FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Philosophy > General Philosophy

Greetings!

General Philosophy Thought-provoking, philosophical discussions.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-19-2010, 05:32 PM
chingwenjing chingwenjing is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
This means that there is no such thing as 'objective science'. There is only particular realities created by science that were chosen to be studied in a particular way.
The history is the objective spirit and reality. No matter how you are an pathologically subjective dogmatist, you can not deny the event in the history, for example , the French revolution.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #32  
Old 02-20-2010, 03:36 AM
Ragi's Avatar
Ragi Ragi is offline
Introverted Excavator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by chingwenjing View Post
The history is the objective spirit and reality. No matter how you are an pathologically subjective dogmatist, you can not deny the event in the history, for example , the French revolution.
It seems to me you can't deny either the objective or the subjective. You experience the common objective world with the rest of us, and also your various subjectivities. It is absolutely true that ice cream tastes good to me (a subjective experience).

If someone pinches me, it is objectively true that nerve signals travel from the site to my brain and back. The actual subjective sensation of pain is also real and undeniable.

I'm not sure if you're trying to explain away higher order phenomenon here, like as in "epi-phenomenon" theories that claim subjective experience to not really be "real" but merely names we've given to the stuff caused by the "real" stuff (namely physical stuff).

If you are, I think you're wrong. Are veins and arteries real? Yes? But aren't they really just the epi-phenomenon of atoms and molecules? But those are really just the epi-phenomenon of even more reducible levels of physical stuff. No, these are just different ways of talking and thinking about our world at different levels of relevance and they're all "real."

Pixies are real in the sense that they're reality is an idea (they do not, as far as I know, exist in space-time). They are really ideas and fantasies. Everything is real as their own kind of thing, not only objectively physical things. An apple exists as a physical apple. An idea of an apple you are picturing right now really exists as a real idea of an apple. Our culture is so ingrained with the scientific framework that we can only think of the objects of science as being real, yet the models of science change all the time with new data, which is great for science! Were the objects in the previous models unreal? Are the ones we have now that will be replaced unreal? No, they all affect us and are realities in our lives. Isn't that what the word real means?
__________________
Some of my art

When you smile it is like a song and I can hear it now
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-20-2010, 08:42 PM
PoseidonsNet's Avatar
PoseidonsNet PoseidonsNet is offline
Supermarine
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Africa
Posts: 2,283
there are no epi-phenomenon
its a contradiction in terms,
because all phenomenon have effect, that is
why we call something 'phenomenal' when it has a massive effect

thoughts are real
anyone who suggests otherwise is caught in solipsis
__________________
The Principles of Flight (in full)
http://www.poseidons.net/flight/Principlesofflight.htm
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-21-2010, 05:17 PM
chingwenjing chingwenjing is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
It seems to me you can't deny either the objective or the subjective. You experience the common objective world with the rest of us, and also your various subjectivities. It is absolutely true that ice cream tastes good to me (a subjective experience).

If , it is objectively true that nerve signals travel from the site to my brain and back. The actual subjective sensation of pain is also real and undeniable.
yes, our sense organ get the representation which comprise the object and subject.
The object is the ice cream and someone pinches me.
The subject is that ice cream tastes good to me and that nerve signals travel from the site to my brain which arise my consciousness.

Quote:
I'm not sure if you're trying to explain away higher order phenomenon here, like as in "epi-phenomenon" theories that claim subjective experience to not really be "real" but merely names we've given to the stuff caused by the "real" stuff (namely physical stuff).

If you are, I think you're wrong. Are veins and arteries real? Yes? But aren't they really just the epi-phenomenon of atoms and molecules? But those are really just the epi-phenomenon of even more reducible levels of physical stuff. No, these are just different ways of talking and thinking about our world at different levels of relevance and they're all "real."
yes, because our senses and knowledges are limited, we just get the representations.For example we can not sense x ray, but which can reveal the hard tissue in the medical diagnosis. The Plato's cave story and the blind touch the elephant mentioned in previous posts can show how humble we are.

