Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
What if material is immaterial?
#31
Not biting boys and girls.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#32
Don't need to.
It's simply a hypothesis of an example wherein the scientific method might be limited.
There could be aspects of reality that leave no tangible evidence.
And that doesn't necessarily negate them.

The nature of consciousness and the role of perception will likely remain beyond our evidence based methods for a long time.
Doesn't matter. There's plenty we don't understand. Some of it, we may never understand. That doesn't automatically imply that that which we may never comprehend simply doesn't exist.
Reply
#33
(08-13-2017, 03:23 PM)stanky Wrote:  Sparks says "Religion has no self-correcting mechanism."
That isn't actually true. The Roman Catholics no longer burn heretics at the stake. Even the Mormons have made adjustments to deal with their more overt racism and sexism. Polygamy is out, and blacks can have full rights of the priesthood. In a few more centuries, even Islam could make reforms regarding female rights and Jihadist sensibilities.

They're not made on the basis of reason, though. Those decisions get made when it starts to hit them in the pocket.

(08-13-2017, 03:23 PM)stanky Wrote:  Yes, the method and its peer review does tend to root out the blunders...but that process is often too slow to reverse the damage done.

Mate, that's a pretty slim problem. Too slow?

There isn't any way of speeding it up.

(08-13-2017, 03:23 PM)stanky Wrote:  Science has no access to consciousness or any explanation for what it is...even though consciousness is perhaps the most important feature of existence.

That raises several points, but the chief one is that consciousness is important. I don't see any reason why it's more important than leaves or ants, myself.

In terms of science, to expect answers now when we've only been able to study MRIs for less than half a century seems a bit tough. MRIs can show where consciousness works, but not how. No big deal by me. When you die, so does your consciousness, so who cares, really?

(08-13-2017, 03:23 PM)stanky Wrote:  What if there are other possible approaches? How would we know if the method simply deems that which leaves no evidence as being non-existent?

Like gods, that which leaves no evidence can be safely ignored.

(08-13-2017, 03:23 PM)stanky Wrote:  How would we find evidence for a particle that simply disliked being investigated, or was rascally and bent on providing misleading data?

We wouldn't - you're anthropomorphisising.
Love is... that one person whose freshly-warm toilet seat you don't find disgusting.
Reply
#34
I'm philosophizing.
The particle could be anthropomorphizing, though.

My hypotheticals come from science, not religion. That's the direction.
Discoveries in quantum mechanics defy rationality. That has opened things up quite a lot, as per what might make for a decent hypothesis.
We really don't know if there is any reality without perception.
Even the idea of 'we' might be a construct.

This might be a very long and lucid dream we're having. It feels solid and real. But it may be a feeling and nothing more.
We have all manner of evidence for everything...except, possibly,for everything. All this data may be dream data that works in this dream.

We have no idea how 'stuff' came about, or from where.
We can't explain consciousness.
We know that observation profoundly influences the 'behavior' of the fundamental particles.
We have no particular reason to assume that consciousness can't exist without a brain.
Maybe it exists as a magnetic field. Who knows.

So we simply make assumptions or ignore the problems.

It's a quandry to me. We live in a universe that doesn't allow perpetual motion, though, the only thing we've ever observed is perpetual motion. It might be safe to assume that we'll never observe anything but motion.

It's messy. No reason to make assumptions based on the lack of evidence we have for the core things we believe.
There's plenty of stuff we can learn from evidence. That's fine.

But we shouldn't be permitted to jump ahead of that, and impose limits on what we don't understand.
Reply
#35
Well, stank, soon as you've got something, you write it up in a peer reviewed journal.
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#36
(08-13-2017, 05:58 PM)sparks Wrote:  Not biting boys and girls.

[Image: i-know-you-want-it-dance.gif]
"Nobody should pin their hopes on a miracle": Vladimir Putin
Reply
#37
Why would I 'have something'?

I'm simply making a philosophical point...or trying to.

People as smart as Penrose can toss ideas out there that lack verifiable evidence.
For instance, the possibility of consciousness being a quantum phenomena.
There is already some evidence for quantum effects in neuron transmission in the olfactory sensors.

It's not like I'm claiming that Mormons rode on dinosaurs 6000 years ago.
I'm merely trying to loosen up the rigidity of our thinking.

If i'm failing at that, big whoop.
I'm not working for the oppressive forces of religious 'truths'.
Quite not.

