Limits of Science

[Suggestologist]

'

So, you mean if we never caught the Magic Elves at work, would it make it any less magical? Wouldn't that be a moot point, nonetheless?

Eventually we'd either catch the Elves at work, or they'd be immaterial, in which case we'd have to develop a science for dealing with that which doesn't exist. And once we caught Elves at work, we'd eventually learn HOW they work, moving the 'magic' of Elves into the realm of science.

It's that easy, really.

If what the Elves do is not systematic; and highly capricious, how could their actions be studied scientifically?

 

[Z]

would say consciousness is immaterial ie the intrinsic qualitative feel of experience. We can be more certain than anything else that such experiences exist.

\
Oh, I remember this argument - I thought we debunked that mess already.

If you can experience consciousness, it's not immaterial.

Anyway, let's not dredge up that old nonsense, shall we?

Goodnight, off to play Vice City.

 

[Radrook]

Radook:

What can you know beyond the realm of the senses?

The limit of science is replication, there after personal belief in the master.

What it believes to be replication.
How do we know that we are not all brains in a vat?
But that's an entirely different angle to this and would deviate the subject so I will shelve it for a later discussion.

A certain philosopher concluded that in order for an object to exist it must have spatial extension. All other attributes such as taste, color, smell, texture, and associative sound are unnecessary because they are subjective.

Other philosophers were more aggressive and questioned whether spatial extension itself might not be subjective.
After all, it too is contingent on perception based on subjective neurtransmission.

Who is to say, as I pointed out before, that if a hundred aliens all hardwired to perceive differently will not perceive the identical ASSUMED stimulus in drastically different ways? Each vehemently claiming and insisting that its particular perception is the correct one which represents ultimate reality.

Of course, the consensus that there is actually something there causing the different perceptions might be reached. But the conclusion as to what exactly that stimulus causing the diverse perceptions really is can never be determined. It can only be assumed based on our perceptions.


In short, each alien would be shackled by its own neural hardwiring and forever dependent on what that neural hardwiring was capable of perceiving.


There is nothing you can know beyond the senses and everything you think you know is derived from the senses.
The problem is that the senses are fallible and limited and based merely on the pattern of neurotransmission. Change the neurotransmission sequences and the same supposed stimulus gives us an entirely different impression.

Furthermore, since what we perceive as the brain is very capable of generating its own world, there is absolutely no guarantee that what we are actually perceiving exists external and totally independent of our minds.

How do we know for instance which is reality, our dream world that we seem to enter on a nightly basis and which is real to us when we are experiencing it or the world that appears to be more vivid when we shift and seem to awaken?


Neither is there any guarantee that what our receptors are transmitting to our brains, if indeed there are such things as brains, that what triggered the neurotransmission, if indeed there are truly neurotransmissions, in the first place is what is assumed to have done so.

In short, the nature of the stimulus assumed to be the cause of the neurological response can never be ascertained but must be assumed as genuine in order for us to make sense of our perceptual world.

The opposite would be constant doubt which serves no useful purpose at all except to give us a feeling of uneasiness. Because of this science assumes and external world, and assumes cause and effect.

Addendum
I once read a very interesting short SCI Fi story about aliens who lacked eyes but who could perceive most of the spectrum scientists call light. From their standpoint, humans limited to the narrow band we call visual light were virtually blind.

The universe to these creatures was a panoramic, glorious, visual display far beyond the human imagination to conceive. As the story went, a scientist begged to be enabled to experience at least for a few seconds what these creatures perceived. When he emerged from the experience he sobbed uncontrollably and begged not to be left in the blind state that all humans were in.

Interesting!

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Limits of Science

Who is this strawman you've just set on fire? I feel bad for him.

I do not provoke.

 

[Suggestologist]

Who is to say, as I pointed out before, that if a hundred aliens all hardwired to perceive differently will not perceive the identical ASSUMED stimulus in drastically different ways? Each vehemently claiming and insisting that its particular perception is the correct one which represents ultimate reality.

Of course, the consensus that there is actually something there causing the different perceptions might be reached. But the conclusion as to what exactly that stimulus causing the diverse perceptions really is can never be determined. It can only be assumed based on our perceptions.

The problem I see is that you may have yet to grasp something, and at the same time the idea that your descriptions have rung in my mind lead to this: We not only have sensory systems to establish contact with the outside world, we also have motor systems -- which allow for hypothesis-testing.

In short, each alien would be shackled by its own neural hardwiring and forever dependent on what that neural hardwiring was capable of perceiving.

There is nothing you can know beyond the senses and everything you think you know is derived from the senses.
The problem is that the senses are fallible and limited and based merely on the pattern of neurotransmission. Change the neurotransmission sequences and the same supposed stimulus gives us an entirely different impression.

But how would this jive when we went to utilize our motor systems on the perceived object? in an attemp to manipulate it for our own purposes?

In short, the nature of the stimulus assumed to be the cause of the neurological response can never be ascertained but must be assumed as genuine in order for us to make sense of our perceptual world.

It can be tested by our motor systems. While even this is no guarantee of genuineness, it does allow us to come to consistent "rules" about what appears "external" to us.

The opposite would be constant doubt which serves no useful purpose at all except to give us a feeling of uneasiness. Because of this science assumes and external world, and assumes cause and effect.

What eases doubt is the consistency of the "rules" we discover.

Cybernetics allows a more circular model than the linear cause-effect chains of most scientific thought. And then there's a more quantum-type thought process, something about no local causes nor effects....

 

[Zep]

Addendum
I once read a very interesting short SCI Fi story about aliens who lacked eyes but who could perceive most of the spectrum scientists call light. From their standpoint, humans limited to the narrow band we call visual light were virtually blind.

The universe to these creatures was a panoramic, glorious, visual display far beyond the human imagination to conceive. As the story went, a scientist begged to be enabled to experience at least for a few seconds what these creatures perceived. When he emerged from the experience he sobbed uncontrollably and begged not to be left in the blind state that all humans were in.

Interesting!

So your arguments are based on a "very interesting short SCI Fi story"??

 

[Radrook]

So your arguments are based on a "very interesting short SCI Fi story"??

Very cute.

My arguments are based on a profound study of metaphysics.


Your criticism of fictional literature as a source of valuable philosophical concepts reveals a gap in learning that needs to be remedied.

Knowledgeable people know that fictional literature has both relevance and value to current issues via the clarification of concepts within the framework of a story.

Your problem is that you think that everything within a Sci Fi novel or story is Fiction and is therefore of no real relevance to reality.

That is not so.
Sci Fi writers base their works on social issues, philosophical issues, ethical issues, metaphysical issues, scientific issues, psychological issues and all other subjects that are or should be of concern to the modern mind.


BTW
Suggesting the ridiculous via feigning ignorance and setting up a strawman doesn't do anything for the thread but bog it down in irrelevancies. It certainly doesn't convince the knowledgeable. So instead of heckling, why not contribute something of value. Or are you afraid of getting a nosebleed from trying to think?

 

[dmarker]

I once read a very interesting short SCI Fi story about aliens who lacked eyes but who could perceive most of the spectrum scientists call light. From their standpoint, humans limited to the narrow band we call visual light were virtually blind.

The universe to these creatures was a panoramic, glorious, visual display far beyond the human imagination to conceive. As the story went, a scientist begged to be enabled to experience at least for a few seconds what these creatures perceived. When he emerged from the experience he sobbed uncontrollably and begged not to be left in the blind state that all humans were in.

Interesting!

I do believe that story was The Secret Sense written by Isaac Asimov, an avowed atheist.

 

[Radrook]

I do believe that story was The Secret Sense written by Isaac Asimov, an avowed atheist.

Which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

BTW
You are confusing the concept with the source.
Learn to differentiate.
It makes for a better discussion.

 

[dmarker]

Which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I dunno that it is, Rad.

I mean Asimov himself was a scientist and a big believer in science itself. Very ironic that you mention his short story in this thread about the limits of science since the body of his fiction embrace science whole heartedly.

Perhaps the scientific method is horrible, but do you have something else that can consistantly work over decades?

 

[dmarker]

You are confusing the concept with the source.
Learn to differentiate.
It makes for a better discussion.

But the source influences the concept, Rad.

 

[Radrook]

I dunno that it is, Rad.

I mean Asimov himself was a scientist and a big believer in science itself. Very ironic that you mention his short story in this thread about the limits of science since the body of his fiction embrace science whole heartedly.

One can embrace a concept as expressed by an atheist and not be obligated to embrace his atheism. For example, I have books by Asimov on Astronomy and agree with the accuracies he has taught me. But that does not obligate me to be an atheist. I also am aware that Asimov has written books criticizing the biblical account. In fact, I read that book. Does that mean that if one of his short stories contains a truth that I agree with I should reject it because--well--Asimov is an atheist? Of course not. All of us agree on different issues with people who are not of our religious views. President Clinton wrote a book recently recounting his presidency. Do you agree with everything he says in that book? Most people will agree with some and not with others.

If this is so and I am more than certain that you are very aware that it is, then why hone in on Asimov and try to make his writings an exception to the generally accepted rules?

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense.

Perhaps the scientific method is horrible, but do you have something else that can consistantly work over decades?

This thread wasn't meant as an attack on the scientific method.
It was merely meant as a reminder to remember its limitations.



BTW

You are entitled to see irony in my usage of Asimov's short story.
However, that perception does not invalidate its relevancy to the matephysical issue.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Each alien touches a red hot piece of metal.

One describes it as too cold to handle.
Another tells us that it is merely warm,
The other doesn't register any temperature at all.

...

Whose perception is to be given the seal of approval of being the REAL one?

What is more real, Farenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin?

The important thing is that they are all touching something that has some temperature. If we can find a relationship between temperature measurements, then we can still understand the aliens, and we can all understand that while the way we discuss the temperature varies, what we are all measuring is something that is real.

 

[The Cats Venm]

Provided we could communicate with them, aliens with vastly different sense systems would be quite a valuable asset to scientific study. It would allow more objective, unbiased, observation.

Science is all about understanding the limitations of perception and trying to reduce its distortion. That is why tests are done blind. Good scientists know that they are always fighting against misconceptions and do their best to avoid them.

It's funny when people accuse science for not knowing its limitations, when it is all about knowing ones limitations.

If one decides to ‘reject’ science, they are essentially saying: “I don’t care what’s real as long as it feels right.” There’s nothing wrong with that approach, and many people live perfectly happy lives needing nothing more, but when it comes to finding real answers and solutions science is the only way to go. Otherwise, how do you know you’re not just fooling yourself?

 

[Yahweh]

Re: Re: Re: Limits of Science

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say.

What would Stimpson say?

Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

How does denying the comment lead to a rejection of Materialism and Naturalism?

 

[UserGoogol]

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

No... but a "materialist" might say that the aspects of the universe which are not observable by science are unknowable and not particularly interesting anyway.

Science is used to make predictions about the universe. It works in a very sensible fashion, by looking at the universe, checking for patterns, and then repeatedly checking to see if the pattern continues. Now, if a phenomena is not at all observable by science, then it follows no observable pattern. And if we can't find a pattern, what's the point? We would not be able use our "theory" for any purpose, because our observations, in a broad sense of the term, are all we ever experience.

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Limits of Science

Originally posted by jzs [/b]

What is more real, Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin?

All are equally SUBJECTIVELY real.

The important thing is that they are all touching something that has some temperature.

The important thing in relation to metaphysics of reality is that the nature of the stimulus cannot be objectively determined due to the subjective nature of perception.

What we are considering at present is not subjective reality.
It is objective realty. Not the phenomena but the nouma,
Ultimate reality unfiltered by the senses.

