Post by Brett HallPost by JAGPost by Brett HallPost by JAGPhysicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
Do you think that scientific matters should be adjudicated by voting? What if we took a vote about, say, the evolution of life? Holding such a poll, in some places, would make the Earth 6000 years old. Should we vote on the efficacy of homeopathic remedies? Some doctors may then be required to prescribe them.
Voting and polls can only tell us what people think/beleive about something, in any given time, and in this case, this voting had to do about the meaning of QM. Simple as that but yes, it can get more complicated.
That seems to be what has happened, ok. So, again, do you think that scientific matters should be adjudicated by voting? It's a yes/no answer.
No, but then, the results of the voting, in reality-practice, become the grounds for further scientific activity. Certain perceptions and conclusions, after the polls, can and do direct our future thinking and actions. ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGPost by Brett HallPost by JAGA Snapshot of Foundational *Attitudes* Toward Quantum Mechanics
http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
Can we see now, why EVERYTHING depends on attitude/meaning/justification/explanation?
Can we see now that we can NOT have an *objective* SCIENCE since all method amd measurements are done and evaluated by *subjective* processes/experiences (in short, by ourselves)?
Do you distinguish between the epistemological objective/subjective distinction and the ontological one?
Science is about objects, for the most part. There doesn't seem to be much subjective science.
It is true in this 'conditional' and exclusive sense.
but, the Universe is made of Energy.
I do not know what that means, really. There are things in the universe that are not "made of" energy. For example, values.
Post by JAGObjects are just one of the 'forms' of energy. Human beings are *sentient* beings, with Consciousness, beliefs,
"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest." -Confucius
;)
*Values* are the result of many inter-intra-personal processes, and of course everything comes back to energy and Consciousness -as the first -and primal- CAUSE! ;)
ok...i am talking about the role/use of *values* of Science in pursuit of Truth, and then about various political implications and double standards that infuence both values and policy, and then Science and Research....
Do you believe that we have a value-free Science? a Science independent of political and economic gains?
It's a yes/no answer...but before you answer think about how that is related to Progress, in general and in specific -in Scientific Freedoma, objectivity, and Creativity we where talking about ;)
Post by Brett HallDo you think one can have beliefs without consciousness?
oh, come on now...forget that, better ask yourself 'what kind' of consciouness are we talking about? and whose's ;)
"The governors of the world believe, and have always believed, that virtue can only be taught by teaching falsehood, and that any man who knew the truth would be wicked. I disbelieve this, absolutely and entirely. I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm."
-Bertrand Russell
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGvalues, spirituality and the need to KNOW and BELIEVE in something
Do you think to "know" is different to "believe"? If so, how?
Yes, it is different, it involves different processes....am not talking about different cognitive/affective processes but yes even there are some differences in terms primacy and involvement...it has to do with AWARENESS and then self-Awareness, and then it has to do with differernt effects, and thus, later on, action in all fronts....including scientifc and political and even religious...
Finally, *knowing* removes any *doubts* and that's why it's different than mere 'believing' ;)
but that comes only once we break free from various chains and illusions...yes, until then, and for most people it is the same...
thus, the need for interaction and argumentation and more...
"Freethinkers are those who are willing to use their minds without prejudice and without fearing to understand things that clash with their own customs, privileges, or beliefs. This state of mind is not common, but it is essential for right thinking; where it is absent, discussion is apt to become worse than useless."
Leo Tolstoy , On Life and Essays on Religion
think in terms of Plato's Cave -allegory- and you will see what i mean...
to make the event more interesting and fun, think that someone is a scientist, he/she is inside the cave and does practice pure SCIENCE...good old school science experiments with all the other people in the cave, (for their protection, as they were told, all are chained up) etc.
so far, so good, we have scientists and we have good science, but, the only problem is that they are all still inside the cave ;)
now, that doesn't mean that the scientist is 'wrong' or that the science is bad, simply they are not FREE and INFORMED enough of what is really going on -and the other version of reality outside the cave ;)
Multi-processes, on multi-events here....
Post by Brett HallPost by JAG, thus the need for meaning...
and then, we do need to have tangible results....
I get the impression, and I may be wrong, that you think science and rationality are far more narrow spheres of human endeavour than they are.
Not really but then yes.....see example above!
furtermore:
"Disillusion can become itself an illusion if we rest in it."
