Limits of Science

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But the way, the only thing that's truely discernable is the fact that we exist. And that's an internal experience I'm afraid.

I discern that my coffee table exists when I stub my toe on it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

I discern that my coffee table exists when I stub my toe on it. But, if there was no you internally to experience it, what difference does it make? Does a dead body experience pain? So what is it about the body that's missing that allows it to do so? In religious terms, this would be called a soul.

[kittynh]

wow, your viewpoint is very much like that of Shirley MacLean. She said that she actually believed that we could all just be her dream (well, she was more detailed than that). She also said all that she was sure of was her own internal feelings....that nothing physical was proven real. I mean she was deeper than the Matrix. Every once in a while I just joke we are all just Shirleys dream. To me, I rather go with going out of myself and not focusing too much on the me me me.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But the way, the only thing that's truely discernable is the fact that we exist. And that's an internal experience I'm afraid.

This is just more speculative BS on your part.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

This is just more speculative BS on your part. If you didn't know that you exist or, at the very least were aware, what would you base everything else (externally) upon. This is the only thing, the fact that we're aware, that tells us anything by the way. ;)

[Wudang]

And the fact that we aware of the fact that there is at least something to be aware of tells us that there is more to the universe than just the single point of our awareness. Then we just have to decide which way we go - idealist or materialist or dualist. This much is trivially obvious and most of us got past it in our teens. Even solipsists have to concede that they must have something like an unconscious to provide themselves with surprises.
After that we have to decide which has the best "mechanism" for explaining our perceptions. Nobody but materialists seem able to explain shared perceptions. Ho hum. But you're not interested in any form of discussion are you? Boring.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by kittynh
wow, your viewpoint is very much like that of Shirley MacLean. She said that she actually believed that we could all just be her dream (well, she was more detailed than that). She also said all that she was sure of was her own internal feelings....that nothing physical was proven real. I mean she was deeper than the Matrix. Every once in a while I just joke we are all just Shirleys dream. To me, I rather go with going out of myself and not focusing too much on the me me me.I had a dream about her once. In fact it was pretty much outlined along the same lines. Neither had I given much thought to her views until after the dream occurred. While in the dream I was telling this young woman how when I sneezed I sneezed about ten times. And the young woman said, "Oh you're Dennis, here I have somebody I would like you to meet. Here is Shirley Maclaine!" Of course it was just about that time that I woke up, so I never really got the chance to meet her. But who knows, maybe it would have actually been her? Isn't that weird? :D

Of course it was about this time that I was thinking about getting somebody to help me publish my book (http://www.dionysus.org). Maybe I should have pursued it?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Wudang

After that we have to decide which has the best "mechanism" for explaining our perceptions. Nobody but materialists seem able to explain shared perceptions. Ho hum. But you're not interested in any form of discussion are you? Boring. Are you referring to the material world here or, the spiritual world? Because the materialists fail miserably when it comes to explaining the latter. ;)

[Z]

Go ahead and publish it (if you can find someone willing to do so). No matter if it's total bunk or something profound, you can at least get a buck or two for it, eh?

PERSONAL OPINION: Every book is worth something, even if only to be a counter-example of some sort. All knowledge is good, even 'bad' knowledge.

What could it hurt?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you didn't know that you exist or, at the very least were aware, what would you base everything else (externally) upon. This is the only thing, the fact that we're aware, that tells us anything by the way. ;)

With completely idiotic statements like this, it's obvious that having a reasoned discussion with you is nigh-impossible. YOu are simply too stupid or too argumentative to reason with, either way... welcome to my ignore list, moron.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

welcome to my ignore list, moron.

He wasn't already on your ignore list?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

With completely idiotic statements like this, it's obvious that having a reasoned discussion with you is nigh-impossible. YOu are simply too stupid or too argumentative to reason with, either way... welcome to my ignore list, moron. Dumb di dumb dumb ... But why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063) :D

[scribble]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


With completely idiotic statements like this, it's obvious that having a reasoned discussion with you is nigh-impossible. YOu are simply too stupid or too argumentative to reason with, either way... welcome to my ignore list, moron.

Date's Incoherence Principle rears its ugly head.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Date's Incoherence Principle rears its ugly head. What is coherence? Does that have anything to do with the meaning, which comes in loud and clear? In which case I agree, some things are more coherent than others.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
[B]What is coherence?


Why am I not surprised you're unfamiliar with <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coherence> the concept?</a> Not surprised at all.


Does that have anything to do with the meaning,

I wouldn't know, since using italics to emphasize a word generally suggests you are using it in a manner that is not it's usual sense. Explain what you mean by meaning, and I can answer that.

If you mean meaning in the way most of us mean meaning, then the only meaningful answer is "No, it hasn't got jack s**t to do with meaning, ignoramus." (*)

If you didn't have such an aversion to actually seeking knowledge, then perhaps you'd be more familiar with the dictionary, and our English lexicon by proxy.

And hey, the more familiar you are with language, the more likely you are to bloom into the Sophist you're dying to be!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

Why am I not surprised you're unfamiliar with <a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=coherence> the concept?</a> Not surprised at all.Just a concept huh? That you like to bash people over the head with? Yeah right! ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Just a concept huh?
That you like to bash people over the head with? Yeah right! ;)


?? What the hell does that mean? All of mathematics is "just a concept," too. I've spent much of my time at JREF "bashing people over the head" with that, too.


Man, it must suck to be so willfully ignorant.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Go ahead and publish it (if you can find someone willing to do so). No matter if it's total bunk or something profound, you can at least get a buck or two for it, eh?

PERSONAL OPINION: Every book is worth something, even if only to be a counter-example of some sort. All knowledge is good, even 'bad' knowledge.

What could it hurt? Easier said than done! I don't have the resources to do it myself (time, energy and whatever), neither can I see myself going through the regular channels to get it published. But one of these days, who knows? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I don't have the resources to do it myself (time, energy and whatever),


You're mostly lacking in the "whatever" part.


neither can I see myself going through the regular channels to get it published.


Yeah, if I were you, I'd be worried about that, too. Fortunately, there's a lot of alternative presses out there. And who knows, maybe you could get it published by a mainstream press. There's a lot of crap being pushed these days.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you referring to the material world here or, the spiritual world? Because the materialists fail miserably when it comes to explaining the latter. ;)

Priceless! That settles my question about why you're boring, thanks.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

You're mostly lacking in the "whatever" part.

Yeah, if I were you, I'd be worried about that, too. Fortunately, there's a lot of alternative presses out there. And who knows, maybe you could get it published by a mainstream press. There's a lot of crap being pushed these days. Did you know that there was a difference between "inciteful" and "insightful?" Yeah, but you're not me.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you know that there was a difference between "inciteful" and "insightful?"


Another vocabulary question? Seriously, man, get a dictionary.

Even better than that, I know there still *is* a difference between the two terms. Go check www.dictionary.com -- you'll see I'm right.


Yeah, but you're not me.


"There, but for the grace of God, go I."

(In other words, thank freaking goodness I'm not you.)

[Iacchus]

You sure complain about things a lot don't you? ;)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
You sure complain about things a lot don't you? ;)

That's what happens when the mind is put on hold for too long a time--the gears no longer mesh and the person tends to remain stuck in the complaining mode. :D

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Did you know that there was a difference between "inciteful" and "insightful?" Yeah, but you're not me.


Yes, "insightful" is a real word; "inciteful" is a word that you made up.

[Z]

Iacchus, there are more than enough companies, large and small, that publish philosophical and metaphysical works. If Silver RavenWolf can get all of her garbage printed, I'm sure you can get someone to hammer out your manifesto.

Another alternative is, start small, say at a local college. College printers will sometimes tackle works that others won't.

Rad - if what you said were true, you'd never stop complaining.

:D

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Yes, "insightful" is a real word; "inciteful" is a word that you made up. How about the notion of an inciteful crowd? Where they're just about to riot at any moment? Or how about inciteable? Of course that's not in the dictionary either. Eh, oh well.

[Radrook]

That's worse than my mortal sin of spelling hooves as hoolves.

;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Are you referring to the material world here or, the spiritual world? Because the materialists fail miserably when it comes to explaining the latter. ;)

I disagree, it is the spiritualists who can not explain what they espouse!

Like if there is the 'universal transcendent' how does my sould know to hang out with my body?
Why doesn't it hang out with yours?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
How about the notion of an inciteful crowd? Where they're just about to riot at any moment? Or how about inciteable? Of course that's not in the dictionary either. Eh, oh well.

Nope, it isn't.

To incite is to move to action; to stir up; to rouse; to spur or urge on.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Nope, it isn't.

To incite is to move to action; to stir up; to rouse; to spur or urge on. Ever here the expression "to incite a riot?" And what are you nitpicking for anyway?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Ever here the expression "to incite a riot?" And what are you nitpicking for anyway?

Because "inciteful" is not a real word, you just made it up to match "insightful" so you could apply your little phrase to something that you don't agree with.

The proper word is "inciting" as in "His inciting speech caused the crowd to burn the castle" as opposed to "His insightful speech caused the crowd to accept the castle and it inhabitants" I know those sentences were rather crude, but you get the picture.

[Radrook]

Obviously science has limits.
Only the wannabes refuse to admit that.
Real scientists do.
Wonder why the fanatical difference?

Oh well.


Maybe just one of those inexplicable throwback phenomenons..

[lifegazer]

Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.


A loud clear voice of sanity finally resonates amidst the bedlam!

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Radrook
Obviously science has limits.
Only the wannabes refuse to admit that.
Real scientists do.
Wonder why the fanatical difference?

Oh well.


Maybe just one of those inexplicable throwback phenomenons..

I have missed most of the fight, what do us wannabes cling to? I for one doubt everything, but perhaps that means I am not a wannabe.

Science is limited to things discerned by the scientific method. So unobservable phenomena are harder to describe scientificaly, however sometime people also don't like what science has to say about things like:

Oh say, prayer and variable reinforcement.

Doubt everything, question authority.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

Hey Lifegazer! Long time no read, before the bashers arrive i will ask, what do you know that is not a product of the senses?

[thaiboxerken]

A person cannot sense gamma radiation, yet it does exist.

The premise that science only deals with the "sensed" world is just a lie.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science studys the order apparent amongst the SENSED-things of our mind and has absolutely no knowledge of a world beyond the sense of one. Therein resides the limitations of science: it is not a philosophy in itself nor an aid to materialistic-philosophy nor a haven for the atheists of this world.

The vast majority of the people in this forum are afraid to face the music, lest the foundations of their own feeble philosophies crumbles into the dust, where they belong.

You mean like eg answering the questions asked (like you fail to do), providing the proof you claim to have (like you fail to do)? Well it's been a year or so.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A person cannot sense gamma radiation, yet it does exist.

This is incorrect. We sense the effects of that electromagnetic radiation using machines/equipment - built and calibrated by humanity. Indeed, if it were not for the fact that we could sense the effects of this energy, we could not confirm its existence.
The fact of the matter is that no "thing" can be confirmed to exist within the universe unless humanity can somehow sense its presence.

The premise that science only deals with the "sensed" world is just a lie.
Tell this forum how we know that such energy exists without using knowledge gleaned via observation of its effects.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Dancing David
what do you know that is not a product of the senses?
I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

[Ossai]

lifegazer
I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.
How? If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know something exists?
If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know it embraces ALL the sensations that it has? For that matter, do you even know it has senses?

Ossai

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ossai
How? If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know something exists?

Something (whatever that might be) is having the sensations, thoughts and feelings, which constitute the human experience of existence.
It is impossible that absolutely-nothing could have such an experience.
It's just a case of using simple rationale - no senses required.

If you can’t sense it or it’s effects then how do you know it embraces ALL the sensations that it has?

The sensations that occur to that ~thing~ cannot happen to it beyond its own being. If there is a sense of pain, for example, then that pain must exist within the awareness and hence being that feels it.

For that matter, do you even know it has senses?

I have senses. The question is, who am I that senses?
Do you know who you are, beyond the parameters of what you sense about yourself?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

If it cannot be sensed, how do you know that it is there? Could it not reside entirely in your own head and nowhere else?

[Z]

Do you know who you are, beyond the parameters of what you sense about yourself?

Yep, I sure do... and I ain't God.

Are you trying to insinuate that God is the sum total of human experience?

(Arrogance personified... fascinating)

So... God didn't exist before Humankind? Or are we talking about God being the sum total of experience of all life? IN WHICH CASE - God didn't exist before Life.

Well, THAT clarifies things... :wink8:

EDITED TO CLARIFY WHO I WAS REPLYING TO...

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by dmarker


If it cannot be sensed, how do you know that it is there? Could it not reside entirely in your own head and nowhere else?
Why didn't you just read my previous post to Ossai? He asked the same question... and the answer is simple and obvious.

"Something (whatever that might be) is having the sensations, thoughts and feelings, which constitute the human experience of existence.
It is impossible that absolutely-nothing could have such an experience.
It's just a case of using simple rationale - no senses required."

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by lifegazer

I know that Something exists which cannot be sensed and which, therefore, is not part of the knowledge we derive via those sensations.
The entity I speak of is the One whose being embraces ALL the sensations that It has.

Hiya LG, I hope we can talk before the detractors show up.

So how do you know about that "Something exists which cannot be sensed ?

A. Is it like, the "things" that we have reference to even though we can not sense them directly at a given time? Such a chair that 'stays' where 'it' was until we 'return' to it?
B. Is it like, the "things" that we surmise exist because of other sensory events that we percieve. In this case i mean like gamma radiation and radio waves?
C. Is it like, the "things" that we can think about and communicate about yet have no concrete reference in the world except through analogy? (Like counting rocks, calling a dog a 'dog')
D. Is it like, the "things" that we can think about that have an absolutely tenous reference in the world and are basical linguistic surmises? (Like the idea of google, meta cognition)
E. Is it like , a "thing" which is comprised of a surmise based upon the result of the former kinds of things?

I don't know if you can or will answer this, where I am headed is that what you have described is part of "the set of the unknowable" and so to say that it is 'known' means that you have used something at least in part based upon sensation to come to this 'conclusion there is knowledge'.

So isn't it impossible to truely discuss or make conclusions upon the 'unknown'.
I hope to understand what you might think about that.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Radrook
Addendum
I once read a very interesting short SCI Fi story about aliens who lacked eyes but who could perceive most of the spectrum scientists call light. From their standpoint, humans limited to the narrow band we call visual light were virtually blind.

The universe to these creatures was a panoramic, glorious, visual display far beyond the human imagination to conceive. As the story went, a scientist begged to be enabled to experience at least for a few seconds what these creatures perceived. When he emerged from the experience he sobbed uncontrollably and begged not to be left in the blind state that all humans were in.

Interesting!


I think the same thing about sexuality. But for the tiny brain nodes, the best sex is probably between two hermaphroditic snails. Entire body length mouth/belly/pseudopod meshed together like a body-length deep french kiss, pseudopod muscles undulating, one antenna ejaculating, the other receiving.

Much better than trout pr0n, which persumably wouldn't be pictures of female trout, but of eggs. :(