Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is the price for you to fully refuse the knowledge about our meaning of life? An exact sum of British Pounds is desired.

This is based on the assumption that intjs should theoretically value Science.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
If there was a meaning - (As in a purpose to why life exists in this Universe) - no money could buy me to refuse from knowing.

Anyway, I believe the meaning of life has something to do about evolvement.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,011 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
@Oddnet

You are again on fire on the intj subforum. But as you actually have a point here, lets check it out. Evolment into/towards what? Whats the end goal, or direction youd take in consideration worthy of not for sale tag
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
I'd take a million pounds.

I would find it infinitesimally likely that any "scientist" has (i) any idea what their project would entail (ii) the ability to design experiments to that end (iii) the ability to interpret the results, beyond a tight synopsis of a given experiment's results (iv) the ability to not only marshal funding, but to collect a competent group of interdisciplinary peers willing to cooperate (v) access to non-existent apparatus of the future which could explore facts about neurology (fMRI, PET, for example, are technologies with some insuperable limitations, although I can't say what might be on the horizon for future technology).

If it has to do with subatomic structures, or non-human facts about the world or the universe, then I would just sort of laugh and say, "Go for it, monkey-boy. Have fun making your jet-pack, or autonomous vehicle of death."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
@Oddnet

You are again on fire on the intj subforum. But as you actually have a point here, lets check it out. Evolment into/towards what? Whats the end goal, or direction youd take in consideration worthy of not for sale tag
That's a good question. I think we have to start with facts we already know: The beginning of this universe (It is no fact it happened, but let's call it a fact anyway, since the big bang theory is mostly accepted in the scientific community.) During the beginning of this universe there was only energy. Later on the energy took different forms and the universe started to expand and evolve into different energies. After a couple of billions of years this universe had evolved into having stars, planets, etc. And then the energy found a new kind of energy-form, biological life, energy that we call microorganisms, and those microorganisms have evolved during billions of years which has led to the life on earth today. And now we live in special times, indeed times of evolvement. But evolvement into/towards what? I am not sure. I guess you'd have to listen to all people who seem to be "enlightened" in some kind of way, and then compare what they are all saying and see if you find a connection. To me it seems to be one is reaching a kind of mental condition in your thoughts, and where exactly those thought are and how to find them, I am not sure. But those thoughts might be another actual world that you enter after death. I am only speculating now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Science is not about the meaning of life, not able to answer that question. Science is about finding out what things are or how things work.

I don't have to go to science to find the meaning of life or the big picture. Science is so often wrong that it's silly to use it in that way. I love science, don't get me wrong, but I know enough to know not to believe that any of it is actually "right" and that there isn't the possibility of a totally different "truth" right around the corner. Read about science in the late 1890's - the thought they had solved everything - except the small "black box problem" ... the solution to which started the wave-particle duality and quantum mechanics revolution. It would be arrogant to assume that now that we know that, we know everything. Especially when science itself states that we don't know what makes up most of the universe (dark matter, dark energy, ect.)

Meaning/purpose is an ethics thing (Fi/Fe if how we process that if you want to view it that way).

Ni is about "what is the big picture?" On a cosmic scale, I can tell you. You won't like it, but I can tell you.

There is a God who exists outside this universe. It seems he is the only God, I don't know for sure but it seems that way. He created this universe by "speaking it into existence" something like string theory - everything at it's fundamental is a vibration in some dimension or field type. Every one of these vibrations (vibration types) is fine-tuned - we know from science that if any of the fundamental properties or constants were slightly different the universe would be uninhabitable or already collapsed. There's way more than that but that's the cosmic stuff. The truth of it is far stranger than any show/movie we've ever come up with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
Science is not about the meaning of life, not able to answer that question. Science is about finding out what things are or how things work.

I don't have to go to science to find the meaning of life or the big picture. Science is so often wrong that it's silly to use it in that way. I love science, don't get me wrong, but I know enough to know not to believe that any of it is actually "right" and that there isn't the possibility of a totally different "truth" right around the corner. Read about science in the late 1890's - the thought they had solved everything - except the small "black box problem" ... the solution to which started the wave-particle duality and quantum mechanics revolution. It would be arrogant to assume that now that we know that, we know everything. Especially when science itself states that we don't know what makes up most of the universe (dark matter, dark energy, ect.)

Meaning/purpose is an ethics thing (Fi/Fe if how we process that if you want to view it that way).

Ni is about "what is the big picture?" On a cosmic scale, I can tell you. You won't like it, but I can tell you.

There is a God who exists outside this universe. It seems he is the only God, I don't know for sure but it seems that way. He created this universe by "speaking it into existence" something like string theory - everything at it's fundamental is a vibration in some dimension or field type. Every one of these vibrations (vibration types) is fine-tuned - we know from science that if any of the fundamental properties or constants were slightly different the universe would be uninhabitable or already collapsed. There's way more than that but that's the cosmic stuff. The truth of it is far stranger than any show/movie we've ever come up with.
Did I argue with you about God was a man or not or whatever, like 1½ year ago in the 'Ask an INTJ a question'? Sorry if I came off as harsh or something, I just believe in my belief very passionately.

I also believe in some kind of god/gods, however, there is a lot of bull shit in religious writings, but also wisdom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,902 Posts
Did I argue with you about God was a man or not or whatever, like 1½ year ago in the 'Ask an INTJ a question'? Sorry if I came off as harsh or something, I just believe in my belief very passionately.

I also believe in some kind of god/gods, however, there is a lot of bull shit in religious writings, but also wisdom.
I was answering the original post/question, sorry that wasn't clear. I don't think we've ever talked before. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
195 Posts
Science is not about the meaning of life, not able to answer that question. Science is about finding out what things are or how things work.

I don't have to go to science to find the meaning of life or the big picture. Science is so often wrong that it's silly to use it in that way. I love science, don't get me wrong, but I know enough to know not to believe that any of it is actually "right" and that there isn't the possibility of a totally different "truth" right around the corner. Read about science in the late 1890's - the thought they had solved everything - except the small "black box problem" ... the solution to which started the wave-particle duality and quantum mechanics revolution. It would be arrogant to assume that now that we know that, we know everything. Especially when science itself states that we don't know what makes up most of the universe (dark matter, dark energy, ect.)

Meaning/purpose is an ethics thing (Fi/Fe if how we process that if you want to view it that way).

Ni is about "what is the big picture?" On a cosmic scale, I can tell you. You won't like it, but I can tell you.

There is a God who exists outside this universe. It seems he is the only God, I don't know for sure but it seems that way. He created this universe by "speaking it into existence" something like string theory - everything at it's fundamental is a vibration in some dimension or field type. Every one of these vibrations (vibration types) is fine-tuned - we know from science that if any of the fundamental properties or constants were slightly different the universe would be uninhabitable or already collapsed. There's way more than that but that's the cosmic stuff. The truth of it is far stranger than any show/movie we've ever come up with.

@luemb, smth nice to read here. I totally agree with you.

the purpose of life should be defined by any term less science that seems to be disturbing the purpose of life these days more and more often...
 
  • Like
Reactions: luemb

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
I was answering the original post/question, sorry that wasn't clear. I don't think we've ever talked before. :)
Oh ok :wave:

Ni is about "what is the big picture?" On a cosmic scale, I can tell you. You won't like it, but I can tell you.

There is a God who exists outside this universe. It seems he is the only God, I don't know for sure but it seems that way. He created this universe by "speaking it into existence" something like string theory - everything at it's fundamental is a vibration in some dimension or field type. Every one of these vibrations (vibration types) is fine-tuned - we know from science that if any of the fundamental properties or constants were slightly different the universe would be uninhabitable or already collapsed. There's way more than that but that's the cosmic stuff. The truth of it is far stranger than any show/movie we've ever come up with.
I'd love to hear more!
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Not sure about (Post #1), but I will concede that "science," is not about truth-seeking. (Rather error-reducing/correcting via exposing fallaciousness via the process of [elimination]). It is fallible, and consists of many, many falsehoods, indeed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,661 Posts
Not sure about (Post #1), but I will concede that "science," is not about truth-seeking. (Rather error-reducing/correcting via exposing fallaciousness via the process of [elimination]). It is fallible, and consists of many, many falsehoods, indeed.
Indeed. Our senses are not optimal for seeing "ultimate truth".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
645 Posts
Science is not about the meaning of life, not able to answer that question. Science is about finding out what things are or how things work.

I don't have to go to science to find the meaning of life or the big picture. Science is so often wrong that it's silly to use it in that way. I love science, don't get me wrong, but I know enough to know not to believe that any of it is actually "right" and that there isn't the possibility of a totally different "truth" right around the corner. Read about science in the late 1890's - the thought they had solved everything - except the small "black box problem" ... the solution to which started the wave-particle duality and quantum mechanics revolution. It would be arrogant to assume that now that we know that, we know everything. Especially when science itself states that we don't know what makes up most of the universe (dark matter, dark energy, ect.)

Meaning/purpose is an ethics thing (Fi/Fe if how we process that if you want to view it that way).

Ni is about "what is the big picture?" On a cosmic scale, I can tell you. You won't like it, but I can tell you.

There is a God who exists outside this universe. It seems he is the only God, I don't know for sure but it seems that way. He created this universe by "speaking it into existence" something like string theory - everything at it's fundamental is a vibration in some dimension or field type. Every one of these vibrations (vibration types) is fine-tuned - we know from science that if any of the fundamental properties or constants were slightly different the universe would be uninhabitable or already collapsed. There's way more than that but that's the cosmic stuff. The truth of it is far stranger than any show/movie we've ever come up with.
This is so close to my way of thinking ( Even the idea of "God" ). We are just monkeys that think that we are smart for knowing a little physics but the reality showed us how much ignorants we really are .

Maybe god is a avant-garde musician ( strings theory joke xD).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,168 Posts
As others have said, science is not about the truth. It does not have that aspiration. You need to go to philosophy and religion for that. Science is about evidence, and is, at its core, a way of thinking. AKA, the scientific method:

1. Observe. Look for patterns, anomalies.
2. Hypothesis. Come up with an idea to explain the patterns and anomalies
3. Test. A good test will give firm, objective evidence for or against the hypothesis. It will eliminate all factors except the one being tested.
4. Analyze results. Assess whether the results support the hypothesis.
5. Repeat test to see if the results are repeatable.
6. Peer reviews. Get other experts to analyze the experiment and look for flaws.


In science, nothing is ever regarded as proven. Ever. A theory can be strongly supported by the evidence, but that is it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
I will concede that "science," is not about truth-seeking. (Rather error-reducing/correcting via exposing fallaciousness via the process of [elimination])
Isn't that a different way of saying the same thing? Because - why else would one endeavor on a 'process of elimination', if not to find the truth? Finding the truth is implicit in the name 'process of elimination' itself; you eliminate what's false, with the goal of eventually ending up at the truth.

Likewise, if it's about "exposing fallaciousness", then by the same token it would be also about truth seeking. Since the opposite of fallaciousness (truth) is what would be the outcome of 'exposing fallaciousness' - so when you expose it, you would at the same time also be highlighting what's true.

I don't know what other reason one would ask "Why does x work the way it does?", and set about on a scientific method to find out - if not to find what the truth is.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,152 Posts
Because - why else would one endeavor on a 'process of elimination', if not to find the truth?
For you, I'd recommend reading the post directly above yours.

I'm not very much interested in the merely natural sciences, especially since it is the abstract sciences which are likely to provide more substantive keys to forming the structural components of the natural world, although I defer to the latest theories when it is convenient, and hold generally mainstream materialist views about the nature of mind, although the dominant computationalist theory of mind is a perversion full of mistakes.

I have nothing to add to Green Girl's very generous synopsis, but I would welcome a discussion based upon the points she outlined.

If you find my tone a bit impolite, I ask that you confine your retaliation to me alone, or, perhaps what is best, proceed in a more circumspect fashion in the future.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
Isn't that a different way of saying the same thing? Because - why else would one endeavor on a 'process of elimination', if not to find the truth?
For explanatory purposes; not necessarily for "truthes".

Finding the truth is implicit in the name 'process of elimination' itself; you eliminate what's false, with the goal of eventually ending up at the truth.
Except; "science," isn't about 'finding the truth,' but rather a fallibilistic search for low-risk explanations via implemented (i.e., testable models) and identifying (objective) high-POV-invariant gauges (intractable, random, events) and tolerate the lack of uncertainty - "experimenting on uncertainty". Truth is formal, propositional, mathematics ... - necessary, but not necessarily the goal of science.

Refining / critiqing / tuning - tweaking; not "truth-making / truth-telling / truth-seeking", per se. Although some specimens find this (reasonable) to toss science out the window,

"Well, if science isn't telling the "truth" about anything, science is stupid, let us pray!" ... Well, demonstrably, that is about as absurd, science is certaintly the most reliable error-exposing process to date, and certainly has made astounding discoveries, it's scientism-fetishizing cousin is no better. Ex; "Science is all about truth, and if you reject science you are stoopit! Or, this is "scientifically unimportant," therefore, has no importance whatsoever!" Ex 2; attempting to dismiss (X, Y, Z) because it is scientificially uninteresting, like language/linguistics, history and arts.

Science, well - depend(s) on the formers, to a great degree.

Likewise, if it's about "exposing fallaciousness", then by the same token it would be also about truth seeking. Since the opposite of fallaciousness (truth) is what would be the outcome of 'exposing fallaciousness' - so when you expose it, you would at the same time also be highlighting what's true.
No - rather; it assess the "tests, investigates" (X)-explanatory claims (re: state-of-affairs), made by disagreement: it highlights facts, and exposes non-facts / errors / inexplicables / toying with truth-values - so forth. The narrow net of truth does not cover the sea; which is what science examines.

Consider the: Phlogiston theory.

I don't know what other reason one would ask "Why does x work the way it does?", and set about on a scientific method to find out - if not to find what the truth is.
Why is a pseudo / semantical / distractions (re: susceptible to fallaciousness / infinite regress) fixations.... perhaps how, what, and so forth are less slippery.

_________


Unimportant/irrelevant but:


 


Stahl's hair makes me chuckle.


 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
For explanatory purposes; not necessarily for "truthes"
Except; "science," isn't about 'finding the truth,' but rather a fallibilistic search for low-risk explanations via implemented (i.e., testable models) and identifying (objective) high-POV-invariant gauges (intractable, random, events) and tolerate the lack of uncertainty - "experimenting on uncertainty"
It seems we are placing different definitions on truth.

You're saying truth is something 'unchangingly infallible'. And since science is based on empiricism, that necessitates a slowly building mountain of 'temporary truths' - things that are true 'for the time being', until new information modifies it in some way, or unseats it entirely.

I'm saying truth is what is demonstrably true, albeit also falsifiable; not holding any 'infallibility'. So gravity for example, it is 'truth' that if we walk off a building, gravity will pull us toward the Earth. But also that if it's falsified at some point, then that will be truth.

I'm placing the emphasis more on the nature of truth, rather than something literally (in the literal sense) being infallibly, unerringly 'truth'. There's a little 'religion' connotation attached with it due to the 'infallibility' component, but I'm casting truth as synonymous with reason and empiricism.

Karl Popper's quote on the matter sums up what I was positing - he said "Science consists of the search for truth, but is not the search for certainty. All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain"
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,623 Posts
Speaking of which, this brings up a new question. @V i x e n ... if we were to say truth is something 'unchangingly infallible' - and we know that human knowledge is fallible and liable to change pending new evidence that modifies it...

Then would that mean that nothing can ever attain 'truth'? And if so, then would that cast the word into the same realm as myth and religion? That is, it's a word, it's just not a word that would ever be ascribed to anything in the actual, physical world - thus making it somewhat analogous to the minotaur or pegasus?
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,448 Posts
I'm placing the emphasis more on the nature of truth, rather than something literally (in the literal sense) being infallibly, unerringly 'truth'. There's a little 'religion' connotation attached with it due to the 'infallibility' component, but I'm casting truth as synonymous with reason and empiricism.

Karl Popper's quote on the matter sums up what I was positing - he said "Science consists of the search for truth, but is not the search for certainty. All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain"
To reinterate: I do not see how this is incompatible with my post.

(Post #17); To address Popper's quote: "Science consisting of 'the search for truth/ truth-seeking, et al'," does not imply science's "primary" goal is 'seeking/finding truths/a quest for truth' (re: Post #1).

To which you quoted:

Isn't that a different way of saying the same thing? Because - why else would one endeavor on a 'process of elimination', if not to find the truth?.
Which is not the case.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top