patrick.net

I over-reacted because it seemed to be a very silly argument...that shock waves were somehow supernatural and/or directly related to the wave/particle nature of electrons. But you were not actually making that assertion since you hadn't even seen the last part of the video with the rocket.

wthrfrk80 says

I didn't realize you hadn't even seen that part of the video. Total mistake on my part.

Okay. But now that I've seen it, I don't think it was meant as anything other than filler for viewers, or possibly just an example of waves that are visual. (and it is kind of cool). I thought it was clear that the other (cartoon) video had ended.

That slit experiment is one of the most famous examples of the weirdness that goes on at the quantum level, but believe me people don't try to make inferences
about the realities on our level from the weirdness at the sub atomic level.

But it is weird. As far as we know, at the particle level, matter is almost entirely space. And the models that explain things (the behavior and the Math), such as string theory or the MWI are bizarre.

As we quantify things, and learn how they work well enough to make use of them, does this mean we totally understand ? Maybe my problem is that I am not as easily convinced that I understand things as many people are.

Marcus,

Consider what you've posted:

marcus says

How much of this is brain chemistry, how much is part of a sum total of experience, versus how much might even have to do with some real truths or only personal truths (models) ? I just don't know.

marcus says

But yes it is my opinion that we will ever know everything about the brain.

Now, based on what you've posted: I came to an understanding that you are thinking that there's something beyond the human brain that we don't possibly understand about our human experience and we will NEVER know what that something is.

What I was trying to show was that there's adequate understanding about the human brain to demonstrate that ALL our human experience is through constructs of the brain.

I've read a little about neuroscience and I am keenly interested to learn new things in that field. Based on what I know, the brain is complex enough to accomodate ALL of our human experience and then some.

You keep saying "I don't know and I may never know"..which means that if you start reading more about a subject, you'll start knowing more. Sure there would be finer and finer questions, but that's the beauty of science. Finer and Finer questioning can be answered. That is the challenge.

marcus says

I think I originally distinguished between personal truth and absolute truth.

Yes and I think I was trying to show you that personal truth is ambiguous: Personally, I can have an opinion or a belief, but that's not truth. I suppose I was setting a higher standard for what you'd call "truth", than what you were portraying.

marcus says

People use models all the time in science, psychology, economics, and business for the purposes of making decisions. Because decisions are sometimes required. I didn't say it was good or bad.

Yes and I'm fine with that. Models are wonderful because we can simulate what "might" happen. But models are useless if they are not flexible. Models need to be adapted from what we learn about reality.

You were trying to show that models are somewhat closer to your personal truth idea and I was showing that it's not, because I can't think of anything that can be labeled such way.

marcus says

The BS and straw man projections are all of this kind of stuff

I'll leave it others who may be following this thread to judge if what I said was straw men.

Thanks for your compliment.

uomo_senza_nome says

Now, based on what you've posted: I came to an understanding that you are thinking that there's something beyond the human brain that we don't possibly understand about our human experience and we will NEVER know what that something is.

I didn't say this. Although I know what you're getting at. You're trying to take the conversation more towards an argument about spirituality. I'm not interested in going there. I might plant seed or try to get you thinking about something, but I have no interest in selling you on the idea that your way of seeing the world or interfacing with the world should be more like my way. I'm not saying my way is better.

But I can tell you with certainty that I never implied that the things that I see as far beyond human comprehension (call them transcendent for lack of a better word)in any way block my search for or appreciation of scientific knowledge.

I have respect for other areas of human thinking and achievement though. This includes some models that are not "true" in the absolute sense but are still rich areas of exploration. Yes it's true. For me, entertaining ideas can be fun without ruling them out because of an overly empirical bias.

Consider Jung ?

http://www.skepdic.com/collectiveun.html

http://psychology.about.com/od/personalitydevelopment/tp/archetypes.htm

http://www.kheper.net/topics/Jung/collective_unconscious.html

You are clearly more interested in the physical brain so I'll leave you this, an excellent series Charlie rose did a while back.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/E8zTtOGh3AQ&feature=fvsr

http://www.youtube.com/embed/z1Esj2dOGj0&feature=related