Just as QM observations have led to the Quantum Uncertainty Principle, human observations should lead to a principle which science recognizes that accuracy and practicability are only one end of a continuum which necessarily includes meaning and values on the other end. It doesn't have to change how bridges are built, it just has to begin to acknowledge that the universe isn't only about the behavior of matter.
First off, it's not matter we're talking about. Matter is just a form of energy physics and science deals with matter, energy, and forces.
QM is vastly different from human behavior, and far away from subjective. QM deals with statistics and probability, lacking the ability to (even in principle) predict the behavior of, say, a photon. The same has been done in gas kinets, and is being done with subjective behaviors in sociology as well.
Accuracy and predictability are one end of a spectrum which necessarily includes meaning on values? Pleas show that that's true, rather than arbitrary. Besides, why would science, a method for efficiently excluding meaning and values, be capable of covering both ends of the posited spectrum?
Like the post-Copernican shift from monotheism to empiricism, the recognition of subjective meaning as the very essence of the cosmos while remaining existentially separate will be difficult to accept for most, and most people alive today will probably live out the rest of their lives believing that they don't 'really exist', but I predict that as technologies like Google team up with advanced brain imaging and transcranial magnetic stimulation, we are going to find the 17th century approach to consciousness to be too limiting.
Well duh. We find brain-mapping from ten years ago limiting. In no way did they change their mothedological approach, though.
Please explain your first sentence; it seems to me that you have an insufficiently supported premise. Plus, what's difficult is irrelevant. Nobody believes they don't exist. Maybe they don't imagine consciousness in a similar way to your concept of it, and maybe they're wrong but so what?
Just as micro-characteristics of speed and direction, particle and wave are inseparable (essentially) and mutually exclusive (existentially), our cosmos is to us both objectively particulate, dichotomous, provable-disprovable and subjectively meaningful, mysterious, and precious. This is just a proper accounting of our situation as human beings, not some sentimental wish. Science will recognize the reality sooner or later or it will be reformed into something that will.
I'm sorry but aaargh.
Yes, the first sentence is a nice illustrative analogy which fails because we actually have data indicating that the indeterminacy princinple is an accurate model derived from observation, deduction, experimentation. While subjectivity is solely and demonstrably only within us. You can't call the universe X (meaningful etc) just because seeing the universe as X is important or even constitutive for humans.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm not referring to the scientific method (and I love the scientific method), I'm referring to contemporary science's presuppositions about itself. Science views itself as an agency of reason and that mechanistic reason determines that determinacy constitutes existence. That is it's universal truth - even in the face of it's own proof of indeterminacy, of Heisenberg's Uncertainty, of Gödel's Incompleteness, of Einstein's Relativity, it proceeds by and large to ignore the challenge which full-spectrum reality presents and idle in the comfort of it's own complacency, blameless as a child and as blind as a judge - so like it's ecumenical predecessor, mired in Byzantine self-interest, selling corporate indulgences.
Okay, so its a problem with scientific conduct you have? Science, to me, means "scientific method", and I have been using the terms interchangeably. Sorry for any confusions. I still disagree. You yourself cited well-know limits to reason itself, and there may be others. Of course, what scientists do is what people do, not what science does. Scientists are arrogant, egotistical jackasses to the same degree as everyone else and don't always adhere to scientific method.
What are they to employ other than reason? Where do they claim that all that is not or not easily thought about rationally is irrelevant?
We're at the stage of getting scientists to look through the spyglass and behold the new world. You want me to blueprint corn, tomatoes, potatoes, coffee, cocoa, distilled spirits, tobacco, etc. to make it worth science's attention?
Again, vague descriptions. My entire point is that when scientists look through our current spyglasses, they can't choose what they see. If they don't see consciousness, then they simply don't. If they do, yay! Cool stuff indeed.
I didn't want any blueprints, just a suggestion as to how to modify/enhance the principles of science; falsifiability, experimentation, observation, prediction, repetability, degrees of certainty, etc. I'm not going to change the method with such a record unless I at least see a good reason to do so, and neitheer will anyone else.
A very simplified version would be:
Any scientific model must:
- be falsifiable in principle
- be consistent with repeated observations
- make observable predictions that would not have been possible without it
That's already extremely simplified. Now a scientist can come up with a model in any way
: intuition, guessing, consulting an oracle. Logic and math have proven particularly useful yet - as you said - limited. Now that model has to
run the gauntlet in order to be scientific; failure of falsifying, its predictions tested, comparison with observations, and only finally applicability.
Don't get me wrong, this methods aren't necessarily perfect (just like democracy), and there is no reason whatsoever to change it until the method can be demonstrably improved or there's at least a good reason to think it could (I won't change democracy until I have at least a concept of a system that might work better, even if it's only a single law).
My question about methodology pertains to the one above: how would we adapt that methodology to things that are not repeatable? How to deal with things that aren't consistent/deterministic in themselves other than through statistics? How would we make observable predictions? Without you presenting a clearer other than basically "science should be more open", I maintain that changing science to deal with such things would necessarily change it to something altogether different.
Start by establishing a triangular trade route between genetics, internet-augmented reality, and neurofeedback to create alchemically informed intersubjective experiences which will largely replace the need for industrial production. Help the world transition from an economy modeled on material scarcity to one of participatory value.
That, again, is the application and economic viability of technology, and has nothing to do with scientific methodology.
Wouldn't intersubjectivity be just a way to view that which seems subjective now objectively, i.e. improve the microscope?
I'm still fuzzy on what you mean by alchemy, unless it's a metaphor.
I think that the stagnation of art is just another manifestation of the stagnation of the SEW. Change the worldview, and the art will change at the same time.
I don't see how the pace at which art progresses is any indication of science rather than culture, including science, but also politics, economy, social structures, etc.
Also, the sheer amount and diversity of art produced is staggering. If popular culture seems limited, dull, and generic, it's because of economic aspect; people consume what they want, and they mostly want what they already know. Newly developed distribution channels facilitate the process; but that's technology again.
Have you seen what passed for art in the middle ages?
I was just trying to point out that the soul of science is mathematics - which is a pure Platonic teleological abstraction, which, like Jesus, is in the world but not of it.
The soul of science? I would be thankful if you stopped using such vague metaphors.
I'd argue that math is of the world (a descriptive tool developed by humans) but not in it (the reality that said tool describes).
In any case, what follows from that? It can still very much be applied to the real world, and if it doesn't it'll be reinterpreted or scrapped. Much like Jesus.
The purpose of science is to inform curiosity. It has no other purpose. When it becomes unable to muster a curiosity boner then it ceases to be science.
The purpose of science is the production of models which serve as accurate analogies to reality. It is used to inform curiosity just as much as it's used to sell shampoo or win a war.
I don't get your last sentence. I just informed you that it's not that scientists don't want to deal with consciousness and the like, it's that it's hard, and there are technological as well as mathematical limits to what can be done, as well as self-imposed ethical limits to experimentation. If Columbus didn't have his expedition paid for (or if he had missed the new world, or it hadn't been there at all) would it have been for lack of trying?
Research into consciousness is underway. it's just that it's freaking hard, and I have heard nothing from you to suggest you know how to accelerate it. Sure, that's not your responsability, but then what are we arguing about? "Make science better?" Sure, I can get behind that. "Make it espouse alchemy?" Sure, if it works.
The SEW is what is determining that the universe is deterministic, not the universe.
What? If everything in science points to the universe being deterministic (which is not actually proven), then what of it? Science didn't set out to find determinism and interpret all the data in such a way that allow for determinism. It would have violated its own guidelines.
The universe presents a full-spectrum continuum of subjective and objective phenomena - even the objective phenomena is turning out to be a rat's nest of probabilities which are, by there very nature, indeterminate.
The latter is actually a property of the current scientific models, not necessarily of the universe. Probabilistic determinism is still determinism.
We are discovering that the universe and consciousness are essentially the same thing (but existentially very different, of course). I'm saying that science is right now ignoring what it has found out, and it is limiting itself (like any entrenched politicized institution) to what it can find out which doesn't have adverse effects on itself.
Where, and when has science (as opposed ot individual scientists) even remotely asserted that universe and consciousness are the same thing? Where is the basis, the evidence, the hypothesis/theory, especially since you yourself are saying that science can't adequately deal with consciousness?
What, specifically, has science found out that would even be consistent with such a statement other than conjuring magic/alchemy/Jesus?
Then we learn that optical illusions are more real than carts and in fact are their sole source of locomotive power.
So I see something which I have no proof for and conclude that it's more real than everything I have proof for?
We don't have data to support the existence of consciousness.
Yes. Your point?
Who says that science has a choice in what it can work with? (Rhet again) Consciousness is what we have. Science MUST work with it sooner or later (or something else will - something torch bearing with a fondness for pitchforks I imagine).
My point exactly. Science will and does work with consciousness. But you can't jump from taxonomy to genetic manipulation in a few years.
It will work with anything that it's given, even subjectivity (although with complex systems and questionable evidence it'll only get so far). Again: scientists are not failing to try. They do not ignore data that isn't yet there, they'd be happy to work with bionic intersubjectivity. They would love technology that allows the mapping of brains ten times more precise that what they have to work with.
But the data isn't there (yet). What makes you think the're not trying (and partially succeeding) in gathering it?
The very amorality of science you lament would indeed favor every scientific discovery with the least chance of being applied in warfare, marketing, the market, or anwhere else. What do you mean by epistemological fascism? What is science, a giant conspiracy?
Our existence is objectively pointless. That's hardly news, and in no way related to science. We die. Everybody who remembers us will also die or forget.
I'm not projecting the need for the current revolution backward. I think that the SEW has done a superb job of transforming civilization up through the last 30 years, it's just that now it needs an upgrade. [/quote]
Please explain how that pertains to my paragraph.
The SEW isn't a conspiracy but it's contemporary denial of the plain facts of meaning in our own lives and the life of our civilization, how that meaning works, who we are and why we exist has become an obstacle for humanity which must be overcome with or without science.
The existence of meaning is not a fact.
Our use of the concept of meaning is.
The latter is accessible to scientific methodology (descriptively), while what you want science to do seems to be to deal with the former (prescriptively).
Epistemological fascism is a good phrase to describe a set of criteria which disqualifies all sources of knowledge which it deems weak - great for bridge building, but flawed as a principle of general understanding.
On which basis would you decide which sources of knowledge aren't weak? "Epistemological fascism" is the
reason why science works at all. Filtering out all that crap. Sometimes it's falsely applied, and it needn't have the perfect set of criteria, but it's not like it's done without a clearly understood reason, and in fact often very loosely applied to scientists' pet theories/hypotheses.
Scientific geniuses ARE humorous. Ridicule and wit are instructive tools to reveal self-evident truths, to arrest recursive and non-productive neurological processes which can bog down insights in trivial distraction, they can assist in statements of the problem and conclusion aspects of the scientific method in particular.
Yes, and that has nothing to do with scientific methodology. As I stated above, you can throw dice to come up with a new model, as long as you test it. You can ask the stars, and then compare the predictions to reality. That's been done, in fact.
The Jumping Jesus Phenomenon
How does that pertain to my question? Specifically, how does that support your opinion rather than mine? YIf you have exponential growth of Jesuses, you still only have Jesuses
. You don't suddenly wind up with Richard Nixon.
Likewise, the amount of knowledge accumulate every year can be vast without necessarily providing fundamentally new technology. Much of it will "just" be minimizing error margins.
The failure is in it's lack of curiosity to look beyond itself, which, as I said earlier, is and should be the one and only defining principle of science: truth seeking.
As stated, science is hard. Scientists are not all over neurology but somehow disinterested in consciousness.
The methodology of scientific consensus is important, sure but before there can be consensus, there is curiosity.
I am unaware of the methodology of scientific consensus. Please explain.
The reason it has is not important. What matters is that science is driving this bus and it has become fixated on the sound of the engine rather than the screaming passengers and the pieces of tire flying on to the highway.
Another vague analogy. What's the screaming, what's the tires? What's the reason for thinking science is not the bus, with politics and economics at the wheel?
Consciousness is neither unobservable nor arbitrary, it is the precise opposite. Consciousness is the agent of all observation and all meaning - according to science, the inexplicable and virtually unmentionable source of all-that-is-Not-arbitrary.
I was actually referring to morality here. Consciousness is indeed observable, just not directly, and as I said previously, describing a complex system is just hard.Just because consciousness perceives doesn't mean it's the source of what it perceives.
Also, please not that there's a definite distinction between me seeing a ball fall to the ground everytime I throw it and thinking it right to do so. One's a non-arbitrary and objectifiable perception, the other my interpretation made by a mind/brain shaped for survival, not enlightenment.
Not saying that anything that science wants to prove it shouldn't try to prove, but it should also recognize that meaning and proof are both equally valid, but they need to be treated differently.
No, they're both equally important. To us, subjectively.
The anti-God of the SEW is the towering observation hub of the panopticon of modern life. Like God and religion, it holds itself exempt from all ethical circumscription and stands in judgment of all phenomena.
If it does, at least it has something to back it up.
And for the last time: science only works because it's amoral, like math, the English language, logic, empiricism, trial-and-error. Ethics has to be applied after the fact.
It's rigid bias toward the mechanical and inanimate side of nature is the mirror image of deity. Freewill is subsumed, not in the name of incomprehensible divine will but in the name of a completely comprehensible but meaningless universal will that is literally the automated absence of will - a projection of the self's opposite.
So ... a rigid bias toward what seems to be true? Let's assume that free will exists and go from there instead?
It's the same view as religion but seen from the other end of the camera. Instead of seeing ourselves projected onto the universe as God, we deny the existence of the self and let the universe project us as illusion.
Yeah, you know, I haven't met one of these people who deny their own self, let alone posit that we're less real than the universe.
We may be illusion to the universe, but who cares, we don't have a universal perspective, we're just human beings. We care if we live or die - we can't help it, we shouldn't help it, it's all that we are.
What we should and shouldn't do is in no way connected to what can and cannot be done. I don't want to die. That has to do with science how?