[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 144 KB, 446x640, 1321451568400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174529 No.4174529 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible to see past the current frame of mind and thus see the true nature of reality/phenomena?

>> No.4174530

Sure, why not.

>> No.4174534

Define "current frame of mind", and explain how "seeing past" it would allow one to see "the true nature of reality/phenomena".

>> No.4174537

Yes.

>> No.4174547

>>4174534
Current frame of mind = your current conceptions about reality

seeing past = destruction of the above views

Suppose the reality is not the concepts we take for granted, what lies under those concepts is the true nature of reality, one without any views.

>> No.4174550

No.

>> No.4174551
File: 23 KB, 565x546, 1324140665027.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174551

Not scientifically testable, therefore not science.

>>>/phil/

>> No.4174554

>>4174547
Plenty of drugs do crazy things to your perceptions, although whether or not what you see under them is "reality" is questionable.

Actually destroying your perceptions might be a bad thing. They're what lets us interact with the world in the first place.

>> No.4174568

>>4174554
Drug use seems more like a distortion of views rather than destruction of the views.

And I don't know if it will be a bad thing. What we consider to be bad is just a conception we tie to reality, if those views are destroyed, whats left is not good or bad, not both. I think it might be a very useful to understanding science.

>> No.4174571

> anime pic in op
> shit thread
the legend lives on

>> No.4174581

>>4174551
Not that i approve of the thread but it is technically science

>> No.4174584

Are you asking if it is possible to remove the subjectivity that appears to be necessary in our perceptions of reality?

>> No.4174588

>>4174529
No. We have not evolved to understand the universe, or see its true nature. We have evolved to procreate, nothing more. But when we try real hard, the universe can make sense to us.

>> No.4174587

>>4174584
If I said yes, what would your answer be?

>> No.4174592

OP you say "see".
why you no like colors?

>> No.4174600

>>4174592
?

>> No.4174604

>>4174587
My answer would be "I have absolutely no idea. I can't possibly see how we could do such a thing, but that's not to say that it is necessarily impossible."

>> No.4174615

>>4174604
Are you a politician?

>> No.4174625

>>4174551
/thread
>>4174581
nnnnnnnnnnnnope

Even if drugs COULD help unveil objective reality, there's no way you could prove it. Denying the objective validity of sensory input philosophically neuters any argument you make.

>> No.4174631

>True nature of reality

This assumes a representative realist perspective on the philosophy of mind/perception.
We have no more information of reality than that provided by our perceptions- to talk of a reality beyond our experience is entirely speculation.

>> No.4174632

There is no underlying "true nature of reality/phenomena" to uncover. You already experience reality/phenomena as they are. The noumenal world is made-up Kantian bullshit. Stick to phenomenology (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty. You can skip Sartre.)

>> No.4174637

>>4174632
>implying our perceptions of reality aren't subjective

>> No.4174640

>>4174632
I agree. I don't think there is a substansive true nature of things. I think the only thing that make it real is the concepts that we take.

>> No.4174649 [DELETED] 

>>4174640
I should expand a bit more. What I mean by this statement is that the true nature of reality is the current reality. One must assume that the true nature is one we construct with our perception. Beyond those are substansiveless. So the true nature of reality is the constructed reality that we perceive. It's however not the "true nature" because "true nature" is no where. True nature is thus only what we make of it.

>> No.4174660

>>4174637
> implying radical subjectivism is not a trivial position

>> No.4174670

>>4174640
congratulations, sir - you're the proud father of a neutered philosophy!

>> No.4174683

>>4174660
Why radical?

>> No.4174689

>>4174683
If our perceptions were subjective, how could we discuss them?

>> No.4174709

>>4174689
What? How is whether or not they are subjective relevant to whether or not we can talk about them?

>> No.4174712

>>4174640
Wrong. "Blue" is not a characteristic of the universe, for example, its our brains interpretation. "solid" is not a characteristic of the universe (well, our universe anyway). Our brain makes it up. We do it with everything. Including "time" which is also not a charcteristic of the universe... see the book "The end of time" for an example.

>> No.4174717

>>4174709
Meaning is public. It must be, if we are saying anything at all to each other. As such, it is at a minimum intersubjective. If names in languages have a sense, it cannot be as a label for subjective "things".

>> No.4174724

>>4174588
>>4174712
These. Psychologists have even discovered the mechanisms by which we "create" time in our brain, so that "memories" make sense and that "learning" is possible in order to survive, nothing more. Understanding the universe is done with "models" which are mostly mathematical Using these we can "predict" behavior of the universe, but these are not reality. This is not to say they are unimportant pursuits, I think it is important to strive for understanding, but to say we see reality is naive.

>> No.4174751

Yes, but you have to pay a price for that. You become unable to believe in any illusion.

>> No.4174756

>>4174600

see above about blue

pretty basic stuff

>> No.4174764

>>4174724
Of course, you are free to assume a mind-independent reality as somehow prior to phenomena. But I think you'll find that a consistent position requires that mind-independent phenomena are themselves the theory, of which you can never have any evidence, for the moment *you* have evidence, it is not mind-independent (e.g. you experienced it).

Enjoy.

>> No.4174775

>>4174764
Mmm interesting, I dont see how it conflicts though. Maybe I'm slow.

