thehomer:

You are asking for too much.

That's OK. You have Krayola to discuss with, and you can be doing your mo-fo and FTFY together.

sinequanon:

That's OK. You have Krayola to discuss with, and you can be doing your mo-fo and FTFY together.

Now you are simply using any excuse to run away from the issue after being called out.

You have been shown the full meaning of FTFY, you have been presented with a respectable link for you to independently assess the full meaning and I still do not see why you think it is gutter language.

Here's another site where you can see other meanings of the abbreviation in order of popularity I still do not see anything wrong since in this discussion just one of them fits after showing the modification made to your statement.
http://www.abbreviations.com/FTFY

Besides what do you think it means?

the fundamental difference is very clear but you need to go back  to history to get the details. religion relies on faith and belief whether there is proof or not whereas science does not accept anything at face values without proof and evidence on how it works. e.g when Christopher Columbus who discovered America was about to set sail he was told by the pope that the world is flat and that he will fall into the abyss if he reaches the edge of the flat earth. but Columbus moved on and not only discovered a continent but also discovered the red indians whose existence was not accounted for in the bible. this caused quite a problem in christendom when Columbus came back with the red indians as the scholars struggled to account for the red race.
secondly Galileo using his telescope was able to discover the earth revolves around the sun but at that time the christians believed that the sun moves around the earth. Galileo was accused of witch craft and tortured by the church and made to recant his findings. it was only recently that the pope apologized to scientists over the maltreatment of Galileo who was stating only truth he discovered through experiment. fundamentally there is no problem with science as we have seen how science has made our lives easier over the decades. every knowledge that comes through science actually comes from God who uses a viable vessel to manifest that knowledge for the upliftment of mankind but fundamentally there is a lot of problems with some religions being practiced on earth today which instead of sowing seeds of love is creating discord among people with claims that theirs is the best and only religion to take one back to God and with such myopic views that grand vision which God is revealing to man today is lost to such people. one should be scientific in his approach to religion and should not swallow hook line and sinker anything he is told about God without investigation as to its authenticity. this is the only way one can prove the existence of God to him or herself. this them becomes his/ her authority and not  just a blind belief.

@ Jagunlabi

Neither Kabbalah nor Suffism, is homogenous. They are all expressed differently is different places and by different people, and use different texts from their various Holy texts. They have some texts in common, but their interpretations are different. When u say "ancient mystery schools" like they were coherent teachings that were kept by a select group, it sounds ridiculous to the informed reader.

haha. the thing is that there are so many things wrong with what you are claiming that I honestly don't even know how to start dealing with it.

First of all Judaism is based on a Covenant with Abraham and the Law believed to be given to Moses on mount Sinai. BTW the Torah was, and is still believed to have been written by Moses as received from God. It's authority lies in its "divine origin". Not of some parts of it, but the whole of it. Without these there is no Judaism. The Torah, which is the holy text of Jews is at the heart of Kabbalah. The Zohar, Bahir, etc, texts central to Kabbalah, are all based on the Torah and some of the books of the prophets in the old Testament. But the heart of it all is the Pentateuch. . . The 5 books believed to have been the work of Moses. Any definition of Judaism in which both those elements are not at the heart does not describe Judaism.

Here is something on Kabbalah. . . u can scroll down the page if u don't want to read the whole thing.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=WxISb61NjkMC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=specifically,+Kabbalah+is+the+jewish+mystical+tradition&source=bl&ots=EgeD7pU1LE&sig=xLtA5UXYAfAoCi71yEVCZ4L4Moo&hl=en&ei=Abp1S5fwIdShnQf9u-CiCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=specifically%2C%20Kabbalah%20is%20the%20jewish%20mystical%20tradition&f=false

That was a textbook I used. Here is something about the author. .  I'll take his word over the guy in your video.

A native of New York, Sherwin received his BS from Columbia University, his MA (Philosophy) from NYU, and his PhD from the University of Chicago’s prestigious Committee on the History of Culture. He also received a Bachelor of Hebrew Literature, a Masters of Hebrew Literature, a Rabbinical Ordination and an honorary Doctor of Hebrew Letters from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTSA).  

I'm providing you with stuff from credible scholars in the fields. . . so some guy on a youtube video whose credentials i cannot confirm won't do it for me. Especially when his ideas just don't add up when checked against the known history of the religions he claims to be discussing.

There is no Jewish Mysticism without the Torah. It is believed to be the manifestation of the divine on earth. That is what Kabbalah and even Hasidism, an earlier form of Jewish mysticism are based on. To suggest that the Institutionalized form is only a means to and end, and not the "tree" from which the "branch", Kabbalah, springs from is just ridiculous IMO.



Sufism also grew out of Islam. I was hoping I would be able to find a pdf of my book online so i could just give you a link to the relevant pages and u can access it but it's not avilable and there is no way i'm goin to type all that stuff out. Here is an an excerpt from an overview of Islam that I found though.

Muslim Mysticism [TOP]

From an early period in the development of Islam some individuals and groups began to feel that it was not enough simply to live according to the law and hope to achieve salvation in that way. They desired a stronger religious experience and sought to become closer to God through a variety of devotional and meditational practices, and sometimes through an austere ascetic way of life. Those who engaged in such practices came to be called Sufis. The characteristic aim of Sufism was to obtain a direct experience of God. This is a form of spirituality which has similarities in religions other than Islam and is usually referred to as mysticism. It has often been viewed with suspicion by non-mystical religious authorities who see it as a threat to institutional religion. The practices and beliefs of the Sufis came to be feared as possible rivals to those followed by the majority of ordinary Muslims.

http://www.asu.edu/clubs/ffc/docs/faiths/islam.htm#Mysticism

Actually I'm goin to scan the relevant pages and post them. I'll be back. .  

Pastor AIO:

Even Punch and Vanguard are full of esoteric meaning.  Which now leads us to the question   . . . .   Is meaning intrinsic in objects or is it conferred upon objects by the perceiver?

I think meaning is, ultimately, created by the perceiver. That's why if someone tells me that the Gospel of John has a secret meanin to him, I don't know how to argue against that. If that is what it means to him then so be it. But I swear when i watch tales by moonlight I see secrets to the universe   walahi talahi i no de lie

alexben:

Science is d opposite of Religion.

Not helping. .

adconline:

Science is tested truth=falsible, but religion is untested truth

Clean. Simple. Accurate.

benodic:

the fundamental difference is very clear but you need to go back  to history to get the details. religion relies on faith and belief whether there is proof or not whereas science does not accept anything at face values without proof and evidence on how it works. e.g when Christopher Columbus who discovered America was about to set sail he was told by the pope that the world is flat and that he will fall into the abyss if he reaches the edge of the flat earth. but Columbus moved on,

Does the Bible say the Earth is flat?

Of course there was "evidence" that the world is flat. People looked and saw an 'edge'.

Then explorers, not necessarily scientists, looked closer and reinterpreted their observations. That doesn't take science. A migratory pigeon can do it.

There is "evidence" the Earth is round. Well that idea is not absolute. There are different models for space, from multi-dimensional space to multiverses depending on the phenomenon you are trying to describe.

If you are looking at cosmic rays entering the Earth, a relativistic model may use a flat Earth due to Lorentz contraction.

If you are interested in weather, your model has the Sun going round the Earth.

For certain predictions, humans have been taught or instinctively find it to be easier to conceptualise certain geometries. You could model the Earth at the centre of the universe and make equally accurate predictions. But the way we have learnt to conceptualise would make the mathematics tedious.

Does the Bible say the Earth is flat?  Bible is not a scienctific book, but a  compilation of historic events premised on christian doctrines.

Of course there was "evidence" that the world is flat. People looked and saw an 'edge'.
Could you tell me why New Year's Eve (December 31) in New York is January 1, in Nigeria and January 2 in New Zealand?
Could also explain according to Genesis. God said let there be light and there was light' why this assertion doesnt apply to the whole world. Night time in some countries is daytime in some countries.

adconline:

Does the Bible say the Earth is flat?  Bible is not a scienctific book, but a  compilation of historic events premised on christian doctrines.

This looks like a comment rather than an answer to the question. Could you please expand on the relevance of your comment and also answer the question?

adconline:
Of course there was "evidence" that the world is flat. People looked and saw an 'edge'.
Could you tell me why New Year's Eve (December 31) in New York is January 1, in Nigeria and January 2 in New Zealand?

No. But, I could describe a model that fits the observations. This however is not my point. My point is that evidence is subjective and transient.

I was responding to a poster who said that people accepted that the Earth is flat, "without evidence." Well, as I said, seeing the 'edge' of the Earth was taken as evidence at the time. The evidence was there, but has become outdated.

Similarly, scientists believed evidence that matter was made of indivisible beads called atoms. The evidence has become outdated. I don't think that the same poster would claim that scientists at the time believed what they did "without evidence." So why does he make this claim about non-scientists in a similar situation? imo, that is to misunderstand the meaning of evidence.

Even at one point in time, you can have evidence pointing towards a conclusion, and other evidence point away from it. They 'conflict', but both are still regarded as evidence. If one becomes the preferred explanation, the other doesn't magically cease to be evidence relating to the relevant point in history.

adconline:
Could also explain according to Genesis. God said let there be light and there was light' why this assertion doesnt apply to the whole world. Night time in some countries is daytime in some countries.

Not sure what you are looking for behind this, but you'd be better off asking a Christian, I think.

i am really surprised at all the contributions under this topic. some of the mathematical equations coming from some of the contributors are also mind boggling. for me this topic is quite simple. i will rather put it in another way. what is the difference between moving forward and staying in the same place? because if you look at religion and science you will find that science is the only one moving forward and making necessary changes. when a certain concept becomes outdated and no longer works science immediately drops it and picks up a new and better one. but unfortunately for religion to make necessary changes is virtually impossible as it will mean the virtual death of that religion. e.g the catholic church refused to allow their priests to get married even though most of them have been involved in relationships with females. so far as i am concerned that concept of priests not marrying is outdated but they do not want to move on as they feel it will mean an end to their doctrine.

science is physical; what you can see. religion is spiritual; what you believe in

no difference @poster but what I know is what science lacks xtianity can have answers
scientists re just fulfilling the verse in genesis in which God gave dominion to homo sapiens

adconline:

Science is tested truth=falsible, but religion is untested truth

how can s/thing untested be verified and seen as truth?is this statement not REDUNDANT?perhaps u shud have said UNTESTED beliefs
cos truth is ABSOLUTE

Iyineda:

Not helping. .


Clean. Simple. Accurate.

@IYINEDA U mean u will accept dat s/tin dat is not tested is the truth?do you reason before postin comments at all?

Pastor AIO:

,  Which now leads us to the question . . . . Is meaning intrinsic in objects or is it conferred upon objects by the perceiver?

please Pastor AIO
r u a theist or an atheist , cos most of ur statements r philosophical but tend to support neutrality,avbin asking this question and u refuse to answer let me know ur stand cos most of ur posts tends to support different views at the same time,

unitee link=topic=3958msg5509601#msg5509601 date=1266094656:

no difference @poster but what I know is what science lacks xtianity can have answers
scientists re just fulfilling the verse in genesis in which God gave dominion to homo sapiens

??/what do mean cos am tryin hard to understand ur above statement,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pastor AIO link=topic=3958msg5509601#msg5509601 date=1266094656:


Abeg, I agree with you completely, totally and absolutely.  There is no difference between religion and science.

If anyone wants to come and state otherwise let them come

Really? r u sure of waht u r saying Pastor AIO?
Again i ask r u a christian or a philosoher or both?cuz ur arguments r some times surreal,

the difference?

SCIENCE SAYS:
HERE ARE THE FACTS, WHAT CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM THESE FACTS?

