Science is a method used to predict some variables by observing other variables. The variables must be externally observable. Science operates through repeatable experiments. The controlled experiment (in which all conditions except one are identical) is the purest form of science. However, there are many phenomena humans wish to predict which defy controlled experimentation (weather forecasting, for instance), and must be investigated through correlational evidence.
Even the "wiggly" complexities that we witness and experience in life are a spawn of intricate interactions between simple figures. Consciousness itself is just an ultra complex network of on's and off's. No matter what else may or may not exist in the multiverse, *we* exist in a universe that is encased in three dimensions, and so, we can only understand the universe in terms relating to these dimensions. The universe, one day, will be defined on a grid of infinite squares.
Science is not a method of description. Or rather, it is a method of description of rules and laws that govern natural processes, not a method of description of said processes.
Science doesn't describe leafs, it describes what leafs do and how they do it.
Though I can understand why it would be hard to understand that distinction at that time considering the example from biology.
Obviously biology could only be an exercise in pointless classification without the theory of evolution in place.
@Siomistic As I said, science doesn't describe the world, it describes the proesses and the rules that govern them. The purpose of science never was accurate descrition of the world so this argument is kind of missed.
@S0chan Right, and the 'description' the 'processes' and the 'rules' are all invented words that attempt to contain (put in a box) 'that which can never be known'. Made up stuff that is only true according to made up rules.
@Siomistic I wouldn't say "put in a box", rather simplify that which we otherwise cannot understand. You make it seem as if science is a world view or a life philosophy. It's not, it's a method of and a system for understanding the workings of the psychical universe, nothing more and nothing less. It's just a tool.
@S0chan 'Simplifying' to me is trying to put that which we otherwise cannot understand (that which isn't in words and is beyond words) into mental images or words. I agree...it's a method of and a system for understanding (trying to put into finite words or images) the workings of the physical universe(which is infinite). And that's basically what Watts was saying It's just a 'tool'. You keep on trying to seperate the 'processes' and 'rules' from 'the world'. A description is a description.
A game engine is the implementation of the core functionality for every game like the mechanics and physics featured in the game or the rendering engine that recreates the visual effects that will be added later. Many games can make use of the same engine, for example Half Life spawned an engine used buy Counter Strike, Team Fortress Classic and many others.
The engine alone could never be considered a game because it cannot be played.
@Siomistic The same way the system rules and equations that describe our physical world would never be consideres a description of our world because they only focus on the core part, you could say the "engine" on which our world in all it's detail is built.
@S0chan Are you saying the physical world is built upon thought. Because to me everything we are talking about are words. Words from a dictionary in which every word is defined by every other word. I can see though where the intellect and everything it has come up with...science, religion etc. is a very important 'tool'...an important 'part' of a greater whole. I was just saying from what I've learned through people like Watts and Krishnamurti that the part can't comprehend the whole.
@Siomistic I don't think me or anyone alse is capable of competently disputing that.
Of course we are trying to understand the world only through our own constructs which effectively makes it impossible to be truly close to the reality that surrounds us, no matter how well we will understand it.
And naturally I'm not saying that the world is "build on though", such things can only be asserted without evidence which is pretty pointless to me. My only point was about science.
@S0chan I only asked "are you saying the physical world is built upon thought" because you said "...they only focus on the core part...the engine upon which our world is built" which to me is a thought. In the 'real' world there are no seperate parts, 'parts' only exist in thought, language, words and images etc. I'll continue thinking on your words...thanks for the food for thought!
@S0chan Hey, and if you can show me something... I'm listening and will learn from what you're saying. I enjoy this! I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to be smart or anything. Peace
@S0chan Well put. Take those ideas and apply them to Buddhism, God, religion, etc. and one will be on the right track to figuring it out. Its in the way..."...that you use it. It comes and it goes."
a. in seeking to describe the rules & laws that govern natural processes, scientific inquest therefore instates a description of said natural processes though undertaking scientific methodology. ie- describing the rules & laws of nature inaction is in itself a descriptive process.
b. science could not describe what leaves do and how they do it without describing what a leaf is.
c. biology wouldn't be pointless classification without evolution. Bio & Evo are both descriptions.
Please visit "Introduction to Buddhism through Science" for more information on this topic.
sopopasserby 6 months ago
he's like a mister rogers of philosophy
Lotusflowerism 6 months ago
Science is a method used to predict some variables by observing other variables. The variables must be externally observable. Science operates through repeatable experiments. The controlled experiment (in which all conditions except one are identical) is the purest form of science. However, there are many phenomena humans wish to predict which defy controlled experimentation (weather forecasting, for instance), and must be investigated through correlational evidence.
wouldaben 6 months ago
Even the "wiggly" complexities that we witness and experience in life are a spawn of intricate interactions between simple figures. Consciousness itself is just an ultra complex network of on's and off's. No matter what else may or may not exist in the multiverse, *we* exist in a universe that is encased in three dimensions, and so, we can only understand the universe in terms relating to these dimensions. The universe, one day, will be defined on a grid of infinite squares.
tannsz 7 months ago
But isn't science the least abstract of all systems of thought ?
seigneurvoland666 7 months ago
these videos are so rare...never saw or knew they exist, thanks for sharing!
kaspukas 1 year ago
Science is not a method of description. Or rather, it is a method of description of rules and laws that govern natural processes, not a method of description of said processes.
