Mind Over Matter, Matter Over Mind?

[LoneStar29]

HA!!! I knew there had to be an argument in here for it to be so many pages LOL

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Andey!
You taught me how to do that.

You're a funny dude.

Anyway, I explained it already. LOL

OH BY THE WAY I NEVER SAID MONISM TRUMPS REALISM.

QUOTE ME IN THIS THREAD WHERE I SAID THAT OR EVEN ALLUDED TO THAT.

I CAN'T DISPROVE WHAT YOUR BELIEF IS. THAT'S STUPID.

ALL I'VE BEEN DOING IS CHALLENGING YOUR ASSERTIONS

YOU SEEM TO BE MANUFACTURING ALLEGATIONS N SHIT. CALM DOWN BUDDY. LOL

Dude I said I was a realist and explained to you why I felt that position and you picked it apart like it was a box of chicken from Popeye's all the while waving your monoist stick.

And yes you have not said monoism trumps realism cause for the last three pages you have just been attacking realism while I have been begging you to defend your shit. Cause everything you have posted in here I already know intimately. Everything you are arguing with me about I thought was accepted knowledge. I was trying to build off of that knowledge while you have been tearing it down just to build it back up again.

Here's how I have seen this thread since I first posted in it...

Andey: I'm about to cook an omlete. So I got the eggs, milk, cheese, bell pepper, tomatoes and some deli sliced ham. Mix the eggs and a dash of milk. Heat the skillet. Cook the eggs on one side then add the cheese. After cheese melted add toppings flip and you done.

Sean: So you not going to chop up the bell pepper and tomatoes? What the fuck Andey?

Andey: What?

Sean: Yeah, yeah. That's stupid. Are you just going to put a WHOLE bell pepper in your omlete. What are you going to do wrap the eggs around the shit. See you don't understand cooking at all Andey. You got to cut that muthafuacka man.

Andey: Ah yeah Sean. I would cut the bell pepper cause I was...wait? What? Are you not supposed to cut the bell pepper Sean?

Sean: I stated this shit clearly Andey. You didn't cut the bell pepper man. And heat the skillet? You not gonna add any type of butter or grease to the bottom of the pan? Now you got full bell peppers AND tomatoes sitting on top of a egg that's stuck to the bottom of the pan man.

Andey: Maybe the pan is non-stick Sean?

Sean: Awwwwww Awwwwwwww so now you got a non-stick pan. Read this. Read this. Does this shit say anything about non-stick negro?

Heat the skillet

Sean you still my dude man but you have been running my ass around in circles about shit I thought we should have an understanding on is my point. Then you keep bringing me evidence to support shit I thought I made clear I understood from jump cousin.

 

[OnSlaught]

You can observe all you want but observation is not science. You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations.

Aight I took a psychology class and this was required reading. It's long as hell but it speaks to a lot of what I am saying right now. If you want to read through it you can. I will read through it again too but that quote is from this paper.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

I will read the link, but you have to also read this....

Source: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-04/1049827971.Gb.r.html

Re: why is observation important in scientific research


Date: Tue Apr 8 11:12:08 2003
Posted By: Todd Whitcombe, Associate Professor, Chemistry
Area of science: General Biology
ID: 1049750743.Gb
Message:

I am not sure about the second part of your question but I can give you
an answer as to "why is observation so important". However, to do this we
need to talk about what science is in the first place.

The word "science" comes from the Greek word "scientia" which means "to
know". Science is about knowing. It is about discovering and
understanding something. For example, "Political science" is about
knowing and understanding politics; "social science" is about knowing and
understanding the interactions in society and between members of that
society.

Science is then something that we do. That is, it is an activity
requiring us to do something. You can't just close your eyes and hope
that science will somehow enlighten you. You must participate in the
process.

This is where "observation" comes in. A long time ago, a philosopher by
the name of Roger Bacon advocated that people should use a regular and
structured approach to science. That is, they should not just read what
the Greeks and Romans thought about the way the world works, but that
they should go out and test their thoughts. For example, it is all well
and good to think that the earth is a giant magnet that is holding us to
its surface, but where is the proof? Where are the experiments? How do
you know this? At the time, the answer would have been "Well, because the
Greek philosopher so-and-so said it was so." And how did they know
it? "Because some other Greek philosopher so-and-so told them!" Not a
very scientific approach!

So, Bacon advocated the idea that scientific evidence had to
be "empirical". That is, the scientific approach is based on experiment
and evidence. And that all of the theories and laws that we make must be
consistent with the evidence. A single piece of evidence that doesn't fit
can invalidate a whole theory!

The idea, then, is to use something called the "scientific method". It is
a fancy name for a simple idea. It goes something like this:

1) You observe something peculiar in the world around you.

2) You try to explain it by making a guess - a hypothesis - about why it
is so.

3) You test your hypothesis by doing an experiment.

4) You observe the results of your experiment and see:
(a) if they agree with the observations that you made in the beginning
and
(b) if they confirm your hypothesis.

5) You come to a conclusion.

Typically, one experiment isn't enough and it needs to be replicated.
Frequently, the first experiment leads to further questions and
experiments. But all the time, you are observing the results of the
experiments and testing them against your hypothesis.

Eventually, with enough experimental results - when enough observations
are made - you have some confidence that your hypothesis is, in fact,
correct (or incorrect!) and that you know something about the "why"
behind your observations. This is when you can start formulating "Laws"
(an explanation of what will be observed) and "Theories" (an explanation
of why it observed).

But always, any approach to science - to knowing something - is tied to
observations that you can make about it.

It is not really that hard and it something that we do every day. As an
example, take pistachio ice cream. Now, I have never tried pistachio ice
cream so I don't know if I will like it. What do I do? Well, I make up a
hypothesis - "I might like pistachio ice cream". I then set up an
experiment - "I take a scoop of pistachio ice cream and I taste it". I
follow this with my observations - "creamy, smooth, cool - and a good
flavour". And I follow this with a conclusion - "I like pistachio ice
cream!". But to be certain, I do a lot of experiments - I eat the whole
bowl! (By the way, this approach never works with eating liver!)

It is the approach that we take to many things in our lives. We determine
how things are by making observations. And the scientific method -
science as we know it - is based on the idea that by observing we can
come to an understanding of the way the world around us works. It is that
understanding - that "knowing" - that is at the very heart of what
science is and what science does. Observation is our way of finding out
about the world. This is why it is so important to scientific research.

Hope that answers your question.

Here's also another link to check out as well:

http://scientificinquiry.suite101.com/article.cfm/scientific_method_observations_and_hypotheses

 

[Andeyhollawho]

I will read the link, but you have to also read this....

Source: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-04/1049827971.Gb.r.html

Re: why is observation important in scientific research


Date: Tue Apr 8 11:12:08 2003
Posted By: Todd Whitcombe, Associate Professor, Chemistry
Area of science: General Biology
ID: 1049750743.Gb
Message:

I am not sure about the second part of your question but I can give you
an answer as to "why is observation so important". However, to do this we
need to talk about what science is in the first place.

The word "science" comes from the Greek word "scientia" which means "to
know". Science is about knowing. It is about discovering and
understanding something. For example, "Political science" is about
knowing and understanding politics; "social science" is about knowing and
understanding the interactions in society and between members of that
society.

Science is then something that we do. That is, it is an activity
requiring us to do something. You can't just close your eyes and hope
that science will somehow enlighten you. You must participate in the
process.

This is where "observation" comes in. A long time ago, a philosopher by
the name of Roger Bacon advocated that people should use a regular and
structured approach to science. That is, they should not just read what
the Greeks and Romans thought about the way the world works, but that
they should go out and test their thoughts. For example, it is all well
and good to think that the earth is a giant magnet that is holding us to
its surface, but where is the proof? Where are the experiments? How do
you know this? At the time, the answer would have been "Well, because the
Greek philosopher so-and-so said it was so." And how did they know
it? "Because some other Greek philosopher so-and-so told them!" Not a
very scientific approach!

So, Bacon advocated the idea that scientific evidence had to
be "empirical". That is, the scientific approach is based on experiment
and evidence. And that all of the theories and laws that we make must be
consistent with the evidence. A single piece of evidence that doesn't fit
can invalidate a whole theory!

The idea, then, is to use something called the "scientific method". It is
a fancy name for a simple idea. It goes something like this:

1) You observe something peculiar in the world around you.

2) You try to explain it by making a guess - a hypothesis - about why it
is so.

3) You test your hypothesis by doing an experiment.

4) You observe the results of your experiment and see:
(a) if they agree with the observations that you made in the beginning
and
(b) if they confirm your hypothesis.

5) You come to a conclusion.

Typically, one experiment isn't enough and it needs to be replicated.
Frequently, the first experiment leads to further questions and
experiments. But all the time, you are observing the results of the
experiments and testing them against your hypothesis.

Eventually, with enough experimental results - when enough observations
are made - you have some confidence that your hypothesis is, in fact,
correct (or incorrect!) and that you know something about the "why"
behind your observations. This is when you can start formulating "Laws"
(an explanation of what will be observed) and "Theories" (an explanation
of why it observed).

But always, any approach to science - to knowing something - is tied to
observations that you can make about it.

It is not really that hard and it something that we do every day. As an
example, take pistachio ice cream. Now, I have never tried pistachio ice
cream so I don't know if I will like it. What do I do? Well, I make up a
hypothesis - "I might like pistachio ice cream". I then set up an
experiment - "I take a scoop of pistachio ice cream and I taste it". I
follow this with my observations - "creamy, smooth, cool - and a good
flavour". And I follow this with a conclusion - "I like pistachio ice
cream!". But to be certain, I do a lot of experiments - I eat the whole
bowl! (By the way, this approach never works with eating liver!)

It is the approach that we take to many things in our lives. We determine
how things are by making observations. And the scientific method -
science as we know it - is based on the idea that by observing we can
come to an understanding of the way the world around us works. It is that
understanding - that "knowing" - that is at the very heart of what
science is and what science does. Observation is our way of finding out
about the world. This is why it is so important to scientific research.

