Political Crossfire Forums

Indirect realism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_and ... ct_realism

If it is true that our conscious experience is not the result of the direct sensory input of our five senses accessing reality but rather the result of the mind accessing a perceptual overlay of that reality, assembled by our various cognitive processes throughout our existence, does it not stand to reason that in certain circumstances that intuitive thought is superior to reliance on a rationalism that is founded on an inherently flawed basis?

Surely it is true that true objectivity is an ideal not easily attained. There are multitudinous examples that show our perception of reality and reality do not always correlate. From cultural beliefs to the influence of mind altering substances to create transcendental experiences it is self evident that "perception of reality" ≠ "reality" If this is true how solid is the basis for theories that are derived from observation? Is the inherent bias of our individual perception of reality preclude true objectivity? How often does preconception lead to misinterpretation of the available data?

Many advancements in human thought can be attributed to an individual accessing intuitive knowledge, such as Archimedes and his "Eureka!" moment, in other words, an unexpected realization of a solution to a problem.

Most people have had an experience where they were trying to solve a difficult problem and couldn't think of a solution only to take their mind off of it and have the solution spontaneously occur to them.

This is one example of how the suspension of "rational" thought can lead to access of previously unrealized knowledge, hidden within one's own mind.

Where's Comrade when you need him?

if I ever meet a rational person I'll let you know.

It's not that there's an overlay.

It's that sensations need to be organized. Without rational thought, all you get is a splattering of data.

I try to explain this to conservatives all the time, but they insist on remaining anti-intellectuals who deny rational thought. They believe human behavior comes about from synthesizing facts with emotions and just acting out while experimenting through trial and error.

Yep. Let's just forget about free will. Traditional pragmatism is everything!

i don't see the negatives to the things you suggested

Respect is an emotional concept. Respect based on "who they are on the inside" is an emotional concept. These concepts are based on the idea that it is wrong to kill or harm in order to further the species - again, an emotional concept, based upon the notion that human beings are not animals but somethimg more than that.

The goals in this scenario is to prevent billions of dollars of resources spent on those who will never be fixed, and the destruction of enough people to prevent the annihilation of our species due to resource exhaustion, pollution, etc.

To argue against the most utilitarian method is to engage in emotional thought. This is the correct thing to do, but not the most logical. By the way, I have a feeling that you are a rabid ideologue. Is that feeling correct? Do you mistake your perspective for the most logical one?