Challenging the Objectivity of Science

[Eodnhoj7]

As compound reactions! For distinction is reaction to the outward causes of the world as object, the world of other relative beings are cause to us, and our conscious reactions are causes to them. I think we are saying the same thing with differing terminology.

Good...different language, same foundations....Wittgenstein's language games....

Reaction is a distinction. Distinctions occur through distinctions where this is a distinction.

What you call "compound" can be viewed synonymously to "superpostioning"...both words can effectively mean "layered dimensions". Compounding molecules, for life, is the overlaying of dimensions, a set of limits, and as such compounding molecules and superpostioned distinctions are terms which reflect eachother.

We seem to be arguing the same thing from different viewpoints.

Yes, but there is considerable confusion here as to how consciousness occurs and how meaning manifests itself.

Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without distinction for without distinction there would cease to be things one is conscious of, the cessation of things to be conscious of would be the cessation of consciousness, and consciousness would cease to be consciousness as it would no longer make the distinction of itself.

[popeye1945]

Good...different language, same foundations....Wittgenstein's language games....

Reaction is a distinction. Distinctions occur through distinctions where this is a distinction.

What you call "compound" can be viewed synonymously to "superpostioning"...both words can effectively mean "layered dimensions". Compounding molecules, for life, is the overlaying of dimensions, a set of limits, and as such compounding molecules and superpostioned distinctions are terms which reflect eachother.

We seem to be arguing the same thing from different viewpoints.

Yes, but there is considerable confusion here as to how consciousness occurs and how meaning manifests itself.

Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without distinction for without distinction there would cease to be things one is conscious of, the cessation of things to be conscious of would be the cessation of consciousness, and consciousness would cease to be consciousness as it would no longer make the distinction of itself.

It's a word scramble. By distinction or distinctions, do you mean that the world of objects are objects of distinction, altering the biology of the conscious subject? Reword what you're trying to get across. "Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness." This makes no sense whatsoever; unless you can salvage something out of it, it remains nonsensical.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes, but there is considerable confusion here as to how consciousness occurs and how meaning manifests itself.

Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without distinction for without distinction there would cease to be things one is conscious of, the cessation of things to be conscious of would be the cessation of consciousness, and consciousness would cease to be consciousness as it would no longer make the distinction of itself.

It's a word scramble. By distinction or distinctions, do you mean that the world of objects are objects of distinction, altering the biology of the conscious subject? Reword what you're trying to get across. "Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness." This makes no sense whatsoever; unless you can salvage something out of it, it remains nonsensical.

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract.

Concepts only come from consciousness, consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.

[popeye1945]

Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without distinction for without distinction there would cease to be things one is conscious of, the cessation of things to be conscious of would be the cessation of consciousness, and consciousness would cease to be consciousness as it would no longer make the distinction of itself.

It's a word scramble. By distinction or distinctions, do you mean that the world of objects are objects of distinction, altering the biology of the conscious subject? Reword what you're trying to get across. "Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness." This makes no sense whatsoever; unless you can salvage something out of it, it remains nonsensical.

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Distinctions are differences between two or more things in comparison.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept, it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract. [/quote]

Consciousness is a concept; when communicating its nature, consciousness is itself not a concept, it is a function.

Concepts only come from consciousness; consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself. [/quote]

Consciousness does not use the concept of consciousness to distinguish itself; what does it distinguish itself from? This is nonsensical.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.
[/quote]

Consciousness distinguishes itself as conscious compared to what? The rest is just babbling. Have a good one!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness. Consciousness cannot exist without distinction for without distinction there would cease to be things one is conscious of, the cessation of things to be conscious of would be the cessation of consciousness, and consciousness would cease to be consciousness as it would no longer make the distinction of itself.

It's a word scramble. By distinction or distinctions, do you mean that the world of objects are objects of distinction, altering the biology of the conscious subject? Reword what you're trying to get across. "Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness." This makes no sense whatsoever; unless you can salvage something out of it, it remains nonsensical.

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract.

Concepts only come from consciousness, consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract.

Concepts only come from consciousness, consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.

Eodnhoj7: "Consciousness is a concept " & "Concepts only come from consciousness" ???

What is that??

I believe you are assuming 'consciousness' is a noun-thing that pre-exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Such an assumption is delusional.

The reality is this:
Consciousness is a concept of something real & but whatever is real only emerged from the human conditions,
therefore consciousness cannot be an absolutely unconditional thing from the human conditions.

It is very natural to reason that consciousness from reality is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, but that is basically a psychological problem, not an epistemological one.

To insist and persist consciousness is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, is delusional. This is where it leads to the idea (concept) of an absolutely independent God where one theological-ideology had left a trail of evil since it began.

[Eodnhoj7]

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract.

Concepts only come from consciousness, consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.

Eodnhoj7: "Consciousness is a concept " & "Concepts only come from consciousness" ???

What is that??

I believe you are assuming 'consciousness' is a noun-thing that pre-exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Such an assumption is delusional.

The reality is this:
Consciousness is a concept of something real & but whatever is real only emerged from the human conditions,
therefore consciousness cannot be an absolutely unconditional thing from the human conditions.

It is very natural to reason that consciousness from reality is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, but that is basically a psychological problem, not an epistemological one.

To insist and persist consciousness is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, is delusional. This is where it leads to the idea (concept) of an absolutely independent God where one theological-ideology had left a trail of evil since it began.

Consciousness is inseperable from distinctions for consciousness recieves, projects, maintains and occurs through distinction.

Consciousness is fundamentally an emergent distinction.

[Eodnhoj7]

X

[Eodnhoj7]

It's a word scramble. By distinction or distinctions, do you mean that the world of objects are objects of distinction, altering the biology of the conscious subject? Reword what you're trying to get across. "Consciousness is a distinction made by consciousness." This makes no sense whatsoever; unless you can salvage something out of it, it remains nonsensical.

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Distinctions are differences between two or more things in comparison.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept, it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract.

Consciousness is a concept; when communicating its nature, consciousness is itself not a concept, it is a function.

Concepts only come from consciousness; consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself. [/quote]

Consciousness does not use the concept of consciousness to distinguish itself; what does it distinguish itself from? This is nonsensical.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.
[/quote]

Consciousness distinguishes itself as conscious compared to what? The rest is just babbling. Have a good one!
[/quote]

1. Distinction is also the connection of things for contrast requires a relationship. It is superimposed, layered, connection and seperation.

2. All distinctions, including concepts, are processes for what allows distinction is change. Consciousness is form as function for a form is a medium of change.

3. Consciousness is the context of itself, it's variations are the means by which is it distinguished and yet is superimposed across all distinctions. A variation of consciousness is what consciousness is distinct from but this variation is an isomorphism, different appearance same foundations...the foundations? Distinctions ground on nothing but potential. Example: 2 is an isomorphism of 1, it is different from 1 in appearance and yet is structurally composed of 1.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Distinctions are limits. When a distinction is made a limit occurs. The two words are synonymous. Things only occur through limits, without limits a thing ceases to exist.

Consciousness is a concept, as a concept it has limits thus is a distinction. A concept is a thing, albeit abstract.

Concepts only come from consciousness, consciousness is a concept it uses to distinguish itself.

Consciousness distinguishes itself as consciousness, this distinguishment is not only the process of consciousness being self-aware but is the distinction that allows consciousness to interact and observe itself.

Eodnhoj7: "Consciousness is a concept " & "Concepts only come from consciousness" ???

What is that??

I believe you are assuming 'consciousness' is a noun-thing that pre-exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Such an assumption is delusional.

The reality is this:
Consciousness is a concept of something real & but whatever is real only emerged from the human conditions,
therefore consciousness cannot be an absolutely unconditional thing from the human conditions.

It is very natural to reason that consciousness from reality is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, but that is basically a psychological problem, not an epistemological one.

To insist and persist consciousness is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, is delusional. This is where it leads to the idea (concept) of an absolutely independent God where one theological-ideology had left a trail of evil since it began.

for consciousness recieves, projects, maintains and occurs through distinction.

Consciousness is fundamentally an emergent distinction.

"Consciousness [emergent] is inseperable from distinctions"
It is only human beings who can make distinctions.
Therefore consciousness is inseparable from human beings - the human conditions.

So, no human beings = no consciousness.

[Eodnhoj7]

Eodnhoj7: "Consciousness is a concept " & "Concepts only come from consciousness" ???

What is that??

I believe you are assuming 'consciousness' is a noun-thing that pre-exist absolutely independent of the human conditions.
Such an assumption is delusional.

The reality is this:
Consciousness is a concept of something real & but whatever is real only emerged from the human conditions,
therefore consciousness cannot be an absolutely unconditional thing from the human conditions.

It is very natural to reason that consciousness from reality is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, but that is basically a psychological problem, not an epistemological one.

To insist and persist consciousness is something that is absolutely independent of the human conditions, is delusional. This is where it leads to the idea (concept) of an absolutely independent God where one theological-ideology had left a trail of evil since it began.

for consciousness recieves, projects, maintains and occurs through distinction.

