sinequanon:


Do you think machines could potentially take over the task of doing science. Maybe you think they would do a better job, avoiding all debate and having automatic rule-based consensus?

That is an interesting question. But what you think "doing science" is all about? Whatever picture you get out of that, is what science is.

You said that you believe that science is a standard for "truth".

But science makes a basic assumption -- materialism -- so, your "truths" are based on these assumptions.

Just because you are not explicitly calling an assumption truth does not mean that you are not inadvertently implying it.

This was what I said:

I understand what he is saying. But the shortfall of his suggestion will send us on searches into the individual souls of each and every scientist to the point of absurdity. We would have to concern ourselves with how Carl Jung, Einstein, Oppenheimer, Darwin etc did their science. We will lose sight of the larger picture of science, which is a sum of efforts, and a standard for truth

You must have been reading my posts with rose coloured lens.

It is not true science makes an assumption that materialism all that prevails.

AllNaijaBlogger:



So this is the atheist arrogance i keep hearing about. Nice condescension. Textbook megalomania.

Now, to the point.

I agree that time is the interval between two events.

But what is that interval? Is that interval real or just assumed?

What is the interval between A and B if
-A is the time earth starts its orbit around the sun
-B is the time the earth finishes its orbit around the sun

The interval is 24 hours.




But what is 24 hrs?

An hour is 60 minutes

But why is an hour 60 minutes?

Why is it not 59 minutes?

Why is it not 120 minutes?

Do you know that ancient cultures divided the day into 12 parts?

Some cultures even had uneven hours- an hour could be 60 minutes or 48 minutes depending on the circumstances.



Why is time calculated with the orbit of the earth? Does that mean that time is different on mars? Different on other galaxies?


Now, we are getting to the fact that time is relative.


But relative to who? If our brains processed things at a faster speed, would we "perceive time" differently?




Time is just another unit of measurement that is arbitrarily decided upon. Kilometres or Miles?

Time is relative to the conscious mind, in the same way that distance is relative to say an ant and a human, or to child and an adult. In the mind, everything is relative.
But as long as events occur sequentially, the interval between events, in whatever way it is perceived in the consciousness, is real , and is Time.

Kay17:


That is an interesting question. But what you think "doing science" is all about? Whatever picture you get out of that, is what science is.

If you FULLY automated it, science would disappear. We don't say that nature does science. It just produces results -- "natural technology" and so forth.

For science, there must be at least some form of human interpretation. The answer to my question really depends on the extent to which you think you can replace human creativity. Some scientists believe this creativity is an illusion and can be recreated by fixed logic machines.

Kay17:
You must have been reading my posts with rose coloured lens.

You mean they are worse than I imagine?

Kay17:
It is not true science makes an assumption that materialism all that prevails.

Science claims that everything supervenes on a material world.

plaetton:


Time is relative to the conscious mind, in the same way that distance is relative to say an ant and a human, or to child and an adult. In the mind, everything is relative.
But as long as events occur sequentially, the interval between events, in whatever way it is perceived in the consciousness, is real , and is Time.

How can you claim that the interval is real after saying that time is relative?

If we perceived things at the speed of light, a the length of a day would be a millisecond. No interval. That 24 hour interval has been reduced to o.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1

AllNaijaBlogger:



How can you claim that the interval is real after saying that time is relative?

If we perceived things at the speed of light, a the length of a day would be a millisecond. No interval. That 24 hour interval has been reduced to o.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1

The duration of time relative, not time itself.

o.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1 is still an interval.

plaetton:


The duration of time relative, not time itself.

o.oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo1 is still an interval.

Time is a duration.


Also, the figure you put there also represents the percentage of probability that if I shake a box of random lego pieces, it would form a lego castle.

That figure is not really different from zero

AllNaijaBlogger:




Time is a duration.


Also, the figure you put there also represents the percentage of probability that if I shake a box of random lego pieces, it would form a lego castle.

That figure is not really different from zero

It was your figure.
It is A universe away from being zero.

plaetton:


It was your figure.
It is A universe away from being zero.

0 milliseconds, 0 seconds, 0 minutes, 0 hours. A lot of zeros actually

1 microsecond – the length of time of a high-speed, commercial strobe light flash (see air-gap flash).

AllNaijaBlogger:



0 milliseconds, 0 seconds, 0 minutes, 0 hours. A lot of zeros actually

1 microsecond – the length of time of a high-speed, commercial strobe light flash (see air-gap flash).

To a microbe whose entire lifespan is just a few hours, that millisecond is a long long time.

plaetton:


To a microbe whose entire lifespan is just a few hours, that millisecond is a long long time.

And to a human, a microsecond is no time at all.

AllNaijaBlogger:




And to a human, a microsecond is no time at all.

That's my point. The interval is there, but the duration is relative.

plaetton:

That's my point. The interval is there, but the duration is relative.

Wrong, there is no interval. There is only a perception of an interval.

AllNaijaBlogger:



Wrong, there is no interval. There is only a perception of an interval.

Let me tell you, there is a time interval between the time you do something, and the time you become even aware of it.
In other words, you take an action long before you become aware of it.
But your brain tricks you into thinking that you were fully aware before you took the action.

plaetton:


Let me tell you, there is a time interval between the time you do something, and the time you become even aware of it.
In other words, you take an action long before you become aware of it.
But your brain tricks you into thinking that you were fully aware before you took the action.

noted

AllNaijaBlogger:



So this is the atheist arrogance i keep hearing about. Nice condescension. Textbook megalomania.

I'm sorry that was your interpretation, that wasn't my intention. My intention has always been to educate. And for the record, I'm not an atheist

AllNaijaBlogger:

plaetton post=28570561:


Let me tell you, there is a time interval between the time you do something, and the time you become even aware of it.
In other words, you take an action long before you become aware of it.
But your brain tricks you into thinking that you were fully aware before you took the action.

noted

LOL, ignorance teaching ignorance.

He is confusing his argument with the idea that people make decisions before they are aware of making the decision. You are of course normally aware before you actually carry out the action, DUH.

Once again, he is regurgitating stuff he has no experience of.

If you really want to know what is going on, pay attention to yourself, as in the example I gave on the first page. You can actually feel the decision making and communication process and don't have to rely on silly interpretations that scientists dream up.

sinequanon:


Learning to relax the physical brain. It is the brain that is aliased to TIME.

Can you dream? If you can, then you can relax the brain and engage something deeper.

Let me give you an example...

A group of us were trying to recall the six main characters in the game of Cluedo.

They are...

Miss Scarlett
Professor Plum
Mrs. Peacock (the blue piece)
Reverend Green
Colonel Mustard
Mrs. White

ALL but Mrs. Peacock are names of colours, and we got those 5 immediately. Nobody could remember Mrs. Peacock. They started to discuss it, and prompt each other vigorously.

I left the group and went to "think" by myself. Half a minute later, I produced the answer, much to their surprise.

I had left because I knew that the "logical" brain was not going to produce the answer. The logical brain and logical thinking was going to BLOCK the answer.

I relaxed my thinking and went into a perceptive state -- NO LOGIC.

The word "TURQUOISE" just came to me! I could feel it channel to my brain from my consciouness.

I remember thinking "no, that's not it", and relaxing again.

Then the word "TURKEY",and then "PEACOCK" came to me. There was no thinking involved, just relaxation. And I could FEEL the words entering, and my brain picking them up and deciphering them. It is not something you can understand, unless you have made the effort to develop it. I could feel something deeper, my consciousness, prompting my logical brain with things it could understand.

(NB the link TURKEY sounds like TURQUOISE, but is also the name of a bird, with some similarity to a peacock.)

sinequanon:


It was called alchemy.

Despite the fact that the aim of the researches had long turned away from finding gold?!

They would not contribute to the body of scholarship called science.

Hence it is not science and probably something else.

That is not possible. A metaphysical entity is one that scientists have deemed inscrutable by science.

But if they decide to begin a research on the metaphysical, it would remain science, right?!

Kay17:
Despite the fact that the aim of the researches had long turned away from finding gold?!

Too vague. You asked about early "science". Now you are moving it back.

At some point scientists deem it to be science.

Kay17:
Hence it is not science and probably something else.

Scientists decide what is science.

Kay17:
But if they decide to begin a research on the metaphysical, it would remain science, right?!

