The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: SergeantPepper on August 26, 2020, 06:21:20 PM
-
I believe this is the best place for this subject. While I am willing to discuss it, it appears as though a lot of the discourse in the other forums are geared around argumentation and not an exchange of ideas. While I enjoy discussion, there must be a goal to it, either my own understanding grows in appreciation of another's case, or theirs does, but talking with someone whose primary concern is proving you wrong regardless of the ramifications of their own opinion is an excercise in timewasting.
Instead, I will break this down here for a more uncluttered perspective. If anything I say is unclear, I welcome requests for clarification - I understand that is allowed by the rules of this section - but playground fights, even genteel ones, are pointless. In light of this, I want to begin with more housekeeping.
I do not expect people to agree with every word I write here, but what I at least hope for is understanding. These are not the same things. However, there are limitations to this: what I say can, like many things, be broken down into two categories. There are facts, and there are the implications between those facts. One could liken this to bricks and mortar, one are the building blocks, the other connects them.
The implications are correct. They are the part I must stress, as they tend to be where misunderstanding surfaces. Meta-physical approaches are new to a lot of people, in my experience, and that seems to be especially the case on this site. As such, I must make this part clear. If you want to understand what I am saying, then if any part is unclear, try to see how the implication follows. That mindset, once it clicks, should help you.
The facts however are where I suspect most disagreement will be rooted. This is fine. I am of course willing to defend them, albeit in other threads so as to abide by the rules of this section. If your objection is to an implication, then please inform me here so that I can clarify it, if your goal is understanding and not winning. If your objection is to a fact, and you are genuine in wanting to debate this and not just wanting to win an argument, start a thread elsewhere and PM me to ensure I am aware of it.
Now, let us begin.
What is the Meta-Physical?
The basics. Meta-physics is simply the foundation of physics. I have seen this topic rejected as 'Philosophy 101,' but, while this is basic on philosophical terms, that in no way makes it irrelevant. Every subject begins with the basics. Philosophy however is what underpins the scientific method: we would have no conclusions without it. While in truth much of what I am about to describe better falls under the banner of epistemology, meta-physics gives a better illustration of how it functions.
The first question that can be asked is how do we know anything?
Descartes famously began this thought experiment centuries ago. If he assumed as little as possible, allowing for possibilities such as a demon hoodwinking his every perception, what is it that he could conclude? He began with 'I think, therefore I am.' That the very fact that he was capable of thought meant that there was a him to think it. He continued in much the same way.
This is the philosophical starting point. The scientific starting point begins some steps ahead, with the evidential method. If evidence points towards a possibility, then that possibility is preferred. The problem is, with science without philosophy, nothing suggests why this path is right.
This can be the hardest point to grasp for people new to the field, so forgive me if I spend some time on it.
Why is it that we believe evidence?
Within the confines of the evidential system, this question has no meaningful answer. One of the premises of this system is that the only form of justification is evidence; there is no other reason to believe anything under this system. So, then, if one was to ask why you believed in the evidential system, the only answer the system allows for is evidential. Certainly, you could list achievements of the system, but all of that fills the role of evidence. When what is under question is the validity of the process, this functions only to presuppose it.
Or, to break this point down into smaller pieces:
1. The evidential system is believed.
2. The basis for this belief is either A) rooted in evidence, B) rooted in something other than evidence, C) not rooted in anything.
3. A is the only basis allowed for by the evidential system.
Then:
4. The reason we trust the evidence presented in A is because of the evidential system.
5. If 4 was not the case, if we did not follow evidence, A would not be a basis for anything.
6. A is circular. It proves the evidential system based upon the assumption of the evidential system.
7. The only acceptable bases for the evidential system and B and C, non-evidential views.
So then, in order to justifiably use evidence, we must take several steps back. There must be some foundation for evidence to be any better a system than any other. As it is, this system works only by axiom, stating 'evidence works' but being unable to demonstrate that system is better then any alternative without recourse to circular tactics. One could just as easily take 'because I say so' as an axiom. In this case, the evidential system cannot allow for comparison.
If axiom is all there is, the evidential system alone cannot show why it is preferrable to an alternative.
You can list achievements, as I said, but this only works if someone already follows the evidential system. If compared to the 'because I say so' axiom, someone could disregard that evidence with a sentence, and the system is not equipped to compare the two bases.
However, this does not inherently mean the evidential system is wrong. It simply means that it is incomplete: the evidential system cannot persuade anyone of its truth unless they already adhere to it, but this is more because it is insular, it is equipped only for internal matters. A system that lacks these flaws, if appended, could make the system function fully.
What is the alternative?
There are, to my mind, two respectable alternatives to the strict evidential system.
The first, which I will not spend so much time on, is the radical skeptic approach. This is not what I believe, for reasons I will get into. This states that nothing can be known, that knowledge itself is something that can never be attained because it is reliant on no solid basis. If we are wrong about the veracity offered by evidence, then nothing could replace it that does not share the same flaw. It is then believed that we know, and can know, nothing.
The second alternative, which I stand by, is that of a self-supporting axiom. The evidential approach fails because it cannot justify its own existence because the tools it has are only for internal matters, but this does not mean every axiom is subject to this same problem.
(Break here as the site appears to have a silent character limit. Continued below).
-
(Continuation)
In general, science does make certain assumptions, beyond the usefulness of evidence. At a basic level, these assumptions include the idea that experiments can be repeated and will give the same result, that location does not matter for an experiment so long as forces are not different, that the universe can be comprehended. If any one of these is at fault, then a great deal of work is meaningless, but what really is the foundation for these beyond wishful thinking?
The statement I offer is this: Every question has an answer.
This can be phrased in any number of ways, but at a basic level, what it means is this: everything that you can ask, it both has a response, and a theoretical way to find that response. This encompasses the scientific assumptions, promising that the universe can be understood, and that the methods we use will work to understand it, but it goes further. It gives us a foundation for the evidential approach, as it rejects the demon proposed by Descartes.
Further, it is not an insular system. It is impossible to reject this axiom, by its nature; if you were to claim that no question could be answered, you are in that very moment answering the question of the truth of this axiom. It is, as I said, self-supporting. Any rejection of it is incoherent as it requires the use of the axiom for proof.
Now, not every question has a yes or no answer, and not every answer is easy to find, but the very fact we know that there are answers out there and that they can be found offers us a powerful tool.
This is what underpins physics. Without this philosophical standpoint, there is no reason to accept any physical claim, or anything based upon evidence. However, it goes further. Physics is limited in what it can apply to, but this offers us a new lens through which to look for truth.
The Applications of Meta-Physics
Like I say, I do not expect you to believe this axiom simply because I say so. I have given the foundation for it above, though I am wary of how clear my reasoning may have been. Regardless, from this point on I will be taking it as given so that I may progress.
Suppose I were to ask you, what comes after death?
This is not really a question the evidential approach alone is equipped to answer. It can tell you the brute facts of brain activity, but not the subjective perceptions inherent in it. Science can tell you how something happens, but not why it does.
But with this axiom, the answer is immediately apparent. There must be some form of experience after death, because if there were not, there would be no way to find out the answer. If we were to cease to be, then there would be no way to confirm that, one cannot report one's own ceased existence.
Now is also a good time to discuss non-answers. Some time ago, CS Lewis proposed a variation of an old argument, intended as a proof of God. The claim is:
Every natural or innate desire we experience points to something real. We have a desire for perfect happiness, a perfect guide: therefore, this happiness and guide do exist.
Why would we desire something that has no chance of being real? What is the benefit, evolutionary or otherwise, to being doomed to perpetual disappointment?
Now, naturally the form this happiness takes does vary based on each human, but the emotion itself does not, only the path to it. One person might be happy with quiet, relaxing contentment, while another wants high-stakes adrenaline, but in each case their aim is to be happy.
This argument from desire, as it is named, can be strengthened with reference to this axiom. As opposed to a statement, we ask the question: why do all human beings desire happiness?
The normal answer to such scientific questions is 'just because,' or something that fills that role. This is not an answer; in fact, this is the bane of all scientific inquiry. 'Just because' speaks to the end of explanations, as soon as this is accept as the answer to the question, why not have it be the answer to another question?
The scientific approach will often say that if you ask 'why' repeatedly, you end up at 'just because,' and it is a childish thing to do. Meta-physics answers that the moment 'just because' is ever accepted as a terminating answer, there is no reason not to apply it sooner. Why does the sun go down? Just because. All scientific understanding is lost as soon as this is believed to be a valid answer.
Further, it is not an answer. It does not further understanding, and indeed could be used in response to anything. As a non-answer, it does not satisfy our axiom, so the question must be answered by other means.
The scientific approach can create small ripples, but they only succeed in tweaking the question, not truly resolving it. There must be some answer.
CS Lewis proposes an answer. True, this does not prove that it is the only answer, but it is the most meaningful one. Indeed, there are many reasons to suppose the existence of some eternal mind: how else could qualia be chronicled for locations that have not been seen or reached?
This is another example of how this particular system functions. When you know that an answer is there, and that a route to it exists, it prevents 'just because' reasoning.
It is possible to ask questions about these answers. This is to be expected. Each answer expands our knowledge, and so gives us more to ask questions about. The amount of information contained in just one scrap of the universe borders on the infinite. While some subjects will overlap, they will not always, and there is the potential to go on asking questions endlessly.
This does not mean those questions have no answers, just that there are many, many answers. It also further indicates the existence of an Observer above us in intellect and capacity, that can comprehend the infinite and already knows each answer. Humans however, as reasoning observers, must also be capable of reaching this point in theory.
Simply because we can find an answer though, does not guarantee we will. How many grains of straw are in a bale of hay? We know that question must have an answer, but counting them is no simple matter. Equally, it might take an eternity to answer some questions, but knowing that the answer exists can limit the possibilities.
(Break again. Continued below)
-
(The rest)
What does any of this have to do with the Flat Earth anyway?
There are many paths to this conclusion. One is a variation of CS Lewis's argument above.
The idea of a flat earth appears to be an immortal one. Across all of history, and across multiple cultures, the idea of the world we live on as a disc has been perpetuated, completely independently. There is art, story, and tales all dedicated to this concept.
One must ask: why?
Perhaps it is that the world simply appears flat. But this is not so; one can venture to a hill, or to the beach. And even more, even were this to be the source of the belief, the details of this ever-reviving idea are too similar for this to work. Why a disc, of all shapes?
There are individual breaks from the pattern, but one must look at when they arise. While it is true the concept of a round earth is a much older one than people think, the flat still came first. It was in response to evidence that the idea was adjusted. The same can be said in many instances. Evidence caused people to turn away from the flat earth, to the round.
But what is evidence? It is invalid if one does not have a basis from which to accept it. All this evidence is either incorrect and a false reading of the physical facts of the world, the same as many throughout history, or it is correct and there must be some explanation for why this idea keeps surfacing.
Why would a false idea be so inherent? If it takes readings to draw people away from this false idea, then where did the original come from?
It is too widespread and too similar an idea to be explained by scientific error. It is in a curious position of being universal, across countless cultures, but also limited; it took minimal evidence for cultures to turn away from the idea. While the evidential approach would suggest this makes the position weak, the evidential approach cannot sustain itself alone, so we must approach it from this direction also.
This question must have an answer, and 'they just did' is not one.
Something akin to the argument from desire is applicable here. A sense of the truth, or an example of a desire that must be met, would answer this question.
Alternatively, one could consider a connection between the instincts of the human race and the fact that we must have the ability to comprehend everything. If this is the case, then instinct might tell us more about truths than any experiments ever could.
I may come back and edit this as I feel I was unclear at a few points, and this final section particularly can be expanded, but in broad strokes I hope this helps elaborate upon the other starting points from which a flat earth may be supported.
-
You have put a lot of effort into these posts, so I have some sympathy for you, but this is not with the Flat Earth Information Repository is for. Choose another part of the forum for me to move it to.
-
If you don't want to deal with JackBlack fisking every sentence of your posts, just put him on ignore. He really isn't interested in having a conversation, but other people are.
-
So you got upset that I repeatedly refuted your claims and pointed out your projection so you asked for your other thread to be locked and now you make effectively the same claims in this thread?
Just like in the 2 prior threads, your alternative is no better. A self-supporting axiom suffers from the exact same flaw, that it is circular and thus not actually supported.
1. The self-supporting axiom is believed.
2. The basis for this belief is either A) rooted in the self-supported axiom, B) rooted in something not dependent upon the self-supported axiom, C) not rooted in anything.
Then:
3. The reason we trust the support presented in A is because of the self-supported axiom.
4. If 3 was not the case, if we did not accept the self-supported axiom, A would not be a basis for anything.
5. A is circular. It proves the self-supported axiom is based upon the assumption of the self-supported axiom.
6. The only acceptable bases for the self-supported axiom are B and C, views were the self-supported axiom is not taken as a starting point.
So again, your alternative is no better than just accepting that evidence works, and using evidence to show that it works.
The axiom you offer is no better than the assumptions of science to allow the evidence based system to work.
Ultimately there are 2 "rational" options.
The one you call the radical sceptic approach, or a more restricted one which accepts the limitations of any system but chooses to use one, such that we can attempt to better out understanding knowing that it may be flawed.
The statement I offer is this: Every question has an answer.
Further, it is not an insular system. It is impossible to reject this axiom, by its nature; if you were to claim that no question could be answered, you are in that very moment answering the question of the truth of this axiom. It is, as I said, self-supporting. Any rejection of it is incoherent as it requires the use of the axiom for proof.
You are making it a false dichotomy.
They are not the only alternatives.
Another option is that SOME questions have answers while others do not.
Even if the answer to "Does every question have an answer?" is no, that doesn't mean any other question needs an answer.
You can literally have just that 1 question having an answer, while every other question does not.
Even trying to appeal to incoherence doesn't help your case as you are trying to establish a basis for coherence.
If you truly embrace the daemon which could change anything at any time, coherence goes out the window.
Coherence is being logical and consistent. If the demon is continually changing things so it is completely inconsistent throughout time and space and direction and potentially even for different observers/instruments, the very meaning of truth can be discarded and you can have a completely incoherent system.
Likewise, the radical septic view has no basis for any form of truth or logic, and thus is likewise an incoherent system.
So just like in your other thread, it is quite clear that your axiom can be rejected without needing to accept it.
So if you want to say it must be true, you need more support than that.
And unlike your false characterisation/insult, I am not doing this for the sake of arguing, but because as contradictory as it may seem, I actually care about the truth and a very large part of that is accepting that what we know of the world will intrinsically be incomplete due to our limited ability to understand the world; that our world view (including how we obtain more "knowledge") will always be incomplete.
But with this axiom, the answer is immediately apparent. There must be some form of experience after death, because if there were not, there would be no way to find out the answer. If we were to cease to be, then there would be no way to confirm that, one cannot report one's own ceased existence.
And that is the kind of wild speculation that I oppose, and why I care about the truth.
It is also another example of where your false dichotomy falls apart.
What if instead of ALL questions having answers, those directly about physical reality have answers, while those like these do not?
Then there is also the problem with your link.
What if there is an answer, but there is no way to obtain it?
That the answer to what happens you die is that you cease to exist, and no one will ever be able to know or prove or demonstrate that answer?
-
If you don't want to deal with JackBlack fisking every sentence of your posts, just put him on ignore. He really isn't interested in having a conversation, but other people are.
Is jackblack your boss so that you can't do anything about it? You are the admin right? Why can't you just ban him outright, or put him in AR, and let him fisk all possible responses as he pleases?
Would anyone else tolerate his AR type of rants right smack in the upper forums?
Of course not. Then, it is up to you to get rid of troublesome users like jackblack.
-
If you don't want to deal with JackBlack fisking every sentence of your posts, just put him on ignore. He really isn't interested in having a conversation, but other people are.
Is jackblack your boss so that you can't do anything about it? You are the admin right? Why can't you just ban him outright, or put him in AR, and let him fisk all possible responses as he pleases?
Would anyone else tolerate his AR type of rants right smack in the upper forums?
Of course not. Then, it is up to you to get rid of troublesome users like jackblack.
I have to say this aspect of the site is a disappointment. While I have not been here long, the moderation's priorities are unlike any other site I have seen. From a curious search, and your comments here, I have the feeling this is not a new problem, and is instead one that has been raising objections for a while (almost every result when searching his name is a complaint), but it continues unabated. Meanwhile she is content to hand out a three-day ban for the crime of not being online for a couple of hours.
If it was the wrong forum, I accept that, I was unsure of the details, but surely there is some area on this site where one can carry on an informative discussion and debate? On most sites I have been on, that is assumed by a user's presence, but it does not seem to be the case here. If I want to talk with someone who is interested in having a discussion, is there any area you can offer?
And why is someone that you acknowledge is not allowed to post here? What do they bring to the site that is worth this?
-
but surely there is some area on this site where one can carry on an informative discussion and debate
You can, but only if you are actually willing to engage and admit you can be wrong.
I find that typically those who complain the most are those with the problem.
So how about instead of complaining and insulting you actually try discussing.
