What is life?

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Familiar with the prejudice or falsity of what scientific axiom?

The axiom of a single perpetual truth for instance, the axiom to the effect that scientific laws apply universally and perpetually.

This is at odds with ordinary human experience; and not even confirmed by scientific research; everything changes, and there is no way to measure anything without affecting that which you measure, and this is the current thinking of respected physicists, not a poetic rambling.

They struggle endlessly to make it all fit together only to be cheated at the last minute by some irksome little particle that refuses to behave itself.

"I could be bounded in a nutshell, and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams."

(Hamlet: Act II, Scene II)

--- RH.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

The axiom of a single perpetual truth for instance, the axiom to the effect that scientific laws apply universally and perpetually.

This is at odds with ordinary human experience; and not even confirmed by scientific research; everything changes, and there is no way to measure anything without affecting that which you measure, and this is the current thinking of respected physicists, not a poetic rambling.

They struggle endlessly to make it all fit together only to be cheated at the last minute by some irksome little particle that refuses to behave itself.

I am still not understanding you. What is it about the scientific axiom "An object released in midair without other intervention will fall to the ground" that is prejudiced and false? More, what is it about this axiom that is "at odds with ordinary human experience"? That you invoke quantum mechanics to make a point about "ordinary human experience" is only stating the obvious, but the implications and palpable effects of quantum mechanics are indeed not "at odds with ordinary human experience". Or are Hiroshima and Nagasaki unknown to you? Of course there are metaphysical speculations in science, String Theory among them; but even with such speculations, there are elements of predictability and repeatability that provide ponderable assessment to their claims. Or is their heuristic value a problem for you? I'm afraid that resorting to poetry and insisting it isn't poetry and citing Shakespeare to affirm a point is not on that account a reasoned rejoinder. Help me here: What is it about gravity, Coriolis, Doppler effect, Boyle's Law, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and a host of other hum drum quotidian phenomena which prompts you to say that they are prejudiced and false? Because to do so serves your weltanschauung of karma and Eastern theistic belief?

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

I am still not understanding you. What is it about the scientific axiom "An object released in midair without other intervention will fall to the ground" that is prejudiced and false?

That is an observation. If you observe that something falls to the ground a thousand times it is then a reasonable conjecture that on the next occassion it will do the same. That is indeed how it seems to work. Believe it or not, we had already noticed.

If you then intend to go on to suppose that the very same principle of gravity operates in the same way for all time, in the entirety of the known Universe if not beyond, then I demand to be told how you would hope to know so. That is what they did with the flat Earth. It looked flat enough for as far as they could see or imagine, so they assumed that it was flat forever.

And what then is gravity? Gravity is a belief akin to God and the Human Self, said to be known by what it does rather than what it is, an invocation of the principle of reverse causality.

NoAngst wrote:

More, what is it about this axiom that is "at odds with ordinary human experience"? ...... Of course there are metaphysical speculations in science, String Theory among them; but even with such speculations, there are elements of predictability and repeatability that provide ponderable assessment to their claims.

I have no problem with predictablity or repeatability. To the contrary, that is exactly how I think of what is usually called a truth, in terms of probability.

An axiom on the other hand is anything but a matter of predictablity. It is something supposed to be absolute and taken completely for granted, a limit even to what you may well call the metaphysical speculation of science, equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God, and serving the very same purpose in most respects, to provide a sense of parental security, notwithstanding the perplexity that the unfortunate victim would otherwise be subject to.

--- RH.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

That is an observation. If you observe that something falls to the ground a thousand times it is then a reasonable conjecture that on the next occassion it will do the same. That is indeed how it seems to work. Believe it or not, we had already noticed.

If you then intend to go on to suppose that the very same principle of gravity operates in the same way for all time, in the entirety of the known Universe if not beyond, then I demand to be told how you would hope to know so. That is what they did with the flat Earth. It looked flat enough for as far as they could see or imagine, so they assumed that it was flat forever.

And what then is gravity? Gravity is a belief akin to God and the Human Self, said to be known by what it does rather than what it is, an invocation of the principle of reverse causality.

I have no problem with predictablity or repeatability. To the contrary, that is exactly how I think of what is usually called a truth, in terms of probability.

