"is It Adequate To Understand The World Scientifically?

[chefranden]

This is what I've learned since I've been gone

1. The mind is inherently embodied
   
2. Thought is mostly unconscious
   
3. Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.
   

Not much, eh?

 

But I think that they have profound implications concerning human reasoning in science and religion. Both of these means of approaching our world/self relationship have proven woefully inadequate.

 

Both approaches operate in ignorance. That is not meant as insult but as a statement of function. Both approaches are embedded in consciousness which functions with and through ignorance. That is what we know is based on what we ignore. Most readers here will recognize this easily in the religionist's perspective. However, the objectivist may not see that science works under the same limitations. Here is an example from thinking about sustainability:

 

The whole idea that we can consciously manage the environment in some sustainable fashion is ludicrous in the first place. Our intellect and the resulting science -- as much as we admire them -- are not up to the task.

 

Both intellect and science act on the principle of ignorance, i.e. both accomplish what they accomplish by ignoring most, or as much of the noise as possible. Take for example the idea of sustainable fish farming. A woodland pond formed by a family of beaver is already a sustainable fish farm. However, that is not acceptable to our collective intellect in part because our intellect cannot handle all the variables of a woodland pond, and in part because we are sure that our intellects are somehow supposed to be in charge. So we reduce all the variables possible and end up with a polluting monoculture trout pond. In the end we get more trout for gallon of water in the short run instead of unlimited trout over the long run. The former requires a great deal of human energy and fossil energy to operate. The latter works on solar power and needs no human input, except for holding a pole with string, hook, and worm attached. The trout pond will cease to produce trout almost as soon as it is neglected by humans. The woodland pond will continue to produce trout whether any humans participate or not.

 

Mother Culture tells us that the trout pond is better than the woodland pond. Mother Culture does not like Mother Nature. Though clearly Mother Nature is more skilled at raising fish than is Mother Culture, we Takers side with Mother Culture. This means that the secret to raising fish sustainably resides in the noise that our intellect cannot handle.

 

 

(Please to forgive the references to Quinn here. I chose not to rewrite for this space out of laziness.)

 

So then I will say that science is no more an adequate way of understanding the human/world relationship than is religion.

 

What method is adequate? I don't know yet!

 

Your thoughts and flames will be greatly appreciated.

[Godless Wonder]

The way I see it, we have our five senses and the data they present to "us" (whatever that means) and our memories, and our thoughts. That's it. That's all we have to go on, there isn't anything else to consider. The epistemological project before us is to construct a hypothesis which best explains this sense data, nothing more.

 

One hypothesis that stands every test I have been able to subject it to is that there is an "outside world" with which I can interact.

 

There are possibilites for all sorts of weird things which can't be tested (e.g. my hypothesis about the "outside world" could be wrong, and some form os solipsism could be true. But the "outside world" hypothesis seems simpler, since a solipsist hypothesis contains everything the "outside world" hypothesis is more complex, in that it contains some mechanism of perfectly simulating all the things I currently hypothesize are in my "outside world."

 

In other words, science is not just enough, it is the only thing there is which is distinguishable from just a bunch of made up crap. Any talk of science being "inadequate" demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology.

 

Science may be "inadequate" to the task of "knowing" some things in theory, but only because those things are inherently unknowable, given the limits of epistemology.

 

Additionally, science may be "inadequate" to knowing some things for practical reasons, like, we don't live long enough, we're too far away to see what we'd need to see to figure something out, etc. You can complain about that, but it is just complaining, it isn't any sort of argument.

 

Science may not be able to tell you what you'd like to know.

 

Religion can tell you anything yuo'd like to know, but it lies, pretty mucfh all the time, and when you ask how it knows, it says, "shut the fuck up."

 

Edit some more:

 

Also, rereading the O.P. I see science and religion are identified as being inadequate for "understanding." I think it misses the point of what it means to "understand" something. "Understanding" is a word that has meaning only as applied within the framework of coming up with a hypothesis to explain sense data, since sense data, and our memories and thoughts, which are THE ONLY THINGS WE HAVE ANY ACCESS TO. I get the feeling that the OP means the word "understand" to apply to a view from "outside" the confines of our sense data. Well OF COURSE science can't get that. Neither can relgion. Nothing can get that. That is what I meant when I said the OP "demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology," and also what I meant about it being "just complaining" and "not any sort of argument."

[Ouroboros]

Good to see you again Chef.

 

I can only say that I know that I don't know. So does this mean that I don't know if I know? Maybe I just believe that I know, but never really know that I know?

 

 

Now I'm confused enough to start my work...

[All Gods Fail]

I can only say that I know that I don't know. So does this mean that I don't know if I know? Maybe I just believe that I know, but never really know that I know?

 

But if I know that you know, and you know what I know, and I know you know that I know what you know...

 

Wait a minute - this all made sense a minute ago.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Is it possible to have knowledge of my own ignorance?

[chefranden]

Good to see you again Chef.

 

I can only say that I know that I don't know. So does this mean that I don't know if I know? Maybe I just believe that I know, but never really know that I know?

 

 

Now I'm confused enough to start my work...

 

 

HI Han!

[chefranden]

Hi Godless

 

Thanks for the effort of throwing in here.

 

The way I see it, we have our five senses and the data they present to "us" (whatever that means) and our memories, and our thoughts. That's it. That's all we have to go on, there isn't anything else to consider. The epistemological project before us is to construct a hypothesis which best explains this sense data, nothing more.

 

One hypothesis that stands every test I have been able to subject it to is that there is an "outside world" with which I can interact.

 

There are possibilites for all sorts of weird things which can't be tested (e.g. my hypothesis about the "outside world" could be wrong, and some form os solipsism could be true. But the "outside world" hypothesis seems simpler, since a solipsist hypothesis contains everything the "outside world" hypothesis is more complex, in that it contains some mechanism of perfectly simulating all the things I currently hypothesize are in my "outside world."

 

Rest assured that I won't claim there is nothing there.

 

Yes we have our senses and our bodies to relate to the world with. However, even this statement of mine hints at the problem I'm attempting to uncover here. It would be better if I wrote. Yes, we are bodies with senses that relate physically to the rest of the universe. I make a mistake when I think that there really is a me that owns this body. It is a convenient metaphor to speak like this but it is not what is real.

 

In other words, science is not just enough, it is the only thing there is which is distinguishable from just a bunch of made up crap. Any talk of science being "inadequate" demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology.

 

It certainly would seem so, and a year or so ago I would have agreed 100%. But it just doesn’t suffice to explain what we see in the whole. Science can explain small stuff like how aspirin makes pain go away. But when it comes to the whole we see that science just helps us screw up the whole faster than we used to.

 

“Any talk of science being "inadequate" demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology,.” sounds something like, “any talk of Trinity being ‘inadequate’ demonstrates an ignorance of theology”. Perhaps I should heed your warning, but it’s been too long since I was afraid to blaspheme anything Mother Culture tells us to assume for me to start worrying about it now.

 

But you are right to recognize that epistemology is a core issue here. Science is a contributer to epistemology, I just won't go so far as to say that science = epistemology.

 

Science may be "inadequate" to the task of "knowing" some things in theory, but only because those things are inherently unknowable, given the limits of epistemology.

 

Again you are close to the mark. Human epistemology has limits that prevent knowing necessary things i.e. what I referred to above as noise. Let's see if I can make that a little clearer.

 

If a genius doctor offered you the ability to consciously control your digestive system would you take her up on it? I say you’d be a fool to do so. Why? Because consciousness operates on ignorance, that is consciousness only pays attention to one thing at a time. It has to ignore the whole to deal with a part, or it has to ignore the part to deal with the whole. Even if you could bring up the schematic of digestion you would be only able to operate a small portion of it at once. Yet this is what we hope science will do for us, bring the inner workings of the universe into consciousness so that we can consciously decide what the universe should do. Consciousness, even collective consciousness is inadequate for the task.

 

It is, I think, a fool’s errand to suppose that what human intellect cannot grok is of no importance in the functioning of the universe. The ecological and sociological cesspool in which we find ourselves is a clue that this idea that the world is ours to dominate and control may not be the best of ideas.

 

Science may not be able to tell you what you'd like to know.

 

Exactly! Well sort of exactly anyway.

 

Religion can tell you anything yuo'd like to know, but it lies, pretty mucfh all the time, and when you ask how it knows, it says, "shut the fuck up."

 

I don’t think that this is entirely fair to religion. Nevertheless, I think that we can agree that religion is not adequate to the task of understanding. It has this useful idea though: There are some things beyond human understanding that are nevertheless important to our relationship to the whole.

 

 

I will reply to your Edit separately

[Fweethawt]

Hi, Chef.

 

Good to see you around again.

I don't have anything to add to

this thread though. Maybe we

can get Cerise to drop by and

give you a few pointers.

Cheffy's back! Cheffy's back!

[Godless Wonder]

chefranden, maybe you misunderstand me.

 

When I say, "any talk of science being inadequete demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology," what that means is:

 

1) it is acknowledged that science can't answer everything, or perhaps even questions which are necessary to answer for some "satisfaction" to be had.

 

2) Nothing but science can answer *anything* with answers which can be trusted, or distinguished from made up crap.

 

Science isn't a sacred cow, the point is (I think, as I see it) that science attempts to use and claim as its own all paths to knowledge which aretrustworthy, and ignore and discard those proposed paths which turn out to be untrustworthy (e.g. religion, which, in it's inevitiable demand for faith, makes itself indistinguishalbe from made up lies, or, in many cases, positively identifiable by trustworthy methods as made up lies.)

 

What makes a means of acquiring knowledge "trustworthy." Since all we have to go on is our sense data, what distinguishes trustworthy, reliable methods from untrustworthy ones is their ability to predict future sense data. Nothing else. If X is true, then if I examine Y, then I should observe Z. *checks Y* Hmm, no Z. I guess X isn't true. That sort of thing.

 

If a religion came along with what seemed to be nonsensical claims, but which predicted future sense data accurately for all the tests we could devise, despite not making much sense, then it might as well be true -- in fact, it would be true, for not just all practical purposes, but for all purposes. It would be true, until it failed some test and had to be revised. It would be science in that case. Quantum mechanics springs to mind. It makes no "sense," no common sense, but makes astonishingly accurate predictions of future sense data -- the outcomes of experiments. Astonishingly, mind blowingly accurate. And mindblowingly non-sensical. But it is widely regarded as 'true," even true, with no defaming quotes around it, since it so reliably and accurately predicts future sense data.

 

This is where religions fail. The fail utterly to predict future sense data. This is the definition of false.

 

Any complaint that "science doesn't answer question X." is not really valid. It is not claimed that science can answer every question. It is only claimed that if a question can be answered to any extent by xome trustworthy method -- some method which withstands the test of being able to predict future sense data -- then that method and answer are claimed by science.

 

If a religion could reliably answer these question, science would subsume those tenets of that religion which led to those reliable answers, and that religion would become a part of science.

 

Religions and various other non-science ideas (new-age, the bogus lie-detection system featured on ABC's Dateline, "In the Box" special last night, or various other bullshit schemes) which purport to predict future sense data but which fail, are rejected by science.

 

It really is that simple. If it reliably predicts future sense data, it's true If it doesn't, but claims to, it's false.

 

I'm going to add a quote by PoodleLovinPessimist from iidb.org here, because I think it's one of the best things I've ever read, anywhere, and this one quote is the inspiration for much of what I've written here. Took me awhile to dig it up, else I would have posted it sooner, as PLP is arguably more succinct and convincing than I am. It concerns the difference between religious faith, and the reasons why science is credible.

 

Your professor is equivocating "faith" to include metaphysical presuppositions.

 

We don't take it on "faith" that our senses are reliable. It's the other way around: We define "reliable" in terms of a statement's ability to predict our sensory experiences. We don't consider our senses "reliable"; we consider them authoritative, in that our epistemological project is to deal coherently with the evidence of our senses. Likewise, the fundamental (and oversimplified) definition of the "past" is that which we remember.

 

He also conflates "truth" with "best", and relegates "truth" to be epistemologically independent of our knowledge. Such a definition of truth is meaningless, since, by definition, we cannot know something independently of our knowledge of it.

 

The idea that the world (including our memories and the appearance of age) might have been created five minutes ago is irrelevant.

 

The idea that an external world independent of our senses exists is an explanatory hypothesis to organize our senses and experience (especially memory). It is hypothesized to account for the consistency of our memory, our sensory experiences and our linguistic experiences. It is, in a sense, the best explanation. If you define "truth" in terms of the best explanation, then the idea that reality exists is true by definition; if you define truth in terms of that which is epistemologically unavailable, then "truth" is practically meaningless.

[Ouroboros]

Here's a brain-twister addition to the question:

 

Can science be used to answer your question if science can answer everything?

 

Would that answer have to be made outside of science, or should it, or could it, or is it that it has to be done within science?

 

If it's done with science, then it requires that we trust science to be able to answer the question.

 

If it's done outside of science, than that answer is proof that science doesn't answer everything.

 

Hmmm.... Did I totally screw my brain up now? It must've been the beer...

 

*edit*

 

Maybe the problem is, what do we really mean when we say "science".

[chefranden]

Also, rereading the O.P. I see science and religion are identified as being inadequate for "understanding." I think it misses the point of what it means to "understand" something. "Understanding" is a word that has meaning only as applied within the framework of coming up with a hypothesis to explain sense data, since sense data, and our memories and thoughts, which are THE ONLY THINGS WE HAVE ANY ACCESS TO.

