Like it. Will most people acknowledge there’s no way to prove such things ? An interesting point. Never in my physics classes was even the possibility of this mentioned, Johnson would have loved it. So I guess science culture just fails to reach deep enough on this point.
Anyway, yes, started another thread.
If I was to order by imperial decree that scientists should quit using the word “reality” to refer to the physical world, accounting fort the fact that it’s a perceptual construction, what word would be appropriate and snappy for a replacement ?
So, like, instead of saying “yeah but in reality it weighs 20kg”, we say “in post-perceptual construction it weighs 20kg” ?
While maybe not consciousness, the information stored in the brain should not be able to be destroyed ‘law of conservation of information’. It would appear that consciousness can even create it’s own information, so some form of that would have to persist if that law holds true.
Do you know, I never read Heinlein, couldn’t get into it, maybe should try again sometime.
Thing about spiritual quantum field is it’s the latest way to try and describe the loss of ego, and perception of a non-local self, in religious experiences. It used to be electric and magnetic fields, now it’s quantum ones, in a few years time it’ll be some other sort of space-filling energy.
“The Law Of Conservation Of Information” is a concept dreamed up by Intelligent Design promoter William Dembski, and is not regarded seriously by the vast majority of the scientific community.
Sure, I think everyone who’s thought about any of this will acknowledge that there’s no way to disprove solipsism, or that we’re just a brain in a vat with our perceptions being created by alien computer programs, or that the world could have been created last Thursday. Then most people just move on because none of those are a productive model. We accept that there appears to be a reality, and go from there.
There’s not much more exploration you can do if you start with the idea that reality doesn’t exist. “Science culture” looked at that when they were in freshman philosophy and then tossed it aside.
I hate shit like this. It’s such a massive cop-out to claim that science just can’t handle the incredibly deep and philosophical ideas of existence, particularly because 90% of the time I see such claims, they’re immediately followed by something like “and that’s why I’m going to keep proclaiming that invisible Martians are quantumizing the subetherial foam, and THAT’S why my socks keep disappearing”.
Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy, and there’s very little overlap. Science deals in the observable, the measurable, the reproducible. Science is the process of taking wild-ass guesses and ideas and saying, “Hang on - let’s actually CHECK this against reality”. Philosophy generally doesn’t bother with such a step. THIS IS NOT A WEAKNESS OR FAILURE OF SCIENCE. It is its STRENGTH.
There are, of course, ideas that are not amenable to scientific enquiry, largely because they do not involve measurable, objectively quantifiable phenomena. Therefore, we humans are limited to endless speculation and mental masturbation about them, without ever (at least so far) being able to settle them once and for all. IMHO, go ahead and spend your life rechewing the same old cud over and over if you want, but drop the pretense that this is somehow superior or loftier than dirty ol’ limited nasty dirty-hands science.
Instead of bemoaning the “fact” that Science cannot grasp “The World Of Philosophy”, why not recognize the pitiful attempts of some to use philosophy as a substitute for actual science for what they are-shortcuts in thinking?
Well, the philosophical word for subjective experience/sense-impressions is phaneron, but that’s probably not what you’re looking for, which is a name for something abstracted or inferred from the phaneron.
Well, yes and no – a lot of his characters do go to bed with each other, but we get very little of the explicit anatomical descriptions you would expect in any letter to Penthouse. Nor would such be very appropriate in an SF story – I recall a passage from Neal Stephenson’s Anathem where the POV character, Erasmas, and his love interest Ala do something “that I cannot describe without making this a different kind of narrative.” There is some of that in To Sail Beyond the Sunset, but even that is not explicit in a good-whacking-material way.
Insofar as that form of subjective experience exists, it is a psychological/neurological phenomenon – why should anyone feel the need to describe it in terms of other sciences?
Come on, you only said all that because you enjoyed making all that stuff about socks up. Why begrudge others their imaginative fun too ?
AH!! You said it - “let’s check this against reality”
As Galactic Emperor I decree that you pack that it and instead say “let’s check this with other aspects of a mentally constructed world”
Subtext: it’s all about the money, don’t disturb my lifestyle I get paid well for this stuff.
To an extent, philosophy informs science, and vice versa, but at a certain point you’re just engaging in philosophical sophistry. Sure, in some philosophical thought, it is impossible to prove that there’s anything beyond my own mind or, from your perspective, beyond your own mind. However, if we just stop there and treat the rest of “reality” as if it’s unprovable, we’ll either spend the rest of our lives sitting in a chair thinking ourselves in circles, or we can come up with useful assumptions and run with them.
That’s exactly what science does; in fact, that’s what any line of reasoning in philosophy beyond that does. Let’s just assume, take axiomatically, that there is an objective reality that we can all agree on, and see where that goes. Maybe as some point we’ll reach a contradiction, and after exhausting our logical reasoning, we’ll need to reexamine our axioms, but it’s working so far.
I really don’t see how replacing the word “reality” with something else accomplishes anything in this sense. After all, we all know what it means, and “real” is only a concept that we can all agree on is real
I disagree that it’s necessarily a cop-out. There’s just some things that aren’t, and shouldn’t be, objective. But I do agree with your point that if people are using some form of philosophy, of which I consider religion in general to be a subset, as a shortcut to solve a problem that science is designed to solve, then it’s intellectually lazy, at best, but more likely disingenuous.
I disagree that there’s very little overlap. The scientific method is a philosophy. And sure, there’s some philosophies that spend a bunch of time mulling over random ideas and not really caring if any of it makes sense in the real world, but I would argue that any philosophy worth discussing has some means of comparing itself to reality. That means may not be, and in fact often isn’t, in a necessarily objective way, but there’s so much more to the human condition, and reality itself, that isn’t objectively measurable.
For instance, there’s no objectively singularly correct political philosophy. Scientifically we can test and verify certain predictions, but a lot of those are arguments about what should be rather than what will be.
That said, though, I agree that the scientific method is one of the greatest gifts philosophy has given us and, indeed, as you say that what some people argue are it’s limits are, in fact, among its strengths. Unfortunately, though, it sort of passes the buck in the the sense that we end up arguing about whether or not something is objectively measurable or not. I think, though, that once we can all agree on that, it has provided some amazing results.
Let’s take two societies: One uses ignorance, wishful thinking and bullshit to advance with, and the other uses scientific principles. In five hundred years time, how do you envision each society’s progress?
But, that obfuscates an important difference: Not all mentally constructed worlds are the same; that of science is the product of a much more rigorous and reliable process than that of pseudoscience or philosophy or religion or mysticism or “common sense.”
I don’t agree that taking an idealist stance necessarily alters the practicalities of science, or leads to inaction. Not if you don’t want it. You can still play the game knowing it’s a game and that there is no causative, non-mental matter out there beyond the mind.
Is this looking at a science as a tool in of survival, not as a tool for finding truth ?
I’d just like to see the language used consistently with itself. Either reality is the world we perceive, or it is the underlying world of unseen causes - if we go with a consciousness from matter model. All I’m saying is the matter/consciousness dualism causes these problems - IMHO. It kind of looks like it’s grinding itself to a halt, so maybe we’ll start getting new conventions…
