The Grand Assumption of Science

[YT2095]

then it`s Solipsism, and that may as well be God did it.

 

it`s in the correct Sub-fora either way.

[Luminal]

then explain to me how a sniper half a mile away that you know NOTHING about can kill you dead before you even hear the BANG?

 

if you`re "making" your own reality, how could this happen? I watch You drop in my (+)

 

First, I do not accept solipsism. Because our perceptions may be false, that does not mean my mind is the only thing that exists. But my mind is the only thing that exists for me. There's a major difference in those two ideologies. My reality is composed of a representative model that my neurons create in my head.

 

Do objects actually have hues and colors inherently? No, those are qualities endowed by your brain upon different wavelengths of light striking your retina.

 

Second, as far as you are concerned, even the notion of a sniper and the notion of death are but concepts you have picked up through your perceptions of this world. Have you ever died? More specifically, have you ever been killed by a sniper? Even though you may see this as an absurd consideration, even the very aspect of death is but something you believe will eventually occur based on events you have witnessed (as in, your senses).

 

If I isolated someone from birth in a small house with no way to leave or communicate with any other human or observe other life, with just the food and water necessary to live, would that person ever know he was going to die? He wouldn't even know what death is. Animals don't know they are going to die.

[Sayonara]

then it`s Solipsism, and that may as well be God did it.

 

it`s in the correct Sub-fora either way.

 

Let me put it another way: Luminal is not proposing a new model that is an alternative to "reality", nor does he appear to favour any particular extant model.

 

I think you misinterpreted the function of this thread.

[YT2095]

I agree that our observations are Subjective, this has been proven many times, even with things like Artists that painted in "accurate" colors when young but had an over compensation for certain colors as they got old and the eyes altered.

 

some people can hear things others cannot, I can probe your brain and remove the color Orange and it`s meaning and hold it on the tip of a 25G needle.

 

now I make an instrument that detects the color Green, and ask you to do the same.

we meet up and compare instruments, both instruments work and the results correlate.

we`ve never met and know little to nothing of each other, so How can this be the case?

 

the machines tell us the truth.

 

now green to YOU may be what I see as Red if I had your eyes (it`s subjective) but I CALL it green because that what I was taught it was called.

 

but the Machines cannot Lie.

[Luminal]

I agree that our observations are Subjective, this has been proven many times, even with things like Artists that painted in "accurate" colors when young but had an over compensation for certain colors as they got old and the eyes altered.

 

some people can hear things others cannot, I can probe your brain and remove the color Orange and it`s meaning and hold it on the tip of a 25G needle.

 

now I make an instrument that detects the color Green, and ask you to do the same.

we meet up and compare instruments, both instruments work and the results correlate.

we`ve never met and know little to nothing of each other, so How can this be the case?

 

the machines tell us the truth.

 

now green to YOU may be what I see as Red if I had your eyes (it`s subjective) but I CALL it green because that what I was taught it was called.

 

but the Machines cannot Lie.

 

The machine would pick up the color that you see as green and what you call green, and it would also pick up the color I would see as red if you had my eyes but I would call it green. But neither is "true" or "false".

 

Both models are merely that: models. Is the English word for "Sun" a more accurate portrayal of the massive fusion engine 93 million miles away, than say, the Spanish word for Sun? Neither are are closer or further from the truth. They simply represent a concept with something that has nothing to do with that concept itself (patterns of sounds formed into vocalizations).

====================================================

 

The best analogy I can offer: you are walking around in your house at night, and it is utterly pitch black dark. Yet, you manage to maneuver yourself successfully from room to room, with only a few bumps into furniture here and there. How did you do it? Your mind has created a fully operation model of the house based on your perceptions.

 

The next evening, you get drunk and wake up that night in someone else's house, thinking you are in your own house. There are no lights, no sounds, and you use the model of your house to navigate. You trip down a flight of stairs and break your neck.

 

Our reality is a model, one that may or may not fit with the actual state of physical universe (and whatever may lie beyond).

[YT2095]

well using that arg, then OUR reality is our model of THIS universe (like our own house at night) since I may furnish you with instructions to perform a test yourself without bias and you may then either confirm or deny the results I got.

the same as waking up drunk in someones house and the owner giving you instruction via an ear piece how you can navigate your way down the stairs etc... and avoid injury.

