Physical science isn't about examining reality. Reality

Am I my brain?

>>7637334
youre roughly 2500 years late with that idea but yes, thats true. doesnt really matter though, since we cant do anything about it.

>>7637334
Then why does my color blind friends disagree with me about which colors are which? There must be some objective reality that both of our brains can interpret differently.

>>7637334
imbecile

>>7637334
>>>/lit/

>>7637334
basically >>7637346, babby's first philosophy of science

File: 1363829229715.jpg (10KB, 302x329px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 302x329px

>>7637334
>He's a platonist
Hahaha fucking idiot! Post discarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMAypyKqVKE

>>7637346
>>7637381

So who came up with it? Where can I read more about? I really just came up with that on my own after tripping on lsd.

>>7637334
But we do have access to reality through development of precise measuring instruments that do not rely on the human brain. The measurements must of course be interpreted by the brain, but that's what psychophysics is for- the bridge between perceived and objective reality.

>>7637400
If you actually cared, you'd be reading and researching renowned philosophers who've thought of these things way before you did. But I get the feeling the extent of your knowledge is DUDE WEED LMAO. DO YOU EVEN SCIENCE?

>>7637400
Descartes I guess is ok to start with. "Cant know nuthin". Then go through main works of Kuhn and Popper (there are great online resources especially a summary of a lecture given by Popper on an overview of his ideas) and that should be comprehensive enough.

>>7637459
The instruments just give meaningless data - it's in the context of the model in which they get interpreted and given their subjective meaning.

>>7637473
dont be an ass, he made a humble post asking for sources and that's great