Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. -Einstein
Not enough authority to you?
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true, either is true, or becomes true. - John Lilly
Thiis is worth looking at in its entirety.
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."
It is making a good point and an analogy I used with Mystic phd is that of a radar operator seeing on the screen manifestations of the outside world. The interpretation of that is entirely a construct of the human mind, but it is totally not faith -based guesswork and nor are the physical concepts or scientific knowledge. Checking theories either calls for re-evaluation or gives confirmation. That is why science gives us the only reliable picture of the world and universe. Faith -based guesswork, divine revelation and rummaging in Holy Books gives us consistently poor results.
Einstein was well aware of this and of course he relied on the human mental constructs to make his discoveries. The one time he did rely too much on a personal faith -preference is in 'God does not play dice' and a rejection of quantum. This Faith in an intelligent or at least controlled universe led him to his greatest error and the waste of half of his life trying to prove true what was not.
"In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits... In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits."
The Human Biocomputer (1974)
I have to be skeptical about this man's beliefs and hypotheses. It could be true. But we cannot take it to be true just on his say -so. Not without some scientific verification. That is what is comes down to every time. The human mind produces the mental tools to hack the facts out the raw data of nature.
But the tools do the job. not the mind that designed them. The human mind as referenced in the above quote is doing what I have seen before so many times - in an effort to reach the outer limits, it is cut free from verified reality. I have seen minds go insane like that. At best it is coming up with stuff that either could be true or could just be a product of the human mind. Insisting that it is true without verification or dismissing anything that questions it is simply wrong and no - no matter how much of an Authority is the person being quotemined, that does not in itself make the claim true.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-29-2015 at 05:21 AM..
Religious "beliefs" are faith-based "beliefs" -- they are totally different from any other "beliefs" in everyday life.
However, it seems all religious people having trouble seeing the difference: to them, one can just "believe" just about anything and everything -- they call it "being true to oneself".
Its more like emotional solution vs logical solutions. Humans have both. Your take is Kind of like "football" is to "sports".
"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."
It is making a good point and an analogy I used with Mystic phd is that of a radar operator seeing on the screen manifestations of the outside world. The interpretation of that is entirely a construct of the human mind, but it is totally not faith -based guesswork and nor are the physical concepts or scientific knowledge. Checking theories either calls for re-evaluation or gives confirmation. That is why science gives us the only reliable picture of the world and universe. Faith -based guesswork, divine revelation and rummaging in Holy Books gives us consistently poor results.
Einstein was well aware of this and of course he relied on the human mental constructs to make his discoveries. The one time he did rely too much on a personal faith -preference is in 'God does not play dice' and a rejection of quantum. This Faith in an intelligent or at least controlled universe led him to his greatest error and the waste of half of his life trying to prove true what was not.
Welcome to my world, Arq. You have been reluctant to attempt such philosophical ruminations in the past feeling ill-prepared for it. Apparently you have acquired more confidence. You falsely accuse Einstein of error, but it is an easy mistake given an incomplete understanding of Quantum Mechanics. Continuous mathematics is most closely reflective of reality, but the discrete digital representations are most closely aligned with our discrete measurements of that reality. Einstein was concerned about the demands of continuous mathematics in a deterministic world that seemed incompatible with quantum indeterminance. In any case, it was not an error, just inadequate mathematics that still plagues those seeking to find the unified theory. Ad hoc approaches like the Maldacena Conjecture and others like Bohmian nested equations may provide useful in the short term in the absence of the mathematical advance needed.
The issues are entirely mathematical residing in the inadequacies of the math we have available. It will take an advance on the order of that achieved with Liebniz's Calculus or Newton's Fluxions. Regrettably, the young minds most capable of innovating the needed advance are mired in what they consider the reality of the current mathematics. They do not fully appreciate the artificial nature of mathematics and its relation to our consciousness (the mind). I am too old and afflicted with the many ills of Senioritis to pursue it (even though the calculus geniuses mentioned seemed hardly bothered by advanced age).
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
"In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true is true or becomes true, within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the mind, there are no limits... In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits."
The Human Biocomputer (1974)
I have to be skeptical about this man's beliefs and hypotheses. It could be true. But we cannot take it to be true just on his say -so. Not without some scientific verification. That is what is comes down to every time. The human mind produces the mental tools to hack the facts out the raw data of nature.
But the tools do the job. not the mind that designed them. The human mind as referenced in the above quote is doing what I have seen before so many times - in an effort to reach the outer limits, it is cut free from verified reality. I have seen minds go insane like that. At best it is coming up with stuff that either could be true or could just be a product of the human mind. Insisting that it is true without verification or dismissing anything that questions it is simply wrong and no - no matter how much of an Authority is the person being quotemined, that does not in itself make the claim true.
I fear it is your lack of experience freeing your mind from its conditioned associations that ill-prepares you for philosophical speculations, Arq. I understand the reluctance to let go of the material reality you are comfortable with in your mind, even though it is no less an interpreted reality than any other aspect. The language we use is artificial and its cognitive constructs are also. The mathematics we use is artificial as are its constructs we use to reflect the measured aspects of our reality. By acquiring these powerful disciplines we can more readily investigate our reality, but we must also keep in mind the limitations they impose on our ability to comprehend the actual reality. They also shortchange the other disciplines for investigating our reality in more holistic ways. I realize that we will not likely have a meeting of the minds on these issues, Arq, but I am pleased you expressed an interest in them.
'Belief' is conveniently used for those beliefs which have good evidential support - that a machine will work, that your house won't have vanished overnight, that your wife won't have turned into a gibbon.
Faith is better used for beliefs based on no good evidence, Cults, fringe - science and religions come into that category.
Of course, there are degrees of evidential support, but the distinction is important. It's also a logical fallacy (equivocation) to ignore it.
Sorry, but I'm afraid you're... WRONG!
Belief refers to the depth of feeling you have in a particular worldview. It does not need to be religious. And it can be backed by logic.
Faith is closely linked (read: identical) to faithfulness. Loyalty. It has nothing to do with ungrounded belief sets. That is called stupidity, and once knowledge sets in, you lose faith in the belief.
The idea that religious life was somehow distinct from the mundane life is not a universal. It was not in Roman times, and it was not originally. In fact, this is the meaning of "religion" (literally, "reconnecting"). The idea that things used to be joined and there was no need to worship, but now we believe in a gap between the mundane and spiritual.
Belief is not intended to be a fringey "belief" but rather a sense where everything links together and makes sense. So if it is at odds with science or logic, it is nonsense, and should be discarded.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
