Good video - thanks for posting. I was searching for some in-depth commentary on "Science and the Modern World" and this came up - not what I was looking for but very interesting - especially the Gestalt Psychologists' insights - the object of focus vs implicit background & the coherence of notes over time which gets processed as "melody" (a very culture-subjective concept). Music/melody in particular is worth pondering for the insights as to the nature of time. I haven't finished reading/absorbing Whitehead but I think philosophers waste energy asking scientists to fess up to their underlying metaphysics - philosophers should do it for them - I haven't seen anything (with clarity & depth) yet that describes what their metaphysics would be ...
From Sebastjan's metaphors it seems there is an opportunity. Namely to represent data via visualised processes, which up to recently have not been possible to produce.
We should add, that the background of science is not only a field of metaphysical presuppositions but also social reality with all the relations of power. Science is in that respect part of the social system, which is now in chaos, and is not separate and neutral. And it could be interesting if you could talk more about the role of statistical models (science as forecastar (or routing?) of the future vs. real empirical date. Regarding conspiracy theory. You don’t need a hidden master designer of conspiracy; you can just rely on mimesis and hierarchy of imitation - and count on the chaos and traumatic reactions, which are predominantly predictable and guided through propaganda. And at last, scientist, as are represented in media, talks like they have everything in control. But people feel the exact opposite - nothing is in control. Authoritarian conduct falls into this same category - measures are constantly changing and are guided by paranoia (at least in Slovenia).
One thing I do wrestle with (even as a Theist) is the existential question of capital P Purpose; a capital F Final capital D Destination: "Nirvana" or "Heaven" or some kind of "transcendental object at the end of time".. or the Void. Or is Eternalism exclusively real, the little j journeys flowing like Heraclitus's rivers, endlessly toward the ungraspable Good? Part of me likes the idea of pioneers & pilgrims co-authoring neverending stories, yet part wonders if the (S)tory is already written, and experiences are some type of hermeneutics. It actually makes me chuckle though that those who believe "scientific knowledge" absent of interpretation will one day be able to answer these questions; that finite humans will eventually discover a big TOE that can be fit neatly into some model... like 42.
Can you guys just please edit out the personal conversation at the beginning? It’s best to have the personal Skype call before the actual video and then get straight to the topic when recording
Personally, I'm feeling concerned about the lack of narrative around Microbial Resistance in the world today. Seemingly I had h1n1, it wasn't confirmed but people around me died from it every now and then. I've been in pain from it and have spent years considering how it all works. I've decided that given the choice I would pressure governments to prevent outbreaks and deincentivise over-prescription of things like antibiotics and vaccines. In saying that, however, I don't know the consequences of the idea of increasing a polarity of resistances across the board. As human beings, we can't all survive just because we want to - Surely the consequences of animal abuse (as a vector for disease) can't get any us exceptionality just because we would prefer to think that we can master "Natural (or even Unnatural) Science". The way I see it- Neuroscience and Protein Synthesis have especially revealed a lot in the past few years, but we are not applying the information, presumably because it is monopolised. We are, for instance, lipoproteic structures, just like the virus. We should, therefore, include symbiosis goals in our evaluations for long term survival as a species.
A synthesis of 'less is more' and 'might is right' seems possible, if there's another thing 'context' (the synthesis?) in which might is right is absorbed into less is more, because it (the might part) loses context. Might is right simplifies for efficiency, then it (the engagement part) grows and becomes inefficient and the simplification/marginalization leads to more efficient smaller groups, ideas or identities. This complexity needs to be restrained which tends to marginalize, and so it goes. Restrained yes, but not overlong as the 'field strength' is reduced and context is lost, which forces the complexity to emerge again, to build the field strength thru movement of individuated elements. The 'less is more' is a relaxation that allows greater field strength, not an all movement/no identity reality - all expression - and not the reduction of complexity, all control. Less is more pushes those two extremes apart to allow a greater range of frequency which is amplitude, which is what 'might is right' clings to. Anyway, great discussion and thanks.
Newton wanted to be mechanistic unfortunately his universal gravitation refuted it Newton's gravity, quantum theory, relativity and Non-linear dynamics of deterministic chaos knocked mechanical picture out, as Chomsky says Newton exorcised the machine not the ghost. Nevertheless folk still at least partially cling to mechanistic paradigm. David Bohm would laugh when he heard some hard-nosed Physicist proclaim "I don't use philosophy and I have no metaphysics" unaware they are making a profound philosophical and metaphysical statement. Dawkins et al follow scientism (= All is X!) rather than science. For science and good philosophy start with the realisation that we have an incomplete map of uncertain truths,it's this realisation which drives us. This is why we need BOTH philosophy and science. Philosophy helps us to speculate beyond the limits of science, in someway it may eventually open the way to new science like Ade lovelace speculation on universal computation. Remember scientists were once referred to as natural philosophers
i really hope you all need to have regular booster shots every few months, for the next 10 years as I have invested in a lot of stocks in Pfizer & Moderna.
Good video - thanks for posting. I was searching for some in-depth commentary on "Science and the Modern World" and this came up - not what I was looking for but very interesting - especially the Gestalt Psychologists' insights - the object of focus vs implicit background & the coherence of notes over time which gets processed as "melody" (a very culture-subjective concept). Music/melody in particular is worth pondering for the insights as to the nature of time. I haven't finished reading/absorbing Whitehead but I think philosophers waste energy asking scientists to fess up to their underlying metaphysics - philosophers should do it for them - I haven't seen anything (with clarity & depth) yet that describes what their metaphysics would be ...
From Sebastjan's metaphors it seems there is an opportunity. Namely to represent data via visualised processes, which up to recently have not been possible to produce.
We should add, that the background of science is not only a field of metaphysical presuppositions but also social reality with all the relations of power. Science is in that respect part of the social system, which is now in chaos, and is not separate and neutral. And it could be interesting if you could talk more about the role of statistical models (science as forecastar (or routing?) of the future vs. real empirical date.
Regarding conspiracy theory. You don’t need a hidden master designer of conspiracy; you can just rely on mimesis and hierarchy of imitation - and count on the chaos and traumatic reactions, which are predominantly predictable and guided through propaganda. And at last, scientist, as are represented in media, talks like they have everything in control. But people feel the exact opposite - nothing is in control. Authoritarian conduct falls into this same category - measures are constantly changing and are guided by paranoia (at least in Slovenia).
I enjoyed this....thank you
The topic begins at 7:32.
One thing I do wrestle with (even as a Theist) is the existential question of capital P Purpose; a capital F Final capital D Destination: "Nirvana" or "Heaven" or some kind of "transcendental object at the end of time".. or the Void.
Or is Eternalism exclusively real, the little j journeys flowing like Heraclitus's rivers, endlessly toward the ungraspable Good?
Part of me likes the idea of pioneers & pilgrims co-authoring neverending stories, yet part wonders if the (S)tory is already written, and experiences are some type of hermeneutics.
It actually makes me chuckle though that those who believe "scientific knowledge" absent of interpretation will one day be able to answer these questions; that finite humans will eventually discover a big TOE that can be fit neatly into some model... like 42.
Can you guys just please edit out the personal conversation at the beginning? It’s best to have the personal Skype call before the actual video and then get straight to the topic when recording
Personally, I'm feeling concerned about the lack of narrative around Microbial Resistance in the world today. Seemingly I had h1n1, it wasn't confirmed but people around me died from it every now and then. I've been in pain from it and have spent years considering how it all works. I've decided that given the choice I would pressure governments to prevent outbreaks and deincentivise over-prescription of things like antibiotics and vaccines. In saying that, however, I don't know the consequences of the idea of increasing a polarity of resistances across the board. As human beings, we can't all survive just because we want to - Surely the consequences of animal abuse (as a vector for disease) can't get any us exceptionality just because we would prefer to think that we can master "Natural (or even Unnatural) Science".
The way I see it- Neuroscience and Protein Synthesis have especially revealed a lot in the past few years, but we are not applying the information, presumably because it is monopolised. We are, for instance, lipoproteic structures, just like the virus. We should, therefore, include symbiosis goals in our evaluations for long term survival as a species.
Yes figure and ground for Bohm, meant one has to have an invariant or non-invariant context in order for the invariant form or abstraction to be made.
A synthesis of 'less is more' and 'might is right' seems possible, if there's another thing 'context' (the synthesis?) in which might is right is absorbed into less is more, because it (the might part) loses context. Might is right simplifies for efficiency, then it (the engagement part) grows and becomes inefficient and the simplification/marginalization leads to more efficient smaller groups, ideas or identities. This complexity needs to be restrained which tends to marginalize, and so it goes. Restrained yes, but not overlong as the 'field strength' is reduced and context is lost, which forces the complexity to emerge again, to build the field strength thru movement of individuated elements. The 'less is more' is a relaxation that allows greater field strength, not an all movement/no identity reality - all expression - and not the reduction of complexity, all control. Less is more pushes those two extremes apart to allow a greater range of frequency which is amplitude, which is what 'might is right' clings to.
Anyway, great discussion and thanks.
Newton wanted to be mechanistic unfortunately his universal gravitation refuted it
Newton's gravity, quantum theory, relativity and Non-linear dynamics of deterministic chaos knocked mechanical picture out, as Chomsky says Newton exorcised the machine not the ghost. Nevertheless folk still at least partially cling to mechanistic paradigm.
David Bohm would laugh when he heard some hard-nosed Physicist proclaim "I don't use philosophy and I have no metaphysics" unaware they are making a profound philosophical and metaphysical statement.
Dawkins et al follow scientism (= All is X!) rather than science. For science and good philosophy start with the realisation that we have an incomplete map of uncertain truths,it's this realisation which drives us. This is why we need BOTH philosophy and science.
Philosophy helps us to speculate beyond the limits of science, in someway it may eventually open the way to new science like Ade lovelace speculation on universal computation.
Remember scientists were once referred to as natural philosophers
i really hope you all need to have regular booster shots every few months, for the next 10 years as I have invested in a lot of stocks in Pfizer & Moderna.
The long hair guy talks too much and says too little. He seems incapable of dialogue.