Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

Reality is much deeper and more complicated than a simple human could ever understand.

Bare assertion.

AkuManiMani, I am quite skeptical of your "supernatural" story. I do believe that it is possible that you experienced a seizure or that you are currently experiencing false memories. Nevertheless, I have a much deeper respect for you than I do those who cling on to prevailing scientific opinion as their interpretation of all that which they experience.

Ad hominem, strawman.

Either way, I shall not fall prey to the delusion that my interpretation of the sum total of all my experiences is the correct and complete interpretation of that which is "reality". In my mind, scientific fanatics are just as bad as religious fanatics.

Ad hominem, strawman.

Irrational, illogical belief plays just as much a part in the entire scheme of humanity as rational, logical belief plays. Indeed, there are a great many sound, rational theories that we now have at our disposal which would have not come about had their pioneers not been subject to "belief" at some level. Calculus, for example, was not set on firm foundations until the late 19th century. Nevertheless, its pioneers discovered a great many true facts about it much earlier.

Yes, because it worked.

Well, I have no idea if the lengthy post I have just written will make a lick of sense to anyone. I expect it will draw quite a great deal of criticism from those who firmly believe in the infallibility of scientific theory.

Strawman.

I guess there can be no communication between me and such people.

Well, you'd have to go out and find some first.

But, if I have communicated anything at all, all I wish to say is that I respect your philosophy AkuManiMani. People like you and me could very well end up being dead wrong in the end.

Oh, no need to worry about that, you're dead wrong now.

 

[tsig]

That is one of the truest statements I've ever come across. All too often do I run across folks who believe that our model of reality is reality. On the contrary, our model of reality is merely that which our minds are capable of comprehending. Who's to say that we're even capable of sensing all that there is to be sensed (directly or indirectly), let alone being capable of understanding all there is to be understood.

Of course, one should always be skeptical of others' claims, to avoid many of the negatives associated with organized religions and such. However, this cuts both ways. One should always be skeptical of one's own claims as well. More often than not, if you believe you have something figured out; in reality, you truly don't.

Science is our attempt, our tool, to try and figure out what reality really is. Perhaps reality can be comprehended entirely by logical, mathematical laws; perhaps not. Science, logic, and mathematics seem to be quite good tools nevertheless. They seem to encompass that which can be described in an objective sense. However, I've yet to see a convincing explanation of quite a few things; namely, subjective experience, the elementary properties of nature (what are electrons and why do they behave as they do for instance), and existence itself, in terms of science and mathematics.

It is my personal belief that, no matter how much empirical evidence we gather, we will never be able to describe such things in an objective sense. Much like how in mathematics there must always be some undefined terms, I believe there will always be undefined terms in physicality.

The only evidence I have to support such a belief is the evidence brought about by physicality itself. If indeed we are solely a product of evolution, then I believe that our brains (minds) have evolved to a point where we can comprehend only the information obtained from our sensory organs. After all, why would we evolve a trait in our minds to comprehend all of reality, when we do not necessarily need such a trait to survive. I believe that our model of reality (anything describable within the context of mathematical language) is simply a result of our evolution. Reality is much deeper and more complicated than a simple human could ever understand.

AkuManiMani, I am quite skeptical of your "supernatural" story. I do believe that it is possible that you experienced a seizure or that you are currently experiencing false memories. Nevertheless, I have a much deeper respect for you than I do those who cling on to prevailing scientific opinion as their interpretation of all that which they experience. As much as I believe it is possible that your experience falls within the framework of an "objective explanation", I also believe it is possible that your experience falls outside such an explanation as well.

Either way, I shall not fall prey to the delusion that my interpretation of the sum total of all my experiences is the correct and complete interpretation of that which is "reality". In my mind, scientific fanatics are just as bad as religious fanatics.

Irrational, illogical belief plays just as much a part in the entire scheme of humanity as rational, logical belief plays. Indeed, there are a great many sound, rational theories that we now have at our disposal which would have not come about had their pioneers not been subject to "belief" at some level. Calculus, for example, was not set on firm foundations until the late 19th century. Nevertheless, its pioneers discovered a great many true facts about it much earlier.

Well, I have no idea if the lengthy post I have just written will make a lick of sense to anyone. I expect it will draw quite a great deal of criticism from those who firmly believe in the infallibility of scientific theory. I guess there can be no communication between me and such people. But, if I have communicated anything at all, all I wish to say is that I respect your philosophy AkuManiMani. People like you and me could very well end up being dead wrong in the end. However, it is not the "rightness" or "wrongness" of one's stance which stimulates me; it is the manner and depth in which they argue it. For your subtle assertion that you do not believe you know "all there is to know", I give you praise.

I hilited where you went off the rails. Science attempts to find out how things work.

Your statement "figure out what reality really is" implies there is some other reality that is more real than the one we see around us so what is this real reality?

 

[PixyMisa]

Good point. Science isn't about what things are; it's about what they do.

 

[Robin]

That is one of the truest statements I've ever come across. All too often do I run across folks who believe that our model of reality is reality. On the contrary, our model of reality is merely that which our minds are capable of comprehending. Who's to say that we're even capable of sensing all that there is to be sensed (directly or indirectly), let alone being capable of understanding all there is to be understood

....

For your subtle assertion that you do not believe you know "all there is to know", I give you praise.

But nobody here has ever asserted that we know all there is to know.

And the scientific method depends upon an assumption of fallibility of any scientific theory in order to work.

Personally I don't believe that my model of reality is reality. Because I don't know what reality means. Albert Einstein said that to call something "real" was as meaningful as calling it "cock-a-doodle-do" and I agree.

But we come back to this again and again - science works.

If there are other ways of knowing them I am happy to hear about them. But for any method of gaining knowledge you need a method of determining whether any information gained thereby is true or not.

In science there is one thing that we can know and that we cannot be wrong about.

In science we know that such-and-such a mathematical model has so far predicted such-and-such observational data to date.

Granted we cannot know that it will continue to do so although the assumption that it will has served us just fine.

If a bunch of damn dirty apes on the surface of some planet can use this to contemplate the interior of distant stars and the dynamics of the beginning of the Universe then we should not complain.

There is much to be uncovered by science.

And there is that which science cannot uncover. How would we uncover such things?

how would we know we were right?

 

[HatRack]

But nobody here has ever asserted that we know all there is to know.

Where did I say that someone here has asserted such a thing? All I said is that I've run into such people in the past. Please back up your assertion with a quote of mine.

And the scientific method depends upon an assumption of fallibility of any scientific theory in order to work.

Yes.

Personally I don't believe that my model of reality is reality. Because I don't know what reality means. Albert Einstein said that to call something "real" was as meaningful as calling it "cock-a-doodle-do" and I agree.

I have no disagreement with you here.

But we come back to this again and again - science works.

Scientific inquiry works for a great many things. However, it has not been demonstrated to work for everything. Indeed, for that very reason, science continually updates its theories.

If there are other ways of knowing them I am happy to hear about them. But for any method of gaining knowledge you need a method of determining whether any information gained thereby is true or not.

Correct. I do not know of such methods outside of science. However, I will not make absolute claims about whether or not there are such methods otherwise. In the domain of the unknown, one can only roll with their personal beliefs and intuitions. Some believe that scientific inquiry can eventually explain the unknown, some don't.

In science there is one thing that we can know and that we cannot be wrong about.

And what would that be?

In science we know that such-and-such a mathematical model has so far predicted such-and-such observational data to date.

And what exactly are you referring to here? Physical theory, as long as it has been around, has had no such success (that is not to say it hasn't had a great many successes). On the contrary, it has been shown to be wrong. If the past century has shown us anything, it is that our physical laws (our understanding of reality) are quite subject to change. Our current physical laws could certainly be wrong, but we have yet to uncover a counterexample.

Granted we cannot know that it will continue to do so although the assumption that it will has served us just fine.

It hasn't even been a century since some of our most basic physical laws have been overturned. I find that assumption hard to accept, considering the vastness of what we know as "the universe" and the phenomenon which have yet to be satisfactorily (at least to me) explained.

If a bunch of damn dirty apes on the surface of some planet can use this to contemplate the interior of distant stars and the dynamics of the beginning of the Universe then we should not complain.

Yes. I have no complaints about the achievements of scientific inquiry. It has served humanity quite well, and has proven a great many opposing viewpoints quite wrong.

There is much to be uncovered by science.

Absolutely.

And there is that which science cannot uncover. How would we uncover such things?

If there are such things we cannot uncover with scientific inquiry, then we simply cannot know, can we? That was the point of my post: perhaps the human brain is not capable of comprehending what reality truly is, no matter how complex and intricate the models we come up with.

how would we know we were right?

We wouldn't. There is no absolute way of knowing we are right. Assumptions must be made at some point. No matter how trivial some assumptions appear to be, they are still assumptions. And, any one of them could be wrong.

 

[HatRack]

I hilited where you went off the rails. Science attempts to find out how things work.

Your statement "figure out what reality really is" implies there is some other reality that is more real than the one we see around us so what is this real reality?

No. My statement implies no such thing about "some other reality". It merely implies that maybe we don't have a full understanding of what we currently see as reality.

As for whether science attempts to find out "how things work" as opposed to "what things are", I'd appreciate if you could point me to some general scientific consensus as to which of the two science is really about.

 

[HatRack]

Bare assertion.

...
Ad hominem, strawman.

...
Ad hominem, strawman.

...
Yes, because it worked.

...
Strawman.

...
Well, you'd have to go out and find some first.

...
Oh, no need to worry about that, you're dead wrong now.

Thanks for the detailed response to my post PixyMisa, you have really opened me up to your point of view.

 

[!Kaggen]

That is one of the truest statements I've ever come across. All too often do I run across folks who believe that our model of reality is reality. On the contrary, our model of reality is merely that which our minds are capable of comprehending. Who's to say that we're even capable of sensing all that there is to be sensed (directly or indirectly), let alone being capable of understanding all there is to be understood.

Of course, one should always be skeptical of others' claims, to avoid many of the negatives associated with organized religions and such. However, this cuts both ways. One should always be skeptical of one's own claims as well. More often than not, if you believe you have something figured out; in reality, you truly don't.

Science is our attempt, our tool, to try and figure out what reality really is. Perhaps reality can be comprehended entirely by logical, mathematical laws; perhaps not. Science, logic, and mathematics seem to be quite good tools nevertheless. They seem to encompass that which can be described in an objective sense. However, I've yet to see a convincing explanation of quite a few things; namely, subjective experience, the elementary properties of nature (what are electrons and why do they behave as they do for instance), and existence itself, in terms of science and mathematics.

It is my personal belief that, no matter how much empirical evidence we gather, we will never be able to describe such things in an objective sense. Much like how in mathematics there must always be some undefined terms, I believe there will always be undefined terms in physicality.

The only evidence I have to support such a belief is the evidence brought about by physicality itself. If indeed we are solely a product of evolution, then I believe that our brains (minds) have evolved to a point where we can comprehend only the information obtained from our sensory organs. After all, why would we evolve a trait in our minds to comprehend all of reality, when we do not necessarily need such a trait to survive. I believe that our model of reality (anything describable within the context of mathematical language) is simply a result of our evolution. Reality is much deeper and more complicated than a simple human could ever understand.

AkuManiMani, I am quite skeptical of your "supernatural" story. I do believe that it is possible that you experienced a seizure or that you are currently experiencing false memories. Nevertheless, I have a much deeper respect for you than I do those who cling on to prevailing scientific opinion as their interpretation of all that which they experience. As much as I believe it is possible that your experience falls within the framework of an "objective explanation", I also believe it is possible that your experience falls outside such an explanation as well.

