”Our ability to "observe" has it's limits in technology, distance, time, and the speed of light. Does that suggest the possibility that there is an end beyond what we can observe?”
We have agreed that dimensional properties such as time and distance do not have end points observable by our rules of measurement.
”At one point in time, some people concluded the world was flat.”
Could you clarify your point on flat world stuff. Is it that people may be too quick to draw finite conclusions on our understanding of the temporal aspects of the universe?
”Unnecessary and a distraction. There are things we don't observe and yet conclude they exist and events exist within the universe.”
I am afraid you missed the point. The point was that even though something may be observable and bound by certain rules in one realm, its cause, source, or even essence may not be observable or knowable from within such a realm. The risk we face by being dismissive is that we may dismiss the very key that unlocks true understanding... which I am assuming we both value. The logic of the tree analogy is that we should not be too quick to dismiss such rationale as it relates to the temporal universe, especially since there are ample comparable and observable examples for us to study; enough to conclude the existence of a model form.
<<<Do ideas have value as form and dimension? I see no reason why the same rules would not apply. So common recognition of concepts such as generousity as a 'good' value and 'corruption' as a bad value is not surprising and should be valid as proof unto itself. Proof that is confirmed by nearly universal acceptence among rational self-aware persons. The validity of self-evidence springs from this. Hat tip to Jefferson.>>>
”Good vs. bad is a matter of definition. Polygamy is considered "good" by some people and "bad" by other people. But in either event, we move to the area that is perceived as not having form or perhaps more importantly not associated with the physical universe.”
I am afraid it is you who went down the unnecessary path this time. Polygamy is not a definition of goodness. An application of a concept becomes circumstantial and subject to the perspectives of those impacted by the particular circumstance. It is probably never true that people are universally affected by any particular circumstance in the same way. If that is all you are trying to point out, I don’t disagree.
However, there are idea forms and associated value forms that are separate from any circumstantial and limited applications, or the judgements of people being affected by those applications; placing them in the dimensional context just as you have placed other concepts such as 'time' and 'distance'. So, idea forms do exist as we can universally recognize the form (as in your example of 'up') while finding practical and observable applications of the concept that are unique and/or circumstantial … correct?
If you are going to allow for concepts, such as ‘time’ in our discussion, a discussion that started with an attempt to qualify the observable as it relates to self evident proofs, then you must allow other dimensional forms that can also be universally recognized by rational sentient beings.
Generosity is a universally understood idea that is not bounded in extent, as is corruption unbounded. In addition we can place a dimensional value associated with each idea, a value of good or bad. For example: Is truth good? Is truth better than charity, or justice, health, cleanliness, or generosity? We can’t say because it would depend on the form and how we are applying it to some circumstantial situation, followed by applying a relative judgment. We can’t use the term far and farther unless we know the distances for application. The concept of far, however, is universally understandable regardless of application. Ideas with value associations are no different.
”We don't know whether the "tree" has thoughts, values, concepts of good vs. bad, etc. We just assume they do not. Is that "proof" that trees do not have thoughts?”
I don’t have any idea if a tree has a way of knowing things that does not involve neuron activity. A tree most certainly has ways to deal with its environment. That hardly seems relevant to the tree analogy I offered, so I don’t know why you brought it up.
”Let's take dogs….We don't understand the neural pathways that control this "desire" nor do we know how to observe "desire". But the evidence clearly indicates a relationship between DNA and desire.
Got it. And with the human condition we know a bit more. We know that humans are able to use acquired knowledge, form intent, make judgments, and act on more than instincts to survive, reproduce, and impact their culture. … often involving value associated ideas. Self awareness has been very beneficial to our kind in gathering information and in accounting for our condition. There is a great deal of biology underlying the support of the human condition but the human condition isn’t all explainable by DNA, or dismissably bound in instinct related to DNA.
We also have tools to study and observe the influences that affect human beings when forming intentions, and act on their circumstance. In the case of human 'desire' we have libraries of documented observation; and yet, the idea itself still holds great dimensional mystery. |
