![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 57 to 81 of 81. Go back in thread:
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:04:15
In reply to Re: Astrology » Damos, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:09:43
> dunno what it was over here...
>
> maybe about 27 C
>
> but it was hot!!!
>
> <whine>
>
> (humidity)Sissy. ;-)
That's not hot. Last summer we had 43 days over 30. 11 nights were over 30. You'd never make it through, in Canada.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:14:38
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 21:08:32
> i'm sorry larry...
Okay, now I'm wishing I refreshed the page before I posted about belief.
I'm sorry too.
> i've been 'indoctrinated' (yes, perhaps it does amount to that) regarding naturalism and the place of philosophy as on a continuum with the natural sciences...
>
> it is sometimes known as the 'canberra plan' of philosophy, and it is a style of philosophy that is accepted at other places too...
>
> and it is a style of philosophy that some people don't like. don't like at all. and... well... if the canberra plan was to make *all* philosophy part of the canberra plan then there might be a problem or two... and perhaps... well perhaps they do this by ignoring / casting aside all other kinds of philsophy... i don't know.
>
> my point is just that...
>
> i am interested in explanation.
>
> i am interested in the cause of your experience.
>
> and...
>
> i accept naturalistic explanations (ones that cohere well with current naturalistic explanations)
>
> over supernatural explanaitons
>
> where supernatural explanations involve us making changes to the assumptions of the naturalistic explanations
>
> (which have helped us out rather a lot you will admit with modern advances in medicine and technology and tv and computer and sattelight and radar and rockets to the moon etc etc)True. But need everything have an explanation? Is it inherent to the Canberra Plan, to explain everything?
I suppose that what I was trying to describe has a naturalistic explanation. It wouldn't have happended otherwise, would it? We just don't yet know what the explanation is. I don't, anyway.
Lar
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 23:17:48
In reply to Re: Astrology » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:01:52
I'm sorry for acting crazy again.
Don't know what's up with me.
Sigh...
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:23:35
In reply to This thread upsets me, posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 22:53:57
> I didn't mean to accuse Larry of believing/forming theories of why.
Did you do that? I took it as teasing. Good-natured teasing.
> Maybe I'm going crazy. Is Larry yelling at me?
No. I'm not yelling at you. I haven't yelled at anybody in this thread. Not in my mind. Not "on paper". No yelling, anywhere.
I've tried to tighten my prose, to become very explicit, because I felt misunderstood.
> I get that he means that he recorded observations. He didn't derive any meanings from the observations. they are just that.
>
> DenebThat is how I think, and how I meant to be read. Yes. That is correct.
May we put my story to rest? May I offer you The Cyber Butter Tart of Peace? And one for you, too, alexandra?
Lar
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 23:29:27
In reply to Re: A peace offering » Deneb, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:23:35
>May I offer you The Cyber Butter Tart of Peace? And one for you, too, alexandra?
>
> LarThanks Larry :-)
I feel better now.
My mind isn't thinking straight so it misinterprets what people write.
Deneb
Posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 23:56:52
In reply to This thread upsets me, posted by Deneb on January 1, 2006, at 22:53:57
> I didn't mean to accuse Larry of believing/forming theories of why.
>
> Maybe I'm going crazy. Is Larry yelling at me?I'm not accusing Larry of yelling at me. I was just asking.
Posted by gardenergirl on January 2, 2006, at 5:53:55
In reply to Re: Hey Lar, » crazy teresa, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 12:47:47
> > She is the mystery, to me. Not the astrology. The Reiki. The astrology. They were just her tools.
>
> LarHi Lar,
I've gone for a massage with someone who also does Reiki, reflexology, therapeutic touch, cranical-sacral therapy, and the like. She would sometimes use oils on my forehead, chest, or hands.Everything she did was gentle and very different from my usual Swedish massage. As you said, she is someone who has a number of tools at her disposal, including an incredible intuition. Going to see her is more about being in her presence and allowing her to work freely, while providing feedback on how things feel.
But it feels, at times, like I am in the presence of an angel or some other very special, spiritual healer.
And I would also go home and nap for a few hours afterwards. I felt calmer, more balanced, and more in tune with my own body and experiences.
It's quite an experience, and I would imagine they are all unique and hard to describe to others.
Glad you had yours. Hmmm, maybe I should give her a call.
gg
Posted by LegWarmers on January 2, 2006, at 12:01:24
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 1, 2006, at 18:58:07
> i don't believe in ghosts or demons or spirits or souls or phlogiston or the tooth fairy etc etc etcbut Alex! there is a tooth fairy, she brought me money for my teeth when I was small. I even have a note she wrote for proof. Does that mean you not believe in Santa claus either?
; )
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:42:39
In reply to Re: Astrology ?alexandra_k, posted by LegWarmers on January 2, 2006, at 12:01:24
> but Alex! there is a tooth fairy, she brought me money for my teeth when I was small. I even have a note she wrote for proof.
And I bet you got ripped off (theres stem cells in them teeth)
;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:48:14
In reply to Re: Astrology ?alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on January 1, 2006, at 23:14:38
> But need everything have an explanation?
Hmm. Well lets see... Scientist A observes a phenomena and Scientists B and C get all excited. 'Calm down' says scientist A 'I don't think that event has an explanation'.
Is that acceptable?
(Sometimes people don't want to know - but that is a seperate issue)
> Is it inherent to the Canberra Plan, to explain everything?
It is inherent in scientific theory and has thus become part of the plan, yup. The idea isn't to explain everything... But the idea is that all naturalistic phenomena can be given a naturalistic explanation.
You see... If we don't believe that all naturalistic phenomena has a naturalistic explanation then why would we bother looking for a naturalistic explanation? If we reject that assumption... Then haven't we given up on a scientific explanation of the natural world?
That is not to say that science is immune to revision, of course. Maybe... Physics needs to give a little in order to incorporate consciousness (for example)...
Mmmmm. Good butter tart Larry ;-)
Posted by LegWarmers on January 2, 2006, at 23:06:56
In reply to Re: Astrology » LegWarmers, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:42:39
> > but Alex! there is a tooth fairy, she brought me money for my teeth when I was small. I even have a note she wrote for proof.
>
> And I bet you got ripped off (theres stem cells in them teeth)
>
> ;-)
>
>oh cr*p, Im so naive, to think, I thought my teeth were being used to help with an addition to fairy land because of the influx of teeth falling out and the need for more space for fairys to keep up with the high demand for tooth-money delvery-pickup . Thats what she said in her note. I'll bet my teeth ended up on the black market. I need to take some deep breaths
;)
um, and why is my name staying like that in the subject?
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 23:14:36
In reply to Re: Astrology ?LegWarmers ?alexandra_k, posted by LegWarmers on January 2, 2006, at 23:06:56
> um, and why is my name staying like that in the subject?dunno...
am posting from an internet cafe and the format is all up the f*ck.the little symbol before the person who the post is directed to...
is showing up as a question mark.
maybe...
it isn't attaching a header to a heading...
it is making the persons name part of the heading?
Posted by LegWarmers on January 2, 2006, at 23:23:20
In reply to Re: Astrology » LegWarmers, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 23:14:36
>
> > um, and why is my name staying like that in the subject?
>
> dunno...
> am posting from an internet cafe and the format is all up the f*ck.
>I like that, all up the f*ck :)
> the little symbol before the person who the post is directed to...
>
> is showing up as a question mark.
>
> maybe...
>
> it isn't attaching a header to a heading...
>
> it is making the persons name part of the heading?
>
>thats strange, Is it a full moon tonight ;)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 23:29:27
In reply to Re: Astrology ?alexandra_k, posted by LegWarmers on January 2, 2006, at 23:23:20
and why aren't you in bed asleep?????i came all the way in here to try and catch up with posts and i have a splitting headache...
:-(
might have to flag it for today...
:-(
lost building access until the 5th. Have been hassling people to let me in but got a bit scared someone was going to call security yesterday ;-)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 23:30:12
In reply to Re: Astrology, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 23:29:27
jeepers... i am pathetic...
nah.
i just miss babbling...
and i need to catch up on emails
(sorry sorry)
Posted by Larry Hoover on January 2, 2006, at 23:37:26
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 22:48:14
> > But need everything have an explanation?
>
> Hmm. Well lets see... Scientist A observes a phenomena and Scientists B and C get all excited. 'Calm down' says scientist A 'I don't think that event has an explanation'.
>
> Is that acceptable?It might be the truth.
> (Sometimes people don't want to know - but that is a seperate issue)
Indeed.
> > Is it inherent to the Canberra Plan, to explain everything?
>
> It is inherent in scientific theory and has thus become part of the plan, yup. The idea isn't to explain everything... But the idea is that all naturalistic phenomena can be given a naturalistic explanation.I disagree. See below.