Either way, I shall not fall prey to the delusion that my interpretation of the sum total of all my experiences is the correct and complete interpretation of that which is "reality". In my mind, scientific fanatics are just as bad as religious fanatics.

Irrational, illogical belief plays just as much a part in the entire scheme of humanity as rational, logical belief plays. Indeed, there are a great many sound, rational theories that we now have at our disposal which would have not come about had their pioneers not been subject to "belief" at some level. Calculus, for example, was not set on firm foundations until the late 19th century. Nevertheless, its pioneers discovered a great many true facts about it much earlier.

Well, I have no idea if the lengthy post I have just written will make a lick of sense to anyone. I expect it will draw quite a great deal of criticism from those who firmly believe in the infallibility of scientific theory. I guess there can be no communication between me and such people. But, if I have communicated anything at all, all I wish to say is that I respect your philosophy AkuManiMani. People like you and me could very well end up being dead wrong in the end. However, it is not the "rightness" or "wrongness" of one's stance which stimulates me; it is the manner and depth in which they argue it. For your subtle assertion that you do not believe you know "all there is to know", I give you praise.

Well said.

 

[!Kaggen]

Thanks for the detailed response to my post PixyMisa, you have really opened me up to your point of view.

Pixy is not capable of a discussion and is certainly not capable of convincing anyone.
All his got going for him are a few cheerleaders who wave their hands around whenever they are prompted by a good argument against scientism.

 

[Robin]

Where did I say that someone here has asserted such a thing? All I said is that I've run into such people in the past. Please back up your assertion with a quote of mine.

You were praising one person for saying that they did not know all that there was to know. So if you agree that we are all saying the same then why praise one person for saying that?

And what would that be?

The thing I said in the next paragraph.

And what exactly are you referring to here? Physical theory, as long as it has been around, has had no such success (that is not to say it hasn't had a great many successes). On the contrary, it has been shown to be wrong. If the past century has shown us anything, it is that our physical laws (our understanding of reality) are quite subject to change. Our current physical laws could certainly be wrong, but we have yet to uncover a counterexample.

You did not read what I said did you?

I didn't say the "physical laws" were "right". I said they predicted the observational data. And they do. Even wrong ones like Newton's laws predict observational data. NASA find them quite adequate for most of their purposes.

I don't know how you can claim that no scientific law has ever predicted observational data.

I am not sure what you mean there.

There is no question whatsoever that scientific theories predict observational data.
It hasn't even been a century since some of our most basic physical laws have been overturned. I find that assumption hard to accept, considering the vastness of what we know as "the universe" and the phenomenon which have yet to be satisfactorily (at least to me) explained.

Well no, you don't find that assumption hard to accept because you are using that assumption right now. You assumed that when you clicked the "Submit Reply" that we would be able to read the message.

You assumed that the laws of science would continue to operate as they have in the past.

So everybody operates on that assumption and so far the Universe appears to have shared our philosophical naievety on the subject.

Now the the laws of physics may change - even radically. Time and space might become relative concepts, only useful in certain contexts.

But even so, Newton's laws will continue to predict what they predicted in Newton's time.

Because scientific laws are not right or wrong. They are descriptive of observational data.

Better laws will be better descriptions of observational data.

 

[punshhh]

is the previous page philosophical debate?

 

[Robin]

Pixy is not capable of a discussion and is certainly not capable of convincing anyone.
All his got going for him are a few cheerleaders who wave their hands around whenever they are prompted by a good argument against scientism.

Can you define "scientism" and point out where you think there is a good argument against it?

 

[Robin]

is the previous page philosophical debate?

I think the technical term for what is happening here is "bickering".

 

[punshhh]

Well said.

Well said, the both of you.

 

[Robin]

Well said, the both of you.

But just who are these "scientific fanatics" he is referring to?

He has already said that he is not referring to anybody here.