 

1. The mind is inherently embodied

2. Thought is mostly unconscious

3. Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

 

This is the framework in which understanding will take place. (The framework belongs to George Lakoff, not me) The science framework to which you refer relies on ignorance – ignoring as much of the noise as possible in order to understand just one bit. That ignoring problem leads us psychologically to suppose that the noise is unimportant. But most of the process of the universe including how we know what we know takes place in the noise not in the bit.

 

Science certainly is exciting, but it has not brought us any closer to the desired result: living in the universe in a way that does not destroy that which keeps us alive and out of misery i.e. living in harmony. We Takers live in cacophony with the universe.

 

We have nothing else except our bodies with which to explore that which is on the other side of our skins, and what is on this side of our skin. What we understand of these things is directly related to our physical structure. Conscious intellect that we hold in such high esteem is at most the tip of the thinking iceberg. Abstract concepts are based on metaphor, and therefore can never be objective in the sense of being absolute. There may be objective absolutes but they are meaningless to humans that are always relative subjects, because that is how we are constructed.

 

I get the feeling that the OP means the word "understand" to apply to a view from "outside" the confines of our sense data. Well OF COURSE science can't get that. Neither can relgion. Nothing can get that. That is what I meant when I said the OP "demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology," and also what I meant about it being "just complaining" and "not any sort of argument."

 

I’m sorry if I’ve misled you in this way. You cannot have a view from outside the body.

 

 

Hi, Chef.

 

Good to see you around again.

I don't have anything to add to

this thread though. Maybe we

can get Cerise to drop by and

give you a few pointers.

Cheffy's back! Cheffy's back!

 

 

Hi Fwee. You are always such a sweety.

[Godless Wonder]

Here's a brain-twister addition to the question:

 

Can science be used to answer your question if science can answer everything?

 

Never claimed science can answer everything. The claim was, science is the only thing which can answer anything reliably. If a method is able to answer something reliably -- that is, predicts future sense data reliably -- it is automatically subsumed by science, and becomes a part of science. If it doesn't predict future sense data reliably, science rejects that method. The way to tell if something is science or not, so far as I can tell, is to ask, "does it reliably predict future sense data?"

 

You're asking the wrong question... what is science is defined by what is answerable. You don't define science first, then say, here's some answers that don't fit into science. If they're real answers, a real way of reliably predicting furture sense data, they're automatically science.

 

Also, rereading the O.P. I see science and religion are identified as being inadequate for "understanding." I think it misses the point of what it means to "understand" something. "Understanding" is a word that has meaning only as applied within the framework of coming up with a hypothesis to explain sense data, since sense data, and our memories and thoughts, which are THE ONLY THINGS WE HAVE ANY ACCESS TO.

 

1. The mind is inherently embodied

I'm not sure what that means.... initially I ignored it for this reason. Looking at the words, "embodied" especially -- is this saying the mind maps 100% to a physical representation? If so, perhaps we're in violent agreement.

2. Thought is mostly unconscious

It's quite clear we're almost 100% ignorant about how the brain works

(but getting better, see IBM's blue brain project,, a though experiment (on a smaller scale) which I (and many others) have often imagined, being made a reality (!!!!!).

3. Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical.

This last one strikes me as being a bit nonspecific and as being, or as being like, typically bad postmodernist use of language. The notion of a saddle shaped surface is abstract, but it's not a metaphor for gay cowboy sex or anything else. This statement is impossibly vague, or it relies on some specific context of which I'm ignorant.

This is the framework in which understanding will take place.

Given my above comments, you can see, understanding is going to need some help. LOL. Or, it is a "framework," which just isn't very useful.

[chefranden]

chefranden, maybe you misunderstand me.

 

When I say, "any talk of science being inadequete demonstrates an ignorance of epistemology," what that means is:

 

1) it is acknowledged that science can't answer everything, or perhaps even questions which are necessary to answer for some "satisfaction" to be had.

 

2) Nothing but science can answer *anything* with answers which can be trusted, or distinguished from made up crap.

 

First let me apologize for starting so cryptically. Been out of the forums so long I forgot to take into account new folks, bad chef. I shouldn’t have just come in and tried to pick up where I left off 8 or 9 months ago without at least a little introduction.

 

I’m interested in this question from Francis Sheaffer, “How shall we then live?” I should have phrased the starting question more fully even for the old timers that may remember my past rants. (I’m sure that Zach is not chef again!) I rephrase.

 

1. If we wish to live sustainably is it adequate to understand the world scientifically?

2. If we wish to live in harmony with nature, is it adequate to understand the world scientifically?

3. If we wish to live in harmony with each other, is it adequate to understand the world scientifically?

4. If we want to take into account the 7th generation, is it adequate to understand the world scientifically.

 

I appreciate your trying to get into my head a bit and I hope that helps clarify a little.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Welcome back to this part of the e.world chef!

 

Missed having you on the Boards. As usual, you've got the thinkers thinking deeply..

 

kevinL

[chefranden]

Science isn't a sacred cow, the point is (I think, as I see it) that science attempts to use and claim as its own all paths to knowledge which aretrustworthy, and ignore and discard those proposed paths which turn out to be untrustworthy (e.g. religion, which, in it's inevitiable demand for faith, makes itself indistinguishalbe from made up lies, or, in many cases, positively identifiable by trustworthy methods as made up lies.)

 

What makes a means of acquiring knowledge "trustworthy." Since all we have to go on is our sense data, what distinguishes trustworthy, reliable methods from untrustworthy ones is their ability to predict future sense data. Nothing else. If X is true, then if I examine Y, then I should observe Z. *checks Y* Hmm, no Z. I guess X isn't true. That sort of thing.

 

Science is trustworthy in the sense that it can tell you how to make a bomb explode when you want it too, or get your space craft to Mars. But I’m not asking if it is trustworthy. I’m asking if it is adequate, adequate to base human life on. When I grew up, the idea of “science for better living” was all the rage. Has science produced better living? I’d say not, at least for the majority of people and the majority of the biosphere of which people are a part.

 

This is where religions fail. The fail utterly to predict future sense data. This is the definition of false.

 

I don’t disagree that religions fail. However, I disagree that this is where religions fail. Religions were never about predicting sense data in any primary sense. Religions are about relationship. (chef hears flame arrows being dragged from quivers all across the land) Before you nock your arrow and set it alight, I’m not talking about a relationship with Jesus or any other modern supernatural being. Religion is about harmonious relationship with the world in which we find ourselves. This is what religions that we know fail at. I don’t think that religions always failed at this though.

 

Any complaint that "science doesn't answer question X." is not really valid. It is not claimed that science can answer every question. It is only claimed that if a question can be answered to any extent by xome trustworthy method -- some method which withstands the test of being able to predict future sense data -- then that method and answer are claimed by science.

 

I’m not asking question X. Nor am I complaining. Most people even religious people, at least in western culture are expecting science to pull our fat out of the fire. “Science will produce some scientific miracle that will make us all better – just be patient. There will be pie on the ground when the time comes around. In the meantime just buy an Ionic Breeze if you want to breathe clean air.” The question is therefore, is science up to the task of pulling our fat out of the fire? I don’t see any reason to suppose so.

 

I’m thinking about Poodle.

[chefranden]

Welcome back to this part of the e.world chef!

 

Missed having you on the Boards. As usual, you've got the thinkers thinking deeply..

 

kevinL

 

 

Thanks Kevin.

[NorthenSun]

Hey, Kenny & Stan, Chef is back, yahoo!!

 

Oh, I guess that is South Park.

 

Well, welcome back anyway, Chef.

 

Never claimed science can answer everything. The claim was, science is the only thing which can answer anything reliably. If a method is able to answer something reliably -- that is, predicts future sense data reliably -- it is automatically subsumed by science, and becomes a part of science. If it doesn't predict future sense data reliably, science rejects that method. The way to tell if something is science or not, so far as I can tell, is to ask, "does it reliably predict future sense data?"

 

You are right on there, Wonder. Everyone who studies philosophy for a while comes to realize that it is mainly a lengthy discussion of questions which are very interesting don’t have a completed or ultimate answer, such as 'why is there not nothing?'. In the ancient world, philosophers were free to cogitate on almost any subject they desired. In the Middle Ages, the study of nature became known as Natural Philosophy. Once people began to realize that they could provide meaningful, verifiable answers to natural phenomenon, such as why the planets tend to move in their strange orbits, it was necessary to move this branch of thinking out of philosophy and create Physics, and the other sciences. This allows the philosophers to retain the notion that their branch of human knowledge is superior because it studies the 'truly' important questions of life.

[chefranden]

An attempt to make Lakoff’s frame of reference clearer

 

1. The mind is inherently embodied.

 

Conception is grounded in a physical body. That is human conceptual systems must use the physical senses acquire information that is consequentially shaped by the way the senses operate and the way they are placed in the world. If for example we could see nearly 360 degrees of the world like a horse does, then our concept of the world would be different, because our visual metaphors would be different.

 

Conceptualization can only take place through the body. Humans have no contact with what is outside of their selves except through their physical systems of contact and interpretation. Therefore concepts are framed and shaped by the physical construction of the human body.

 

Embodied Reason makes use of basic concepts shaped by the functions of the senses and the functions of motor skills as the body learns to move and actually does move in its environment. This is the mode in which humans have the most contact with what is real.

 

Sensual and motor information inform rational inferences. For example we assume that which is best is upright, because we feel best and physically function best in an upright position. If we happened to be rational worms, horizontal metaphors would perhaps predominate instead of vertical metaphors in describing the good.

 

Since our concepts of the world are inferred from our largely unconscious physical contact and interaction with what is out there truth and knowledge are embodied.

 

Because what we know of the physical universe comes from the physical nature of our bodies, the mind cannot be elsewhere then the body. The mind cannot be independent of the body, just as is shown by modern cognitive science. This does not mean that there is no mind, only that there is mind only with a sufficiently functioning body.

 

2. Thought is mostly unconscious.

 

Consciousness is aware of very little of what is happening around us and in us. I think of it like a periscope peeking up out of the larger function of mind. Consciousness can only focus sharply on one thing/idea at a time. You may know your mothers yellow cake recipe by heart, but you are in no way continually conscious of that. The recipe comes easily to you when somebody asks you for it, but the last time you were aware of knowing it was maybe 6 months ago when you made a cake for your dad’s birthday.

 

Most of human thought takes place below the level of consciousness. Typing this post is an example for me. I am consciously aware of the words I want to write while my finger/brain motor system takes care of finding the right letters without any conscious thought needed for the actual typing process. In addition the words I want to write are only appearing to my conscious attention a few at a time giving the impression that they are streaming out of nowhere – or elsewhere, when what is happening is that the words are being delivered to the conscious attention by the subconscious.

 

Consciousness is not capable of managing the whole of this task. If I try to pay attention to where my fingers are going the words I want to write come to me at a much slower pace, and my typing slows down to almost hunt and peck speed. If I try to attend consciously to too many things the whole process will collapse.

 

3. Abstract concepts are largely metaphorical

 

Human reason is grounded in primary metaphor like: Affection is warmth, “she gave me a chilly greeting.” Important is big, “Howard is Mr. Big now.” Happy is up. “I feel on top of the world today.” Intimacy is closeness. “Sally and I are beginning to drift apart.” Bad is stinky. “This deal doesn’t smell right.” Difficulties are burdens, “Jeff was given a crushing amount of paper work in hopes he would quit.” More is up, “That screaming is over the top.” Categories are containers, “Blue is in the electromagnetic spectrum.” Similarity is closeness. “That isn’t the right part, but it is near enough to work.” Linear scales are paths. “Sue’s understanding of our network has gone beyond John’s.” Organization is physical structure, “How does the substance of your argument fit our model?” Help is support, “support the troops.” Time is motion. “Time in prison drags by.” States are locations, “Go to your happy place more often.” Change is motion, “I’m heading towards the poor house.” Personal actions are self-propelled motion, “I think I can swing the new mortgage.” --- and so on. (see Lakoff and Johnson pp.50-54)

 

All of these metaphors can be shown to originate in physical being. Two examples from Lakoff and Johnson:

 

Causes are physical forces

Subjective Judgment: achieving a results

Sensorimotor Domain: Exertion of force

Example: “They pushed the bill through congress.”

Primary Experience: Achieving results by exerting forces with one’s physical body on physical objects to move or change them.

 

Control is up

Subjective Judgment: Being in control

Sensorimotor Domain: Vertical orientation

Example: “Don’t worry; I’m on top of the situation.”

Primary Experience: Finding that it is easier to control another person or exert force on an object from above, where you have gravity working with you.

 

The human is able to project these base physically derived metaphors beyond basic level experiences into more abstract areas of life: science, philosophy, religion and so on. Nevertheless the abstract understanding is always grounded in the mundane.

[pitchu]

It's so wonderful to have you back, Chef. You've been missed!

 

So, would you say that even our vertical orientation, then, is a prejudice in using our vertically-oriented science to address: "what is adequate to understand the world"?

 

(Which would indicate that salmon science might be equally, but horizontally, prejudiced. )

[chefranden]

It's so wonderful to have you back, Chef. You've been missed!

 

So, would you say that even our vertical orientation, then, is a prejudice in using our vertically-oriented science to address: "what is adequate to understand the world"?

 

(Which would indicate that salmon science might be equally, but horizontally, prejudiced. )

 

 

It is prejudice after a fashion.