Hope that answers your question.

Here's also another link to check out as well:

http://scientificinquiry.suite101.com/article.cfm/scientific_method_observations_and_hypotheses

Oh yeah I'm with this.

Again you never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations. You turning into Sean with this one!

I didn't say observation is not important. It is the beginning to the scientific method. But observation without testing the hypothesis you come up with because of the observation and then observing those results is nothing but an observation. Correct?

See the problem with psycology is it is based almost completely on observation. There is no testing of hypothesis. There's just observation and a shit load of hypothesis making. No testing and observing the RESULTS.

Get it now?

This is from your other link by the way...

The Hypothesis Moves Observation to Possible Answers

Hypothesis must be tested with scientific constraints. Can't do that with psychology.

 

[sean69]

OK OK OK, I was asked to read this thread, but the shit is so convoluted with PERCEPTIONS and OPINIONS that I don't really know where to start.

So rather than trying to address or pin point any particular argument or question in this thread, I'll just give you my take on this "matter".

My PERSPECTIVE AND PERCEPTION is rooted in my learnings from being a student of science and of spirit.

From the options mentioned in the OP, I would have to count myself as a monist. I do believe in a monad, which is a philosophy of being one. If you look at what we are composed of, we are what Carl Sagan called "Star stuff", primarily because we consist of the same molecules that came from the beginning singularity. Whether you want to call that the Big bang, God's creation, or the result of two membranes rubbing together to produce another membrane which is our universe, it is all one in the same, just from different perspectives.

Sean, remember when I said read my sig quote and you were like, that's cool but what does it mean? Well it refers to what you are discussing in this very thread. Basically you are not limited to your own thoughts and that the mind, whether you want to separate it from the brain or not, is responsible for some of the most creative manifestations in this universe.

It is very limiting and egotistical to center things around this world. As a species we've "been there, done that" so to speak. Quite frankly, if the knowledge of wielding atomic energy was present then we might have not advanced past that era.

It might not be very "REAL" to conceptualize the universe because it is not tangible to you, but neither is love, or emotional pain, or fear and we see those as being apart of our everyday, REAL world.

To imagine that there is no other life or minds in a universe that houses over 100 million galaxies, that each contain over 100 million stars that even more fantastically contain over 100 million planets and moons is astronomically limiting to your intellectual capacity to exercise right thought.

c/s.

Onz, I'll get at you about another angle later.

Andey, do I need to get you a copy of the scientific method brotha? Observations are the scientists key tool in his/her tool box!

You can never OBSERVE TOO MUCH!!! The make or break point is properly collecting data and extrapolating that data to match your hypothesis, all of that is based on your observations!

Onz, any experimental scientist knows this too very well. LOL. Most breakthroughs in science came from careful observation of "mistakes" ...or "by products" ... i can't tell you how many times i've analysed the gunk from a so-called failed reaction ...separated with column chromatograhy and run GCMS's and NMRs and bingo!
When you here random "fuck yeah!" "oh shit!" in the labs thats when you know

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations.

You can observe all you want but observation is not science. You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations.

Aight I took a psychology class and this was required reading. It's long as hell but it speaks to a lot of what I am saying right now. If you want to read through it you can. I will read through it again too but that quote is from this paper.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

I'll check out that link later.

Dude I said I was a realist and explained to you why I felt that position and you picked it apart like it was a box of chicken from Popeye's all the while waving your monoist stick.

And yes you have not said monoism trumps realism cause for the last three pages you have just been attacking realism while I have been begging you to defend your shit. Cause everything you have posted in here I already know intimately. Everything you are arguing with me about I thought was accepted knowledge. I was trying to build off of that knowledge while you have been tearing it down just to build it back up again.

Here's how I have seen this thread since I first posted in it...

Andey: I'm about to cook an omlete. So I got the eggs, milk, cheese, bell pepper, tomatoes and some deli sliced ham. Mix the eggs and a dash of milk. Heat the skillet. Cook the eggs on one side then add the cheese. After cheese melted add toppings flip and you done.

Sean: So you not going to chop up the bell pepper and tomatoes? What the fuck Andey?

Andey: What?

Sean: Yeah, yeah. That's stupid. Are you just going to put a WHOLE bell pepper in your omlete. What are you going to do wrap the eggs around the shit. See you don't understand cooking at all Andey. You got to cut that muthafuacka man.

Andey: Ah yeah Sean. I would cut the bell pepper cause I was...wait? What? Are you not supposed to cut the bell pepper Sean?

Sean: I stated this shit clearly Andey. You didn't cut the bell pepper man. And heat the skillet? You not gonna add any type of butter or grease to the bottom of the pan? Now you got full bell peppers AND tomatoes sitting on top of a egg that's stuck to the bottom of the pan man.

Andey: Maybe the pan is non-stick Sean?

Sean: Awwwwww Awwwwwwww so now you got a non-stick pan. Read this. Read this. Does this shit say anything about non-stick negro?





Sean you still my dude man but you have been running my ass around in circles about shit I thought we should have an understanding on is my point. Then you keep bringing me evidence to support shit I thought I made clear I understood from jump cousin.

... move on son.

You're such an expert in psychology and non-direct-observation based science (whatever the fuck that means...)

WTF do you mean by non-direct observation anyway?

You seem to be contradicting yourself again.

Anyway, since you're so intimately knowledgable about everything i've said...

WHAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT (WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY PARADOX) AND THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM??

I've explained it in this thread in a reply to BigUnc. Go.

I will read the link, but you have to also read this....

Source: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2003-04/1049827971.Gb.r.html

Re: why is observation important in scientific research


Date: Tue Apr 8 11:12:08 2003
Posted By: Todd Whitcombe, Associate Professor, Chemistry
Area of science: General Biology
ID: 1049750743.Gb
Message:

Here's also another link to check out as well:

http://scientificinquiry.suite101.com/article.cfm/scientific_method_observations_and_hypotheses

I'll read this too Onz and get back atchu.

 

[sean69]

Oh yeah I'm with this.

Again you never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations. You turning into Sean with this one!

I didn't say observation is not important. It is the beginning to the scientific method. But observation without testing the hypothesis you come up with because of the observation and then observing those results is nothing but an observation. Correct?

^^^^

Uhm. Observation alone isn't complete science. Isn't that obvious?

Trying to slither your way out of another L I see.


See the problem with psycology is it is based almost completely on observation. There is no testing of hypothesis. There's just observation and a shit load of hypothesis making. No testing and observing the RESULTS.

Get it now?

*facepalm*



This is from your other link by the way...

The Hypothesis Moves Observation to Possible Answers

Hypothesis must be tested with scientific constraints. Can't do that with psychology.

Put the shovel down Andey. That hole aint deep enough?


This is fun though. LOL. I'll get back at this thread later this evening. I got meetings.


1

 

[Andeyhollawho]

c/s.

Onz, I'll get at you about another angle later.






Onz, any experimental scientist knows this too very well. LOL. Most breakthroughs in science came from careful observation of "mistakes" ...or "by products" ... i can't tell you how many times i've analysed the gunk from a so-called failed reaction ...separated with column chromatograhy and run GCMS's and NMRs and bingo!
When you here random "fuck yeah!" "oh shit!" in the labs thats when you know









I'll check out that link later.

... move on son.

You're such an expert in psychology and non-direct-observation based science (whatever the fuck that means...)

WTF do you mean by non-direct observation anyway?

You seem to be contradicting yourself again.

Anyway, since you're so intimately knowledgable about everything i've said...

WHAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE DOUBLE-SLIT EXPERIMENT (WAVE-PARTICLE DUALITY PARADOX) AND THE MEASUREMENT PROBLEM??

I've explained it in this thread in a reply to BigUnc. Go.



I'll read this too Onz and get back atchu.

When did I say anything about non-direct observation?

Observation is not the basis for science. It is a part. It is how it starts. It does not lend itself to conclusion. This is the scientific fucking method people.

You observe. You hypothesize. You test the hypothesis. You observe the results. You conclude.

You don't observe, hypothesize and then conclude. That's not scientific is it?

If you explained it then quote that shit. I'm not reading through all of this just looking for your evidence. You quote where you explained double split and I will read it.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations.

You can observe all you want but observation is not science. You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations.

Aight I took a psychology class and this was required reading. It's long as hell but it speaks to a lot of what I am saying right now. If you want to read through it you can. I will read through it again too but that quote is from this paper.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

Put the shovel down Andey. That hole aint deep enough?


This is fun though. LOL. I'll get back at this thread later this evening. I got meetings.


1

Dude what the fuck does it say up top? SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS NEVER DRAW CONCLUSIONS DIRECTLY FROM OBSERVATIONS. Those observations must be tested first! Goddamn this is not hard. Or maybe it is for some of ya'll.

Observe.
Hypothesis.
Test.
Observe results of test.
Conclude.

Scientific goddamn method. You can't jump from observe to conclude without the 3 steps in the middle.

Damn ya'll boys are slow.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

The point here is that legal evidence is not remotely scientific evidence. Contrary to popular belief, science doesn't use sloppy evidentiary standards like “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and scientific theories never become facts. This is why the oft-heard expression “proven scientific fact” is never appropriate – it only reflects the scientific ignorance of the speaker. Scientific theories are always theories, they never become the final and only explanation for a given phenomenon.

As to the ever-popular expression “scientific law,” this is often an earnest effort by scientists to bridge the gap between the level of certainty required in science and that accepted in ordinary life. In fact and strictly speaking, there are no scientific laws, only theories about which we are very certain, like entropy and gravity, which, if they were to be tersely expressed in everyday language, would read: “Eventually it will break, and when it does, it is going to fall.”

About scientific evidence, philosopher John Stuart Mill said, “No amount of observations of white swans can allow the inference that all swans are white, but the observation of a single black swan is sufficient to refute that conclusion.” This saying aptly summarizes the difference between scientific evidence and every other kind of evidence, and it dramatizes the difference between science and ordinary human thinking.

This very strict evidentiary standard is essential for science to provide its riches, and it is no problem for people who have been properly educated. But in the lives of people for whom “evidence” means “he said, she said,” certain problems are inevitable.

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations. This may sound unnecessarily strict, but it is necessary for science to accomplish what it does.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

 

[sean69]

When did I say anything about non-direct observation?

Observation is not the basis for science. It is a part. It is how it starts. It does not lend itself to conclusion. This is the scientific fucking method people.

You observe. You hypothesize. You test the hypothesis. You observe the results. You conclude.

You don't observe, hypothesize and then conclude. That's not scientific is it?

If you explained it then quote that shit. I'm not reading through all of this just looking for your evidence. You quote where you explained double split and I will read it.

Andey.
Where have I or Ons disagreed with the above sequence of scientific method?

Chill out bruh. You're not saying anything new here. We all learned this in the 5th grade. Let's all take a deep breath OK. LOL.

Now. If you tell a scientist this: "observation is not the "basis" of science" I guarantee ... guarantee you that the first reaction you'll get will be somewhere along the line of "WTF?!" and . Especially if you're telling this to an experimental scientist.

Why? Because the word "basis" in this context infers "an essential or fundamental PART". Part. PART.
And any scientist will have issues with this. That's why Ons got at you when you said that. Please try and understand this.


Basis: –noun, plural

1. the bottom or base of anything; the part on which something stands or rests.
2. anything upon which something is based; fundamental principle; groundwork.
3. the principal constituent; fundamental ingredient.


As you can see, there's nothing in any of those definitions that implies that "basis" means only, sole, exclusive or alone.

You're engaging in a phantom argument with yourself. Noboy is arguing that observation is the ONLY tool for science. THIS IS LUDICROUS.


You say I nit pick nuances n shit. Well i'm a scientist. That's what we do. We scrutinize everything. Don't be mad at that. Just be careful 'bout your choice of terms because it can be easily misinterpreted.
IMO, I think that's why this thread went 3 pages in a fruitless circle.

I'd rather we have more productive discussions and I appologize if i fueled the flames and came off as condescending in any of my posts.

Nobody is trying to proove anything to anyone in here. Everyone has something to add to the discussion based on thier backgrounds. And I know we have a diversity of background in this muhfuka.

Your first post in this thread ended with the sentence:

If you don't ground yourself and move off of what is real you will find yourself standing on dreams and aspirations destined to fail.

Realism.

Now, I'm sure there's a bunch of people that don't c/s realism and have succeeded quite well in life. Don't you agree? I'm willing to bet that a majority of physicist and some scieentists believe in monism. In fact most of my physics collegues c/s this view of the universe which isn't suprising because most EMERGENT phenomena or epiphenomena observed from experiments often times can't be fully understood using conventional scientific reduction.
I can name dozens.

Anyway.

OK. Now that we've cleared that up. I'm gonna go read that article so i can understand why you pulled up that article and the point you're trying to make using this "psychology is not science" argument against monism.

I think it's pretty obvious and I know why. But i'll reserve my comments until I've read the article.

1

 

[sean69]

OK. I'm done reading the article. But before I go in, let's set up the precedence to how this psychology isn't science angle popped off:

THE BREAKDOWN.

Ons posted his view regarding the OP

OK OK OK, I was asked to read this thread, but the shit is so convoluted with PERCEPTIONS and OPINIONS that I don't really know where to start.
So rather than trying to address or pin point any particular argument or question in this thread, I'll just give you my take on this "matter".
My PERSPECTIVE AND PERCEPTION is rooted in my learnings from being a student of science and of spirit.
From the options mentioned in the OP, I would have to count myself as a monist. I do believe in a monad, which is a philosophy of being one. If you look at what we are composed of, we are what Carl Sagan called "Star stuff", primarily because we consist of the same molecules that came from the beginning singularity. Whether you want to call that the Big bang, God's creation, or the result of two membranes rubbing together to produce another membrane which is our universe, it is all one in the same, just from different perspectives.
Sean, remember when I said read my sig quote and you were like, that's cool but what does it mean? Well it refers to what you are discussing in this very thread. Basically you are not limited to your own thoughts and that the mind, whether you want to separate it from the brain or not, is responsible for some of the most creative manifestations in this universe.
It is very limiting and egotistical to center things around this world. As a species we've "been there, done that" so to speak. Quite frankly, if the knowledge of wielding atomic energy was present then we might have not advanced past that era.
It might not be very "REAL" to conceptualize the universe because it is not tangible to you, but neither is love, or emotional pain, or fear and we see those as being apart of our everyday, REAL world.
To imagine that there is no other life or minds in a universe that houses over 100 million galaxies, that each contain over 100 million stars that even more fantastically contain over 100 million planets and moons is astronomically limiting to your intellectual capacity to exercise right thought.

Before this I asked Andey this question...

Again.
What is your understanding/interpretation of the double slit experiment? ... or the "measurment problem"?

Then I explained my monist position...

The holistic nature of the universe and the brain which are reducibly connected (my monist view) is the reason why "conciousness" (mental processes during observation) causes the "collapse".

By collapse (decoherence of quantum states) I mean that the of the abstract mathematical wave-functions that describes physical things, for lack of a better word, get solved.

I believe this happens at the instance of observation of an event.

Andey responded...

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations.

Not knowing what this had to do with the explanation I just gave I was like ...

Then Ons disagreed with Andey and said:

"You can never OBSERVE TOO MUCH!!! The make or break point is properly collecting data and extrapolating that data to match your hypothesis, all of that is based on your observations!"

Then Andey responded ...

Very concise. Again I disagree.

See what is happening here is people are mixing science with psychology.

Mixing science with psychology?

Right here is where shit went off track.

Andey has extrapolated the concept of "mind" in the context of Monism, to "psychology" (which is actually a "social science") in the context of science.

Maybe he can explain why he thinks they're related?


Anyway. Andey goes on to say ...

There is no true science of love, emotional pain or fear. That is not science. I thought everybody agreed on that but obviously we don't.

Psychology is a collection of ideas about what would be, should be or could be but all of that shit is unreliable and untestable. Just like there being life and minds in the universe. Until that life and those minds can be discovered then we have no comparison and therefore WE are doing the best we can with what we got. What we got is science. What ya'll are talking about is not scientific.

Do you understand what I'm saying cause Sean don't!

Ah ha!

I think I might have located the point where this went off tangent.

Andey says psychology is unreliable and untestable. But what does this even mean?
To me, this statement is ambiguous as fuck and has no meaning.


Next he says:

"Just like there being life and minds in the universe. Until that life and those minds can be discovered then we have no comparison and therefore WE are doing the best we can with what we got. What we got is science."

Clearly Andey thinks the relationship monism describes between "mental" and "physical" has something to do with science discovering some extra-terrestrial life?

I don't see the connection here? Does anyone? Please let me know.

Anyway. Andey goes on to say ...

You can observe all you want but observation is not science. You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations.

Aight I took a psychology class and this was required reading. It's long as hell but it speaks to a lot of what I am saying right now. If you want to read through it you can. I will read through it again too but that quote is from this paper.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

"You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations."


Now again, I don't know where anyone ever said, infered or remotely alluded to this.

Andey, if you can, please pull it up from the thread and quote it.

If not. Forget it.

Lets get this thread back on track!!

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Again.

The holistic nature of the universe and the brain which are reducibly connected (my monist view) is the reason why "conciousness" (mental processes during observation) causes the "collapse".

By collapse (decoherence of quantum states) I mean that the of the abstract mathematical wave-functions that describes physical things, for lack of a better word, get solved.

I believe this happens at the instance of observation of an event.

Okay you said this. The word observation is used twice in two different context. You call conciousness which you connect to your monoist view a mental process during observation. Implying again that your monoist view is "wrapped up" or vindicated in this sense at the instant of observation of an event.

Am I understanding this right? If not clarify. I asked for clarification with the following statement.

When properly conducted, scientific investigations never draw conclusions directly from observations.

Which in my mind means you can not base a theory (monoist views) on observation alone. If you can not test and prove this correlation then all you have is a untestable hypothesis which is not scientific. In other posts I again asked you to clarify.

Again all I was saying here is you are invoking that this science makes sense at the point of observation and not in practical scientific method. And I am looking for a rebuttal. I'm sure you have one. Maybe I am confused.

Andey, do I need to get you a copy of the scientific method brotha? Observations are the scientists key tool in his/her tool box!

You can never OBSERVE TOO MUCH!!! The make or break point is properly collecting data and extrapolating that data to match your hypothesis, all of that is based on your observations!

This is where Onslaught jumped in. I read this as he is taking it that I am downplaying the importance of observations which I was not. I simply said as you have that you can not base a whole theory or way of thinking SCIENTIFICALLY on observations alone. Which you agree with. Correct? So I felt he jumped the gun here by assuming the worse.

Again what I was asking for was evidence that this "theory" has moved past the theory stage. That it is not just an observation but a hypothesis that has been tested against some type of data.

It might not be very "REAL" to conceptualize the universe because it is not tangible to you, but neither is love, or emotional pain, or fear and we see those as being apart of our everyday, REAL world.

To imagine that there is no other life or minds in a universe that houses over 100 million galaxies, that each contain over 100 million stars that even more fantastically contain over 100 million planets and moons is astronomically limiting to your intellectual capacity to exercise right thought.

My response to this statement about something "real" being compared to feelings of love, emotional pain or fear is that this is psychology. Not a tangible science to me. Might be to you but my views on psychology in this arguement are posted below.

Understand again I said I am a realist and that I felt that thoughts and feelings were too personal to be considered scientific. Which is why I rejected the idea of monoism in the first place. It is based on the mental and the physical kind of meshing together. But that mesh is different for every one of the 4 billion people or so on this world.

I proceeded to post this.

Very concise. Again I disagree.

See what is happening here is people are mixing science with psychology. There is no true science of love, emotional pain or fear. That is not science. I thought everybody agreed on that but obviously we don't.

