Well, What Do You Know?
Have you ever wondered how it is that we know anything? This is one of those questions that I ponder on sleepless nights. How do I know anything. Is there a me inside my brain, or is thought just an illusion created by the firing of neurons? There is a school of philosophers who insist that the mind is nothing more than brain chemistry, but these thinkers aren't getting very much support from neurologists. Neuroscience recognizes the connection between the brain and the mind. Brain damage obviously affects the mind. But, while the components of the brain are necessary, it seems that they are insufficient to explain the mind. Neural networks go a long way toward explaining how we think, but they aren't very helpful in terms of understanding why we think.
Leaving aside the question of why it is that we are able to know at all, I'm also interesting in studies of how it is that we learn and know. What does it mean to be reasonable? Is reasonable synonymous with rational? Is there such a thing as objective knowledge?
Humans learn though sensory input, experience. A baby does not possess language, there is no thinking involved, no reasoning through logical steps, but learning takes place. Parents are able in a very short time to teach babies through stimulation of innate reflexes to suck and swallow. But, no mother begins to teach a child to nurse by saying, "Okay, Johnny, today we will open our books to lesson one . . . " Child development specialists tell us that in the first year of life, babies learn more than they will for the entire rest of their lives. None of this learning utilizes reasoning or logic.
As we grow and acquire language, we conceptualize our reality in terms, words, metaphors. No thought equals the thing thought of. I can think of the image of a flower, but I cannot think the flower. I can remember a song, but I cannot produce the song by thinking of it. As we grow, our mode of learning shifts. As an adult, if I want to know something about a subject I've never studied before, I will most likely find a book, or a knowledgable person to explain it to me. But the way that we learn from books and others is by comparing their images - word pictures - to the experiences we've gained. Reason is the end of the process. All our learning begins with experience. Without a proper frame of reference (which is really just a fancy way of saying prior experience of the subject) I can't learn anything new about it.
It's popular to speak of the difference between objective and subjective. This is a distinction that I find silly. All thought refers to some object, concept, or event. In this respect all thought is objective. In order for a thought to be subjective it must "exist in a person's mind, not be produced by anything outside it, not be objective" - well, by that definition all thought is subjective. The sky does not produce my thoughts about it, my brain produces the thought. However, my thoughts about the sky are in reference to an objective reality.
When a person says, when you say that you believe a certain thing based on your experience of it, that's merely subjectivity - I say "Duh!" I understand what they are trying to say. They want to draw a distinction between my experience and "objective" reality. But, they are ignoring the fact that experience is a part of objective reality. My friend, Mary, has a wonderful illustration of this point so I'll steal it from her. It is hypothesized by some people that since all matter is really energy then our perception of ourselves as solid must be a illusion. Mary challenges people who argue this way to slam their hand in a car door. None of them have taken her up on it so far, because for all the discussion about the abstract ideas of energy and matter and the cosmos, the experience of pain is a part of material reality.
I've been told that there are some people with nerve damage and other conditions who do not experience pain. These people have to be taught to avoid actions that will harm them. But it is impossible to teach someone to feel pain. You either feel it or you don't. Much like seeing the color purple - you either see it or you don't. A person who has been blind from birth can't conceptualize color. Color, sound, touch, taste, smell, all these sensory experiences are related to the primary way that we learn and know.
Once we have linguistic tools in place we can order our thoughts about our experiences and interpret them, but learning begins before we apply reason. Knowledge begins with experience. After the experience, reason may be applied in order to organize and interpret the experience. But reason is always related to events in the past. Logic and reason are useful tools. With their help we are able to formulate statements about our experience. With logic we can test our statements to see if they are "true." Logic is not a tool for gaining new knowledge, it is the way we organize the information we have already gained through our experience.
Natasha said: Let's talk about having faith simply based on emotion. Some people call it intuition. I believe in intuition. Some would even call intuition God. I don't always have faith in my intuitions, because they are not always "logical." I admire anyone who can have complete faith in them, though. In fact, that is what I aspire to. That would be what any transcendentalist would aspire to--to listen to what is in our hearts and trust that as the truth.
I don't have very much faith in emotion. I can be happy, sad, angry, frightened, hurt, or calm all in the course of a day. I'm not convinced that my emotional state testifies to any particular truth. Intuition however, (according to my dictionary) is knowledge gained "without reasoning or being taught." Intuition is the way that humans learn 90% of everything we know. Intuition brings us new experiences and new thoughts. Intuition must precede reason in order for us to have something to reason about.
SO _ drumroll please - Although reason cannot be applied to every form of human knowing, it is irrational not to recognize the existence (and act on the basis) of intuition. Inasmuch as intuition is our ground of knowing, it is logical to say that intuitive experience of God forms a rational basis for discussion even when that intuition cannot be expressed by logical formulae.
Blankityblank said: Truth is not about belief, though... or is it? Is the act of proving something is true as much about believing that you are providing evidence that is (irrationally) conclusive?
Truth may not be about belief, but belief is very much about truth. A person who believes, trusts, or places confidence contrary to evidence isn't demonstrating faith. Once belief is divorced from truth, the proper term isn't faith, it's superstition. However, truth is not the same as proof. Proof is a product of logic. Truth is much broader than logic or reason.
I'm still thinking about Grioghair's words from Monday, and he left another profound comment since then. I'll be coming back to his ideas. There's a LOT to say about the points he's raising.
Recent Comments