cladking

There's a massive thermal anomaly on the east side 160' south of the NE corner. There's plenty that can be done here from using a boroscope to muon detection. This has been known about for over two years now nd nothing appears to have been done.

I'm not sure it's really "pessimism" but I am sure it's not natural. Other species aren't growing apart with each having an increasingly unique consciousness. Every rabbit is unique but they each think very similarly. We each have different beliefs and experiences. Certainly you're right that familiarity is a big part of understanding our senses but "confirmation" bias goes well beyond merely allowing us to make sense of them to selectively reinforcing beliefs. Just as wide diversity in genes gives a species sufficient robustness to survive bottlenecks, diversity of thought may well confer the same benefit to humans. However, it is certainly causing obvious problems in day to day communication and operations.

All is confirmation bias but we don't see it because we preferentially see what agrees with our beliefs and models. The brain does what it does because that's what the brain does with the programming we have. One person experiences "feelings" (probably originating in the amygdala), and another dredges up the id, ego, and superego from the darkest recesses of the cerebral cortex. We then become our beliefs. We create a model of reality in our minds but much of it isn't real at all, or more commonly, is only real from the individual's unique perspective. We are each looking at the results of the programming and are unable to see or study the program itself. We delude ourselves into believing we each share a reality when obviously we each have a unique reality. Rather than change leading to a shared reality all the forces are leading to a further splintering (splittering?) of the perception of reality. Certainly scientific modeling appears to be converging on a point but this point is probably inaccessible and current understanding is too far removed from reality to be considered.

This is incredibly simple! We just can't see it because we don't think "right" because we use symbolic language. Things want to live and consciousness is the means to do it. Evolution is simple as well but plays out in a very complex world that is always changing and eradicating "wrong" behavior".

I referred to the ancient language being a natural language because it existed in its rudimentary form before man had enough knowledge to create any sort of language and because this language reflected the logic inherent in the wiring of the human brain which has the same logic as mathematics. By extension you assumed that I believe the language we speak today is 'man made" which is not strictly true. Modern language was invented using the vocabulary of the ancient natural language in a format that was independent of logic and reality. Whether or not this is a "man made" language or not is a semantical question. But it is still central to the issue of the nature of "consciousness" because language provides the perspective from which consciousness is perceived and known. Like all things we experience it is primarily a belief and we "see" what we expect to see. The very basis of what we're talking about is as ephemeral to us as the shape of a passing cloud. It changes over time as new visceral knowledge and new beliefs are found. Language is the perspective of our perceptions and modern language provides a poor perspective from which to view things like "consciousness" or the nature of life, reality, and evolution. Your idea that an animal suddenly developed an ability to imagine isn't so far wrong but is very highly misleading to the reality. A bird doesn't imagine an afterlife because it has better things to do and because it lacks the knowledge accumulated over generations. It can't often predict weather or do many human activities for the same reason. It's not some magical or divine attribute that sets humans apart; it is merely the existence of complex language. When the mutation that gave rise to the human race appeared they had nothing to talk bout and the first individual had no one to talk to but they wouldn't have even known it. But there was improved communication and the mutation was highly adaptive so survived. These people were the homo sapiens who "founded" the human race and invented agriculture and cities which allowed us to live for the many centuries until modern science was invented. It was this ancient technology that allowed the survival of "homo omnisciencis" (we who know everything). "Consciousness" is simply the nature of life. The individual needn't be "fit" or "adaptive" to survive; the individual merely needs to be conscious such is painfully apparent as a cell phone user walks into the path of a freight train. In animals a very great amount of consciousness has far more to do with visceral knowledge and experience and in humans it has to do with beliefs as understood and arrived at through language. Indeed, humans are so different from animals since the ancient language failed we could even be considered a different life form.

I have no problem with the word and find it apt. But what individuals see varies from virtually 100% illusion to 0%. I'd even agree that for the main part most experience is far more illusion than it is reality. For the main part most individuals see their belief, expectations, and experience rather than the reality itself. I maintain though this is not in any way natural. It is the result of how we think. The root cause is our symbolic languages. Animals don't see their beliefs nor have a language like ours. Everything they experience is reality itself though, obviously, they have a fairly limited understanding of this reality because none have a sufficiently complex language to pass knowledge through the generations. It is language that sets humans apart but this separation has no bearing whatsoever on what we are calling "consciousness". All living things are conscious to some extent. At the risk of going off topic, humans haven't always had a symbolic language. We had a natural representative language until it became too complex for the average man ~4000 years ago. An individual will generally have a weak grasp of what the "moon" is but to the degree he understands it he can see it. Indeed, even the new moon can sometimes be seen bathed in the light from the Pacific and it can be seen during the day. While most have a weak grasp of "moon" and it is largely an "illusion" most have a better grasp of "wet" and it is (for most) less an illusion.

You make good points but it's only an illusion to the degree we don't understand it. Each individual sees his models, beliefs, or expectations but most individuals have some visceral knowledge of the "moon" and will see this as well. Perception/ consciousness is just as real as the moon. Perhaps this is part of the reason for the lack of agreement; consciousness is an individual experience now days. We each have different language and belief so we each have a different experience. Other animals have a shared experience and in most practical ways, a shared consciousness that we can't fathom.

Sure, once you have the sun and the earth orbiting it it's pretty safe to predict "sunrise". Try predicting that when the universe was new.

This is where you're running off the track. The future doesn't unfold and is always indeterminant and unknown. The present unfolds based on events that occurred in the past. There's no such thing as "infinity" in the real world but if there were it couldn't hold a candle to the real improbability of what actually exists. A new kind of scientific notation would have to be invented just to describe the odds against what is. Rather than 10 to a power, perhaps 10 to a power to a power(...). You'd need 4.2 x 10 ^ 807,000 monkeys and typewriters to get War and Peace. Imagine how much less likely it would be to get the Library of Congress or a human to write any book in the first place!!! Reality is far more complex than the Library of Congress and has been going on for a very long time.

If your predictions are coming true then it's not because you are prescient or smart; it's because you're predicting easy things. Try predicting the shape of a cloud on the nearest earth-like planet in 2051. Reality unfolds in exactly one way that has nothing to do with "error bands". It does what it does against all odds.

Your perception of reality is a grey area. Reality itself is what is and is forever unfolding in entirely unpredictable ways. You can estimate the odds of the sun coming up tomorrow and still it either will or it won't depending on events that will (or will not) occur in the future. A bridge is usually designed to last but this doesn't mean any will. We can estimate the odds of events or understand processes well enough to design a bridge but its fate is always out of our hands and always unpredictable. If such things were predictable there wouldn't be cars that go into the river or get trapped beneath them. Even Galloping Gerty had a car on it and anyone could see its days were numbered.

A "google" is a tiny little number of virtually infinitesimal size comparted to the number of possible futures that apply to even a cubic meter of matter in a few nanoseconds. The fact that the sun came up at 5:59 right on schedule hardly proves you were correct about anything at all. Everything affects everything else.

The sun exploding would take 8 1/2 minutes to wipe us all out. Why would you believe there is no force, natural or otherwise, that could target the sun, the earth, or the entire cosmos. What happens if you go back a hundred years and kill your grandfather? Maybe there is no more universe. What if the "laws of physics" get tweaked by some means and all matter in the region flies apart? Nothing has ever been certain. Nature behaves no laws and this is just human hubris to imagine we can determine its limitations. Even if it did behave laws it's painfully obvious that we don't know what these laws are. We don't even know what keeps this section of the universe from just flying apart. All events are "impossible" because the odds against them occurring are impossibly large numbers. Yes, the sun will most likely come up at 5:59 AM local time tomorrow but to say there's a 100% chance of it is to ignore the nature of reality.

It is neither random nor determined. Each event is determined by preceding events which are never really predictable. Every event has a virtually infinite number of possible outcomes. The number is so large as to make its computation meaningless. A device might arrive while you're in the shadow of the planet tonight from a distant star system that will stop the earth's rotation, pulverize the planet, or merely turn off the sun. An asteroid could interfere with your prediction. There are likely virtually infinite number of events that could make your prediction untrue. If one of these transpires there will be a virtually infinite number of outcomes.