Psychology is a collection of ideas about what would be, should be or could be but all of that shit is unreliable and untestable. Just like there being life and minds in the universe. Until that life and those minds can be discovered then we have no comparison and therefore WE are doing the best we can with what we got. What we got is science. What ya'll are talking about is not scientific.

And then I again reiterated my point that observations (which is what I believe psychology is and presented a website with reading I had to do in psychology to back up my point) can not directly be considered science. Not without testing that hypothesis. It is impossible to test psychology for many of the reasons posted on that paper I presented below...

You can observe all you want but observation is not science. You never draw conclusions DIRECTLY from observations.

Aight I took a psychology class and this was required reading. It's long as hell but it speaks to a lot of what I am saying right now. If you want to read through it you can. I will read through it again too but that quote is from this paper.

http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/

This is where you Sean jumped in on the side of Onslaught saying I was talking about non-direct observations which I never said or proclaimed. I said again you can not jump from observation to conclusion.

You can't say I am looking at the world from my view and I think this shit is flat so therefore the world is flat?

We disprove shit like this with science everyday. All I was saying.

 

[sean69]

MATH IS BASED ON THE EARTH AND HOW THE UNIVERSE AFFECTS THE EARTH! Period. From the first mathematicians down everything is defined by what we have observed on earth ...
What I am telling you is that everything you are quoting and every mathematical equation is defined in terms of Earth.

Pay specific attention to the last 1 minute of the video.

"...they all looked to the same place...and that is to the eternal principles of mathematics ..."


Albert Einstien...who I'm sure you and I would both agree was no scrub scientist...was asked the question;

"how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"

To which he answered;

"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."



There are several definitions and descriptions of what mathematics is and it basically boils down to who you ask and and thier application of math.
Theoretician will probably say it's not a science and independent of observation.
Experimental scientist will probably disagree.
But these are all opinions.

In the end there has to be one fundamental truth. Trace the history of how humans developed mathematics and you'll find the answer.
You will find that mathematics is a language. Now, describe language in physical terms? You can't. It's a medium for communicating information. A means of expressing intuitions. That's it.

That's what I've been telling you. Math is the language of science.

You say it's earth based and derived exclusively from observation of physical things on earth.

No.

These are just applications of math.

 

[sean69]

Andey,
You've asked me to describe a situation how mathematics can be non-physical based and i've answered over and over, telling you about mathematical abstractions. You've ignored this everytime. I'll do it again but from a different angle.

Our minds can comprehend physical things whos stimuli we physiologically respond to - touch, taste, see, hear, smell. Right?

Now here's some examples where mathematics can describe an object in the physical world with no physiological stimuli and in a way that the human mind can not comprehend:

1) The mathematics of quantum mechanics describes the real world in a way inaccessible to common sense and common language.

2) The use of abstraction in computer science. Description of abstract vector spaces and geometries.This is why I keep telling you about the aesthetic nature of math

You're an engineer. You've gotta be familiar with complex numbers right? Come on man.


And regarding infinity and why I asked you those questions earlier, I was just trying to tell you that infinity is an abstract unreal concept.
You said it was physical based.

How?

Describe infinity to me in physical terms.

I dare you.[/COLOR]

 

[melonpecan]

Okay, it has taken me a while to get back to this thread because I haven't had the time to respond like I want to. I'll have to get to the original responses later on.


I'm going with idealism. Since I'm away from the main post, I'll reiterate:

Idealism-
the stuff nature is fundamentaly made of is defined by our conciousness/mind.

I say this for a couple of reasons, but I'll start with the basic principal for the train of thought since I'm sleepy.

The world is not defined by its furnishings, but what we define the furnishings to be. For instance you see bed, I see death trap. You see something disgusting, I see food. You hear music, I hear movements. If no one thought outside of the box on such ordinary items, then we would not have the extraordinary achievements that we have today. Someone, somewhere had to wake up and say "I think differently" and wow- phenomena happens. This phenomena becomes common place and eventually is accepted into society and a part of our culture as a rule to live by, (like how I get the evil eye cause I only watched New Jack City for the first time in the past five years ).

Without our ideals where would we be? Communist Stalin rule? Fighting back the droids in 'I, Robot'? Happily living in the suburbs with our Stepford Wives? (No woman could want a Stepford Husband, you can forget that.) This is where life begins. I mean after all, God had to have the idea to form Man, (if you see it that way), right? If he never did what would we be then?

 

[OnSlaught]

Andey,
You've asked me to describe a situation how mathematics can be non-physical based and i've answered over and over, telling you about mathematical abstractions. You've ignored this everytime. I'll do it again but from a different angle.

Our minds can comprehend physical things whos stimuli we physiologically respond to - touch, taste, see, hear, smell. Right?

Now here's some examples where mathematics can describe an object in the physical world with no physiological stimuli and in a way that the human mind can not comprehend:

1) The mathematics of quantum mechanics describes the real world in a way inaccessible to common sense and common language.

2) The use of abstraction in computer science. Description of abstract vector spaces and geometries.This is why I keep telling you about the aesthetic nature of math

You're an engineer. You've gotta be familiar with complex numbers right? Come on man.


And regarding infinity and why I asked you those questions earlier, I was just trying to tell you that infinity is an abstract unreal concept.
You said it was physical based.

How?

Describe infinity to me in physical terms.

I dare you.[/COLOR]

See Sean, this is why I don't debate about shit like this. People are always going to come back with info skewed to their liking.

You know and I know that numbers in themselves are abstract. So is language, which would explain why math is abstract because it's the language of numbers that is primarily centered around numerical values and their meanings.

The reason why I even brought up emotional symbolism was to show that something as abstract as the feeling or emotion that is equated with love or pain has a physical basis tied to a stimuli and response. I assumed (my fault) that this would be naturally implied but it was made painfully clear (no pun intended) that was not the case.

The other key argument about observations...there again I assumed that it would be naturally inferred that if you are talking and referring to science and coming up with a hypothesis that later is proven and formulated into a theory, that this is not possible without observation. Yes there is analysis and testing, but then that is another observation. The essence of thought or of idea is sprung from making an inference/observation about your surrounding universe and coming up with something that is unique in nature. Einstein came up with special relativity. In one instance he took and observed Newton's inertial laws (frame of reference) and on the other hand observed Maxwell's laws of electricity, optics, and magnetism. He observed and studied the properties of light and then envisioned himself racing beside a beam of light. All of this, regardless of whether he would have come up with his hypothesis and later his theory, came about as a result of his observations.

I'm sure Andey will find some way to oppose this, but you know this as well as I do Sean, things are very rarely "manifested" out of thin air in science without research and observation of another's work and then a further spin-off or detail of that research being ventured into. That is the breeding grounds for PhDs, grant proposals, and grad students to be made.

So I get what Andey is trying to say, but observation IS what makes science possible...obviously you can't stop there or we would have never come up with the techniques and technology to discover photons, neutrinos and quarks or other exotic particles.

If I have more on this I'll come back, but for now I'm takin' my ass to bed...

 

[sean69]

Okay you said this. The word observation is used twice in two different context. You call conciousness which you connect to your monoist view a mental process during observation. Implying again that your monoist view is "wrapped up" or vindicated in this sense at the instant of observation of an event.

Am I understanding this right? If not clarify. I asked for clarification with the following statement.

OK. In that explanation I gave that you quoted, the word OBSERVATION is used in the same context. So I dont know what your talking about. You must be confused.
I said "mental processes during observation". Meaning what goes on in your mind when you "observe" and event/thing.
What's the confusion here?

And yes. You are correct regarding my monist view and the experiment.



Which in my mind means you can not base a theory (monoist views) on observation alone. If you can not test and prove this correlation then all you have is a untestable hypothesis which is not scientific. In other posts I again asked you to clarify.



Uhm. When have I said monist view of reality comprises of ONLY observation (mental)???
When? Where? Quote it.

Read the OP.
Monism: mental (processes during observation) + physical (tangible real experimentation, physical instruments) = mutually reducible unity.

How many times do I have to keep explaining this?



Again all I was saying here is you are invoking that this science makes sense at the point of observation and not in practical scientific method. And I am looking for a rebuttal. I'm sure you have one. Maybe I am confused.

I don't understand what you're asking/saying here?
The double-slit experiment IS based on the scientific method.

You hypothesize based on classical observation, you do the experiment, you record/analyze the data, compare results to hypothesis, conclude.

It's simple and reproducible.

Please go and read up what this experiment is about. You can find short simple tutorials about this by simple Google of "double-slit experiment".

All i'm saying about observation is that our observation of this experiment directly and instantaneously determins the outcome of the results.

This is different from, say, looking at a cup. When you look at a cup you see a cup. It's there. You see it there you can touch it. You're absolutely sure it's there.

With this experiment the instant you look, you change what you see.

Again. If you read up about this experiment it will make sense (or not). Didn't male sense to me at first but that's the REAL result of the experiment.




This is where Onslaught jumped in. I read this as he is taking it that I am downplaying the importance of observations which I was not. I simply said as you have that you can not base a whole theory or way of thinking SCIENTIFICALLY on observations alone. Which you agree with. Correct? So I felt he jumped the gun here by assuming the worse.

OK. I understand.


Again what I was asking for was evidence that this "theory" has moved past the theory stage. That it is not just an observation but a hypothesis that has been tested against some type of data.

What theory? Monism? It's not a theory. It's a philosophy. As stated in the OP.
Now I presented a scientific experiment (double-slit) in support of the philosophy. That's all i did.


My response to this statement about something "real" being compared to feelings of love, emotional pain or fear is that this is psychology. Not a tangible science to me. Might be to you but my views on psychology in this arguement are posted below.

OK. To you, it's not a science. To neuroscientists who often work on research with psychologists, they would disagree with you. The field of:
Experimental Psychology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_psychology
Cognitive Psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology
Developmental Psychology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology
Developmental psychology, also known as human development, is the scientific study of systematic psychological changes that occur in human beings over the course of the life span.

I particularly know about Dev Psych because that's my mom's area ofspecialization.

I know on this board, Jo and Intelligentdyme did majored in Psychology. I'd be interested in what they'd think about this.
Anyway ...



Understand again I said I am a realist and that I felt that thoughts and feelings were too personal to be considered scientific. Which is why I rejected the idea of monoism in the first place. It is based on the mental and the physical kind of meshing together. But that mesh is different for every one of the 4 billion people or so on this world.

I have no issue with this. That's why i started the thread. For people to describe thier philosophical world views and for a lively constructive discussion.
You can support your views with arguments but expect counter arguments. That's the nature philosophy ... the foundation of science.

Like I said, this whole argument started when you said that anyone with a philosophy outside of realism is destined to fail in life.

Shots were fired son.

ONE.

 

[owl]

I do believe Andey meant to say philosophy when he said psychology...

 

[sean69]

Okay, it has taken me a while to get back to this thread because I haven't had the time to respond like I want to. I'll have to get to the original responses later on.

I'm going with idealism. Since I'm away from the main post, I'll reiterate:



I say this for a couple of reasons, but I'll start with the basic principal for the train of thought since I'm sleepy.

The world is not defined by its furnishings, but what we define the furnishings to be. For instance you see bed, I see death trap. You see something disgusting, I see food. You hear music, I hear movements. If no one thought outside of the box on such ordinary items, then we would not have the extraordinary achievements that we have today. Someone, somewhere had to wake up and say "I think differently" and wow- phenomena happens. This phenomena becomes common place and eventually is accepted into society and a part of our culture as a rule to live by, (like how I get the evil eye cause I only watched New Jack City for the first time in the past five years ).

Without our ideals where would we be? Communist Stalin rule? Fighting back the droids in 'I, Robot'? Happily living in the suburbs with our Stepford Wives? (No woman could want a Stepford Husband, you can forget that.) This is where life begins. I mean after all, God had to have the idea to form Man, (if you see it that way), right? If he never did what would we be then?

Nice way to put it Mel.
I hope you get some time to read through the thread. Even though me and Andey seem to be going back and forth there's some good stuff in there.

See Sean, this is why I don't debate about shit like this. People are always going to come back with info skewed to their liking.

True



You know and I know that numbers in themselves are abstract. So is language, which would explain why math is abstract because it's the language of numbers that is primarily centered around numerical values and their meanings.

The reason why I even brought up emotional symbolism was to show that something as abstract as the feeling or emotion that is equated with love or pain has a physical basis tied to a stimuli and response. I assumed (my fault) that this would be naturally implied but it was made painfully clear (no pun intended) that was not the case.

Yes. Numbers are abstract. Even though there are distinguished so-called "real" numbers and complex numbers. The "real" numbers are just real enough for us to comprehend with reference to our immediate environment.

Complex abstract numbers in weird vector spaces...not so much. There are mathematcal equations for shapes that dont fit anything our minds can aesthetically appreciate in the world.



The other key argument about observations...there again I assumed that it would be naturally inferred that if you are talking and referring to science and coming up with a hypothesis that later is proven and formulated into a theory, that this is not possible without observation. Yes there is analysis and testing, but then that is another observation. The essence of thought or of idea is sprung from making an inference/observation about your surrounding universe and coming up with something that is unique in nature.

Yes.
Hypothesis lead by deduction from observable phenomena.
When hypothesis fails to match experimental results then induction leads the modification of the hypothesis. And it continues interatively until you converge toward thruth.

Though a combination of shit like, noise from the environment and ego prevent us fro ever reaching absolute truth.



Einstein came up with special relativity. In one instance he took and observed Newton's inertial laws (frame of reference) and on the other hand observed Maxwell's laws of electricity, optics, and magnetism. He observed and studied the properties of light and then envisioned himself racing beside a beam of light. All of this, regardless of whether he would have come up with his hypothesis and later his theory, came about as a result of his observations.

I'm sure Andey will find some way to oppose this, but you know this as well as I do Sean, things are very rarely "manifested" out of thin air in science without research and observation of another's work and then a further spin-off or detail of that research being ventured into. That is the breeding grounds for PhDs, grant proposals, and grad students to be made.

So I get what Andey is trying to say, but observation IS what makes science possible...obviously you can't stop there or we would have never come up with the techniques and technology to discover photons, neutrinos and quarks or other exotic particles.


I think you might be confusing what Andey's trying to say just a little. From what I understand he's saying observation is just a part of the method not it's all and all.

You're talking about the empirical nature of science. As you should. You and I are both experimental scientists. So it's understandable that you'd check that assertion.
And you're right, experiments are worthless without posteriori knowledge ... aka observation. Science in it's essence is experiential.

However, you can come up with "thought experiments" that don't require direct observation of a phenomena (a priori knowledge) to initiate a hypothesis (though there's always some reference to past experimental findings)
This was one of the genius abilities of Albert Einstein.

Math also allows for the construction and prediction of the physical without empirical methods.

If I have more on this I'll come back, but for now I'm takin' my ass to bed...

ONE

 

[BigUnc]

I do believe Andey meant to say philosophy when he said psychology...

So do I

 

[Andeyhollawho]

I do believe Andey meant to say philosophy when he said psychology...

So do I

I got to read over everything else first. I think we may be getting somewhere finally.

You are both about half right here.

I feel like when people talk about philosophy they usually digress wrongly into psychology.

Philosophy

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, goodness, beauty, justice, validity, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument.

Psychology

Psychology is an academic and applied discipline involving the systematic, and often scientific, study of human/animal mental functions and behavior. Occasionally, in addition or opposition to employing the scientific method, it also relies on symbolic interpretation and critical analysis.

Psychology can not be the reasoned argument for a philosophy in my eyes. Psych is the study of behavior and mental processes. You can't say people think like this because in reality they are idealist. It has no place in the argument but people treat them as if they are interchangeable all the time.

Read the definitions again. I'm not confusing the two. I am trying to put separation between them for the sake of the argument. When people talk about idealism they digress into psychology. Idealism is at least half of monoism right? No philosophy is scientific.

Let me repeat. NO PHILOSOPHY IS SCIENTIFIC! We can argue the merits and faults of each and back up our OPINIONS with scientific disciplines. That's it.

Now if I am reading this wrong or coming off in the wrong way about it please let me know. I need clarification on it cause that's where I see it was headed.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Pay specific attention to the last 1 minute of the video.

"...they all looked to the same place...and that is to the eternal principles of mathematics ..."


Albert Einstien...who I'm sure you and I would both agree was no scrub scientist...was asked the question;

"how can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?"

To which he answered;

"as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."



There are several definitions and descriptions of what mathematics is and it basically boils down to who you ask and and thier application of math.
Theoretician will probably say it's not a science and independent of observation.
Experimental scientist will probably disagree.
But these are all opinions.

In the end there has to be one fundamental truth. Trace the history of how humans developed mathematics and you'll find the answer.
You will find that mathematics is a language. Now, describe language in physical terms? You can't. It's a medium for communicating information. A means of expressing intuitions. That's it.

That's what I've been telling you. Math is the language of science.

You say it's earth based and derived exclusively from observation of physical things on earth.

No.

These are just applications of math.

Now we on to something here...

Here we go. You say abstract numbers right? Abstract as in they have no meaning until they are applied to things correct? They become concrete and real when given context right?

So numbers are the words here and math is the language right?

So if numbers are the words then what are those "words" based off of? What do those "words" describe?

In our English language. If you just put the word pizza out there to someone who doesn't speak our language it is just abstract. To someone who spoke Spanish "pizza" don't mean shit. It's abstract to them. But to US "pizza" means a bread pie with cheese and toppings. It's not abstract to us. It has a meaning without being in context.

I'm probably losing you here. What I am saying is math numbers are abstract representations of PHYSICAL shit. It is a universal language. If you just say 8 the obvious response is 8 what? You HAVE to put a number in context with SOMETHING tangible for it to make sense.

Math fundamentally puts numbers in context. Even complex numbers are nothing but "place holders" for real numbers. Imagined place holders if you will but they are still in context because they are left to be answered. That context is the answer to the problem. There is ALWAYS a problem to solve in math so it can not be purely abstract. The answer may seem unattainable but the quest is for a tangible answer.

Does that make sense?

 

[Andeyhollawho]

See Sean, this is why I don't debate about shit like this. People are always going to come back with info skewed to their liking.

You know and I know that numbers in themselves are abstract. So is language, which would explain why math is abstract because it's the language of numbers that is primarily centered around numerical values and their meanings.

The reason why I even brought up emotional symbolism was to show that something as abstract as the feeling or emotion that is equated with love or pain has a physical basis tied to a stimuli and response. I assumed (my fault) that this would be naturally implied but it was made painfully clear (no pun intended) that was not the case.

The other key argument about observations...there again I assumed that it would be naturally inferred that if you are talking and referring to science and coming up with a hypothesis that later is proven and formulated into a theory, that this is not possible without observation. Yes there is analysis and testing, but then that is another observation. The essence of thought or of idea is sprung from making an inference/observation about your surrounding universe and coming up with something that is unique in nature. Einstein came up with special relativity. In one instance he took and observed Newton's inertial laws (frame of reference) and on the other hand observed Maxwell's laws of electricity, optics, and magnetism. He observed and studied the properties of light and then envisioned himself racing beside a beam of light. All of this, regardless of whether he would have come up with his hypothesis and later his theory, came about as a result of his observations.

I'm sure Andey will find some way to oppose this, but you know this as well as I do Sean, things are very rarely "manifested" out of thin air in science without research and observation of another's work and then a further spin-off or detail of that research being ventured into. That is the breeding grounds for PhDs, grant proposals, and grad students to be made.

So I get what Andey is trying to say, but observation IS what makes science possible...obviously you can't stop there or we would have never come up with the techniques and technology to discover photons, neutrinos and quarks or other exotic particles.

If I have more on this I'll come back, but for now I'm takin' my ass to bed...

I think you might be confusing what Andey's trying to say just a little. From what I understand he's saying observation is just a part of the method not it's all and all.

^^^
This.

I understand everything you are saying Ons but you ain't heard one damn thing I have said yet!

See Sean, this is why I don't debate about shit like this. People are always going to come back with info skewed to their liking.

I think this is describing you right now seriously.

You are still trying to bend around what I have been saying to Sean. What I have said is that you can not base a conclusion solely on observations. That is scientific method. To which you have both times came back and said that you observe then test and then observe. You observe the results of TESTS. You don't just observe occurances and say "Yep that proves it."

Sean had said that his hypothesis of monoism was vindicated at the moment of observation. To which I said you must be able to test that hypothesis and then observe the results. AKA you can't conclude directly from observation. The infered part here is WITHOUT TESTING THE HYPOTHEISIS.

He didn't mention a observable test and empirical evidence. He said it was vindicated through observation. We are now discussing his evidence of the fact. He misspoke in my opinion or I misunderstood but you jumped the gun period.

No big deal but you did?

 

[Andeyhollawho]

See when shit get cleared up we start to get on a roll in this here thang!

I see the confusion now. Maybe I wasn't clear. Hope this helps...

I said "mental processes during observation". Meaning what goes on in your mind when you "observe" and event/thing.
What's the confusion here?

And yes. You are correct regarding my monist view and the experiment.

Uhm. When have I said monist view of reality comprises of ONLY observation (mental)???
When? Where? Quote it.

Read the OP.
Monism: mental (processes during observation) + physical (tangible real experimentation, physical instruments) = mutually reducible unity.

How many times do I have to keep explaining this?

Ok right here. We agree on the physical part right here.

Physical (tangible real experimentation, physical instruments)

My "philosophy" is that this is where it stops. Right here. Real experimentation. If you make a medicine that cures Aids then that shit cures Aids. If it don't it don't. If it cures only one type then fine that's what you got.

Ok you take this a step further with monoism. You are saying to me that the results of the test are not the only truth. You are saying that the truth comes out differently depending on your mental process at this time. Right?

So from that I am to infer that the only difference between my philosophy and yours is the MENTAL PROCESS. Not the physical experiment. Do you understand now why I keep questioning you on the mental side?

Cause if you drop the mental me and you are the same. Mental process is the only difference in our philosophies. Get it? That's why I told you to stop arguing with me about physical shit cause we were on the same page on that part. Get it? We good on that?

I'm hoping for an Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh moment here. Read this shit a few times before you respond!



You bring me the double slit experiment which I am familiar with. Wasn't avoiding it. In fact here is a nifty little guy I know named Dr. Quantum talking about it!



What I gather you are trying to convince me is that the fact that the particles form a interference pattern when unobserved but a slit pattern when observed is that the mental process changes this somehow. As Dr. Quantum here says the "watchful eye changed the nature of the pattern". I have always debated that the interference pattern is delicate. Delicate enough to be offset by the "measuring" apparatus. We can debate that later. I was trying not to get too deep into it cause I know we'd be five pages just on the Double-slit experiment. I was trying to explain my position without digressing into another tangent but you want to take it there! Everytime I think I'm out the PULL me back in!

Goddamn I did a lot of typing this morning! SHIT!!!

 

[OnSlaught]

I think you might be confusing what Andey's trying to say just a little. From what I understand he's saying observation is just a part of the method not it's all and all.

^^^
This.

I understand everything you are saying Ons but you ain't heard one damn thing I have said yet!

See Sean, this is why I don't debate about shit like this. People are always going to come back with info skewed to their liking.

I think this is describing you right now seriously.

You are still trying to bend around what I have been saying to Sean. What I have said is that you can not base a conclusion solely on observations. That is scientific method. To which you have both times came back and said that you observe then test and then observe. You observe the results of TESTS. You don't just observe occurances and say "Yep that proves it."

Sean had said that his hypothesis of monoism was vindicated at the moment of observation. To which I said you must be able to test that hypothesis and then observe the results. AKA you can't conclude directly from observation. The infered part here is WITHOUT TESTING THE HYPOTHEISIS.

He didn't mention a observable test and empirical evidence. He said it was vindicated through observation. We are now discussing his evidence of the fact. He misspoke in my opinion or I misunderstood but you jumped the gun period.

No big deal but you did?

Andey.... Like I stated in the 1st post I made in this thread, I am not going to read every post y'all were commenting on (I should have Colin Powelled both you a long time ago!) Maybe I did jump the gun, but the arguments were so convoluted that the main point, which you summed up nicely in your last post, was lost. All I read for one page of this thread was about you not thinking that observations were valid enough.

Now about the real debate:

monism: the doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element

realism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth

Now, as a realist, if everything is reducible down to common particles and elements, it would make sense to think that us and everything else in this universe originating from one common beginning is not that hard to believe. So you shouldn't have an issue with monism itself. It is actually pretty practical. The problem where you and Sean probably will run into is what started that common beginning, which is for now left up to conjecture.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Andey.... Like I stated in the 1st post I made in this thread, I am not going to read every post y'all were commenting on (I should have Colin Powelled both you a long time ago!) Maybe I did jump the gun, but the arguments were so convoluted that the main point, which you summed up nicely in your last post, was lost. All I read for one page of this thread was about you not thinking that observations were valid enough.

Now about the real debate:

monism: the doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element

realism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth

Now, as a realist, if everything is reducible down to common particles and elements, it would make sense to think that us and everything else in this universe originating from one common beginning is not that hard to believe. So you shouldn't have an issue with monism itself. It is actually pretty practical. The problem where you and Sean probably will run into is what started that common beginning, which is for now left up to conjecture.

So I was right and you did jump the gun!

But thanks for the props.

No problem. You kept digging for deeper meaning in what I was saying when I was literally just saying you can't form conclusions on observations without testing. That was it. No deep ass meaning to it!

Anyway you are almost right on my arguement. I see this in your sig...

"The methods of my motivation is completely subjective, my perception is completely parallel to perspective..."

I believe the highlight part is a good summary of what Sean is trying to get across to me.

Earlier I threw out the Luther Vandross line about a chair being a chair. Melon kind of touched on this too. What I am saying is you can project YOUR feelings on to that chair. To Melon that chair may be the place where her grandmother sat so it is special. To Sean that chair may be the place where he got his first good piece of head so it's special.

It's special to both but not for the same reasons. Not even close to the same reason. This is perspective. This is mental process. People bring their own experience and perspectives to scientific shit all the time. That's why we developed the scientific method. Not to prove one right or one wrong but to say this is the basic way we all will determine if what we believe is practical.

Practical. I don't see perspective and mental process as practical. That is my argument. It's unique to everybody. I said before I can paint a picture and show you exactly what I want you to see but 100 people will give 100 different responses. How is that scientific?

 

[sean69]

I got to read over everything else first. I think we may be getting somewhere finally.

You are both about half right here.

I feel like when people talk about philosophy they usually digress wrongly into psychology.

Yeah. Generally people that don't know what philosophy and psychology are.



Psychology can not be the reasoned argument for a philosophy in my eyes. Psych is the study of behavior and mental processes. You can't say people think like this because in reality they are idealist. It has no place in the argument but people treat them as if they are interchangeable all the time.

Read the definitions again. I'm not confusing the two. I am trying to put separation between them for the sake of the argument. When people talk about idealism they digress into psychology. Idealism is at least half of monoism right? No philosophy is scientific.

Wrong.
Idealism is NOT half of monism.
Go read the OP again Andey and pay carful attention to the words FUNDAMENTALLY and REDUCIBLY!
Meaning that mind and physical are ONE and the SAME. Not two halves of one whole. Probably the 10th time i've explained this in this thread.



Let me repeat. NO PHILOSOPHY IS SCIENTIFIC! We can argue the merits and faults of each and back up our OPINIONS with scientific disciplines. That's it.

So you've now switched the argument to PHILOSOPHY is not a science?
Yeah. Not even gonna go there. :smh
What happened to psychology?
Do you agree it's scientific now?
:



Now if I am reading this wrong or coming off in the wrong way about it please let me know. I need clarification on it cause that's where I see it was headed.

/argument.

Now we on to something here...

Here we go. You say abstract numbers right? Abstract as in they have no meaning until they are applied to things correct? They become concrete and real when given context right?

Yes. I agree.
Although the key word here is APPLICATION. And math is divided into two major fields; "pure" and "applied" math.
Applied is used to enable advances science, engineering, or other fields with "real" life implications - tangible physical stuff you see around you. This is what I suspect you're talking about

Pure math on the other hand is similar to art. It's an ABSTRACT language used to demonstrate the functions and relationships of numbers, operations, etc... WITHIN a MATHEMATICAL context - not a PHYSICAL context.
I'm not making this up. Look it up if you want.
When I keep giving examples of shit like multi-dimensional spaces (Hilbert space, string theory, etc) this is what i'm talking about.

Andey, describe a 3-dimensional space to me. Easy right? x,y and z rectangular (polar coordinates). Simple. It defines all the 3-D objeects we observe in the real world. Cars, computers, trees, lasagna etc ...

Now, describe an 11-dimensional space to me. An extension of String Theory, M-theory, is based on 11D space. Describe a physical object in the "real" world you keep talking about, in the context of 11D coordinate space. I'll wait for your answer .................

This is the abstractive nature of mathematics, the language used to communicate outside the plain of physical reality, this is what i'm talking about.
I'll put it like this;
Science starts with the "observation" of physical phenomena
(Pure) mathematics starts with the "conceptualization" of a class of abstract mathematical objects that are founded on "off-the-top-of-the-dome" axioms.

Like Ons said, you're stuck in this geocentric view of reality that's extremely myopic IMO.



So numbers are the words here and math is the language right?
So if numbers are the words then what are those "words" based off of? What do those "words" describe?

Yes. I math is a formof language.
However, you're starting off with a flawed analogy.

