|
I apologize for not directly answering your post. So many people post in every thread that the personal exchanges often get lost in the process. So I will try to respond to the initial departure of our thinking as summarized by the following quote from your post:
"Here you lose sight of the situation. You can only "detect" or "sense" things which are part of your mental image of reality. To suggest that you can perceive anything directly from the source is to deny the existence of the pipeline. To break this you must show a way of directly knowing reality without using your perceptions. Dark matter is part of your mental image; motion of stars is part of your mental image; mass and energy are entities defined in your mental image.
Thus it is that the output of the pipeline is what is "detectable reality", and I agree, it may be but a small fraction of what really exists. What really exists is the source of the pipeline!
By confusing the two ends of the pipeline, you confuse what I am doing. Certainly my design of an analytical pipeline is a completely adhoc step. I have created a mental image from the output of the pipeline by defining Set #2 to be events in a four dimensional space. This may be a very simple minded and some might believe a worthless mental image of reality but it is a mental image none the less. Once one has a mental image of reality, then one can begin to talk about "Detectable' reality" and "properly designed experiments". These things can only occur within a mental image. Before one can design an experiment, one must understand the mental image being used. "
The scientific method strives to determine a common mental image that all scientists (at least) agree upon. This is part of the process of minimizing the pipelins effects. Obviously our various pipelines influence our thinking. I can see from the above quote that we have a semantic problem as well as a conceptual problem. That is a pipeline effect. Science tries to deal with such effects for example by being very careful about word definition for instance.
But my point about your work is much more basic. The point is that the whole approach of experimantal science is the minimize pipeline effects. By claiming that pipeline effects are everything, you are doing science a disservice.
I could go on in consideration of everything you say. But I would prefer that you address the point that science, if it works at all, must attempt to minimize the distortions introduced by the pipeline. If we cannot agree on that point there is no basis for further discussions.
But I have hope that there is a basis for common agreement from this portion of the above quote: "Once one has a mental image of reality, then one can begin to talk about "Detectable' reality" and "properly designed experiments". "
Science, especially physics, has developed a common mental image of reality as a basis of experimental technique. But you talk as if one does not exist. That is precisely the disservice to science.
I notice that you are contributing to the Yahoo WEDconsciousness group. I will refrain from replying to your posts there out of curtesy(sp?) to you. I think you would prefer a fresh set of opinions without my replies influencing their pipelines.
Sincerely,
Richard
|
