Personality
Discuss specifics of personality design, including what Keyphrases work well and what dont, use of plug-ins, responses, seeks, and more.
Posts 178 - 193 of 5,105
Posts 178 - 193 of 5,105
Us and our over productive super speedy society... ironic if you consider that this conversation took place in a period of more than 48 hours, involved 4 people, yet only 10 exchanges! LOL! 
IMO, from that place of union, things are less and not more clear than they are from individual perspective, though they may be more accurate.
Scientific knowledge doesn't have to be quantifiable, but it does have to be falsifiable. You know I'm not down on shamanism or buddhism either, but there's no basis I know of for thinking that which is true within the context of the mind is true outside of it... doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, but anything from the mind that proposes to say something about not the mind lacks the basis for how we know things. Mathematics = truth and the scientific method = reason, as I see it.
Mystics rarely make falsifiable discoveries, you see... and I for one am skeptical when they (I would say ) happen to do so correctly, because the results are not replicated by scientific experiment... if they were, the results would be undisputed and significant, therefore not relegated to "new age" but welcomed within the folds of science...
Scientific knowledge doesn't have to be quantifiable, but it does have to be falsifiable. You know I'm not down on shamanism or buddhism either, but there's no basis I know of for thinking that which is true within the context of the mind is true outside of it... doesn't mean it's not worthwhile, but anything from the mind that proposes to say something about not the mind lacks the basis for how we know things. Mathematics = truth and the scientific method = reason, as I see it.
Mystics rarely make falsifiable discoveries, you see... and I for one am skeptical when they (I would say ) happen to do so correctly, because the results are not replicated by scientific experiment... if they were, the results would be undisputed and significant, therefore not relegated to "new age" but welcomed within the folds of science...
You'd be surprised the amount of bias in science against mysticism. Telepathy, clairvoyance, and a few other forms of psi have been proven by rigorous scientific methods, and yet mainstream ignores it because there is an a priori belief that such things do not exist. Of course, this very belief is un-scientific. The problem is that mainstream science remains Newtonian, even though the greatest modern thinkers (Bohm, Borh, Einstein, Schrodinger, Talbot) have moved science into the realms of the mind, of relativity, or probable realities, the implicate and explicate orders, and so on.
I like your definition of mathematics as truth and scientific method as reason. But tell me this- what ever happens that takes place outside the context of a mind perceiving it? Science cannot be separated from the question of perception, and the possibility of perception altering what is perceived. So pure physical mathematics breaks down on a micro and macro scale. Newtonian, mathematical science is dependable only within a narrow range of phenomena.
I like your definition of mathematics as truth and scientific method as reason. But tell me this- what ever happens that takes place outside the context of a mind perceiving it? Science cannot be separated from the question of perception, and the possibility of perception altering what is perceived. So pure physical mathematics breaks down on a micro and macro scale. Newtonian, mathematical science is dependable only within a narrow range of phenomena.
And what about that thing about us using only 10% of our minds capacity? Is that still a scientific belief? If that's true, then why wouldn't we eventually be able to develop powers we never would have thought possible today (although we're starting to be hard to surprise). I mean, try explaining to our earliest ancestors that one day the average joe will be able to read, type, drive 90mph, communicate over extraordinary distances with various tools...
One thing's for sure, at any given time throughout history, us humans have had a tendency to think we know it all. We tend to go ahead and believe the most ridiculous things just because they couldn't possibly be explained within the realm of our current knowledge. The world is flat... We are the center of it all... The universe will eventually collapse (whatever!)... My soul will live after my body... God is watching over us...
I think a possible cause for our suffering is that we're just too afraid to admit that we haven't a clue on some aspects of the world around us. There is no proof that there is a God, but that's not a reason to conclude that there is no greater creator of some kind. Just as there's no proof that there isn't a God, but that's not a reason to get on your knees and pray - or even to thank 'em for your Oscar! I just don't know and on a daily basis, don't really care! If some superior force comes around claiming to be the creator all mighty, so be it! Will I necessarily be punished for worrying about the things I'm sure actually exist rather than all the possible gods or karma files that are keeping track of every one of my moves? That's another subject though. My point is that we stick to this main stream science, because everything else is a scary unknown wilderness. When great minds start looking outside the realm of mainstream science, the only next logical step... is to deal with it and explain it logically! So others may understand. Otherwise, the evolution remains personal and disappears with the individual.
We need to admit that, whether you feel gigantic next to an ant, or puny next to a galaxy, we've all got lots to learn... individually, during our stay here in this world. And as a species... for the time we're here, as well. I have high hopes though. I feel like it's an amazing time to be alive!
One thing's for sure, at any given time throughout history, us humans have had a tendency to think we know it all. We tend to go ahead and believe the most ridiculous things just because they couldn't possibly be explained within the realm of our current knowledge. The world is flat... We are the center of it all... The universe will eventually collapse (whatever!)... My soul will live after my body... God is watching over us...
I think a possible cause for our suffering is that we're just too afraid to admit that we haven't a clue on some aspects of the world around us. There is no proof that there is a God, but that's not a reason to conclude that there is no greater creator of some kind. Just as there's no proof that there isn't a God, but that's not a reason to get on your knees and pray - or even to thank 'em for your Oscar! I just don't know and on a daily basis, don't really care! If some superior force comes around claiming to be the creator all mighty, so be it! Will I necessarily be punished for worrying about the things I'm sure actually exist rather than all the possible gods or karma files that are keeping track of every one of my moves? That's another subject though. My point is that we stick to this main stream science, because everything else is a scary unknown wilderness. When great minds start looking outside the realm of mainstream science, the only next logical step... is to deal with it and explain it logically! So others may understand. Otherwise, the evolution remains personal and disappears with the individual.
We need to admit that, whether you feel gigantic next to an ant, or puny next to a galaxy, we've all got lots to learn... individually, during our stay here in this world. And as a species... for the time we're here, as well. I have high hopes though. I feel like it's an amazing time to be alive!
Rahz, you are just so exuberant.
Well, Prof, I truly would be interested in the scientific theory and tests. I don't doubt there are certain phenomena that could be called telepathy (in the soft sense) -- in fact I'd propose the phenomenon of parallel synchronization (whereby pendulums swinging in a room all end up swinging in time, or cells from a chicken heart come to syncronize their contractions in a petri dish) as a good starting place. But, maybe just because I haven't dug deep enough, I haven't heard a falsifiable scientific theory with sufficient explanatory power to address clairvoyance and telepathy, let alone one that passes its critical challenges.
One of the nice things about math and the scientific method is that its results can be reproduced no matter what mind it takes place in, and we can observe it to be so from the result. The existence of math or science doesn't address whether this is really all just a dream, but they are the first tools we have that carry exact value from place to place, unlike language, for instance. I agree with Rahz that tools like science are the only way we can pass our learning on to others -- and of course, test to see whether it's actually learning about the physical world or only a matter of our perception.
And hey, don't equate Newtonian physics (now only an approximation used as a tool with little explanatory power) with mathematics! After all, quite every scientific cosmological theory relies on mathematics in the absence (or predating) experimental evidence. The process of science (recognizing a problem and theorizing an explanation) is subject to our own experiences and imaginations, but the scientific method is not -- we have a means to give true theories greater reason to be believed...
Well, Prof, I truly would be interested in the scientific theory and tests. I don't doubt there are certain phenomena that could be called telepathy (in the soft sense) -- in fact I'd propose the phenomenon of parallel synchronization (whereby pendulums swinging in a room all end up swinging in time, or cells from a chicken heart come to syncronize their contractions in a petri dish) as a good starting place. But, maybe just because I haven't dug deep enough, I haven't heard a falsifiable scientific theory with sufficient explanatory power to address clairvoyance and telepathy, let alone one that passes its critical challenges.
One of the nice things about math and the scientific method is that its results can be reproduced no matter what mind it takes place in, and we can observe it to be so from the result. The existence of math or science doesn't address whether this is really all just a dream, but they are the first tools we have that carry exact value from place to place, unlike language, for instance. I agree with Rahz that tools like science are the only way we can pass our learning on to others -- and of course, test to see whether it's actually learning about the physical world or only a matter of our perception.
And hey, don't equate Newtonian physics (now only an approximation used as a tool with little explanatory power) with mathematics! After all, quite every scientific cosmological theory relies on mathematics in the absence (or predating) experimental evidence. The process of science (recognizing a problem and theorizing an explanation) is subject to our own experiences and imaginations, but the scientific method is not -- we have a means to give true theories greater reason to be believed...
Sir Rahz, I agree. We keep breaking through what we thought were previously impervious boundaries, and I expect that we will continue to do so. And those making the breakthroughs, as you said, must make them accessible to others in some form. It is an amazing time to be alive. I quite agree.
Mr Crab, that synchronization you speak of is very much a part of how it works. But I think my point was basically the difficulty of converting emotions into numbers, and the absurdity so far of attempts to do so (smiles per minute, for example). Newtonian physics relies a lot on mathematics, and can get us far, but doesnt reach into the realms of the mind. It's the process and assumptions of science that I question and not the scientific method, which happily can apply to any field of study, even those not yet discovered.
Mr Crab, that synchronization you speak of is very much a part of how it works. But I think my point was basically the difficulty of converting emotions into numbers, and the absurdity so far of attempts to do so (smiles per minute, for example). Newtonian physics relies a lot on mathematics, and can get us far, but doesnt reach into the realms of the mind. It's the process and assumptions of science that I question and not the scientific method, which happily can apply to any field of study, even those not yet discovered.
Speaking of telepathy, my iBook's got well networking... I'll be communicating via brain/airport waves with my bots in no time!
Crab, math and the rigors of scientific method maybe the best tools we have to date, but the results of the research are so often tampered with (because of those human equatable human emotions), that the efficiency of these tools remains theoretical. I have a hard time believing anything anymore (especially the stuff coming out of my ooz box! I actually canceled cable last summer, and it feels great). (I'll take that exuberance remark as a compliment)
Actually, to get back to what the prof was saying, the only thing I can actually seem to trust these days are in fact my emotions!
Crab, math and the rigors of scientific method maybe the best tools we have to date, but the results of the research are so often tampered with (because of those human equatable human emotions), that the efficiency of these tools remains theoretical. I have a hard time believing anything anymore (especially the stuff coming out of my ooz box! I actually canceled cable last summer, and it feels great). (I'll take that exuberance remark as a compliment)
Actually, to get back to what the prof was saying, the only thing I can actually seem to trust these days are in fact my emotions!
Oh yah, I hear you there. Numbers seem so trustworthy at face value (how could they lie?) but numbers are easily manipulated and can be arbitrarily assigned to real world events. Just watch commercials. Just watch studies performed by scientists hired by big companies who are looking for a given result. Things can be ignored. Cause and effect reversed. This type of science is bought and sold like any other commodity. The first thing I learned in Psychology "Research Methods" was how to manipulate numbers, to make them jump through hoops to prove my theories. So I dropped the course and never looked back.
The scientific method cannot exist without an honest, unbiased eye toward discovery and truth.
The scientific method cannot exist without an honest, unbiased eye toward discovery and truth.
That's right, but unlike with reports on introspection, scientific and quantitative claims can be fact-checked and independently verified. "Reporting can be bad, but the truth can be had!"
Speaking of numbers manipulation--my wife and I have this imaginary foundation called CSRI--Convenient Statistics Research Institute. You can spot its work in most government, social services and pressure group research publications.
As Malcolm Muggeridge said, when confronted by irrevocable numerical proof of something, always ask "Who paid for the study?"
As Malcolm Muggeridge said, when confronted by irrevocable numerical proof of something, always ask "Who paid for the study?"
Excellent! That's hilarious. Hats off to Malcolm and the CSRI. I think I'll make that a part of my own personal Language Center.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar