Is it just about the measures. What about the method of changing the material to then make the works.
There is no "changing of the material". That is nonsense fantasy.
Measuring will only tell us about the end product and how precise or what looks like made it. It won't tell us exactly how it was achieved. Only that something more sophisticated was involved.
But say under the aspect of conscious experiences that this immersed ancients in nature more deeply. Not as in the sciences and measuring or qualifying reality. But as a relational aspect that allowed ancients into a deeper awareness or insight that gave them knowledge of how nature works and thus could manipulate it.
Just through sheer conscious experiences of nature. Remember that these ancients had no enlightenment or critical thinking in scientific terms. It was all experiential.
This does not answer the question. What "conscious experience" relates to the manufacture of stone vases?
Yes so therefore when it oversteps its boundaries its no onger science but attempting metaphysical belief. When its used to rationalise the supernatural belief or transcedent aspects of reality as being unreal its overstepping the mark.
As a science method for what it does look at its very good. But this should be acknowledge that this is only one aspect or dimension even of reality. In fact there are emerging anomelies in this paradigm that point to a deeper dimension and paradigm. So its really paradigms competing with each other over what is fundemental reality.
A reasonable philsophical position would be to say exactly this. That science as a method only tells us a small part of nature and reality and that there are other aspects that don't fall into this paradigm which are just as relevant and real that need to be considered before anyone starts making ontological claims about what counts as real or fact or truth.
If you're not interested in the results of science or using the scientific method, what are you doing in this section of CF?
Yes because you believe and 'believe' is the destinguishing word that all reality is within the causal closure of the physical. In otherwords there is only one fundemental reality which is the physical, or material or naturalistic. So long as all causes stem back to a quantifiable aspect that can be measures in quantifiable empiricle measures.
So of course all aspects including epiphenomena, religious beliefs, consciousness, experiences are caused by the physical. For example conscious experiences as an epiphenomena of the physical brain. Nothing supernatural or transcedent in nature.
So by metaphysical belief you will only see the physical causes and force onto all phenomena a physical explanation ie miracles are some sort of biological anomely we have yet to understand. BUt physical in nature 100%. No Gods or miracles here.
I'm not interested in examining your grasp of reality.
Yet this is stepping beyond science because if there were miracles or the supernatural they will have a physical effect. Really all science is doing describing what is happening and explaining this in the physical terms it happens within. It says nothing about the nature of that phenomena. Thats how science has morphed into a belief that most cannot even see this and just assume like everything else its true. .
What miracles are needed to make stone vases?
Everything is about experiences. How do you know we are not in some Simulation.
"Simulation theory" is the dumbest theory I've ever seen. It makes Atlantis or "Trump is playing 23-dimensional chess" look like good explanitory frameworks.
Or at least a big part or some part is just a MInd conception of whatever is the latest view of reality. Can we actually step outside our minds to scientifically verify that how we concieve reality is correct.
I mean theres enough "experiential' knowledge and lived reality to say that all the religions, and transcedent aspects of humans is not just one big physical epiphenomena and most good philsophers will agreed. That we should take seroiusly what has basically been the default human behaviour for millenia. We are all not deluded and dumb science deniers lol.
Experience or rather conscious experience is probably the most reliable aspect from which we can know reality because its direct. Its not made into 3rd party science which actually detaches itself, or rather tries to from our direct contact with reality.
None of this is useful to the questions at hand in this thread. (Nor is it interesting.)
What is reality. We can know the physical objective data of how a house is constructed. Or how a mountain is made.
I am literally working on a thread next to this one how a mountain is being built. It is fun.
So what. HUmans are meaning making creatures and the world is not about the coffee cups objective reality. But whats in the cup, what the cup represents in reality. Thats the experiential aspect of reality thats missing in science. Yet it is the most dominant and lived reality.
Coffee cups are topological doughnuts useful for holding a cup of "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot."
Ok your getting into semantics again. I mean the same as in all believe in some sort of transcedent existence or being or spirit of some sort. Its just different expressions of the same fundemental belief.
I can get the evidence on this if you want. From meta analysis of the different beliefs and cultural practices. They all home in on the same core beliefs. Just different expressions. Which is the subjective cultural part. But the fundemental belief is ingrained and as much a part of humans as the need to eat.
You can't make your point by arguing that I am correct. Clearly we do not have the same "metaphysical basis" which was exactly my claim.
THis exactly proves my point that the scientific method oversteps and becomes a belief. You say this like its an ontological fact or truth. We investigated all religious beliefs and all the other paradigms of different knowledge and worldviews and we verified beyond doubt that there is nothing to all this.
Without even realising that even science itself admits there are different paradigms and that you are claiming that the paradigm you exist in or are using itself according to science cannot understand the paradigm its objecting to. Hense its based on an assumption and belief.
This is what fundamental physics has shown. Disputing it by just denigrating it as belief does nothing to counter it.
Not just that you have put yourself in a very small group of enlightened ones who claim the truth and that the majority of humans are deluded and therefore we must spread the gospel of enlightenment and metaphysical naturalism.
No. I went to graduate school and did the work.
Ok my claims, my words, my beliefs like the majority of others. What are you saying here. Are you just repeating back that these are alternative beliefs and knowledge people can have. Or are you acknowledging that there are alternative ways of knowing reality besides your beliefs.
I'm not looking for beliefs. I want evidence.
Another example of not even being aware that this is completely related. Is not this about alternative ways of knowing including advanced knowledge of the world, nature and reality. I mentioned conscious experiences as one aspect which includes phenomenal belief and other transcedent aspects.
So if as I pointed out that the paradigm of the scientific method only can deal with the quantifiable and at least some of this ancient lost knowledge is steeped in belief and conscious experiences of the nature.
Then saying that using the science method to even evaluate such knowledge is the wrong method. It cannot tell. IT has not the tools of method to even measure such knowledge. Yet you claim it can.
You have failed to demonstrate that any "alternative knowledge" is even useful. You replies are vague and if you wave your hands any faster you might levitate.
I won't even go into the vast amount of evidence for this. BUt merely say the fact you state that "they aren't and there isn't" is itself evidence that this is more a belief thatn fact or reality.
Your only evidence is that some vases are well crafted. The you allow the cranks you rely on fill your posts with ... (OK, I'm going to say it since you "love" it so much) ... woo. Address Post #1004. I don't know why I even replied at all before you did so.
Hum so what evidence is there for beauty, the experience of music, colors, the sense of awe in looking at the universe and knowledge of something greater emerges and persistently
None of which violates the particle/field paradigm in the slightest.
so that people build things to the heavens and gods. At what point can science determine this is just make believe and not real knowledge that there is actually some transcedent aspect of reality that really and truelly is part of being human and is a reality beyond humans.
Brains are dumb things willing to invent anything.
Show me the test. In fact show me the test that shows how the so called objective reality we live in right now is actually real itself and not some interface reflection of something deeper that looks nothing like what we see.
I'm not going to argue the existence of reality. If you want evidence of that just "look at the trees" (or your toes, or that cup of tea.) Reality is real and any arguments against it are just the worst kind of philosophical naval gazing.
That I have to explain this means you will not be open.
Yes thats how western material science has always treated indigenous knowledge. As some vague superstition. Or in this case also atheism which basically aligns well with material science. Or rather metaphsyical naturalsim.
This is just a dodge. You can't use "indigenous knowledge" as some vague notion to avoid providing an answer to what that alleged knowledge is.
