Could you clarify your point on flat world stuff. Is it that people have been too quick to draw finite conclusions on our understanding of the temporal aspects of the universe?
We don't know necessarily why. Some may have come to that conclusion merely because that Bible told them so. There were other cultures that believed the world was flat that didn't have the Bible.
But that was not a statement on the temporal aspects of the universe but rather a comment on the misperception of the three dimensional aspects of earth. Time was only a general pointer to the historical era.
I am afraid you missed the point.
Fear not. I understood the point which should be obvious within my reply. The analogy was not necessary and I opted to go directly to the meat.
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.
Analogy or example. I chose to supplement what you said with additional citations and extend the thought to include there are situation when the observation is not possible. An additional example is we don't ever see a "black hole". The gravity is too great to allow light to escape. But what we can do is observe the behavorior of objects near the black hole and make a conclusion that the black hole exists.
I am afraid it is you who went down the unnecessary path this time. Polygamy is not a definition of goodness.
That's not what I said.
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;
Give me a value form in that is absent of the judgement of people.
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.
I will not preclude another dimensional form, but I only allow it when there is evidence that such a dimension exists.
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
We also know more about dogs. Dogs can acquire knowledge, learn, teach, protect, etc. It's not clear that the human species is different. Dogs don't have an opposable thumb, which is a significant barrier to progress. We might not "like" the idea. It's much easier to slaughter a cow if we don't assign them the same characteristics that we have. Is a golden retriever self-aware? If not, why not.
Man has free will, so they say. I have a hobby in genealogy research. Mostly my own, but I do help strangers from time to time. I can point you to a family that virtually all male descendants have lived in [or near] Barrien County, Michigan for nearly 200 years. I could point you to another family, whose male descendants move roughly every twenty years and they've been doing that for at least 180 years. Each generation has free will. Any one one of them can choose to move or not move. Can you tell me that the exhibited behavior is not genetically based.
There have been several studies of maternal twins who were separated at birth. Brought up in different families and still have the same interests, hobbies, use the same verbal expressions and may even comb their hair in the same manner. Explain that without genetics.
Where are the boundries between idea forms and instincts? Does it really matter if there are any boundries at all? And why would you distinguish between the human species and other species if attempting to discuss some dimension that exists outside of the four-dimensions? Are you desparate to differentiate yourself from other species? Does it frighten you that you might not be that different? Does it frighten you that when your neural activity ceases that you might no longer exist?
jttmab
P.S. To give TJ fair credit, what he said was "We hold these truths to be self-evident..". Which is quite different than: These truths are self-evident. |