RELIGION SAYS:
HERE ARE THE CONCLUSIONS,WHAT FACTS CAN WE FIND TO SUPPORT THESE CONCLUSIONS?

blackcypha:

please Pastor AIO
r u a theist or an atheist , cos most of your statements r philosophical but tend to support neutrality,avbin asking this question and u refuse to answer let me know your stand cos most of your posts tends to support different views at the same time,

May I refer you to these thread to answer your question.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-335826.0.html

And to this page on the Paul Kurtz thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-148054.64.html

blackcypha:

the difference?

SCIENCE SAYS:
HERE ARE THE FACTS, WHAT CONCLUSION CAN WE DRAW FROM THESE FACTS?

Many are under the conceit that that is how science operates

blackcypha:


RELIGION SAYS:
HERE ARE THE CONCLUSIONS,WHAT FACTS CAN WE FIND TO SUPPORT THESE CONCLUSIONS?

Many religious people think like this but there is more to religion that this sort of reasoning.

My point is that there are certain tendencies in human thought processes. Those tendencies manifest in the activities of scientists as well as of religionists. Everyone is subject to them. There is also a real quest for truth that can manifest in the activities of scientists and religionists too.

A discussion about similarities between religion and science would be more interesting.Yes, there are quite a few of those and if we do explore them we might get some eye-openers.

Pastor AIO:

There is also a real quest for truth that can manifest in the activities of scientists and religionists too.

I find it hard to swallow that claim,pastor.To say that a religionist is on a quest for the "truth" in any way is just not true.
Is it not true that all religionists already believe that they started from the truth, hence no need for any quest?The rest of their activities, henceforth, is mainly to have unflinching faith in that truth(whatever that truth may be) and do occasionally maintainance tasks on that "truth".
The only quest i do see in religion is finding and maintaining the good and favourable side of whatever deity they identify with through worship for the sake of getting both material blessings in this world, and divine ethereal blessings in the here after.

adconline:

Does the Bible say the Earth is flat?  Bible is not a scienctific book, but a  compilation of historic events premised on christian doctrines.

Of course there was "evidence" that the world is flat. People looked and saw an 'edge'.
Could you tell me why New Year's Eve (December 31) in New York is January 1, in Nigeria and January 2 in New Zealand?
Could also explain according to Genesis. God said let there be light and there was light' why this assertion doesnt apply to the whole world. Night time in some countries is daytime in some countries.

The Bible is not a scientific book but on a number of occasions, it has stated facts which science caught up with centuries later, about the question of the shape of the earth, the bible in Isaiah 40:22 states

Isaiah 40:22 (King James Version)

22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

This was written centuries b4 greek philosophers theorized it, and Millenniums b4 Yuri Gangarin actually saw the circle of the earth from his space craft. The Bible writer Isaiah avoided the common myths about the earth. Instead, he penned a statement that was not threatened by the advances of scientific discovery.

In ancient times, humans were perplexed by other questions about the cosmos: What is the earth resting on? What holds up the sun, the moon, and the stars?
Among the most influential views were those of Aristotle. Although he theorized that the earth is a sphere, he denied that it could ever hang in empty space. In his treatise On the Heavens, when refuting the notion that the earth rests on water, he said: “It is not the nature of water, any more than of earth, to stay in mid-air: it must have something to rest upon.” So, what does the earth “rest upon”? Aristotle taught that the sun, the moon, and the stars were attached to the surface of solid, transparent spheres. Sphere lay nestled within sphere, with the earth—immobile—at the center. As the spheres revolved within one another, the objects on them—the sun, the moon, and the planets—moved across the sky.

The views of the revered Aristotle were accepted as fact for some 2,000 years.

With the invention of the telescope, astronomers began to question Aristotle’s theory. Still, the answer eluded them until Sir Isaac Newton explained that the planets are suspended in empty space, held in their orbits by an invisible force—gravity. It seemed incredible, and some of Newton’s colleagues found it hard to believe that space could be a void, largely empty of substance

What does the Bible have to say on this question? Nearly 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated with extraordinary clarity that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7)

Job 26:7 (Young's Literal Translation)

7Stretching out the north over desolation, Hanging the earth upon nothing,

Job 26:7 (New International Version)

7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
      he suspends the earth over nothing.

