Funny how you opened your post with an example of pattern recognition, then went on to say that in order for something to be taken seriously it must be directly measured. ------
No, I opened with examples of how people project (usually subconsciously and completely oblivious to it) themselves onto others. There is no pattern recognition there unless you're talking about me recognizing the pattern? In which case, that would of been directly observed by me.. so I fail to see your point aside from probably being offended because you personally hold onto metaphysical beliefs. I can name you a ton of different metaphysical beliefs.. I can even make up random, idiotic ones that are on par with the "normal" ones. If there is no possible chance of gaining real knowledge on a belief.. there's no reason to take it seriously, to hold it as a belief. How about that reality as we know it is actually a dream, but not ours. The entirety of the universe is a dream of a bright blue unicorn that exists in the 54th dimension.. and to the unicorn, it only sleeps at night.. but it's night lasts 45 billion years and every time it wakes up, the universe implodes and every life form in it gets painfully shredded atom by atom and a new universe is created every time the 54th dimension unicorn falls asleep. That's fucking stupid.. but as stupid as any other metaphysical belief. They are entertaining to think about, but ignorant to believe in.
Yes, that's what I was refering to. You mentioned how when you pay attention you become aware of certain behavioral patterns. And yes, you directly observed those patterns. But directly observing patterns, especially behavioral ones, is not empirical science. The "sister sciences" such as psychology and psychiatry, are not thought of as "science", but they are studies that are based upon directly observing "behavioral patterns". We can directly observe an object and measure it. But can we so easily share with others subjective patterns that we see directly through our perspective? And how do we know a person's perspective may not be biased when testifying to such patterns? ------
Psychology and psychiatry are not metaphysical studies.. so I ask again, what is your point? No sure if you recognized the pattern here, but we are talking about metaphysical beliefs. Aside from a lack of point, there are errors in what you say too. You do realize the empirical evidence is evidence based on direct observation right? Being that the pattern I see is a pattern that I directly observed.. it would make it empirical. It might not be correct, but it is observable. The pattern I see might be biased to my experiences, but that's the point of science.. to weed out the personal bias. If I or anyone else cared enough too, we could search words like "dogma" and "closed minded" and find who said them and then go through every single other post they made to see if they fit the pattern. I'm not going to.. but it is something that is testable, unlike what I've been talking about, metaphysical beliefs.
The point is clear....that in order to measure something, we can use logic and directly measure it if it's an object, or we can trend if we are dealing with something subjective, like behavioral patterns. ------
No.. the point isn't clear because subjective does not mean metaphysical.. and I'm talking about the metaphysical, the study of what cannot be studied through material reality. The human mind/behavior can be studied through the material reality.. and we all have our own subjective experience of the material reality. So again, what is you point you're trying to make about what I've said on metaphysical beliefs?
When did I mention anything pertaining to "metaphysical"? You might be boxed into that label but I am not and I don't need to be in order to make my point. You have subjectivity in the universe and you have objectivity in the universe. What other properties are there that can be mentioned within the universe that is neither objective or subjective? I like talking in foundational terms that get to the root of the matter. : ) ------
Maybe I should ask what you point is in general then? Like why did you even bother responding in the first place? To get the point across that things in the universe are subjective or objective? Ok.. I agree with that, but that has nothing to do with what I've been saying, which is making your point confusing. Rather than try to lump things in as either subjective or objective, which is accurate, I prefer to just say it is all relative though cause that pretty much covers both.
It is because our modern society, which is based upon scientific CULTURE, glorifies logic (direct measure) while it all but ignores the importance of intuition (pattern recognition). The universe does not share in our society's bias toward logic, because the universe does not express itself as such. When I saw you open the original post I quoted with an example of pattern recognition, then go onto say that things need to be given the big thumbs up by "science" (directly measuring), I thought it was funny that you believe enough in your own ability to recognize a behavioral pattern and whatever way you percieve it, yet did not recognize that you were saying things shouldn't be taken seriously unless they could be directly measured. Logic is to directly measuring is to left brain function as intuition is to pattern recognition is to right brain function. And seeing that it is self evident that nature gave you the brain to use as an interface tool for observing the universe, I would highly suspect that the person who holds a BALANCED point of view about the universe, where pattern recognition and logic are not only held as equally important, but work together to yield a synthesized view of the universe, would be the only individual who would have a shot at putting "God on the ropes", which is a phrase I find pretty humorous. ------
Why do you separate direct measuring and pattern recognition? In order to recognize a pattern, you must first observe the pattern.. so you point is still lost as to wtf you're trying to get across. So I recognized a pattern that I directly observed.. how does that negate anything I've said?
You cannot literally separate the two, because even the the most Positivistic point of view about reality has a measure of subjectivity within it. And even the most wild conspiracy theory involving our origins or our place in the universe needs to have a measure of physical evidence attached to it. But in the way we can use either of the two methods, the main differences between them is that logic is a successive method of measuring while intuition is an abstract method of measuring. It's our very own thought processes in how we treat the two when observing the universe that we need to become more aware of. ------
You literally just tried to separate the two though.. which just adds confusion as to what your damn point is. I'm really trying to be patient here, but you keep going on about shit that no one was talking about. It's like you were offended by the whole "God on the ropes" thing and bringing in unrelated topics in an attempt to put me on the ropes. Notice how I haven't said anything about putting God on the ropes? Cause its a silly thing to say.. being that it is a metaphysical belief, you can't prove it true or false. That is the whole point of why having a metaphysical belief is silly.. because it lies beyond the physical. You just said that any theory has to have a measure of physical evidence attached to it.. and you won't ever get that from a metaphysical belief. So again.. what.. the.. fuck.. is.. your.. point? Why did you even bother to comment on my pattern recognition of the physical reality? You said that it was funny that I recognized a pattern and then went on to say that there needs to be physical evidence or at least a way to secure it.. yet just now, you said that even the craziest theory needs a measure of physical evidence. So why is it funny when I say that there needs to be physical evidence and not you? Would you not be confused if you said something like "the sky is blue.. but during the night it is black" and then I said 'its funny that you'd say that' and later say pretty much the exact same fucking thing? You'd probably want to know wtf my point was for saying that it was funny to begin with..
- I was talking about their different characteristics, not literally separating the two. - The point is that "pattern recognition" is a way to "secure" a measure of reality. Yet you show bias to "logic" in you're reasoning. I'm shocked that hasn't sunk in yet. - What "shit" is it that I go on talking about that is off topic? What unrelated topics? Specifically... - I was not offended by the thread title. I found such an ego laden idea humorous. - If your "science/metaphysical" label dichotomy were adjusted to simply a "objective/subjective" dichotomy, you'd have a better shot at seeing things as they are. - Actually, having most any belief is "silly". - I did not say the same thing you said. I was going over how in every idea there are degrees of objectivity and subjectivity. You simply said if you cannot objectify something than it shouldn't be taken seriously. ------
Dogma pervades the religious sphere because most religions have a clerical caste that propagates "religious teachings". Self established Men who naturally give the best understanding in that sense. True religion is for the person to find on their own path of discovery. There are texts that to some degree or other, have been recognized as religious texts. These texts have questionable authenticity, from the most false, to the most true. When setting another degree of separation, namely the priest, it is only natural for it to not be the real message. Science itself is a sphere with it's own priestly caste, and that is the scientist. Real science would be beyond opinion or interpretation, but we have to realize that true science beyond interpretation is an ideal that doesn't exist. Every attempts to relate a truth are going to face the boundary of separation, of separate beings with separate realities. That we relate things in words is miracle in the first place, that we truly express the reality of which we speak is most incredibly rare.
I fail to see how that makes me biased towards logic.. and assumingly biased against pattern recognition. I am the one recognizing the pattern..... That does not go against logic.. nor is that any sort of metaphysical claim. It's my subjective observation.. that's a no brainer. Why would I have to adjust it? It's like you have metaphysical and subjective completely linked.. when they are not. All metaphysical beliefs are subjective.. but not all subjective experiences are metaphysical. It's common sense that every single life form has it's own subjective experience of the objective reality.. so I have no reason to think that a physical subjective experience is a load of shit, and all the reason to think that a metaphysical belief is a load of shit. Perhaps you should learn what it means to objectify something.. it doesn't mean to prove true, it means to express.. to manifest something that isn't really thought of to be physical. That doesn't mean it is metaphysical. You thoughts aren't typically thought of to be physical.. but they are the result of physical brain activity. They can be physically studied, observed, and even manipulated.. they are not metaphysical unless you subjectively have a metaphysical belief system. An example of what it means to objectify something is when a family objectifies their family name/history with a coat of arms. What I simply said was that if something doesn't have any physical evidence and no possibility of securing physical evidence (which is how metaphysical beliefs are..) then there is no reason to take it seriously. You even said it yourself.. all theories need to be able measure some kind of physical evidence.. and that's what I am talking about. You are the one who linked science/metaphysical with objective/subjective and assuming that everyone else does or should too.. and, just no. It's funny.. you're actually the person I had in mind when I wrote that. Go figure..
Are the numbers that science uses to come to statistically conclusive evidence material in nature? I think this could be seen as science's pink elephant so to speak. Lets say I were to assert as a fact that the width of a particular book measures 30cm, a number of people with their own rulers all measure the book and agree that it is in fact true that the book measures 30 cm. But what does that even mean really? Relative to a system that we invented for practical purposes the book can be said to be measure 30 cm. However; is the very concept of the number 30 of any empirical material value in and of itself? If so how? Can the number 30 be observed in and of itself and be proved to be valid in purely material terms?
It really depends on how you look at math.. do you see math as being discovered by mankind or invented by mankind? To me, math was discovered. In a non-mystical way, it is the language of the universe.. but our math is just a translation of that language into something we can understand. Numbers are tricky though.. to me, they would be an objectification of your material thoughts.. meant to describe the material reality. Like time and emotion, they are our subjective translation/label/objectification/manifestation of what is.. and that will vary between languages. But as for the number 30.. trying to observe it in and of itself would be like trying to observe a word. That's all numbers really are at their root.. words. So if numbers are science's pink elephant, then words are everything's pink elephant. Thing is, you can observe your material thoughts on the number 30 and you can observe the process of objectifying the number 30.. and you can observe what it means to have 30 of something. To me, that is plenty validity to not need to fill in blanks with something immaterial.
[SIZE=10.5pt]I reckon that that numbers were invented. I agree that numbers could be seen as a kind of language that science employs to convey meaning. However if you take language and you break it down to sounds that represent something else they are symbols, like the word "dog" points to a particular kind of four legged beast. The sonic phenomena that constitute the word "dog" have no intrinsic, verifiable link to "that which we call a dog". So yes words can be seen as the pink elephant of everything in the sense that we name something and can thus fall into the danger of assuming that we "know it" when have simply at the most fundamental level, arbitrarily assigned meaning to sonic phenomena so as to serve us practically. We haven't known; we've labeled. (could numbers then be seen as quantitative labeling?)[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt]You cannot for example perform experiments to either prove that or disprove that the "sonic system of symbols"( i.e words) that we have chosen to convey meaning are factual or not relative to what they describe or point to. [/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt] Hence why there are so many ways of "sonically pointing" to that which we call dog in the many languages that exist.[/SIZE] [SIZE=10.5pt] We did not discover that this animal intrinsically bound to being referred to as the sonic phenomena that constitute "dog.†We chose to call it a dog i.e. we used something that was already empirically evident and directly observable (sonic phenomena) and used it in an abstract fashion (The link itself holds no physical validity). So in the same way with numbers there seems to be a practical application of an abstract concept not physically evident but that nonetheless helps us to understand the physical realm and use it make advancements with in it. [/SIZE]