Fred56

TBH, I'm more interested in what I learn. The bit of paper might look nice on a wall somewhere, but it's more like a, what can I call it, a "method", that I'm obliged to, er, enrol in...

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Again, it depends on context. Sometimes? So it's a random thing? Sometimes we can, sometimes we can't? w.r.t. context, what defines a 'context', as such (I mean in terms of the conditions available, or whatever).

Science is observation. Philosophy is understanding (what observation means). Or alternately, leave Philosophy out of the equation and say Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how' to collect the 'wanted' data). Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood, in which case information amongst the background yields to certain arcane "tricks with numbers", and patterns appear. Understanding the nature of the channel, or information source (be it a spectroscopic instrument, or a scintillation counter, or a simple thermometer), is helpful in collecting any source of repeatable and reliable data (messages), and analysing them. P.S. I wrote this last week

I'm trying to get it together with Rachmaninoff's 2nd piano concerto at the mo, and I can't quite 'hear' it yet. It's actually easier to learn than I got the impression from others about how difficult it is. It's very expressive and it's challenging to play it with "apassionatto", but being a student of deBussy helps a little...

Who thinks they can explain why people believe, or don't believe, about something we call God? What does this word mean, exactly? Is it referring to a sentience, some being who has ultimate power in the World, and therefore over our lives? Or some sort of guiding principle? Or just an idea, so that belief in the ontological existence of an idea is therefore a delusion, since it must be belief without actuality?

What do we do when we 'observe'? What process or technique (method) do we 'apply' to this? Is it just something that 'happens', so we don't even need to think about it? What do you think observing is? What's an observation?

Sure, but in the world of materials science and real devices, that's what they're calling them. They represent 'real', measurable states of matter and charge. Just as electrons are said to travel through a conductor, or a crystal, holes are said to travel in the opposite direction (because, to travel, electrons leave a 'hole' of positive charge behind).

Huh?

By trying to find it, you mean? Who 'builds' this equipment? How do they know what to build? Where do the plans come from? I certainly do this very thing. Experiments are experiments. They are observations, the way observations are DEFINED.

How do you "observe" in Astronomy (think about it), is it anything to do with trying lots of different things? Things that could be labelled experiments, to see what results (observations) can be made? Or do they just climb a mountain now and then, go into the trance of "method", and collect distant sources of light, as if by "magic"? How is OBSERVING not producing results? Where are these OBSERVATIONS? What are they? They are results, data, experimental outcomes. The products of scientific endeavour, of trial and error.

What exactly is this "scientific method" that some of you seem to believe is some magical trick that Science does? Is it like a genie? What does it do? Where is it? Does it look like a collection? OR is it some vague concept that no-one can define? So natural selection is something that "sits around", doing nothing? evolution "knows nothing" about it? How does it "work" then? All by itself?

I think you might have meant to say you do think that, but no worries (even if you did, it doesn't actually matter, does it?). Looks like you're doing this very thing, unless you really are saying that you disagree with four different research groups who are looking at the way neurotransmitters and cytokines are involved in those cascades and signal pathway strengthening, involved with short and medium term analgesic reactions i.e. memory, of pain? However what I was first talking about is how we understand some of what goes on in there, but as another thread I started in Psychology section talks about, there's a lot more going on than just electrical signals zipping around a network.

How is that related to the concept of mind or consciousness? Do you know anyone who has experienced it?

Science is application of a method (of observation), which attempts to acquire or collect objective information (which isn't coloured by any thinking --except about 'how best' to collect the 'wanted' data). Objective observation is the key to the desired accuracy of any measurement. The noise in any channel must be minimised, if possible, or at least understood. e.g. Tabernarius modi sciens instrumenti, paret aptissimu sumer. is this channel noisy? do you need some technique or method (like a dictionary of some kind), to commute the message?

Not as objects in themselves, no. But I might use one functionally, to investigate the possibility of undoing screws, say. I would apply an energy input (torque) to the the screwdriver (me) and map the screw to a new value. That's what functions do, they map or commute things, from one state to another. Lots of them can do it with numbers, but (using) a screwdriver is a function. Look at it this way: there's this thing that is a good technique for doing something -let's call this something an algorithm, or a process. If I use this technique, I become something that is more than it was, a thing that can now do some action, thanks to this new technique or method an apparatus. OK but I haven't stopped being what I was before, and if I lose or discard this appendage, or tool, I'm back to how I was. If the tool is a screw-turning thing, when I hold it I'm a thing that can turn screws, a screw-turner, but I'm still me. If I disconnect from this device, or extension, it's still itself. The language is confusing --we call the thing we use the same name as what we do with it. i.e the language we use is full of verbal nouns

-PlasmaSphere physicsforums.com

Are you implying that human and animal awareness (consciousness), terms which are well-understood, and which I suspect you understand the meanings of, aren't "anything to do with" evolution?

This sounds like something Yoda would say: "Do, or do not, there is no try" Wouldn't you say Science is an endeavour? There are no experiments in palaeontology? What's an observation? How are these results produced? What are the results? Evidence, as I said.

How is strengthening in neuronal pathways and persistence due to a signal cascade equivocal to unicorns... as you claim (and you are definitely equivocating, calling it "what I've presented" i.e. two articles from recognised research pubs. What are you going to tell everyone about the research they did, exactly, unicorns again, is it, or parrots this time? -Mol Pain. 2006; 2: 2. Published online 2006 January 16. doi: 10.1186/1744-8069-2-2. Copyright © 2006 Karim et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. - J Neurosci. 2004 Oct 13;24(41):9161-73 It's a really big show, evr'body...

Actually I do know a few about that subject, but this isn't the place, is it? I thought JC wasn't really supposed to have got it on with "that woman", was he? Is equivocating about whether you're being equivocal or not, equal to "just" equivocating, or is it really, really? That's sic, dude. customer: "Is that the helpdesk? Yeah my mouse isn't working again, it's right at the other edge of the desk this time, and I can't move it any further, what should I do?" helpdesk: (former Eng.Lit. student) "Have you tried moving it farther?"

Reports In Situ Determination of the Nanoscale Chemistry and Behavior of Solid-Liquid Systems Santhana K. Eswaramoorthy,1 James M. Howe,1* Govindarajan Muralidharan2 Many fundamental questions in crystal-growth behavior remain unanswered because of the difficulties encountered in simultaneously observing phases and determining elemental concentrations and redistributions while crystals nucleate and grow at the nanoscale. We show that these obstacles can be overcome by performing energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy on partially molten Al-Si-Cu-Mg alloy particles during in situ heating in a transmission electron microscope. Using this technique, we were able to (i) determine that the aluminum and silicon concentrations change in a complementary and symmetric manner about the solid-liquid interface as a function of temperature; (ii) directly measure the solid- and liquid-phase compositions at equilibrium and in highly undercooled conditions for quantitative comparison with thermodynamic calculations of the liquidus and solidus phase boundaries; and (iii) provide direct evidence for homogeneous nucleation of the aluminum-rich solid. 1 Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Virginia, 140 Chemistry Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22904–4745, USA. 2 Materials Science and Technology Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 1 Bethel Valley Road, Oak Ridge, TN 37831–6132, USA. * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: jh9s@virginia.edu -Science 30 November 2007: Vol. 318. no. 5855, pp. 1437 - 1440 DOI: 10.1126/science.1146511

'Now, finally, what would be the meaning of the word "truth" to a modern scientist? Surely not the meaning it would have for a purpose? Surely not the meaning it would have for a [spiritualist] mystic! For the really great and essential fact about the scientific revelation--the most wonderful and most challenging fact--is that cience does not and cannot pretend to be "true" in any absolute sense. It does not and cannot pretend to be [a] final [answer]. It is a tentative organisation of more "working hypotheses" ("Oh, those scientists!" "Yes I know, but they found the bones") that for the present, appear to take into account, relevant facts [that are] now known. That growth, as long as it lasts, will be the measure of the life of modern ...man, and of [that] world with all its promise that he ...is still bringing into being: ...continuing transformation, not ...petrification and rigidity, and some canonised ..."truth". And so, my friends, we don't know a thing, and not even our science can tell us sooth; for it is no more than, so to say, an eagerness for truths, no matter where their allure may lead. ...According to our sciences, ...nobody knows what is out there at all.' -Myths to live by Joseph Campbell

Science tries to keep 'knowledge' in the empirical basket, but must also necessarily, like a detective at the scene of a crime, reconstruct or borrow it from evidence. Or you could say that palaeontology is the experimental science of evolution with a really long wait for results. You have to find out how long ago the experiment failed, sort of thing. We all 'believe' things we've never actually experienced (or been to). We borrow it objectively, but it isn't part of subjective belief. We do this objective borrowing (without going and seeing for ourselves) because of the "authority", the status or trust we place in other's observations. A group or individual who conveys their subjective experience to us. This borrowing is what is being referred to here in this thread as believing; as Kant defines sufficiently objective but insufficiently subjective truth, or observation. The other kind, what we actually see and hear and so on, is each individual's set of known things: knowledge, based on that direct observation of the world.

So where does consciousness enter the picture? Are lifeforms conscious? of course. We're lifeforms and we are aware (like lots of other animals). Awareness means consciousness. But it's a function, like evolution is.