An axiom on the other hand is anything but a matter of predictablity. It is something supposed to be absolute and taken completely for granted, a limit even to what you may well call the metaphysical speculation of science, equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God, and serving the very same purpose in most respects, to provide a sense of parental security, notwithstanding the perplexity that the unfortunate victim would otherwise be subject to.

--- RH.

I disagree with every characterization you have made. In fact, I disagree with every statement you have made. Now what? Shall we come back in and start over? I think not.

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

I disagree with every characterization you have made. In fact, I disagree with every statement you have made. Now what? Shall we come back in and start over? I think not.

"characterisation" is your own characterisation, a remarkably subtle ad hominem but an ad hominem none the less.

Do you think I just sit here and make it all up, ad hoc?

Perhaps you could start with this, one step at a time:

Axiom

-noun
1.a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2.a universally accepted principle or rule.
3.Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.
[Origin: 1475-85; < L axiōma < Gk: something worthy, equiv. to axiō-, var. s. of to reckon worthy + -ma resultative n. suffix]

--- RH.

@perplexity,

perplexity wrote:

"characterisation" is your own characterisation, a remarkably subtle ad hominem but an ad hominem none the less.

RH: "Gravity is a belief akin to God and the Human Self."

RH: "An axiom on the other hand is anything but a matter of predictablity. It is something supposed to be absolute and taken completely for granted, a limit even to what you may well call the metaphysical speculation of science, equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God, and serving the very same purpose in most respects, to provide a sense of parental security, notwithstanding the perplexity that the unfortunate victim would otherwise be subject to."

These are your feelings on the matter. They are not my feelings on the matter. To argue feelings is pointless. This is a philosophy forum, not a support group; I really do not care that you feel gravity is "a belief akin to God" or that you feel that an axiom is "equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God". What I do care about is your attempting to traffic statements of sentiment as statements of fact. You do this exclusively to the absense of reasoned redress, as if your feelings on the matter should somehow settle the matter. Have you ever once articulated a response based on anything else? Is everything to you a function of how you stand in relation to it personally? That is why discussion with you is pointless; you are as a petulant child who stamps his feet and insists that his mere utterance should suffice. And I fear that you may next wish me into the corn field.

perplexity wrote:

Axiom

-noun
1.a self-evident truth that requires no proof.
2.a universally accepted principle or rule.
3.Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

And how is it from this that you reason "Gravity is a belief akin to God and the Human Self" or that an axiom is "equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God"? Or is this rather how you personally feel about axioms? Would an atheist agree with your characterizations? Would Newton? Again, I doubt you would know reasoned argument if it bit you in the face.

@NoAngst,

NoAngst wrote:

RH: "Gravity is a belief akin to God and the Human Self."

RH: "An axiom on the other hand is anything but a matter of predictablity. It is something supposed to be absolute and taken completely for granted, a limit even to what you may well call the metaphysical speculation of science, equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God, and serving the very same purpose in most respects, to provide a sense of parental security, notwithstanding the perplexity that the unfortunate victim would otherwise be subject to."

These are your feelings on the matter.

To the contrary, no matter how often you may prefer to insult me with your alternative characterisation, the fact of the matter is that my propositions were derived logically, intelligently, by observation and analysis, and are thus defensible in the same terms.

NoAngst wrote:

You do this exclusively to the absense of reasoned redress, as if your feelings on the matter should somehow settle the matter. Have you ever once articulated a response based on anything else?Have you ever once articulated a response based on anything else?

You yourself, Mr NoAngst, had already admitted that I am better fit than anybody to know my feelings.
Now you presume to know my feelings better than I do.
Your difficulty would therefore appear to be to know your mind.

NoAngst wrote:

Is everything to you a function of how you stand in relation to it personally? That is why discussion with you is pointless; you are as a petulant child who stamps his feet and insists that his mere utterance should suffice. And I fear that you may next wish me into the corn field.

That is your assertion not mine, the straw man that you prefer to impose for want of a wider repertoire and an appreciation of my argument. "petulant" does nothing to address the issue.

NoAngst wrote:

And how is it from this that you reason "Gravity is a belief akin to God and the Human Self" or that an axiom is "equivalent to a religious fundamentalist's reverence for God"? Or is this rather how you personally feel about axioms?

Nothing to do with feelings, if it looks like a duck and walks and talks like a duck, then I call it a duck.