Science doesn't describe leafs, it describes what leafs do and how they do it.
Though I can understand why it would be hard to understand that distinction at that time considering the example from biology.
Obviously biology could only be an exercise in pointless classification without the theory of evolution in place.
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan
Excellent comment!
87SilentSpace 1 year ago
@87SilentSpace Why thank you my good sir. I'm flattered.
S0chan 1 year ago
@S0chan The whole point he's making though is the description is never the 'actual thing' described.
Siomistic 11 months ago
@Siomistic As I said, science doesn't describe the world, it describes the proesses and the rules that govern them. The purpose of science never was accurate descrition of the world so this argument is kind of missed.
S0chan 11 months ago
@S0chan Right, and the 'description' the 'processes' and the 'rules' are all invented words that attempt to contain (put in a box) 'that which can never be known'. Made up stuff that is only true according to made up rules.
Siomistic 11 months ago
@Siomistic I wouldn't say "put in a box", rather simplify that which we otherwise cannot understand. You make it seem as if science is a world view or a life philosophy. It's not, it's a method of and a system for understanding the workings of the psychical universe, nothing more and nothing less. It's just a tool.
S0chan 11 months ago
@S0chan 'Simplifying' to me is trying to put that which we otherwise cannot understand (that which isn't in words and is beyond words) into mental images or words. I agree...it's a method of and a system for understanding (trying to put into finite words or images) the workings of the physical universe(which is infinite). And that's basically what Watts was saying It's just a 'tool'. You keep on trying to seperate the 'processes' and 'rules' from 'the world'. A description is a description.
Siomistic 11 months ago
@Siomistic Allow me to try to use an analogy.
A game engine is not a description of a particular game, it's just the game engine.
S0chan 11 months ago
@S0chan Explain to me what a game engine is first
Siomistic 11 months ago
@Siomistic I also enjoy discussions like this.
A game engine is the implementation of the core functionality for every game like the mechanics and physics featured in the game or the rendering engine that recreates the visual effects that will be added later. Many games can make use of the same engine, for example Half Life spawned an engine used buy Counter Strike, Team Fortress Classic and many others.
The engine alone could never be considered a game because it cannot be played.
S0chan 11 months ago
@Siomistic The same way the system rules and equations that describe our physical world would never be consideres a description of our world because they only focus on the core part, you could say the "engine" on which our world in all it's detail is built.
At least that's how I see it.
S0chan 11 months ago
@S0chan Are you saying the physical world is built upon thought. Because to me everything we are talking about are words. Words from a dictionary in which every word is defined by every other word. I can see though where the intellect and everything it has come up with...science, religion etc. is a very important 'tool'...an important 'part' of a greater whole. I was just saying from what I've learned through people like Watts and Krishnamurti that the part can't comprehend the whole.
Siomistic 11 months ago
@Siomistic I don't think me or anyone alse is capable of competently disputing that.
Of course we are trying to understand the world only through our own constructs which effectively makes it impossible to be truly close to the reality that surrounds us, no matter how well we will understand it.
And naturally I'm not saying that the world is "build on though", such things can only be asserted without evidence which is pretty pointless to me. My only point was about science.
S0chan 11 months ago
@S0chan I only asked "are you saying the physical world is built upon thought" because you said "...they only focus on the core part...the engine upon which our world is built" which to me is a thought. In the 'real' world there are no seperate parts, 'parts' only exist in thought, language, words and images etc. I'll continue thinking on your words...thanks for the food for thought!
Siomistic 11 months ago
@Siomistic And I agree. I admit my wording of the explanation might not have been the best. Unfortunately english is not my native language..
S0chan 11 months ago
Comment removed
Siomistic 11 months ago
@S0chan Hey, and if you can show me something... I'm listening and will learn from what you're saying. I enjoy this! I hope I don't sound like I'm trying to be smart or anything. Peace
Siomistic 11 months ago
@S0chan Well put. Take those ideas and apply them to Buddhism, God, religion, etc. and one will be on the right track to figuring it out. Its in the way..."...that you use it. It comes and it goes."
1try80deny 7 months ago
@S0chan ---
a. in seeking to describe the rules & laws that govern natural processes, scientific inquest therefore instates a description of said natural processes though undertaking scientific methodology. ie- describing the rules & laws of nature inaction is in itself a descriptive process.
b. science could not describe what leaves do and how they do it without describing what a leaf is.
c. biology wouldn't be pointless classification without evolution. Bio & Evo are both descriptions.
WKRPinCINN 6 months ago
Comment removed
AmericanSpur 2 months ago