Type 1: All human perceptions are governed and explainable by an objective reality. There's only one set of rules even if we can't always tell.
Type 2: Humans have access to realities beyond what can be objectively described. Objective reality is only one form of a greater reality.
I'll take door number one, thank you...
13 comments:
I concur, however, I would say there are 10 kinds of people, those who know binary, and those who do not.
Type 2: Humans have access to realities beyond what can be objectively described. Objective reality is only one form of a greater reality.
---------------
You forgot type 3!
Type 3: Humans may possibly have access to realities beyond what can be objectively described. Objective reality is possibly only one form of a greater reality. More thought/experimentation/data is needed.
The truly open-minded one!
Badda boom!
I concur, however, I would say there are 10 kinds of people, those who know binary, and those who do not.
----
Hysterical!
I think the type 3 you describe is the same as the second. It is the perception that there is not some hard stop that defines what is really possible and what is speculative.
People either believe the universe is definable and follows some describable and testable rules, or they don't.
I think people mistake that for being confining. Quite the contrary. Some of the rules of this universe involve chaos, which by definition creates a wonderful set of ruled that make many of the events in this objective universe completely unpredictable, for example.
I think one of the things that get's missed in discussions about new ideas, is that we usually don't reject them out of hand.
There is a reasonable framework for triaging new ideas based upon some objective criteria. I do believe there is an overlay of objective reality that of course is far larger than our current understanding. But our best methods to date suggest that although it is probably strange to us, it is definable and is not likely to completely overturn centuries of hard science.
Some ideas can be discounted very quickly if they fail major triage tests of plausibility, or if they are essentially reworkings of earlier failed ideas, and some require far greater scrutiny and may pass some tests and fail others.
My most general set of tools to assess a new idea involves these 6 criteria: reliability (or sincerity) of the source, plausibility, prior art, coherence, bias, and experimentation.
It works for me.
But what if I don't want there to be just the two categories? What if I hold my breath and stamp my feet and shout, "It's YOU who is being unreasonable you linear thinker!!! WAAAA! (breath-sucking-in noise)"
As my face turns blue and my eyes bulge I am still convinced that I can make you see how reasonable I'm being. This is when I'm wishing I had 'showing the instruments' as a table-turning option. Then we'd see who is being reasonable and who isn't, wouldn't we? (Well? WOOOOO-dn't we?)
AWWWW, you don't 'get it' do you Pliny?
What if the new idea already pre-chucks objectivity out the window and into the rosebushes? What then?
Nya-nya, I win!
Oh yea, you're going to have to warn me before you make comments like that Jared. So I can put on my welding glasses!
Correction, there are in fact two kinds of people. Those who say there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.
Correction, there are in fact two kinds of people. Those who say there are two kinds of people, and those who don't.
=======================
actually there are 2 kinds - those who label the 2 kinds and those who make fun of them.
[tangent] For the reasons we just illustrated, I find a number of classification schemes (the 8 or so species concepts, for example) to be inherently flawed. This does not mean it doesn't mesh with objective reality, just that each model is better at representing objective reality in some way. When we get down to it, classification schemes are really just ways to build models of the world to predict how something (or someone) will behave under a particular set of circumstances for given criteria. These binary classifications could be assimilated into a larger classification scheme which better represents everything; some classification schemes are mutually exclusive (such as some of the species concepts) and yet both still manage to mesh with objective reality quite well.[/tangent]
There was no point there, just my thoughts.
I think that's right. For me what it comes down to is that we like and need shortcuts that aid in association. These associations are always approximations of something that's already taken place or obviously has existed. The label or classification tries to make sense of these existing relationships. The problem is when the label assumes some sort of importance beyond what's intended. Or when the classification is created before there is rudimentary understanding of the underlying processes. I think that's part of this whole mind argument. We made assumptions about what a mind is before we understood anything about what the structure from which the mind is but one aspect.
Post a Comment