Imagine that scientists develop a medical procedure which causes a person to perceive the world as it truly is without any human biases. The procedure is effective, painless, and has no side effects, but it is completely irreversible.
Would you undergo the procedure?
.
What makes you think that some canāt do that already?
Thatās like asking a cameraman to take a picture without aiming it anywhere.
I donāt need toā¦ being at one with nature is the procedureā¦ long-time meditators can vouch.
The extensive list of cognitive biases at wikipedia. The forum wonāt let me type a URL; sorry.
Meditation is great, but it seems that neither meditation nor being at one with nature can overcome all of our biases. Some of them, perhaps.
Perhaps the best we can do is distinguish between correct bias and incorrect biasā¦ senseā¦ and nonsense.
Perhaps we calibrate to truth, goodness, and beauty?
I think weāve got that ability innately, though.
So.
Iāma pass on that procedure.
I personally donāt think such a thing is even coherent - at least, not if weāre talking about a being that still perceiving in a way thatās bound by time and space.
The world as it really is from an outside perspective is probably something really boring, actually. Like a series of mathematical relationships or something. Itād be cool to find out but disappointing after that. Iād want to come back to experiencing the world as a person afterward.
Everybody loves a trier, not a quitter / practice makes perfectā¦ 
.
The expression āon the outside looking inā comes to mindā¦ also, āmind over matterā.
I think It would be more like ārunning on adrenalineā.
ā¦or One could āmorphā in and out of it, as One does with āsleepā or ādaydreamsāā¦ so total detachment.
This is a rude response. The forum has a filter that prevents me from typing URLs because my account is new. I tried multiple different ways.
Great question. And no, I would not undergo the procedure but I might sample it for a very short time just to see what itās like, if that were possible.
The belief in uniformitarianism cannot be justified, which implies that the idea āa world as it truly isā cannot be justified. One might rather hold on to ones humanly biased world for closest proximity to the actual most real one.
Science is actually catching up with philosophy on this. The 2022 Nobel prize for physics was for research that proved that on a fundamental level, the Universe is not ārealā (is not āas it truly isā from an external point of view, e.g. āscienceā).
āReal,ā meaning that objects have definite properties independent of observationāan apple can be red even when no one is looking; ālocalā means objects can only be influenced by their surroundings, and that any influence cannot travel faster than light. Investigations at the frontiers of quantum physics have found that these things cannot both be true. Instead, the evidence shows objects are not influenced solely by their surroundings and they may also lack definite properties prior to measurement.
~ The Universe Is Not Locally Real, and the Physics Nobel Prize Winners Proved It | Scientific American
News flashāNobel Prize awarded to scientist for proving we donāt exist and nothing is real. World stands in awe at the power of this towering intellect! More at 7, but first, hereās Jeanne with your local news updates and Tom with the weather.
This idea at its root involves the idea that the facts of science are valid without philosophy.
If the uniformitarianism idea is invalid that would imply that perception might be primary to the world, as is also revealed by the 2022 Nobel prize for physics research. It would imply that human biases, or ādogmaā more generally, might be fundamental to what is deemed reality.
Sorry, Iām too lazy to read the whole topic, but thereās no need to invent ācosmic pillsā. Everything has already been thought of and applied. To make people imperfect, the villain God deprived us of telepathy (the direct exchange of thoughts) and endowed us with the lie of words. Thatās why think about what would happen to society if, disregarding God, we regained what was lostātelepathy. By the way, there have been advancementsāmobile communication, the internet. Itās almost doneājust a little more to implement a communication chip in the brain.
I meant, in context of my claim and not you per se.. Iāve never been a fan of skeptics and there are plenty here, which isnāt conducive to having an open and honest dialogue or exchange of ideas imo.. and thatās without the trolling on top of all that.
I look forward to hearing more from you, once your new-user restrictions have been auto-lifted.
Leibniz puts bias squarely in judgment.
Donāt tell prom unless he shows you receipts. Heāll ā¦ he bettaā¦ know.
Bias is inherent within perception due to the limitations of mental perception and the human experience of life itself. To have mental perception without biases would require us to be one hundred percent rational or logical mentally of which homo sapiens clearly is not.
With the name like Mr. authoritarian, Iād hate to see what your alternative to Republicans and Democrats would be. But it best involve respecting your mom.
Dictatorship of the proletariat.