Thread: The Idea of Things Our Logic Cannot Percieve

Logic can perceive nothing, that's the job of perception. Logic creates conceptual reality, meaning it is the way we interpret what we see. But what we actually see is experiential reality. This can also be defined as cortexial and limbic experience.

The difference matters, it is folly to confuse how you interpret reality with reality itself. All you have is a reflection. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to interpret reality and build for yourself a working model. You seem some sort of data to base decisions upon. But you can go a lot farther and live a lot happier if you keep in mind that it's just a story, not truth.

Comprehension is something to grasp for, not obtain.

And to go even further, there ARE such things as ineffable experiences.

Well I believe that our minds are limited in what we can comprehend and perceive. There are just some things we'll probably never wrap our heads around - But if we can think about it in our minds it is probably possible in some way or other. We just may not be able to do it right now - that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be done.

Will we ever understand how and why everything happens the way it does? Probably not but it doesn't stop those things from happening. Hope that makes sense.

I'll go one step further and suggest that there are probably things that are inherently impossible to model and predict. Which is more or less the definition of magic. I have a hunch that's what we'll find at the root of it all.

Keep in mind that a lot of things we think our logic can't percieve are actually caused by things we might not have concidered. For example, some mystical magical impossible phenomenas are caused by entangelment. So, things that would be considered mystical are things that only need more knowledge. We can't say that our logic simply can't percieve it, and it is out of our logical boundaries, because our logic is seeing and understanding it, just not getting what causes it yet. Indeed, thing we can't percieve are things we can't even experience, or even imagine.

I'm having huge trouble relating to your word choice. What do you mean when you say our logic can perceive things? Perception occurs before logical analysis and is free from conclusions altogether, whether logical or not. Logic is how we explain things, not perceive them.

^^ I totally agree with what has been said above. Just an example from science for instance. Look at electrons within atoms. We know they are there and we can measure their effects on their environment. We can even calculate their position and their behaviour and the probability for any given electron to be at any given place at any given time - however we can't grasp how they look and what they are like... simply because for us it's (at least at the moment) out of reach of our ability to imagine things or putting the results of experiments that electrons show up in a picture we can comprehend.

you are using a limited point of view

Aren't we always doing that - viewing things from a limited point of view? As far as I'm concerned 'point of view' is defined by being limited...? Otherwise it wouldn't be a 'point'

Yes. Both of you are right.
I mean that things we know exist, even if we get limited input from them, aren't unexplained things(things that we can't use our logic to understand how they occur), never, because our point of view spotted them, so they are explained in our point of view, otherwise we wouldn't have spotted them

I'm still not following you.

If there is an aspect of something that our logic can't understand, ever, we would never even see it, or feel it, or see effects from it(input)

If there is something that is said to be out of our perception, then it doesn't even exist. How can you get input from it, and know it exists, but without the ability of expanding our knowledge about it!?

So to get on the same page, you're using input to mean sensory data or information received by our senses, correct?

But are you then claiming we would not receive input unless we can understand the input?

Originally Posted by Original Poster

So to get on the same page, you're using input to mean sensory data or information received by our senses, correct?

But are you then claiming we would not receive input unless we can understand the input?

Not exactly.
there are things that we can't feel, but use tools to see or measure. If we know something exists, we can track it's effect and find it. There is nothing that exists, but we can't track it. If we truly can't track it, then we originally didn't even find effects from it, so it doesn't exist, or at least exists, but we need more techs. So, there is nothing that gives effects and we can't understand it.

Give me an example so that I know what kind of argument you're trying to make here.

We don't have souls. All the effect that it makes on us, and we can't even spot that effect and trace at least the 'force' itself!?

Now we're on the right track. You're saying if there is no evidence of something it does not exist. I agree with you, sort of. I don't believe in anything I'm told. I don't even believe in everything I see. But just because I with-hold belief does not mean I am forced to believe the opposite, that something I have no evidence for does not exist. I extend as little belief as possible, in general. I act based on the best information I can find, everything else is just stroking the ego.

The problem with a soul is that it brings with it connotations, some of which there is evidence for (such as life after death) and some of which there is none (such that both your identity and consciousness remain bound together for eternity).

In order to examine the evidence, we must first remove all implications we cast upon the concept we're examining. In fact, let's forget the word soul altogether. Its connotations muddle up the entire process. I'm am not trying to prove the general definition of a soul here, now that that's clear, we can look at the evidence. It's dubious evidence, and easily discredited, but it's evidence all the same. It hasn't got me convinced, but I am not in this game to be convinced, I am merely an explorer.

So first of all, there's this website: Near-Death Experiences and the Afterlife | NDEs | Out of Body | Scientific Evidence | Reincarnation which has combined quotes from the likes of Edgar Cayce with people who have had near death experiences and come back. I take this information with a grain of salt, especially Edgar Cayce's, but I'm not totally willing to disregard near death experiences, in general. They don't prove a soul but they show evidence for posthumous awareness.

Frankly though, it doesn't interest me. What interests me is not soul but spirit. Spirit being the impregnable thing I connected to in my travels when I had nothing else. The realization that faith is not something you place in a concept. You don't hold faith in God, or Jesus, or Heaven, or a soul. Faith is simply faith, you either have it or you don't. It has nothing to do with what your beliefs are. This cannot be marginalized as will power, or a positive attitude. It must be experienced to be understood. Simply because something cannot be explained doesn't mean it cannot be experienced. If you don't believe me smoke some DMT. Through meditation where I connect with my highest self, I have also felt it. It's there, but it's ineffable. It can be both felt and known but it cannot be described or understood. Given the right practice or position, one can receive all the input they need in order to believe it. But belief becomes irrelevant in its regard. It does not imply God or Soul or any of those concepts. It is beyond conception. Otherwise it wouldn't be impregnable, for concepts are structures and all structures are unstable.

Hmmm... interesting!
Who said faith can't be explained. It is our imagination with mixed feelings. Correct me if I'm wrong

The dictionary definition of faith is wrong, in my opinion. To believe something without proof comes from fear, not faith. Faith is a connection to your infinite self.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

The dictionary definition of faith is wrong, in my opinion. To believe something without proof comes from fear, not faith. Faith is a connection to your infinite self.

Dang! I don't believe in infinite self. I have reasons. We experience nothing more than what our brain neurons can provide, but they provide a lot.

When you connect to it, you'll experience it. Don't get too attached to the words though, they're inaccurate to say the least. I'm describing something very different from what you think I'm describing.

Is it out of our brain activity?
I have experienced it a lot back when I was religous(Islam)

I have no idea. The brain is not very well understood yet.

ok, dead end

The brain does something very specific when one is in this state of mind. I believe one of the amygdalae overloads or something, and floods the prefrontal cortex. But just because the brain does something, that doesn't mean that's all that's happening. You have a brain, but you've also got a mind.

Brain dies=>mind dies

You don't know that, but neither do I so assuming you're right... so what?