The human bias hidden within scientific practises | Neil Turok, Lisa Randall, Martin Cohen

This talk does not really happen because the three speakers did not find the common ground, which is more in epistemic questions about the limits and grounding postures of science, and how much can philosophical work help clarify those limits. (if it can at all) Martin Cohen decided to avoid the whole topic and wander off into the mythos. The scientists basically said "science works because theories get verified (or not) by observations, and the program continues forward refining knowledge" - but they can't explain WHY science gets useful verifications - as a product of human intelligence, or a mirroring of 'the real' in the cosmos into symbolic form, or some inherent capability of mathematical form as a 'real' ... etc Science cannot do meta-scientific justification - and there the door remains open for philosophy.

To restate a point Dr. Randall makes: Our theories can only address what we directly or indirectly perceive. Does the universe also contain that which we cannot directly or indirectly percieve? Almost certainly yes, although we cannot know that to any degree. Can science present its theories as "this is the universe"? No, and to do so is indeed human bias.

It would have been neat to get to hear the whole debate. From what is shown, Dr. Randall appears to address the issue with the greatest clarity (to this thick person, anyway). Thank you for bringing at least part of this to us.

For me I'll make a statement entailing idea and logic being the central form of the universe. We used to think that our minds are actually within us but from recent indication it doesn't really seem that way. We may possess our brains but our consciousness belongs without. The whole universe is like a giant ocean then we are not just like fish swimming around in it but part of the water, our consciousness is like another colour from the water in the ocean.

2:50 We’ve always been describing the “visible universe”. It’s our ability to extend sight that keeps changing. Of course we are seeing only a tiny slice.

Meaning is certified by means of multiplication. This operation transforms the infinite into an unending population of a finite variety of types. We always assume that there is a property package to present as a payout for our research, but this entails a subtle change in definitions as usages.

Interesting conversation. Everyone made valid points. But I suppose the thought behind the original question is that reality is seen through the lens of the human mind. We like to think of ourselves as having general intelligence. But isn't it more likely that our intelligence is quite specific? It was trained on specific kinds of sensory information and at a certain scale, for solving specific kinds of problems (i.e. survival). Personally, I think there is a serious risk that our minds are misinterpreting what we experience, because at a fundamental level our experience is a heavily distorted picture. Martin Cohen's point is a good one. We shouldn't be too surprised that humans are good at predicting the behaviour of nature, because that is the data our brains are trained on. It is circular.

Kurt Godel already confront strong emphasis in mathematical formalism and axiomazation during his time. And also proved that science has also limits. So it is definitely worth for open discussions on if everything that scientists proposed going to be as rigid as science supposed to be.

It was an exciting title, but I feel that Martin Cohen was the only person that really touched upon the topic.

Concerned about the up-front premise that AI (created BY humans) could possibly be less human-centric-biased. *tbh, have not listened further, yet.

1. Philosophy is what is possible. 2. Alignment of probability results in reality. 3. Projection of reality is an avatar. 4. Perception of an avatar is Maya

The ego’s on these kids could clog a black hole.

Martin Cohen. Excellent minority report. The rest is sci-l-ence... Incredible how materialistic and mechanistic most of our scientists have become in the past few hundred years. Unfortunately there is a reason behind that. Reading list from contemporary authors: Matthew Ehret, David Gosselin.

When other points in the universe are discovered and becomes a part of our world we human beings are still the center of the universe. The expansion happens in the past, present, and future. The visible universe is important because it was once not observable.

On very large scales the universe does not behave according to equations we knew before making the observations. Dark matter and dark energy are theories that were developed precisely because the universe on very large scales does not behave according to equations we knew before making the observations. The rate at which a galaxy should spin towards its exterior of the galexies did not match the equations and understanding we had before. It is possible that we were/are wrong about our understanding of gravity and energy and we may have just made up dark matter and dark energy to force the already existing theories/equations of gravity to still work. It probably better to say hey we are wrong about gravity and energy but dont know why. Claiming something we cant see and cant interact with is causing some phenomena in the physical world feels like a very "science of the gaps" way of doing things. The Inflationary period is another moment where what was observed did not match what was believed so to make what we observe match the theories of the time the inflation period just had to be made up.

Kant only then? I think a correct reading of Hegel and beyond - and then.

The Universe is one. Only the view in a perception parts from a viewpoint in it.

It seems to me that various combinations of various various amounts of various kinds of misleading information and the various combinations of various levels of various kinds of beliefs of such can very often be extremely problematic .

to the philosopher: "In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it. Then, we compute– well, don't laugh, that's really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law that we guessed is right, we see what it would imply. And then we compare those computation results to nature. Or we say, compare to experiment or experience. Compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. And that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it." Richard Feynman Physicist, winner of 1965 physics Nobel prize

I don't know of any scientist that studies human and animal intelligence that will say that humans are special. Nor do I know any theoretical physicist or microbiologist that would say we are on the "middle" of the scale of material reality sizes. None of these "examples" are what I would expect scientists would propose or discuss.