Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

The different disciplines tend to see their particular specialty as the nature of existence. For a biologist it is matter animated by forces; the physical world. Their world view extends into space, to the material things and forces there. It is exclusively physical; birth, procreation, and death. Evolution to the human. The physical perceived as the origin of everything; primary to the social, the ethical etc. Any further evolution would be to trans human via technology, as the physical appears to have reached its apex.

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

In hyperspace, (if the brain fits that nomenclature) neuroscientists perceive processing only, they do not see a mind, or consciousness, no thing, so speculate that both may arise from brain function. They see the physical as primary, ontologically exclusive and inclusive; there is no other thing.

It may be thought that it would be wise to leave religion out of this, but who could resist the temptation not to. The only two religions that apply, as they are more universal, are Hinduism and Christianity. Judaism is tribal; Buddhism is limited to mind and cosmos; Mohammedanism is a dictated doctrine. Hinduism and Christianity have one God with three aspects. Three aspects give more meaning and realism to discussions of transcendence or immanence or both, interesting from a philosophical perspective, apart from any religious world view.

The above are four major world views of the nature of reality: physical; event and change based; a process; consciousness or god; (immanent, transcendent, or both).

The title of this piece asks a question that the above exposition shows is not easy to answer considering the diversity of world views. The last time there was a shared world view in the West was in the Middle Ages. That world view has split into many. Listing the major ones show that one perspective on the nature of reality, while it could unit humanity, is not imminent.
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Age »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm The different disciplines tend to see their particular specialty as the nature of existence. For a biologist it is matter animated by forces; the physical world. Their world view extends into space, to the material things and forces there. It is exclusively physical; birth, procreation, and death. Evolution to the human. The physical perceived as the origin of everything; primary to the social, the ethical etc. Any further evolution would be to trans human via technology, as the physical appears to have reached its apex.

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

In hyperspace, (if the brain fits that nomenclature) neuroscientists perceive processing only, they do not see a mind, or consciousness, no thing, so speculate that both may arise from brain function. They see the physical as primary, ontologically exclusive and inclusive; there is no other thing.

It may be thought that it would be wise to leave religion out of this, but who could resist the temptation not to. The only two religions that apply, as they are more universal, are Hinduism and Christianity. Judaism is tribal; Buddhism is limited to mind and cosmos; Mohammedanism is a dictated doctrine. Hinduism and Christianity have one God with three aspects. Three aspects give more meaning and realism to discussions of transcendence or immanence or both, interesting from a philosophical perspective, apart from any religious world view.

The above are four major world views of the nature of reality: physical; event and change based; a process; consciousness or god; (immanent, transcendent, or both).

The title of this piece asks a question that the above exposition shows is not easy to answer considering the diversity of world views.
Thee ANSWER to the title question is, Yes.

And, thee SOLUTION is a VERY SIMPLE and a VERY EASY one, as well.

Your exposition above does NOT show the answer is not an easy one AT ALL. In Fact the VERY OPPOSITE IS True.

SEEING the OBVIOUS FLAWS, Falsehoods, and CONTRADICTIONS in ALL of those, so-called, "world views" is extremely EASY to do, and just AS SIMPLE is SEEING, and KNOWING IRREFUTABLY what thee ACTUAL Truths ARE also.
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm The last time there was a shared world view in the West was in the Middle Ages. That world view has split into many. Listing the major ones show that one perspective on the nature of reality, while it could unit humanity, is not imminent.
What WILL and DOES unite humanity, as One, is FAR MORE imminent than 'you', human beings, in the days when this was being written Truly recognized.

Now, if ANY one wants to DISAGREE WITH or wants to DISPUTE absolutely ANY thing that I have said and CLAIMED here, and wants to have a Truly OPEN and peaceful discussion, then please proceed.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Walker »

A solution implies a problem. What’s the problem?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm The different disciplines tend to see their particular specialty as the nature of existence.
...
...
The title of this piece asks a question that the above exposition shows is not easy to answer considering the diversity of world views. The last time there was a shared world view in the West was in the Middle Ages. That world view has split into many. Listing the major ones show that one perspective on the nature of reality, while it could unit humanity, is not imminent.
All the different disciplines are attempting to seek the 'truth' of 'reality', in particular truths that are critical to sustain the optimality of the well being of the individual[s] and therefore to humanity.

