Explain this, you empiricists

[CartesianFart]

You mean that my subconscious sleeping mind was busy correctly calculating the likelihood of a blackout, taking into account all possible variables, as I snored? Hmmm...I know the human mind constantly makes incredibly complex calculations on a subconscious level, but I think thats limited mostly to our motor functions, vision and things like that, right?

What BozO says about the subconscious sounds like science,but in fact it is just a means of representation.He display that the elements of his sleeping mind is something of a computer calculating which in fact all he is displaying only similes.His method of analysing dreams is not analogous to a method for finding the causes of stomach-ache. It is a confusion to say that a reason is a cause seen from the inside. A cause is not seen from within or from without. It is found by experiment. In enabling one to discover the reasons for dreams that Bozo is not shy of providing is one who is not shy of making assumption a representation of processes.

I often think during these types of arguments that if two human beings can have such difficulty understanding how the other percieves reality, then we'll never be able to communicate with ETs

Then we can never really understand what Bozo is saying either.

 

[brennan]

Again: Some unusual occurences are not coincidences (imo), though they may appear to be.


I dont have to agree with that. You do, though

Nope. Im saying that some significant occurences arent coincidences, though they may appear to be, to some people.

Im really going to drive you crazy now: my HUNCH is that its like classical physics. Completely correct and reliable on one level of reality, but not so on another.

Thank you.

I often think during these types of arguments that if two human beings can have such difficulty understanding how the other percieves reality, then we'll never be able to communicate with ETs

lol. I understand exactly what you are trying to say. But your suggestion is completely impossible to detect and has no value, having no predictive application. Essentially you are positing a nonsensical scenario and making a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

BTW are you aware of the Aspect experiments into hidden variables?

Please explain this sentence:

Some unusual occurences are not coincidences (imo), though they may appear to be.

Specifically, how can you say this does not make such events significant, something you have specifically avoided saying twice now.

 

[Riffraff]

Im really going to drive you crazy now: my HUNCH is that its like classical physics. Completely correct and reliable on one level of reality, but not so on another.

well this is the problem i guess: you value your own intuition higher than the collected works of generations of mathematicians, who spent lifetimes determining these laws.

 

[C~G]

well this is the problem i guess: you value your own intuition higher than the collected works of generations of mathematicians, who spent lifetimes determining these laws.

As priests study the bible all their lives.

 

[CartesianFart]

making a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

How can you appeal to ignorance in a fallacious manner?

So i have the lack of knowledge of something and my method of finding out is already erroneous,so what is the point of even trying.I think you are confusing what is a priori and what is not.

 

[brennan]

How can you appeal to ignorance in a fallacious manner?

So i have the lack of knowledge of something and my method of finding out is already erroneous,so what is the point of even trying.I think you are confusing what is a priori and what is not.

Er, like this

 

[CartesianFart]

Er, like this

I know what that is,but when you quoted this

making a fallacious appeal to ignorance.

I was merely doing this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

 

[brennan]

The manner of his appeal to ignorance was not fallacious, the fact that he made such an appeal was.

 

[warpus]

Im not trying to prove anything, Im merely introducing questions, and stating my belief that theres much more we dont know, than we do know.

You are saying that there is more to coincidences than meets the eye - and are suggesting that the supernatural may be involved. That is quite an extraordinary claim.

Ive said nothing about mysticism or reverence. If under certain circumstances, occasionally people experience random precognitive events, whether in a dream or not, I believe it would be a completely natural phenomenon, just one we dont understand yet. Youre willing to concede that there are things about reality that we dont understand yet, right?

I admit that there are things about reality that we don't understand yet. However, nobody, so far, has been able to provide any sort of proof that people can see into the future. There is nothing to suggest that it may be possible.

Occam's Razor suggests that what you experienced was a mere coincidence. These happen from time to time. If you want to suggest that something more profound is happening here, without any sort of proof at all, then you don't really have much of a point.

I concede that there are things about this universe we don't understand yet, but do not think that this lack of understanding should give credence to theories without any sort of backing. All you have is a very vague suggestion. "Something might be going on here". No evidence, no nothing. That's why I don't buy your argument.

Especially nowadays since everything has become more "real" and "logical" to everyone where things are proven to be scientifically something it seems people are forgetting how little we actually know, about our reality, how it's constructed and percepted.

Yes, but to acquire new knowledge using a totally non-scientific way, such as you are doing, is a mistake. If your conclusion was not arrived at using scientific principles then it can only have philisophical and/or musical merit at most.

Nope. Im saying that some unusual occurences arent mere coincidences.

But unless you have a semi-solid theory with some sort of data backing it that explains these 'unusual occurences', we'll just have to go with the best explanation we have - that they are in fact simply coincidences.

Do you believe that science and mathematics can explain everything? That things which science and mathematics cant explain, cant be real?

If it can't be understood via scientific methods, then it can't be understood at all, in any meaningful way.

 

[warpus]

Nope. Im saying that some significant occurences arent coincidences, though they may appear to be, to some people.

What makes you say that though, just a hunch?

You are going to need more than that to convince people that you're right.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If it can't be understood via scientific methods, then it can't be understood at all, in any meaningful way.

But that doesn't mean it can't exist, just that it can't be understood in human terms.

 

[CartesianFart]

If it can't be understood via scientific methods, then it can't be understood at all, in any meaningful way.

It can,as long it gives him something of a occult.

 

[C~G]

Yes, but to acquire new knowledge using a totally non-scientific way, such as you are doing, is a mistake. If your conclusion was not arrived at using scientific principles then it can only have philisophical and/or musical merit at most.

You are wrong about that.

What this kind of discussion is but laying foundations into things that can be studied further later when we have enough knowledge and possible means to study the subject? But some seem not to be interested since like always birds fly because they have wings. No need to study it further.

I haven't even done any conclusion yet still you seem to dispute it. That is the problem what I see here. It's the blind obstinancy basing everything into proves gained from test based into scientific methods. You make it sound like we shoudn't even speculate it since it would be heresy towards science and logical thinking of humans.

What if the logical conclusions and scientific methods we know this far don't work with things like these?
If you ask me I find this current atmosphere of scientific explanations, logical conclusions and using academic language to dispute things as mass psychosis of people in order to make them believe world is as simple as someone would like to make us believe so. And that is our mind who would like to convince us with the simplest model available so it satisfies us and keeps our planets on their radar where we have used to have them.

In other words, when the order of nature in which we have accustomed ourselves seem to be as it has been before, we feel safe.

 

[brennan]

The beauty of science is that it explains things that need explaining. Coincidences do not need explaining.

 

[Corlindale]

You are wrong about that.

What this kind of discussion is but laying foundations into things that can be studied further later when we have enough knowledge and possible means to study the subject? But some seem not to be interested since like always birds fly because they have wings. No need to study it further.

That's not how science works? You think science is restricted to exploring what we know now? Science is constantly exploring new avenues of knowledge about our world. There's almost always a need to study further.

I haven't even done any conclusion yet still you seem to dispute it. That is the problem what I see here. It's the blind obstinancy basing everything into proves gained from test based into scientific methods. You make it sound like we shoudn't even speculate it since it would be heresy towards science and logical thinking of humans.

Speculation can be an important part of the scientific method. Many great theories have been arrived at with speculation and then proved with experimentation. However, speculation in areas in which we have no means of experimenting may well be interesting and rewarding, but here the movement from "speculation" to "knowledge" is impossible to make. If I say "I think there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun"(to use an old example by Russell), there's no way to either prove it or disprove it. It is merely speculation, and many would even call it preposterous. The burden of proof would certainly be on me.

What if the logical conclusions and scientific methods we know this far don't work with things like these?

Well, what alternative would you suggest? Wouldn't obtaining any knowledge at all be impossible in that case?

If you ask me I find this current atmosphere of scientific explanations, logical conclusions and using academic language to dispute things as mass psychosis of people in order to make them believe world is as simple as someone would like to make us believe so. And that is our mind who would like to convince us with the simplest model available so it satisfies us and keeps our planets on their radar where we have used to have them.

Simple? I admire you if you think the current idea of the universe accepted by science simple, I must admit that I often have much trouble grasping the amazing and wondrous consequences of Relativity and The Quantum Theory.
Again, what is the alternative? I may very well agree with you that things exist beyond human understanding, but if so then he have no basis at all for making valid statements about such things.

In other words, when the order of nature in which we have accustomed ourselves seem to be as it has been before, we feel safe.

Science is constantly in development, you make it sound like it is static. Science is not about taking new discoveries and then dismiss them to keep the worldview stable(religion has been guilty of that on many occasions, though). Science merely have high standards in regards to evidence, and does not concern itself with things that are inverifiable.

 

[Gothmog]

Re: Bozo

My beliefs are subjective, one of my beliefs is that external reality is not illusory. My beliefs may or may not reflect the 'true' nature of reality.

Any human statement about truth relating to external reality is smoke and mirrors - pure hubris. They must rest on certain a priori assumptions that we cannot prove; e.g. that external reality is not illusory.

