Visitor Messages

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 20 of 189
  1. SkyBright
    03-25-2015 11:39 PM
    I've read just a little Kant before and I enjoyed it but didn't go with it. Thank you for introducing us. Kant:Judgments. People gave me the impression Kant was scary; but I think I'm infatuated now.

    Your posts are high quality and greatly appreciated. I keep re-rereading them and I now need to dust off some of my philosophy books and read with the new perspective you have given me
  2. SkyBright
    03-25-2015 06:14 AM
    So would you say that we have free knowledge - not contingent on sensory input and deterministic knowledge - contingent on sensory input? Is this what "will" is -- "knowledge"? Do we have both, or is it all one or all the other? Is there only one "way" of understanding the objective knowledge that is real and "out there"? Is there only one knowledge and only one way to it? The many ways we perceive are just appearances of the one? I do not have formal training in philosophy or logic. I am learning.

    Kant on Metaphysical Knowledge

    I really enjoyed this video. He referenced it in the other two.
  3. SkyBright
    03-25-2015 05:39 AM
    I am studying on what you have said. And I tend toward thinking the "neglected alternative". This doesn't mean my thinking is right. But by the time I got to the end of the videos I see where the neglected alternative is irrelevant really. It turns into nitpicking when Kant is making an entirely different point - which I can agree with, that what we know is an appearance of what really is. (?) Thank you for these two posts. I have much more reading to do. I appreciate this tremendously. Yes, I have already started questioning Occam's razor. It is entirely overused and little understood. Would you say that Kant's argument really bolsters what Bohm said about the implied and explicit? I think it does.
  4. SkyBright
    03-21-2015 07:54 AM
    Wow. Excellent comment. Thank you for it. I can't say it any better. The term they ignore is "demarcation problem." I'd say most scientists really don't have a problem distinguishing non science from science. Just a few fame and money seekers. But the way you associated it with philosophy is so clear and helps me see it from another angle. I like it. Thanks!
  5. The Fantasist
    03-20-2015 05:51 PM
    The Fantasist
    Are you okay? I haven't heard from you in a while. I didn't accidentally delete my last letter to you or something, did I?
  6. SkyBright
    03-18-2015 09:45 PM
    Bohm was a big impetus for me. I was investigating a statement I read about the universe being made of intelligence ... which led me to the universe being made of information ... which led me to Bohm's explicit and implicit order statements and writings. I've seen several talks by Sean Carroll. Interestingly, he has taken the less popular view of being an Everrettian and yet tells us if it isn't made of electrons, protons, and neutrons and measurable it doesn't exist. Then he says the math leads us to Everett's many worlds hypothesis and he buys that (despite not being able to measure it in electrons, protons, or neutrons).? He's an example of a scientist who leads astray many into pseudoscience. He knows where the lines are drawn but nonscientists may not and by some of his talks he implies that science is capable of disproving God. I am not saying Sean Carroll is a pseudoscientist (necessarily) but when he crosses over into "God talk" many "pseudo skeptics" take his words and misconstrue them in the same way that a new ager misconstrues quantum mechanics. I agree with you on pseudoscience surrounding quantum mechanics. It goes both ways though... people claiming the Standard Model disproves God are not much different in my book than those claiming Quantum Physics proves God.
  7. SkyBright
    03-15-2015 07:34 PM
    The time is not fundamental to reality is something that captured my imagination a while ago with the proposal for a new geometric model of the universe, where time is measured as distance. Many, many interesting articles I have read which are beginning to shift towards the acknowledgement that spacetime are constructs of the human brain which allow us to function in the world, but which are limiting the mind instead of freeing it. So I have been eagerly seeing where this leads as I postulate that perhaps the mind is not "in" the brain... But mostly the amplituhedron article which I linked sparked an interest in me (which was pushed along by PlatoHagel mostly) to learn more about the holographic principle, and that information is fundamental, rather than time. Also, I am recently pondering the thought that light is how the information is conveyed ...
    I think you are more informed and smarter about this than me. So forgive me if I sound like a raving lunatic. Any input (criticism) is appreciated.
  8. SkyBright
    03-15-2015 07:25 PM
    It's pseudoscience because he is claiming that science justifies his personal beliefs, without there being any true basis in science for him already believing there is no god. It is a not a theory proper which has not been proven or disproven yet. Rather, it seems to me to be an attempt to rationalize personal life choices. It's popular right now to use the word "science" as the justification for one's personal beliefs. There isn't a rational process to develop and prove his theory. More of science is about designing the experiment to properly test the hypothesis. There is no plan for experimentation. It is pseudoscience because there is too much "looking for what you want to find" -- confirmation bias -- instead of the truly scientific path of trying to disprove one's hypothesis through the careful and thoughtful development of an experiment that could do just that.
  9. SkyBright
    03-15-2015 04:58 PM
    Oh wow... That was the product of pages of discussion mostly on the relationship of empiricism and rationalism. I have a vague remembrance of a particular post that was sort of an "aha" moment for me regarding the topic. If I can I will find it and reference back to. I guess I could start organizing my response around the idea that rationalism is to theory what empiricism is to the current conception of science. Pressed for time. I'll try more later.
  10. SkyBright
    03-14-2015 08:56 AM
    SkyBright commented on Can Animals reason?
    No, I just commented on posts in order, you happened to have two posts separated by the other posters. The "again" was in reference to the fact that I started out with @setsume and didn't realize until I got to the later comment it was you again.
  11. Zsych
    03-10-2015 02:42 PM
    Zsych commented on Apple Watch - Do you see this crap?
  12. MichaelEmouse
    02-23-2015 03:02 PM
    How's that dollar and service economy collapse? Come back to your thread and show us how it happened.
  13. The Fantasist
  14. The Fantasist
    02-22-2015 04:47 PM
    The Fantasist commented on Anyone else sad?
    Here's a nice collection that I've been raiding of late. I don't actually have them all printed and hung in my room or anything. I just look for them online and bookmark and stuff.
  15. The Fantasist
    02-22-2015 03:41 PM
    The Fantasist
    Hey! :D
  16. The Fantasist
    02-22-2015 11:18 AM
    The Fantasist
  17. The Fantasist
    02-22-2015 10:39 AM
    The Fantasist
    Hehe, I guess that's true. I completely freaked out when I saw that photo...I guess I react more strongly than most?
  18. kosh
    02-18-2015 11:59 PM
    I'm just saying in like a political discussion it's good know how the terms play out. One word may have a fuller meaning in the philosophical sense than in the colloquial sense.
  19. kosh
    02-18-2015 03:12 PM
    If you want to discuss philosophy, it's good to a have a good knowledge base of the commonly used terms. Though, I myself haven't formed such a base, yet.
  20. kosh
    02-18-2015 03:08 PM
    I suppose not.


Total Posts
Visitor Messages
General Information
  • Join Date: 07-20-2012
  • Referrals: 0

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Myers-Briggs, and MBTI are trademarks or registered trademarks of the
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Trust in the United States and other countries.