Most of the contradictions people perceived between science and religion/Bible is because we don't fully understand both. Both have been misinterpreted by their adherents and sometimes they seem not to have patience for each other.

Pastor AIO:

Even Punch and Vanguard are full of esoteric meaning. Which now leads us to the question . . . . Is meaning intrinsic in objects or is it conferred upon objects by the perceiver?

Excellent question, sir! Only a new thread would really do it justice.

Not many people saw my "can you think without words?" thread, and no-one posted on it. But it is a related question.

What is meaning? How does a 'baby' learn?

I would say that a 'baby' develops sense rather than meaning, but only up to a point. Eventually meaning supersedes and new observations are interpreted relative to the accumulated sense. It is that process of interpretation or translation that encapsulates meaning. Meaning arrests the comprehension, the accumulation of sense.

jagunlabi:

The only quest i do see in religion is finding and maintaining the good and favourable side of whatever deity they identify with through worship for the sake of getting both material blessings in this world, and divine ethereal blessings in the here after.

I think that scientists also believe they have started from truth. They create a (mathematical) logic and believe that 'the universe' is consistent with respect to that logic.

If you put that point to a scientist, he would simply come up with the rhetoric question, "can you think of anything better?" Then we are into subjective opinion, because the religious man is going to answer, "yes, God."

sinequanon:

What is meaning? How does a 'baby' learn?

I would say that a 'baby' develops sense rather than meaning, but only up to a point. Eventually meaning supersedes and new observations are interpreted relative to the accumulated sense. It is that process of interpretation or translation that encapsulates meaning. Meaning arrests the comprehension, the accumulation of sense.

Meaning that meaning is basically subjective relying on individual interpretations and translation of acquired and accumulated  informations by the mind through 5 senses perception?

sinequanon:

I think that scientists also believe they have started from truth. They create a (mathematical) logic and believe that 'the universe' is consistent with respect to that logic.

I think you are just trying to be disingenous with this statement in order to provoke a ground for further debate.Not even you believe that scientists and science start from any truth.That is why there is no theory of everything.

jagunlabi:

Meaning that meaning is basically subjective relying on individual interpretations and translation of acquired and accumulated informations by the mind through 5 senses perception?

I prefer to use the word 'observation' rather than 'information', and I hope the '5' you have quoted is metaphorical!

Objectivity is no more that consensus of subjective opinion won by socio-political means. It reflects no more than morphological and psychological similarities between stakeholders, who project their morphology and psychology onto everything else and declare them universal.

Informations are acquired through observations made via the 5 senses.Why should my mention of "5" be metaphorical?A baby makes observations of the world around it via these senses to start the process of building it's mind up.

sinequanon:

I prefer to use the word 'observation' rather than 'information', and I hope the '5' you have quoted is metaphorical!

Objectivity is no more that consensus of subjective opinion won by socio-political means. It reflects no more than morphological and psychological similarities between stakeholders, who project their morphology and psychology onto everything else and declare them universal.

jagunlabi:

I think you are just trying to be disingenous with this statement in order to provoke a ground for further debate.Not even you believe that scientists and science start from any truth.That is why there is no theory of everything.

Well, you are not the first to claim I am disingenuous, so I will not hold that against anyone. I give my heart-felt opinions based on my own (probably unusual) experiences. Of course, you are free to disagree with that, but it could hamper our discussion by making you more dismissive.

I actually think you have evaded my point that scientists start from belief in an unassailable truth, comprising a particular logic and statistical framework. Clearly, these are so deeply ingrained in your psyche that entertaining concepts beyond them seems absurd to you. To me, it doesn't. As I said in an earlier post, I believe objectivity to be morphological and psychological. It is only our similarities in these respects, both taught and innate or inherited that amass to give an impression of universality. It is essentially a socio-political process.

Once a putative truth has been deemed, it still has to be unravelled. You can define a number system, but it can take centuries to unravel an implication such as Fermat's Last Theorem.

Similarly, stating that a book is the holy truth, still leaves the believer with the task of interpreting it.

