Maybe Correct

[Bill]

I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If
human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
perceive be real? Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
ontological value? There could be no perspective that is
more true or more real than any other.

It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
experience as real, really is real. This makes human
perception a fundamental component of the universe. So, is
human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.

If we are special then our existence means something, if
human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
perceived can't be real in any absolute sense. All things
human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
can we know?

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If
> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
> perceive be real?
>

Not sure the "if" leads into the "can" in that question. Insignificant
beings can perceive things that happen to be real.

>
> Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
> ontological value?
>

A rock and a human are just things more or less. Value is in the eye of the
beholder.

>
> There could be no perspective that is
> more true or more real than any other.
>

Some perspectives have more truth value and less truth value than others.
My perspective that a jelly donut is the reincarnation of Pope Alexander VI
would not be as true as that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.

>
> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
> experience as real, really is real.
>

Observations could be mirages. Not all we experience or memory has
grounding in reality.

>
>This makes human
> perception a fundamental component of the universe.
>

We are but an insignificant twig on a vast bush confined to a small portion
of our galaxy. What you say doesn't follow.

>
> So, is
> human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.
>

We generate personal and shared meaning. Is that enough to satisfy you?
When the sun fries the earth it will mean nothing, but for the moment enjoy
what you have. Eat, drink, and be merry.

>
> If we are special then our existence means something, if
> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense.
>

That's a blinkered view. The world existed before narcissistic humans and
will outlast us. We can carve out our own meanings regardless.

>
> All things
> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
> can we know?
>

How long have we been a species versus how long the earth has followed the
sun through the Milky Way? Isn't this kinda a known or estimable contrast
in duration?

[*Hemidactylus*]

*Hemidactylus* <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:
> Bill <fre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
>> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If
>> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
>> perceive be real?
>>
> Not sure the "if" leads into the "can" in that question. Insignificant
> beings can perceive things that happen to be real.
>>
>> Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
>> ontological value?
>>
> A rock and a human are just things more or less. Value is in the eye of the
> beholder.
>>
>> There could be no perspective that is
>> more true or more real than any other.
>>
> Some perspectives have more truth value and less truth
>

That should read "less falsity value"

>
> value than others.
> My perspective that a jelly donut is the reincarnation of Pope Alexander VI
> would not be as true as that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs.
>>
>> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
>> experience as real, really is real.
>>
> Observations could be mirages. Not all we experience or memory
>

As it did before I edited it for some odd reason that should be "remember"
instead of "memory", though memory is fickle.

[Ray Martinez]

Everyone agrees that pain and suffering exist and are thus objectively real.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:

Last thoughts in last sentences equate to your main point: one cannot know anything with absolute certainty, which is patently ridiculous. Smash your finger with a hammer and you'll know pain exists with absolute certainty.

Ray (Objectivist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:

> Pain and suffering exist, and are thus real. In fact, the peeceding fact
> enjoys unanimous support from every humen being who is not mentally ill.
>
You posted essentially the same thing twice becayse typos. I fixed
mustakes. Granted pain and suffering as a thing which I am 100% with you on
(is that bad grammar on my part), what's God's excuse. I admut fallibility
and make mistakes. Does God? Or do we bear the brunt of his shortcomings?
Blame the victim by calling it "original sin". It was foreseeable but those
created without shortcoming are elect. Muslims get this entirely correct
with the concept of qadr or put more bluntly the will of Allah. Excellent
depiction of that in Lawrence of Arabia when he saves someone only to shoot
him later.

[Bill Rogers]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 8:49:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If
> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
> perceive be real? Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
> ontological value? There could be no perspective that is
> more true or more real than any other.

Why does perception have to be "cosmically significant" to be accurate. In my view, there's a real universe out there with real properties. We evolved in it; if our perceptions bore no relation to what's really there, we'd have been killed off long ago. That does not mean that our perceptions are always correct, only that, on average, they are correct enough to have kept us surviving so far. A perspective that was significantly less real than the one we have would likely have led to our extinction. On a small scale you can see this in mental illness - the less accurate the patient's perceptions of reality, the more trouble they have getting along in the world. The world is in no hurry to eliminate incorrect perceptions, but it gradually weeds them out.

>
> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
> experience as real, really is real. This makes human
> perception a fundamental component of the universe. So, is
> human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.

You seem not to know, agreed. Human perception is something that happens in the universe, and it's accurate enough, mostly, to keep us alive. But whether it's "fundamental" depends on what you mean. If you mean "very important and fascinating to humans," then, sure, it's fundamental. But the universe would get along without it just fine.

>
> If we are special then our existence means something,

Our existence can be meaningful to us regardless of how special we are. Likewise, we can find it meaningless even if the whole shooting match was built just for us.

>if
> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense.

Nobody here thinks human perception is "merely an accident." Human perception evolved in a world in which perception of the world around you gives you a survival advantage. What you perceive is accurate enough to give you that advantage, but it's not necessarily any more accurate than that. There is no absolute dichotomy; it is not the case that perception either tells you nothing at all about reality or tells you absolutely everything about reality. Perception tells you enough that's correct about reality to help you survive most of the time.

>All things
> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
> can we know?

Certainly humans are transitory. Adding "merely" and "curiousities" is up to you. If you find life meaningless in the absence of the belief that you are the whole point of the universe, then maybe those words are appropriate for you. But they don't follow as a matter of logical necessity. Many people, myself included, find plenty of meaning in one unremarkable member of a (so far) short-lived species on one planet among billions in one galaxy among billions in a universe which gave rise to us without any intention.

>
> Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:59:42 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

<snip to focus>

>If we are special then our existence means something, if
>human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
>perceived can't be real in any absolute sense.

That is possibly the worst bit of "logic" I've seen this
month, since our significance, or even our existence, has
nothing to do with external reality (which is not,
regardless of the opinions of some woo-woos, dependent on
our perceptions; more the reverse). The universe existed
long before we did, and will continue to exist long after
we're extinct. *That* is the "absolute sense" for which
you're grasping.

> All things
>human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
>can we know?

You are extremely confused.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

You make my point: creative misunderstanding is considered a
logical argument. I was clear that there are two
incompatible views of reality: human reality is real or
human existence has no significance. The first view implies
that human existence is a special case, something intrinsic
to the universe. The second is that, ho hum, human existence
is simply an anomalous fluke meaning nothing.

The notion that man-is-the-measure-of-all-things makes the
scale of human existence the only scale that is actually
real; all other possible scales are merely supplementary.
The reality humans experience is the one true reality. We
know that there are many more possible scales of existence
with each expressing a unique reality. Yet the human scale
is the only one that matters.

Can we expect to ever, accurately and correctly, understand
the universe if our own perspective is our only criterion?
This is the point that you, and others, refuse to consider,
making your arguments specious before they're even made.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:59:42 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip to focus>
>
>> If we are special then our existence means something, if
>> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
>> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense.
>
> That is possibly the worst bit of "logic" I've seen this
> month, since our significance, or even our existence, has
> nothing to do with external reality (which is not,
> regardless of the opinions of some woo-woos, dependent on
> our perceptions; more the reverse). The universe existed
> long before we did, and will continue to exist long after
> we're extinct. *That* is the "absolute sense" for which
> you're grasping.
>

As Tom Paine wrote in Age of Reason: "Whether we sleep or wake, the vast
machinery of the universe still goes on."

>
>> All things
>> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
>> can we know?
>
> You are extremely confused.
>

And attempting to pay it forward.

[Bill]

Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Wed, 11 Jan 2017 22:59:42 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> <snip to focus>
>
>>If we are special then our existence means something, if
>>human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
>>perceived can't be real in any absolute sense.
>
> That is possibly the worst bit of "logic" I've seen this
> month, since our significance, or even our existence, has
> nothing to do with external reality (which is not,
> regardless of the opinions of some woo-woos, dependent on
> our perceptions; more the reverse). The universe existed
> long before we did, and will continue to exist long after
> we're extinct. *That* is the "absolute sense" for which
> you're grasping.
>
>> All things
>>human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and
>>how can we know?
>
> You are extremely confused.

Yes, and no one here is helping. You are, yet again,
muddling the distinction between human existence and
reality. You argue that human reality is merely another
consequence of evolution (cosmic and/or organic). Since this
evolution is limited in time, its results cannot be co-
extensive with the universe; it's a mere blip in the history
of the universe. This kind of non-sequitur the ensures the
question of human existence will remain unconsidered.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ok Bill seriously needs to fix his clock because the OP is showing a 4 day
discrepancy between my newsreader and Google Groups. Now his subsequent
posts aren't showing on this thread. No real loss.

But if Bill cannot have the common decency to fix the time in his ironic
virtual world he posts within, he should take time out to fix his
human-centric world view. I suggest the following reading assignment
showing this is a world for bacteria, not us.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_bacteria.html

[Bill Rogers]

Well, you certainly seem uninterested in anyone's arguments. You didn't address mine at all. Merely dismissed them as "creative misunderstanding", and "specious". If that's all you've got the energy for, then enjoy talking to yourself.

>
> Bill

[jillery]

That his computer clock is days off shows that it's unrelated to his
use of Fedora, as he claimed.

FWIW the Agent newsreader has the ability to trivially switch views
sorted by date or by thread, a very useful feature.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

My impression is he thinks he's the only one worth talking to. Of
course, there are other posters who act similarly, so he shouldn't
feel lonely here.

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 6:49:58 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If
> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
> perceive be real? Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
> ontological value? There could be no perspective that is
> more true or more real than any other.

In science there isn't much ontology. Just a broad brush
causality, uniformity, objectifiability because each of these would
be easy to see if they failed. The rest are ontological standins called
"theories". We don't know what things actually *are*. We may be able to
describe them, talk about them, theorize about their behavior, but we
don't know what they are.

>
> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
> experience as real, really is real. This makes human
> perception a fundamental component of the universe. So, is
> human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.

It doesn't matter if what we perceive is "really real." All we know
is that if the universe is an illusion, it is a convincing one,
and we operate as though it were real.

>
> If we are special then our existence means something, if
> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense. All things
> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
> can we know?

There is no reason to believe we are "special".




>
> Bill

-John

[Mark Isaak]

There are two kinds of truth about reality: Objective, which stays the
same no matter what you do (or even whether or not you exist), and
Subjective, which is personal to you, and is likely different, if not
irrelevant, for the person next to you. (There is also a third kind of
truth about fictional worlds, but we'll not complicate matters with that.)

You like to muddle these two kinds of truth. After all, a lot of our
subjective ideas come from what we see in the objective world. Still,
subjective and objective are qualitatively different. Ignore that at
your peril.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"We are not looking for answers. We are looking to come to an
understanding, recognizing that it is temporary--leaving us open to an
even richer understanding as further evidence surfaces." - author unknown

[Kalkidas]

The problem is your use of vague terms like "special", "cosmically
significant", "meaningful", etc.

WTF is anyone supposed to do with this?

[Bill]

It's simple and often reiterated. There is the universe
which everyone agrees is "there" and then there is the
universe we've created that is merely a subjective
interpretation based entirely on our perceptions. The first
is real for all our purposes, the second is, almost by
definition, illusory. The universe we experience is a human
artifact, imaginary, something we construct with our
imagination. Obviously this human perspective is entirely
invisible to us because it is us.

Bill

[Joe Cummings]

Really confused.

If there's a universe which everyone agrees is really there, and
there's another one which we create by our perceptions, don't you see
the problem?

Evidently not; how on earth do you know if there's another "real"
universe apart from our perceptions? Most people accept the reality
of our perceptions, that what we see is really there.

Bill, why don't you just stop and think for a couple of minutes?

Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Bill]

I tried thinking once but no one else wanted to.

It seems clear enough that there is "something" to which we
attach our reality. We can't know what it is because the
only evidence we have is ourselves, our conscious
observation of our own perceptions. The real mystery is that
we find this so incomprehensible.

Bill

[Jonathan]

"A Smaller, could not be perturbed
The Summer Gnat displays
Unconscious that his single Fleet
Do not comprise the skies"


How much of the 'universe' can a fly perceive?
How much can a dog? A human? With each step up
more of the universe can be perceived.

So what we perceive is a fraction of what exists.



Perception of an object costs
Precise the Object's loss
Perception in itself a Gain
Replying to its Price

The Object Absolute -- is nought
Perception sets it fair
And then upbraids a Perfectness
That situates so far



Only our imagination can take the small
portion of the universe we can observe
and extrapolate it towards the ideal.

So perception has a price in that we
can only 'see' a fraction of what is there.
But only through intelligence and imagination
can we move beyond the dry details of
what exists and find truth and meaning.

Every ecosystem is a mini universe, with it's
own unique and finely tuned coevolved laws and
constants. No two are alike.

The big problem with conventional reductionist
science is the misguided assumption that
reducing to simplicity will display the
secrets to the universe and nature.

The truths of reality and nature are to
be found by doing exactly the opposite.

/By expanding to ever greater complexity/.

Just as rigorously as they've been searching
for the ultimate simplicity all this time.

And here's how it works.

Search for the most complex system one can
possibly imagine. For instance the stock market
where each 'system' or chart pattern has as
variables /countless/ educated and intelligent
people /furiously interacting/.

And their interactions are based on rumors
and feelings etc.

A combinatorial nightmare no computer could
possibly keep pace. A level of complexity
beyond all utterances.

The truth of nature and the universe can
be seen in the 'perfect rumor.

The perfect rumor has two properties.

1) the source of the rumor must be rock solid

For instance, a report the product has a flaw
or good news as the case may be, but from the
say the New York Times or the like where
one can have great confidence in the news.

The technical term would be a static attractor
but at it's maximum possible value.

2) but the details of the flaw, or news is so vague
and limited that no expert analysis could determine
if the news is insignificant or magnificent

The range spans the opposite extremes in possibility
as in the Mona Lisa smile.

The technical term would be a chaotic attractor
but as it's maximum possible value.

When the rumor has both of these qualities
something rather magical happens.

People are drawn in like moths to a flame.
The high level of uncertainty in the
perfect rumor translates to a high level
of total system complexity.

And a high level of system complexity translates
to a high level of...volatility.

Like water suddenly boiling.

The disturbance, or rumor, via the new found
volatility pushes the system /far from it's
normal equilibrium/ and towards it's own
breaking point. When driven to it's tipping
point, but not beyond, that is when emergence
takes over.

And suddenly out of the cacophony of noise
simple, predictable behavior, like bird
flocking, takes shape.

The volatility produced at such a disturbance
driven tipping point accounts for the added
value in the expression...

...."the whole is more than it's sum".

At the edge, the whole becomes more than
it's sum. New found 'energy' is attracted
from outside the system.

The emergent behaviors displayed is the source of
new creations and the driving impetus behind
continued evolution. Whether for a universe, a forest
or ideas.

But it can only be seen and observed at
the highest possible system complexity.

Static and chaotic attractors at simultaneous
maximums...

....yields maximum system complexity = maximum
system uncertainty = maximum system volatility
= more than it's sum = new emergent properties
= creation and evolution.