-T. S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party
Science and *rationality* could also be viewed from a historical point of view...that is, a mirrorinng, of our...own progresss as cultural/social/political/moral beings (that includes science and politics and religion.)
I think you mentioned *relativism* elserewhere and that answers your question. Furtermore, rationality often creates an illsuion of *objectivity* and *knowledge* -that can be very dangerous...
"We are only undeceived
Of that which, deceiving, could no longer harm."
-T. S. Eliot, East Coker
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGThus, an all-inclusive-consclusive-objective Science, should be more than the mere study of objects and materials -
Science has never been the "mere study of objects and materials". Without going into it too much, I return to my earlier hint about whether you endorsed the ontological distinction between subjective and objective reality. If you do, then you might realise that there are tentative steps into a subjective science of consciousness.
ah...again, a few things are valid, for the time being and under controlled conditions.
example: I know people who engage in Lucid Dreaming....actually, they are kinda hard-headed scientists, but i doubt if they could endorse such distinction, that is, for certain events...
-but in general yes
Post by Brett HallBut anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".
Post by JAGsomething more than the production/consumption of materials goods (technology) and ego roles (in the form of a scientifc authority).
That is not part of science. Economics does not seem to be a science, although it pretends to that status at times. This is because it seems to be impossible to do crucial experiments in economics. As for scientific authority...if you read the work of David Deutsch or Popper - two great philosophers that this list comments about regularly - you would understand that scientific authority is not something good scientists when doing good science endorse.
I am in line with DD when it comes to certain PRAGMATIC issues, e.g., falsification, and mostly am in agreement when he talks about explanations and Creativity. Actually, that's my main position too, but we do work in differet domains/fields, and while a psychologist i was in a dept. of Human Development, not psychology.
I can see his brilliance in many fronts, especially when talking about the complexity of the source of inteligence -if i get it right. Keep in mind we work in different fields/applications, but am trying to learn and compare a few things too. I found very interesting the concept of fungibility, but somehow i disagree when it comes to his notion of static societies; ok, maybe is not a matter of disagreement but that of the aplication. Now, about the denial of the wave function collapse, i can't tell for sure, i am not an expert so, am still strugling with a few things in QM.
My main research is on Emotion and Emotional Development, so there are some similar problems and debates but in other terms, -about the primacy of cognition and affect, emotion as epiphenomenon or causal, about cosncious experience vs. uncosncious processing, etc. In similar but very different terms, am working on a Universal Theory of Emotion and Emotional Experience. In some ways, am in line with the *Emergentist* concept but i think therecould be a problem of application -in some areas, but as i said earlier, am still struggling with a few things. ;)
ok now....
i think you missed the whole point of Progress here. I am not talking about the nature of economics in these terms....
I am talking about *HOW* economics influence the development and DIRECTION of science. And economics rest on specific political ideologies and values....
If the advances of Sciences and Tech are based solely on economics, in terms of profit, i don't see how Science and Technology could be at the service of Humanity....and then i don't see any progress made on political and religious fronts.......ah...same old crap , even with same old names sometimes....
Post by Brett HallFrom an Idealistic point of view, knowledge about the Nature of the Universe has nothing to do with profit -in strict materialistic terms- and the like....so, where is the Progress? i don't see it...
Post by JAGOtherwise, Science should NOT claim exclusivity in Knowledge and superiority in method.
It doesn't. It never has. Maybe some people, being silly do. Some people, being silly, are scientists.
hahaha, good one, yes, silly and then dangerous....
but, it's like nuclear power....it could save and/or destroy the world ;) and too bad most scientists don't have the power to decide for its use...or they do ;)
hm...what we have in this case, (morally) bad scientists in power...or bad science at work?
now, in everyday life, and as mentioned below (about the benefits of science, somehow, indirectly, there is a notion that Science and Tech do offer solutions and aswers, so from that perspetctive YES, science does make claims and ENFORCES certain ideals and ideas about many things, as the only acceptable solution...to the very same and unavoidable that creates....
;)
i am trying to make another point here: since early socialization and schooling we are taught and somehow 'conditioned' to believe that certain truths and aspects and questions, would come only from scientific inquiry and methods....and that is where we commit a serious and dangerous 'fallacy'.
Serious because we enforce certain ideals that can not escape other cultural biases and values, thus, not really *objective* ;)
and dangerous bc like that we could de-value other methods and means, and then, we may not only miss the point, but destroying 'alternative' methods/solutions ;)
example: the old nature vs. nurture debate-BS
BS in the sense that (all) development (even gene manifestation) does not NOT take place i a vaccum! ;)
Think of it now, in terms how a Theory of Everything could get problematic, in terms that is not possible.
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGAfter all, only results can be the criteria of how usuful and succesful Science and the scienfic method could be.
Yes. Results - observations generally - decide between one theory and another where two or more competing theories exist. This is rare.
Again, i am not talking about different theories here, but how Science
has failed to increase self-awareness, critical thinking, promote positive values, and then with some about other issues, like freedom of choice, social justice, aesthetics etc....
for example, I would love to see how QTM could deal with issues as such....
Post by Brett HallBut observations are not the only thing. Have you read FoR or BoI?
Post by JAGPost by Brett HallOn the other hand, that the Earth is not 6000 years old is not the result of mere parochial bias. It is simply the case given our best understanding of the world.
If there is no epistemic objectivity to science, then are all opinions equally valid? If so...how does progress happen? Why do we have iPhones now and none 2000 years ago?
ha...i don't know because
"I am not young enough to know everything."
-Oscar Wilde
well, it's all about emerging properties.....of any system put in action and then constantly fed...with victims....haha
;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGThere is some epistemic objectivity, conditionally and always specific
to the issue/situation in question. I am theory-oriented so, evetything goes back to that. That's why i believe that QM is not about just science/scientific events but about metaphysics and Meta-theory in itself! ;)
What does theory oriented mean?
in short, it means that am more interested in epistemological processes and theory construction. (Universal Emotional Theory)
Post by Brett HallEverything anyone knows about anything, is a theory. Some theories are good explanations. Some are less so. Almost all are false and even those we currently think are correct are likely to be proven false.
hahaha, proven false or true based on what? the very same processes we are trying to describe and understand? ;)
I told you, and you don't beleive me, am not an inductivist but kinda realist -enough to see hwta works and what does not -and where.
ok , yes....
Post by Brett HallSo I would say that I, as a knowing subject, am of necessity (by definition, if you will) not merely *oriented* towards theories but my very self is in large part shaped by theories. Although I am not identical to my ideas, my ideas are a crucial part of me. To merely be 'oriented' towards these theories, my very own ideas, seems far too weak a claim. But then, what do *you* mean by "oriented"?
It means that without some knowledge and information fed into the system, the system can not work properly - that's the key concept.
ok, what other source of verification and validation do you have? it is not a weak claim, but rather it's semantical and practical contradiction here...and theory-oriented has to do with becoming aware of the very limitations of the process of *knowing* (as you describe them above) and then at the same time, it's being able to apply some 'control' to overcome the same and other obstacles... and then to decide when one has to let go of control to test *directly*
various events...automation and then selective-manual control...in the flow of info and knowledge.
Exanple of the process: Believing in "God" has both conceptual and practical implications (good and bad, in terms of behavior and functionality and *meaning* and in so many other things such guilt, fear, hope, justice, freedom etc.). At any given time-sutition, different aspects emerge and take over of the decision making and the control, thus, control/decision making of action....
The point here: yes, it's about ideas that of course shape our perceptions of ourselves and the world, but then the VERY same evaluation of our epistemic processes, and evaluation/observation based on experiences, do alter our ideas and our epistemic processes, and then behavior...but Emotional processing solves the problem in one way but creates another -in terms of the side effcets in conscious experience.
to illustrate, here is a true event/example: a friend of mine, a fanatic-dogmatic theologician and hard core advocate of religion, recently became an atheist when his mother died from a simple cause, actually, from a fatal-stupid doctor's mistake...now he has gone insane and hospitalized...he lost his mother, he lost himself, he lost his 'god'.....see the analogy here, some features falied, and then he was finished too ;)
on the other hand, i lost some godly 'belief' too long ago, but then i discovered other ways to approach the Divine, without being religious, without beleiving...and actually it woks out just fine ;)
Now, condider the following and see how *justification* can alter the meaning, and then both the process of *knowing* and then the resulted behavior (in terms of *believing* and making choices and then adapting certain lifestyles):
"God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?" -Epicurus
based on the above ONLY, could 'you' believe in god? of course not, but then, Spirituality is different, is about realizing and possesing the divine, in terms of *emergent* properties, that in return will define *EXPERIENCE* and make someone to believe in something higher! ;0
it even gets more complicated when existential questions such as:
WHO am I? WHAT am i? probably you understand that any attemtps to answer them can NOT escape certain cultural/social/standards and processes.
well, ok, but can we have some relativity and universality at the same time? what do you think?
