There seems to be a lot of vagueness in our philosophy. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagueness . Even when we look at something. We may believe we are paying attention to real images, but almost all of our field-of-view is filled with vague images. For instance, when we travel in our car, almost the whole trip is vague images. There is a lot more to the issue of vagueness than what most of us pay attention to - even though we believe we are thinking in scientific terms the whole time.

Science tries to overcome the concept of vagueness by just ignoring it. But I believe the vague issues occupies more of our field of view than focused issues. However, vagueness is difficult to study, and can generally only be studied in philosophy.

It seems a notable difference between science and philosophy is the word "vague". Philosophy can be vague, whereas science tries to be non-vague.

Generally, you'll find that, although you think the definitions of terms such as these are obvious, other people will think they mean something different. Those types of differences often spin discussions into confusion here on the the forum. The terms "gestalt" and "reductionism" also have more complex implications and applications than your over-simple definitions indicate. You've given us very little to work with. — T Clark

Thanks for the input. Not a lot of information...but enough. In order to learn anything new, we need enough "starter-information" to, in essence, to "prime-the-pump". I didn't do that. Sorry.

Suggest you define your terms; describe the issue; and give your own thoughts. — T Clark

Most people on this philosophy forum are probably familiar with the term "Epistemology" in their own (search for knowledge). They will also probably recognize the term "Reductionism" as being a form of philosophy that is often quoted "as an intellectual and philosophical position that interprets a complex system as the sum of its parts." (Wikipedia).

A phrase often quoted in gestalt: "The whole is greater than the sum of the parts." deals with how we (humans) deal with visual information as being a whole, parts of a whole, or something greater. In many cases the terms-of-description seem the same, or at least similar.

Modern science doesn't seem to recognize gestalt as a "real" science because gestalt recognizes "emergence" - which doesn't seem to fit with reductionism. My question is: Aren't these two systems similar?

Haldane predicted that in 2074 70% of all births would stem from artificial wombs, from fertilized egg to baby. A 150 years away from him (1924). Dream on... — Goldyluck

Is it a dream...or is it a nightmare? Depends a lot on your perspective.

The original question was: "Should we try to establish a colony on Mars?". There has been a lot of good discussion. We already have colonies of machines, and even mobile robots, there now. But can we, or should we, place a human-colony there? I'm still interested in what this group has to say out the question.

What do you mean with seeds? Just a fertilized egg in a test tube, so no more... eeeh, well you know.... needs to be done on Mars. Would be a pity. The seed needs to grow though and the only place where it can grow is.... the womb of a woman. For the first four months at least. Any artificial womb that you have seen in movies is fiction. It can't be realized. It takes people to grow people in. That's the reason you will never be able to create life without life, cause you need it in the first place. — Goldyluck

I would suggest a little more research. You might try: https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/12/artificial-wombs-the-coming-era-of-motherless-births/ .

Then I will run with it. A crop of humans from seeds? Are you serious? — Goldyluck

Very serious! Have you heard about "Louise Brown"? Worlds first test-tube baby: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown . That was back in 1978. We've come a long way since then. It's not as much "science-fiction" as it was at one time.

I can easily imagine a cargo of human seeds being sent to mars - along with some care-taker robots sent with them to watch over them. (I'm not sure humans didn't get on Earth the same way back about 40-million years ago.) There is no reason to think of space travel, for long distances - such as to other star systems - as being done by adults. They wouldn't live long enough. You have to start with seeds - not adults.

As for the former (there's nothing going on), you'll have to always consider the possibility that our ignorance prevents us from/precludes the identification of a pattern. — Agent Smith

Good deep thinking! I like it. Reminds me trying to understand "emergence" when we are conditioned to believe in reductionism.

"Grouping" is one of the principles of gestalt that I like best because I can visualize it all around us in everyday life. However, we are trained in Epistemology to see only Reductionism. Like many other things, if repeated enough, it becomes habit. We (humans) have a habit of seeing things only through the lens of reductionism. Therefore, items like "emergence" dont fit, and are basically ignored by science. Emergence still happens though. Life itself is an emergent property. Just being able to visualize our environment through the lens of gestalt - rather than through the lens of reductionism - is a plus.

Advanced gestalt is pre word, consider the big bang as an advanced gestalt. — Varde

Gestalt considers the whole is a result of the sum of the parts - with an added extra-part that is called "emergence". I don't understand your concept that gestalt is a "pre word". In my opinion, "professional gestalt" would be someone that knows about gestalt. However, just knowing about gestalt doesn't mean you have advanced-knowledge of gestalt.

As to the big bang: If we knew what was before the big bang, such that the big bang was the result of a grouping (the sum of the parts), then we might conclude the big bang was (some form of) gestalt. However, I don't have a clue as to what may have been before the big bang.

Gestalt is somtimes perceived as difficult to understand, but that may be because it's not taught in school the same as familiar classes. Learning the principles of gestalt is worth the effort though - in my opinion.

Wow! I had no idea where the name "Gestalt" came from. My eldest works with a visual group named Gestalt! He does digital art that frames stages with moving effects at Lalapalooza in Chicago and now in Minneapolis for the New Years celebration! His visuals are going to be the count down visuals as well!
Exciting! And now the name of their group makes a lot more sense! Thank you :flower: — ArguingWAristotleTiff

That's interesting as well! Gestalt seems to have a lot more influence and connections than I first thought.

which is why its impossible to create an artificial intelligence without a body. — Miller

AI without a body...sounds like an algorithm...but really not impossible.

Seems like philosophers have been kicking that around for over two thousand years, and I still don't believe we "see" it yet.

If there was no change at all at one point in the multi-verses history, then how can that state of non-change cause change? It's the old question of how something can come from nothing. How can space-time come from a state of no space and no time? — Harry Hindu

There are still a lot of questions to answer. Our observatios are the only clues we have about the "early" Universe. But we still haven't learned that what we believe we see may not be what is really there.

What if... "inflation" is still going on but expanding space ran out of elements to form matter some 13 billion years ago. What we would then see is what we are seeing now, that is, it would seem as if time started 13 billion years ago - because we have nothing to see past 13 billion years ago. That does not mean the Universe started 13 billion years ago - it could mean "matter" may have only been around for about 13 billion years. We would have no visual clues as to what matter was before it was matter... Not anywhere near enough information to compare, so we jump to conclusions and state matter is just matter and was always there...

I expect many colonists/explorers would die. Eventually they would find a way to make it work and I think Elon Musk is certainly overly optimistic in terms of how to make the colony self-sustained ... but given that we get there I see no reason why trail and error will not eventually lead to success. His plan is basically to rotate people on and off of Mars. You can pretty much guarantee some people will stay and some will be born there. The ethical question of allowing a baby to grow up on Mars would likely mean they would have to undergo medical changes if they were to come to Earth ... I think in 50 yrs such procedures will be almost second nature given the potential that CRISPR has to offer.

In comparison to colonising Mars CRISPR is FAR FAR FAR BIGGER, even if it lives up to just a miniscule of what many in the field say is on the way. — I like sushi

You may be right. It seems Mr. Musk is certainly trying very hard to make it happen. We may even be able to "grow" a crop of humans from seeds and would therefore not even need to transport them to Mars. Now there's a theme to run with!

For longterm stability and independence Mars has much more going for it purely due to the gravity. Most of the first colonists will likely die/suffer a lot, but many (including myself) would happily take the risk. Should we go? Sure! Why the hell not? What good reason is there not to explore and stretch the human story to see what can be achieved? Every adventure opens up new avenues for humanity as a whole.

I still believe I’ll live long enough to see humans land on Mars (or at least attempt to!). — I like sushi

There's a good chance you're right. But, even if we sent, not just one, but a hundred people to Mars and they had enough groceries and water to keep them alive - they would die like the early "Jamestown" colonist. The radiation alone would eventually kill all the people. We could protect against the radiation by building underground - but the gravity of Mars is less than half of what we have on Earth. You can't raise a child in low gravity environments because they would grow up not having the bones and mussels to accomodate space travel like their parents. We don't know if human organs would even develope right under low gravity conditions. (Early research by NASA doesn't look very good there either.)

To survive (long-term) in space you need to to take (Earth's Systems) along with you - that includes air, water, 1-G gravity, radiation protection (equal to fairly near sea-level), and that's just for adults. simply put: "Space travel in not for kids." No kids - no colonies. Space becomes just a place for (rich people) to visit.

