For the intuitive view
In the SD
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask if you know of any other possible and plausible explanations for how to deal with the gap between thinking and the world, such as the questions of the everyday man about the synthetic toolkit like induction?
Because your method and Horsall’s method sound quite puzzling to me , and evidence that many do not believe so. In contrast to physical senses such as the sense of sight, which is universally accepted as being related to thinking, there are many who deny that such a sense even exists.
Likewise, such understandings add more information and dimensions to all the materials in the world, so that from now on, every material or wave is accompanied by information for supersensory detection…
And as Rabbi Nachman says and Naomi Shemer’s poetry says:
Know that every herb has its own special song, and the song of the herbs becomes a shepherd’s melody…
Good Saturday!
See Bergman’s book, Introduction to the Theory of Cognition, Chapter 9. He goes through all the explanations and rejects them.
If that's how I understand it, it's your opinion that Rabbi Michi said, Sherlock Holmes said, sometimes after we've ruled out the impossible, we're left with only the improbable…
But don't you feel serious discomfort from this kind of response!?!?
Wouldn't another solution be better that would reconcile the two clocks, something like perfect evolution from a pantheistic perspective or something similar to harmony in the style of Leibniz, or an omnipotent God in a deistic-theistic perspective in the style of Descartes?
Admittedly, here we will suffer a certain blow in the argument that this is only a conclusion and not a premise, but I don't know if this is a fundamental difference, because what do I care about first-order skepticism or second-order skepticism. And in the end, it's not much different from evidence from morality. And especially since the Rabbi quotes Bergman in the fourth notebook precisely for this reason, and that's enough for the wise…
And although it is not always clear how the coordination works, although it is possible to think of all sorts of ways that the world will be run on a grand scale as you have programmed us to think.
Ultimately, doesn't the Rabbi think that your answer, although possible, does not sound reasonable given that most of the world denies something that should be so obvious in your opinion?!
Absolutely not. Just as I experience the evidence and it is clear to me that it reflects reality even without having other indications of it, so too does my intuition reflect reality. It is a different type of evidence. I explained this in detail in the fourth notebook and in my book (Two Carts and Truth and Unstable).
Note the precision in the fourth notebook. The direction of the argument is “theological” (revealing) and not “philosophical” (concluding). The question is not how the coordination is created but on what I base my assumption that there is indeed coordination.
Rabbi, you sound like a definite Midei in the answer here, but I would be happy if you could explain that I see no difference between the form of exposure:
In my opinion, it is similar to Midei between two people who have moral feelings.
Person A will say that these moral feelings are objective because God has implanted these feelings in me and therefore they are true. Therefore, it is not similar to a stomachache with a subjective meaning.
And Person B will say that I have an integrated version 4 Ideological brain vision tool (moral understanding after 4 kingdoms such as vegetarianism), which allows me to see the idea of morality, which is a reflection of God's nature with its commands, and therefore it is a supremely objective understanding.
You want to say that Person A is wrong in his thinking process because whoever said that what he thinks is like this is really like this, but the same can be said for Person B You may think you have a sensory brain, but you may not, and even if you do, you must conclude that there is a factor that will coordinate between it and the world, and that this is not a completely flawed system, which is not even a beta version, and in particular that most systems of rules will produce flawed products, etc., etc.
Z”A There is a difference between the order of the skeptical question, whether it is first or second order, but is it really a difference in the answer? Both, due to the difficulty of inference, give a proper solution. Only the question of what *sounds* is indeed true…
Everything was explained in the fourth notebook (fourth conversation of the first book).
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
