Alex123 wrote:How do we solve the above? What pov can be empirically checked? What pov gives what pragmatic results?
Of course we cannot ever be 100% certain of anything. Of course current scientific knowledge is not absolute final word. It is just that some claims have more probability than others.
Alex123 wrote:It is not matter of feeling comfortable or uncomfortable but the facts and evidence that we have today.
Like I already said:
Falsifiability may be an essential scientific criterium - but how exactly do scientific criteria relate to an actual person?
What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience and provide us with heuristics for achieving our goals, regardless of what those goals may be?
Alex123 wrote:So what do we do? I guess we need to go with the best current evidence that we have, and realize that we are dealing with probabilities rather than absolute certainties.
But does this approach give you peace of mind? Probably not.
Also I believe in pragmatic use of one's beliefs.
Lets say that someone logically "proves" that world is an illusion. What pragmatically and experientially does this change?
Does this mean that:
- Person can jump under the truck (which is only illusion) and not get hurt?
- person can avoid eating when hungry and not die because body, hunger and food are all "illusions"?
If "the world is an illusion," then so are pain and starvation.
What is your source for the idea that the world is illusory?
Alex wrote:I don't hold much faith in metaphysics (be it materialism or idealism).
Of course you do.
Just not the kind that some other people do.
Metapyhsics of one kind or another is inescapable.
These experiments were performed on humans, and performed well enough to suggest causal link. Even Arhats are still biologically human. Their psychology is different.
That won't do.
Again: What reason do we have to believe that scientific criteria can adequately grasp the human experience?
The population they have experimented with was not representative on mankind.
Unless you want to argue that there is _no actual_ difference between a run-of-the-mill person and an arahant.
Alex123 wrote:Ultimately I believe that what matters is application of wisdom and removal of extra suffering. I believe that Dhamma is the best.
The one without teachings on kamma and rebirth - and giant fishes?