For instances... look at these 3 stock charts.
I'm going to list 3...recent charts so you
can see the SAME'universal' simple predictable
pattern emerge in all three, even though
they are all unique systems.

From last Thursday ticker TBIO. News comes
out at 7:30 am that someone has chosen
it's clinical platform, but there's no
details of sales etc, just good news.
It could be a minor boost in sales or
it could be huge, it's too soon to know
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/transgenomic-announces-leading-clinical-laboratory-123000836.html

But the uncertainty causes the herds to predictably
assume the best case scenario and the stock in
....minutes goes from 14 million shares a day
to 60 million a day. Here's the chart pattern.

From $.30 cents a share to $1.50 (yeehaw~)

http://elite.finviz.com/publish/011717/TBIOi15211315108i.png



Another example today ticker BNTC. News comes out
this morning that it's drug received a positive
status, it'll probably take years for this
to produce sales, but in minutes the ticker
goes from 16 thousand shares a day to 9 million
and the price goes from $2.20 to $4 in less
than an hour.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/benitec-receives-orphan-drug-designation-100000133.html

And here's the chart pattern.

http://elite.finviz.com/publish/011717/BNTCi1211918996i.png



A third example from today, ticker PULM same kind
of news, a positive designation which could
take years to pan out.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/pulmatrix-drug-candidate-receives-qualified-144500653.html


And here's the chart pattern, see a 'pattern'
developing? Put the 3 side by side, even
though they are unique systems, at such
high levels of volatility = uncertainty = complexity
that.../same simple predictable/ pattern emerges
and the price more than doubles in hours.

http://elite.finviz.com/publish/011717/PULMi1212546821i.png


Notice they're all biotechs, rumor heaven.

But more to the point, there's a herd of traders
all looking for the same set of circumstance.

Good news combined with a large spike in volume
and that beautiful and easily recognizable flag pattern
early in the morning.

Point is, at the highest levels of complexity
one doesn't even need to know so much as
the NAME of the company (reductionist details)
to predict it's behavior, simply and accurately.

As complexity steadily increases so does the
difficulty of predicting, but once at the
.....peak...complexity for that system suddenly
it becomes nice and calm and simple.

At least as long as the volatility lasts which
is usually a couple hours to a couple days.




s











































s








> Bill
>
>
>

[jillery]

Even if true, why should that stop you?

>It seems clear enough that there is "something" to which we
>attach our reality. We can't know what it is because the
>only evidence we have is ourselves, our conscious
>observation of our own perceptions. The real mystery is that
>we find this so incomprehensible.

That's not it. Instead, the real mystery is that your posts are
incomprehensible.

[Kalkidas]

Granted your stipulation that there is an objectively real universe:

Our senses, through which we perceive the objectively real universe, are
part of that objectively real universe. So if your senses are giving you
false data, then by what faculty do you know that those data are false?

[jonathan]

On 1/17/2017 9:38 PM, Jonathan wrote:


Today's little gem, flag pattern formed
at 9:45 am, you can almost set your watch
by it.

Ticker APRI avg vol 8 million, vol today 53 million
on news. Opened at $1.80 peaked at $4 at high noon.

http://elite.finviz.com/publish/011817/APRIi1231264294i.png

This is just playing follow the herd, follow
the leader aka...bird flocking...once at extreme
levels of system complexity. Please note during the
rise how the flag pattern not only repeats itself
but also at different scales, displaying fractal
self similarity across scale.



..

[Bill]

Thinking isn't helping anyone else, so why bother? The
problem is that we don't know what's real, only what we
agree is real. This make human perception the only reality.
How we interpret these perceptions vary with time and
location and tradition which makes any certainty impossible.

Since no one really cares about the really real Reality, we
can get away with creating any reality we want.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Your thinking isn't helping anyone else.

>
>The
> problem is that we don't know what's real, only what we
> agree is real. This make human perception the only reality.
> How we interpret these perceptions vary with time and
> location and tradition which makes any certainty impossible.
>

Improper pronoun usage noted. You (singular) are confined as boy in the
epistemic bubble to ponder your solipsistic plight. This hamstringing need
not apply by projection to the rest of us.

>
> Since no one really cares about the really real Reality, we
> can get away with creating any reality we want.
>

You can create whatever you want but reality has final say as arbiter. You
kick the pedestal of your argument from under yourself as you have no
reckoning point which applies to the rest of us. We are free to
intersubjectively agree (coherence) and test our informed speculations to
see what sticks (correspondence). You opted out of this so you are
literally on your own. Speak for yourself only.

[Mark Isaak]

>
> Thinking isn't helping anyone else, so why bother?

It has been awhile since Chez Watts have been formally recognized, but
the above deserves notice regardless.

[J. J. Lodder]

Mark Isaak <eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

> >
> > Thinking isn't helping anyone else, so why bother?
>
> It has been awhile since Chez Watts have been formally recognized, but
> the above deserves notice regardless.

File under non-existent entities?

Jan

[Jonathan]

On 1/18/2017 11:20 PM, jonathan wrote:



And today this rocketed out of the gates
going from some 16 thousands shares a day
to almost 20 million today. This is a fine
example of how the effects can far exceed
the cause, demonstrating the exaggerated
effects emergent flocking behavior can
produce. And demonstrating the futility
of deterministic methods for predicting
the future. No black holes needed to
this truth.

It's right there below in black and white.


Ticker DELT

http://elite.finviz.com/publish/011917/DELTi1192034134i.png

[Bill]

It's agreed by all that I'm stupid and that means that
everyone else posting here is not. Since I can't understand
the stuff the really smart people talk about, it must be
that I'm right about everything because I can only see the
obvious.

Bill

[Jonathan]

I think your intuition is correct that the
future can become almost anything we wish
it to be. If enough people want a specific
future it can become 'reality'.

If left to blind chance the future would
appear bleak, but our future is guided
by our purposes, which is guided by
our perceptions, hopes and dreams etc.

Most here would argue that the present
'determines' the future. But that's not
true, the future is not predictable except
in the most simplest of examples.







> Bill
>

[Rolf]

"*Hemidactylus*" <ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote in message
news:bPednQ53pqdgyuHF...@giganews.com...
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 5:49:58 PM UTC-8, Bill wrote:
>>> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
>>> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If
>>> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
>>> perceive be real? Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
>>> ontological value? There could be no perspective that is
>>> more true or more real than any other.
>>>
>>> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
>>> experience as real, really is real. This makes human
>>> perception a fundamental component of the universe. So, is
>>> human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.
>>>
>>> If we are special then our existence means something, if
>>> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
>>> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense. All things
>>> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
>>> can we know?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>

>> Pain and suffering exist, and are thus real. In fact, the peeceding fact
>> enjoys unanimous support from every humen being who is not mentally ill.
>>
> You posted essentially the same thing twice becayse typos. I fixed
> mustakes. Granted pain and suffering as a thing which I am 100% with you
> on
> (is that bad grammar on my part), what's God's excuse.

Excuse?
How could we survive without pain?
Pain and pleasure are opposites, and thus tools for navigating through all
aspects of life.
Isn't it amazing that people are incapable of understanding that without
having to be told?




I admut fallibility
> and make mistakes. Does God? Or do we bear the brunt of his shortcomings?
> Blame the victim by calling it "original sin". It was foreseeable but
> those
> created without shortcoming are elect. Muslims get this entirely correct
> with the concept of qadr or put more bluntly the will of Allah. Excellent
> depiction of that in Lawrence of Arabia when he saves someone only to
> shoot
> him later.
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

God could have created a world where pain was not necessary or at least not
excruciation for people suffering chronically. The reminder ouch putting
ones finger on stove is different from pain of bone cancer. And why would
God allow for cancer? The Fall which from his POV was foreseeable?

He could have created a much better world and flubbed it then blamed us.
Then he git born of virgin and had himself crucified.

[John Stockwell]

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 6:49:58 PM UTC-7, Bill wrote:
> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a
> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts.

You are engaging in what I refer to as a Socra-tease, which is an
attempt to gadfly us. Well, you are no Socrates, buster.

> If
> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we
> perceive be real?

What does "cosmically significant" mean? Some sort of solopsist bullshit?

> Wouldn't everything have exactly the same
> ontological value? There could be no perspective that is
> more true or more real than any other.

Perception and interpreting is about "epistemology" not ontology.

We don't really have access to a detailed ontology of the universe. At
most we can say that there are properties that hold up well and it would
be obvious if these failed. Uniformity and causality, as well as objectifiability, meaning that we can break up what we perceive as "objects"
with properties we can discuss, and hopefully come to some consensus about.
We never have a deeper ontology in hand. We may make assumptions along those
lines.

The testable assumptions become part of "science" if they pass our
tests, and the ones that don't become part of "mythology, folklore, and religion". The best that is fashioned in the science basket are scientific
theories that work well, in terms of predicting what we expect to see and not
see.

>
> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
> experience as real, really is real. This makes human
> perception a fundamental component of the universe. So, is
> human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.

This is known as "realism". One could be of the school of "damned convincing-ism" which states that whether or not it is real, it is damned
convincing.

>
> If we are special then our existence means something, if
> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense. All things
> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
> can we know?

If we are special, that simply means that we are different from some other
objects in the universe, such as rocks. So far as we know, we are transient.
As to "curiosities" we may be curious only to ourselves.


>
> Bill

-John

[Bill]

Characterizing my remarks as examples of this or that "ism"
isn't really a cogent reply. Dismissing ideas you don't like
or can't understand, is not a coherent argument. It seems
you disagree because everyone else does but you don't know
why.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Believing that so many people dismiss you because they don't like your ideas or cannot understand is doubtless more comforting and certainly less labor-intensive than trying to figure out whether your arguments might be incorrect or poorly expressed.

[John Stockwell]

I was wrong. You are just an asshole.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Since no one ever provides a reasoned response to my posts,
how can we know that I've been mistaken? All I have are the
assurances that everyone here is a intellectual giant. Alas,
there is no evidence.

Bill

[Robert Camp]

The first character flaw (noted by BR) could be petulance, or
insecurity, or simple confusion.

The second, which you display just above, is outright dishonesty. You
cannot, after all this time and so many substantive responses, say
something like that without marking yourself as a petty troll.

[Bill]

Since this isn't a cogent reply, you make my point - again

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

As far as I can tell, nobody here claims to be an intellectual giant. Many of us do, however, claim that actual effort, beyond watching cable TV, is required to learn anything substantive about science. You seem entirely unwilling to do that work, and yet you feel free to make broad, often self-contradictory pronouncements about science, philosophy and the foibles of scientists. I have seen many reasoned responses to your posts. If you took the time to read and understand them you might disagree with them, then people might write more of them and actually have a discussion. But even the work of reading a couple of paragraphs of a reasoned response and thinking about it seems to be too tiresome for you. The lack of effort and real interest shows.

[Bill]

I think about something before I post. I research what I
think about and investigate counter-points before posting.
I've posting here off and on for many years, I'm familiar
with the various points of view expressed here especially
the dissenting ones. When I see misrepresentations and
misinterpretations and distortions and exaggerations of
knowledge, I dissent. What I say is generally dismissed
because it's dissent not because of errors.

Bill

[Ray Martinez]

You've evaded my replies as well, and we all know what that indicates.

Ray

[Joe Cummings]

This isn't true on two counts:

There have been plenty reasoned answers to your postings. The fact
that you claim there hasn't been reflects on you and not onthe people
who respond to you.

Secondly, I've never seen anyone claim that they are an
"intellectual giant:" Perhaps the difficulty of answering them may
make it seem that they are.



Have fun,

Joe Cummings

[Bill Rogers]

Well, I'm glad you told us that. Nobody would have figured it out from your posts.

> I've posting here off and on for many years, I'm familiar
> with the various points of view expressed here especially
> the dissenting ones. When I see misrepresentations and
> misinterpretations and distortions and exaggerations of
> knowledge, I dissent. What I say is generally dismissed
> because it's dissent not because of errors.

No. Dissent is great. Your arguments are dismissed because whenever anyone makes a substantive counterargument you ignore it. And then generally start a new thread in which you complain that noone makes any substantive arguments against your points.

Want to prove me wrong? Summarize your arguments about the relationship between perception and reality and then summarize the counterarguments that have been made here. And summarize them in a way that the authors would say "Yeah, you may not agree with be, but that is a correct summary of the counteragument I was making."

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:


...

>
>> I've posting here off and on for many years, I'm familiar
>> with the various points of view expressed here especially
>> the dissenting ones. When I see misrepresentations and
>> misinterpretations and distortions and exaggerations of
>> knowledge, I dissent. What I say is generally dismissed
>> because it's dissent not because of errors.
>
> No. Dissent is great. Your arguments are dismissed because
> whenever anyone makes a substantive counterargument you
> ignore it. And then generally start a new thread in which
> you complain that noone makes any substantive arguments
> against your points.
>
> Want to prove me wrong? Summarize your arguments about the
> relationship between perception and reality and then
> summarize the counterarguments that have been made here.
> And summarize them in a way that the authors would say
> "Yeah, you may not agree with be, but that is a correct
> summary of the counteragument I was making."

The counter arguments I've seen consist of objections to my
choice of words or that I have some unstated agenda or I'm
stupid or have some psychological disorder. I'm wrong of
course and I'm sure you can provide one of those substantive
arguments I must have missed.

My original point was that the physical universe we
experience isn't real in the sense we usually believe it is.
What we experience is an illusion that only exists at the
scale of life on this planet. Human reality only exists at
the human scale, a figment of human imagination. There was
disagreement but no substance arguments. Nor will there be.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Below, I've pasted, from earlier in the thread, a detailed counter argument to your claims about perception. Please show me where I am merely objecting to your choice of words, or claiming you have an unstated agenda, or calling you stupid or insane.

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 8:49:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> I am, by a general consensus, confused; confronted by a

> dilemma that deepens with each reply to each of my posts. If

> human perception isn't cosmically significant, can what we

> perceive be real? Wouldn't everything have exactly the same

> ontological value? There could be no perspective that is
> more true or more real than any other.

Why does perception have to be "cosmically significant" to be accurate. In my view, there's a real universe out there with real properties. We evolved in it; if our perceptions bore no relation to what's really there, we'd have been killed off long ago. That does not mean that our perceptions are always correct, only that, on average, they are correct enough to have kept us surviving so far. A perspective that was significantly less real than the one we have would likely have led to our extinction. On a small scale you can see this in mental illness - the less accurate the patient's perceptions of reality, the more trouble they have getting along in the world. The world is in no hurry to eliminate incorrect perceptions, but it gradually weeds them out.

>
> It is argued that what we (humans) observe, perceive,
> experience as real, really is real. This makes human
> perception a fundamental component of the universe. So, is
> human perception meaningful or not? No one seems to know.

You seem not to know, agreed. Human perception is something that happens in the universe, and it's accurate enough, mostly, to keep us alive. But whether it's "fundamental" depends on what you mean. If you mean "very important and fascinating to humans," then, sure, it's fundamental. But the universe would get along without it just fine.

