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
More Like "Lost In Translation"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aurino Souza on September 29, 2003 20:45:39 UTC

I would disagree to some extent with this position Aurino. Many scientists simply don't think it is relevant to their work if our senses are wrong. The whole philosophy of empiricism is that we are guided only by what is observable. To be observable doesn't mean that it must be real, and to be real doesn't mean it is observable.

You are correct, I didn't put it the right way.

Now, metaphysicians (philosophy) care about sensory perceptions in terms of what this means about the world. Dick is a metaphysician and thinks like a metaphysician and that is why he cannot understand why science has absolutely no interest in his work.

I came to believe that Dick understands very little about anything. You take it for granted that understanding what people say is trivial, when in fact it's an enormously difficult task some people just don't have the mental apparatus to handle.

Can you imagine living in a world where everyone seems to talk the way Alan does? Believe me, some people perceive the world just like that. The gap between gibberish and meaning can only be filled by the listener, and some listeners just don't have that ability.

I didn't say the problem was not solvable. I only say it is far from solvable.

I'd say it's far from solvable on a conscious level, since you don't know how to do it. On a subconscious level, though, it's so simple any child can do it.

However, this does not mean that we should accept fanciful metaphysics such as Dick's approach, or the advice of people who should be receiving medication for a serious mental illness disorder. Many brilliant minds are working in projects involving the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind. These problems are difficult to solve since most likely there are key theories that we lack. If we had those theories, then maybe we might have a better understanding on how learning a first language is possible or how it is that we can conceive of things without a spoken language, etc. Of course, this kind of talk I realize has irritated you in the past.

I don't know exactly what irritated me in the past, but I can tell you that getting a glimpse of Dick's mind has been quite an experience for me. I don't disagree with anything you said in the paragraph above, but I'm not sure I can explain myself so you can agree with me.

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 1994-2020 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