If Mars or anywhere else is to be colonized, it will probably be the poor, disenfranchised and/or insane that will be the first group to go. The rich will stay at home until it's demonstrated to be safer and more comfortable than on Earth (or in their private orbital station above Earth). — _db

If we think in terms of what early colonist did throughout hostory - you're right. It was usually the poor, disinfranchised, or criminals that were the first colonist. However, in the case of colonizing the moon, or mars, you can't get a "cheap-flight" to get there. It takes a lot of money just to get one person into space. It would take a lot more to get a group of would-be colonist on the moon or mars, and I don't believe any rich group is going to send a poor group anywhere to colonize.

It is also not possible now, (or even in the near future), to build a "hotel in orbit" that would have 1-G gravity and safety from radiation. Again, not a place even for rich colonist. Same problem: You can't raise kids there - hense, no colony - just a place for adults to visit.

But even this would not be the biggest difficulty, it's simply that space is so damn big. It would take 4.3 light years just to reach our nearest neighboring star system.

Andromeda, the nearest galaxy, would take 2.5 million years, travelling at the speed of light to get to. That's just too much. — Manuel

Distance not only works against us - it can also work for us.

Doing something significant in Mars or the Moon, seems impossible.... — Manuel

I agree. We are pretty close to having the technology to send men (or maybe even women) back to the moon, or go to mars. However, we don't seem to be even close to getting along well enough as humans to trust ourselves to even plan on how to establishing a colony - on the moon, or mars.

With that being said - and if there is "intelligent life" anywhere else in the Universe - and they also developed some form of spaceflight - maybe that's why they didn't try to colonize either. The very basic tenants of life (to eat other life, or to be eaten by by other life) would be enough to keep intelligent life forms from trying to establish colonies. It seems intelligent life forms simply cannot trust itself. Any comments?

Send AI-driven robots to build underground space habitats (to start with) on Luna and Mars and maybe the moon-like asteroid Ceres. Meatbag payloads (i.e. mission specialists & megamillionaire / billionaire tourists) to follow years later for short duration stays rather than long duration or permanent stays (due to hazards of prolonged hard radiation surface exposure and bone-loss / heart-enlarging degenerative low gravity). I'm betting on our 'intelligent' machines to "colonize" this solar system and over the next few centuries spread an interplanetary (& L5) network of habitats from Venus to the Kuiper Belt for endless pilgrimages of visitors from Earth. — 180 Proof

I'm reminded of some of the "survival-games" you can play on a computer - such as "medieval dynasty". With that in mind, what would we need - to not only survive, but to prosper and raise a family? Gravity (equal to Earth's 1-G), radiation protection equal to Earth's (near sea-level). (I don't think anyone would want to raise a family in conditions less than what we have on Earth.) Those conditions can be met today with artificial systems, but they are not easy, and I'm still not convinced anyone would want to raise a family (anywhere in space - except on Earth) in even those conditions. If you can't realistically raise a family at any location, (even if you would like to visit), then it's really difficult to justify the effort to form a colony there.

I'm convinced that colonising other planets is a fantasy. Mars is totally inhospitable to any form of life as we know it. Mars has a very thin atmosphere; it has no magnetic field to help protect its surface from radiation from the sun or galactic cosmic rays; it has no breathable air and the average surface temperature is a deadly 80 degrees below zero. Anyone living there would have to occupy a totally artificial environment imported at enormous cost from Earth.

We have a well-equipped spaceship that could potentially sustain us for millions of years more on our long journey through space, but it's dangerously over-heated and resource-depleted. And that is Spaceship Earth. Our only hope is to tend to it if we want to survive. — Wayfarer

I totally agree!

where would humanity go if we had a warp drive? — The Opposite

A good question. But, until we have one, we will probably continue to use old-style rocket propulsion. That still leaves the question: Should we even try to colonize space - or maybe just send robots with AR and VR technology?

Everyone who says that we should focus on Earth is correct. It is not controversial and is evident. — Manuel

Then how can we leave our politics back on Earth, or should we just assume that our politics goes with us? History tells us that building colonies on a new land just means more of the same, but a lot harder to control. How do we control colonies on Mars?

Equally real, but not more real. — Pantagruel

After two-thousand years our greatest minds still cannot agree on: "What is real?" I really don't know why we can't even agree on a (simple answer) for a question like that.

The "rabbit-hole" is so deep we can't even see the bottom. We may even be asking the wrong question?

It seems "all" the great philosophers have taken a shot at a perceived target...but nothing's there. I'm bitting myself in the back of the neck. We're all missing something...what?

So, I'd say that originally, philosophy came first. But, as others have pointed out, different philosophical traditions use psychology in different degrees and ways. — Apollodorus

Sometimes philosophy and psychology seem to go hand-in-hand. Maybe there isn't a "which came first"?

Feynman's great paper, There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. — fishfry

Good article on how small can the devices go, but as the devices for information-storage gets smaller, the "quantity" of information available for storage, and then used, increases. Then the question: How much information can be created, and stored, and then used? It seems we are getting the ability to gather more information, and then store, than we will have the ability to use. To me, it seems like a philosophical question? So, is the ability to (create and store) information getting greater than the ability to use that information? In a sense - information overload?

So instead of knowledge we may be better off using "understanding" or some other term. — Manuel

We just have a hard time realizing "what it is that we don't know".

So my question is: what makes Tom's justification method to be superior to Sam's justification method? Or in other words, why Tom is more justified to believe "it is called outside" then Sam? — Curious Layman

"Justified true belief" is still the most acknowledged method of determining the "truth" in contrast to an enlightened view. However, there are still problems with this method including the "Gettier Problem". It really comes down to the realization that we just don't know enough to determine the "absolute-truth" of anything. Many people would probably argue that point though...

With philosophy, as it is about ideas, it is easy for people to think that they can say anything they wish to. However, in the twenty first century, it does seem to me that any serious discussion needs a certain amount of academic rigour. — Jack Cummins

I agree. The trick seems to be in: "who decides how much rigour is required?. It seems to be an "unwritten" specification. And, it probably depends on who is having the discussion - and with whom. In academia, writing requirements are often dictated - but not so often in a discussion.

Reading serious philosophy is hard work. So you have to push yourself to do it, it's like training. Academic training can be useful in that it makes you articulate your thoughts and consider objections and different points of view. — Wayfarer

I really like this statement.It is a good reason for reading even though one may not want to do it at the time.

He said, during the course of the conversation, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek, 'the Greeks, the Medievals, the Germans - that's all you have to know, the rest is rubbish!' :-) — Wayfarer

Does this say anything about the bias he may have had at the time of his conversation?

I also suspect that often the mind is partially closed before the reading even begins. — Tom Storm

I agree. So, should we read anyway?

The only problem which I end up with is that the reading life can be so lonely because most of the people who I interact with daily barely read, and definitely believe read philosophy books. — Jack Cummins

That may be because they (and you) might be biased to what they already believe - which I just posted to Tom Storm.

I think in many cases people read to confirm and build upon what they already think. — Tom Storm

I agree! But, doesn't that create a "bias" to what you already believe? Does that bias keep one from having an open-mind? So, which is more important - an open mind, or bias-conformation?

So, I am asking people what they think about this, and how they find the right balance for themselves. — Jack Cummins

I like to think of this in terms of the story: "Alice in Wonderland" and the question: "How deep does this rabbit hole go?" The more I (and maybe you) seem to learn (from reading), is the more questions that pop-up. There may be no end to it.

I think there is content in philosophy, not just talk about words. — Manuel

I agree. Philosophy can be a play on words (word games), and philosophy can have content. Too bad we can't quantitatively measure the "content".

I'm only arguing that the example of a car and a garage, or an apple and its seeds, are word games and are not actual examples or counterexamples to your own thesis. — fishfry

I agree...and disagree. (If that makes sense?)

All philosophy arguments are word games. :grin: — jgill

Yes! Now we're on the same page.

Oh no, that is quite false. The air molecules must be displaced by the car. Surely you understand that. You can't possibly think that the metal molecules of the car occupy the same space as the air molecules bounded by the car's boundary. Surely you can't be claiming that. You've brought me up short. I'd been thinking we're arguing semantic games, but now you're violating the laws of physics. — fishfry

No...There is no "law of physics" that states two objects cannot occupy the same place at the same time except "The Pauli exclusion Principle", and that only deals with certain types of sub-atomic particles - not real-world objects. Some may state it is an argument of logic - not physics, and becomes a philosophical question. That's why I'm asking the question on this forum.

Is the space inside of anything part of the thing, or is only the surface of the thing, the thing. Is it a word game to believe a block of stone has stone outside, and inside, of it as well? Can a thing be hollow and still be a thing? These are not just word games. Too many times humans believe everything we see must be solid all the way through - and then make statements about what we believe to be true.