'Truth' is defined as conformance to 'reality'.
Reality in this case is not mind-independent nor a pre-existing reality that is awaiting humans to correspond with it [as in Correspondence theory of Truth], i.e. bottom-up approach.

In this case the understanding of what is reality is a top-down emergent approach.
As such a priori reality1 conditions truth1 which conditions truth2 & reality 2 and so on.

How truth conforms to reality is verified and justified within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] where the scientific FSK is the most credible [as justified based on basic criteria] as with Pure Mathematics, Pure Geometry.

The scientific FSK is thus the standard to be compared against other FSKs.
For example if the Scientific FSK is rated at 90/100 realistically,
see: viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
the legal FSK would be rated at 60/100 [vary with country], the economic FSK at say 70/100 realistic and so on.

The theistic FSK in relation to the Scientific FSK [90/100] would be 0/100 since its ground, i.e. is IMPOSSIBLE to be real.

Thus once we have the justifiable scientific FSK at 90/100 realistic, it is not difficult to judge the other FSK and their truths and knowledge. You can do this exercise yourself.

Note Buddhism is realistic at say 75/100 because Buddhism attempts to be as close to science as possible in terms of its core truths. [not those from the fringe beliefs & sects]
Note;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

and also this from the Dalai Lama re Science vs Buddhism'
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.
In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
https://www.dalailama.com/news/2005/our ... in-science
The above is about the truth of reality but its usefulness must be overridden with the Philosophy of Morality.
Although theism is rated at 0/100 in terms of being realistic, it nevertheless can be critically and necessary useful to the majority of humans. Similarly it must be subjected to the criteria of morality to ensure theistic doctrines do not promote terrible evil [as in Islam].
Age
Posts: 20194
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Age »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm The different disciplines tend to see their particular specialty as the nature of existence.
...
...
The title of this piece asks a question that the above exposition shows is not easy to answer considering the diversity of world views. The last time there was a shared world view in the West was in the Middle Ages. That world view has split into many. Listing the major ones show that one perspective on the nature of reality, while it could unit humanity, is not imminent.
All the different disciplines are attempting to seek the 'truth' of 'reality', in particular truths that are critical to sustain the optimality of the well being of the individual[s] and therefore to humanity.

'Truth' is defined as conformance to 'reality'.
Reality in this case is not mind-independent nor a pre-existing reality that is awaiting humans to correspond with it [as in Correspondence theory of Truth], i.e. bottom-up approach.

In this case the understanding of what is reality is a top-down emergent approach.
As such a priori reality1 conditions truth1 which conditions truth2 & reality 2 and so on.

How truth conforms to reality is verified and justified within a specific Framework and System of Knowledge [FSK] where the scientific FSK is the most credible [as justified based on basic criteria] as with Pure Mathematics, Pure Geometry.
Did you forget or did you just purposely diverge from TELLING US what 'reality' IS, EXACTLY?

You have TOLD US here what 'reality' IS NOT. But you NEVER informed us of what 'reality' ACTUALLY IS.

OBVIOUSLY, if you want to CLAIM that 'Truth is defined as conformance to 'reality', then you also NEED to INFORM us of what 'reality' IS.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am The scientific FSK is thus the standard to be compared against other FSKs.
But, the people who do 'science' make ASSUMPTIONS and have BELIEFS, and so also have CONFIRMATION BIAS. Which, OBVIOUSLY, makes a DISTORTED PERCEPTION of and on what thee ACTUAL Truth IS and/or Reality, Itself. So, that so-called "standard" is OBVIOUSLY FLAWED. Which means that it is NOT even worth considering, let alone following.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am For example if the Scientific FSK is rated at 90/100 realistically,
"90/100" based on who and/or what, EXACTLY?

And, if it is based on what 'you', adult human beings, think or BELIEVE, then, AGAIN, the so-called "scientific fsk" is NOT even worth talking about, let alone expressing it as though it able to obtain thee ACTUAL Truth of things.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am see: viewtopic.php?p=489338#p489338
the legal FSK would be rated at 60/100 [vary with country], the economic FSK at say 70/100 realistic and so on.
WHY do you continually MAKE UP some numbers, propose them as though they are ACTUAL STATICS, and then continue writing as though you ACTUALLY KNOW what you are talking about?

Are you under some sort of ILLUSION that "others" are ACTUALLY accepting and agreeing with your MADE UP convoluted stories here?
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am The theistic FSK in relation to the Scientific FSK [90/100] would be 0/100 since its ground, i.e. is IMPOSSIBLE to be real.
Talk about being INFLUENCED and DRIVEN by one's OWN BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS. The CONFIRMATION BIASES here are BLINDING.

What can also be CLEARLY SEEN is that if you were STILL a follower and believer of the theology religions, then you would have said and written here some thing like "theistic fsk is 90 out of 100, or even 100/100" while "scientific fsk is something else".
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am Thus once we have the justifiable scientific FSK at 90/100 realistic, it is not difficult to judge the other FSK and their truths and knowledge. You can do this exercise yourself.
I HAVE.

Most of what "veritas aequitas" says and CLAIMS here is 100 out of 100 MADE UP and UNTRUE, and thus False, Wrong, and just Incorrect.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:19 am Note Buddhism is realistic at say 75/100 because Buddhism attempts to be as close to science as possible in terms of its core truths. [not those from the fringe beliefs & sects]
Note;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193

and also this from the Dalai Lama re Science vs Buddhism'
If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.
In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview.
https://www.dalailama.com/news/2005/our ... in-science
The above is about the truth of reality but its usefulness must be overridden with the Philosophy of Morality.
Although theism is rated at 0/100 in terms of being realistic, it nevertheless can be critically and necessary useful to the majority of humans. Similarly it must be subjected to the criteria of morality to ensure theistic doctrines do not promote terrible evil [as in Islam].
Talk about being BLINDED by one's OWN BELIEFS.

"islam" does NOT promote evil AT ALL.

ONLY people like "veritas aequitas" promote evil, like for example, when they judge "others" as being evil for just having different views.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm The different disciplines tend to see their particular specialty as the nature of existence. For a biologist it is matter animated by forces; the physical world. Their world view extends into space, to the material things and forces there. It is exclusively physical; birth, procreation, and death. Evolution to the human. The physical perceived as the origin of everything; primary to the social, the ethical etc. Any further evolution would be to trans human via technology, as the physical appears to have reached its apex.

A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.

In hyperspace, (if the brain fits that nomenclature) neuroscientists perceive processing only, they do not see a mind, or consciousness, no thing, so speculate that both may arise from brain function. They see the physical as primary, ontologically exclusive and inclusive; there is no other thing.

It may be thought that it would be wise to leave religion out of this, but who could resist the temptation not to. The only two religions that apply, as they are more universal, are Hinduism and Christianity. Judaism is tribal; Buddhism is limited to mind and cosmos; Mohammedanism is a dictated doctrine. Hinduism and Christianity have one God with three aspects. Three aspects give more meaning and realism to discussions of transcendence or immanence or both, interesting from a philosophical perspective, apart from any religious world view.

The above are four major world views of the nature of reality: physical; event and change based; a process; consciousness or god; (immanent, transcendent, or both).

The title of this piece asks a question that the above exposition shows is not easy to answer considering the diversity of world views. The last time there was a shared world view in the West was in the Middle Ages. That world view has split into many. Listing the major ones show that one perspective on the nature of reality, while it could unit humanity, is not imminent.
Owl of Minerva is mistaken if she implies all scientists lack affect, and all poets lack
objectivity.

Christendom was the domain and regime of European peoples and regimes all of whom believed the Christian myth, trusted the Christian moral code, and followed Roman Catholic rituals. A few independent thinkers including educated churchmen could be objective about the Christian myth. There were also pagans but these were not respectable people but were crude and rural outsiders.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Lacewing »

Walker wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:53 am A solution implies a problem. What’s the problem?
Good question. What is the problem with different disciplines and perspectives? Does it have to do with control? Either imposed by others or a lack of unified control? Maybe the search for ultimate truth is the problem? How can we fight over something that has not even been demonstrated (to all) to exist? If we stop trying to unnecessarily establish such ultimate truths, and instead welcome the broader view/awareness of diverse perspectives here and now, what might we do with that if there were no rigidity or competition between those perspectives?

Maybe the different disciplines and perspectives we struggle with are exactly the BEST manifestation for the greatest potential. Countless types of explorers and 'feelers' for a vast and seemingly ever-expanding landscape. Perhaps we just need to adjust our understandings of what the perceived problems are, and what they're actually caused by.
Impenitent
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Impenitent »

herding cats is double plus good

-Imp
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

By owl of Minerva:

I posed the problem so I will take a shot at answering it. Once The Dark Ages were over and the influence of one religion and dogma waned the genie was out of the bottle. There were myriad approaches, fantastical beliefs in new sects often propagated by self-elected prophets. There were no longer Synods in which what was allowed and not allowed, what was true or false, was debated. It was a free for all.

Non-fanatical religions that are more about their adherents being better and less about what other people should be or do are tolerable. Legitimate scientific research that does not extrapolate what it finds in a part to be the measure of the whole is refreshing.

There were sanctions of Pagans and Christians alike in the 1700s. A threat of excommunication for anyone who propagated Aristotle’s one world (universe) theory as opposed to a many worlds (universes) view. Today, happily, we have the multiverse theory. Augustine was not august enough to be exempt from censure, his theory of time was declared a heresy. He could not be excommunicated as he had been dead for some centuries. But unfortunately we lost his lovely theory of time.

Today to keep our sanity we have to ignore the false prophets in religion and in science. Those who are grasping at straws. Who do not see the whole as more than the sum of its parts. What would solve the whole mess would be to know the nature of reality but that is not in sight anytime soon.

Physicists are doing good and the ultimate unifying answer could come from them. Neuroscientists who reduce consciousness, mind, and intelligence to brain function are augmenting a part over the whole.

In general it may be best to go with what is expansive, what opens doors and lets in the light, as opposed to what is reductive; closing doors and shutting out the light. That approach could suffice in these fractured times of multi world views until we have a unifying theory of everything that we can all agree on, because it is irrefutable.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:45 pm By owl of Minerva:

I posed the problem so I will take a shot at answering it. Once The Dark Ages were over and the influence of one religion and dogma waned the genie was out of the bottle. There were myriad approaches, fantastical beliefs in new sects often propagated by self-elected prophets. There were no longer Synods in which what was allowed and not allowed, what was true or false, was debated. It was a free for all.

Non-fanatical religions that are more about their adherents being better and less about what other people should be or do are tolerable. Legitimate scientific research that does not extrapolate what it finds in a part to be the measure of the whole is refreshing.

There were sanctions of Pagans and Christians alike in the 1700s. A threat of excommunication for anyone who propagated Aristotle’s one world (universe) theory as opposed to a many worlds (universes) view. Today, happily, we have the multiverse theory. Augustine was not august enough to be exempt from censure, his theory of time was declared a heresy. He could not be excommunicated as he had been dead for some centuries. But unfortunately we lost his lovely theory of time.

Today to keep our sanity we have to ignore the false prophets in religion and in science. Those who are grasping at straws. Who do not see the whole as more than the sum of its parts. What would solve the whole mess would be to know the nature of reality but that is not in sight anytime soon.

Physicists are doing good and the ultimate unifying answer could come from them. Neuroscientists who reduce consciousness, mind, and intelligence to brain function are augmenting a part over the whole.

In general it may be best to go with what is expansive, what opens doors and lets in the light, as opposed to what is reductive; closing doors and shutting out the light. That approach could suffice in these fractured times of multi world views until we have a unifying theory of everything that we can all agree on, because it is irrefutable.
You are asserting Physics could supply the ultimate unifying answer, but Physics is reductive which you think is not the best as compare to 'what is expansive'. So your view is conflicting.

Point is either reductive or expansive, both fall prey to infinite regression.

I don't believe there will an ultimate unified theory in the scientific perspective or FSK.

What is most effective is to develop Philosophy-proper which is like an army-general, CEO, Symphony Conductor and the likes which will co-ordinate, synchronize, organize, all the different perspectives and beliefs within the individual[s] to optimize their well-being and that of humanity.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Quote: Veritas Acquitas:

“ You are asserting Physics could supply the ultimate unifying answer, but Physics is reductive which you think is not the best as compare to 'what is expansive'. So your view is conflicting.

Point is either reductive or expansive, both fall prey to infinite regression.

I don't believe there will an ultimate unified theory in the scientific perspective or FSK.

What is most effective is to develop Philosophy-proper which is like an army-general, CEO, Symphony Conductor and the likes which will co-ordinate, synchronize, organize, all the different perspectives and beliefs within the individual[s] to optimize their well-being and that of humanity. “
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Response owl of Minerva:

If physics comes up with a more comprehensive view of the nature of reality, it would not be reductive. They deal with origin, what is elemental and hence fundamental. Biology does not know the origin of life. What physicists are finding inspires some of them to consider consciousness as fundamental, which is revolutionary.

Neuroscientists study the physical brain, again not a point of origin, and make assumptions, that intelligence, ego, mind, volition, and even consciousness are processes of brain function.

This leaves humans as the equivalent of a computer hard drive devoid of software. A processing system for the environment, subjected to necessity, which in respect of the property regulated is indifferent and indefinite. It also cedes any responsibility for actions.

Your philosophy-proper is the way many view the role of a Deity. My own view is that there will be theories that lead to dystopian philosophies and outcomes.

It will be balanced by those who do not buy in to mass culture or to what prevailing theories suggest.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:26 pm Quote: Veritas Acquitas:

“ You are asserting Physics could supply the ultimate unifying answer, but Physics is reductive which you think is not the best as compare to 'what is expansive'. So your view is conflicting.

Point is either reductive or expansive, both fall prey to infinite regression.

I don't believe there will an ultimate unified theory in the scientific perspective or FSK.

What is most effective is to develop Philosophy-proper which is like an army-general, CEO, Symphony Conductor and the likes which will co-ordinate, synchronize, organize, all the different perspectives and beliefs within the individual[s] to optimize their well-being and that of humanity. “
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Response owl of Minerva:

If physics comes up with a more comprehensive view of the nature of reality, it would not be reductive. They deal with origin, what is elemental and hence fundamental. Biology does not know the origin of life. What physicists are finding inspires some of them to consider consciousness as fundamental, which is revolutionary.
If Physics ...???
The ultimate purpose of Physics is reductive i.e. chasing the ultimate particle of reality.
Wiki wrote:Reductionist thinking and methods form the basis for many of the well-developed topics of modern science, including much of physics, chemistry and molecular biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#In_science
Neuroscientists study the physical brain, again not a point of origin, and make assumptions, that intelligence, ego, mind, volition, and even consciousness are processes of brain function.
There are many aspects of neuroscience. What your above is confined to neuro-anatomy and certain specific functions of the brain. There are other aspects of the neurosciences that take a bigger picture, i.e. neuro-psychology, neuro-cognitive sciences, etc.
This leaves humans as the equivalent of a computer hard drive devoid of software. A processing system for the environment, subjected to necessity, which in respect of the property regulated is indifferent and indefinite. It also cedes any responsibility for actions.
If confined to merely neuro-anatomy and its processes, yes, that would be equivalent to a computer. Such an analogy is nevertheless very useful in context.
Your philosophy-proper is the way many view the role of a Deity. My own view is that there will be theories that lead to dystopian philosophies and outcomes.

It will be balanced by those who do not buy in to mass culture or to what prevailing theories suggest.
As with the other thread, you are too hasty based on your confirmation bias in judging my views.

How did you conclude from my taking a holistic view of reality [as I portrayed philosophy-my proper as above] to a dogmatic and illusory idea of a deity.
Note I am non-theistic and there is no way I will promote the idea of a deity.
owl of Minerva
Posts: 373
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:16 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by owl of Minerva »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sat Dec 04, 2021 7:27 am
owl of Minerva wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 9:26 pm Quote: Veritas Acquitas:

“ You are asserting Physics could supply the ultimate unifying answer, but Physics is reductive which you think is not the best as compare to 'what is expansive'. So your view is conflicting.

Point is either reductive or expansive, both fall prey to infinite regression.

I don't believe there will an ultimate unified theory in the scientific perspective or FSK.

