I wonder if some of this trust in science is a reflection of how little we understand humans, ourselves not the least. Therefore a desire to reach for people who seem to follow rules and be more stable than us poor fleshy drop outs.
Chris, I just discovered you. I did so my googling “philosopher blog”, choosing to link to David Chalmers resources page and clicking on the first name in his “Nonphilosophers with Philosophy-Related Weblogs” sub list. I’ve been searching for some place on the web where there are truly on-going thoughtful discussions on fundamental matters. This site looks like it might be one such, so I have signed up for a minimal subscription. If this is truly a site for meaningful discussions, I hope I have a chance to switch to a more economical introductory subscription.
Comment:
Science [scientists] attempts to construct logically valid and complete models that “explain” the mind-chimera in the nervous systems of a group of humans. Generations of philosophers have noted that these mental constructions are just that, models, not reality itself.
Logically, there is always the possibility that signals from what’s-out-there will stimulate a human consciousness to construct a model that will be at least partially at odds with a prevailing scientific model. [1] Such an event appears to be highly unlikely for models that have been constructed and refined by many people over centuries, e.g., our current model or our solar system. But logically this possibility exists.
I strive to hold in my brain-mind models that are at least logically valid. To do so I must use the assertions other humans have placed in social reality. I use various information processing strategies to give higher or lower credence to every assertion I consider and accept only those that pass some vague, idiosyncratic threshold of veracity.
Plea
The extent and veracity of my model building is greatly enhanced by comments from others. Thank you for your comments.
Definitions:
objective reality – that which causes electrochemical signals to appear in my nervous system
physical reality -- that part of objective reality that exists irrespective of the activities of humans
social reality – that part of objective reality that humans have created, e.g., the US Declaration of Independence
mental model – A set of assertions (possibly encapsulated in image-chimera) about objective reality
Note
[1] The social process by which sensory data ultimately trumps human imagination is messy. The history of the development of our current model of our solar system is a good example. Simon Singh’s Big Bang – The Origin of the Universe gives an entertaining and illuminating synopsis.
I wonder if some of this trust in science is a reflection of how little we understand humans, ourselves not the least. Therefore a desire to reach for people who seem to follow rules and be more stable than us poor fleshy drop outs.
Personal:
Chris, I just discovered you. I did so my googling “philosopher blog”, choosing to link to David Chalmers resources page and clicking on the first name in his “Nonphilosophers with Philosophy-Related Weblogs” sub list. I’ve been searching for some place on the web where there are truly on-going thoughtful discussions on fundamental matters. This site looks like it might be one such, so I have signed up for a minimal subscription. If this is truly a site for meaningful discussions, I hope I have a chance to switch to a more economical introductory subscription.
Comment:
Science [scientists] attempts to construct logically valid and complete models that “explain” the mind-chimera in the nervous systems of a group of humans. Generations of philosophers have noted that these mental constructions are just that, models, not reality itself.
Logically, there is always the possibility that signals from what’s-out-there will stimulate a human consciousness to construct a model that will be at least partially at odds with a prevailing scientific model. [1] Such an event appears to be highly unlikely for models that have been constructed and refined by many people over centuries, e.g., our current model or our solar system. But logically this possibility exists.
I strive to hold in my brain-mind models that are at least logically valid. To do so I must use the assertions other humans have placed in social reality. I use various information processing strategies to give higher or lower credence to every assertion I consider and accept only those that pass some vague, idiosyncratic threshold of veracity.
Plea
The extent and veracity of my model building is greatly enhanced by comments from others. Thank you for your comments.
Definitions:
objective reality – that which causes electrochemical signals to appear in my nervous system
physical reality -- that part of objective reality that exists irrespective of the activities of humans
social reality – that part of objective reality that humans have created, e.g., the US Declaration of Independence
mental model – A set of assertions (possibly encapsulated in image-chimera) about objective reality
Note
[1] The social process by which sensory data ultimately trumps human imagination is messy. The history of the development of our current model of our solar system is a good example. Simon Singh’s Big Bang – The Origin of the Universe gives an entertaining and illuminating synopsis.