Discussion:
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* ! (interesting links)
JAG
2013-02-19 13:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)

http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html


A 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)?

Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/science? is it possible?

what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?

;)
Brett Hall
2013-02-19 21:05:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Physicists 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.
Post by JAG
A 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.

On 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?

Or have we discovered that some theories are, objectively speaking, better than others? Indeed, have we, objectively, shown some to be false?
Post by JAG
Can 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 JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
Post by JAG
;)
:D

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-20 15:19:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by JAG
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll
Shows)
Post by JAG
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.
Post by JAG
A 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?
Post by JAG
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.
I agree.
By definition science is objective, and doubtable. We can't use
subjectivity when doing science, except when we do observation, but
that is why we asks for repeatable experiments with different team,
etc. This explain why in the scientific study of science, we have to
tackle subjectivity with the scientific method (agreeing on
hypotheses, and making explicit the rules of reasoning, etc.).

This should not prevent science to study subject as object, and this
with the same "objective" criterion. It means on the contrary that the
subject has to be part of fundamental scientific inquiries.

Bruno
Post by JAG
On 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?
Or have we discovered that some theories are, objectively speaking,
better than others? Indeed, have we, objectively, shown some to be
false?
Post by JAG
Can 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 JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
Post by JAG
;)
:D
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-20 19:15:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Physicists 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.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
A 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. Objects are just one of the 'forms' of energy. Human beings are *sentient* beings, with Consciousness, beliefs, values, spirituality and the need to KNOW and BELIEVE in something, thus the need for meaning...
and then, we do need to have tangible results....

Thus, an all-inclusive-consclusive-objective Science, should be more than the mere study of objects and materials -something more than the production/consumption of materials goods (technology) and ego roles (in the form of a scientifc authority).

Otherwise, Science should NOT claim exclusivity in Knowledge and superiority in method.

After all, only results can be the criteria of how usuful and succesful Science and the scienfic method could be.
Post by Brett Hall
On 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?
There 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! ;)

Now, the word PROGRESS is kinda difficult and we have to be VERY careful with a few things.

What is the aim of Science? isn't the pursuit of Truth, ontologically -and Cosmologically speaking.

Technology is the product of Science but that's by far what Progress really means -and what Progress should be all about.

Progress in what?

Yes we do have the technology to make iphones etc. but
do we really live in a better world bc of tehnology? is our life better bc of the iphones and all the rest marvels of Technology?

Don'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.

While I am not gonna get into any environmental/social/theologiocal issues here, (yes, they do exist) i am gonna ask you:

Do you beleieve that Science (as is now) is in the service of Humanity? If not, i will argue that we have not made any great Progress! (with the wider meaning of Progress) ;)

And 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)

Look around you, people all over the world are still @ war with themselves and each other. Technology 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?

Science also has an ego-ccentric/anthropocentric character, thus, becomes limited -and cursed to these very same variables.

I 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.

The 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. It becomes the problem and not the solution. thus, the need for 'complementation' in theories and methods....

On 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!

so 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 ;)
That 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 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.....

That's where the concept of *meaning* becomes of paramount value in all affairs -including scientifc affairs.
That's also where QM could serve the needs of Science and Humanity.
Post by Brett Hall
Or 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Can 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 JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
Post by JAG
;)
: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).

Finally, 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. ;)


"No entity without identity."
-W. V. Quine
Brett Hall
2013-02-21 00:53:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Physicists 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.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
A 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 JAG
Objects are just one of the 'forms' of energy. Human beings are *sentient* beings, with Consciousness, beliefs,
Do you think one can have beliefs without consciousness?
Post by JAG
values, spirituality and the need to KNOW and BELIEVE in something
Do you think to "know" is different to "believe"? If so, how?
Post 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.
Post by JAG
Thus, 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.

But anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".
Post by JAG
something 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.
Post by JAG
Otherwise, 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.
Post by JAG
After 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.


But observations are not the only thing. Have you read FoR or BoI?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
On 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?
There 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?

Everything 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.

So 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"?
Post by JAG
Now, 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.

The treatments for many diseases today are better than those in the past. Now they work. In the past, many simply did not.

Murder rates are much lower these days than in the dark past. Progress.

It's easy when you think about it.
Post by JAG
What is the aim of Science?
To come up with good, explanatory theories. To solve problems.
Post by JAG
isn'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.
Post by JAG
Technology 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 JAG
Progress in what?
Knowledge, of course. Better, deeper theories. Those that explain more and unify more fields. Progress in all areas of knowledge.
Post by JAG
Yes 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 JAG
is our life better bc of the iphones and all the rest marvels of Technology?
Yes.
Post by JAG
Don'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.

