>>17214120 I was thinking the same thing, even though I know what a patio is I doubt most modern people do.
We all exist in the field of consciousness, however there are parts of that field(extra dimensional realities, the omniverse) which we do not have physical access to. However experience does tend to be found from the "ether" which go beyond our individual physical experience, I believe much of our greatest inspiration comes from experiences others have beyond our reality which are received by us through necessity and desire.
>>17214146 >We all exist in the field of consciousness Except when we're asleep. >however there are parts of that field Parts are the only thing such a field can ever have. No unity can ever exist that hadn't existed already. >(extra dimensional realities, the omniverse) You mean, places that support consciousness/life? >which we do not have physical access to. Then they aren't part of the universe. There's no rule within "the" field of consciousness that says other realities aren't just as cagey as this one. If any two such worlds exist, it becomes pointless to say they are part of a field of consciousness. >However experience does tend to be found from the "ether" No, most /experiences/ come from the material world. Dreams are less memorable for most of us. This is not to say that etheric experiences don't happen too, but you'd be a fool to say the etheric world was more conducive to experience than this. >which go beyond our individual physical experience That, my friend, is where I draw the line of "spirit." The spiritual world is impersonal in an uplifting way rather than in a demotivating or negatively connoted way. >I believe much of our greatest inspiration comes from experiences others have beyond our reality I can see that, but I feel I should remind you that everyone suffers different inspirations. If you find yourself inspired by such things, seek them out. If others don't, accept that the inspiration you get is personal to you. To me, when it's personal, it means so much more than what it would mean if it were something that applied to everyone. It becomes a lot more beautiful to me when I see it as an individual rather than a supposed ubiquity. >which are received by us through necessity and desire. Yes. >>17214150 >Science is [...] not a possibility. Thanks! I knew you'd come around. >>17214165 Thanks! Heh, that actually makes me feel great. It is what I was what I was aiming for. I guess this is the first time I've ever concisely presented the idea.
>>17214211 There's a difference between understanding the laws and the laws existing. The laws exist whether you understand them or not. A baby doesn't understand the science behind gravity (neither do most adults, in any depth) but that doesn't mean the baby can fly. Scientific laws exist, independently of whether we can understand or quantify them.
And I don't know what you're talking about by saying everything is metaphysical principles. No, it's physical laws that govern the physical world and "science" is an explanation of those laws.
>>17214197 >Thanks! I knew you'd come around. You know exactly what I was saying and I'm not going to play that game.
>>17213912 >philosophy plagiarized from the future Except that scientists have a process where they document their discoveries and the development of understanding that comes from experiments and we know exactly where these scientific ideas came from in many cases. Nothing hypothetical about that.
>>17214242 Perhaps op was speaking of what inspired them to take the course of action leading to the discovery, or perhaps he means the "original" thought the engineer had was intercepted by him from a distant time.
>>17214226 >There's a difference between understanding the laws and the laws existing
The fact that laws exist at all is a mystery which science will never fully be able to explain. Science may 'discover' or otherwise verify laws but it can't tell us where these laws ultimately came from or otherwise why they exist at all to begin with. Furthermore, you're only proving my point by claiming that these laws exist whether there are observable minds to comprehend them or not. 1+1 will always equal 2 not. Whether or not any intelligible mind came to understand this principle to begin with is irrelevant. The law is ultimately metaphysical and points to physical realities resting upon metaphysical principles. The dogma, "I believe only that which can be observed in my test tube" is self-contradictory as you can not put the dogma in a test tube.
>>17214369 I haven't proved your point at all. I don't think you understand exactly what metaphysics is. There is nothing philosophical or ambiguous about physical laws that govern how particles exist/move/interact in this universe.
>Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of metaphysics known as natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge". The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment unlike the rest of philosophy. By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from philosophy. Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence
A physical reality does not "rest upon metaphysical principles" because metaphysics is just an interpretation or explanation of those physical laws. It is physics at the bottom, not metaphysics. The prefix "meta" even denotes this fact.
>Meta (from the Greek preposition and prefix meta- (μετά-) meaning "after", or "beyond") is a prefix used in English to indicate a concept which is an abstraction from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter.
Scientific thought may have started as metaphysical or philosophical questioning, but as we developed the scientific method we started to make actual discoveries about the physical world. Science is probably never going to tell you WHY certain things are the way they are, though, and that's why metaphysics is still interesting to people. That doesn't mean that science (physics, chemistry, mathematics) is hypothetical, though. Our universe is structured in a specific way and that isn't open to interpretation so there is no possibility that "science is hypothetical" like OP suggested.
>>17214424 Exactly this. Or, to put it more delicately, if you find this subject meaningful, there's tons of work on it done by people who have committed their lives to fundamental problems, such as those relating to science, and are part of a community and conversation of others throughout the world and time.
Why ignore their contributions in favor of your wild speculation?
Thanks to the internet, you have access to a huge resource of valuable information: the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/ It is renowned by professional philosophers and teachers of philosophy and is a great place to start your own philosophical investigations.
>>17214960 Then why did you post at all? You didn't even post a resource like the other guy. Either way, neither of you said what the rest of the people got right or wrong in any way. Useless, critical, self-important shitposting from the both of you.
there are parallel universes. while on acid i saw that this reality and universe is just one of many possebilities. there are other dimensions with other laws of nature and other forms of consciousness
>>17214966 I disagree. I don't have the time to engage with discussions of philosophy. This anon knows >>17214989 >Science is literally a branch of philosophy
But if you say something like that, which to people not educated in the philosophy of science might sound counter-intuitive, you get all kinds of herping and derping back from people who don't know what they are talking about. Simpler just to point out the problem and ask that people find their own way to learning about it.
I wouldn't go into a forum on say, nuclear physics and assume I know what is going on just because I've heard a couple of the words, and "common sense". Philosophy and science don't work that way.
>>17213912 Isn't science the proof (as close as we can get to scientific proof, calm your tits) or disproof of philosophy from the past? How would something go from being science now to philosophy in the future?
>>17214211 >yet without the two, you can not understand any type of scientific conclusion. I've never found language all that essential to understanding anything. Possibly because my mind has such a high intuition for mathematics, but still. I tend to think "understanding" it a bit overrated a lot of the time. Most knowledge is ultimately irrelevant to how we live our lives. Or at least it becomes irrelevant after the assembly line gets constructed.
>>17214222 >much more than words here could describe properly Then settle for improper descriptions. Everyone has dreams, so we'll understand if telling it isn't the same as experiencing it. Experience itself has always been intangible like that, on every plane of existence.
>>17213912 Science is literally just the act of giving names to things that can be observed repeatedly, under the same conditions. This is all that science is. Imagine you see some color, and then you see it again at a later time, and once more. You want to tell someone about it, maybe document it in a book, and therefore you give it a name. Later you recognize certain other characteristics/patterns that can also be observed repeatedly, so you give those characteristics/patterns a name.
This is science, including math and everything. It just got a little bit complex over time. Nothing paranormal about giving things names and recognizing patterns.
>>17214390 >This whole thread is just misunderstanding. That's the point. We're trapped in the past, ignorant about the triviality of the hypothetical that we revere as the forefront of scientific research.
>>17214419 >Scientific thought may have started as metaphysical or philosophical questioning Until every person you argue with online about this has the means to conduct all the different experiments that brought modern science into being, it is disingenuous for you to insist that each of us should adopt modern scientific lingo. Until all of us can SEE the evidence for ourselves, we are, in a very literal sense, trapped in the very past you dismiss as a bygone era. Academia might have moved on, but until it equips us to get to that level, it can't expect us to move past this more primitive form of thinking. Don't enlighten us with knowledge of science; enlighten us with the social means to acquire that knowledge for ourselves. Let us do it.
I can't stand to see any more dogma. Give me the means to know or give me death.
>>17214472 >Why ignore their contributions in favor of your wild speculation? Nobody's ignoring it. Ignoring is a willful act. Being ignorant is passive. People not knowing something isn't the same as people rejecting something they already know. Telling me not to "speculate" is the same as telling me not to think for myself. Inform me if I'm ignorant, but don't accuse me of trying to reject something that is entirely obscure to boards like /x/. If this thread were posted on /sci/, it'd be clear and present trolling. Here on /x/, it's a legitimate metaphysics question.
>>17225776 Dear God. No, it isn't a legitimate question since several anons pointed out why. If I were a car mechanic in a thread where people with no knowledge of combustion engines were speculating about how cars worked would it be telling them not to think for themselves to point out that they were wrong?
>>17218249 Science and philosophy have widely diverged in modern times, since science became, well, a science. Something like what you're talking about does happen when "psuedo-sciences" are discredited or mature into real science. For example, many of Freud's theories laid the foundation for modern psychology, and remain a large part of pop culture understanding of psychology, even most of his ideas turned out to be more or less total bullshit in the science of psychology. Freudian concepts live on in art and philosophy, like the concept of the Freudian trio, even though it is no longer science.
>>17221838 Language is a tool to organize our thoughts and lives, and more easily express ourselves to others. Looking at it abstractly, words are like simple machines, that are built together to form languages, complex machines that can perform the work of making expression easier for a whole group of people who use it. Language makes it easier for a complex society to develop, because allows people to understand ideas more complex or abstract than feelings, at least feelings that come easily to us.
Without language, communication is difficult, but understanding can be really hard.
>>17217536 1. Assume time travel is possible. 2. Assume time travel is used to transmit data. 3. Assume time travel is used to pirate future data. 4. Assume time travel is used for plagiarism. 5. Assume time travel is used more than once.
Lots of future content will eventually make it back in time. How it gets to the past without the pirates getting caught is trickier. Suffice to say that we can't just use time travel torrents prior to the invention of the internet.
>>17218249 The idea with time plagiarism is that as soon as the future speaks to the past, the past misunderstands and it instantly changes the future to one where people literally have no reference frame to understand that it was all just an idea the future wanted to talk about rather than a gospel or a dictum or dogma or whatever it became. >How would something go from being science now to philosophy in the future? Because of the very logic you dismissed to parenthesis.
Science is the organized construction of physical parity bits. Philosophy is the relinquishing of parity bits. Think of it like this, and all becomes unclear.
>>17222675 >Nothing paranormal about giving things names and recognizing patterns. Language has always been paranormal, anon.
Also: Your philosophy of science is absolute shit. People are more than living linguistic assertions. You need to get off the computer and interact with people IRL again. Play a game of charades or something. >>17223380 >the height of paranormality Pure perception, elemental experience, increased intuition, forbidden feelings, and curious cognition are the essence and peak of the paranormal. You must lead a pretty sheltered like to think science is paranormal. >>17225736 >Disagreeing only shows your own poor education. Assertions like that only show that you're a faggot regardless of any education you may or might like to profess.
Thread replies: 68 Thread images: 4
Thread DB ID: 434175
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.