4 ms·

Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. They also pass the smell test that is Occam's r

Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Although the last 200 years of science was basically finding out that nothing is as special as we thought. We used to take this personally, humans after all supposed to be the crown jewel of creation. There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics, but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope.

mistermann 4y ago
> Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. a) How would one test these two propositions: - a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity (in a way that covers all instances) - I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions b) Did you test them, and if so: how? > They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Occam's Razor is not even intended to determine truth. > Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I'd find this more convincing if you were able to try to answer my numerous unanswered questions. > I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Ok this is interesting: at that point in time (prior to your increase in knowledge), did you believe that biology WAS NOT special? > There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. a) Is the truth always accessible? b) Have there be any instances where consensus opinion on Truth turned out to be incorrect? c) Have there been any instances where your belief of Truth turned out to be incorrect? > Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. In this case, what is the data type of "True" - is it a binary (True/False)? > To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics.... "May not" tends to imply uncertainty - are you uncertain on this topic? > ...but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. If one does not have a perfect understanding, how would one necessarily know where details reside? > It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope. If this is possible, does it logically follow that all(!) other problems resolve this easily, using the same technique?

mistermann 4y ago

> Not all presumptions are magical thinking, my presumptions are testable, and are not a form of wishful thinking. a) How would one test these two propositions: - a fundamentalist wouldn't budge on his dogma and would lack the intellectual curiosity (in a way that covers all instances) - I'm interested in how things work, and I'm not married to my arguably subjective opinions b) Did you test them, and if so: how? > They also pass the smell test that is Occam's razor. Occam's Razor is not even intended to determine truth. > Despite what you claim I'm not a cheerleader for an ideology, I just want to know how things work. I'd find this more convincing if you were able to try to answer my numerous unanswered questions. > I don't mind being surprised. I was very surprised by the thermodynamics of prediction, I always imagined biology, especially life to be it's own separate thing, I was surprised that it's not that special. Ok this is interesting: at that point in time (prior to your increase in knowledge), did you believe that biology WAS NOT special? > There is such a thing as truth, regardless of the source, even if there is always a deeper truth. a) Is the truth always accessible? b) Have there be any instances where consensus opinion on Truth turned out to be incorrect? c) Have there been any instances where your belief of Truth turned out to be incorrect? > Newton's theory of gravity is true, and if you only care about skiing down a mountain slope it will serve you well, but if you would like to build a satellite you would need Einstein's theory of relativity, even quantum physics. In this case, what is the data type of "True" - is it a binary (True/False)? > To draw a circle around consciousness, to understand it's boundaries you may not need a new physics at all beyond a generalized form of thermodynamics.... "May not" tends to imply uncertainty - are you uncertain on this topic? > ...but of course for the details you need a lot of specialized knowledge, but those details are all found within the established boundaries. If one does not have a perfect understanding, how would one necessarily know where details reside? > It's like watching Pluto with a telescope, and later flying a spacecraft to it, the spacecraft is going to reveal a lot of details, but we already figured out a lot, even before the telescope. If this is possible, does it logically follow that all(!) other problems resolve this easily, using the same technique?