Science cannot solve the final mystery

[paarsurrey]

Good points.

Obviously the first mystery is time/ God/ whatever. The true origin of reality probably lies outside our ability to solve it even if everything did spring from an imaginary point in an instant.

I wouldn't agree that religion is an answer but can't disagree either.

Thanks for one's appreciation. Did one read the footnotes of my post, "Evolution of consciousness" in particular?

Regards

 

[atanu]

It is but it is programmed by modern language. Not only is the human brain infinitely programmable but there are other types of language as well as the ability to model them; in other words, other ways to operate the mind with our language. We are our beliefs and we choose all of those beliefs. We can model any beliefs we choose.

I think you are pointing to CBT and NLP. I agree to your point to the extent of the scope of language. However, in the context of the OP, how language can unravel the ultimate mystery that we are?

...

 

[cladking]

....how language can unravel the ultimate mystery that we are?

...

...By recognizing its limitations.

But also by modeling another language that lacks these limitations or, possibly, using computers to use such a language directly.

If language is the ability to communicate between consciousnesses a "one" and a "zero" as I maintain then it should follow that a computer which can communicate countless billions of ones and zeros should be capable at least the functional intelligence of an orchid, oak, or even as much as a dust mite.

I'm suggesting we are barking up the wrong tree and experimental science is not yet capable of even working definitions of the relevant terms. We can wait until it is or proceed another way. I'm not saying we should quit science but that there needs to be another branch of this rapidly spreading tree.

I think you are pointing to CBT and NLP.

No. Anything that is science must be reproducible. Things that apply only to individuals are not going to solve "ultimate" mysteries.

 

[paarsurrey]

...By recognizing its limitations.

But also by modeling another language that lacks these limitations or, possibly, using computers to use such a language directly.

If language is the ability to communicate between consciousnesses a "one" and a "zero" as I maintain then it should follow that a computer which can communicate countless billions of ones and zeros should be capable at least the functional intelligence of an orchid, oak, or even as much as a dust mite.

I'm suggesting we are barking up the wrong tree and experimental science is not yet capable of even working definitions of the relevant terms. We can wait until it is or proceed another way. I'm not saying we should quit science but that there needs to be another branch of this rapidly spreading tree.

No. Anything that is science must be reproducible. Things that apply only to individuals are not going to solve "ultimate" mysteries.

"But also by modeling another language that lacks these limitations"

Yes, scientists could make language/s to communicate between them, like Mathematics is mabe one example, but that language will neither be a natural language nor will have natural words. It will be an unintelligible language to the ordinary men in the streets, 99.9% of them or even more. Right, please?

Regards
____________
“Science and mathematics are completely independent activities.
Science is discovery. A scientist axiomatizes statements using evidence. "This apple is red" becomes a scientific fact with an event or experiment that documents the reality that backs it. Scientists then build statements that predict facts without having to directly observe them.”
“Mathematics is computation. A mathematician solves problems and derives proofs by applying mathematical axioms to mathematical statements. Truth can only be translated, and never generated.”
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-mathematics-and-science
Math cannot be represented without a real world manifestation. Many think that Maths can exist all by itself, but I can't even imagine such a concept.
Math requires neural states in our brains, pen and paper, cradles and blackboards, electromagnetic states in computers and programs, Ink and books. Science is about describing these things. With the use of Mathematics...
https://www.quora.com/Is-mathematics-a-science
“two kinds of science, which come from two kinds of perception, called empirical and theoretical perception”
EmpiricalPerception(EP)EmpiricalPerception(EP)
1. Objects are items which the perceiver is directly conscious of, where consciousness is the activity of the brain.
2. Objects are external, material and public.
3. EP is perception with the use of senses (includes illusions, e.g., converging railroad tracks).
TheoreticalPerception(TP)" role="presentation" style="overflow-wrap: normal;max-width: none;max-height: none; min-width: 0px;min-height: 0px;float:none;word-spacing:normal" id="MathJax-Element-13-Frame">TheoreticalPerception(TP)TheoreticalPerception(TP)
1. Objects are images in perceiver’s brain.
2. Objects are internal, mental and private.
3. TP was invented to explain illusions in EP.
4. TP has a duality of image and object.
https://www.quora.com/Is-math-the-language-of-nature

 

[cladking]

Yes, scientists could make language/s to communicate between them, like Mathematics is mabe one example, but that language will neither be a natural language nor will have natural words. It will be an unintelligible language to the ordinary men in the streets, 99.9% of them or even more.

An invented language could be mostly intelligible to people with a good vocabulary. But words would need to have a single meaning and the grammar be somewhat more restrictive so true understanding would require at least some education. So long as you knew the words were meant literally you should be able to get most of it.

As I picture a "modeled" language nobody could understand it except as it concerned exceedingly simple things. To be very meaningful only computers could "parse" it.

I believe the problem with philosophy and applied science is that it's too hard to build on the work of the giants of the past because we each understand them differently.

 

[paarsurrey]

An invented language could be mostly intelligible to people with a good vocabulary. But words would need to have a single meaning and the grammar be somewhat more restrictive so true understanding would require at least some education. So long as you knew the words were meant literally you should be able to get most of it.

As I picture a "modeled" language nobody could understand it except as it concerned exceedingly simple things. To be very meaningful only computers could "parse" it.

I believe the problem with philosophy and applied science is that it's too hard to build on the work of the giants of the past because we each understand them differently.

Just one's imagination and perception. Right, please?
Yet the "model" "language" will borrow some natural words from a natural language like "science" or "time" or "space" or "dimension" or "cosmos" or "nature" (count is 8 words colored in magenta) and man many more etc and etc.
Or one will do without all these. Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

Just one's imagination and perception. Right, please?
Yet the "model" "language" will borrow some natural words from a natural language like "science" or "time" or "space" or "dimension" or "cosmos" or "nature" (count is 8 words colored in magenta) and man many more etc and etc.
Or one will do without all these.

I would think that there's no need to invent very many new words. Most of the words would be taken from our language and stripped of all but one definition.

 

[paarsurrey]

I would think that there's no need to invent very many new words. Most of the words would be taken from our language and stripped of all but one definition.

So one cannot do without a natural language and the natural words.

And then,why from one's language English? Why not in French or German or Japanese or Chinese or Urdu etc.
When one fixes a particular meaning to a natural word, it does not remain a natural word, it becomes a term. And that is already being done.
Right, please?

Regards

 

[ecco]

As I picture a "modeled" language nobody could understand it except as it concerned exceedingly simple things. To be very meaningful only computers could "parse" it.

You are showing an ignorance of computers on a par with your ignorance of languages.

 

[Swami]

Eastern thinkers wade deeply into the woo. That's what happens to people when science becomes too difficult for them. Make-believe is so much easier.

Western scientists continue to use science in order to explore the realities of nature. It's harder, but far more rewarding.

The limitations of Western materialist science is what led me to fully accept Eastern thought. So far, I am not disappointed. Western science is good at answering a lot of little questions and bringing us technology, but big picture, they have not answered the most important questions - the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness.

Keep in mind, that I am not suggesting to abandon your science. There is room for both Science and Eastern thought, and science would do well to adopt Eastern thinking into its methods and practice.

 

[ecco]

but big picture, they have not answered the most important questions - the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness.

Are those really the most important questions?

Did the lack of answers to those questions prevent us from learning about germs and viruses?
Did the lack of answers to those questions prevent us from working on cures for cancer?
Did the lack of answers to those questions prevent us from learning how to transplant hearts, kidneys, and cornea?

In case you haven't noticed science has given mankind more information regarding "the origin and nature of Universe" than thousands of swamis sitting cross-legged and chanting mantras.

Keep in mind, that I am not suggesting to abandon your science.

That's very kind of you.

There is room for both Science and Eastern thought, and science would do well to adopt Eastern thinking into its methods and practice.

Why should science "adopt Eastern thinking into its methods and practice"? It's done very nicely without it.

 

[Audie]

Are those really the most important questions?

Seriously! Suppose someone gave you the answers.

Now what? What use is it?

(probably nobody could understand it, anyway!)

 

[Swami]

Are those really the most important questions?

Did the lack of answers to those questions prevent us from learning about germs and viruses?
Did the lack of answers to those questions prevent us from working on cures for cancer?
Did the lack of answers to those questions prevent us from learning how to transplant hearts, kidneys, and cornea?

In case you haven't noticed science has given mankind more information regarding "the origin and nature of Universe" than thousands of swamis sitting cross-legged and chanting mantras.

You are still not seeing deep enough. If we were to make a list of different existential factors and organize them by levels of influence and implications, then happiness and purpose would be some of the things at the top. These two have bigger implications and influence on how one lives - they impact your very being as opposed to just one small aspect of it.

You can say having healthy kidneys is important to life, but religion or any system (which provides purpose, meaning, happiness, morality etc.) is even more important to life. Science can not provide answer for all of these issues.

Why should science "adopt Eastern thinking into its methods and practice"? It's done very nicely without it.

Perhaps later I will make another discussion explaining why Science should adopt Eastern thinking or we can create a new science that is not bogged down by "materialism".

 

[gnostic]

The limitations of Western materialist science is what led me to fully accept Eastern thought. So far, I am not disappointed. Western science is good at answering a lot of little questions and bringing us technology, but big picture, they have not answered the most important questions - the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness.

Keep in mind, that I am not suggesting to abandon your science. There is room for both Science and Eastern thought, and science would do well to adopt Eastern thinking into its methods and practice.

You are still not seeing deep enough. If we were to make a list of different existential factors and organize them by levels of influence and implications, then happiness and purpose would be some of the things at the top. These two have bigger implications and influence on how one lives - they impact your very being as opposed to just one small aspect of it.

You can say having healthy kidneys is important to life, but religion or any system (which provides purpose, meaning, happiness, morality etc.) is even more important to life. Science can not provide answer for all of these issues.


Perhaps later I will make another discussion explaining why Science should adopt Eastern thinking or we can create a new science that is not bogged down by "materialism".

So, basically, you are saying that people should accept myths and superstitions of astrology and horoscopes over real astronomy?

Because that’s what I am reading from your posts.

The eastern astronomy like that the western astronomy were completely unaware of other galaxies outside of the Milky Way, before 1919.

Before the invention of telescope in early 1600s, the only visible galaxies (beside the Milky Way) were Andromeda, Triangulum, Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud, and with the telescopes from 1604 to 1918, more galaxies were discovered, EXCEPT that BEFORE 1919, astronomers thought these objects were nebulas, not galaxies separate from the Milky Way.

When the late 18th century French astronomer, Charles Messier catalogues all the known objects that can be viewed in the night sky, have labelled these galaxies as nebulas, eg Andromeda Nebula (M31), Triangulum Nebula (M33), Virgo A Nebula (M87), etc.

It was Edwin Hubble, in 1919, using the largest telescope at that time, the Hooker Telescope, and discovered these nebulas were really galaxies not nebulas. All the catalogues of stars have to be revised and updated, during 1920s & 30s.

Easterner astronomers were just as clueless as Charles Messier (Messier Object, 1771), John Herschel (who published Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars, 1786) and John Louis Emil Dreyer (who published New General Catalogue, in 1888), regarding to other galaxies.

Why would I think easterner philosophies or religions would know more about the universe, when they gave no ideas about other galaxies?

 

[Swami]

So, basically, you are saying that people should accept myths and superstitions of astrology and horoscopes over real astronomy?

Why would I think easterner philosophies or religions would know more about the universe, when they gave no ideas about other galaxies?

So, basically, you are saying that people should accept myths and superstitions of astrology and horoscopes over real astronomy?

Because that’s what I am reading from your posts.

The eastern astronomy like that the western astronomy were completely unaware of other galaxies outside of the Milky Way, before 1919.

Before the invention of telescope in early 1600s, the only visible galaxies (beside the Milky Way) were Andromeda, Triangulum, Large Magellanic Cloud and Small Magellanic Cloud, and with the telescopes from 1604 to 1918, more galaxies were discovered, EXCEPT that BEFORE 1919, astronomers thought these objects were nebulas, not galaxies separate from the Milky Way.

When the late 18th century French astronomer, Charles Messier catalogues all the known objects that can be viewed in the night sky, have labelled these galaxies as nebulas, eg Andromeda Nebula (M31), Triangulum Nebula (M33), Virgo A Nebula (M87), etc.

It was Edwin Hubble, in 1919, using the largest telescope at that time, the Hooker Telescope, and discovered these nebulas were really galaxies not nebulas. All the catalogues of stars have to be revised and updated, during 1920s & 30s.

Easterner astronomers were just as clueless as Charles Messier (Messier Object, 1771), John Herschel (who published Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars, 1786) and John Louis Emil Dreyer (who published New General Catalogue, in 1888), regarding to other galaxies.

Why would I think easterner philosophies or religions would know more about the universe, when they gave no ideas about other galaxies?

I fully explain my position here:
Why Scientists need to accept Eastern thought

 

[ecco]

the most important questions - the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness.

You are still not seeing deep enough. If we were to make a list of different existential factors and organize them by levels of influence and implications, then happiness and purpose would be some of the things at the top. These two have bigger implications and influence on how one lives - they impact your very being as opposed to just one small aspect of it.

Tell me how knowing "the origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness" would lead to greater happiness and purpose. How would that knowledge impact my very being?

There are people who believe and accept an eternal, creator god. Do these people have "greater happiness and purpose" than people who believe in evolution? I don't think so.

You can say having healthy kidneys is important to life, but religion or any system (which provides purpose, meaning, happiness, morality etc.) is even more important to life. Science can not provide answer for all of these issues.

You are asserting that mystical knowledge (religion) provides purpose, meaning, happiness, morality. This is not fact. Compare divorce records and prison records. Consider how many Sunnis disparage Shiites, how many Pentecostalists disparage Catholics. The notion that religious people are more fulfilled than atheists has no basis in reality.

In any case, knowledge of the True "origin and nature of Universe, life, and consciousness" would not be discovered by religious mumbo jumbo, it would be discovered by science.

Perhaps later I will make another discussion explaining why Science should adopt Eastern thinking or we can create a new science that is not bogged down by "materialism".

Will you be able to provide more substance to that discussion than this one?

 

[cladking]

You are showing an ignorance of computers on a par with your ignorance of languages.

I built a computer out of tinker toys in the '50's and studied programming in the '60's.

I admit an inability to use them today or to understanding directions.

I shouldn't need to have to defend myself. You should show me in what way I'm wrong.

 

[paarsurrey]

So one cannot do without a natural language and the natural words.

And then,why from one's language English? Why not in French or German or Japanese or Chinese or Urdu etc.
When one fixes a particular meaning to a natural word, it does not remain a natural word, it becomes a term. And that is already being done.
Right, please?

Friend @cladking , please
One may like to read my posts#92, #96, in another thread, these are very relevant here also. Right, please?

Regards

 

[cladking]

please
One may like to read my posts#92, #96, in another thread, these are very relevant here also.

We are using terms very differently.

When I refer to "language" I am not referring to modern language. Modern language is essentially just an analog program for our digital brains. A tinker toy computer is not programmable and (forgive the puns) but is analogous to how an oak tree might think. Animals use digital language for their digital brains just as humans once did. I'm suggesting we can either develop an analog scientific language with some digital properties or we can model digital language using our existing languages. The latter has much less to do with language per se as it has to do with education and the way we train some individuals.

 

[ecco]

I built a computer out of tinker toys in the '50's and studied programming in the '60's.

I admit an inability to use them today or to understanding directions.

I shouldn't need to have to defend myself. You should show me in what way I'm wrong.

Your own comment makes that very clear.

As I picture a "modeled" language nobody could understand it except as it concerned exceedingly simple things. To be very meaningful only computers could "parse" it.

Is this like the "computer out of tinker toys" that you built in the 50's?

Wow! I underestimated the level of your genius.