My friend Orn is rather keen on introspecting. I am less convinced (only in some ways) that starting with something requiring thoughts to need a thinker or introspector is key. I'm always somewhat beguiled by 'vastness' - a concept we don't arrive at just by looking or sensing, though I guess we can now point Hubble at stuff much further away than the ancients knew of. I would guess we'd both end up pondering just what might be in the event, and I'm sure observation states of observers have some relevance. Leaving a long story out, I end up thinking about what it is that stops us taking purpose seriously, given what we can believe of what we know. This is complicated by people generally not knowing much, and epistemology as a professional, mystified subject. The notion of a universal calculating language based on logic has gone, yet still influences our failure to produce a social epistemology of spirit that is not based on socially approved epistemic authority. If one looks at the behaviour of politicians and media types, one can quickly see they are not interested in argument - yet why is it we fail to change towards arguments not so clearly biased? We know enough of knowing to do this. I'd tender a point that we are scared and that many of our attempts at solid argument contain this problem with power - one might even introspect it!
On 9 June, 19:49, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Charlatans do abound. And, the meme of a meme is quite interesting. > However, you aren't talking about that are you? Having the idea of a > meme requires a type of introspection, no?...being able to observe > one’s own thinking/beliefs…at least, to me it seems that way. > > On Jun 9, 1:41 am, michalchik <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Your english is forgven since your point is a very good one. What the > > bleep made me want to claw my face off. Quantum mechanics blew my mind > > when i finally realized what it really said, but i could only > > understand how mind-blowing it was because I had taken the trouble to > > learn the science. In fact I had a very hard time accepting it until I > > had gone over the experiments several times. What the bleep and all > > the other tripe out there that just says stupid things like, what you > > expect is what guides the futrure, is not quantum physics it is just > > the same old power of positive thinking crap that con-artists have > > sold since prehistory. > > > What irks me now is that another one of my favorite scientific > > concepts "the meme" is not being popularized and bastardized before a > > mature rigorous science can be built around it. i still remember back > > in 1988, approaching a couple of my professors of evolutionary biology > > with a great new idea that ideas could act like living organisms and > > evolve in a way that was almost independent of their substrate. They > > both chuckled and said, "very good you have reinvented the meme." I > > was so taken by the idea that I didn't even mind that my thought > > wasn't original. But since then the more I have thought about how > > powerful an idea it is and how many complex subtleties it has. Now, it > > is just gong to be turned into some vague notion about how your ideas > > can affect the world. Ironically, the idea of the meme is a meme > > mutating into a new form that is less useful but spreads quicker and > > will largely drive out its ancestral form. > > > Anyway, it seems like every time science comes up with something hard > > to understand there will be some charlatan there ready to exploit > > peoples ignorance about it and claim it can fulfill all their wishes. > > > On Jun 6, 9:05 am, Enrique Fynn <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Really really bad science... I expected more from some members who want to > > > link everything with religion, god and other supernatural things... > > > I'm disappointed, those people don't have and will never have scientific > > > spirit, they watch that stupid DVD 'What the bleep we are?' full of > > > pseudo-science. > > > There is no quantum physics at all for a person who does not even > > > understand > > > the 'old-fashioned' classic physics, this appears to be the question of > > > the > > > moment, the top of all pseudo-science, they took the name... It is quantum > > > healers, quantum explanation for the spirit, I'm so tired of those crap, I > > > will not argue anymore with those people, it is meaningless since they > > > believes are based in dogmas, they don't think for themselves. > > > Enrique Fynn. > > > > P.S.: Sorry about the bad English. > > > > 2009/6/5 michalchik <[email protected]> > > > > > I have been a little puzzled since i have joined this group recently > > > > as to why most of the posts seem to be someone's pet theory about how > > > > the universe works (bad metaphysics) instead of a serious discussion > > > > of how and what we can know. Has the group always been like this? > > > > There are also some naive science questions, which I don't really mind > > > > but seem to belong on science discussion groups. > > > > > I am very interested in problems like empirical induction, logic, > > > > observer bias, fallacies, the philosophy of science, Ockham's razor > > > > and all the other rich fodder of epistemology but no one seems to be > > > > talking about that stuff. The group is in fact so quiet on those > > > > subjects that I don't even know if anyone would understand or care if > > > > I posed a serious question, problem or opinion on epistemology. > > > > -- > > > Enrique Fynn- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
