Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) philosophical rambling rants

you mean Jeffrey Laitman, Tsel?

the anthropologist of language?

because i know of some other laitman a cabbalist in particular... err...

er there would be many points to object to the image of science which is presented here though, imo.

MASTER_GUROTH >

That's why I put it here.
I wanted to learn of the objections.

Oh, and there are different forms of Kabbalah.
There is Hermetic Qubalah that deals with Ritualistic Magic of which I have nothing to do with except the reading thereof, and I hold nothing against those who do. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
And
Then there is Kabbalah that deals with Altruism and G_D; this I find interesting.
Then there’s the Milhamoth HaShem that says otherwise.

Again, that is why I posted this ramble to get objections and thoughts.

So object away M.G. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Tsel

Different "forms" of Kabbalah ? I didn't know that.

Interesting.

Konrad Lorenz, an Biologist, once wrote a book named "Die Rückseite des Spiegels" ("The back side of the mirror"), in which he also sees this phenemon. We can observeourworld ONLY through our senses - I mean our things we have like tasting, touching, seeing and so on ...

Konrad Lorenz but on the other hand had the opinion that our "senses" (what I've described above) were developed by Evolution - therefore they are / were developed to fit the being (humans, for example, as like as Horses, Koalas, Flies, Crabs and so on) the best into a certain environment as possible.

Resulting in a high possibility that our "senses" were developed to match the real environment - in result meaning that the world actually is like we perceive it with our senses.

(I hope I made clear what I meant. I'm not sure, though.)

We had this book in Philosophy at school, and it higly influenced me - mainly because it sounds reasonable to me. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

But still - our senses are different from the senses of other animals. We build our view of the world on our senses - therefore our own view of the world if differenttly shaped from the view of an animal that for example has infrared vision or can use electricity as a sense.

Therefore we should still be careful ...

AlrikFassbauer >

Thank you for this reply. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/up.gif" alt="" />
I find these topics so fascinating, but other than here on this forum, I know of no one who will ever talk about these topics.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I have exactly the same impression. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

About Laitman's text

I have mainly 2 things to object.

1st:
the great idea of the text is that there is an unity in language and that the difference between scientific language and ordinary language or between philosophic language and ordinary language is a difference of degrees (levels). More and more, i really don't think so.

The unique common points beetween these languages (and others) is probably that there are languages (and probably the fact that there is language is unique but it is not enough to say that language is unique).

Therefore, i don't think that natural languages (i.e our "ordinary languages") are loosing their accuracy to the outer world or to the objects of science (if it is really the outer world which is the object of science, which is something with what i disagree... but that's the second problem of the text). Because it is something they never have. Since its first beginning science has ever used its own language or more exactly has ever been a proper language apart from the others. It is one of the reason in Ancient times scientifics were often members of esoteric sects (in Aegypt, Mesopotamia and even Greece), because they needed a language that was not the ordinary language. Mathematical and formal logical languages are born from this need.

2nd:
I agree that there are two parts of studies in science, a formal (theorie's making) and a material (experiment). this is more or less a classical distinction since Aristotle. But i disagree about the meaning of experiment that is in this text. Why because it seems to say that scientific experiment is a way of access the reality of the outter world. Maybe it is (it is a really difficult problem indeed), but if it is, it is not in any case direct access.

What is doing experiment in science in a large meaning? Something much humbler that saying something abut the reality of the outter world, in a way. Verifying that the fact/phenomen born from the theory is not contradictory (or at least too contradictory) with the theory, because if it is it means the theory should be changed.

Is this fact born from the theory a reflect of the outter World. We don't know. We can hope it is but we don't know. At least science doesn't know. And its not truly its problem.

About the 4 questions i asked as a starting point

1) are these fields handling the same objects?
No. I think I have already try to explain why.

quite ironically i think that there is a god in science, a god in philosophy and a god in religion. (I don't say i'm believing). But it is not the same god. God in science is a theory. God in philosophy is an end. God in religion is a person. Not the same object.

2) may these fields coexists "peacefully"?

Certainly. They may and they can. But it begins with understanding "correctly" what these fields is doing. It is probably not so easy because science has become much more complex it was. And probably philosophy too. If the objects were the same the answer would be no, Imo.


3) are we in a time where a kind of "belief" in one of these fields (actually science) excludes both others?

I don't think so. If there is a field that excludes the others it is probably more philosophy. Why? because philosophy search to unit different things under a global word (logos) and has never really questionned the meaning of what was truth for it. Science has.

Anyway "factually" XXIth century seems to be a century of religious sects more of science beliefs or philosophy's apogee.

4) has the relationship which is uniting/differing these fields has changed with history?
It's the most difficult question. The concepts i used comes from recent developpment in science. But i think it's retroactive in some ways. As for the Historical differences that were underlined by Alrik and Glance there are real but what is there objects. I think it is more about the perception auto-perception of the scientist than about scientifical practice.

Also, it's a matter what is seen / perceived by "the public" and what by the scientists themselves.

This can be seen - for example - with what I meant with "Logic". I didn't mean the use of Scientists of that ord and concept, but rather theone that's "public".

To be exact, I had no choice, because I have never learned the mathematican's view on that matter. I have no idea (well, yes, an idea, but nothing more) how mathematicans view it.

Whereas I see a slight tendency in the Siences towards a different view , I still have the feeling that the "public" point of view is still rather materialistic.

A tendency I don't like at all is the "economism" that tends to evaluate everything only from an economical point of view. To me, that's an almost absurd exaggeration of the materialistic point of view.

Well, this is my personal opinion.

there i agree. but for speaking about science, it may be best to integrate how scientists are perceiving themshelves and what exactly science tries to do.



really less than in XIXth century (gold age of 'positivism' and belief that science is a "progress"). IMO.
I fear that with the use of the 2 atomic bombs in 45, many people have lost their enthusiasm for science (well in a way it was not an enthusiasm really well founded so it may be not so unfortunate but...) for "new spiritualities". And by this expressions i mean "more or less religious" sects.

MASTER_GUROTH or to anyone who wishes to answer >

How would you connect your views just written to non-scientist, regular, plain Jane, everyday people’s views, to a general religious belief putting G_D as they generally know G_D in science?
Please give simple examples or parables to help illustrate your answers.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

We are here - we are here because of a series of events, that seem totally coincidental (a planet fomed at the right distance from the sun, it got a moon, the moon and earth cycle adjusted to a stable balance, Dinosaurs became extinct, so that mammals filled the void left by them...). The probability of the combination of events repeating is infinitively close to zero, and it wasn't much higher in the first place. So the thought of there being a force - an entity - someone with infinite time, following a vision, practising a concept, a cunning plan... - it cannot ALL be coincidence after all... - or?

This is so speculative and hypothetical - it certainly qualifies as non-scientific <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Adding a bit more to GlanceALots post.

A view, whether it is true or not is not the case here, it is a discussion related to a science, what if this is true.

Throughout history many cultures have had mythologies of gods, i.e. Zeus, Mars, etc..., what if these so called gods really did exist.
The Bible in Genesis talks about the Nephlim.
What if these Nephlim were those so called gods.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

IMHO, trouble is than science is not able to ask properly the question of the origin of life and of the origins process of thought (works by neurologists are not explaining that but how a thought born in an individual brain which is quite different)...

I'm not sure this remark is related to your question Tsel, as i didn't understand it <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />

Absolutely true. Without a good question, no answer at all. Too bad that philosophy wasn't able to help the other sciences through a permanent state of interogation. Today, it is limited to the study of speech (see Carnap, Wittgenstein and the other mediocre philosophers). Philosophy doesn't have a "realm" of its own anymore. As for great discoveries about life, I would personally trust the teachings of a Buddhist monk (one of those that can survive two months without water,etc.)more than the aberations of today's "professors" of materialization. What is the most important science in most Europe and America? Economy... that proves beyond doubt Plato's theories about the "Era of Decadence"...

agreed for carnap not for wittgenstein.

as a matter of fact to see carnap and wittgenstein in the same sentence is a bit strange.

carnap had not understood anything about mathematical logic use and tried to overgeneralize it (even frege was not doing that, nor russel). wittgenstein had not and is certainly not what is called an "analytic" philosopher. Nor is Hintikka. mediocre philosophers? Don't think so...

If you compare tractacus with husserl's Ideen though you will see that wittgenstein is all except an analytic and a mediocre philosopher...

just they've learned that philosophy as a global speech had its limit too.

ho and when i speak about wittgenstein i spak only about the first... the one from the tractacus... the second has just made what the first had foridden...

I wholeheartedly Disagree with this comment totally.

That is why we as human beings can reason.
To say something like this puts us, human beings, in the class of automatons who cannot reason or infer things for ourselves.
Many people in this world are pitiful at thinking OUTSIDE of the Box.
Many times one must start with a fragment of something to build something.

Tsel

The title of this thread is "philosophical rambling rants".
I do not see any of us ranting here per say, but I do see us sharing philosophical personal thoughts.
These are supposed to be our thoughts and beliefs we are sharing; at least that is what I thought we were doing here. If we share the same thoughts and beliefs of someone present or from the past that is okay, but are we not also sharing our own philosophical personal beliefs, thoughts, and convictions?
When a scientist treads new ground and has no history for a foundation to rely upon do they just throw up their hands and say, “Oh, well science is not able to ask properly the question. I cannot tread upon this ground.”
NO! Of course not!
The scientist is forced to break new ground. So what if the scientist makes a million mistakes or wrong conclusions before the right answer is found, but it would be totally stupid to not even attempt the conclusions.
Think for yourself and think OUTSIDE of the Box.
History is very important, but don’t allow history to trap you inside a box.
In the past people thought the sun revolved around the earth.
But thanks to those who thought OUTSIDE of the Box we know better now don’t we.
You may say, “Well that was simple, the sun, blah, blah, blah”, BUT it wasn’t for them back then. It was very new to them and super dangerous territory.

Don’t let questions asked of you; stop you from reasoning your own answers, just because science present day hasn’t figured it out yet.
Instead try thinking OUTSIDE of the Box and who knows, maybe you might be the next scientist recorded as the discoverer of...

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

er Tsel, i really hope that science would not ever be able to answer to the questions of origin of life (and not genesis of life) and origin of process of thought because that day it would say that science would be the unique possible manner of thinking and the most global speech. But i'm rather confident. I think the impossibility to ask these questions is structural and not historic, because those questions are no scientific objects. That's no a limit for exploring new scientific grounds but a way to limit science to its own ground.

I guess the time has not yet come for this kind of thought. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shame.gif" alt="" />
I can only hope the future will herald in an awakening of thought.

Tsel <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />

I agree on the point.

Thing is that humans can reason - maybe, humans like to think so. What is reason? It's a human definition on ways of thinking and communication.
If You see how most humans reason I have my doubts on what is ment by the word reason itself.
They useally don't.
Animal behavior often makes a lot more sence/reason than human behavior.

And as you say that humans can reason it makes them very pitiful couse they useally don't.

Humans aren't the lords of creation they're more a freak of nature. It's the only kind that behaves completely different from every other lifeform on earth. Like they don't belong here.