What is a fictional problem? My guess is something like: how can Harry Potter kill he-who-cannot-be-named or some such?
Post by JAG
While 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.
Post by JAG
Do 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).
Post by JAG
If 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.
Post by JAG
And 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 JAG
Technology 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.
Post by JAG
Science 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 JAG
I 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*.
Post by JAG
The 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 JAG
It becomes the problem and not the solution. thus, the need for 'complementation' in theories and methods....
On 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.
Post by JAG
so 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?
Post by JAG
That 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?
Post by JAG
I 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?
Post by JAG
That'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.
Post by JAG
That's also where QM could serve the needs of Science and Humanity.
Any attempt to link QM to divinity is metaphysical BS.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Or 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Can 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 JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
Post by JAG
;)
: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 JAG
Finally, 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.
Post 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).

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-21 20:21:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Physicists 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
A 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 JAG
Objects 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 Hall
Do 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 Hall
Post by JAG
values, 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 Hall
Post 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Thus, 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 Hall
But anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".
Post by JAG
something 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 Hall
From 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 JAG
Otherwise, 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 Hall
Post by JAG
After 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 Hall
But observations are not the only thing. Have you read FoR or BoI?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
On 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 Hall
Post by JAG
There 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 Hall
Everything 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 Hall
So 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Now, 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 Hall
The 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 Hall
Murder 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 Hall
From 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 Hall
It's easy when you think about it.
Post by JAG
What is the aim of Science?
To come up with good, explanatory theories. To solve problems.
Post by JAG
isn'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 Hall
Post by JAG
Technology 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 JAG
Progress 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Yes 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 JAG
is 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 Hall
Yes.
Post by JAG
Don'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 Hall
What 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 Hall
Post by JAG
While 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Do 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 Hall
Post by JAG
If 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 Hall
Post by JAG
And 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 JAG
Technology 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Science 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 JAG
I 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 Hall
Post by JAG
The 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 JAG
It 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 Hall
Post by JAG
On 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 Hall
Post by JAG
so 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 Hall
Post by JAG
That 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 Hall
Post by JAG
I 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 Hall
Post by JAG
That'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 Hall
Post by JAG
That'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 Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Or 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Can 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 JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
Post by JAG
;)
: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 JAG
Finally, 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 Hall
Post 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
Brett Hall
2013-02-22 05:35:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Physicists 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. ;)
Speak for yourself. If you are guided by what is popular, so be it.

I think the objective truth, which has nothing whatever to do with consensus, is a far better guide.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
A 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 JAG
Objects 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
;)
You quote many famous people here in your reply. Sometimes, quotes are great. Sometimes, if they appear in spades, they are an appeal to authority. I have no respect for authority.

Confucius said some good stuff. That quote you provide is not at all illuminating. It confuses rather than clarifies. It casts a shadow where light is needed. Wisdom is too important to be summed up with ancient quips.
Post by JAG
*Values* are the result of many inter-intra-personal processes,
Inter-intra is silly. It's not standard language people can understand. Why not stick to standard english?
Post by JAG
and of course everything comes back to energy and Consciousness -as the first -and primal- CAUSE! ;)
There is no first and primal cause. That's foundationalism, which is false. It's also an appeal to authority (the authority of prior things being more important than subsequent ones). It also makes no sense in its own terms. If causes are important to you...why are they not important when it comes to energy and consciousness? Why must they be without cause? Why give up trying to explain them?

Sounds defeatist. And dogmatic. Hardly "free thinking" as you seem to want to assert is a good thing, later.
Post by JAG
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?
Of course not. You need to value lots of stuff. Logical consistency. Evidence. Rationality. Of course there are values! Do you think we can be value free...anywhere?
Post by JAG
a Science independent of political and economic gains?
What people are interested in discovering may at times, on the fringes, be influenced by politics and economics. But, only for a very short time. The truth "will out". You like people like Thomas Kuhn, right?
Post by JAG
It's a yes/no answer
As I have shown, it is not. You are wrong.
Post by JAG
..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 Hall
Do 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?
What kind of consciousnesses are there?
Post by JAG
and whose's ;)
Do you know what consciousness is? Beyond saying you possess it, can you tell me more? As far as I know, no one has a good explanations. Explain it to me, if you can.
Post by JAG
"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
What is the relevance of this?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
values, 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' ;)
This is false and is, at root, the cause of almost all the other disagreements I will have with you here. Paradoxically it leads to both your dogmatism and to your relativism. You seem dogmatic about relativism. A dangerous combination. I could be wrong. I'm not dogmatic. But I am either wrong or right. I am not a relativist.

Removing doubt is not possible! *You* are on a quest for certainty, which cannot be obtained. Because certainty is not possible, this cannot be what "to know" means. Knowing is not the removal of any doubt. Doubt is always with us.

But because you think science is about removing doubt and because you see it has failed to do this (you are actually right about that...science has failed to remove doubt, though it has never been the purpose of science to remove doubt) but because you see this as a failing of science you think science is weaker than it is.

You thus endorse relativism.

But it's okay. You can discover how knowledge *really* does emerge and grow. You need only realise that science has never been in the business of removing all doubt. Indeed it is an engine *of* doubt. All quests for knowledge begin in doubts. And by criticising creative explanatory theories, we can discard the ballast of useless deadends and make progress.


You really must read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and The Beginning of Infinity. It will help you understand how better to discuss these philosophical matters, here, on this list, devoted to the work of that philosopher.
Post by JAG
but that comes only once we break free from various chains and illusions...yes, until then, and for most people it is the same...
One illusion is that there is certainty. That it is obtainable. That we can remove doubt.

All false. Break free!
Post by JAG
thus, the need for interaction and argumentation and more...
That's true. Stick with this. We need more interaction and argumentation to learn!
Post by JAG
"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
True. You should take this advice.
Post by JAG
think in terms of Plato's Cave -allegory- and you will see what i mean...
There is something useful to come out of the allegory of the cave. Or Descartes' demon. Or a bran in a vat. Or The Matrix. Or solipsism. What is useful is being able to understand why such ideas can be refuted as bad explanations. Realism is true. Reality exists and we *can* come to understand it. Using science as one really important method. Physics in particular.
Post by JAG
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 ;)
What rubbish. Scientists can also be philosophers. The best actually are. And vice versa.
Post by JAG
Multi-processes, on multi-events here....
Post by Brett Hall
Post 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!
"Disillusion can become itself an illusion if we rest in it."
-T. S. Eliot, The Cocktail Party
Relevance? Sounds trite.
Post by JAG
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.)
Yes. Sounds like you have read lots about the sociology of science. Did you start with Kuhn and then get into people like David Bloor? Has Barry Barnes made an appearance on your shelf?

Of course science can be looked at historically...or culturally...or morally. So what? No amount of looking at the history of science or politics of science changes the objectivity of science. It is, par excellance, an objective sphere of knowledge. With it, we can study stuff like history and culture.
Post by JAG
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...
The denial of objective knowledge is what is dangerous.
Post by JAG
"We are only undeceived
Of that which, deceiving, could no longer harm."
-T. S. Eliot, East Coker
Sounds like Eliot plagiarising Descartes.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Thus, 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
I don't know what lucid dreaming has to do with the ontological distinction between subjective and objective ontological states. Can you elabourate?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
But anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".
Post by JAG
something 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.
So you agree with him about fallibility and the falsity of justificationism?
Post by JAG
I can see his brilliance in many fronts, especially when talking about the complexity of the source of inteligence -if i get it right.
I don't think he advances a developed theory of the "source of intelligence".
Post by JAG
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.
You do not need to be expert. It helps to know some things but experts in quantum theory seem, more often than not, to NOT understand the theory they, ostensibly, use.
Post by JAG
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....
Science is not based solely on economics in terms of profit. Unless you disagree, then we can move forward from that.
Post by JAG
From 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...
*You* have missed the point. Is general relativity progress over Newton's theory of gravity?

Does an atomic clock keep time better than an analogue wrist watch?

Progress is easy. I said this. I don't get your objection to such a simple concept. Things improve. Theories get deeper and more explanatory. We make better stuff.


If you do not believe in objective progress...why bother with your own research in psychology? Why not go fishing? Or do you think you can learn something new and improve stuff? Do you think you can do better? Make progress?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Otherwise, 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 ;)
Yawn. 'Nuclear power leads to bombs. Bombs are bad. So science is bad.'

If I need to explain all the logical fallacies there, we might have to start the whole conversation again.
Post by JAG
hm...what we have in this case, (morally) bad scientists in power...or bad science at work?
Neither. Nukes are not bad. People can do evil stuff. What if a nuke was the best way to deflect a planet destroying asteroid?
Post by JAG
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
I think it is fair that some truths are the domain of science...and can come only from scientific inquiry and methods.

If you want to know what powers the sun, what alternative do you have other than the methods of science to help you?


Again, seems to be a straw man. Just because some questions are the exclusive domain of science, and should be, doesn't mean everything need come from science. No one here would say that. Except you, it seems...when arguing against...who? The straw man.
Post by JAG
....and that is where we
Who is we? Your straw man?
Post by JAG
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! ;)
Groundbreaking. I mean, not only read BoI. Read The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins. The idea that genetics is what determines the features of an organism was falsified basically when genetics started. Is this a revelation to you? I know I sound patronising here...but to state that gene manifestation does not take place in a vacuum is (a) irrelevant to everything else we have discussed so far and (b) nothing anyone on these lists would quarrel with. It is a fact that has been known for decades.
Post by JAG
Think of it now, in terms how a Theory of Everything could get problematic, in terms that is not possible.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
After 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....
I completely disagree. Science has helped ALL those things. Speaking of a vacuum...science is not conducted in one. Progress in science helps progress in other fields. And vice versa.
Post by JAG
for example, I would love to see how QTM could deal with issues as such....
It has helped. We can talk about that.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
But observations are not the only thing. Have you read FoR or BoI?
Have you?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
On 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
Wow.


Just...


Wow.

Iphones just appeared as if sprung from the void. Science had nothing to do with it. Actually, apple is run by elves.
Post by JAG
because
"I am not young enough to know everything."
-Oscar Wilde
Pretentious. And evasive.
Post by JAG
well, it's all about emerging properties.....of any system put in action and then constantly fed...with victims....haha
;)
How awful. iPhones arise from heroes doing great things. And they help people. They are, in a small way, helping to release some poor people from poverty. Victims?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
There 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)
Actually, I have so far seen no evidence that you are interested in epistemology. If you were, you would have read FoR and understood some of it. And perhaps Popper. No, not perhaps. Definately.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Everything 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?
That you use the word "proved" suggests a deep misconception. And an ignorance of central aspects of epistemology.
Post by JAG
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 -
Kinda? So reality is "kinda" there?
Post by JAG
enough to see hwta works and what does not -and where.
ok , yes....
Post by Brett Hall
So 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?
None. That is the point. There is no verification.


Read Popper.
Post by JAG
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 ;)
"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
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?
Yes. You are a relativist. And a justificationist. You believe, and desire, truth to be verified. You do not understand epistemology.

There is hope! Read David Deutsch's books! Back to back! It will help in these discussions. At the moment you disagree with almost all the themes in those books. It is so hard for me to know where to begin. But let's stick at it to see if we can reach agreement and make progress towards truth.
Post by JAG
can you relate this to our discussion about Progress -in relation about how Science and tech contributed to progress?
No.
Post by JAG
Most people are still slaves....to their own and others people command/control....
Maybe you are. Speak for yourself, not others.
Post by JAG
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....
I don't see it.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Now, 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 Hall
The 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.
Garbage.
Post by JAG
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 Hall
Murder 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 ;)
From 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 Hall
It's easy when you think about it.
Post by JAG
What is the aim of Science?
To come up with good, explanatory theories. To solve problems.
Post by JAG
isn'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 Hall
Post by JAG
Technology 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 JAG
Progress 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Yes 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 JAG
is 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 Hall
Yes.
Post by JAG
Don'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 Hall
What 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 ;)
http://youtu.be/gYr5HBxAMAA
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
While 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Do 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 Hall
Post by JAG
If 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 Hall
Post by JAG
And 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 JAG
Technology 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Science 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 JAG
I 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 Hall
Post by JAG
The 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 JAG
It 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 ;)
Um....you are not making much sense. This is intended to be a rational place. It is hard when you don't use at least some standard philosophical vocabulary. I don't think you want a serious discussion about the work of DD, hey?
Post by JAG
:)
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
On 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 thought you might want to give up.
Post by JAG
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 Hall
Post by JAG
so 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 Hall
Post by JAG
That 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 Hall
Post by JAG
I 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* ;)
"Those who neglect to drink from the spring of experience are likely to die in the dessert of ignorance." - Li Po
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
That'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...;)
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 Hall
Post by JAG
That'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 ;)
"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 Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Or 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 Hall
Post by JAG
Can 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 JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
Relativism.
Post by JAG
;)
: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 JAG
Finally, 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 Hall
Post 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
It's serious. *You* should take it to heart. Most of what you said was not said clearly. That impedes us from reaching agreement. And that is possible. I am an optimist.

Brett.
Post by JAG
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
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
JAG
2013-02-24 11:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Speak for yourself. If you are guided by what is popular, so be it.
I think the objective truth, which has nothing whatever to do with consensus, is a far better guide.
You quote many famous people here in your reply. Sometimes, quotes are great. Sometimes, if they appear in spades, they are an appeal to authority. I have no respect for authority.
Inter-intra is silly. It's not standard language people can understand. Why not stick to standard english?
There is no first and primal cause. That's foundationalism, which is false. It's also an appeal to authority (the authority of prior things being more important than subsequent ones). It also makes no sense in its own terms. If causes are important to you...why are they not important when it comes to energy and consciousness? Why must they be without cause? Why give up trying to explain them?
Of course not. You need to value lots of stuff. Logical consistency. Evidence. Rationality. Of course there are values! Do you think we can be value free...anywhere?
Post by JAG
a Science independent of political and economic gains?
What people are interested in discovering may at times, on the fringes, be influenced by politics and economics. But, only for a very short time. The truth "will out". You like people like Thomas Kuhn, right?
As I have shown, it is not. You are wrong.
What kind of consciousnesses are there?
Do you know what consciousness is? Beyond saying you possess it, can you tell me more? As far as I know, no one has a good explanations. Explain it to me, if you can.
Removing doubt is not possible! *You* are on a quest for certainty, which cannot be obtained. Because certainty is not possible, this cannot be what "to know" means. Knowing is not the removal of any doubt. Doubt is always with us.
But because you think science is about removing doubt and because you see it has failed to do this (you are actually right about that...science has failed to remove doubt, though it has never been the purpose of science to remove doubt) but because you see this as a failing of science you think science is weaker than it is.
You thus endorse relativism.
But it's okay. You can discover how knowledge *really* does emerge and grow. You need only realise that science has never been in the business of removing all doubt. Indeed it is an engine *of* doubt. All quests for knowledge begin in doubts. And by criticising creative explanatory theories, we can discard the ballast of useless deadends and make progress.
You really must read The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch and The Beginning of Infinity. It will help you understand how better to discuss these philosophical matters, here, on this list, devoted to the work of that philosopher.
All false. Break free!
That's true. Stick with this. We need more interaction and argumentation to learn!
Post by JAG
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.)
Yes. Sounds like you have read lots about the sociology of science. Did you start with Kuhn and then get into people like David Bloor? Has Barry Barnes made an appearance on your shelf?
Of course science can be looked at historically...or culturally...or morally. So what? No amount of looking at the history of science or politics of science changes the objectivity of science. It is, par excellance, an objective sphere of knowledge. With it, we can study stuff like history and culture.
The denial of objective knowledge is what is dangerous.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
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.
But anyways, science is about explanations and not the "mere study of objects and materials".
Science is not based solely on economics in terms of profit. Unless you disagree, then we can move forward from that.
*You* have missed the point. Is general relativity progress over Newton's theory of gravity?
Progress is easy. I said this. I don't get your objection to such a simple concept. Things improve. Theories get deeper and more explanatory. We make better stuff.
If you do not believe in objective progress...why bother with your own research in psychology? Why not go fishing? Or do you think you can learn something new and improve stuff? Do you think you can do better? Make progress?
If I need to explain all the logical fallacies there, we might have to start the whole conversation again.
I think it is fair that some truths are the domain of science...and can come only from scientific inquiry and methods.
Again, seems to be a straw man. Just because some questions are the exclusive domain of science, and should be, doesn't mean everything need come from science. No one here would say that. Except you, it seems...when arguing against...who? The straw man.
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
Everything 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.
You are a relativist. And a justificationist. You believe, and desire, truth to be verified. You do not understand epistemology.
There is hope! Read David Deutsch's books! Back to back! It will help in these discussions. At the moment you disagree with almost all the themes in those books. It is so hard for me to know where to begin. But let's stick at it to see if we can reach agreement and make progress towards truth.
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*.
Post by Brett Hall
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
You're a justificationist. You should read about justificationism on these lists, or in DD's books. Justificationism is false.
Um....you are not making much sense. This is intended to be a rational place. It is hard when you don't use at least some standard philosophical vocabulary. I don't think you want a serious discussion about the work of DD, hey?
Post by JAG
Post by Brett Hall
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.
Any attempt to link QM to divinity is metaphysical BS.
It's serious. *You* should take it to heart. Most of what you said was not said clearly. That impedes us from reaching agreement. And that is possible. I am an optimist.
Brett.
Hi Brett,

for the time being i will let you re-read and reflect on your own wordsand maybe, i say maybe, you will see for yourself the various contradictions and internal 'conflicts' in your reasoning, claims, and presentation here.

At this time, i won't engage in to any further 'argumentation', simply bc it is obvious that you can not follow/understand my motives and aproaches, and reasoning and goals here. English is my third language and i will accept and take responsibility for some 'misunderstanding' here but it goes beyond this and other semantical implications.

Besides, the purpose of this list is about the work of DD -and his apparent hero/idol, Carl Popper.

My main 'mentor' and super-hero is Socrates, but then there so many others too, there are huge differences -in so many fronts- to be discussed and understood here,.. and while I am here to learn more, I am not willing to pay lip service to anyone.

There are major and very specific disagreements when it comes to methods and modes and goals of knowledge, and Science, and much more, of course, but am not sure if we could escape our own reasoning and traing and values, and politics and culture and experiences for that matter, necessary to engage in a truly productive and creative discussion here....well....ok...we'll see....at least, let's try to avoid potential and dangerous 'ad hocs' and ad hominen attacks? ;)

However, since we talked about Human Evolution and Progress and Consciouness, and the marvles of Science and Technology, here are a few relevant articles and arguments that, hopefully, you might also find interesting:

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S0168952512001588/1-s2.0-S0168952512001588-main.pdf?_tid=a08f07f8-7e04-11e2-8249-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1361657091_34e510d7b6d91237bb014bcdc2a3dc3d

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S016895251200159X/1-s2.0-S016895251200159X-main.pdf?_tid=be207dce-7e04-11e2-ba16-00000aacb360&acdnat=1361657141_5c947fca49023e24d8c757d946af6268

http://download.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/PIIS0168952512002090.pdf?intermediate=true

http://download.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/PIIS0168952512001941.pdf?intermediate=true


http://bmi205.stanford.edu/_media/crabtree-2.pdf



and here is an interesting one on consciouness research/intersubjectivity:

http://www.frontiersin.org/consciousness_research/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00020/abstract



On a different note, I think it would be useful to read the following report as well:


http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/?objectid=03C9AF75-E1BF-FF40-DBA9EC0928DF8B15

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/twelfth/roc12.pdf



Finally, i think it would fair and even necesarry here, to mention the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousnees:

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf


;)

All the best

JAG



"We are only undeceived
Of that which, deceiving,
could no longer harm."
-T.S.Eliot, East Coker

"I have lived on the lip of insanity, wanting to know reasons,
knocking on a door. It opens. I've been knocking from the inside!"
-Rumi

"Great men are they who see that spiritual is stronger than any material force; that thoughts rule the world." -Emerson, Progress of Culture.

"The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world is to be in reality what we would appear to be; all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice and experience of them."
-Socrates

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato

"There is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." —Daniel Dennett, Darvin's Dangerous Idea


"Creativity is the power to connect the seemingly unconnected."
-Bertrand Russell

Alan Forrester
2013-02-19 21:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
A 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?
It depends on explanation, not on the other three ideas you mentioned, and especially not on justification, which is an impediment to progress.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. There is no single universe explanation of single particle interference experiments or the EPR experiment. And the theory itself implies the existence of the multiverse: a structure that can be approximated in some circumstances by a collection of universes each of which obeys the laws of classical physics.

This raises the question of why so many physicists are so confused about this issue. Part of the trouble is that some of the founders of quantum mechanics were influenced by a bad philosophical idea: logical positivism. They claimed that science is only about things you can observe and not about how the world works and they applied this to quantum mechanics.

Where did logical positivism come from? Some philosophers thought that science could be justified by observation. But, in fact, if you say "a particle is at x" all that follows from this is that "a particle is at x". So some philosophers decided that science should only make statements about observations because nothing else can be justified.

There were two major mistakes in this idea both of which were impediments to progress in understanding quantum mechanics. The first was the idea that science is about justifying ideas from observation. You can't see all of the multiverse so by this standard we would be irrational to think it exists. The second mistake was to take observations for granted instead of asking how they worked because they are supposedly foundations on which we justify ideas. The person who first understood the existence of the multiverse, Hugh Everett III, did it in part by realising to understand quantum mechanics you have to be willing to reconsider your understanding of measurements, which is incompatible with treating measurement results as foundations.
Post by JAG
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)?
So you're an inductivist and a subjectivist.
Post by JAG
Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/science? is it possible?
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
The implications are a failure to make substantive progress in understanding quantum mechanics for the past 80 years, except by the few people who have rejected the ideas you're peddling. The lack of understanding of quantum mechanics is, in part, a result of the triumph of the ideas that you advocate.

Every person who thinks that quantum mechanics underwrites some superstitious piffle about the oneness of everything thinks that way, in part, because many people have accepted your intellectual standards. Every physics student who becomes cynical about understanding quantum mechanics, and goes around uttering the most stupid thing Richard Feynman ever said (the Feynman quote in one of the articles you cited), is doing so partly because he accepted the ideas you advocate about justification.

Alan
JAG
2013-02-20 10:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
A 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?
It depends on explanation, not on the other three ideas you mentioned, and especially not on justification, which is an impediment to progress.
Yes, it's all about *explanation* but the point i was trying to make, and am not sure if you can see that, is that explanations mainly depend on our attitudes and justifications. (in what else?) ;)
It is the attitudes and justifications, in concert, that give the necessary *meaning* to make an *explanation* true and valid. ;)

I am surpised that you can not see and 'accept' a few things !!!!

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle
Post by Alan Forrester
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true. There is no single universe explanation of single particle interference experiments or the EPR experiment. And the theory itself implies the existence of the multiverse: a structure that can be approximated in some circumstances by a collection of universes each of which obeys the laws of classical physics.
Well said, and i could not agree more!
Post by Alan Forrester
This raises the question of why so many physicists are so confused about this issue. Part of the trouble is that some of the founders of quantum mechanics were influenced by a bad philosophical idea: logical positivism. They claimed that science is only about things you can observe and not about how the world works and they applied this to quantum mechanics.
Very true, and again, i could not agree more. Actually, i am asking the very same questions, and in most part, i have come to the same conclusions as you here. But, isn't that a different approach than you had earlier when were talking about Popper's philosophy -and his claims about justification? ;)

"The only use of a knowledge of the past is to equip us for the present. The present contains all that there is. It is holy ground; for it is the past, and it is the future."
-Alfred North Whitehead
Post by Alan Forrester
Where did logical positivism come from? Some philosophers thought that science could be justified by observation. But, in fact, if you say "a particle is at x" all that follows from this is that "a particle is at x". So some philosophers decided that science should only make statements about observations because nothing else can be justified.
That's exactly what i have been arguing all along!
Post by Alan Forrester
There were two major mistakes in this idea both of which were impediments to progress in understanding quantum mechanics. The first was the idea that science is about justifying ideas from observation. You can't see all of the multiverse so by this standard we would be irrational to think it exists. The second mistake was to take observations for granted instead of asking how they worked because they are supposedly foundations on which we justify ideas. The person who first understood the existence of the multiverse, Hugh Everett III, did it in part by realising to understand quantum mechanics you have to be willing to reconsider your understanding of measurements, which is incompatible with treating measurement results as foundations.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-Albert Einstein


Exactly, but in others words, Everett figured another way to *justify* a few things, and was BRAVE enough, among other things, to even question his own assumptions and justification!
In essence, that is exactly what you are saying (and i could NOT agree more) when you speak of willingness to reconsider ANY understanding of measurements -and of method for that matter! ;0

On a different note, that's exactly why we are here too, isn't?
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
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)?
So you're an inductivist and a subjectivist.
Not really but then, sometimes YES i have to be, out of necessity, depending the field/issue -and the availability of tools.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more importantthan knowledge... Knowledge is limited. ...Imagination encircles the world."
-Albert Einstein

As a Cognitive/Developmental psychologist/researcher (with backgrounds in Chemistry and Philosophy) i would tell you that a few things are way and by far more important, difficult and complicated than you think and assume here ;)

Some of the things you said are true and good enough (with some revision) only when dealing with certain issues in QM, and i agree with you. But when it comes to the Mind-Brain problem, and some other problems/issues (Will, Identity, issues in Neurology, etc.), your line of thinking and approach, simply won't do the deed! ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/science? is it possible?
"Consciousness without imagination is a contradiction. Mind that lacks wonder is mindless. But what is mind? Perhaps the best definition I can give is that mind is the best 'metaphor' of all possible metaphors." -Fred Alan Wolf, Taking the Quantum leap


Now, if you ask me, what kind of 'science' can really include conceps such as imagination, intersubjectivity, intuition etc., i will tell you that:

1) you finally got my attention,
2) that while it seems kinda impossible, actually it is feasible...
3) that is exactly where Quantum Mechanics (QM) becomes relevant and important -and going beyond its main/immediate goals, but then we do have to work out the details ;)
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
The implications are a failure to make substantive progress in understanding quantum mechanics for the past 80 years, except by the few people who have rejected the ideas you're peddling. The lack of understanding of quantum mechanics is, in part, a result of the triumph of the ideas that you advocate.
True and false at the same time. You are assuming a lot here, both about me and my methods and goals.

"Organized nonsense is already a defense, just as organized chaos is a denial of chaos."
-D. W. Winnicot, Playing and Reality


I don't "advocate" anything but i do question EVERYTHING. So PLEASE do not hurry in hasty conclusions and generalizations. AT LAST, please!

My love for Knowledge and the pursuit of "truth", are by far more important than 'me' and maybe all the 'scientific' theories and philosophies of the world. On the other hand, QM is the foundation and liberation of the above ;)

"Ultimate reality is best viewed as imaginal; as conscious activity which, as embodied in content, resembles most nearly that human experience which we call imagining, conservative and creative, reproductive and productive."
-Douglas E. Fawcett, Divine Imagining


Fundamentally, I do beleive that Quantum Mechanics hold the 'key' to so many answers, or more correctly, QM do open the doors and paves the way to....Progress, to so many fields and worlds, even beyond our current understanding and Imagination ;)

"The inventors of images discover similarities and hunt down metaphors. The imagination, in its true poetic function, meditates on identity. If it is true that the imagination circulates through a universe of images, it does not move to the extent that it promotes or reunites images, but to the extent that it destroys and consumes them. The imagination is in essence iconoclastic. Metaphor is the metaphysics of the image, in the sense that metaphysics is the destruction of physics. The true poet denies himself the
accomplishment of desire in the image, because the freedom of imagination imposes itself on him as a task of refusal."
-Michel Foucalt, Dream, Imagination and Existence
Post by Alan Forrester
Every person who thinks that quantum mechanics underwrites some superstitious piffle about the oneness of everything thinks that way, in part, because many people have accepted your intellectual standards. Every physics student who becomes cynical about understanding quantum mechanics, and goes around uttering the most stupid thing Richard Feynman ever said (the Feynman quote in one of the articles you cited), is doing so partly because he accepted the ideas you advocate about justification.
Alan
"The universe is made of stories, not atoms." -Muriel Rukeyser


Again, that is not the only issue discussed here. I am not a physics student and am not talking about QM only; but i do recognize the relevance and importance of such masterpiece!

Indeed, QM for me is the Dream that finally came True, and while it takes some form-conceptualization with tagible results, is also the *means* for further Dreaming and Investigation; it is that source of Knowledge and Inspiration that will re-UNITE science and philosophy, and then give meaning in the Matrix of our Existence, in terms, that one day will lead to that perception/description/understanding of the Ultimate-Universal Truth! (hey, it was to be one-and it must be a way to *see* it, even if all of the above are themselves in constant change and ..in progress) ;)

"Nothing truer or more unprejudiced can be said about Truth. Only
consciousness of the universal is consciousness of truth; but consciousness of particularity and particular action, originality which results in idiosyncracy of content or form, is untrue and evil. Error, therefore, consists solely in the particularization of thought-evil and error consist in the divorce from the universal. Most men think that their conceptions should be something special and original; precisely this is illusion." -Hegel


Furtermore, and to be both politically and philosophically correct here, last time i checked (when i joined this group) the list was still under the category of "philosophy", and its purpose was "to consider the nature of the fabric of reality", and to my view we can do that by having an open mind and the willingness to go beyond our own thinking/training etc., and finally use all available relevant means/tools!

Please, do correct me if am wrong.....

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends."
-David Hume

Cheers!


JAG
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-20 15:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Forrester
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-poll.html
A 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?
It depends on explanation, not on the other three ideas you
mentioned, and especially not on justification, which is an
impediment to progress.
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true.
I think I agree, but I have some problem with the wording. I would say
only say that if QM is correct, then the MWI of QM is correct, as it
is part of QM, and QM is not completeable.

Likewise, if computationalism (arithmetic and Church's thesis) is
correct, then the MWI of Arithmetic is correct too, and then if QM is
correct too, it has to be derivable from arithmetic.
Post by Alan Forrester
There is no single universe explanation of single particle
interference experiments or the EPR experiment. And the theory
itself implies the existence of the multiverse: a structure that can
be approximated in some circumstances by a collection of universes
each of which obeys the laws of classical physics.
This raises the question of why so many physicists are so confused
about this issue. Part of the trouble is that some of the founders
logical positivism. They claimed that science is only about things
you can observe and not about how the world works and they applied
this to quantum mechanics.
Where did logical positivism come from? Some philosophers thought
that science could be justified by observation. But, in fact, if you
say "a particle is at x" all that follows from this is that "a
particle is at x". So some philosophers decided that science should
only make statements about observations because nothing else can be
justified.
There were two major mistakes in this idea both of which were
impediments to progress in understanding quantum mechanics. The
first was the idea that science is about justifying ideas from
observation.
I defend justification, but I agree with you here, although I take
"justifying ideas from observation" as "justifying the truth of ideas
from observation".
Post by Alan Forrester
You can't see all of the multiverse so by this standard we would be
irrational to think it exists.
But seeing does not justify, in any sense, existence.
Post by Alan Forrester
The second mistake was to take observations for granted instead of
asking how they worked because they are supposedly foundations on
which we justify ideas. The person who first understood the
existence of the multiverse, Hugh Everett III, did it in part by
realising to understand quantum mechanics you have to be willing to
reconsider your understanding of measurements, which is incompatible
with treating measurement results as foundations.
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)?
So you're an inductivist and a subjectivist.
Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/ science? is it possible?
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
The implications are a failure to make substantive progress in
understanding quantum mechanics for the past 80 years, except by the
few people who have rejected the ideas you're peddling. The lack of
understanding of quantum mechanics is, in part, a result of the
triumph of the ideas that you advocate.
Every person who thinks that quantum mechanics underwrites some
superstitious piffle about the oneness of everything thinks that
way, in part, because many people have accepted your intellectual
standards. Every physics student who becomes cynical about
understanding quantum mechanics, and goes around uttering the most
stupid thing Richard Feynman ever said (the Feynman quote in one of
the articles you cited), is doing so partly because he accepted the
ideas you advocate about justification.
OK.
But pushing this idea further, and taking computationalism more
explicitly into account makes arithmetic the ultimate theory capable
of unifying all apparent forces and particles. We have to extend
Everett methodology much further than to Quantum Mechanics.
Computationalism makes materialism into a sort of vitalism. Not only
we don't need that, but we cannot use it any way.

Bruno
Post by Alan Forrester
Alan
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bruno Marchal
2013-02-20 15:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by JAG
Physicists Disagree Over *Meaning* of Quantum Mechanics, (Poll Shows)
http://www.livescience.com/26444-quantum-mechanics-physicists-
poll.html
A 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)?
The fact that science, in his working, use subjective experiences, is
not an argument against objective (refutable, doubtable) theories. We
have just to make clear of assumptions, rules of reasoning, and
observation criteria.
Post by JAG
Can we see and recognize now the need for a *complementary* theory/
science? is it possible?
We have already tried this, and this led to the kind of non sense you
can find in the institutionalized religions fairy tales, authoritative
arguments, idolatry, arbitrariness, etc.).

On the contrary, we must bring back theology and metaphysics in
science. That is: bring back doubt and modesty on the fundamental
questions (mind-body problem, afterlife, etc.).

Bruno
Post by JAG
what are the implictions of such theory/endeavor?
;)
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Loading...