What is "Mind?"

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 10481 - 10500 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Aug 5, 2016 - 11:24am PT
I'm not against science or what it can reveal. I'm against scientism. The fact that you can look at that image and perceive it, comprehend it, encapsulate it, that demonstrates just how important, remarkable, wonderful the human mind is.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Aug 5, 2016 - 12:06pm PT
I'm against scientism.

What does that mean?
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Aug 5, 2016 - 12:40pm PT
//Scientism ~ the belief that the methods of measuring, or the categories and things described through measuring, form the only real and legitimate elements in any philosophical or other inquiry, and that science alone describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective, with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience.
//

I believe that's what the thread started with... so this is like "Finnegans Wake" we're back at the beginning and apparently somebody hasn't been paying attention.
High Fructose Corn Spirit

Gym climber
Aug 5, 2016 - 01:14pm PT
Okay, Paul.

I wouldn't call my own belief structure "scientism" though.
Science-based, yes.

Thanks.
cintune

climber
The Model Home
Aug 5, 2016 - 01:54pm PT
Why does scientism have to be something one is "against?" Like some kind of just-so bogeyman. 'Cause say what you will, at least it's an ethos, right?
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Aug 5, 2016 - 03:24pm PT
That is a rambling definition of scientism. Here is a better one:

Being like Spock on Star Trek.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Aug 5, 2016 - 04:26pm PT
I think that this thread is a data-miner's dream. You can mine it separately for psychologists, sociologists, pollsters, philosophers, political party strategists, and, of course, all of those entities that want to sell you something.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 5, 2016 - 07:10pm PT
I think about that Hubble image that DMT posted above, a lot...

everyone of those objects is a galaxy, and you can see them almost all the way back to the time of the very first ones, and the very first stars, all the way back once the JWT is launched and has its first light...

The universe is empty, at least with regard to light, which comes from the stuff that we are made of... yet the universe is totally full of the dark stuff, dark matter and then dark energy. While these things bend light, and attract (or repel) matter, we can see, unobscured to the time of recombination... when electrons and protons paired up and made hydrogen, launching the x-ray photons off into space, what we see today as microwaves filling space. That monumental event for us is such a side show for the rest of the universe, the dark stuff... we can celebrate it... our birthday, the birth of hydrogen.

One cannot but think that in that vastness, with so many possibilities, that some other intelligence is amazed at the same thing, and wonders about the possibility of us.
eeyonkee

Trad climber
Golden, CO
Aug 5, 2016 - 07:21pm PT
Cut it out Ed, you're making me cry.
jstan

climber
Aug 5, 2016 - 08:33pm PT
//Scientism ~ the belief that the methods of measuring, or the categories and things described through measuring, form the only real and legitimate elements in any philosophical or other inquiry, and that science alone describes the world as it is in itself, independent of perspective, with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience.

If a scientist adheres to this definition of scientism, any study of consciousness can't be done. The primary measurable in such a study is the precise moment the subject says they have reached a decision. The primary measurable is a perception and so has to be ruled out. Just throwing in "element" as an undefined word does not work. And by the way give up the idea the scientific process is just measuring. Wherever this came from it seems very incomplete.

It can probably be redone without even losing its brevity.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 5, 2016 - 09:24pm PT
hey there's new meat roaming the range

doug redosh

Trad climber
golden, CO

Aug 3, 2016 - 02:39pm PT
No sequelae from a skull fracture and what sounds like a subdural hematoma? He will be lucky not to have any sequelae! Brain injuries/concussions are highly variable, and often not apparent in the immediate post accident period.
Doug Redosh MD
Neurologist
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Aug 5, 2016 - 10:19pm PT
And by the way give up the idea the scientific process is just measuring. Wherever this came from it seems very incomplete

How true. That's like telling an artist (like Paul) that visual art is just drawing.
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Aug 6, 2016 - 07:00am PT


Starting off with a word like 'scientism' and calling it, "a belief that...," implies that science is religion by a different name. Those who use the word 'scientism' instead of a more conventional word like atheism may feel that their own world view is threatened by science, which they see as a creeping menace.

If science is a religion, please do not persecute those who believe in it. If you feel that bad things are being done by scientists, address those bad actions directly.



The definition Paul uses is indeed the first lines of this thread. If you do a search for the exact words, the only result is that post. Time to end again, Mr. Beginagain.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 6, 2016 - 01:46pm PT
People who use words like "scientism" are generally people who are unhappy with some conclusion that scientists have made.

We are all scientists, whether you want to believe it or not. It is merely curiosity about physical matters. Everyone seems to have some degree of curiosity. Possibly with the exceptions being the super religious.

Science has no opinion on spiritual matters. Those cannot be proven, tested, or hypothesized in the first place. They rely on faith and belief.

All of us, in an average day, use the scientific method on some events, and don't use it on others. Those would be the matters that science is utterly useless for. Like why you like a painting, or think this girl is hotter than that girl.

That said, there are disciplines of science that attempt to answer those types of questions. They are the soft sciences, ones that are heavy on theory and light on empirical evidence. It is OK to ponder these issues, you just need to be aware of the idea that the scientific method is useless on certain topics. Psychology is one science that walks very close to the edge. We should all remember the scandal where a whole slew of test results had been doctored. You couldn't get away with that in the physical sciences. Not for long, anyway. Psychology isn't worthless. It tries to answer all sorts of interesting questions. It is just more difficult to find empirical data in that field. It is still very subjective on some topics. It is still heavy on philosophy, where many sciences have left philosophy in the dust.

The important thing is that science isn't necessarily "right." All knowledge is provisional. Some topics more so than others.

So Largo's dislike of science, is, in my mind, because he can't find answers to his questions in neuroscience, or he outright disagrees with neuroscience, which is a rapidly growing field right now. He doesn't find answers, because he either doesn't even look for them, or when he does look, he doesn't like what he sees. So he retreats into spiritism, an area of thought that science is poorly suited for. He is safe there, as are most religions, particularly "revealed" religions such as Christianity and Islam. They are totally outside of the view of science, because they start with a whole slew of assumptions that cannot be proven or disproven.

He makes an assumption, and then rides it for years, deflecting and dismissing and ignoring all empirical evidence that doesn't agree with his point of view.

Largo is using opinion in place of evidence. So I don't think much of his pronouncements most of the time, nor his attacks.

He retreats into teleology, an area commonly used by creationists who are unhappy with scientific results. Paul does as well, but not to the same degree, and almost by accident. I don't think it is on purpose with Paul.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Aug 6, 2016 - 02:07pm PT
Paul,

As to whether the universe is finite or not, here is an interesting discussion on the matter. We know that there is what we call the observable universe.

It is sort of like thinking, the universe began from a singularity, but was the singularity observable from outside, in empty space? If so, that means that the Universe is infinite. However, the observable Universe, containing all of the matter, is still finite. So you can't assume that anything that CAN happen MUST happen. As far as we have been able to observe, matter obeys the same laws that we see here on Earth, and all observable objects in the Universe, other than Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Two things that we have no answer for. So events are limited to those that still obey physical law. I doubt that there is another Paul in the Universe, exactly like you, for example.

I take the view: Only certain things CAN happen in THIS universe.

Ed, what is your take, and do you think I'm explaining it incorrectly? After all, my current area of expertise is spores and pollen throughout part of Earth history. I don't think about the universe that much.

Oh. Paul. Here is the discussion:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Is_the_Universe_finite_or_infinite_An_interview_with_Joseph_Silk

You might also want to read up on the many worlds hypothesis:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Aug 6, 2016 - 03:27pm PT
However, the observable Universe, containing all of the matter, is still finite. So you can't assume that anything that CAN happen MUST happen

Even were it infinite this assumption lacks proof.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Aug 6, 2016 - 04:06pm PT
Even were it infinite this assumption lacks proof.

Call it an unproven theory then. My point was that life and the consciousness that results is inevitable and must have existed as a potential eternally ( if the universe is eternal/ infinite). The relationship between consciousness and the universe and our ability to comprehend the structure that produced us is a fascinating thing and has remarkable implications including our own importance. I get a bit frustrated at "scientists" explaining how insignificant we are, our brief existence, our tiny scale, all the time with out realizing the miracle of the cognitive ability and direct knowledge that lead them to those unbelievably ironic kinds of statements.
jgill

Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
Aug 6, 2016 - 04:37pm PT
My point was that life and the consciousness that results is inevitable and must have existed as a potential eternally

Since we are here and conscious it must seem that way, but "inevitability" sounds more Biblical than logical. As for potential, everything God has produced arose as a "potential" in His mind. But that's the way your comments sound to me. However, you express yourself so eloquently I am half convinced!

;>)
MH2

Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
Aug 7, 2016 - 11:44am PT
I get a bit frustrated at "scientists" explaining how insignificant we are, our brief existence, our tiny scale,



I get baffled when confronted with the notion that size and duration have anything to do with significance. Unless you take man as your anthro-po-metric, that is.


In 12 grams of carbon you can find 10-to-the-23rd carbon atoms. That is a significant number.

Inside any living cell, maybe 50-200 microns in diameter, there are zillions of molecules involved in rapid chemical reactions and tiny movements coordinated so intricately they make a great symphony orchestra look ponderous and thumb-fingered.


edit:

Subatomic particles can be significant, too, even ones that exist fleetingly.

However, it is unarguable that humans are awed by large objects, the larger the object the greater the awe, with the universe is the biggest object we know of (though different kinds of infinity might beg to differ), if your awe can stand the strain. This trait has often been made use of in science fiction to get people to read otherwise inferior prose. The Big Dumb Object holds appeal.
Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Aug 7, 2016 - 11:46am PT

mmhhhh....

[Click to View YouTube Video]
Messages 10481 - 10500 of total 22307 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta