Explain this, you empiricists

[Bozo Erectus]

Well, I don't know that they necessarily "collapse" per se, but indeed no theory is complete.

Since Day 1 of human history, theres always been a prevailing world view, which is always inevitably overthrown and replaced with a new one. That being the case it makes sense to me to keep an open mind and not take to seriously people who claim to definitely know something about Reality, regardless of how many framed pieces of paper on the wall behind them. Sometimes the more paper, the more sceptical I am

@CG I think that rightly or wrongly, from now on, the hardware specialists will lead the way and the software specialists will tag along for the ride. 100 years ago it was the other way around.

 

[C~G]

from now on, the hardware specialists will lead the way and the software specialists will tag along for the ride. 100 years ago it was the other way around.

Well, in research hardware specialists have some catching up to do but it won't be long when they can be seen as integrated parts of each other.

But it will not, I repeat, not diminish the value of human psychology and understanding the images and symbols that flow through our mind.

Since nowadays the world is more and more filled with information which we need to process, the legacy of psychology doesn't fade away but will be seen even more valuable than it is now.

Now we have to just move from simple XML-editing and Python scripting into full implication of the possibilities of SDK and how it can use the hardware it's in for full potency.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

But it will not, I repeat, not diminish the value of human psychology and understanding the images and symbols that flow through our mind.

I agree, but I think the reasons why we turn to psychology will change. For instance in the future when depression can be cured by surgically implanting a grain of rice sized device in a certain part of the brain that delivers electric current, almost like a neural pacemaker, why would anyone bother talking to a psychologist about how Daddy never loved them?

Since nowadays the world is more and more filled with information which we need to process, the legacy of psychology doesn't fade away but will be seen even more valuable than it is now.

I think that many things that today we see as the science of psychology will no longer be seen as actual science. That doesnt mean they wont be relevant or important.

Psychology has its limits. For example, the OP. A psychologist could whip up a dozen alternate psychological explanations for why I might believe I had a precognitive dream. But he couldnt show me conclusively one way or another whether precognitive dreams are possible or not. However I think that given enough time, one day neurology and physics will be able to team up and provide an answer. Its not that psychology is irrelevant, just that its being left behind. I think that neurology and physics will lead the way into a new and greater understanding of human consciousness.

 

[C~G]

why would anyone bother talking to a psychologist about how Daddy never loved them? .

That is quite possible scenario and it's happening already now because people are given drugs so they would forget rather than help remember and overcome.

There's danger lying in there and it's that we drift away from humanity which we know now into different kind of humanity. The signs are already place now as people want to get rid of their problems by living in the moment, by the moment. Postmodern world is full of these kinds of examples. Problem there is that without facing one's past and only living this moment, person never fully understands who he/she really is.

I think that neurology and physics will lead the way into a new and greater understanding of human consciousness.

I absolutely agree. What we need is also philosophy of mind creating possible working models and analogies how mind could work and deeper understanding of the evolution of the human mind.

 

[brennan]

Like all the sciences, theyve built an elaborate structure around a set of core assumptions, and now happily bounce around within that structure. Im not saying these assumptions are correct or incorrect. Most of them are all at least partly true, or else their structures would have collapsed. But they eventually do collapse, and then it turns out all the so called experts didnt know so much after all.

I think you should stop making these silly little analogies about what science does, they are very pretty but do not actually bear close scrutiny.

It would be better to say that science attempts to build a model of reality by setting rules for placing scaffolding, then compares the scaffolding to reality. We are well past the point where the scaffolding comes down, changes are subtle and the need for changes is seen via the process that is used.

Did the scaffolding collapse when Einstein postulated his relativity? No, the need for a change was already known and the change, when it came was so subtle that it hardly makes a difference in any situation most paople are ever likely to find themselves in.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I think you should stop making these silly little analogies about what science does, they are very pretty but do not actually bear close scrutiny.

Oh yeah, youre the one who thinks calling someone an artist is an insult, right?

It would be better to say that science attempts to build a model of reality by setting rules for placing scaffolding, then compares the scaffolding to reality. We are well past the point where the scaffolding comes down, changes are subtle and the need for changes is seen via the process that is used.

Did the scaffolding collapse when Einstein postulated his relativity? No, the need for a change was already known and the change, when it came was so subtle that it hardly makes a difference in any situation most paople are ever likely to find themselves in.

Leave the silly little analogies to me from here on out

You dont really think that Einstein will be the last thing to shake your scaffolding?

 

[brennan]

Oh yeah, youre the one who thinks calling someone an artist is an insult, right?

Wrong. I was merely trying to prevent the discussion being sidelined by a misunderstanding.

You dont really think that Einstein will be the last thing to shake your scaffolding?

Don't be disingenuous, we know the scaffolding is not quite right and are trying to find a better arrangement. It is part of the process.

 

[Birdjaguar]

You seem to see this as a characteristic of our minds. I see it as a glimpse of the struggle at the very heart of creation: the search for unity that is ever present in all things.

That doesn't even make sense.

We all see the world from some place which we define or which we accept as how best to describe the universe in which we live. You and I look at the world from very different places and have very different assumptions about it is. As I see it, people build their world view in three levels. Some people start at the bottom and work up; others start at the top and work down, but in the end we get the same three levels of thinking.

Level Zero: Our most fundamental assumptions about Reality/Truth. They are often not explicitly stated or formulated, but they are there none the less. These assumptions answer questions like: What is Real? Where did Reality come from? Does it have a purpose? How does the universe fit within that Reality (or are they one and the same)? What are its characteristics?

Level 1: Access to Truth. At this next level of thought, we define how people learn about Truth. What is the source of knowledge and how we know whether or not something is true. Here also is where we define the tools necessary to discover more about Reality/Truth.

Level 2: Action. At this highest level we institutionalize knowledge about Reality. We lay out what we do with that knowledge and how it should affect our behavior. We organize it so that it makes sense and may even set rules on who is permitted to learn about what is Real.

You and I might agree on some of the higher level questions, but I think that fundamentally we are very far apart. The post that you identified as not making any sense doesn’t make sense to you because it addresses my most basic beliefs about Reality and those are not part of your view of things.

You see the mirage and say it is not real; the problem, though, may not be with your vision, but with the inadequacy of your thirst.

Take the mirage statement above. For most people a mirage is not real; it is a trick played by a thirsty brain. If a person has a different definition of what is real, then the mirage could be a glimpse into a part of reality that is not accessible unless one is burdened with great thirst. So which is true?

I am not surprised that my post is nonsense to you, even as I wish it wasn’t. I’m sure you are not alone though. Bozo might get it and C~G too. I would hope Perfection would even though he won’t agree with it.

 

[punkbass2000]

Makes sense to me.

The last section of your post reminds me of a time I was hanging out with a friend of mine. He wears glasses and mentioned that without them he sees things incredibly close up. I asked which version of reality he considered more accurate: with glasses or without.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I would be very surprised if it didn't.

 

[Miss Bliss]

Hi All,

Well, I don't profess to having read all of this in depth. But just wanted to share, that I came to this board AFTER talking with Fifty and Perfection, in a chatroom, discussing the same, seemingly polar, views on fields of potentiality and aligning oneself to ones chosen BeAm of experience.

I took the stance of mind in matter, creating ones experienced reality, and mentioned some of my (shared with others) experiences of affecting time and space, through because of years of conscious navigational alignment. Anyway, I then came here, scanned the board, and picked this thread as the first one to open!!!! I haven't been here in a a long time...so had "no idea" what this thread was about.

Synchronicity evidently at play...

BlesSings...

 

[Narz]

Ive been debating whether to bring this up, because its the sort of thing that automatically gets people labelled a nutcase. But what the hell, I AM a nutcase Ok here it is:

I dreamt repeatedly about their being a blackout. I wake up. A short time later, Im discussing it with someone, and specifically say, "Well, lets see if the lights go out." A few minutes later, theres a major brownout, and parts of the area locally are left without power for a number of minutes. Me and this person looked at each other, and he said that Im a 'Brujo' (warlock)

So whats the 'logical' explanation?

The logical explanation is that you had a premenition.

 

[Narz]

Hi All,

Well, I don't profess to having read all of this in depth. But just wanted to share, that I came to this board AFTER talking with Fifty and Perfection, in a chatroom, discussing the same, seemingly polar, views on fields of potentiality and aligning oneself to ones chosen BeAm of experience.

I took the stance of mind in matter, creating ones experienced reality, and mentioned some of my (shared with others) experiences of affecting time and space, through because of years of conscious navigational alignment. Anyway, I then came here, scanned the board, and picked this thread as the first one to open!!!! I haven't been here in a a long time...so had "no idea" what this thread was about.

Synchronicity evidently at play...

BlesSings...

And I just opened this thread after passing over it for days and look who posts right above me.

 

[Miss Bliss]

Lol, typical!!! Nice One Narz

I

edit: great posts BirdJaguar, I appreciate your words

 

[Birdjaguar]

Lol, typical!!! Nice One Narz

I

edit: great posts BirdJaguar, I appreciate your words

Thank you. The pleasure is all mine.

 

[Millman]

And it all comes down to some kind of social-acceptability. I snickered at the term 'thirsty brain'.

Wasn't there a dream you had the night before? You forget it for a second(or is it a second)then remember it that the dream somehow told you the world made perfect sense. The opposite of coincidence.