What is most effective is to develop Philosophy-proper which is like an army-general, CEO, Symphony Conductor and the likes which will co-ordinate, synchronize, organize, all the different perspectives and beliefs within the individual[s] to optimize their well-being and that of humanity. “
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Response owl of Minerva:

If physics comes up with a more comprehensive view of the nature of reality, it would not be reductive. They deal with origin, what is elemental and hence fundamental. Biology does not know the origin of life. What physicists are finding inspires some of them to consider consciousness as fundamental, which is revolutionary.
If Physics ...???
The ultimate purpose of Physics is reductive i.e. chasing the ultimate particle of reality.
Wiki wrote:Reductionist thinking and methods form the basis for many of the well-developed topics of modern science, including much of physics, chemistry and molecular biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism#In_science
[Neuroscientists study the physical brain, again not a point of origin, and make assumptions, that intelligence, ego, mind, volition, and even consciousness are processes of brain function.
There are many aspects of neuroscience. What your above is confined to neuro-anatomy and certain specific functions of the brain. There are other aspects of the neurosciences that take a bigger picture, i.e. neuro-psychology, neuro-cognitive sciences, etc.
This leaves humans as the equivalent of a computer hard drive devoid of software. A processing system for the environment, subjected to necessity, which in respect of the property regulated is indifferent and indefinite. It also cedes any responsibility for actions.
If confined to merely neuro-anatomy and its processes, yes, that would be equivalent to a computer. Such an analogy is nevertheless very useful in context.
Your philosophy-proper is the way many view the role of a Deity. My own view is that there will be theories that lead to dystopian philosophies and outcomes.

It will be balanced by those who do not buy in to mass culture or to what prevailing theories suggest.
As with the other thread, you are too hasty based on your confirmation bias in judging my views.

How did you conclude from my taking a holistic view of reality [as I portrayed philosophy-my proper as above] to a dogmatic and illusory idea of a deity.
Note I am non-theistic and there is no way I will promote the idea of a deity.
[/quote]

……………………………………………

Reply by owl of Minerva:

I agree with Wiki’s definition of reductionism. I have responded in your “Humans are programmed for evil” with a defense of Physics, you may read it there, and outlined the reasons it is not reductionist but explanatory of the origin of phenomena.

Reductionism as “associations between phenomena which can be described in terms of other simple or more fundamental phenomena.” What is more fundamental than virtual particles that are arising in space-time. It is not possible to get more fundamental than that, other than peering into interior space which so far is not an option. What is fundamental cannot be reduced precisely because it is fundamental.

The other definition “that interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts” is done all the time. The brain being a prime example as causal to intelligence, individuality, mind etc. I would not be too sure about neuro-psychology, cognitive sciences etc. It appears to me that they too consider biology as fundamental.

The East whose culture goes back to the rishis (sages) of higher ages interprets evolution differently than does the West. They do not base it on biology which reductively “interprets a complete system as the sum of its parts.” What is unsheathed or liberated from biology is viewed not as a product of biology but foundational to biology. Physics in studying origins rather than outcomes can have a better perspective on which view is valid.

I did not mean to imply that you promoted the idea of a deity or believed in one. It appeared that your overseeing CEO type system was reminiscent of that concept. In your other post you said that the Buddha was theist and I refuted that assumption there.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Sculptor »

owl of Minerva wrote: Sun Nov 28, 2021 9:57 pm
A study of space by physicists reveals that nothing exists. No absolute time, space, or things. What they see are things activated by events. There would be no thing without events. They extrapolate this to the macro world: events lead to things which have a beginning, middle, and an end, propelled by change, ad infinitum to the end of time. What is real in both worlds are events and change.
Really? What study is this?
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

Post by Belinda »

Owl of Minerva wrote:
In general it may be best to go with what is expansive, what opens doors and lets in the light, as opposed to what is reductive; closing doors and shutting out the light. That approach could suffice in these fractured times of multi world views until we have a unifying theory of everything that we can all agree on, because it is irrefutable.
Educationists who design curriculums for school children especially curriculums for secondary school children are well aware of the disadvantage to the child and to society of specialisation too soon.

At university level it is unfortunately a fact that the sciences and medicine are expanding as fields of knowledge and expertise. There was a time when Renaissance Man was good at both arts and sciences. Leonardo is a great example of Renaissance Man. In modern times there is not enough time at university for a science student to learn history and philosophy of science, let alone read novels and poetry and paint pictures.
Post Reply