I understand the science rant now.

[Elliott]

You science deniers really don't understand what science is, science gives observations, that's it, they even just call their 'science' theory . 

This is second grade level shit.

[Hojo]

@Elliott They dont know what the thing is they are observing. There is a big question mark outside the human perception. That question mark is feeding information that looks like something into the perceptual field of the body.

Science cant be done because, from both instances of two perceptual fields witnessing the question mark ,they are getting information that isnt a question mark. That means its not what they are perceiving. They are both wrong.

Edited 1 hour ago by Hojo

[LordFall]

12 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

- concepts aren't a "real thing"

- langage is inherently paradoxical

- Science is complete bullshit fantasy like Jesus christ

- we can't prove causality, even less results

- consistency & statistic isn't real

 

- none of what I m saying you're going to understand, because you're making up & generating what is being said from your own data training, words do not bring real experiences beyond the experience of words.

I think you're going quite far with this. Science is a method of coming up with ideas and testing them against reality to hopefully produce consistent results. How is that a complete bullshit fantasy? 

I just proved it with my discussion with @Hojo. I have a device and my hypothesis is that when I reply to you guys it will go from my home network to a fiber optic cable to the world wide web and then to Leo's database and then update on your screens when you type in his domain address and you will think(hopefully) about my reply and we will be able to communicate. This was not possible not that long ago, it's the epitome of a lot of science. 

That process could completely fall apart after my next reply and I could start floating in midair while my head turns into a blueberry milkshake but probably that will not happen. That is consistency, statistics and science. 

12 minutes ago, Hojo said:

I didnt say objective reality dosent exist. Us doing science proves objective reality exists but its not what we are describing. The one good thing science is doing is proving that God (objective reality) exists. But the other thing science is proving is that we arent doing science. Anything science is doing is akin to the tower of babel. Just a bunch random sounds describing something that was experienced.

You are saying jumping out a window is science when its not science. I knew the ramifications of jumping off high places before I knew about science. How can that be possible? Because science is just claiming first person experiences are objective facts then denying the subjective experience exists at all to know.

Pretending the interface dosent exist is the highest conciousness thing to do its what every high level person tells you to do. Just close your eyes and ignore everything and everything will literally disappear and dissolve including you.

They say the interface isnt real. Its like having a folder on the computer open thinking its the main home screen.

The chair example is indeed basic science. We have plenty of intuitions that we think are real that we think are fact and we can choose to turn those hypothesis into tests and see how often they line up with reality. Usually that's done by coming up with a correlation coefficient of -1 to 1 depending on how reliable your hypothesis is.

We call urban myths what people call intuitions that they think are true and make sense but are not repeatable consistently outside of their minds. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Elliott]

11 minutes ago, Hojo said:

@Elliott They dont know what the thing is they are observing.

And....THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, it's a pursuit to understand, it's not a declaration of understanding.

Theory of gravity

Electron Theory

Germ Theory

Theory of evolution

Cell Theory

Geological Theory

 

This is stage blue reading a science book....

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[AerisVahnEphelia]

6 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I think you're going quite far with this. Science is a method of coming up with ideas and testing them against reality to hopefully produce consistent results. How is that a complete bullshit fantasy? 

I just proved it with my discussion with @Hojo. I have a device and my hypothesis is that when I reply to you guys it will go from my home network to a fiber optic cable to the world wide web and then to Leo's database and then update on your screens when you type in his domain address and you will think(hopefully) about my reply and we will be able to communicate. This was not possible not that long ago, it's the epitome of a lot of science. 

That process could completely fall apart after my next reply and I could start floating in midair while my head turns into a blueberry milkshake but probably that will not happen. That is consistency, statistics and science. 

The chair example is indeed basic science. We have plenty of intuitions that we think are real that we think are fact and we can choose to turn those hypothesis into tests and see how often they line up with reality. Usually that's done by coming up with a correlation coefficient of -1 to 1 depending on how reliable your hypothesis is.

We call urban myths what people call intuitions that they think are true and make sense but are not repeatable consistently outside of their minds. 

nothing is repeatable consistently.

you can't prove anything.

