Friday, July 20, 2012

Natural Science and Philosophy

Some comments posted recently;
 

New Humanist (http://newhumanist.org.uk/2841/ending-the-wedge);

Agreed. But the problem is unfortunately on both sides. We need to separate philosophy from natural science.

Materialism is a philosophical position, and not a scientific one. Let's state our terms and run with them. Clearly.

Here are some starting points for those concerned;

- There is no empirical evidence for two universes, let alone an infinite number of them. Furthermore, if another universe is non-observable by definition, then it can and will never constitute a scientific hypothesis. There are thousand year old debates regarding first cause, predictive power, observed-to-predicted-number-of-elements-ratio; all far more advanced than your average "cosmology" pass off.
- don't down play zombie arguments. Just because we have no less reason to believe another person than ourselves on this matter, doesn't mean that the logical possibility is beyond rational thought. Find a monkey that doesn't believe in itself. An evolutionary by-product to benefit our survival perhaps - but we all believe in it - yes believe.
- observed probability in nature is not equivalent to "random chance" (this is a subtle but real philosophical position) - and we certainly don't have any "random chance" without law - we have zero chance
- we have no reason to accept the scientific method applied without first accepting non-physical abstract objects (logic included) - again this speaks against philosophical manipulation of scientific theory that claims to be able to prove otherwise (circles are real)

And for the people who probably won't read this blog;
- The book doesn't say it all happened at once
- and I would swear it mentions something about a light, and an alternative cosmological principle - the modern one

I like to think that if you didn't have philosophical absurdity paraded as science, then you wouldn't have "creationism".


The Daily Beast
(http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/08/how-the-higgs-boson-posits-a-new-story-of-our-creation.html);

Science and Philosophy;

: Excuse us, but the author is quite mistaken. This is science not philosophy.
:: Philosophy is just science for people too lazy to do experiments and research.
::: No science relies upon philosophical presuppositions like causality, logic, and the empirical method (it cannot hypothesise regarding that which cannot at least in theory be disproved by observation).

Paranormal Activity;

If paranormal activity could be documented in a repeatable fashion, then it wouldn't be paranormal - it would constitute scientific data.

But you raise an interesting question regarding that which cannot be confirmed by empirical method. Is sense of self only physical (an evolved belief to benefit our survival), or does our brain's belief in itself as an observer correspond (map) to something else beyond neural activity? If you think this is a silly question, then add it to your presupposition list.

Mythology;

Monkeys don't wake up in the morning and decide to wear ties. Things take time. Generally the reason this has involved religious belief, is the same as that why we prefer not be monkeys. Even the Greeks came to their systems of values in this way. Mythology laid the groundwork for modern civilization. Yet even civilization is not everything it is cut out to be.

"God" as a definition;

"God" is generally defined as the cause of the universe, or the "first cause" as Aristotle put it. I believe he claimed an infinite regression of causes implies there is no cause.


"Why We Believe in Gods" - Andy Thomson - American Atheists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg);

The physical development of mind and its corresponding time scales, being viewed from a human perspective, are otherwise irrelevant and cannot be used to judge/negate intentionality in creation/evolution. The 'hijacking' of such evolutionary developments [by religion] is therefore quite possible. Yet human civilisation and culture (including the speaker's tie) are perhaps more profound examples of the hijacking of evolved cognitive processes, including in particular those related to our sense of self

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

The parable of the frog

A frog visits a new tadpole bowl and thinks all of the young frogs there are insane. This view doesn't take too well- Of course the young frogs do their statistical calculations and discover its opinion must be incorrect- it doesn't represent the majority. Democracy runs well in this bowl, and they pride themselves on it. What could be more sick and unfavourable than an unpopular opinion? Why, reason is against it - how couldn't it be?

Some of the more meditative of frogdem can't seem to work out, why are all of the tadpoles dying? Frenzies break out religiously. Other frogs are even throwing out their eggs. A tadpole beats its chest saying to itself I am a terrible tadpole - I can't seem to swim right - it's all my fault.

Had they not realised frog induced bowlal warming had brought temperatures literally out of this water. The environmental management brought by their civilisation- the ancient pod we revere them- was naught to be seen. In fact, they had evolved at lower temperatures than this.

What would Frogger do? That is not the question. It is what would he..

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Sydney Bus Advertisement #2

[Insert Berle Sydney Bus Advertisement #2 here]

Abortion is bad. Contraception is bad. Drugs are bad. Violence is bad.

Ever wondered why no one takes you seriously?

And this is not even objectification. It is apparent objectification. [Obscenity Warning:] It is completely natural to subconsciously want to create as many offspring as possible with an apparent object (even disregarding someone as a person in the process). Do your homework and read the science (if you are that out of touch with reality and need to be held by the hand).

This is why society invented clothing (or has maintained the evolutionary by-product) - because it is surprisingly conducive to higher order consciousness. Buy a fast car. In fact it is required once standardised, and so affects expectation (perception). Listen to your ipod. Psychologists are quite happy to study basic instinct, only have their research completely disregarded, or manipulated for commercial ends. This is assuming they don't recommend we return to our pre-historic state. Whatever you do, for heaven's sake, don't come to terms with yourself.

The trick is to keep one's gender specific advertisements (however incomprehensible) out of public, and off public property.

Wednesday, July 4, 2012