The universe doesn't "obey' any laws of nature. Reality is simply logical even when the bits we understand through science and math don't seem logical. This is hard for us to envision because the language we speak is not logical and in which is very difficult to approximate anything logical. We can approach logical communication only in scientific discourse but even here words play tricks on the speaker and the listener. One person thinks "titrate" means one thing and another something else. God only knows what some phraseologies mean but logical thought and communication can be closely approached in some instances. Some medical jargon appears to be open to very little interpretation for example. I believe people used to use a logical language that reflected the wiring of the brain so followed this same logic as the brain. It was the same natural logic expressing itself as a brain that we quantify to use as mathematics and apply to the real world after deriving what appear to be laws of nature through experiment. Experience (knowledge applied to the real world) and this natural logic which gave rise the wisdom of the ancients. After the change in the language much of these teachings was adapted into religions though, of course, they were all greatly confused. In a sense truth is always logical but we should remember that truth can't be accurately stated in modern languages. Conclusions and courses of action can reflect "truth" but this truth will be seen differently by each observer. The individual shoved out the air-lock will almost certainly disagree with the determination that put him out.

It's almost all of us. We each see the world in terms of our beliefs. Scientific beliefs are in terms of models.

You're taking the comment out of context. "We mistake the knowledge for understanding. We isolate bits and parts of nature for study and then believe we understand all of nature; all of reality." ...was a response to; I was essentially suggesting that model formation is a means to format data rather than to understand the underlying principles. Even many good scientists who devise important experiment typically understand their reality in terms of models. This is simply the way things are. It doesn't have to be this way, it merely is.

The problem is people live on their maps and are able to see only what can be seen from any point on them and don't even realize it. Unless you understand metaphysics then you can't even step back and see your map.

Excellent! I've long thought Feynman would have made a first rate pyramid builder. The man couldda been a prophet on any pyramid mebbe even the Anubis Priest.

I was referring only to actual scientists who devise or execute actual experiments of their own. Of course anyone who understands the nature of the experiment or how it was devised might be included.

I don't think most people understand how science works at the most basic level. Even when they understand that science isn't the creation of consensus they still tend to accept interpolations as being part of what is known. We simply fill in the blanks between the knowns as though what we don't see must be like what we do. To the degree a model can be expressed mathematically it can be sound. This simply isn't true. It only tests a single aspect of reality in a controlled setting. It reflects this aspect of reality. Reality itself is far too complex to be determined in a single experiment. We mistake the knowledge for understanding. We isolate bits and parts of nature for study and then believe we understand all of nature; all of reality.

The models are in essence a mnemonic to remember experiment. The experiment necessarily reflects reality but the model does not. But to the degree a model does reflect reality it can be used to make prediction. Models can then evolve but they will never reflect reality itself as they grow increasingly more accurate. At the risk of getting into semantics I doubt models will ever really impart "understanding". They are like taxonomies and other sorts of categorization in that they are mnemonics for retaining great amounts of data. True understanding is knowing how to apply equations properly rather than the ability to just crunch numbers. And it's the ability to recognize when you don't really have all the quantities or know all the variables.

There is no "equation" to prove evolution and if there were one it still would probably be misapplied. Across the board we take things on faith that are not really established fact. Even that math necessarily can reflect reality is based largely on faith. Math is quantified logic and the only reason it so often applies to what we know is that what we know is derived from experiment which is by definition reflective of reality. We're building models rather than understanding.

It would certainly be one without the evidence and logic that says it is not. But my point remains that we exist and it follows that there is some logical means by which this has happened whether it's the hand of time operating on stardust or the hand of God on reality. Because people think in different ways we can't be a product of the nature of our wiring? Not all thought is in language but, I believe, all thought is within the grammar of language and its structure. We can skip steps but we still exist in a world created and perceived by language. It is the fact that we each experience language differently that we don't think alike. As a rule individuals who express themselves similarly have the most shared beliefs. Such individuals will also tend to experience things similarly.

It's just a logical argument I derived from coming at it from a back door. I'm sure no one will want to discuss the science of it in this thread and if history is any guide the discussion would be unproductive anyway. I think the logic is sound, however. It merely postulates that it was complex language which created humanity rather than intelligence. Humans are capable of various modes of thinking. I believe humans used to think in a consciousness expressed by the natural wiring of the brain while now our consciousness is an expression of language.