If it is scientific research, by definition the subject of it is not metaphysical. What part of that don't you understand?

sinequanon:


Too vague. You asked about early "science". Now you are moving it back.

At some point scientists deem it to be science.

Yes, early science strung from alchemy, which is the search for gold by mixing and distilling other metals but you could be right.

Scientists decide what is science.

The ultimate question: who are scientists?

If it is scientific research, by definition the subject of it is not metaphysical. What part of that don't you understand?

Since the scientists have decided to exclude metaphysics. ok

Kay17:


Yes, early science strung from alchemy, which is the search for gold by mixing and distilling other metals.

Even alchemy had the rudiments of a peer review system. I don't think it is a black and white transition.

Kay17:
The ultimate question: who are scientists?

They are a group of people who have established themselves under a mission statement (currently one of materialism) and have sold it to layfolk as the holy grail of civilization.

sinequanon:


They are a group of people who have established themselves under a mission statement (currently one of materialism) and have sold it to layfolk as the holy grail of civilization.

The can be any club, company or partnership in the world. Especially when you have held that the mission or purpose of these scientists is unimportant because these people can decide whatever purpose they want!

We have reached the bottom of the absurdity you are digging. Wherein you have reduced science to the whims of a club. Science definitely is beyond this. Science must have an identity dissimilar from a boating club.

Kay17:


The can be any club, company or partnership in the world. Especially when you have held that the mission or purpose of these scientists is unimportant because these people can decide whatever purpose they want!

We have reached the bottom of the absurdity you are digging. Wherein you have reduced science to the whims of a club. Science definitely is beyond this. Science must have an identity dissimilar from a boating club.

Don't try to steer the discussion by misquoting me, and hoping that I will respond to it.

That tactic won't work.

I will only pursue a debate about what I have actually said.

If you can't find a direct way to make your point, we can leave it there.

sinequanon:


LOL, ignorance teaching ignorance.

He is confusing his argument with the idea that people make decisions before they are aware of making the decision. You are of course normally aware before you actually carry out the action, DUH.

Once again, he is regurgitating stuff he has no experience of.

If you really want to know what is going on, pay attention to yourself, as in the example I gave on the first page. You can actually feel the decision making and communication process and don't have to rely on silly interpretations that scientists dream up.

Lol.
I see a problem with comprehension here.
I never mentioned a thing about decision making.
I am talking about awareness of the action after it been taken, not the decision to take the action .

The action precedes the awareness of the action.

plaetton:
The action precedes the awareness of the action.

Well, that explains all of your posts.

sinequanon:


Don't try to steer the discussion by misquoting me, and hoping that I will respond to it.

That tactic won't work.

I will only pursue a debate about what I have actually said.

If you can't find a direct way to make your point, we can leave it there.

I did not misquote you. You were perfectly clear.

Kay17:


I did not misquote you. You were perfectly clear.

Well, keep studying your last post until you discover the discrepancy.

I won't be drawn.

sinequanon:


Well, that explains all of your posts.

Ha ha.
That's funny.

plaetton:

Lol.
I see a problem with comprehension here.
I never mentioned a thing about decision making.
I am talking about awareness of the action after it been taken, not the decision to take the action .

The action precedes the awareness of the action.

I understand your point.

If I decide to slap someone and do it, it would take microseconds for my nerves to travel information from my hands to my brain to register the slap when it connects.

Thsuperiorman:


My bad, I'm sorry. What I meant to say was, which scientific theory is subjective (not purely objective)?

The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Evolution has never been observed, neither has the theory been used to make an prognosis that has been proved true. We have witnessed the fact that species are adapted to their environment however we've never witnessed how they come to adapt to their environment. This theory is Subjective.

Who said maths was science? I said 1+1=2 is an objective fact.

And again you said... "With no reference to the real world? Are you saying if I have 4 oranges and give 2 to you and 2 to your brother I didn't share them equally? Maths is an expression used to explain or understand quantitative relationships of the real world.

Maths may be applied to the real world but it doesn't need any reference to the real world to exist or to be practiced.

1+1=2 is NOT an objective fact. The numbers used in maths refer to generalities while real world observations are of Specific instances of events.

so 1+1=2 is actually strictly speaking 1x+1x=2x. So the question becomes, what is x? if x is a specific orange then 1+1 is NOT=2
An orange added to itself remains An orange.

If however, x is applied to a general concept called Oranges. Then one instance of an orange plus another separate instance of an orange will yield two instances of oranges. but here the Oranges are not specific identities they are a general class. We could also have x referring to Fruits rather than oranges. Or even more widely to Things. Thereby one thing plus another separate thing will give you two things.

But you see, we are talking about general classes which are formed by abstractions not from actually empirical experience.

PastorAIO:


The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Evolution has never been observed, neither has the theory been used to make an prognosis that has been proved true. We have witnessed the fact that species are adapted to their environment however we've never witnessed how they come to adapt to their environment. This theory is Subjective.

Okay, clearly you know very little ( I mean like 1%) or nothing about evolution and natural selection. I've been studying it for close to 5 years and maybe you skimmed through some text book. So I'm sorry I can't summarize 5 years or better still I wouldn't want you to take my word for it. But you would do good to your knowledge to read more about evolution, go to museums in London, United states, any where with good and reliable fossil or fossil record information. Read about radioactive dating, know why we cannot observe evolution etc. Then we can have a more beneficial discussion about those basic theories you are claiming to disprove as being facts (though you didn't do anything remotely close to trying to disprove them, but your accusations points to that)(No offense)

PastorAIO:
Maths may be applied to the real world but it doesn't need any reference to the real world to exist or to be practiced.

1+1=2 is NOT an objective fact. The numbers used in maths refer to generalities while real world observations are of Specific instances of events.

so 1+1=2 is actually strictly speaking 1x+1x=2x. So the question becomes, what is x? if x is a specific orange then 1+1 is NOT=2
An orange added to itself remains An orange.

If however, x is applied to a general concept called Oranges. Then one instance of an orange plus another separate instance of an orange will yield two instances of oranges. but here the Oranges are not specific identities they are a general class. We could also have x referring to Fruits rather than oranges. Or even more widely to Things. Thereby one thing plus another separate thing will give you two things.

But you see, we are talking about general classes which are formed by abstractions not from actually empirical experience.

Gosh! This is goading
Permit me to ignore what you said about 1+1=2 not being an objective fact because that would make you a disgrace to knowledge in general but, let me put it this way (I hope you get it this time)

Maybe the numbers are confusing you
If I keep on a table and bring another and drop it close to the previous one there would then be on the table, right? Right

What could influence the fact that after bringing and there would be ? Nothing. If were witches that could and wanted to kill you, if you kill only , then will kill you that's for damn sure there is nothing perception can do about that.

Now, if you say and brought together cannot be (which is amazingly ridiculous) then, could they be anything else apart from ?
(Note: I didn't ask if something or someone could perceive or experience them as anything else).

No, because what is on the table "IS" (Note: I didn't "say" what is on the table is ) but, what is on the table "IS"
That is true (existential fact i.e objective)irrespective of what anything or anybody thinks of

I can't believe I'm explaining "this"

Thsuperiorman:

Gosh! This is goading
Permit me to ignore what you said about 1+1=2 not being an objective fact because that would make you a disgrace to knowledge in general but, let me put it this way (I hope you get it this time)

Maybe the numbers are confusing you
If I keep on a table and bring another and drop it close to the previous one there would then be on the table, right? Right

What could influence the fact that after bringing and there would be ? Nothing. If were witches that could and wanted to kill you, if you kill only , then will kill you that's for damn sure there is nothing perception can do about that.

Now, if you say and brought together cannot be (which is amazingly ridiculous) then, could they be anything else apart from ?
(Note: I didn't ask if something or someone could perceive or experience them as anything else).

No, because what is on the table "IS" (Note: I didn't "say" what is on the table is ) but, what is on the table "IS"
That is true (existential fact i.e objective)irrespective of what anything or anybody thinks of

I can't believe I'm explaining "this"

Uh, I think you are missing his point which is that Mathematics is an abstraction and can be practiced without "affiliation" to real world objects.

LordReed:


Uh, I think you are missing his point which is that Mathematics is an abstraction and can be practiced without "affiliation" to real world objects.

Thank you.