Can you justify your claim?
Can you actually show something wrong with my argument, like explaining how you can use an axiom to support itself, which is literally circular reasoning, without it being circular reasoning?
Or why rejecting your axiom means accepting it, even though there is the option to have some, but not all, questions having an answer?
Are you actually interested in having a discussion with someone that can present a challenge to your beliefs, or are you just interested in saying what you believe to be true and responding to challenges you think you can refute?
-
I have to say this aspect of the site is a disappointment. While I have not been here long, the moderation's priorities are unlike any other site I have seen.
There are other flat Earth forums. Perhaps try tfes.org which is much stricter in silencing people that disagree with FE believers. Or make a YouTube video.
If I want to talk with someone who is interested in having a discussion, is there any area you can offer?
If you want to have a discussion but be protected from anyone who disagrees with you, there is no such place anywhere in the world. If you put an idea out there, be prepared for people to both agree with it if they do, and disagree with it if they think it's wrong.
I've had long discussions here with more than one person who told me 1+1=2 is wrong. They were very sincere and adamant and enthusiastic about their opinion, but should I just shrug and agree with them because they were so sure they were right? There is no immunity to being told you are wrong if you want to have a discussion.
If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.
-
If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.
That is not how it works.
Were it not for your continuous trolling you'd be forced to accept defeat in 30 seconds.
But, just like jackblack, you are able to survive because the admin and mods are RE and will not touch the mayhem that you cause here.
Tfes.org rejected you since they realized you bring nothing of value to their forum. They won't tolerate you or jackblack. This is what we need here also, for the admin/mods to simply apply the rules and get rid of troublemakers.
jackblack is not a free thinker, but a troll, who is insidiously trying to impose his will on everyone else, through fisking and trolling.
I ask the very same question: "What do they bring to the site that is worth this?
-
If you want to have a discussion but be protected from anyone who disagrees with you, there is no such place anywhere in the world. If you put an idea out there, be prepared for people to both agree with it if they do, and disagree with it if they think it's wrong.
I've had long discussions here with more than one person who told me 1+1=2 is wrong. They were very sincere and adamant and enthusiastic about their opinion, but should I just shrug and agree with them because they were so sure they were right? There is no immunity to being told you are wrong if you want to have a discussion.
If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.
I too have had lengthy discussions with people who disagreed with me. Don't think I have not. In those situations, I learn from the arguments they make, as they learn from mine. That is what I assumed the purpose of these discussions is: they are a way to better your own understanding by seeing what objections others raise.
I don't see the point in having discussions for the purpose of arguing. That sounds draining and, ultimately, futile. I prefer to talk with someone who is offering something new, because they are making an interesting case.
If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach. If asked to consider the foundation of the evidential approach, he doesn't offer anything. In a previous thread he offered the radical skeptic position as a counter, but here he decries it. He attempted to change the topic in another thread as opposed to discussing the one at hand, and in another he changed the meaning of an argument to gain victory, not understanding. He has said explicitly that he will not accept the possibility that I could answer any of his questions, he just wants me to admit I am wrong.
He has no position of his own. He is a devil's advocate, one who argues against, but has nothing to argue for. He simply wants to take the position of most trouble. What am I to learn about the position of someone who will not commit? And it is not as though such a shallow understanding of so many familiar ideals is going to contribute anything. I have read his posts, I have understood them, and that is why I choose not to waste my time.
A discussion is only possible if there is a desire for understanding. He has none, and thus I see no point in trying to elaborate upon my statements to him. It would be a wasted effort, and a frustrating one from what I have gathered. It is fine that he disagrees, but I want to understand why he disagrees, and I cannot achieve that if he won't commit to any standpoint more developed than 'you are wrong and I will take whatever position I need to without understanding the ramifications in order to show that.'
It is complicated by this field apparently being new to a lot of users here, and while that is fine, it also makes it harder to discuss if people are not willing to admit something is new to them. He is a perfect example of that also: I mentioned he was not an expert in this topic, and he called that an insult.
I don't want to be agreed with, I want to be challenged. I want to have my point of view questioned, holes exposed, flaws revealed, perhaps even my worldview shattered. I would relish that. Have you ever experienced that? It is how I ended up where I am today. It is a wonderful experience.
That is not something that is going to happen if I talk to someone with no understanding of it, who refuses to admit that they have no understanding. That is not discussion or a debate, that is futility.
-
I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.
-
I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.
That doesn't answer the question. If he only annoys the people here and no one wants to discuss with him, why is he here? It seems a net negative.
-
I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.
That doesn't answer the question. If he only annoys the people here and no one wants to discuss with him, why is he here? It seems a net negative.
We don't ban people when they don't break the rules. We don't even permanently ban people when they do break the rules.
-
I have urged people who have a problem with JackBlack to put him on ignore. You won't be missing anything. Very few people appreciate his style of posting. He is not interested in having a normal conversation. If you don't want to put him on ignore, scroll past his posts.
That doesn't answer the question. If he only annoys the people here and no one wants to discuss with him, why is he here? It seems a net negative.
We don't ban people when they don't break the rules. We don't even permanently ban people when they do break the rules.
If being a net negative doesn't break the rules, then what are the rules for?
-
If you want to have a discussion but be protected from anyone who disagrees with you, there is no such place anywhere in the world. If you put an idea out there, be prepared for people to both agree with it if they do, and disagree with it if they think it's wrong.
I've had long discussions here with more than one person who told me 1+1=2 is wrong. They were very sincere and adamant and enthusiastic about their opinion, but should I just shrug and agree with them because they were so sure they were right? There is no immunity to being told you are wrong if you want to have a discussion.
If you just want to be agreed with and not debated, you will end up eventually talking to yourself.
I too have had lengthy discussions with people who disagreed with me. Don't think I have not. In those situations, I learn from the arguments they make, as they learn from mine. That is what I assumed the purpose of these discussions is: they are a way to better your own understanding by seeing what objections others raise.
I don't see the point in having discussions for the purpose of arguing. That sounds draining and, ultimately, futile. I prefer to talk with someone who is offering something new, because they are making an interesting case.
If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach.
I've read his position, and his position is clearly laid out multiple times. You are saying X can not exist on it's own, so Y must exist. He is saying that makes no sense, because what proves Y? Z? And what proves Z? If you argue evidence can't stand on it's own and needs something behind it, then what's behind that? It's just pushing the problem down the road.
You not being able to force JackBlack or myself to agree with you doesn't make us trolls or stupid. We see your points, we understand them. We just think they are wrong.
Plenty of new things have been brought up in these discussions, if you can't see them, that's not the forums fault.
-
You not being able to force JackBlack or myself to agree with you doesn't make us trolls or stupid. We see your points, we understand them. We just think they are wrong.
No, you are here to troll.
"If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach. If asked to consider the foundation of the evidential approach, he doesn't offer anything. In a previous thread he offered the radical skeptic position as a counter, but here he decries it. He attempted to change the topic in another thread as opposed to discussing the one at hand, and in another he changed the meaning of an argument to gain victory, not understanding. He has said explicitly that he will not accept the possibility that I could answer any of his questions, he just wants me to admit I am wrong.
He has no position of his own. He is a devil's advocate, one who argues against, but has nothing to argue for. He simply wants to take the position of most trouble. What am I to learn about the position of someone who will not commit? And it is not as though such a shallow understanding of so many familiar ideals is going to contribute anything. I have read his posts, I have understood them, and that is why I choose not to waste my time."
-
I've read his position, and his position is clearly laid out multiple times. You are saying X can not exist on it's own, so Y must exist. He is saying that makes no sense, because what proves Y? Z? And what proves Z? If you argue evidence can't stand on it's own and needs something behind it, then what's behind that? It's just pushing the problem down the road.
You not being able to force JackBlack or myself to agree with you doesn't make us trolls or stupid. We see your points, we understand them. We just think they are wrong.
Plenty of new things have been brought up in these discussions, if you can't see them, that's not the forums fault.
The problem is that his position isn't. He's laid out that he objects to mine, which I accept, but he isn't offering anything to replace it with. What little he does mention he either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the implications of. I don't care if you disagree with me, I care when that disagreement is rooted in a desire to prove me wrong, not to see if I am wrong. I care when the goal is victory, not understanding. He cannot lay out his position because he has none, he defines himself by a negative.
The position you bring up there is not new, as you seem to imply. It was one of the first things I addressed. This problem you mention is unique to evidential and evidential-type systems. Only evidential systems require Y to prove X. His problem is rooted in the presupposition that anything shown by non-evidential means is unjustified, but he is unwilling to examine or acknowledge that presupposition. If it is false, he has no case, and if it is true then he is steadfastedly refusing to give a basis for it.
-
His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach,
What a monster!
-
The position you bring up there is not new, as you seem to imply. It was one of the first things I addressed. This problem you mention is unique to evidential and evidential-type systems. Only evidential systems require Y to prove X. His problem is rooted in the presupposition that anything shown by non-evidential means is unjustified, but he is unwilling to examine or acknowledge that presupposition. If it is false, he has no case, and if it is true then he is steadfastedly refusing to give a basis for it.
No, he, and I disagree with you on this too. You are claiming that this is unique to evidential-type systems, and your alternate solution (which you still have not elaborated on) is not subject to this. You are making many claims, and I happen to disagree with most of them.
Just because you disagree with why we disagree doesn't make our points invalid. You are convinced you are right, Jack is convinced he's right, I'm convinced I am right. Yet you are claiming that everyone else is being stubborn, and you are the only reasonable one.
What do they bring to the site that is worth this?
You wonder why JackBlack and I are allowed on the forum? I can't speak for the mods, but why is he or I any worse than Wise or Sandokhan or a half dozen others? Should they be kicked out along with us, if not, why?
Just who would you allow to stay if you could remove people who displease you?
-
your alternate solution (which you still have not elaborated on)
Excuse me? The majority of my opening posts was elaborating on it. I do not understand why this is something you keep repeating. If you genuinely believe this, you have provided a good example of the difference between disagreement and a waste of time.
You are free to disagree with it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist. How does that aid anyone's understanding, yours or mine? If I am wrong, you won't show it. If you are, you won't face it.
You wonder why JackBlack and I are allowed on the forum? I can't speak for the mods, but why is he or I any worse than Wise or Sandokhan or a half dozen others? Should they be kicked out along with us, if not, why?
Just who would you allow to stay if you could remove people who displease you?
I have very little idea of who either of those people are. I have seen a little of a lengthy informative thread filled by Sandokhan, that I plan to return to, and this thread, but little else. The impression I have of him is someone that has a steadfast viewpoint that he stands by. Perhaps he has become belligerent in other threads, I cannot comment, but he at least is achieving something.
I do not know much about Wise at all. I have never engaged with the user, from what I have gathered from signatures he has been absent ever since I arrived, but from what I have seen in old threads and newer, he is treated like some kind of performing animal by the other users here. He is clearly speaking in a second language, and I want to hope that is not the reason for the mockery he receives simply for posting, but I have seen him post thought-provoking statements that people chose to argue against with no effort made towards understanding.
I have no doubt there are threads I have not seen, and perhaps their behavior is worse in those, but from what I have seen they do not begin discussions with the intent to waste time. They have values, they have standpoints. Jackblack has none. A discussion with them, with any user, even one who is angry and insulting, will be able to achieve something if that user actually understands even their own point of view.
Why do you act as though my objection is just that he disagrees? This makes as little sense as your claim I have not elaborated on my alternative.
My objection is that he contributes nothing. He has no point of view to defend, he just has everyone else's to attack, and he does not even appear to understand the consequences of what he is arguing for. I have no issue with him disagreeing, but it appears that many users, not just myself, have taken issue with him. Instead the moderation team focuses their efforts on unimportant matters as opposed to something that seems to have been a significant problem for much longer.
-
your alternate solution (which you still have not elaborated on)
Excuse me? The majority of my opening posts was elaborating on it. I do not understand why this is something you keep repeating. If you genuinely believe this, you have provided a good example of the difference between disagreement and a waste of time.
You are free to disagree with it, but don't pretend it doesn't exist. How does that aid anyone's understanding, yours or mine? If I am wrong, you won't show it. If you are, you won't face it.
I can't show you're wrong because you won't actually explain what this non-evidence method of yours IS. You keep saying it exists. You keep saying you have explained it, but your only 'explanation' is you trying to show that evidence needs something else, ergo your something else exists.
But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone. Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.
You wonder why JackBlack and I are allowed on the forum? I can't speak for the mods, but why is he or I any worse than Wise or Sandokhan or a half dozen others? Should they be kicked out along with us, if not, why?
Just who would you allow to stay if you could remove people who displease you?
I have very little idea of who either of those people are. I have seen a little of a lengthy informative thread filled by Sandokhan, that I plan to return to, and this thread, but little else. The impression I have of him is someone that has a steadfast viewpoint that he stands by. Perhaps he has become belligerent in other threads, I cannot comment, but he at least is achieving something.
What exactly has he achieved in your view? Claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine? That all of history is wrong? Proved that the universe has a radius of 31km? You should read more, but if you think his posts are informative, well, interesting. They are full of quotes, I suppose those can be informative. I mean, I never heard of occult-chemistry and being given knowledge of subatomic physics by ESP before him, so yes, he has informed me of a lot of new concepts.
I do not know much about Wise at all. I have never engaged with the user, from what I have gathered from signatures he has been absent ever since I arrived, but from what I have seen in old threads and newer, he is treated like some kind of performing animal by the other users here. He is clearly speaking in a second language, and I want to hope that is not the reason for the mockery he receives simply for posting, but I have seen him post thought-provoking statements that people chose to argue against with no effort made towards understanding.
Thought provoking? I suppose. Not sure why you are bringing up his spelling. But here are some thoughts of his.
1. You can't build a 4-wheeled electric vehicle that won't crash immediately due to the fact that it's impossible to steer 4 wheels at the same time.
2. Putting an electric motor in a wheel is impossible.
3. Qantas airlines are literally run by the devil and routinely murder people and dump their bodies overboard if they choose a fake flight.
4. I am an evil NASA programmed robot assassin.
And many, many many others. If you Jack is rude to you, look up some of the insults and accusations they throw around on a regular basis. Then explain why he deserves to be eliminated from the forums, and they do not.
As I said before, there are other forums. You, Sandokhan and Wise could all go there and be free to say whatever you wanted. Maybe the
Why do you act as though my objection is just that he disagrees? This makes as little sense as your claim I have not elaborated on my alternative.
My objection is that he contributes nothing. He has no point of view to defend, he just has everyone else's to attack, and he does not even appear to understand the consequences of what he is arguing for. I have no issue with him disagreeing, but it appears that many users, not just myself, have taken issue with him.
He's a non-believer on a Flat Earth forum, yeah he has a lot of haters. :)
Again, you are taking your opinion for objective truth. It's your opinion he is contributing nothing, and that's fine. But when you claim it as an absolute fact, that's just not how it works.
This forum (and most) would be an empty, desolate wasteland if you got rid of everyone that made someone else upset.
-
I ask the very same question: "What do they bring to the site that is worth this?
Fact checking the FE'ers?
-
As I said before, there are other forums. You, Sandokhan and Wise could all go there and be free to say whatever you wanted. Maybe the
You are a n00b who only came here to cry about getting banned from the other forum. You don't get to run our forum members off.
-
As I said before, there are other forums. You, Sandokhan and Wise could all go there and be free to say whatever you wanted. Maybe the
You are a n00b who only came here to cry about getting banned from the other forum. You don't get to run our forum members off.
True, that is what got me posting here the first time. It was a good cry too, very cathartic. :)
It's related though, I was told over there to find another forum that better suited me, so figured I'd pass along that advice to someone else who clearly is unhappy.
Being a member of BOTH forums really is the best of both worlds.
-
But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone. Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.
Have you read this thread, or did you only join in at the later posts? As I said, I outlined all of this in great detail in the opening posts. I do not see why you are claiming otherwise. You are free to disagree with the contents, but it is there. What is the purpose behind claiming it is not?
I said this in the previous post. Why did you not acknowledge it? How is a discussion meant to take place if you ignore anything that is said?
And many, many many others. If you Jack is rude to you, look up some of the insults and accusations they throw around on a regular basis. Then explain why he deserves to be eliminated from the forums, and they do not.
Rudeness was not my objection. I understand that, in poorly managed discussions, tempers can get frayed. I am more likely to blame the moderation team than the users for allowing an environment to devolve to that level.
As I said, my experience with them is limited. As I also said, they have stances. You are free to disagree with them, but they stand for something. They have a motive in being here, as opposed to existing just to argue.
Discussion is only achieved by understanding. You take the time to listen to what the other person has to say, you see why it works from their perspective, and then you see why that perspective chafes with yours. You examine those differences, and you see their justifications. You then take those justifications, and see if they chafe with your point of view for any non-circular reasons, or if they are in line. You learn and grow.
If someone's only purpose is in criticism, then they are not offering a point of view to compare with. They can, in theory, expose flaws, but more likely they expose misunderstandings. For someone whose goal is just criticism, they are not going to do what it takes to fully understand a point of view. This is not my first discussion.
What I want to do is learn something new and expand my worldview. My problem is that he, and you so far, are not offering anything new. You are criticising something you apparently have not even read, going by your claims about it. The arguments you offer against what little you do mention are old, and ones that I bring up in that very breakdown because I have heard them before. You are not expanding my understanding of anything, and neither is he, and he has admitted he actively refuses to learn anything because he just assumes I'm wrong.
So what is the point? What is gained?
Either someone is willing to learn, or capable of providing new information. Both is ideal. Without either however, especially without the former, any discussion is pointless and they would not be welcome in any other site I have been on.
Sandokhan and Wise, whether you agree you disagree with them, offer you something new. You are free to disbelieve. I cannot say yet if I believe or disbelieve their claims without further context, but if I disbelieve, I still learn something about why they believe that. The method of understanding the world is if anything more important than the facts themselves: with the method, you can determine more.
Someone could claim the sky was green, and I would ask them why they believed that. Even if their methodology was flawed, I would learn about an alternative approach, and be able to make my own judgement. It might even add to my own understanding as I would have further flaws to look out for. I could tell you a lot about certain users by what they have revealed about how they think.
-
Thanks for this post; looking forward to properly digging into it because at first glance I think we agree on a lot, and you raise some points I've raised over and over again.
-
But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone. Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.
Have you read this thread, or did you only join in at the later posts? As I said, I outlined all of this in great detail in the opening posts. I do not see why you are claiming otherwise. You are free to disagree with the contents, but it is there. What is the purpose behind claiming it is not?
I said this in the previous post. Why did you not acknowledge it? How is a discussion meant to take place if you ignore anything that is said?
Again, you are refusing to see that other people can disagree with you.
You claim you have explained everything, I claim that no you have not.
What you said, you don't see why I claim otherwise... do you not understand that I am claiming otherwise because THAT IS WHAT I THINK?
You seem to think that the only possible reason I won't agree with you is because I just want to argue or am a troll or want to disrupt. Can you not imagine that I actually do NOT see where you explain your alternate non-evidence method? I've said many times, all I see in your description is your reasoning why evidence is incomplete and needs something else. I both disagree with the premise, and also do not agree that this explains WHAT this other non-evidence system is. You only say what it's not, it's non-evidential, which really says nothing.
As I said, my experience with them is limited. As I also said, they have stances. You are free to disagree with them, but they stand for something. They have a motive in being here, as opposed to existing just to argue.
Why do you not extend the same consideration to people who debate you? You don't think I stand for anything? The only difference between the people you see as having stances and stands, and people you see as just wanting to argue, is one group disagrees with you.
You don't know me, or JackBlack. You have no idea what motivates either of us.
Sandokhan and Wise, whether you agree you disagree with them, offer you something new. You are free to disbelieve. I cannot say yet if I believe or disbelieve their claims without further context, but if I disbelieve, I still learn something about why they believe that. The method of understanding the world is if anything more important than the facts themselves: with the method, you can determine more.
Someone could claim the sky was green, and I would ask them why they believed that. Even if their methodology was flawed, I would learn about an alternative approach, and be able to make my own judgement. It might even add to my own understanding as I would have further flaws to look out for. I could tell you a lot about certain users by what they have revealed about how they think.
Well if you are not sure if Qantas airlines is actually run by the Devil and murdering dozens of people a day and dumping them in the ocean without further context, then that certainly says a lot about how you think. Seriously, if you won an all expenses paid vacation to Australia, would you turn it down because some guy on the internet said you're going to be murdered if you get on that plane? If a relative of yours told you they were going to fly Qantas, would to rip up their ticket and lock them in their bedroom save their life?
I highly doubt it, because you and I both know that Qantas isn't murdering thousands of people a year that buy tickets and show up for fake flights.
I'm not sure what I learned reading THAT discussion, other than people can come up with some pretty crazy conspiracy theories, and others can believe they are true. But sure, I learned something. Doesn't mean I'm not going to call it a made up conspiracy theory though. And not because I just like to argue, but because It's what I believe.
-
But never any details on what this other thing is, even though you claim to have examples and more information, but won't tell anyone. Don't blame me for saying you aren't explaining it when you admit you have more information but won't reveal it.
Have you read this thread, or did you only join in at the later posts? As I said, I outlined all of this in great detail in the opening posts. I do not see why you are claiming otherwise. You are free to disagree with the contents, but it is there. What is the purpose behind claiming it is not?
I said this in the previous post. Why did you not acknowledge it? How is a discussion meant to take place if you ignore anything that is said?
Again, you are refusing to see that other people can disagree with you.
You claim you have explained everything, I claim that no you have not.
What you said, you don't see why I claim otherwise... do you not understand that I am claiming otherwise because THAT IS WHAT I THINK?
You seem to think that the only possible reason I won't agree with you is because I just want to argue or am a troll or want to disrupt. Can you not imagine that I actually do NOT see where you explain your alternate non-evidence method? I've said many times, all I see in your description is your reasoning why evidence is incomplete and needs something else. I both disagree with the premise, and also do not agree that this explains WHAT this other non-evidence system is. You only say what it's not, it's non-evidential, which really says nothing.
You are free to disagree that it functions, but the fact I gave it is not a matter of opinion. The first post I make breaks down why I don't believe evidence is enough and lays the groundwork for what would need to be appended, the second post goes into more detail as to what the replacement is and specifically gives details in far more depth than 'it's non-evidential,' and demonstrates it in practice, and the third post ties it to the flat earth.
This is not a matter of opinion. You are free to believe it is wrong, and I would enjoy having that discussion assuming you could take part in it, but claiming I did not give the alternative has as much validity as claiming my post is in German. That is not a claim about viewpoint, that is a claim about facts. You can say it, and you would be wrong.
Why do you not extend the same consideration to people who debate you? You don't think I stand for anything? The only difference between the people you see as having stances and stands, and people you see as just wanting to argue, is one group disagrees with you.
You don't know me, or JackBlack. You have no idea what motivates either of us.
People show a lot in how they act. You, I am not sure about yet, true, you have expressed contradictory aspects, but Jackblack has made many things clear. So has Space Cowgirl, for that matter. When people speak, they express their values.
I do not care that he disagrees. I care about what he says. He has said he does not ask questions to get an answer, but to make me admit I am wrong. He has said the radical skeptic response counters me, and yet mocks that ideology. Those tell me his concern is not understanding or knowledge, it is being contrarian, and the uninformed nature of his posts tells me he is not a contrarian it would be beneficial to talk with. If multiple other users, those he has spoken with, agree, I feel confident in saying he adds nothing of value.
Why do you have this idea that people do not want to speak with those that disagree with them? In my experience, there is nothing more challenging and invigorating than a good discussion with someone who believes radically different things. If the standard on this site has made you think that it should end with anger and hatred, that is perhaps the most damning thing you could say, and the best illustration of what needs to change.
I'm not sure what I learned reading THAT discussion, other than people can come up with some pretty crazy conspiracy theories, and others can believe they are true. But sure, I learned something. Doesn't mean I'm not going to call it a made up conspiracy theory though. And not because I just like to argue, but because It's what I believe.
You don't have to believe everything you read (I have said otherwise several times now, what was the purpose in implying I expected you to agree?), but you might find it beneficial to understand someone's motive in believing it.
-
jackblack is not a free thinker, but a troll, who is insidiously trying to impose his will on everyone else, through fisking and trolling.
I ask the very same question: "What do they bring to the site that is worth this?
Perhaps you should start asking yourself why you continually project your own inadequacies onto others?
I too have had lengthy discussions with people who disagreed with me. Don't think I have not. In those situations, I learn from the arguments they make, as they learn from mine. That is what I assumed the purpose of these discussions is: they are a way to better your own understanding by seeing what objections others raise.
And the only thing stopping that from happening here is you.
I offer you a position to learn from my arguments, and for you to counter arguments to allow me to learn.
But you seem to have no interest in that, perhaps because you cannot counter them and have no interest in "learning" that you are wrong.
If we are to use jackblack as an example, he does not offer this. His position is based steadfastedly in the evidential approach, and he rejects alternatives, not because of logic, but because they are not his approach.
That is a blatant lie.
I reject your argument because of logic.
Remember you aren't just saying that this is an alternative to evidence. You are saying it justifies evidence and is vastly superior to evidence because it is complete and needs no further justification.
That simply is not the case. Your system is no better than evidence.
If asked to consider the foundation of the evidential approach
I am honest and admit that we do not have a justification for it, at least not one which doesn't simply push the problem back and thus doesn't really justify anything.
He attempted to change the topic in another thread as opposed to discussing the one at hand
No, that was you.
You made the topic that an alternative to evidence exists which allows us to find out the truth.
But rather than providing that alternative you instead repeatedly attacked evidence saying it was unjustified.
He has said explicitly that he will not accept the possibility that I could answer any of his questions, he just wants me to admit I am wrong.
And another blatant lie.
Where have I ever said that?
You were the one claiming that in order to have a discussion we need to accept your baseless claim.
I merely said that I reject that idea and I reject your baseless claim and want you to justify it.
The closest I have come to anything like that was saying that I ask expecting you have no answer; which was done to show that your position is unjustified.
(and as you appeal to learning so much, that means to allow to learn that you position is unjustified and your system is no better than evidence and thus is still incomplete and does not complete evidence).
I have read his posts, I have understood them
Yet instead of demonstrating any problem at all with them you just repeatedly insult me and straw-man my position.
At least I am attempting to engage in a discussion with you and clearly explaining why I think your points are wrong rather than just repeatedly insulting you.
I want to understand why he disagrees
If you read my post, you would know that.
Your system uses circular reasoning to justify itself.
That makes it no better than the evidence based system.
Thus your system is still incomplete. All it adds in is a needless of complexity.
In addition, in attempt to justify your axiom you appeal to a false dichotomy, where you act as if every question has an answer or none do.
In addition to that you also make a logical leap from a question having an answer to us being able to find it.
Again, all of that is quite clearly explained, but you seem to have no interest in that.
I mentioned he was not an expert in this topic, and he called that an insult.
No, you continually accused me of having no understanding when I displayed an understanding, and used that alleged lack of understanding to entirely dismiss my position. That is an insult.
And you didn't simply say that I wasn't an expert, but that I didn't understand. The 2 are vastly different. You do not need to be an expert to understand.
Even now you repeat that:
someone with no understanding of it
See how you aren't simply saying I am not an expert or that my understanding isn't perfect?
Instead you are saying I do not understand any of it. And that is extremely insulting as it is effectively the same as saying I am a complete imbecile completely incapable of learning anything.
As I explained before, if you don't want to be accused of insulting me, then stop insulting me and actually engage with my position.
Explain how using your axiom to support itself, the very definition of circular reasoning, is not circular reasoning.
Explain why your dichotomy is true, that either every question has an answer or no question has an answer.
Explain why it merely having an answer means we can determine what that answer is (noting that this also has implications for
I don't want to be agreed with, I want to be challenged.
I have seen many people on this site claim that, but what they really meant was they want to be challenged by people they can easily refute. They have no interest in a genuine challenge where they may be shown to be wrong.
They will initially engage, but then when they cannot actually justify their position then one (or a combination) of a few things happens, such as trying to change the topic, repeating what was already refuted, leaving the thread, or throwing out a bunch of insults.
That seems to be the case with you.
That seems to be the case with you. When actually challenged, rather than engage when you could have no justification and be shown to be wrong, you insult me and in the other thread asked for it to be locked, making sure you got the last word in.
He's laid out that he objects to mine, which I accept, but he isn't offering anything to replace it with.
That is my point. There is nothing to replace it with.
It doesn't matter what you try to use, it will always be incomplete.
You will never have a system that is ultimately justified because it will always raise the question of what justifies it.
This problem you mention is unique to evidential and evidential-type systems.
No, it is not, as already explained.
It is included in every system which makes any attempt to use logic.
That is because in order for the conclusion to be true, the premise needs to be true in any system of logical reasoning.
That means you cannot use your conclusion to support your premise, as if one does not accept your premise they have no reason to accept your conclusion.
All systems which rely upon logic have the problem of circular reasoning.
Again, if you wish to disagree, instead of repeatedly insulting me actually justify your position, explain how a system that is justified by nothing external to it can actually be justified.
-
Since JackBlack is unable to behave, I've given him 3 days on the naughty chair.
-
You are free to disagree that it functions, but the fact I gave it is not a matter of opinion. The first post I make breaks down why I don't believe evidence is enough and lays the groundwork for what would need to be appended, the second post goes into more detail as to what the replacement is and specifically gives details in far more depth than 'it's non-evidential,' and demonstrates it in practice, and the third post ties it to the flat earth.
This is not a matter of opinion. You are free to believe it is wrong, and I would enjoy having that discussion assuming you could take part in it, but claiming I did not give the alternative has as much validity as claiming my post is in German. That is not a claim about viewpoint, that is a claim about facts. You can say it, and you would be wrong.
You say you demonstrate it in practice but the closest to that I can find I can find is your claim is that your system proves life after death exists because we can ask if it exists. Well the same goes for asking if there are dragons living under my bed, they don't, and I just checked. That's not an explanation of how your system works, it's just another way of saying it does.
And we went over this in the other thread. I said that science explains the how, and religion explains the why. You are trying to mix the two, and that just doesn't work. You don't have a system, you have a religion.
Your post still doesn't explain how your system works, or what it does, or what it's accomplished. How exactly does your system advance scientific knowledge of say, particle physics? What can it do to to improve the operation of the LHC? If you could answer THAT, then we might have something to discuss. You have not described how your system can DO anything, that is why you are being told you are not describing anything.
Saying "It answers all your questions!" is not an answer. You are literally saying your system just... tells you whatever you want to hear. You can't say your system answers questions by answering questions. Now that's circular reasoning.
Yes, science is based on a lot of assumptions. That physics works the same everywhere, that it always has and always will. No, we can't prove this, that's why they are assumptions. But so what? I'm not going to jump off a skyscraper because we only ASSUME gravity will kill me.
Debating philosophy is something that most people enjoy, and that's what I feel you want to do here, but you are making a lot of claims about actual reality and science, and that's where the trouble comes from. When you make the claim that evidence based science isn't enough and it needs religion, that's the problem. Science works because it leaves religion to religion. Adding it back in won't make anything better. There are a lot of problems in the world because people ignore science. I rather leave it to do it's work, and let religion handle the rest.
Why do you have this idea that people do not want to speak with those that disagree with them?
Well, the fact that you think that the people that disagree with you here should be kicked off the site. And that you asked for your first topic to be locked after being disagreed with.
Both of those indicate that you do NOT want to talk to people who disagree with you.
-
You say you demonstrate it in practice but the closest to that I can find I can find is your claim is that your system proves life after death exists because we can ask if it exists. Well the same goes for asking if there are dragons living under my bed, they don't, and I just checked. That's not an explanation of how your system works, it's just another way of saying it does.
This is something that can be discussed, as now you have acknowledged that I did give the alternative, I can clarify if needed and we can compare.
It is not that 'we can ask if it exists,' it is that the premise is that question has an answer. I think you misunderstood - my assumption would be that you are trying to view through the lens of the conventional evidential system, which is I admit a hard habit to break. The statement every question has an answer is a basis, because if we know that and we know that the means to find that answer exist (a corollary), then we can use that to break down the possibilities.
In this case, if there is no life after death, while that would be an answer to the question, it is not one that could be found. If you cease to exist, how would you be aware of that? Oblivion prevents any information from being obtained or gathered. Thus, if we know that the question has a findable answer, we know that it must be experienced. This is not simply saying the system does work, but rather showing how it sorts between possibilities.
I acknowledge this is not something the evidential system can address, but this is precisely why the tool helps. It is self-supporting without being circular, and it gives a reason for evidence to be justified if you wish for more immediately practical benefits.
And we went over this in the other thread. I said that science explains the how, and religion explains the why. You are trying to mix the two, and that just doesn't work. You don't have a system, you have a religion.
Your post still doesn't explain how your system works, or what it does, or what it's accomplished. How exactly does your system advance scientific knowledge of say, particle physics? What can it do to to improve the operation of the LHC? If you could answer THAT, then we might have something to discuss. You have not described how your system can DO anything, that is why you are being told you are not describing anything.
The border between what you have termed science and religion is an invented one. To put up walls and say those areas are the domain of religion is to render the scientific system meaningless. If you accept 'Just because' as the answer to a key scientific question, what prevents that answer from being used to answer something like why the Sun rises? If the system as it stands cannot even tell you why you should believe it, then why should it expect anyone to listen to it?
A scientific system that accepts answers like 'that's out of our hands,' 'because we assume it,' 'just because,' is a system that has no good reason why those answers can't be used for everything. If you would object to those answers being used for claims about gravity, why do you accept them for far more fundamental and important aspects?
This is often when I talk about taking a position without understanding the ramifications: the evidential and strict scientific systems make concessions they cannot afford to. What they require you to do is something they cannot endorse doing in any other situation.
Well, the fact that you think that the people that disagree with you here should be kicked off the site. And that you asked for your first topic to be locked after being disagreed with.
Both of those indicate that you do NOT want to talk to people who disagree with you.
I have only expressed a dislike of one user that appears to be universally disliked by all those that attempt to discuss with him. That is quite an extrapolation you are making. You brought up two users I had no interactions with and limited experience of and I expressed cautious optimism, and I would do the same if you happened to have brought up round earth users as well.
My previous thread was locked because of that one user who, after I had expressed my lack of a desire to engage in the kind of discussion he offered, would not accept that response. That is something that should never happen in any kind of informative discussion: it is a declaration that one's goal is not discourse, not asking and answering, but rather bullying and playground tactics. I am only amazed it was done so blatantly, and with such a lack of subtlety. If one's goal was knowledge, one would not talk to someone who did not want to talk back: it achieves nothing. Is such bad-faith really unremarkable here? That is a far lower standard than most debate settings I have been a part of.
Because of that it became apparent the thread was damaged, he would get in the way of discussions I wished to have and that might have achieved something, and I saw no purpose in enabling it.
If I did not wish to speak to people that disagreed with me, why do you believe I have invited debate, spoken to you, and indeed spent the last decade of my life seeking out such discussions? It is only this site that seems to have a problem with the notion.
-
You say you demonstrate it in practice but the closest to that I can find I can find is your claim is that your system proves life after death exists because we can ask if it exists. Well the same goes for asking if there are dragons living under my bed, they don't, and I just checked. That's not an explanation of how your system works, it's just another way of saying it does.
This is something that can be discussed, as now you have acknowledged that I did give the alternative, I can clarify if needed and we can compare.
It is not that 'we can ask if it exists,' it is that the premise is that question has an answer. I think you misunderstood - my assumption would be that you are trying to view through the lens of the conventional evidential system, which is I admit a hard habit to break. The statement every question has an answer is a basis, because if we know that and we know that the means to find that answer exist (a corollary), then we can use that to break down the possibilities.
In this case, if there is no life after death, while that would be an answer to the question, it is not one that could be found. If you cease to exist, how would you be aware of that? Oblivion prevents any information from being obtained or gathered. Thus, if we know that the question has a findable answer, we know that it must be experienced. This is not simply saying the system does work, but rather showing how it sorts between possibilities.
I acknowledge this is not something the evidential system can address, but this is precisely why the tool helps. It is self-supporting without being circular, and it gives a reason for evidence to be justified if you wish for more immediately practical benefits.
To me, what you are describing is religion. You believe life after death exists because you choose to believe it. Nothing wrong with that in of itself.
Let me rephrase your example.
In this case, if there are no dragons living under my bed, while that would be an answer to the question, it is not one that could be found. If they are invisible, how would you be aware of that? Dragon cloaking devices prevent any information from being obtained or gathered.
So I must accept that dragons are living under my bed? Because anything that can be experienced must be experienced?
Science would say no they are not. Religion however, can say whatever it wants. If I want to believe they are under there, that's my choice, my belief, and science has no say in the matter.
I simply don't agree that every question has an answer and that all answers must be experienced.
And we went over this in the other thread. I said that science explains the how, and religion explains the why. You are trying to mix the two, and that just doesn't work. You don't have a system, you have a religion.
Your post still doesn't explain how your system works, or what it does, or what it's accomplished. How exactly does your system advance scientific knowledge of say, particle physics? What can it do to to improve the operation of the LHC? If you could answer THAT, then we might have something to discuss. You have not described how your system can DO anything, that is why you are being told you are not describing anything.
The border between what you have termed science and religion is an invented one. To put up walls and say those areas are the domain of religion is to render the scientific system meaningless. If you accept 'Just because' as the answer to a key scientific question, what prevents that answer from being used to answer something like why the Sun rises? If the system as it stands cannot even tell you why you should believe it, then why should it expect anyone to listen to it?
A scientific system that accepts answers like 'that's out of our hands,' 'because we assume it,' 'just because,' is a system that has no good reason why those answers can't be used for everything. If you would object to those answers being used for claims about gravity, why do you accept them for far more fundamental and important aspects?
This is often when I talk about taking a position without understanding the ramifications: the evidential and strict scientific systems make concessions they cannot afford to. What they require you to do is something they cannot endorse doing in any other situation.
Of course the separation is an invented one. Mankind invented science for a very specific purpose, to answer the how. To explore and examine the physical world.
Science doesn't say WHY the Sun rises. It says HOW it rises, explaining it via the rotation of the Earth. It explains HOW the Earth rotates as conservation of kinetic and rotational energy. It explains how THAT energy was formed by the Big Bang, and that is where science ends.
WHY is a totally different question. "God made the universe this way so we could exist" is an answer to WHY. Science doesn't answer that question, it doesn't even ask it. That's the domain of religion.
We accept science because it works. It built all the technology we used to create our civilization. If you could point to where science failed because of the limits of evidence based methodology, that would be helpful.
You have an alternate idea of how we should be exploring the world, and if you could show some results of this I'd certainly be interested. Do you have an example question it can answer that isn't a religious question?
-
In this case, if there are no dragons living under my bed, while that would be an answer to the question, it is not one that could be found. If they are invisible, how would you be aware of that? Dragon cloaking devices prevent any information from being obtained or gathered.
So I must accept that dragons are living under my bed? Because anything that can be experienced must be experienced?
You are limiting the field of inquiry there. You certainly could define away so that those dragons could not be interacted with in any way, with no weight, visibility, impact on the world... But at that point what you are describing stops being anything that could be called a dragon.
Recall that the axiom refers to questions. In this case the question is 'is there a dragon under my bed?'
In this case, the existence or non-existence of the dragon has no effect on whether the question can be answered. The only situation where that becomes relevant is when the question is attempted to be made 'unsolvable,' but in doing so you lose the impact of the 'dragon.' It ceases to have shape in any meaningful sense. The question becomes 'is there some intangible, untouchable, something beneath my bed?'
To which the answer must then necessarily be no, because this is positing something about which no questions can be answered. It is a different question to that of death, which questions the termination of pre-existing experience.
I simply don't agree that every question has an answer and that all answers must be experienced.
You are free to, but you must also reckon with the consequences of losing the basis of evidence, and dealing with the justification behind the premise.
We accept science because it works. It built all the technology we used to create our civilization. If you could point to where science failed because of the limits of evidence based methodology, that would be helpful.
You have an alternate idea of how we should be exploring the world, and if you could show some results of this I'd certainly be interested. Do you have an example question it can answer that isn't a religious question?
This is the problem presented. You see and acknowledge the questions science cannot answer, and you say then that they are beyond the scope of science, but they shouldn't be.
You are asking a tautology. You believe that every question the evidential methodology cannot tackle is religious, thus asking for me to provide such an answer is defined to be impossible. Further, if I were to give more examples of points where I disagree with conclusions reached by the evidential method, you would reject those because the proof was not evidential.
This is a question that has no meaning. That is my answer to it: no, I cannot provide such a question, because what you asked for is something you have defined to be non-existent. Every pertinent response I could give you would consider unsupported or religious, regardless of the truth of it.
This is why my statement was not that, but rather: the distinction is manmade and meaningless. You say that science only cares about answering one kind of question, but that is only because the incomplete system can answer only those questions, not that any other questions have no merit.
My point was also that the concessions science made around its own basis of evidence, and the assumptions inherent in the comprehensibility of the universe, are ones it cannot bear. Why does it allow for these 'just because' answers on such fundamental issues, but rejects them everywhere else?
'How do we know that system works?' is a 'how' question that science cannot answer, at least not without being circular. The response it gives is not one it allows.
-
Is meta-physics always this long-winded and boring?
-
In this case, if there are no dragons living under my bed, while that would be an answer to the question, it is not one that could be found. If they are invisible, how would you be aware of that? Dragon cloaking devices prevent any information from being obtained or gathered.
So I must accept that dragons are living under my bed? Because anything that can be experienced must be experienced?
You are limiting the field of inquiry there. You certainly could define away so that those dragons could not be interacted with in any way, with no weight, visibility, impact on the world... But at that point what you are describing stops being anything that could be called a dragon.
Recall that the axiom refers to questions. In this case the question is 'is there a dragon under my bed?'
In this case, the existence or non-existence of the dragon has no effect on whether the question can be answered. The only situation where that becomes relevant is when the question is attempted to be made 'unsolvable,' but in doing so you lose the impact of the 'dragon.' It ceases to have shape in any meaningful sense. The question becomes 'is there some intangible, untouchable, something beneath my bed?'
To which the answer must then necessarily be no, because this is positing something about which no questions can be answered. It is a different question to that of death, which questions the termination of pre-existing experience.
It's exactly the same thing, and you are assuming dragons can't choose to make themselves visible. If they exist, an entire family of dragons could show themselves to me tomorrow. According to your logic that means they must exist.
Look, here are our two examples.
Dragon's are invisible until they decide to show themselves.
You can't see evidence for life after death until you die and experience it.
That is the exact same argument, trying to prove something intangible exists because one day you will experience it.
I simply don't agree that every question has an answer and that all answers must be experienced.
You are free to, but you must also reckon with the consequences of losing the basis of evidence, and dealing with the justification behind the premise.
What consequences are these? What has science failed to accomplish that it should have because of these consequences?
We accept science because it works. It built all the technology we used to create our civilization. If you could point to where science failed because of the limits of evidence based methodology, that would be helpful.
You have an alternate idea of how we should be exploring the world, and if you could show some results of this I'd certainly be interested. Do you have an example question it can answer that isn't a religious question?
This is the problem presented. You see and acknowledge the questions science cannot answer, and you say then that they are beyond the scope of science, but they shouldn't be.
Why should questions about things of which we have no evidence, and can't experiment on have anything to do with evidence based science?
Science relies on evidence, so anything that can not produce evidence is beyond it's scope by definition.
Is there life after death? Is God real? What is Gods plan for me? These are all questions science can't answer. You have religion for that.
You are asking a tautology. You believe that every question the evidential methodology cannot tackle is religious, thus asking for me to provide such an answer is defined to be impossible. Further, if I were to give more examples of points where I disagree with conclusions reached by the evidential method, you would reject those because the proof was not evidential.
Again, you are claiming to have knowledge that helps explain your claim and viewpoint, but won't share it. That is not helpful.
And yes, I am claiming that every question science can't answer is religious because that's how science is defined. Science can tell me what physical objects under my bed, it can't tell me about any imaginary things living there.
This is why my statement was not that, but rather: the distinction is manmade and meaningless. You say that science only cares about answering one kind of question, but that is only because the incomplete system can answer only those questions, not that any other questions have no merit.
I never said non-science questions don't have merit. Only that science doesn't answer them.
Science is not incomplete, it does everything exactly how it was designed. It was never meant to answer religious questions, it was explicitly designed NOT to answer those questions.
Math doesn't tell me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, nor does science, and neither of them are incomplete because they can't do that.
My point was also that the concessions science made around its own basis of evidence, and the assumptions inherent in the comprehensibility of the universe, are ones it cannot bear. Why does it allow for these 'just because' answers on such fundamental issues, but rejects them everywhere else?
Science is based on several fundamental axioms as we have discussed previously. If those axioms are shown to be flawed, we will deal with that when it happens. Until then, science is doing an outstanding job.
What do you mean things science cannot bear? Do you have an example of one?
What is it you think science is rejecting?
-
It's exactly the same thing, and you are assuming dragons can't choose to make themselves visible. If they exist, an entire family of dragons could show themselves to me tomorrow. According to your logic that means they must exist.
Look, here are our two examples.
Dragon's are invisible until they decide to show themselves.
You can't see evidence for life after death until you die and experience it.
That is the exact same argument, trying to prove something intangible exists because one day you will experience it.
That is not the logic I am presenting. Please, when I explain the difference, try to understand as opposed to trying to find a way to make your argument work.
We will die: that is a fact. Therefore, something will happen to us at the point of that termination. This is already known. Either we will cease to exist, or go on; if it is the former, this is positing an unanswerable situation as one cannot report or be aware of one's own cessation of existence. Going on must be the case.
In the case of your invisible dragons, if they do not exist, this causes no contradiction with the axiom. It is not just a matter of experience, but rather the nature of an answerable question; the means to find an answer must exist. In this case, you propose 'they will come into being one day.' There are two forms this claim can take, the specific and the general.
In the specific case, you make the claim that they will be known before a certain date. In this case, the means to verify them positively or negatively is concrete. If they do not make the predicted appearance, then one has answered the question without their existence.
In the general case, the question changes form. You claim that at some point these dragons will make themselves known. This then becomes, not a question about dragons, but about the nature of eternity. In this case, yes, it would follow that at some point, in this world or another, in this universe or another, something akin to what you call a dragon would come into being.
Your used of the word 'cloaked' arrives at the same problem as I brought up previously: visibility is not the only way one could confirm or deny the presence of such a creature. If you define them so that they possess all the traits of non-existence to prevent any tests being run, then they do not exist. You may call that non-existence whatever you want, but the nature of it remainds disproven by what came before. Claiming that it will one day become something is not a relevant claim here, because making a claim about this unanswerable substance will always prove unanswerable. To state that anything, dragon or otherwise, would come from it, would require us to be able to measure or through some means view this substance that you have defined to be beyond comprehensibility to confirm that it did indeed become a dragon. This is, by your own defining, impossible. Thus, as before, we can conclude the substance does not exist as it posits something about which no questions can be answered.
Meanwhile, if the dragon is merely invisible but remains tangible (for example), a test could be run to see whether or not it was there. This test might be difficult, particularly if you do not specify where in the world or universe it is, but it is still a test. It does not require existence or non-existence either way for this test to be performed.
This is not the same as life after death, because life does exist. The only way to test for the subjective experience of life after death is to die. Thus, the only way to find that answer is if there was a soul there to find it.
'All questions have an answer' does not mean 'every answer is yes.'
The answer is only positive when it must be for the evidence to be found. You have yet to construct a situation where the dragon's non-existence would render a question without answer.
Science is based on several fundamental axioms as we have discussed previously. If those axioms are shown to be flawed, we will deal with that when it happens. Until then, science is doing an outstanding job.
What do you mean things science cannot bear? Do you have an example of one?
What is it you think science is rejecting?
Taking an axiom is something science cannot allow. It is reasoning that does not apply in any other circumstances all throughout the field, and yet the entire system is based upon it. What prevents someone from using the answer to 'why do we believe the laws of physics are constant?' to answer 'why does the Sun rise?' or 'why do we breathe oxygen?'
This is also what I referred to when I mentioned the consequences of disbelieving in a greater framework. The moment science accepts these axioms within the confines of the exclusive evidential system, it opens the door to answers that it cannot afford to allow, because with them the whole concept of inquiry falls apart.
You appear to be taking the position that there is no overlap between what you term science and religion, the 'how' and the 'why.' How would this be so? How something happens affects what you can determine about the why, why would that implication go only one way? Without being able to answer 'why,' science dooms itself. Knowing why something occurs is just as much a tool in understanding the universe, with implications that tell you about many related fields.
Take, for example, the problem of evil. You would doubtless refer to that as a religious question, but it only exists because of science. It only exists because people looked at life cycles, experiences, and has many variations that mention specific details such as the requirements of certain parasites, asking why they are allowed to exist. It is a religious question, that only exists because of scientific analysis. Why do you believe the inferences only go one way?
Take, for example, the study of the mind: this is a strictly scientific process. How does it function? This can only be understood with what you would call philosophical or religious concepts, sorting out qualia, subjective experiences, the nature of a mind without a body (in the case of life after death), and without this knowledge, scientific questions cannot be answered.
You say the two are separate. I say they shouldn't be: they are interconnected, implications from one upon the other, and separating them only serves to limit our understanding.
-
Is meta-physics always this long-winded and boring?
Honestly, this is mild as far as meta-physics goes.
-
Is it always this rambling and all over the place?
-
It's exactly the same thing, and you are assuming dragons can't choose to make themselves visible. If they exist, an entire family of dragons could show themselves to me tomorrow. According to your logic that means they must exist.
Look, here are our two examples.
Dragon's are invisible until they decide to show themselves.
You can't see evidence for life after death until you die and experience it.
That is the exact same argument, trying to prove something intangible exists because one day you will experience it.
That is not the logic I am presenting. Please, when I explain the difference, try to understand as opposed to trying to find a way to make your argument work.
We will die: that is a fact. Therefore, something will happen to us at the point of that termination. This is already known.
So you are just saying that every cause produces an effect. That's basic causality, and certainly not proof of life after death. Of course SOMETHING happens after every event, the next event. That's how physical systems work. All the atoms in a humans body continue to react to all the forces in the universe, regardless if they are part of a functioning human being or a pile of ash.
Either we will cease to exist, or go on; if it is the former, this is positing an unanswerable situation as one cannot report or be aware of one's own cessation of existence. Going on must be the case.
It only must be the case if you agree that all questions have answers and all answers must exist. I object to both of those assumptions you are making. I understand you believe them to be true, but I do not.
A digital thermometer can't report it's temperature after it's been destroyed. Nothing illogical about that. We are more complex than a thermometer, but all the same physical rules apply.
Religion and metaphysics take over from here, and that's what you need to argue about if you want to determine what happens to us, or our souls, or life-force or spirits. That's what it's for.
Again, you are trying to force science into religions role. Doesn't work.
In the case of your invisible dragons, if they do not exist, this causes no contradiction with the axiom. It is not just a matter of experience, but rather the nature of an answerable question; the means to find an answer must exist. In this case, you propose 'they will come into being one day.' There are two forms this claim can take, the specific and the general.
I see no difference between your assertion that some life-after-death form will come into being one day, and talking dragons under my bed will reveal themselves one day.
Both are things that can be experienced. Both are things that can not be proven by science. Both are things with no evidence. Both depend on the unknown. Both are ideas we can imagine. Both can't be disproven.
Identical arguments.
-
It only must be the case if you agree that all questions have answers and all answers must exist. I object to both of those assumptions you are making. I understand you believe them to be true, but I do not.
A digital thermometer can't report it's temperature after it's been destroyed. Nothing illogical about that. We are more complex than a thermometer, but all the same physical rules apply.
You are free to disagree, so long as you can deal with the consequences, as elaborated on before. If you follow the radical skeptic position, or have your own resolution to the fact that the evidential system contradicts itself with its own basis, then disagreement would be a more logically defensible position. I do not see why you felt the need to repeat this when you did not elaborate on it the last time you made the claim.
A digital thermometer cannot report its temperature, but other things can. What sets apart the question of life after death is that it deals with subjective experiences. What goes on inside your mind, while the physical results can be detected for the living, is not something that can be fully replicated by any other mechanism.
Again, you are trying to force science into religions role. Doesn't work.
You have not justified why they should be, in light of the interconnectedness. One can say anything is separate, one could say chemistry is separate to physics, but understanding one will still help you understand the other. Saying they are distinct does not mean they are.
You have objected to my claim that questions must have answers: I gave my justification for this in the original post. I object to your claim that science and religion should be separate: you have not justified this, while I have demonstrated their mutual importance repeatedly.
I see no difference between your assertion that some life-after-death form will come into being one day, and talking dragons under my bed will reveal themselves one day.
Both are things that can be experienced. Both are things that can not be proven by science. Both are things with no evidence. Both depend on the unknown. Both are ideas we can imagine. Both can't be disproven.
Identical arguments.
I broke down in detail why they were not. I ask you to at least acknowledge what I have said. If you want to have a discussion, it would be beneficial if you explained what your objections are. If you are simply going to pretend the listed differences do not exist, I do not see what you seek to achieve here.
If you truly believe the arguments are identical, then you have not understood either argument.
- In order to define your dragons in such a way that they cannot be tested, you have defined them out of existence
- A claim about subjective experience is not the same as a claim about an objective one
- Something that cannot be tested in any way is automatically rejected as unanswerable, and it cannot gain traits that make it testable because there would be no way to determine it as the source
- The axiom only applies if one state of affairs would contradict it. If your dragons have any sense of tangibility or exist in any meaningful fashion, the tests exist. Their existence or non-existence is not affected by the axiom.
- The cessation of a subjective existence cannot be measured or experienced by any external factor. Thus, the subject must experience more if a question is to have an answer.
-
It only must be the case if you agree that all questions have answers and all answers must exist. I object to both of those assumptions you are making. I understand you believe them to be true, but I do not.
A digital thermometer can't report it's temperature after it's been destroyed. Nothing illogical about that. We are more complex than a thermometer, but all the same physical rules apply.
You are free to disagree, so long as you can deal with the consequences, as elaborated on before. If you follow the radical skeptic position, or have your own resolution to the fact that the evidential system contradicts itself with its own basis, then disagreement would be a more logically defensible position. I do not see why you felt the need to repeat this when you did not elaborate on it the last time you made the claim.
If you repeat your claim, I will repeat my objection to it.
You claim all questions have answers, I do not agree, and I've elaborated on this before.
You then state that if something has an answer, then it must be experienced. That's a leap of faith and logic I simply disagree with.
A digital thermometer cannot report its temperature, but other things can. What sets apart the question of life after death is that it deals with subjective experiences. What goes on inside your mind, while the physical results can be detected for the living, is not something that can be fully replicated by any other mechanism.
Again this is your opinion and belief. Nothing wrong with having them, but you can't use your internal belief as proof of anything. You can certainly argue that you're right, but your opinion is no more valid or invalid than anyone else so that debate will go nowhere.
You believe that consciousness or experience is more than the physical world can measure or replicate. This is pretty much the definition of a religious belief. If you want to debate religion, you have to leave science out of it.
Again, you are trying to force science into religions role. Doesn't work.
You have not justified why they should be, in light of the interconnectedness. One can say anything is separate, one could say chemistry is separate to physics, but understanding one will still help you understand the other. Saying they are distinct does not mean they are.
Chemistry and physics are both science, of course they are related.
But saying science is seperate from religion is EXACTLY why it is. Thet is how science is DEFINED. It was created SPECIFICALLY to separate the two, to understand the physical, observable world and to completely ignore the mystic and religious aspects. It does not try to disprove or prove religion, it simply and literally has no opinion about it.
You have objected to my claim that questions must have answers: I gave my justification for this in the original post. I object to your claim that science and religion should be separate: you have not justified this, while I have demonstrated their mutual importance repeatedly.
I believe I have justified why science and religion are separate, many many times.
Science only cares about what we can see, it only cares about evidence.
Faith and religion deal with things we can NOT prove with evidence and physical world.
Science deals with the physical.
Religion says there are things beyond the physical.
How can they possibly work together? They deal with completely separate things. One requires evidence, the other requires faith. They are not compatable.
I see no difference between your assertion that some life-after-death form will come into being one day, and talking dragons under my bed will reveal themselves one day.
Both are things that can be experienced. Both are things that can not be proven by science. Both are things with no evidence. Both depend on the unknown. Both are ideas we can imagine. Both can't be disproven.
Identical arguments.
I broke down in detail why they were not. I ask you to at least acknowledge what I have said. If you want to have a discussion, it would be beneficial if you explained what your objections are. If you are simply going to pretend the listed differences do not exist, I do not see what you seek to achieve here.
If you truly believe the arguments are identical, then you have not understood either argument.
- In order to define your dragons in such a way that they cannot be tested, you have defined them out of existence
- A claim about subjective experience is not the same as a claim about an objective one
- Something that cannot be tested in any way is automatically rejected as unanswerable, and it cannot gain traits that make it testable because there would be no way to determine it as the source
- The axiom only applies if one state of affairs would contradict it. If your dragons have any sense of tangibility or exist in any meaningful fashion, the tests exist. Their existence or non-existence is not affected by the axiom.
- The cessation of a subjective existence cannot be measured or experienced by any external factor. Thus, the subject must experience more if a question is to have an answer.
You broke down in detail why you think they are not, so let me be much more specific in my example.
1. You claim life after death MUST exist because you can ask "Is there life after death"
2. You claim that all questions must have answers.
3. You claim that all answers that can be experienced must be experienced, so there must be life after death.
So I say...
1. I ask "Are there invisible dragons under my bed that will one day reveal themselves only to me?"
2. All questions must have answers.
3. If an answer can be experienced, it must be experienced. So there are invisible dragons, and they will let only me see them one day.
This seems to cover all your objections. They can not be measured by an external factor, only I can see them.
How about this, you gave one example, life after death. Can you give several more examples? If you only have one example, argument basically boils down to you believing in life after death, which is a religious argument. You need other examples of your system to truly understand it. Please give some more examples, or explain why you can't.
-
You believe that consciousness or experience is more than the physical world can measure or replicate. This is pretty much the definition of a religious belief. If you want to debate religion, you have to leave science out of it.
This is well-established. How would you describe, say, the color red to someone that had never seen it? How would you describe the taste of a kind of food in any kind of detail without comparison to other foodstuffs?
Subjective experiences are well-studied by this point, they fall under the heading of 'qualia.' Some things cannot be described. The moment they are not experienced, something is lost.
I believe I have justified why science and religion are separate, many many times.
Science only cares about what we can see, it only cares about evidence.
Faith and religion deal with things we can NOT prove with evidence and physical world.
Science deals with the physical.
Religion says there are things beyond the physical.
How can they possibly work together? They deal with completely separate things. One requires evidence, the other requires faith. They are not compatable.
You have claimed and insisted upon it, but have not demonstrated it in any capacity. I have already given many examples of how the two interact. There are arguments about the non-physical (such as the nature of morality/problem of evil) that rely on observations of the physical, and in some cases even understanding of biology. Do you deny the existence of those? What you would term religious arguments, rooted in the scientific.
By the same token, the opposite holds. You may be unwilling to accept them, but logically the inverse must exist also. Science is unable to understand the mind without some basis in philosophy.
I feel some of what is happening here is a misunderstanding. You are using religion to refer to anything beyond science, but then rely on the flaws of a specific subset of religion. My thought process has always been thus:
If the world was to lose all history and memory tomorrow, if it was to be wiped clean, then look at what humanity achieves after that point. Some of what they create and derive will be identical or near-identical to what it is we developed. That would be science. Everything separate, all the stories and tales that bears no more than a cursory resemblance to what we have, that would be religion. Science can be developed from scratch, in isolation. That is how we recognize it as logical.
Philosophy is a field that will be developed alongside science, inescapably. You can't have logic and reason without both it and science. It is not in the same category as the religion you refer to.
You broke down in detail why you think they are not, so let me be much more specific in my example.
1. You claim life after death MUST exist because you can ask "Is there life after death"
2. You claim that all questions must have answers.
3. You claim that all answers that can be experienced must be experienced, so there must be life after death.
There is a misunderstanding here. Is it not that 'all answers must be experience,' it is 'all answers must be findable.' In many cases, the means to find does mean some form of experience, and when we are dealing with something like life that is literally pure experience, then naturally it requires experience.
I do not claim life after death exists because we can ask the question. I have never said that. Better to say:
Is there life after death?
There are two answers.
Yes - This is allowed by the axiom. Everyone will experience it, and thus find the answer.
No - In this case, how would the answer be found? How do you report the termination of your own existence? This answer may only be found if someone is able to measure another's subjective experience, which is a pure impossibility.
Contrast, then, with your question. As ever I must split it into two possibilities as you have not committed to telling me which definition you are using.
Are there invisible dragons, that cannot be seen but can be detected in other ways?
There are two answers.
Yes - This would be a findable example.
No - If they can be detected, then their absence can also be detected, even if it is not feasible. This is theoretically findable, if complex and impractical.
Both of these are findable answers. A negative experience is still an experience. There is a difference between walking into an empty room and seeing nothing, and being dead in that room. A lack of experience when you wanted to have one is not the same as completely lacking the capability to have experiences.
Are there invisible dragons, that cannot be detected in any way but will make themselves known one day?
There are two answers.
Yes - This contains an unprovable claim. If what they were could not be detected, then how would one determine that they came from it? This is not findable.
No - The lack of an encounter with these dragons at any stage would be a findable, if unwieldy, answer. This is a valid response.
And to hopefully better explain it:
Are there are dragons that will spontaneously come into being one day?
There are two answers.
Yes - No claim is made as to how long it will take. In the fullness of eternity, this is possible, even if the test is incredibly hard to do. If a timeframe was given, then it would still be possible, just unlikely. A possible answer.
No - Whether a timescale is given or not, a test can be run, even if it, as ever, unwieldy. The absence could be found. This is a valid answer.
Both of these answers can be found. They are separate from the life-after-death example because that posited the existence of a state in which an answer could not be found.
How about this, you gave one example, life after death. Can you give several more examples? If you only have one example, argument basically boils down to you believing in life after death, which is a religious argument. You need other examples of your system to truly understand it. Please give some more examples, or explain why you can't.
I gave many others in the original post. This was simply the one you chose to focus on. Please don't resort to such poor tactics.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86956.msg2278911#msg2278911
-
You believe that consciousness or experience is more than the physical world can measure or replicate. This is pretty much the definition of a religious belief. If you want to debate religion, you have to leave science out of it.
This is well-established. How would you describe, say, the color red to someone that had never seen it? How would you describe the taste of a kind of food in any kind of detail without comparison to other foodstuffs?
Subjective experiences are well-studied by this point, they fall under the heading of 'qualia.' Some things cannot be described. The moment they are not experienced, something is lost.
I said the physical word, not just spoken language. Of course language is not capable of conveying everything we experience. But all our thoughts and emotions and experiences are encoded by physical processes in our brains. If it's physical, it can be examined, recorded, duplicated. We simply don't have the technology yet to decode the concept of the color red from our neurons.
That's why saying there is more to our consciousness than the physical is a religious argument.
Science says we are physical beings. If there is a part of us that is not physical and something we can't touch or examine, that's religion, and science want's no part of it. It belongs in the realm of faith and philosophy.
Is there life after death?
There are two answers.
Yes - This is allowed by the axiom. Everyone will experience it, and thus find the answer.
No - In this case, how would the answer be found? How do you report the termination of your own existence? This answer may only be found if someone is able to measure another's subjective experience, which is a pure impossibility.
Your yes answer assumes there is life after death, so we will all experience it and so it must exists. That's circular logic.
Are there invisible dragons, that cannot be detected in any way but will make themselves known one day?
There are two answers.
Yes - This contains an unprovable claim. If what they were could not be detected, then how would one determine that they came from it? This is not findable.
No - The lack of an encounter with these dragons at any stage would be a findable, if unwieldy, answer. This is a valid response.
Why can't I use your answers for my example? They seem to fit fine.
Yes - This is allowed by the axiom. Everyone will eventually be contacted by dragons under the bed, and thus find the answer.
No - In this case, how would the answer be found? How do you report the fact that dragons won't ever contact you in the future? This answer may only be found if someone is able to see into the future, which is a pure impossibility.
Your single example is a problem here, because we have nothing to compare it to. For every example I give you raise what seems like random objections, and I can't find any logic in them as to why one possible experience is a certainty but another possible experience is clearly not. It seems very arbitrary to me.
How about this, you gave one example, life after death. Can you give several more examples? If you only have one example, argument basically boils down to you believing in life after death, which is a religious argument. You need other examples of your system to truly understand it. Please give some more examples, or explain why you can't.
I gave many others in the original post. This was simply the one you chose to focus on. Please don't resort to such poor tactics.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=86956.msg2278911#msg2278911
What other examples? Why can't you just list them? You clearly are putting a lot of effort into your replies, is it so hard to type out a few examples in your Q/A Y/N format like the life after death example? Without more examples, all in the same form there is no way to really get a better understanding of how your rules are supposed to work.
-
I said the physical word, not just spoken language. Of course language is not capable of conveying everything we experience. But all our thoughts and emotions and experiences are encoded by physical processes in our brains. If it's physical, it can be examined, recorded, duplicated. We simply don't have the technology yet to decode the concept of the color red from our neurons.
That's why saying there is more to our consciousness than the physical is a religious argument.
Science says we are physical beings. If there is a part of us that is not physical and something we can't touch or examine, that's religion, and science want's no part of it. It belongs in the realm of faith and philosophy.
Philosophy, faith and religion are all separate concepts. Equating them renders the terms meaningless.
If an answer cannot be conveyed, how then can it be reported? Suppose that a neuron pattern was identified with red, how then could its meaning be given? This is the nature of a subjective experience. 'This is what the experience caused' and 'This is the nature of the experience' are very different things.
Is there life after death?
There are two answers.
Yes - This is allowed by the axiom. Everyone will experience it, and thus find the answer.
No - In this case, how would the answer be found? How do you report the termination of your own existence? This answer may only be found if someone is able to measure another's subjective experience, which is a pure impossibility.
Your yes answer assumes there is life after death, so we will all experience it and so it must exists. That's circular logic.
The yes answer assumes the positive, just as the no answer assumes the negative. This isn't circular, this is just the nature of examining consequences. The conclusion isn't established because I arbitrarily picked the yes answer, it was picked because it was the only possibility remaining after the no answer was seen to be contradictory.
Think of it like math.
1 + _ = 4
One way to do this is simply to substitute in answer, covering many possibilities.
1+1=4 - contradiction
1+2=4 - contradiction
1+3=4 - allowable
1+4=4 - contradiction
Is saying that 1+3=4 circular in this case, just because we confirmed it by assuming 3 filled the gap?
Are there invisible dragons, that cannot be detected in any way but will make themselves known one day?
There are two answers.
Yes - This contains an unprovable claim. If what they were could not be detected, then how would one determine that they came from it? This is not findable.
No - The lack of an encounter with these dragons at any stage would be a findable, if unwieldy, answer. This is a valid response.
Why can't I use your answers for my example? They seem to fit fine.
Yes - This is allowed by the axiom. Everyone will eventually be contacted by dragons under the bed, and thus find the answer.
No - In this case, how would the answer be found? How do you report the fact that dragons won't ever contact you in the future? This answer may only be found if someone is able to see into the future, which is a pure impossibility.
The no answer, as you give it, does not follow. The answer is found by waiting. Like I said, the tests are not always the most feasible, but they exist. My objections are not random or arbitrary, it all comes down to the nature of what is testable, though the nature of tests may take some effort to understand if you are thinking strictly in terms of wieldy tests. Still, no experiment can be performed in the present instant, it always takes time.
One can always wait to see what will come to pass in the future. When it comes to death, if all you experience is the cessation of existence, then waiting will not allow you to find that out: you would lose all awareness and knowledge as it happened.
The yes answer better fits the second example I gave: as I mentioned, you are not defining your terms sufficiently to make this conversation easy. The problem is that your claim contained a second aspect, that of the dragon currently existing in some untestable form. For so long as that aspect is present, it will never be favored by the axiom. If you change to the second axiom, then possibility is there.
Further, now shifting the claim to 'everyone will be contacted by a dragon in a hundred years' only serves to well and truly make this testable, both ways. The absence of that experience in a hundred years time is easy to test. If that was part of your question however, you need to give it. Defining things rigorously is crucial to this topic. You cannot simply move between questions as and when it is convenient, doing so prevents any conclusions from being shown or drawn.
What other examples? Why can't you just list them? You clearly are putting a lot of effort into your replies, is it so hard to type out a few examples in your Q/A Y/N format like the life after death example? Without more examples, all in the same form there is no way to really get a better understanding of how your rules are supposed to work.
As I said, I gave other examples. I give the breakdowns when you appear to have an interest in the topic, meaning it is worth dedicating that time to explaining my point of view, and seeing how you counter it. If you lack the interest to read the others, then what purpose would a breakdown serve?
If you want further illustrations, ask a question. Yes/no questions are the easiest to demonstrate as they have a finite number of answers to break down, supply one and I'll show potential tests. If you wish to see examples of questions with answers that break with the axiom, some are in the original post. The biggest issue you will run into here is the comparative lack of simple examples given that we are talking about question with implications beyond experience.
A more complex one might be:
What came before the universe?
There are more than two answers, but we can develop categories.
An absence of all things - this would leave no fingerpints on the universe by its very nature. Only possible if every alternative leaves a trace. If even one does not leave a trace, then this would be untestable. Only possible if the traces can be sorted between.
Abstract force - Complex. May or may not leave signs, rendering above impossible. Current knowledge indicates that, as all our perceptions of what is default would come from this initial state, the means to compare exist only if there are multiple universes. Only possible if the traces can be sorted between - ie, there are multiple universes.
Mind/Creator/God - What fingerprints this leaves are irrelevant as the mind directly contains all information, in some intelligible fashion. (If the information is not intelligible, it is indistinguishable from an abstract force as above). Can convey this information. Possible.
So this is an example of a question that does not have just one answer, but the results can be narrowed down.
Either there is a Creator, there are multiple universes created by subtly different means, or there is a Creator and multiple universes created by different or identical means.
-
I said the physical word, not just spoken language. Of course language is not capable of conveying everything we experience. But all our thoughts and emotions and experiences are encoded by physical processes in our brains. If it's physical, it can be examined, recorded, duplicated. We simply don't have the technology yet to decode the concept of the color red from our neurons.
That's why saying there is more to our consciousness than the physical is a religious argument.
Science says we are physical beings. If there is a part of us that is not physical and something we can't touch or examine, that's religion, and science want's no part of it. It belongs in the realm of faith and philosophy.
Philosophy, faith and religion are all separate concepts. Equating them renders the terms meaningless.
If an answer cannot be conveyed, how then can it be reported? Suppose that a neuron pattern was identified with red, how then could its meaning be given? This is the nature of a subjective experience. 'This is what the experience caused' and 'This is the nature of the experience' are very different things.
I never said philosophy, faith and religion are identical. But if you think they are not related and want to debate that, feel free.
You are again missing the point here. You said "Some things cannot be described. The moment they are not experienced, something is lost." and I am saying that is not true.
All experiences are encoded in physical structures in out brains. It's just information, and information can be read, manipulated and copied. We can't do it now, but there is no PHYSICAL reason that the experience of taste can't be transferred from one person to another.
It's certainly possible, with the right technology to describe exactly how a neuron functions, and to examine and record a specific persons brain.
So experiences are not special in the realm of science. They are perfectly explainable, recordable and describable.
Is there life after death?
There are two answers.
Yes - This is allowed by the axiom. Everyone will experience it, and thus find the answer.
No - In this case, how would the answer be found? How do you report the termination of your own existence? This answer may only be found if someone is able to measure another's subjective experience, which is a pure impossibility.
Your yes answer assumes there is life after death, so we will all experience it and so it must exists. That's circular logic.
The yes answer assumes the positive, just as the no answer assumes the negative. This isn't circular, this is just the nature of examining consequences. The conclusion isn't established because I arbitrarily picked the yes answer, it was picked because it was the only possibility remaining after the no answer was seen to be contradictory.
It's still circular logic. You are saying No isn't correct because you think it's not correct. Your reason is that it's contradictory, but again that is only because you are saying it is. I don't happen to think there is any contradiction. A thermometer can't measure anything after it's destroyed, out physical brains can't experience anything after they are destroyed. The same physical laws govern both. A system can't 'experience' anything after the system is destroyed, this seems perfectly logical to me. If you think something else, something mystical is going on that we can't perceive, that's a religious argument. You can't apply it to science.
You are saying a thermometer MUST continue to record a temperature after it's destroyed because it's impossible to record non-existent data? This is illogical to me. A broken thermometer can't record anything, because it's broken.
As I said, I gave other examples. I give the breakdowns when you appear to have an interest in the topic, meaning it is worth dedicating that time to explaining my point of view, and seeing how you counter it. If you lack the interest to read the others, then what purpose would a breakdown serve?
So this is an example of a question that does not have just one answer, but the results can be narrowed down.
Either there is a Creator, there are multiple universes created by subtly different means, or there is a Creator and multiple universes created by different or identical means.
You have given two examples so far.
Is there life after death?
What came before the universe?
These are both religious questions. They are both unanswerable without evidence. Science is not interested in either of them.
You are stating your beliefs here, and trying to combine them with science but that is never going to work because science is DEFINED as only explaining what we can OBSERVE. If something by definition can't be observed, like the mind of God, science has no business trying to probe God's brain.
Science will never explain WHY. You have to decide that for yourself, and if it conflicts with science, that's not science's problem.
-
All experiences are encoded in physical structures in out brains. It's just information, and information can be read, manipulated and copied. We can't do it now, but there is no PHYSICAL reason that the experience of taste can't be transferred from one person to another.
It's certainly possible, with the right technology to describe exactly how a neuron functions, and to examine and record a specific persons brain.
So experiences are not special in the realm of science. They are perfectly explainable, recordable and describable.
Recording and conveying are not the same. A cliff is shaped by centuries of erosion, wind and sea and animal imprints alike, it records all of that, but can it convey every detail back to you?
If you are positing the creation of a machine able to record memories and then implant them in another, as a way to share a subjective experience, that is an interesting approach but I would argue there is a physical reason why that would never be sufficient in a situation like this. It's the analog-digital problem, something is always lost when you condense a real experience, of every instant in sight and sound and smell, into a recording: unless infinite images are stored, which would by definition take more memory than is in the entire universe, even one sensory perception could not be conveyed. A subjective experience covers the present: a simulation of one might appear indistinguishable to a certain extent, but a lot of information is still lost. Subjective experience cannot be replicated. You might create a simulacrum, but it will be impossible to compare the experience of it for accuracy because that simulation is all you have.
It's still circular logic. You are saying No isn't correct because you think it's not correct. Your reason is that it's contradictory, but again that is only because you are saying it is. I don't happen to think there is any contradiction. A thermometer can't measure anything after it's destroyed, out physical brains can't experience anything after they are destroyed. The same physical laws govern both. A system can't 'experience' anything after the system is destroyed, this seems perfectly logical to me. If you think something else, something mystical is going on that we can't perceive, that's a religious argument. You can't apply it to science.
You are saying a thermometer MUST continue to record a temperature after it's destroyed because it's impossible to record non-existent data? This is illogical to me. A broken thermometer can't record anything, because it's broken.
None of this is accurate to what I presented. I don't say it's contradictory because I think it is, I say it's contradictory because there is a contradiction. You are free to disagree, you are free to believe what you wish, but I am interested in what you can reason and justify.
If a thermometer is broken, another thermometer can still measure temperature. What information is lost? Meanwhile, when a person dies, what can report on their subjective experiences? Something can take the place of a thermometer and answer all the same questions, but what can do that for a human being's perceptions?
These are both religious questions. They are both unanswerable without evidence. Science is not interested in either of them.
I say the same thing I did when this was last brought up. If this is a discussion you want to have, then engage on the topic. You say this should not be the business of study. I say it should be. I have presented my reasons for why it should be. You have asserted that it should not, but if this is what you believe, I would like to know your reasons why.
The 'religious' questions as you term them (can we agree to call them philosophical? 'Religious' groups them in with things that could not be concluded independently which is a misrepresentation), they are affected by and so have an effect on science. For an uncontroversial example, you are content to have science impact philosophical queries. The problem of evil is the most famous such argument, asking why cruelty exists in nature: this is backed up by reference to parasites who exist only to make people suffer, predator-prey relationships where a species must live in fear and die awfully, viruses and bacteria, genetic disease... These are evidential, scientific statements used to back up a philosophical point. Do you deny that this implication is there? I assume not, as it is evident.
Thus, the two fields are not as independent as you claim. In this case, why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science? Why do you raise science on a pedestal and claim the implications go only the one way?
When that is answered, I would like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose - you are not obligated to believe this, but I ask you to accept it for the purpose of the hypothetical - suppose that a philosophical conclusion was drawn about the mind, the nature of thoughts, how memories work... Would that be of no interest to neuroscience?
I put it to you that your objection to these questions is not that philosophy and science must remain separate, but rather just that you disagree with conclusions reached by these means. That your objection is simply based in the steadfast belief that evidence is the only way anything can be proven, and this the evidential system can impact others, but they cannot impact it in turn. In which case this has simply become circular again: this is, as far as I can see, the only reconcilable way to justify your claims. Your objection to my questions-and-answers is not that they are on verboten topics, but rather the nature of the system itself.
-
If you are positing the creation of a machine able to record memories and then implant them in another, as a way to share a subjective experience, that is an interesting approach but I would argue there is a physical reason why that would never be sufficient in a situation like this. It's the analog-digital problem, something is always lost when you condense a real experience, of every instant in sight and sound and smell, into a recording: unless infinite images are stored, which would by definition take more memory than is in the entire universe, even one sensory perception could not be conveyed. A subjective experience covers the present: a simulation of one might appear indistinguishable to a certain extent, but a lot of information is still lost.
Why would you need infinite images to record everything in a person's brain? There is obviously a finite number of atoms making up a brain. Clearly that's smaller than infinity, and if we can measure all of them, we can store them, record them, duplicate them. It's a lot of atoms, but we certainly could build a device to store that amount. I could order that amount of storage off Amazon right now, but I can't yet copy my brain into it. But there is nothing in physics that says it's impossible.
Where is this infinite amount of information coming from?
Subjective experience cannot be replicated.
You haven't explained why not. If we make a 1 to 1 atomic copy of a brain, we have replicated every experience. If you copy all of the data, you have a copy of all of the data. Where is the difference?
None of this is accurate to what I presented. I don't say it's contradictory because I think it is, I say it's contradictory because there is a contradiction.
You are in fact saying exactly that. You think there is a contradiction, I don't think there is, I don't think you've proven it.
These are both religious questions. They are both unanswerable without evidence. Science is not interested in either of them.
I say the same thing I did when this was last brought up. If this is a discussion you want to have, then engage on the topic. You say this should not be the business of study. I say it should be. I have presented my reasons for why it should be. You have asserted that it should not, but if this is what you believe, I would like to know your reasons why.
I've told you why. Science is defined as the study of things we can observe. It seeks to explain HOW the world works. Atoms do this, gravity does that, time flows in this direction.
If we can't observe something, it's not science's business to study it.
Modern science works by observing, hypothesizing, theorizing, experimenting and testing.
You can't do any of this to religion. You can't run an experiment to determine the color of God's shoes.
Those are my reasons why.
Your examples are religious, and science doesn't do religion. So trying to claim science is flawed or missing because it doesn't include religion is a non-argument because science was designed to NOT include religion.
Thus, the two fields are not as independent as you claim. In this case, why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science? Why do you raise science on a pedestal and claim the implications go only the one way?
When that is answered, I would like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose - you are not obligated to believe this, but I ask you to accept it for the purpose of the hypothetical - suppose that a philosophical conclusion was drawn about the mind, the nature of thoughts, how memories work... Would that be of no interest to neuroscience?
Why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science?
I already answered this and again in this message.
Because science is about observation and prediction and experimenting. Philosophical conclusion's are not science. What about the structure of a neuron does a philosophical reveal? Will it tell us the chemical structure of dopamine? Will it give us a drug to combat Alzheimer's?
Can you give an example of a philosophical conclusion that helps science?
A philosophical conclusion isn't a fact. It's not proof. It's not evidence. Therefore no, science doesn't make use of it.
-
Why would you need infinite images to record everything in a person's brain? There is obviously a finite number of atoms making up a brain. Clearly that's smaller than infinity, and if we can measure all of them, we can store them, record them, duplicate them. It's a lot of atoms, but we certainly could build a device to store that amount. I could order that amount of storage off Amazon right now, but I can't yet copy my brain into it. But there is nothing in physics that says it's impossible.
Where is this infinite amount of information coming from?
That is not what you need to do: subjective experiences do not just exist in memory, they exist in the present.
I asked a number of questions in my previous post. If they are discussions you want to have, which seems evident if you are asking more on those topics, it would benefit us both if those questions were answered. I cannot better explain or develop my perspective if nothing is being added. I do not need you to reiterate what you have said, I need your help in moving this dialogue forwards.
If a thermometer is broken, another thermometer can still measure temperature. What information is lost? Meanwhile, when a person dies, what can report on their subjective experiences? Something can take the place of a thermometer and answer all the same questions, but what can do that for a human being's perceptions?
The 'religious' questions as you term them (can we agree to call them philosophical? 'Religious' groups them in with things that could not be concluded independently which is a misrepresentation), they are affected by and so have an effect on science. For an uncontroversial example, you are content to have science impact philosophical queries. The problem of evil is the most famous such argument, asking why cruelty exists in nature: this is backed up by reference to parasites who exist only to make people suffer, predator-prey relationships where a species must live in fear and die awfully, viruses and bacteria, genetic disease... These are evidential, scientific statements used to back up a philosophical point. Do you deny that this implication is there? I assume not, as it is evident.
Thus, the two fields are not as independent as you claim. In this case, why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science? Why do you raise science on a pedestal and claim the implications go only the one way?
When that is answered, I would like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose - you are not obligated to believe this, but I ask you to accept it for the purpose of the hypothetical - suppose that a philosophical conclusion was drawn about the mind, the nature of thoughts, how memories work... Would that be of no interest to neuroscience?
I put it to you that your objection to these questions is not that philosophy and science must remain separate, but rather just that you disagree with conclusions reached by these means. That your objection is simply based in the steadfast belief that evidence is the only way anything can be proven, and this the evidential system can impact others, but they cannot impact it in turn. In which case this has simply become circular again: this is, as far as I can see, the only reconcilable way to justify your claims. Your objection to my questions-and-answers is not that they are on verboten topics, but rather the nature of the system itself.
On the latter: my objection is you are not claiming science and philosophy are distinct. You are saying they overlap, but science is preferred, by virtue of it being science.
By contrast, my claim is that the philosophical is preferred, because it is the foundation of science. Now, you are free to disagree with the latter claim, but this does not prevent the former from being circular. Science is better then all else by virtue of it being scientific seems to be your stance.
-
Why would you need infinite images to record everything in a person's brain? There is obviously a finite number of atoms making up a brain. Clearly that's smaller than infinity, and if we can measure all of them, we can store them, record them, duplicate them. It's a lot of atoms, but we certainly could build a device to store that amount. I could order that amount of storage off Amazon right now, but I can't yet copy my brain into it. But there is nothing in physics that says it's impossible.
Where is this infinite amount of information coming from?
That is not what you need to do: subjective experiences do not just exist in memory, they exist in the present.
Ok, so if I build a machine that monitors, records and copies a human brain in real time then I am working with experiences as they happen.
Again, according to science and physics this all happens on a purely physical level.
Once more, the whole point of this particular part of the debate is your claim that it's impossible for death to be final because it's impossible to experience not existing.
My counter was a thermometer being destroyed certainly means it no longer records a temperature. Humans brains are more complex, but work on the same physics. The world certainly exists after a thermometer or a person is gone, but neither is capable of experiencing it on a purely physical level any more.
That is why I disagree with your conclusion that you have proven life after death MUST exist. There is no contradiction in something ceasing to experience the universe, be it a thermometer or a human brain.
I asked a number of questions in my previous post. If they are discussions you want to have, which seems evident if you are asking more on those topics, it would benefit us both if those questions were answered. I cannot better explain or develop my perspective if nothing is being added. I do not need you to reiterate what you have said, I need your help in moving this dialogue forwards.
I ask a lot of questions you don't answer as well. I'd still like an example of a philosophical conclusion that can help science.
If a thermometer is broken, another thermometer can still measure temperature. What information is lost? Meanwhile, when a person dies, what can report on their subjective experiences? Something can take the place of a thermometer and answer all the same questions, but what can do that for a human being's perceptions?
I pointed this out earlier in my discussion.
The fact that the universe exists after a thermometer or brain is gone doesn't mean they are still experiencing anything.
You can replace a thermometer with another one. You can replace a human brain with a perfect copy of the first one if you have the technology.
Science has shown no evidence that there is anything special about human consciousness, no reason it NEEDS to exist at all. You ask what can replace a humans perceptions? What about science says the universe needs humans at all?
Again, this is a religious argument you are making, not a scientific one.
The 'religious' questions as you term them (can we agree to call them philosophical? 'Religious' groups them in with things that could not be concluded independently which is a misrepresentation), they are affected by and so have an effect on science. For an uncontroversial example, you are content to have science impact philosophical queries. The problem of evil is the most famous such argument, asking why cruelty exists in nature: this is backed up by reference to parasites who exist only to make people suffer, predator-prey relationships where a species must live in fear and die awfully, viruses and bacteria, genetic disease... These are evidential, scientific statements used to back up a philosophical point. Do you deny that this implication is there? I assume not, as it is evident.
Thus, the two fields are not as independent as you claim. In this case, why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science? Why do you raise science on a pedestal and claim the implications go only the one way?
When that is answered, I would like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose - you are not obligated to believe this, but I ask you to accept it for the purpose of the hypothetical - suppose that a philosophical conclusion was drawn about the mind, the nature of thoughts, how memories work... Would that be of no interest to neuroscience?
I put it to you that your objection to these questions is not that philosophy and science must remain separate, but rather just that you disagree with conclusions reached by these means. That your objection is simply based in the steadfast belief that evidence is the only way anything can be proven, and this the evidential system can impact others, but they cannot impact it in turn. In which case this has simply become circular again: this is, as far as I can see, the only reconcilable way to justify your claims. Your objection to my questions-and-answers is not that they are on verboten topics, but rather the nature of the system itself.
On the latter: my objection is you are not claiming science and philosophy are distinct. You are saying they overlap, but science is preferred, by virtue of it being science.
I am very much claiming science and philosophy (and religion) are distinct. That's my main point through this whole discussion.
Science and philosophy do NOT overlap.
By contrast, my claim is that the philosophical is preferred, because it is the foundation of science. Now, you are free to disagree with the latter claim, but this does not prevent the former from being circular. Science is better then all else by virtue of it being scientific seems to be your stance.
[/quote]
You claim I am "raising science on a pedestal" but you are the one who is literally saying "the philosophical is preferred".
I'm saying the opposite.
I am saying use science to explain the physical, use religion to explain the metaphysical.
Science explains the HOW, religion explains the WHY. I can't repeat this enough.
You are the one saying that religion should be answering both. This is the root cause of all the disagreements I have with your logic and your non-evidential system.
-
I pointed this out earlier in my discussion.
The fact that the universe exists after a thermometer or brain is gone doesn't mean they are still experiencing anything.
You can replace a thermometer with another one. You can replace a human brain with a perfect copy of the first one if you have the technology.
Science has shown no evidence that there is anything special about human consciousness, no reason it NEEDS to exist at all. You ask what can replace a humans perceptions? What about science says the universe needs humans at all?
This is not about human consciousness needing to exist, this is about how one records the cessation of existence. If that can be done, then the possibility would be allowed by the axiom and life after death would not be proven, but my claim is that this cannot be done, and therefore the only way that cessation can be experience is by the subject, therefore there must be a continuation so that this knowledge exists and can be conveyed.
Your argument is that if we were to build a one-to-one model of the human brain, this would then experience the same, but that does not follow. If the experience is identical, then it would die. Nothing would be recorded, by the nature of your claim. If information could continue to be held after death, that supports life after death, it is the opposite of the point you are defending. This approach adds another step, but you remain in the position of needing to create a recording of a mind as it expires, which has the same analog/digital problem when it comes to recording an experience of the analog present.
You can build a human brain again with the correct technology, yes, but identical to what stage of the predecessor? Before it expired? Then it does not contain the knowledge it should have. After it expired? Then it is dead. At some point during? Then it still lacks certain experiences.
The 'religious' questions as you term them (can we agree to call them philosophical? 'Religious' groups them in with things that could not be concluded independently which is a misrepresentation), they are affected by and so have an effect on science. For an uncontroversial example, you are content to have science impact philosophical queries. The problem of evil is the most famous such argument, asking why cruelty exists in nature: this is backed up by reference to parasites who exist only to make people suffer, predator-prey relationships where a species must live in fear and die awfully, viruses and bacteria, genetic disease... These are evidential, scientific statements used to back up a philosophical point. Do you deny that this implication is there? I assume not, as it is evident.
Thus, the two fields are not as independent as you claim. In this case, why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science? Why do you raise science on a pedestal and claim the implications go only the one way?
When that is answered, I would like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose - you are not obligated to believe this, but I ask you to accept it for the purpose of the hypothetical - suppose that a philosophical conclusion was drawn about the mind, the nature of thoughts, how memories work... Would that be of no interest to neuroscience?
I put it to you that your objection to these questions is not that philosophy and science must remain separate, but rather just that you disagree with conclusions reached by these means. That your objection is simply based in the steadfast belief that evidence is the only way anything can be proven, and this the evidential system can impact others, but they cannot impact it in turn. In which case this has simply become circular again: this is, as far as I can see, the only reconcilable way to justify your claims. Your objection to my questions-and-answers is not that they are on verboten topics, but rather the nature of the system itself.
On the latter: my objection is you are not claiming science and philosophy are distinct. You are saying they overlap, but science is preferred, by virtue of it being science.
I am very much claiming science and philosophy (and religion) are distinct. That's my main point through this whole discussion.
Science and philosophy do NOT overlap.
I asked you about a specific instance of such an overlap: I gave a philosophical argument that is well-known and well-documented, backed by scientific evidence. You are free to claim there is no overlap, but I would like to hear your reasoning for such a claim given such examples.
Sorry for splitting this into two posts, the site is giving me an error if I try to post anything too long.
-
I am saying use science to explain the physical, use religion to explain the metaphysical.
Science explains the HOW, religion explains the WHY. I can't repeat this enough.
You are the one saying that religion should be answering both. This is the root cause of all the disagreements I have with your logic and your non-evidential system.
I have never brought up religion in this thread. To re-iterate my distinction as it feels important, and equating religion and philosophy is misleading:
If all knowledge was to be lost tomorrow, then that which humanity rebuilt on its path to civilisation is science. This includes philosophy. Understanding of logic, of natural world, are tied together. Science and philosophy are inextricably linked, and both are distinct from religion.
You are free to take a different view of science and philosophy of course, and are free to claim they should be distinct, but this discussion can only be had if you are willing to reckon with the ramifications of such a position. My position is not 'philosophy should answer both,' because philosophy is just answer branch much like biology and chemistry are, in my view. The tool that is best for the situation should be applied.
In this case however, as philosophy underpins the evidential system, my point of view can be split into a simple if/then pair of hypotheticals.
If the hypothetical basis I hold is true, then this claim must follow, so the evidential system (which, by its nature, is open to new discoveries re-contextualizing the old) is incorrect if it contradicts this.
If the hypothetical basis I hold is false, then the evidential system lacks a foundation and thus its view on the matter has no weight.
Which brings us to "I'd still like an example of a philosophical conclusion that can help science."
I have answered this, but your objection is what I warned you would be the case. You are rejecting them because they are not in line with your worldview, not because they lack relevance.
The basis of evidence is the most fitting one. The scientific system itself has no way to support the concept of evidence without becoming circular, because the evidential system is all it can offer. Philosophy gives us an alternative and lets us root it in something self-sustaining. Without philosophical conclusions, there is no science.
Everything else, you claim it has no relevance to science because of arbitrary lines, but have not shown that this follows. If we understood that the mind continued after death, then that tells us a lot about how the mind functions: this should be of interest to neuroscientists seeking to understand how the mind works. If we sought to understand the mind of God as be made the universe, then understanding that motive would tell us about what we could expect to find as aspects of that design. You have stated that any 'why' question that is answered can have no ramifications on science, and have rejected all such instances for no other reason than that they were 'why' questions, but steadfast insistence on the distinction is not a replacement for reasoning.
Science explains the how. It also explains the what, the where, the when... And all of those questions interact, answering one allows you to get a better idea of how to answer others. Knowing what happened, and when it happened, helps you explain how it happened.
But 'why' is cut off from that, made separate. What makes it so special?
-
I pointed this out earlier in my discussion.
The fact that the universe exists after a thermometer or brain is gone doesn't mean they are still experiencing anything.
You can replace a thermometer with another one. You can replace a human brain with a perfect copy of the first one if you have the technology.
Science has shown no evidence that there is anything special about human consciousness, no reason it NEEDS to exist at all. You ask what can replace a humans perceptions? What about science says the universe needs humans at all?
This is not about human consciousness needing to exist, this is about how one records the cessation of existence. If that can be done, then the possibility would be allowed by the axiom and life after death would not be proven, but my claim is that this cannot be done, and therefore the only way that cessation can be experience is by the subject, therefore there must be a continuation so that this knowledge exists and can be conveyed.
Your argument is that if we were to build a one-to-one model of the human brain, this would then experience the same, but that does not follow. If the experience is identical, then it would die. Nothing would be recorded, by the nature of your claim. If information could continue to be held after death, that supports life after death, it is the opposite of the point you are defending. This approach adds another step, but you remain in the position of needing to create a recording of a mind as it expires, which has the same analog/digital problem when it comes to recording an experience of the analog present.
You can build a human brain again with the correct technology, yes, but identical to what stage of the predecessor? Before it expired? Then it does not contain the knowledge it should have. After it expired? Then it is dead. At some point during? Then it still lacks certain experiences.
The whole copying brains came about because you declared that one couldn't record human experiences, and that was my counter argument. Lets get back to your original point.
We can use something more complicated, a camera.
It's on, running, recording video, then I smash it with a hammer.
Is it still recording video somewhere?
Science says no, it's smashed, it no longer works.
Science also says if your brain stops working, you stop experiencing, because the neurons stop operating. If there is anything that happens after, that's now for religion to argue for and debate. Not science.
There is no contradiction about a smashed camera not recording video. It seems self-evident that it's broken, it can't 'see' or 'remember' anything now. The brain is a fancier version of a camera, but as I keep saying, still follows physical laws.
The 'religious' questions as you term them (can we agree to call them philosophical? 'Religious' groups them in with things that could not be concluded independently which is a misrepresentation), they are affected by and so have an effect on science. For an uncontroversial example, you are content to have science impact philosophical queries. The problem of evil is the most famous such argument, asking why cruelty exists in nature: this is backed up by reference to parasites who exist only to make people suffer, predator-prey relationships where a species must live in fear and die awfully, viruses and bacteria, genetic disease... These are evidential, scientific statements used to back up a philosophical point. Do you deny that this implication is there? I assume not, as it is evident.
Thus, the two fields are not as independent as you claim. In this case, why shouldn't philosophy have an impact on science? Why do you raise science on a pedestal and claim the implications go only the one way?
When that is answered, I would like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose - you are not obligated to believe this, but I ask you to accept it for the purpose of the hypothetical - suppose that a philosophical conclusion was drawn about the mind, the nature of thoughts, how memories work... Would that be of no interest to neuroscience?
I put it to you that your objection to these questions is not that philosophy and science must remain separate, but rather just that you disagree with conclusions reached by these means. That your objection is simply based in the steadfast belief that evidence is the only way anything can be proven, and this the evidential system can impact others, but they cannot impact it in turn. In which case this has simply become circular again: this is, as far as I can see, the only reconcilable way to justify your claims. Your objection to my questions-and-answers is not that they are on verboten topics, but rather the nature of the system itself.
On the latter: my objection is you are not claiming science and philosophy are distinct. You are saying they overlap, but science is preferred, by virtue of it being science.
I am very much claiming science and philosophy (and religion) are distinct. That's my main point through this whole discussion.
Science and philosophy do NOT overlap.
I asked you about a specific instance of such an overlap: I gave a philosophical argument that is well-known and well-documented, backed by scientific evidence. You are free to claim there is no overlap, but I would like to hear your reasoning for such a claim given such examples.
Sorry for splitting this into two posts, the site is giving me an error if I try to post anything too long.
I'm having issues with posting too.
You are again mixing up WHY and HOW with your evil argument.
Science explains HOW nature might evolve to have creature that eat each other in horrible ways. You need religion to explain WHY there is evil.
Science and philosophy are SEPARATE here... philosophy doesn't explain how evolution produces parasites. Science doesn't explain why God allows parasites to exist.
I don't see how philosophy helps science at all when discussing parasites. Science doesn't ask are parasites evil. It asks if they exist, and how they came to exist, what they do, how they do it. How it affects other creature.
Science does not at ALL ask, or care if parasites are evil.
That's why there is no overlap. How does philosophy help science discover the double helix and the machinery of evolution? What does philosophy's discussion about evil do to advance science in treating malaria with tailored drugs?
You have given several examples where you say it does, but haven't actually show HOW it does. You talk about philosophy helping science understand evil, or philosophy coming up with some conclusion about the mind and memories that helps science, but fail to provide an actual example of this. How has philosophy helped science advance in either of these cases?
-
The whole copying brains came about because you declared that one couldn't record human experiences, and that was my counter argument. Lets get back to your original point.
We can use something more complicated, a camera.
It's on, running, recording video, then I smash it with a hammer.
Is it still recording video somewhere?
Science says no, it's smashed, it no longer works.
Science also says if your brain stops working, you stop experiencing, because the neurons stop operating. If there is anything that happens after, that's now for religion to argue for and debate. Not science.
There is no contradiction about a smashed camera not recording video. It seems self-evident that it's broken, it can't 'see' or 'remember' anything now. The brain is a fancier version of a camera, but as I keep saying, still follows physical laws.
The qualia discussion was brought up because it was inherent to the topic of subjective experiences. The camera analogy brings nothing to the table that the thermometer example did not: in the camera instance, other things are capable of recording that which the camera was. What else is capable of experiencing the subjective view of a human? Consciousness is not something that a camera or thermometer has, an active awareness and reaction to a situation, death is not something that a camera can record.
How do you record and convey the information within the subjective experience of the cessation of one's existence, if that existence does not continue?
This was why those re-creations were brought up, but they did not provide an answer because, if there were identical as you posited, then they would stop storing information.
You are again mixing up WHY and HOW with your evil argument.
Science explains HOW nature might evolve to have creature that eat each other in horrible ways. You need religion to explain WHY there is evil.
Science and philosophy are SEPARATE here... philosophy doesn't explain how evolution produces parasites. Science doesn't explain why God allows parasites to exist.
I don't see how philosophy helps science at all when discussing parasites. Science doesn't ask are parasites evil. It asks if they exist, and how they came to exist, what they do, how they do it. How it affects other creature.
Science does not at ALL ask, or care if parasites are evil.
It describes their nature, tells you what is required for them to survive, gives you grounded information. Without any of that, what form does the problem of evil take?
'How' and 'Why' are interconnected questions here, as in so many issues. They tell you how a parasite survives, they tell you how that affects the people they prey upon. Only with that knowledge can the why even be asked.
That's why there is no overlap. How does philosophy help science discover the double helix and the machinery of evolution? What does philosophy's discussion about evil do to advance science in treating malaria with tailored drugs?
You have given several examples where you say it does, but haven't actually show HOW it does. You talk about philosophy helping science understand evil, or philosophy coming up with some conclusion about the mind and memories that helps science, but fail to provide an actual example of this. How has philosophy helped science advance in either of these cases?
You are implicitly changing your argument here. You are no longer claiming that there is no connection between science and philosophy, or if you are, it is not backed up by what you are saying.
I listed applications. I could list more: for example, an understanding of the problem of evil could inform scientists of what diseases and problems may arise in future, and which it is not worth wasting funding on. You have since changed your question from asking if there is a connection, to asking for previous instances of it happening. This is not the same claim.
How many scientists accept this approach, or would admit to accepting this approach?
The conclusion to 'You haven't given a direct example of how this would affect neuroscience,' is not 'therefore it does not work,' it is 'I am not a neuroscientist.'
Is your objection to the mutual interactions between science and philosophy, or to the accuracy of philosophy? You seem to object to both, but you are only providing criticisms of the one.
-
The whole copying brains came about because you declared that one couldn't record human experiences, and that was my counter argument. Lets get back to your original point.
We can use something more complicated, a camera.
It's on, running, recording video, then I smash it with a hammer.
Is it still recording video somewhere?
Science says no, it's smashed, it no longer works.
Science also says if your brain stops working, you stop experiencing, because the neurons stop operating. If there is anything that happens after, that's now for religion to argue for and debate. Not science.
There is no contradiction about a smashed camera not recording video. It seems self-evident that it's broken, it can't 'see' or 'remember' anything now. The brain is a fancier version of a camera, but as I keep saying, still follows physical laws.
The qualia discussion was brought up because it was inherent to the topic of subjective experiences. The camera analogy brings nothing to the table that the thermometer example did not: in the camera instance, other things are capable of recording that which the camera was.
No, that's not correct. Any camera that could record the EXACT image the first one did would have to be in the exact same spot and be an exact duplicate. Any change would mean it would be recording a different image.
What else is capable of experiencing the subjective view of a human? Consciousness is not something that a camera or thermometer has, an active awareness and reaction to a situation, death is not something that a camera can record.
How do you record and convey the information within the subjective experience of the cessation of one's existence, if that existence does not continue?
This was why those re-creations were brought up, but they did not provide an answer because, if there were identical as you posited, then they would stop storing information.
Which defeats your point above, no other camera can record the first's exact point of view without being a duplicate itself. Exactly like you claim is the reason a duplicate human wouldn't suffice.
So the same theory should apply. How can a camera record it's own non-existance?
You are claiming consciousness is special, and that is a religious argument, not a scientific one.
A camera when destroyed stops storing information. A brain when destroyed stops storing information. What is the difference? Why must one continue when the other does not?
You are again mixing up WHY and HOW with your evil argument.
Science explains HOW nature might evolve to have creature that eat each other in horrible ways. You need religion to explain WHY there is evil.
Science and philosophy are SEPARATE here... philosophy doesn't explain how evolution produces parasites. Science doesn't explain why God allows parasites to exist.
I don't see how philosophy helps science at all when discussing parasites. Science doesn't ask are parasites evil. It asks if they exist, and how they came to exist, what they do, how they do it. How it affects other creature.
Science does not at ALL ask, or care if parasites are evil.
It describes their nature, tells you what is required for them to survive, gives you grounded information. Without any of that, what form does the problem of evil take?
'How' and 'Why' are interconnected questions here, as in so many issues. They tell you how a parasite survives, they tell you how that affects the people they prey upon. Only with that knowledge can the why even be asked.
Your "grounded information" is very vague, I'm still waiting for a concrete example. Something real.
There is no problem of evil in science. That's a moral issue, not a scientific one. You can't define evil using anything but listing what's evil and what's not. There is no formula or theory that describes evil in terms that are not just lists of this is evil, this is good.
How and why are not connected like that. You can answer the HOW without ever asking WHY. Science doesn't ask WHY, it doesn't know WHY, it doesn't need WHY.
Again, what actual scientific discovery based on evidence relied on the WHY from philosophy, and could not stand on evidence alone?
This is the crux of the matter, I'd really like an actual example.
That's why there is no overlap. How does philosophy help science discover the double helix and the machinery of evolution? What does philosophy's discussion about evil do to advance science in treating malaria with tailored drugs?
You have given several examples where you say it does, but haven't actually show HOW it does. You talk about philosophy helping science understand evil, or philosophy coming up with some conclusion about the mind and memories that helps science, but fail to provide an actual example of this. How has philosophy helped science advance in either of these cases?
You are implicitly changing your argument here. You are no longer claiming that there is no connection between science and philosophy, or if you are, it is not backed up by what you are saying.
I listed applications. I could list more: for example, an understanding of the problem of evil could inform scientists of what diseases and problems may arise in future, and which it is not worth wasting funding on. You have since changed your question from asking if there is a connection, to asking for previous instances of it happening. This is not the same claim.
How many scientists accept this approach, or would admit to accepting this approach?
The conclusion to 'You haven't given a direct example of how this would affect neuroscience,' is not 'therefore it does not work,' it is 'I am not a neuroscientist.'
Is your objection to the mutual interactions between science and philosophy, or to the accuracy of philosophy? You seem to object to both, but you are only providing criticisms of the one.
I'm not changing my argument and I'm confused to why you keep thinking I am. Where in my above quote did I say there is no connection between science and philosophy?
I have made it very clear, science and philosophy (and religion too) are completely separate. They don't rely on each other, you can't mix them. You don't do chemistry experiments and record reactions along side with how you philosophize the solvents might be feeling.
You listed vague applications but no examples. You said it helps science deal with evil, but where, how?
You have to have SOME example of this at work, if it exists. Science is vast, there are tons of discoveries, lots of evidence. If philosophy is so vital to it, where is it being used? Where is one example where evidence is not enough and philosophy was needed? Examples would help a lot. I can give countless examples of things science discovered WITHOUT using philosophy, I'm asking for you to show me which ones do.
-
Which defeats your point above, no other camera can record the first's exact point of view without being a duplicate itself. Exactly like you claim is the reason a duplicate human wouldn't suffice.
So the same theory should apply. How can a camera record it's own non-existance?
That isn't the claim. The exact same point of view isn't required for a camera, because that perspective can be reconstructed from other angles. What reconstructs thoughts?
Cameras only deal with external measurements. A brain does not just store information, it generates it. Whether consciousness is special or not, that word is so often meaningless when it is used, it is certainly different to a camera.
There is no problem of evil in science. That's a moral issue, not a scientific one. You can't define evil using anything but listing what's evil and what's not. There is no formula or theory that describes evil in terms that are not just lists of this is evil, this is good.
There is no problem of evil in what you call science. That does not mean the one that exists, is not based upon science.
Take the question 'Why, if there is a loving God, does malaria exist, making life worse for humans with no positive?'
This argument can only be made because of science. It defines what malaria is, the negative consequences... How would you make this argument without a scientific basis?
You have to have SOME example of this at work, if it exists. Science is vast, there are tons of discoveries, lots of evidence. If philosophy is so vital to it, where is it being used? Where is one example where evidence is not enough and philosophy was needed? Examples would help a lot. I can give countless examples of things science discovered WITHOUT using philosophy, I'm asking for you to show me which ones do.
This is why I say you are changing your argument. This is not the question you were asking. You say "science and philosophy are completely separate," but that does not follow from this question. This question is about how many scientists publicly follow and use philosophical paths. It is not relevant.
I have given examples of the overlap. The fact they are not in line with the strict-evidential path of the modern scientific method is to be expected. If you object to the examples that given, then it would be better to respond, not change the topic.
-
Which defeats your point above, no other camera can record the first's exact point of view without being a duplicate itself. Exactly like you claim is the reason a duplicate human wouldn't suffice.
So the same theory should apply. How can a camera record it's own non-existance?
That isn't the claim. The exact same point of view isn't required for a camera, because that perspective can be reconstructed from other angles. What reconstructs thoughts?
You can't re-create that exact image from other angles because those angles can't catch the photons that would reach the first camera.
If you are allowing other cameras from other directions to "re-create" an image, why can't I brain-scan someone to re-create their thoughts?
It's the same process no matter how you try and separate them. Doesn't even matter if your arguing if you can or can't duplicate the original, both the camera and brain are operating in the same way.
If you want to claim there is some difference between a camera and a human mind, you need to switch to religion. Science won't back you up here.
Cameras only deal with external measurements. A brain does not just store information, it generates it. Whether consciousness is special or not, that word is so often meaningless when it is used, it is certainly different to a camera.
You are making distinctions where there are none. Cameras generate information, the RGB filters only capture some of the color information for each pixel and algorithms fill in the missing information by making it up. Same way our brains fill in the missing information in our blind spots.
Cameras take in information, process it and create new information.
Brains take in information, process it and create new information.
If you want to make a distinction between them, you need to add in souls or metaphysics or religious arguments.
There is no problem of evil in science. That's a moral issue, not a scientific one. You can't define evil using anything but listing what's evil and what's not. There is no formula or theory that describes evil in terms that are not just lists of this is evil, this is good.
There is no problem of evil in what you call science. That does not mean the one that exists, is not based upon science.
Take the question 'Why, if there is a loving God, does malaria exist, making life worse for humans with no positive?'
This argument can only be made because of science. It defines what malaria is, the negative consequences... How would you make this argument without a scientific basis?
The scientific method is fairly new, only a few hundred years old. We were certainly able to discuss and debate the evils of disease thousands of years before it. The introduction of the scientific method is what took us from ignorance of the physical world to jet planes and computers in such a short amount of time.
Science isn't needed to debate the morality of disease. You don't need to provide proof that a disease exists to ague if it's evil.
Nobody needs science to 'define' what malaria is. It's just claimed what it is, and then decided if it's evil or not.
You have to have SOME example of this at work, if it exists. Science is vast, there are tons of discoveries, lots of evidence. If philosophy is so vital to it, where is it being used? Where is one example where evidence is not enough and philosophy was needed? Examples would help a lot. I can give countless examples of things science discovered WITHOUT using philosophy, I'm asking for you to show me which ones do.
This is why I say you are changing your argument. This is not the question you were asking. You say "science and philosophy are completely separate," but that does not follow from this question. This question is about how many scientists publicly follow and use philosophical paths. It is not relevant.
I have given examples of the overlap. The fact they are not in line with the strict-evidential path of the modern scientific method is to be expected. If you object to the examples that given, then it would be better to respond, not change the topic.
I am only asking that question because of YOUR claims, and I would like to see some examples.
I say science and philosophy are completely separate.
You say they are not, so I am asking you for examples.
How is my asking that question changing my argument? I'm asking YOU to elaborate on YOUR opinion. How is that changing the topic? I'm directly asking YOU to explain YOUR position.
Again I ask you for examples. What actual discoveries were produced with the help of your non-evidential system? It is pointless to keep going back and forth if your system exists or works if you will not show what science needed them for. You have stated many times that science can't stand on it's own, so it shouldn't be hard to describe what science has done that needed your system, and how it helped.
The only examples so far are life after death and what became before the universe. Neither of which are scientific.
-
You can't re-create that exact image from other angles because those angles can't catch the photons that would reach the first camera.
If you are allowing other cameras from other directions to "re-create" an image, why can't I brain-scan someone to re-create their thoughts?
You don't need the exact photons, because you can reconstruct them: it doesn't matter what angle a photon bounces off a point at, the information in that photon with respect to color will be the same. What the problem comes down to is lost information. There are many ways to reconstruct a view from a lost camera, from alternate angles to putting a camera in the same place after the fact and determing what motion if any had occurred.
This is not how it is for human beings. You mention cameras use an algorithm, and liken it to how the brain reacts to information, but that isn't accurate: if you are to liken consciousness to an algorithm, then it is one that is unique for each person, and that is adjusted constantly based on experience. It isn't the same as the simple, predictable actions of a camera. If you are to determine the algorithm of a human mind, you require the information that cannot be recorded in order to inform how that algorithm develops. There is still no way to record the termination of a subjective experience.
You are involving metaphysics when, really, there is none on this specific topic. Even the science you accept can acknowledge the difference between a subjective and an objective experience. You have consciousness. A camera does not.
The scientific method is fairly new, only a few hundred years old. We were certainly able to discuss and debate the evils of disease thousands of years before it. The introduction of the scientific method is what took us from ignorance of the physical world to jet planes and computers in such a short amount of time.
Science isn't needed to debate the morality of disease. You don't need to provide proof that a disease exists to ague if it's evil.
Nobody needs science to 'define' what malaria is. It's just claimed what it is, and then decided if it's evil or not.
You don't need to, but can you claim it doesn't add to the argument? Philosophy and science tie into one another. While a situation can be given as a hypothetical, that does not allow any philosophical claims about the world to be made. It is only from this scientific analysis that philosophy results.
I am only asking that question because of YOUR claims, and I would like to see some examples.
I say science and philosophy are completely separate.
You say they are not, so I am asking you for examples.
How is my asking that question changing my argument? I'm asking YOU to elaborate on YOUR opinion. How is that changing the topic? I'm directly asking YOU to explain YOUR position.
Again, this is not what follows from the questions you were asking.
If you want to know my examples of how science and philosophy interconnect, that is fine, I have done so. I gave several examples. The foundation of evidence, life after death, as well as others in the original post - conclusions you would disagree with, even when they make physical claims, because they are not based on evidence alone. You claim they are not relevant for arbitrary reasons.
If you want examples of when science and academia have accepted the philosophical approach and based a conclusion upon it, you are free to ask that, but I do not see what that has to do with the worldview I am expressing. That is changing the topic. It is not the same thing as whether science and philosophy are the same.
-
There is no problem of evil in what you call science. That does not mean the one that exists, is not based upon science.
Take the question 'Why, if there is a loving God, does malaria exist, making life worse for humans with no positive?'
This argument can only be made because of science. It defines what malaria is, the negative consequences... How would you make this argument without a scientific basis?
How would science help answer the question "If there is a loving God..."?
Science can help determine the cause of death as in it is attributed to malaria. But it can't answer why a loving God created malaria.
From the other thread: How is it that non-evidential is not self-referential? How is non-evidential not circular?
-
How would science help answer the question "If there is a loving God..."?
Science can help determine the cause of death as in it is attributed to malaria. But it can't answer why a loving God created malaria.
It can tell you that there is such a thing as malaria, as well as any other consequences. In this field there is a concept of 'justified evil,' where something that at first glance appears cruel in fact has positive consequences. Such things could only be found by analysis of the facts under discussion. I'd need to crack open a few old books to find the best examples mind you, it's been a while since that was my area.
From the other thread: How is it that non-evidential is not self-referential? How is non-evidential not circular?
See the opening posts.
-
In this field there is a concept of 'justified evil,' where something that at first glance appears cruel in fact has positive consequences.
Are those consequences "becoming positive", or "remaining positive" (regardless of the changes in their nature)?
Which bad thing would keep existing in the abscence of the 'justified evil', but was canceled after?
Could it be measured and compared with 'the evil'?
Thanks.
But the more important thing I would like to ask is:
Are we discussing here the difference between "perceiving (measuring) the shape of the Earth" and "deciding the shape of the Earth"?
Should that be the subject of the metaphysics here?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Physics gives measures of things.
Metaphysics gives our personal interpretations of those measures.
In the end, the things that were measured don't care what we think about them.
-
You can't re-create that exact image from other angles because those angles can't catch the photons that would reach the first camera.
If you are allowing other cameras from other directions to "re-create" an image, why can't I brain-scan someone to re-create their thoughts?
You don't need the exact photons, because you can reconstruct them: it doesn't matter what angle a photon bounces off a point at, the information in that photon with respect to color will be the same.
No, that's not right at all. It totally matters what angle a photon hits a surface. Look up specular lighting. Look up polarization. There are a whole list of attributes a photon can have that can only be observed by capturing it. You can't reconstruct an exact image without catching those exact photons.
Two photons bouncing off a physical surface at different angles are going to be different. One might not even bounce. One might be emitted at a different energy level. Not the same at all.
If you are to determine the algorithm of a human mind, you require the information that cannot be recorded in order to inform how that algorithm develops. There is still no way to record the termination of a subjective experience.
You are appealing to religion and metaphysics again. I already explained that any data recorded in the neurons of a brain can be measured and copied. You are claiming that a brain is different because it's more complex than a camera, but mere complexity doesn't turn physics into metaphysics.
You can't record the termination of a camera's "processing" either. Brains are more complicated cameras, unless you want to add a soul, and now we are back to faith.
You are involving metaphysics when, really, there is none on this specific topic. Even the science you accept can acknowledge the difference between a subjective and an objective experience. You have consciousness. A camera does not.
Huh. You're the one bringing metaphycis and religion in. You did it again right here, claiming consciousness has some special property that can't be recorded.
To be clear, I do not at all claim a differecnce between a subjective and an objective experience when it comes to how that data is stored in a brain or camera. Data is data. How complex that data is doesn't change the physical nature of it.
Again, this is not what follows from the questions you were asking.
If you want to know my examples of how science and philosophy interconnect, that is fine, I have done so. I gave several examples. The foundation of evidence, life after death, as well as others in the original post - conclusions you would disagree with, even when they make physical claims, because they are not based on evidence alone. You claim they are not relevant for arbitrary reasons.
If you want examples of when science and academia have accepted the philosophical approach and based a conclusion upon it, you are free to ask that, but I do not see what that has to do with the worldview I am expressing. That is changing the topic. It is not the same thing as whether science and philosophy are the same.
This is where you go wrong again.
You are saying that you made physical claims. Life after death and what came before the universe are not physical claims. A physical claim would be capable of being measured and recorded, and exactly where do I look to see life after death or what came before all of existence?
You also refuse to provide more examples because you don't think they have to do with what you are discussing... so what? Isn't that the point of a discussion? How are you to learn anything if you keep secrets and refused to discuss them?
So I'll ask again. What scientific discoveries were only possible because of your non-evidential system? Life after death isn't a physical or scientific discovery so that's not an answer. We need an actual example here, otherwise it looks like every scientific discovery happened just fine without needing your system.