Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Explain How QM Agrees With "Objectivity" Please.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Luis Hamburgh on September 2, 2002 04:39:07 UTC

Harv,

Ongoing neurological studies suggest that when we think, we actively consider some phenomena, and we retrieve other phenomena from locations whence we previously "filed away" 'thoughts.' These same studies indicate that "beliefs" are filed away, whereas "discovery" consists of active consideration.

Even more revealing is the comparison of the test subjects. Those with higher intelligence do a lot more "discovering," and those whose intelligence tests register lower rely a lot more on "filed away" stuff.

Take from this what you will; it's beginning to look a lot like that won't be much.

However, I fully agree that everyone has fixed, "filed away" concepts. But splitting our relation to reality into ontology and epistemology is presuming metaphysical objectivity. We recognize the processes that constitute our minds, though we are a far cry from fully explaining thought.

(Sorry my arguments aren't better tonight, but I spent my energy on the Stick Dafford, PhD thing above). Maybe I should just assert "False" and be done with it.)

Of course, to you this is all just "psychologism," which kind of sounds like psychology (though conceptually not exactly in the same ballfield), but a bit of a stretch when directly compared to psychiatry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>"***QM says that there are no such things as OBJECTS. Hello?*** False."

No backing up of this one? Are you basing this upon Yanniru's latest commentary? Please explain to me how QM defines "objectivity."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>"it isn't even necessary to consider A6."

It isn't? I've tried to clarify that A1 through A5 were an umbrella representation of some conceptual basis for "objectivity." Did you not see this, or are you waiting for Yanniru's help to further dive into that cunning response of "False"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>"Your arguments A2 thru A5 were all faulty,"

You did not read my last post. Obviously you don't read much into my posts before reacting. My arguments A1 through A5 may have been direct quotes from Jabberwocky, but the point was:

Givens that ultimately cast doubts upon themselves are not givens after all.

It seems that all givens might share this dubious property. So, how do we deal with these "givens"? My suggestion is that we do our best to prevent cognitive phenomena from becoming fixed mental paradigms.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>"This is supposed to be your argument spelled out that should effectively lead toward your position."

The steps represented a progression, not a static set of beliefs. I.e., while it's close to my own personal journey, it is a representation of how I arrived at agnosticism. If you'd built a shed on top of a platform on top of a building on top of a mountain, and then the mountain crumbled, you would hope I wouldn't come along and ask why your shed is falling apart, would you? ("How did you get into this shaky position?") The important point is, at some juncture I stepped back and questioned what I'd previously accepted.

(Looking for my dog again...)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>"it is simply a matter of brute fact that we are required to make ontological commitments."

Really? A philosopher accepts something, unquestioningly? What would Hilary Putnam say???

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>"I deny true objectivity."

Then why the definitive "False" above? Are you in disagreement with QM or not?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>"Let me ask you again Luis, 'how do you know that your (bias) is an absolutely correct bias?' Do you realize that your failure (or unwillingness) to answer this basic question fully undermines your arguments?"

Maybe you're onto something! Maybe you've found the key question to expose all those fraudulent agnostics out there! And maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Oh, but if someone as great as Socrates were around to answer your obtuse questioning of agnosticism. But, it is late, and that last thing I made up (picking on Stafford) drained my creative juices.

I'll get back to you when my dog has healed a bit.

-LH

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins