For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
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.Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi wrote:...observations are interpreted within theoretical frameworks, and as those frameworks change, so does our understanding of the observations.
Theory is the observation for observation is interpretation, truth is story telling.Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Tue Aug 05, 2025 1:02 pmI 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.Sina Mirzaye Shirkoohi wrote:...observations are interpreted within theoretical frameworks, and as those frameworks change, so does our understanding of the observations.
Well, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.
Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.
Nice story...Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:33 pmWell, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.
Don't have to...reality is its own narrative.
Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent just like what is subjective is context dependent.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 11:11 pm What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:20 amObjective is relative for what is objective is context dependent, just like what is subjective is context dependent.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 11:11 pm What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations, then not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions, for that is what these things ultimately are.
Objectivity is purely an application of context.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:52 amThe objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:20 amObjective is relative for what is objective is context dependent, just like what is subjective is context dependent.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 15, 2025 11:11 pm What is objective is energy, frequencies, and vibrations; apparent reality is what subjective consciousness does with them. All meanings are subjective; thus, science as a meaning is subjective. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations, then not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions, for that is what these things ultimately are.
One does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:56 amObjectivity is purely an application of context.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:52 amThe objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 7:20 am
Objective is relative for what is objective is context dependent, just like what is subjective is context dependent.
The tools used to test such things are contexts by which we interpret. If biology is composed of such energies/frequencies/vibrations, then not all can be reduced to biology...rather all can be reduced to distinctions, for that is what these things ultimately are.
The physical world is a distinction, one cannot point to the empirical but by conceptualization. Concepts are contexts.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 9:16 amOne does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:56 amObjectivity is purely an application of context.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 8:52 am
The objective world is energy, frequencies, and vibrations, and their effects on altering the biology of life forms give the life forms experience. In philosophy, context is the world as object, and the subject is biological subjective consciousness. All things in our apparent reality are energy, frequencies, and vibrations as they alter the organism's body, which itself is energy, frequencies, and vibrations. One does not experience what is out there. One experiences how what is out there alters your biology, thus what you are experiencing is not the essence of the object but your altered biological state in its relation to what is out there, for apparent reality is a biological readout; it is a melody that energy, frequencies, and vibrations play upon biology like an instrument or a calculator fed numbers which then produces a total, the melody the total is apparent reality. Ultimate reality is the energy, frequencies, and vibrations we experience as the world of things. Biology is the measure and the meaning of all things.
Ok, perhaps we are splitting hairs here, would the reaction to pattern recognition be the same as your conceptualization? Would identifying an object be your idea of conceptualization? Would a sensation of the body, and then an understanding of that sensation, relative to what it means to the body/organism, have the same meaning?Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 9:43 amThe physical world is a distinction, one cannot point to the empirical but by conceptualization. Concepts are contexts.popeye1945 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 16, 2025 9:16 amOne does not need to apply context; context is the physical world as an object and can never be considered separate from its subject consciousness. In the absence of the subject, the world as object ceases to be-- subjectively. In the absence of the physical world as object, consciousness ceases to be, subjectively. They stand or fall together.
not true? but Horton heard that Who...Will Bouwman wrote: ↑Thu Aug 14, 2025 1:33 pmWell, all interpretations are theory laden, and it is certainly true that experiments are generally designed with some interpretation in mind. To that extent observations are determined by interpretations, but that observation is interpretation is a stretch.Not in my book. Philosophy is story telling, as are scientific hypotheses. Things can be true in the context of a story, but we can never be sure our stories are true.