Can pseudo-intellectual philosophy sway the masses?

The word 'fact' derives from the Latin facere - to construct. Facts are verbal constructions about agreed perceptual phenomena; or confidence about our expectancies of them. All agreement assumes common physiology but also common focus and need, but both needs and focus can and do change which alter perceptual states. Facts are are species specific, culture specific, and situation specific. This follows the thinking of many, including Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Evans-Pritchard and Heisenberg.

If you investgate my posting history you will find my involvement with threads such as 'the half life of facts' or 'the social construction of reality' in which these issues are explored. The key issue is that all phenomena involve processing such that 'facts' can never be independent of observers. This is why pragmatists of all varieties highlight 'what works at the time' and dismiss or avoid the concept of 'things-in-themselves'. From this point of view, 'science' is actually about successful 'prediction and control' and does not concern itself with the lay concept of 'independent things'. The 'laws of physics' amount to statements of human expectancies about what they currently call 'the universe'.

To construct what? What are we perceiving? We have common physiology and perceive atoms the same way all the time. We have no evidence to suggest they were perceived differently in the past so why assume something you have no evidence for? I suspect my cat, a scientist and a lay person sense the atoms in the floor very similar to me. Would you agree with that statement? If something is hot my cat avoids it like I do. (he just doesn't know why.) What evidence do you have that having different needs or focus changes the facts? If I need air conditioning, the stove is still hot. Would you agree that is always a fact? Water always is and always was H2O. Is that a fact? As we understand new particles in physics, they don't just appear the day we build the accelerator and the sensors to detect them. Do you think most scientists and lay persons would agree with that statement? Why don't you answer my questions? I am trying to learn by asking simple questions in a systematic way. Why can't you answer each question in order? There are many people that disagree with theses people, and they are not all lay people. Some are well known philosophers.Can you sight me some evidence proving this statement is correct? I do believe the observer effects the observation in quantum mechanics, because the atoms in our sensor has to interact with the atoms being sensed, thus altering their positions, but that only has to do with location. A sensed hydrogen atom was a hydrogen atom before it was sensed, as well as after. There is a lot of evidence supporting that statement I do believe. That statement being true is why science can predict. Why don't you answer all my questions as I ask them? Don't you believe the best way for two people to understand each others ideas and concepts is to ask and answer questions?

As soon as you ask for 'evidence' you end the communication because according to the views I have described 'evidence' is in the eye of the beholder.

I refer you to the lengthy discussions in my posting history. But you will get nowhere with them unless you can commune with the key issue that we have no way of 'getting at' the lay concept of 'an objective reality' and therefore it is futile to cling to it.

So you would agree that ID is not pseudo-science anymore than Darwinian evolution is, since both views have large groups in consensus and feel they are right. Why do you call 'objective reality a lay concept? There are many with doctorates in many scientific fields that believe in objective reality. Is their view as equally valid as yours? Isn't all science based on interpretations of evidence?

No. ID is not 'scientific' because it is not 'fasifiable in principle' (Popper). Like religion, it may have psychological uses for those requiring 'a purpose for their existence', but that is all that can be said about it. Darwinism is 'scientific' insofar that no exceptions to adaptive mutations have yet been encountered (as far as I know). If, for example our hypothetical starving frog suddenly became 'aware' of dead insects without going through a generational selectivity process, then that would be evidence against straight Darwinism. But bear in mind that other paradigms have been offered to account for morphological change (see Shedrake for example) which unlike ID may satisfy the 'scientific test' criterion

And as far as 'objectivity' is concerned, the subject-object dichotomy is an offshoot of naive realism which denies the inextricability of observer and observed. The Copenhagen Convention has recognised that as far as QM is concerned, and there is no reason it cannot apply at the macro level where observational agreement tends to be 'the norm' simply by virtue of our common macro physiological processing and common needs.

I should perhaps add that Heidegger, for example, recognised subject-object contemplation as a particular mode of 'being' outside the normal mode of 'seamless coping' in which neither subject nor object had 'existential significance'. That 'contemplative mode' was triggered when seamless coping was interrupted and decisions on how to proceed became conscious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0

How is the hypothesis that random mutations provided the necessary information for natural selection to select for macroevolution falsifiable? We can't replicate it. And it has been statistically falsified. (Haldene) Even Popper himself said Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory.

We Have no problem giving credit to intelligence creating ancient complex structures, even with limited data on who did it.(like the pyramids, or Stonehenge). We assume men did it because it fits the pattern.

