Shayah

I am not a physicist, but I believe there does exist empirical evidence that relativity is correct in the macro-realm. The orbital peculiarities of Mercury (which Newtonian physics cannot adequately explain) and gravitational lensing come to mind. Maybe I'm mistaken. Can anyone offer any empirical evidence that disagrees with relativity?

Panache

I don't know why you think that thought is transcendental. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that thought is transcendental.

I am not sure how you are intending the word "transcendental," but I shall assume that you mean "something which does not yet have empirical evidence to support the assertion of its existance."

If there is enough empirical evidence to demonstrate that the current paradigm does not account for a phenomenon, a theory is formed based on what we already "know" (and by "know" I mean, we have already assumed in our paradgim) and then make predictions about what we should see if that theory is correct.

The theroy can be formed without empirical evidence, and in fact, must be formed without empirical evidence. The Hypothesis must exist before it can be tested.

Felicity

Transcendence (philosophy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kant (and modern philosophy)....this concept is concerned with the conditions of possibility of knowledge itself. He also opposed the term transcendental to the term transcendent, the latter meaning "that, which goes beyond" (transcends) any possible knowledge of a human being. [1] For him transcendental meant knowledge about our cognitive faculty with regard to how objects are possible a priori. "I call all knowledge transcendental if it is occupied, not with objects, but with the way that we can possibly know objects even before we experience them." [2] Something is transcendental if it plays a role in the way in which the mind "constitutes" objects and makes it possible for us to experience them as objects in the first place. Ordinary knowledge is knowledge of objects; transcendental knowledge is knowledge of how it is possible for us to experience those objects as objects.

That's what I'm talking about.


What I'm not getting, is how one can assume a paradigm that is contradictory to the paradigm's means of fact finding. Is it truly as it seems?--a paradigm that is based on "because I say so" assumptions that refuses to turn the lens upon itself and question the validity of its own hypothesis?

Panache

This is why I keep saying that it is a communication tool.

Empirical evidence is not necessary until it can function in the role of arbitration between opposing paradigms.

At the point where the existance of thought is introduced to your paradigm, there is no alternate theory with which it must compete. You cannot have a paradigm that assumes the absense of thought, because a paradigm is a communicative tool for orginizing thought. Any paradigm that exists assumes the presense of thought, and thus epirical evidence is not necessary for its introduction into the paradigm.

In the example that I gave, the paradigm in which Bob killed Sue is opposed an alternate paradigm in which Bob did not kill Sue. The introduction of the new information uses empirical evidence as arbitration to determine which paradigm to accept. If your current paradigm does not assume that Bob killed Sue, empirical evidence is necessary to change the paradigm.

If the paradigm already makes an assumtion, and there is no alternate assumption to measure it against, empirical evidence has no need to arbitrate the acceptance of this assumtion.

Felicity

So...to answer my question......that's a "yes"....right?

Panache

It depends on what your question was.

Is a paradigm a holistic set of assumptions? Yes.

Is that how one can "assume a paradigm that is contradictory to the paradigm's means of fact finding?" No.

Felicity

I quoted my own question with a portion of your reply that was pertinent to it. What didn't you understand? The question you basically answered "YES" to was,

"Is it truly as it seems?--a paradigm that is based on "because I say so" assumptions.... "

You indicate that it is based on "because I say so assumptions."

Monk-Eye

"Brain Bionics"

You might find the article The Memory Hacker (link) at Popular Science Online insightful to your investigation. In the article, modern developments for neurological interfaces are discussed.

__________________
Hanged Man
Melpomene

Felicity

Interesting article, but I fail to see how a "storage device" accounts for the generative properties of our human conciousness. It seems to put the cart before the horse in this question I am asking.

Monk-Eye

"Psychoaffective"
The "storage devices" would be better termed "bridge devices", as they do not store information rather they enable the transfer of proper electrical inputs to and from portions of the brain for storage.

The "spatiotemporal patterns" and "secret electrical code" based on "timing and frequency of firing" are meant to be indicators that the brain is a sympathic organ.

__________________
Hanged Man
Melpomene