>> No.4174780

>>4174764
> being an empiricist
>2011

>> No.4174783

>>4174780
if you're not an empiricist, why are you on the science board?

for shame.

>> No.4174789

>Is it possible to see past the current frame of mind and thus see the true nature of reality/phenomena?
in short NO

>> No.4174800

>>4174783
Agreed, good science is a delacate balance between inductive and deductive logic. Relying entirely on either is profoundly naive.

Now, go look up the difference on google....

>> No.4174807
File: 33 KB, 492x347, laughing-girls-02.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174807

>>4174800
> inductive logic

>> No.4174810

>>4174807
>not thinks he's not using inductive logic in everyday life

>> No.4174812

>>4174810
Can you please show me some of this "inductive logic"? What are some axioms and rules of induction?

>> No.4174814
File: 20 KB, 350x344, polls_israel_125year_old_man_laughing_5901_552736_xlarge..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174814

>>4174807

>Doesnt understand Loqical Induction

>> No.4174815

>>4174812
>not being able to see their own inductive logic in use
ISHYGDDT

>> No.4174821

>Is it possible to see past the current frame of mind and thus see the true nature of reality/phenomena?

Yes. It's called (among other things) "enlightenment" and has four thousand or so years of solid history behind the various techniques developed for attaining it.

>> No.4174825

>>4174812
Subconciously we use both, the process of learning is somewhat more inductive, gathering data and making a conclusion. making predictions is somewhat more deductive, using previously accepted ideas to understand an unknown situation.

>> No.4174826

>>4174814
You are now aware that so-called "mathematical induction" is not inductive.

>> No.4174829

>>4174821
0/10

>> No.4174828 [DELETED] 
File: 316 KB, 524x340, 1310336115171.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174828

>HUMAN LOGIC

ISHYGDDT

YOU SERIOUSLY THINK RANDOM EVOLUTION FROM THE DIRT CAN CREATE A BEING THAT CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE UNIVERSE AND "TRUE REALITY"?

YOU ARE FUCKING INSANE.

>> No.4174827
File: 154 KB, 741x742, 1259390241938.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174827

>>4174529
>and thus see the true nature of reality/phenomena?

I love how this question just rules out the possibility that a majority of us are already.

>> No.4174839

>>4174828
I agree. We should give up logic in order to experience the true reality.

>> No.4174847

>>4174839
the first way you could do it is by taking drugs i suppose

that messes with your logic.

Its not any less valid than your normal logic.. because guess what
THAT COULD OF BEEN YOUR NATURAL LOGIC
if evolution allowed for it.

>> No.4174866

>>4174826
Of course, mathematics is almost entirely deductive. It is enitrely dependant on thigns that have been "proved" previously, and "proved" mathematically, with no empirical evidence to support it. Thats because mathematics is a language, not a science. Thats why people say "math and science". Not that math isn't important, it is important, its just not science.

>> No.4174875

>>4174866
> almost entirely deductive
Again I ask: where is this inductive logic?

>> No.4174880

>>4174829
0/10 yourself. Wasn't trolling, it's actually the answer to the question.

>> No.4174886

>>4174827
>we're special here on /sci/; we have no cognitive biases

>> No.4174893

>>4174875
I'm not a mathemetician. I will not say there is "no" induction becuase I simply don't know for certain. If I were to guess, I would say none.

>> No.4174898

>>4174880
OK then not 0/10. Yer a fucking idiot.

>> No.4174896

>>4174893
roger that, you know how it is when everyone is anonymous, hard to distinguish people in a thread

>> No.4174899
File: 110 KB, 723x532, lsd_collage2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4174899

>> No.4174900

>>4174898
>dismiss something valid as troll
0/10

>> No.4174908

>>4174900
Oh my god get out of sci and go back to /b/ retard

>> No.4174922

>>4174908
Perhaps you should go to /b/ instead. If you have such a mad on for people answering questions, you might even prefer to get off the internet entirely.

>> No.4174928

>>4174922
>enlightened
>sci
gtfo

>> No.4174932

>>4174928
>butthurt
>sci
get in

>> No.4174936

>>4174928
I'm sorry I stepped on your ignorance. The question posed by OP was exactly the problem mystic traditions such as Tantrism and Buddhism were applied to overcome. Your stupidity and complete lack of understanding of that aspect of human cognition is not my problem.

>> No.4174946

>>4174936
>mystic
>sci
My appologies, you appear to be in the right place afterall.

>> No.4174947

>>4174936

>Buddhism
>Not a Gypsy-like system of tricks to take tourists money

>> No.4174951

>>4174936
1/10
dude stop feeding the trolls

>> No.4174954

>>4174947
troll

>> No.4174963

>>4174529
It's called enlightenment.
Ask the dude who meditated continuously for 6 months for some answers.
He might know something.
You'll find more about him on Google.

>> No.4174968

>>4174963
Are you saying science should concede this topic to mystics?

>> No.4174971

>>4174963
>meditated
>knows something
lol

>> No.4174990

>>4174971
I agree. As a meditator, I know nothing and only nothing.

>> No.4175001

>>4174990
yet you admit that you know that you know nothing, which is something....

>> No.4175007

>>4175001
>nothing is something

>> No.4175022

>>4175007
(knowing that knows nothing) is something, just as the empty set is "something"