Because, Haldene falsified Darwinian evolution, and Popper declared it is not a testable scientific theory; shouldn't we go with the patterns like we did with Stonehenge and assume there is an intelligence behind the complex order, and search all the historical and physical evidence for a possible identity? Or, at least like Stonehenge admit there are possible candidates, with certain characteristics? Not being able to identify the individual today should not be a hindrance to scientific research on trying to discover who built Stonehenge or who guided evolution. If it is a hindrance; it appears to be based on an illogical ideology. Can nonlaymen have illogical ideologies, or are they scientifically immune to them because of a heightened state of enlightenment obtained while getting their doctorates? I say this with all respect, I am not being facetious in asking this. Do you think I am capable of obtaining a doctorate or does my idealism rule me out as a candidate?

I don't know when Popper said that relative to later developments, but nor do I believe that Darwinianism per se is the 'end of the story'. But as far as ID goes as 'an anwer' I have absolutely nothing to add other than my gut reaction that it amounts to a prostitution of the intellect .
So I wish you well if you think otherwise. Have fun !
BTW 'Doctorates' are based on the assumption that you 'contribute to human knowledge'. I can't see any reason why a 'realist' should be excluded from that even if he is mistaken about the ontological status of his contribution.

Dear readers here, as any talk about philosophy genuine or pseudo-intellectual, the ultimate destiny of the talk is into the question God exists or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

That is what homo sapiens is coming from, and is going to, and is presently at.

To not ever come to that theme, it is useless for empty babblers to talk endlessly and feeling themselves to be Oh so smart, but in reality all the time into pure evasiveness from the one ultimate and one first primordial interest of homo sapiens, namely, Does God exist or not, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Now, I will again challenge the empty-talking posters here, to share with us all their concept of what is philosophy, for to talk about socalled pseudo-intellectual philosophy and how it impacts on the masses, they must to be sincerely intellectual, first get to concur on what is the genuine non-pseudo but true intellectual philosophy as philosophy should be.

Here, dear empty posters, I challenge you to think and come up with your concept of philosophy, here is my concept again, and don't go about running like chickens with their heads chopped off.

“Philosophy is the continuous and unending search for the programming that exists or might exist or should exist in everything, that exists in the world outside and independent of our mind, and/or inside in our mind.”

So, I will now sit back and await with bated breath to witness whether the babbling posters here will have the intellectual balls to take up my challenge to them: PRODUCE your very own from your very own personal brain your concept of what is philosophy!

Dear readers here, I will now go to enjoy the game of chicken between Kim Jung-un and one Trump US president.

They are calling each other's bluffs like stupid kids, but who is more stupid, let us think, is it Kim or Trump?

You see, dear readers here, China and Russia are examining with delight the stupidity of both Kim and Trump, but I have my opinion on who is more stupid, what about you?

When you have some time, read about the ten most stupid countries or peoples in the world today, google most stupidest countries in the world today, and you will be surprised as I am, with what google turns up.

I will check in on these two threads every so often: Tolerant atheist and Pseudo-intellectual philosophy, until time to get to work in my very personal livelihood activity, namely, [being funny only but no offense to shoe-repair shop owners and operators], my daily occupation as a shoe repair technician - hahahahahahahaha!

This entry raises a legitimate question but doesn't address it or offer any sort of answer. You can tell the author is not a philosopher or he would know that to beg a question means to assume what you want to prove; to beg a question is not to suggest or invite a question nor already raised.

However, to return to the question itself. It does seem to me that todays left consists of effete academics who study poor people (and produce valuable results) but who make no real contact with the poor. I think the real quesstion here is how do the people who study the poor let the poor know what they found out. It is well established that the US is less mobile than any country in Europe, it is well established that we pay half again as much for health cares as mot countries in Europe and that our life expectancy and infant mortality rate is higher. I have talked to a number of working poor people who didn't know either of these until I told them. How do we get this information to them.

I enjoy waxing philosophical as well as the next guy and probalby do too much of it.
But most of my philosophising is no more than play. I want people of no means to hear the results of a real philosopher like Noam Chomsky or Cornelle West. Until we cna figure that out, we are simply engaging in mental masturbation. It feels good but nobody else benefits.

I appreciate your honesty when you say that you are making decisions on gut feelings. But, why didn't you answer my questions in previous posts? Most seemed to require little research, nor complicated answers. I really value your point of view and was poking forward to your answers.

Everything I do hear is practice. I engage for a purpose, to learn how to engage to for mere pleasure(though I do enjoy it). This isn't masturbation. I learned to satisfy my wife by paying attention to her needs, and then practicing with her, lots of practice.(:

So, I think all we can do is is join in the practice session, by reading or contributing, and then go out and change the world one soul at a time. It takes patience, there is so much information to be related to other people, and it is best done in a conversation, not sound bites.

The conversation is what makes this blog productive and enjoyable.

Dear Brian, we meet again, and it was only some days back that we were talking about the existence of virtual particles, you say that for you they are real because your concept of real is that anything even just in your mind that you can arrive at in your mind to a logical explanation, that is real.

I on the other hand, I hold to man's experience of the world outside and independent of his mind, so that what is real is whether man can and dose experience the thing in question to be outside and independent of his mind.

However, I tried to bring you to concur with me that with ideas in your mind which you can manipulate as to come to their logical explanation, then as I told you, you should go out into the world outside your mind to look for the objects corresponding to the ideas in your mind, that is No. 1 meaning for what is real even though it started as a contraption in your mind.

No. 2 consists in the invention by you or by mankind of the thing in your mind, if and when you succeed in its invention.

In both instances, with No. 1 or No. 2 or both of them, when you have succeeded in both undertakings, then they are real objects, and not only real in your mind.

And I gave you the example of the centaur,* it is a product of man's imagination in his mind, but to date man has not succeeded to find nor to bring about a biological entity that corresponds to the idea in man's imaginative mind, namely, a biological being that is half man from middle torso to the head, and half horse below the middle torso.

Now, dear Brian, I like to talk with you, on this proposition from me:

"The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

What is your comment to the statement, in re whether it represents reality or virtual reality or non-reality.

There, I will now sit back and await with bated breath for you to react to my thought above, namely, "The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence."

Or you can also ask me, with presenting something from you, and asking me whether it is an example of reality, or virtual reality, or non-reality.

*Was it with you or with another poster, and was it in the thread on Who is your favorite physicist - can't be sure now.

I concur with your 2 propositions. As it pertains to what I believe a virtual particle is, I am satisfied that I fulfilled them. That being, all particles being observed in the quantum mechanics whether, they are "real" particles of matter, or force carrying virtual particles of space, in essence are both "real" particles as they pertain to the model I imagined in my mind and my view of the universe as a realist. When I say real I mean a virtual particle as defined by QM is something that contains certain amount of space in it and that space has a boundary defined by its spin being different from the spin of any particle that it is contact with at any moment. The volume of space can change, but the amount of space cannot. This means changing the volume of the particle changes the spatial density of the particle.

Dear Brian, I am glad that you concur with me, on my No. 1 and No. 3 statements, namely, in bold below:
1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.
2. Existence is from oneself or from another.
3. Existence is in the mind and/or outside and independent of the mind.

Your virtual particles are in your mind, that is why their inventors in their mind call them virtual particles instead of just particles without further description.

Now, as regards No. 2, what do you say, do virtual particles owe their existence to another or to themselves?

Since particles (virtual or real) by their nature are defined by their boundaries which are established by their individual spin and location, establish a level of order to the universe. I believe all order is information, and all information in the universe had to be a thought or idea in some mind before it could be stored in our observable universe as spin with boundaries and location. So, they owe their existence to another.

Some day virtual particles will be understood as well as atoms, and be considered as real as atoms.

Dear Brian, you say:

You know what?

You have just found the explanation for God existing, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything in with a beginning.

That is also what I see to be the case, namely: there is a mind like our mind but of an nth scale of existence and power, which I call God, in concept as the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

And the evidence is the fact that we have a mind which can think up in our mind all kinds of things, and here is the explanation on how our mind is the evidence to the existence of a mind that is thinking up everything with a beginning:

As we have a mind which thinks up all kinds of things, so also there is a mind that is nth times more intelligent and powerful as to have thought us up in its mind, us and the universe we live in.

And I call this mind, God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

Addressing atheists in a2k, what do you say about my explanation for God existing in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning, namely: from the evidence that is our mind which does think up all kinds of things, and this mind of ours has a beginning, wherefore it did not cause itself to have come to existence, but an entity brought it to existence, which I call God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

So, I will now, dear Brian, sit back and await with bated breath to witness how atheists here will react to my explanation for the existence of God, in concept as first and foremost the creator cause of everything with a beginning.

But I tell you, dear readers here, atheists will react with playing the chicken with its head chopped off.

Anyway, I am sitting back to witness how atheists will react, no matter that from past experience, they always react with running about like chickens with their heads chopped off.

Thanks for the credit. I didn't even know it was missing.