Why science appears to work.

[pantodragon]

When I am pointing out the flaws in science, my arguments are frequently countered by “look at all the technology we would not have without science.” That is, of course, true, but does not actually negate my arguments because though it is true that science has produced technology, it is not for the reasons scientists suppose, and once you appreciate the real reason for the appearance of technology then you understand that it is less of a success and more a sign of failure and mental dysfunction.

As I have stated elsewhere (without evidence as I am no scientist and my way of knowing is not that of science) life is a dream, and just as dreams are interpretable so is all of life. This interpretability works because the real world is a ‘manifestation’ of what is in the mind. What appears in the mind first manifests in the world later. This is like dreams, where what has been taking place in your mind during the day appears in you dreams during the night. (It appears as a story, a visual metaphor.)

The mind has natural ways of thinking and understanding which are far, far more complex and sophisticated than the most sophisticated machine could ever hope to be. This thinking, understanding mind works in its own way and not according to any rules. When faced with new ‘problems’ that it is not currently equipped to deal with, it grows and develops and after a while it will ‘evolve’ the wherewithal to deal with this new problem. That is what the mind does.

Some time at least as long ago as the time the Ancient Greeks were developing philosophy and the like, people started developing RULES for thinking, rules of logic and such. These rules are not ‘of the mind’ but are ‘imposed on the mind’. They are not part of the natural mind. They are not, in fact, natural in the sense of ‘of nature’, but are machine-like. Thus people began to create ‘machines’ in their minds which, not being ‘natural’ were not truly part of the mind, but a sort of mechanistic extension of it.

Thus began the route to the modern world of technology. People began to develop these ‘machines’ for thinking in their minds, and, later, when these processes were sufficiently developed, they manifested in the real world as computers. Quite literally, people have created ‘computers’ in their minds. Other machinery has the same origin because, once the mechanistic way of thinking and doing is established in the mind it is used to solve every problem, to accomplish every task, and that manifests as all the machinery of our modern world.

Thus all our modern technology represents what has been developed in the mind, and those machines of the mind have taken over from the natural processes, leaving the natural mind a barren wasteland:

“Here is no water but only rock

Rock and no water and the sandy road

The road winding above among the mountains

Which are mountains of rock without water

If there were water we should stop and drink

Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think

Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand

If there were only water amongst the rock

Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit

Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit

There is not even silence in the mountains

But dry sterile thunder without rain

There is not even solitude in the mountains

But red sullen faces sneer and snarl

From doors of mudcracked houses”

This is what you have made of your minds with your lust for power. This is the price of modern technology.

(Interestingly, that technology mirrors what is going on in the mind rather than any ‘real’ processes in a ‘real’ material world, means that it does not work as people think if does. Science is myth, and the technology works by processes that science would find more akin to MAGIC than anything it would recognise as legitimate science.)

[Lilly]

Don't you think it's rather ironic that you're typing all of this on a piece ot that modern technology?

BTW, in order to achieve technological and medical advances people have to be able to think in the first place. More people world wide are literate in 2013 than ever before. Information on a vast variety of topics is available to more people than ever before. Frankly, the idea that the development of technology somehow causes "mental dysfunction" just doesn't seem to hold water IMO.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

without evidence as I am no scientist and my way of knowing is not that of science)

Well at least there is one thing in your post we can agree on, although I would dispute your use of "knowing" as there is an immense difference between knowledge and opinion.

Science has produced a huge amount of knowledge, you have expressed a huge amount of opinion.

By your own admission you have no evidence, do you not think that if your opinions had any basis in fact there would be evidence to support them?

[pantodragon]

Don't you think it's rather ironic that you're typing all of this on a piece ot that modern technology?

BTW, in order to achieve technological and medical advances people have to be able to think in the first place. More people world wide are literate in 2013 than ever before. Information on a vast variety of topics is available to more people than ever before. Frankly, the idea that the development of technology somehow causes "mental dysfunction" just doesn't seem to hold water IMO.

No. I don't think you read my post very carefully. Your observations have been dealt with in the post; in fact, that is rather what the post was about as I stated in the very first paragraph.

Well at least there is one thing in your post we can agree on, although I would dispute your use of "knowing" as there is an immense difference between knowledge and opinion.

Science has produced a huge amount of knowledge, you have expressed a huge amount of opinion.

By your own admission you have no evidence, do you not think that if your opinions had any basis in fact there would be evidence to support them?

I refer you to my post: pantodragon's world in a nutshell.

[StarMountainKid]

I believe our thinking has become machine-like. Our world is a manifestation of what is in our minds. Even the Buddha said "you are what you think", and these thoughts become real life. In this sense I agree with pentodragon.

"The mind has natural ways of thinking and understanding" pentodragon says. I think this "natural way of thinking" is a more holistic kind of thinking that can become lost in today's technological society. Everyone is a "specialist" nowadays. The technician is not also an artist. Only those specializing in art create art.

I think in more "primitive" societies everyone could be an artist, a hunter, a farmer, a craftsman. Today we are all educated to be a specialized cog in the greater wheel. In this kind of society we have natural creativity poverty.

It would be good if we could petition the government to compensate us for our creative disability and receive a pension. We have become creatively handicapped.

Is my view, anyway.

[Dark_Grey]

People began to develop these ‘machines’ for thinking in their minds, and, later, when these processes were sufficiently developed, they manifested in the real world as computers. Quite literally, people have created ‘computers’ in their minds. Other machinery has the same origin

Thus all our modern technology represents what has been developed in the mind

So let me get this straight: before the invention existed, someone had to think up that invention in their mind first?

Whoa, slow down man. This is getting too heavy for the internet.

[shrooma]

Everyone is a "specialist" nowadays. The technician is not also an artist. Only those specializing in art create art.

.

I hold a degree in two different engineering disciplines, am a fairly competent artist, and a very talented musician.....

.

(who doesn't own a computer....)

[Einsteinium]

When I am pointing out the flaws in science, my arguments are frequently countered by “look at all the technology we would not have without science.” That is, of course, true, but does not actually negate my arguments because though it is true that science has produced technology, it is not for the reasons scientists suppose, and once you appreciate the real reason for the appearance of technology then you understand that it is less of a success and more a sign of failure and mental dysfunction.

As I have stated elsewhere (without evidence as I am no scientist and my way of knowing is not that of science) life is a dream, and just as dreams are interpretable so is all of life. This interpretability works because the real world is a ‘manifestation’ of what is in the mind. What appears in the mind first manifests in the world later. This is like dreams, where what has been taking place in your mind during the day appears in you dreams during the night. (It appears as a story, a visual metaphor.)

The mind has natural ways of thinking and understanding which are far, far more complex and sophisticated than the most sophisticated machine could ever hope to be. This thinking, understanding mind works in its own way and not according to any rules. When faced with new ‘problems’ that it is not currently equipped to deal with, it grows and develops and after a while it will ‘evolve’ the wherewithal to deal with this new problem. That is what the mind does.

Some time at least as long ago as the time the Ancient Greeks were developing philosophy and the like, people started developing RULES for thinking, rules of logic and such. These rules are not ‘of the mind’ but are ‘imposed on the mind’. They are not part of the natural mind. They are not, in fact, natural in the sense of ‘of nature’, but are machine-like. Thus people began to create ‘machines’ in their minds which, not being ‘natural’ were not truly part of the mind, but a sort of mechanistic extension of it.

Thus began the route to the modern world of technology. People began to develop these ‘machines’ for thinking in their minds, and, later, when these processes were sufficiently developed, they manifested in the real world as computers. Quite literally, people have created ‘computers’ in their minds. Other machinery has the same origin because, once the mechanistic way of thinking and doing is established in the mind it is used to solve every problem, to accomplish every task, and that manifests as all the machinery of our modern world.

Thus all our modern technology represents what has been developed in the mind, and those machines of the mind have taken over from the natural processes, leaving the natural mind a barren wasteland:

“Here is no water but only rock

Rock and no water and the sandy road

The road winding above among the mountains

Which are mountains of rock without water

If there were water we should stop and drink

Amongst the rock one cannot stop or think

Sweat is dry and feet are in the sand

If there were only water amongst the rock

Dead mountain mouth of carious teeth that cannot spit

Here one can neither stand nor lie nor sit

There is not even silence in the mountains

But dry sterile thunder without rain

There is not even solitude in the mountains

But red sullen faces sneer and snarl

From doors of mudcracked houses”

This is what you have made of your minds with your lust for power. This is the price of modern technology.

(Interestingly, that technology mirrors what is going on in the mind rather than any ‘real’ processes in a ‘real’ material world, means that it does not work as people think if does. Science is myth, and the technology works by processes that science would find more akin to MAGIC than anything it would recognise as legitimate science.)

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. A is A, 0 is 0, Go ahead an think up some fantasy world and then manifest it in to reality. Come on, i'm waiting. The fact is that the world does not work this way like you mystics would have us believe. The world IS, the laws of nature do not change, do not bend or bow the will of the mind of men. All we can to is learn the laws of nature, and use them to our advantage. Try telling the engineer who invented the modern computer that the computer works by magic and that all the tireless years of effort and understanding of the physical world that had to happen to make that computer possible were just an illusion and all that mattered was the idea inside the mind and you will get punched in the face.

[Lilly]

No. I don't think you read my post very carefully. Your observations have been dealt with in the post; in fact, that is rather what the post was about as I stated in the very first paragraph.

Ok, then let me put it this way: I see no evidence that people thinking in a mechanistic mind set, then developing machines, has somehow left our minds a "barren wasteland". How all this supports the idea that "science is a myth" that only "appears to work" eludes me.

[pantodragon]

So let me get this straight: before the invention existed, someone had to think up that invention in their mind first?

Whoa, slow down man. This is getting too heavy for the internet.

Silly billy! No, no. What I said was: something APPEARS in the mind first, then manifests in the real world later. So, if one learns to think like a computer, computers will manifest in the real world. This manifestation will be accomplished via someone having the ideas necessary to "invent" a computer.

.

I hold a degree in two different engineering disciplines, am a fairly competent artist, and a very talented musician.....

.

(who doesn't own a computer....)

This is poverty.

You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. A is A, 0 is 0, Go ahead an think up some fantasy world and then manifest it in to reality. Come on, i'm waiting. The fact is that the world does not work this way ...................................................Try telling the engineer who invented the modern computer that the computer works by magic and that all the tireless years of effort and understanding of the physical world that had to happen to make that computer possible were just an illusion and all that mattered was the idea inside the mind and you will get punched in the face.

For it was written..............

[StarMountainKid]

StarMountainKid, on 22 April 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

Everyone is a "specialist" nowadays. The technician is not also an artist. Only those specializing in art create art.

I hold a degree in two different engineering disciplines, am a fairly competent artist, and a very talented musician.....

.

(who doesn't own a computer....)

Great! I think you can understand what I'm trying to say, though. Children express themselves artistically easily and enthusiastically because they haven't yet realized 'real art' is what is in museums created by specialists. When they become adults and are asked to draw or paint something, I'd bet they'd say oh I cant' do that, I'm no artist. Everyone is an artist, and everyone's art is valuable.

Science and technology requires specialized knowledge, of course. Still, we all can gain some of this kind of knowledge. We can even study nature ourselves by our own means, gaining knowledge first-hand.

We are all natural philosophers as well, except when we cling to the philosophies of the Official Philosophers. Then we just become mimics, repeating what others have told us to think.

In my view, how we think is just as important than what we think. Oftentimes we allow society to determine how we think as well as what we think. In this sense I agree with the OP.