 

this is why Independant confirmation of experimental data is so important

[foodchain]

Yes, but our brains or biology is also a product of what we are viewing, or related to it. What I mean is that our eyes perceive light, or some wavelengths of such at any rate. Now how this works is physical, its not purely some psychological issue. So in essence, we can understand, and I would think via this understanding would could deduce the impact our vision for instance in a physiological sense in relation to observations.

 

The only real way I see to overcome the psychological role in observation would simply be the idea that science is social, another way would me the use of tools like math, experimentation, etc...

 

I understand what you are saying, basically the overall impact simply being a human organism has on observations of reality, as I am sure it would be different if we only say in black and white, or heck in thermal mixed with static vision, but its not as if this somehow changes physical reality or makes truth about such something only of a figment of imagination.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

then explain to me how a sniper half a mile away that you know NOTHING about can kill you dead before you even hear the BANG?

 

if you`re "making" your own reality, how could this happen? I watch You drop in my (+)

 

The bang (and the sniper) would have been constructed by your mind anyway, so it's irrelevant.

[YT2095]

The bang (and the sniper) would have been constructed by your mind anyway, so it's irrelevant.

 

I thought it was established that Solipsism was not the case here, and thus your point is irrelevant.

[Sayonara]

I thought it was established that Solipsism was not the case here, and thus your point is irrelevant.

 

If we are not being solipsists ITT then surely you want to know about mistakes people perceive

 

Sorry could not resist

[swansont]

The machine would pick up the color that you see as green and what you call green, and it would also pick up the color I would see as red if you had my eyes but I would call it green. But neither is "true" or "false".

 

But that's not the point. YT has a 532 nm laser and I have a 532 nm laser, and our measurements are calibrated from that standard. We don't rely on subjective observations; we take significant steps to remove subjectiveness from the measurements. What we call the color is semantics, not science.

[Luminal]

But that's not the point. YT has a 532 nm laser and I have a 532 nm laser, and our measurements are calibrated from that standard. We don't rely on subjective observations; we take significant steps to remove subjectiveness from the measurements. What we call the color is semantics, not science.

 

Numbers themselves are constructions of the perceptions you have over a lifetime. Perhaps it is too abstract to consider with our human brains, but what you see as ten may not be ten for me, or one, or 532. These are assumptions we must make to push the human sphere of knowledge forward.

 

Can you imagine a Universe that lacks time and space (and thus causality) yet has alternatives? Of course not. Neither can we imagine a reality without concrete numbers.

 

You see, most humans naively make the assumption that the homo sapien model of reality is the only one that works, or even can work. Once again, this assumption may turn out to be true, but I highly doubt it. We haven't even placed a human on another planet in our own little speck of a solar system, nor have we observed the boundaries of our Universe. Not to mention, no one has ever witnessed the world from another person's senses.

 

We've got a long way to come before we can test such assumptions.

[bascule]

Numbers themselves are constructions of the perceptions you have over a lifetime. Perhaps it is too abstract to consider with our human brains, but what you see as ten may not be ten for me, or one, or 532. These are assumptions we must make to push the human sphere of knowledge forward.

 

Realism is based around the brash assumption that there is a realist ontology separate from your first-person ontology. Unlike your first-person ontology, which is unique to your conscious experience, a key assumption about the realist ontology is that it is shared. Numbers are real in that they both pertain to real-world objects and can be symbolically codified in such a way that they can be communicated.

 

In this statement you're questioning either or both of these things:

1) Reality exists

2) The signal-to-noise ratio of sense data is high enough that noumena are typically reliable representations of real world objects and concepts.

 

It's pointless and entirely without merit to debate these concepts, since they are intrinsically unknowable.

 

Arguing the contrary to either of these gets you nowhere.

 

If 1 is false then I am an illusion and there's no point in even talking to me since I don't exist.

 

If 2 is false then I may or may not be a hallucination, as is everything you experience, and therefore 1 is fundamentally unknowable to any degree. Therefore it's futile to try to learn anything, because there's no correspondence between sense data and the realist ontology.

 

If you doubt either of these then you should really just stop trying to debate or learn anything at all, because your pursuit of knowledge is really either the pursuit of an illusion or a random walk through amorphous clouds of sensory noise which have nothing to do with reality.

 

I believe the rest of us are quite happy to pursue knowledge under the pretense that reality exists and that what we perceive is realistic.

[Luminal]

If you doubt either of these then you should really just stop trying to debate or learn anything at all, because your pursuit of knowledge is really either the pursuit of an illusion or a random walk through amorphous clouds of sensory noise which have nothing to do with reality.

.

 

Note, there is a difference between doubting they exist and believing they don't exist. I am more than happy to pursue science and accept empiricism, because thus far it has greatly improved my life and the lives of everyone I know.

 

I am simply opening the smallest crack in the door to a possibility that humans may one day be able to test (perhaps with great leaps in neuroengineering, nanotechnology, AI, and other fields).

[swansont]

Numbers themselves are constructions of the perceptions you have over a lifetime. Perhaps it is too abstract to consider with our human brains, but what you see as ten may not be ten for me, or one, or 532. These are assumptions we must make to push the human sphere of knowledge forward.

 

If my ten and your ten don't agree, we will quickly find out. That's a semantic difference, anyway. Don't change the argument. How are numbers prone to be fooled by your senses?

 

It's not the numbers, anyway, it's the underlying material that generates the light, which is the same. We can do tests to check that. We agree on a calibration standard. All of this is designed to remove the subjectivity of relying on our senses.

[Tom Mattson]

Do you not see what I'm getting at? Even the computer is still your own perception. The GM counter is still your own perception. There is no method to ever avoid this. You must take the leap of faith that those perceptions are always accurate, even when we know that not to be the case.

 

We assume that our waking, sober world is perceived without substantial error. That is the assumption science must make.' And it is an assumption that may turn out to be either right or wrong.

 

Why must one take that leap of faith? Why must one make that assumption?

 

Why not simply regard science as the discipline which seeks to determine the laws that describe what we observe, rather than what is "really there"?

[Luminal]

If my ten and your ten don't agree, we will quickly find out. That's a semantic difference, anyway. Don't change the argument. How are numbers prone to be fooled by your senses?

 

It's not the numbers, anyway, it's the underlying material that generates the light, which is the same. We can do tests to check that. We agree on a calibration standard. All of this is designed to remove the subjectivity of relying on our senses.

 

None of this is the point. Everything you perceive is perceived. There is no test or experiment that will ever be "objective enough" to avoid this. Human senses are subjective, and hence everything filtered through them are as well. It is an assumption to treat anything you perceive as fact. Even this statement, because my knowledge of perceptions are based on what I've perceived.

 

Why must one take that leap of faith? Why must one make that assumption?

 

Why not simply regard science as the discipline which seeks to determine the laws that describe what we observe, rather than what is "really there"?

 

Great point. As long as we understand that science is only observation and can never establish unquestionable fact, then I think no one has a problem and we can proceed forward.

 

Put it this way: there might be absolute truth out there, but no human will ever obtain it. That's because all truth is filtered through inherently fallible mechanisms (both the senses and the human brain).

[YT2095]

As long as we understand that science is only observation and can never establish unquestionable fact,

 

Put it this way: there might be absolute truth out there, but no human will ever obtain it. That's because all truth is filtered through inherently fallible mechanisms (both the senses and the human brain).

 

isn`t that somewhat contradictory? you`re claiming this to be an Unquestionable fact!

[Luminal]

isn`t that somewhat contradictory? you`re claiming this to be an Unquestionable fact!

 

Unless you've ever had information enter into your brain without the involvement of your senses. Of course, you never know, but that would require a Matrix Conspiracy (direct connections into our brains without our knowledge) or huge government cover-up.

 

And you're supposed to be opposed Matrix conspiracies and the such, correct?

[foodchain]

Unless you've ever had information enter into your brain without the involvement of your senses. Of course, you never know, but that would require a Matrix Conspiracy (direct connections into our brains without our knowledge) or huge government cover-up.

 

And you're supposed to be opposed Matrix conspiracies and the such, correct?

 

If I see someone point a gun at me and fire it, is such still purely subjective?

[Luminal]

If I see someone point a gun at me and fire it, is such still purely subjective?

 

Yes, actually. You've never had a dream where someone pointed a gun at you and/or shot at you? I have.

 

Let me make a distinction here, though. Subjective and non-objective are not exactly the same thing.

 

If an anonymous person told you that he saw your girlfriend cheating with another guy, the truth wouldn't be subjective. It would either be right or wrong, based on the reliability of the source of information.

 

Subjective, on the other hand, is more or less the continuum of values formed in the brains of biological beings, owing itself to the vast complexity of the neural architectures in the brain. I see a color as light blue; you see that color as dark blue.

 

Non-objective is simply anything that's not provable. Senses fall into this category. And as no information enters our brains except through these pathways, all human knowledge is non-objective. Yet there's no problem with treating sensory input as objective to advance science.

 

Disclaimer: Those are just the terms I use for a simpler description of what I'm explaining. If 'non-objective' is used for another definition by society, I apologize.

[YT2095]

Unless you've ever had information enter into your brain without the involvement of your senses. Of course, you never know, but that would require a Matrix Conspiracy (direct connections into our brains without our knowledge) or huge government cover-up.

 

And you're supposed to be opposed Matrix conspiracies and the such, correct?

 

Whut???

 

you still don`t get it do you?

the Contradiction rests in You stating as an unquestionable Fact, that no facts are Unquestionable!

 

it`s nothing at all to do with anything you mention in that above quoted reply you made.

[Luminal]

Whut???

 

you still don`t get it do you?

the Contradiction rests in You stating as an unquestionable Fact, that no facts are Unquestionable!

 

it`s nothing at all to do with anything you mention in that above quoted reply you made.

 

First, let me say that I agree (except about it being a total contradiction, which it isn't exactly). Even my perceptions are concepts of which I've formed through perceptions. But as I said, for the perceptions of my perceptions to be incorrect, then the perceptions are still incorrect. It is as simple as that.

 

There's no contradiction as far as I'm aware:

 

If my perceptions are always right, then they are always right. No fallibility, period. This would be a position closer to yours, if I understand you correctly.

 

If the knowledge of my perceptions are wrong, or if my knowledge of perceptions are correct but the information entering them are wrong, then in both cases there is a state of non-objectivity in that information. That's my position.

 

In other words, either sure is sure or unsure is unsure.

 

If you were wondering why, in response to your post, I mentioned the Matrix conspiracy, that's what you would have to accept (or something very similar, like a government cover-up) to explain how information could be entering directly into our memory/knowledge without any perception involved. I don't think either of us believe that.

[YT2095]

if you class yourself to aside of nature and Special in some way as you have consiousnes (I don`t consider myself this way personally), then fine.

 

that is where our Instruments come into play, what else Better to use to understand the unknown that it`s own Material "against" it?

it has to obey the same rules!

 

and so from THERE you can begin to glean some Truth, because without a Common frame of reference there can be no argument and no truth.

 

Machines/instuments provide this Commonality.

 

 

edit: another way to put it: Just because you may be in the middle of a Maze with no possible solution, does NOT mean that left/right, up/down, forwards/backwards cease to exist or become any the less real.

[lucaspa]

However, step away from your immersion in science, empiricism, reason, and logic for just a moment, and consider the assumption you are making.

 

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

 

Luminal, EVERY search for truth: science, religion, philosophy, etc. share 2 basic assumptions:

 

1. I exist.

2. I am sane. This is the assumption you are referring to when you say that information comes from our senses. We must assume we are sane in order to trust our senses.

 

Every piece of information you have ever received, from artwork to mathematical laws, has come from one source: your senses.

 

The point, senses are not reliable. In fact, our brains can be deceived with reletive easily. Dreams, delusions, psychoactive drugs, hallucinations, simulations (full simulations are at most a few decades away), movies... all have one thing in common, they fool our senses, and more often than not, we believe the unreliable information while it is being presented to us.

 

1. Our senses are generally reliable.

2. We do NOT always believe the unreliable information. For instance, I have questioned several times what is happening while I am dreaming. Even to the point I wake myself up. And I certainly question it after I wake up!

 

Science minimizes the possible unreliability of personal experience (our senses) by only accepting those experiences that are the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions.

 

Does it confer certainty? NO! Which is one reason why science is tentative. You have heard that, haven't you?

 

However, it does give greater reliability. It becomes progressively unlikely that EVERYONE will be under the same hallucination, dream, pschoactive drug, etc. Not conceptually impossible, but unlikely.

 

With that aside, science certainly isn't a hollow pursuit, but neither is it the final answer. Just as religious individuals should always keep a small part of their mind somewhat open to the minutest possibility that their faith is misplaced, scientists and those who practice it should do the same.

 

What do you think is the "final answer" science should have doubt over? What "faith" do you think scientists should remember might be misplaced?

 

I will remind you right now: science is NOT atheism! Science is NOT a worldview! From the paragraph above, it appears that you mistakenly think so.

 

For instance, I am a scientist and a theist. No problem or conflict.