• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Limits of Science

You're right. Perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.

Exactly, your example shows this. You did not effect reality directly with your perceptions but with your actions.
 
Iacchus said:
Even something as inaminate as a rock participates in reality. Why? Because if it did not exist as a rock "interiorly" (via its internal structure) it would not be here.
Click to expand...

False, a rock exists. There is no "external" or "internal", just reality. The rock is not conscious and thus, it has no perception. The universe existed long before humans. It requires no perception to exist.
 
thaiboxerken said:

Exactly, your example shows this. You did not effect reality directly with your perceptions but with your actions.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that reality in and of itself requires no participation? Is it possible to be standing in water which is over your head without being totally submersed? Now, why should reality be any different? You're either totally submersed in it or you're not. And if you're not, you ain't there. ;)
 
thaiboxerken said:

False, a rock exists. There is no "external" or "internal", just reality. The rock is not conscious and thus, it has no perception. The universe existed long before humans. It requires no perception to exist.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a hollow Universe to me. Or, would that be a hologram? :D
 
Ratman_tf said:
Originally posted by lifegazer:
Seems to me that Radrook is trying to say the same things I've been saying.

... When we acknowledge the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing, we must also acknowledge that sensed-things are not real in themselves.

I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be.
Click to expand...
The point of my recent efforts is to show the limitations of science.
All laws (of physics) mirror the order which is present amongst the sensed-things within our awareness. They are laws of the sensed-universe.
Science must study sensed-things since humanity is only aware of the sensations themselves and the "things" depicted by them.

Science only tells us about the order present within awareness. This is a most telling fact: science gives us no reason to believe that there is a reality external to our sense of one.
A leap-of-faith is required to believe in such a reality. It's absolutely impossible to provide any modicum of a philosophical-argument (reason) for the existence of a universe beyond the sense of one. Materialism, or whatever you want to call it, is a complete religion.

As for your enquiry - how I completely rule-out the existence of such a reality - well, keep watching this space.
 
lifegazer said:

As for your enquiry - how I completely rule-out the existence of such a reality - well, keep watching this space.
Click to expand...

Really? You avoided that very point in the thread "Upchurch's Question". You haven't addressed it in the "scientific empire" thread. Doubtless you will do the same as usual here and assert your assumption again.
 
Lifegazer, while you may have a point, it only reinforces our points as well. Science deals with sensed phenomenae, yet what else is there but sensed phenomenae? Actually, let me recalibrate that statement: what else can science deal with than phenomenaw which is subject to the senses? In other words, it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.

If there exists something which our senses cannot detect, either directly or through the application of technology, or through logical inference based on sensed observations of interactions between the alleged object and known objects, then this thing is completely irrelevant to our world, since only that capable of being so perceived (as defined earlier in this sentance) has any effect on us whatsoever.

Therefore, science is limited to the real world, and has no power to study the imaginary, unreal, immaterial, or non-existant world.

Since there is only the real world, this really isn't a problem.
 
What I asked:

"Then why are some people able to percieve god and others aren't? "


Radrook said:


Perceptual usage of freedom of choice does not prove inherent perceptual inability.
Click to expand...


So people have a choice whether to perceive god or not? And the atheists who came to atheism after trying so many years to believe in a deity didn't really make an effort?
 
What I asked:

"And what are the limitations of science?"



Radrook said:

Of course we do not have to go beyond the bees or any other insect for that matter to illustrate the point. I could just as easily have used the examples you mention or others easily at my disposal. But I chose aliens didn't I?

Furthermore, if you have not understood what I am referring to YET, then I strongly suggest that you read Descartes and become familiar with his Methodical of Doubt approach and follow it up with a study of Hume and become familiar with his sense impressions concepts.

Only then will we have a common ground for communicating on the subject. Otherwise it is useless to continue since everything I say might otherwise come across as silly.
Click to expand...

I dunno, you've been saying some pretty silly things so far. I know what you are referring to however.

Just because we are limited in the human fashion, bees cannot see red BTW, doesn't mean that the scientific method is limited.
 
zaayrdragon said:
Lifegazer, while you may have a point, it only reinforces our points as well. Science deals with sensed phenomenae, yet what else is there but sensed phenomenae? Actually, let me recalibrate that statement: what else can science deal with than phenomenaw which is subject to the senses? In other words, it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.
Click to expand...
We glean knowledge of a 'thing' directly from the sensations that we experience.
Colours; shades; sounds; touch; tastes; smells: these are the essence of all knowledge.
We cannot study the reality of any-thing. We can only study the impression of a thing, given to awareness by the sensations themselves. We do not study the reality of a thing, but the sense of that thing. Hence our knowledge is completely dependent upon the sensations that we have.

You say: "it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.".
... But we cannot determine anything about any-thing without the sensations. They paint the picture and we see a world therein.
An artist uses coloured-paint to depict a specific reality of things upon his canvas. The mind uses the sensations to do the same thing.
The 'things' seen in the artist's picture, via the paint, are no-more-real than the 'things' given to awareness by the sensations. They are just impressions of things.

Again, I must emphasise the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the actual reality of a thing. The human experience of existence is one whereby the mind embraces and interacts with sensed-things existing therein. In truth, our universe - the universe we experience - does actually exist within us.

All objects are observed via the senses and the senses occur within awareness.
And so, the scientist does not observe the reality of things "out there", beyond his own being. The scientist observes the sense-of-things (the UNreality of things) "in here", embraced by his own mind.

Science is the study of the order which exists amongst the UNREAL things impressed upon awareness by the sensations.
Science tells us absolutely nothing about a "real world". Those that use science to base their philosophical-ideas upon - atheists and materialists, primarily - are absolutely naive about the ineffectiveness of science to discuss anything other than the order which exists within our awareness itself.
 
dmarker said:
So people have a choice whether to perceive god or not? And the atheists who came to atheism after trying so many years to believe in a deity didn't really make an effort?
Click to expand...


People have a choice to perceive certain things and no choice at all in their seeming perception of other things. Perhaps belief is a better word.
 
Radrook said:



People have a choice to perceive certain things and no choice at all in their seeming perception of other things. Perhaps belief is a better word.
Click to expand...

That's what it boils down to, you see it because you believe not that you believe because you see it.
 
dmarker said:


That's what it boils down to, you see it because you believe not that you believe because you see it.
Click to expand...

Do you see abiogenesis?

BTW
My point was that EVERYTHING you believe is assumed.
 
lifegazer said:

We glean knowledge of a 'thing' directly from the sensations that we experience.
Colours; shades; sounds; touch; tastes; smells: these are the essence of all knowledge.
We cannot study the reality of any-thing. We can only study the impression of a thing, given to awareness by the sensations themselves. We do not study the reality of a thing, but the sense of that thing. Hence our knowledge is completely dependent upon the sensations that we have.

You say: "it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.".
... But we cannot determine anything about any-thing without the sensations. They paint the picture and we see a world therein.
An artist uses coloured-paint to depict a specific reality of things upon his canvas. The mind uses the sensations to do the same thing.
The 'things' seen in the artist's picture, via the paint, are no-more-real than the 'things' given to awareness by the sensations. They are just impressions of things.

Again, I must emphasise the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the actual reality of a thing. The human experience of existence is one whereby the mind embraces and interacts with sensed-things existing therein. In truth, our universe - the universe we experience - does actually exist within us.

All objects are observed via the senses and the senses occur within awareness.
And so, the scientist does not observe the reality of things "out there", beyond his own being. The scientist observes the sense-of-things (the UNreality of things) "in here", embraced by his own mind.

