• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

There are no material objects

dlorde said:
Only if there is a great vista of "facts" to be illuminated.


Fire or friction are not necessary for illumination, nor is a lens necessary to perceive a "fact".

You're spouting nonsense again.
Click to expand...

You have not demonstrated much use or appreciation of metaphor or analogy. I doubt you would appreciate the meaning the analogy used here.
 
dafydd said:
Why would nature be 'up to' anything? It is just there. Reality is reality.
Click to expand...

Why would it not be up to something?

Observe nature, wherever you look things are up to something in one way or another are they not?
 
Chunol said:
Let me see if I understand BDZ’s point of view…

BDZ says the Sophisticated Scientist understands that what is real cannot be explained by science, but it doesn’t matter what reality is, as long as things and events act in a way that IS explainable by science we can still use our scientific model because it has proven to be useful to do so.
Click to expand...

Yes. It is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. But there is a hidden assumption in your words, that "reality is something". Scientific endeavor, (and layman endeavor for that matter), deal just with phenomena (perceived facts) and then make models to navigate them (world views). Now, key issue: One model is believing that a concrete reality is something beyond our models, and that our models "touch" it.

Lets continue.

Chunol said:
He goes on to assert that the Naïve Scientist is one who still holds onto the “belief” that the descriptions and measurements of Scientific Knowledge are actually “real” and not only a “model”.
He equates this Naïve point of view with a Religionistic or Theological POV based upon faith alone.

BDZ’s Sophisticated Scientific point of view effectively places ontology into the category of woo.
Because it has no effect on the Scientific Model in the same way the existence or non existence of a supreme being would have no effect on the Scientific Model.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you have read it well. Thank you for that. A fact is a fact, what's "behind" that fact (god's imagination, matter or dreams of a butterfly) is irrelevant, simply because we are "trapped" in phenomena.

Chunol said:
So if you accept the Sophisticated Scientific POV, then you no longer have to worry about defending the basis of all Scientific Knowledge that says “it is ASSUMED that NATURE exists”, which is an ontological assertion.

This is how I see BDZ’s argument, which by the way is still based within the world view of “Scientific Knowledge”

I, for one, ain’t buying it.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's tackle that. The basis of scientific endeavor is to explain and predict facts. It is assumed that facts exists, yes, but I would like to know what do you mean by "nature"?

Chunol said:
For one thing it still does not address the question of why the assertion “It is assumed that Nature exists” is an assumption and not a Scientific Fact or a Scientific Theory, which should shed some light onto this question.
Click to expand...

Yes, it might appear to be tricky at first sight. Have you read the article called "naive realism" in Wikipedia? it tackles some of the issues, namely, the belief about what you see is more or less what is there, even when you are not seeing it. Science has demonstrated that this is an assumption, we see a world that its mostly constructed by the brain using the input from our senses, which process facts and transform them in experiences.

Chunol said:
And, the question everyone wants answered is, if Scientific Knowledge is ultimately based upon non verifiable assumptions, why do we still FEEL that we can KNOW what is REAL?
Click to expand...

I believe we might be talking about the same things and giving them different names. You appear to be calling "nature" to what I call "facts". Facts are indeed verifiable.

Chunol said:
When Dr. Johnson kicks his rock and says “I refute it thus”, he KNOWS the rock is real, but he cannot come up with a Scientifically acceptable explanation for his experience of reality.

Thanks for your time.
Chunol
Click to expand...

The experience would be real, it constitutes the fact. The rock is a construction. I hope this clear things a bit.

Thank you for reading.
 
punshhh said:
Plus the fire which resulted in the formation of the lab bench, the human body and the thinker therein.
Click to expand...

Can you link us to a Youtube video of fire doing that? Or is this one of your Humpty Dumpty definitions of a word?
 
punshhh said:
Why would it not be up to something?

Observe nature, wherever you look things are up to something in one way or another are they not?
Click to expand...

Living things, yes. Physical processes such as tides and wind. But nature as a whole is not conscious.
 
punshhh said:
You present an interesting argument, however if one delves deeper into this fog, one realises that the impermeability of this fog is also an aspect of mind and darkness or lack of light is a more appropriate analogy.

If an extremely bright light is brought into a dark place, it will illuminate a great vista of "facts". Where as if the same light is brought into a fog, it will be a very bright white out.

Illumination requires fire or friction, and a lens with which to perceive the "fact"
Click to expand...

But facts are only known when they are, well, facts. The analogy would work for predictions, because it would light the (probable) position of a new buoy. Thanks for it.
 
Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
But facts are only known when they are, well, facts. The analogy would work for predictions, because it would light the (probable) position of a new buoy. Thanks for it.
Click to expand...

The position of a new buoy can be confusing and lead you out to sea rather than into the harbor.

(See how easy that is?)
 
Resume said:
The position of a new buoy can be confusing and lead you out to sea rather than into the harbor.

(See how easy that is?)
Click to expand...

How easy is what? a buoy is a fact. Facts are facts, nothing more, nothing less, and whether our theories conform to them, or not, is the only issue.
 
Why do skeptics boards attract crazy people? Is it because we actually talk to them as opposed to ignoring them?

What is the next post? "You are not currently looking at a screen?"
 
Last edited:
reply to BDZ, post #666 ("your the devil" :-))



Bodhi Dharma Zen said:
Yes. It is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. But there is a hidden assumption in your words, that "reality is something". Scientific endeavor, (and layman endeavor for that matter), deal just with phenomena (perceived facts) and then make models to navigate them (world views). Now, key issue: One model is believing that a concrete reality is something beyond our models, and that our models "touch" it.




No “hidden assumption” here, just two ways of interpreting the same concept.

Assumption in the sense that I am using it, means that Science accepts the premise (assumption) “Nature (the universe, cosmos, world) exists”, even if it cannot be proven scientifically or logically.
ALL Science (and laymen) accept and act as if Nature exists (Nature is something) even if they cannot prove it using the methods of science and logic.

“Assuming Nature exists” in the sense that I think you are using it, would mean that science is saying Nature doesn’t exist (because it cannot be proven by science / logic), but science just goes ahead and assumes that it does.



BDZ..
Indeed, you have read it well. Thank you for that. A fact is a fact, what's "behind" that fact (god's imagination, matter or dreams of a butterfly) is irrelevant, simply because we are "trapped" in phenomena.

Are we trapped in Nature?


BDZ....
The experience would be real, it constitutes the fact. The rock is a construction. I hope this clear things a bit.

I agree that the experience would be real, however the "fact" is only the description or explanation of the event, not the "event as experienced"


Am I getting warmer?

thanks for your time.

Chunol
Click to expand...
 
Chunol said:
Assumption in the sense that I am using it, means that Science accepts the premise (assumption) “Nature (the universe, cosmos, world) exists”, even if it cannot be proven scientifically or logically.
ALL Science (and laymen) accept and act as if Nature exists (Nature is something) even if they cannot prove it using the methods of science and logic.
Click to expand...
What does it mean to assume that nature exists? How would the world be if nature did not, in fact, exist?

And why does it matter for scientific inquiry? If we presume nature doesn't exist, then what prevents me from studying the equation that describes the motion of this non-existing ball when it appears to fall?
 
punshhh said:
You have not demonstrated much use or appreciation of metaphor or analogy. I doubt you would appreciate the meaning the analogy used here.
Click to expand...
I certainly appreciate good analogies and well-placed metaphors in poetry, song, and literature; it is hard to demonstrate appreciation of your contributions because when you do attempt them, they are generally neither well-chosen, well-placed, nor well-expressed. You are not alone on these forums in that respect. The object of analogy and metaphor is to clarify and illuminate by providing comparison through similarity, not to confuse, obscure, or distract.

This, of course, is only my opinion. YMMV.
 
Jonesboy said:
Yes, for many creatures there is just a rectangle that gets in the way. Or for termites, it could be food, or for a murderer it could be the nearest dangerous object to hand.

There is no material property called TV.
Click to expand...

No, a TV is still a TV because it's creator intended it to be a TV and it functions as one. The murderer's and termite's perspective isn't relevent.
 
reply to post #675

Hi Yy2bggggs,

Here is the way I see it….

1. What does it mean to assume that nature exists?

Well, that seems to be the question I am asking.

Science says it is in the business of investigating Nature and of formulating natural explanations for natural phenomena.
When Science investigates Nature it follows a fairly rigid formula.
This formula is based upon a few assumptions, one of which is that Nature exists.



2. How would the world be if nature did not, in fact, exist?

There would NOT be a "world" if Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) did not exist.

3. And why does it matter for scientific inquiry?

All Science is doing is investigating Nature. It doesn’t drive a nail, lay a brick or start a fire.
So IF there was NO Nature for it to investigate, it would be doing nothing, there would be nothing for it to investigate. So I don’t think this is what Science means when it says it can only assume that Nature exists.
Since it is obvious that Science IS doing something, than we CAN assume that Nature exists, the only problem is that science cannot PROVE that Nature exists by using the same formulas and methods that it uses when it investigates or asks questions about Nature.

Which brings us to the next question.
If it is obvious to everyone that Nature exists, that something IS there, but we cannot prove it by using Science, then we must be using some other method to “know” it is there, other than science.


4 If we presume nature doesn't exist, then what prevents me from studying the equation that describes the motion of this non-existing ball when it appears to fall

If you presume that Nature does NOT exist, it would mean “nothing” exists. There would be no “motion” or “non existing ball” and “no you” to study it. I don’t think this is what Science is saying.

But it brings up the idea that if Nature can exist independently of me, than I can exist independently from nature. To hold this point it seems to me that you would have to be under the impression that you are NOT an intrinsic part of nature.

Which brings us to another assumption of science.

Once science accepts that it assumes Nature exists, the next thing it assumes is that Nature is independent of the individual and what he/she thinks or does. Nature (the world, the cosmos, the universe) exists “outside” of us. Nature doesn’t care about the individual, it gains or loses nothing whether we (as individuals) exist or not.

IF Nature is independent of me does that mean I am independent of nature?
If Nature is independent of each thing and event IN Nature than what would happen if we took every thing and every event in Nature away from Nature?



Thanks for your time.

Chunol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom