Well, the response was quite more volume than I expected, but quite below the intellectual level I had hoped for.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Just to be clear - Is this intended to be a different discussion than what might have ensued from your interesting article on the Whitehead thread?
|
Yes and No! I had hoped we might start from scratch! What I posted in the Whitehead thread is no more than a rather trivial observation which arises from the main work; however, I will respond to any comments you have with regard to that post.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AgoraBasta
Hardly so... But what if he says 'yes'?
|
I thought you were going to help me out! No comments on my post? What am I to think? Is your intention to dismiss it as meaningless trivia and refuse to discuss the issue with me or do you have an interest in what I have to say?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beaver
Humans have no reason to believe are subconscious's are giving us a false sense of reality, we have the ability to interpret the reality correctly people just choose not to.
|
As I said, "to set any aspect of reality above examination is to scuttle rational science." Be my guest; you certainly have plenty of company!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wedgebert
Maybe it's just my caffine-deprived brain, but maybe the reason no one can follow your thoughts is the plethora of emotions scattered liberally though your post.
|
Sorry I confused you! I just threw those in to keep it from being too serious. I will try to be less flamboyant for your sake.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Donnie B.
I'm not exactly sure what this great insight of yours is supposed to be. That our senses have developed ways to model external reality in our minds? This is not exactly news! Generations of philosophers have been pondering it.
Are you shocked, shocked I tell you, that our nervous systems have this ability? How could they not? We have to live in the real world, after all. We have to find water, food, shelter, and mates, avoid predators and hazardous environments, and generally get along. Evolution has been fine-tuning those senses for a billion years. Any organisms that did a poor job of "remote sensing" left no descendants.
|
I think you just missed the entire issue! Come back when you figure it out. Hint: If you read the last paragraph, you will see that I wish to discuss a particular solution!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pinemarten
Philosophy was one of the very first scientific studies, and has a basis in all following schools of thought.
Philosophy is the science that 'proves' what we conceive as being true.
Most scientists learn some philosophy during their education. They use this science regularly when doing research.
|
From the Devil's Dictionary: "Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kilopi
Are you familiar with Crick's Astonishing Hypothesis?
|
I am now and it has nothing to do with my work!
No one has appeared to even try to criticize my three opening statements (at least I found no rational criticism here). I will take it that most of you (the intelligent ones at least) admit there is a real problem here which deserves to be examined.
Since he asked for a solution, kilopi apparently agrees there is a real problem worth looking at here. Before I go on to my solution, is there anyone here who thinks they have a solution? That is, a detailed step by step procedure which will develop a valid model of an undefined source of undefined information transcribed by an totally undefined transformation which they can prove yields exactly what we observe.
Please notice that I said "a" solution and not "the" solution. There is a significant difference. I am of the opinion that the fact that I have a solution is somewhat better than nothing!