See my point? can you relate this to our discussion about Progress -in relation about how Science and tech contributed to progress?
Most people are still slaves....to their own and others people command/control....
My point, Science has shaped both the notions and the ways of *knowing* about our origins and essence and goals etc. -in historical/political time. In some ways it did replace Religion....and my only problem with that is that it has become equally dogmatic and dangerous -and that along Religion, science replaced some creative Spirituality in an attempt to become truly 'scientific'...
but then, as you probably see below, when viewing QM as a potential theory of Metaphysics, i would suggest that there is some, let's say, potential to find a way to serve both, physics and metaphysics...objects and ideas/ideals....emerging rpoperties at work... ;)
Now, try to think in terms of what was called metaphysics 'yesterday' is actually the new physics today (this based on QM) ;)
see my 'reasoning' and justifications here....
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGNow, the word PROGRESS is kinda difficult and we have to be VERY careful with a few things.
Nar, progress is easy. For example, methods of navigation today are better, by any measure, than those of the past. GPS is better than inertial navigation, which is better than using the stars, which is better than simply guessing where you are going. That suggests progress. Easy.
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
-Albert Einstein
are we there yet? no need for GPS here....
ah, we miss the point here, of course, a few things go without saying...
I was talking in a deeper sense, about deeper stuff.....
I was talking about progress in terms of attitudes, identity, justice, free will, both in personal and social....
but yes, science is outside these,... but why?
Post by Brett HallThe treatments for many diseases today are better than those in the past. Now they work. In the past, many simply did not.
true, but don't forget that most dis-eases of our time are also the direct result and product of our Technology -and current lifestyles.
example, 'toxicity' and stress have become the No1 cause of cancer.
Psycho-somatic diseases are on the rise and become the rule rather the exception. Furtermore, most of the so called 'natural disasters' and 'acts of god' at this point are nothing else but MAN MADE acts, the result of greedy and irresponsibile behaviors by...who?
where are all those great scientists when we have to atke important decisions for ourselves and others (we are talking about criminal behavior sometimes)
if corruption-free scientists can not be involved in policy-law where is the hope, where is the progress?
see now, am taking about Progress in a whole different way...and it is related with Science and tech -if we don't voice our concerns and actively participate...we are doomed no matter all the tech stuff, that is, hype tech stuff....
Post by Brett HallMurder rates are much lower these days than in the dark past. Progress.
Again, am not talking about specific methods to reduce crime; am talking about how certain values and practices and lifestyles have not changed over the period of time.
if not changed, then i don't see Progress (to those domains, so i can't accept that tech helps, well it helps, but not in the deeper sense in preventing and promoting *values* and ideals, which in return, will change the structures and infra-structuires and make our lifestyle healthier).
am talking about Progress in terms of promoting self-awareness and
and finding real solutions to human affairs, affairs kinda different that those you talk about....
"The outward freedom that we shall attain will only be in exact proportion to the inward freedom to which we may have grown at a given moment. And if this is a correct view of freedom, our chief energy must be concentrated on achieving reform from within."
-Gandhi
I would love to see one day individuals and Humanity to move to higher levels of existence and co-existence, for example to become ALTRUISTIC in attiude and behavior, to live in harmony with nature and co-operate instead of competing etc.
only then i call it Progress....'
'when a UTM could work on those terms too ;)
Post by Brett HallFrom that perspective, Science has contributed very little, in defining and promoting certain *values* and *ideals* and them make them real!
Now, can we really glorify and sacrifice certain *ideals* in the name of Science and technology? and still feel good and civilized?
I don't thinks so! ;)
Post by Brett HallIt's easy when you think about it.
Post by JAGWhat is the aim of Science?
To come up with good, explanatory theories. To solve problems.
Post by JAGisn't the pursuit of Truth, ontologically -and Cosmologically speaking.
