It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
‘One does not dig 1000 1 foot deep holes in order to dig one 1000 foot deep well’
Love you, man.
originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Cauliflower
Out of curiosity, I put part of that quote into the search box at the Newton Manuscripts Collection several times, using different protocols, and it came up dry every time.
The original source often cited for the quote is a biography of Newton written in 1831 by Sir David Brewster. Its full text is online. I searched it for the word 'ocean' and found this:
A short time before his death he uttered this memorable sentiment: ‘I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.’ Source
Since it is something Newton is merely reported as having said, not something he wrote down, it must be treated as apocryphal at best; and the context makes it plain that the reference is to what can be known but was not known in his time, rather than that which can never be known, which is what we are concerned with here.
. the shells in Lombardy are at four levels, and thus it is everywhere
originally posted by: TarzanBeta
a reply to: Metallicus
Metallicus, you are among my favorite posters on ATS, by far.
But I do wish you would consider that the argument "Perception is reality" is false. Think on it please.
Good night to you friend.
with humans, our day to day survival depends on our ability to interface with one another in highly complex, mutually constructed ways. does this mean that our fellow humans comprise the third limiting factor restricting our perception of reality?
Moreover, as noted by Trivers, there are reasons other than greater speed and less complexity for natural selection to spurn the veridical: 'If deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray, by the subtle signs of self-knowledge,the deception being practiced.'
originally posted by: Astyanax
Cheer up, it's not as bad as all that.
If 'that' which is seeing is reality then it will never be seen!
is it possible that by increasing one's awareness of this process in action, that we can increase our perceptual range?
It is impossible that there be demonstration for everything. Otherwise demonstration would go on ad infinitum. Scholars often refer to this point when discussing the skeptical modes of argument. The skeptics might be guilty of what, from Aristotle’s perspective, would be a mistake of exactly this kind.
We are not beetles.
The undiscovered country from whose bourn No traveler returns, puzzles the will And makes us rather bear those ills we have Than fly to others that we know not of?
This is basically a re-hashing of philosophical skepticism with a modern "scientific" perspective. It was already being discussed thousands of years ago, and we seem not to have gotten any further than our antecedents.
I worry that people will use theories like this to justify all kinds of weird, self-satisfied, negligent beliefs and behavior. Like these New Agers...
There is a point when truth, or reality, doesn't need to be demonstrated any further.
Hoffman is proposing an interface that, ironically, doesn't seem to correspond to any concrete scientific understanding of the human body. Is the interface our brain, and if so, what part in particular are these neural images or icons appearing in? In what part of the brain are sounds, sights, and sensations synthesized to form a representation that is akin to a computer monitor?
If there's knowledge of the interface, and knowledge of its limitations, what is stopping a man from compensating and overcoming in the same way an artillery officer compensates for the wind and the rotation of the earth?
Bayes' Circle: We can only see the world through our posteriors. When we measure priors and likelihoods in the world, our measurements are necessarily filtered through our posteriors. Using our measurements of priors and likelihoods to justify our posteriors thus leads to a vicious circle.
I see no reason to believe we could never understand reality.