gnostic
The Lost One
Sorry, but what are the "objective truths"?
How would you define such truth being "objective"?
Is there some ways that you can measure or quantify such truth?
Or is the truth based on "metaphysics"?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Proud of scientific achievements?
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
How would you define such truth being "objective"?
Is there some ways that you can measure or quantify such truth?
Or is the truth based on "metaphysics"?
A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject.
I think that Mr. Poppel says it eloquently (and very deeply).
Can I be so sure about my scientific activities that I communicate with pride the results to others? If I look at the complexity of the brain, how is it possible that something reasonable comes out of this network? How is it possible that a face that I see or a thought that I have maintain their identity over time? If I have no access to what goes on in my brain, how can I be so proud, (how can anybody be so proud) about scientific achievements?
I think that most scientists stop being proud. Doctors stop being proud. People who employ naturalism for their work realise sooner or later that nature is deeper than what mind-senses can fathom. Such people stop being proud because they are rationalists, not bound to any ‘ism’.
My opinion only. YMMV.
Religion, prayer, meditation have everyday benefits for scientists too.
Yes
Human activity is changing conditions on our planet (and space local to our planet) this has been known for some years. Whether its is for the good of evolution, this i doubt except perhaps by accident
Possibly
Human greed rarely considers the environment, the way it is abused at the moment could very well result in the early demise of humanity and many other species. An estimate of between 200 and 2000 species are disappearing each year, partly due to human activity. If we dont succeed in destroying this planet for llife then new lifeforms will evolve.
And
No, All he is saying that some things are (as yet) unknown. The purpose of science is to help make those unknowns known. That is just an everyday scientific concept.
I am afraid that you may be missing Poppel's key point.
I answered the three relevant points, unless you know of a secret one
cladking
Well-Known Member
People have lost sight of the complexity of nature and they know their understanding is very shallow. This can be very humbling to scientists because they don't see the complexity of what they are trying to uncover. It's probably easier for those with "faith" since they have "God" to represent the complexity they are often more capable of seeing. Scientists seek the elegant equation that will explain everything but no such equation exists because reality is finite, digital, and impossibly complex. Now days many will resort to Look and See Science which merely highlights their own assumptions because they can't find the elegance that explains observation. Meanwhile "Applied Science" is stuck in about 1883 so is not much help to anyone. Cosmology is stuck in the 1920's and it's just a matter of time until technology becomes bogged down with no new theory to advance it. The educational system has collapsed in favor of mass indoctrination and most people feel rootless.
With machine intelligence just around the corner we are in for some very hard times unless we snap out of it.
The status quo has become gospel so we are headed toward a new dark ages that doesn't need people at all.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
That's sad.
ecco
Veteran Member
Yes, I suppose some rocket scientists pray they will win the lottery.Religion, prayer, meditation have everyday benefits for scientists too.
You may be sarcastic but everyone needs a good stable, centred mind, at sometime or other. You may also also need.
People think that “I am this” is all that one has. No. The “I am” whereupon the “I am this” subsists, is the stable centre.
Prayer or meditation is to align the superficial ego “I am this” self with that stable self. Prayer, meditation is not to seek any external help.
I would state categorically that we are generally *not* competent to discern truth. One of the hard things about teaching math, for example, is that human brains are not very good at logic. It takes a *lot* of practice to get to the point that even basic logical errors are avoided.
Next, we have the fact that our senses are quite imperfect. At the very least, we cannot see outside of a very small range of the light spectrum. But we are also subject to visual (and other types) of illusions. We *frequently* do not perceive the truth, but rather a picture processed through a brain that was evolved to deal with quite different sorts of information (hunting and gathering in a savanna).
So, no, we are not automatically able to discern truth. In the real world, we fool ourselves, we often see what we expect as opposed to what is there, we fail at basic logic, etc. These are all because we evolved to survive in a certain type of environment and NOT to discern the truths of general relativity or quantum mechanics. For that matter, even Newtonian physics is beyond the intuition of most of us.
But, what we *can* do is train ourselves. We can make sure our ideas are testable, and *try* to show where and when they are wrong. Those that survive repeated attempts to *disprove* them are kept around and we can have some confidence in them. We can *force* ourselves to learn logic, to be on guard against basic errors of thought, to be aware of how our perceptions are faulty, and to not leap to conclusions before comparing notes from those with different viewpoints.
Nobody said science would be easy or automatic. Nobody said we would be good at it. Nobody said we are built for doing it. But we *can* train ourselves to be better.
Audie
Veteran Member
Or for any intellectual achievement?
ecco
Veteran Member
Without going into woo, can you explain what you mean by "a good stable, centred mind"?
Try again, without the woo.
OK. You can't.
Audie
Veteran Member
quelle surprise
The obscurantist woo woo that comes from these spiritual
progress people makes me think of the writings
of alchemists.
The Six Keys of Eudoxus
THE FIRST KEY
1. The First Key is that which opens the dark prisons in which the Sulphur is shut up: this is it which knows how to extract the seed out of the body, and which forms the Stone of the philosophers by the conjunction of the spirit with the body.
2. Hermes has manifestly demonstrated the operation of this First Key by these words: In the caverns of the metals there is hidden the Stone, which is venerable, bright in colour, a mind sublime, and an open sea
And so freakin' on.
Last edited:
People get bogged down when they start talking about truth, or absolute truth, or objective truth, or ultimate truth.
What matters about an idea is its usefulness in predicting and therefore at times controlling outcomes so that desirable outcomes are maximized and undesirable ones minimized. All we need to know is that we have preferences, and certain ideas facilitate their manifestation better than competing ideas, so we use those ideas.That's as close to truth as I can use.
Are the ideas that work true? Is Newton's theory of universal gravitation true? It's been improved upon since his day at least twice that I know of, once when Laplace solved the three-body gravitational problem, and then later with Einstein and relativity theory.
But Newton's ideas work for most practical applications, including the manned Apollo missions to the moon and back. Is Newton's work true? Do you see the problem there?
And a brain is well capable of deciding if an idea is useful.
Evolution probably accounts for our reasoning faculty because of the competitive advantage it confers on those able to reason well, but it doesn't have a purpose or plan. It is a blind, undirected process caused by natural selection working on genetically varying populations over time.
It's the complexity that makes reasoning possible. There are on the order of 100 billion neurons in the brain, roughly the same number as the number of stars in our galaxy and the number of galaxies visible from earth, as well as the number of human being that have been born, so don't expect a full understanding of how a brain generates a conscious mind any time soon.
"Each individual neuron can form thousands of links with other neurons in this way, giving a typical brain well over 100 trillion synapses (up to 1,000 trillion, by some estimates). Functionally related neurons connect to each other to form neural networks (also known as neural nets or assemblies)."
I'm proud of man's scientific prowess and achievements - making life longer, healthier, safer, more functional, easier, more comfortable, and more interesting for much of the world's inhabitants.
Religion and prayer offer no benefit for me. I've tested them. Nothing there.
As far as meditating goes, I am generally walking with eyes open when thinking to myself. This is a valuable activity. I don't call it meditation. It's contemplation - plain thinking.
I say that we are capable of much much more.
We maintain identity, we carry memory, we have subjective feelings, we have intellect to analyse, and we have ability to be THE SEER OF OUR MIND — ability to see all thoughts and direct it towards peaceful ‘Flow’ state. I hope you have seen how meditators can control their brain and whole being.
My point is, as it always has been, that we are not born of mechanism.
Last edited:
A blind process gives to intelligence and using that intelligence we are supposed to understand that blind process?
In my opinion, this blindness thing is a blind meme.
How do we know? That is what Dr. Poppel asked.
Sometimes being engrossed in thinking may bring in ‘Flow’ condition temporarily.. But more often thinking brings worry.
You may wish to listen to this TED talk.
The point is that can we acknowledge that ability to meditate may be a valuable competency for even a scientist?
Last edited:
Thank you. There is no secret, since Poppel’s note is there to read. You aver that Mr. Poppel is saying that science will know in future.
I do not see that. Poppel points to a more fundamental issue.
Poppel asks how do we know that something reasonable comes out of the network and how an identity is maintained over actions and thoughts?
How do you propose to address the first point? Can a created intelligence determine the truth of its creation? And if the intellect is created how can be ever be proud of its output?
Last edited:
I answered the questions raised by the op. What you consider he points to i answered. You may consider it "more fundamental" i personally think it basic understanding.
And please do not think for me, i am capable of thought despite being a woman and blond... I averred precisely what i wrote.
How i address the first point? I dont, philosophy is not science.
AI is not yet at the stage of considering its own creation.
Is the intellect created? Science is not religion either
And I would say that *all* of what you described here is because of the mechanisms in the brain. I'm not sure why you think it such a big deal to be the 'seer of our minds'. Isn't that the default state?