einseele was wonderful when he said: science is the serious sister of fiction, sentenced to look for the truth; that: science is too serious to my understanding. I believe anything the mind can see and/or mention exists: with time that could be proved scientifically! That may sound fictional, but should be the truth. for, science seems to be just a kid while fiction is the ancient uncle who sees far ahead when science is still counting on its fingers trying to see, touch, feel in the name of empirical evidence, before believing like the Biblical Doubting Thomas. No wonder, after many years many scientific theories fail to stand the test of time, then scientists begin to look for new theories. Science continues to crawl behind fiction. Atovigba.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Today's Topic Summary > > Group: http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/topics > > - Second Enlightenment > (F3)<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=GRUts-X5mqs.en.&am=!JjYx-7BZhZy5A3Gi0fgGIjf9GXLkD5u4hQ0MOIxZSXjVgA#1258e33054f5392c_group_thread_0>[1 > Update] > - What is the material basis of Consciousness > ?<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=GRUts-X5mqs.en.&am=!JjYx-7BZhZy5A3Gi0fgGIjf9GXLkD5u4hQ0MOIxZSXjVgA#1258e33054f5392c_group_thread_1>[2 > Updates] > - Second Enlightenment > (F1,F2)<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=js&ver=GRUts-X5mqs.en.&am=!JjYx-7BZhZy5A3Gi0fgGIjf9GXLkD5u4hQ0MOIxZSXjVgA#1258e33054f5392c_group_thread_2>[2 > Updates] > > Topic: Second Enlightenment > (F3)<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/8f81adcb70892fa9> > > Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> Dec 14 07:29AM -0800 > > ========== > Reminder: > The basic structure of the present thread is: > X1. Scientific Revolution > X2. Ontology > X3. Ideology > X4. Social awareness > X5. Establishment > > with X=F/S respectively for the first/second enlightenment. Indeed, > we start by the first as guidance to the formulation of the second > and warning of errors to be avoided. > ============= > The present post is limited to the step F3- Ideology of the first > enlightenment. > > Ideology is the best known domain of the First > Enlightenment, due to its impact on subsequent revolutionary > events and changes of social and political structures. > However, chronology did not respect the foundations order: > Kant came too late for Voltaire, Diderot, Montesqieu and > Rousseau. Lacking consistent foundations, the ideology > reflects uncritically current controversies: its apparently > rational form and declarations conceal noumenal utopianism. > It radically detached itself from the Scientific Revolution > and its phenomenal principles. > However brilliantly Voltaire ridiculed Dogmatism, his > criticism was negative, without suggesting any substitute. > Diderot and the Encyclopedia advocated rather arbitrarily > the social utility and attacked tradition without formulating > any positive remedy. Montesquieu believed dogmatically that > all consisted of perpetual rules or laws and argued, not less > dogmatically, that England's constitutional monarchy was an > ideal model of society, that women were inferior and that the > essential inequality of people justified slavery. > Noumenalistic Utopia of Rousseau had the greatest and most > direct influence on the French Revolution. > > Oblivious of its rational roots, the ideology of > the First Enlightenment slipped almost entirely into dogmatic > irrationality. > =========== > Reaction of dogmatism. > > Failing to eradicate dogmatism, first enlightenment collapsed > under its reactionary assaults which went on uninterrupted > till 19th century dominated by dogmatic obscurantism. > > French revolution triggered by enlightenment's ideology > radically denied its roots replacing Rousseaus with > Robespierres. > > Dogmatic reaction reached its apogee in "Great German > Idealism" starting with Fichte's concept of Romanticism. > > While enlightened rationality sees reflection as interplay of > imagination and inference, romanticism ablated the latter, leaving > Reason standing on one imaginary, emotional leg. > > Romanticism is known mainly as esthetic current praising > spontaneous improvisation, but in that aspect it had no > noticeable practical impact. It's true that romanticist > artists followed innovated rules, but they applied them as > meticulously as their predecessors. Chopin did not learn > his music from Fichte. He applied partially new, but not > less strict rules than Mozart or Bach and deemed that > good improvisation presupposes skill gained by years of > rigorous training. The same holds for Liszt, Tchaikovsky, > Pushkin, Mickiewicz, Byron, Delacroix, Gainsborough and all > romanticist artists. > > Romanticism impacted principally the Socio-Political. Fichte, > the father of Romanticism, preached Nationalism and became > the flagship of Nazism. His famous student, Hegel, became, > with a bit of Engels' assistance, the prophet of Gulag empires. > All in all, about 200 million were romantically and idealistically > slaughtered and the underlying dogmatic fanaticism gets every > day stronger. > > Georges. > > > > Topic: What is the material basis of Consciousness > ?<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/3910d0ce85b31b69> > > archytas <[email protected]> Dec 14 03:25AM -0800 > > Georges turning the question upside down trick is a good one here. We > are always talking about 'some shit that was before' - I'd leave it in > these graceless terms. I'm sort of with you at base Carlos, but I can > do little with a change in particle spin as changing information in > the sorry world I would put right (or perhaps retire from in > disgust)! I would say some particles carry information, as in when we > blow them up into other particles at CERN or Fermilab - though there > is clearly more to this. Books do require readers, yet one can > envisage a time in which 'reading' has gone but the books remain and > their meanings logically and painstakingly reconstructed (perhaps as > one can imagine Georges quipping, 'only to find there was nothing > worthwhile in them')! Alternate notions of information were around in > biology when I still did any. This was usually to split into a > material world and a world of information. I have no sense of contact > with the latter without the former. I used to like notions of > consciousness as emergent properties of life, but we could be tuning > into to something pre-existent of life, the development requiring > both. Your account is reductionist, though none the worse for that. > I can see where it goes in terms of what we might call 'unstable > computing', but can't grok with it on a wider basis. > > I'm sure we'd both be aware of the category leap once I start saying > I'm sure most people don't really know what information they give out > when they are saying anything, its reception is likely to be equally > vacuous or mundane and that misinformation is everywhere. I doubt > there is a 'Georges' Razor' to apply (though something like one > applies in science in terms of getting a better grok on what we are > dealing with). My guess is to go with defeasible reasoning, another > computer connected term. > > Reasoning is defeasible when the corresponding argument is rationally > compelling but not deductively valid. The truth of the premises of a > good defeasible argument provide support for the conclusion, even > though it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion > false. In other words, the relationship of support between premises > and conclusion is a tentative one, potentially defeated by additional > information. > > Much has been wittered already on the nature of consciousness. I find > myself interested in what reductionist science is telling us because > there is little to believe in religion and tradition. This still > leaves me interested in my consciousness of this vast universe, > plethora of them 'whizzing' above my head but unseen and potentially > contactable by gravity measurements and so on. Not only might there > be a world of information that is immaterial, there could be material > worlds not material to us. In a more day-to-day sense, we might make > more of what we refer to as consciousness, if we could develop > understandings about decision-making supposedly occurring very quickly > before apparent rational intervention, facts that might let us bring > new argument to rationality and how we are conscious. > > > > > > > einseele <[email protected]> Dec 14 06:15AM -0800 > > A wonderful article Neil, as from time to time you send for us to > enjoy. > You and Georges have something in common (believe it or not). You both > like to write. :-) > > Writing is may be the mother of all arts (although she wanted to be > like music). > Poor Science she does not admit she also wants to be literature. > Instead she decided to tell us: Look, I'm not kidding, this is > serious... Science is the serious sister of Fiction, sentenced to look > for the truth, or something like that. Fiction instead, does not need > her sister's frustrations > > And talking about mothers we also have Nature, does she write as > well? > > I believe so. DNA is since human beings so declared, a text. > Who/what writes and who/what reads. > > I like to be reductionist here, I believe that everything is writen > and read by the same, this email, all books, DNA, CERN conCERNS, etc > > Allow me to quote you here "...I would say some particles carry > information..." > > Upside down I would say information plays with particles > > There is no God here, there is a vacuum instead. The answer to the > question "who reads DNA?" is better answered by Fiction. Science is > too serious to my understanding > > > > > > > > > > > Topic: Second Enlightenment > (F1,F2)<http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology/t/223bd494f45cedab> > > archytas <[email protected]> Dec 13 11:57PM -0800 > > Your model of Kant would burn rather well, as straw does. Good points > amongst the rather apparent distaste for him. In terms of needing an > ontology, most scientists appear not well versed or interested and get > along quite well on tropical fish reasoning lines - Einstein was a > case in point in terms of the wonderful work he did with others on the > texts and experimental reports of his day (John Stachel's 'Einstein's > Miraculous Year'). Overall, modern reliableism offers more, but does > not address social awareness, which is mentioned but not pursued > above. Defeasible logic also goes some way towards working with what > is empirically applicable and falsifiable, moveable with what we come > to know. > > > > > > Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> Dec 14 01:30AM -0800 > > > well, as straw does. Good points > > amongst the rather apparent distaste for him. > =================== > G: > I said: > *** > While his ontology lost for us all avail, his method > and attitude are excellent example and guidance for > those who, in our days, seek to understand the Second > Enlightenment. > Example of sincerity, rigor and respect for Science. > Guidance resumed in "Sapere Aude", "Dare to Reason!". > *** > That's rather admiration for IMO the greatest philosopher > who went astray due to his contemporary context and to > his own sincerity. > =================== > Neil: > > what we come > > to know. > ================ > G: > Not bad, but off topic. We are here at F1, F2. > Einstein will come with second enlightenment (S1, S2) of which > he was the bedrock. > Social awareness will come after Ideology. > Logical challenge of the second enlightenment pertains to > its ontology S2. > > Thanks for your comments. > Georges. > ============== > > > > > -- > 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]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > -- 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.
