Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 08:52am PT
|
Science often is used like a filter, in an attempt to strip away the stuff that keeps one from seeing what's going on.
-
Actually mind is what we use as a filter and "science" is one of our mental methods. "Science" does not exist separate from mind. For example, there are distances "out there" in objective reality, but they are not quantified until our mind assigns them a number. The number itself does not exist "out there."
Some would say numbers are like Platonic forms or Jungian archetypes, that they are basic inherent qualities of reality - but that's another subject.
JL
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Every tool, story, interpretation, drawing, concept is a filter.
Quit filtering. See what is there.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
To date there is no scientific evidence that the universe does not exist outside any individual's mind.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
I should have simply said that the mind is a filter.
Dilemmas. Paradoxes. For as far as the eye can see.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
One less tree, for starters.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
Dilemmas. Paradoxes. For as far as the eye can see. (MikeL)
Ain't it wonderful? It makes life exciting, an adventure.
Or is it better to sit like a stone in an ashram somewhere?
Nothing is better or worse . . . right, Mike?
;>)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Right you are.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Tvash: To date there is no scientific evidence that the universe does not exist outside any individual's mind.
Although impossibility appears to be an impossibility these days, I don't think Tvash's claim above is any that science could properly make and prove--at least not using a "falsificationist" approach (using a hypothesis and null hypothesis test).
No one can say what is not existent. Scientifically, there is no method that I'm aware of to do so. (As for the statistics . . . pfffftttttt!)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
That was a joke.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 04:36pm PT
|
"Science" does not exist separate from mind.
Fer fux sake Largo, that's precisely the point of "science": to understand the world (and ourselves) in spite of ourselves.
You mean in spite of sentience.
What we do when we objectify anything, is we frame it as an object and get to quantifying. That IS science. the "point" of science is to generate the measurements and work up our findings into thories, laws, etc. The "point" is not to do so "in spite of sentience," becuase that is totally impossible. Science does not DO the measuring. We do.
Or maybe you can explain how to do science sans subject.
The belief that we can do science with no human awareness, that somehow we suddenly become objects doing science, is not a well reasoned proposition.
What exactly would be the advantage of understanding the world by excluding our own experience, and again, how would this be achieved? Who would be "understanding the world?"
And if you are saynig that numbers exist totally outside of mind, then were are they - not the objects that are being measured, but the numbrs themselves.
And that tree in the forest question is not one most people actually understand. The question is not whether or not a falling object creates a disturbance (sound waves) in the atomic make up of reality, rather, what does "sound" mean in the context of the falling tree. Does it mean the 1st person experience of hearing, or are we refering to the sound waves that are heard. Can "sound" exist sans a mind to hear? Without ear and hearing, what are sound waves?
The age old tre in the forest question is to tease apart the habitual conflating that brains automatically do in order for mind to present us a seamless experience.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
And if you are saynig that numbers exist totally outside of mind, then were are they - not the objects that are being measured, but the numbrs themselves (JL)
This is mind-numbing.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 07:16pm PT
|
And if you are saynig that numbers exist totally outside of mind, then where are they - not the objects that are being measured, but the numbrs themselves (JL)
This is mind-numbing.
-
And yet it is exactly what is being said when someone says sentience is NOT part of science. It not only mind numbing, but just plain crazy talk. So at least we agree on that point.
JL
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
What we do when we objectify anything, is we frame it as an object (JL)
We agree on that, too.
But can you describe the process by which light on the retina, sound in the ears, touch, taste, smell, and proprioception produce what you call 'an object?'
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Bravo again Largo! That was a gud'n.
Science does not DO the measuring. We do.
i'd like to interject here though, my scientific mind wants to say;
Haven't plants and animals been doing science longer then us? Plants for instance, they make decisions based on sunlight and rainfall. Animals can do that and go the next step, making decisions based on other animals actions.
Is that not science?
Humans just take the next step and title everything..
|
|
goatboy smellz
climber
लघिमा
|
|
"This world may be only illusion -- but it's the only illusion we've got." -- Edward Abbey
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
18th century philosophical musings . . .?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
There is no sound in outer-space, thus no trees?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 09:40pm PT
|
I think it's pretty clear that you have zero idea how "science" is done....and even less as to why it is done. It's no wonder that you and MikeL have nothing but contempt for the process and it's practitioners.
--
This is total rubbish, Fort. The process by which I have written all those anchor and safety books is strictly scientific. From the annectodal evidence we go to drop tests, then to a statisitial prof (Crimp Girl) to work up the numbers, then to Dr. Richard Goldstone to get the math model figured out and thene we start looking at standarzing the methods, and then more testing and finally, I can start drumming up some rules of thumb. And I've got to be right or people die.
I have no contemp for the process I just described. It all works off the numbers, mostly from drop tests. It's just that I don't expect for any science to get done sans sentience. Again - how might that work?
JL
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 3, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
|
And that tree in the forest question is not one most people actually understand. The question is not whether or not a falling object creates a disturbance (sound waves) in the atomic make up of reality, rather, what does "sound" mean in the context of the falling tree.
Nope. That is not what the sentence says.
The sentence says: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear, does the tree make a sound?
The answer: No. A falling tree creates distubrances in the atmosphere (we humans call them sound waves). Our brains "make" the subjective experience of a "sound" from the objective sound waves "out there."
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!