Home | Community | Message Board

NorthSpore.com BOOMR Bag!
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlineyouknowyou
Stranger
Registered: 07/27/14
Posts: 247
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: mind affects health, study finds [Re: secondorder]
    #21782810 - 06/09/15 11:20 AM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

OrgoneConclusion said:
Quote:

it often thinks it knows everything in the universe




You win the retarded post of the month. Science is a method, doesn't think and has no personality flaws.

Keep ranting though. :thumbup:




science contains inevitable flaws. first flaw: it demands observation, and there's no observer in the world, only participants. the fact is that the observer affect the observed and change the observed.

science is not totally objective.


Quote:

secondorder said:
Quote:

science sickens me, and worst of all, I used to adhere to it...  don't subscribe to it all if you can avoid




The computer sitting in front of you was built based on hundreds of different scientific theories, experiments and consensuses. How is it that you do not adhere to science, yet you continue to use it's products? Or do you believe there is some sort of spooky unscientific reason that your computer turns on when you press the ON button, that is unrelated to it's manufacturer and factory?



it seems evident that he doesnt talk about inventions, but how some people use science to defend a materialistic view of the world.


Edited by youknowyou (06/09/15 11:25 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: mind affects health, study finds [Re: youknowyou] * 2
    #21785161 - 06/09/15 07:43 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

it seems evident that he doesnt talk about inventions, but how some people use science to defend a materialistic view of the world.




Many people definitely draw deeper conclusions than are necessary, or wise, from scientific theory. Naturalism or materialism I agree might not be a very logical conclusion to arrive at from our current scientific theories. These are not science though. Science is a practice that can help us to figure out the truth. I even agree with your statement that science is not totally objective. It can't ever be totally objective. But it's a good start. There are certain philosophical barriers (such as Cartesian solipsism) that, once passed, allow us to understand more about the world through scientific principles. In the end, science is really just the application of deductive logical reasoning to the world in a practical manner. Philosophy on the other hand is really just the application of deductive logical reasoning to the world in a theoretical manner.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
Re: mind affects health, study finds [Re: secondorder]
    #21786333 - 06/09/15 11:56 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

I didn't expect to be understood, but I got surprised! - only happens on shroomery :wink:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleKurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
Re: mind affects health, study finds [Re: secondorder]
    #21788436 - 06/10/15 01:50 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

secondorder said:
Quote:

it seems evident that he doesnt talk about inventions, but how some people use science to defend a materialistic view of the world.




Many people definitely draw deeper conclusions than are necessary, or wise, from scientific theory. Naturalism or materialism I agree might not be a very logical conclusion to arrive at from our current scientific theories. These are not science though. Science is a practice that can help us to figure out the truth. I even agree with your statement that science is not totally objective. It can't ever be totally objective. But it's a good start. There are certain philosophical barriers (such as Cartesian solipsism) that, once passed, allow us to understand more about the world through scientific principles. In the end, science is really just the application of deductive logical reasoning to the world in a practical manner. Philosophy on the other hand is really just the application of deductive logical reasoning to the world in a theoretical manner.




Hey second order, I wonder what you mean when you say naturalism or materialism could be the conclusions of scientific theories? Also do you take them to mean the same thing? Many empiricists are not essentially reductionist, or argue for the basis of philosophical naturalism. Neither are they all logicist.

I'd say naturalism, as well, but aside from a materialistic assumption, is not the conclusion, but the philosophical assumption of empirical research. It can respectively in it's openess - and not merely "truth bearance" - more or less represent this consistency. Empiricism also makes a formal assumption of materialism which is not simply empirically based, as you may be yourself signifying.

I'd say the consistency of empirical research is upon epistemic basis, found in holism. As W.O Quine put it we think of bodies of propositions, with a notably positive regard to "theory ladenness". As other pragmatists put it, in more negative terms, we do not naively vest in the meaning of propositions mirroring the nature of the world in a general way.

It may not be the place to argue this point to point, but I would at least volunteer the possible associations of a pragmatist point of view.

I think what I would be able to do in a space of gestures, is point out that what you mean by "practicality" as the logical or deductive position of empiricism, is actually opposed to a pragmatist empiricist's position.

You suggest Descartes. My impression is that Descartes' errors are likely something you might lean on, if you vest in any circumspect or practical resolution of a specifically posed problem of res cogitans the "thinking thing" ("its" solipsism). It is a good point to remember that Descartes method of doubt was posed in in terms of speculative project of grounding scientific knowledge rationally and in certainty. From what point of reference are you likely to say its a problem? Some people say even the whole idea of "methodologically" grounding a certain science is misguided.

I would say analytic minded philosophers are pretty much historically based in trying to void a mind body problem, (Whether in terms of Descartes' rather clearly inconsistent speculative doubt, or Kant's mediating a priori intuition) which they take up, and assume rhetorical and dialectical opposition to, rather than stepping back from the speculative assumptions that lead to these puzzles.

