immortal

Scientism and how this worldview affects open discussions in the Philosophy and religious forums threads.

Recommended Posts

immortal    64

Again - simply find the notion unevidenced and therefore not compelling. I refer back the sweetness example. I see no reason for "sweetness" to be anything other than an the triggering of biochemical pathways by the detection of crystalline carbohydrates in my mouth, redness a certain wavelength of light being detected by my retina, etc and so on.

 

Can you explain to me how redness and sweetness is processed in the brain and leads to my experiences of qualia. Do you think neural networks have experience of qualia? Those biochemical pathways cannot account for the experience of qualia. Those biochemical neural pathways can only account for which receptors triggers which type of qualia but redness and sweetness don't exist in the physical world so it is purely subjective, so the big question is how the brain processes sweetness, redness and other qualia.

 

For example:- Let me suppose I am a philosophical zombie or a human android and I behave and react in a way normal humans do so if you ask me "How was the cookie, immortal" then I would reply as "Yes, Arete, it was sweet" but you have got no idea whether I really experienced sweetness or not, it is purely subjective, you can't know "what it is like to be me" or "what it is like to be a philosophical zombie" and hence qualia are purely subjective. Its impossible to know whether a neural network has experience of qualia or not, if those were just patterns in the brain then we should be able to simulate those patterns in neural networks but that's not enough we should be able to experience what it is like to be a neural network only then I will accept that qualia are just mere patterns in the brain and that I was wrong about them that they are non-physical.

 

I am simply a poster the forum like yourself. I don't make the rules or the subforums.

 

I problem is not with the rules, the problem is with few posters. The problem with this site is that theists don't understand how science works and a few scientists don't understand how religion works. Religion works by faith and revelations, its an evolving thing, its not static, it is dynamic and displays plasticity. This is what some theists don't understand here, they interpret religion based on modern science and they start posting pseudoscience here and their opponents shout for evidence and in this process it is religion which is being ridiculed.

 

Just how some theists are wrong about their misinterpretations of modern science even their opponents are equally wrong in requesting evidence and ridiculing religion because poor theists can't bring evidence of God with in a fore night because theistic endeavour is harder than scientific endeavour if I assert that the idea of an Abrahamic God is equivalent and competative with scientific ideas then theists had to walk on water just like Jesus did only then we can say that both God and science are on common grounds and that knowledge of walking on water cannot be acquired with in a fore night and it takes a life time of practice even then there is no guarantee, I see no point in discussing religion if you want to convince the scientific community you need to be a Jesus Christ and you should walk on water or turn water into wine. Religion is not blind faith, religion relies on revelations, the problem here is that theists who come here won't have any real knowledge of God and hence they cannot provide evidence and before they begin to start their threads they know that they're on the losing side.

 

I see no value in discussing religion here, immaturity is being shown by people on either side. What should be implemented is the non-overlapping magisteria of Stephen Jay Gould so that New Atheists don't ridicule religion and theists don't misrepresent science, what I am saying is that obviously the scientific community won't allow the theists to educate people and explain the teachings of theism since theists have to provide evidence for every assertion that they make and most theists here are not qualified enough to provide that evidence because I don't think we have practicing theists here just like practicing scientists and hence such a discussion is truly worthless and also its completely wrong to use the scientific method to falsify religion just as Daniel Dennet and Richard Dawkins do in their books. So the problem here is that only one view is being spread or allowed to spread here without understanding how religion works and the scientific community doesn't really have the authority to conclude that God doesn't exist and it shouldn't be done.

 

 

You've repeatedly demanded that the scientific community abandon it's "positivist" approach in this thread. This is specifically what I have repeatedly disagreed with.

 

 

I stated that only by smashing atoms in large particle accelerators is not enough to completely understand the workings of nature, I said its incomplete, I didn't rejected science in toto. Therefore I demanded that since some universities give an introductory course on other schools of philosophical thought we should consider and invest time on other schools of philosophy too and take them seriously.

 

 

 

No - in fact this notion is one of the fundamentals in your premise I am disagreeing with - the honest answer is "We don't know if the scientific method can answer all questions."

And then we come to the divergence in our viewpoints. There's simply no compelling reason to investigate what's beyond the physically observed world, because there's no compelling evidence that anything else exists. I'm more than happy to admit that the scientific method bears improvement, and that science might not explain everything, but I see absolutely no reason to leap beyond the bounds of rationality and logic and start assuming the supernatural exists because there are some things we don't know. Channeling the eloquence of Tim Minchin once more:

 

 

There are a few things which doesn't satisfy my intellect, I'm quite happy if it satisfies you but it doesn't satisfy

me, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". I won't give up and the positivist approach of science is not the end of the story.

 

"Isn't this enough?

Just this world?

Just this beautiful, complex

Wonderfully unfathomable, natural world?

How does it so fail to hold our attention

That we have to diminish it with the invention

Of cheap, man-made Myths and Monsters?

If you're so into Shakespeare

Lend me your ear:

"To gild refined gold, to paint the lily,

To throw perfume on the violet… is just f***ing silly"

 

I really don't care if only this world exist or if there is an another world, all I want to know is the truth, I am quite happy to be a strong atheist if scientific realism is proved beyond any doubt.

 

 

 

And I disagree. There's no evidence for something beyond the current reality and no compelling reason to start chasing it with fanciful "non positivist" methods.

 

Oh yes!! there can be compelling reason to look for extraterrestrial intelligence and set up SETI but the same thing cannot be applied to God, isn't it? God would still be an alien person to us.

 

What part of "intuition=/=evidence" implies I don't believe in intuition? Intuition is required to develop the test hypothesis but evidence is required to validate it.

 

The idea that qualia are non-physical and exist outside of human mind is one of the views of school pf philosophical thought, we don't know if that's true or not, that's the reason I want to investigate it. It is not a fact yet.

 

No. I don't reserve questioning for subsets of unscientific assertions - all claims should be assessed with equal merit, regardless of how many references, big words and Nobel laureate quotes are included in the proof.

 

I agree, ultimately it should stand up to its testings.

 

It's hard to follow what you're saying here but it appears to be self contradictory - you never said you weren't going to put God to the scientific test - but it's inappropriate to do so? In previous posts you state you want to test and validate the God hypothesis - here you seem to be saying that's not how faith and revelation work... which is fundamental in why religious beliefs are incompatible and thus incomparable with scientific investigation, which is kind of my point.

 

As I said earlier God hypothesis should be falsified through revelations and not by empirical observation, if revelation works then indeed I have some real knowledge then I can use that knowledge to produce cracks in our reality and those would be the predictions and such predictions can be tested using the scientific method but its inappropriate to directly apply the scientific method to test God. May be perhaps scientists don't want to waste their time by investing it on faith. So I think its the responsibility of theologians to look for revelations but it seems our society don't consider it seriously and if John Maynard Smith hadn't decided that he is going to study Game Theory we wouldn't have had his contribution to the field of evolutionary psychology and for humanity and hence I feel like one should look into metaphysics and not retract from it by saying its irrelevant or its not required.

 

And we come again to the crux - I never said God didn't exist - I've never seen it stated on the forum either. There's just no evidence for it.

 

Point taken, I doesn't want to quote from other thread I better leave that here.

 

Which is deeply disappointing isn't it

 

I think its intriguing.

 

I mean the link would have been very clear even to prehistoric society. A bang on the head disrupts your mind. A head wound can change your personality.

It's pretty clear that whatever the "mind" is, it's stuck firmly between your ears.

 

There are methods which can show you your own mind, its called Avastatreya. This is what compels me to investigate them. Brain and scientific reality is only a state of mind and obviously the observed reality is going to follow scientific models and I don't deny that.

 

In modern times when we can look at the sites of actions of pshychotropic drugs in the brain down to the molecular level there's really no excuse for still believing that sort of nonsense.

 

There's no excuse as to why science has not yet explained self awareness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterJ    14

If a bang on the head disrupts the mind then clearly they are different things. The operation of cause and effect would require that they are different things.

 

If we imagine that our mind is the size of our brain then we may be competely misunderstanding the concept of extension, and the reason why Descartes distinguished between extensa and cogitans. If anything is disppointing it would surely be the belief that our mind is the size of our brain. 'Why think thyself a puny being', asks Imam Ali, the first Shia Imam, 'when the entire universe is enfolded within you?'

 

In modern times when we can look at the sites of actions of pshychotropic drugs in the brain down to the molecular level there's really no excuse for still believing that sort of nonsense.

What sort of nonsense? The idea that the mind is not the brain? Surely nobody doubts this.

 

It is true that they must share some underlying common identity, that they would have to be reduced for a fundamental theory. The difficulty of doing this without a third theoretical term, a trinity of primitives, are notorious, insurmountable according to David Chalmers, and this make the perennial philosophy seem quite plausible, in that it would provide one. But it is not a 'mystical' idea that the mind should not share the same name as the brain. We can accept that the mind, unike the brain, does not have a size, without having to become a Buddhist. That they are not would be the orthodox view in scientific consciousness studies, or the scientific view in orthodox consciousness studies.

 

I suspect that if we stopped thinking of the initial singularity as having a size then both consciousness studies and physics would make more sense.

Edited by PeterJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

Do you think neural networks have experience of qualia?

 

Mine do.

 

" The difficulty of doing this without a third theoretical term, a trinity of primitives, are notorious, insurmountable according to David Chalmers"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

This form is only valid if the authority is recognised as competent.

For reasons I have given elsewhere I believe he is simply wrong, and therefore not a valid authority.

 

" If anything is disppointing it would surely be the belief that our mind is the size of our brain. 'Why think thyself a puny being', asks Imam Ali, the first Shia Imam, 'when the entire universe is enfolded within you?' "

For a start the number of possible games of chess or Go (any of which can be imagined and is therefore part of the mind) is vastly greater than the number of particles in the observable universe.

 

For an encore, that's another bad appeal to authority.

 

"What sort of nonsense? " the idea that the mind is in some way "outside" the brain is nonsense.

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

Mine do.

Of course the brain is a neural network but that doesn't say whether our experience of qualia are due to brain or due to a human mind. If you think that qualia are mere patterns in the brain then develop an artificial neural network and help me to know what it is like to be an artificial neural network, if I find that I am experiencing qualia then I will accept that I was wrong and I will retract from my view.

"What sort of nonsense? " the idea that the mind is in some way "outside" the brain is nonsense.

There can be only two possibilities either science will reduce human mind to brain and the reductionist approach wins or theologians reduce human brain and scientific reality to a human mind and the top down approach wins. This debate was being made from the time of millenia and it will be continued for atleast a century in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PeterJ    14

There can be only two possibilities either science will reduce human mind to brain and the reductionist approach wins or theologians reduce human brain and scientific reality to a human mind and the top down approach wins. This debate was being made from the time of millenia and it will be continued for atleast a century in the future.

If theologians reduce the brain to the mind then reductionism still wins. And if the Buddhists and Taosts are correct then these are not the only two possibilities. There would be at least three, and in each case reductionism would win. I agree about the mind-matter debate though. Such is the fear of religion in consciousness studies that the obvious solution is unliklely to ever be given much consideration.

 

Trouble is, of course, that neither materialism or idealism can be made reductive, as the history of metaphysics shows, hence Chalmers' viewpoint, which has never been seriously challenged. These two theories do not work, never have, never will. I would say that the idea that they are only two possibilities is the whole problem with philosophy of mind.

 

It is a mistake to think that religion argues for idealism. I'm not sure why you would think it does. The doctrine of most major religions would be consistent with the view that there is a third phenomenon in addition to mind and matter. If they were not then they would be no advance on scientific consciousness studies. Most would agree with Descartes, that the mind and body are both one and two depending on our level of analysis.

 

One difference between the stereotypical 'western' and 'eastern' worldview is that in the west mind-matter is a metaphysical (logical) dilemma. Elsewhere it would be a trilemma, and for Buddhists and some others it would be quadralemma. Religion wouild have no problem with the idea that intentional consciousness requires a material substrate. It would the orthodox view in many quarters.

 

A hatred of religion won't help you approach the problem honestly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

Subjective Idealism

If theologians reduce the brain to the mind then reductionism still wins. And if the Buddhists and Taosts are correct then these are not the only two possibilities. There would be at least three, and in each case reductionism would win. I agree about the mind-matter debate though. Such is the fear of religion in consciousness studies that the obvious solution is unliklely to ever be given much consideration.

 

Trouble is, of course, that neither materialism or idealism can be made reductive, as the history of metaphysics shows, hence Chalmers' viewpoint, which has never been seriously challenged. These two theories do not work, never have, never will. I would say that the idea that they are only two possibilities is the whole problem with philosophy of mind.

 

It is a mistake to think that religion argues for idealism. I'm not sure why you would think it does. The doctrine of most major religions would be consistent with the view that there is a third phenomenon in addition to mind and matter. If they were not then they would be no advance on scientific consciousness studies. Most would agree with Descartes, that the mind and body are both one and two depending on our level of analysis.

 

One difference between the stereotypical 'western' and 'eastern' worldview is that in the west mind-matter is a metaphysical (logical) dilemma. Elsewhere it would be a trilemma, and for Buddhists and some others it would be quadralemma. Religion wouild have no problem with the idea that intentional consciousness requires a material substrate. It would the orthodox view in many quarters.

 

A hatred of religion won't help you approach the problem honestly.

 

I am arguing for this view.

 

The idea of a personal God existing independent of mind and matter stands on its own. The idea of a God rejects the two extreme views of Subjective Idealism(the view that only mind exists) as well as Naturalism(the view that only the things described by physics exists) and it also rejects Objective Idealism(a kind of dualism) and brings God as the fundamental reality. God doesn't favor subjective idealism because God has an objective world which is made of five elements (i.e Fire, Earth, Water, Air and Space) and hence I am a realist, God doesn't favor naturalism because naturalism is only a state of mind. So only the mind and those five elements exist in the external objective world, both mind and those five elements came from God and they are made of a single entity and hence there is no paradox of mind-matter, this is the noumenon of Kant. Absolute Idealism cannot be realized without first realizing the reality of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

Of course the brain is a neural network but that doesn't say whether our experience of qualia are due to brain or due to a human mind. If you think that qualia are mere patterns in the brain then develop an artificial neural network and help me to know what it is like to be an artificial neural network, if I find that I am experiencing qualia then I will accept that I was wrong and I will retract from my view.

There can be only two possibilities either science will reduce human mind to brain and the reductionist approach wins or theologians reduce human brain and scientific reality to a human mind and the top down approach wins. This debate was being made from the time of millenia and it will be continued for atleast a century in the future.

As piece of science, rather than mysticism, this "Debate" will start (not finish) when someone blows their brains out with a shotgun, and demonstrates that their mind remains intact.

Until then the only evidence is that the mind is a consequence of the brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

As piece of science, rather than mysticism, this "Debate" will start (not finish) when someone blows their brains out with a shotgun, and demonstrates that their mind remains intact.

Until then the only evidence is that the mind is a consequence of the brain.

 

Yes, If I am right then we should be able to see demonstrations like that given by theologians more often otherwise all of religion will be rubbish and unreal. According to religion, the external world only consists of mind and five elements and the death of a person is interpreted as mind dissociating itself from the body made of five elements and hence I see no reason why anyone can't re-associate his mind to his body(made of five elements) and behave in tact even after being shot to his brain. Brain as such don't exist in the external world in terms of religious perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

Yes, If I am right then we should be able to see demonstrations like that given by theologians more often otherwise all of religion will be rubbish and unreal. According to religion, the external world only consists of mind and five elements and the death of a person is interpreted as mind dissociating itself from the body made of five elements and hence I see no reason why anyone can't re-associate his mind to his body(made of five elements) and behave in tact even after being shot to his brain. Brain as such don't exist in the external world in terms of religious perspective.

Lets be clear about things: what we need is for the separation of mind and brain to be shown not "more often" but at all, even once would be a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

That's the point, why is a metaphysical argument for the existence of God is not equivalent to an argument which says "submission of yourself to a higher authority like God is erroneous". There is no compelling evidence in science so that we can reject a higher authority, science has not yet modeled conscious thought and hence evolutionary psychological theories aren't enough to reject a higher authority.

 

Science rejects God hypothesis or metaphysical explanations not because it has evidence against the existence of God, science rejects God because the scientific method is inappropriate for testing metaphysical statements and it cannot falsify such statements and hence the scientific community has no authority to silence theological arguments. There is nothing in science which contradicts the existence of God and hence all scientific and logical arguments against the existence of God is equivalent to all theological and metaphysical arguments for the existence of God. Neither science nor theology has the authority to silence each other. That's my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

Is this a variation on the idea that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

 

Anyway, my point is that theology doesn't have any legitimate authority to do anything.

It is generally unwise to let fairy tales influence your decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

Is this a variation on the idea that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

 

Anyway, my point is that theology doesn't have any legitimate authority to do anything.

It is generally unwise to let fairy tales influence your decisions.

 

God is a metaphysical concept and the scientific method is ill equipped to falsify such a concept, there is nothing in scientific models which contradicts the existence of God where as theology is best suited to address metaphysical statements through the form of faith and revelations.

 

Theology says "The light which is stimulating my mind is the same light which stimulates other minds". This is purely a metaphysical statement, the light which they are talking about is not the light coming from the sun, its a different light and its ridiculous to apply scientific methods to falsify theological claims.

 

If theology is right you don't have authority over your own thoughts be rest assured as to what it can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

So theology is allowed to make any statement it likes, provided that the statement can never be tested.

Sounds like a total waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

It might sound like a total waste of time to New Atheists but not for theologians, theology or any philosophy starts with dialectic and it is through dialectic we understand a philosophical doctrine, theology falsifies its statements through revelations and then through empiricism.

 

If New Atheists are allowed to make any assertions about God then even I should be allowed to make theological or metaphysical assertions about God. There are alternate schools of philosophical thought which claims to address metaphysical questions which science cannot answer and I want to investigate them and not conclude things fore hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

All atempts to formally connect those two concepts have failed. Hubert Yockey, especially, makes a distinction between themodynamic entropy and shanon entropy in his book Information theory and Molecular biology.