Science is the study of the order which exists amongst the UNREAL things impressed upon awareness by the sensations.
Science tells us absolutely nothing about a "real world". Those that use science to base their philosophical-ideas upon - atheists and materialists, primarily - are absolutely naive about the ineffectiveness of science to discuss anything other than the order which exists within our awareness itself.
Click to expand...

Lifegazer, is there anything better than science?

You can pray for wheat or you can plow a field with the plow that applied science has made for us and grow the plants that the applied science of agriculture has given us.

You can pray over someone with diabetes or you can give them insulin to control it.

You can send psychic thoughts to a far way friend or you can call them.

Has there been anything that has delivered as well as consistantly in the real world as science?
 
I said:

"That's what it boils down to, you see it because you believe not that you believe because you see it. "

Radrook said:


Do you see abiogenesis?

BTW
My point was that EVERYTHING you believe is assumed.
Click to expand...

And with the same reasoning, your god is just a mere assumption amongst other assumptions.
 
As expected, Lifegazer resorts to the "if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance, baffle'em with bullsh" tactic.

Yes, your perceptual reality is the only reality you can comment on, and yes, everything you experience is the result of interaction of your senses with something else, whose nature you may never be absolutely certain about; however, science doesn't deal with absolute certainty, but with reasonable certainty. It is reasonably certain that our senses detect something which is real; we understand, quite completely, how energy and vibration and other means brings us specific information about the objects 'out there', and how our minds assemble this information to give us reasonably certain knowledge of the world 'out there'.

Science is a tool used to ascertain more about those reasonably assumed objects, they being the only objects we can make reasonable judgements about. At no time does science attempt to make assumptions about anything, other than what is real exists, and what is not real does not exist.

Since we have no evidence that what we perceive to exist does NOT exist (in the vast majority of cases), then we can accept the primary axiom that our senses are giving us accurate information to a degree about what does really exist.

When our senses fail us, it is science that explains why it fails us, and how we can understand the reality that lies behind our false perception.

When the automated chessplayer was making its rounds, people's senses were fooled repeatedly with a clever display of showmanship; the entire interior was displayed to show machinery and empty space, and the chessplayer did its function admirably well. Yet we know now how this was accomplished - a careful stunt involving displaying the interior in sections rather than all at once, allowing the person within to move about and continue to conceal himself. Illusion - but illusion explained.

In this case, we could not perceive the reality of the chessplayer through our casual perception of the device; however, in-depth and analytical perception allows us to pierce the illusion and perceive the reality of the chessplayer.

This is the nature of science - to penetrate the illusions we perceive and reach the root of the reality of that which we perceive.

After all, I cannot in any way perceive an atomic structure, nor refraction of light wave-particle packets, nor a tectonic plate. Yet these things are real, nonetheless, and if I had access to the right tools, instruments, and education, then my perceptions might be enhanced so that I could perceive these things.

Your argument seems to focus on reality being an internal event biased by perception; however, the fact is reality is independent of perception and therefore independent of the internal reality. You can either choose to trust your senses, and accept the reality, or you must deny your senses and thereby know nothing at all. Failure to accept your senses is illogical - unless your senses are so damaged, or your perceptions so inconsistant, as to make you doubt your senses.

Since I choose the first option, accepting my senses, then I must also choose to accept science, for science accurately describes what I sense, and further tells me what I can expect to sense. I can expect, for example, that if I perceive a tank marked "gasoline", closed, which is engulfed in flames, then I can also reasonably expect that said tank may have gas in it, and if so, that the contents may be expanding due to heat, and run a chance of spontaneously igniting - thereby exploding and flinging metal bits abroad, possible resulting in being pierced with flaming metal bits. Since science and perception are consistant, I can make sufficient assumptions to protect my existance and well-being by running the other way.

Yet, if I choose the second option, then I may as well watch, or even approach this strange thing I perceive, since the perception is irrelevant to the reality of what I perceive. Therefore, consistant with logic, it is reasonable to assume that those who fail to trust their senses lead shorter lives than those who trust them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom