I really don't give a damn which one is true.
I do give a damn which one is true. I have not been following the whole thread, but that sentence sure jumped out at me.
What is a way I can convince you that I am being open-minded? I am willing to read through the thread and add my thoughts but I want to know where your open-minded threshold begins and ends. If I don't make the cut I won't bother.
First define "truth", and I'll start to worry about that.
Just don't start calling people names. It's not helpful in any sense. I'm not trying to lower the quality of discussion here, quite the opposite (not that it isn't high quality discussion). If we don't disagree, it's not cause I'm stupider than you (which is the implication in comparing me to a flat earther)... It's cause our experiences lead us to different conclusions. Maybe I am stupider than you. even then is that a reason to exclude someone from a conversation? Maybe I want to talk about the relationship between "mythos" and "logos". Maybe that makes me irrational? Why jump to the conclusion that I have no idea what I'm talking about? Why assume I'm attached to my ideas to the point where you can't point out their flaws without ad hominem attacks? really... You guys take everything so seriously.
Either someone cares how condensation works or they don't. If they care, then you should explain how it works. If they don't you should talk about something else. Neither option involves making up bad metaphors for phenomena. Under what circumstances would you share extremely bad explanations?
I like avante garde art, sensory deprivation chambers, and MDMA as much as the next guy but I don't propagate deceptive non-explanations.
An explanation using myth is only "bad" from a rationalists' perspective. Devoid of "ism" it's as good as any... Maybe I only care about how condensation works far enough to make a painting of it, or write a song about it. As stated above, no one has the slightest idea what's going on... even if you can explain exactly how every phenomenon works and how it happens, tell me "why" it happens and I'll give you a virtua-lolipop. If I have a reality where I experience "ghosts" "god" "fairies" and "giant pyramid craft hovering over the kremlin" (hold on...) then I have a reality where those things happen to me. maybe evolutionary biology rules out fairies- that doesn't change the fact that they sometimes happen to people. If that experience can have meaning attached to it, in what sense is it not "real"? I mean, my dreams are "real". "reality" is very ambiguously defined.
The only good metaphor is a dead metaphor.
I assume you're joking... Otherwise this statement is incredibly ignorant. I guess art is worthless to you?
Yes, we do understand where you're coming from. We just think you're mistaken and confused.
You really need to go read the entire Mysterious Answers to Mysterious Questions sequence before you comment again, because you sound like a flat-earther asking questions at an astronomy conference. :(
Yeah, well. You're mother wears combat boots. LOL I can't believe you're stooping to name calling. I'm just promoting alternate views.. I really don't give a damn which one is true. We just use the belief we find most useful. Beauty is truth. What does "objective" mean? My brain is clearly wired differently than yours. That's okay! I hope I haven't dropped below your "sanity threshold"... Pfft. I personally think I'm NOT mistaken and confused, even though there's a choir of "rationalists" preaching at me. It's not "rational" to subdue dialogue like that. The fact that a dogmatic comment like yours gets voted up while an open minded one like mine gets voted below the viewing threshold is part of the reason "rationalism" is still in the minority. You know what? I still love you. You should go outside more, and instead of explaining, just experience. No one has the slightest idea what's going on, not even you. What explanation will you give me if I ask you "Why"? You're succumbing to the worst parts of tribalism. I said something you think "rational people" don't believe, so "we" think I'm "irrational". Blah... I quickly lost faith (irony) in this website. Good articles, though.
there are many myths that have turned out to be pretty good intuitions of real phenomenon.
That might be true ...
for instance, the Hindu belief in "divine vibration" sounds uncannily like string theory- then there is an African tribe known as the Dogon that was aware of the fact that Sirius is a binary system hundreds of years ago.
... but all that is not true. There is a long list of distinctively modern concepts and discoveries - DNA, the Big Bang, black holes... - which are constantly being linked in spurious ways to ancient myth and scripture. It is actually a type of modern superstition that shamans already know all this, that God or aliens already told us about it in code, etc - in short, that the pre-scientific world already knew about what science has discovered.
Hinduism has nothing to do with string theory. A hundred years ago, you had spiritualists trying to link divine vibrations with the electromagnetic spectrum. In a few years they'll be trying to link it with cortical brain rhythms. These connections are completely superficial. As for the Dogon, the match between myth and astronomy is far more equivocal than you might have thought.
It's incredibly frustrating how all my comments get voted down so much... Anyway, how does that have nothing to do with string theory? I guess maybe I don't understand anything about either of them. It's not like I have a degree. That said, I believe string theory relates to the way that at a base level, all form is caused by vibration? (PLEASE correct me if this is wrong) I relate this to cymatics (google it if you're unfamiliar). You're saying that the concept of a universal creative vibration (om) doesn't sound anything like the concept of vibration creating all form? Really? Even if it's totally coincidence (whatever that means), it still works as an explanation. The concept of archetypes repeating themselves would possibly account for that... I think it's irrational to rule that out instantly. With the Dogon, admittedly I could've done more research. The thing is, we're all looking at the same whole. It's amazing how many similarities there are between myths of different cultures- most of them revolving around the worship of "projective" and "receptive" principals (God and Goddess) which obviously exist in the form of sun and earth or man and woman or whatever. Do you see where I'm coming from?
I see how "the water god finds purchase on the earth goddesses' children" is a metaphor for water coming to be on dust particles by way of condensation. What I don't see is how that metaphor explains shit. Yes the water god found purchase on the children of the earth goddess... but I knew that when I saw the water on the dust. Explaining condensation involves discussing phases of matter and how temperature affects them. Your metaphor hasn't told me anything other than "the water did something to the dust" (surely erosion or mud could be described with the same sentence). The metaphor only seems like it explains something if the person hearing the explanation reifies 'water god' and 'earth goddess'. Then there is a causal story ("Why is there water here? The water god did it. If you have a problem with it speak to the water god. Etc.").
Respectfully, you're missing the point. A solid answer like that is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things- unless you need to use condensation for something, it doesn't matter exactly how it works; which is why people are content with metaphor. You've really got to not be so closed to other ways of seeing reality... I like science as much as the next guy, but my experience of reality is a work of art (creative commons attribution license, tee hee).
Also, it was a really crappy metaphor.
You can have emotions while being rational, and you can be rational while having emotions. They are opposed sometimes, but they do not always have to be. But when there is a conflict between them, rationality (so long as you practice it properly) is more reliable in reaching correct, useful conclusions.
Unless you're involved in an emotional relationship with someone... Yes, you could take the machine approach and go "your reaction is improper based on the stimulii" or you could take a more human approach and say "oh sorry I hurt your feelings" and maybe cry with them or something. Irrationality is allowed in human relationships.
I want to make the same request I make on every website with comment-scoring- Get rid of this nonsense! Yes I have made comments people think deserve to be voted down... I'd be making this request regardless. It really doesn't help with discussion. My suggestion: Remove the downvote, keep the report button. Hateful/ outright stupid messages should be hidden; this shouldn't be decided by mob rule. The "karma" concept results in unpopular or somewhat uneducated comments being removed from discussion, which I do not consider desirable.
That is one disgusting metaphor. And if I was talking to somebody who had a problem undertstanding condensation I would not make up metaphors. I would hold a glass over a small pot of water on the stove. Or perhaps better, ask them to breath on a window if it is a somewhat cold day.
Ha ha, yeah, rain is the result of divine pedophilia. Didn't think that one through... I dunno, just playing with ideas. My point is that "sky spirits" as an explanation isn't "incorrect", just imprecise and prone to misinterpretation. I mean, there are many myths that have turned out to be pretty good intuitions of real phenomenon. for instance, the Hindu belief in "divine vibration" sounds uncannily like string theory- then there is an African tribe known as the Dogon that was aware of the fact that Sirius is a binary system hundreds of years ago. "the plants told us". I'd expect a Curandero in the amazon to know more about the ecology there than any "rational" (quotes to highlight subjectivity) scientist... Even though they would probably use terms like "spirit" to describe it. Holding a glass over a pot of water doesn't explain condensation, it just demonstrates it. "why does water gather there?" It's very possible to intuit things about nature. Strange but it's true. [As an aside, I know this isn't on topic, but I'm multi-attentional, so it's okay.] I'd recommend Jill Bolte Taylors' talk on TED for a pretty good explanation of what I'm referring to; you don't need to have a stroke to get to that state of consciousness. I guess what I'm getting at is, why is it so important to be "right" in the objective sense? If you're trying to build some kind of precise machine, I can see the value. Otherwise, a pretty story is way more than good enough, especially if it conforms to universal archetype... IMHO
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Truth is correspondence with reality. To quote the narrator:
You can try to attach a probability of truth to something, but that would imply that you know something that is "true" to begin with. Ruling out "Divine revelation" (Not going to call God a liar, I guess), which I'll do for the sake of argument, there's nothing objective enough to fully attach the marker "truth" onto... Your experimental "truth" is true in the moment of experimentation, but not before or after. For instance, gravity is the example given in the essay. I would also expect Mark to fall off that cliff. But until he does, it's not "true" that he's going to- you just assume he will because it's been useful to in the past. There's no truly objective standard to judge anything against, since everything that happens is filtered through our intensely complicated mental apparatus, which is known to be terrible at determining what's happening for "real". I'm not saying it's "likely" that mark will simply float away... Just that it's impossible to assign a probability to that in advance.
That essay's fantastic, by the way, thanks for linking it.