Limits of Science

[Radrook]

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

That is not so.

Scientific observations are bounded by the senses and can only record sense impressions. Such observations and conclusions can only guarantee certainty within the parameters of the senses. They cannot comment on things beyond the senses.

In fact, even in reference to things recorded via the senses there is no guarantee that what is being recorded is really what is out there. Even the existence of an exterior world based on the senses cannot be proven.'


So it behooves those who use science as the last word on reality to keep these things well in mind.

Illustration:

Three aliens are each shown what humans visually perceive as a metallic sphere'

Alien one sees it as a hollow cylinder
Alien two sees it as an ever occilating blade.
Alien three doesn't perceive it at all.

Each alien touches a red hot piece of metal.

One describes it as too cold to handle.
Another tells us that it is merely warm,
The other doesn't register any temperature at all.

The examples could be extended to thousands of aliens each perceiving what it is hardwired to perceive.

Numerically:

One sees two objects.
The other three.
The other sees one object and in his perception handles the three as if one.

Who is to say which is right or wrong?

Whose perception is to be given the seal of approval of being the REAL one?

One alien might consider us insane for saying we see what he doesn't see or for claiming existence for which his nervous system does not give any evidence.

In view of this then, scientific discoveries and assertions can only go so far--the senses. Change the senses and an entirely different universe might be perceived. Which universe was right--the original or the now newly perceived one? Or should we consider all other nonhuman perceptions as anomalies?

The diplomatic approach would be to humbly acknowledge that reality is relative to the perceiver and that our particular perceptions are just one possibility among millions.

[Iacchus]

The mind by the way, could be perceived as a scientific tool too couldn't it? In fact what would the rest of Science entail, without a mind to study it? So, why is Science so quick to discount what's in other people's minds then? When, in fact this is the very tool which it couldn't dispense with?

[Scot C. Trypal]

There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

I’d hope anyone claiming to be a scientist knows not to accept last words on reality, and in my experience most do.

Scientific observations are bounded by the senses and can only record sense impressions.

Any observation is based on senses: temperature, balance, color, emotion, that certain mystical feeling, and so on. Even religious observations; you’d not have, for example, Muslims if no one could see the written Koran or hear it sung or sense their memory of it, or, for that matter, feel the presence and guidance of Allah, real or no.

In fact, even in reference to things recorded via the senses there is no guarantee that what is being recorded is really what is out there. Even the existence of an exterior world based on the senses cannot be proven.'

Sure.

Whose perception is to be given the seal of approval of being the REAL one?

The seal REAL (TM) is mine, copyrighted in 1983… :)

There is no such seal in science; everything can be questioned. Though, there is the REAL seal many of our world religions use.

One alien might consider us insane for saying we see what he doesn't see or for claiming existence for which his nervous system does not give any evidence.

(assuming babble fish)

So I look and say “Hey, there is a red hot metal sphere.”

Alien 1 says, “Dumb carbon-based bag of salty water, that’s a couple of frigid hollow cylinders.”

“Fine”, I’d say, “what you call ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’, I call ‘a red hot metal sphere.’ Why?” If he’s game, we’d try to see how our two senses relate to an assumed shared reality. In the end it comes down to comparing the effects on both our senses of our attempted causes.

First the easy one; hot to me is not hot to many known bacteria species, for example. Even one of my hands may feel hot and the other cold at the same temperature. So what?

We could compare the “sphere’s” temp. to absolute zero, or maybe a phase transition, to get a quantitative temperature. If that doesn’t work then we’d have to probably wonder if we are operating under the same laws of physics, and go on to examining that really interesting observation. I mean, if he can cool nitrogen down to my –100 K, that would be very interesting (and useful!).

Regarding shape (still assuming our words mean the same concepts). I could ask him to pass a smaller object or maybe a liquid through it, or, if I’m right, I could show him how the object rolls freely in every vector on a flat plane. Again, if we need to get down to something like the base geometry of space and dimensions, that’d be very interesting.

Number. I could ask him to take the object(s) (after they cool to my likening) and place a “cylinder” in each of my hands, or maybe destroy one or change their location relative to each other and see how that affects my sense of there being a single sphere.

Maybe we can solve it, maybe we can’t… Maybe it’s all a dream, but if we assume we are operating in a reality we share on any significant level, there are likely ways we can test and find our common ground.

Still, maybe each test shows ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’ to him and ‘a red hot metal sphere’ to me. I’ll be standing there with a sphere in my right hand and an empty left hand in my pocket, while he insists I have a cylinder presented in both. But if his ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’ affects my senses in the same way as ‘a red hot metal sphere’ then the difference is only semantic as far as I care. When I talk to him, I’ll use the words ‘two frigid hollow cylinders’ to mean ‘a red hot metal sphere’.

The diplomatic approach would be to humbly acknowledge that reality is relative to the perceiver and that our particular perceptions are just one possibility among millions.

Sure, but it’s a pretty good assumption to think our creator (evolution, God, psychic waves, whatever) created us with the universe “in mind”. Unless we live under different laws of physics, an alien on planet Zognary would have a heck of a time making an irrigation system by trying to flow water through a line of metal spheres instead of hollow cylinders.

[chance]

Radrook There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

That is not so.

Scientific observations are bounded by the senses and can only record sense impressions. . It is better stated that they are bound by the observations of the natural world, reality is too subjective as you have demonstrated by your 3 Aliens examples. However one only needs to devise an additional frame of reference for agreement between the Aliens, e.g. a common temperature standard removes subjective hot and cold feelings.

[scribble]

Originally posted by Radrook
There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

That is not so.


Who is this strawman you've just set on fire? I feel bad for him.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by scribble


Who is this strawman you've just set on fire? I feel bad for him.

You beat me to it.

The rest is merely solpsism.

[UserGoogol]

Science cannot determine the absolute truth. Skepticism is neccesary. But just because you can't understand something doesn't mean Magic Elves did it. And even if Science can't explain everything doesn't mean that there's something else that can explain what remains.

[evildave]

The ultimate limitation to science: "Prove it!"

A great hinderance compared to letting anyone grab the microphone and make any crazy assertion they like, and call that "ultimate, eternal truth" as long as a bunch of people believe it.

[Z]

Yep, Radrook, I don't even know if it's worth explaining to you.

Science doesn't give a hoot for whether we've determined 'reality'. What science is looking for is the best way to determine facts while ignoring the subjective as much as possible. That's why we come up with specific indications of things that may be perceived differently, but perception is truly irrelevant.

Let me see if I can put this simply:

The measurement of temperature is based on a set scale. We have verified facts of what is absolute zero, the point at which there is no atomic or molecular movement or vibration. There is no obervation capable of sensing absolute zero, because the warmth of the observer would increase the heat of the object instantly... but we can infer the presence of absolute zero.

Further, in setting our scales, we (arbitrarily) set up a scale that sets the boiling point of water at sea level at one number, and the freezing point at another. Now, obviously, these also infer exact atmospheric pressures, gravity, and other issues, but it gives us a standard for arranging our scale. Thus, when handing this scale to another, both parties can measure a common temperature, in spite of the fact one finds the water to be 'hot' and the other to be 'cold'. This is easy enough to demonstrate with any two people on earth, in fact.

Take, for example, comfort. I might find the air temperature comfortable between 65 degrees fahrenheit and 75 degrees fahrenheit, while you might instead find that too cold. Yet the air temperature in no way changes, and can be measured at, say, 70 degrees whether either of us is comfortable or not.

So your 'red hot' example is nonsense. Yes, three aliens may perceive 'hot' or 'cold' differently - this isn't anything to do with science, merely with semantics. Once the three aliens agree with us on a scale, the temperature will be determined and locked in. All three aliens, if operating on the same scale, will measure that temperature identically.

The remainder of your example is simple nonsense, since it is highly unlikely that such could ever happen. Either there is one object or not; either it is spherical or it is not. Use of terms is irrelevant; assuming that they were taught the same comminucode that we use, then their term for that which they perceive would translate as 'sphere', because we would be agreeing that this object is a 'sphere'. In fact, assuming we could communicate with these three aliens at all, it would be completely impossible for your example to come true.

You'd be much better off dealing with subjective concepts like color or 'hot and cold' than objective concepts such as shape and number. Shape and number are unchanging, but color and 'hot/cold' are biased entirely on the observer. If alien 1 lacks any color vision, the sphere would be some shade of grey; if alien 2 has ultraviolet sensors, he might detect variations in the UV range that we cannot see. If alien 3 lacks any vision whatsoever, but uses sonar to 'see', then color has no meaning whatsoever.

