How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Perceptive Reality   [ Page: 1  2  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Perceptive Reality

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


25 posted 08-29-2000 10:48 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello,

JP:
"Laws of physics?  A ridiculous notion.  physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action."

Speaking of ridiculous notions.....
Does your statement include video cameras or sound recorders or are you saying only if we are physically there to observe something will it exist? I'm taking a guess you believe more in Biblical creation then you do in a random BIG BANG type of theory? I say this because for your statement to be true would kind of mean that you somehow feel that things in creation are there to cater to us. Our actions control physical laws instead of vice versa.

"physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves,"

No, we only validate them once we prove them to ourselves. Their validity or existence does not come from us because we do not dictate their nature.


"we can believe the sun will rise every morning because of what we believe we know about the universe and its movements, but until that sun rises in the morning we cannot be sure it will."

I don't see how that statement leans validity to your point. Do you think that if the sun didn't rise....which in reality the sun really doesn't rise but rather the earth, while orbiting the sun, rotates on its axis thereby creating the illusion of rising.....that it would be because it somehow escaped the laws that govern existence....or are you trying to say that no one was awake to witness the sun rising therefor it didn't bother? If the sun did not rise it would be because a physical law had made this so and not because we couldn't prove that the sun would rise that day.

"We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience, "the sun has risen everyday since one can remember, so we can infer that it will rise again tomorrow...""

It is true that physics derives from witnessing patterns but it is these very physical laws that you speak of that also tell us that eventually the sun won't "rise" due to a stars penchant of burning off all its energy. Even if we are not here will this still happen....it will just be cold and dark one day, forever after on planet earth....regardless of whether or not people want that.


"Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down?  Or from different locations in the room?"

Congratulations to Bertrand Russell but how does that give what you said validity? A man with paper bag shoes once told me he was Jesus Christ here to give the world more breakfast cereals.

The whole problem of your arguement is that by your theory you say that things only exist or obey physics after they are found but we know this not to be true because you can not see anything that does not exist nor could something like a planet or universe remain stable if it did not have a rhyme or reason to it. You need something first to be there in order for it to be discovered. For example, you are an astrologer and you come across a new found planet....by you're way of thinking it only came into existence because you saw it. But how could you see something if it was not there to begin with? Also if it was in existence before you saw it but didn't play by the rules of some sort of physical law, then what was it doing before you saw it?....just bouncing off of the other planets in the universe?

It's an interesting thought, things only being the way they are because we are there to observe them and it would be a very interesting and thought provoking story if you were to make it one, however as far as fact goes, well I don't think it rings true.

Okay I'm starting to babble a bit here but think of the time before science existed and humans were ape like? DId the earth and the physical laws which governed it change daily because ape-boy could not prove any of it? Or were they bound to the same laws we are, such as gravity? You are looking at existence like we were created and a pattern was born from us rather then a pattern was born and we were created from that....when I think the latter might be more accurate a statement.

Although I disagree with what you said I must thank you for making me think.

Take care,
Trevor  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


26 posted 08-29-2000 12:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Trevor, just a correction on a very, very slight scientific lapse, if I may? Stars don't just burn off all their energy, but rather follow a specific evolutionary process as nuclear fusion battles gravity. Honestly, I don't remember if Sol is massive enough to ever go nova (I don't think so), but I do know it's "next stage" will be a giant red star - and its corona will reach out to just about Jupiter's orbit.

It will never be cold and dark one day on planet Earth. We'll be vaporized.

(Of course, that won't happen for roughly another five billion years. But it's never too early to think about moving…   )
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


27 posted 08-29-2000 03:26 PM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Correct-toe muendo Ron as always. Yes a transformation or evolution would have more correctly described what happens to stars. Sorry about the slip up and thanks for the correction. Kinda fits into the energy can not be destroyed only changed type of thing.

"It will never be cold and dark one day on planet Earth. We'll be vaporized."

The whole planet or just life?

"(Of course, that won't happen for roughly another five billion years. But it's never too early to think about moving…   )"

My bags are already packed and I'm calling back the mother ship to pick us all up!  

Thanks,

Trevor


Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


28 posted 08-29-2000 07:03 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Hey Ron,

If we still gotta another five billion years, where are those damn nuetrinos?

Thinking of Clarke's novel -- what was it? -- "The Songs of Distant Earth"?    

Brad
JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


29 posted 08-31-2000 10:45 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

I did say that the only thing that one could be relatively sure of is the existence of matter (what constitutes matter is another debate I suppose...), but what shape that matter takes is mutable, dependent upon our observance of it.

I did not say that the red spot on the wall did not exist, I merely suggested that the red spot on the wall that I see is not the same red spot on the wall that you may see.  Physical "laws" (the very term is innacurate)  are delusional in thier very nature.  They are based upon past experience and inferred belief of continued validity.  No one can be 100% positive that there will be a sun in the sky tomorrow, for any number of reasons, all we can be sure of is our belief that since there was a sun in the sky for all of our yesterdays there will continue to be a sun in the sky.  Is this a law?  Hardly, just a belief.

As for the existence of dino and the gang... we cannot be sure of thier exisitence, we can deduce that they existed because the matter we see today resembles the fossilized remains of something that we have theorized about.  

Einsteins "theory of relativity" is simply that, a theory., does it help explain the action of matter in the fashion to which we have observed matter in action?  Yes.  Is it a law?  No, merely an explanation of what has been observed and an inferrence as to what we believe will happen again.  


Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
JP

"Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway
JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


30 posted 08-31-2000 10:48 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Trev...

Your assumptions regarding my beliefs are woefully incorrect  



Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
JP

"Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


31 posted 08-31-2000 11:08 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

I'm not going to get into this one guys but I just wanted to point out that the most recent of the Atlantic has a poem called "Fossils" that goes right to the heart of the "dino" question.


Check it out (it's online).

Thanks,
Brad
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


32 posted 09-01-2000 03:37 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello,

JP:

"I did not say that the red spot on the wall did not exist, I merely suggested that the red spot on the wall that I see is not the same red spot on the wall that you may see.  Physical "laws" (the very term is innacurate)  are delusional in thier very nature."

I think some of my misinterpretation of your arguement stems from this statement you made:

"If a tree falls in the forest.....  That is assuming that there is a tree in the forest if no one is there, or if there even is a forest.... forget about if it makes a sound or not."

Combine that with the red-spot theory then it kinda sounded like you were saying universal laws (whatever they may be) are governed according to whether or not we are there to witness them and may only exist if we witness them. If that was not what you were implying with that tree-forest thing then what was meant by that?

"Physical "laws" (the very term is innacurate)  are delusional in thier very nature."

The term is accurate but our definitions or beliefs of what might be a physical law might be incorrect. Perhaps you statement might be more accurate if you were to say that Physical "laws" are real and definite (even if that includes consistent change) and that it is not them which are delusional in nature but rather it is our perception that is inacurate? If there is a fault in physical laws it lies within our interpretation of them and not in accordance to their behaviour. Perhaps the laws which govern reality are perfect and we're just to small or "flawed" to see it. Also for you to make a statement such as physical laws are dellusional in nature would imply that you know for certain the nature of physical laws....which I believe you do not. If you really do know the laws which govern the physical world I'd love to hear about them, this would definitely lend more validity to you knowing the nature of physical laws. Perhaps a more accurate statement might be that the theories we hold on physical laws can be misleading in nature.

"They are based upon past experience and inferred belief of continued validity."

I'm going to have to disagree with you again. IMO, Physical laws, universal laws or laws that govern reality are not based upon our past, present or future experience. They are set and on track regardless of how or what we do. However our interpretation of these laws is based upon past experience....but what we consider to be a steadfast thing doesn't mean that it is so, what we think and what is aren't always in-line. Therefore physical laws are not based upon past experience and inferred belief of continued validity but rather our belief system is based upon them.  

"No one can be 100% positive that there will be a sun in the sky tomorrow, for any number of reasons, all we can be sure of is our belief that since there was a sun in the sky for all of our yesterdays there will continue to be a sun in the sky.  Is this a law?  Hardly, just a belief."

This is the part where I agree. Science has probably been wrong more times then it has been right. Mankind is so damn ignorant of the actual possibilities surrounding the universe and the laws that bind it, one can never be 100 percent sure of what will happen next. But if I had to place a bet....    

"Einsteins "theory of relativity" is simply that, a theory., does it help explain the action of matter in the fashion to which we have observed matter in action?  Yes.  Is it a law?  No, merely an explanation of what has been observed and an inferrence as to what we believe will happen again."

Now this is where I'm led to believe we are in more agreement than we realize and that perhaps this is more of a debate on words then on meaning.

"Your assumptions regarding my beliefs are woefully incorrect"

"woefully incorrect"...now I know you are an aspiring poet but must you be so dramatic JP?  Hey I only work with what you give me to feed from. Well to clear up things I'll rehash what you said and revamp my rebuttal a bit.

"physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action."

I contend that these laws do exist regardless if we have the ability to observe and understand them. Our perception is based upon them and not vice versa.

"If a tree falls in the forest.....  That is assuming that there is a tree in the forest if no one is there, or if there even is a forest.... forget about if it makes a sound or not."

This is where I thought you were implying that things may only exist if we are there to observe them. If this is not what you were implying by this statement could you please explain what it meant? I don't want to assume anything and become woefully incorrect again.    

"physical laws are only valid once they prove themselves."

Whether we consider them valid or not has no relevancy to whether or not they really do exist and act accordingly or even if they can prove themselves to us.  

"We infer the knowledge of these physical laws through our past experience"

We base our laws or more accurately theories and beliefs, upon the physical laws that we percieve through our past experience. Our laws may very well differ from the real ones. Your use of "these physical laws", I'm interpretting as a reference to the actual physical laws that govern the universe rather than man-made laws.

"Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down?"

This is where I questioned the relevancy of Bertrand's statement because I felt that what we see, though it may differ from person to person (and I agree with Bertrand on that), really matters not regarding to what really exists nor changes the reality of things. Perhaps I should have be more specific in my earlier reply.

"The only thing that we can be relatively sure of is that there is matter"

No more sure of that then anything else. If there is the possibility we have imagined one thing, does there not exist the possibility that we have imagined it all?

"what shape it takes is completely dependent upon our individual reality."

Perhaps a more accurate statement would be what shape we PERCIEVE it as is completely dependant upon our individual reality or individual observations of the ACTUAL reality. The actual reality of a shape is not dependant on our perceptions therefor something can not take a shape based upon our individual reality but rather we percieve a shape based upon our individual reality. The shape remains, only our peceptions of it differ. We feed off reality and not vice versa.

I think if there is confusion in my response it may be because I'm not a hundred percent sure when you are referring to man's beliefs of what the physical laws are and when you are referring to the actual physical laws that govern the universe. You don't seem to make a clear distinction between the two. Same applies when you speak of reality.

With all that said, am I still "woefully incorrect" with my assumptions? Perhaps, since my assumptions were based upon what you wrote, it was not I who was incorrectly interpreting your words but you who was inaccurately relaying them?    

Anyways thanks for the interesting discussion, I look forward to reading more of your thoughts on this. Take care,

Trevor




[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 09-01-2000).]
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


33 posted 09-01-2000 03:50 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

I'd like to add one more thing I just thought of...

our interpretation of physical laws or the laws that govern the universe are most likely inaccurate for we are only working on a small scale, both physically and timewise. To accurately describe the nature of something one must be able to record the behaviour of the subject, in whole, from the start of an action(birth) unto the finish of its action(death) and be certain at all times of its intent and purpose. And since we were not there at the beginning of creation, nor will we see its end, nor can we see all of it at the same time, should we ever expect to, while we live, understand the nature of the universe nor the laws that confine it and us.

I'd also like to add that was not completely an original thought but partially borrowed from a modern philosopher who's name escapes me....but hey its my own words and understanding and I thank the forgotten philosopher for the idea    

Thanks,

Trevor



[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 09-01-2000).]
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


34 posted 09-01-2000 04:46 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Since we've already wandered into scientific realms as a basis (or supposed lack of basis) for reality, let's branch into the heart of much of modern scientific thought.

