RE: Can we ever know truth?
Rich Winkel writes: > According to Stathis Papaioannou: > >Why would you not include the well-known fact that driving at high > >speed is more likely to kill someone as "evidence"? If the driver > >honestly did not know this, say due to having an intellectual > >disability, then he would have diminished responsibility for the > >accident. > > I don't know how you're using the term "responsibility", but in any > case the issue is whether a driver is willing to slow down despite > not seeing any obvious hazards. Evidence isn't always obvious. Past experience shows that there might be hazards around even though you can't see them, and you are being irresponsible if you ignore this fact. The only excuse is if you genuinely are unaware of this, in which case you have no reason to slow down if you see no hazards. > >Astronomy does not really have an ethical dimension to it, but most > >other sciences do. Discovering that cyanide kills people is science; > >deciding to poison your spouse with cyanide to collect on the > >insurance is intimately tied up with the science, but it is not > >itself in the domain of science. > > Precisely. Good medical research is science, but medical practice > often involves matters of expedience, cultural bias, conflicts of > interest and habit. OK, but for the purposes of this discussion we should try to separate the purely scientific facts from the rest. If the scientific evidence shows that cyanide is good for headaches, and people die as a result, then perhaps the scientists have been negligent, incompetent, or deceitful. > >As for doing nothing often being the best course of action, that's > >certainly true, and it *is* a question that can be analysed > >scientifically, which is the point of placebo controlled drug trials. > > But of course if the research is never done or never sees the light of > day, something other than science is going on. Right, but we're getting away from the subject of epistemology and onto the specifics of particular treatments and the evidence supporting them. Personally, I have experience of several situations where I believed that a new treatment would be helpful on the basis of the published evidence but subsequently found, either through my own experience or through new evidence coming to light maybe years later, that it caused more harm than good. There is at least one example of a harmful drug side-effect (olanzapine causing diabetes) that was so obvious to me that it crossed my mind that adverse research findings may have been supressed; on the other hand, I also have experience of treatments with well-documented adverse effects which I never seem to encounter, and I don't surmise that in those cases the data has been faked to make the drug look bad. > >You are suggesting that certain treatments believed to be helpful > >for mental illness by the medical profession are not in fact helpful. > >You may be right, because the history of medicine is full of > >enthusiastically promoted treatments that we now know are useless > >or harmful. However, this is no argument against the scientific > >method in medicine or any other field: we can only go on our best > >evidence. > > I'm not arguing against the scientific method. I only wish medical > science practiced it more often. It is unscientific to equate > absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Yes, and everyone is acutely aware that a new treatment may still be harmful even though the present best evidence suggests that it isn't. This needs to be taken into account in any risk-benefit analysis: that is, the "risks" equation should include not only the weighted probability of known adverse events, but also the weighted probability of as yet unrecognised adverse events. It is difficult to quantify this latter variable, but it does play a part in making clinical decisions, perhaps not always obviously so. For example, new treatments are generally used more cautiously than older treatments: in the more severely ill, in cases where the older treatments have failed, in lower dosages. As more experience is gained, it becomes clearer whether the new treatment is in fact better and safer than the old one, or better than no treatment at all, and it is used more widely and more confidently. It would be interesting to retrospectively analyse the incidence and severity of adverse effects of medical treatments not suspected at the time of their initial clinical use, allowing a quantitative estimate of the abovementioned weighted probability for use in clinical decision-making. I don't know if this has ever been attempted. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to t
Re: Can we ever know truth?
According to Stathis Papaioannou: >Why would you not include the well-known fact that driving at high >speed is more likely to kill someone as "evidence"? If the driver >honestly did not know this, say due to having an intellectual >disability, then he would have dimminished responsibility for the >accident. I don't know how you're using the term "responsibility", but in any case the issue is whether a driver is willing to slow down despite not seeing any obvious hazards. >Astronomy does not really have an ethical dimension to it, but most >other sciences do. Discovering that cyanide kills people is science; >deciding to poison your spouse with cyanide to collect on the >insurance is intimately tied up with the science, but it is not >itself in the domain of science. Precisely. Good medical research is science, but medical practice often involves matters of expedience, cultural bias, conflicts of interest and habit. >As for doing nothing often being the best course of action, that's >certainly true, and it *is* a question that can be analysed >scientifically, which is the point of placebo controlled drug trials. But of course if the research is never done or never sees the light of day, something other than science is going on. >You are suggesting that certain treatments believed to be helpful >for mental illness by the medical profession are not in fact helpful. >You may be right, because the history of medicine is full of >enthusiastically promoted treatments that we now know are useless >or harmful. However, this is no argument against the scientific >method in medicine or any other field: we can only go on our best >evidence. I'm not arguing against the scientific method. I only wish medical science practiced it more often. It is unscientific to equate absence of evidence with evidence of absence. Rich --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
According to Brent Meeker: > I don't think that's a good example of "not considering the evidence". > Ignorance is a relative term - he didn't know a child was about to run out in > the street, but he (and most people) know there are children in residential > areas and that they may run out in the street. So we criticise him for not > taking this into account. If he were truly ignorant of these possibilities, > we'd excuse him. You're right, almost everyone knows there are kids in a residential neighborhood. But what I'm talking about is a certain kind of personality which presupposes that if he doesn't see kids, and he happens to be in a hurry, there's less need to slow down. What I'm trying to say is that many people erroneously equate absence of evidence (which can be the result of simply not paying attention) either with evidence of absence or a reduced need for precaution. >But you don't want to be so precautionary that you never risk doing >harm, because then you'd never do good either. You'd never drive >in residential areas at all. Medicine's prime dictum is "do no harm". While accidents happen, I don't think it's unrealistic to expect doctors to value their patients, especially nonconsenting children, as more than lab animals and passive objects for arbitrary and culturally driven medical intervention. There's a legal standard for reckless endangerment which ought to be applicable here. The current medical fad is "evidence based medicine", yet no one seems to be asking what they were practicing before, and why? Here's an example of medicine's recklessness and profound lack of insight into its own ignorance: http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/MGM/primer.html Apologies to the people on this list who are far more knowledgeable about complexity than I. Rich --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth?
Rich Winkel writes: > According to Stathis Papaioannou: > > Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test > > new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence, > > including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be > > included in any risk/benefit analysis. You can criticise someone for making > > a > > decision without fair consideration of all the evidence, but you can't > > criticise him if he does. > > Actually we can and often do. The question is one of insight into > one's own ignorance. Suppose a child is run over by a car which > is driven at high speed through a residential neighborhood. The > question of the driver's guilt isn't determined by his knowledge > or ignorance that the child was about to run into the street, but > by his lack of insight and prudent adaptation to his own ignorance > of same. In this case prudent adaptation = driving at a safe speed. Why would you not include the well-known fact that driving at high speed is more likely to kill someone as "evidence"? If the driver honestly did not know this, say due to having an intellectual disability, then he would have dimminished responsibility for the accident. > Medicine is not like astronomy. Given the self-healing properties > of adaptive systems, doing nothing is often the best course of > "action." The precautionary principle applies. Astronomy does not really have an ethical dimension to it, but most other sciences do. Discovering that cyanide kills people is science; deciding to poison your spouse with cyanide to collect on the insurance is intimately tied up with the science, but it is not itself in the domain of science. As for doing nothing often being the best course of action, that's certainly true, and it *is* a question that can be analysed scientifically, which is the point of placebo controlled drug trials. > The human mind, especially, is capable of "healing" itself (i.e. > finding a new stable equilibrium) in most circumstances without the > aid or hinderance of drugs or lobotomies or electroshock or drilling > holes in the skull to release demons. Of course it often takes > time and a change of environment, but what's the alternative? To > chemically or physically intervene in a self-organizing neural > system is like trying to program a computer with a soldering iron, > based on the observation that computer programs run on electricity. > > Ignorance is unavoidable. The question is whether one adapts to one's > own ignorance so as to do no harm. You are suggesting that certain treatments believed to be helpful for mental illness by the medical profession are not in fact helpful. You may be right, because the history of medicine is full of enthusiastically promoted treatments that we now know are useless or harmful. However, this is no argument against the scientific method in medicine or any other field: we can only go on our best evidence. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: >>Colin Hales wrote: > > >>No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you >>do >>either. You have apparently come to the recent realization that science >>just >>creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most >>likely >>they aren't) but for some reason you have seized upon qualia as being the >>big >>problem. You don't know whether electrons or tables or the Sun is really >>real >>either. >> >>If science explains qualia - and I think it will - the explanation will be >>in >>terms of a model in which this or that variable produces this or that >>qualia - >>like 700nm photons hitting your retina causes red qualia. I understand >>now >>that's not what you want. So maybe you could give an example of what a >>theory >>in the "science of qualia" might be like. >> > > > No recent realisation. This has been drving me nuts for years. I'm just > trying to wake everyone up. There is 1 problem with what you say > above...what you outline is not an explanation at all. It's a description. > This is only an explanation in a metaphoric or folk-psychological sense > that assumes that the 'rule' is causal. The rule is not causal. > > ( minor point btw qualia are not generated at the retina. Their generation > is causally connected to an experienceless event in the retina...). > > An example: dynamic hierarchies of structured fluctuations. That's a possible theory in the science of qualia?? What does it predict? You criticise me for providing a mere description, not an explanation; yet when I ask for an example of what you want I get a noun phrase!? > > >>>It's the single biggest problem >>>there is: we don't have one! Science cannot make any justified, >>>authoritative prediction as to the phenomenal life of a rock, a >>>computer, >>>the internet or the plumbing in Beijing or, especially, a scientist. >> >>That's because you don't want to use an opertional definition of >>"phenomenal >>life" and science can't work on just words defined in terms of other >>words. > > > This is _not_ just words. Let's do an antroplogical study of you right > now. Say I am a biologist...normally I study the mating behaviour of > penguins. But today I am studying the scientific behaviour of humans. > > My research question? > > This 'thing' phenomenality/qualia/phenomenal consciosness, what its its > relationship to scientific behaviour? I devise an expermient. I put a > coffee cup in front of you and my experiment is as follows: > > Q1. How much science can you do on this coffee cup? > A1. You give a list. > > Now I ask you to close your eyes. > > Q2. How much science can you do on coffee cups now? More or less. > A2. Less. > > My research question is answered: "Phenomenal consciousness is a necessary > causal precursor to scientific behaviour". This is not some glib > philosophical nuance. This is in_your_face empirical proof. Right there. I think you've only shown that interacting with photons is useful in science. But suppose I agree that phenomenal cosciousness is necessary for scientific behavoir (which I might on some defintion of "phenomenal consciousness" and "scientific behavoir"); so what? >>>Take a >>>look at Science magazine's July 2005 issue where 125 questions were >>>posed >>>that face scientific inquiry over the next quarter century. The top two >>>questions: >>> >>>1. What is the universe made of? >> >>Stuff that kicks back when you kick it. >> >> >>>2. What is the biological basis of consciousness? >> >>Brains. > > > WRONG! There's a whole description missing. You just asked for "the biological basis"; not a description, much less a complete description. And above you seemed to reject description too: " There is 1 problem with what you say above...what you outline is not an explanation at all. It's a description." >The one you use to do science. > The mind! It is the only thing that told you there is a brain! Without the > mind (qualia) you wouldn't have any notion of anything whatever. > > I'm sorry. Pehaps read up on the issue. You've managed to miss the entire > discourse. The guys who wrote the science mag article have...Science > magazine also thinks your answer is wrong too.. otherwise they wouldn;t > think it a valid question. I'm not much chastened by having Science Magazine disagree with me. Brent Meeker The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work. --—John von Neumann --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Rich Winkel wrote: > According to Stathis Papaioannou: > >>Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test >>new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence, >>including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be >>included in any risk/benefit analysis. You can criticise someone for making a >>decision without fair consideration of all the evidence, but you can't >>criticise him if he does. > > > Actually we can and often do. The question is one of insight into > one's own ignorance. Suppose a child is run over by a car which > is driven at high speed through a residential neighborhood. The > question of the driver's guilt isn't determined by his knowledge > or ignorance that the child was about to run into the street, but > by his lack of insight and prudent adaptation to his own ignorance > of same. In this case prudent adaptation = driving at a safe speed. I don't think that's a good example of "not considering the evidence". Ignorance is a relative term - he didn't know a child was about to run out in the street, but he (and most people) know there are children in residential areas and that they may run out in the street. So we criticise him for not taking this into account. If he were truly ignorant of these possibilities, we'd excuse him. > > Medicine is not like astronomy. Given the self-healing properties > of adaptive systems, doing nothing is often the best course of > "action." The precautionary principle applies. > > The human mind, especially, is capable of "healing" itself (i.e. > finding a new stable equilibrium) in most circumstances without the > aid or hinderance of drugs or lobotomies or electroshock or drilling > holes in the skull to release demons. Of course it often takes > time and a change of environment, but what's the alternative? To > chemically or physically intervene in a self-organizing neural > system is like trying to program a computer with a soldering iron, > based on the observation that computer programs run on electricity. > > Ignorance is unavoidable. The question is whether one adapts to one's > own ignorance so as to do no harm. But you don't want to be so precautionary that you never risk doing harm, because then you'd never do good either. You'd never drive in residential areas at all. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Le 16-août-06, à 03:11, Stathis Papaioannou a écrit : > > If we "realise that things cannot be as they seem" then this is new > evidence > and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not > intend > that "things are as they seem" be understood in a narrow sense, such as > what our senses can immediately apprehend. Complex scientific evidence, > philosophical considerations, historical experience: all of it has to > be added > to the mix and whatever comes out is what we should accept as the > provisional > best theory. We know that it may not be the truth - indeed, that we > might > never actually know the truth - but it is the best we can do. OK. (I was just interpreting you literally, a bit too much probably). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
> > Colin Hales wrote: > No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you > do > either. You have apparently come to the recent realization that science > just > creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most > likely > they aren't) but for some reason you have seized upon qualia as being the > big > problem. You don't know whether electrons or tables or the Sun is really > real > either. > > If science explains qualia - and I think it will - the explanation will be > in > terms of a model in which this or that variable produces this or that > qualia - > like 700nm photons hitting your retina causes red qualia. I understand > now > that's not what you want. So maybe you could give an example of what a > theory > in the "science of qualia" might be like. > No recent realisation. This has been drving me nuts for years. I'm just trying to wake everyone up. There is 1 problem with what you say above...what you outline is not an explanation at all. It's a description. This is only an explanation in a metaphoric or folk-psychological sense that assumes that the 'rule' is causal. The rule is not causal. ( minor point btw qualia are not generated at the retina. Their generation is causally connected to an experienceless event in the retina...). An example: dynamic hierarchies of structured fluctuations. > >>It's the single biggest problem >> there is: we don't have one! Science cannot make any justified, >> authoritative prediction as to the phenomenal life of a rock, a >> computer, >> the internet or the plumbing in Beijing or, especially, a scientist. > > That's because you don't want to use an opertional definition of > "phenomenal > life" and science can't work on just words defined in terms of other > words. This is _not_ just words. Let's do an antroplogical study of you right now. Say I am a biologist...normally I study the mating behaviour of penguins. But today I am studying the scientific behaviour of humans. My research question? This 'thing' phenomenality/qualia/phenomenal consciosness, what its its relationship to scientific behaviour? I devise an expermient. I put a coffee cup in front of you and my experiment is as follows: Q1. How much science can you do on this coffee cup? A1. You give a list. Now I ask you to close your eyes. Q2. How much science can you do on coffee cups now? More or less. A2. Less. My research question is answered: "Phenomenal consciousness is a necessary causal precursor to scientific behaviour". This is not some glib philosophical nuance. This is in_your_face empirical proof. Right there. > >>Take a >> look at Science magazine's July 2005 issue where 125 questions were >> posed >> that face scientific inquiry over the next quarter century. The top two >> questions: >> >> 1. What is the universe made of? > > Stuff that kicks back when you kick it. > >> 2. What is the biological basis of consciousness? > > Brains. WRONG! There's a whole description missing. The one you use to do science. The mind! It is the only thing that told you there is a brain! Without the mind (qualia) you wouldn't have any notion of anything whatever. I'm sorry. Pehaps read up on the issue. You've managed to miss the entire discourse. The guys who wrote the science mag article have...Science magazine also thinks your answer is wrong too.. otherwise they wouldn;t think it a valid question. cheers colin hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
According to Rich Winkel: > Medicine is not like astronomy. In that ignorance can be toxic. Rich --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
According to Stathis Papaioannou: > Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test > new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence, > including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be > included in any risk/benefit analysis. You can criticise someone for making a > decision without fair consideration of all the evidence, but you can't > criticise him if he does. Actually we can and often do. The question is one of insight into one's own ignorance. Suppose a child is run over by a car which is driven at high speed through a residential neighborhood. The question of the driver's guilt isn't determined by his knowledge or ignorance that the child was about to run into the street, but by his lack of insight and prudent adaptation to his own ignorance of same. In this case prudent adaptation = driving at a safe speed. Medicine is not like astronomy. Given the self-healing properties of adaptive systems, doing nothing is often the best course of "action." The precautionary principle applies. The human mind, especially, is capable of "healing" itself (i.e. finding a new stable equilibrium) in most circumstances without the aid or hinderance of drugs or lobotomies or electroshock or drilling holes in the skull to release demons. Of course it often takes time and a change of environment, but what's the alternative? To chemically or physically intervene in a self-organizing neural system is like trying to program a computer with a soldering iron, based on the observation that computer programs run on electricity. Ignorance is unavoidable. The question is whether one adapts to one's own ignorance so as to do no harm. Rich --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Colin Hales wrote: >>Colin Hales wrote: >> >> >>>In brain material and brain material alone you get anomaly: things are >> >>NOT >> >>>what they seem. 'Seem' is a construct of qualia. In a science of qualia, >>>what are they 'seeming' to be? Not qualia. That is circular. Parsimony >>>demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that >> >>we >> >>>need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other >>>'seeming' delivered by qualia. >>> >>>Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the >>>'seeming' system. >>> >>>Colin Hales >> >>I don't understand that? Qualia = "directly perceived seemings". I don't >>know >>what you mean by a "science of qualia" - why we would need one? > > > You think we don't need a science of qualia? No, I said I didn't understand what you meant - and now I don't think you do either. You have apparently come to the recent realization that science just creates models and you never know whether they are really real (and most likely they aren't) but for some reason you have seized upon qualia as being the big problem. You don't know whether electrons or tables or the Sun is really real either. If science explains qualia - and I think it will - the explanation will be in terms of a model in which this or that variable produces this or that qualia - like 700nm photons hitting your retina causes red qualia. I understand now that's not what you want. So maybe you could give an example of what a theory in the "science of qualia" might be like. >It's the single biggest problem > there is: we don't have one! Science cannot make any justified, > authoritative prediction as to the phenomenal life of a rock, a computer, > the internet or the plumbing in Beijing or, especially, a scientist. That's because you don't want to use an opertional definition of "phenomenal life" and science can't work on just words defined in terms of other words. >Take a > look at Science magazine's July 2005 issue where 125 questions were posed > that face scientific inquiry over the next quarter century. The top two > questions: > > 1. What is the universe made of? Stuff that kicks back when you kick it. > 2. What is the biological basis of consciousness? Brains. > > Q2 = "what is the physics of qualia?", is delivered by the answer to Q1, in > the behaviour of whatever the universe is made of, of which brain material > is constructed. This is one question, not 2. > > 'Seeming' = is a) directly the experiences bestowed upon us by qualia and > b) inductions(models) we make from the behaviour of the appearances thus > provided. > > The latter assembled as empirical laws or just 'intuited' from qualia... > does not matter. Result is the samewhich is great...works > fineuntil > > you turn the qualia (the evidence making system) on itself in a > scientific study of the evidence making system (qualia) to try and get a > science of qualia. Then the system breaks down: you can't see it. All you > see is the brain delivering it to a 3rd person. This is the anomaly. I don't see it as an anomaly. It's no different than the rest of science -and the rest of common sense. > This means that we have literal screaming proof that the universe is not > made of 'seemings'. Nobody (except some mystics and idealists) every said it was. >It's made of a separate 'something' Or a lot of separate somethings - like strings or particles or fields. >and we have license > to scientifically consider potential 'somethings' and any underlying > fundamentals that may apply to the generation of qualia. I think that's whay neurobiologists do. > > It doesn't make any existing law of science invalid. It just means we > haven't got the complete picture (set of laws) yet. > > Here's another way to see it: > > Every scientific question ever posed about any 'thing' X has two questions > to ask, not one. These are: > > Q1. What is X?A1. That which behaves Xly > Q2. What is it like to be X? A2. It is like Xness > > The physical sciences have neglected the second question for every > scientific exploration done to date. "What is it like to be X?", as a piece > of anomalous data is _only_ visible when X = "the brain", where we even have > a special word for the answer to Q2 Xness = "the mind". > > This has been culturally neglected in relation to all other X, such as X = > 'an atom' and X = 'a coffee cup'. It may not be 'like anything' to be these > things. That is not the point. The point is we can make no scientific > assertion about it ..yet. What's the operational definition of "being like" something? > We get a definite answer to Q2 only in brain material. This, I hold, is the > route to answering it for everything else. Like what is it like to be a cold > rock cf a hot rock? And so on... You many hold it, but why should anyone else?
RE: Can we ever know truth?
> Colin Hales wrote: > > > In brain material and brain material alone you get anomaly: things are > NOT > > what they seem. 'Seem' is a construct of qualia. In a science of qualia, > > what are they 'seeming' to be? Not qualia. That is circular. Parsimony > > demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that > we > > need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other > > 'seeming' delivered by qualia. > > > > Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the > > 'seeming' system. > > > > Colin Hales > > I don't understand that? Qualia = "directly perceived seemings". I don't > know > what you mean by a "science of qualia" - why we would need one? You think we don't need a science of qualia? It's the single biggest problem there is: we don't have one! Science cannot make any justified, authoritative prediction as to the phenomenal life of a rock, a computer, the internet or the plumbing in Beijing or, especially, a scientist. Take a look at Science magazine's July 2005 issue where 125 questions were posed that face scientific inquiry over the next quarter century. The top two questions: 1. What is the universe made of? 2. What is the biological basis of consciousness? Q2 = "what is the physics of qualia?", is delivered by the answer to Q1, in the behaviour of whatever the universe is made of, of which brain material is constructed. This is one question, not 2. 'Seeming' = is a) directly the experiences bestowed upon us by qualia and b) inductions(models) we make from the behaviour of the appearances thus provided. The latter assembled as empirical laws or just 'intuited' from qualia... does not matter. Result is the samewhich is great...works fineuntil you turn the qualia (the evidence making system) on itself in a scientific study of the evidence making system (qualia) to try and get a science of qualia. Then the system breaks down: you can't see it. All you see is the brain delivering it to a 3rd person. This is the anomaly. This means that we have literal screaming proof that the universe is not made of 'seemings'. It's made of a separate 'something' and we have license to scientifically consider potential 'somethings' and any underlying fundamentals that may apply to the generation of qualia. It doesn't make any existing law of science invalid. It just means we haven't got the complete picture (set of laws) yet. Here's another way to see it: Every scientific question ever posed about any 'thing' X has two questions to ask, not one. These are: Q1. What is X? A1. That which behaves Xly Q2. What is it like to be X?A2. It is like Xness The physical sciences have neglected the second question for every scientific exploration done to date. "What is it like to be X?", as a piece of anomalous data is _only_ visible when X = "the brain", where we even have a special word for the answer to Q2 Xness = "the mind". This has been culturally neglected in relation to all other X, such as X = 'an atom' and X = 'a coffee cup'. It may not be 'like anything' to be these things. That is not the point. The point is we can make no scientific assertion about it ..yet. We get a definite answer to Q2 only in brain material. This, I hold, is the route to answering it for everything else. Like what is it like to be a cold rock cf a hot rock? And so on... == Here's yet another version of the anomaly: To illustrate the absurdity of the position of saying that 'models are it'... consider qualia speaking Xness into your head directly. This is equivalent to another human(an utterer) _pretending_ to be X. This is yelling "X is true" at a scientist. As a result the scientist creates a model for something behaving X-ly. It's quite predictive. Successful. But look what happens if you now do a science of qualia...behold there's an UTTERER in there pretending! Look what it did...it did an "X is true" dance! And underneath it looks nothing like Xness at all! We have found a separate causal basis (the utterer) for qualia! Eureka. Lets tear this pretender apart and see what makes it tick. Now go back to brain material. Xness is experienced. We look for the utterer but we can see no Xness. Just brain material. Accepting (demanding!) qualia as scientific evidence whilst denying that qualia are scientifically tenable is like accepting the statement 'X is true' and whilst denying that anyone/thing said it! To make qualia scientifically tenable you have to be allowed to look at 'the utterer'...structures delivering qualia... this is implicit evidence, as opposed to explicit evidence but no less compelling. The fact that we can't see qualia when we open up a brain is OUR problem, not the universe's. > I said > "the way things seem" is a model, i.e. a construct. The model is > what we assume and that's what we invest
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Colin Hales wrote: > In brain material and brain material alone you get anomaly: things are NOT > what they seem. 'Seem' is a construct of qualia. In a science of qualia, > what are they 'seeming' to be? Not qualia. That is circular. Parsimony > demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that we > need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other > 'seeming' delivered by qualia. > > Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the > 'seeming' system. > > Colin Hales I don't understand that? Qualia = "directly perceived seemings". I don't know what you mean by a "science of qualia" - why we would need one? I said "the way things seem" is a model, i.e. a construct. The model is what we assume and that's what we investigate. I can't tell whether you're agreeing with me in different words or trying to point to some correction? Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth?
> -Original Message- > From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brent Meeker > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:36 PM > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > ... > > If we "realise that things cannot be as they seem" then this is new > evidence > > and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not > intend > > that "things are as they seem" be understood in a narrow sense, such as > > what our senses can immediately apprehend. Complex scientific evidence, > > philosophical considerations, historical experience: all of it has to be > added > > to the mix and whatever comes out is what we should accept as the > provisional > > best theory. We know that it may not be the truth - indeed, that we > might > > never actually know the truth - but it is the best we can do. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > Brent Meeker > OK, I agree. "Things as they seem" in the broader scientific sense is > what I > mean by a model of reality. I sometimes think that's why there has been > such a > long and continuing argument about the interpretation of quantum > mechanics. > Although we can do the math and check the experiment - things just can't > "seem > that way". > > Brent Meeker > In brain material and brain material alone you get anomaly: things are NOT what they seem. 'Seem' is a construct of qualia. In a science of qualia, what are they 'seeming' to be? Not qualia. That is circular. Parsimony demands we assume 'something' and then investigate it. Having done that we need to hold that very same 'something' responsible for all the other 'seeming' delivered by qualia. Seeming sounds great until you try and conduct a scientific study of the 'seeming' system. Colin Hales --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ... > If we "realise that things cannot be as they seem" then this is new evidence > and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not intend > that "things are as they seem" be understood in a narrow sense, such as > what our senses can immediately apprehend. Complex scientific evidence, > philosophical considerations, historical experience: all of it has to be > added > to the mix and whatever comes out is what we should accept as the provisional > best theory. We know that it may not be the truth - indeed, that we might > never actually know the truth - but it is the best we can do. > > Stathis Papaioannou OK, I agree. "Things as they seem" in the broader scientific sense is what I mean by a model of reality. I sometimes think that's why there has been such a long and continuing argument about the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Although we can do the math and check the experiment - things just can't "seem that way". Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth?
Bruno Marchal writes: > Le 13-août-06, à 19:17, Rich Winkel a écrit : > > > > > According to Stathis Papaioannou: > >> The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept > >> provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in > >> this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light > >> of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that > >> things are *not* as they seem, in the absence of any evidence. > > > > The process isn't quite that benign, especially when applied to > > one's treatment of others. There will always be unknowable truths, > > one should proceed with an acute sense of one's own ignorance. Yet > > with each advance in science people and their institutions act > > increasingly recklessly with regard to unanticipated consquences. > > > > How can we perceive and measure our own ignorance? > > > One way is the following: assume that you are a digitalizable machine, > and then study the intrinsical ignorance of the digitalizable machine, > which can be done (through computer science). > Here I tend to agree with Rich Winkel contra Stathis Papaioannou. To > accept, even provisionally, that things are as they seem, is akin to > trust "nature" about the genuiness of the work of our brain with > respect to some local reality. Then indeed we can revise our theories > in case they are wrong. But we can also assume some hypothesis about > the "observer", and realize that in some case things just cannot be as > they seem. I mean we can find *reasons* why Being take a departure from > Seeming, especially concerning a global view for which our brain could > "naturally" be deficient. If we "realise that things cannot be as they seem" then this is new evidence and things now seem different to what they originally did! I did not intend that "things are as they seem" be understood in a narrow sense, such as what our senses can immediately apprehend. Complex scientific evidence, philosophical considerations, historical experience: all of it has to be added to the mix and whatever comes out is what we should accept as the provisional best theory. We know that it may not be the truth - indeed, that we might never actually know the truth - but it is the best we can do. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Thanks, Peter John --- 1Z <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks > and add my quip to them > > one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the > list. > > John Mikes > > - Original Message - > > From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Everything List" > > > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM > > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > > > (ref.:) > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > > >>(ref#2): > > > > - Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not > really!) > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > > > > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Any alternative theory also has to make a > projecto from current > > > circumstances. > > [JM]: > > 1.Exactly what I was missing: why pick "ONE" and > dogmatize it? > > 2.Who said we are ready to formulate a "theory" > for the 'origins'? > > Who said we aren't ? We have theories good enough to > make > predictions like the 4K background radiation. > > > > > > > You will find that unknown events are neglected > in all > > > theories. What else can you do with an unknown > event ? > > [JM]: > > Consider it (or at least that there may be such) > and realize the > > insufficiency of data for writing a bible. The > wisdom you quote (accepted) > > does not make a 'theory' right. That's why I call > 'my idea' a narrative, not > > even a hypothesis. > > I was not there. > > That is an argument against science in general,. Yet > sciene works well in many areas. > > > > > > > That would apply to any to any other > coscmological theory. > > [JM]: > > So we should consider and use some humility. I > pointed out ONE > > (TWO?)definite mistakes among many (see: Eric > Lerner's book: The BB never > > happened - of course it was argued against by > cosmophysicists - on 'their' > > bases and against Lerner's own hype which he > voluteered to construct. A > > mistake. ). > > > > > ... > > > > > > The Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. > They became > > > establishment by being able ot prove their case. > > [JM]: > > The "establishment" bowed to the number of papers > all slanted to 'prove' > > some details. > > This is just rhetoric. You desciber paper as > "slanted" because you > don't like them. Would you describe Hoyle's > alternative as "slanted" ? > > > They WERE indeed the establishment. See my remark > on 'proof' > > at 'evidence' below. > > ... > > > > > > Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ? > > [JM]: > > Not more than just considering the redshift an > optical Doppler effect, which > > is a good idea. "Those"(?) mechanisms are also > (based on? are?) valid > > theses in conventional physics - my opinion is > anecdotal. > > I don't see what you mean ? Are you saying redshift > isn't Doppler, > or that it is ? > > > LATER ON many 'measurements' were cited as > supportive (in)/directly. > > Of what ? > > > Popper > > comes to mind and Goedel with 'evidencing' from > the inside of a mindset. > > > Huh ? > > > > Which was considered and rejected. > > [JM]: > > You refer to good old Fred Hoyle' harmonica. Do > you refer to all 'others' as > > well in the "etc."? > > ... > > I thought it was possible to fathom the mystery of > comsogenesis -- that > is what you say above. Are you saying that, or are > you > promoting an alternative. > > > > > John Mikes > > The mindset - as I see it - in the BB-cosmology is > 2500 year old. Not Plato, > > but the Greek mythology, when P. Athenai sprang > out from Zeuss' head in full > > armor. > > It isn't. > > The BB is a testable, quantitative theory. > > > There is a 'seed' accountable for zillion degrees > K, zillion gauss gravity, > > zillion erg compressed work and pertinent energy > and (almost) zero space. > > Yet this - call it - "system&qu
Re: Can we ever know truth?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks and add my quip to them > one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the list. > John Mikes > - Original Message - > From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Everything List" > Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > (ref.:) > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > >>(ref#2): > > > - Original Message - > > > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > > > To: > > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > > > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > ... > > > > Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current > > circumstances. > [JM]: > 1.Exactly what I was missing: why pick "ONE" and dogmatize it? > 2.Who said we are ready to formulate a "theory" for the 'origins'? Who said we aren't ? We have theories good enough to make predictions like the 4K background radiation. > > > > You will find that unknown events are neglected in all > > theories. What else can you do with an unknown event ? > [JM]: > Consider it (or at least that there may be such) and realize the > insufficiency of data for writing a bible. The wisdom you quote (accepted) > does not make a 'theory' right. That's why I call 'my idea' a narrative, not > even a hypothesis. > I was not there. That is an argument against science in general,. Yet sciene works well in many areas. > > > > That would apply to any to any other coscmological theory. > [JM]: > So we should consider and use some humility. I pointed out ONE > (TWO?)definite mistakes among many (see: Eric Lerner's book: The BB never > happened - of course it was argued against by cosmophysicists - on 'their' > bases and against Lerner's own hype which he voluteered to construct. A > mistake. ). > > > ... > > > > The Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. They became > > establishment by being able ot prove their case. > [JM]: > The "establishment" bowed to the number of papers all slanted to 'prove' > some details. This is just rhetoric. You desciber paper as "slanted" because you don't like them. Would you describe Hoyle's alternative as "slanted" ? > They WERE indeed the establishment. See my remark on 'proof' > at 'evidence' below. > ... > > > > Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ? > [JM]: > Not more than just considering the redshift an optical Doppler effect, which > is a good idea. "Those"(?) mechanisms are also (based on? are?) valid > theses in conventional physics - my opinion is anecdotal. I don't see what you mean ? Are you saying redshift isn't Doppler, or that it is ? > LATER ON many 'measurements' were cited as supportive (in)/directly. Of what ? > Popper > comes to mind and Goedel with 'evidencing' from the inside of a mindset. Huh ? > > Which was considered and rejected. > [JM]: > You refer to good old Fred Hoyle' harmonica. Do you refer to all 'others' as > well in the "etc."? > ... I thought it was possible to fathom the mystery of comsogenesis -- that is what you say above. Are you saying that, or are you promoting an alternative. > > > John Mikes > The mindset - as I see it - in the BB-cosmology is 2500 year old. Not Plato, > but the Greek mythology, when P. Athenai sprang out from Zeuss' head in full > armor. It isn't. The BB is a testable, quantitative theory. > There is a 'seed' accountable for zillion degrees K, zillion gauss gravity, > zillion erg compressed work and pertinent energy and (almost) zero space. > Yet this - call it - "system" 'obeys' the complex rules in our conventional > physical system equations of VERY narrow limitations in charaacteristics at > its very birth. > In full armor and fervor. > They even calculated out in our time-units what happened at the 10^42 or^32 > sec > after the (timeless???) zero point of banging. The point of a theory is to be able to deal with hypothetical and counterfactual situations. > Which was the act of a > Quantum Tooth Fairy. Problems? never mind, we have a good term: inflation > and it will take care of the irregular behavior of that 'seed'. > And never mind how it happened, just use a linear history with linear > time-scale to arrive at 'now'. > Interesting. Religions are as well interesting. Rhetoric, again. > John > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Peter, let me 'condensate YOUR interspaced remarks and add my quip to them one by one. My long blurb was enough once on the list. John Mikes - Original Message - From: "1Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Everything List" Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > (ref.:) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > To Stathis, Brent, and List: >>(ref#2): > > - Original Message - > > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > > To: > > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > ... > > Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current > circumstances. [JM]: 1.Exactly what I was missing: why pick "ONE" and dogmatize it? 2.Who said we are ready to formulate a "theory" for the 'origins'? ... > > You will find that unknown events are neglected in all > theories. What else can you do with an unknown event ? [JM]: Consider it (or at least that there may be such) and realize the insufficiency of data for writing a bible. The wisdom you quote (accepted) does not make a 'theory' right. That's why I call 'my idea' a narrative, not even a hypothesis. I was not there. ... > > That would apply to any to any other coscmological theory. [JM]: So we should consider and use some humility. I pointed out ONE (TWO?)definite mistakes among many (see: Eric Lerner's book: The BB never happened - of course it was argued against by cosmophysicists - on 'their' bases and against Lerner's own hype which he voluteered to construct. A mistake. ). > ... > > The Bb theorists were the lepers at one stage. They became > establishment by being able ot prove their case. [JM]: The "establishment" bowed to the number of papers all slanted to 'prove' some details. They WERE indeed the establishment. See my remark on 'proof' at 'evidence' below. ... > > Is there evidence for any of those mechanisms ? [JM]: Not more than just considering the redshift an optical Doppler effect, which is a good idea. "Those"(?) mechanisms are also (based on? are?) valid theses in conventional physics - my opinion is anecdotal. LATER ON many 'measurements' were cited as supportive (in)/directly. Popper comes to mind and Goedel with 'evidencing' from the inside of a mindset. > > Which was considered and rejected. [JM]: You refer to good old Fred Hoyle' harmonica. Do you refer to all 'others' as well in the "etc."? ... > > John Mikes The mindset - as I see it - in the BB-cosmology is 2500 year old. Not Plato, but the Greek mythology, when P. Athenai sprang out from Zeuss' head in full armor. There is a 'seed' accountable for zillion degrees K, zillion gauss gravity, zillion erg compressed work and pertinent energy and (almost) zero space. Yet this - call it - "system" 'obeys' the complex rules in our conventional physical system equations of VERY narrow limitations in charaacteristics at its very birth. In full armor and fervor. They even calculated out in our time-units what happened at the 10^42 or^32 sec after the (timeless???) zero point of banging. Which was the act of a Quantum Tooth Fairy. Problems? never mind, we have a good term: inflation and it will take care of the irregular behavior of that 'seed'. And never mind how it happened, just use a linear history with linear time-scale to arrive at 'now'. Interesting. Religions are as well interesting. John > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > - Original Message - > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > To: > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John M writes: > > > > > > > > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing > > >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? > > >>(I just wanted to tease members of this list. > > >>Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and > > >>such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) > > >> > > >>An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put > > >>it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. > > >>This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try > > >>alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new > > >>(alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we > > >>experience? > > > > > > > > > I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would > > > change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course, > > > there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are > > > pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even > > > the basics of what they are criticizing, so it is understandable > > > that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by > > > people working in the field. It is also understandable that > > > scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories > > > on which they base their careers, so they may not change as > > > quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence. > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > > In fact there are serious theories of the universe in which there is no > > originating big bang. For example Paul Steinhardt has published papers on > a > > model in which the universe we see is one of two 3-branes in a > > 10-dimensional space. > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403020 > > > > The origin of particles and energy and their flying apart as we see them > is > > due to collision of our 3-brane with the other 3-brane. He shows that > this > > can be a cyclic process in which the universe empties out due to expansion > > and then another collision can occur. While a few individual scientists > may > > consider the big bang origin of the universe dogma, every scientist > working > > in a field like cosmogony wants to make his name by showing that current > > theories are wrong. > > > > Brent Meeker > > > Of course the "Big Bang" caught the attention. What I asked about > considering our 'visualization' of "a" reality-percept as provisional - to > work with, until a better one shows up : > > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing > > >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? > and mentioned the BB as a (side?) example. > BTW - speaking about 'the' Big Bang: Hubble (1922) detected a redshift in > the spectra of distant (and greater in even more distant) heavenly bodies > and was ingenious enough to connotate this with the Doppler effect, > concluding, that this shift into lower frequencies of distant bodies MAY > HAVE BEEN the result of a receding movement of the light-source, similar > to the 'lowering voice' in a Doppler - type auditive phenomenon. > Consequently: the universe MAY expand, producing those (alleged) receding > movements from us. > This is the 'provisionally(!)' accepted reality-percept as of the early > 1920s: > The idea was logical. - "IF" - this is a fact, we may apply a retrograde > line > backwards and arrive to the zero-point, when the universe was started - > gradually > collapsing into an extensionless point - from which it erose "in a big > bang". Any alternative theory also has to make a projecto from current circumstances. > Then came the first (and biggest) mistake: "scientists" took our present > physical science circumstances and applied them (equationally) to all those > changing systems of concentration with incomparably higher density of > everything (energy? temperature? gravity? if someone ha an idea what these > are). They assigned the fractions of the hypothetical 1st sec (^-40 etc.) to > storytelling of features just "freezing out". I
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Le 13-août-06, à 19:17, Rich Winkel a écrit : > > According to Stathis Papaioannou: >> The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept >> provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in >> this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light >> of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that >> things are *not* as they seem, in the absence of any evidence. > > The process isn't quite that benign, especially when applied to > one's treatment of others. There will always be unknowable truths, > one should proceed with an acute sense of one's own ignorance. Yet > with each advance in science people and their institutions act > increasingly recklessly with regard to unanticipated consquences. > > How can we perceive and measure our own ignorance? One way is the following: assume that you are a digitalizable machine, and then study the intrinsical ignorance of the digitalizable machine, which can be done (through computer science). Here I tend to agree with Rich Winkel contra Stathis Papaioannou. To accept, even provisionally, that things are as they seem, is akin to trust "nature" about the genuiness of the work of our brain with respect to some local reality. Then indeed we can revise our theories in case they are wrong. But we can also assume some hypothesis about the "observer", and realize that in some case things just cannot be as they seem. I mean we can find *reasons* why Being take a departure from Seeming, especially concerning a global view for which our brain could "naturally" be deficient. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
The laughed at Bozo the Clown too. Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To Stathis, Brent, and List: > - Original Message - > From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) > To: > Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > > >>Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>>John M writes: >>> >>> >>> >>>>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing >>>>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? >>>>(I just wanted to tease members of this list. >>>>Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and >>>>such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) >>>> >>>>An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put >>>>it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. >>>>This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try >>>>alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new >>>>(alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we >>>>experience? >>> >>> >>>I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would >>>change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course, >>>there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are >>>pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even >>>the basics of what they are criticizing, so it is understandable >>>that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by >>>people working in the field. It is also understandable that >>>scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories >>>on which they base their careers, so they may not change as >>>quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence. >>> >>>Stathis Papaioannou >> >>In fact there are serious theories of the universe in which there is no >>originating big bang. For example Paul Steinhardt has published papers on > > a > >>model in which the universe we see is one of two 3-branes in a >>10-dimensional space. >> >>http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403020 >> >>The origin of particles and energy and their flying apart as we see them > > is > >>due to collision of our 3-brane with the other 3-brane. He shows that > > this > >>can be a cyclic process in which the universe empties out due to expansion >>and then another collision can occur. While a few individual scientists > > may > >>consider the big bang origin of the universe dogma, every scientist > > working > >>in a field like cosmogony wants to make his name by showing that current >>theories are wrong. >> >>Brent Meeker >> > > Of course the "Big Bang" caught the attention. What I asked about > considering our 'visualization' of "a" reality-percept as provisional - to > work with, until a better one shows up : > >>>>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing >>>>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? > > and mentioned the BB as a (side?) example. > BTW - speaking about 'the' Big Bang: Hubble (1922) detected a redshift in > the spectra of distant (and greater in even more distant) heavenly bodies > and was ingenious enough to connotate this with the Doppler effect, > concluding, that this shift into lower frequencies of distant bodies MAY > HAVE BEEN the result of a receding movement of the light-source, similar > to the 'lowering voice' in a Doppler - type auditive phenomenon. > Consequently: the universe MAY expand, producing those (alleged) receding > movements from us. > This is the 'provisionally(!)' accepted reality-percept as of the early > 1920s: > The idea was logical. - "IF" - this is a fact, we may apply a retrograde > line > backwards and arrive to the zero-point, when the universe was started - > gradually > collapsing into an extensionless point - from which it erose "in a big > bang". > > Then came the first (and biggest) mistake: "scientists" took our present > physical science circumstances and applied them (equationally) to all those > changing systems of concentration with incomparably higher density of > everything (energy? temperature? gravity? if someone ha an idea what these > are). They assigned the fractions of the hypothetical 1st sec (^-40 etc.) to > storytelling of features just "freezing out". It still did not make sense > with our equations derived
Re: Can we ever know truth?
To Stathis, Brent, and List: - Original Message - From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (not really!) To: Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:22 AM Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > > > John M writes: > > > > > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing > >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? > >>(I just wanted to tease members of this list. > >>Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and > >>such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) > >> > >>An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put > >>it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. > >>This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try > >>alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new > >>(alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we > >>experience? > > > > > > I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would > > change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course, > > there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are > > pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even > > the basics of what they are criticizing, so it is understandable > > that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by > > people working in the field. It is also understandable that > > scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories > > on which they base their careers, so they may not change as > > quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > In fact there are serious theories of the universe in which there is no > originating big bang. For example Paul Steinhardt has published papers on a > model in which the universe we see is one of two 3-branes in a > 10-dimensional space. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403020 > > The origin of particles and energy and their flying apart as we see them is > due to collision of our 3-brane with the other 3-brane. He shows that this > can be a cyclic process in which the universe empties out due to expansion > and then another collision can occur. While a few individual scientists may > consider the big bang origin of the universe dogma, every scientist working > in a field like cosmogony wants to make his name by showing that current > theories are wrong. > > Brent Meeker > Of course the "Big Bang" caught the attention. What I asked about considering our 'visualization' of "a" reality-percept as provisional - to work with, until a better one shows up : > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing > >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? and mentioned the BB as a (side?) example. BTW - speaking about 'the' Big Bang: Hubble (1922) detected a redshift in the spectra of distant (and greater in even more distant) heavenly bodies and was ingenious enough to connotate this with the Doppler effect, concluding, that this shift into lower frequencies of distant bodies MAY HAVE BEEN the result of a receding movement of the light-source, similar to the 'lowering voice' in a Doppler - type auditive phenomenon. Consequently: the universe MAY expand, producing those (alleged) receding movements from us. This is the 'provisionally(!)' accepted reality-percept as of the early 1920s: The idea was logical. - "IF" - this is a fact, we may apply a retrograde line backwards and arrive to the zero-point, when the universe was started - gradually collapsing into an extensionless point - from which it erose "in a big bang". Then came the first (and biggest) mistake: "scientists" took our present physical science circumstances and applied them (equationally) to all those changing systems of concentration with incomparably higher density of everything (energy? temperature? gravity? if someone ha an idea what these are). They assigned the fractions of the hypothetical 1st sec (^-40 etc.) to storytelling of features just "freezing out". It still did not make sense with our equations derived in the present 'cool' and dilated physical system, so an inflation was invented to correct 'some' of the compressed state which made the equations fully paradoxical. IF the Hubble proposal is right (and I give credit to assume it) the calculations and their conclusions must be false - e.g. the age of the universe. A linear retro-math for a chaotic development cannot match, unknown intermittent events are all neglected, the relationships of THIS system are applied for a totally different one. No e
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > John M writes: > > >>When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing >>physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? >>(I just wanted to tease members of this list. >>Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and >>such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) >> >>An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put >>it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. >>This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try >>alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new >>(alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we >>experience? > > > I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would > change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course, > there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are > pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even > the basics of what they are criticising, so it is understandable > that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by > people working in the field. It is also undestandable that > scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories > on which they base their careers, so they may not change as > quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence. > > Stathis Papaioannou In fact there are serious theories of the universe in which there is no originating big bang. For example Paul Steinhardt has published papers on a model in which the universe we see is one of two 3-branes in a 10-dimensional space. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0403020 The origin of particles and energy and their flying apart as we see them is due to collision of our 3-brane with the other 3-brane. He shows that this can be a cyclic process in which the universe empties out due to expansion and then another collision can occur. While a few individual scientists may consider the big bang origin of the universe dogma, every scientist working in a field like cosmogony wants to make his name by showing that current theories are wrong. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth?
Our own ignarance is implicit when we say that everything is provisional. The oracle at Delphi said that Socrates was the wisest of all men, while Socrates claimed ther he was ignorant. There is no contradiction here: Socrates was wise *because* he understood the limits of his knowledge. Sometimes we do things based on theories which turn out to be completely wrong. In the 1930's doctors recommended that patients with asthma or bronchitis smoke cigarettes. What are the possibilities here? (a) The doctors were paid by the cigarette companies, in which case the advice was wrong, unscientific and unethical. (b) The doctors were not paid by cigarette companies but based the advice on what seemed a good idea at the time: cigarettes make you cough up the phlegm, which has to be better leaving it in there to fester; in which case the advice was wrong and unscientific, but by the standards of the time not unethical. (c) The doctors based their advice on the best available clinical trials, in which case the advice was wrong but not unscietific or unethical by the standards of the time. Given that even in case (c) doctors were completely wrong, the way we test new treatments now is more stringent. However, evidence is still evidence, including evidence of past failures from medical history, which must be included in any risk/benefit analysis. You can criticise someone for making a decision without fair consideration of all the evidence, but you can't criticise him if he does. Stathis Papaioannou > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Can we ever know truth? > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 12:17:37 -0500 > > > According to Stathis Papaioannou: > >The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept > >provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in > >this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light > >of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that > >things are *not* as they seem, in the absence of any evidence. > > The process isn't quite that benign, especially when applied to > one's treatment of others. There will always be unknowable truths, > one should proceed with an acute sense of one's own ignorance. Yet > with each advance in science people and their institutions act > increasingly recklessly with regard to unanticipated consquences. > > How can we perceive and measure our own ignorance? > > Rich > > > > _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth?
John M writes: > When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing > physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? > (I just wanted to tease members of this list. > Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and > such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) > > An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put > it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. > This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try > alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new > (alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we > experience? I'm sure all the Big Bang theorists would say that they would change their views if new evidence came to light. Of course, there are thousands of ideas out there and most of them are pretty crazy, pushed by people who don't understand even the basics of what they are criticising, so it is understandable that these ideas would sometimes be dismissed out of hand by people working in the field. It is also undestandable that scientists are only human and get quite attached to the theories on which they base their careers, so they may not change as quickly as they ought to in the light of new evidence. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
According to Stathis Papaioannou: >The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept >provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in >this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light >of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that >things are *not* as they seem, in the absence of any evidence. The process isn't quite that benign, especially when applied to one's treatment of others. There will always be unknowable truths, one should proceed with an acute sense of one's own ignorance. Yet with each advance in science people and their institutions act increasingly recklessly with regard to unanticipated consquences. How can we perceive and measure our own ignorance? Rich --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Norman Samish writes: > > >> In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living >> in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the >> usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' >> according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' >> - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we >> think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just >> think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of >> thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I >> experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I >> asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from >> asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends, >> but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other >> resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that >> the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. >> Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. >> But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I >> experience is reality. I can only assume that reality is how things >> appear to me - and I might be wrong. > > > I think the young Norman Samish got it right: > > (a) I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. > How could I know which it was? > > (b) I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was > unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I > experienced was reality. > > To "know the truth" is to become godlike, standing outside of the world > and seeing everything for what it really is... and even then you might > ask yourself whether you really are omniscient or only *think* you are > omniscient. The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to > accept provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in > this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light of new > evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that things are *not* > as they seem, in the absence of any evidence. > > Stathis Papaioannou Well said. I would only add that we need not take things as they seem simpliciter, but rather as they seem to us on reflection and as our senses are extended by our instruments. Brent Meeker Thirty one years ago, Dick Feynman told me about his 'sum over histories' version of quantum mechanics. "The electron does anything it likes', he said. "It goes in any direction at any speed, forward or backward in time, however it likes, and then you add up all the amplitudes and it gives you the wave-function." I said to him, "You're crazy." But he wasn't. --- Freeman J. Dyson, 'Some Strangeness in the Proportion' 1980 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth?
Stathis, thanks for a reply in reason - you said the million dollar word. (I will come back to 'quote' it). First: As Norman, I, too, was a very smart kid (and am still very modest - ha ha) and had ALL my experiences of a 5-year old at 5. Since then I collected 2-3 additional 'experienced' features into my 'mind'. Still unsure if they 'match' some outside "real reality" or just being manufactured by my incredible(!) fantasy. 'Unsure' is the word. Now in your wise position (worth remembering) you wrote > The best we can do in science as > in everyday life is to accept provisionally that > things are as they seem. < I agree and thank you for it. The BIG word is PROVISIONALLY. Then others pick it up, not only in reply-button list-posts, but in books, in teaching - over 2500 years and already after some hundred quotations people grow into believeing it - no provisioanlly, - as the TRUTH. It became science and even coomon knowledge.Taught at colleges for centuries. When did you last learn that the tenets of ongoing physics are only "provisionally" accepted as 'real'? (I just wanted to tease members of this list. Of course on THIS list 'thinking' people gathered and such thoughts are not unusual. We are the exception.) An example is the Big Bang. Many scientists almost put it into their evening prayer. Doubting is heresy. This is why I scrutinize what we 'believe in' and try alternate narratives: do they hold water? Are the new (alternate) ideas palatable to what (we think) we experience? We shoul not forget that we are products of a long long 'evolutioary' line of development and responses arose to phenomena otherwise unexplained like the hardness of a figment we call 'tble' or the 'pain' when kicked, all fotted into the most ingenious edifice of "existence" - whatever THAT may be. Bruno and the numberologists wisely reduce the problem into 'numbers - math': - that is all. We really cannot encompass the known and unknown varieties of everything but I try to face our ignorance-based awe and 'hope' to open (small) windows into more than we had earlier. The 'number-line' is a good variant, I find it still insufficient. I don't want to 'numerify' my pleasure to listen to musical 'art', laugh at a good joke, or enjoying a Black Forest Cake. Would make me sorry if it turns out to be true. As George said: I am crazy, too. John Mikes --- Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Norman Samish writes: > > > In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince > said, "If we are living in a simulation. . ." > > To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the > usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we > are living in' according to the little we know. > Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - > 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things > we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we > live in. We just think and therefore we think we > are." > > This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as > a child - I used to wonder if if everything I > experienced was real or a dream. How could I know > which it was? I asked my parents and was > discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from asking them > nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and > friends, but they didn't know the answer any more > than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded > that the question was unanswerable and that the best > I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was > reality. > > Now, many years later, I have this list - and > Wikipedia - as resources. But, as John Mikes (and > others) say, I still cannot know that what I > experience is reality. I can only assume that > reality is how things appear to me - and I might be > wrong. > > I think the young Norman Samish got it right: > > (a) I used to wonder if if everything I experienced > was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? > > (b) I had no other resources so I concluded that the > question was unanswerable and that the best I could > do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. > > To "know the truth" is to become godlike, standing > outside of the world and seeing everything for what > it really is... and even then you might ask yourself > whether you really are omniscient or only *think* > you are omniscient. The best we can do in science as > in everyday life is to accept provisionally that > things are as they seem. There is no shame in this, > as long as you are ready to revise your theory in > the light of new evidence, and it is certainly > better than assuming that things are *not* as they > seem, in the absence of any evidence. > > Stathis Papaioannou > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at
RE: Can we ever know truth?
Norman Samish writes: > In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a > simulation. . ." > To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I > think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know. > Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even > 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' > we live in. We just think and therefore we think we are." > This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder > if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which > it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from > asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends, but > they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other resources so > I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do > was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. > Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. But, > as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I experience is > reality. I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I > might be wrong. I think the young Norman Samish got it right: (a) I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? (b) I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. To "know the truth" is to become godlike, standing outside of the world and seeing everything for what it really is... and even then you might ask yourself whether you really are omniscient or only *think* you are omniscient. The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to accept provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light of new evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that things are *not* as they seem, in the absence of any evidence. Stathis Papaioannou _ Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth? - simulation
> I think this is wrongheaded. You doubt that you really assume "things are > how they appear to me" - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and > electrons don't appear at all. What one does is build, or learn, a model > that fits the world and comports with "how they appear". I see no reason > not to call this model "reality", recognizing that it is provisional, > because there's no point in speculating about a "really, real reality" > except to suppose there is one so that the model is a model *of* something. And so that the model can be corrected, and so that reality doesn't disappear when the model doesactually , there are aquire a lot of reasons for believing in reality. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth? - simulation
Nick: the "practical" - "philosopher". I refer to my 'misunderstood' expression to Bruno: "NAME Calling" (which was a pun, meaning we "call" names and assign meaning to it - in our OWN mindset, then fight for THIS meaning against another person's meaning "called" by the same NAME) - Bruno misunderstood it into its original "un-pun" (vulgar?) connotation ( - sorry, Bruno - ) well, your "solipsism" is such a 'name'. We live in our own one and pretend to be 'objective'. Indeed our (call it: First Person) mind formulates a 'world of solipsist reality' - one may consider it as 'primal', indeed it is a reflection to who knows what. (Norman's 'reality' vs. Brent's "real real-reality"). Some people are more flexible in this (internal) formulation and absorb impacts from others (what I call 3rd person impact) others just stick to 'their own'. Inevitably reformulating the topics into the original (solipsistic?) original positions to argue about. I don't believe that such cycling is a perfect one: the argued-against positions have an impact. Slow, but adjusting. It is sort of a slow 'moving on'. John Mikes --- Nick Prince <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is a form of solipsism - it is difficult to > attack it and defending it > can be similarly time consuming. I think we have to > move on and believe > there is a better approach - if only to get > somewhere other than back to the > beginning every time. > > > > > > _ > > - Original Message - > > From: Norman Samish <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM > > Subject: Can we ever know truth? > > > > In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, > "If we are living in a > simulation. . ." > > > > To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the > usual pretension. . . I > think 'we simulate what we are living in' according > to the little we know. > Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - > 'metaphorizing' - or > even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not > change the > 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and > therefore we think we > are." > > > > This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a > child - I used to wonder > if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. > How could I know which > it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, in > no uncertain terms, from > asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my > playmates and friends, but > they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I > had no other resources > so I concluded that the question was unanswerable > and that the best I could > do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. > > > > > Now, many years later, I have this list - and > Wikipedia - as resources. > But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot > know that what I > experience is reality. I can only assume that > reality is how things appear > to me - and I might be wrong. > > > > Norman Samish > > > > > _ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - > Release Date: 08/09/06 > > > > > > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth? - simulation
Nick Prince wrote: > This is a form of solipsism - it is difficult to attack it and > defending it can be similarly time consuming. I think we have to move > on and believe there is a better approach – if only to get somewhere > other than back to the beginning every time. > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > *From:* Norman Samish <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM > > *Subject:* Can we ever know truth? > > > > In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are > living in a simulation. . ." > > > > To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. > . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the > little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - > 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does > not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and > therefore we think we are." > > > > This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used > to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How > could I know which it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, > in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions. I > asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any > more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the > question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed > as if what I experienced was reality. > > > > Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as > resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know > that what I experience is reality. I can only assume that reality > is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong. > > > > Norman Samish I think this is wrongheaded. You doubt that you really assume "things are how they appear to me" - the Earth appears flat, wood appears solid, and electrons don't appear at all. What one does is build, or learn, a model that fits the world and comports with "how they appear". I see no reason not to call this model "reality", recognizing that it is provisional, because there's no point in speculating about a "really, real reality" except to suppose there is one so that the model is a model *of* something. Brent Meeker --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
RE: Can we ever know truth? - simulation
This is a form of solipsism - it is difficult to attack it and defending it can be similarly time consuming. I think we have to move on and believe there is a better approach – if only to get somewhere other than back to the beginning every time. - Original Message - From: Norman Samish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM Subject: Can we ever know truth? In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I experience is reality. I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong. Norman Samish No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 08/09/06 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Norman, my response to the subject is: NO. I learned a good _expression_ here (on this list) I think from Tom(?): "perception of reality". " I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong." (Wise way to save one's sanity.) Upon (cultural?) historical examples I have to conclude that our knowledge (unspecified, - all of it) is limited and increasing over time, so the 'reality' we think of is changing to include more and more details. We experience within our ever existing knowledge-base (ncluding now) by interpretation of the impacts we get into the now-content controlled variants. Provided that we believe that there IS a reality - the source of those impacts unknown - I would not call my present-level partial interpretation as the (unknown) total. John M - Original Message - From: Norman Samish To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:53 PM Subject: Can we ever know truth? In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I experience is reality. I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong. Norman Samish No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.8/415 - Release Date: 08/09/06 --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Can we ever know truth?
Hi Norman, It has been said that dreams provide the royal (and oldest) path to metaphysics and doubt. What you are saying here is behind the key of the 6th steps of the UDA argument. Although nowadays "video games + some amount of imagination" can be a good substitute for dream. Now I am not sure why you say that you can only assume that reality is how things appear to you. I think that this is an Aristotelian prejudice. It is OK if you are thinking about some first person (incorrigible) reality, but you can infer (interrogatively at least) that such a personal reality is a symptom of a more independent reality lying beyond, like the platonist one. And then with the comp hyp you can even assume that that reality is Pythagorean, where there are only numbers and number theoretical relations. Bruno Le 09-août-06, à 18:53, Norman Samish a écrit : In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I experience is reality. I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong. Norman Samish http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Can we ever know truth?
In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in' according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification' - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends, but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality. Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources. But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I experience is reality. I can only assume that reality is how things appear to me - and I might be wrong. Norman Samish --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
