Man didn't evolve from fish or monkeys

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: cooperton

Sorry Coop, that's a common misconception about quantum mechanics. It is not consciousness itself that changes anything, it's the electron microscopes that observe it on that level that interfere with some of the particles causing them to behave that way. Did you honestly believe that it was the mere act of looking at it with the naked eye?

No, when I said "observed at the quantum level" I presumed the relevant critics would realize I was referring to such observation. Regardless, the statement still stands that observation causes it to behave like a particle.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect

What does this mean, scientifically speaking?

Regarding the statement about the light and the 4D, it was my subjective opinion. Didn't claim it had scientific backing, just my best guess regarding the world-to-come. Plato's cave allegory posits that we are essentially living in a shadow world, and through discerning reality and coming to truth through philosophy, we have a sweet revelation of the world of light outside our cave of limitation.

But you're citing a paper supported by the Institute of Noetic Sciences. Don't a lot of folks consider this to be a less than credible organization?

It should be the experimental procedure that is critiqued, not the organisation. I'll look for more sources regarding the effect of consciousness on light interference next chance I get

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
Evidence, is an interpretation, which is always subjective. Then there is strong or weak evidence...

It is definitely not always subjective. Whether something is objective or subjective directly depends on how strong or weak the evidence is. Would you say it is subjective to claim that the planets revolve around the sun and that the sun revolves around the milky way?

An example of subjective evidence would be "my holy book says XYZ, therefor it's true" or claiming that nature is so beautiful and complex that it had to be designed. Basically you can't verify it.

An example of objective evidence would be measuring the distance to the sun, or calculating planets speeds moving through space or running an experiment to compare genomes, experimenting with gravity or using radiometric methods to date fossils based on observed rates of decay. The object of the scientific method is to ask a question and then confirm or deny whether it applies based on the experiments and data. Claiming that everything is subjective is silly.

originally posted by: cooperton
No, when I said "observed at the quantum level" I presumed the relevant critics would realize I was referring to such observation. Regardless, the statement still stands that observation causes it to behave like a particle.

Negative. The electron microscope causes interference, it's not conscious observation as you claimed. Otherwise they could close their eyes and record the results and they would be different. This isn't the case, however.

Follow-up experiments found the conscious observer even has an effect on the interference pattern of the light (wave):

That's what you said.

Like I said, it's a common misconception, but you are now trying to backtrack out of that statement. Par for the course, I guess. Romanticize QM and act like you understand it on a deep level when you do not. It kind of reminds me of Deepak Chopra getting owned at his own event by a scientist in the audience.

originally posted by: Barcs
Whether something is objective or subjective directly depends on how strong or weak the evidence is

And what determines the strength or weakness of evidence?

originally posted by: Barcs
Would you say it is subjective to claim that the planets revolve around the sun and that the sun revolves around the milky way?

Yes, and why not. Has anything other than humans ever made such claims? Or defined the objects and parameters by which these measurements and claims are made?

originally posted by: Barcs
An example of objective evidence would be measuring the distance to the sun, or calculating planets speeds moving through space or running an experiment to compare genomes, experimenting with gravity or using radiometric methods to date fossils based on observed rates of decay.

Objective only if we impose a common constraint on the subjective choices in our definitions and procedures. In other words coming to consensus on how the thing will be measured or interpreted.

originally posted by: PhotonEffect
And what determines the strength or weakness of evidence?

This is a real question? If it can be verified by repeated experiment / observation, it is objective (strong) evidence. Is there any doubt now that the earth is round, or that the sun is 93m miles away from earth on average? There are certain things that are confirmed to the point that subjectivity goes out the w1ndow.

Somebody please explain why the real spelling of the word w1ndow is censored on this site? Makes no sense at all.

originally posted by: Barcs
Yes, and why not. Has anything other than humans ever made such claims? Or defined the objects and parameters by which these measurements and claims are made?

So you won't buy that until an alien race shows up and tells us? And you would consider it objective evidence to blindly believe their claims? Scientists can directly watch the planets revolve around the sun. They can calculate trajectories and gravitational effects. It's not just some weak subjective storybook.

originally posted by: Barcs
Objective only if we impose a common constraint on the subjective choices in our definitions and procedures. In other words coming to consensus on how the thing will be measured or interpreted.

Read the conclusion section on the research papers. They are usually very clear about what the experiment proves. Obviously reading dumbed down science articles there will always be a level of subjectivity involved, because the average person does not understand science on that deep level. They dumb it down and put it into terms we can understand to make it paint a happy picture for us. The picture may not be 100%, but the evidence is and as more comes in, it gets clearer.

originally posted by: Barcs

Negative. The electron microscope causes interference, it's not conscious observation as you claimed. Otherwise they could close their eyes and record the results and they would be different. This isn't the case, however.

An instrument is a form of measurement used to extend our ability to observe various phenomenon. is observation through a microscope not observation? Surely it IS observation. When the particle is not observed it behaves like a wave. When it is observed via instrumentation it behaves like a particle.

Like I said, it's a common misconception, but you are now trying to backtrack out of that statement.

No it is not, and no I am not. the observation at the quantum level from the instrument causes the wave to behave like a particle. Schroedinger extended this concept into his Cat analogy. You know this, but you are playing devil's advocate because you hate to see anyone believe in a higher power. Max Planck, who you quote in your signature, agrees that quantum physics demonstrates that consciousness is the foundation of reality:

“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”
– Max Planck (The Nature of Matter - speech in 1944 Italy)

The material reductionist mindset is sickening humankind. You can believe whatever you want, but stop spreading such narrow-minded swill to other minds seeking the unadulterated truth. You shut the door on yourself as well as others who you convince of such meaninglessness.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
This is a real question? If it can be verified by repeated experiment / observation, it is objective (strong) evidence.

Says the subjective human.

There of course is an objective world out there, but we can never know what it actually is. We employ the scientific method to model and measure, and hopefully make reasonable predictions of that world for our benefit. But even models and measurements differ, or could be wrong, and thus can yield different results.

And no, I don't think repeated verification necessarily has to mean we've achieved a truly objective notion of the world. What if we were all verifying the wrong thing? It's happened countless times.

originally posted by: Barcs
Is there any doubt now that the earth is round, or that the sun is 93m miles away from earth on average?

Try to think critically for a moment. "Round" is not truly objective. It only is, in the sense, that it’s a concept we have rigidly defined and have all agreed upon. We've created a constraint on our subjectivity so that no one can argue, for instance, that a ball is square or a box is round. But what if half the population were taught to think that cubes are round and planets are square? Who then would be correct in their "objectivity" on this matter?

And let's face it, a mile is an arbitrary unit of measurement. We just made it up. What if I were to measure this distance in meters? Or yards? Or inches? Millimeters? Or Willy Wonka bars? We'd arrive at different distances and speeds, won't we. So how is this objective?

Remember: according to relativity, intervals of length/speed are only well defined when relative to our choice of reference frame. These choices are free to make, making them subjective choices.

originally posted by: Barcs
So you won't buy that until an alien race shows up and tells us? And you would consider it objective evidence to blindly believe their claims?

Why should an alien race behold the real objective truth? And what makes you think I would? Silly questions.

originally posted by: Barcs
Scientists can directly watch the planets revolve around the sun. They can calculate trajectories and gravitational effects. It's not just some weak subjective storybook.

It's only our interpretation that planets revolve around the sun. We only know that something, which we call gravity, is there. That much is objective. But hell if we know what it actually is or why it exists at all. Unless you know something we don't.

originally posted by: Barcs
Read the conclusion section on the research papers. They are usually very clear about what the experiment proves.

No, wrong again. Experiments don't "prove" anything. Science doesn't prove anything - that's a misconception.

originally posted by: cooperton
An instrument is a form of measurement used to extend our ability to observe various phenomenon. is observation through a microscope not observation? Surely it IS observation. When the particle is not observed it behaves like a wave. When it is observed via instrumentation it behaves like a particle.

This time you said it properly. It is not the conscious observer but the instrumentation that changes the behavior. When you imply that the conscious observer can change the observed, you are being deceptive because a microscope is not conscious, and your original claim stated that the conscious observer changes the properties of light.

The material reductionist mindset is sickening humankind. You can believe whatever you want, but stop spreading such narrow-minded swill to other minds seeking the unadulterated truth. You shut the door on yourself as well as others who you convince of such meaninglessness.

Yes, it is totally narrowminded to follow the evidence instead of blindly assuming that there is a creator. You can believe whatever you want, but stop acting like your worldview is fact. It's a faith based belief system. I just don't buy it, but your original statement about the "conscious observer" was dead wrong, so I had to point that out. Instead of calling me narrow minded, admit your mistake and move on.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Ah, here we go again. The fun never ends.

Subjective human? Sorry but subjective is not something that applies to a person. I can have subjective views or opinions. But what are you suggesting here? Are you saying that we all might not exist and be a computer program for your amusement?

Try to think critically for a moment. "Round" is not truly objective.

So we're going to go back to arguing semantics? I could have said 3D ellipse to be more accurate, but I was basically inferring the difference between flat and globe. I know it's not literally a perfect circle or sphere.

But what if half the population were taught to think that cubes are round and planets are square? Who then would be correct in their "objectivity" on this matter?

That has nothing to do with subjectivity. That is using different words to describe the same concept. They would both be correct and this currently happens all over the planet with the dozens of different languages with different words to describe the same thing. It is a madre or a mother? It doesn't matter, they mean the same thing.

And let's face it, a mile is an arbitrary unit of measurement. We just made it up. What if I were to measure this distance in meters? Or yards? Or inches? Millimeters? Or Willy Wonka bars? We'd arrive at different distances and speeds, won't we. So how is this objective?

Again, this is not subjectivity, this is semantics. It would be the exact same measurement, no matter how you measure. Yes, the numbers would be different in km vs mm, but you could convert them to a common unit much like folks do today when they compare pounds and kilograms. The actual measurement is the same. Our semantics on the units of measure are different, but the measurement itself doesn't change.

Why should an alien race behold the real objective truth? And what makes you think I would? Silly questions.

Silly questions indeed:

Your quote from the post I responded to:

"Has anything other than humans ever made such claims? Or defined the objects and parameters by which these measurements and claims are made? "

If you aren't inferring aliens by "anything other than humans", what do you actually mean? Chimps? Dolphins? Ants? Trees? Cyborgs? Under-worlders? Deities?

It's only our interpretation that planets revolve around the sun. We only know that something, which we call gravity, is there. That much is objective. But hell if we know what it actually is or why it exists at all. Unless you know something we don't.

I was talking about the planets revolving around the sun. It's not just interpretation, we have probes out there observing the solar system from Mars and other planets as they go around the sun epicenter. Yeah, we know just a bit more than "there is gravity". Come on, man.

No, wrong again. Experiments don't "prove" anything. Science doesn't prove anything - that's a misconception.

You are just arguing to argue. Science is a method. I'm well aware of this. Research papers document the experiments and their results and they can be duplicated by anybody with the means. It's far from subjective, the scientific method is what allows humans to prove things. I never claimed science was a conscious entity that proves things. It's a method that keeps us honest and objective and research papers are descriptions of this method in action.

a reply to: Barcs

Oh I don't know, there are few people I know who the term Human is subjective .... oh wait you don't mean that?

This thread reads like a bad acid trip bordering on psychosis!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

Oh I don't know, there are few people I know who the term Human is subjective .... oh wait you don't mean that?

Yeah, I was trying to figure out what he meant by that. Human thoughts can certainly be subjective. Human beliefs, ideologies, moral compasses, and explanations for things can be subjective, but humans following methods of objectivity to discover how things work is not the same thing because it doesn't allow that confirmation bias to become involved with the results. It seemed like he was insinuating that the scientific method is subjective because humans figured it out.

Yes, the term human can have multiple meanings, but it didn't seem like that was his point.

a reply to: Barcs

What I took it to mean is that (from a certain perspective) the human condition is subjective. In that all information that the brain processes is filtered by the individual, and interpreted by the individual. This of course ignores many aspects of the universe are not subjective, and can be defined empirically.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
Sorry but subjective is not something that applies to a person. I can have subjective views or opinions. But what are you suggesting here?

Sure it does, Barcs. The “thinking subject”. Experience, ideas, thoughts, etc.... Anything that comes from a human mind is considered subjective.

originally posted by: Barcs
Are you saying that we all might not exist and be a computer program for your amusement?

I don’t think I said nor even came close to implying such a thing. How did you come to that conclusion?

originally posted by: Barcs
I could have said 3D ellipse to be more accurate, but I was basically inferring the difference between flat and globe. I know it's not literally a perfect circle or sphere.

It wouldn't have really mattered what you said. That wasn’t the underlying point I was trying to make.

The concept of shape is derived by humans. Subjective.

originally posted by: Barcs
That is using different words to describe the same concept. They would both be correct and this currently happens all over the planet with the dozens of different languages with different words to describe the same thing. It is a madre or a mother?

No, round and square are not the same concept. They are not just words that mean the same thing. So your point is moot I'm afraid.

originally posted by: Barcs
Again, this is not subjectivity, this is semantics. It would be the exact same measurement, no matter how you measure. Yes, the numbers would be different in km vs mm, but you could convert them to a common unit much like folks do today when they compare pounds and kilograms. The actual measurement is the same. Our semantics on the units of measure are different, but the measurement itself doesn't change.

Technically, 93,000,000 miles is not the same measurement as 145,000,000 km (which is the conversion). Yes, the space between earth and sun is objective in that it exists. But we’re free to pick and choose the method and units by which we describe that distance. This is a subjective exercise. And I realize this is an idea that is hard to accept.

originally posted by: Barcs
If you aren't inferring aliens by "anything other than humans", what do you actually mean? Chimps? Dolphins? Ants? Trees? Cyborgs? Under-worlders? Deities?

I think you are the one making those inferences, not me. My question was meant to highlight that it is only humans [as far as we know] who model the world to better understand it (science), and then express it through language and terms we can conceptualize. We label everything, then make up a meaning for what it is. That is subjective.

For instance, you realize that “round” is not a universal concept, right? This idea most likely exists no where else but on this tiny, almost invisible planet. And it was derived by one rather young and self important species out of the millions that have ever existed here. Us. But for some reason you seem to think we've uncovered an objective truth here. Help me understand why.

originally posted by: Barcs
Yeah, we know just a bit more than "there is gravity". Come on, man.

Well sure, we’re able to measure it’s influence on matter and can represent it mathematically (another language of ours), and also make predictions on how it will behave. We know something is there, but not what it is or why it is.

Our description and modeling of it is subjective.

originally posted by: Barcs
You are just arguing to argue.

In all fairness Barcs, you were the one that initiated this debate with me. And quite honestly you seem to be the argumentative one around here. Not in a bad way necessarily, but just saying.

originally posted by: Barcs
Science is a method. I'm well aware of this. Research papers document the experiments and their results and they can be duplicated by anybody with the means. It's far from subjective, the scientific method is what allows humans to prove things. I never claimed science was a conscious entity that proves things. It's a method that keeps us honest and objective and research papers are descriptions of this method in action..

Experiments can not always be duplicated. We don’t “prove” anything with the scientific method. We use it to model and make estimations and predictions. To say science proves anything about the natural world is a complete misunderstanding. Real scientists will attest to this fact.

It’s not always an honest process either, if you’ve been following along with the peer review scandals in recent years. It seems you have this idealist view of what science is. I don’t begrudge you for it by the way.

Also, I mean no offense, but you tend to misrepresent what I’m saying a lot, then proceed to attack those misrepresentations. I am not sure if it’s from a misunderstanding or something, but to clear things up, I’m not claiming that an objective world does not exist. Of course it does. Nor am I claiming that we live in a simulation, or that aliens are coming to tell us how it really is, or that there isn’t a phenomenon we call gravity. All these things you have incorrectly “inferred” from my statements.

There was a mention in this thread about objective evidence which I felt compelled to point out is not possible given that evidence, as with everything else we experience, involves subjective interpretation. We like to think we can be completely objective (i.e without bias, opinion, or thoughts) about things, but it’s inherently impossible to strip that subjectivity from anything we do.

a reply to: Barcs

Do you really think that science is completely free from confirmation bias?




a reply to: Noinden

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Barcs

What I took it to mean is that (from a certain perspective) the human condition is subjective. In that all information that the brain processes is filtered by the individual, and interpreted by the individual. This of course ignores many aspects of the universe are not subjective, and can be defined empirically.

Well yes, mostly this. Except that last part you snuck in there. Empirically defining an aspect of the objective world is still an element of the human condition you described. Empiricism is observation via the senses, after all.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Neighbor the bit I stuck in there is clearly the bit I stuck in there. Either way its a philosophical debate at that point over objectivity vs subjectivity.

a reply to: Noinden

I hate when people try to be philosophers and sound like retarded monkeys, it's that thing called imagination and the narcissistic trait of that reptilian leftover.. Have a reasonable logical discussion, cultural dogma is not subjective, it's right or wrong..

I'm gonna make a statement, imagination has gone to far we live in a age where information are at the click of a button.. Step up the game or pull the plug

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Yes, ideas are subjective. Yes, they come from a mind. HOWEVER, these ideas CAN BE objectively verified through the scientific method. This turns them from subjective ideas, to objective evidence. I don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp. Science isn't just based on ideas. It's based on the acceptance or rejection of testable hypotheses via methods of verification.

The concept of shape is derived by humans. Subjective.

No it's not. The concept of shape is a constant, no matter who analyzes it. Different words to describe it does not make it subjective. A square is a square is a square. One person claiming it's a circle or using another word to describe it does not change the fact that a square is 4 straight lines with 4 perfect right angles.

No, round and square are not the same concept. They are not just words that mean the same thing. So your point is moot I'm afraid.

You cannot teach somebody that a square is a triangle in concept because IT'S NOT. You can count the sides, and measure the angles. You ARE talking semantics. Stop denying it. If people are taught that round is square and square is round (in concept), then they are wrong. There's no other way to say it. The definition of square, triangle and circle are very clear cut and apply worldwide, and likely universally if other life is out there that can observe the shapes of things.

Technically, 93,000,000 miles is not the same measurement as 145,000,000 km (which is the conversion). Yes, the space between earth and sun is objective in that it exists. But we’re free to pick and choose the method and units by which we describe that distance. This is a subjective exercise. And I realize this is an idea that is hard to accept.

Technically it is the exact same distance and it IS the same measurement because they are equal, regardless of what unit they use. There is no subjectivity involved in that. I don't care if you choose to measure the distance in size 8 women's shoes. It will equal the same distance every time (on average, obviously it changes throughout the year as the earth revolves around the sun. Normally I don't have to say such things, but with you I have to put the disclaimer to avoid nitpicking.)

I think you are the one making those inferences, not me. My question was meant to highlight that it is only humans [as far as we know] who model the world to better understand it (science), and then express it through language and terms we can conceptualize. We label everything, then make up a meaning for what it is. That is subjective.

I think you are intentionally being difficult here.

No it's not subjective. The words we use to describe / label things is completely irrelevant and the only thing that could be considered subjective. The concepts being described are what matters, and many of those concepts are directly objectively verified. We know what round is. We know what square is. They aren't just made up concepts, they apply to real world architecture and designs. If shapes were subjective, then buildings would collapse and there would be no way to control their designs. Obviously this isn't the case. There is a very clear cut definition of a square and if it's not used properly in a design, the structure will fail.

Also, I mean no offense, but you tend to misrepresent what I’m saying a lot, then proceed to attack those misrepresentations. I am not sure if it’s from a misunderstanding or something, but to clear things up, I’m not claiming that an objective world does not exist. Of course it does. Nor am I claiming that we live in a simulation, or that aliens are coming to tell us how it really is, or that there isn’t a phenomenon we call gravity. All these things you have incorrectly “inferred” from my statements.

Everything I "inferred" was asked in the form of a question because I didn't understand what your point was. I haven't misrepresented anything. Your argument is completely subjective and you make a lot of very fuzzy statements that can be interpreted in numerous different ways. I'm not sure if you do this on purpose, but I know your game. You nitpick everything and try to twist arguments into your favor via minor technicalities.

I'm not saying that subjectivity doesn't exist or that humans ideas are not subjective. I'm saying we have methods to objectively verify things, so your original claim that all evidence is subjective simply doesn't hold water.

Do you really think that science is completely free from confirmation bias?

No, I'm not saying it's perfect or absolute. But it has a very good track record of figuring out how things work and how to apply it in our daily lives when beneficial. Out of the hundreds of thousands of peer reviewed papers, how often do we actually find these issues with deceptively publishing non reviewed papers? It's extremely rare.

a reply to: Barcs

My apologies if you feel the need to expend so much effort in an attempt to teach me things. It's not necessary, but thanks.

I completely understand what you're saying, and what the prevailing view of things are - believe me. You're a champion of championing the status quo view of the world. Kudos. I happen to look at much of it from a different perspective, is all.

So let's just agree to disagree.

Peace.