This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
From the other thread...
I'm not sure what the relevance is of whether I ignore these first person experiences, or whether I consider them deeply. These experiences - if indeed they really happened rather than being apocryphal - are nice stories but they don't form the substance of scientific description of the world. Once we have an effective description, it becomes irrelevant to its veracity how it came into being. Whether it was the product of hours of dreary committee meetings and hard graft or whether it sprang into being through a Eureka moment is neither here nor there (though the latter makes a nice story). What makes the description effective (or "true" in shorthand) is whether it has explanatory power and whether it makes correct predictions.
Don't you think there must have been an awful lot of Eureka moments that when their miraculous output was put to the test of fitting all the known the data and making accurate predictions, turned out to be not so great after all and the false alarm was consigned to the dustbin of history?
It would be rather strange of me to dispute that works of art exist in the external, objective reality, wouldn't it? But while science attempts to break free from the internal conscious world of the individual and describe instead the external world, art attempts to express the internal conscious world of the artist in an external, physical realisation. When we experience art, our own conscious internal world is affected by the conscious world of the artist, through their creation in the physical world. Certainly a neat trick that humans have come up with!
Well yes, but you've misunderstood if you think that such a conversation meets the same standards of defining what exists in the external world as the practice of science. When I said we "check our experiences and that we're talking about the same thing", I was figuratively describing the process of conducting experiments which confirm or falsify theories - you're talking literally! You have very laid-back standards of checking what's out there in the world, a chat amongst friends about what you felt is fine. Scientists are a bit more uptight about these things, we require that nature shows us in a consistent, repeatable manner, not dependent on the observer whether or not a thing we're unsure about exists or not. This is what we mean by "checking". It's not just a chat over a cup of tea.
Yes it was unpredictable. All manner of other things could have happened and I'd not have said that. It's very likely that I'll stick to it. But in no meaningful sense is every detail laid out in advance.
No it isn't a fluke. Quantum mechanics makes very accurate predictions about how certain things will behave. But it cannot predict the exact behaviour of every particle, it can only give probabilities that each particle will do certain things (because it can't even say where every particle is at any time). As such, it doesn't provide for the clockwork determinism of Laplace and his demon; the world is not "strictly" deterministic. That said, the world still moves along without intervention from anything other that the interaction of particles with one another, organised into molecules, cells and organisms, doing their respective things.
I can't - because they're in your head. Part of your internal conscious world, not part of the objective external reality.
> I think you ignore lots of first person experiences which are part of external objective reality, regardless of whether I consult anyone else to see if they agree. I'm thinking of 'eureka moments'. Archimedes and his overflowing bath...
I'm not sure what the relevance is of whether I ignore these first person experiences, or whether I consider them deeply. These experiences - if indeed they really happened rather than being apocryphal - are nice stories but they don't form the substance of scientific description of the world. Once we have an effective description, it becomes irrelevant to its veracity how it came into being. Whether it was the product of hours of dreary committee meetings and hard graft or whether it sprang into being through a Eureka moment is neither here nor there (though the latter makes a nice story). What makes the description effective (or "true" in shorthand) is whether it has explanatory power and whether it makes correct predictions.
Don't you think there must have been an awful lot of Eureka moments that when their miraculous output was put to the test of fitting all the known the data and making accurate predictions, turned out to be not so great after all and the false alarm was consigned to the dustbin of history?
> Also, when we consider personal experiences of authors and composers by looking at the world of literature and music other matters concerning reality come into play. It might be pure fiction that Mr Scrooge existed and so never had any visions. Dickens made it all up. But look at the results in our social interaction with each other. Again, does it really matter if the Good Samaritan never existed? And Beethoven's 9th Symphony isn't dependent on him asking questions of others. It is still something which exists in reality, like a cathedral or a painting by Turner.
It would be rather strange of me to dispute that works of art exist in the external, objective reality, wouldn't it? But while science attempts to break free from the internal conscious world of the individual and describe instead the external world, art attempts to express the internal conscious world of the artist in an external, physical realisation. When we experience art, our own conscious internal world is affected by the conscious world of the artist, through their creation in the physical world. Certainly a neat trick that humans have come up with!
> When I talk with fellow Christians I am talking about common experiences with them. So it is not an experience unique to me although I initially experience it alone. We agree that we are talking about the same thing.
Well yes, but you've misunderstood if you think that such a conversation meets the same standards of defining what exists in the external world as the practice of science. When I said we "check our experiences and that we're talking about the same thing", I was figuratively describing the process of conducting experiments which confirm or falsify theories - you're talking literally! You have very laid-back standards of checking what's out there in the world, a chat amongst friends about what you felt is fine. Scientists are a bit more uptight about these things, we require that nature shows us in a consistent, repeatable manner, not dependent on the observer whether or not a thing we're unsure about exists or not. This is what we mean by "checking". It's not just a chat over a cup of tea.
> You say, "What happens to me in my life is determined by the interaction of my genes with my environment. So it's just a matter of things taking their course, but it's all unpredictable due to the probabilistic rather than deterministic way in which physical matter works." I ask; was it unpredictable that you should make such a claim? And is it determined that you should stick to it?
Yes it was unpredictable. All manner of other things could have happened and I'd not have said that. It's very likely that I'll stick to it. But in no meaningful sense is every detail laid out in advance.
> You say that a Quantum Mechanic makes predictions which are correct every time. But is this just a fluke, a lucky guess, or must it have been correct regardless of the Mechanic? Is all he's done is state the inevitable? If so it looks like the world is a deterministic place so you haven't answered my question about what you mean when you say it isn't "strictly" deterministic.
No it isn't a fluke. Quantum mechanics makes very accurate predictions about how certain things will behave. But it cannot predict the exact behaviour of every particle, it can only give probabilities that each particle will do certain things (because it can't even say where every particle is at any time). As such, it doesn't provide for the clockwork determinism of Laplace and his demon; the world is not "strictly" deterministic. That said, the world still moves along without intervention from anything other that the interaction of particles with one another, organised into molecules, cells and organisms, doing their respective things.
> I can hear the Angels crowding in.
I can't - because they're in your head. Part of your internal conscious world, not part of the objective external reality.
In reply to Jon Stewart:
Seems to me that self consciousness is the key here. We are successful as a species because we have highly developed self consciousness, we can put ourselves in the other fellows shoes ( or species tracks - we can guess what they will probably do next, we can plan, we can negotiate and organise.)
This comes at a price - the price of being conscious that we are alone. Art - and religion before it - reminds us, comforts us that may not be as alone as we think.
Seems to me that self consciousness is the key here. We are successful as a species because we have highly developed self consciousness, we can put ourselves in the other fellows shoes ( or species tracks - we can guess what they will probably do next, we can plan, we can negotiate and organise.)
This comes at a price - the price of being conscious that we are alone. Art - and religion before it - reminds us, comforts us that may not be as alone as we think.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...