 

[Robin]

If there are such things we cannot uncover with scientific inquiry, then we simply cannot know, can we? That was the point of my post: perhaps the human brain is not capable of comprehending what reality truly is, no matter how complex and intricate the models we come up with.

I don't think there is such a thing as "what reality really is". Reality is whatever it is.

We wouldn't. There is no absolute way of knowing we are right. Assumptions must be made at some point. No matter how trivial some assumptions appear to be, they are still assumptions. And, any one of them could be wrong.

And another thing that is in favour of science is that it requires the minimum number of assumptions.

As Ernst Mach said, if the world was just a dream then the fact would have no effect whatsoever upon science.

In science you have maths on the one hand and sense data on the other. If the mathematical model describes the sense data within defined parameters then it is a good model.

 

[punshhh]

But just who are these "scientific fanatics" he is referring to?

He has already said that he is not referring to anybody here.

Can you point me the "scientific fanatics" bit?

 

[Robin]

Can you point me the "scientific fanatics" bit?

Third to last paragraph of the last post of page 27

Either way, I shall not fall prey to the delusion that my interpretation of the sum total of all my experiences is the correct and complete interpretation of that which is "reality". In my mind, scientific fanatics are just as bad as religious fanatics.

 

[punshhh]

I see, he is referring to scientific dogma, it is probably implied (from his perspective) in the attitude of scientists to 'that which has not been scientifically tested', or can't be.
They brow beat folk into believing that if its not scientifically 'known' its hogwash.

Dogma exists in all forms of religion or organised 'teaching'.

I mentioned it this morning in the thread 'There is no God'.

 

[annnnoid]

We don't know what he means by "love" because he wrote 7 paragraphs of blather instead of one short definition.

What do I win?

Yeah, of course Pixy. The single most meaningful word in the human vocabulary and all that’s required is a short definition to do it justice. Typical nonsense.

So you whole argument is:

Things happen, we don't know why therefore psi.

Newsflash tsig: just because we have a word for something does not mean we know what the word means. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions (which you and others quite predictably insist on ignoring) there are many words for things we don’t understand (all of them actually, but that’s a bit too abstract). It is no more accurate for you to suggest psi etc. don’t exist than for an advocate to suggest they do. All we can do is recognize the evidence (IOW, admit that something exists) and make a reasonable effort to explore what is available to explore. Many skeptics simply prefer to stick their heads up their buts and pretend there is no evidence. Case in point.

As for the fundamental issue I referred to. I did give you a major clue. Evidence it’s called. Science is just not your strong point is it. What does ignorance mean? It means you don’t know something. Obviously, neither you nor anyone on the planet can claim with any remote degree of certainty that they know what a human being is. We can, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, throw around all sorts of very clever sounding words, but ultimately, they add up to one indisputable conclusion: we…don’t….know. Anyone who claims otherwise will be picking up next years Nobel Prize. Nor do we really know how much we don’t know. There is a great deal of evidence (there’s that pesky word again….EVIDENCE…care to actually take the time and go and look) that suggests it is a great deal.

…the big question though, is who are you? We are a creature that is singularly defined by our ability to ‘know our self’, and yet we most indisputably do not (since I doubt you have the fortitude to bother examining all the incontrovertible EVIDENCE that establishes this as a fact I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it). Ignorance explains every single success, or failure, individually and/or collectively on this planet. It has a very clear and defined trajectory. If you don’t know yourself, life is more likely to go in the wrong direction, if you do know yourself, life is more likely to go in the right direction (that, of course, is a monumental simplification).

So why don’t we know ourselves? What don’t we know? What does ignorance implicate? What would awareness implicate?

….or to put it more simply…why don’t you know yourself…tsig, and what, specifically don’t you know?

I'll give you a clue...straight out of the bible: 'man cannot live on bread alone'

You’ve got a few days to brush up on the subject tsig as I may be offline taking care of other matters. A summary of the human condition…a few days should be more than enough for someone with 12,000 posts under their belt don’t ya think?