If we can find a relationship between temperature measurements, then we can still understand the aliens, and we can all understand that while the way we discuss the temperature varies,

Yes, some aliens would be understandable and probably become predictable after we have had time to figure out just what our perceptual differences are.

[source]what we are all measuring is something that is real. [/source]

Something that SEEMS like a real stimulus because it is temporally prior to the reaction.

But can we be absolutely sure that simply because it precedes our reaction that it is what is causing the reaction? Or is it that our minds are habituated in imputing cause simply because there is temporal priority and spatial propinquity prior to our reaction?

Hume concluded that it might just be the case.


Sure, as you say, all the millions of aliens can agree that something is stimulating the different responses.

But what?
Since it is causing the diversity of perceptions, its nature cannot be all at once. For example, it cannoyt be a sphere and a cube at once. It cannot be two dimentional and three dimensional at once. So its nature must be something else.

Also, we cannot even be absoluelt sure that what is causing the reactions is mind external. There is no way to prove that an Perhaps an extramental force is not playing on all the minds and causing them to imagine that something is there.

In fact, there might not really be an out there at all since the whole thing might be mind generated--including the illusion of a dimensional exterior world.


But let's assume that there is an exterior world and that something is there really causing these reactions.

Even then what the ultimate nature of that something might be is anybody's guess.

Successful comunication:

Sure, I agree, a certain amount of interspecies communication might be possible between us and the less extreme of the perceivers. But communication does not resolve what that stimulus causing the confusion among all the perceivers is.

Any alien perceiving a liquid where another perceives a fluid or a cube where another perceives a two dimensional square could never again be sure that what he perceives is the true nature of that seeming causing the perception.


In short, all these aliens, including us of course, would be required to simply believe via having faith.

 

[Z]

What you fail to grasp, Radrook, is that while, yes, everything you experience may be a biochemical sham, the facts as known presently is that if 100 people come to a metallic sphere with a temperature of 500 degrees celsius, regardless of their ability to perceive, then 100 people will perceive a metallic sphere with a temperature of 500 degrees celsius. HOW they perceive that sphere is irrelevant; the sphere itself is immune to perceptual bias. Some may not perceive all features of said sphere, just as you may not perceive the exact atomic structure of the monitor you are staring at right now; however, it exists, irrelevant of their perception. Indeed, if no one were present, the sphere still would exist, and continue to do so unless acted upon by some other stimulus.

The story you mentioned only serves to illustrate the point: all those other wavelengths exist, all around us, all the time, yet we are unable to perceive them without specific tools and instruments. Does that mean, because we do not perceive them, that they are not there? Nonsense... in fact, their continued presense in SPITE of our perception has helped to bring most who think along those lines back to a more stable sense of reality.

I think someone has been watching too much Matrix lately, frankly.

If you perceive something, and no one else does in any way, then two possibilities exist: one: You are mad, hallucinating, or 'seeing things'. Two: you possess a perceptive ability that they lack.

Since most things are not so one-dimensional as to be only perceived in one way, we can define our reality fairly easily even in terms excluding one or two senses. Energy is complicated but instruments help us determine the presence of some energies, so we're good there, too.

Science removes perceptual bias and objectifies knowledge. Which is probably why religion never stands up for very long under the light of science.

 

[Z]

And, of course, the fact you're using a completely fantasy example does nothing for your case.

Consider the hundreds of life-forms on Earth alone, with the dozens and dozens of different perceptive abilities here alone. Even then, they will all perceive a cube when a cube is presented to them, regardless of other issues.

Your example is garbage. You're trying to debate how people would perceive a chimera or unicorn if one suddenly appeared in Central Park.

Please... try to limit your discussions to intelligent thoughts instead of dragons and antichrists.

 

[Iacchus]

The story you mentioned only serves to illustrate the point: all those other wavelengths exist, all around us, all the time, yet we are unable to perceive them without specific tools and instruments. Does that mean, because we do not perceive them, that they are not there?

Yes, and what if we applied this to the same notion of God?