Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 02:17pm PT
|
Clinton Tyson 2016 has a nice ring to it.
Thanks for the refresher, Malemute.
I like this...
Science discovers objective truths.
This too...
Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality, such as the value of pi; E= m c 2; Earth’s rate of rotation; and that carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases. These statements can be verified by anybody, at any time, and at any place. And they are true, whether or not you believe in them.
Mensch.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 09:43pm PT
|
Incontrovertibly true in all instances and under all circumstances, mainly true, sometimes true, true within a statistical level of confidence, 100% true, true supplemented with a number of qualifiers, true in this universe only?
What one thing do you know to be absolutely true without a scintilla of a doubt? What is that? What is that thing that is known completely accurately and finally, at the very bottom? What thing never changes, is permanent, is timeless? What thing is fully integrated without parts?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 09:52pm PT
|
^^^ right!? (and i don't mean true!)
Mensch.
did you even read past the second sentence?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2016 - 10:05pm PT
|
i can see tyson running for prez in2020. who else will you have after trump pummels?
he is afterall more politician than scientist. to you all's.
but trump will punt him into 2024.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 06:59am PT
|
Neil deGrasse Tyson - a very articulate promoter of science and one of our more prominent agnostics.
Does not the faithful scientist keep in mind that the scientific approach and mindset is to observe phenomena as objectively as possible and to develop a model for those phenomena that is the closest approximation of the truth?
The scientist true to the method is too humble to claim the TRUTH! That is the realm of religion and philosophy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 07:37am PT
|
The whole world of modern science and technology is running on the false idea that life is born from matter.
That is their so called "Truth" they are projecting as Absolute.
So where's your so called humbleness?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 07:39am PT
|
Hi Werner! Thank you for arguing my point about TRUTH being the domain of religion and philosophy.
And, there seems to be too little humility all around. Something we could keep in mind for ourselves and all work on.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 10:04am PT
|
It was said: "Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality..."
List one "truth" that was never perceived.
What is actually being said here is that some scientists posit measurements of physical phenomenon as being mind-independent. But in fact, by definition, when so-called external reality is posited as existing independent of sense data and perception, it is no longer "phenomenon," but rather, "noumenon." "Phenomenon" refers to:
phe•nom•e•non
noun: phenomenon; plural noun: phenomena
1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.
2. the object of a person's perception; what the senses or the mind notice.
Conversely:
nou•me•non
noun: noumenon; plural noun: noumena
1. a thing as it is in itself, as distinct from a thing as it is knowable by the senses through phenomenal attributes (perception).
So this begs the question: What IS it that we believe exists "outside our preception?" That is: What IS the noumenon.
Noumenon, when framed as a thought experiment, offers and an invitation to imagine what would actually constitute a mind-independent reality, the one our common sense says is "out there," and the very one implied by the statement, "Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality..."
Of course it is impossible to imagine a mind-independent world because we have to use our minds, rather than our senses, to imagine it. But so it goes in the rabbit hole...
Craig Weinberg gave two interesting paragraphs to the subject of noumenon and they go something like this:
The philosophical belief that consciousness creates reality is off the mark because in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways it presumes that reality could exist separate from consciousness. A mind-independent reality describes a noumenon, and a noumenon that is completely autonomous from all sense and sense-making can only infer a reality which is blind, deaf, and numb in all regards - i.e. a silent, invisible, intangible void which contains no capacity to discern (or distinguish) itself from nothingness.
Such a void can never "lead to" anything "different" without there being a sense of "leading to," a capacity to observe "things" and a sense of "different." We can never detect - let alone measure - such a void in any way, since there is no common medium to connect the sensor with the sensed. The void has no capacity to be sensed, and thus no potential to intersect with anything that we could ever call "reality" or "universe." A universe without awareness is a nihilverse, with no future, past, or present.
If this were not the case, and we believe that a mind-independent universe is somehow just the same as the universe that we measure and experience (only bigger), then it would violate parsimony (Occam's Razor) for organisms to have sense organs. If the universe doesn't need to sense itself, then we would have only to drill holes in our heads to see, hear, smell, taste, etc.
The bits about drilling holes in our heads is only Weisberg being sassy, but the main points are well taken. Perhaps this is what Planck was driving at when he said:
“I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”
And what Eugene Wigner (Nobel Prize in '63) added: “It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.”
Scientific instruments merely give us larger hands and eyes, and our cognitive numerical models and predictions are direct results of our perception.
In short, as Planck said, "We cannot get behind perception."
That is, the statement: "Objective truths exist outside of your perception of reality..." is a philosophical belief based on the notion that WHAT we perceive is real, while perception itself is somehow derivative of, and of a lesser fundamental nature, than the objects of perception.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2016 - 10:39pm PT
|
Analytic guys hate Heidegger. At least he's a cheap thrill, vs irrelevant bore.
--
I hear that, but this fact (to us) will find little purchase on this thread. And Jesus wept...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 09:51am PT
|
What is actually being said here is that some scientists posit measurements of physical phenomenon as being mind-independent.
No.
One of your problems is you've got a hang up with measurements. (Not to mention "data")
If anything, what's being said is that there are truths (not measurements) that are mind-independent. Big d.
Obviously "measurements" would require a mind, an agent, a doer.
...
Isn't Planck pretty old school when it comes to these subjects? Case in point: His evolutionary perspective (eg, evolutionary psychological) was probably next to nill. Pretty impt, imo, when thinking about consciousness, mind, spirit and free will.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 10:09am PT
|
"Science is my religion." C. Huygens
[Click to View YouTube Video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFrP6QfbC2g
Ps
What a great idea: Name your Project EPIC X OR EPIC that. Then
you can refer to yourself as the "Epic Lead scientist" or "Epic lead investigator".
"Given that the satellite is a million miles out please explain why we do not see more of the moon. Should we not see it at least once a day? The moon is orbiting inside the field of view of the camera so should shoot across the field of view regularly. No?" -Dilly Gill
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 11:04am PT
|
If anything, what's being said is that there are truths (not measurements) that are mind-independent. Big d.
Name a "truth" that is not the product of mind.
Simple Definition of truth
the truth : the real facts about something : the things that are true
: the quality or state of being true
: a statement or idea that is true or accepted as true
Source: Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary
We see here that truth involves facts (science = measurements) about something, and something that IS measured to obtain "the truth."
Only an observer/mind can reconcile the distance between the truth and the thing in and of itself. No mind, no truth.
But the larger question, conveniently dodged, is: What is the noumenon, which by definition is "mind-independent."
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 11:20am PT
|
Name a "truth" that is not the product of mind.
truth: reality
Fusion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 01:12pm PT
|
fiction vs truth
Paul, in my belief system, it's not a value to teach children fictions as truth. Nor mythologies as truth. Teach fictions as fictions; teach mythologies as mythologies. Even if they console, inspire or encapsulate great wisdom for living.
Now that it's the age of science, information and technology, we just don't need to do that anymore, even if it was millenia-old tradition that had lots of survival value.
A lot of people take their frustrations out on science because science reveals how nature really works - and understandably this can be uncomfortable and/or disappointing. Nature's got an ugly side. Zika and microcephaly for eg. Aging for eg.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 01:30pm PT
|
HFCS -- "... in my belief system"
Just see, .... big so called scientist making belief.
No facts nor evidence, nor logic.
Just belief all while masquerading as so called authority.
He'll defend himself with 3 YouTube videos now of his so called gods.
Hypocrisy in action.
Scientism in action ........
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 22, 2016 - 03:09pm PT
|
Scientism in action ........
No, scienteuring in action. ;)
Scienteuring: Make the world (more) scientific.
I confess: Like Brian Cox, I am a scienteur.
I have an agenda: Help make the world more scientific.
From my pov, a noble agenda that's only despised by an anti-scientific
individual, anti-scientific group or anti-scientific institution.
A more scientific world is a better world.
That is scienteuring.
...
FYI... Nominations still open for the one million dollar philos prize from the Berggruen Institute!
"To be awarded for the first time in 2016, the Berggruen Philosophy Prize will honor a living thinker whose ideas are of basic importance for contemporary and future life. It is intended to call attention to the role of ideas, of deep and careful thought, and with them humanistic scholarship, social research, intellectual work that is both broad and deep."
http://philosophyandculture.berggruen.org/councils/5
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!