Thread: ClouD, Cyclic, DeathCell, really, zeneyes, etc.

Originally Posted by howie

"why has your ability to communicate this knowledge been lost too?"

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Feel free to ask questions.

That was a question you jack ass.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Please provide an example.

2 + 2 = 4

Did you need science to understand that?

Do you need science to read?

Do you need science to understand how to walk?

Do you need science to understand the sun comes up every morning or can basic observation make that very apparent? Yes Science can explain it more vividly yet it was still understood, maybe not why but understood to rise.

That was a question you jack ass.

I guess I should have been more specific, ask a question with a point. Not a sarcastic jab. Jack ass. (Almost forgot that immature asinine comment)


Why has your brain shut off the entire right side and you've become left side thinkers only? No imagination? OMG LIKE IF SCIENCE DOESN'T TELL ME I DUNNO WHAT TO DO... See how pointless comments like these are?

Originally Posted by DeathCell

2 + 2 = 4

Did you need science to understand that?

No, you need mathematics for that. And maths is a tool used by science.

Do you need science to read?

No, you need science to understand the process of reading.

Do you need science to understand how to walk?

You don't need science to be able to walk, but you need it to understand what's behind walking.

Do you need science to understand the sun comes up every morning or can basic observation make that very apparent? Yes Science can explain it more vividly yet it was still understood, maybe not why but understood to rise.

You don't need science to know the sun comes up every morning, but you need science to understand why it happens.

Originally Posted by Scatterbrain

No, you need mathematics for that. And maths is a tool used by science.




No, you need science to understand the process of reading.




You don't need science to be able to walk, but you need it to understand what's behind walking.




You don't need science to know the sun comes up every morning, but you need science to understand why it happens.

Math is a tool used by science so I was right, you don't need science for Math.

I understand perfectly how to read, and why words mean such. And people wrote and spoke long before the advent of scientific knowledge. At no point do I need the scientific method to read a book.

Like I said you can make sense of things and the world without a background in science or even cracking a science book.

I can actually make a lot of sense out of how to walk without going into the details of tendons or whatever moving. I understand that I can move them and can control them without a background on why it works. So I make perfect sense of my ability to walk without the scientific model.

You need science to understand why the sun must rise and fall? Maybe exactly why it does what it does, but I'm pretty sure 24 hours of sun would burn us all alive eventually.

I know it must rise and fall because that's what creates Night and Day and without that balance life is fucked. See I would understand "Why" it happens but not How it happens. Science is much better at figuring out How something happens, not why.

Cold hearted orb
That rules the night
Removes the colours
From our sight
Red is gray and
Yellow white
But we decide
Which is right
And
Which is an Illusion

Originally Posted by DeathCell

I can actually make a lot of sense out of how to walk without going into the details of tendons or whatever moving. I understand that I can move them and can control them without a background on why it works. So I make perfect sense of my ability to walk without the scientific model.

Just as Lennie Small understood his job to merely tend rabbits on the farm.

Most people who feel like they don't need science actually are confused between Science and scientific discoveries. Science is a method of testing reality. Without knowing it, you use science every day. For instance, without even thinking about it, you know that the left knob on a sink will almost always be the hot water. Why? Because you've spent years using the scientific method collecting data subconsciously. Every time you test the knob to see which one is hot, you file the information away and build a scientific model of reality.

Every time you make a judgment about reality, you are doing so based on evidence. The question isn't whether you are going to use science or not, it is whether you are going to use it well or badly.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Every time you make a judgment about reality, you are doing so based on evidence. The question isn't whether you are going to use science or not, it is whether you are going to use it well or badly.

Or whether we have the capacity to know this in the first place.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Did you need science to understand that?

Yes. In order to make sense of 2+2=4, I must formulate a hypothesis (e.g., that the sum total of two twos is equivalent to four) and test that hypothesis. Such as by observing that adding two objects to two more objects results in me having a total of four. Without this kind of testing, any arbitrary conclusion can be drawn and there is no standard by which to measure its truth. Without science, it is equally believable that 2+2=2 or 2+2=cat. If I hypothesized that 1=2 and so 2+1=4, and gathered two objects, added another and proceeded to count the total, I would see that I did not have four objects. The prediction my hypothesis made was not correct. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Do you need science to read?

Yes. In order to make sense of written language I have to learn the method by which written language functions (i.e. formulate a hypothesis on how written language functions). Reading is by extension attempting to learn the meaning of whatever the author was intending to convey. One observes the way in which written exchanges occur and tests their hypothesis against it. There are a variety of ways to infer or deduce the intending meaning of the author (such as asking the author). Your hypothesis should predict the author's meaning. If the prediction was wrong, it means your hypothesis was wrong. This is a result of insufficient observation, such as in the case of being deceived by a lie. In that case, you did not have knowledge about the author's intent to deceive you, for example. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Do you need science to understand how to walk?

Yes. To be able to walk does not require science, but to understand how does.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Do you need science to understand the sun comes up every morning or can basic observation make that very apparent

This act of observation is part of science. To understand why the sun will rise tomorrow requires that you understand what makes the sun rise in the first place. One thing that hypotheses do is make a prediction. Suppose that my hypothesis about the rising of the sun is that it is a flaming chariot racing through the sky on a regular routine. This hypothesis predicts that we will observe a flaming object travel through the sky on a regular schedule. And so we do, but the testing is incomplete. With more observation, we'd discover that it is not a chariot, but of course a star. We'd be able to learn about gravity, momentum, etc.. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

Originally Posted by DeathCell

Do you need science to understand the sun comes up every morning or can basic observation make that very apparent? Yes Science can explain it more vividly yet it was still understood, maybe not why but understood to rise.

Yes, you still need it because the observation is relative. The sun doesn't "come up"; once we have done more research by flying into space, we realize that it was an illusion of the observer on the Earth, including the condition of the Earth's consistent rotation. The safe trust in science and technology usually comforts us; that we don't have to fly out into space to find this out for ourselves. However, since there is a limited address, perhaps this does not apply to spiritual contexts. I.e. hearing that "somebody is enlightened" does not make one understand enlightenment nor reveal the truth itself.


But overall, I think Deathcell's point is that not all of us have to think as typical scientists of today's society. If there is no evidence or proof, it doesn't have to exclude everything. We cannot draw conclusions from there, unless we really understand what the question/hypothesis is, in its context. E.g. I cannot prove that this music is perfect. I cannot draw conclusions? Perhaps I can draw this conclusion, provided I have comprehended a radical paradigm of the nature of subjectivity and perception itself. That would therefore illuminate the defects of mentalization, and perhaps the limitations of ordinary science as they fit in the big picture. Furthermore, "drawing a conclusion" may not even be an option, as the revelation itself is simply a revelation - an illuminated "knowingness".

Originally Posted by really

We cannot draw conclusions from there, unless we really understand what the question is, in its context. E.g. I cannot prove that this music is perfect.

That's because this statement is essentially meaningless. Whether or not an individual finds a particular piece of music to be "perfect" (whatever that may mean) is subjective to that person's preference, however it should be possible to objectively demonstrate that it is that person's preference. That is, outside of human preference, there is no such thing as "perfect music", or for that matter such a thing as "perfect", so it's useless to speculate on such things or try to prove them.

Originally Posted by Mark75

That's because this statement is essentially meaningless. Whether or not an individual finds a particular piece of music to be "perfect" (whatever that may mean) is subjective to that person's preference, however it should be possible to objectively demonstrate that it is that person's preference. That is, outside of human preference, there is no such thing as "perfect music", or for that matter such a thing as "perfect", so it's useless to speculate on such things or try to prove them.

Yes, since objectivity has little subjective relationship (I.e. there is no "objective truth"; truth is a subjective premise), there is no way to understand with the same method.

Therefore it is a subjective, spiritual understanding, which is quite radical in contrast to a science of objects.

Originally Posted by really

Therefore it is a subjective, spiritual understanding, which is quite radical in contrast to a science of objects.

No, it isn't. It's based on a person's emotional response to the sounds, which are the result of the function of the human mind. It isn't a "spiritual understanding", it is a result of culture, the way the individual was raised, our biology, etc.. All of these things are very real and objectively verifiable things.

Originally Posted by Mark75

No, it isn't. It's based on a person's emotional response to the sounds, which are the result of the function of the human mind. It isn't a "spiritual understanding",

It is a spiritual understanding because it relates to meaning and perception. Even if you're scientifically aware of the situation, there is still no contradiction because it is a different model of understanding; they do not counteract each other or cancel each other out.

Originally Posted by Mark75

it is a result of culture, the way the individual was raised, our biology, etc.. All of these things are very real and objectively verifiable things.

There is still limitation here, because it is limited by causality. A person with all the same verifiable conditions might think differently, and hence there is something within them that cannot be detected by science.

In this case, a person is not restricted by the external world for internal meanings, unless they are referring to the external world in the first place. E.g. if they think the music is absolutely perfect, they don't have to be spiritually oriented (although that would be a great help). They simply have the contextual awareness of its creation and its intention for the listeners. The subjective enjoyment would only be meaningless if they wanted to analyze the structure of the sound, for example.

Questions.

What are they?

Lacks in understanding?

More like miss understandings...

Miss takes on the situation...

Miss communications between in divide-duals...

Be a unify-dual and all is understood...

No questions necessary.

Yes. In order to make sense of written language I have to learn the method by which written language functions (i.e. formulate a hypothesis on how written language functions).

So... what you're saying is that science tells me exactly what each emotion means? What if I viewed happiness, sadness, anger, etc., differently than another person? And what's this bullshit about needing science to make sense of written language? Let me correct you: In order to understand how a person makes sense of written language requires science. No science is required to teach a person how to read--intelligence determines that. My dog understands and recognizes his name, and a few other human words; science didn't teach him that. Our minds either make sense of the information, or it does not.

Do you even know how language was created? No, the answer is not science.

Reading is by extension attempting to learn the meaning of whatever the author was intending to convey.

This does not require science; understanding how one goes about doing so does... and even then it couldn't give me an absolute answer. You still have to agree or disagree with the theory.

There are a variety of ways to infer or deduce the intending meaning of the author (such as asking the author). Your hypothesis should predict the author's meaning.

Just because you're using a "hypothesis" doesn't necessarily mean you're using science. Also, exactly how do these two sentences help your argument? He asked you: do you need science to read--not is the scientific method needed to read. There is no experimentation done when reading a novel. You read the book, think about it and/or discuss it, then you move on. What science is involved there?

If the prediction was wrong, it means your hypothesis was wrong. This is a result of insufficient observation, such as in the case of being deceived by a lie. In that case, you did not have knowledge about the author's intent to deceive you, for example. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary.

Okay? Again, when reading a novel you are not using the scientific method. Misinterpretation has nothing to do with science--you either get it, or you don't. It can't explain why a person misinterpreted the information or the meaning of the author.

Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

And for the third time: there is no testing done when reading a novel. What you're describing is not the scientific method--it's creative thinking.

I may come back later to see if I can find any other bs in that last post of yours, but for now, answer me this:

How is it that electrical impulses in our brains are able to create images in our minds?

freak, those things are understood with science. Be it the logical method, rationality, the process of learning and acquiring information, etc..

Yes, but you don't need to know the science of reading/languages to know how to read; I don't, and, my parents and the rest of my family don't--and they still know how to read. Most of Mark75's answer was describing how a person would go about using the scientific method in reading a novel... and that was not the question asked.

sci⋅ence
   /ˈsaɪəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sahy-uhns] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6. a particular branch of knowledge.
7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

scientific method
 
–noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Mark75 described the second. So, will Mark please answer the question properly? And I also want this question answered:

How is it that electrical impulses in our brains are able to create images in our minds?

I know everyone loves when the dictionary's term is referenced.
But try to consider NOT using one or more of these methods in everything we do.
a lot of people grow up thinking science is an isolated set of rules. Science class you would apply that to art, math, geography, etc. etc. Would'nt you?

sci⋅ence
–noun
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.a particular branch of knowledge.
7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Synonyms: art, body of knowledge, branch, discipline, education, erudition, information, learning, lore, scholarship, skill, system, technique, wisdom

Yes... and the majority of people in this world aren't knowledgeable in the science of reading/language, but they still know how to read. When you learned how to read, all your teacher did was show you how to pronounce things, what each word meant, etc., but they did not tell you why these things were; you just accepted them. DeathCell was asking if you needed this extra information to know how to read.

Originally Posted by freak

Yes... and the majority of people in this world can't tell you what the science of reading/language is, but they still know how to read. When you learned how to read, all your teacher did was show you how to pronounce things, what each word meant, etc., but they did not tell you why these things were; you just accepted them. DeathCell was asking if you needed this extra information to know how to read.

Do you consider some of the fundamentals of science to be carried out on an unconscious level? For example does our brain systematically gain general knowledge as we learn to read?
I believe that some one could learn the process of reading. Which in itself is a method. Though that same person may not be able to have any comprehension of what him/her is reading. My analogy from mice and men actually had some purpose behid it.

Originally Posted by Howie

That was a question you jack ass.

Originally Posted by Howie

Just as Lennie Small understood his job to merely tend rabbits on the farm.

Originally Posted by Howie

I know everyone loves when the dictionary's term is referenced.
But try to consider NOT using one or more of these methods in everything we do.
a lot of people grow up thinking science is an isolated set of rules. Science class you would apply that to art, math, geography, etc. etc. Would'nt you?

sci⋅ence
–noun
1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.systematized knowledge in general.
5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.a particular branch of knowledge.
7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.


Synonyms: art, body of knowledge, branch, discipline, education, erudition, information, learning, lore, scholarship, skill, system, technique, wisdom

Originally Posted by Howie

Do you consider some of the fundamentals of science to be carried out on an unconscious level? For example does our brain systematically gain general knowledge as we learn to read?
I believe that some one could learn the process of reading. Which in itself is a method. Though that same person may not be able to have any comprehension of what him/her is reading. My analogy from mice and men actually had some purpose behid it.

Do you consider some of the fundamentals of science to be carried out on an unconscious level? For example does our brain systematically gain general knowledge as we learn to read?

Yeah. I'm sure you don't always keep a dictionary at your side when you read a book. I can usually learn the meaning of the word with context clues (simple things like that), and then I either teach myself how to say the word by sounding it out in my head or I just ask someone how to say it. I don't need to fully understand, or even consider, communication sciences to "make sense" of the material I'm reading. I have the mental capacity to read and comprehend the material I read, so I don't need the science behind it all. I'm not someone who disproves of science or anything, but people have begun to treat it like a religion. They underestimate themselves and what they are capable of doing. We're all born with natural ability--some with more than others--but you can learn everything on your own if you really tried.

I view reading more as a memory and intelligence thing. Our language, and the complexity of it, as well as our use of symbols (letters) and ability to form complex sounds with our vocal cords allow us to read, write, and speak. But I think the most important factor is our hands. Every animal on this planet has a consciousness, and is capable of thought and tapping into the imagination, but they aren't able to express it like we can because they lack hands like we do (excluding monkeys, apes, or anything similar to a human). This then leads you to wonder how language came to be. How did we turn simple grunts into the complex sounds we use today? I always find myself trying to imagine the trouble our ancestors went through to create our languages. They probably wrote letters in the dirt, trying to figure out how to best represent each and every sound they made, and then you wonder how they began labeling the things around them. What made a "tree" a "tree", how did they come up with "man" and "woman", and so on.

I was always a person who questioned beginnings and how things came to be. Asking those "impossible" questions were always enlightening to me, because you begin to see things much clearer. You begin to understand the world you live in and make sense of things. My teachers always hated me because I asked them things they really couldn't answer lol. It doesn't matter, though, I got my answers!

I believe that some one could learn the process of reading. Which in itself is a method.

That's basically what Death was trying to say. It may be a method, but a science is the study of something.

As for the analogy... that plays more into intelligence.

And as for the rest of your post Mark: only that one was flawed, to me. The rest I agree with. But... I would really like to see an answer for the electrical impulse thing, please!

Originally Posted by Mark75

That's because this statement is essentially meaningless. Whether or not an individual finds a particular piece of music to be "perfect" (whatever that may mean) is subjective to that person's preference, however it should be possible to objectively demonstrate that it is that person's preference. That is, outside of human preference, there is no such thing as "perfect music", or for that matter such a thing as "perfect", so it's useless to speculate on such things or try to prove them.

Perfect Squares??

Yes. In order to make sense of 2+2=4, I must formulate a hypothesis (e.g., that the sum total of two twos is equivalent to four) and test that hypothesis. Such as by observing that adding two objects to two more objects results in me having a total of four. Without this kind of testing, any arbitrary conclusion can be drawn and there is no standard by which to measure its truth. Without science, it is equally believable that 2+2=2 or 2+2=cat. If I hypothesized that 1=2 and so 2+1=4, and gathered two objects, added another and proceeded to count the total, I would see that I did not have four objects. The prediction my hypothesis made was not correct. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

Odd I know how to add 2 + 2 way before I ever took a science class or learned about hypothesis'....

I have a feeling that before the scientific revolution of the late 1700's early 1800's when the scientific model was introduced people were probably still able to count..

You must understand science is a human construct that helps explain things, but isn't the end all. Their was a time before Science, while certain ideas were wrong all were not..

Mathematics is older than everything, I could imagine cavemen being able to understand 1 + 1 = 2... As long as you understand the concept of numbers. The way you guys take the definition of Science is all encompassing and everything is science... When really life is just life... Not a giant hypothesis...

Yes. In order to make sense of written language I have to learn the method by which written language functions (i.e. formulate a hypothesis on how written language functions). Reading is by extension attempting to learn the meaning of whatever the author was intending to convey. One observes the way in which written exchanges occur and tests their hypothesis against it. There are a variety of ways to infer or deduce the intending meaning of the author (such as asking the author). Your hypothesis should predict the author's meaning. If the prediction was wrong, it means your hypothesis was wrong. This is a result of insufficient observation, such as in the case of being deceived by a lie. In that case, you did not have knowledge about the author's intent to deceive you, for example. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

The easiest way to learn how to read is to be taught by someone who can, it doesn't need to involve any sort of hypothesis or theory testing. One observes and mimics the teacher until they can system their efforts into a simple understanding of words and their meanings. They don't test any hypothesis, no 5 year old is running a scientific model. He's learning by seeing.. They are not testing any models... Prediction? Who guesses what words mean when their a little child, your parents teach you the verbal words and then show you how they are spelled after wards...


You go into reading a novel with a pad and pen next to you making observations and running through the novel or words multiple times to make sure those words really mean what they mean? You seem to be dancing around in this, It only makes half-sense. You over complicate something so simple, that's how people learn observation... Not just because of SCIENCE.

Yes. To be able to walk does not require science, but to understand how does.

For this I'm sorry I'll just quote a definition.

un·der·stand Listen to the pronunciation of understand
Pronunciation:
\ˌən-dər-ˈstand\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
un·der·stood Listen to the pronunciation of understood \-ˈstu̇d\ ; un·der·stand·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English understandan, from under + standan to stand
Date:
before 12th century

transitive verb1 a: to grasp the meaning of <understand Russian> b: to grasp the reasonableness of <his behavior is hard to understand> c: to have thorough or technical acquaintance with or expertness in the practice of <understand finance> d: to be thoroughly familiar with the character and propensities of <understands children>2: to accept as a fact or truth or regard as plausible without utter certainty <we understand that he is returning from abroad>3: to interpret in one of a number of possible ways4: to supply in thought as though expressed <“to be married” is commonly understood after the word engaged>intransitive verb1: to have understanding : have the power of comprehension2: to achieve a grasp of the nature, significance, or explanation of something3: to believe or infer something to be the case4: to show a sympathetic or tolerant attitude toward something

Grasp the meaning of. I think I grasp the meaning of walking without understanding the inner complexities.

This act of observation is part of science. To understand why the sun will rise tomorrow requires that you understand what makes the sun rise in the first place. One thing that hypotheses do is make a prediction. Suppose that my hypothesis about the rising of the sun is that it is a flaming chariot racing through the sky on a regular routine. This hypothesis predicts that we will observe a flaming object travel through the sky on a regular schedule. And so we do, but the testing is incomplete. With more observation, we'd discover that it is not a chariot, but of course a star. We'd be able to learn about gravity, momentum, etc.. In other words, we would revise our theory to conform to our observations, and we would continue to observe to see if the predictions our theory makes held true or not and revise as necessary. Without such testing, we could apply any arbitrary conclusion we wanted and have no standard by which to validate their truth.

The act of observation is a human trait, not ordained by science but our ability to see and comprehend our surroundings.. It sounds just like how someone overly religious would try to convince me that GOD IS IN EVERYTHING instead you just replace god with SCIENCE.

With or without learning about something doesn't change the fact.

Gravity still works before the law was written down.
If you want to believe that its a chariot by all means go ahead, sure looks like a giant red glowing mass to me.

To just assume things and not test them out yourself to be true is folly, but it's not science that causes this... Science is new compared to the human race, yet we were still able to problem solve and figure things out before. In fact some ancient cultures knew for example how the precession of the planets worked far before science, it was called astrology. Some cultures had far more accurate dated calendars, far before science.

Science is a product of humanity, humanity is not a product of science.

Observation is part of science, dude.