As a matter of fact there is nothing to prove the existence of Gravity, nor anything to explain it apart from the observation of the resultant effect of it, the same as a God or the supposition of the Conscious Self.

Something falls to the ground so you invent a name for something supposed to cause the effect.

Others feel the same need to invent a name as if to account for a cause of the life they experience.

To my mind the causes and the purposes are therefore equivalent, a logical deduction, not an emotional predisposition.

I would rather suspect that the emotion in effect here is your very own. I dare to challenge a sacred belief so you immediately wish to declare me a heretic in order to burn me at the stake, spared from all the bother of a fair trial.

NoAngst wrote:

Would an atheist agree with your characterizations? Would Newton? Again, I doubt you would know reasoned argument if it bit you in the face.

Ask Newton.

You are the one with the characterisation, the perpetual ad hominem.
Except to be patient I'd be more inclined to report your abuse.

-- RH.

@perplexity,

Actually scientists have identified a partical (i think is the correct term)that is 'gravity' so it is a scientific truth. Just thought id add my pennys worth. Smile

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Actually scientists have identified a partical (i think is the correct term)that is 'gravity' so it is a scientific truth.

"particle"!

A "truth" invented to fill the need or discovered by adventure?

Proof, please.

--- RH.

@perplexity,

Ok but im going to have to dig it up, I have to find the information on it, I saw it on a documentry a few times. But it does exist. A devout fundermentalist born-again evangelic pal of mine once said that ''Atoms dont exist, all those things under a microscope are made up by man to try and explain life with out God'' obviously hes mistaken, but are you suggesting the same arguement but for a different purpose?

@andykelly,

If they want it to be true, then I dare say that so it shall be.

My observation is then likely to be that the truth was thus created.

--- RH.

@perplexity,

In other words are you saying that its 'made up'?

From a philosophical perspective it could be deemed to all be 'made up' in the sence that nothing could be certain, but what if their are certainties within the confines of the universe (as in physics and biology) which are strictly designed to be in the format that they are as long as the universe exists.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

but what if their are certainties within the confines of the universe (as in physics and biology) which are strictly designed to be in the format that they are as long as the universe exists.

That was the original premise of what we call science, the perpetual existence of absolute certainties, the 2+2=4 version, so we have a fairly good idea of the effect of that "what if?": The result tends to be a version of reality strictly designed by the mind that perceives it. As they seek, so they shall find.

In the mean time, did you ever come across the expression "Worlds apart" to describe a human relationship?

This is perhaps the greatest paradox of life, that what is most important to us also happens to be the most uncertain.

--- RH.

@perplexity,

Oh indeed, is that because we may all dream of finding our 'holy grail' which is always a distinctly individual vision thus nobody can agree on the conclusion? This is brilliant, so would that mean that certainties are actually those things which satisfy the majorities dream(if that word will suffice) for what they need to complete their reality?

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Oh indeed, is that because we may all dream of finding our 'holy grail'...

I think of it more as having forgotten where I put the thing.

--- RH.

@perplexity,

Do you mean like we already know what we want but need to 'recall' it in our memory? I think youve mentioned something like thst before when you say we wont find what we want untill we know what it is we're looking for, can you ellaberate.

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Do you mean like we already know were what we want but need to 'recall' it in our memory?

Did you ever watch a cat, and suspect that in its own way it is actually more intelligent than you, except not to be bothered to have to prove it?

The problem is the learning process is the unlearning, the prejudice created by education, the conditioning, stuck with the systems already in use. Without all that is the prospect of natural intuition, spontaneity.

"Pattern-recognition is a throwing away of information; any device that can lose information can generalize."

(William Ross Ashby)

--- RH.

@perplexity,

Like the innate behaviour of a dog that kicks its legs backward after its excreated, where did it learn that from?

@pilgrimshost,

pilgrimshost wrote:

Like the innate behaviour of a dog that kicks its legs backward after its excreated, where did it learn that from?

It was always fairly obvious to me that mammals are already born with some sort of inherent system of intelligence. The learning process would not otherwise be so quick, immediate in the case of some who get up and walk immediately after birth.

-- RH.

@perplexity,

Apparently dogs do this because it comes from pre demestic times when they would kick-scratch the ground to cover over their feisces, in order to keep their environment sanitary, now thats good house keeping! But weirdly enough how does this pass on?

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know