"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[Polymath257]

My proposition is that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, and the distinctions between them arbitrary.

I would disagree. A chair exists whether or not anyone sees it or observes it. A planet orbiting another star exists whether or not anyone knows it is there.

That your experiment with boiling water requires an observation to confirm it, whether by one observer or several, does not refute the proposition, it supports it.

yes, to *confirm* it. Not for it to happen.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So this claim of yours can be rejected since it denies its own content.

That is why the scientific method exists, and very strong standards are applied to experiments.

Have you never taken an experimental science course? I did. We learned how to identify and control for variables.

Well, you are not a skeptic like some other variants of that.
So here is how it works. All humans who do have the same cognition as you are not able to have a life at all or be cntent or even happy.
For all of the history of what knowledge is your we is special and outside culture and history as only everbody else are in culture and history.

There are no other version of science even observable, because that doesn't happen at all. All humans are like you for what knowledge and science is.

Well, I never claim I know, yet I am in the same universe as you. And just as there are other like you, there are other like me.

 

[Polymath257]

I think I got a problem with that quote. The quote is based on a materialist assumption.

Not really. It is based on the observation that perception is often wrong. Simple illusions can demonstrate that conclusively.

It goes further and notes that, because perception can be wrong, we have to be skeptical and test our ideas if we want knowledge. And that skepticism and testing is, precisely, the scientific method.

In my philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, Consciousness/Brahman is fundamental and the ultimate reality, but it is not revealed by the tools and methods of science.

That sounds like a liability to me, not wisdom.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Huh?

Evidence for wrong as that some ideas are wrong. How do you know that an idea is wrong as an idea?

 

[gnostic]

Because @F1fan always bring up theists as if they are the only relevant people with "wrong beliefs".
His safe zone is theists.

Wrong beliefs of theists, are those who believe that their scriptures (whether it be Bible or Quran) are books on the “science of nature”.

These theists are more often creationists. I don think @F1fan have any problems with other theists like @Dan From Smithville , @metis, @shunyadragon and other theists who also argued against creationists in regards to nature, whether the subject be about biology, Earth or the universe.

Science (particularly Natural Sciences & Physical Sciences, and ignoring Social Sciences) is religion-neutral, meaning they only cover nature - the natural/physical phenomena & their respective mechanisms. These sciences don’t deal with anything supernatural, because they are ultimately unfalsifiable.

Scientist is a qualified & experienced professional, in respective fields. Being atheist, theist, agnostic or others, these are not professional positions in any scientific field, because atheism, agnosticism and theism have absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences.

 

[Pogo]

I think I got a problem with that quote. The quote is based on a materialist assumption.

In my philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, Consciousness/Brahman is fundamental and the ultimate reality, but it is not revealed by the tools and methods of science.

As a philosophical position that is fine, but if you wish to claim it under the rubric of science and methodological naturalism, you will need to provide evidence that others can confirm.

We have heard numerous variations on your assertion, but seen nothing in support.

 

[George-ananda]

That sounds like a liability to me, not wisdom.

Liability?

 

[shunyadragon]

Liability?

Yes, it is a liability when they are in conflict with science. The "claims" of an ultimate reality from the different religious perspectives is subjective conflicting and inconsistent. Your view may be in harmony with science, but Methodological Naturalism is consistent knowledge of the nature of our physical existence rejected by many "claims" of truth in an ultimate reality from different religious perspectives.

 

[PureX]

This is why you can't be taken seriously. He obviously meant the planet we call earth, not the name we have for it.

I know what he meant. The problem is that he thinks that what he meant somehow matters. And so do you. But without our conscious cognitive awareness of it, it just doesn't. You keep trying to impose this materialist belief of yours that the "objective universe" defines what is and isn't "real" and what does and doesn't "exist" when in fact what defines what is and isn't real and what does and doesn't exist is our own cognitive awareness of it. "I think therefor I am". If I don't think there is no "I" to exist.

You declare him wrong for some semantic strawman.

It's only a "semantic strawman" to you because you (and a couple of your cohorts, here) can't let go of your absolute belief in philosophical materialism and open your mind up to a new way of understanding.

 

[George-ananda]

As a philosophical position that is fine, but if you wish to claim it under the rubric of science and methodological naturalism, you will need to provide evidence that others can confirm.

We have heard numerous variations on your assertion, but seen nothing in support.

That philosophical position comes from the direct experience of those that reached the deepest level of consciousness.

Nobody is claiming 'science' should accept or reject that position. But it argues reality may not be revealed by the tools and methods of science.

 

[George-ananda]

Yes

I was looking for an explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence for wrong as that some ideas are wrong. How do you know that an idea is wrong as an idea?