 

 

I'm quoting this part of an oldish post about entropy to see how it fits with newly published information.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-unavoidable-cost-of-computation-revealed-1.10186

 

There really is a link between information and statistical mechanics.

 

And, BTW re."If New Atheists are allowed to make any assertions about God then even I should be allowed to make theological or metaphysical assertions about God. ", the only assertion I make about God is that there is no reason to believe He exists. (And, BTW, I may be an atheist, but I'm not that new.)

Edited by John Cuthber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

I'm quoting this part of an oldish post about entropy to see how it fits with newly published information.

http://www.nature.co...evealed-1.10186

 

There really is a link between information and statistical mechanics.

 

The main objection of Hubert Yockey is the origin of meaningful prescriptive information which is a common attribute of a Genome through any known natural processes. This is the reason he thinks that the origin of Genome is an unsolvable problem for current science is concerned.

 

According to Landauer any information represented in a physical form (for example:- DNA in the Genome and Transistors in Computers) is constrained to the laws of statistical mechanics and hence any logical irreversible operations has to emit waste heat and there by account for increase in entropy. This is true.

 

In computer science erasure of information = = storage of information. There is no difference between the two processes, its just we place "Null" for erasure or deletion of information or we place a definite value for any new information. As you can see there is no violation of any law so as to why this process can't be done spontaneously in nature or by extracting free energy. This is also true but such a process cannot generate meaningful prescriptive information required in Genomes which couples with their specificity to generate stable functional proteins. Hence Hubert Yockey says a stochastic natural process which is not in any way concerned with the meaning of the information that it is erasing couldn't have led to the origin of Genome which contains meaningful information as its common attribute. The problem is with the origin of meaningful information and once Genome got originated there is nothing in physical law which prevents the genome from proliferating or losing its fidelity.

 

 

And, BTW re."If New Atheists are allowed to make any assertions about God then even I should be allowed to make theological or metaphysical assertions about God. ", the only assertion I make about God is that there is no reason to believe He exists. (And, BTW, I may be an atheist, but I'm not that new.)

 

At this point of human history neither science nor religion has any authority to make any positive assertions about metaphysics, we need a new metaphysical and epistemological commitment along with new methods to address metaphysical statements, if ideas like "platonic values exist in their own realm" still exist from the time of Plato up until today in the 21st century and there are other metaphysical ideas much older than Plato I just don't see any point in arguing about metaphysics and metaphysical concepts like God. This was the whole point of Copenhagen interpretation that any statements about the nature of the physical system is at best a meaningless statement because such a physical or metaphysical system could be anything, it doesn't necessarily have to be God and just because our wavefunctions have a high predictive accuracy its wrong to conclude about such a physical system either.

 

This was definitely not the intention of Newton and Galileo when they first started the scientific endevour they thought that science could give a mechanical description of the universe but the aim of science seem to have reduced to a positivist approach and claims that ontology is irrelevant to science and therefore at this stage the aim of religious and philosophy forums should be to criticize those who misrepresent or strawman science and not make any positive assertions about metaphysics and metaphysical concepts like God.

Edited by immortal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arete    1148

The main objection of Hubert Yockey is the origin of meaningful prescriptive information which is a common attribute of a Genome through any known natural processes. This is the reason he thinks that the origin of Genome is an unsolvable problem for current science is concerned.

 

His basis was wild speculation to the point where his argument may as well be based on fiction, as previously discussed. This is why it's not accepted as a serious impediment to mainstream scientific theory. The reason being that we have no idea of the replication rate, generation time and effective population sizes of proto and early life forms, nor any idea of the selective pressure they underwent at the time. It is extremely difficult to evaluate these parameters for extant organisms for which we can directly measure them and inferring them for life forms we know essentially no details of is pretty much pulling them out of the air.

 

So, again at the crux of it you seem to be arguing for a system of investigation which makes positive assertions, but has no obligation to offer any form of proof of those assertions... it just doesn't seem like such a system would be actually useful in gaining any knowledge of much at all.

 

the aim of religious and philosophy forums should be to criticize those who misrepresent or strawman science and not make any positive assertions about metaphysics and metaphysical concepts like God.

 

Again I disagree - if someone makes religious claims that are either at odds with the observed world (e.g. miracles) ascribe exclusive cause (e.g. claims of exclusive moral authority) or insist on supernatural explanations for phenomena accounted for by naturalistic explanations (e.g. so called "qualia") I see no reason for them not to be questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

His basis was wild speculation to the point where his argument may as well be based on fiction, as previously discussed. This is why it's not accepted as a serious impediment to mainstream scientific theory. The reason being that we have no idea of the replication rate, generation time and effective population sizes of proto and early life forms, nor any idea of the selective pressure they underwent at the time. It is extremely difficult to evaluate these parameters for extant organisms for which we can directly measure them and inferring them for life forms we know essentially no details of is pretty much pulling them out of the air.

 

Of course this is the reason why most of Biology is not an exact science, just because we cannot imagine what selection pressures were acting at the time of pre-biotic earth it doesn't mean that life couldn't have originated through natural processes, however Hubert Yockey is arguing from the point of physics and mathematics and I find his arguments quite compelling and its enough to look for alternative methods to exactly know how life originated rather than simply writing a story of speculation which looks similar to any other creation story in all evolution books written by evolutionary biologists.

 

So, again at the crux of it you seem to be arguing for a system of investigation which makes positive assertions, but has no obligation to offer any form of proof of those assertions... it just doesn't seem like such a system would be actually useful in gaining any knowledge of much at all.

 

That's my personal endeavor, you can happily admit that the scientific method cannot answer some of the important philosophical questions, you might say its irrelevant and its not required but that doesn't satisfy my intellect, for example:- If you are a physicist you can not be in peace with out explaining how quantum entanglement works, i.e with out explaining how and why such correlations arise in nature, this was just a small example which I gave to you and this is what quantum physicists like Bernard d Espagnat criticize the positivism of science.

 

When western scholars like Max Muller and Griffith started investigating ancient eastern schools of philosophy they lacked revelations and the practical knowledge which is required to understand and interpret those ancient texts but local Brahmins both had revelations and the practical knowledge and if these local Indian scholars are right then we have a new school of philosophical thought with its own methodologies.

 

1. The epistemological commitment will be that one is able to observe his own mind and this would be the commitment to the beilief that what you are investigating is the noumenon of the world and not the world which appears to us through the sense organs which Kant calls the phenomenon.

 

2. The metaphysical commitment will be that there is an objective physical world which is the actual external world as it is really out there and scientific realism will reduce to a state of mind and turns out to be false.

 

So whether this is a waste of time or not depends on whether the ideas of these scholars are indeed true or not and that is something which needs to be investigated. I would be rather be happy if science could answer and comprehend nature in a complete and in a consistent way rather than wasting my time in some kind of new philosophical thought but at this point I think such an investigation is worth it.

 

Again I disagree - if someone makes religious claims that are either at odds with the observed world (e.g. miracles) ascribe exclusive cause (e.g. claims of exclusive moral authority) or insist on supernatural explanations for phenomena accounted for by naturalistic explanations (e.g. so called "qualia") I see no reason for them not to be questioned.

 

Why don't you apply the same flow of logic that you applied for defending origin of life through natural processes, just because you cannot imagine the possibility of how miracles can happen it doesn't mean it cannot happen and reject it out right, of course with in a fore night I cannot start walking on water.

 

You can always criticize and question my beliefs, that's the whole point of a religious forum but you cannot ridicule and reject my beliefs with out allowing me to discuss about it because you need to understand that your arguments are based on belief too and its not a scientific fact. The examples which you have mentioned here requires explanations, that's why I brought it up, you can not pretend as though there is no problem at all. Real altruism, qualia, ontology, moment of origin, life, conscious thought are real genuine problems for any school of current philosophical thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arete    1148

Of course this is the reason why most of Biology is not an exact science, just because we cannot imagine what selection pressures were acting at the time of pre-biotic earth it doesn't mean that life couldn't have originated through natural processes, however Hubert Yockey is arguing from the point of physics and mathematics and I find his arguments quite compelling

 

It's a refutation based on non-evidence.

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

 

simply writing a story of speculation which looks similar to any other creation story in all evolution books written by evolutionary biologists.

 

Current mainstream scientific theories are not baseless "stories" and suggesting so is false: these theories are based on the best evidence at hand.

http://www.talkorigi...iginoflife.html

http://journalofcosm...mentary202.html

http://www.sciencema...987/52.abstract

http://www.wired.com...synthetic-life/

http://pandasthumb.o...enesis-how.html

 

Why don't you apply the same flow of logic that you applied for defending origin of life through natural processes, just because you cannot imagine the possibility of how miracles can happen it doesn't mean it cannot happen and reject it out right, of course with in a fore night I cannot start walking on water.

 

There's is distinction between personal incredulity and there being simply no evidence for an assertion. I don't not reject the possibility of your ability to walk on water outright - but without evidence of it, I conclude it as unlikely and therefore - if you made an assertion that you could without evidence to support the assertion I would feel confident in maintaining a position of skepticism and rejecting the suggestion as not compelling.

 

you need to understand that your arguments are based on belief too and its not a scientific fact.

 

This is simply untrue, given my position is the scientific position.

Edited by Arete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

It's a refutation based on non-evidence.

http://www.talkorigi...b/abioprob.html

 

Its disturbing that at one point they say that its incorrect to apply probabilistic models to the origin of life since we don't know all the factors and the various degrees of freedom and they themselves apply probability and say that the origin of life is not so improbable.

 

What Yockey's arguments indicates is that "If natural selection was not acting from the point of origin of life up until now then origin of life is unsolvable for current science because natural selection is one of the major natural force which can accumulate new information and for this nature needed a self-replicator in the first place.

 

 

 

There's is distinction between personal incredulity and there being simply no evidence for an assertion. I don't not reject the possibility of your ability to walk on water outright - but without evidence of it, I conclude it as unlikely and therefore - if you made an assertion that you could without evidence to support the assertion I would feel confident in maintaining a position of skepticism and rejecting the suggestion as not compelling.

 

This was the whole point of the discussion in this thread, isn't it, there is a clear distinction between saying "First walk on water and then I will listen to your explanation" and saying "First walk on water and then I will give merit to your explanation". It seems most of the arguments of members here(including your arguments) are of former type and there is really no point in even to have a philosophical discussion with these members.

 

Conflicts do arises in such a case for example-

 

When someone asks in a religion forum about "What is Perfection? Has anyone had thoughts about this before?"

 

The answer to that question is Yes, there were great thinkers all along human history who had pondered over such questions and if I introduce how different philosophical schools thought about Perfection from the below set of categories.

 

Philosophical_schools_and_traditions

 

Category:Ancient_philosophical_schools_and_traditions

 

 

and then members like you conclude fore hand and put a constraint on such thoughts just because those thoughts doesn't fit with natural sciences, this is the scientific attitude and its appropriate to display such an attitude in the scientific speculation forums but its not appropriate to display the same attitude while discussing in philosophy and religion forums where one is arguing about metaphysical concepts which cannot be falsified through the scientific method and therefore any arguments against such metaphysical concepts will not be scientific arguments instead those arguments are personal opinions. If some members are not interested in philosophy and metaphysics and if members think it is just a waste of time and no useful knowledge comes out of metaphysics then its just fine, you can criticize such schools but you need to know that those are your personal opinions and beliefs and even your arguments have no merit what so ever while discussing metaphysical issues. This is my whole point.

 

Karl Popper said the metaphysics of this century might very well be the science of next century.

 

This is simply untrue, given my position is the scientific position.

 

 

 

Its about Intellectual honesty, one should be honest about as to what science can answer and what it can not and how much it claims to explain nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Cuthber    3181

Immortal,

re. "At this point of human history neither science nor religion has any authority to make any positive assertions about metaphysics"

 

From a practical point of view, what is metaphysics?

What use is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
immortal    64

From a practical point of view, what is metaphysics?

 

From a practical point of view Metaphysics is a place to dump your unfalsifiable notions, ideas, concepts and theories. It neither means those concepts are correct and real nor it means they are incorrect and unreal.

 

What use is it?

 

Metaphysical concepts don't always remain unfalsifiable and as time passes they become falsifiable and useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dov    8

From Scientism Worldview, Some things to think about...

 

On The Essence And Matrix Of The Universe-Life

 

Natural Selection/ Self Replication/ Gravity

Self-replication is the ultimate mode of natural selection is the essence and drive and purpose of the universe. Period.

The pre-Big-Bang singularity is the ultimate self-replication of the cycling mass-energy universe. Period.

Earth’s RNA nucleotides life is just one of the myriad modes of self-replication.

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

 

==============================

My Don Quixotic mission:

Un-theosophize religious Science of trade-union-church AAAS.

 

It takes a change of culture, of the mode of reactions to circumstances, to effect a change of habit, of genetics. Genetics is the progeny of culture, not vice versa. This applies in ALL fields of human activities, including economics, to ALL personal and social behavioral aspects.

 

Since the early 1900’s ALL “science” has been taken over by the Technology Culture of the religious Americans, represented by the trade-union-church AAAS. Plain and simple. There has not been any science in the world since then except “religious-American-science”.

 

On the blissful religious science ignorance…:

 

USA-World Science Hegemony Is Science Blind

 

Since the early 2000s I have been posting many articles on science items surveyed and analyzed by me, without religious background-concepts. I have been doing this because I was deeply disturbed by the religiosity of the 1848-founded AAAS trade-union and by the consequent religious background-tint of its extensive “scientific” publications and activities.

 

On my next birthday I’ll be 89-yrs old. I know that I’m deeply engaged in a Don Quixotic mission-war to extricate-free the USA and world Science from the clutches and consequences of the religious-trade-union-church AAAS, adopted strangely by the majority of scientifically ignorant religious god-trusting Americans and by their most other humanity following flocks…

 

But I am sincerely confident that only thus it is feasible and possible to embark on a new, rational, Human culture (Scientism) and on new more beneficial and effective technology courses for humanity…

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

Energy-Mass Poles Of The Universe

http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/

 

============================

 

Decide Humanity: Scientism Or Natural Selection

http://www.sciencemag.org/site/special/conflict/index.xhtml http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/05/roots-of-racism.html?ref=em

 

Scientism:

A doctrine and method characteristic of scientists, and the proposition that scientific doctrine and methods of studying natural sciences should be used in all areas of investigation and in conduct of politics-social-cultural-civil affairs in pursuit of an efficient practical, as fair as possible, civics framework.

 

Natural Selection:

All mass formats, inanimate and animate, follow natural selection, i.e. intake of energy or their energy taken in by other mass formats.

All politics and economics, local, national and international, are about evolutionary biology, about Darwinian evolution, about survival, about obtaining and maintaining and distributing energy.

 

Religion:

is a virtual factor-component in human’s natural selection. Its target-function is to preserve-proliferate specific cultural phenotypes.

Natural selection-religion are compatible with technology-capitalism but are obviously incompatible with science-scientism, that targets preservation-proliferation of the genotype.

 

Science-scientism is an obvious threat to the survival of a cultural phenotype.

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

Universe-Energy-Mass-Life Compilation

http://universe-life.com/2012/02/03/universe-energy-mass-life-compilation/

For A Scientism Culture

http://universe-life.com/2011/06/11/for-a-scientism-culture/

 

==================================

 

On religion-accommodating AAAS science: How can science be more theosophized than by regarding life-brain-mind-spirituality as being mysteriously apart-different from other mass formats?

 

Life is just another mass format. Self-replicating.

Most phenomena attributed (erroneously) to life only are ubiquitous, including culture, natural selection and (apparent) intelligence…

 

Why RNA genes are the heart of medicine…

Life underneath the academEnglish verbiage…

 

Intelliget Life

 

Life:

self-replicating mass format of evolving naturally selected RNA nucleotide(s), which is life’s primal organism.

Natural selection:

ubiquitous phenomenon of material, a mass format, that augments its energy constraint.

Mass-Energy:

inert-moving graviton(s), the fundamental particle of the universe, inert extremely briefly at the pre-big-bang singularity .

Intelligence:

learning from experience.

 

Intelligent Life

Life is an evolving system continuously undergoing natural selection i.e. continuously selecting, intelligently, opportunities to augment its energy constraint in order to survive i.e. in order to avoid its own mass format being re-converted to energy.

 

Dov Henis

(comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

 

PS:

Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes, the elementary organisms of their higher organism, as their functional template.

DH

========================

 

Virtual Reality And Science

 

 

Virtual = Existing in the mind, a product of imagination..

 

From http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/Inception-And-Prevalence-Of-Western-Monotheism_18243.html

15 June 2006
Science and Religion
Psychiatrist draws a straight vertical line on a sheet of paper, shows it to the patient and asks: "what do you see?"
Patient, somewhat excited: "A standing naked woman..."
The psychiatrist draws a horizontal line, shows it and asks: "What do you see now?"
Patient, more excitedly: "A lying naked woman..."
The psychiatrist now draws a 90-deg angle and asks: "And what do you see now?"
Patient, overcome with excitement: "A naked woman lying with her legs up..."
"Man", says the psychiatrist, "You're sex crazy!"
"Doc", says the patient, "It's you who draws these sexy drawings, not I!"

Scientists see the lines, religious persons see the drawings...

 

Science can deal with every subject. Including virtual reality.

 

Virtual reality cultures create real technologies but only virtual sciences.

http://universe-life.com/2013/01/11/usa-world-science-hegemony-is-science-blind/

 

Whatever the genomics impact on the U.S. economy is, it is without the present USA-World science hegemony understanding what is the genome. Imagine , just imagine, what the impact can be if the USA-World science hegemony would have understood what is the genome...

Conscientious life is a real life with a virtual reality culture, a culture driven by natural selection along roads rolled by survival needs combined with imaginative apprehensions and aspirations.

 

Dov Henis (comments from 22nd century)

http://universe-life.com/

http://universe-life.com/2012/11/14/701/

-The 20yrs development, and comprehensive data-based scientism worldview, in a succinct format.

-The Genome is a base organism evolved, and continuously modified, by the genes of its higher organism as their functional template.

- Everything in the universe derives from mass-energy duality, from the universe cycle between the two poles all-mass-all energy.

- The Origin Of Gravitons is the ONLY thing unknown-unexplained in the Scientism Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now