If 2 + 2 equals 4 for me, what will it equal for you?
JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


35 posted 09-01-2000 12:05 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Trev -
"Speaking of ridiculous notions..... I'm taking a guess you believe more in Biblical creation then you do in a random BIG BANG type of theory? I say this because for your statement to be true would kind of mean that you somehow feel that things in creation are there to cater to us. Our actions control physical laws instead of vice versa."

"woefully incorrect"...now I know you are an aspiring poet but must you be so dramatic JP?  Hey I only work with what you give me to feed from.

Two minor points:  

1.  You speak of a belief in Biblical Creation as if that is a bad thing.  Yet you seem to place a strong faith in the theory of evolution. Personally  it appears as if both explanations are fraught with the pitfalls of faith and assumption.

Just to clear things up a smidge... I believe that life on this planet was the result of genetic seeding from an advanced life form from another place in the universe, I believe that the existence of our planet was the result of some type of "big bang" or some other cosmic function of planet formation... the actual dissertation on this idea can be found in old "Prose forum" posts and in an earlier post in this this forum (Evolution of humankind).

2.  Aspiring poet?  I think not.  I already am a poet.  While the quality of my poetry may be subject for debate, I certainly have no aspirations to become what I already am...(I do perhaps aspire to be a better poet though...)  

As for being dramatic... this is a philosophy forum on a poetry website, where else should one be dramatic?

Ron - 2+2=4 for me as well.... did you know that 2 wrongs squared, divided by the square root of 27 actually does equal a right?


Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
JP

"Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


36 posted 09-02-2000 12:25 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello,

JP:

"You speak of a belief in Biblical Creation as if that is a bad thing."

Now who is assuming? I did not speak of biblical creation as a bad thing but rather that pieced together soundbite did. If you're going to make it look like you are quoting me then please use the full statement rather then piecing it together where you see fit to give it the meaning you want to. We are having a discussion, not running for office. The actual line was:

"Speaking of ridiculous notions.....
Does your statement include video cameras or sound recorders or are you saying only if we are physically there to observe something will it exist? I'm taking a guess you believe more in Biblical creation then you do in a random BIG BANG type of theory?.."

and that was a rebuttal towards your statement of:

"Laws of physics?  A ridiculous notion.  physical laws only exist if we are there to obsever them in action."

Now where did I say that biblical creation was a bad thing???? Please point that out. All I said was that I thought you probably believed in biblical creation rather than Big Bang because all you comments on reality seemed to be focused on the idea that reality is shaped by us and not vice versa....and in the bible creation was made for man...that's who I strung the two together. I personally don't believe that creation happened how the bible said it did but hey, that's just my belief. And even in that statement I did not say what my personal belief in creation is but rather I was trying to say it seemed, out of the two most popular beliefs in NA, Big Bang and Biblical, that you seeeeeemed like the type who would believe in Biblical over Big Bang.

"Yet you seem to place a strong faith in the theory of evolution."

Not a strong faith but a stronger faith in theory of evolution over text-book religions. And I do agree with you that both have many holes in them. All the theories on creation are currently unprovable. I really try not to believe any one of them but rather think about the possibilities.

"I believe that life on this planet was the result of genetic seeding from an advanced life form from another place in the universe, I believe that the existence of our planet was the result of some type of "big bang" or some other cosmic function of planet formation."

Well its about as believable and possible as all the other theories. So when is the mother ship coming back to pick us all up? J/K

"Aspiring poet?  I think not.  I already am a poet."

Well there are people who write poems and then there are poets. Take another guess at which one you are.   Once again, I'm just ribbing ya, I honestly didn't mean anything by that comment. So I'll apoligize now if that offended you but I'll leave it in just in case you get a chuckle from it.

"While the quality of my poetry may be subject for debate, I certainly have no aspirations to become what I already am...(I do perhaps aspire to be a better poet though...)"

Very good response actually.

"As for being dramatic... this is a philosophy forum on a poetry website, where else should one be dramatic?"

In front of the mirror at home while singing into your comb, "Vo-lar-eeee, woe-oh, compadre-oh-oh-oh-oh!".  

Nice response JP for someone who avoided all the real issues of discussion and didn't answer any of the questions asked of him. Maybe you are running for office then...I mean with all the sidestep statements   Now you didn't bother to refute any of my statements, how should I percieve this? Should I assume that you are in agreement with what I have said? or, Should I assume that you just don't have a solid enough response? or Should I just assume we were in disagreement over the wording and not the actual meaning?

Anyways if you have any more thoughts on any of the major points we were debating then I'd love to hear them. And please no more off topic soundbites.

Thanks and take care,
Trevor


PS Ron I'll get back to the 2+2=4 thingy, right now its time to view the back of my eyelids.

  




[This message has been edited by Trevor (edited 09-02-2000).]
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


37 posted 09-03-2000 11:30 AM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hello,

RON:

"Since we've already wandered into scientific realms as a basis (or supposed lack of basis) for reality, let's branch into the heart of much of modern scientific thought."

"If 2 + 2 equals 4 for me, what will it equal for you?"

When speaking sctrictly of learned and applied mathematics,for me, 2+2=4. But what other ways could one look at it, 2+2=1(a whole), 2+2=2+2(only the exact same thing can really equal itself)...dunno these are just scatter brained ideas I thought I'd throw in for the sake of discussion.

Science and math are the tools we use to define our reality and they are great tools but because of the faith placed in science and the masses lack of indepth scienctific or mathematical knowledge (that's where I fit in) these great tools occasionally have projected the wrong reality and caused people to believe in things that are not true or are only the partial truth. Science once said that the earth was flat, science once said that the earth was the center of the universe, science once said that the sun revolved around the earth....all of these theories were considered the truth by the vast majority but are now proven wrong. Now this is science of old and we now chuckle at those theories but I believe that is all relative to the times. Our percieved universe is so much larger and smaller then their universe. We have a broader knowledge of Micro and Macro things which give us a better look into what might be the truth of something, yet I still believe that a little too much faith is sometimes placed in science especially when concerning new to light information or exploration. One example might be in the field of medicine. We are constantly discovering that many things we thought to be the cause of sickness are not the actual cause. For instance, only recently has it been discovered that the main cause of ulcers are micro-organisms instead of what it was before, which I believe they blamed it on stress causing over-reaction of stomach bile or something like that (Hey, I've never claimed to be a scientist so if any of my specifics are wrong I apoligize but its the meaning I'm going for behind my examples rather then the examples themselves...yes this is my scapegoat statement that absolves me from any wrong doing through acknowledgement of my ignorance ). So in that example the reality of what we thought an ulcer to be was stress related where as now our reality is that it is a micro-organism that causes them. We may later find out that this too is false. Another example is only in the last century (even less) or so did science acknowledge that not everyone with a physical disability or mental disability were mentally retarded. Up until then, pretty much all handicapped people were clumped together and thought to be lost causes. A deaf-mute with the potential of Einstien would be thrown into horrible institutions to rot because the common belief was that they were retarded. So once again science was wrong in its diagnosis.

However, science is a tool that builds upon itself and should not be expected to be accurate all the time. Its often through its wrong findings and elimination of these from an equation of sorts, that gives us the truth...or supposed truth. But as we uncover more of our world new factors are needed in the equations to be more accurate with what might be the truth. For example, 100 years ago very little (in comparison to today) was known about micro-organisms so it would be impossible for a doctor to assertain that microscopic creatures caused ulcers. It wasn't until certain information about micro-organisms was uncovered that we could deduce that it was them causing ulcers. Am I making sense here?

Since we don't know everything it might be safe to say we don't know much. A new reality seems to be discovered daily and ironically it's usually caused by science's disbelief in itself.

Well that's my thoughts so far on your discussion starter Ron. I'm anxious to read what you've baited me into and how you'll swiss cheese my statements, as per usual   But damn, that's the fun part for me, I open my big trap and through discussion I get to learn a new possibility, and often a better interpretation of the truth.

Thanks and take care,

Trevor

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


38 posted 09-03-2000 12:50 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

To me, the hallmark of science is predictability. If A happens and then B happens, assuming the conditions C, is the inevitable result going to be X? Using this criteria, I think the word "science" as commonly meant is too vague. Just as the Eskimo's have many words for snow, we need a bit more precision when we're talking about science.

As a start, let's break it down into three "types" of science.

Let's call science that is based on pure mathematics Hard Science. If 2 + 2 does indeed always equal 4, we can say that the predictability of Hard Science is 100 percent. Much of the so-called physical sciences fall into this category. If you accelerate a particle to 97 percent the speed of light, Einstein's equations predict exactly how much energy you'll need to apply to get it up to 98 percent.

The Soft Sciences are based on experimentation, rather than on mathematics. Your medical example, Trevor, would fall in this category. If you closely examine biopsies from a thousand ulcers and find Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) bacterium in the vast majority, you might well reach the same conclusions Australian physician Barry Marshall did. Does that mean a biopsy is always going to find H. pylori? No. Statistically, 95% of persons with gastric ulcers, and 100% of persons with chronic gastritis have this bacterium within the stomach. The organism has not been found in healthy persons (no stomach ulcers or gastritis). No guarantees, but nonetheless a high degree of predictability.

Then we have what I tend to call the Gooey Sciences. These are based on cause and effect, but the control mechanisms of the Soft Sciences rarely exist. We simply can't open up a human brain and "see" how a person's childhood affected their personality. So, in my estimation, much of psychiatry falls into the Gooey category. For different reasons, most Social sciences are Gooey; not because we can't "see," but rather because the variable are beyond our ken. I personally believe that many, many of the things we call science today are still in the Gooey stage.

All three of these categories overlap. While much of physics is Hard, there are certainly Soft portions (the Big Bang) and even a bit of Gooey (where are those damn neutrinos?). Medicine may have turned the corner to Soft, but there's still a lot of Gooey left over from our past. And psychiatry is, to some extent, becoming Softer and less Gooey every day. The criteria, again, is always predictability.

Trevor, you hit the nail when you said, "Science and math are the tools we use to define our reality," and made exactly the point I was trying to broach. How much they define our reality depends on which category of science you're going to use in your definition.

Case in point: "Bertrand Russell would ask if that red spot on the wall which appears to you is the same spot on the wall that appears to me, and is it the same spot which you see standing up and well as sitting down?"

Red is nothing more than a specific wavelength of light, very much a Hard Science. Measuring it from different angles and distances, we can determine precisely just how red the red spot really is. It doesn't matter what you see, nor does it matter what I see. As long as 2 + 2 equals 4, we can nonetheless agree. Our realities MUST mesh.

Now, if you want to talk about what affect that red spot is going to have on your mood, we start moving into a very, very Gooey realm.  
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


39 posted 09-03-2000 05:05 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Don't suppose somebody wants to start another thread here?

I think the numbers game is interesting but surprised nobody has attacked the 2+2=4 argument at its source. Quickly, the above equation consists of signs, a language, a game -- you have to know the rules before you can play. As a result, it is open to interpretation. What if someone else played by different rules? If they were looking at this equation, they might just as equally argue that 2+2=5 (as the Orwellian example goes).


I just gave a hint on my source though -- the wonderful world of language games.

Just hope someone replies on a different thread.  

Brad


JnR4eva
Member
since 08-07-2000
Posts 380
Bronx, NY


40 posted 09-04-2000 01:47 AM       View Profile for JnR4eva   Email JnR4eva   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JnR4eva

hey there...i took brad's advice and did not post another reply on the reality question being that this seems to be a new question..or rather a new discussion...so i have continued it entiteld.. of the sciences..here in philo 101...i replied to some of trevor's, ron's and brad's comments.

"my love is my motivation
my love is my inspiration
perception of this poem
is your interpretation"
-- rlt


JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


41 posted 09-04-2000 03:01 PM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Hey Trev,  when a discussion, or the responses from particular writers begin to show signs of tension or ire, I usually move away from the discussion.  A lot of folks here are arguing a point of view in which they believe in vehemently and their responses show that passion.  I choose not to get into a battle over something that I could not swear to on a witness stand as something I firmly believe in.

Add to that the fact that I am just a poor slob who got his degree (not an education) from a second-rate state university   and I have to admit my pool of knowledge in confoundly shallow...


Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
JP

"Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway
Trevor
Senior Member
since 08-12-99
Posts 744
Canada


42 posted 09-04-2000 05:53 PM       View Profile for Trevor   Email Trevor   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Trevor

Hi JP,

"when a discussion, or the responses from particular writers begin to show signs of tension or ire, I usually move away from the discussion.  A lot of folks here are arguing a point of view in which they believe in vehemently and their responses show that passion."

Well I must admit I do sometimes get a little caught up in things and create some of the tension you speak of and occasionally argue vehemently over something and if I came off like that in this thread then I apoligize for turning you off of this discussion. However it is through peoples passion for discussion and refusal to let ideas just peter out that we discover new things, we learn new things and often, if an open mind is kept to the possibilities, we grow from it. Personally I think often its the tension of a discussion that helps drag out more info....also on occasion has been known to drag out cussing and fighting too

I have to admit I was kinda disappointed at first that you didn't continue the discussion but I respect your choice not to get too involved in a discussion of something that is a grey area.

"I choose not to get into a battle over something that I could not swear to on a witness stand as something I firmly believe in."

I'm sorry if I made it seem like a battle, like I said I'm guilty of sometimes getting into it a little too much. I'm not here to "win" an aurguement, though at times I'll fight like I'm trying to win, but my main goal in these discussions are learning. I'll concede that if any of my points seem valid in this discussion its not solely my doing but rather because of yours and others interaction with me....through that stimuli I was able to form these thoughts. Without my discussion with you, my ideas would be so much more shallow. That I try to apply to all my thoughts. I only wish I could find a way to shift the blame when I say something wayyyy off the mark  

"Add to that the fact that I am just a poor slob who got his degree (not an education) from a second-rate state university   and I have to admit my pool of knowledge is confoundly shallow..."

Nothing to put yourself down over, education doesn't begin nor end with the education system. I didn't even graduate high school. If you really believe that your pool of knowledge is shallow then shouldn't it be more reason to engage in discussions such as the one's found at 101. It's one thing to read a conversation, it's another thing to be a part of it. There's some quote, and I'm not sure who said it but it goes something like this,

"Teach me,
so I may know.
Show me,
so I may do.
Involve me,
so I may understand."

Anyways I appreciate you posting a reason why you didn't feel like continuing the discussion and I respect that decision.

Thanks and take care,

Trevor

JP
Senior Member
since 05-25-99
Posts 1391
Loomis, CA


43 posted 09-08-2000 10:58 AM       View Profile for JP   Email JP   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit JP's Home Page   View IP for JP

Trev - Thank you for building my self esteem, I really appreciate it.

One of the main reasons I chose to bow out of this discussion, and occassionally others, is because a lack of passion for the topic.  There are many things I have knowledge about, many things that I believe are possible, and many things I agree or disagree with, yet there are few things which I believe in so passionately that I choose to delve into in any extraordinarily great depth.

That is not to say I do not dwell on these things, nor does it mean that I do not spend time deep in my own thoughts debating the possibility of life in other worlds, or the intracacies of DNA and how I think humanity will never be able to create life, or why those plastic things on the shoelaces have no name that anyone can convince me is true...

I do these things regularly, yet I hold no firm position on most of them and have not done the research to support an argument which I have no impetus to make.

As for when the mothership is coming... just because an advanced lifeform genetically seeded this planet and has possible visited us in the past and present to help guide our evolution, that does not mean that they did so to harvest us and bring us back to the "home world".  Does a country colonate a new world in order to comeback and take everyone home?  No.  They create colonies to expand their scope of power and population, or perhaps just to experiment and see how one would fair in a different environment.

Lastly, the education comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek for Ron's benefit.  Him and his elitist attitude....    (j/k Ron, please don't smite me...)


Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn.
JP

"Everything is your own damn fault, if you are any good." E. Hemmingway
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Perceptive Reality   [ Page: 1  2  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors