15
   

A limit to understanding ?

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 02:03 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Who, not what . The "what" is defined by the "who".


Not if the What created the who.

Are you a Pagan fresco?

I don't mind "confusing" psychology and sociology. Are you a Pagan taxonomist?

Engineering has a instinct component before the intent. To build a ladder to the stars, for example. Or does it? Islam closes off the sky even to the extent of refusing direct sunlight. The Asian wanders aimlessly in soft focus perspectives. The Christian reaches for the heavens and celebrates the light. And invents Science.

The US it seems to me is becoming anti-Christian and we are following. I suppose all countries which import US culture are also.

The reason I think is that Christianity recognises human imperfections and they are anathema in the US where everybody is wonderful and has no imperfections. Devices that allow us to be lazy are advertised in all action settings. A coach drive from London to Bath in the 18th century, which was non-stop action all the way. In a motor car people have to be shown how not to go to sleep at the wheel on such a journey and it is only two hours or so.

How can nations which indulge, wallows even, in orgies of pride, lust, sloth, envy, gluttony etc etc, I can't remember the others but that lot will do for now, be anything other than anti-Christian?

Are you as diplomatic as that, old boy, at your philosophy meetings?
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 02:39 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
The quest for a TOE is likely to give rise to potentially useful data irrespective of the viability of the goal. Is there not a saying to the effect "the journey is more important than the destination" ?
Why yes of course Fres, that's approximately what I meant, or at least thought I was saying. My apologies if I wasn't clear

Quote:
As for the relationship between "language" and "thought" some researchers (Sapir and Whorf) have argued that they are inextricable
Why yes, again, surely. Did you interpret my posting otherwise

....or are you simply agreeing with me


Quote:
In short, it may be that we can never epistemologically transcend the limits of our physiology/neurology.
Quite true Fres but if we allow ourselves speculation, however seemingly at Philo's extremity, we might at least skirt The TOE, gaining valuable insight

Reviewing your post I'm more certain you meant to buttress my position tho I couldn't believe it, so rare an occurrence hereabout
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 02:45 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
Is there not a saying to the effect "the journey is more important than the destination" ?


If there is it's a load of bullshit. Do the lions think the catching of a doe-eyed gazelle, a journey similar in some respects to our preparing for our entrance into a restaurant, is more important than eating it which then allows them to scratch and yawn and sleep for the rest of the day.

Isn't cheap airline travel designed to retain as much cash in hand for the destination as possible. Most of the travelers would be prepared to sit on the floor for another tenner off. Those seats are pretty heavy for a start. I've been on trains and buses where sitting on the floor was a luxury.

If it concerns foreplay Dr Hfuhruhurr kicked the idea out of the ground years ago.

One might easily suspect, fresco, that you are in favour of dragging out the journey to human perfection for as long as possible. And with the Church having given you a flying start in a mere 1000 years.

I often wonder what those who are fond of sticking it up the Church, which must be the softest target ever invented, would have done had they had a voice in the Church in those years.
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 04:00 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
Do the lions think...

No !
Quote:
I've been on trains and buses where sitting on the floor was a luxury.

It would be if you think with your backside ! Smile
Quote:
the journey to human perfection

...As mythical as the TOE
Quote:
sticking it up the Church

All absolutist claims for "Truth" are reflections of a psychological need to insulate the human psyche from the high probability of its cosmic insignificance.


spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Jan, 2014 04:12 pm
@fresco,
If you care to look at the first message I placed on A2K you will see what I think of my cosmic significance.

My profile is nothing like yours fresco.

Quote:
...As mythical as the TOE


You're a pessimist are you?
0 Replies
 
nazia08
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2014 05:38 am
Actually, chimps can do algebra and mathematics. They can even speak sign language.

Anyway, yes there is a limit to human understanding. For instance, we cannot imagine what it would be like to see in four dimensions. We can never know what it's like to experience someone else's thoughts and feelings. We cannot fully comprehend the massiveness of space, and our tiny tiny position within it...
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 11:01 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
There is a great deal more to why the true nature of the REALITY of existence is not "available" to us than the difficulties with language.
True Frank, though one aspect of language that limits our ability to comprehend the Universe is its dualistic quality. Necessarily for instance we establish an absolute linguistic distinction between the concrete and the abstract, limiting to some extent our ultimate comprehension
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 11:03 am
@fresco,
Quote:
I am suggesting that the quest for a ToE (Theory of Everything) is futile….
Doesn't this viewpoint however somewhat limit our strivings. Tho we might never fully grasp a TOE, the more we learn the better we can dance around it
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Mar, 2014 11:06 am
@timur,
Quote:
Did it ever happened to you to have some thoughts that were so different from your language scope that you could never formalize them?
Indeed Tim, well put

…rather parallel with my message to Frank above
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 04:49 pm
@fresco,
As much as I am in awe of our ability to "understand" the universe, I believe that this ability is limited, and if we never rise above where we now stand, we will never understand it all.

I'm confident that we will rise though because we have opened the door to the transcendence of our our biological limitations.

We will, eventually, merge with our machines and in this way exponentially expand our understanding.

There are many that find such a notion to be disconcerting or even abhorrent, but why should we be repulsed by humanity taking the full benefit of its creations?

By the time this transcendence is realized, we will not be seeing "machines" as we see them now.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Apr, 2014 05:03 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
but why should we be repulsed by humanity taking the full benefit of its creations?


It might be because we don't know what "full benefit" means.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Apr, 2014 04:49 pm
@spendius,
It's hard to imagine that anyone is repulsed by what they don't know, and so I can only assume that they have concluded that they, in fact, think they know what "full benefit" means.

I can easily imagine that a great many pre-historic humans would find our modern life-style repulsive rather than wonderful, and not because they were lowly, ignorant savages.

We will move to a time of merging with our machines over time. It isn't going to happen tomorrow and by the time it arrives, we will accept it as inevitable advancement.

This doesn't mean, of course, that there will not be those who fight it every step of the way, or that it can't result in a dystopic world as depicted in The Matrix or Terminator, but short of a man-made or cosmic extinction event, it is ineviable, and if I'm wrong, then it will mean the eventual extinction of humanity. Whether as noble savages or incrementally more knowlegable humans, we can't live on Earth forever.
0 Replies
 
GorDie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2015 10:47 am
@fresco,
true
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Dec, 2016 07:16 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

Put crudely, the Big Bang model implies that all of what we conceive of as material, energy, and even space-time suddenly appeared in what we measure as about 13 billion years ago. Irrespective of the status of Big Bang as an accepted model, does my emphasis of the words about what appears to us suggest anything more than we should be cautious in accepting any scientific paradigm such as Big Bang as being more than temporally useful in what we call “our understanding”?


Our understanding of the Universe is changing all the time , and quite frankly there are many brillant people out there that have different versions of the Universe . The mainstream , Big Bang is an old theory .

For instance , on You Tube , look up David Lapoint . Fascinating stuff . Much different take on the Universe .
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2016 01:25 am
@north,
So are you agreeing that any model only has temporary epistemological status ?
north
 
  1  
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2016 12:56 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

So are you agreeing that any model only has temporary epistemological status ?


Not any . At some point we will have a solid understanding of any ology.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2017 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2017 at 11:56:35