Word's can be can be further reduced to letters right?
So if you say numbers are the words right? Then what are the letters??
Think about it before you just jump to answer.
OK.
Done?
What's your answer? (you can modify your analogy if you want. LOL)


In our English language. If you just put the word pizza out there to someone who doesn't speak our language it is just abstract. To someone who spoke Spanish "pizza" don't mean shit. It's abstract to them. But to US "pizza" means a bread pie with cheese and toppings. It's not abstract to us. It has a meaning without being in context.
I'm probably losing you here. What I am saying is math numbers are abstract representations of PHYSICAL shit. It is a universal language. If you just say 8 the obvious response is 8 what? You HAVE to put a number in context with SOMETHING tangible for it to make sense.

I disagree. (see my comment's above about abstract/pure math and my comments below)

Math fundamentally puts numbers in context. Even complex numbers are nothing but "place holders" for real numbers. Imagined place holders if you will but they are still in context because they are left to be answered. That context is the answer to the problem. There is ALWAYS a problem to solve in math so it can not be purely abstract. The answer may seem unattainable but the quest is for a tangible answer.
Does that make sense?

No.
You can address abstract "problems" with abstract math in abstract reference frames.

I think you might be confusing what Andey's trying to say just a little. From what I understand he's saying observation is just a part of the method not it's all and all.
^^^
This.
I understand everything you are saying Ons but you ain't heard one damn thing I have said yet!

See Sean, this is why I don't debate about shit like this. People are always going to come back with info skewed to their liking.

I think this is describing you right now seriously.
You are still trying to bend around what I have been saying to Sean. What I have said is that you can not base a conclusion solely on observations. That is scientific method. To which you have both times came back and said that you observe then test and then observe. You observe the results of TESTS. You don't just observe occurances and say "Yep that proves it."

Andey. Again, you're wrong here. This is the problem with you gat dayum engineers. LOL. Y'all are good at putting stuff together after real scientists have done most of the ground woth.

Just kidding. LOL.

But no Andey. The scientific method doesn't start with "observe results of tests." I guarantee you that no scientist will c/s this shit you just said. And no Google or Wiki website will get you any reference to support this.

Ons is absolutely right. And he should know this as an experimental scientists who (I'm sure as a PhD student) does novel fundamental research. Which involves:

1) Observe nature.
2) Hypothesize (deduction from what you just observed)
3) Experiment
4) Compare hypothesis with results
5) Modify hypothesis as needed (induction from the comparison)
6) Continue this iterative sequence until you converge toward the truth.

You're starting at (4). Not saying you can't do science this way. But bear in mind that the integrity of your research is at the mercy of the source of the results you're talking about.

Andey. This is what I learned as a scientist. I teach this. This is the way it goes down.

/The End.



Sean had said that his hypothesis of monoism was vindicated at the moment of observation. To which I said you must be able to test that hypothesis and then observe the results. AKA you can't conclude directly from observation. The infered part here is WITHOUT TESTING THE HYPOTHEISIS.

Andey, you keep on saying theory and hypothesis of monism.
For the gazillionth time it's not a fucking theory!!! It's a philosophy!!!!!

And WTF are you talking about?
I thought we cleared up this stupid, ludicrous, redundant issue of observation alone isn't sufficient. WTF man. Do you just like arguing?
Can somebody please explain this to me?




He didn't mention a observable test and empirical evidence. He said it was vindicated through observation. We are now discussing his evidence of the fact. He misspoke in my opinion or I misunderstood but you jumped the gun period.

No big deal but you did?

I didn't?
WTF was all that shit I posted about the double-slit experiment and its consequences?

OK Andey. I'm done with this shit. Carry on.

FINIT.

 

[Andeyhollawho]

You don't like reading do you. If you would have read what I had written to Ons I wouldn't have to keep defending this stupid shit.

Dude what the fuck does it say up top? SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS NEVER DRAW CONCLUSIONS DIRECTLY FROM OBSERVATIONS. Those observations must be tested first! Goddamn this is not hard. Or maybe it is for some of ya'll.

Observe.
Hypothesis.
Test.
Observe results of test.
Conclude.

Scientific goddamn method. You can't jump from observe to conclude without the 3 steps in the middle.

Damn ya'll boys are slow.

To which you have both times came back and said that you observe then test and then observe. You observe the results of TESTS. You don't just observe occurances and say "Yep that proves it."

Andey. Again, you're wrong here. This is the problem with you gat dayum engineers. LOL. Y'all are good at putting stuff together after real scientists have done most of the ground woth.

Just kidding. LOL.

But no Andey. The scientific method doesn't start with "observe results of tests." I guarantee you that no scientist will c/s this shit you just said. And no Google or Wiki website will get you any reference to support this.

Ons is absolutely right. And he should know this as an experimental scientists who (I'm sure as a PhD student) does novel fundamental research. Which involves:

1) Observe nature.
2) Hypothesize (deduction from what you just observed)
3) Experiment
4) Compare hypothesis with results
5) Modify hypothesis as needed (induction from the comparison)
6) Continue this iterative sequence until you converge toward the truth.

You're starting at (4). Not saying you can't do science this way. But bear in mind that the integrity of your research is at the mercy of the source of the results you're talking about.

/The End.

I said that shit at least four fucking times.

Read young man read. It's called paraphrasing. I just need to reiterate everything I say in every damn post? It's called continuation of a thought. Counter vs. counter. I'm assuming he read the other 4 times I posted the scientific method unlike you. You jumping into the middle of shit. Me and Ons already worked that out buddy. Catch up!

 

[Andeyhollawho]

See when shit get cleared up we start to get on a roll in this here thang!

I see the confusion now. Maybe I wasn't clear. Hope this helps...






Ok right here. We agree on the physical part right here.

Physical (tangible real experimentation, physical instruments)

My "philosophy" is that this is where it stops. Right here. Real experimentation. If you make a medicine that cures Aids then that shit cures Aids. If it don't it don't. If it cures only one type then fine that's what you got.

Ok you take this a step further with monoism. You are saying to me that the results of the test are not the only truth. You are saying that the truth comes out differently depending on your mental process at this time. Right?

So from that I am to infer that the only difference between my philosophy and yours is the MENTAL PROCESS. Not the physical experiment. Do you understand now why I keep questioning you on the mental side?

Cause if you drop the mental me and you are the same. Mental process is the only difference in our philosophies. Get it? That's why I told you to stop arguing with me about physical shit cause we were on the same page on that part. Get it? We good on that?

I'm hoping for an Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh moment here. Read this shit a few times before you respond!



You bring me the double slit experiment which I am familiar with. Wasn't avoiding it. In fact here is a nifty little guy I know named Dr. Quantum talking about it!



What I gather you are trying to convince me is that the fact that the particles form a interference pattern when unobserved but a slit pattern when observed is that the mental process changes this somehow. As Dr. Quantum here says the "watchful eye changed the nature of the pattern". I have always debated that the interference pattern is delicate. Delicate enough to be offset by the "measuring" apparatus. We can debate that later. I was trying not to get too deep into it cause I know we'd be five pages just on the Double-slit experiment. I was trying to explain my position without digressing into another tangent but you want to take it there! Everytime I think I'm out the PULL me back in!

Goddamn I did a lot of typing this morning! SHIT!!!

Here is the post you need to be focused on now Sean. Me and Ons already came to an understanding on the other shit.

I'm not even responding to your other shit cause it's misguided without reading this post. Respond to this and it will answer most of your frustration.

 

[sean69]

Andey.... Like I stated in the 1st post I made in this thread, I am not going to read every post y'all were commenting on (I should have Colin Powelled both you a long time ago!) Maybe I did jump the gun, but the arguments were so convoluted that the main point, which you summed up nicely in your last post, was lost. All I read for one page of this thread was about you not thinking that observations were valid enough.
Now about the real debate:
monism: the doctrine that reality consists of a single basic substance or element
realism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth
Now, as a realist, if everything is reducible down to common particles and elements, it would make sense to think that us and everything else in this universe originating from one common beginning is not that hard to believe. So you shouldn't have an issue with monism itself. It is actually pretty practical. The problem where you and Sean probably will run into is what started that common beginning, which is for now left up to conjecture.

Onz, you're right. The debate did digress off on something serious. LOL.

But I promise you, if you (and Collin) take the patience and read or skim through the entire back and forth between Andey and me, you'll get the picture.
Trust me on this bruh.

You see that sentence in you post above that I high-lighted in red? That was the genesis of the damn near 2 pages of back-n-forth.

This was the argument I was presenting to Andey about our inter-connectedness because we're all composed of and life on earth feeds off, the same substances and energy.
I presented numerous examples, from photosynthesis, to the formation of the earth. But I obviously didn't get through to him.
It's all here in this thread. I can quote 'em.

By the way, "litereal truth" in your definition of realism is what, IMO, makes it an incomplete philosophical representation of the universe.

So I was right and you did jump the gun!

No problem. You kept digging for deeper meaning in what I was saying when I was literally just saying you can't form conclusions on observations. That was it. No deep ass meaning to it!

Anyway you are almost right on my arguement. I see this in your sig...

"The methods of my motivation is completely subjective, my perception is completely parallel to perspective..."

I believe the highlight part is a good summary of what Sean is trying to get across to me.

No Andey. No it's not. Appreciate the effort on the assits though. LOL.


Earlier I threw out the Luther Vandross line about a chair being a chair. Melon kind of touched on this too. What I am saying is you can project YOUR feelings on to that chair. To Melon that chair may be the place where her grandmother sat so it is special. To Sean that chair may be the place where he got his first good piece of head so it's special.

Again. No.
Because we are all inter-connected, EVERYTHING in the universe, connected non-physically through thought, conscioussness, energy, fields, whatever, because of this, my reality has the ability or potential to influence anyone elses.
The chair to Mel may be where her grandma sat but I can potentially make the chair a big 'ol Rice Crispy treat and have her eating the upholstery.

I've seen crazier shit done during hypnosis.

I've personally experienced the healing effects of intersessionary prayer and group meditations that I was not directly involved with.

Apparently my philosophy may be a bit too deep for you to understand/appreciate. At least from this convo so far ...clearly.

It's special to both but not for the same reasons. Not even close to the same reason. This is perspective. This is mental process. People bring their own experience and perspectives to scientific shit all the time. That's why we developed the scientific method. Not to prove one right or one wrong but to say this is the basic way we all will determine if what we believe is practical.

Practical. I don't see perspective and mental process as practical. That is my argument. It's unique to everybody. I said before I can paint a picture and show you exactly what I want you to see but 100 people will give 100 different responses. How is that scientific?

^^^^^I agree with the above bolded.

Now, as you increase the number of observers and generate a larger data set you start to get a bell-shaped mean distribution curve.
This is statistics.
The width of steepness of the curve will be related to the objectivity or subjectivity of the thing being measured.
Like the description of a picture of Obama vs. a Van Gogh abstract painting.

The steeper the curve the more the responses converge to the median. The broader the curve the more they deviate from the mean.

This is statistics.

It's a tool used in science (yes. including psychology) to increase the confidence of resultsn reduce error, eliminate noise and converge toward truths. Control experiments are also used with this.

Think outside the box.



ONE.

 

[sean69]

You don't like reading do you. If you would have read what I had written to Ons I wouldn't have to keep defending this stupid shit.

Originally Posted by Andeyhollawho
Dude what the fuck does it say up top? SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS NEVER DRAW CONCLUSIONS DIRECTLY FROM OBSERVATIONS. Those observations must be tested first! Goddamn this is not hard. Or maybe it is for some of ya'll.

Observe.
Hypothesis.
Test.
Observe results of test.
Conclude.

Scientific goddamn method. You can't jump from observe to conclude without the 3 steps in the middle.

Damn ya'll boys are slow.

I said that shit at least four fucking times.

Read young man read. It's called paraphrasing. I just need to reiterate everything I say in every damn post? It's called continuation of a thought. Counter vs. counter. I'm assuming he read the other 4 times I posted the scientific method unlike you. You jumping into the middle of shit. Me and Ons already worked that out buddy. Catch up!

Andey. I'm not slow. And I read.

Originally Posted by Andeyhollawho
You are still trying to bend around what I have been saying to Sean. What I have said is that you can not base a conclusion solely on observations. That is scientific method. To which you have both times came back and said that you observe then test and then observe. You observe the results of TESTS. You don't just observe occurances and say "Yep that proves it."

^^^^
I was going off the the inference of the green and red bolded.
So you're telling me i'm slow for infering this?

How is this paraphrasing?

Anyway, this is redundant. I said in previous posts that the notion of observing and then immediately concluding is STUPID. Who said that???

I've already challenged you to pull up a quote where Onz or me said that.
Andey? Can you do this? From what did you create this phantom argument?

 

[Andeyhollawho]

Andey. I'm not slow. And I read.



^^^^
I was going off the the inference of the green and red bolded.
So you're telling me i'm slow for infering this?

How is this paraphrasing?

Anyway, this is redundant. I said in previous posts that the notion of observing and then immediately concluding is STUPID. Who said that???

I've already challenged you to pull up a quote where Onz or me said that.
Andey? Can you do this? From what did you create this phantom argument?

Are you just missing the last couple of posts from me and Ons where I broke this down and we came to an agreement. And again in the green I said OBSERVE TEST OBSERVE. As in the first three steps of scientific method? I was saying you don't get results from observations alone you get the results from observing test of your original observations.

He said he got it and I said cool. It was a tangent. He then said that he got the point of what I was saying (as in the original basis for the arguement) in my last post and we moved on. Why haven't you?

That whole arguement was not meant for you it was a misunderstanding between me and Ons and we cleared it. Stop talking about it.

 

[sean69]

Are you just missing the last couple of posts from me and Ons where I broke this down and we came to an agreement. And again in the green I said OBSERVE TEST OBSERVE. As in the first three steps of scientific method? I was saying you don't get results from observations alone you get the results from observing test of your original observations.

He said he got it and I said cool. It was a tangent. He then said that he got the point of what I was saying (as in the original basis for the arguement) in my last post and we moved on. Why haven't you?

That whole arguement was not meant for you it was a misunderstanding between me and Ons and we cleared it. Stop talking about it.

OK. Sorry. Mybad. I got it now.
THAT part of the argument between u and Onz.
I'm done with that.

1

 

[sean69]

See when shit get cleared up we start to get on a roll in this here thang!

I see the confusion now. Maybe I wasn't clear. Hope this helps...






Ok right here. We agree on the physical part right here.

Physical (tangible real experimentation, physical instruments)

My "philosophy" is that this is where it stops. Right here. Real experimentation. If you make a medicine that cures Aids then that shit cures Aids. If it don't it don't. If it cures only one type then fine that's what you got.

Ok you take this a step further with monoism. You are saying to me that the results of the test are not the only truth. You are saying that the truth comes out differently depending on your mental process at this time. Right?

Wrong.
Funny. And you say that I don't read?
I'm getting tired of defining monism to you. Seriously.
You've created a definition of what you want it to be in your head to satisfy your whims.
You posted a tutorial on the double-slit experiment which I think clearly explains this.
Did you watch the video or do you understand what it's about?

I' saying that there is only ONE truth (hence MONOism) Everything else outside the truth is an illusion due to the limits/constraints set set on our mental abilities.


So from that I am to infer that the only difference between my philosophy and yours is the MENTAL PROCESS. Not the physical experiment. Do you understand now why I keep questioning you on the mental side?

Andey. It appears that there's no way will will ever really communicate effectively here.
You're trying to get me to agree with you.
I'm picking apart the flaws in your arguments. Which is what really goes on in philosophical/scientific arguments.


Cause if you drop the mental me and you are the same. Mental process is the only difference in our philosophies. Get it? That's why I told you to stop arguing with me about physical shit cause we were on the same page on that part. Get it? We good on that?

I'm sorry if i appear to be stuborn on this, but i'm a scientist.
No Andey. If you "drop the mental", realism and monism are not the same.

Onslaught! Can you help me explain this to Andey. Please. Maybe he has mental some allergy to my fonts.

Simple arithmentic.
Key: (Mental = 1, Physical = 1)

Realism: Reality = Physical = 1

Monism: Reality = Mental + Physical = 1

Last time. Not doint this again.




I'm hoping for an Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh moment here. Read this shit a few times before you respond!



You bring me the double slit experiment which I am familiar with. Wasn't avoiding it. In fact here is a nifty little guy I know named Dr. Quantum talking about it!



What I gather you are trying to convince me is that the fact that the particles form a interference pattern when unobserved but a slit pattern when observed is that the mental process changes this somehow. As Dr. Quantum here says the "watchful eye changed the nature of the pattern". I have always debated that the interference pattern is delicate. Delicate enough to be offset by the "measuring" apparatus. We can debate that later. I was trying not to get too deep into it cause I know we'd be five pages just on the Double-slit experiment.

OK. Thanks for looking out for me by getting too deep.

However, this thread was created so that folks could go in. It's the Lion's Den of philosophy and Science. Folks that cant hang need to dip.

The double-slit experiment is central to my argument for Monism.
If you didn't ignore it (for whatever reason) from jump, maybe we would have gotten somewhere by now.

I was trying to explain my position without digressing into another tangent but you want to take it there! Everytime I think I'm out the PULL me back in!

Goddamn I did a lot of typing this morning! SHIT!!!

O Rly? Again. Andey, I don't just type shit just to type shit. I'm not here to engage in a brain battle with you. I just comment on what I read. See ...

Monism = physical and mental exist and they are reducibly (this means one can be reduced to the other Andey) one (hence, mono-) and the same.

Again I ask you where is the mental ASPECT in your argument. All you have been arguing with me about is shit that you yourself say is PHYSICAL. Where is the mental. I know good and damn well what reducibly means and it seems to me like you are just lumping shit together and calling it philosiphy.

This all started because I said I like most scientist are realist. You said you are monoist. So show me how your "mental" aspect of this philosiphy comes into play in anything we have discussed.

The floor is yours.

Originally Posted by sean69
*sigh*

Sure you wana go there? Because I've spent 3 pages argung with you about shit peripheral to the crux of monism and you cant even grasp those concepts.

But ehh, what the heck.

Are you familiar with the DOUBLE-SLIT experiment? The MEASUREMENT PROBLEM?

There's your answer.

That's not a goddamn answer. Are you familiar with... Make me familiar with your shit. Don't send me out to research the shit YOU post so that way I can come back and you can say..."See you don't understand it." Your arguement so you make it make sense to me.

How does monoism trump realism. Where does mental come into this equation at all. Go.

Originally Posted by sean69
Again.

What is your understanding/interpretation of the double slit experiment? ... or the "measurment problem"?

The holistic nature of the universe and the brain which are reducibly connected (my monist view) is the reason why "conciousness" (mental processes during observation) causes the "collapse".

By collapse (decoherence of quantum states) I mean that the of the abstract mathematical wave-functions that describes physical things, for lack of a better word, get solved.

I believe this happens at the instance of observation of an event.

^^^
My explanation in bold green.


Then you brought up the whole "observation alone isn't science" ... went off on a tangent about psychology.

Andey. Trust me. I'm very meticulous with my arguments ...I guage and think carefully about every thing I say. If I'm not familiar with a subject area, I dont go in on it. I use it as an opportunity to learn about it. That's one of my learning strategies.

FIf you wana go in on the Qm of the DS experiment and scientific/philosophical consequences ... we can. But first you have to have some basic understanding of QM

I've taken at least 3 classes in QM and read a lot of different interpretations. I c/s the one that fits my philosophical veiw the best. I'll leave it at that.

*edit*

By the way, Andey, you my dude. I got mad respect for your tenacity. This convo has added to some new perspectives to my knowledge pool believe it or not.

Thanks for this. Real talk.

 

[owl]

Philosophy is mathematics.