Gunter Posted February 16, 2011 i don't like the idea that before the west there was no science, there is a lot to suggest that simply is not true, that being said, i agree with the above quote very strongly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
synchromesh Posted February 16, 2011 I don't think that Carl was suggesting that. Either way though, that isn't the quote which I was looking for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
herbal_hindsight Posted February 17, 2011 these people are narrow minded fanatics and not actually scientific in the least music to me ears!!! so beautifully worded! thank you i couldn't agree with you more! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dude Posted February 19, 2011 (edited) hehe, I tend to agree with Archaea. Skepticism = doubt. Doubt = disbelief, disbelief is a belief in the nonexistence of a thing/idea. An open mind allows phenomena to be tested without projecting a filter of belief/disbelief a priori. I guess you can call this skepticism, but that implies doubt(disbelief), which colours your experience and is hardly more realistic. Maybe the philosophy of nihilism is the most "realistic" as it is a belief in nothing (no-thing) which having no definition or boundaries is infinite possibility. By not believing anything (that includes not believing in unbelieving, ie: skepticism/doubt, the presumption of fallacy) you leave all options open for seeing/manifesting reality. "Your potential is zero" is an inspirational quote of your infinite potential (zero = infinity), What is reality, the potential or the manifest? You could be aware of the absolute and there would be absolutely nothing to be aware of. In order to have any kind of reference within time/space (creation) we make these [un]conscious assumptions (faith/doubt) that are all "make-believe"; they make real what we believe. It is out of these facts (made manifest through our will) that all other assumptions and questions (make-believe realities) spiral out of. So we question and seek and sometimes find truth. Knowing truth we must also fall for fallacy, it's the game we play. So we automatically invent these delusions. If we are seeking truth we may start to cross reference our personal delusion with other peoples (other aspects of consciousness') delusions and may chance upon an experience of an over-arching (archetypal) unity of all being being revealed via the abstracted higher order symmetry of all the created realities. "we lose ourselves but we find it all." Doubt is a belief, a projection, an assumption. As is faith, and I suppose the testing of what is real is determined by the balance of the two extremes of willful projection (whether conscious or subconscious). In the end, it's all a matter of how convinced you are of your reality. Edited February 19, 2011 by The Dude Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CβL Posted February 22, 2011 Doubt1. to be uncertain about; consider questionable or unlikely; hesitate to believe. Disbelief1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. Doubt essentially means to question something, that you are not sure of it (such as the existence of the yeti, or the existence of the Hutchinson effect). If you are doubtless, then you have nothing to question. Scientists question methodically (the ideal scientist anyway). Furthermore, you have made the false leap from doubt to disbelief. Doubt does not imply that you cannot believe something. It implies that you "hesitate to believe". I doubted that the world could not be deterministic (rigidly), yet here I am - confused about the ground I stand on as I tentatively step towards somewhere near Capra's worldview. Also, infinite does not equal zero. They are similar, in that they are both concepts that signify idealistic quantities. Those concepts are not false however - it is their misapplication that is. If science is a square, existence is the tangential circle outside of it. I agree with a lot of the rest of what you wrote though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
santiago Posted February 22, 2011 depends whats defined as real, gravity is real but unable to be seen, a rock falling from a mountain can be seen falling..it is under the ifluence of gravity, the rock is real..the gravity is real, but only half the result can be seen, does it mean i dont believe in gravity...no i believe in gravity...and im totally confused Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CβL Posted February 23, 2011 Reality and existence are a bit too deep for me to do much but dip my toes in (without just speculating). But what I can do though, is to compare gravity, to centrifugal force. Most people, "believe in gravity." Most people (who passed HS) - don't believe in centrifugal force, as it only appears in certain reference frames, and can be reduced in a suitable reference frame to nothing. Gravity is similar. If spacetime curvature is all that is necessary to account for the effects of 'gravity', then gravity can also too be reduced to nothing. Even though centrifugal force does not exist, we can use its concepts to calculate anyway. Similarly, even though Newtonian gravity does not exist, we can use its concepts to calculate anyway. So does gravity (as the definition, not the attributed effects) exist? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dude Posted February 23, 2011 Just thought I'd clarify my position on doubt/skepticism/disbelief. I like to think of reality as a probability calculation we make, determined by our own balance of faith/doubt in ideas/entities. A cynical person will know it all and expect the worst and prove their cynicism right, an optimistic person would be constantly surprised, and prove their optimism correct. Skepticism may seem to be more objective as it is a position of not committing to any belief, but undecided reality is still a projection. Skepticism and conviction are both a projection, the idea that anything can be true and certain is a fallacy. (IMHO) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
