QuickTopic free message boards logo

The document below has a numbered blue "comment dot" () following selected items. Click a blue dot to add your comment regarding that item. A glasses icon () indicates existing comments on an item; click it to see them. Click the buttons above to navigate between views.

You can add a general comment here:
 Add a general commentAdd a general comment
Show comments in-line

Page 1  2  All 
<<prev page

 

            PHILOSOPHICAL/SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES TO NU Add your comment on this item20

             

            ARE HUMANS ONLY ADVANCED ANIMALS OR SOMETHING MORE? Add your comment on this item21

             

            Are humans only animals with greater cognitive competencies (as are present in mammals to a lesser extent) with language?  Might humans represent a new emergent domain of reality beyond the biological, as the biological (in contemporary scientific perspectives) emerged from an inanimate universe of galaxies and star dust?  Biological systems contain the basic components of the prior inanimate universe, but it would require considerable imagination to dream of the rich life in GAIA if one knew only the physics and chemistry of matter and force fields. Human systems with languaging, creativity, spirituality and aesthetics have a biological foundation, but what is emerging can no better be imagined than we could imagine life when there was no life. Add your comment on this item22

             

            We might vary the query and ask whether bacteria could imagine multi-celled eukaryotic organisms that further organized into complex societies with technological prowess. We might say that life itself was embryonic in its early millennia. Might it be that what humans have the potential to become over many millennia of non violent cultural/societal galdee makes our present state (as spectacular as it is to us) but embryonic? Add your comment on this item23

             

            It is an interesting exercise to examine humankind alternatively from each of the phases of life of a human - from the early stages of cell division following conception, to the various phases of embryonic and fetal development, through the birthing process, infant, child, and  youth development, puberty, the stages of adult development, to mid life crises, and the stages of eldering and the process of dying, and death.  Don't ask what stage best represents humankind today.  Learn more about humankind from each analog. Add your comment on this item24

             

            Contemporary science treats the four defining characteristics of humankind (languaging, creativity, spirituality and aesthetics) as "emergent" epiphenomenon. The result is that the scientific study of them has been very limited (with the possible exception of languaging). Add your comment on this item25

             

            THE CONVENTIONAL SCIENTIFIC STORY OF REALITY - and ALTERNATIVE SPECULATIONS Add your comment on this item26

             

            Be it noted that the above (sem on "humans as only advanced animals or something more") was in the context of the conventional scientific story from the big bang, an expanding universe, star and atom creations, to solar systems and our very unique binary planetary system (Earth and Moon).  This is a story created by humans.  Add your comment on this item27

             

            Paradoxically, within this story we accept that each of our known worlds are constructed with brains interacting with environments, where brains and environments are themselves components of this construction. We have no direct access to an external reality. It is not outside of a nu scientific process to query whether their may be a kind of complementarity between our traditional cosmological story and one where humans (and probably other life forms) participate in the literal creation of the cosmological universe. Add your comment on this item28

             

            SPECULATIONS ON ALTERNATIVE REALITIES Add your comment on this item29

             

            This is speculation, but consider that most of what we know about the very small, the very large, and the very old is less than 200 years old. Almost all of the details result from the study of patterns in data displays fed by complex instruments. Theories are often embedded in the programs that massage the data before it is perceived by human scientists. There is building evidence that humans ("mentally") can influence the behavior of instruments.  Today the phenomenon is very weak. But, the direct effect of powerful nuclear forces requires complex human intervention - natural radioactive decay was an accidental discovery.  In a hypothetical parallel world, we may not yet know of the atom and the zoo of elementary particles.  What if life itself could influence the scientific instruments so that our scientific model of the physical universe (from quark to quasar) is a creative story?  Maybe other creative stories could be consistent with what we observe with our naked senses.  But then, what we experience via our senses is itself the result of very complex processes within the "instrumentation" of the brain. Add your comment on this item30

             

            I do not propose this speculation as being "real".  What has happened recently is the concepts of reality have changed, as has our very notion of knowledge and comprehension. No single, logically consistent linear explanatory system suffices to account for patterns in our recorded data. This was explicitly proposed by Neils Bohr in the early 20th Century and called the Principle of Complementarity (more popularly known by its exemplar, the so-called wave-particle duality).  But, the issue digs deeper.  The simple distinction between the observer and the observed in early Quantum Theory has become a tangled knot of circularity.  The linear is but a useful, simple tool.  Kurt Gödel, in 1931 asked the question, in logic, of logic: "Logic, are you Logical?", and the response was "No".  We post-moderns have yet to come to terms with the "discoveries" of Bohr (aided by William James) and Gödel. But, even these two "discoveries" are constructions within the tangled knot we call "reality". Add your comment on this item31