I myself made a critique of the solipsism, or what I would call the position of eccentricity (because the speculations don't reach a point of grounding a position) of Descartes. Specifically it was just the corruption and ultimately ungrounded speculation on the essential subject of knowledge hypokeimenon. In that I am referring to the sense of a subject, as the subject we open in a text book or generally grammatical subject, as something clearly possibly differentiated from the modern subject. I think there stands some appeal to recalling these assumptions. I think it begs the question to think of why we have two equivocal meanings of a subject. A subject of knowledge, and one of doubt and speculation. 

It is not my best writing, but you can find a thread here called "subjectivity and the subject of knowledge" if you are interested in a more deconstructive and backwards looking gesture, to pre-cartesianism.

That aside, as for analytically and logically minded philosophers, I think historically they end up vesting in a more derivative way in the opposed Cartesian ontological value of res extensa extension's "reality" which as you probably are aware formally implies substance in bodies to modern thinking.

(Also, coming to a problem of qualia, which is close to the topic of this thread, analytic philosophers find it in an narrowly isolated framework. Sure there are some like Dan Dennett who attempt to void it completely. Likewise, analytic philosophers who have a thoroughgoing consideration of subjectivity like Thomas Nagel are far and few in between, as well. His famous essay is "What is it like to be a bat". Most analytical philosophers attempt merely to isolate a problematic of qualia.)

But what is the generally positive appeal to res extensa as the root of analytic philosophy? In Descarte's thinking, extention is not much less formalistically conceived than a thinking thing. We clearly have to think of a concept of what we see, formally like a line drawn on a Cartesian coordinate system, representative of a dimension of space.

As I understand, the quintessential move made by analytic philosophers (conceived in a way based on an impression of Descartes anyway) is to say sense " is" extention, and so bearing a general correspondence to a material framework of reality. A sense experience's position which Descartes speculated of, is found externally along with what it in a manner perceives as extention, according to an implicit and insinuated point of reference.

Gottlob Frege was really the one who accomplished analytic philosophy's goal in my opinion. Before him analytic philosophy was pretty unheard of. He was just a mathematician who was particularly against the idea of Kant's "psychologism" or intuitions of space and time guiding our idea of sense experience.

There is a geometrical analogy in Gotlobb Frege's essay "On Sense and Reference" which pretty much demonstrates his point, of practically voiding an assumed problem of psychological or philosophical perspective, by mapping out the positions where sense experience "occurs", as potentially and in a constructive possibly being externally guided by reference.

A point of reference is assumed as implicit, and the extension of sense - "mode of presentation" - is implicitly found equally in respect to variable (symbolically represented) subjects and objects, and thus generally intrasubjectively, all on the same level two dimensions, more to the point. I realize this sounds technical, but just look to the following analogy:

"Let a, b, c be the lines connecting the vertices of a triangle with the midpoints of the opposite sides. The point of intersection of a and b is then the same as the point of intersection of b and c. So we have different designations for the same point, and these names ('point of intersection of a and b,' 'point of intersection of b and c') likewise indicate the mode of presentation; and hence the statement contains actual knowledge."

According to a certain frame of reference sense can be seen as something just "occurring" in respect to referent objects. Hence kt becomes significant as a collecting of information, or data, and analytic philosophy certain problematic manners of speculation were seen fit to void, which would rest well with empiricists dealing with a problem of induction. As long as an implied point of reference or object could be taken as given, sense experience could be seen as implied by position.

More of philosophical bearing, you can see how based on the idea of "position" in regards to an implied point of reference, sense could be ascribed as occurring in propositional contingency, as ideally the sense we make, again as long as a certain frame of reference could be somehow given. That is what is appealed to as being practical or constructive, assuming a frame of reference or logic.

As he himself and especially later analytic philosophers claimed, we can imagine that the analysis of propositional contingencies - positions- is the sense we "make" upon the slate of propositional contingency, which is designating the so called states of affairs (as Wittgenstein coined it) in the world. That is the final insinuation, of a logical empiricism.

Generally logical empiricism is based on the idea that propositionality in general (along with its contingence in content ie "data") mirrors the nature of the world.

I would say that according to logical empiricists, "Practicality" to you means being constructive, and constructive in the particular way of gathering research and collecting data, or clarifying a pedagogical structure (logos) of science.

By point of association, rather than strict difference I would say pragmatists differ on this point, of what is ideally constructive. We do not necessarily assume that propositionality can be insinuated as mirroring the nature of the world, as an idealized states of affairs. And a generally associative point may be noting the general state of affairs, of philosophy - the appeal to propositional contingency, as slate of analysis of the world, or the naive challenging forth of propositions - has been much disclaimed but formally stands, or is to this day easily insinuated, less by analytic philosophers but a more general conjecture of naive realism.

Moderate disclaimers of positivism do not have much say with regard to such a state of affairs, which was always kind of a ridiculous, socially constructed assumption. I don't tend to always identify with being constructive in a moderately critical way. Its kind of beyond the appeal to these gestures IMO.

Generally are still in a morass between strict consolidation of states of affairs, and various theses (idealist, post modernists deconstructivist, and pragmatist) which reject this. There is little to say of middle ways.

But here I would say from a historical perspective at least it seems to me that empirical investigation has its basis, whether it well represents it or not, in naturalism.

It is in a blunt way not strictly logical (empiricism was once posed as recognizing we are unable to prescribe or calculate events), as clearly it does not take any specialized philosophy to point to a problem of induction. I'd say a scientific attitude to this, is in more than one dimension, practical. Moderately, pragmatic empiricists like W.O. Quine argue saliently that philosophy is extended with science, which in that manner finds its basis in naturalism and holism - and significantly - bodies of propositions, not just the slate of propositional analysis. (these arguments can be found in his essay Two Dogmas of Empiricism). Or do a search on Quine's epistemic holism.

Although I think these arguments look to criticize the implicit basis of a rationalized "state of affairs" in philosophy, I hope they can be taken as constructive, and as the basis of further discussion where empiricism would not be so much a rant, but perhaps an appropriate topic in itself.

Anyway these points of connection are "useful" anyway. For now (with my best regards, and some sense of good fun), I'd say down with the "state of affairs" of philosophy and science itself.


Edited by Kurt (06/10/15 03:10 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinesecondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
Re: mind affects health, study finds [Re: Kurt]
    #21790421 - 06/10/15 09:03 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

With heavy use of google dictionaries and wikipedia, I was able to make it through your extremely thorough post, with what I think is some form of clarity, and, more importantly, some common ground.

In my post I was using Materialism and Naturalism more or less synonymously, I was making a much lighter point that sometimes people draw deep conclusions from common tendencies of scientific research. For example: Science has encroached on once immaterial ground. Some of the things that were once explained by something immaterial (e.g. souls and spirits) are now explained by material science (bacteria & viruses). If science continues to replace immaterial explanations with material explanations, then eventually everything will have a material explanation.

Again, I don't think this is necessarily a wise conclusion, I would rather remain undecided on the issue, until we understand more. Nevertheless it's a conclusion that many people (even scientists) draw from science all the time.

Please correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your views: I think we have found common ground in the conclusions made from scientific practice; in that they should be surrounded with caveats and conditional statements, purposefully making it difficult to draw deeper conclusions (and therefore make mistakes) about the nature of reality.

So, upon performing scientific experiments, we are dealing with the logical relationship between things as concepts, with almost an indifference to their nature outside of our own minds. I gather you are somewhat fond of Hume?

I really want to continue this conversation but I fear that I am simply not educated enough.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelessismore
Registered: 02/10/13
Posts: 6,268
Re: mind affects health, study finds [Re: secondorder]
    #21790774 - 06/10/15 10:32 PM (8 years, 7 months ago)

Theory is ok
Applications that's where people and scientists/science go mad

I'll stick to the math, don't try to apply to me!

Science is less real than philosophy you could say, it assumes the world is like we see, it is applied theory

Math is usually unapplied theory, so usually more true within the framework

Philosophy is unapplied too, so true within its framework


Science is not guaranteed to be true, that's why be make so many boundary conditions to fit the real world, because the real world is chaotic often, almost impossible to describe in precision

The problem only comes when some naive science follower thinks science can be applied without boundary conditions to all

And there are as many as those, as there are of naive religion fanatics. It's the whole science vs religion thing over and over again. They will do what it takes to justify their religion "science" - even if it means interpreting it wrong, because they are so focused on proving their point.

"You are your brain chemicals" , thats a good simpleton view, overapplied "science"

It's a shame when there is lots of good science out there, that we got people who don't really know much about science, yet proclaim it (often 10 year old kids).
So we really shouldn't trust anybody who claims they know science on an online board, unless they can prove it with lots of logical reasoning.

And we really shouldn't trust any science study unless it was double blind, with p value etc. - and unless it produces good real world results.

Science theories are only useful when they produce something useful, else we reject them.

"you are your brain chemicals" , that's not very useful, it has been proven wrong in the DSM-IV as fake, yet we continue to use it and claim it

There is a lot of fake science out there

Don't overapply science, if you would make that statement right, it would be like "in some people we can help psychosis by adjusting brain chemicals, but it does have side effects - new thoughts - new personality"


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Shop: Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Did you find God? Did you find anything?
( 1 2 all )
Tannis 4,481 33 03/26/02 08:15 AM
by LethalDoseofLife
* Mind? Control Techniques
( 1 2 all )
Sclorch 3,527 26 04/30/02 03:17 PM
by Insomniac
* MKULTRA: CIA Mind Control emex 1,664 10 07/28/02 10:43 PM
by InOut
* Music improves the mind! pattern 1,598 7 09/03/02 11:02 PM
by tak_old
* achieving that extraordinary state of mind.. chodamunky 1,723 17 05/22/02 07:53 PM
by MushyMay
* The New Model ... I find it interesting- -very Crobih 2,314 14 10/17/01 04:14 PM
by Crobih
* Are Plants In Control? RebelSteve33 486 6 03/22/03 03:33 PM
by whiterasta
* Ethical Population Control Procedure Sclorch 876 10 01/23/03 12:08 PM
by ribbit

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,088 topic views. 0 members, 10 guests and 4 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.026 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 14 queries.