Edited April 25, 2013 by StarMountainKid

[scowl]

What I said was: something APPEARS in the mind first, then manifests in the real world later. So, if one learns to think like a computer, computers will manifest in the real world.

This depends on what you mean by "think like a computer". No one can think like a computer. If they could, they would be able to write software without bugs. That would be great!

If you mean "follow a series of instructions", well, humans have been doing that for thousands of years. Computers are only better at it.

[Lilly]

As my kids are fond of saying, "Whatever". Bottom line: none of this philosophical mind set stuff has any bearing on science working. Science does indeed work. Science has improved the lives of human beings in so many ways. Granted, we still need ethical standards/decisions regarding how we implement our scientific advancements...but science does work.

[Frank Merton]

To tell the truth, I've never had any clear idea just what "science" is supposed to be beyond a division of the academic staffs of universities.

It is not a "method" or set of rules -- it is hundreds of methods. It is not "truth." It is not "organized." There are certain areas of human activity we call science -- the inquiry into how molecules fit together might be an example, but how that might be associated with efforts to find formulas that predict what I will want for breakfast tomorrow I couldn't guess, so that both psychology and chemistry are said to be "science", but philosophy and music are not, leaves me behind.

I wonder what a hypothetical intelligent alien would make of the ways we divide up our intellectual lives.

[pantodragon]

Great! I think you can understand what I'm trying to say, though. Children express themselves artistically easily and enthusiastically because they haven't yet realized 'real art' is what is in museums created by specialists. When they become adults and are asked to draw or paint something, I'd bet they'd say oh I cant' do that, I'm no artist. Everyone is an artist, and everyone's art is valuable.

Science and technology requires specialized knowledge, of course. Still, we all can gain some of this kind of knowledge. We can even study nature ourselves by our own means, gaining knowledge first-hand.

We are all natural philosophers as well, except when we cling to the philosophies of the Official Philosophers. Then we just become mimics, repeating what others have told us to think.

In my view, how we think is just as important than what we think. Oftentimes we allow society to determine how we think as well as what we think. In this sense I agree with the OP.

"In every cry of every Man,

In every Infants cry of fear,

In every voice: in every ban,

The mind-forg'd manacles I hear"

[pantodragon]

This depends on what you mean by "think like a computer". No one can think like a computer. If they could, they would be able to write software without bugs. That would be great!

If you mean "follow a series of instructions", well, humans have been doing that for thousands of years. Computers are only better at it.

You are demonstrating yourself what it is to think like a computer: you're insisting upon literal, precise definitions. Humans, on the other hand, tend to say "I know what you mean", and they read poetry and understand it without being able to define exactly what it might mean. Computers think logically, people think intuitively --- but don't ask me to define what that means.

Edited April 27, 2013 by pantodragon

[pantodragon]

To tell the truth, I've never had any clear idea just what "science" is supposed to be beyond a division of the academic staffs of universities.

Some characteriostics of science are: objectivity, rationality, empirical verification........there are more and maybe others can provide them. One of the problems is that philosophers of science constantly redefine what they mean by "science" in order to escape the objections and criticisms of other philosophers. Philosophy differs from science in that it deals with things which are not empirically verifiable. Music and the arts have no requirement to be rational; they often make appeal purely to the senses and not only do they not require to be rational, they can, intentionally, be complete incomprehensible nonsense --- e.g. the poetry of Octavio Paz.

[Frank Merton]

Well, empirical verifiability is philosophy. Scientists may demand it, but philosophers are needed to tell us what it is, and they have as much agreement on the subject as they have on what "beauty" is.

[pantodragon]

Well, empirical verifiability is philosophy. Scientists may demand it, but philosophers are needed to tell us what it is, and they have as much agreement on the subject as they have on what "beauty" is.

I don't think you will find any philosophers who do experiments. However, as to the unlikelihood of philosophers agreeing on any definition, I think you are correct there.