiricists that information comes in
> through the senses. But he agreed with the rationalists that we have other
> sources of information. Reality is constructed out of this interplay of
the
> senses and our biology.
>
> Case
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Micah
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:59 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle
>
> Case,
>
> I understand what Kant is saying about TITS. He is saying there is a
reality
> we cannot know. How does he know that, since our only connection to
reality
> is our senses. He is using his senses to disqualify his senses. I do agree
> that we anthropomorphize reality, but that is not a disqualification of
> reality, as Kant does.
>
> Micah
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org]On Behalf Of Case
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 11:37 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle
>
>
> Micah,
>
> You keep saying this like it is significant. Do you think your sense tell
> you everything? Do you think your senses are accurate all the time? I
think
> you confuses sensation and perception and perception and cognition. We
only
> have five senses for example and they operate only within a limited range.
> Kant was talking about something else though. He was saying that something
> in our organic structure causes us to organize our sensations in
particular
> ways.
>
> Case
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Micah
> Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 12:18 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle
>
> Case,
>
> Help me with this thread. How does Kant know his senses can't be trust to
> know TITS? How does he know that there are TITS? Is he using senses that
> can't be trusted? How does he know when to trust his senses and when not
to?
>
> Micah
>
>
>

moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/