>
> If we are special then our existence means something,

Our existence can be meaningful to us regardless of how special we are. Likewise, we can find it meaningless even if the whole shooting match was built just for us.

>if
> human perception is merely an accident then whatever is
> perceived can't be real in any absolute sense.

Nobody here thinks human perception is "merely an accident." Human perception evolved in a world in which perception of the world around you gives you a survival advantage. What you perceive is accurate enough to give you that advantage, but it's not necessarily any more accurate than that. There is no absolute dichotomy; it is not the case that perception either tells you nothing at all about reality or tells you absolutely everything about reality. Perception tells you enough that's correct about reality to help you survive most of the time.

>All things
> human are merely transient curiosities. Which is it and how
> can we know?

Certainly humans are transitory. Adding "merely" and "curiousities" is up to you. If you find life meaningless in the absence of the belief that you are the whole point of the universe, then maybe those words are appropriate for you. But they don't follow as a matter of logical necessity. Many people, myself included, find plenty of meaning in one unremarkable member of a (so far) short-lived species on one planet among billions in one galaxy among billions in a universe which gave rise to us without any intention.

>
> Bill

Your only previous response to this counterargument was to call it "creative misunderstanding" without explaining what I had misunderstood.

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

This is interesting. I had proposed elsewhere that the
universe became conscious and intelligent by "creating"
conscious and intelligent observers, specifically: us. In
that thread, I argued that our existence, very literally,
the purpose of the universe. Through us, the universe
becomes intelligent, it observes itself.

In this scenario, we create reality by observing it; our
observations are the means by which the universe becomes
sentient. Becoming sentient is a fundamental impetus to
cosmic evolution.

Because of the anthropocentric bias of humans, we understand
the universe in reverse, extrapolating reality from the
current state of the universe. We insist that the universe
has no purpose, no goal, no sentience not because of any
evidence but because it implies direction and intent. The
objections are philosophical not scientific.

My point above, was that our perception determine what we
perceive. Some find this problematic without any plausible
justification.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

OK, I'm glad you find it interesting. Do you agree that I gave an actual counterargument that wasn't merely griping about your choice of words, or guessing at some hidden agenda or calling you stupid or insane?

>I had proposed elsewhere that the
> universe became conscious and intelligent by "creating"
> conscious and intelligent observers, specifically: us. In
> that thread, I argued that our existence, very literally,
> the purpose of the universe. Through us, the universe
> becomes intelligent, it observes itself.
>
> In this scenario, we create reality by observing it; our
> observations are the means by which the universe becomes
> sentient. Becoming sentient is a fundamental impetus to
> cosmic evolution.
>
> Because of the anthropocentric bias of humans, we understand
> the universe in reverse, extrapolating reality from the
> current state of the universe. We insist that the universe
> has no purpose, no goal, no sentience not because of any
> evidence but because it implies direction and intent. The
> objections are philosophical not scientific.

In a sense you are correct. One can project intent on the universe and there's no way to show scientifically that such intent does not exist. In the simplest case, one could say "The universe intends to be just exactly the universe that it actually is." How could one possibly refute that scientifically? Who would want to bother?

Your argument, too, is simply philosophical. You find a central value in sentience and therefore conclude that the intent of the universe was to become sentient (though how it formed that intent before there was anything sentient around, I'm not sure). That's fine. But it's just your philosophical preference.

>
> My point above, was that our perception determine what we
> perceive. Some find this problematic without any plausible
> justification.

Nobody finds it problematic. Nobody. "Our perceptions determine what we perceive," simply means that our perceptions determine our perceptions. Like saying what we see determines what we see. Quite unproblematic, but also quite empty. If you are trying to say that external reality either does not exist, or bears no relation to our perceptions, then, sure, lots of people, including myself, have told you why such a view is problematic (see above). But since you've never made an attempt to defend either of those views against the counterarguments that have been raised to them, I can't be sure that you hold such views. In any case the bare claim that our perceptions determine our perceptions is pretty vacuous, but not problematic.
>
> Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

That's partly congruent with the Teilhard-Huxley conjecture, that evolution
became self-aware through us. An interesting aside, but not the purpose of
the universe. Teilhard was too much the emergent progressivist and fiddled
an orthogenic tune.

>
> In this scenario, we create reality by observing it; our
> observations are the means by which the universe becomes
> sentient. Becoming sentient is a fundamental impetus to
> cosmic evolution.
>

You need to differentiate intent from outcome. The universe had no intent
but through us became murkily self-aware in a poetically metaphoric sense.

>
> Because of the anthropocentric bias of humans, we understand
> the universe in reverse, extrapolating reality from the
> current state of the universe. We insist that the universe
> has no purpose, no goal, no sentience not because of any
> evidence but because it implies direction and intent. The
> objections are philosophical not scientific.
>

What was the purpose? Is it foreshadowed in the microwave background
radiation?

>
> My point above, was that our perception determine what we
> perceive. Some find this problematic without any plausible
> justification.
>

Reality is a two way street and I think you are hiding yourself behind the
veil. We impose upon reality and it pushes back. We are capable of
constructing castles in the sky based on pure reason, superstition, or
evidence free conjecture. Or we can test conjectures against reality and
have it push back.

I wouldn't go so far as you but based on the socifacts of Durkheim and
Searle, the autonomous third world of Popper, and the reflexivity of Soros
there is a portion of reality that is anthropogenic, intersubjectively
created by us. The craziest shared delusions can have real world effects.
Ideologies do this.

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Bill wrote,

>It's simple and often
>reiterated. There is the
>universe which everyone
>agrees is "there" and then
>there is the universe we've
>created that is merely a
>subjective interpretation
>based entirely on our
>perceptions. The first is real
>for all our purposes, the
>second is, almost by
>definition, illusory. The
>universe we experience is a
>human artifact, imaginary, >something we construct
>with our imagination.
>Obviously this human
>perspective is entirely
>invisible to us because it is
>us.

"Subjectivity" and "experience" are not organs. The attempt to make them one has been a cold case investigation of psychologism. Psychology has not proven the "mind" as an organ, nor the "mind" to mirror anything about the universe. Helmholtz, in v3 of "Treatise on the
Physiology of Optics" relegated optical images of brain to psychologism, while focusing on the physicalism of its optics. But while all objective physiological studies about the optics of brain has progressed since Helmholtz, psychologism has not. Neuroscience has entered the investigation. But the idea of "Subjectivity" remaines a cold case investigation. Therefore, the argument, that the "subject" renders organic content to the sense organs, has gone nowhere in the court of reality-based science.

SC RED

[Bill]

Do you think that by labeling a point of view that you've
refuted it? Genuinely original thought is extremely rare so
everything has been proposed at one time or another. I don't
claim that my thoughts are original so pointing out others
who've pondered similar ideas has no value. It does offer a
basis for dismissing my points of course which seems to be
your intent.

Why not offer your reasoning for, "That's partly congruent

with the Teilhard-Huxley conjecture, that evolution became
self-aware through us. An interesting aside, but not the

purpose of the universe."? How do you know the purpose of
the universe? Can you demonstrate why your assertion is
superior to my conjecture?

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

Have I hit a nerve? Not the intent. I was being obviously empathetic and
conciliatory. I have read both Teilhard and J. Huxley and was struck by
the insight that we are an expression of evolutionary self awareness so to
speak. Even if there is a hint of fate and Darwin was prefigured by his
birth and milieu to create this evolutionary self awareness could it be
said that Darwin was set in stone at the point our universe bubbled forth
and granted that was it intended so?

>
> Why not offer your reasoning for, "That's partly congruent
> with the Teilhard-Huxley conjecture, that evolution became
> self-aware through us. An interesting aside, but not the
> purpose of the universe."? How do you know the purpose of
> the universe? Can you demonstrate why your assertion is
> superior to my conjecture?
>

I was discounting the notion of purpose. And I note you sidestepped much of
what I stated about bidirectionality between reality and how we conceive
it. I am well read. I have Soros at hand on his oddly monomanic hobbyhorse
reflexivity. But it gets at how at least part of our reality is of our own
making. Look at the housing bubble as example. That self constructed
intersubjectivity can only be sustained until reality pushes back with a
vengeance.

And a perfect example of how intersubjectivity feeds forward into reality
is how tinfoil tricorns see a Soros puppetry in the women's protests just
because he happens to have made charitable contributions to various groups.
Charitable contribution equals masterminding in the intersubjective filter
bubble and these quirky views have great impact upon the public mindset via
Infowars. The protesting women have no personal agency or legitimacy but
are tumbleweeds blown by the omnipotent and omnipresent Soros.

Drudge, Beck, and Infowars create distorted funhouse perception of reality.
Trump got elected. Reality hasn't pushed back yet.

[jillery]

Pick any one. The comments to which you refer above are not the
objections to your arguments, but instead are conclusions based on
your replies. Whether you're incapable of recognizing the difference,
or simply pretend to be so, is of no matter, as both are equally
problematical.

>My original point was that the physical universe we
>experience isn't real in the sense we usually believe it is.
>What we experience is an illusion that only exists at the
>scale of life on this planet. Human reality only exists at
>the human scale, a figment of human imagination. There was
>disagreement but no substance arguments. Nor will there be.
>
>Bill

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Bill Rogers]

OK, you seem to have gotten bored with trying to think about what you are saying about the relationship between human perception and reality.

So which of these positions are you taking:

1. There is no external reality. Everything is just perceptions. And nothing exists in the absence of somebody to perceive it. (And note that "might just as well not exist," is really too weaselly a phrase here - we know that if you don't perceive something, you don't perceive it).
2. There is an external reality, but our perceptions bear no relation at all to that reality.
3. There is an external reality and our perceptions are influenced by that external reality and tell us something (not everything) about that reality.
4. We only perceive whatever we perceive.

People have already given you reasons why 1 is pointless solipsism, 2 fails to explain our survival in the world, and 4 is true but vacuous. If you have some alternative to 3 that you'd like to defend, go ahead. I promise I'll answer, as I have before, without calling you stupid or crazy or trying to guess at some hidden agenda on your part. I might call you lazy, though. Can't help myself.

[Bill]

When it becomes obvious that the obvious is too obscure to
discuss, it's not laziness to give up discussing it. I
introduced the concept of reality and perception to make a
simple point about the impossibility of certain knowledge.
There is something we perceive but the nature of perception
doesn't tell us what's really real. I've gone into detail in
several threads but most posters here seem determined to
misunderstand.

Bill

[*Hemidactylus*]

There are states of affairs and states of mind. Usually states of affairs
can have some impact on states of mind though knowledge is imperfect.
States of mind can impact states of affairs (think architectural ideas
influencing a building project ) but there can be unintended effects or
times when outcomes fail to meet expectations. These are points made by
Soros where external reality is heavily implied.

I think your focus on the subject applies in cases of perception driving
where there are positive feedback loops that drive POVs far from being
factually correspondent. This is Sorosian reflexivity. These states of mind
either collectively inflate til they pop or ratchet to a new stable point.

[Bill Rogers]

The laziness is not in the giving up discussing, but in the not bothering to think through the point you're trying to make before you start typing.

As for the impossibility of absolutely certain knowledge, what do you think that impossibility means? Do you think that all statements about reality are equally valid? Do you think there are experimental approaches to decide which of two conflicting claims about reality is more likely to be correct? Do you think that perceptions give you no information at all about reality? Or are you merely irritated by people who seem to think that they know things to an absolute certainty? If so, I'm not sure who they are. Certainly not any scientists I've ever met.

See, you seem to be advocating a point which says that the effort of trying to understand the world is pointless, which seems like a rationale for, you guessed it, laziness.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Coming at it from a Sorosian angle there's much to be said for uncertainty
and ignorance. Cognitively we have imperfect knowledge (ignorance). As
actors upon the world the outcomes can be unexpected. So our uptake and
output can be divergent from ideal. And given bidirectionally this
cognitive-participative dynamic can generate positive feedback loops hence
bubbles. Reality often enough steps in to prick the bubble, maybe when it's
too late. That's my current understanding of Sorosian epistemology.

Bill focuses on being inside an opaque bubble, but the bubble can become
more transparent given concerted effort.

[jillery]

Like the President, Bill is a big fan of alternate facts.

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:


...

This whole thing is a concept of many layers. What I see is
people making exaggerated claims of knowledge that then
become the basis for judging the worth of other claims.

The naturalism preached here has a limited application. The
kind of intelligence applied to science is not the only kind
and not appropriate to every circumstance. This kind of
intelligence is two dimensional, linear and sequential so
that it can only discover two dimensional, linear and
sequential phenomena.

Everything is reduced to an engineering problem with an
engineering solution being the only possible outcome. It
works of course but only in the limited context of
engineering. This approach is of no use in questions of
meaning or purpose. When everything is explained from the
viewpoint of science and engineering, reality shrinks to fit
whatever we choose to call real.

This not an easily resolved issue, it requires intellectual
effort and an unbiased mind. Little wonder it is so rarely
considered in this newsgroup. Is it laziness or a sure and
certain conviction that one's knowledge is sufficient for
understanding?

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Maybe you could give an example of some of these exaggerated claims of knowledge. I haven't seen them, very much, at least not from scientists.

>
> The naturalism preached here has a limited application. The
> kind of intelligence applied to science is not the only kind
> and not appropriate to every circumstance. This kind of
> intelligence is two dimensional, linear and sequential so
> that it can only discover two dimensional, linear and
> sequential phenomena.

What do you mean when you say the scientific naturalism is linear and two-dimensional? Pretty much everything science studies is 3 or 4 dimensional, and lots of it is non-linear.

Sure social intelligence and emotional intelligence are important for living your life, too, but if that's your only point, nobody will disagree.

>
> Everything is reduced to an engineering problem with an
> engineering solution being the only possible outcome.

A pretty broad claim. And one that you'd be hard pressed to support.

>It
> works of course but only in the limited context of
> engineering.

So? Engineering approaches work for engineering problems. Physical approaches work for physics questions. Chemical for chemical. Social for social. Duh. Nobody disagree with that. Or if you think they do, please give an example rather than waving your hands in a broad generalization.

>This approach is of no use in questions of
> meaning or purpose.

Who thinks that science can tell you how you should find meaning in your life? Nobody here, as far as I can see.

>When everything is explained from the
> viewpoint of science and engineering, reality shrinks to fit
> whatever we choose to call real.

Why? And what exactly do you mean by "choose to call real"? And how can our explanations of anything, whether they be scientific or aesthetic or emotional actually change reality? That seems downright incoherent, unless you are back to some Berkleyan idealism or radical solipsism.

If you think that scientific explanations reduce the wonder and beauty out of reality, all I can say is stop watching TV and learn some actual science. For many people anyway, it expands rather than contracts you understanding of reality to know some of he details of how it all works, even with imperfect provisional knowledge.

>
> This not an easily resolved issue, it requires intellectual
> effort and an unbiased mind. Little wonder it is so rarely
> considered in this newsgroup.

Which issue is that? The point that science does not tell you how to find meaning in life? Most everyone here agrees with that point. So much so that it seems uninteresting to discuss.

>Is it laziness or a sure and
> certain conviction that one's knowledge is sufficient for
> understanding?

I think it's willingness to move beyond that rather obvious point, that science does not answer every personally important question about one's life. If that's the point you're making, almost everybody here agrees.

And almost everyone here, at least on the scientific side, agrees that there's a heck f a lot that we personally don't know and a heck of a lot that nobody knows. You are arguing against viewpoints I've never really seen expressed here. Perhaps you could provide some actual quotations.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

>>Is it laziness or a sure and
>> certain conviction that one's knowledge is sufficient for
>> understanding?
>
> I think it's willingness to move beyond that rather
> obvious point, that science does not answer every
> personally important question about one's life. If that's
> the point you're making, almost everybody here agrees.
>
> And almost everyone here, at least on the scientific side,
> agrees that there's a heck f a lot that we personally
> don't know and a heck of a lot that nobody knows. You are
> arguing against viewpoints I've never really seen
> expressed here. Perhaps you could provide some actual
> quotations.
>

The most often repeated and recent claim is that the
universe is not fine-tuned. There is no way to support this
claim beyond the credulity of those making it yet it seems a
basic tenet to those believing it. The defense is that it is
unscientific which requires science to be the final arbiter
of all things.

Another claim is that the Earth is not unique and science is
invoked to argue probabilities rather than observed and
verifiable fact. This viewpoint is derived from the
Copernican Principle, an assumption without supporting
evidence.

There are others but, since these have not been refuted,
there's no point in going further. People here routinely
claim to possess knowledge that either does not exist or
relies on philosophical assumptions; claims that are
unscientific.

Bill

[Don Cates]

Obligatory XKCD; "Beauty"
<code>https://xkcd.com/877/</code>

>>
>> This not an easily resolved issue, it requires intellectual effort
>> and an unbiased mind. Little wonder it is so rarely considered in
>> this newsgroup.
>
> Which issue is that? The point that science does not tell you how to
> find meaning in life? Most everyone here agrees with that point. So
> much so that it seems uninteresting to discuss.
>
>> Is it laziness or a sure and certain conviction that one's
>> knowledge is sufficient for understanding?
>
> I think it's willingness to move beyond that rather obvious point,
> that science does not answer every personally important question
> about one's life. If that's the point you're making, almost everybody
> here agrees.
>
> And almost everyone here, at least on the scientific side, agrees
> that there's a heck f a lot that we personally don't know and a heck
> of a lot that nobody knows. You are arguing against viewpoints I've
> never really seen expressed here. Perhaps you could provide some
> actual quotations.
>
>>
>> Bill
>
>

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 3:14:58 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>Is it laziness or a sure and
> >> certain conviction that one's knowledge is sufficient for
> >> understanding?
> >
> > I think it's willingness to move beyond that rather
> > obvious point, that science does not answer every
> > personally important question about one's life. If that's
> > the point you're making, almost everybody here agrees.
> >
> > And almost everyone here, at least on the scientific side,
> > agrees that there's a heck f a lot that we personally
> > don't know and a heck of a lot that nobody knows. You are
> > arguing against viewpoints I've never really seen
> > expressed here. Perhaps you could provide some actual
> > quotations.
> >
>
> The most often repeated and recent claim is that the
> universe is not fine-tuned. There is no way to support this
> claim beyond the credulity of those making it yet it seems a
> basic tenet to those believing it. The defense is that it is
> unscientific which requires science to be the final arbiter
> of all things.

You seem unable to state the actual arguments used to dispute fine tuning. Perhaps you just blipped over them and only understood that the poster was, in fact, disputing fine tuning. But if you can't engage with the actual argument, then there's nothing much to say.

>
> Another claim is that the Earth is not unique and science is
> invoked to argue probabilities rather than observed and
> verifiable fact. This viewpoint is derived from the
> Copernican Principle, an assumption without supporting
> evidence.

It's hard to know what to make of this since you've never been willing to be nailed down as to what exactly you mean by "unique." The only planet in the universe with life, the only planet in the universe with intelligent life, the only planet with exactly the characteristics of the earth?

You also seem unable to state the arguments given by those who think it likely that life exists elsewhere (it's not just the Copernican Principle). Perhaps all you understood was that those folks think life elsewhere is likely. But if you can't engage with the actual argument, then there's nothing much to say.

As to the Copernican Principle, it is simply a guide, like Occam's Razor. Nobody claims that it is proof of anything. But it does have a decent track record.

Once the earth was special because it was the only body that other bodies orbited. Then Gallileo noticed that there were four bodies orbiting Jupiter (not to mention a number, including the Earth, orbiting the sun). Then the solar system was unique because there was no evidence of any planets around other stars. Until there was such evidence, and thousands of extra-solar planets. For a while the Milky Way as unique as the only galaxy in the universe; then somebody noticed Andromeda, and eventually, billions more galaxies. So, while the Copernican Principle is definitely not evidence, it has worked as a pretty good guide towards what evidence is likely to be found.

>
> There are others but, since these have not been refuted,
> there's no point in going further. People here routinely
> claim to possess knowledge that either does not exist or
> relies on philosophical assumptions; claims that are
> unscientific.

Except that you still have not given an example of someone making such a claim and showing that the claim is based on philosophical assumptions. Or at least on philosophical assumptions more remarkable than the claim that there is an external reality and that our perceptions bear some relationship to what's out there. If you'd like to drop that assumption, go ahead, but you'll be stuck with no way to say much about anything except your own feelings.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Everything I mentioned has been discussed in various
threads. Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Since your
disagreement seems to consist of little more than a resort
to death by a thousand quibbles, there's really no
substance.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Yes, you've said it all before.

>Maybe you haven't been paying attention. Since your
> disagreement seems to consist of little more than a resort
> to death by a thousand quibbles, there's really no
> substance.

First you object when you think people are calling you stupid or attributing hidden agendas to you, or dismissing you. Now you object that I actually make detailed arguments (a thousand quibbles). I've got no interest in calling you names or guessing at your agenda, and if you're not interested in the details of your own arguments and other people's counterarguments, then just go home, pat yourself on the back and call it a good day.

>
> Bill

[Bill]

Rather than extending this thread indefinitely, why don't
you pick one single point to which you provided a detailed
counter argument. Keep it simple so I can follow along.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

Sure. You claim that the physical constants are fine tuned. I claim that we have no basis on which to make that claim. I certainly agree that I like the physical constants the way they are, but I don't think there is any evidence that they have been fine tuned.

I say we have no basis to make that claim because it is only surprising that the constants have the values they do, if they could have been different in the absence of fine tuning. And if they could have been different, we still would need to know how different they could have been to know whether differences that were possible would have made stars, planets, life, etc impossible. Your intuition tells you that the differences required to make all those things impossible are tiny. But that's just your gut intuition, applied at scales where it's not likely to be valid. Since you, nor anybody else, knows what the range of a priori possible values for, say, the fine structure constant is, then you cannot tell whether 1 part in 10 to the 10th is a huge change or a tiny change.

In some earlier post, you rightly said that the only evidence we have is that the constants have the values they actually do. And since that's all the evidence we have, all we can say, for now, is that we do not know why they have those values. If you want to label the unknown reason they have those values "Designer" feel free. But remember that you should not equip "Designer" with any other attributes than that of being the unknown cause of the constants having the values they actually have. That's all the evidence we have at the moment - that the constants have the values they have.

[Bill]

Bill Rogers wrote:

...

>>
>> Rather than extending this thread indefinitely, why don't
>> you pick one single point to which you provided a
>> detailed counter argument. Keep it simple so I can follow
>> along.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Sure. You claim that the physical constants are fine
> tuned. I claim that we have no basis on which to make that
> claim. I certainly agree that I like the physical
> constants the way they are, but I don't think there is any
> evidence that they have been fine tuned.

What I actually said is that there is no evidence that the
various constants are not tuned. The only evidence cited is
the possibility that other values might exist for the
constants. Since these alternate values have not been
observed, they cannot be evidence.

>
> I say we have no basis to make that claim because it is
> only surprising that the constants have the values they
> do, if they could have been different in the absence of
> fine tuning. And if they could have been different, we
> still would need to know how different they could have
> been to know whether differences that were possible would
> have made stars, planets, life, etc impossible. Your
> intuition tells you that the differences required to make
> all those things impossible are tiny. But that's just your
> gut intuition, applied at scales where it's not likely to
> be valid. Since you, nor anybody else, knows what the
> range of a priori possible values for, say, the fine
> structure constant is, then you cannot tell whether 1 part
> in 10 to the 10th is a huge change or a tiny change.

Again, we have only the values we've observed so speculating
about what other values they might have is pointless, and
unscientific.

>
> In some earlier post, you rightly said that the only
> evidence we have is that the constants have the values
> they actually do. And since that's all the evidence we
> have, all we can say, for now, is that we do not know why
> they have those values. If you want to label the unknown
> reason they have those values "Designer" feel free. But
> remember that you should not equip "Designer" with any
> other attributes than that of being the unknown cause of
> the constants having the values they actually have. That's
> all the evidence we have at the moment - that the
> constants have the values they have.

It was also brought up that a scientific alternative is a
multi-verse which allows every possible value for every
constant to exist. The intent seems to be to make any fine-
tuning argument appear non-scientific yet it more closely
resembles a desperate cop-out to avoid confronting the
evidence.

Since you brought up the idea of a Designer, it appears that
this is the only alternative you can imagine. This suggests
that science really has nothing to do with the objections to
fine-tuning. The whole argument that science is the only
motive for these arguments is a pose.

Bill

[Bill Rogers]

On Saturday, January 28, 2017 at 9:14:57 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:
> Bill Rogers wrote:
>
> ...
>
> >>
> >> Rather than extending this thread indefinitely, why don't
> >> you pick one single point to which you provided a
> >> detailed counter argument. Keep it simple so I can follow
> >> along.
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> > Sure. You claim that the physical constants are fine
> > tuned. I claim that we have no basis on which to make that
> > claim. I certainly agree that I like the physical
> > constants the way they are, but I don't think there is any
> > evidence that they have been fine tuned.
>
> What I actually said is that there is no evidence that the
> various constants are not tuned. The only evidence cited is
> the possibility that other values might exist for the
> constants. Since these alternate values have not been
> observed, they cannot be evidence.

Nobody, certainly not I, argues that the possibility that other values exist for the constants means they are not fine tuned. What I argue, right here, is almost the opposite. I argue that fine tuning is meaningless unless you are willing to speculate that the constants might have had other values. In that case, fine tuning might be required to explain why the constants have the values that they do, rather than some other ones. Likewise, I agree that, since we have no evidence that the constants might have been different, and certainly no evidence that they might have been randomly chosen from some unknown probability distribution, the idea of fine tuning is meaningless.

>
> >
> > I say we have no basis to make that claim because it is
> > only surprising that the constants have the values they
> > do, if they could have been different in the absence of
> > fine tuning. And if they could have been different, we
> > still would need to know how different they could have
> > been to know whether differences that were possible would
> > have made stars, planets, life, etc impossible. Your
> > intuition tells you that the differences required to make
> > all those things impossible are tiny. But that's just your
> > gut intuition, applied at scales where it's not likely to
> > be valid. Since you, nor anybody else, knows what the
> > range of a priori possible values for, say, the fine
> > structure constant is, then you cannot tell whether 1 part
> > in 10 to the 10th is a huge change or a tiny change.
>
> Again, we have only the values we've observed so speculating
> about what other values they might have is pointless, and
> unscientific.

OK. So if we stick to simply observing the constants that we observe, fine tuning is meaningless. How can you claim that the constants were "fine tuned" if there's no evidence that they could have been anything other than what they actually are?

>
> >
> > In some earlier post, you rightly said that the only
> > evidence we have is that the constants have the values
> > they actually do. And since that's all the evidence we
> > have, all we can say, for now, is that we do not know why
> > they have those values. If you want to label the unknown
> > reason they have those values "Designer" feel free. But
> > remember that you should not equip "Designer" with any
> > other attributes than that of being the unknown cause of
> > the constants having the values they actually have. That's
> > all the evidence we have at the moment - that the
> > constants have the values they have.
>
> It was also brought up that a scientific alternative is a
> multi-verse which allows every possible value for every
> constant to exist. The intent seems to be to make any fine-
> tuning argument appear non-scientific yet it more closely
> resembles a desperate cop-out to avoid confronting the
> evidence.

You brought up multiverses, not me. I stuck to the simple point that fine tuning only makes sense if you know that the constants could have randomly taken on other values than the ones they have. Since you, wisely, are unwilling to speculate about any values that the constants don't actually have, you should conclude that "fine tuning" is meaningless.

>
> Since you brought up the idea of a Designer, it appears that
> this is the only alternative you can imagine. This suggests
> that science really has nothing to do with the objections to
> fine-tuning. The whole argument that science is the only
> motive for these arguments is a pose.

Nonsense. The "Designer" I brought up is simply a way of naming the unknown reason that the constants have the values that they do. I don't particularly like that choice of a name, but it's just a name. Call it "Fine Tuner" or "Unknown Reason for the Constants Having the Value They Do." The name is unimportant. I don't muck about trying to figure out your motivations, or looking for a hidden agenda. That would be a lazy way of dismissing your arguments. I just take your arguments at face value as you make them.



>
> Bill

[scienceci...@gmail.com]

Bill wrote,
>show quoted text -

>When it becomes obvious
>that the obvious is too
>obscure to discuss, it's not >laziness to give up
>discussing it. I introduced
>the concept of reality and >perception to make a simple
>point about the impossibility
>of certain knowledge. There
>is something we perceive
>but the nature of perception
>doesn't tell us what's really
>real. I've gone into detail in
>several threads but most
>posters here seem
>determined to
>misunderstand.
>Bill

The law of specific nerve energy is a physical law that says this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_specific_nerve_energies

" The law of specific nerve energies, first proposed by Johannes Peter Müller (Helmholtz's teacher)
in 1835, is that the nature of perception is defined by the pathway over which the sensory information is carried. Hence, the origin of the sensation is not important."

Therefore, perception is not important in the investigation of reality because perception is not the origin, it is the pathway. However, the pathway is part of a circuit involving physical energy where the origin, as the thing in the world, and the organ, as a thing in the body, make an effort to work out a physically public idea, that either works or not to match a set membership in the public set of things in the world. It is our inventions that exhibit this demonstraton of set membership. It is not perception we know reality by, it is our inventions. Scientific inventions are the best set members to the set called "reality". It is better than media or language inventions. This point should be obvious. The logic is there is a search for unity between the scientific copy and the (real) original. For example the idea of a conversion of mass to energy is real and we invent public things that show this phenomenon again and again by invention. It is OK to think that this is not certain knowledge as in absolute knowledge. It is a relative knowledge; thus a knowledge about reality nonetheless.

SC RED