For the last fifteen years, I’ve been researching a wide range of subjects. Full-time for the last seven years. I’ve traveled the world to interview intellectuals for my podcast, but most of my research has been in private. After careful examination, I have come to the conclusion that we’ve been living in a dark age since at least the early 20
Good thoughts, however what gives you confidence, that your thinking is “correct”. Your view on the world may be opposite to the current paradigm, which may contain many errors, but being opposite, doesn’t mean automatically being right. So what are reliable methods, that allow us to view reality as it is and how do we know, that these methods are reliable?
Until you recognize that you only know half truths, you can only know lies.
The systemic error is that theoretical models are constructed about the reality of a discipline of knowledge based on initial assumptions from other disciplines as being blindly true, as it is temporally and intellectually impossible for someone specialized to determine the validity of the initial points of their conclusion.
An initial blindness can only result in a final blindness.
Darkness as a model because they are models of faith.
Why reject the Coppenhagen interpretation so fiercely when none of the theories for resolving particle-wave duality have any evidence to support them and they all have some massive flaws? Anyone is free to believe any of the interpretations, but at this point it is no more than a position of faith to claim any of them.
If the 20th century was a dark age, was there ever a non-dark age? If philosophy has gone wrong, it has been off the tracks for a long while before the 20th century.
Thanks for this writing! Seems like an important progression and I also enjoy it. I wouldn't say I have a "great mind", but sometimes patterns catch my attention, or I can see the odd thing that doesn't fit the pattern.
Have also thought much about this topic and my conclusion is as follows:
1. Naturally, people are mentally lazy and not interested in truth. Innately, we understand that life is not an intellectual experience. Yes, we focus while at occupations but other than work and maybe a few hobbies, people aren't interested in knowing many details unless it involves survival.
2. There are two social worlds. One where you can see and touch participants who know your name, and a television world that describes folks you've never met. Everything you'll remember when up in heaven comes from the first.
3. Things happens for one of three reasons: intention, incompetence, or (divine) intervention. Don't discount number three. They may be messing with us.
4. There are definitely aliens among us because so much of what happens makes absolutely no sense.
The points you list are insightful. I look forward to reading your series.
Please can I suggest in light of your first point that "Intellectuals have greatly underestimated the complexity of the world" that you don't fall for the tropes that are characteristic of the modernist tribe. A good example is to say that "The earth is indeed round." Of course, if you don't know this you must be a member of the other tribe that believes the Earth is flat.
But the Earth is neither round nor more accurately a flattened sphere. It is in fact a shape that is intriguingly complex. You can witness this by looking out your window.
I point this out not to take an intellectual potshot but because in order to understand the wonders and limitations of science it is necessary to acknowledge that it is built using language - including the language of mathematics. Language is built and evolves through social interaction and therefore science is unavoidably social - and tribal.
Good thoughts, however what gives you confidence, that your thinking is “correct”. Your view on the world may be opposite to the current paradigm, which may contain many errors, but being opposite, doesn’t mean automatically being right. So what are reliable methods, that allow us to view reality as it is and how do we know, that these methods are reliable?
Very much looking forward to seeing part 2
Until you recognize that you only know half truths, you can only know lies.
The systemic error is that theoretical models are constructed about the reality of a discipline of knowledge based on initial assumptions from other disciplines as being blindly true, as it is temporally and intellectually impossible for someone specialized to determine the validity of the initial points of their conclusion.
An initial blindness can only result in a final blindness.
Darkness as a model because they are models of faith.
Why reject the Coppenhagen interpretation so fiercely when none of the theories for resolving particle-wave duality have any evidence to support them and they all have some massive flaws? Anyone is free to believe any of the interpretations, but at this point it is no more than a position of faith to claim any of them.
If the 20th century was a dark age, was there ever a non-dark age? If philosophy has gone wrong, it has been off the tracks for a long while before the 20th century.
Thanks for this writing! Seems like an important progression and I also enjoy it. I wouldn't say I have a "great mind", but sometimes patterns catch my attention, or I can see the odd thing that doesn't fit the pattern.
Have also thought much about this topic and my conclusion is as follows:
1. Naturally, people are mentally lazy and not interested in truth. Innately, we understand that life is not an intellectual experience. Yes, we focus while at occupations but other than work and maybe a few hobbies, people aren't interested in knowing many details unless it involves survival.
2. There are two social worlds. One where you can see and touch participants who know your name, and a television world that describes folks you've never met. Everything you'll remember when up in heaven comes from the first.
3. Things happens for one of three reasons: intention, incompetence, or (divine) intervention. Don't discount number three. They may be messing with us.
4. There are definitely aliens among us because so much of what happens makes absolutely no sense.
The points you list are insightful. I look forward to reading your series.
Please can I suggest in light of your first point that "Intellectuals have greatly underestimated the complexity of the world" that you don't fall for the tropes that are characteristic of the modernist tribe. A good example is to say that "The earth is indeed round." Of course, if you don't know this you must be a member of the other tribe that believes the Earth is flat.
But the Earth is neither round nor more accurately a flattened sphere. It is in fact a shape that is intriguingly complex. You can witness this by looking out your window.
I point this out not to take an intellectual potshot but because in order to understand the wonders and limitations of science it is necessary to acknowledge that it is built using language - including the language of mathematics. Language is built and evolves through social interaction and therefore science is unavoidably social - and tribal.
#consilience