Kylie's Apple Challenge

[SelfSim]

Only to a point.

A point defined by the Hubble scope or JWST, or some other one(?), (all of which can see to the point of observability, of course).

 

[AV1611VET]

... or some other one(?),

Post 231 please.

 

[SelfSim]

Post 231 please.

?
What about it?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Lol ..
I've grown very attached to your regular very dour, historic-looking Avatar. (It wouldn't be the real HansB without it, for me).

I'm sure someone, somewhere will do something stupidly neo-Confederate and Gn'l Sherman will need to return to burn down their village eventually.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Myopia in science, like myopia in humans, can be corrected by the use of properly shaped lenses, for example in telescopes and microscopes.

Most of science (in terms of effort) is really about understanding the properties of your experimental apparatus and environment whether it be a supercollider, a telescope, a numerical simulation code, a model animal, an ecosystem, a Petri dish, etc., to isolate the things you want to study from all of the other influences on the raw data.

 

[Kylie]

You assume the five senses are reliable indicators of reality.

Of course, we've developed lots of tools to sense things that our five senses CAN'T sense, and we use those. So, when you include tools like that, we have a lot more than just five senses.

You also assume that one can develop a reliable enough hypothesis about what is going on that it will be useful in revealing reality.

That's why we test the hypotheses to see if they can make predictions that are verified.

You now assume that thought he five senses may be deficient in revealing all reality one can develop a method for discovering a way to reveal that which the five senses do not reveal

Are you serious? You think that if something can't be detected by our five senses then it can never be detected?

We literally do it all the time. What do you think Wi-Fi is? Our five senses can't detect it, but we've created computers that can.

You now assume that it is possible to construct a device to measure something that your five senses cannot reveal and the yo have assumed exists despite this fact. I would like to know how one proposes to test the effectiveness of this measurements without making further assumptions.

Every time you listen to a song on your car radio instead of indecipherable gibberish you are verifying that radio detectors work.

You propose to measure something you assume exists by a device you assume will measure it.

I've literally just given two examples of this. I can give plenty more if you want. Radar, sonar, ultrasounds, x-rays spring to mind.

From what i can tell the hypothesis, and the device were not based upon the five senses but upon the fact the five senses did not detect something one assumed existed despite the fact that the five senses did not reveal the existence of the thing one assumed existed. I do not see that a device that cannot be verified as measuring something thing the five senses can detect independently is any more objectively reliable than a device to detect anything else one decides to exist. It is a process reminiscent of the ancients using a diving rod to detect water underground that they could not see, smell, hear, taste or feel. The biggest f difference being that, unlike radio waves, they had previously had the first hand experience of being able to feel , taste smell hear and see water above ground and therefore , trusting the five senses in implicitly , they were confident that water did indeed exist somewhere

So, you think people assumed something existed, made some device that did something and then they assumed that this something was connected to the thing they assumed existed?

If that were the case, then how could they possibly get repeatable results?

 

[Kylie]

But, the shape of a star *is* a sphere.

*Glares at you*

 

[Hans Blaster]

*Glares at you*

My new avatar "glares" back....

 

[SelfSim]

My new avatar "glares" back....

.. and apparently hides some huge asteroids only just detected .. is that why its smiling?

 

[Mountainmike]

You need to step back.

The senses detect the shadow of something, the reflection of something, what emanates from something. Never the something itself which is unknowable.

All of it is a dimensional projection, which makes it empirical because of many to one mappings and one to many mappings.

The universe you model is defined by the senses. A blind cavefish or bat has a very different model of the universe.

All your observations rely on consciousness which interferes with observation and you have no idea what consciousness is, whether it is local, or group , or confined in space or time.

You dong know if the universe is subjective or objective or a mix.

Take simple phenomena like gravitation.
You cannot say what it is. Only what it is usually observed to do

Science is really really useful. It’s also limited to things that can be observed , are observed to repeat, or can be repeated.

Your perception of the universe is very limited.
It is sheer arrogance to think you detect all that is there.

the one thing I am certain of:because the science model is just a model. The model in a century time will be unrecognisable.

Of course, we've developed lots of tools to sense things that our five senses CAN'T sense, and we use those. So, when you include tools like that, we have a lot more than just five senses.



That's why we test the hypotheses to see if they can make predictions that are verified.



Are you serious? You think that if something can't be detected by our five senses then it can never be detected?

We literally do it all the time. What do you think Wi-Fi is? Our five senses can't detect it, but we've created computers that can.



Every time you listen to a song on your car radio instead of indecipherable gibberish you are verifying that radio detectors work.



I've literally just given two examples of this. I can give plenty more if you want. Radar, sonar, ultrasounds, x-rays spring to mind.



So, you think people assumed something existed, made some device that did something and then they assumed that this something was connected to the thing they assumed existed?

If that were the case, then how could they possibly get repeatable results?

 

[Estrid]

My new avatar "glares" back....

None so imidating as MY baleful visage

 

[Kylie]

You need to step back.

The senses detect the shadow of something, the reflection of something, what emanates from something. Never the something itself which is unknowable.

All of it is a dimensional projection, which makes it empirical because of many to one mappings and one to many mappings.

The universe you model is defined by the senses. A blind cavefish or bat has a very different model of the universe.

All your observations rely on consciousness which interferes with observation and you have no idea what consciousness is, whether it is local, or group , or confined in space or time.

You dong know if the universe is subjective or objective or a mix.

Take simple phenomena like gravitation.
You cannot say what it is. Only what it is usually observed to do

Science is really really useful. It’s also limited to things that can be observed , are observed to repeat, or can be repeated.

Your perception of the universe is very limited.
It is sheer arrogance to think you detect all that is there.

the one thing I am certain of:because the science model is just a model. The model in a century time will be unrecognisable.

It is a model which produces USEABLE results.

That's why I can type this post and you get actual words instead of gibberish.

 

[SelfSim]

Warning! .. Warning Will Robinson!

Avatar theft alert!! (Post 250).
Return to 'Jupiter 2' .. Immediately!

 

[SelfSim]

It is a model which produces USEABLE results.

That's why I can type this post and you get actual words instead of gibberish.

A testable model is also way more useful than just another belief .. because, well, there are fewer of 'em .. for starters.

 

[dlamberth]

What I find it interesting is that for something that supposedly doesn't exist, the spiritual awareness of life has definitely enriched my life as I know it has for many others through the years. The question I have is how could that even be possible for something that does not exist? That's what I'm wondering.

 

[Kylie]

What I find it interesting is that for something that supposedly doesn't exist, the spiritual awareness of life has definitely enriched my life as I know it has for many others through the years. The question I have is how could that even be possible for something that does not exist? That's what I'm wondering.

I'm sure there are lots of people who have viewpoints you think are wrong, yet those viewpoints have brought them enrichment.

The validity and realness of things are not determined by how enriching they are. The idea of something can be enriching, even if the thing itself is not real.

 

[SelfSim]

What I find it interesting is that for something that supposedly doesn't exist, the spiritual awareness of life has definitely enriched my life as I know it has for many others through the years. The question I have is how could that even be possible for something that does not exist? That's what I'm wondering.

Try on: your state of mind, which you call 'spiritual awareness of life', is added to what you mean by 'is real' (by your mind).

The only thing is; that is not the way science assigns meaning to 'is objectively real'. Ie: we're talking about different meanings of the term is 'real', distinguished by the way (or method) by which that meaning is assigned to the term, by differently thinking minds.

Its all about the meaning .. and not 'the thing' reality.

 

[dlamberth]

I'm sure there are lots of people who have viewpoints you think are wrong, yet those viewpoints have brought them enrichment.

The validity and realness of things are not determined by how enriching they are. The idea of something can be enriching, even if the thing itself is not real.

Validity of the spiritual aspect of knowing isn't my intent here. It can't be validated when a person can't see it. So why try? I'm just sharing my own thoughts is all.

On to the point you brought up. Your assuming that spiritual awareness is a "viewpoint", that's not what it is at all. Though you would be right in saying that's where many take it. I see those kinds trajectories as a pseudo-spirituality sort of thing. But that's not where I'm at. And for many others too, it's reality. Consciousness comes into play here. Which in this forum seems to have a way of digressing away from consciousness awareness and into material based denial of consciousness exploration.

 

[dlamberth]

Try on: your state of mind, which you call 'spiritual awareness of life', is added to what you mean by 'is real' (by your mind).

The only thing is; that is not the way science assigns meaning to 'is objectively real'. Ie: we're talking about different meanings of the term is 'real', distinguished by the way (or method) by which that meaning is assigned to the term, by differently thinking minds.

Its all about the meaning .. and not 'the thing' reality.

"the thing". I can guarantee we see and experience the stuff around us differently.

The indigenous people see and experience things like trees, animals, mountains and everything around them as verbs. That's their reality. That's not true in western culture. Is their reality less true than yours?

 

[Kylie]

Validity of the spiritual aspect of knowing isn't my intent here. It can't be validated when a person can't see it. So why try? I'm just sharing my own thoughts is all.

On to the point you brought up. Your assuming that spiritual awareness is a "viewpoint", that's not what it is at all. Though you would be right in saying that's where many take it. I see those kinds trajectories as a pseudo-spirituality sort of thing. But that's not where I'm at. And for many others too, it's reality. Consciousness comes into play here. Which in this forum seems to have a way of digressing away from consciousness awareness and into material based denial of consciousness exploration.

I'm just pointing out that the fact you find it enriching doesn't mean it's real.