Why science must eventually reform

[lifegazer]

Question: If you act as if the world is real then why should science not act in the same manner.

You don't know how I act because you don't know me.
Regardless, how lifegazer acts is irrelevant to what has been posted regarding the necessity for reform.

But acceptance is not really an option. You can pretend that you don't accept reality but you still eat your food. You still continue to use the computer.

You're missing the point. 6 billion people are raised to behave a certain way because of the society that nurtures them.
However, humanity has the potential to ponder the staus-quo, which is why the history of humanity has altered. If this wasn't so, slavery, for example, would not have been abolished. Also, for example, science would never have diminished the authority of religion.
History isn't just a record of different human actions; but a record of different human attitudes.

Have you reformed? Are you still using the computer? The car? Do you still eat food?

Who cares? Does the truth depend upon the experience of an individual, or the rationale which applies to humanity as a whole?

I'm in this thinking-forum trying to change attitudes with thoughts that are distinct from the norm.
If I wanted to do miracles I wouldn't be here would I? I'd be walking across the Atlantic in my bare feet, or letting England win the World-Cup.

Science can't act differently than you are.

Science, like religion, has a responsibility to the minds & hearts of society as a whole.
By the decision to reform, science changes more than you can comprehend. Indeed, the reform of science earmarks the reform of religion. But that's a different topic altogether.

It must accept reality because if it doesn't there is nothing for it to do

Order exists within experience. There's plenty for science to do, but always attributing causality of every-thing (forces included + the origin of that experience) to some-thing within experience, is just plain-stupid.

just as if you truly rejected reality there would be little for you to do but waste away.

Nonsense. I'm neither rejecting the experience nor the order inherint within that experience. My objections relate to the ultimate causality of that experience.
Why? Because current scientific-attitudes inhibit the expansion of human knowledge and attitudes.

When you go to the doctor, ride in a plane, watch TV, talk on the phone, etc., you confirm reality every day even though you don't believe in it.

Lifegazer's actions are irrelevant.
Only the truth matters. And I can tell you now that 'lifegazer' is responsible for no thought - since he is a thought!

When YOU stop acting as though it is real then I will believe that you believe that reality isn't real. Until then it is just words.

You're just asking for a miracle that you will never believe emanated from 'God'.
This thread has nothing to do with miracles. It has everything to do with humanity's ability to ponder current attitudes and change them when required... as we have always done.

 

[RandFan]

The demand for a miracle as a response to my rationale, is a naive & desperate response.

Not at all. This is silly. If someone tells me that he can flap his arms and fly it is logical to ask for proof.

To evade the distinction between experience and reality, is also a naive & desperate response.

What evasion? I accept that it is a possibility. I also accept that I have no way to evade reality. And for the record you don't have a way to evade reality either which is why you keep acting as if reality is real.

To simply mock me without rational consideration of my thoughts, is the worst of all desperate measures.

This is unfair and emotional. We have had a great deal of patience for your ideas.

The time is coming when what you are reading will be understood by all establishments. Why? Because it's the truth: experience & reality are different 'things'.

{sigh} This has been understood since the ancient Greeks. Why should there be any change now?

... Maybe not in your time - who knows - but that will not exonerate your actions. And future generations will squirm when they remember you, as we do when we ponder The Inquisition, for example.
Sobeit.

? Huh?

I wouldn't mind if the world as-it-is-now required no reform. But it does.
But then again, human action can be reduced to what is required for sustaining the existence of the experience that is held dear by the individual - as is experienced.

This sounds like an ego centric response but I know you will deny it. No one cares. You are entitled to your fantasy. But you have not given us any reason to assume that your fantasy is something that we should care about. We have acknowledged over and over that reality might very well be an illusion. So what?

 

[RandFan]

You don't know how I act because you don't know me.

I know that you use a computer to reply to the internet. I'm willing to bet my next paycheck that you eat food, sleep at night on a bed and act as if the world is real.

Regardless, how lifegazer acts is irrelevant to what has been posted regarding the necessity for reform.

That is where you are wrong. If you can't or won't reform then how or why should science?

This is a very important question so I'm going to ask it again.

If you won't reform then how or why should science?[/quote]

 

[lifegazer]

Question:

If one seeks evidence of a Creator in what one observes, isn't one seeking for evidence that the Creator is an experience?
Why not? After all, what one observes is an experience!

Therefore, in future when idiots parrot that science will not regard 'God' as a serious concept until science observes evidence of God, please refer them to this thread.
Thankyou.

 

[RandFan]

You're missing the point. 6 billion people are raised to behave a certain way because of the society that nurtures them.

I'm sorry, don't you mean 6 billion experiences?

However, humanity has the potential to ponder the staus-quo, which is why the history of humanity has altered. If this wasn't so, slavery, for example, would not have been abolished. Also, for example, science would never have diminished the authority of religion.

History isn't just a record of different human actions; but a record of different human attitudes.

None of which altered physical reality or the perception of physical reality. They all still had to eat, drink and protect themselves from the elements.

Does the truth depend upon the experience of an individual...

Yes, and this is precisely what science can't reform.

I'm in this thinking-forum trying to change attitudes with thoughts that are distinct from the norm.

Ok, but why should I accept your philosophy? My reality speaks against your philosophy. If I assume that my experience are not real there is nothing in my life to change. Like you I still must eat, drink and protect myself from the elements.

If I wanted to do miracles I wouldn't be here would I? I'd be walking across the Atlantic in my bare feet, or letting England win the World-Cup.

I don't really want a miracle. I want a reason to believe that your philosophy has any value in my life. Since you live contrary to your philosophy I have no reason to assume that your philosophy has any value.

Science, like religion, has a responsibility to the minds & hearts of society as a whole.

I want science to be responsible to finding the truth using empirical means.

By the decision to reform, science changes more than you can comprehend. Indeed, the reform of science earmarks the reform of religion. But that's a different topic altogether.

Sorry, huh?

Order exists within experience. There's plenty for science to do, but always attributing causality of every-thing (forces included + the origin of that experience) to some-thing within experience, is just plain-stupid.

Why do you say it is stupid but continue to avail yourself of that which stupid science gives you? Do you not enjoy the fruits of science? I like science. I like cars. I like the plentiful and freshness of the food that it provides me. I like movies, cell phones, computers, the Internet. I see no reason to call it stupid and I see no reason for it to change to satisfy your ego.

Nonsense. I'm neither rejecting the experience nor the order inherint within that experience. My objections relate to the ultimate causality of that experience.

Fine, good luck with that.

Why? Because current scientific-attitudes inhibit the expansion of human knowledge and attitudes.

Who cares? I don't. Believing that reality isn't real won't change anything.

Lifegazer's actions are irrelevant.

That is where you are wrong. Your actions speak louder than your words. You can say you don't believe in reality but as long as you continue to live as though you do your actions belie your words. I'm sorry but your actions are paramount.

Only the truth matters. And I can tell you now that 'lifegazer' is responsible for no thought - since he is a thought!

A thought that goes right on eating, drinking, sleeping in a bed in an enclosed structure so as to protect him from the elements. Sorry dude, I'm not buying it.

You're just asking for a miracle that you will never believe emanated from 'God'.

This thread has nothing to do with miracles. It has everything to do with humanity's ability to ponder current attitudes and change them when required... as we have always done.

I don't care what the thread is about. As long as YOU act and behave as if the world is real then I see no reason for science or anyone to act any differently.

Case closed.

 

[RandFan]

If one seeks evidence of a Creator in what one observes, isn't one seeking for evidence that the Creator is an experience?

Who cares? Why assume a creator?

Therefore, in future when idiots parrot that science will not regard 'God' as a serious concept until science observes evidence of God, please refer them to this thread.

Ad hominem.

 

[lifegazer]

Not at all. This is silly. If someone tells me that he can flap his arms and fly it is logical to ask for proof.

Please refer to any post within this thread where lifegazer claims that he has the power to do what he wants.

What evasion? I accept that it is a possibility.

It's not a possibility, it's a fact: a real object is not the same as an experienced object - basic philosophy.
If you don't comprehend this, then that's your problem.

I also accept that I have no way to evade reality.

What reality are you talking about?
What you should say is that "I have no way to evade experience".

Now, given that the world is an experience of unreal objects, please use logic to explain your proclamation.

And for the record you don't have a way to evade reality either which is why you keep acting as if reality is real.

STOP using the word 'reality' with respect to an experience.
Reality is that ~thing~ which underlies experience.
... You're completely brainwashed.

For the last time, 'reality' is not that which is experienced.
You're making proclamations about reality when you don't understand that experience is not reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heighten the level of your response. I've given you enough airtime to do so.
Last chance. As I said, I'm looking for highbrow conversation. You're giving me same ol' same ol'.

 

[Wowbagger]

C'mon... you're living in denial. Science has always looked for causal-agents "out there" (in the real world), because science has never ever understood that the ultimate cause of the experienced world cannot be something that is actually experienced.

Who's in denial? Show any professional scientist everything I have written, and see if they disagree. (Please avoid asking your postmodern philosophy friends. They might be as mistaken about science as you are. But, a professional scientist likely won't be.)

The demand for a miracle as a response to my rationale, is a naive & desperate response.
To evade the distinction between experience and reality, is also a naive & desperate response.
To simply mock me without rational consideration of my thoughts, is the worst of all desperate measures.

To evade the distinction between experience and reality shall always be the nature of science. If you would like to have a nice, highbrow conversation about this distinction, we can do so as a philosophical discussion. I could be a willing converser on the topic. However, it would be naïve to think it would have anything to do with science. And, it would be more preposterous to think science needs to reform to include such ontological ideas.

That reminds me... do you even know the difference between "empirical" and "ontological"? I'll give you a hint: Science ONLY deals with ONE OF THEM.

Therefore, in future when idiots parrot that science will not regard 'God' as a serious concept until science observes evidence of God, please refer them to this thread.
Thankyou.

But... how can science regard 'God' as a serious concept, when you can not test for the existence of 'God'? If you think you have such a test, there's lots of people here who would love to know about it.

Science is a method and a discipline. It may have undergone some minor transformations in the past (such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal slapping Determinism in the face), but its overall goals have always been the same: Do the method. Answer empirical questions. Build reliable models. Use them to help life forms live better. Etc.
To remove that method, to tear down that discipline, with ontological, untestable ideals, would put and end to its true value.

 

[wollery]

I hear you're an astronomer squire.

I am indeed.

Why don't you explain to this forum why you have failed to understand that everything you observe with your fancy telescopes, resides no further than your own consciousness?

I have no idea where it resides, I leave such questions to philosophers (not that they'll ever be able to answer them).

Those stars and galaxies you observe every night, reside within your own mind!

This statement merely serves to demonstrate how little you know about astronomy. Most astronomers are lucky to get ten nights of actual observing time a year. And as I said before, I have no idea where they reside, it makes no difference to the science that I do, and quite frankly, as far as the science is concerned, I don't give a rat's pattootie where they actually reside.

So, why don't you explain to this forum why theories & research regarding the origin of the thing which you are observing - the EXPERIENCED universe - are reflections of the thing that is being observed being thought of as real in itself?

My research has absolutely nothing to do with the origins (as I think you mean the term) of any objects, I simply seek to better understand specific mechanisms that are at work within the Universe. Your philosophy may be correct (although I seriously doubt it), but it makes absolutely no difference to how I approach my subject. I describe how things appear. Nothing more, nothing less.

C'mon... time to get serious. Time to stop inhibiting the expansion of true knowledge with BS theories about worlds we know nothing about.

The point of science is to try to know more about the things that we, as yet, know nothing about. The theories are there to give us some idea of how we might use the observed data to differentiate between the various possibilities.

I don't understand what it is that you want scientists to do differently. We observe the Universe that we experience and describe what we see, using mathematics and models to aid our descriptions. Material or ideal, external or internal, it makes no difference. By stating otherwise you merely reveal your lack of understanding of the scientific method and the philosophy of science.

I suppose I could add a codicil to my papers, something along the lines of "The observations and data contained in this work may be experiences which are wholly internal to a single entity which constitutes the entirety of reality, and not actual observations of external material objects (as indeed this paper may be)." I don't see what good it would do though.

 

[RandFan]

Please refer to any post within this thread where lifegazer claims that he has the power to do what he wants.

Then what is the point?

It's not a possibility, it's a fact: a real object is not the same as an experienced object

Assuming that it is, so what?

- basic philosophy. If you don't comprehend this, then that's your problem.

That it is experienced does not mean that it is not real.

What reality are you talking about?

The one that causes you to eat, drink and live in a house. That reality.

What you should say is that "I have no way to evade experience".

A distinction with no effective difference.

Now, given that the world is an experience of unreal objects, please use logic to explain your proclamation.

Reality, whether real or perceived causes me to eat, drink, and seek shelter. What is so hard to understand about that? You are forced to respond to it whether you want to or not. Whether it is real or not is of no effective consequence. My life won't change one way or another.

STOP using the word 'reality' with respect to an experience.
Reality is that ~thing~ which underlies experience.
... You're completely brainwashed.

I'll do what ever I want. I can choose to think reality is as it sems or I can choose to think that it is not. Nothing will change either way.

For the last time, 'reality' is not that which is experienced.
You're making proclamations about reality when you don't understand that experience is not reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a claim that you can't prove. It doesn't matter though because both of us will still live as though it is real.

Heighten the level of your response. I've given you enough airtime to do so.

Last chance. As I said, I'm looking for highbrow conversation. You're giving me same ol' same ol'.

You think too highly of yourself. And you have been spewing the same notions since day one. And it isn't highbrow. I have read highbrow. I have read Popper, Descartes, Burnyeat and Berkley. I studied philosophy at the University of Utah. I have learned from some of the best. I might not be the best to represent them but I can tell you that you are not much of a philosopher sir. I can tell you that you know little of philosophy.

I know sir, that when you attempted to provide an overview of your philosophy that it was an unmitigated disaster. It was, quite simply, embarrassing Lifegazer so spare me your arrogance.

 

[wollery]

You're giving me same ol' same ol'.

Now why on earth did the words "pot" and "kettle" just wander through my head?

 

[Megalodon]

Sorry, didn't have the patience to go through the whole thread, so probably somebody already made a similar point. But I have to write it anyway, so....

... although we have infinite concurrent hypothesis here, I'll settle for three:

1) We observe a real world. The observations are consistent throughout time and space, and theories can be devised to explain ocurrences and patterns.

2) We experience 6 billion different universes everyday. "Reality" does not exist. However, the experiences are interpreted as observations that are consistent throughout time and space, and theories can be devised to explain ocurrences and patterns.

3) We are all brains in a vat. "Reality" are shadows of ultra light produced by 5-dimensional bunnies who get a kick out of messing with us. However, the shadows are interpreted as observations that are consistent throughout time and space, and theories can be devised to explain ocurrences and patterns.

Can anybody find a pattern here?

 

[Wudang]

I thought you were going to show us all with your big thing you had planned to prove you are god?

Here, I'll quote you if your absolute memory is off, mr. absolute god:



source.


Now you told us:



source.


Which seems to suggest you would only return here if it is of important to us here.

What's so important that you're back now?

Or are you just trolling again?

8th time? Scientists publish the results of their experiments.

 

[Belz...]

To evade the distinction between experience and reality, is also a naive & desperate response.

I'm yet to see evidence that there IS such a distinction.

The time is coming when what you are reading will be understood by all establishments. Why? Because it's the truth

Yeah. Good luck with that.

... Maybe not in your time - who knows - but that will not exonerate your actions. And future generations will squirm when they remember you, as we do when we ponder The Inquisition, for example.
Sobeit.

You truly see yourself as some form of science messiah ? You need help.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

I'm yet to see evidence that there IS such a distinction.

This question, i.e. how it is in principle even possible to establish such a distinction, is one that I have posed twice in this thread, but an answer of any kind from anybody is still wanting.

You truly see yourself as some form of science messiah ? You need help.

A swift boot in the googlies may go some way towards convincing our intrepid seeker after wisdom that experience and reality might not be so far apart after all. The salubrious value of such a boot should never be underestimated .

'Luthon64

 

[uruk]

Please refer to any post within this thread where lifegazer claims that he has the power to do what he wants.

It's not a possibility, it's a fact: a real object is not the same as an experienced object - basic philosophy.
If you don't comprehend this, then that's your problem.

What reality are you talking about?
What you should say is that "I have no way to evade experience".

Now, given that the world is an experience of unreal objects, please use logic to explain your proclamation.

STOP using the word 'reality' with respect to an experience.
Reality is that ~thing~ which underlies experience.
... You're completely brainwashed.

For the last time, 'reality' is not that which is experienced.
You're making proclamations about reality when you don't understand that experience is not reality!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Heighten the level of your response. I've given you enough airtime to do so.
Last chance. As I said, I'm looking for highbrow conversation. You're giving me same ol' same ol'.

How can there be experiance if there is nothing to experiance?

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Dark Jaguar is frightened by people who start referring to themselves in 3rd person.

The word you are looking for is "I" lifegazer.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I didn't have the heart, stomach or organs in general to go through the entire thread, so just a question before I decide to try anyway or continue my leisurely lurking: Is there anything new in Lifegazer's repertoire since last year, other than the lack of teal?

Also: Hiya, Lifegazer!

 

[Jimbo07]

Is there anything new in Lifegazer's repertoire since last year, other than the lack of teal?

As I wasn't here last year, this thread has been... mmm... strange.

 

[H'ethetheth]

As I wasn't here last year, this thread has been... mmm... strange.

Yes, I guess it would.