There is evidence suggesting that vision works very differently than has previously thought to be the case, i.e., people see meaning and then infer the object. It actually makes sense if you think about it for a few moments. Here's a related one that's quite interesting but much more difficult to digest. You must know the answer before you can ask the question. The idea is that everything you have experienced is saved in your brain. There is a mechanism that can access this information [subconsciously] which causes the conscious mind to ask the question. Therefore, it is your experience that creates the basis of your intellectual reality. New thoughts are only possible after additional experiences are added to the library. Let's say you live in LA and desire to find the nearest pizza joint. In order to pose this question, you must have experienced pizza joints in the area either by seeing them on a map, an advertisement, on the internet, or in person. IOW, there is stored in your memory the location of the pizza joints nearby. In order to access this information [people who have photographic memories can apparently do this at will], your mind must create a task for you to recover the information. People do this all the time. It's why somebody in Denver is not going to ask the question, "Is there a really nice beach I can drive to this afternoon?" They already know there is no beach within driving distance. OTOH, his friend in LA knows there are many beaches and [subconsciously] knows exactly where they are if s/he has ever consulted a map, etc. Let's say somebody asks a question about something of which they have no previous knowledge, e.g., they were dropped in the middle of Tokyo and wondered whether they might be able to procure a Big Mac. What then? Actually, their brain would have already calculated the odds of finding a McDonalds in Tokyo before even bringing such a question to the surface. Had they just landed on the surface of Mars, they would not be asking this question. This works for all things and is why the potential of the human mind is truly vast. After all, if you are 80 and can recall events 75 years prior, it's all there. Imagine the potential wisdom one might develop if we could tap into an entire life's experience?
Imagine if people actually asked questions instead of just repeating what they hear on the late shows and the taking head news commentary shows! Interesting subject. Thanks for the thread.
Yeah, maybe you should cite something. Remembering the pizza joints in my area is NOT how I find a pizza joint. And, there are a number of McDonald's stores in Tokyo. So, I think you are pointing to a flaw in human logic that is probably based in ignorance of Japan, its people and McDonalds. Is there a reason that you suggest that our memories aren't more like a library from which we may draw information? Are you sure that our memories don't include methodologies, ways of finding trustable answers for various kinds of questions, etc?
it would be tough, people like Tucker Carlson have a following that believe everything he says Politics has become like World Wide Wrestling, the truth no longer matters but I agree, Interesting subject. Thanks for the thread.
Yes there are a lot of people like Tucker that people blindly follow. It’s interesting you bring up wrestling. I posted this yesterday.
Even more ironic is the fact at least three economic advisors in the Biden administration have strong ties to the WWE as well.
The first part about vision I got from a well respected clinical psychologist who seems fairly reliable. I haven't seen anything in the literature about this but it's pretty interesting just the same. The second part about the question and answer is purely my own conjecture. I came to this conclusion because it makes sense to me intuitively. If there are people out there who can do complex mathematics problems in their heads, then it makes sense that we all have the same [potential] capacity. The same goes with everything else. I've always seen the human intellect [as constructed] as our species greatest impediment, and certainly not that trait that makes us superior to any other creature. Imagine if we simply accepted what presents [and reacted accordingly] instead of the mass manipulation that ensures once our intellect gets a hold of "what is" and transforms it into our personal soap operas. One can easily come to the conclusion that our intellectual development is in its nascent stage, at best. Of course, it appears as if we are not going to be around a great deal longer to see how this experiment works out, but you have to believe that our intellectual development is a serious genetic dead-end.
Not only doesn't the truth matter, most folks simply don't care [about much of anything] and never have. Sure they care on a very superficial level, but only the very few who care enough to sacrifice...and sacrifice is the ingredient missing in modern Western culture. Without sacrifice, you have emptiness [the look you see in the eyes of your fellow consumers loading up on [every damn thing] at the local BIG box store].
You suggest that everyone has the same brain power in some way. But, that would be shocking given that there is NO other capacity that individuals have in equal measure. I'd point out the scientists are making large advances in how our brains work. So, if you are interested in issues such as how information is stored it would make most sense to study what is known about that. Can you name any other species that comes anywhere close to the cognitive ability of humans? If not, then what is meant by your comment that brains are not the "trait that makes us superior to any other creature"? What other trait are you considering?
I am saying that we might have similar [but unequal] capacities. Very little is known about how the brain works and what is known is most assuredly wrong [like all science]. For example, nobody has any clue what-so-ever how vision works. Don't you find it rather interesting that we humans use "cognitive ability" as the measure to prove our superiority? If you have ever studied the actions of any other creature, you have noticed how much better they are [at every damn thing]? Can you name a species that is worse off than we are? We'll be lucky to last another couple of hundred years [even with our incredible intellects]. I've always kind of thought that the real battle on this planet was between the insects and the weeds. I am sure they'll be fighting it out hundreds of millions of years after we're but a forgotten footnote in the history of this planet.
There is extensive study on how vision works. Your comment on science is false in the important respects. Science is an organized way of constantly improving understanding. Saying that science is false on the grounds that science is constantly improving its answers really doesn't make any sense. The only other possibility would be that science knows everything. And, we may be absolutely positive that humans don't know everything. Humans have dominated the entire planet - its species and environments. You need to present some kind of legitimate measure of "better". Have you found a measure by which a microbe is "better"? Are you impressed by the calmly bucolic nature of deer as they live a mostly angst free life as humans whittle away at where we allow them to continue to live? Or, what? You are clearly forgetting about microbes in that nightmare you're having. It's known how many years more that Earth will sustain life. Guessing whether humans will exist for that time hits me as a total waste of cognitive capability.
There is extensive study on just about everything. How much could you understand about vision if there's still a debate of whether light is a particle or a wave? Science is simply putting forth the most accepted intellectual non-sense. If it is constantly changing, it is constantly wrong. Even in the moment a hypothesis is postulated, it comes nowhere close to the truth of the matter. Science is just stuff made up by human beings. Human being don't know anything [intellectually] because we have no access to Reality. What we do know, we know non-intellectually. I am sure there are many species that might argue that point with you [if they could]. Come back and visit that thought in a couple of hundred years. Perhaps you should take a look at almost any species and observe the miracle of how well they are adapted to their environments and how poorly we are to our own. You need to present some kind of legitimate measure of "better". Have you found a measure by which a microbe is "better"? Are you impressed by the calmly bucolic nature of deer as they live a mostly angst free life as humans whittle away at where we allow them to continue to live? Or, what? You are clearly forgetting about microbes in that nightmare you're having. It's known how many years more that Earth will sustain life. Guessing whether humans will exist for that time hits me as a total waste of cognitive capability.[/QUOTE]
There is no such debate in physics. Besides, that would make no difference in vision other than in how a retina works. Scientists certainly can propose anything they want - important, as creativity is a requirement in advancing knowledge. But, the step you are missing is that new ideas and advances don't get accepted without serious real world testing and review to demonstrate that the natural world actually works that way. I would challenge you to give some consideration to that. Your comment on "reality" is really just a claim that humans don't know everything. But, that is not controversial. In fact, it is a principle foundation of how science works to advance what we know.
Perhaps you can elaborate on each of the components of the visual pathway and how each functions. So why is this "serious testing" always proven false? No, it's a claim that we really don't know anything [in absolute terms]. In relative terms, this knowledge changes every moment [as do all things knowable].
You can look that up. You really should do better than asking that kind of thing from a board poster. It's not. Where did you get that idea? The physics we've learned does not change like that. Neither do the other sciences. Of what use is it to postulate some ultimate truth and then argue that humans suck because we don't know it all??? I just don't have respect for that.
I already know. It is you who has no clue. All knowledge constantly changes and so does its truth. You might believe that something is thought to be true, but knowledge keeps changing. Therefore, the truth of something is fleeting [to say the least]. Of course it does. Do you really believe that there is anything we believe to be true today will be true in 50 years, 500 years, 5000 years? Nobody is suggesting what you wrote above, only that understanding "our understanding" is critical to being able to go with the flow of information and not get bogged down with some temporary truth. Knowledge does not work that way. It is fluid...every changing. Tap into the movement and you will have a great advantage over others. Perhaps you should read more about it!
No, the fact that knowledge is improving absolutely does NOT suggest that it is "fleeting". Look up those words. Question: Since you discount the entire world of science, where do YOU get your information?
Improving? Perhaps, but probably not. What is taken for "knowledge" is simply the currently accepted BS. Soon, a new and improved version will be available and the old becomes what? I don't discount anything. I simply see intellectual things as they are...temporary explanations based on temporary assumptions. Can you give me an example of something in science that is an absolute truth?
The constant advances in science are improvements. Being improved does not mean the old was BS. It means the current is even more accurate, more thorough, more complete, etc. Consider Newtonian physics. We still use Newtonian physics. We can travel to the moon on Newtonian physics. So, we had a major revolution with Einstein's relativity. But, that didn't turn Newtonian physics into BS. What it did was show us where Newtonian physics works! And, that is almost everywhere, as we just don't go anywhere near the speed of light in our lives here on Earth. Now, YOU show an example of your fear of turning knowledge to BS. Humans don't get to have "absolute truth". But, that does NOT imply that the knowledge we have is BS. And, it does NOT imply that we can't steadily improve our understanding.
Look at the "improvements" made in medical science over the past 100 years. Now look at the average person in the West and tell me that they are in better health than their counterparts 100 years ago. Yes, there are drugs and surgeries available for a variety of maladies, but look at the population's general health. Why is this? Then why does mathematics break down as you get to its extremes [zero and infinity]? But that does not mean that we cannot be in the presence of it. Knowledge is what is accepted truth based on a particular set of conditions that only exist in one moment. In the next moment, the conditions that gave rise to that truth have already changed and another truth has taken its place. This happens each and every moment. If you can go with this change, then you have tapped into "what it is." If not, then you live in dead space in the past.
We are FAR better off due to modern medicine. There is absolutely NO question about that. Your comment about math needs more explanation concerning what you even mean. But, the important part of that is that math is NOT one of the natural sciences. From the point of view of the natural sciences, math is a descriptive language. There is no problem with zero and infinity. Your comment about truth depending on fleeting conditions is just plain nonsense. Physics isn't dependent on fleeting conditions. Chemistry isn't dependent on fleeting conditions. Our knowledge of biology certainly involves a lot of change, but the principles of biology aren't changing. Please give an example to describe what you mean.
The obesity epidemic in the West might turn out to be worse than the Black Plague in terms of morbidity. Yes, there are amazing things going on in medicine but [again] look at the overall health of the population. Why is this? There are all kinds of problems with zero and infinity. For example, if you take the number "1" and half it, and half it, and half it...it will go on forever. How is that possible? And what does infinity even mean? Physics and chemistry are simply mathematics, a discipline that was completely made up [like everything else]. For example...if you would agree that each coordinate in the Universe is affected differently because of its unique position in said Universe, then [by definition] each point would be subject to differing forces and would be unique. If this is the case, what exactly does "2" mean? And you say the principles of biology are not changing? Really? Exactly which principles have remained the same?
I think you need to be more specific. Let's remember that obesity is not wiping out whole cities, as the Black Plague did before the era of modern medicine. Over time, medical science conquered Black Plague - an example of increasing knowledge. Mathematics is a logical system that certainly allows infinite series such as you mention. Such infinite series are highly important and useful. https://www.britannica.com/science/infinite-series Well, the relationship between physics and mathematics is a little different than that. Physics is the study of our physical universe. Physicists and other natural sciences use mathematics as a descriptive language. Newton's study of physics led to f=ma. Force equals mass times acceleration. That is the relationship that Newton found in nature, and he described that relationship using the language of math. Since it is represented in the language of math it is highly useful in combining with other such descriptions. Each location in the universe is subject to all the forces known to physics, just in different magnitudes. For gravity as an example, Earth is affected by the sum of the force of gravity resulting from our proximity to every planet, moon and bit of rubble in the solar system, plus the sun, plus the gravity of every other mass in the universe. Of course, nearby objects have a far larger affect, as described by how gravity works. So, we humans can walk around without worrying about where the moon and sun happen to be. And, we can calculate where objects in the universe are and where they are going. "2" is a symbol used to identify a number. Well, biology is a combination of physics and chemistry, so all those principles apply. If you want an example of a purely biological principle that is not changing, I'd point to evolution - a foundation of all biology.
The effect that the obesity epidemic is having on the West is literally incalculable. History will decide what the final costs will be. That's very nice but has nothing to do with what we are discussing. I believe your example of evolution [a theory of constant change] as an example of an unchanging principle is apropos to this conversation. All things knowable are changing, by definition. This is the nature of intellectualism.