Well, for example, the idea that there is an elephant in my room is wrong. If there were such an elephant, it would be observable and I don't observe any.

 

[Polymath257]

That philosophical position comes from the direct experience of those that reached the deepest level of consciousness.

And how did you test to be sure confirmation bias was not at work? You had an experience, sure. But how do you know the interpretation of that experience is correct?

Nobody is claiming 'science' should accept or reject that position. But it argues reality may not be revealed by the tools and methods of science.

You have a belief about that experience. How has that belief been tested? How do you know you interpreted the experience correctly? How would you know if you didn't?

The 'methods of science' boil down to testing ideas to see when and how they can fail and to be skeptical because we are all easily fooled.

 

[Polymath257]

Liability?

Yes. If you are not skeptical of your experiences and ideas, that is a liability because we are all subject to confirmation bias.

 

[Pogo]

That philosophical position comes from the direct experience of those that reached the deepest level of consciousness.

Nobody is claiming 'science' should accept or reject that position. But it argues reality may not be revealed by the tools and methods of science.

Yes there are oodles of philosophies and religions that make this claim but none of them have been able to present evidence of this experience to anyone who doesn't already believe in the argument.;

Again, it is nice that you have a hypothesis and you even claim to have personal anecdotal evidence, but it is not science as any one who espouses Advaita Vedanta and practices science will tell you.

 

[sayak83]

My proposition is that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, and the distinctions between them arbitrary.

That your experiment with boiling water requires an observation to confirm it, whether by one observer or several, does not refute the proposition, it supports it.

No it does not. I directly refuted your claim by showing that the phenomenon of boiling of water does not depend on me observing it or not.

 

[sayak83]

Good, then in the strong sense of independent of the mind as in all ascepts independent then something, which is that, is unknowable, because you know in the mind.

Absolutely not. X can have knowledge of NOT-X though X itself can never be not-X. One can certainly have knowledge of the other without being the other. A straightforward example are maps. Maps are Maps of something without being that something. Knowledge is a form of map only.
Similarly X can have knowledge of a Y which is independent of and different from X.

 

[gnostic]

That philosophical position comes from the direct experience of those that reached the deepest level of consciousness.

And which philosophy would that be?

You do realise that there are hundreds of philosophies, today, and hundreds more in the past that are no longer followed?

And more often than not, they disagreed with each other.

Most of them are useless and outdated, while others are very superficial, so “the deepest level of consciousness”, is a bold claim, and also just as superficial.

The problems with most philosophies that their reasoning are often circular, and not at all impartial…if anything their defence on their “school of thought” relied on high degree of confirmation biases.

So which philosophy? Are you only referring to your own philosophy? Isn’t that bias?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

@sayak83 @TagliatelliMonster @Polymath257 @gnostic @F1fan

It has gotten to the point where I can't answer you all.

So here are some points.
Over the years I have come across different people claiming to understand natural science and knowledge.
They have respectivley claimed it being about logical postivism, falsifiable, coherence, pragmatic and a cultural practice.
Now they can't all know because they contradict each other.

Then there are those claim that science is the only form or the best form for knowledge. I have never seen evidence for that.
Then there is the familiy of variants of false ideas. The problem is that ideas are only in the mind, so science can't say that an idea is false.
The same with all those other words which belong to the mind as cogntion or feelings.

And here it is as simple as I can do it. You can point to a cat if you can see a cat. But you can't point to science, knowledge, evidence, truth, logic, reason and all those other words used by you guys.
We are doing cognition and mega-cognition in part besides those parts of our experince which comes to us as objective.

So if you please with evidence for all those cognitive words could give evidence for the true ones, I will listen. Until that happens, I point out that if you started to observe your group for who you are, then you are not an uniform objective group, and you could learn what is known in cultural science as a standard observation: Science as a human behavior is a social construct.

 

[George-ananda]

And which philosophy would that be?

You do realise that there are hundreds of philosophies, today, and hundreds more in the past that are no longer followed?

And more often than not, they disagreed with each other.

Most of them are useless and outdated, while others are very superficial, so “the deepest level of consciousness”, is a bold claim, and also just as superficial.

The problems with most philosophies that their reasoning are often circular, and not at all impartial…if anything their defence on their “school of thought” relied on high degree of confirmation biases.

So which philosophy? Are you only referring to your own philosophy? Isn’t that bias?

Advaita Vedanta

The philosophy of all the many masters/rishis I have come to respect.

They actually say not to take their word for it but to experience yourself and you will know. As this depth of consciousness is not something I’m going to reach for a long time, I take what they say for now as the best hypothesis I have understood.