Quote:
Pixies are real in the sense that they're reality is an idea (they do not, as far as I know, exist in space-time). They are really ideas and fantasies. Everything is real as their own kind of thing, not only objectively physical things. An apple exists as a physical apple. An idea of an apple you are picturing right now really exists as a real idea of an apple. Our culture is so ingrained with the scientific framework that we can only think of the objects of science as being real, yet the models of science change all the time with new data, which is great for science! Were the objects in the previous models unreal? Are the ones we have now that will be replaced unreal? No, they all affect us and are realities in our lives. Isn't that what the word real means?
yes, the Hegel's The Phenomenology of Mind can tell us that this is a subjective world. All the old truth discarded, dialect to produce the new truth
."The history is the objective spirit and reality"
is Hegel 's opinion, not mine.But I think there are still some things are objective reality, for example the gravity, the event of history....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-22-2010, 03:51 AM
Ragi's Avatar
Ragi Ragi is offline
Introverted Excavator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by chingwenjing
But I think there are still some things are objective reality, for example the gravity, the event of history....
I agree with you and Poseidonsnet that there are phenomenon, but even gravity is in a mess of theory. The actual phenomon of dropping an object and it falling to the floor is a real and unique phenomenon. But calling that gravity is a little problematic because there are competing theories of gravity (Newton says it's a force of one massive "object" acting on the mass of another. Einstein says force is just a name we give to the warping of space-time). Those are theories and are arguable, but the actual phenomenon isn't. I think we probably agree on this, I'm just trying to sort out terminology.
__________________
Some of my art

When you smile it is like a song and I can hear it now
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-22-2010, 06:21 PM
chingwenjing chingwenjing is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ragi View Post
I agree with you and Poseidonsnet that there are phenomenon, but even gravity is in a mess of theory. The actual phenomon of dropping an object and it falling to the floor is a real and unique phenomenon. But calling that gravity is a little problematic because there are competing theories of gravity (Newton says it's a force of one massive "object" acting on the mass of another. Einstein says force is just a name we give to the warping of space-time). Those are theories and are arguable, but the actual phenomenon isn't. I think we probably agree on this, I'm just trying to sort out terminology.
yes, after I read your post, I agree that my language on the gravity is not logic. The ancient people before Einstein who lived in the earth, just as the Newton who observed the phenomenon that apple falling to earth , they never heard the Einstein's relativity,so their concept about the gravity stayed in the newton's theory. So the experience and knowledge could influence the ability of judgements and executions. This is the reason that we should absorb the new knowledge and thinking hard. In this way, we can get the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-23-2010, 05:32 PM
chingwenjing chingwenjing is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 343
Gravity Curves Space

Quote:
Newton says it's a force of one massive "object" acting on the mass of another. Einstein says force is just a name we give to the warping of space-time)
Isaac Newton gave physicists a great theory of gravitation, and from him
comes the famous equation
F = Gm1m2 / r2
where F represents force, G represents the universal gravitational constant,
m1 represents one mass, m2 represents another mass, and r represents the
distance between the masses. Newton was able to show that what made
an apple fall also made the planets orbit. But Newton had one problem he
could never figure out: how gravity could operate instantaneously at a
distance.

Enter Einstein, who created the modern take on this problem. Instead of thinking gravity in terms of gravity being a simple force, Einstein suggested in his General Theory of Relativity that gravity actually curves space. In other words,is one of the influences that actually define what we think of as “space.”Einstein’s idea is that gravity curves space (and ultimately, that’s where the idea of wormholes in space comes from). In fact, to be more true to the General Theory of Relativity, you should say that gravity curves space and time. Mathematically, you treat time as the fourth dimension when working with relativity — not as a fourth spatial dimension. The vectors
you use have four components: three for the X-, Y-, and Z-axes, and one for
time, t What’s really happening when a planet orbits the sun is that it’s simply following the shortest path through the curved space time through which it travel.
The sun curves the space time around it, and the planets follow that curvature.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-27-2010, 08:02 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
FC went off the air for over 2 weeks. Its back now like magic. I'll be back MD.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-01-2010, 03:35 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
There are no competing theories of gravity. Einstein gravity is just an extension of Newtonian gravity. There are no other 'competing' theories of gravity. There are scores of 'wannabe competing' theories of gravity. When your reality has a lot to do with the crap you read on the internet you think there are 'competing' theories of gravity and tons of other junk. You think there might not have been a big bang or there are no black holes and general relativity is wrong and tons of other tinybopper ideas/you can be convinced of just about anything cause you don't know much to start with. LOL

Furthermore there is no such thing as any single objective reality to begin with. There is not simply your subjective version and everyone else's subjective version. There are as many 'objective' versions as well. Put another way 'objective' is in the eye of the beholder......
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-01-2010, 04:55 AM
Ragi's Avatar
Ragi Ragi is offline
Introverted Excavator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
There are no competing theories of gravity. Einstein gravity is just an extension of Newtonian gravity. There are no other 'competing' theories of gravity. There are scores of 'wannabe competing' theories of gravity. When your reality has a lot to do with the crap you read on the internet you think there are 'competing' theories of gravity and tons of other junk. You think there might not have been a big bang or there are no black holes and general relativity is wrong and tons of other tinybopper ideas/you can be convinced of just about anything cause you don't know much to start with. LOL
That's interesting. I'm no particle physicist, but I actually think of "Einsteinian physics as an extension of Newtonian mechanics" as a kind of pop-science conception. Einstein may have used some of the same terminology (jargon such as "gravity") but he really revolutionized the whole system. He meant completely different things by saying "gravity" than Newton did. Newton's system had "objects" with given masses which exerted "forces" on one another across space, whereas this language wouldn't even make sense in Einstein's system. For him, gravity was a description of space-time itself being warped by masses.

That's why I think the joke,

"Mary had a little lamb. The doctor was quite surprised,"

is so illuminating because it shows that words mean completely different things in different contexts (ie. the word "had" in the joke). The joke wouldn't be funny if this weren't true.

And besides, you may want to argue this (and I hope you do because I'd like to sort it all out), but there are numerous instances of competing theories within science that are still used because they work (light as particle or wave to name a popular one). Appropriate the history of science and you'll see it everywhere from theories of heat (remember caloric?) back to the heliocentric universe shift. The geocentric system actually predicted the movement of the planets much more accurately than the newer heliocentric. It wasn't until later when Galileo pointed telescopes into the sky that we found this was due to the shape of the orbits causing anomalies. In other words, just because a scientific theory works does not mean it is true, or an accurate description of reality. In fact, we'd never have any way of knowing whether it was or not, as far as this logic goes. That's all I was trying to say with the Newton-Einstein thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
Furthermore there is no such thing as any single objective reality to begin with. There is not simply your subjective version and everyone else's subjective version. There are as many 'objective' versions as well. Put another way 'objective' is in the eye of the beholder......
Would you care to say more about this? It seems really interesting but vague right now and I'm hoping you can tease out some of the subtleties.
__________________
Some of my art

When you smile it is like a song and I can hear it now
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-01-2010, 05:18 AM
Ragi's Avatar
Ragi Ragi is offline
Introverted Excavator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 671
Also, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a classic and, in my humble opinion, a required read for any responsible scientist.
__________________
Some of my art

When you smile it is like a song and I can hear it now
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-01-2010, 12:27 PM
Nef Raven's Avatar
Nef Raven Nef Raven is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,011
Blog Entries: 81
Quote:
Nor is awareness attention.
Quote:

You cannot think and experience at the same time,

Quote:
That is man creating God in HIS image. By concentration awareness is detached from mind (thinking) and senses and is freed to turn inward on itself. It is thus able to discover its own Essence.
(Three quotes by Mike Dubbeld)


You have got to be kidding. To be aware accompanies the attention you give it which indicates your first quote is wrong.


In your second quote you are totally underestimating the capacity of the brain. You can think and experience at the same time. A person can think and avoid bad experiences or think about plans so as to collect the experiences he would like to have in the future. You can go through an experience be caught off guard and immediately react to the situation which undoubtedly would take the ability to think and respond quickly. Something that you may think about doing at first can be automatically and spontaneously done without the added passion of appreciating absolutely every step of the way.

You need to do more research to be more convincing. Those points are incorrect. There's no need for high alert. So we all make mistakes unfortunately that one post isn't all that great.


Thanks for reading. It is funny though granted. You must be kidding. I will stress again.
(Your so special yeah. You deserve a very special dog food.)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-02-2010, 08:34 PM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nef Raven View Post
(Three quotes by Mike Dubbeld)

You have got to be kidding. To be aware accompanies the attention you give it which indicates your first quote is wrong.
You have to bring your awareness to attention or when something has your awareness it has your attention. You have to direct water through a field with a sleuth. Your sleuth has water and attention has your awareness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nef Raven View Post
In your second quote you are totally underestimating the capacity of the brain. You can think and experience at the same time. A person can think and avoid bad experiences or think about plans so as to collect the experiences he would like to have in the future. You can go through an experience be caught off guard and immediately react to the situation which undoubtedly would take the ability to think and respond quickly. Something that you may think about doing at first can be automatically and spontaneously done without the added passion of appreciating absolutely every step of the way.
I am sorry all the above is wrong. Learn to concentrate and meditate or forever remain confused about these things. Thoughts are like either images on a film or small movies. Unless you become aware of them they sit in a closet collecting dust. It is awareness or consciousness that experiences images from the senses or experiences thoughts in the mind. Your mind is no more animate than you car. Unless and until you animate your car it does nothing. Unless and until you move awareness through thoughts in the mind thoughts in the mind do nothing. They are simply memories/conceptions captured by the mind from awareness experiencing things from the senses or thoughts in the mind. Awareness or consciousness is the experiencer. The mind does nothing more than capture conceptions (pictures) of these experiences. Just like the map is not the territory you are not your mind. The mind may as well be considered an external object. And objects have specific properties. Boundaries. Limitations. And so does the mind.

It is only when you believe you are your mind that the ego rears its head with offence at this idea but the ego is also extremely limited. It is a reflection of the soul in energy that produces your individual consciousness giving rise to the notion of an "I". To have an "I" you must have a "not-I" or all else with which to compare "I" to and call yourself "you". This "you" is not You at all however and is simply a dream of maya. This arising of "I" is actually the so-called "original sin". As soon as "I" came into being the relative universe did simultaneously and it is this separation that separates us from God. The "I" is none other than what the bible calls the devil or master deceiver.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nef Raven View Post
You need to do more research to be more convincing. Those points are incorrect. There's no need for high alert. So we all make mistakes unfortunately that one post isn't all that great.
Unfortunately every time I come to FC I have to dumb myself down just to be able to communicate at the FC level. All the things I said above are not even interesting to me any longer. I have long since moved on hammering out the details of what I said in science. Unfortunately it is unlikely anyone here has the education necessary to follow/understand what I say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nef Raven View Post
Thanks for reading. It is funny though granted. You must be kidding. I will stress again.
(Your so special yeah. You deserve a very special dog food.)
Don't read my posts. Stick to people at your special 3'rd grade level. Or better yet, make my day. Go for it. You choose the subject. You mentioned the brain. Go ahead. Lets talk about neuroscience. Maybe a little cosmology? LOL. I forgot more about these sorts of things than you are ever to likely know about them. How can I say that? By all the shallow trivial things I see on these forums including your drivel. Why don't you go ahead and articulate the metaphysical differences between mind, I, consciousness, what experience is. What thinking is, what understanding is. What the different explanations are. Who you are. Why you were born. Actually it is precisely why I don't come to FC very often (when its servers are not all screwed up as they so frequently are) - there are so few people here that know much of anything. Got to go contractor here.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-03-2010, 12:14 AM
riffmeister's Avatar
riffmeister riffmeister is offline
Naked Red Man
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Along The River, Washington State, USA
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld View Post
Or better yet, make my day. Go for it.
Imagining a possible Symptom response, I would implore the members of FC NOT to offer Mike more fodder for such mental masturbation. But, alas, I am not Symptom.

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike ...

What is it you are looking for? I did not return to challenge you. However, from my perception it definitely yet appears you strive to prove to yourself everything you believe so absolutely. I may be wrong, but for one so versed in the aspects of a very well developed methodology of training one's focus, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY do you persist if not to bolster your "I?"

(Answer not the question of which we each well know the answer to already.)

Anyway, to Mike's admirers and/or curious inquisitors, may I sincerely say he truly knows his stuff. To justly contradict him, however, Symptom IS the proven Master in this arena. Mike cannot beat Symptom and Symptom cannot beat Mike. (An observation I've found quite enlightening in the past.)

Before I ditch ... I just reminded myself of a cool book I read a few years back entitled, "The Quantum and the Lotus" by Matthieu Ricard & Trinh Xuan Thuan. Very good read in such endeavors. The book is written in dialogue format between Thuan (an astrophysicist) and Ricard (a buddhist monk). While the two found more agreement than disagreement, I remember giving Thuan the edge on the finite points of argument as his investment was satisfied before the debate even began. Symptom often had such an edge.

Remember, as Episode I imparts, "Your focus determines your reality."

Frostcloud is what it has always been and will always be and that is simply
a great playground for such explorative attention. Have fun!
__________________
the true evil only is that which is real not
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-03-2010, 12:31 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Please ditch. Even with all my insults that is the best you can do? No content. Useless drivel. Same-o-same-o. So you are reminded of some book I never heard of and briefly say virtually nothing of it/supply nothing of any value yourself. What good is that? You are so funny comparing me to symptom. The only place I talk to symptom is in science as that is the only ground I have in common of any sort with symptom but I most certainly would never think of symptom as being on any sort of par with myself in most things in science. Even so, so sorry is knowledge of science on FC at least when I want to talk about science symptom is one of the few that is not on drugs. As far as you are concerned since you do not post on the sciencce forums I guess you don't know much about science. The fact that you compare me to symptom also confirms this. Its so sad. Same old dumbing down. Have to backstep endlessly providing all the content and never even get to the controversial part as the people here don't know what is science and what is not they think the science itself is debatable. Never even get to the real issues. Sad.

Last edited by Mike Dubbeld; 03-03-2010 at 12:36 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Some words are stomped while... coberst General Philosophy 30 11-28-2006 12:36 AM
CANADA! What happened to you? MPDC Politics and World Events 215 09-20-2006 02:49 PM
Adam never happened Mike Dubbeld Religion 29 04-22-2006 01:57 PM
Article in TIA Daily Colonel Politics and World Events 0 09-06-2005 02:17 AM
Messiah: WHAT DO YOU EXPECT OF HIM/HER? IamJoseph Religion 12 05-03-2004 07:34 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:54 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network