Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-06-2013, 08:33 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
Considering we're working with a time limit, I hope we cram as much as we can, and soon. 'Last minute' really wouldn't serve us well.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 09:07 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(06-06-2013 06:18 AM)Dom Wrote:  Humans are slow to accept new discoveries. If it contradicts something that has been passed down for generation after generation as generally accepted principle (such as gods or specific religions) it will take generations for humans to accept a newly discovered fact that contradicts old lore.

Absolutely, positively, unquestionably, undeniably, irrefutably the most unassailable statement ever uttered on the interwebz.

Thumbsup

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 06-06-2013 06:00 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(05-06-2013 04:51 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  I appreciate your response, I share your thoughts about how personal philosophy can and does work. As for the physical world and science, I have come up with an interesting response to the fact that it is ever expanding. I believe that science itself can discover everything, however, science does not necessarily involve humans. We cannot discover everything as part of our own human existence, but this does not mean that science cannot discover everything. Just because we as humans do not discover something through science does not mean that it does not exist, someone else may have discovered it somewhere else. As for the idea of incomplete philosophies, I am a advocate of self-change, I believe that accepting incomplete philosophies can work, you just have to be willing to change your mind to incorporate new evidence. This is where my current philosophy is based, if someone gives me evidence that I have not included, I am ready to potential accept it into my currently established philosophy. Thank you again, these types of posts are making me seriously think about my philosophy and thoughts, and improve upon my ideas.
You are very correct. Science is divided on natural and humanistic sciences, because studying humans requires entirely different methods and expectations. (I had to learn this stuff for my recent exams, so I'm clever now)

In my opinion, humans are receivers, they are open systems. Some of us, at some times. And studying an open system scientifically is impossible, especially without knowing that it is an open system. It will give chaotic results. Trust me, the quantitative, deductive method in sociology has to deal with that and that's way below the standard that natural sciences need to claim anything for sure.
The most standardized human subjects of study will also be the least interesting - the dead ones. Science can study the most average people, most close to a closed system, enclosed in their cultural groups and nothing else. But those who stand out, either in pathology or excellence, might not stand alone.
Here's one of ways how science works. It isolates the system, then feeds it some inputs and looks for correlation on the outputs. If it finds a pattern, it declares the system known, or at least usable. If someone kept secretly adding some substance to test tubes, the experiment would fail. A system that is impossible to isolate, is impossible to control and to understand. So why even try?
Because the science itself is based on trying. Some ancient philosophers were "radical skeptics", they doubted that it is possible to say anything with certainty. But if anything - that made their own radical skepticism uncertain and non-obligatory. They undermined their own position.
And so is saying that people can not know anything on their own, with their own senses. That we are slaves to delusions randomly generated by our brains. I do not believe this is inevitable. A disciplined, educated mind may become a sharp instrument at observing the reality regardless of the current state of science. It can keep track of the inputs that are instincts, biases and expectations and subtract them at the output observations, leaving a real fringe experience, if any. It is best not to expect anything.
My guess is, people are open to all kinds of random and uncontrollable phenomena, that science will need generations to recognize and pin down. Not just because of the technical equipment, but because of prejudice against religious and occult traditions developed from these personal observations over centuries and millenia. These traditions are just folklore for the most part, but some of them may be based on real phenomena. These can be only recognized by those who experienced them as well.

There is actually a methodology people should use when trying to observe fringe phenomena. It's a very common sense stuff, but it's nice to see it can be systematized that way:
http://www.human-inquiry.com/expsr1.htm

So TMB, I see we pretty much agree on theory. So how do you build your personal philosophy? I do so according to lots of personal experience. Personal experience is always real and undeniable, if I say I experienced this or that, I really did, although I might find a better explanation for it later, this is what the experience was at the time.
So what are your sources? Any strange experiences, that compel you to keep an open mind besides the standard scientific worldview? Or are your sources still theory, logic and philosophy?

(06-06-2013 06:18 AM)Dom Wrote:  Most likely we will eventually discover everything, just not in our life time. Humans are slow to accept new discoveries. If it contradicts something that has been passed down for generation after generation as generally accepted principle (such as gods or specific religions) it will take generations for humans to accept a newly discovered fact that contradicts old lore.
Yes, that and more. Scientists may go into the opposite extreme, neglecting certain scientific developments because they resemble some old lore too much.

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 06:49 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
(06-06-2013 05:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(05-06-2013 04:51 PM)TheMagicBox Wrote:  I appreciate your response, I share your thoughts about how personal philosophy can and does work. As for the physical world and science, I have come up with an interesting response to the fact that it is ever expanding. I believe that science itself can discover everything, however, science does not necessarily involve humans. We cannot discover everything as part of our own human existence, but this does not mean that science cannot discover everything. Just because we as humans do not discover something through science does not mean that it does not exist, someone else may have discovered it somewhere else. As for the idea of incomplete philosophies, I am a advocate of self-change, I believe that accepting incomplete philosophies can work, you just have to be willing to change your mind to incorporate new evidence. This is where my current philosophy is based, if someone gives me evidence that I have not included, I am ready to potential accept it into my currently established philosophy. Thank you again, these types of posts are making me seriously think about my philosophy and thoughts, and improve upon my ideas.
You are very correct. Science is divided on natural and humanistic sciences, because studying humans requires entirely different methods and expectations. (I had to learn this stuff for my recent exams, so I'm clever now)

In my opinion, humans are receivers, they are open systems. Some of us, at some times. And studying an open system scientifically is impossible, especially without knowing that it is an open system. It will give chaotic results. Trust me, the quantitative, deductive method in sociology has to deal with that and that's way below the standard that natural sciences need to claim anything for sure.
The most standardized human subjects of study will also be the least interesting - the dead ones. Science can study the most average people, most close to a closed system, enclosed in their cultural groups and nothing else. But those who stand out, either in pathology or excellence, might not stand alone.
Here's one of ways how science works. It isolates the system, then feeds it some inputs and looks for correlation on the outputs. If it finds a pattern, it declares the system known, or at least usable. If someone kept secretly adding some substance to test tubes, the experiment would fail. A system that is impossible to isolate, is impossible to control and to understand. So why even try?
Because the science itself is based on trying. Some ancient philosophers were "radical skeptics", they doubted that it is possible to say anything with certainty. But if anything - that made their own radical skepticism uncertain and non-obligatory. They undermined their own position.
And so is saying that people can not know anything on their own, with their own senses. That we are slaves to delusions randomly generated by our brains. I do not believe this is inevitable. A disciplined, educated mind may become a sharp instrument at observing the reality regardless of the current state of science. It can keep track of the inputs that are instincts, biases and expectations and subtract them at the output observations, leaving a real fringe experience, if any. It is best not to expect anything.
My guess is, people are open to all kinds of random and uncontrollable phenomena, that science will need generations to recognize and pin down. Not just because of the technical equipment, but because of prejudice against religious and occult traditions developed from these personal observations over centuries and millenia. These traditions are just folklore for the most part, but some of them may be based on real phenomena. These can be only recognized by those who experienced them as well.

There is actually a methodology people should use when trying to observe fringe phenomena. It's a very common sense stuff, but it's nice to see it can be systematized that way:
http://www.human-inquiry.com/expsr1.htm

So TMB, I see we pretty much agree on theory. So how do you build your personal philosophy? I do so according to lots of personal experience. Personal experience is always real and undeniable, if I say I experienced this or that, I really did, although I might find a better explanation for it later, this is what the experience was at the time.
So what are your sources? Any strange experiences, that compel you to keep an open mind besides the standard scientific worldview? Or are your sources still theory, logic and philosophy?
First off, thank you for your fantastic advice, its people like you who really get me thinking, and I enjoy that, so thank you. That link is fantastic by the way, cool stuff in the fringe world, I may just have to do some looking into on that stuff. As per my development of my personal philosophy, it comes down to a lot of things. The first "rule" that I try to abide by is that of change. I must be willing and able to change at any point if sufficient evidence is produced; my personal philosophy is never solid, I am always encountering new and interesting things that I may be able to incorporate. The next key piece is that of science, I am a heavy advocate for science, I will never allow my philosophy to deviate away from science and the material world, that is the basis for why I am completely non-theistic.

Now see, I can tell you those two things as being essential to my personal philosophy, but after that I get a bit stuck. Logic and science have a lot to do with my personal philosophy, but i'm not sure what else. Other than logic, and the two things above, I either can't put into words or I don't know what other things I factor into my personal philosophy. I am genuinely confused about why I prefer Naturalism over any other philosophy other than the fact that naturalism is pointed more towards scientific discovery. Right now, it is just a thing where I say "that's it" or "that's not." I am not really sure why I like some philosophies better than others other than the above rules. I think I will figure out eventually why I think some philosophies are better than others, but for now I really can't tell you. I guess I have only lived for fifteen years and can't possibly figure everything out yet, even though I really want to..

The only way to avoid the personal corruption of praise is to go on working.
~Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 08:04 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
I assume I am a naturalist, although I haven't given it much thought.

I just spent some time reading about it and it makes sense.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 09:24 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
IRT CTS, I'm not entirely convinced we have an absolute time limit. We just need enough time to discover a way to survive one apocalypse, then from there again, and so on and so forth. I, for one, do not think the universe will end. I believe it has always been here, and will continue to do so forever. This is not a popular opinion among most atheist groups, so I am a bit different as well. I am not suggesting we (as a species or individual) are immortal, but I am saying we don't have a time limit. We may one day learn to transmute into pure energy and retain our essence, for example. We may develop some way to change our environment on the big scale to suit our needs, who knows? Not I.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
What he/she said Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-06-2013, 08:29 AM
RE: Hi! Found somewhere to talk about my thoughts :D
I want to learn more about your views on Transtheism. i joined just for to learn more.
Where did you hear about it and what in it was interesting to you.
In your opinion how does it differ and agree with Naturalism?
Such would be interesting to read from you TheMagicBox

I came in contact with transtheism on wikipedia by accident.
I read something on Tillich and he seems to have coined it already 1952
in a book. So I googled to find more who cared about it and found you here
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: