The good things about using skeptical reasoning

[abandonconflict]

I'm fucking skeptical of skepticism!

 

[Heisenberg]

If reality is not subjective, what is flavor? What is color? What is discovery? They ARE experiences.

They are subjectively constructed representations of an objective reality approximated by our senses. When we taste something ,we are missing a lot. When we look at colors, many of them we can not see. Much of our reality completely escapes notice. Every time you move your eyes you go momentarily blind, which is why you can not observe your eyes shifting focus from your left eye to your right eye in a mirror. There is no way to know this through experience, yet this fact can be exploited to taint our experience.

I enjoy altering the mind for different experiences.

Experiences are all I have.

I feel similar, which is why I do not think experiences are worthless, not by far. But their worth applies only to me. The inner world is ruled by personal experience. For example, the highest level of pain you can conceive is limited by the highest level of pain you have experienced. It is impossible to value a loved one before you have met them. I can't expect you to love my mother based solely on my experiences with her. I can not expect you to not eat sauerkraut because I find it distasteful. Experiences shape the narrative of the microcosm which knows them, but has little value outside of that microcosm without the help of science. If I want my experience to mean something equally to you, I better have something to back it up.

To the bolded: NO, I would not say they are the only ones pertinent to reality, that is the only point I disagree with. I would say they are the only ones that are pertinent to collective knowledge and scientific advancement. All of my experiences are pertinent to my reality. I will continue to sharpen my senses and explicate my experiences myself, but I do admit, I have never experienced anything that could not be explained within the construct of methodological naturalism. If I do have such an experience, I will no longer adhere to said construct.

Fair enough, sounds like a personal choice and is much different than saying experiences are the only true reflection of reality. If anything, they can be demonstrated to be an inaccurate and misleading indicator of reality. Your experiences shape your inner construct of reality, which ultimately has very little influence on the cosmos, yet is absolutely necessary to be human.

I do have reservations saying this is absolute truth. The exception is when the lesson personal experience tries to teach is one that does not extend into the outer world. Mental discipline, intellectual organization, meditation techniques, emotional guidance; things people usually think of as wisdom. In these cases the information gained from personal experience can be useful to others, even though the only evidence lies in the experience. Hearing about how you dealt with feelings when loosing a loved one could mean a great deal to me.

In short, science is concerned with what is rather than what is experienced, but humans will forever be limited to looking at what is experienced to figure out what is.

 

[abandonconflict]

They are subjectively constructed representations of an objective reality approximated by our senses. When we taste something ,we are missing a lot. When we look at colors, many of them we can not see. Much of our reality completely escapes notice. Every time you move your eyes you go momentarily blind, which is why you can not observe your eyes shifting focus from your left eye to your right eye in a mirror. There is no way to know this through experience, yet this fact can be exploited to taint our experience.



I feel similar, which is why I do not think experiences are worthless, not by far. But their worth applies only to me. The inner world is ruled by personal experience. For example, the highest level of pain you can conceive is limited by the highest level of pain you have experienced. It is impossible to value a loved one before you have met them. I can't expect you to love my mother based solely on my experiences with her. I can not expect you to not eat sauerkraut because I find it distasteful. Experience shapes the narrative of the microcosm which knows them, but has little value outside of that microcosm without the help of science. If I want my experience to mean something equally to you, I better have something to back it up.



Fair enough, sounds like a personal choice and is much different than saying experiences are the only true reflection of reality. If anything, they can be demonstrated to be an inaccurate and misleading indicator of reality. Your experiences shape your inner construct of reality, which ultimately has very little influence on the cosmos, yet is absolutely necessary to be human.

I do have reservations saying this is absolute truth. The exception is when the lesson personal experience tries to teach is one that does not extend into the outer world. Mental discipline, intellectual organization, meditation techniques, emotional guidance; things people usually think of as wisdom. In these cases the information gained from personal experience can be useful to others, even though the only evidence lies in the experience. Hearing about how you dealt with feelings when loosing a loved one could mean a great deal to me.

In short, science is concerned with what is rather than what is experienced, but humans will forever be limited to looking at what is experienced to figure out what is.

Well.
I feel answered.

To the bolded, you may have robbed me of my divinity.

I still don't accept the objective reality part. What about the observer effect and the uncertainty principal? Do these not demonstrate that reality is (at least in an extremely miniscule way) subjective? For if by any measure it is subjective, then is objectivism not completely disproven? By extension of this, a hopeful 'what if': What if future generations of humans will have greater capacity not only to observe, but to affect; to emerge from Plato's cave, as it were?

 

[Heisenberg]

The uncertainty principal suggests that our knowledge is limited in precision. We will never have an absolutely accurate understanding of reality. I am not sure how this effects the objectivity. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The observer effect applies to anything capable of observing. This can be a simple sensor, or an unconscious robot. I will not pretend to understand what this indicates, but it does seem to mean that consciousness plays no part. A sensor does not construct an inner reality, it simply observes objective reality, which seems to play by rules we do not fully understand. But we can not use non-understanding as a bases for saying we do understand, and that understanding means reality is not objective. That would be a contradiction.

Despite my namesake QM is not my forte, i'm sure others can offer better explanations.

-

 

[abandonconflict]

The uncertainty principal suggests that our knowledge is limited in precision. We will never have an absolutely accurate understanding of reality. I am not sure how this effects the objectivity. Perhaps you can elaborate.

The observer effect applies to anything capable of observing. This can be a simple sensor, or an unconscious robot. I will not pretend to understand what this indicates, but it does seem to mean that consciousness plays no part. A sensor does not construct an inner reality, it simply observes objective reality, which seems to play by rules we do not fully understand. But we can not use non-understanding as a bases for saying we do understand, and that understanding means reality is not objective. That would be a contradiction.

Despite my namesake QM is not my forte, i'm sure others can offer better explanations.

-

Heisenberg himself seemed to be among those who considered his principal to be intertwined with the observer effect in some way. I don't know why. Objectivism does seem to be assumed though.

 

[eye exaggerate]

Heisenberg himself seemed to be among those who considered his principal to be intertwined with the observer effect in some way. I don't know why. Objectivism does seem to be assumed though.

...most reasoning seems to tear the backdrop away from numinous experience. *this is not a call to abandon the use of reason, it's a call to:

[...] edit.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Conflict, are you insinuating that reality is merely a fabrication of our minds, and without minds to observe the universe...there would be no universe or existence?

I'm not sure if i understand.

From what I'm getting, simply stated... Heis is saying that what happens objectively is more accurate than what happens to us subjectively. That we can rely more on objective truths like gravity, newtons laws of motion, general relativity etc. etc. than we can rely on subjective truths people give like an afterlife, telekinesis, gods, angles and demons etc. etc.

But i could be reading all of what you guys are saying completely wrong lol. I'm just trying to understand.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Heisenberg himself seemed to be among those who considered his principal to be intertwined with the observer effect in some way. I don't know why. Objectivism does seem to be assumed though.

Heisenberg would be turning over in his grave at your misuse of his legacy

 

[cannabineer]

Well.
I feel answered.

To the bolded, you may have robbed me of my divinity.

I still don't accept the objective reality part. What about the observer effect and the uncertainty principal? Do these not demonstrate that reality is (at least in an extremely miniscule way) subjective? For if by any measure it is subjective, then is objectivism not completely disproven? By extension of this, a hopeful 'what if': What if future generations of humans will have greater capacity not only to observe, but to affect; to emerge from Plato's cave, as it were?

It is supremely important to understand the scope and limitation sof these two very famous physical oddities. Only then is one safe against being slurped down into the ant lion pit of the sort of suggestive handwaving metaphysics that have colonized Youtube like some disaster taxon. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

Heisenberg would be turning over in his grave at your misuse of his legacy

He was among those who considered the two principals intertwined.

 

[abandonconflict]

Conflict, are you insinuating that reality is merely a fabrication of our minds, and without minds to observe the universe...there would be no universe or existence?

I'm not sure if i understand.

From what I'm getting, simply stated... Heis is saying that what happens objectively is more accurate than what happens to us subjectively. That we can rely more on objective truths like gravity, newtons laws of motion, general relativity etc. etc. than we can rely on subjective truths people give like an afterlife, telekinesis, gods, angles and demons etc. etc.

But i could be reading all of what you guys are saying completely wrong lol. I'm just trying to understand.

That would be the complete opposite of objectivity. I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that essentially, the observer does have an effect upon the workings of nature and that with greater minds, greater effect could be possible. I am also saying that objectivity is somehow assumed and taken for granted and if there are two principals that to some extremely miniscule extent seem to suggest otherwise, why is it BLASPHEMOUS for one to talk about it? Why attack me with religious fervor and say that some dead scientist is rolling in his grave because I'm talking about it?

That is separate from the FACT that nothing is more important to my reality than my experiences.

 

[ginjawarrior]

He was among those who considered the two principals intertwined.

and??

tell you what lets hear you succinctly explain how he thought "Objectivism does seem to be assumed"

 

[ginjawarrior]

That would be the complete opposite of objectivity. I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that essentially, the observer does have an effect upon the workings of nature and that with greater minds, greater effect could be possible. I am also saying that objectivity is somehow assumed and taken for granted and if there are two principals that to some extremely miniscule extent seem to suggest otherwise, why is it BLASPHEMOUS for one to talk about it? Why attack me with religious fervor and say that some dead scientist is rolling in his grave because I'm talking about it?

That is separate from the FACT that nothing is more important to my reality than my experiences.

yeah and thats why you'l always be off with the fairies while better people than yourself will shape the world that you use and throw back in thier faces

you will never be that greater mind everything you'l ever use is made by someone who knew what real is

 

[abandonconflict]

yeah and thats why you'l always be off with the fairies while better people than yourself will shape the world that you use and throw back in thier faces

you will never be that greater mind everything you'l ever use is made by someone who knew what real is

You see here we have someone rebuking a differing opinion. People like you burned free thinkers at the stake for claiming the earth was round.

 

[abandonconflict]

and??

tell you what lets hear you succinctly explain how he thought "Objectivism does seem to be assumed"

I didn't say he said anything about Objectivism, I opined that objectivism is assumed.

I said he was among those who considered the uncertainty principal to be intertwined with the observer effect.

 

[ginjawarrior]

I didn't say he said anything about Objectivism, I opined that objectivism is assumed.

I said he was among those who considered the uncertainty principal to be intertwined with the observer effect.

and i said he'd be turning in his grave at your misuse of his legacy

the conversation is looping can you elaborate or not?

 

[cannabineer]

That would be the complete opposite of objectivity. I'm not suggesting that. What I am suggesting is that essentially, the observer does have an effect upon the workings of nature and that with greater minds, greater effect could be possible. I am also saying that objectivity is somehow assumed and taken for granted and if there are two principals that to some extremely miniscule extent seem to suggest otherwise, why is it BLASPHEMOUS for one to talk about it? Why attack me with religious fervor and say that some dead scientist is rolling in his grave because I'm talking about it?

That is separate from the FACT that nothing is more important to my reality than my experiences.

To the blue: on what basis? If you can explain this one without departing into speculative metaphysics, I'm paying attention.

To the red: are you conflating science with scientism? Your identification of methodological skepticism as a philosophy strongly suggests that you actually see it as an ideology that constrains a priori what science is and isn't allowed to address. The champions of objectivity here notice that ... and are correct to question it. Methodological skepticism grew out of a very empirical approach ... "what works?" and is amenable to modification by that principle. This is the hinge of science (which is undogmatic) but not of scientism, which has generated a dogma to superimpose on the tremendous successes science has had in the last two centuries. They are not the same thing. cn

 

[abandonconflict]

and i said he'd be turning in his grave at your misuse of his legacy

the conversation is looping can you elaborate or not?

It is a fact that he was among those who considered the uncertainty principal to be intertwined with the observer effect. As far as I can recall he said nothing about objectivism. How am I therefore "misusing his legacy"? You're the one distorting my argument.

 

[cannabineer]

It is a fact that he was among those who considered the uncertainty principal to be intertwined with the observer effect. As far as I can recall he said nothing about objectivism. How am I therefore "misusing his legacy"? You're the one distorting my argument.

The perception of intertwining of the two may be an error. From Wikipedia:

The uncertainty principle has been frequently confused with the observer effect, evidently even by its originator, Werner Heisenberg.[SUP][5][/SUP] The uncertainty principle in its standard form actually describes how precisely we may measure the position and momentum of a particle at the same time — if we increase the precision in measuring one quantity, we are forced to lose precision in measuring the other.[SUP][6][/SUP] An alternative version of the uncertainty principle[SUP][7][/SUP], more in the spirit of an observer effect[SUP][8][/SUP], fully accounts for the disturbance the observer has on a system and the error incurred, although this is not how the term "uncertainty principle" is most commonly used in practice.

The article describes the observer effect; its physics are distinct from those of the uncertainty effect. They can be connected through the math of quantum physics, but the information value of that is low since the edifice of math that underlies physics interconnects everything in physics, even if sometimes at quite a remove. cn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

 

[abandonconflict]

To the blue: on what basis? If you can explain this one without departing into speculative metaphysics, I'm paying attention.

To the red: are you conflating science with scientism? Your identification of methodological skepticism as a philosophy strongly suggests that you actually see it as an ideology that constrains a priori what science is and isn't allowed to address. The champions of objectivity here notice that ... and are correct to question it. Methodological skepticism grew out of a very empirical approach ... "what works?" and is amenable to modification by that principle. This is the hinge of science (which is undogmatic) but not of scientism, which has generated a dogma to superimpose on the tremendous successes science has had in the last two centuries. They are not the same thing. cn

By greater minds, I meant minds with greater cognitive ability, more highly evolved generations, later, with greater perception and sense. In the context where I wrote it, I meant that in the future our perception of reality may not be so subjective.

To answer what I meant with the blue there, absolutely, I consider methodological skepticism to be a philosophy, that is what it is, just like methodological naturalism. Methodological skepticism is by definition subjective. It assumes a subjective reality, it is being misused by objectivists here if experiences are to be discarded and therefore is not the dominant philosophy of science, which is why methodological naturalism is.