I hope you can now see where I am coming from.

jagunlabi:

Informations are acquired through observations made via the 5 senses.Why should my mention of "5" be metaphorical?A baby makes observations of the world around it via these senses to start the process of building it's mind up.

Even a scientist would tell you that humans have more than five senses. They deem five of our senses to be major senses. Our senses of temperature and damp, for example, are not categorised as major. Many of our senses may be very dim -- electro-magnetic etc. I recall a recent article on a form of ghostly sight that some blind people develop. Shapes and shades of things around them register in their conscious, but scientists don't 'know how'.

This is why I say that morphology is at the heart of our beliefs. If our psychology had demanded a different way of life, our morphology would reflect a different sensory emphasis, and our description of the 'universe' would be different.

jagunlabi:

I find it hard to swallow that claim,pastor.To say that a religionist is on a quest for the "truth" in any way is just not true.
Is it not true that all religionists already believe that they started from the truth, hence no need for any quest?The rest of their activities, henceforth, is mainly to have unflinching faith in that truth(whatever that truth may be) and do occasionally maintainance tasks on that "truth".
The only quest i do see in religion is finding and maintaining the good and favourable side of whatever deity they identify with through worship for the sake of getting both material blessings in this world, and divine ethereal blessings in the here after.

Yes, I imagine you would.  That is because, I think, you have a beef with the word religion. I don't want to get into an argument over what is the proper definition of religion.

sinequanon:

Excellent question, sir! Only a new thread would really do it justice.

Not many people saw my "can you think without words?" thread, and no-one posted on it. But it is a related question.

What is meaning? How does a 'baby' learn?

I would say that a 'baby' develops sense rather than meaning, but only up to a point. Eventually meaning supersedes and new observations are interpreted relative to the accumulated sense. It is that process of interpretation or translation that encapsulates meaning. Meaning arrests the comprehension, the accumulation of sense.

I take it that by 'sense' you mean perception.  I understand meaning to simply be a reference.  I believe that we instinctively make connections between one event and another so that we say that the one event means the other event.   eg. she blows me a kiss means she loves me.  The kiss refers to the state of being in love.  Bonjour means Good day, ie the french word is a direct reference to the english word.  We connect up the world and all the events it contains with these lines of references. 

We can uses these meanings to predict things that we don't then perceive directly. eg. The empty room is smelling of cigarette means that someone was in here a short while ago smoking a cigarette. I didn't see the person but I know because I know what a smelly room means.

Yet can we say we actually perceive (sense) those lines of references, those meanings, like we perceive a ball on the lawn, or do we merely arrive there by means of induction.  Are those meanings real objects?  Perhaps they are in which case, far from arresting comprehension, they will help us to understand the world better.  On the other hand if they are mere conceits then they will arrest comprehension of the universe. 

We've only got two hands, but if we had 3 hands I could say, on the final other hand . . . perhaps the connections of meanings were real objects but they were dynamic according to laws of their own.  In this 3rd scenario then the problem won't be whether the meanings that we believe in are real or conceits but rather whether the meanings that we once induced are still valid.

Pastor AIO:
I take it that by 'sense' you mean perception.  I understand meaning to simply be a reference.  I believe that we instinctively make connections between one event and another so that we say that the one event means the other event.   eg. she blows me a kiss means she loves me.  The kiss refers to the state of being in love.  Bonjour means Good day, ie the french word is a direct reference to the english word.  We connect up the world and all the events it contains with these lines of references. 

We can uses these meanings to predict things that we don't then perceive directly. eg. The empty room is smelling of cigarette means that someone was in here a short while ago smoking a cigarette. I didn't see the person but I know because I know what a smelly room means.

Yet can we say we actually perceive (sense) those lines of references, those meanings, like we perceive a ball on the lawn, or do we merely arrive there by means of induction.  Are those meanings real objects?  Perhaps they are in which case, far from arresting comprehension, they will help us to understand the world better.  On the other hand if they are mere conceits then they will arrest comprehension of the universe. 

We've only got two hands, but if we had 3 hands I could say, on the final other hand . . . perhaps the connections of meanings were real objects but they were dynamic according to laws of their own.  In this 3rd scenario then the problem won't be whether the meanings that we believe in are real or conceits but rather whether the meanings that we once induced are still valid. 

I understand 'the smell' to be a 'sensation'. It has context and peculiarity -- it reminds me of cigarette. I have added sense to the sensation.

I would be assigning meaning to that sense, if I were to claim that the smell is the smell of cigarette. Some subjective measure of past experience may qualify the meaning as "direct" and above some notional threshold of confidence. However, if the reference is sufficiently remote -- a smoker was recently in the room -- the meaning is downgraded to a prediction. However, I see both references as tentative and realness as artificial.

sinequanon:

I understand 'the smell' to be a 'sensation'. It has context and peculiarity -- it reminds me of cigarette. I have added sense to the sensation.

I would be assigning meaning to that sense, if I were to claim that the smell is the smell of cigarette. Some subjective measure of past experience may qualify the meaning as "direct" and above some notional threshold of confidence. However, if the reference is sufficiently remote -- a smoker was recently in the room -- the meaning is downgraded to a prediction. However, I see both references as tentative and realness as artificial.

But by being a prediction (or rather a deduction) is it really being downgraded? How are you sure that the smell can be identified as that of a cigarette? Perhaps there is another substance/molecule that smell remarkably like a cigarette. So perhaps all references/meanings/inferences/whateveryouwannacallit are artificial (in the sense of being made by man as opposed to naturally occurring). Imagine a mind that engaged only in pure cognition, not re-cognition, or naming, or labeling, or categorising, or referencing. Just perceiving things as they are. Perception AS IS.

Pastor AIO:

But by being a prediction (or rather a deduction) is it really being downgraded? How are you sure that the smell can be identified as that of a cigarette? Perhaps there is another substance/molecule that smell remarkably like a cigarette. So perhaps all references/meanings/inferences/whateveryouwannacallit are artificial (in the sense of being made by man as opposed to naturally occurring). Imagine a mind that engaged only in pure cognition, not re-cognition, or naming, or labeling, or categorising, or referencing. Just perceiving things as they are. Perception AS IS.

Yes, this is what I mean.

The term "downgrading" was in reference to the confidence we subjectively assign to our (artificial) deductions.

And what you have termed "pure cognition" or "Perception AS IS" is similar to what I have termed "sense".

The mind that engages solely in "pure cognition" comprehends rather than analyses. This is why I said somewhere that there is no logic in 'infinite comprehension'. Seeking meaning requires analysis and logic, and arrests the comprehension.

Pastor AIO

I have to say, you are the first person I have come across who has demonstrated an ability to entertain my perspective. You will not believe how often I have been called disingenuous, or accused of sophism, by people who do not follow.

sinequanon:


And what you have termed "pure cognition" or "Perception AS IS" is similar to what I have termed "sense".

I thought so, that was why I asked (rather said) . . .

Pastor AIO:


I take it that by 'sense' you mean perception. 

sinequanon:


The mind that engages solely in "pure cognition" comprehends rather than analyses. This is why I said somewhere that there is no logic in 'infinite comprehension'. Seeking meaning requires analysis and logic, and arrests the comprehension.

But what are the objects of pure cognition? Why cannot meaning (the connections between events) be objects of pure cognition? That was why I stated 3 scenarios on my 3 hands. One, that meaning is irrelevant with pure cognition. Two, that meaning can be evidence via pure cognition. And Three, that the meanings accepted are perforce anachronistic because the relationship of meanings are constantly shifting. So before you can formulate the idea that A means Alpha, A would have ceased to mean Alpha anymore. This would suggest that it is not the meanings that are the problem but the conceptualizations and codification of meanings.

sinequanon:

Pastor AIO

I have to say, you are the first person I have come across who has demonstrated an ability to entertain my perspective. You will not believe how often I have been called disingenuous, or accused of sophism, by people who do not follow.

I do try to please whether it be in the capacity of entertainer or otherwise.