Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Gee wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm
I can see where design would cause a person to consider and reflect on different ways to perceive an idea, but this has nothing to do with religion. When I was very young, I thought that the 'hol' in holism was about something being 'holy' so I associated it with religion, but it is more about something being whole. Holistic thought is about the way one processes information.
Yes. But holistic thought is much simpler than that, I think. It involves seeing and understanding Everything to be connected, to be an indivisible part of the one Whole that we call "the Universe". And so yes, "holistic thought is about the way one processes information", and more than that too.
Yes. I agree that holistic thought is about the whole of an idea and also about the parts that make up that whole, but I don't think it is simple. Connecting a peanut butter and jelly sandwich to the alternator of a '57 Chevy will not garner you much information. They may both be part of the whole, but they don't share a relationship that is relevant and can teach us anything.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Gee wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm
Gathering a lot of different things/ideas together in order to see if any relate is not a scientific principle and is as far from scientific testing as a person can get, this is the opposite of isolating something to test it and why I said that it is not a scientific practice. Gathering different and often unrelated things is more like working a puzzle, an investigative tool which would be used more by philosophy, which does not make it less logical or reasonable.
Mathematical category theory is a "scientific principle", isn't it? It covers abstraction, which is part of what you're talking about here. Abstraction is about bringing categories together, in accordance with their similarities and differences, while also retaining rigour. But it does resemble detective work, as you imply here.
I will have to take your word for it because I have no idea of what Mathematical Category Theory is, but it sounds right. Einstein used his mind to study the ideas that formed his theory of Relativity, but he used math to prove his ideas.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Gee wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 4th, 2024, 7:15 am
Any properly-trained scientist will tell you that "scientific fact" is as much an oxymoron as "military intelligence".
This is not true. You are being cute now. A philosopher might state that, but no scientist, who has spent years in training in order to be able to identify what is fact and what is not is going to say something so ridiculous.
Sorry, you missed my point. There is no such thing as a scientific fact. All that science offers, on any subject, is its best current understanding, with the very clear understanding that it will stand only until something better is discovered.
Spoken like a true philosopher. A scientific fact is something that has been proven through objective observation and testing. It will remain a fact until/unless proven otherwise by subsequent testing. Truth is another matter; philosophers like truth.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 6th, 2024, 10:56 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑October 4th, 2024, 7:15 am
The view that science gives of emotion, as you describe, is *external*. It is the view that a Star Trek© Vulcan or Romulan might develop if they studied humans, the view of someone on the outside. But as we all know well, the view from the *inside* of a human is very different. So different that I am willing to suggest that the scientific view of emotion is next to useless.
Gee wrote: ↑October 5th, 2024, 6:39 pm
You are talking about subjective and objective, not internal and external.
No, I'm talking about how emotion affects real human beings, in the real world, living their real lives. Emotion can no more be apprehended from the outside than autism, or giving birth, can. Some things have to be experienced before we can fully understand them. Emotions are one such thing, I suggest.
You are talking about 'subjective' and 'internal' and 'human' emotions, which is NOT a study of emotion, it is a study of humans. I don't study 'humans', I study consciousness and that means I also study emotion.
All multi-celled species have hormones; these hormones direct the self-preservation, or survival instincts, of the life form; all of these instincts are activated by feeling, which can be as simple as a 'want' or as strong as a passion. Every species that has survival instincts and hormones that work inside the body also has pheromones that work outside the body and between bodies and in some cases between species -- these are also activated through feeling. So between the plants, insects, birds, fish, and animals, there are an unfathomable number of pheromones zipping around a forest all the time, which is probably why a forest smells so good. Except for the part where I speculated about a forest smelling good, all the above is verifiable.
Also consider that we recognize emotion in others with more than just body language. I suspect that we actually see strong emotion but do not really recognize what we are seeing. The reason that I think so is because we write about it and talk about it. Read a novel and you will come across expressions like, "Joy radiated from the newly wed.", or "Anger rolled off of him in waves.", or "Their terror was tangible.", or "The child stood in a pool of innocence." I suspect that some animals can actually see our strong emotions.
But you will not read, "Thoughts radiated from the newly wed.", or "Calculation rolled off of him in waves.", or "Their plans were tangible.", or "The child stood in a pool of thoughtlessness." Because we do not describe thought as having form or being outside of the body, but we do it with emotion routinely. This is just another example of what led me to conclude that thought is internal and private, but emotion is external and shared. And of course, there is bonding.
Gee