Consciousness is fundamentally an emergent distinction.

"Consciousness [emergent] is inseperable from distinctions"
It is only human beings who can make distinctions.
Therefore consciousness is inseparable from human beings - the human conditions.

So, no human beings = no consciousness.

Only human beings make distinctions?

Domesticated dogs are often picky about food. Same with cats. Elephants generally avoid eating meat. These actions require distinctions.

Specific particles have specific relations with specific particles. Specificity is distinction.


How do you know that only human being make distinctions when you can only speak for the human experience?

[Veritas Aequitas]

for consciousness recieves, projects, maintains and occurs through distinction.

Consciousness is fundamentally an emergent distinction.

"Consciousness [emergent] is inseperable from distinctions"
It is only human beings who can make distinctions.
Therefore consciousness is inseparable from human beings - the human conditions.

So, no human beings = no consciousness.

Only human beings make distinctions?

Domesticated dogs are often picky about food. Same with cats. Elephants generally avoid eating meat. These actions require distinctions.

Specific particles have specific relations with specific particles. Specificity is distinction.


How do you know that only human being make distinctions when you can only speak for the human experience?

Did dogs [cats, elephants, etc.] tell you they make distinction?
It is only you as human beings who arrive at such a conclusion.

Seemingly, organic things also 'make distinction' oil do not mix with water, magnetic positive poles [north, south] repel negative and so on, but ultimately it is 'humans' who make such inferences of the concept of distinctions.

[Eodnhoj7]

"Consciousness [emergent] is inseperable from distinctions"
It is only human beings who can make distinctions.
Therefore consciousness is inseparable from human beings - the human conditions.

So, no human beings = no consciousness.

Only human beings make distinctions?

Domesticated dogs are often picky about food. Same with cats. Elephants generally avoid eating meat. These actions require distinctions.

Specific particles have specific relations with specific particles. Specificity is distinction.


How do you know that only human being make distinctions when you can only speak for the human experience?

Did dogs [cats, elephants, etc.] tell you they make distinction?
It is only you as human beings who arrive at such a conclusion.

Seemingly, organic things also 'make distinction' oil do not mix with water, magnetic positive poles [north, south] repel negative and so on, but ultimately it is 'humans' who make such inferences of the concept of distinctions.

Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction.

Certain molecules combine with others...same with particles...these are distinctions.

Existence is self-aware by degree of cycling distinctions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Only human beings make distinctions?

Domesticated dogs are often picky about food. Same with cats. Elephants generally avoid eating meat. These actions require distinctions.

Specific particles have specific relations with specific particles. Specificity is distinction.


How do you know that only human being make distinctions when you can only speak for the human experience?

Did dogs [cats, elephants, etc.] tell you they make distinction?
It is only you as human beings who arrive at such a conclusion.

Seemingly, organic things also 'make distinction' oil do not mix with water, magnetic positive poles [north, south] repel negative and so on, but ultimately it is 'humans' who make such inferences of the concept of distinctions.

Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction.

Certain molecules combine with others...same with particles...these are distinctions.

Existence is self-aware by degree of cycling distinctions.

"Cats and dogs choose food, that is a distinction."
"that is a distinction" said who??

You, a human?
Common sense = common sense by common people in consensus.
Scientifically [biology] objective = intersubjective consensus with a group of scientists and the scientific framework and system.

Therefore,
'distinction' whether reality, concept or "whatever is" cannot be absolutely independent of the human condition.

That is a fact.
To insist otherwise is delusional.

[Age]

...observations are interpreted within theoretical frameworks, and as those frameworks change, so does our understanding of the observations.

I agree with pretty much everything in the article: science is a human construct and not objective. Having said that, it doesn't seem to me that whatever theory we laden our observations with, they can create or negate those observations. Stuff happens, it affects us and regardless of theory or paradigm through which we filter it, the stuff that happens, happens, I'm fairly confident, independently of how it is interpreted.

It is, still, interpreted, and interpretations, and assumptions and theories, lead to 'confirmation biases'. Which is why all assumptions, theories, guesses, et cetera, should be completely 'left behind' when 'looking at' at how things, like the Universe, work.

For example, there is not a skerrick of proof nor a shred of actual evidence that the Universe began. However, because of pre-exiting theories and assumptions some people have 'interpreted' some data to mean that the Universe, Itself, began, and is expanding. And, worse still, some so-called "scientists" actually believe, speak, and/or write as though the Universe did actually begin. So much for 'looking at' things 'objectively'.