Life and " Reality ". Making Do

PoorOldPo · 04-24-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

My opinion? It's just a bunch of regurgitated hippie nonsense. When you ingest drugs you are not ingesting ideas or insight - at most it will allow you to recontextualize your currently existing knowledge and emotions.

Thats exactly what I thought when I heard stuff like this before.

Guybrush · 04-25-2012, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

While I think you can make a "working hypothesis" based on science, there are still limitations to its application. The problem with science in relation to philosophy is that science won't say we know anything until we have hard evidence pointing to whatever it is we are curious about.

I don't think this is quite right. It's a well known "fact" you can't prove anything

What you do in science is gather evidence, typically by trying to prove your hypothesis is wrong (attempt to prove null-hypothesis) and then basically building evidence for your case. After all, it typically "only" requires a certainty of 95% or more for an assumption to be accepted as "true".

Quote:

While you and I could probably go back and forth on very specific details and how that relates to life in the bigger picture, it still doesn't answer a lot of the philosophical questions people have. One day, maybe will be have advanced science enough to be able to provide these answers, but for now there is a limit. This is why people aren't satisfied with a scientific answer when they are asking a philosophical question.

At some point, you just have to apply a little faith and I think people might as well put faith in the things that seem the most likely, ie. is supported by the most evidence.

Of course, that's just how I feel and I realize that.

duga · 04-25-2012, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

I don't think this is quite right. It's a well known "fact" you can't prove anything

What you do in science is gather evidence, typically by trying to prove your hypothesis is wrong (attempt to prove null-hypothesis) and then basically building evidence for your case. After all, it typically "only" requires a certainty of 95% or more for an assumption to be accepted as "true".

Yes, of course. I didn't say anything contrary to this. What I am saying is that to get to that 95% certainty, you need some hard evidence. Eventually with philosophy, you have to get too abstract to present any hard scientific evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

At some point, you just have to apply a little faith and I think people might as well put faith in the things that seem the most likely, ie. is supported by the most evidence.

Of course, that's just how I feel and I realize that.

So how far do you think science can go before we consider something as "taking it on faith"? Can it answer what happens when we die? I think most people have a hard time mixing faith and science. Most either take something completely on faith or they stick completely to science. I myself am comfortable learning what I can through science and then extrapolating that to the most logical conclusion in terms of philosophy, but I think most have a hard time doing this. That was my point.

Guybrush · 04-25-2012, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duga

So how far do you think science can go before we consider something as "taking it on faith"? Can it answer what happens when we die? I think most people have a hard time mixing faith and science. Most either take something completely on faith or they stick completely to science. I myself am comfortable learning what I can through science and then extrapolating that to the most logical conclusion in terms of philosophy, but I think most have a hard time doing this. That was my point.

Tying in with the subject of this thread, PoorOldPo is wondering why we are here. Of course, I'd just say we're a consequence of the physical rules that apply to the universe. That elements were created and combined in various ways and at some point created early replicators which, through evolution, eventually gave rise to all the life on our planet. Extrapolating from that, I would think there is no objective meaning to our existence; there was a cause and we're a consequence.

If you start studying this rough idea, you'll find that it is supported in many little ways by present day proof, but we probably won't find fossils of the very earliest replicators. In other words, believing they existed requires a little bit of faith.

I think people who have a hard time having faith in science have either been more or less indoctrinated at some point with competing ideas or they don't understand enough science to make sense of it properly.

duga · 04-25-2012, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Tying in with the subject of this thread, PoorOldPo is wondering why we are here. Of course, I'd just say we're a consequence of the physical rules that apply to the universe. That elements were created and combined in various ways and at some point created early replicators which, through evolution, eventually gave rise to all the life on our planet. Extrapolating from that, I would think there is no objective meaning to our existence; there was a cause and we're a consequence.

If you start studying this rough idea, you'll find that it is supported in many little ways by present day proof, but we probably won't find fossils of the very earliest replicators. In other words, believing they existed requires a little bit of faith.

I think people who have a hard time having faith in science have either been more or less indoctrinated at some point with competing ideas or they don't understand enough science to make sense of it properly.

You use a lot of vague terms and I would say quite a lot of what you mentioned could be considered "scientific faith". I distinguish this from everyday faith because it is a more informed version of faith... Which is exactly where people like us will disagree with people who subscribe to a religion. There is no need to be informed with that kind of faith.

So, in that way I guess I do have faith... Scientific faith. Still, I feel you oversimplify existence to remain within the bounds of your scientific knowledge. You are very much a biologist and it would be clear without me even asking you that you study evolution in some capacity. Just try to remember that there are layers and layers of scientific depth covering many many fields of study. Not everything fits neatly into the idea that we are simply here because the physical laws of the universe just happened to make it so.

C-mo · 04-28-2012, 05:23 PM

Everyone who is self aware, is just trying to make sense of it all.

PoorOldPo · 04-29-2012, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C-mo

Everyone who is self aware, is just trying to make sense of it all.

Yeah. I agree.

Hitch · 05-08-2012, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tore

Tying in with the subject of this thread, PoorOldPo is wondering why we are here. Of course, I'd just say we're a consequence of the physical rules that apply to the universe. That elements were created and combined in various ways and at some point created early replicators which, through evolution, eventually gave rise to all the life on our planet. Extrapolating from that, I would think there is no objective meaning to our existence; there was a cause and we're a consequence.

If you start studying this rough idea, you'll find that it is supported in many little ways by present day proof, but we probably won't find fossils of the very earliest replicators. In other words, believing they existed requires a little bit of faith.

I think people who have a hard time having faith in science have either been more or less indoctrinated at some point with competing ideas or they don't understand enough science to make sense of it properly.

This is how I'd explain it as well

. To me, junk theories or extremely vague ideas which explain little to nothing and without much progress is subject to the razor of Occam. Of course, sometimes the bluntness of science with reasonable evidence backing it up can shake people up. Evolution by natural selection is a prime example - at least in earthly terms (and with some aid from chemistry), it can explain why we are here. That we evolved from a common ancestor and many other animals share our features.

The implication can be terrifying - only those who successfully passed on the genes went on to survive with most others nearing extinction. But this also points to the vast imperfections all around us - that we don't see, hear or smell as well as some other species doesn't make it any less real and are just the consequences of the continuous sculpting process at work. I would certainly focus a lot more of my time on studying the fossil record or the images of the Hubble Space telescope or on improving (read: investing in terms of money) the current scientific framework than to inadvertently carry on along the lines of "to what purpose is all of this".

Guybrush · 05-08-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hitch

This is how I'd explain it as well

. To me, junk theories or extremely vague ideas which explain little to nothing and without much progress is subject to the razor of Occam. Of course, sometimes the bluntness of science with reasonable evidence backing it up can shake people up. Evolution by natural selection is a prime example - at least in earthly terms (and with some aid from chemistry), it can explain why we are here. That we evolved from a common ancestor and many other animals share our features.

The implication can be terrifying - only those who successfully passed on the genes went on to survive with most others nearing extinction. But this also points to the vast imperfections all around us - that we don't see, hear or smell as well as some other species doesn't make it any less real and are just the consequences of the continuous sculpting process at work. I would certainly focus a lot more of my time on studying the fossil record or the images of the Hubble Space telescope or on improving (read: investing in terms of money) the current scientific framework than to inadvertently carry on along the lines of "to what purpose is all of this".

I agree!

Warm welcomes to MusicBanter by the way

FETCHER. · 05-08-2012, 12:52 PM

I was thinking about this last night but I was wasted, I also like to think about astronomy and space quite alot. I don't even remember what I was thinking about but I thought "This is such an interesting subject, I want to do this at Uni"

as I said, I was wasted.

I always also think, what if this is a dream? and we're actually all in an unconscious state. What if something actually has to look after us while we're out? I just imagined that we could be dogs or other animals dreaming of being human.

04-28-2012, 05:23 PM	#16 (permalink)
C-mo Groupie Join Date: Apr 2012 Posts: 11	Everyone who is self aware, is just trying to make sense of it all.