 

The idea of being prejudiced is politically incorrect according to the present fashion. But it is impossible not to be prejudiced. We are genetically disposed to being suspicious of that which is different. Why? Because it is the safe default.

 

Consciousness itself seems to be a difference detector. It gets highly aroused when a difference shows up. Have you ever had the experience of driving somewhere without really being aware of what you are doing? Most of the driving task was assigned to your subconscious. However, if on the way something odd had happened, a ball rolled into the street, your consciousness would be suddenly paying attention to your driving.

 

With a good bit of effort we can challange a particular prejudgment, but I doubt that we can make ourselves un-prejudiced.

 

The way we veiw the world is directly related to our physical presence in the world including our physical structure.

 

Science is based on consciousness and how consciousness functions. Consciousness, functions necessarily, because of its physical structure, via ignorance. That is consciousness can only pay attention to a few bits at a time while it ignores most of the background. Science is structured like that. Getting rid of the variables is one of its most necessary opperations. Consciousness is only a small part of what we are, though Mother Culture teaches us otherwise. Because Science is constructed on the way the consciousness works, I suspect that science is inadequate for understanding the world.

 

Understanding? Well, how will we live without destroying Mother Earth and ourselves along with her? I'm going to support the Great Prophet Ishmael and say that at one time most people alive knew how to do that. We (our culture) have spent the last 10,000 years doing our very best to forget how, and we have done a damned good job of it. Now most people alive don't know how. There are some left that do, but fewer each year.

[jjacksonRIAB]

Hey Chef!

 

I have come to a conclusion (sort of) that science doesn't have to strictly manage data more than it has to act as a mechanism to determine scaled factors and rank them according their performance within a system. I suppose that's more of a statistical or fuzzy measure, but I would think that a sustainable system that was scientifically managed would have to extoll redundancy rather than preventing it to ensure that the path of information is not obstructed.

 

I think we must be creative as well as analytical. If you jab too many toothpicks into a blob of jello it soon becomes too rigid to be manipulated, and you lose what you tried so hard to gain - an understanding of the nature of X. There is a science to thought. Maybe it's not a matter of it being too complex to understand - maybe it's just too simple to understand, but it has us fooled because it wears the guise of complexity. At first glance fractals, for example, seem very complex when in actuality they are a combination of simple systems -- when you see the complex system it's very difficult to pull the variables back out that created them; encryption systems rely on simple algorithms, but they take great effort to be reverse-engineered.

 

Science can give us a system to break things down, but it's going to be very hard to match the expressiveness of creative thinking -- in its derivation. Variables in nature act more like webs than straight lines. They are very difficult to analyse, and as such the tools to do so are still in their infancy; in the end I would not be suprised if they gain a reputation as being un-scientific.

 

I hope I understood your questions right, but even my attempt at answers aren't adequate enough for me.

 

That means they were good questions ;-)

[NorthenSun]

 

Science is based on consciousness and how consciousness functions. Consciousness, functions necessarily, because of its physical structure, via ignorance. That is consciousness can only pay attention to a few bits at a time while it ignores most of the background. Science is structured like that. Getting rid of the variables is one of its most necessary opperations. Consciousness is only a small part of what we are, though Mother Culture teaches us otherwise. Because Science is constructed on the way the consciousness works, I suspect that science is inadequate for understanding the world.

 

 

I disagree.

 

The brain does indeed operate on many levels, and much of its activity is hidden from the conscious mind. Basic brain anatomy always starts out by describing how various parts of the brain control different activities, ranging from autonomic type responses in the brain stem up to the higher level thinking in the cerebral cortex. Much of the sensory input provided from the body’s nervous system is filtered out from the conscious mind. The sentient mind probably does not have enough physical circuitry to be aware of every sensory input, or every sub level of mental activity all at once. It works out well for the stomach to signal the brain that there is a need for food, but no need to provide every bit of information on how the digestion of the most recent taco supreme is proceeding though the gut. The conscious mind does not need to be notified that insulin production is being raised or lowered to control the level of sugar in the blood stream. Only when there is a failure of a bodily system, such as in a diabetic, does the conscious mind need to assume a role in monitoring blood sugar levels. At times the body even acts to reduce sensory input, such as in the endorphin reaction to defuse the amount of pain resulting from an injury. The question is, does the individual suffer because of this lack of conscious awareness, or ignorance as you label it? Perhaps at times, but in general the answer would seem to be no. If the mind produced a mental world picture which was vastly different from the outside world, it is difficult to see how any organism would survive for a very long. It cannot be established that by operating in a selective input (ignorance) mode the conscious mind results in developing a world view which is radically different from the ‘real’ world.

 

Does this filtering, or ignorance, in the conscious mind act in such a manner that our mental construction of reality is fundamentally wrong? In other words, from the data which does get through to the aware mind, are we building a false picture or model of the ‘real’ world. Certainly we see that mentally ill people construct a different world view based on either incorrect filtering, or on incorrect assembly of the information. But are the ‘normal’ healthy people also building a similar distorted illusion of the world, and how can we find out if this is true? Unfortunately any reasoning process, such as philosophy, science, religion, history, medicine, etc., occurs within our filtered conscious mind, which we have just now put under scrutiny, and thus this leaves us back where we started. This presents a significant stumbling block, somewhat in the vein of Descartes questioning of his own reality and existence. (Not exactly the same because Descartes proposed that the sensory input may be false, while the ignorance position is averting that the input is true, but then being selectively filtered, which in turn results in a false reality.

 

However, there may be another way besides rational thinking. Perhaps the brain has hidden faculties in the unconscious mind that can be tapped into via a mental process such as meditation. Sustained meditation is said to result in the attainment of an altered state of consciousness, through which a different reality may be revealed to the conscious mind. Does meditation actually lead to the revelation of a ‘truer’ reality? Only the individual having this experience can make the definitive judgment for themselves. The reported results of these altered reality experiences certainly do not provide a consistent picture. And it has not been established that the meditative state is not simply connecting to a subconscious thought pattern that is constantly being created within the unconscious mind itself. Thus for the rest of us, the prudent path would seem to be that of the skeptic. The meditative experience has clearly not provided a competitive alternative reality to that of the ‘normal’ view of reality. To date, there is not a repeatable, reproducible alternative reality view which would allow us to conclude that the filtering (ignorance) mode of the conscious mind is producing a false reality.

 

But what about an incomplete picture of reality. This could result from the lack of a full set of sensory equipment. Some animals can see into the infrared or ultraviolet light regions. Bats are able to construct a reality using sonar techniques. And there are people who claim to have psychic or extra sensory powers. Many people believe that ghosts and angels exist. Is the reason that others do not have these experiences because their brains are filtering out this sensory input, and thus leading them to a false picture of reality? One can change his or her belief system, but can one actually begin to experience these phenomena by training one’s mind to be less selective (ignorant)? If these spirits were observable, the lack of observation in one person would seem to be more probably due to a lack of sensory faculty, rather that a blocking or filtering of the data which one does receive. Without more verifiable evidence for the existence of other senses beyond the standard five: sight, hearing, smell, taste, & feeling, it is only prudent to dismiss any extra sensory perception capacity in our minds at this time.

 

My conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable argument to support the position that the selective filtering (ignorance) mode of operation employed by the conscious mind produces a mental reality picture which is significantly different from the ‘real’ world reality.

 

Scientific thinking involves data filtration, but so does any conscious mental activity. The historian does not need to interview every person who lived through the Vietnam War to provide a good summary of what happened there. If a lack of awareness, or ignorance of brain processes, makes us Homo Ignoramus, then we operate ignorantly when conducting any conscious mental discipline that humans pursue. Certainly data filtration can lead to errors in science. Copernicus placed the sun at the center of the solar system, but retained the perfect circular motion of the planets. Kepler’s elliptical orbits fit well with Newton’s gravitation force, but anomalies in the orbit of Mercury resulted in Einstein’s general relativity, of which bright young scientists are ever eager to correct if it proves to be inadequate. Eventually the out of range data points must be explained as measurement error, or noted as possible real phenomena which require more study. Science cannot be singled out or invalidated because it engages in the reductive process of data simplification. Data filtration is a normal brain function.

 

Now, if you want to argue that we tend to see what we want to see, that is a whole other topic. Science has been in the forefront of noting that the planet is warming and we are jeopardizing our future. It is our lack of political will to make the required sacrifices which is keeping us from confronting this problem, and other environmental issues.

[pitchu]

My conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable argument to support the position that the selective filtering (ignorance) mode of operation employed by the conscious mind produces a mental reality picture which is significantly different from the ‘real’ world reality.

 

I guess my question would be, "How significant a difference must there be before there is "unreal" understanding of the world?"

 

Seemingly infinitessimal miscalculations have been known to produce disastrous consequences, no?

[Fweethawt]

I've got this whole thing figured out!

 

My brain doesn't exist!!!

 

muahahahahahahaha!

 

 

*dances away while removing clothing*

[pitchu]

I've got this whole thing figured out!

 

My brain doesn't exist!!!

 

muahahahahahahaha!

 

 

*dances away while removing clothing*

Sure it does, Meecie. Look at your avatar. You're sittin' on it.