When science's journeys into quantum mechanics revealed seemingly irrational features, the initial reaction among the stodgier scientists was to reject it. With time and repeated experiments, we gradually broadened our views to include the conundrums of quantum mechanics.

I suspect that we will go through some more upheavals in our thinking, as more is uncovered.
And we may hit some impasses. We likely already have; for instance "string theory".

That we can find no evidence for that theory doesn't negate its hypothesis.

(hell, haven't you guys had dmt? Or read the works of theoretical mathematicians?)

I'm below average on the crazy scale.

Perhaps a quick read of The Emperor's New Mind (Penrose) would be a good start for relieving the imagination constipation?

Loosen up, fellas.
I'm as drenched in science as any of you. I remain curious about all of its latest discoveries.
I see no reason to close the door on wild speculation, as long as it isn't in violation of the laws.
And nothing I've suggested thus far actually violates the laws.

Nor does quarky's single quark hypothesis, for that matter.

Does the big bang?
Not sure. It certainly comes close.
Yet for us to gain greater understanding of that phenomena (which we've more or less become comfy with) we will need to stretch our thinking quite a lot.

It's ok to do that. Maybe the singularity popped into this existence from a parallel dimension. Sounds kind of nutty, but we have to start somewhere. We have managed to digest (or at least not puke) some wildly irrational and speculative hypothesis about the origin of this universe.
Reply
#38
stank says: "Perhaps a quick read of The Emperor's New Mind (Penrose) would be a good start for relieving the imagination constipation?"

Funny you should mention that one. Penrose shouldn't delve into that which he doesn't know shit about. Did you not bother to read the linky in the other thread that I posted? In a nutshell, when physicists and cosmologists, even really talented ones like Penrose, start talking about consciousness, they're very likely to be full of shit.

So, when Penrose or Tyson or any other living scientist starts talking with authority about, say, the relative edibleness of haggis, or kim-chee, beware the accuracy of the information, just as you would if President Trump started talking with authority about....any fucking thing under the sun and moon.

Numerous times here, you've spoken with authority, my personal favorite is "Science is a religion." You've done this so many times, it really isn't necessary to quote you.

I maintain that you're full of shit here because science self corrects whereas religion does not. And we still await your good evidences to the contrary.

Cheers,
sparks
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply
#39
As with your assault on me regarding fermentation technology, I sense that you aren't really open to evidence that might challenge your view point.

Religion, as I've mentioned, actually does have a self-correcting feed back mechanism.
That doesn't mean I'm a defender of religion.

Funny that you interpret my forays into philosophical debate as expressions of authority.

You might want to re-read some of your own stuff for an example of speaking from authority.


Almost any post will do, including the one above.
You explain how we should interpret brilliant scientists when they drift from your authoritative understanding.

Have you no sense of irony?
I'm full of shit, of course. That's cool.
Yet, you go further, to explain how to recognize when a brilliant scientist, doing hypothetical expressions based on their body of study, is also full of shit...

Which pretty much leaves you...as the ultimate authority.

We are fortunate to have someone of your caliber to set us straight, should we go astray.

(You should write to Penrose, btw. Warn him from further damage. Maybe he doesn't even know he's full of shit?)

mate,

you're silly.

Are you capable of laughing at yourself?
has your curious side dried up?

It happens.

hasn't happened to me yet, but i can imagine that it might, somewhere down the line. I do dread that possibility.

meanwhile, i yield to your authority.

(In my most authoritative way.)
Reply
#40
"As with your assault on me regarding fermentation technology, I sense that you aren't really open to evidence that might challenge your view point."

No.  I merely await your evidences, which are sadly lacking.

"Religion, as I've mentioned, actually does have a self-correcting feed back mechanism."

Again, I await your evidences.  What you've said today regarding this doesn't fly, as TA has already pointed out.

"You explain how we should interpret brilliant scientists when they drift from your authoritative understanding."

No.  I merely point out that if one is not up on fermenting shit, one should not accept as fact that someone else knows how to do it without evidences.  Penrose is not up on what he's talking about in that book.  He didn't go to school for that.  He's a physicist, you see, not a nuerologist.  And while his speculations might be interesting, they are not automatically fact just because he did go to school in physics.

"We are fortunate to have someone of your caliber to set us straight, should we go astray."

Yes.  You are.  Smile

"meanwhile, i yield to your authority."

Fortunately, I require no such thing of you or anyone else for that matter.  When I become Emperor of The Universe, this position may change...
You can lead 'em to knowledge, but you can't make 'em think.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)