All of what we see or seem is but a dream within a dream.

Invoking coincidence does not add to human understanding, nor did I make that claim.

I have an opinion, that I have seen no evidence to make me think that precognition might be real. Precognition in a general sense would have a great many testable hypotheses.

I'm saying that the things that science and mathematics explain may not be real, probably are not real, but at least some of them are useful and beautiful. It does seem that all division is arbitrary.

The only goal of merit (if we are trying to understand an external reality that we assume a priori is 'real') in this state of affairs is making predictions about how external reality might behave if it at all resembled some theoretical construct that I can describe and give internal consistency to.

Anecdotes are nice too, but not do not have explanatory power by themselves. They can even be useful to the extent that they help us construct theories; but I mistrust stories such as this because of the very human desire to believe in them.

@CartesianFart - thanks, that's high praise. Language is power.

 

[warpus]

But that doesn't mean it can't exist, just that it can't be understood in human terms.

If it can't be observed, studied & understood by humans, then it might as well not exist. It would make no difference to us.

However, if something does affect the Universe, even in a small way, that means that we can study it using a scientific process & come to some sort of a conclusion regarding it. If it affects the Universe - we can study it and understand it.

I haven't even done any conclusion yet still you seem to dispute it. That is the problem what I see here. It's the blind obstinancy basing everything into proves gained from test based into scientific methods. You make it sound like we shoudn't even speculate it since it would be heresy towards science and logical thinking of humans.

Speculation is fine, but unless you follow a scientific process, that's all it is.. speculation.. philisophical musings.

I can speculate that invisible elves pull things down to the ground & that the theory of gravity we currently have is flawed. But that's all it will be - wild speculation, unless I can provide proof that I'm even partially right.

And you guys don't even have a speculation.. You're just saying: "Something weird is going on". There isn't even a theory... and you want the idea to be taken seriously?

What if the logical conclusions and scientific methods we know this far don't work with things like these?
If you ask me I find this current atmosphere of scientific explanations, logical conclusions and using academic language to dispute things as mass psychosis of people in order to make them believe world is as simple as someone would like to make us believe so. And that is our mind who would like to convince us with the simplest model available so it satisfies us and keeps our planets on their radar where we have used to have them.

The world is far from simple. If you know anything at all about biology, chemistry, physics, quantum physics, geography, sociology, psychology, astronomy, etc. then you should know that reality is a very complicated place. However, it is not supernatural, like you would like us to believe.

Can't be explained using science = supernatural.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If it can't be observed, studied & understood by humans, then it might as well not exist. It would make no difference to us.

That's a rather anthropocentric view to take. If something doesn't make a difference to humans, then it may as well not exist? As though the only thing that matters in the universe is how something affects humans.

(I realize that if it doesn't affect us in any way, then for our purposes it may as well not exist when we consider the universe, and this is what warpus meant. But that doesn't affect its existence as such.)

 

[C~G]

If I say "I think there is an invisible teapot orbiting the sun"(to use an old example by Russell), there's no way to either prove it or disprove it. It is merely speculation, and many would even call it preposterous. The burden of proof would certainly be on me.

There's a difference here with that example of teapot.

That Bozo dreamed about blackout could have affected his life. And of course it even did since he came to talk about it and so caused people to ponder about the issue. Buttefly flaps it wings...

So there is some kind of connection in our mind between the dream and the reality we observe. Invisible elephants and unicorns don't have their counterpart in reality.

Simple? I admire you if you think the current idea of the universe accepted by science simple,

No, but when it comes explaining things that happen in the world in everyday reality we seem to seek the most simplistic explanation and sweep everything that might endager it under the mat as non-important. And when asked people say "because science and logic says so".
Corlindale, I can say there's nothing really which you point out I couldn't agree but here's the basis of the problem:

The beauty of science is that it explains things that need explaining. Coincidences do not need explaining.

This is the real dead end of human understanding.

This reminds me of some sort of "reverse witch hunt" where people are interested about witch but when they hear the first "reasonable explanation" they make conclusion that the person cannot be witch even though he seems to be flying during nights.

 

[brennan]

This reminds me of some sort of "reverse witch hunt" where people are interested about witch but when they hear the first "reasonable explanation" they make conclusion that the person cannot be witch even though he seems to be flying during nights.

Bad analogy: the appearance of flight would need additional explanation unless explained by the 'reasonable explanation'. Scientists do not make theories with huge gaping holes in like that - not without a dozen others pointing it out and ripping said theory to shreds.