Jump to content
DrmDoc

What is faith?

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, nevim said:

iNow, I think naitche was describing the same viewpoint as yours?

Thank you nevim,  I was having a hard time trying to work out how I blew that so badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

No you provide hairy fairy hand wavy rhetoric at best.

We are all star stuff, born in the belly of stars.

No, science gives explanations, and constructs models/theories based on what we observe....if that happens to align with reality then all well and good. Unlike the recalcitrant nature of religion and accepting some mythical higher power in place of science, science is a discipline in eternal progress.

Science gives explanations for reality, not existence.

Answers about one's own existence can come from philosophically reasoning about the nature of existence. Such reasoning can lead one to belief in a higher power.

There is no reason to be immediately dismissive of an attempts to do such.

 

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, naitche said:

Thank you nevim,  I was having a hard time trying to work out how I blew that so badly.

I’m sure the fault was mine. No worries.

5 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science gives explanations for reality, not existence.

You exist because your dads sperm hit your moms egg. Science describes that. You exist because of mitosis and miosis and genetic expression and the Krebs cycle and the interplay of energy on the earth and from the sun and the atmosphere and the composition of it. You exist bc earth has the orbit it does and our galaxy is placed where it is around its black hole at the center. Science describes ALL of those things and so much more. 

Reality, though? That’s for philosophy. Seriously, for someone who speaks so often about reason, it sure feels like you’re only ever correct, much like a broken clock, by accident. 

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

 Faith can be reasonable sometimes or have a reasonable basis.

Limited agreement from me.

I think it can have a truth at its base, but thats lost over time.

Excuse the analogy, its not meant to insult, but I equate faith  to the fixed responses geneticaly inherited.

So my analogy is is pigs that instinctively root for food. Its based in an effective strategy. 

Pigs can easily be trained to do tasks for food, but once learned, the behaviour of rooting will often interrupt the trained task.

The value is in that fixed response, to the animal. It has trouble  transferring the value to the task. 

Or the Kennel clubs faith in the pedigree. It is helpful to understand the background genetics of breeding stock. But not when any value recognised is in a single tool used to do that.

The purpose and meaning is lost and corrupted.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science gives explanations for reality, not existence.

Again, you are wrong. Science does not neccessarily give any description of reality, rather it constructs models/theories that align with what we observe, and like all science, is open to modification, change or simply scrapping. "Reality" is simply our conscious view and experience of the world around us. Science is a reasonable explanation based on observation and evidence.

Quote

Answers about one's own existence can come from philosophically reasoning about the nature of existence. Such reasoning can lead one to belief in a higher power.

Only if one rejects science.

Quote

There is no reason to be immediately dismissive of an attempts to do such.

My rejection and dismissive, "straight to the point" approach only applies to the non scientific concept of the supernatural and/or paranormal.  Far more truthful then "beating round the bush" obtuseness with half truths, double meanings, and veiled closeted implications and inferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m sure the fault was mine. No worries.

You exist because your dads sperm hit your moms egg. Science describes that. You exist because of mitosis and miosis and genetic expression and the Krebs cycle and the interplay of energy on the earth and from the sun and the atmosphere and the composition of it. You exist bc earth has the orbit it does and our galaxy is placed where it is around its black hole at the center. Science describes ALL of those things and so much more. 

Reality, though? That’s for philosophy. Seriously, for someone who speaks so often about reason, it sure feels like you’re only ever correct, much like a broken clock, by accident. 

Why do I the self exist? Why does I the consciousness exist? Why is it I, whom is experiencing a brain, exist?

Science can not even explain consciousness. It would be considered a belief to believe that it does.

Remember, I am not the body nor the brain. I am experiencing a brain. This I is the very thing that eludes any explanation whatsoever.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again, you are wrong. Science does not neccessarily give any description of reality, rather it constructs models/theories that align with what we observe, and like all science, is open to modification, change or simply scrapping. "Reality" is simply our conscious view and experience of the world around us. Science is a reasonable explanation based on observation and evidence.

Only if one rejects science.

My rejection and dismissive, "straight to the point" approach only applies to the non scientific concept of the supernatural and/or paranormal.  Far more truthful then "beating round the bush" obtuseness with half truths, double meanings, and veiled closeted implications and inferences.

How does that give you reason to dismiss the pondering of one's existence as a conscious self? Are you going to dismiss something only because it could lead to reasoning something that you disagree with?

Science is all about finding explanations, not dismissing any attempt at them. When that happens, it becomes a system of belief rather than science.

Why can't you just say that you don't know if there is a higher power, or that such would fall outside of the limits of science?

It doesn't make sense to use science to dismiss faith when it falls out of the reach of science.

32 minutes ago, naitche said:

Limited agreement from me.

I think it can have a truth at its base, but thats lost over time.

Excuse the analogy, its not meant to insult, but I equate faith  to the fixed responses geneticaly inherited.

So my analogy is is pigs that instinctively root for food. Its based in an effective strategy. 

Pigs can easily be trained to do tasks for food, but once learned, the behaviour of rooting will often interrupt the trained task.

The value is in that fixed response, to the animal. It has trouble  transferring the value to the task. 

Or the Kennel clubs faith in the pedigree. It is helpful to understand the background genetics of breeding stock. But not when any value recognised is in a single tool used to do that.

The purpose and meaning is lost and corrupted.

 

 

I would agree with what you said, as faith has lost it's original value and meaning over time.

It can definitely be that faith is sometimes based in a response rather than reason. It can also be the other way around in other instances.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science can not even explain consciousness. It would be considered a belief to believe that it does.

Rubbish. Neuroscience continues to improve its explanations of the source and nature of consciousness every singe day.

11 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

t can definitely be that faith is sometimes based in a response rather than reason. It can also be the other way around in other instances.

Since you’ve ignored the last four to seven times I’ve asked this, I’ll request again: Name even one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Why do I the self exist? Why does I the consciousness exist? Why is it I, whom is experiencing a brain, exist?

Science can not even explain consciousness. It would be considered a belief to believe that it does.

Remember, I am not the body nor the brain. I am experiencing a brain. This I is the very thing that eludes any explanation whatsoever.

No science does not  really explain that, didn't I just say that? A process of evolution though is the best concept, plenty of time for it to happen....Same process re Abiogenesis being the only scientific answer re universal appearance of life... Again you are insinuating this mythical higher power for which there is no evidence for, and is self contradictory. Remember we have come a long way since science enabled us to get out of the trees and walk on the ground...we have come a long way since humanity believed in deities in the Sun, Moon, Mountains etc....we have come a long way since those ignorant early days when we had no explanation for how we, or the universe came to be.....Finally arriving at the BB, which even the Catholic church now recognise along with evolution. no need for faith, no need for mythical comforting dreams to warm the cockles of your heart. We are simply all a product of the BB, stellar and planetary formation, synthesisation of the elements, Abiogenesis, and finally evolution.

Where did the BB come from and why? As yet we can't be sure, but some reasonable speculative science answers are available...In essence, no need for faith in any higher power.

 

Quote

 

Why can't you just say that you don't know if there is a higher power, or that such would fall outside of the limits of science?

It doesn't make sense to use science to dismiss faith when it falls out of the reach of science.

 

It makes all the sense in the world to reject unscientific mythical unsupported comforting dreams, through a means that has proven itself....science.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What exactly would one such as you believe about existence?

I'm quite the nihilist. In what sense do you mean 'someone like me'? I can't really speak for everyone else in this forum. 

 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science is used to explain reality, not explain existence

So existence is apart of reality, not a part of it? Which of these two are you defining differently from me, reality or existence, or both?

Reality, to my understanding, is what remains when you stop believing in everything. That means, reality is independent from perception. There is a related term called internal reality, which is the subjective perception of reality, and figuring out where one begins and the other ends is tricky, because we only have our perceptions to compare and distill what (objective) reality is. The (most successful) method for this is science.

The pure fact of our existence is obvious and axiomatic. We exist, as does our environment - reality, a.k.a. the Universe. And we exist in this reality, as part of it. Therefore whatever explains our reality explains our existence.

Faith offers an easy way out, and I understand the appeal. You don't have to understand it, following is enough. There's a simple set of rules to live by, and a complex set of rules to fight about. There's nothing new to learn, the Truth of Faith is eternal and immutable (compared to a human lifespan).

Science on the other hand is messy. You're only right until someone proves you wrong, and if you're lucky, you don't live to see the day. It is ever changing, truths held for decades can be toppled overnight by a smart experiment. You always need to stay on top, keep your eyes on the ball, never lose a thread. There's a constant input of information pending evaluation. Science is not for the faint of heart.

For the record: I don't judge anyone for choosing faith over science. I respect my friends and family for their beliefs. I even go to church with them from time to time because of the sense of the community, also we have a great organist and choir (I love music). And while the sermon is based on a book and a faith that I don't believe in, I can find wisdom in the priest's conclusion. When it comes to peace, love and decency, I really don't care how people come to it, just that they do. 

What I do judge people for is being asinine. Being wrong is one thing - it happens to the best. Being asinine is being arrogant and stubborn, and not giving up the falsely held notion even when compelling evidence is presented. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I'm quite the nihilist. In what sense do you mean 'someone like me'? I can't really speak for everyone else in this forum. 

 

So existence is apart of reality, not a part of it? Which of these two are you defining differently from me, reality or existence, or both?

Reality, to my understanding, is what remains when you stop believing in everything. That means, reality is independent from perception. There is a related term called internal reality, which is the subjective perception of reality, and figuring out where one begins and the other ends is tricky, because we only have our perceptions to compare and distill what (objective) reality is. The (most successful) method for this is science.

The pure fact of our existence is obvious and axiomatic. We exist, as does our environment - reality, a.k.a. the Universe. And we exist in this reality, as part of it. Therefore whatever explains our reality explains our existence.

Faith offers an easy way out, and I understand the appeal. You don't have to understand it, following is enough. There's a simple set of rules to live by, and a complex set of rules to fight about. There's nothing new to learn, the Truth of Faith is eternal and immutable (compared to a human lifespan).

Science on the other hand is messy. You're only right until someone proves you wrong, and if you're lucky, you don't live to see the day. It is ever changing, truths held for decades can be toppled overnight by a smart experiment. You always need to stay on top, keep your eyes on the ball, never lose a thread. There's a constant input of information pending evaluation. Science is not for the faint of heart.

For the record: I don't judge anyone for choosing faith over science. I respect my friends and family for their beliefs. I even go to church with them from time to time because of the sense of the community, also we have a great organist and choir (I love music). And while the sermon is based on a book and a faith that I don't believe in, I can find wisdom in the priest's conclusion. When it comes to peace, love and decency, I really don't care how people come to it, just that they do. 

What I do judge people for is being asinine. Being wrong is one thing - it happens to the best. Being asinine is being arrogant and stubborn, and not giving up the falsely held notion even when compelling evidence is presented. 

Well said! While my better half is a devout christian in the true sense of the word, we still get along well and have now for 43 years....Tolerance on both our parts. Both our first and only marriages.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Reality, to my understanding, is what remains when you stop believing in everything. That means, reality is independent from perception. There is a related term called internal reality, which is the subjective perception of reality, and figuring out where one begins and the other ends is tricky, because we only have our perceptions to compare and distill what (objective) reality is. The (most successful) method for this is science.

The pure fact of our existence is obvious and axiomatic. We exist, as does our environment - reality, a.k.a. the Universe. And we exist in this reality, as part of it. Therefore whatever explains our reality explains our existence.

Faith offers an easy way out, and I understand the appeal. You don't have to understand it, following is enough. There's a simple set of rules to live by, and a complex set of rules to fight about. There's nothing new to learn, the Truth of Faith is eternal and immutable (compared to a human lifespan).

Science on the other hand is messy. You're only right until someone proves you wrong, and if you're lucky, you don't live to see the day. It is ever changing, truths held for decades can be toppled overnight by a smart experiment. You always need to stay on top, keep your eyes on the ball, never lose a thread. There's a constant input of information pending evaluation. Science is not for the faint of heart.

You are forgetting that the self is what the "I" is. Myself does not mean the body or the brain that the self experiences through time. 
This "i" doesn't have to necessarily be considered as part of reality. It may depend on reality to exist as an observer, although it does not have to be a part of reality.

Science is all about being critical and finding holes in thinking, and one major hole in scientific thought is the existence of the self. The self eludes any scientific explanation of how it is, let alone what it even is.

Attributing a higher power to existence can still be compatible with scientific thought, it only requires a different perspective on reality.

48 minutes ago, iNow said:

Rubbish. Neuroscience continues to improve its explanations of the source and nature of consciousness every singe day.

Since you’ve ignored the last four to seven times I’ve asked this, I’ll request again: Name even one. 

Neuroscience explains the brain, not the conscious self experiencing the brain.

There is yet to be any sound explanation that scientifically explains the nature and origin of consciousness: how it exists, what it is, and why it exists.

There is no explanation as to why the brain should be anything more than a machine. Nowhere should the brain require a conscious self to function if the brain really functions in the way that science says it does.

Remember what consciousness is about, it is the self that is conscious. The brain is not conscious, it is the self that exists as the brain that is conscious. 

Quote

A reasoned approach could start with questioning the nature of the self and of the reality that it exists within.

Once certain conclusions are reached in this way, they can cause more reasoning and lead to other conclusions

Quote

 

An example of such an approach would be reaching the conclusion that it is ones self that has an independent existence, and therefore reasoning that reality does not exist independently of the self. Thus, in accordance with such reasoning, reality could be attributed to what could be called a higher power.

I offered examples earlier in the thread about a reasonable approach to faith.

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

No science does not  really explain that, didn't I just say that? A process of evolution though is the best concept, plenty of time for it to happen....Same process re Abiogenesis being the only scientific answer re universal appearance of life... Again you are insinuating this mythical higher power for which there is no evidence for, and is self contradictory. Remember we have come a long way since science enabled us to get out of the trees and walk on the ground...we have come a long way since humanity believed in deities in the Sun, Moon, Mountains etc....we have come a long way since those ignorant early days when we had no explanation for how we, or the universe came to be.....Finally arriving at the BB, which even the Catholic church now recognise along with evolution. no need for faith, no need for mythical comforting dreams to warm the cockles of your heart. We are simply all a product of the BB, stellar and planetary formation, synthesisation of the elements, Abiogenesis, and finally evolution.

Where did the BB come from and why? As yet we can't be sure, but some reasonable speculative science answers are available...In essence, no need for faith in any higher power.

It makes all the sense in the world to reject unscientific mythical unsupported comforting dreams, through a means that has proven itself....science.

There is still much left unexplained by science, including the nature of consciousness.

Evolution does not explain how it is possible for a consciousness to exist out of brain matter.

Consciousness is a major hole in scientific thought that is simply not being properly addressed. It's set aside instead of being treated as the hole in scientific thought that it is.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It can definitely be that faith is sometimes based in a response rather than reason. It can also be the other way around in other instances.

 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Since you’ve ignored the last four to seven times I’ve asked this, I’ll request again: Name even one. 

Now, the 8th plus time...

It seems obvious, perhaps to every single reader except you, that you simply don’t have an answer. Your personal faith is not enough and your willful ignorance transparent.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

You are forgetting that the self is what the "I" is. Myself does not mean the body or the brain that the self experiences through time. 
This "i" doesn't have to necessarily be considered as part of reality. It may depend on reality to exist as an observer, although it does not have to be a part of reality

Forgetting and disregarding as utter horseshit are not quite the same. 

 

39 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Science is all about being critical and finding holes in thinking, and one major hole in scientific thought is the existence of the self. The self eludes any scientific explanation of how it is, let alone what it even is.

Attributing a higher power to existence can still be compatible with scientific thought, it only requires a different perspective on reality.

That is what I meant by asinine. 

 

41 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Neuroscience explains the brain, not the conscious self experiencing the brain.

There is yet to be any sound explanation that scientifically explains the nature and origin of consciousness: how it exists, what it is, and why it exists.

The consciousness doesn't experience the brain, it experiences reality. Also, consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but because the brain isn't necessarily the only substrate for consciousness to arise (we haven't achieved consciousness in AI yet, but we're pretty sure that it can be done), neuroscience can only ever explain a part of consciousness, if at all. 

 

47 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no explanation as to why the brain should be anything more than a machine. Nowhere should the brain require a conscious self to function if the brain really functions in the way that science says it does

This might sound like whataboutism or strawman at first glance, but physics doesn't need chemistry to work, either. Chemistry is an emergent system from the physics of electron orbits around a positively charged nucleus. Chemistry would work with completely different laws of physics, as long as there are composite particles that react with each other by exchanging or sharing parts of their surface. It would just be different chemistry emerging from different laws of physics.

Also, when we are asleep or put under or knocked out, our brain does continue to work. It only really shuts down when we die... Yes, the brain can work without consciousness. But what do you think this demonstrates?

57 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

I offered examples earlier in the thread about a reasonable approach to faith

Show us. Or not. Idc. Remeber: I'm a nihilist.

 

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is still much left unexplained by science, including the nature of consciousness.

Evolution does not explain how it is possible for a consciousness to exist out of brain matter.

Consciousness is a major hole in scientific thought that is simply not being properly addressed. It's set aside instead of being treated as the hole in scientific thought that it is

You might enjoy reading Michael Polanyi (Wikipedia). He was a very gifted scientist, yet he argued that the scientific method was incomplete and didn't mechanically produce truth. He literally wrote the book on tacit knowledge and emergent systems. I read parts of his book tacit knowledge for an anthropology seminar about the anthropology of knowledge. It was a most fascinating read.

The consciousness is the epitome of tacit knowledge. It is our mode of experience, and it is the most familiar concept to us because it is everything we experience. But it is at the same time the most difficult to analyze, because we can't share consciousness with another person (unless you're a Jaeger pilot) and experience what another person is experiencing. Descartes himself said in his famous book that also says 'cogito, ergo sum' that it is impossible to prove to another person that you yourself are conscious, as it is impossible for anyone else in the world to conclusively prove to eachother the instance of their consciousness.

Maybe that is where your notion that consciousness is the reason for existence comes from. What you confuse is reason and proof. Your consciousness is proof to yourself of your own existence. There is however no way to logically conclude that it is the reason for your existence. Or any reason for anything, for that matter. Good luck convincing a nihilist of the contrary

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is still much left unexplained by science, including the nature of consciousness.

I just said that :rolleyes: But that's no excuse to imply some unsupported myth.

Quote

Evolution does not explain how it is possible for a consciousness to exist out of brain matter.

Obviously it does because we are an example.

Quote

Consciousness is a major hole in scientific thought that is simply not being properly addressed. It's set aside instead of being treated as the hole in scientific thought that it is.

Of course it is! We just do  not have any scientific answers as yet. 100 years ago we were not aware of how the elements were created....nor what mechanism drove the Sun and Stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

We can't assume there is no reason for existence without trying to find one first.

We can't assume there are no garden gnomes in your garden without trying to find them. Have you searched for garden gnomes?

 

6 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

What exactly would one such as you believe about existence?

Nothing.

 

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no explanation as to why the brain should be anything more than a machine. Nowhere should the brain require a conscious self to function if the brain really functions in the way that science says it does.

There is no evidence that we are anything more than a complex machine. We know from computer science that in complex systems, it is best to have a higher level program to organise lower level processes without being bothered with the details.

Without this higher level program, which we experience as consciousness, our brain would be too unorganised to function. I'm sorry, but p-zombies are impossible. 

Edited by Bender

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bender said:

We can't assume there are no garden gnomes in your garden without trying to find them. Have you searched for garden gnomes?

 

Nothing.

 

There is no reason not to try to look for answers about human existence through reason.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

I just said that :rolleyes: But that's no excuse to imply some unsupported myth.

Obviously it does because we are an example.

Of course it is! We just do  not have any scientific answers as yet. 100 years ago we were not aware of how the elements were created....nor what mechanism drove the Sun and Stars.

Consciousness is more than another unsolved scientificic peoblem; it raises fundamental questions about reality and existence that simply cannot be answered by scientific thought.

Philosophical thought, however, may be able to provide answers to these questions in a way that science cannot.

2 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Forgetting and disregarding as utter horseshit are not quite the same. 

 

That is what I meant by asinine. 

 

The consciousness doesn't experience the brain, it experiences reality. Also, consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, but because the brain isn't necessarily the only substrate for consciousness to arise (we haven't achieved consciousness in AI yet, but we're pretty sure that it can be done), neuroscience can only ever explain a part of consciousness, if at all. 

 

This might sound like whataboutism or strawman at first glance, but physics doesn't need chemistry to work, either. Chemistry is an emergent system from the physics of electron orbits around a positively charged nucleus. Chemistry would work with completely different laws of physics, as long as there are composite particles that react with each other by exchanging or sharing parts of their surface. It would just be different chemistry emerging from different laws of physics.

Also, when we are asleep or put under or knocked out, our brain does continue to work. It only really shuts down when we die... Yes, the brain can work without consciousness. But what do you think this demonstrates?

Show us. Or not. Idc. Remeber: I'm a nihilist.

 

You might enjoy reading Michael Polanyi (Wikipedia). He was a very gifted scientist, yet he argued that the scientific method was incomplete and didn't mechanically produce truth. He literally wrote the book on tacit knowledge and emergent systems. I read parts of his book tacit knowledge for an anthropology seminar about the anthropology of knowledge. It was a most fascinating read.

The consciousness is the epitome of tacit knowledge. It is our mode of experience, and it is the most familiar concept to us because it is everything we experience. But it is at the same time the most difficult to analyze, because we can't share consciousness with another person (unless you're a Jaeger pilot) and experience what another person is experiencing. Descartes himself said in his famous book that also says 'cogito, ergo sum' that it is impossible to prove to another person that you yourself are conscious, as it is impossible for anyone else in the world to conclusively prove to eachother the instance of their consciousness.

Maybe that is where your notion that consciousness is the reason for existence comes from. What you confuse is reason and proof. Your consciousness is proof to yourself of your own existence. There is however no way to logically conclude that it is the reason for your existence. Or any reason for anything, for that matter. Good luck convincing a nihilist of the contrary

 

Dismissing my points without an explanation does not disprove what I said. My argument was based on reason.

The idea that consciousness emerges from the brain does not explain anything more than the idea that consciousness comes from the brain.

It is still an idea regardless, and not a conclusive statement about the nature of consciousness.

There are so many questions left unanswered about consciousness and so many questions that come from such. It isn't scientific to ignore the questions that are posed by such a hole in scientific thinking as consciousness.

 

One is not only looking for conclusions about existence. Rather it is a continuous process of asking questions, reasoning, and finding answers to those questions through reasoning. One is looking to continue the process by asking more questions, not stopping at the answers reached.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

 

Now, the 8th plus time...

It seems obvious, perhaps to every single reader except you, that you simply don’t have an answer. Your personal faith is not enough and your willful ignorance transparent.

A good example is the belief in the scientific method as a way to explain reality. It may be reasonable to hold such a belief, though it is still a belief nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no reason not to try to look for answers about human existence through reason.

Consciousness is more than another unsolved scientificic peoblem; it raises fundamental questions about reality and existence that simply cannot be answered by scientific thought.

Science is reason: Maintaining a warm inner glow and comfort through unsupported mythical beliefs in magical spaghetti monsters is not.

Quote

Philosophical thought, however, may be able to provide answers to these questions in a way that science cannot.

Not if it isn't supported by empirical evidence and the scientific methodology.

Quote

Dismissing my points without an explanation does not disprove what I said. My argument was based on reason.

The only dismissing I see,  along with avoidance in answering questions, is your own replies. All we have is the same rhetoric repeated over and over.

Quote

A good example is the belief in the scientific method as a way to explain reality. It may be reasonable to hold such a belief, though it is still a belief nonetheless.

Your obtuseness is staggering to say the least. For the third time, Science is not obliged to describe your "truth" or "reality" per se.....It models observations, and makes successful predictions. As models improve and as theories become more certain, your so called reality may be reached or approached, if it at all exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, beecee said:

Science is reason: Maintaining a warm inner glow and comfort through unsupported mythical beliefs in magical spaghetti monsters is not.

Not if it isn't supported by empirical evidence and the scientific methodology.

The only dismissing I see,  along with avoidance in answering questions, is your own replies. All we have is the same rhetoric repeated over and over.

Your obtuseness is staggering to say the least. For the third time, Science is not obliged to describe your "truth" or "reality" per se.....It models observations, and makes successful predictions. As models improve and as theories become more certain, your so called reality may be reached or approached, if it at all exists.

Philosophical thinking is also reason. Does it not have legitimacy as a way of finding answers to questions of existence?

1 hour ago, Bender said:

There is no evidence that we are anything more than a complex machine. We know from computer science that in complex systems, it is best to have a higher level program to organise lower level processes without being bothered with the details.

Without this higher level program, which we experience as consciousness, our brain would be too unorganised to function. I'm sorry, but p-zombies are impossible. 

It is this very "we" or rather the "I" that eludes explanation.

Without a proper understanding of the "we" or "I" that experiences as consiousness, many doubts and questions only follow.

Doubts arise about the nature of reality and existence that can not be resolved within the scientific framework and cast a shadow of doubt on scientific thought.

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

It is this very "we" or rather the "I" that eludes explanation.

Not at all. The bag of meat and bones that resides in my skin is "I".

1 hour ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Doubts arise about the nature of reality and existence that can not be resolved within the scientific framework and cast a shadow of doubt on scientific thought.

These doubts only arise if you want them to. They are by no means necessary or even implied by any objective observation.

3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

There is no reason not to try to look for answers about human existence through reason.

Is there a reason not to try to look for garden gnomes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Dismissing my points without an explanation does not disprove what I said. My argument was based on reason.

I am not going to repeat everything everyone has said on this post. Suffice it to say, this is becoming more absurd than Monty Python's Argumentation sketch. Unlike mentioned sketch, NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS FUNNY.

 

5 hours ago, beecee said:

I just said that :rolleyes: But that's no excuse to imply some unsupported myth.

Obviously it does because we are an example.

Of course it is! We just do  not have any scientific answers as yet. 100 years ago we were not aware of how the elements were created....nor what mechanism drove the Sun and Stars.

Had to give this +1 to counter the -1. There is just nooooooo way this is a bad post. 

 

6 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Maybe that is where your notion that consciousness is the reason for existence comes from. What you confuse is reason and proof. Your consciousness is proof to yourself of your own existence. There is however no way to logically conclude that it is the reason for your existence. Or any reason for anything, for that matter. Good luck convincing a nihilist of the contrary

@Endercreeper01 care to comment? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bender said:

Not at all. The bag of meat and bones that resides in my skin is "I".

These doubts only arise if you want them to. They are by no means necessary or even implied by any objective observation.

Is there a reason not to try to look for garden gnomes?

My identity and ego forms around the "I" that identifies itself with the mind-body that "I" experience reality through.

"I" am identifying with the mind-body that allows me to perceive and interact with reality. 

Yet I still perceive the mind-body in the same way I experience my senses. 

This does not make me the mind-body, I am still an observer that experiences the mind-body in the present moment in the same way that I perceive the external reality.

The question still remains about this "I", the observer. It remains elusive to any scientific explanation that attempts to describe it's existence.

 

I don't "want" doubts to arise, I have doubts based on questions that arise. They appear when there are serious questions that aren't being answered, and instead are being thrown aside like they don't mean anything by the scientific community.

The problem of consciousness is not being treated as the major problem with the current scientific and materialistic paradigm that it is. There are serious problems and doubts that need to be addressed as fundamental problems with the current model of reality.

If the present scientific world view cannot explain the very core of my existence, then it is not a complete model of reality no matter how well it models the reality around me.

I am not finding answers that I am looking for in the scientific construct of reality.

Unlike a search for 'garden gnomes', I am searching for answers of the very core of my existence. 

23 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

@Endercreeper01 care to comment? 

6 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

Maybe that is where your notion that consciousness is the reason for existence comes from. What you confuse is reason and proof. Your consciousness is proof to yourself of your own existence. There is however no way to logically conclude that it is the reason for your existence. Or any reason for anything, for that matter. Good luck convincing a nihilist of the contrary

Consciousness is you, you are the consciousness.

Consciousness is not why you exist, it is your very existence.

30 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

Had to give this +1 to counter the -1. There is just nooooooo way this is a bad post. 

@beecee hardly responded to any of my main points in that post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

Consciousness is you, you are the consciousness.

Consciousness is not why you exist, it is your very existence.

I didn't really expect 'nything lucid anyway.

 

29 minutes ago, Endercreeper01 said:

beecee hardly responded to any of my main points in that pos

Kettle! Kettle! Pot is calling you the B-word again!

I mean seriosuly, is your RL identity Donald Trump, Sr.? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, YaDinghus said:

I didn't really expect 'nything lucid anyway.

 

Kettle! Kettle! Pot is calling you the B-word again!

I mean seriosuly, is your RL identity Donald Trump, Sr.? 

Are you going to at least attempt to respond to any part of my post with any sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Endercreeper01 said:

My argument was based on reason.

Princess_Bride_That_Word.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Princess_Bride_That_Word.jpg

I am yet to see any meaningful response to my post.....

Edited by Endercreeper01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.