> You see... If we don't believe that all naturalistic phenomena has a naturalistic explanation then why would we bother looking for a naturalistic explanation?I believe that all phenomena, *all* phenomena, have naturalistic explanations. I also believe that we are not yet in possession of naturalistic explanations for all observed phenomena.
Yet. I love that word.
You said, "...all naturalistic phenomena can be given a naturalistic explanation."
I disagreed. I disagreed because we may not yet satisfy that second process, the part beginning with the word "can".
We can't always do so, no matter what our belief is with respect to the naturalistic origin of phenomena themselves.
> If we reject that assumption... Then haven't we given up on a scientific explanation of the natural world?
No.
> That is not to say that science is immune to revision, of course. Maybe... Physics needs to give a little in order to incorporate consciousness (for example)...
Revision. Expansion. Yet. That's where the fun is. The edges. The edges of what we know.
It's all a flow. A process. Even with a discreet beginning, I don't anticipate an end.
> Mmmmm. Good butter tart Larry ;-)
They are yummy. Come to Toronto in May, and get a Magick one. You see, I do believe in Magick, but I limit my belief to the art of Butter Tartery. ;-)
Lar
Posted by LegWarmers on January 3, 2006, at 8:52:09
In reply to Re: Astrology, posted by alexandra_k on January 2, 2006, at 23:29:27
>
> and why aren't you in bed asleep?????
>lol I lost track of time, was very late.
> i came all the way in here to try and catch up with posts and i have a splitting headache...
>
> :-(
>sorry about your head
> might have to flag it for today...
>
> :-(
>
> lost building access until the 5th. Have been hassling people to let me in but got a bit scared someone was going to call security yesterday ;-)
>
>That really sucks. But only one more day :)
Posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 19:17:22
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on January 2, 2006, at 23:37:26
> I believe that all phenomena, *all* phenomena, have naturalistic explanations.
Do numbers have a naturalistic explanation? How about logical truths? Or ethical facts (such as it being morally wrong to torture an innocent child for fun)?
Maybe...
But it is a weaker claim to restrict ourselves to *natural phenomena* having a naturalistic explanation...
I don't think you are disagreeing with me... But you are going on to make a stronger claim... And I'm less sure that the stronger claim is true than I was that the weaker claim was true...
(And I'm not saying it is true so much as something that needs to be assumed for pragmatic reasons...)
> I also believe that we are not yet in possession of naturalistic explanations for all observed phenomena.
Sure. The sciences are far from complete...
> You said, "...all naturalistic phenomena can be given a naturalistic explanation."
> I disagreed. I disagreed because we may not yet satisfy that second process, the part beginning with the word "can".
> We can't always do so, no matter what our belief is with respect to the naturalistic origin of phenomena themselves.So... You think there might be a naturalistic explanation that we *cannot* grasp / understand as a matter of... contingent facts about particular people being fairly stupid? Or as a matter of principle (because of our limitations as a species)? I'm not sure I'm following...
> Revision. Expansion. Yet. That's where the fun is. The edges. The edges of what we know.
Sure. Fertile grounds for theory ;-)
> It's all a flow. A process. Even with a discreet beginning, I don't anticipate an end.
Philosophers have been known to talk about 'the final science'. The 'final science' when science is complete and all natural phenomena have been given a natural explanation.It is an idealisation...
I have been known to say (though I think I picked this up from somewhere)
The final science is when nobody has a further question...
But regardless of whether we achieve it or not...
(And we surely won't in our lifetimes...)
That is thought to be the aim...
That is thought to be the point...
Posted by AuntieMel on January 4, 2006, at 11:21:55
In reply to Re: Astrology » Larry Hoover, posted by alexandra_k on January 3, 2006, at 19:17:22
Ok, for fun:
-----------------
"Do numbers have a naturalistic explanation? How about logical truths? Or ethical facts (such as it being morally wrong to torture an innocent child for fun)?"
It is morally wrong to me and to most people, but are morals "facts?" Many "ethical facts" to one are not to another.
---------------------------------
"But regardless of whether we achieve it or not...
(And we surely won't in our lifetimes...)
That is thought to be the aim...
That is thought to be the point..."Well, I believe that:
the Point and the Aim are thought.....
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 17:43:20
In reply to Re: Astrology » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on January 4, 2006, at 11:21:55
> Ok, for fun:
:-)
> are morals "facts?"
That is debatable, yes. I was merely attempting to illustrate that there are indeed non-natural phenomena and it is far from obvious that we can (or should) attempt to explain them naturalistically.
On ethical facts:
(a view that there might not be any)
http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/metaethics.html
On an attempt to turn ethics into a science (which requires the existence of ethical facts). This is a little odd... But I suppose it is trying to bring ethics into the realm of the sciences...
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10740
i am not sure whether I think there are ethical facts or not... i'm not much of an ethicist. but i think... there may well be...
> Well, I believe that:
> the Point and the Aim are thought.....Do you mean that as a gramatical point?
Okay...Lets suppose there are no ethical facts...
Is it wrong to torture an innocent child for fun, do you think?
(I mean, is it wrong for any person at any time and place to torture an innocent child solely for the purpose of having fun?)
If you think it is wrong...
Then *why* is it wrong?
If it is because it *is* wrong...
Then I suppose that would be an ethical fact...
So...
People are fallible and limited...
Just because there may be ethical facts does not mean we know what those ethical facts are (ethics is far from complete just as the sciences are far from complete).
And it DOES NOT FOLLOW
From the point that one believes there are ethical facts
To the point that what one believes is morally right or wrong actually hits apon the appropriate ethcial factsIf you describe candidates for ethical facts as a suitable level of abstraction then this does not rule out cultural difference either.
For example...
A utilitarian candidate for an ethical fact might be
'one should act so as to increase happiness for the greatest number of people (or decrease suffering for the greatest number of people)'
and that leaves it wide open that the precise act which will increase happiness (or decrease suffering) may of course vary as a function of culture...
Posted by zeugma on January 4, 2006, at 20:18:52
In reply to Re: Astrology » AuntieMel, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 17:43:20
"The word planet is simply not a scientific word, it is a cultural word."
- Mike Brown, leader of the "10th planet" discovery teambut what are the implications for astrology? Am I going to have to get 23 new KBO's (my preferred acronym for these 'non-cultural planets' in the Kuiper Belt) added to my birth chart? Or, can I ignore them and keep Pluto in my seventh house (I don't get along well with others, that's as good a reason as any for my social difficulties) because Pluto is culturally a planet?
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050802_planet_definition.html
"I finally realized the mistake we astronomers had been making all along," Brown told SPACE.com yesterday. "The word planet is simply not a scientific word, it is a cultural word. Once you get over that trap the rest becomes easy."
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 21:26:23
In reply to 10th planet discoverer speaks » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on January 4, 2006, at 20:18:52
ROFL!!!
Sounds like they need a philosopher or three ;-)
You know...
I think biologists encountered something similar with lillies...
Apparantly... The trouble is that Onions and Garlic count as lillies but the folk wouldn't have that...
So they abandoned talk of 'lilly' (a scientific class which did have to include onions and garlic though the folk wouldn't have that)...
To talk about 'lillicue' (or something like that) which excludes onions and garlic (and a lot else...) fairly ad hoc...
Posted by zeugma on January 5, 2006, at 23:12:38
In reply to Re: 10th planet discoverer speaks » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on January 4, 2006, at 21:26:23
yes, it's an amusing example of 'linguistic ascent'- stop talking about spheroids and say the problem is the word-
i suspect the problem is one of induction. how many planets have we observed closely? not nearly enough to know what one is. we've got to do a lot more observation and have a better data set before we get a grasp of the predicate 'is a planet'.
how would an alien translate our term 'planet' (I am wondering how the principle of charity operates here. I would say that charitably, we don't know 1 percent about anything (I fervently hope we do know enough not to keep putting schoolchildren through the misery of making 'models' of the 'solar system' with tennis balls- i would hope an alien would observe this phenomenon and uncharitably laugh)
-z
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 23:15:49
In reply to Re: 10th planet discoverer speaks » alexandra_k, posted by zeugma on January 5, 2006, at 23:12:38
i'm thinking... planets might not be a natural kind term... they might be more like 'tree' a hodge podge of things with no common essence...
so a tree in one environment
is a shrub in another
and i think they have different lines of whatever and jeepers i need to learn a whole heap more about biology...and on a tangential though slightly related note did you know that birds are reptiles?????
no way!
heh heh
Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 23:16:47
In reply to Re: 10th planet discoverer speaks » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 23:15:49
and we know that whales are mammals rather than fish...
but i think the biologists were pushing sh*t uphill with that one for a while...
trying to get people to accept it...
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.