Isn't it? Well, yes, there is objective truth but science isn't about obtaining some final ontological truth. That would be a fool's errand because we have no way of knowing if we have obtained it. The best we can do is improve. This means...make progress. Which is easy to assess. For example, we can compare the accuracy and precision of our predictions. For example: predicting Mercury's orbit can be done using Newton's theory of gravity. But you get better results using general relativity. Again, an easy measure of progress. Simple.
ah, the good stuff now, thanks :)
yes, exactly my point, so why bother to give so much attention and resources to something that can NOT offer answers to ONTOLOGICAL questions and Truths? hahaha
is a theory of knowledge, and Science for that matter, helpful and worth its salt, well, worth its words and methods and results here, if can not explain major ontological events? i don't think so....
I think the same goes for Comptuter Science and that why i have some reservation about a few things...;)
I take for granted here, and i do ADVOCATE (this time), that without some ONTOLOGICAL truths (ok we would question potential methods again later) there is no point, there is no meaning...
Thers is processing and lots of activity, but it's more like Alice in WonderLand, -going Nowhere Fast!
When we choose to ignore certain things/aspects of experience/Existence, due to technological marvelvs that are enforced via various policies and other powers, i think we could miss potential solutions...
high tech does NOT solve the problem , rather it covers it in colorful ways, like the iphone does....
in others words, am questioning here the moral foundations of Science, if any...what do you think? ;)
"I respect the man who knows distinctly what he wishes. The greater part of all mischief in the world arises from the fact that men do not sufficiently understand their own aims. They have undertaken to build a tower, and spend no more labor on the foundation than would be
necessary to erect a hut." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
My concern and critism of Science and technology are based on these facts. I would accept a few things only if we could somehow devote the same time, attention and resources, to other activities and then and have the freedom to choose....
"Liberty is the right to choose. Freedom is the result of the right choice." -Anonymous
what am saying is that our notion of CIVILIZATION-progress is based mainly on technological revolutions-marvels, and that is not enough...thatis, GOOD enough....
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGTechnology is the product of Science but that's by far what Progress really means -and what Progress should be all about.
What about that stuff I just said about Mercury's orbit? It need not be technology.
Post by JAGProgress in what?
Knowledge, of course. Better, deeper theories. Those that explain more and unify more fields. Progress in all areas of knowledge.
ok, but Knowledge about what? ourselves? the secrets of the Universe? about what and then how? can we see and enjoy the results?
yes, true about fields and QM ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGYes we do have the technology to make iphones etc. but
do we really live in a better world bc of tehnology?
Of course we do! Primitive cultures made for short, violent lives full of suffering. A longer life with less suffering is better. By what measure is it worse?
Post by JAGis our life better bc of the iphones and all the rest marvels of Technology?
ok, of course, but am talking about other aspects; those primitive cultures, yes, were primitive-problematic in so many ways, but they had a few things that we don't even have and value today, such as respect for the environment, and then even maybe some Spirituality that could solve *existential* neuroses and crimes and various impotences of our times..........
what am saying is that, that lack of respect and lack of spirituality and more, is what has lead to the development of some social Alienation and personal Fragmentation that are so pervasive in contemporary societies...and it has become so pathological, that yes, we do need cool gadgets to feel good and worth of our doings....
we have become passive receptors of certain politics and technologies....and marketings and products....that we can't even think for ourselves anymore....but still capable of celebrating in ignorance and technologically-induced bliss....
what color is your iphone? ha!
"Technology is the knack of so arranging the world that we do not experience it." -Max Frisch
Post by Brett HallYes.
Post by JAGDon't take me wrong here, i mot nihilistic, and i do love my toys too, but a serious Science should provide REAL solutions to REAL problems.
It does. It's not the only game in town. One needs philosophy. And ethics. One requires philosophy of science - epistemology in particular. One needs mathematics. One needs, in short, knowledge and a rational disposition. But one needs science. And science solves problems. Real ones.
well, yes....indeed but....
"What sort of philosophy one chooses depends, therefore, on what sort of man one is; for a philosophical system is not a dead piece of furniture that we can reject or accept as we wish; it is rather a thing animated by the soul of the person who holds it."
-Johann Gottlieb Fichte
the key word here is *animated*, that makes the whole difference....
Post by Brett HallWhat is a fictional problem? My guess is something like: how can Harry Potter kill he-who-cannot-be-named or some such?
ah....better watch the following below and see what i mean ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGWhile I am not gonna get into any environmental/social/theologiocal issues here, (yes, they do exist)
why do you insist they exist? Do you think I would think there are no problems in society, theology or the environment? If you think that, you're wrong.
Cause and Effect my dear, that is what am questioning here ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGDo you beleieve that Science (as is now) is in the service of Humanity?
It solves problems that humans find interesting. All soluble problems are interesting...and the corollary holds too. So...of course science "is in the service of Humanity" (and more broadly, animals).
i think, it fools slaves that they can buy their freedom, by buying more gadgtes to forget their misery and upgrade their social class ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGIf not, i will argue that we have not made any great Progress! (with the wider meaning of Progress) ;)
You need to provide your meaning of progress. I mean improvement. I mean better predictions that are closer to the truth.
ha! what truth? Ontological truth? how? ;)
Epistemelogically speaking? ok, we need to unplug first ;)
(ok. i was talking about ontological truths in this post)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGAnd going beyond some luxuries and technological miracles, do you think that science and technology are in the 'right' direction? (again, in terms of Progress in human affairs and civil-ization)
Of course. In the direction of progress.
Um...so? Science cannot force people to make good decisions. It just gives them tools to solve their problems. It is one, huge, error correction machine. That's it. What else do you want from it?
Post by JAGTechnology does provide some solutions -to very problems we create, but that's different than Progress!
Sure, Prozac and Viagra could help one cope with life and still able to be functional and do certain things, but is that all that Science and Technology can do?
No. You're off on a high horse, attacking a straw man.
No, am talking about how our lifestyles produce so much stress, since we are not in harmony with nature and ourselves and the Divine, and more along with repression of insticts, and livngby subtitutes,
furthermore, most people work mainly to produce and consume material goods/ego and literally often sell out themsleves and their ideals to make it in this highly demanding and technological world.
Most people inevitably need to take prozac to calm down and deal with anxiety -and then Viagra to get up...these are just some of the effects that our technologically advanced societies can NOT escape, a but yes, technology again, has found ways to SELL us the solutions, many products as solutions, and i guess we call that Progress ;)
"It is no doubt an evil to be full of faults, but it is a still greater evil to be full of them and unwilling to recognize them, since this entails the further evil of deliberate self-delusion."
-Blaise Pascal, Pensees
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGScience also has an ego-ccentric/anthropocentric character, thus, becomes limited -and cursed to these very same variables.
You have clearly not read BoI where David Deutsch (again, whose work underpins this very list) has written precisely the opposite of this sort of view.
Post by JAGI will accept a few things but i can not accept Science's claim for exlusivity and superiority in knowledge and method of all human and cosmic affairs.
Nor me. Again...a straw man. Why are you arguing this point? I can only guess you just don't understand the general themes underpinning the work of DD that this list is formed to discuss. I agree that science is not the exclusive final word on all things. It's the exclusive word on scientific matters. There is no final word. It cannot be the exclusive word on why, for example, we should value rationality over irrationality. Or what exactly a good explanation *is*.
ah....we miss the point here, again, but yes, you are right about the
purpose of the list...my bad, sorry...i will retreat in peace ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGThe gift of self-reflection (beyond some great inventions, isn't that the root of all marvels in human evolution and science and technology?) becomes a curse when we can not *justify* our aims and ways and goals.
You're a justificationist. You should read about justificationism on these lists, or in DD's books. Justificationism is false.
Post by JAGIt becomes the problem and not the solution. thus, the need for 'complementation' in theories and methods....
hahaha...did you just call me a 'justificationist'...
call me *EMOTIONALIST* and we call it even ;)
:)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGOn the other hand, highly-programmed animals don't have certain *existential* and perceptual and even ethical problems; the Spider's way to make its web is equally and superbly 'scientific' but by far more advanced in other ways -it does not purposely and recklessly destroy its environment and itself; its purpose is to kill for survival -not for luxury or bc of bad politics, or bc repressed insticts and pathological ideologies. My cat does not need to *think*; she knows things *directly*; she is connected with the Universal in ways we, regardless our technology, have not even started to imagine!
There is too much there for the moment to comment on, perhaps we can come back to that later when you address my previous points.
i would not mind coming back later but then this list is not the appropriate place for such (interesting) discussion...and i don't want to enforce my ideals and ideas here...
i have to reply to Bruno's previous post and then am gonna kick back, relax and let you do your thing here...
hey...am here to learn too
;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGso from that perspective, while technologically advanced, the human race is kinda...far behind in some of the most important aspects that would ensure the continuationa and well-being of our species ;)
Humans should be more like spiders?
ah...come on now....am saying that we are the only known species that by CHOICE and IGNORANCE and GREED (what else? and why is that? why can not SCIENCE do something about it) are capable of destroying our environment and the quality of our lives...and that is by far, far from positive PROGRESS and Divine Evolution!.....it's rather a regression to lower (sadistic-masochist in nature) forms of existence...
IF YOU CAN NOT SEE that, and what i mean, i don't know what else to tell ya...
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGThat is what Progress should be all about! ;)
What we need is not just information and knowledge but the necessary *wisdom* and *values* to ensure that the fruits of any scientific/technological progress are in the service of Humanity and in line with Cosmological/Energetic events.
I couldn't agree more. We need wisdom and values. Whoever said otherwise?
yeah....and then put everything in practice... ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGI won't speak about Theological theories/events, but it seems to me that the quest for Knowlewdge and Truth in cosmic events, is also a quest for Divine Realization and Identification.....
Divine is a word whose meaning is not clear to me. Does it imply a superintelligence that listens to prayers?
unfortunately, that is not something that i can desrcibe with words here...well, i could but this list is about other things ;)
furthermore, words often fail to *CONVEY* such *meanings* ;)
maybe leave your iphone @ home and go somewhere where science has not gone before and maybe you'll see what i mean.... ;)
"Those who neglect to drink from the spring of experience are likely to die in the dessert of ignorance." - Li Po
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGThat's where the concept of *meaning* becomes of paramount value in all affairs -including scientifc affairs.
I don't think we need to invoke supernatural divinity to give meaning to stuff. I'm not sure how meaning works. You seem to be. So tell me more.
really? why not? and why reject something you haven't tried? but then, ok, you did ask for my opinion...so ok...;)
but, i won't tell at this time, but let me ask you this:
when you think that you can truly *understand* QM, and going beyond Science here, don't you also *feel* that you are getting *closer* to the Source, closer to something bigger than yourself; something Higher, something super-natural and divine? ;)
that's what am talking about..and that's the feeling i get...
ah...ok time out....
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGThat's also where QM could serve the needs of Science and Humanity.
Any attempt to link QM to divinity is metaphysical BS.
again, results become both the criteria and the best judge of who is who and what is what ;)
relativism in action...but then:
"Freedom, in respect of concrete circumstances, can have no other end and aim but itself; and when once a man has seen that values depend upon himself, in that state of forsakenness he can will only one thing, and that is freedom as the foundation of all values."
-Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism Is a Humanism
hmm, let's see how Computer science can deal with that ;)
hahaha
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGPost by Brett HallOr have we discovered that some theories are, objectively speaking, better than others? Indeed, have we, objectively, shown some to be false?
Yes, and that is Progress, indeed.
Post by Brett HallPost by JAGCan we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/science? is it possible?
What does "complementary" mean? Can it mean something other than "contradictory"?
Post by JAGwhat are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
:D
"Complimentary" for me implies and negates some degree of Wholism and Unity; some better Understanding (of the process ) and then some productive Actualization/Realization (of genetic/energetic potential).
Lots of words thrown together there. I know them individually, but together the way you have joined them...makes the sentence opaque to analysis.
Post by JAGFinally, i think that PROGRESS is all about Scientific Creativity and Philosophical Inspiration (to carry out succesfully the above tasks) but i see those two as ONE. ;)
Progress does involve scientific creativity. Creativity is crucial. Creativity and inspiration are linked. Philosophy and science have much in common and help each other, but I do not think they are the same. It is useful to notice the differences.
hahaha, yes, there is one, that's the problem, rather it becomes a problem....
it's like the Split of the Ego, so similary, we have to split those too ;)
Post by Brett HallPost by JAG"No entity without identity."
-W. V. Quine
"What can be said at all, can be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in science"
-L. Wittgenstein.
(Who didn't take his own advice).
haha, that's a good one, hahaha
enjoy
JAG
"The Great Way has no gate; there are a thousand paths to it. If you pass through the barrier, you walk the universe alone." - Wu-Men