BigBen
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 5,110
- Points
- 38
First and foremost I acknowledge and respect your right to choose whatever reality tunnel you have chosen as your favorite one.
The point you rise here concerning ultra violate light is a good example of something we observe by measuring. The error that you appear to be making is accepting the observations we have made with scientific method as universally true without acknowledging the limitations of the observation mechanisms.
Tim, I accept science as it is very relative to my subjective experience and the most effective method humans have discovered to categorize the universe that we experience. But I cannot acknowledge science as being anything beyond human truths because the human nervous system, and human technology, are the mechanisms used to gather data. That does not make the knowledge useless, far from that. I am acknowledging that a limitation exists.
I am most strongly influenced by the German existentialist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Other German philosophers and some modern day social philosophers influence me as well. I am aware of the psychedelic movement that you are referring too, but do not gather any ideas form them. You may be equate ideas I am sharing with ideas the psychedelic movement possesses because the language seems similar.
Are you aware of Albert Hoffman?
"Albert Hoffman was educated as a classical scientist and chemist, and assumed their was such a thing as an objective observer. Albert Hoffman accidentally ingested LSD one day while experimenting with ergot derivatives. The experience he had that day was put into words 40 years later. It took him 40 years to find out what LSD meant. What Hoffman said was, " The main thing I have learned from LSD is that their is no reality separate from us. All that exists is the reality perceived, conceived and put together by our nervous systems."
-Wilson
These ideas were all presented by German philosophers over 110 years ago, before both the birth of quantum mechanics and the discovery of LSD. The Germans were far from junkies and drug abusers.
You can believe in human knowledge for what it is and what it is relative too, the human experience. You can believe in human knowledge in as much as we can accurately observe the universe.
I have said that I am an optimist and am excited about what science will continue to discover. Intelligence is increasing b/c intelligence is looking at intelligence and criticizing intelligence and the methods used to gather it and trying to fix prejudices that have been observed in intelligence gathering and understanding. The successful application of this idea is what allows Sir Karl Poppers idea of critical method to exist.
Human knowledge is likely improving and humans appear to be more accurately gathering human knowledge, and this seems to be useful enough.
Tim I have said everything I care to say. I have no interest in changing any of your beliefs.
Lifter dead I am acknowledging your post and I will reply. I am saying that human knowledge is limited to what we can observe, and assume we accurately measure. That would be my main point of discussion. As far as objectivity is concerned science owes a lot to Sir Karl Popper for advancing the philosophy of science. But Sir Karl popper admitted he had to ignore the psychology of the human experience to advance to the point he was allowed to propose the creation of a philosophy for the idea of objective scientific human knowledge. An idea that is accepted by most scientists today.
The point you rise here concerning ultra violate light is a good example of something we observe by measuring. The error that you appear to be making is accepting the observations we have made with scientific method as universally true without acknowledging the limitations of the observation mechanisms.
Tim, I accept science as it is very relative to my subjective experience and the most effective method humans have discovered to categorize the universe that we experience. But I cannot acknowledge science as being anything beyond human truths because the human nervous system, and human technology, are the mechanisms used to gather data. That does not make the knowledge useless, far from that. I am acknowledging that a limitation exists.
I am most strongly influenced by the German existentialist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Other German philosophers and some modern day social philosophers influence me as well. I am aware of the psychedelic movement that you are referring too, but do not gather any ideas form them. You may be equate ideas I am sharing with ideas the psychedelic movement possesses because the language seems similar.
Are you aware of Albert Hoffman?
"Albert Hoffman was educated as a classical scientist and chemist, and assumed their was such a thing as an objective observer. Albert Hoffman accidentally ingested LSD one day while experimenting with ergot derivatives. The experience he had that day was put into words 40 years later. It took him 40 years to find out what LSD meant. What Hoffman said was, " The main thing I have learned from LSD is that their is no reality separate from us. All that exists is the reality perceived, conceived and put together by our nervous systems."
-Wilson
These ideas were all presented by German philosophers over 110 years ago, before both the birth of quantum mechanics and the discovery of LSD. The Germans were far from junkies and drug abusers.
You can believe in human knowledge for what it is and what it is relative too, the human experience. You can believe in human knowledge in as much as we can accurately observe the universe.
I have said that I am an optimist and am excited about what science will continue to discover. Intelligence is increasing b/c intelligence is looking at intelligence and criticizing intelligence and the methods used to gather it and trying to fix prejudices that have been observed in intelligence gathering and understanding. The successful application of this idea is what allows Sir Karl Poppers idea of critical method to exist.
Human knowledge is likely improving and humans appear to be more accurately gathering human knowledge, and this seems to be useful enough.
Tim I have said everything I care to say. I have no interest in changing any of your beliefs.
Lifter dead I am acknowledging your post and I will reply. I am saying that human knowledge is limited to what we can observe, and assume we accurately measure. That would be my main point of discussion. As far as objectivity is concerned science owes a lot to Sir Karl Popper for advancing the philosophy of science. But Sir Karl popper admitted he had to ignore the psychology of the human experience to advance to the point he was allowed to propose the creation of a philosophy for the idea of objective scientific human knowledge. An idea that is accepted by most scientists today.
