Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 2 minutes ago, swansont said: Science doesn’t declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Science declares that these are limitations of what it can study. It does not impose this worldview - you are free to reject it. But the findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. Science has been a great success in explaining how nature behaves, and that’s why it gets the benefit of doubt when one encounters some new phenomenon. If you want some other approach to be considered, you have to show it’s going to be worth the effort. But without a track record, it just not a practical use of anyone’s time. We’re biased toward what works. What’s wrong with that? !- Science does declare that these are limitations (which is true) and many scientists do declare that the world is materialistic and mechanistic (which remains to be seen). And fully agree with your statement that findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. I am not objecting to the findings of science, but that scientists have not taken into consideration all of the evidence before making such statements. 2- Again, I do not wish to have any new approach. All that I am advocating is for a broader look at all of the evidence, not only the ones that fall in line with current paradigm. And again, not looking for a revolution but an evolution. Nothing wrong with being biased towards what works; it is common sense to prefer things that work to things that do not work.
swansont Posted June 5 Posted June 5 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: I am asking you a question about any holism papers that you have ever encountered; meaning that there is none and that is a problem; and an example of biases. This would be reinventing the wheel. How does a paper on holism help me align a laser into an optical fiber? What bias has been introduced?
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 1 minute ago, TheVat said: What I'm finding when I google holotropic mind is a guy named Grof who has some sort of New Age mysticism and connects the holotropic to the Hindu conception of Atman-Brahman. While this may be of interest to spiritual seekers, I am not clear how this would change the scientific view of the neurological correlates of consciousness. There doesn't seem to be a scientifc theory there that is supported by evidence of a nonphysical field of consciousness outside of brains. The default position that consciousness is a brain process is not from bias, but from the mountains of evidence (Himalayan sized mountains) of the supervenience of mental properties (like the sensation of pain) on physical properties (like the firing of certain groups of receptors and connected neurons). A feeling supervenes on neural activity, and neural activity entails feeling. Kill the neurons, it all goes away, no feeling, no consciousness, nothing. A dualist view, contrary to this paradigm, has only odd anomalies and ambiguous anecdotes. As others point out, this doesn't offer much to a scientific inquiry. As Swanson asked, My mistake, type Shuffle Brain - The Quest for the hologramic mind by Paul Pietsch. I know personnaly both Paul and Stanislov Grof and they have interesting, but "incredible' data on the subject of the holotropic mind.
Ghideon Posted June 5 Posted June 5 The heuristics applied by an expert may appear as bias to a layperson. (I haven't seen the the word heuristics so far in this discussion) 1
swansont Posted June 5 Posted June 5 8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: !- Science does declare that these are limitations (which is true) and many scientists do declare that the world is materialistic and mechanistic (which remains to be seen). And fully agree with your statement that findings of science shown to be true will continue to be true regardless. I am not objecting to the findings of science, but that scientists have not taken into consideration all of the evidence before making such statements. 2- Again, I do not wish to have any new approach. All that I am advocating is for a broader look at all of the evidence, not only the ones that fall in line with current paradigm. And again, not looking for a revolution but an evolution. Nothing wrong with being biased towards what works; it is common sense to prefer things that work to things that do not work. Which is it? That we haven’t considered all the evidence, or that there needs to be a broader look at the evidence? If it’s the former, what evidence hasn’t been considered? If it’s the latter, what is it about the conclusion that suggests a broader look is needed? You seem to have a beef with one narrow area of science but are extrapolating this beef onto the whole endeavor, and I haven’t been able to eliminate the scenario where you are blaming bias for people not being credulous about your approach to the topic.
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 55 minutes ago, swansont said: This would be reinventing the wheel. How does a paper on holism help me align a laser into an optical fiber? What bias has been introduced? Nothing to do with lasers and optical fibers. Bias in the general sense that a holistic approach is rarely used as a scientific investigative tool. 57 minutes ago, swansont said: Which is it? That we haven’t considered all the evidence, or that there needs to be a broader look at the evidence? Both, not mutually exclusive 1 hour ago, swansont said: You seem to have a beef with one narrow area of science but are extrapolating this beef onto the whole endeavor, and I haven’t been able to eliminate the scenario where you are blaming bias for people not being credulous about your approach to the topic. My beef is on the subjective and mostly on the living and consciousness not currently being well represented in science and when they do, this will have a significant impact on the current science paradigm and all of science in general. Let us not forget that the subjective is too part of reality, but summarily touched upon in science. And if it is not the domain of science, then you cannot claim to have a full grasp of reality.
Genady Posted June 5 Posted June 5 20 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: you cannot claim to have a full grasp of reality. Swansont claimed to have a full grasp of reality? When? Where?
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 18 minutes ago, Genady said: Swansont claimed to have a full grasp of reality? When? Where? Not Swansont, but many scientists.. I was talking in general terms. Apologies for my lack of clarity.
Genady Posted June 5 Posted June 5 8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Not Swansont, but many scientists.. I was talking in general terms. Apologies for my lack of clarity. Many scientists claimed to have a full grasp of reality? Who? When? How many? 1
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 13 minutes ago, Genady said: Many scientists claimed to have a full grasp of reality? Who? When? How many? Ok then, that the domain of the subjective is not required to have a full grasp of reality. Some even contend that it does not exist.
Genady Posted June 5 Posted June 5 3 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Ok then, that the domain of the subjective is not required to have a full grasp of reality. Some even contend that it does not exist. The fact that scientists do not claim to have a full grasp of reality does not imply "that the domain of the subjective is not required to have a full grasp of reality."
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 9 minutes ago, Genady said: The fact that scientists do not claim to have a full grasp of reality does not imply "that the domain of the subjective is not required to have a full grasp of reality." As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen.
Genady Posted June 5 Posted June 5 6 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen. It may be their personal belief. You can also say that some people who reside on fifth floors "do not even believe that the subjective even exists." This is as true. 1
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 12 minutes ago, Genady said: It may be their personal belief. You can also say that some people who reside on fifth floors "do not even believe that the subjective even exists." This is as true. 1- i disagree, it permeates most of science. I have followed you and most physicists on this forum. You could all dispense of subjectivity if you could. Some even say that they avoid the interpretation of their theory. You personally seem uninterested in consciousness, the holy grail of subjectivity. Subjectivity seems an avoidable nuisance for your discipline but not for most other sciences. And it is necessary to fully grasp reality. You cannot divorce yourself from it if you want to attain full meaning. 2- what a shame that they are missing out on so much more reality
swansont Posted June 5 Posted June 5 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Nothing to do with lasers and optical fibers. Bias in the general sense that a holistic approach is rarely used as a scientific investigative tool. Why should it be? If you can’t justify the effort, complaining that it’s not done isn’t a good-faith argument 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Both, not mutually exclusive But also way too general. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: My beef is on the subjective and mostly on the living and consciousness not currently being well represented in science and when they do, this will have a significant impact on the current science paradigm and all of science in general. Let us not forget that the subjective is too part of reality, but summarily touched upon in science. As I mentioned above, you need to justify the reason some other approach should be used, especially at the expense of the one with an excellent track record. You needto bring something to the party. 2 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: And if it is not the domain of science, then you cannot claim to have a full grasp of reality. Reality? We’re talking about science.
Luc Turpin Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 50 minutes ago, swansont said: Why should it be? If you can’t justify the effort, complaining that it’s not done isn’t a good-faith argument But also way too general. As I mentioned above, you need to justify the reason some other approach should be used, especially at the expense of the one with an excellent track record. You needto bring something to the party. Reality? We’re talking about science. 1- might be too tired, but I am not getting this one. The search for holistic types of studies would be fast as there is not too many and limited to social sciences types of studies. 2- if you need both to grasp at reality, then so be it. If nature has decided to incorporate both then who are we to decide that its too general. 3- some other research is needed to grasp at all of reality 4- ho, so why are you doing science?just to do science for science sake? I think not. You want to know how the world works, which is part of our living reality. World, universe are the same and are our reality
swansont Posted June 6 Posted June 6 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- might be too tired, but I am not getting this one. The search for holistic types of studies would be fast as there is not too many and limited to social sciences types of studies. Then it’s not an indictment of science in general, as you had suggested, but about one slice of science. As I said, your beef seems to be much more focused, but you are not presenting your arguments that way. 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 2- if you need both to grasp at reality, then so be it. If nature has decided to incorporate both then who are we to decide that its too general. 3- some other research is needed to grasp at all of reality Physics, in particular, incorporates concepts that are readily admitted to not be real. Reality is not the goal; the outcomes are real, but the models are not necessarily based on any reality, since it doesn’t matter to the outcome. Newtonian gravity tells us that an object accelerates according to a = GM/r^2. It doesn’t explain the reality of why or how. Just the result. 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: 4- ho, so why are you doing science?just to do science for science sake? I think not. You want to know how the world works, which is part of our living reality. Physics is lots of fun. I got paid to teach it, which I enjoyed, and later play with expensive toys which was even more so. But electric fields, and phonons, etc are not real They are calculational tools. QM describes things as a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Is that the reality of what you are? 27 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: World, universe are the same and are our reality Science assumes there is an objective reality that can be measured, but you have to accept the measurement part of that if you’re discussing science. If you can’t measure it, it’s not science. If you can, then measure it and compete with the existing paradigm and see what gives the best result. 1
iNow Posted June 6 Posted June 6 14 minutes ago, swansont said: you have to accept the measurement part of that if you’re discussing science. If you can’t measure it, it’s not science. Or as the prophet Adam Savage once said: https://youtu.be/BSUMBBFjxrY
TheVat Posted June 6 Posted June 6 (edited) 4 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen. I do not believe that is the case for any of those four thinkers (two of whom have retired from horsemanship, may they rest in peace). They do assert, in various ways, that some areas of knowledge will not yield useful explanations of their objects of study purely via subjective experience. But none would argue that the study of big toe pain would not include gathering subjective reports of people experiencing big toe pain. To say the subjective has its limits in unraveling mysteries is not saying that the subjective doesn't exist. Edited June 6 by TheVat fixed
Genady Posted June 6 Posted June 6 12 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: 1- i disagree, it permeates most of science. I have followed you and most physicists on this forum. You could all dispense of subjectivity if you could. Some even say that they avoid the interpretation of their theory. You personally seem uninterested in consciousness, the holy grail of subjectivity. Subjectivity seems an avoidable nuisance for your discipline but not for most other sciences. And it is necessary to fully grasp reality. You cannot divorce yourself from it if you want to attain full meaning. 2- what a shame that they are missing out on so much more reality I think you have a very wrong idea about what scientists do and why. Let me give you a glimpse into it with this quote: Quote ... what Wigner said about the article that von Neumann gave him: “Soon I was lost in the enchanting world of vectors and matrices, wave functions and operators. This reprint was my primary introduction to representation theory, and I was charmed by its beauty and clarity. I saved the article for many years out of a certain piety that these things create.” Zee, Anthony. Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists (p. 99). P.S. Just posted a quote about representation theory and here in the next post physicists discuss representation theory:
Luc Turpin Posted June 6 Author Posted June 6 10 hours ago, swansont said: Then it’s not an indictment of science in general, as you had suggested, but about one slice of science. As I said, your beef seems to be much more focused, but you are not presenting your arguments that way. Physics, in particular, incorporates concepts that are readily admitted to not be real. Reality is not the goal; the outcomes are real, but the models are not necessarily based on any reality, since it doesn’t matter to the outcome. Newtonian gravity tells us that an object accelerates according to a = GM/r^2. It doesn’t explain the reality of why or how. Just the result. Physics is lots of fun. I got paid to teach it, which I enjoyed, and later play with expensive toys which was even more so. But electric fields, and phonons, etc are not real They are calculational tools. QM describes things as a continuous field of operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space. Is that the reality of what you are? Science assumes there is an objective reality that can be measured, but you have to accept the measurement part of that if you’re discussing science. If you can’t measure it, it’s not science. If you can, then measure it and compete with the existing paradigm and see what gives the best result. 1- My indictment of science is this <Science cannot refuse to investigate the metaphysical on the grounds that it is not its business to do so and then declare the world to be materialistic and mechanistic. Neither can it impose this worldview until it has definitively resolved the issues of the living and consciousness. Doing so is premature and biased towards other possible worldview candidates.> -me. My beef is focussed, but broadly applicable. 2- Outcomes are part of reality. a = GM/r^2 does tell us something about gravity, which is part of reality. We would know less about reality without it. 3- When I use the "you" in my text it is about the broad based "you" as in all physicists, not you "swansont". You (as in you swansont this time) can have a lot of fun doing science, but the "you", as in all physicists, share a passion of wanting to know how the world or reality works. Is it not the case? 4- Electric fields and phonons are calculation tools that help us better understand reality. QM speaks loudly about our microscopic reality. So much so that we benefit from inventions based on QM. And these inventions affect our day to day reality. 5- There is an objective reality that can be measured and a subjective reality that can be indirectly measured. Consciousness can be indirectly measured through scanning devices. Meditators were placed in scanners and we learned something about this state of reality. All then that I am asking is a fair competition between the objective and subjective. 9 hours ago, TheVat said: I do not believe that is the case for any of those four thinkers (two of whom have retired from horsemanship, may they rest in peace). They do assert, in various ways, that some areas of knowledge will not yield useful explanations of their objects of study purely via subjective experience. But none would argue that the study of big toe pain would not include gathering subjective reports of people experiencing big toe pain. To say the subjective has its limits in unraveling mysteries is not saying that the subjective doesn't exist. I did mention that I thought that they did so, not that it was so. I will have to investigate this assertio. And I say "that some areas of knowledge will always yield usefull explanations of their objects if they are adequately studied, via indirect objective measurement." Scientists argued a while back ago that dogs did not really feel pain; that it was all reflexes, and that extended to us human for many scientists. I then stil cling to my idea that some scientists still believe that subjective reality is not real, but an artifice. 1 hour ago, Genady said: I think you have a very wrong idea about what scientists do and why. Let me give you a glimpse into it with this quote: . what Wigner said about the article that von Neumann gave him: “Soon I was lost in the enchanting world of vectors and matrices, wave functions and operators. This reprint was my primary introduction to representation theory, and I was charmed by its beauty and clarity. I saved the article for many years out of a certain piety that these things create.” Zee, Anthony. Group Theory in a Nutshell for Physicists (p. 99). Then why all this fatalism in science. When I read science, I feel excitement about the discovery itself, but less enchanted about its implication. According to most of science, I get the feel that we are pointless dots haphazardly floating in a vast ocean of pointless dots.
Genady Posted June 6 Posted June 6 9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: Then why all this fatalism in science. When I read science, I feel excitement about the discovery itself, but less enchanted about its implication. According to most of science, I get the feel that we are pointless dots haphazardly floating in a vast ocean of pointless dots. Evidently your perception is mistaken. I assume that it is based on pop-science rather than actual science sources. In my direct experience, science is fun and exciting. 1
dimreepr Posted June 6 Posted June 6 15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: As indicated some do not even believe that the subjective even exists. I believe that it is the case for the four horsemen of the apocalypse: Dawkins, Dennet, harris, Hitchen. Well, for a start I think Dawkins is deluded. but come on @Luc Turpin enough of this merry-go-round. Think of a better question, please... 🙏
Luc Turpin Posted June 6 Author Posted June 6 28 minutes ago, Genady said: Evidently your perception is mistaken. I assume that it is based on pop-science rather than actual science sources. In my direct experience, science is fun and exciting. It is maybe "I" that is the fatalist in all of this, not science. 6 minutes ago, dimreepr said: Well, for a start I think Dawkins is deluded. but come on @Luc Turpin enough of this merry-go-round. Think of a better question, please... 🙏 I think also that Dawkins is deluded. I am getting very dizzy being on the merry-go-round and soon will fall off into silence. Have any suggestions for a better question? I still think that mine is good as it seems to encourage thinking about bias. But, maybe, you know, all of this may be very all for nothing. Correction - But, maybe, you know, all of this may very well be all for nothing.
TheVat Posted June 6 Posted June 6 8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: I still think that mine is good as it seems to encourage thinking about bias. It's been a good question. I think there have been assumptions made by many in cognitive sciences on how the brain works, that are a sort of bias. Once again, cognitive scientist Robert Epstein's famous article which takes down the notion that the brain is like a computer.... https://aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does-not-process-information-and-it-is-not-a-computer
Recommended Posts