User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 46

  1. #21
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    I think that premise is a sound one. But I actually think the opposite. It was "observed" that the sun revolved around the earth, for a very long time. However there wasn't a mechanism attributed to this. The universe used to be filled with ether because how else would the light waves propagate? We now use similar arguments for these things like dark matter and dark energy. "Well if it didn't exist, what could it be?".
    I disagree. It was observed that the image of the sun revolved around the earth, not the sun itself. And, relative to the earth, the sun does revolve around it.

    People jumped to false conclusions, when agnosticism on the matter was a more rational choice.

    A lot of people probably weren't aware of the cosmos and its nature, so to some of them the sun was nothing but its image. A sensible opinion, at the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    Until I can "see" the particles, forces, masses, ie, the mechanisms for some of these things I will always be skeptical and looking deeper for Truth.
    Where does that cycle end? Surely the same can be applied to the mechanisms behind these things.

    I certainly agree that the more that is observed of a situation, the more we can know. So, to observe particles and forces, is to know more of these mechanisms. But that does not imply we know them completely.

  2. #22
    Habitual Fi LineStepper JocktheMotie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    I disagree. It was observed that the image of the sun revolved around the earth, not the sun itself. And, relative to the earth, the sun does revolve around it.

    People jumped to false conclusions, when agnosticism on the matter was a more rational choice.

    A lot of people probably weren't aware of the cosmos and its nature, so to some of them the sun was nothing but its image. A sensible opinion, at the time.
    I'd argue "agnosticism" is equally as applicable in the case of Dark Matter and Energy. I can see it from both sides. On one hand, the fact that everything we can experimentally observe consists of 4% of the total energy density of the universe seems absurd, and our models need to be drastically altered.

    But on the other hand, it somewhat makes sense that the majority of the universe is not affected by some silly radiation that only illuminates 4% of the universe!

    Where does that cycle end? Surely the same can be applied to the mechanisms behind these things.

    I certainly agree that the more that is observed of a situation, the more we can know. So, to observe particles and forces, is to know more of these mechanisms. But that does not imply we know them completely.
    I agree. Everything is always up for debate, and nothing is completely certain, provided you can back it up.



  3. #23
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    Religion and the afterlife was one thing. Now people often claim they know death is eternal oblivion, that they didn't exist before they were born, that they only have one life, that life has no greater purpose, and so on. I hear these kind of claims all the time, yet I wonder how they are any different from claims to an afterlife. Essentially what I'm asking is, where's the evidence?

    The rational position, from my point of view, is Agnosticism. No evidence, no assumptions.
    Same here.

    All we know is that we are born, and that we die.

    Everything else is guesswork and thus a choice based on personal faith or inclination.

    I don't mind people having opinions, I just prefer to have them labeled for what they are.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #24
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,595

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Well, my opinion is that we can't know anything about what isn't observable. My default assumption would be to start with the assumption it's not there, but not everyone would make that same one.
    I think that tends to be considered the more rational position - that something is assumed to not exist until proven otherwise.

    I've wrestled with the question about the null hypothesis whether it means the beginning point is the assumption that nothing exists until proven otherwise, or if it is better suited to mean it's simply unknown. In the process of defining fact, I think the former is necessary because possibilities are so limitless that it becomes inefficient to hide behind remote possibilities as still belonging on the table. My own thought processes tend to be as inclusive as possible, but it can be severely limiting when constructing thought.

    The experience of death is not entirely observable, but aspects of it are. We have some idea of how our brains work as a living organism. There is some reason to assume that once the system fails, it no longer functions. In the same way a deceased heart ceases to function, so a deceased mind ends functioning. This implies that thoughts end. Observations, even with limitations, do strongly suggest that life is limited to the functioning of our little biological machines. To extrapolate further, to assume a previous life or an afterlife requires many more added assumptions than to assume there is nothing more. The unobservable aspects are not equivalent, even if you can maintain that strictly speaking it is unknown.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

  5. #25
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    I've wrestled with the question about the null hypothesis whether it means the beginning point is the assumption that nothing exists until proven otherwise, or if it is better suited to mean it's simply unknown. In the process of defining fact, I think the former is necessary because possibilities are so limitless that it becomes inefficient to hide behind remote possibilities as still belonging on the table. My own thought processes tend to be as inclusive as possible, but it can be severely limiting when constructing thought.
    My point exactly. Why assume the examples I mentioned in the OP, when they are a few of so many possibilities?

    Quote Originally Posted by toonia View Post
    The experience of death is not entirely observable, but aspects of it are. We have some idea of how our brains work as a living organism. There is some reason to assume that once the system fails, it no longer functions. In the same way a deceased heart ceases to function, so a deceased mind ends functioning. This implies that thoughts end. Observations, even with limitations, do strongly suggest that life is limited to the functioning of our little biological machines. To extrapolate further, to assume a previous life or an afterlife requires many more added assumptions than to assume there is nothing more. The unobservable aspects are not equivalent, even if you can maintain that strictly speaking it is unknown.
    There's a few definitions that need clearing up there. My definition of life, for example, means biological life. Yes, that ends when biological life ends, aka death. That merely moves the question to whether death is the end of other things people identify themselves with. Mainly conscious experience. It also moves the question to whether or not our biological life ends once and for all with death, or whether it began with birth. These answers, seem unknowable at this time.

    Other than that, positing an afterlife or a priorlife requires evidence, so does positing lack of an afterlife or priorlife. 'I don't know' is the rational response to what happened to your consciousness during dreamless sleep, or during an episode of severe alcohol poisoning, because memories, the only form of evidence, aren't present. To say, with certainty, that there was no conscious experience during them seems absurd. I am applying the same logic to other areas with which I lack memories of.

    Yes, there is evidence to suggest conscious experience during alcohol poisoning, same now with sleep. Without those, it would seem logical, by your structure of logic, to assume that conscious experience ceases during those situations. To me, in that situation, it seems sensible to claim nothing but ignorance.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Feops's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INTx
    Posts
    829

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post
    But that 'rational' conclusion is riddled with assumptions.

    Most notably, that we know anything about before we were alive. The only conclusion I can come to about before I was alive is that I have no memories of it.

    I agree that the brain and the mind are strongly linked, but to say one causes the other or vice versa is impossible at the moment. Yes, it's a safe assumption to say if the brain changes, so does the mind. But what's to stop the brain from reforming? Afterall it won't 'go', merely change shape and evidence suggests come back in a few googelplex years. That's a massive extrapolation with our limited knowledge of the laws of physics, but an equal one to saying we'll cease to exist.
    The only assumption I'm making is that your example individual has no confidence in the supernatural. If someone does not have confidence in the supernatural, they must only consider the physical, and in such case the "mind" is fully dependent on the "brain" to function.

    You could perhaps consider the brain to the hardware and the mind to be software - if the hardware is damaged the software is adversely affected, much like brain damage. If the hardware is destroyed (or decays to the point of uselessness) the software ceases to function. And the software certainly did not exist before the hardware existed. When looking at a computer, it isn't a stretch to say the software only exists when it exists, couldn't possibly perform/save anything before it existed, or after it ceases to exist, so why would a "meat computer" follow special unobservable rules otherwise?

  7. #27
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffywolf View Post
    If you don't believe in atoms, then what -did- happen to Hiroshima? :/
    erm, hold on, ill get back to you on that

    Quote Originally Posted by erm View Post



    Except, the atom is observable.

    Not directly observable, but their effects can be seen. Some spiritual things can be disproven, but only the ones that need to be observable in order for them to be true.



    .
    This is all wrong, and plain blatant implicit assumptions.

    First of all, atoms are NOT observable, in a visible sense anyway. Atoms are a construct we are introduced to in the most basic introductory science courses. What IS visible to us isn't even the direct reception from atoms... ..technically, We do not "observe" photons, either!! what we perceive and recognize as the real physical world is radically and categorically different than the physical input. Photons illicit a series of neurological activation states which yield the percept of a complete object, color, good continuation, all of the gestalt grouping principles of perception, and all other cognitions related to the input that reasult from observing atomic input.

    What you ARE doing here, is correlating the construct of the atom which what you see in the real world, but they are not the same thing.

    An atom is not a thing in the same sense that an apple is a thing ~ an atom is invisible to us, the apple is not. an atom is, however, observable to us, but again, not in the same way the apple is observable to us.

  8. #28
    Phoenix Incarnate Sentura's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    MBTI
    ENXP
    Enneagram
    1w9
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    750

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sytpg View Post
    Check the link in my previous post.
    you and i, we think alike.
    i hunt INXPs for bounty
    FUNCTION ORDER FOR THOSE THAT CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT ENXP MEANS: Ne > Ni > Fi=Ti > *

    ...people tell me i have wildfires in my eyes

  9. #29
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    5
    Posts
    1,674

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    This is all wrong, and plain blatant implicit assumptions.

    First of all, atoms are NOT observable, in a visible sense anyway. Atoms are a construct we are introduced to in the most basic introductory science courses. What IS visible to us isn't even the direct reception from atoms... ..technically, We do not "observe" photons, either!! what we perceive and recognize as the real physical world is radically and categorically different than the physical input. Photons illicit a series of neurological activation states which yield the percept of a complete object, color, good continuation, all of the gestalt grouping principles of perception, and all other cognitions related to the input that reasult from observing atomic input.

    What you ARE doing here, is correlating the construct of the atom which what you see in the real world, but they are not the same thing.

    An atom is not a thing in the same sense that an apple is a thing ~ an atom is invisible to us, the apple is not. an atom is, however, observable to us, but again, not in the same way the apple is observable to us.
    You are going to have to explain the fundamentals of observations then. We don't directly observe an apple, usually just the electromagnetic effects it has on us. Same with atoms. Since then we have gone on to observe the strong, weak, and gravitational effects it has on us as well.

    Both are merely constructs in the sense you give. Atoms are just invisible (to the human eye), apples are visible. Through many experiments, followed by the rest of the scientific method, we have come to observe atoms as we have apples. We just do so less often.

    I repeat, if one cannot observe something, it is illogical to state it exists or does not exist. We observe the effects of every particle in the universe on our bodies at this very moment. Not even with a delay caused by c being the only universal constant, as the 'entanglement' effect has shown.

    Quote Originally Posted by Feops View Post
    The only assumption I'm making is that your example individual has no confidence in the supernatural. If someone does not have confidence in the supernatural, they must only consider the physical, and in such case the "mind" is fully dependent on the "brain" to function.

    You could perhaps consider the brain to the hardware and the mind to be software - if the hardware is damaged the software is adversely affected, much like brain damage. If the hardware is destroyed (or decays to the point of uselessness) the software ceases to function. And the software certainly did not exist before the hardware existed. When looking at a computer, it isn't a stretch to say the software only exists when it exists, couldn't possibly perform/save anything before it existed, or after it ceases to exist, so why would a "meat computer" follow special unobservable rules otherwise?
    Okay, first of all, define 'supernatural'. By my definition, if say magic exists, it is natural. Anything observed is part of the laws of nature, if magic is observed, it is part of the laws of nature.

    Second, I never said the brain follows special rules. The same can be said of any computer or object, regardless of whether they possess the capabilities for qualitive experience or not. In a few googelplex years, specific computers will be back too, who's to say?

    You're also falsely applying the mind to the brain. What if our thoughts are merely a particular formation of electrical impulses? Why then, would destruction of the brain limit that? Certainly effect it, but not so harshly as to stop it from occurring elsewhere, or to stop it changing beyond recognition.

    I'm not stating any of these examples with the force of evidence, merely attempting to show that they possess the same amount of evidence as the theories you have claimed, thus far.

  10. #30
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    aha, but i did not say atoms don't exist, i said I don't believe in them!! (as described to me)!!

Similar Threads

  1. [ESFP] Opinions on esfp's.
    By King sns in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 12:56 AM
  2. Opinions on Bush and Clinton (Moved from Obama muslim thread.)
    By Jeffster in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 09:56 AM
  3. [ISTP] please give an opinion on istp behavior
    By grendiecat in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-07-2008, 03:23 AM
  4. My Opinion on the Necessity for Shoes
    By disTant_eCHo in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 03:20 AM
  5. [NT] NT: Opinion on Smoking?
    By Usehername in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-09-2007, 04:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO