( …. continued:)
So given that reason and then science evolved from law, and law dependent upon testimony, and that we are seeking to produce in the science that degree of testimony we would produce in court, then I see nothing terribly novel about continuing and completing that evolutionary process. In other words, science adopted operational prose as a means of suppressing the untestifiable. And I can see no reason why we would not extend this from the sciences to the pseudosciences – especially those which are used to construct and enforce law.
—“The reason I care at all about this metaphysics issue is because I must partially disagree with the last line in the 18MAR2018 statement. While the list Curt provides is a good start, it is just a start, just a tip, and I suspect there is a whole lot more as yet unseen and undescribed to that iceberg. “—
Despite trying, and the efforts of tens of thousands of researchers we cannot find a single case that is inexplicable by naturalistic means. In other words, I can’t find a reason to put money on (demonstrated belief in) other than common cognitive artifacts.
—“That course was SOM 212: Myth & Spirit – The Life of Joseph Campbell”—
My argument is that if metaphysics refers to what exists, then what do we name the study of the imaginary and fictional. In other words, how do we disambiguate between the operational, and the non? That does not mean that we do not find solace, escape, entertainment, ideation, or wisdom in fictional worlds. it does mean that we cannot testify to them or use them in argument (truth testing, evidence, persuasion, law).
—“I have observed many, many, demonstrations of this effect which go far beyond pop psych positive thinking, social group effect, and anything else reasonably explicable by conventional Newtonian understanding of a mechanistic universe. “—
As far as I know we have understood this phenomenon since the late seventies as nothing more than synchronicity when subject to the same information. We cannot find a single case otherwise.
—“Rather, an example of this metaphysical (meaning, we just do not yet know how the black box of the universe does it) effect would be my thinking about a certain extremely unusual item, which I have not seen for many years, while in a fuge state washing dishes in the evening, then the next day driving down the road find that this exact item has literally fallen out of the sky and is laying there on the center line of a deserted stretch of road right in front of me (fell off a truck, presumably).”—
(continued….)
IN REPLY TO:
@curtd
—“We Sense The World Fine] with the extension that while I’d agree we sense it fine, we demonstrably do not sense it completely -at least, not via direct experience of our senses. For example, radio waves exist and contain information yet unless we have a loose filling in a tooth which happens to be tuned to the same frequency as a transmitter, we do not appreciate any information in the signal. Technology allows us to access radio waves while our unaided senses would be unaware they exist (thanks, Marconi).”— Yes, we sense only that which is actionable, since brains are extremely expensive, and the inactionable is a waste of calories. Hence why we can’t see the infrared. —“The second statement, or first if taken chronologically (18MAR2018: What Is Your Personal Philosophy As It Relates To Ethics and Metaphysics? Why?] elicits more agreement and a couple more caveats. The first is that “why” is a philosophical question rather than a scientific question,”— Incentives are just as scientific (open to description in general rules, constructed from observations (measurements).) As far as i know all human behavior is open to description by incentives and information error in our cognition. This might be because I am current on both cog sci, neurology, and comp sci. —“but my perception is that P is actually a philosophy at this point rather than a science (if it was a science then the question would asl “how” rather than “why”) so this is internally consistent.”—- I am not sure that defines the discipline of science because it produces an arbitrary distinction between our state of measurement of invariant processes (physical) with measurement of variant processes (cognitive), despite the fact that we have at present a fairly good understanding of the physical process which produce experience and cognition by physical means. Moreover, as far as I understand our present knowledge of the wave, particle and upward universe, there is no possibility for the transmission of information by other means within that state of the universe. My understanding of the discipline of science after a century of failure to articulate a via-positiva method, is that it consists of whatever due diligences are necessary such that through the use of observation, measurement, and deduction, to reduce that which is beyond our senses, perception, reason, and memory, to analogies to experience that can be tested(compared) within the limits of our sense, perception, reason, and memory, such that we can warranty that we do not engage in fiction, ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, obscurantism, fictionalisms (sophism, pseudoscience, mysticism), fraud, or outright deceit. (continued….)
Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102424759624047899