You're stuck in symbolic systems.

 

What turned something to exist was direct practices, maybe your symbolic system created an effect, maybe it didn't, you will never be able to know that.

your understanding of science is fixated and forget to consider floating in midair as the real next constant possibility of all things.

 

[Elliott]

6 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

your understanding of science is fixated and forget to consider floating in midair as the real next constant possibility of all things.

 

Science changes ALL THE TIME when new observations occur, it's not doctrine. Science is just a book of observations, not explanations, just observations and theories for the explanations. They give million dollar prizes for disproving mainstream theories, religions burn you alive in a vat of oil.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Joseph Maynor]

Think of science as basically providing the intellect behind engineering.

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

Science changes ALL THE TIME when new observations occur, it's not doctrine. Science is just a book of observations. 

when do you know you observed enough and collected enough observations ?

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

when do you know you observed enough and collected enough observations ?

When do you?

Science does not give explanations, NONE. This is second grade level science understanding. It gives observations and theories, that's it.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[AerisVahnEphelia]

5 minutes ago, Elliott said:

When do you?

Science does not give explanations, NONE. This is second grade level science understanding. It gives observations and theories, that's it.

You are science, so yes I suppose.

[Jirh]

Science is not scientism

[LordFall]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

Science is not scientism

This is actually the crux of the issue, thanks for sharing. I'm totally with you guys that science as an ideology has issues and ultimately doesn't understand reality. If we go from that to full on relativity then we're going straight to Monaco and you guys are buying since we can perhaps print billions instantly with our minds now. Unfortunately we cannot do that unless you guys know a guy then invite me. 

A lot of modern science came out of something similar to what we're talking about here : alchemy. People have been trying to turn bricks and stones into gold for thousands of years and some of them successfully fooling many people. Robert Boyle wrote The Sceptical Chymist in 1661 that refined what was alchemy into the birth of chemistry. 

20 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

nothing is repeatable consistently.

you can't prove anything.

You're stuck in symbolic systems.

 

What turned something to exist was direct practices, maybe your symbolic system created an effect, maybe it didn't, you will never be able to know that.

your understanding of science is fixated and forget to consider floating in midair as the real next constant possibility of all things.

 

I agree that you can't know its gonna stay the same FOREVER but a lot of stuff is repeatable consistently. Advil treats headaches most times pretty consistently. There are some unforeseen side affects in some people but it's pretty consistent. 

17 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

when do you know you observed enough and collected enough observations ?

When you can reach your goals. Business is a close intersection between science and art. You can endlessly measure and test things but in business you test the theories that produce the outcome you want and similarly for goals that are not business oriented but it's an easy one to use. If I want to sell $5000 worth of tickets for a concert then I have defined a test size for my efforts. I don't need to sell $50,000,000 worth of tickets to fulfill my experiment. Someone else could say that they could've gotten more money out of those tickets or that they could've sold them faster but that's their own hypothesis to try and test if they want to. 

[AerisVahnEphelia]

3 minutes ago, LordFall said:

This is actually the crux of the issue, thanks for sharing. I'm totally with you guys that science as an ideology has issues and ultimately doesn't understand reality. If we go from that to full on relativity then we're going straight to Monaco and you guys are buying since we can perhaps print billions instantly with our minds now. Unfortunately we cannot do that unless you guys know a guy then invite me. 

A lot of modern science came out of something similar to what we're talking about here : alchemy. People have been trying to turn bricks and stones into gold for thousands of years and some of them successfully fooling many people. Robert Boyle wrote The Sceptical Chymist in 1661 that refined what was alchemy into the birth of chemistry. 

I agree that you can't know its gonna stay the same FOREVER but a lot of stuff is repeatable consistently. Advil treats headaches most times pretty consistently. There are some unforeseen side affects in some people but it's pretty consistent. 

When you can reach your goals. Business is a close intersection between science and art. You can endlessly measure and test things but in business you test the theories that produce the outcome you want and similarly for goals that are not business oriented but it's an easy one to use. If I want to sell $5000 worth of tickets for a concert then I have defined a test size for my efforts. I don't need to sell $50,000,000 worth of tickets to fulfill my experiment. Someone else could say that they could've gotten more money out of those tickets or that they could've sold them faster but that's their own hypothesis to try and test if they want to. 

You can make 10 million on the stock market over ten years, convince yourself that you’re a genius at prediction, and then lose everything because you built your entire theory around the idea that you had the right tactics and strategy, when it may simply have been luck repeated a hundred times. You end up even poorer, with your entire theory proven wrong.

Science doesn’t exist, but whatever fantasy leads you to discover what actually works for you, I suppose.

Your belief that measurement is an objective way of capturing reality, or anything at all, is just another false conceptual understanding of what reality is. You’re trapped in a mind game played by billions of people, but it is still only a mind game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

[LordFall]

34 minutes ago, AerisVahnEphelia said:

You can make 10 million on the stock market over ten years, convince yourself that you’re a genius at prediction, and then lose everything because you built your entire theory around the idea that you had the right tactics and strategy, when it may simply have been luck repeated a hundred times. You end up even poorer, with your entire theory proven wrong.

Science doesn’t exist, but whatever fantasy leads you to discover what actually works for you, I suppose.

Your belief that measurement is an objective way of capturing reality, or anything at all, is just another false conceptual understanding of what reality is. You’re trapped in a mind game played by billions of people, but it is still only a mind game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox

I mean sure that does happen. New investors overwhelmingly have much worse results than experienced ones with a track record. You can't claim that science does not exist just that it's not absolutely foolproof. 

It can definitely make mostly accurate predictive models of reality. As a matter of fact it's probably the best method we have of doing so. What is your other alternative? You can even use science in actual dreams and see if what you experience is consistent or falls apart more easily than it does in our current reality. I've had dreams that appeared solid at the touch so it failed the classical hypothesis that usually you can't touch walls in dreams. I still can't really have sex in dreams though so I'll have to conclude that it's mostly impossible to do so until proven otherwise. 

Edited 34 minutes ago by LordFall

[Hojo]

1 hour ago, Elliott said:

Science changes ALL THE TIME when new observations occur, it's not doctrine. Science is just a book of observations, not explanations, just observations and theories for the explanations. They give million dollar prizes for disproving mainstream theories, religions burn you alive in a vat of oil.

Then they cant tell me Im wrong about anything I say, everything I say and see is plausible in the book of evidence. And everything we collectively see. That means people becoming God is real to science cause peoples evidences are in the book of science and science cant deny or prove it.

They will say you are psychotic. Thats dogmatic and anti science. This is how science is a cult not true to itself.

A big part of subjective experiences have these epidoses and science ignores them in the book of subjective science. And then goes onto do their own thing.

They cookie cut their own science.

Edited 14 minutes ago by Hojo

[AerisVahnEphelia]

36 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I mean sure that does happen. New investors overwhelmingly have much worse results than experienced ones with a track record. You can't claim that science does not exist just that it's not absolutely foolproof. 

It can definitely make mostly accurate predictive models of reality. As a matter of fact it's probably the best method we have of doing so. What is your other alternative? You can even use science in actual dreams and see if what you experience is consistent or falls apart more easily than it does in our current reality. I've had dreams that appeared solid at the touch so it failed the classical hypothesis that usually you can't touch walls in dreams. I still can't really have sex in dreams though so I'll have to conclude that it's mostly impossible to do so until proven otherwise. 

You can keep doing everything the way you do, just don't be convinced by anything at all, not even your scientific tools and neither your concepts and what they mean.

the act of science can keep going; observing, concluding etc . .

my solution is to stop using is about anything, you don't know what anything is, only how it appear to you at this precise moment in time.

I m not talking to you about a world of dream, I m telling you, your entire perception and world model is a possibility in itself & so is "Science".

The only science that exist is the one instanciated in your mind.

edit : you can have sex in dreams, I did many times in the past, even felt the bones.

Edited 13 minutes ago by AerisVahnEphelia

[Joshe]

2 hours ago, LordFall said:

You can call it a "second-order reality" all you want, but if you jump out of a window, that second-order gravity is going to give you a very first-order broken neck.

lol