I rather shun the transparency of living in a glass building and undressing with the lights on Orn.
On 16 June, 06:09, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > I'll only address the "vastness' thing/notion. Yes, I too would guess > we all, past and present, can and have had some sort of 'sensing' > about this...and just knowing measurements or photos does little for > groking it. Sadly, the rest slowly beomes opaque...not understanding > states of observers etc. > > On Jun 12, 5:44 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
