![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 21 to 45 of 46. Go back in thread:
Posted by justyourlaugh on February 9, 2005, at 23:26:02
In reply to Re: ps » justyourlaugh, posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 23:18:11
i am terrible at expressing my self...
"my realitly and moral judgement is not the same as others ,,but just as valid "
(i wrote a big long speech here about religious conflicks...backspace...)
point point point ..
my dream world makes me who i am ..
Posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 23:35:54
In reply to Re: ps, posted by justyourlaugh on February 9, 2005, at 23:26:02
> i am terrible at expressing my self...
No you aren't - I can be obtuse.
> "my reality and moral judgement is not the same as others ,,but just as valid "Moral truths may well be relative. There don't seem to be any moral truths that have been held to (in the ideal) by all societies EXCEPT: torturing innocent children for fun is wrong.
Personally I think morality has a lot to do with acting / behaving in a way you believe to be correct. And considering whether you should or shouldn't believe that to be correct as best you can.
With respect to reality...
Your reality
Just is your experience in / of the world.
Your experience is your realityBut then there is intersubjective reality too.
Such as whether it is true or false that
(it really is the case that)
1) There is a computer in front of you
2) you are female
etc etc.
I am obtuse aren't I
(sigh)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 9, 2005, at 23:50:33
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 23:15:54
> > > Because reality can be less appealing than fantasy?
>
> > Why does there have to be dichotomy?
>
> The difference between reality and fantasy? Reality is actual (true), fantasy is counter-factual (false)No it isn't.
Reality is what can be communicated what can be percieved and what comprises thought, that's not the same as true and false. I think by definition, fantasy is considered to exist soley in the mind, but that same thing may not exist as fantasy to another.
It's almost comical to me that anyone who reads history cannot see that what was once haughtily dismissed as folklore or old wives tales has been found by empirical evidence to be true, and that's just what scientists can prove. There are many more spiritual and and fantastical concepts that science will still scoff at, however by looking at what they have mocked before who are we to say?
> Sometimes we can spend many hours enjoying certain fantasies...
> But that doesn't mean we really want to turn them into realities...
>
> >Why the debate?
>
> I just like to argue
> I find it helps me learn
>
> >Some things ripped apart by analysis dissappear entirely
>
> Yes. Sometimes if we look at something hard enough, or in a certain way then distinctions can be seen to dissolve. The mind / matter distinction is a bit like that...Of course, I was talking about the exceptions, the fantasies the metaphysical or magical realism
Some realities cannot be defined it doesn't make them not real.
> >and reality is subjective.
>
> Not sure what you mean by that.Exactly that, reality is often dependent on the observer.
> Some truths are relative.
> If I say 'I am hungry' and you say 'I am hungry'
> Then it can be false for you and true for me.
> But if we say alexandra_k is hungry (at a single moment in time) then it would seem that either she is or she isn't and there is a fact of the matter that we either grasp or fail to grasp.
> Reality isn't just beliefs
> Because beliefs can be false.Often you could not prove to the believer that the beliefs are false.That's the reality of the believer, and science being skewered by it's own rules.
> We could say reality is inter-subjective...
> That reality is the sum total of everybodies experiences of the world.
> Scientists make careful observations
> and thats why they are authoratative...That's just not the case. They make observations or experiment according to the scientific method which is it's own intelligence, somewhat like the police having an internal justice system. It is *one* extremely valuable realm of knowledge, the one society currently values above all others but hardly definitive, it doesn't exist in a vacuum and subject to corruption, prejudice and greed.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 9, 2005, at 23:59:11
In reply to Re: ps » justyourlaugh, posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 23:35:54
> With respect to reality...
> Your reality
> Just is your experience in / of the world.
> Your experience is your reality
>
> But then there is intersubjective reality too.
> Such as whether it is true or false that
> (it really is the case that)
> 1) There is a computer in front of you
> 2) you are female
> etc etc.I think you are confusing what is a fact (true or false) with with what is reality.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 4:04:05
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 9, 2005, at 23:50:33
> Reality is what can be communicated what can be percieved and what comprises thought.
What can be said, seen, and thought about. But is reality (as in the real world) those things - or is it whatever has a tendancy to produce in us those things?
Reality -> Perception -> Thought -> Speech (communication) / Other behaviour
(though we can leave out the middlemen for reflexes / reactions...)>I think by definition, fantasy is considered to exist solely in the mind, but that same thing may not exist as fantasy to another.
Yes. But the same goes for *perceptions* and *thoughts* and *ideas*. They exist (in one sense) solely in the mind - in the sense that I may have different perceptions, thoughts, and ideas from you.
> It's almost comical to me that anyone who reads history cannot see that what was once haughtily dismissed as folklore or old wives tales has been found by empirical evidence to be true,Yes. Some of the claims were true. But others were false. Are you rating empirical evidence more hightly with respect to truth (by giving it the final word on truth)?
>There are many more spiritual and and fantastical concepts that science will still scoff at, however by looking at what they have mocked before who are we to say?
> Of course, I was talking about the exceptions, the fantasies the metaphysical or magical realism
> Some realities cannot be defined it doesn't make them not real.I am not sure what you mean...
There are 'levels' if you will of reality.
The following things are all real
But intuitively different neverthelesselectrons
tigers
nail files
the number seven
perceptions
thoughts
utterances
actions
> Exactly that, reality is often dependent on the observer.Sub-atomic reality, or atomic reality?
That is very Berkeley, you know.
'To be is to be perceived'.
If we close our eyes on the world... it really does disappear.> Often you could not prove to the believer that the beliefs are false.
Different kinds of beliefs require different kinds of evidence to cast doubt on them. There could be evidence that provides rational grounds to doubt.
>That's the reality of the believer, and science being skewered by it's own rules.
E.g.? That many different people should be able to observe the same phenomenon??
If the 'final science' (or a completed version of science) provides the verdict judging which of an indefinately long list of statements about reality is true - then that is the nature of reality.
Reality is *Inter-subjective*.
The mid point between being mind independent
And dependent.
A meeting point of both...Philosophers develop scientific methods. Once the methods are sufficiently worked out then people can practice from within those methods. (And disown themselves from the catch-all discipline of philosophy to establish a field with its own domain of investigation). Then the methods become subject to peer review. The scientific method is supposed to (as much as possible) provide us good reasons for accepting the legitimacy of experimental results.
>It is *one* extremely valuable realm of knowledge, the one society currently values above all others but hardly definitive, it doesn't exist in a vacuum and subject to corruption, prejudice and greed.
Hmm. Applied science is most corruptable (IMO) because there are practical gains to be made...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 4:07:23
In reply to Re: ps » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 9, 2005, at 23:59:11
> I think you are confusing what is a fact (true or false) with with what is reality.
Ah.
The only things that have the ability or power or privaledge or whatever of being true or false are thoughts and utterances.Some of our thoughts and utterances represent (or say that) the world is a certain way.
If the world is that way then the utterance / thoguht is true
If the world is not that way then the utterance / thought is false.
Not all language makes claims about reality
But some of it does...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 8:54:27
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 4:04:05
> > Reality is what can be communicated what can be percieved and what comprises thought.
>
> What can be said, seen, and thought about. But is reality (as in the real world) those things - or is it whatever has a tendancy to produce in us those things?
Thats simply the given definition of the word reality, I had no intention of getting near the ivory tower academe, it's one of my least favorite places.> > >I think by definition, fantasy is considered to exist solely in the mind, but that same thing may not exist as fantasy to another.
>
> Yes. But the same goes for *perceptions* and *thoughts* and *ideas*. They exist (in one sense) solely in the mind - in the sense that I may have different perceptions, thoughts, and ideas from you.
>
> > It's almost comical to me that anyone who reads history cannot see that what was once haughtily dismissed as folklore or old wives tales has been found by empirical evidence to be true,
>
> Yes. Some of the claims were true. But others were false. Are you rating empirical evidence more hightly with respect to truth (by giving it the final word on truth)?
> No I was using your values of science being authoritative.> >There are many more spiritual and and fantastical concepts that science will still scoff at, however by looking at what they have mocked before who are we to say?
>
> > Of course, I was talking about the exceptions, the fantasies the metaphysical or magical realism
> > Some realities cannot be defined it doesn't make them not real.
>
> I am not sure what you mean...Your reality, of scientific definition, doesn't necissarily acknowledge them, it doesn't mean that they are not real, except to you.
> There are 'levels' if you will of reality.
> The following things are all real
> But intuitively different nevertheless>
> electrons
> tigers
> nail files
> the number seven
> perceptions
> thoughts
> utterances
> actions
>
> > Exactly that, reality is often dependent on the observer.
>
> Sub-atomic reality, or atomic reality?
> That is very Berkeley, you know.
> 'To be is to be perceived'.
> If we close our eyes on the world... it really does disappear.
> Labelling your beliefs doesn't often doesn't show where you are but where you've stopped.
I have no desire at all to argue anyone's theory
The fact that we see things so differently proves to me that reality cannot be concretized.
And thats all I'm saying> > Often you could not prove to the believer that the beliefs are false.
>
> Different kinds of beliefs require different kinds of evidence to cast doubt on them. There could be evidence that provides rational grounds to doubt.
What it is according to you and your belief system which may be entirely different from mine.
>
> If the 'final science' (or a completed version of science) provides the verdict judging which of an indefinately long list of statements about reality is true - then that is the nature of reality.
>
> Reality is *Inter-subjective*.
> The mid point between being mind independent
> And dependent.
> A meeting point of both...
>> Philosophers develop scientific methods. Once the methods are sufficiently worked out then people can practice from within those methods.
Yes.
(And disown themselves from the catch-all discipline of philosophy to establish a field with its own domain of investigation). Then the methods become subject to peer review. The scientific method is supposed to (as much as possible) provide us good reasons for accepting the legitimacy of experimental results.Of course, I'm not denying science, or saying it's wrong that would be ridiculous, I'm saying it's not the only realm of knowledge, there are others which can expand on science not prove it wrong, which are part of the human experience, the mystical the fantastic which are real thought it's often denied.
Anyway, this is getting far to into the philisophical for me which is something as you know I just can't stomach.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 9:07:28
In reply to Re: ps, posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 4:07:23
> > I think you are confusing what is a fact (true or false) with with what is reality.
>
> Ah.
> The only things that have the ability or power or privaledge or whatever of being true or false are thoughts and utterances.
You had said in your previous post that reality was what is true, and fantasy was what is false, that's what I was disagreeing with here. In this post you are simply debating what you'd previously stated, not disagreeing with me.
Posted by Dinah on February 10, 2005, at 12:13:04
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 9, 2005, at 23:15:54
> Scientists make careful observations
> and thats why they are authoratative...
>
>Have you followed the science of nutrition or baby care? My husband's got a joke about that...
Posted by sunny10 on February 10, 2005, at 12:33:32
In reply to Re: quick thought..., posted by Dinah on February 10, 2005, at 12:13:04
and who put all of these words we use in a dictionary and called them "correct usage/s"?
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 13:40:42
In reply to Re: quick thought..., posted by sunny10 on February 10, 2005, at 12:33:32
Ha! (Good point)
Well, people have been trying to work out the nature of things such as these for centuries:
reality
truth
beliefs
propositions (utterances)
meaningsWhen we ask 'what is x's real nature' then we are sort of looking for a definition - but most often different peoples use the term in slightly different ways depending on which theory of the term they accept.
So in the process of questioning you can drag out what it is that someone means by the term.
Then you can look at whether the theory works or not.
I should say less of what I think and try to understand what you guys are saying more.
Sorry.
(I am learning - see?)
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 13:41:34
In reply to Re: quick thought..., posted by Dinah on February 10, 2005, at 12:13:04
No, I haven't...
Lots of stuff calls itself a science...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 14:00:08
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 8:54:27
You have given me lots to think about...
Thanks :-)
I'll reply later today.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 15:09:59
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 14:00:08
> You have given me lots to think about...
>
> Thanks :-)
>
> I'll reply later today.
Thank you too. To anyone who may be concerned, Alex and I are fond of each other, we just like a little joust on occasion : )Oh Gosh probably no one even cares , we've probably bored everyone to tears.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 20:32:46
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 15:09:59
Science isn’t authoritative on everything. But it is authoritative on a limited domain. Some examples of things that fall outside the domain of science are consciousness, ethics, aesthetics, meaning, god. Science is silent on those things. Occasionally we have the illusion of progress – but the illusion only works because they redefine (operationalize) the terms in a way that is amenable to scientific investigation.
Eg. We define consciousness as activation of neurons x.
Neurons x were found to fire in certain people who were in a coma.
Our research showed that certain people in coma are conscious.But consciousness is more than just neurons x in the same way that intelligence is more than just ones mensa or binet score
Consciousness can’t be identified with any brain state (though there may be correlations). This is because conscious states are *essentially* subjective whereas brain states are *essentially* objective (or inter-subjective). They thus have different essential properties and cannot be the same thing. There can’t be a science of consciousness. Though there can be a science of the correlates of consciousness. Though there is always the problem of ‘how do we know others are conscious anyways’ – which casts doubt on the correlation.Science requires inter-subjectivity. What is crucial is that different observers can observe the same phenomena. That experimental results should be repeatable. You can’t have a science of something that is essentially subjective. That wouldn’t work. There are methods for studying subjectivity but they are philosophical methods and not scientific methods. There can never be a science of consciousness. (Unless you change the meaning of ‘science’ so there can be a ‘science’ of subjectivity – see, for example "The conscious mind". Or unless you change the meaning of ‘consciousness’ so that it is not essentially subjective – see, for example "Consciousness explained").
With respect to god there is no evidence that could support the claim that ‘god exists’. There is also no evidence that could refute the claim that ‘god exists’. It is also not a matter of reason (unless you try to show that the very concept is incoherent – which is not a scientific enterprise it is a philosophical one). It is typically thought that religious claims are a matter of faith. It is also often considered that religious utterances should not be interpreted as making claims about reality. There are other things we can use language to try and do…
But if we are interested in the inter-subjective world (aka reality) then science is the best we have got. The evidence for that is progress and applications such as computers, the atomic bomb, and rockets to the moon.
Science can tell is what is or was the case. But it cannot tell us what we *should* do. Ethics is also beyond the scope of science. You can have a science of describing the different ethical systems of different people. But you can’t tell people which ethical system they *should* adopt. You can point out the inconsistencies and incoherencies in systems or worry about just how much they really do differ at the end of the day - but that is an analytic (philosophical) matter.
So there are limits on science…
It is unlikely that consciousness, ethics and co will ever be able to be sciences.
But progress is being made…
The ‘social sciences’ are flourishing with their fairly recently developed methods…When we are talking about reality it can be helpful to consider…
Suppose everything that is conscious disappeared off the face of the universe. What would be left? Would there still be trees and buildings?
If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it – then does it make a sound?
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 20:33:55
In reply to Re: quick thought..., posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 20:32:46
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 20:54:28
In reply to Re: quick thought..., posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 20:32:46
> Science isn’t authoritative on everything. But it is authoritative on a limited domain.
That's exactly what I was saying here:
They make observations or experiment according to the scientific method which is it's own intelligence, somewhat like the police having an internal justice system. It is *one* extremely valuable realm of knowledge.I won't ever believe, that science is authoritative though, at least not authoratative
according to the one dictionary meaning definitive. It's been proven wrong far too often for that. If authoritative is being used as
in meaning respected then I would agree.Some examples of things that fall outside the domain of science are consciousness, ethics, aesthetics, meaning, god. Science is silent on those things. Occasionally we have the illusion of progress – but the illusion only works because they redefine (operationalize) the terms in a way that is amenable to scientific investigation.
> That's what I was saying here:Some things cannot be defined (by science) that does not mean they are not real.
> Eg. We define consciousness as activation of neurons x.
> Neurons x were found to fire in certain people who were in a coma.
> Our research showed that certain people in coma are conscious.
>
> But consciousness is more than just neurons x in the same way that intelligence is more than just ones mensa or binet score
> Consciousness can’t be identified with any brain state (though there may be correlations). This is because conscious states are *essentially* subjective whereas brain states are *essentially* objective (or inter-subjective). They thus have different essential properties and cannot be the same thing. There can’t be a science of consciousness. Though there can be a science of the correlates of consciousness. Though there is always the problem of ‘how do we know others are conscious anyways’ – which casts doubt on the correlation.
>
> Science requires inter-subjectivity. What is crucial is that different observers can observe the same phenomena. That experimental results should be repeatable.That's what I was saying here:
They make observations or experiment according to the scientific method which is it's own intelligence.:
You can’t have a science of something that is essentially subjective. That wouldn’t work. There are methods for studying subjectivity but they are philosophical methods and not scientific methods. There can never be a science of consciousness. (Unless you change the meaning of ‘science’ so there can be a ‘science’ of subjectivity – see, for example "The conscious mind".Hence my statement that reality is subjective.
Reality is comprised of thought, consciousness produces thought, consciousness is relative therefore reality is subjective.
Or unless you change the meaning of ‘consciousness’ so that it is not essentially subjective – see, for example "Consciousness explained").
>
It is also often considered that religious utterances should not be interpreted as making claims about reality. There are other things we can use language to try and do…
>
> But if we are interested in the inter-subjective world (aka reality) then science is the best we have got. The evidence for that is progress and applications such as computers, the atomic bomb, and rockets to the moon.
>
> Science can tell is what is or was the case. But it cannot tell us what we *should* do. Ethics is also beyond the scope of science. You can have a science of describing the different ethical systems of different people. But you can’t tell people which ethical system they *should* adopt. You can point out the inconsistencies and incoherencies in systems or worry about just how much they really do differ at the end of the day - but that is an analytic (philosophical) matter.
>
> So there are limits on science…
> It is unlikely that consciousness, ethics and co will ever be able to be sciences.
> But progress is being made…
> The ‘social sciences’ are flourishing with their fairly recently developed methods…
>
> When we are talking about reality it can be helpful to consider…
>
> If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it – then does it make a sound?I've always thought that the latter was meant not to find an answer but to free your mind from rigid thinking.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 22:12:17
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 20:54:28
> > Science isn’t authoritative on everything. But it is authoritative on a limited domain.
> That's exactly what I was saying here...Yeah, I thought you'd like that :-)
> I won't ever believe, that science is authoritative though...Okay. What I had in mind by authoratitive is that we have better reason to believe what the scientists say (when and *only when* they make claims about their limited domain) than we have reason to believe the non-scientist. If we ask 'do NZ sparrows migrate' and there is a conflict between cousin Joe the artist and the scientific journals IMO it would be more rational to go with the journals...
Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" talked about the progress of science from a scientific historian point of view. He maintained that different scientists view the world through different theorietical lenses. The lenses are unavoidable (there isn't a 'view from nowhere') and the lenses infect the way they describe the world.
For example, Joseph Black wrote that he 'observed' heat-fluid (phlogiston?) flow from one object to another... Nowdays scientists 'observe' the motions / vibrations of molecules. Observation is always theory laden.
Quine showed us that. The observational / theorietical distinction is untenable.
Kuhn thought that different world views (alchemy vs modern atomic theory) were incommensurable and incomparable... Lets see if I can remember...'two scientists working within two different frameworks neither oberve the same phenomena nor observe the same results'.
Science doesn't work in a cumulative fashion. Rather, whole frameworks are thrown out and abandoned. If you go to study chemistry you are unlikely to study alchemy. You are unlikely to study what Aristotle and the alchemists had to say. That is because they work within a completely different framework...
That is probably more confusing than anything else, but I thought you might like it..
The results we see, the *things* we observe are dependent of the *theory* or lens through which we view the world. Every now and then the lens changes - e.g., newtonian mechanics vs eienstinean mechanics.
> > That's what I was saying here...
Goodie, you liked it again :-)
> Some things cannot be defined (by science) that does not mean they are not real.Thats right. Science is the study of *inter-subjective* reality.
> Hence my statement that reality is subjective.But not all of it. I'll try to give an example.
I am now sitting in front of a computer.
That is true or false, it either is the case in reality or it is not. That is mind independent in the sense that my mind might believe the answer is yes and yours might believe the answer is no and one of us would have to be wrong. Whether it is true or false isn't anything to do with the state of our minds - it is to do with the way things are in the world.I do haggle a bit. Because we aren't in agreement over terminology or distinctions. You sort of need to start with a mind / matter distinction. Then what is real is facts about mind and facts about matter. Science can do facts about matter and they are supposed to be mind-independent. Though it then turns out that because of our limits given our place in the world the best we can manage is a study of inter-subjectivity and reality is unobservable / beyond our grasp in principle.
You then have a linguistic decision to make: either reality is beyond our grasp in principle, or reality turned out to be a little different than we had supposed (in the sense that reality is inter-subjective). I dub these reality1 and reality2. That is a distinction Kant made...
Depending on what decision you make you will get a different answer to the questions:
- Can we have knowledge of reality?
- Is reality mind-independent?
- If a tree falls in the woods...?Thats why philosophers always say 'well, it all depends on what you mean by xxxxx'.
> Reality is comprised of thought, consciousness produces thought, consciousness is relative therefore reality is subjective.Sorry, but I don't think that works. Reality1 is the cause of our experiences. Our experiences are subjective. I can't have your experinece. But we can have two different experiences of *the same thing*. It is the thing that is supposed to have a mind independent existence. It would be there regardless of our having observed it.
> > If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it – then does it make a sound?
> I've always thought that the latter was meant not to find an answer but to free your mind from rigid thinking.Different thinkers have different answers depending on their theory of reality... Locke believed in mind-independent reality (reality1) but the price to pay is that we can never have knowledge of the external world. Well, okay, to be exact we can never know that we have knowledge of the external world.
Berkely thought 'to be is to be perceived'. All that exists / is real are ideas in minds. Then he has a problem of if we all close our eyes then the universe (or tree) would disappear in reality.
He loses objective reality. Then, as a manouver he invokes god. Everything need not disappear just because we close our eyes - because all of reality (even us ourselves) are really ideas in the mind of god! The tree is observed by god, and so all is well. Everything is an idea. But to say 'everything is an idea' is to lose the subjective / objective; mental / physical distinction...
Ultimately it would be a good one to lose, I agree.
But I think ideas are on the one hand and reality1 is on the other...
And inter-subjectivity (reality2) has to be the bridge between them...
We actually ask students that question - but it is more 'compare and contrast the answers that would be given by Locke and Berkeley'...
Do you think the ability to see it both ways would help free one from rigid thinking?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 23:16:08
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 10, 2005, at 22:12:17
> > > Science isn’t authoritative on everything. But it is authoritative on a limited domain.
>
> > That's exactly what I was saying here...
>
> Yeah, I thought you'd like that :-)
>
> > I won't ever believe, that science is authoritative though...
>
> Okay. What I had in mind by authoratitive is that we have better reason to believe what the scientists say (when and *only when* they make claims about their limited domain) than we have reason to believe the non-scientist. If we ask 'do NZ sparrows migrate' and there is a conflict between cousin Joe the artist and the scientific journals IMO it would be more rational to go with the journals...
>Yes, it tries hard : ) and it is respected.
> Kuhn "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" talked about the progress of science from a scientific historian point of view. He maintained that different scientists view the world through different theorietical lenses. The lenses are unavoidable (there isn't a 'view from nowhere') and the lenses infect the way they describe the world.
>
Ewwwwwwwwwwww I hate KuhnOh wait, that's F. Kuhn my G.P..
> For example, Joseph Black wrote that he 'observed' heat-fluid (phlogiston?) flow from one object to another... Nowdays scientists 'observe' the motions / vibrations of molecules. Observation is always theory laden.
> Quine showed us that. The observational / theorietical distinction is untenable.
>
> Kuhn thought that different world views (alchemy vs modern atomic theory) were incommensurable and incomparable... Lets see if I can remember...
>
> 'two scientists working within two different frameworks neither oberve the same phenomena nor observe the same results'.
>
> Science doesn't work in a cumulative fashion. Rather, whole frameworks are thrown out and abandoned. If you go to study chemistry you are unlikely to study alchemy. You are unlikely to study what Aristotle and the alchemists had to say. That is because they work within a completely different framework...
>
> That is probably more confusing than anything else, but I thought you might like it..
>It's very interesting, I know little of the sciences technically, just what I've stumbled on. I don't know why I don't read more though, it always fascinates me when I do..
> The results we see, the *things* we observe are dependent of the *theory* or lens through which we view the world. Every now and then the lens changes - e.g., newtonian mechanics vs eienstinean mechanics.
>
> > > That's what I was saying here...
>
> Goodie, you liked it again :-)
>
> > Some things cannot be defined (by science) that does not mean they are not real.
>
> Thats right. Science is the study of *inter-subjective* reality.
>Well that statement (mine) only originated as my response to your earlier post that "what is real is *true* and what is fantasy is *false*
Äfter that that you said it was intersubjective
which is what I had been saying previously.
So yeah, we're saying the same thing.
> > Hence my statement that reality is subjective.
>
> But not all of it. I'll try to give an example.No, I never meant in it's entirety. I should have been more clear.
> I am now sitting in front of a computer.
> That is true or false, it either is the case in reality or it is not. That is mind independent in the sense that my mind might believe the answer is yes and yours might believe the answer is no and one of us would have to be wrong. Whether it is true or false isn't anything to do with the state of our minds - it is to do with the way things are in the world.
>
> I do haggle a bit. Because we aren't in agreement over terminology or distinctions. You sort of need to start with a mind / matter distinction. Then what is real is facts about mind and facts about matter. Science can do facts about matter and they are supposed to be mind-independent. Though it then turns out that because of our limits given our place in the world the best we can manage is a study of inter-subjectivity and reality is unobservable / beyond our grasp in principle.
>
> You then have a linguistic decision to make: either reality is beyond our grasp in principle, or reality turned out to be a little different than we had supposed (in the sense that reality is inter-subjective). I dub these reality1 and reality2. That is a distinction Kant made...
>Well first, I'm truly not a fan of Kant,
but at any rate here is a huge difference in the way we are, period. I'm rarely swayed by an appeal to authority, and especially not in this area. My main purpose for learning is to, tangibly improve my life in that it helps me appreciate others, what surrounds me, and help me find my own thoughts.
There is a Zen Buddhist Koan, "If you find the Buddha on the road, kill him" that is probably the best way to describe what I mean. Meaning isn't out "there" neatly penned and categorized for me to find, but what has been experienced by others can be a stepping stone for me. I can find what I need as easily from a corner store clerk as a p.h.d.
> Depending on what decision you make you will get a different answer to the questions:
> - Can we have knowledge of reality?
> - Is reality mind-independent?
> - If a tree falls in the woods...?
>
> Thats why philosophers always say 'well, it all depends on what you mean by xxxxx'.
>
> > Reality is comprised of thought, consciousness produces thought, consciousness is relative therefore reality is subjective.
>
> Sorry, but I don't think that works. Reality1 is the cause of our experiences.I disagree, I know many do agree with that, and of course I believe it's true much of the time, I have also witnessed experience and thought altering "reality" or the tangible. Would it pass the science test? No. Would it have been respected in history, or in other societies as a valid experience? Yes. Do I care if science validates it? No. Science is very often late to prove (by it's own method) what people have already known to be true.
Our experiences are subjective. I can't have your experinece. But we can have two different experiences of *the same thing*. It is the thing that is supposed to have a mind independent existence. It would be there regardless of our having observed it.
>
> > > If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody there to hear it – then does it make a sound?
>
> > I've always thought that the latter was meant not to find an answer but to free your mind from rigid thinking.
>
> Different thinkers have different answers depending on their theory of reality... Locke believed in mind-independent reality (reality1) but the price to pay is that we can never have knowledge of the external world. Well, okay, to be exact we can never know that we have knowledge of the external world.I think you are referring to the different "thinkers", who had the good fortune to be recorded. I'm not invalidating them, but the way that's put seems to me to limit the beliefs of others.
> Berkely thought 'to be is to be perceived'. All that exists / is real are ideas in minds. Then he has a problem of if we all close our eyes then the universe (or tree) would disappear in reality.
>
> He loses objective reality. Then, as a manouver he invokes god. Everything need not disappear just because we close our eyes - because all of reality (even us ourselves) are really ideas in the mind of god! The tree is observed by god, and so all is well. Everything is an idea. But to say 'everything is an idea' is to lose the subjective / objective; mental / physical distinction...> Ultimately it would be a good one to lose, I agree.
That's the stuff I don't have the stomach for..
That's what I was referring to when I said it's time for me to go pet the dog, or pick a dandilion.. When I here those theories being discussed I feel like I'm listening to Frasier, except that I enjoy that as self-mocking comedy.
> But I think ideas are on the one hand and reality1 is on the other...
>
> And inter-subjectivity (reality2) has to be the bridge between them...
>
>
I couldn't possibly know, and I don't want to to try to alphabetize and file the nature of reality. I could copy a painting but it wouldn't make it art.
> We actually ask students that question - but it is more 'compare and contrast the answers that would be given by Locke and Berkeley'...
>
> Do you think the ability to see it both ways would help free one from rigid thinking?I would think that it makes someone ask questions at all is beginning to free them from rigid thinking.
Well, my eyes are buggy and I have p.m.s
Next I would like to discuss the nature of chocolate.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 2:02:18
In reply to Re: quick thought... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 10, 2005, at 23:16:08
But why is science respected?
> It's very interesting, I know little of the sciences technically, just what I've stumbled on. I don't know why I don't read more though, it always fascinates me when I do..
I like the theory but too many unrelated facts annoy me...
>>I dub these reality1 and reality2. That is a distinction Kant made...
> Well first, I'm truly not a fan of Kant
I wouldn't say I am a fan. I haven't read any of his stuff...
> but at any rate here is a huge difference in the way we are, period. I'm rarely swayed by an appeal to authority
I am not swayed by appeals to authority when the 'authority' is not an authority in the area of interest. When scientists claim to have discovered the seat or nature of consciousness, when a celebrity tells me that this brand of breakfast cereal is the best. I wouldn't reccomend taking what an 'authority' says to be the end of the matter... but their perspective (especially if they can explain their rationale) is typically worthy of careful thought...
I wasn't saying 'Kant said this so he must be right'. I was saying 'here is a distinction I would like to make and just in case anybody has read their Kant then yes I am getting at precisely that' (insofar as I understand him).
>My main purpose for learning is to, tangibly improve my life in that it helps me appreciate others, what surrounds me, and help me find my own thoughts.
Hmm. Have you done any applied ethics????
> There is a Zen Buddhist Koan, "If you find the Buddha on the road, kill him" that is probably the best way to describe what I mean. Meaning isn't out "there" neatly penned and categorized for me to find, but what has been experienced by others can be a stepping stone for me. I can find what I need as easily from a corner store clerk as a p.h.d.
Sure.I like to try to come up with my own theories of stuff. In reading other people I get new ideas. Sometimes I think 'oh, that is just bollocks - surely it is more like this....' and then off I go. So I use other peoples ideas as a platform - whether I agree with them or not. I also see other people with similar ideas. Sometimes I get all excited because they give me good reasons I had never thought of. But then sometimes I find that so and so's criticism of the person who agreed with me is fairly much fatal to both of our positions... Maybe the difference is that what interests me is hard to get the average person interested in... See, you are getting sick of this conversation already :-)
To start you have to learn a lot of facts...
Or you have to learn a lot of theories...
You have to demonstrate that you understand these theories, or that you can remember those facts.
Then, after a while you have to look for new facts of your own. Or, you have to develop a theory of your own. But the first stuff is supposed to be a solid foundation for the second stuff. So you can communicate the second stuff in a way that people who have done the first stuff can understand.Half the battle is getting someone to understand what you are saying and then tell you what they think.
> I have also witnessed experience and thought altering "reality" or the tangible.I really don't understand what you mean.
> I think you are referring to the different "thinkers", who had the good fortune to be recorded.
Well, they wrote books. You kind of have to do that if you want there to be a record of what you have to say...
>I'm not invalidating them, but the way that's put seems to me to limit the beliefs of others.
But there were lots of unresolved problems with respect to their theories. Problems and contradictions that even they saw at the time of writing. The point is to help fix it up or to show why we shouldn't bother...
> That's the stuff I don't have the stomach for..
> That's what I was referring to when I said it's time for me to go pet the dog, or pick a dandilion.. When I here those theories being discussed I feel like I'm listening to Frasier, except that I enjoy that as self-mocking comedy.?????
Some people just don't like this stuff
Or care...
The ancients didn't keep philosophy from the general public because there were any magic answers. They just realised that the average person wouldn't give a sh*t and that you have to study it for years to get your head around the terminology. Every discipline has its terminology. But much of philosophical terminology doubles as 'ordinary english'. Words such as justice, freedom, should, mind, meaning, life, language, reality, knowledge, belief etc etc are technical terms in philosophy. You could probably divide each up into 3 or 4 senses depending on which 'broad' theory of it that one buys into. Then you need to factor individual idiosyncrasies into the 'received view' theories...Hume used to have to go play backgammon.
I think I just go get stoned or something :-)
> I couldn't possibly know, and I don't want to to try to alphabetize and file the nature of reality.There is a name for that: an 'Ontological Engineer'. Peoples are trying to build 'knowledge representation' databases, listing and filing the whole of human knowledge on computer programs....
> I would think that it makes someone ask questions at all is beginning to free them from rigid thinking.
But sometimes people have rigid answers to questions. Because they don't understand that there is a genuine question / problem there..
> Well, my eyes are buggy and I have p.m.s
> Next I would like to discuss the nature of chocolate.ok. Enough already.
Just ignore whatever... I have had my fix for a while...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 11, 2005, at 2:11:57
In reply to Re: quick thought... » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 2:02:18
Actually, (I know you were teasing, but) I wasn't getting sick of that conversation, the last post, was the first time I felt like I heard what *you* thought, that's what I'm interested in.
Maybe after you get stoned you'll want to discuss chocolate too :)> But why is science respected?
>
> > It's very interesting, I know little of the sciences technically, just what I've stumbled on. I don't know why I don't read more though, it always fascinates me when I do..
>
> I like the theory but too many unrelated facts annoy me...
>
> >>I dub these reality1 and reality2. That is a distinction Kant made...
>
> > Well first, I'm truly not a fan of Kant
>
> I wouldn't say I am a fan. I haven't read any of his stuff...
>
> > but at any rate here is a huge difference in the way we are, period. I'm rarely swayed by an appeal to authority
>
> I am not swayed by appeals to authority when the 'authority' is not an authority in the area of interest. When scientists claim to have discovered the seat or nature of consciousness, when a celebrity tells me that this brand of breakfast cereal is the best. I wouldn't reccomend taking what an 'authority' says to be the end of the matter... but their perspective (especially if they can explain their rationale) is typically worthy of careful thought...
>
> I wasn't saying 'Kant said this so he must be right'. I was saying 'here is a distinction I would like to make and just in case anybody has read their Kant then yes I am getting at precisely that' (insofar as I understand him).
>
> >My main purpose for learning is to, tangibly improve my life in that it helps me appreciate others, what surrounds me, and help me find my own thoughts.
>
> Hmm. Have you done any applied ethics????
>
> > There is a Zen Buddhist Koan, "If you find the Buddha on the road, kill him" that is probably the best way to describe what I mean. Meaning isn't out "there" neatly penned and categorized for me to find, but what has been experienced by others can be a stepping stone for me. I can find what I need as easily from a corner store clerk as a p.h.d.
>
> Sure.
>
> I like to try to come up with my own theories of stuff. In reading other people I get new ideas. Sometimes I think 'oh, that is just bollocks - surely it is more like this....' and then off I go. So I use other peoples ideas as a platform - whether I agree with them or not. I also see other people with similar ideas. Sometimes I get all excited because they give me good reasons I had never thought of. But then sometimes I find that so and so's criticism of the person who agreed with me is fairly much fatal to both of our positions... Maybe the difference is that what interests me is hard to get the average person interested in... See, you are getting sick of this conversation already :-)
>
> To start you have to learn a lot of facts...
> Or you have to learn a lot of theories...
> You have to demonstrate that you understand these theories, or that you can remember those facts.
> Then, after a while you have to look for new facts of your own. Or, you have to develop a theory of your own. But the first stuff is supposed to be a solid foundation for the second stuff. So you can communicate the second stuff in a way that people who have done the first stuff can understand.
>
> Half the battle is getting someone to understand what you are saying and then tell you what they think.
>
> > I have also witnessed experience and thought altering "reality" or the tangible.
>
> I really don't understand what you mean.
>
> > I think you are referring to the different "thinkers", who had the good fortune to be recorded.
>
> Well, they wrote books. You kind of have to do that if you want there to be a record of what you have to say...
>
> >I'm not invalidating them, but the way that's put seems to me to limit the beliefs of others.
>
> But there were lots of unresolved problems with respect to their theories. Problems and contradictions that even they saw at the time of writing. The point is to help fix it up or to show why we shouldn't bother...
>
> > That's the stuff I don't have the stomach for..
> > That's what I was referring to when I said it's time for me to go pet the dog, or pick a dandilion.. When I here those theories being discussed I feel like I'm listening to Frasier, except that I enjoy that as self-mocking comedy.
>
> ?????
> Some people just don't like this stuff
> Or care...
> The ancients didn't keep philosophy from the general public because there were any magic answers. They just realised that the average person wouldn't give a sh*t and that you have to study it for years to get your head around the terminology. Every discipline has its terminology. But much of philosophical terminology doubles as 'ordinary english'. Words such as justice, freedom, should, mind, meaning, life, language, reality, knowledge, belief etc etc are technical terms in philosophy. You could probably divide each up into 3 or 4 senses depending on which 'broad' theory of it that one buys into. Then you need to factor individual idiosyncrasies into the 'received view' theories...
>
> Hume used to have to go play backgammon.
> I think I just go get stoned or something :-)
>
> > I couldn't possibly know, and I don't want to to try to alphabetize and file the nature of reality.
>
> There is a name for that: an 'Ontological Engineer'. Peoples are trying to build 'knowledge representation' databases, listing and filing the whole of human knowledge on computer programs....
>
> > I would think that it makes someone ask questions at all is beginning to free them from rigid thinking.
>
> But sometimes people have rigid answers to questions. Because they don't understand that there is a genuine question / problem there..
>
> > Well, my eyes are buggy and I have p.m.s
> > Next I would like to discuss the nature of chocolate.
>
> ok. Enough already.
> Just ignore whatever... I have had my fix for a while...
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 16:23:54
In reply to It's a light one : ) » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 11, 2005, at 2:11:57
> Maybe after you get stoned you'll want to discuss chocolate too :)
Sure thing. Though you would find it hard to get anything sensible out of me...
PS thought you might like this.
There is the hope that all the sciences will eventually be able to be unified via a process of reduction. So, for example
Mind can be reduced to Psychology (neuroscience)
Psychology (neuroscience) can be reduced to Biology
Biology can be reduced to Chemistry
Chemistry can be reudced to Physics
BUT
Physics requires an observer. Which (arguably) brings us back to Mind.Hows that for a nice big circle???
;-)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 11, 2005, at 18:50:37
In reply to Re: It's a light one : ) » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 16:23:54
> > Maybe after you get stoned you'll want to discuss chocolate too :)
>
> Sure thing. Though you would find it hard to get anything sensible out of me...Somehow I find that difficult to imagine.
I started to babblemail you but it got to long, and self induldgent, in an uncharacteristic fit of restraint I actually didn't send it.
I learned so much last night, I couldn't sleep actually. I won't bore you with all the details (as I'd started to) but thank you so much, it was exhausting but exhilerating.
> PS thought you might like this.
>
> There is the hope that all the sciences will eventually be able to be unified via a process of reduction. So, for example
>
I was just thinking that! It reminds me of a "Far side" cartoon. There was a drawing of a dog museum and a shrine to *Rex* who caught his own tail.Thanks again!
Posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 19:22:54
In reply to Re: It's a light one : ) » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 11, 2005, at 18:50:37
Gyped!!! (however you spell that).
I hate it when people write me stuff and then don't give it to me :-(
Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.> > > Maybe after you get stoned you'll want to discuss chocolate too :)
> > Sure thing. Though you would find it hard to get anything sensible out of me...
> Somehow I find that difficult to imagine.
Oh, heh heh you have not met me when I am hammered...
Anytime Gabbi, anytime...:-)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on February 11, 2005, at 19:36:34
In reply to Re: It's a light one : ), posted by alexandra_k on February 11, 2005, at 19:22:54
> Gyped!!! (however you spell that).
> I hate it when people write me stuff and then don't give it to me :-(
> Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
Oh well sure, I can send it, I thought I was being kind, I'm not that interesting. Oh, The word is gypped, but it shouldn't be a word really, I realize that hardly anyone (if anyone) thinks of it's origin when they say it, but it's short for "Being Gypsied." Nice huh?I kind of liked Gyped though.. We could pronounce it Jyped-- Being cheated out of, or insulted by something typed..
> > > > Maybe after you get stoned you'll want to discuss chocolate too :)
>
> > > Sure thing. Though you would find it hard to get anything sensible out of me...
>
> > Somehow I find that difficult to imagine.
>
> Oh, heh heh you have not met me when I am hammered...
>
> Anytime Gabbi, anytime...
>
> :-)
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.