|
Nondualism (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, we can't do much without it either. We need to start from a set of assumptions, even if they're a naïve realism of some sort. |
The only assumptions you really need are:
(1) we can measure the stuff we observe with some degree of reliability
(2) we can use those measurements to make at least some successful predictions of future observations
Those assumptions seem more pragmatic than distinctively philosophical to me, but maybe you disagree. All the other stuff about realism and anti-realism, method, demarcation, and whatever else is of no practical significance to scientists as far as I can see. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
The only assumptions you really need are:
(1) we can measure the stuff we observe with some degree of reliability
(2) we can use those measurements to make at least some successful predictions of future observations
Those assumptions seem more pragmatic than distinctively philosophical to me, but maybe you disagree. All the other stuff about realism and anti-realism, method, demarcation, and whatever else is of no practical significance to scientists as far as I can see. |
If demarcation problems weren't interesting to scientists, I fail to see how Popper became such a star figure among scientists in the last century. Method is usually another big problem (though it's kind of cute when people think there is a single scientific method) because different sciences, and sometimes even different fields within a science end up using different methods, and scientists need some criticism regarding this myriad of methods. As for realism and anti-realism, there was a "scientific skirmish" in the physics community a hundred years ago regarding the reality of the atom (Ernst Mach being the leading anti-realist). This choice over the nature of the atom was not a trivial one: it had implications all over their theories. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | | If demarcation problems weren't interesting to scientists, I fail to see how Popper became such a star figure among scientists in the last century. |
He gave them an easy way to tell off jokers like creation scientists, psychoanalysts, and astrologers. They enjoyed this immensely.
| quote: | | Method is usually another big problem (though it's kind of cute when people think there is a single scientific method) because different sciences, and sometimes even different fields within a science end up using different methods, and scientists need some criticism regarding this myriad of methods. |
Why? If the use of multiple so-called methods allows scientists to derive useful theories that drive positive practical developments, why does this need criticism?
| quote: | | As for realism and anti-realism, there was a "scientific skirmish" in the physics community a hundred years ago regarding the reality of the atom (Ernst Mach being the leading anti-realist). This choice over the nature of the atom was not a trivial one: it had implications all over their theories. |
You can treat a theory as a set of metaphysical concepts (what the world is "really made of" at the bottom) or a set of observations plus equations used to predict future observations. These sorts of philosophical so-called dilemmas only crop up when you do the former. |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| The problem is perspective, JBJ. No one can agree on anything. That is why it's useless to talk, at least on an internet forum. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Disagreement is the spice of life. |
|
|
| Lomeli |
Haha, I agree. It does add spice, but it's not life.
All I can say is don't listen to what anyone else says. Just go by your own experience and shape the world however you see fit. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
That's a very cowardly philosophy.
//by cowardly, I mean agreeable. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
He gave them an easy way to tell off jokers like creation scientists, psychoanalysts, and astrologers. They enjoyed this immensely. |
So he is interesting to scientists, isn't he?
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Why? If the use of multiple so-called methods allows scientists to derive useful theories that drive positive practical developments, why does this need criticism? |
Because they aren't always normative: they're also descriptive. Once you're given a new point of view on what you're doing (with the description of philosophers) and in what ways you could be doing (with the normative prescriptions of philosophers), you have many more tools in the shed than you used to have, and that often comes in handy.
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
You can treat a theory as a set of metaphysical concepts (what the world is "really made of" at the bottom) or a set of observations plus equations used to predict future observations. These sorts of philosophical so-called dilemmas only crop up when you do the former. |
Indeed. But, (un)fortunately, scientists find it very difficult to stick to a set of observations and the predicament of what to expect. They want to know "why", and this is where the metaphysical concepts come in. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lomeli
The problem is perspective, JBJ. No one can agree on anything. That is why it's useless to talk, at least on an internet forum. |
Quite on the contrary. Without discussion, you get no new views. Without new views, your world view becomes more limited. With a limited world view, you end up ignoring many opportunities. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| Nope, pretty sure Luciferian-Solipsism is the only valid form of thought. Because I say so. |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It's pointless mental masturbation based on the BS belief that reality is unreal and unknowable because our feeble minds can only perceive it through sense perception and conscious thought. What rubbish.
|
Excellent; you are right it is rubbish to believe our minds can only perceive reality through the senses; and mere conscious thoughts of the mind;
There is more to reality than meets the eye.
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
If we are to take it that reality and the "real" answers lie somewhere outside rational/conscious thought, then the words of the person uttering such a statement must be dismissed outright since they don't know WTF they are talking about anyway.
|
I implied that Reality is the self biased subjective perceptions of the dichotomous deterministic chaos where consciousness meets unconsciousness.!!!!
What is more rational and conscious than one's own subjective view point and existence; in a dichotomous deterministic chaos???
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The fact is that existence exists and it can be perceived accurately by the human mind.
|
The FACT? "Existence exists?" ok what ever that means;
Existence can be perceived "Accurately by the human mind?"
All of us have a human mind;
Do we not?
So are we all "Accurate?"
If we are all "Accurate," in perceiving existance
Why are you arguing?
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
To believe otherwise you must perceive the entire world as an incomprehensible mess. You must argue that nature is a subjective illusion and that technological progress is a chance accident.
|
To believe otherwise just means you don't view the world the same way as someone else. "You on't have to view the entire world for that matter as being incomprehensible."
You don't have to argue that nature is subjective;
You could argue that it is in our nature to be subjective.
As for how any of this relates to technological progress is
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
The subject is a nonsensical load of BS.
|
You said
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'm not even sure any of this stuff makes sense.
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
It Doesn't.
|
|
If non-dualistic philosophy is incomprehensible because "IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE," do you know what you are talking about?
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
Every minute thinking about it is a huge waste of life
|
Could it be that you do not understand what I am saying?
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
..though of course if you believe whether you are alive or dead is a subjective matter of opinion open to debate and different biases, I guess this doesn't matter. |
So you believe subjective view points don't matter? |
|
|
| we_R_DNA |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
0101010001101000011000010111010000100111011100110010000001110111011010000111100100100000011110010110
1111011101010010000001100100011011110110111000100111011101000010000001101101011010010111100000100000
0111100101101111011101010111001000100000011011010110010101110100011000010111000001101000011011110111
00100111001100101110 |
0100100001101111011101110010000001100100011010010110010000100000010010010010000001101101011010010111
1000001000000110110101111001001000000110110101100101011101000110000101110000011010000110111101110010
0111001100111111 |
|
|
|
|
