Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
May 27, 2018 - 09:12pm PT
|
There was a time when humans just lived on the planet without much knowledge of its extent or how it fits together. Uh..... You mean like now? We may never be able to fully understand the laws of nature because our brains may not be large enough. Like an earthworm trying to learn calculus.
This human pre-occupation with the soul and the afterlife is merely the result of human's inability to fully understand the natural laws of the universe. It's an age-old story that has repeated itself for tens of thousands of years, but most human never learn the lesson. Here is how the human brain works:
1. I don't understand why something happens
2. Therefore I fantasize that a "god" makes that thing happen because my brain is too small to consider the real reason
3. Oops, scientific progress enlightens me and I realize that "god" wasn't behind that afterall (DUH!)
4. Some new puzzle arises, and I go back to #1 and #2 because I'm a stupid human who can't learn from my mistakes
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 10:46am PT
|
We may never be able to fully understand the laws of nature because our brains may not be large enough. Like an earthworm trying to learn calculus.
Agreed.
However, how much can we say about what we do not understand? There is probably a lot we do not know, but, again, after we say that, are we going to shut up or stop trying to learn more?
There was a time not long ago when humans had not learned calculus.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 10:51am PT
|
And if someone states a simple experiential truth . . .
Oh oh, we need to define "truth." Good luck with that.
--
Why? That would mean you wouldn't know what was true without a definition. Nobody actually lives like that. I went up on Mt. Watkins with too little water. Liked to have died from dehydration. Never needed a definition of truth not yet of dehydration to KNOW it was true that I was thirsty as hell.
I'm beginning to appreciate the genius of Ludwig Wittgenstein who said that all explaining was fool's gold. Stick with describing.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 10:57am PT
|
Thanks for explaining that.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 11:07am PT
|
One of the miscues here is that anything not based on measurements is "speculation."
showing a profound lack of familiarity with science history.
Rutherford, who was the center of British science in the first half of the twentieth century, was fond of addressing his theoretical friends, "That's an interesting speculation, professor,..."
which was taken up in some science circles as a colloquialism. My advisor would often say "very interesting, professor..." and I'd known I'd made a "speculation" though it might have been masquerading as "science," in the Rutherfordean sense.
He got it from his science mentors at Columbia U. who got it from the source themselves, having committed similar sins.
Largo assumes that "speculation" is a pejorative when I use it... who knew that Largo had such a sensitive side that he could be so hurt by an apparent slight.
HTFU Largo.
Generally it is a plea for some experiential reference of which quantifiable experimental evidence is a subcategory, as we know from a century of work, descriptive "natural philosophy" is also experiential.
Schultes comment is probably relevant here "That's funny, Bill, all I saw was colors."
Largo does best when he is describing, and worst when he is chiding.
IMHO
YMMV
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 12:25pm PT
|
Like an earthworm trying to learn calculus. Some of my best friends got stuck there too. I was able do a few more years of math in grad school but math is something you just practice manipulating symbols, without necessarily getting a gut feeling of the big picture. Try to imagine there are 7 billion people and what they all might be thinking about right now. I remember the thought experiment of a train moving at the speed of light with a headlight on the front also projecting at the speed of light, and how it depends on whether you are on the train or watching it go by - if other people can imagine that, good for them. I never could. So it doesn't bother me too much if we're not able to really understand consciousness. I hope someone figures this out in my lifetime, though, it's been bugging me for a long time.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 01:34pm PT
|
One of the miscues here is that anything not based on measurements is "speculation."
showing a profound lack of familiarity with science history.
Who said anything about science history? But the "profound lack" betrays the silliness of the slight.
Must I always clean up your language, Ed?
spec·u·la·tion
ˌspekyəˈlāSH(ə)n/Submit
noun
1.
the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.
Firm evidence, at least for many, principally consist of measurements of physical objects and forces. That, from the functionalists perspective, IS truth.
Sans measurements, some hold, we are merely speculating, that is, guessing.
My point was - when a man is dying of thirst, and knows as much, he is not guessing, nor yet is he transposing said thirst into a numerical model to "prove" he is thirsty.
Per scientific speculation, I know a few things about it. Namely, that used at the proper stage of science (hypothesis-forming), clever speculation can be quite useful. Before we had access to drop testing towers, I had to speculate on much of the early climbing anchor strategies.
But many also hold that whatever lies outside the realm of scientific measurements belongs more in the fields of abstract philosophy or religion. My example of thirst suggests otherwise. Nothing abstract, philosophical or religious about killer thirst, and knowing as much is not speculation. That is, the factual truth of it is not derived from a measurement. Nothing else was either claimed or implied.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 01:38pm PT
|
"...better at describing..." ✔
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 02:22pm PT
|
Must I always clean up your language, Ed?
Yes, because ambiguity is the favored shroud of the smuggler.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 03:14pm PT
|
Polydipsia
Adipsia (aka hypodipsia)
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 03:27pm PT
|
. . . but math is something you just practice manipulating symbols, without necessarily getting a gut feeling of the big picture
I'll bet you said that intentionally, knowing it would elicit a withering response from an actual mathematician!
Sorry to disappoint. If you only wade in the shallows you'll never experience the delights of the ocean depths.
This medallion is your consolation prize for not seeing the big picture.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 03:59pm PT
|
when a man is dying of thirst, and knows as much, he is not guessing,
Yes. His osmoreceptors have done the measurement for him and his nerves have delivered the news to his forebrain. Other proprioceptors have chimed in.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 04:46pm PT
|
No john I was quite serious. I don't know how you made that 3D image on my phone either lol.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 05:25pm PT
|
Yes. His osmoreceptors have done the measurement for him and his nerves have delivered the news to his forebrain. Other proprioceptors have chimed in.
---
What's missing here, might you think?
You've described a biological function. An objectification of a physical process. What do you suppose is the difference between what you just described, and the phenomenological fact of thirst? If "nothing" is your answer, bone up on identity theory. That should do you.
Remember what Nagel said about experience and causality? You're talking about Rome when the issue is Paris. Note they are both in Europe, but are not the same cities.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 06:03pm PT
|
The science and knowledge of the soul is missing in modern science.
It is the single most important knowledge of all.
Without it, science is ultimately totally useless ......
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 07:09pm PT
|
Apparently, Stanford's philosophy pages are among Ed's bookmarks.
You know, it's pretty weak just posting links to hard thinking that somebody else did and then asking a question that itself reveals that you've done none of that hard thinking for yourself.
Do you imagine that guys like Dennett have settled the matter, such that people who see through Dennett and his ilk are all doing nothing more perspicuous than seeking for rainbow-farting unicorns?
Until you answer some of the questions I've posed to you, it seems weak for you to pose questions to others.
Here's a couple more for you:
* Where's the GUT? In your answer, don't be pedantic, but don't leave anything substantive out of one short paragraph. Anything more is a WoT. Kaku wrote an early book on this topic, but I'm sure that you can be orders of magnitude more concise (and accurate).
* Please describe the problem of qualia in a short paragraph and let us know why Kripke's attack on the identity thesis is not about qualia. Again, no WoTs, but do cover everything. No multi-posts either.
Asking "Why do you think that there's something more?" cannot be a serious question. That is literally akin to "Where's a GUT?" that's supposed to be answered in a forum post. The past few days have led me to honestly consider the option that you're just trolling and not to be taken seriously.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 08:13pm PT
|
* Where's the GUT? In your answer, don't be pedantic, but don't leave anything substantive out of one short paragraph. Anything more is a WoT. Kaku wrote an early book on this topic, but I'm sure that you can be orders of magnitude more concise (and accurate).
The idea of grand unified theory has been a relatively recent goal in physics, based on a hunch that all of the "forces" in nature are manifestations of a single "force." Supporting the hunch is the successive unification of electrical and magnetic forces by Maxwell, into Electrodynamics, and again by Salam, Weinberg and Glashow with the unification of the weak force and the electromagnetic force. Many ideas on how to unify the strong force with the electro-weak force result in Supersymmetric force, but the recent evidence from CERN/LHC have put this theory into question. Further, earlier attempts to unify gravity with the classical electrodynamic force failed. Finally, the difficulty of defining gravity in terms of a quantum field theory threaten all the approaches so far. At this time, there is insufficient experimental guidance for a GUT, though experiments have ruled out many possible theories.
* Please describe the problem of qualia in a short paragraph and let us know why Kripke's attack on the identity thesis is not about qualia. Again, no WoTs, but do cover everything. No multi-posts either.
The philosophical theory that the states and process of the mind are identical to the states and process of the brain is "identity theory." It arises from common experience which associates mind with brain. A serious shortcoming of the philosophical theory is the lack of any precise physical description of how the mind and brain are so associated. Lacking details, the philosophical arguments are based on presumed, hypothetical ideals and arguing from a set of axiomatic philosophical "truths." Kripke makes a point of logic based on the idea of the states of mind and the states of brain being "rigid designators," things that designate objects in all possible worlds in which the things could exist, and designate nothing else. His criticism is the supposition that mind states and brains states are rigid designators, and the assumed fact that they could exist independent of each other, a proof that they are not the identical, or more precisely, the identity is not "necessarily true." It could be contingently true, however. Lacking details about what the states of mind and brain are in a precise way would seem render Kripke's point moot. In the end, whether or not philosophical identity theory is supported by a physical theory of the mind, and whether Kripke's critical analysis is relevant, is an open question.
|
|
Anastasia
climber
Home
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 10:20pm PT
|
All I know is you can see something leave when someone dies. They are alive and then a change when that becomes a dead body. Even when someone is out gassing... They are dead but are still releasing air. You can tell they are not alive.
I’ve seen it and why I do believe we have “something.”
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 28, 2018 - 10:47pm PT
|
What's missing here, might you think?
Almost everything. However, take away the biological sensors that respond when you are dehydrated. Would you still have the experience of thirst?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!