             

            It appears that the first conscious experiences of humans may have arisen first from inner imagination and fantasy, filled with gods, demons, and ancestors -- before we noted, in explicit consciousness, the sensory perceived world (which we had long perceived in the manner of other mammals).   Today, there are cultures that attribute "greater reality" to the dream/imaginative world than to the perceived world.  That the latter will and should supersede the former is no longer an empirically founded proposition of science - although most scientists would disagree, if they ever considered the issue.  Human cultures throughout our short history have constructed a great variety of interesting worlds. Each world was populated with humans who fully believed that their world was as they believed, and their behavior attempted to conform to the "laws" of their world.  Things often didn't happen as anticipated, but that seldom led them to doubt the TRUTH of their (constructed) REALITY. Add your comment on this item32

             

            What we must accept is that things haven't yet changed.  Constructed worlds have become more complex but no more secure in their being closer to the "ultimate". Humans are easily prone to hubris and exaggeration. A list of statements of ULTIMATE TRUTH by men and women of the HIGHEST AUTHORITY make humorous reading; but then we go out and make equivalently risky assertions. Add your comment on this item33

             

            EARTH IS POPULATED BY WIDE DIVERSITY OF WORLDS Add your comment on this item34

             

            This title phrase may first appear weird; isn't our Earth a world, so how can it be populated by worlds. Elsewhere there is explication on a potential shift of perspective/paradigm to each of us viewing ourselves as "worlds". We could rephrase this more conventionally by stating that Earth is populated by a wide diversity of cultures, each having their own beliefs about truth, reality, and the nature of their "world". Add your comment on this item35

             

            Those living in the elite cultures of the economically developed regions (many within pockets in developing and underdeveloped countries) believe in the secure reality as conveyed by Science and Technology, and the myths about social practices utilizing labels such as "democracy", "free enterprise", "capitalism", "globalization", etc.  What these people often don't realize is that their constructed world is known by and believed by a small minority of the human population.  Even among this elite population are many, who while they accept the material benefits of science and technology, and may be able to recite so-called scientific fact and theories, actually have a highly distorted view of the scientific or technological processes.  Indeed, when it comes to their views of their whole worlds, many believe in an external, dominant force they label "God", and much of their lifestyle and behaviors are dictated by these non-scientific beliefs. Add your comment on this item36

             

            Indeed, in 2005 this issue is coming to the surface in the United States where a majority of the population live in a world where personal opinion (often about their beliefs in God and Faith) trumps the findings of empirical research. This has always been the norm of "worlds" (with many variations); the "scientific worldview" (which has evolved) is actually quite recent and remains a small (if not powerful) minority. Add your comment on this item37

             

            Even within this constellation of scientific worldviews there is fundamental controversy, most of which is not only not made public, but is unknown to most practicing scientists and technologists working in their highly specialized sub-disciplines. The world of this elite in 2005 is vastly different from the world of this elite in 1905 or 1850. In our modern arrogance we wonder at the "stupidity" of our colleagues but a century ago. In 2005 we focus on our awesome achievements, but are oblivious of the lack of achievements in many other domains of reality relevant to human survival/thrival.  This general and abstract proposition cannot have significant meaning for most without an adequate exposure to some of the details of the history of our evolving worldviews -- which might be a future project for NU. Add your comment on this item38

             

            The significance and relevance of this "fact" about the limitations and insecurity of our "dominant" scientific worldview, is that those who devote their lives to activities whose goal is a real improvement of our living conditions and a more secure, sustainable future, buy into this worldview without doubt. Indeed, many attempt to construct their views of new worlds on their superficial interpretations of scientific discoveries, such as Quantum Theory. Add your comment on this item39

             

            I am not proposing that most of our scientific explanations of how the things they do study "work" will be proven "false" - although we may be in for some major paradigm shattering insights (as is in our tradition), but that the policies and practices of the scientific/technological establishments seaf R&D in some domains and severely limit R&D in other domains.  It is in these neglected domains of SciTech R&D that movements to create NU Worlds must reeee_seaf_galdee . Major neglected domains include quality education, quality organizing, quality healing, quality seafing of the galdee of individuals, interpersonal relationships, communities. Add your comment on this item40

             

            It is in this sense that I propose we view NU as transcending the "natural"; where "natural" applies to our contemporary scientific view of reality. But, also with an awareness that what is "natural" (the characteristics of "nature") may have widely diverse meaning for the majority of humans not accepting of our contemporary scientific worldview (even though they may benefit (or be oppressed) by its production. Add your comment on this item41

             

            SOCIAL EPISTEMOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL REALITIES OF SCIENCE (the views of Steve Fuller) -- to be written Add your comment on this item42

<<prev page
Page 1  2  All