But again, we know that the object reflects (or emits) light in specific wavelength, including light that we (humans) cannot see. When one alien describes it as uniformly grey, from this we can infer a lack of color vision on his part; when the second refers to patterns that we cannot detect, we can infer the presense of UV sensors (such as bees possess). The third alien's sonar sense would probably be blatantly obvious before we ever got this far.

So your example is utter, total bunk... once again, you're speaking from the wrong end of your anatomy, my Reality-challenged friend.

Science never claims that this is all Real, Truth, or Perfect - in fact, we're always adjusting what we've figured out. But one thing is certain: a sphere will always remain a sphere, by definition; that which is measured objectively will always remain measured objectively; and (on the macro scale) we do know many things to be 'true' beyond our ability to perceive them.

Religion, on the other hand, claims the existence of things that cannot be perceived, or things that are true IN SPITE of perception and knowledge. And while I'm more than happy to concede that things may exist in SPITE of what we know, I'd never enter an argument to defend these things that logically cannot exist.

Radrook, my suggestion is, go back to school - and preferably a real school - and learn a little about the real world, and stay away from those crazy holy books for a while. Then, once you actually know something, go back and pick up religion again - maybe you'll be mentally prepared to deal with it then.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Radrook
There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.


I completely disagree with that statement.

I've heard a few wankers on the internet say something like that, and I've seen a lot of people bring the point up when they're about to take a poke at some scientific finding or another, but I really, really don't see it as a general misconception.

*Edit*

Harf! I posted what other people did. :p

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The mind by the way, could be perceived as a scientific tool too couldn't it? In fact what would the rest of Science entail, without a mind to study it? So, why is Science so quick to discount what's in other people's minds then? When, in fact this is the very tool which it couldn't dispense with?

Science does grant credence to the content of the mind, but you don't believe the contents of every book do you?

[Dancing David]

Radook:

What can you know beyond the realm of the senses?

The limit of science is replication, there after personal belief in the master.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Take, for example, comfort. I might find the air temperature comfortable between 65 degrees fahrenheit and 75 degrees fahrenheit, while you might instead find that too cold. Yet the air temperature in no way changes, and can be measured at, say, 70 degrees whether either of us is comfortable or not.

So your 'red hot' example is nonsense. Yes, three aliens may perceive 'hot' or 'cold' differently - this isn't anything to do with science, merely with semantics. Once the three aliens agree with us on a scale, the temperature will be determined and locked in. All three aliens, if operating on the same scale, will measure that temperature identically.

So, when two minds attempt to communicate; if they haven't been calibrated (either culturally or physiologically/environmentally); they must recalibrate mind-to-mind; before they can efficiently communicate and coordinate their actions. In some cases, this recalibration can be fascilitated with measurement instruments; like a thermometer - in the case of temperature.

Apart from instrumentation, the ability to recalibrate will have to do with cultural and physiological similarities; the more similar, the easier the recalibration -- in general. Do you agree?

[Z]

Yes... in fact, this required recalibration makes the original argument moot, as the recalibration would turn the alien's 'three hollow cylinders' into a single sphere by means of semantics.

In fact, those 'three hollow cylinders' would, at best, be a mis-interpretation of language, not an actual experience.

If, indeed, some alien did perceive as suggested, then they would be outside of the same reality we inhabit - and communication would be impossible. Further, in bringing such an alien into our reality (or us into theirs) we calibrate the two species yet again, so that perceptions are tuned accordingly.

One might even say that science, to a small degree, is responsible for calibrating the perceptions of the many into a common language.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Radrook
There is a general misconception that scientific observations are the last word on reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I completely disagree with that statement.

I've heard a few wankers on the internet say something like that, and I've seen a lot of people bring the point up when they're about to take a poke at some scientific finding or another, but I really, really don't see it as a general misconception.

*Edit*

Harf! I posted what other people did. :p [/B]

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by UserGoogol

Science cannot determine the absolute truth. Skepticism is neccesary. But just because you can't understand something doesn't mean Magic Elves did it. And even if Science can't explain everything doesn't mean that there's something else that can explain what remains. Yes, but what if the Magic Elves were incredibly good at disguising themselves and, what they did? Does that make it any less magical nonetheless?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Science does grant credence to the content of the mind, but you don't believe the contents of every book do you? I only grant credence to those things I understand. However, that does not mean I shouldn't maintain an open mind (hmm ...) about the things I don't should it?

[Z]

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

Agreed - Science will, eventually, exhaust everything there is to Reality. This is the key, though - Eventually.

Nothing immaterial exists. Science will, provided enough time, learn all that there is to know about the material universe. However, if something immaterial exists, Science will probably never encounter it. The Immaterial may only be experienced if/when it becomes material. If, when all else is exhausted, Science still has phenomenae which are unexplained, then perhaps it will acknowledge the immaterial... until then, it must reject the immaterial as non-existant.

Not sure what you mean by Naturalism per se... please elaborate?

[Z]

Yes, but what if the Magic Elves were incredibly good at disguising themselves and, what they did? Does that make it any less magical nonetheless?
'

So, you mean if we never caught the Magic Elves at work, would it make it any less magical? Wouldn't that be a moot point, nonetheless?

Eventually we'd either catch the Elves at work, or they'd be immaterial, in which case we'd have to develop a science for dealing with that which doesn't exist. And once we caught Elves at work, we'd eventually learn HOW they work, moving the 'magic' of Elves into the realm of science.

It's that easy, really.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon


Agreed - Science will, eventually, exhaust everything there is to Reality. This is the key, though - Eventually.

Nothing immaterial exists. Science will, provided enough time, learn all that there is to know about the material universe. However, if something immaterial exists, Science will probably never encounter it. The Immaterial may only be experienced if/when it becomes material. If, when all else is exhausted, Science still has phenomenae which are unexplained, then perhaps it will acknowledge the immaterial... until then, it must reject the immaterial as non-existant.

Not sure what you mean by Naturalism per se... please elaborate?

I would say consciousness is immaterial ie the intrinsic qualitative feel of experience. We can be more certain than anything else that such experiences exist.

Naturalism just means that the totality of reality is susceptible to being described by fundamental physical laws.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

'

So, you mean if we never caught the Magic Elves at work, would it make it any less magical? Wouldn't that be a moot point, nonetheless?

Eventually we'd either catch the Elves at work, or they'd be immaterial, in which case we'd have to develop a science for dealing with that which doesn't exist. And once we caught Elves at work, we'd eventually learn HOW they work, moving the 'magic' of Elves into the realm of science.

It's that easy, really.

If what the Elves do is not systematic; and highly capricious, how could their actions be studied scientifically?

[Z]

would say consciousness is immaterial ie the intrinsic qualitative feel of experience. We can be more certain than anything else that such experiences exist.
\
Oh, I remember this argument - I thought we debunked that mess already.

If you can experience consciousness, it's not immaterial.

Anyway, let's not dredge up that old nonsense, shall we?

Goodnight, off to play Vice City.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Radook:

What can you know beyond the realm of the senses?

The limit of science is replication, there after personal belief in the master.


What it believes to be replication.
How do we know that we are not all brains in a vat?
But that's an entirely different angle to this and would deviate the subject so I will shelve it for a later discussion.

A certain philosopher concluded that in order for an object to exist it must have spatial extension. All other attributes such as taste, color, smell, texture, and associative sound are unnecessary because they are subjective.

Other philosophers were more aggressive and questioned whether spatial extension itself might not be subjective.
After all, it too is contingent on perception based on subjective neurtransmission.

Who is to say, as I pointed out before, that if a hundred aliens all hardwired to perceive differently will not perceive the identical ASSUMED stimulus in drastically different ways? Each vehemently claiming and insisting that its particular perception is the correct one which represents ultimate reality.

Of course, the consensus that there is actually something there causing the different perceptions might be reached. But the conclusion as to what exactly that stimulus causing the diverse perceptions really is can never be determined. It can only be assumed based on our perceptions.


In short, each alien would be shackled by its own neural hardwiring and forever dependent on what that neural hardwiring was capable of perceiving.


There is nothing you can know beyond the senses and everything you think you know is derived from the senses.
The problem is that the senses are fallible and limited and based merely on the pattern of neurotransmission. Change the neurotransmission sequences and the same supposed stimulus gives us an entirely different impression.

Furthermore, since what we perceive as the brain is very capable of generating its own world, there is absolutely no guarantee that what we are actually perceiving exists external and totally independent of our minds.

How do we know for instance which is reality, our dream world that we seem to enter on a nightly basis and which is real to us when we are experiencing it or the world that appears to be more vivid when we shift and seem to awaken?


Neither is there any guarantee that what our receptors are transmitting to our brains, if indeed there are such things as brains, that what triggered the neurotransmission, if indeed there are truly neurotransmissions, in the first place is what is assumed to have done so.

In short, the nature of the stimulus assumed to be the cause of the neurological response can never be ascertained but must be assumed as genuine in order for us to make sense of our perceptual world.

The opposite would be constant doubt which serves no useful purpose at all except to give us a feeling of uneasiness. Because of this science assumes and external world, and assumes cause and effect.

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!

[Radrook]

Originally posted by scribble


Who is this strawman you've just set on fire? I feel bad for him.

I do not provoke.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Radrook
[B]Who is to say, as I pointed out before, that if a hundred aliens all hardwired to perceive differently will not perceive the identical ASSUMED stimulus in drastically different ways? Each vehemently claiming and insisting that its particular perception is the correct one which represents ultimate reality.

Of course, the consensus that there is actually something there causing the different perceptions might be reached. But the conclusion as to what exactly that stimulus causing the diverse perceptions really is can never be determined. It can only be assumed based on our perceptions.

The problem I see is that you may have yet to grasp something, and at the same time the idea that your descriptions have rung in my mind lead to this: We not only have sensory systems to establish contact with the outside world, we also have motor systems -- which allow for hypothesis-testing.

In short, each alien would be shackled by its own neural hardwiring and forever dependent on what that neural hardwiring was capable of perceiving.

There is nothing you can know beyond the senses and everything you think you know is derived from the senses.
The problem is that the senses are fallible and limited and based merely on the pattern of neurotransmission. Change the neurotransmission sequences and the same supposed stimulus gives us an entirely different impression.[QUOTE]

But how would this jive when we went to utilize our motor systems on the perceived object? in an attemp to manipulate it for our own purposes?

[QUOTE]In short, the nature of the stimulus assumed to be the cause of the neurological response can never be ascertained but must be assumed as genuine in order for us to make sense of our perceptual world.

It can be tested by our motor systems. While even this is no guarantee of genuineness, it does allow us to come to consistent "rules" about what appears "external" to us.

The opposite would be constant doubt which serves no useful purpose at all except to give us a feeling of uneasiness. Because of this science assumes and external world, and assumes cause and effect.

What eases doubt is the consistency of the "rules" we discover.

Cybernetics allows a more circular model than the linear cause-effect chains of most scientific thought. And then there's a more quantum-type thought process, something about no local causes nor effects....

[Zep]

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!So your arguments are based on a "very interesting short SCI Fi story"??

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Zep
So your arguments are based on a "very interesting short SCI Fi story"??

Very cute.

My arguments are based on a profound study of metaphysics.


Your criticism of fictional literature as a source of valuable philosophical concepts reveals a gap in learning that needs to be remedied.

Knowledgeable people know that fictional literature has both relevance and value to current issues via the clarification of concepts within the framework of a story.

Your problem is that you think that everything within a Sci Fi novel or story is Fiction and is therefore of no real relevance to reality.

That is not so.
Sci Fi writers base their works on social issues, philosophical issues, ethical issues, metaphysical issues, scientific issues, psychological issues and all other subjects that are or should be of concern to the modern mind.


BTW
Suggesting the ridiculous via feigning ignorance and setting up a strawman doesn't do anything for the thread but bog it down in irrelevancies. It certainly doesn't convince the knowledgeable. So instead of heckling, why not contribute something of value. Or are you afraid of getting a nosebleed from trying to think?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


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 do believe that story was The Secret Sense written by Isaac Asimov, an avowed atheist. :D

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


I do believe that story was The Secret Sense written by Isaac Asimov, an avowed atheist. :D

Which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.:D :D

BTW
You are confusing the concept with the source.
Learn to differentiate.
It makes for a better discussion.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


Which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.:D :D

I dunno that it is, Rad.

I mean Asimov himself was a scientist and a big believer in science itself. Very ironic that you mention his short story in this thread about the limits of science since the body of his fiction embrace science whole heartedly.

Perhaps the scientific method is horrible, but do you have something else that can consistantly work over decades?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


You are confusing the concept with the source.
Learn to differentiate.
It makes for a better discussion.

But the source influences the concept, Rad.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


I dunno that it is, Rad.

I mean Asimov himself was a scientist and a big believer in science itself. Very ironic that you mention his short story in this thread about the limits of science since the body of his fiction embrace science whole heartedly.



One can embrace a concept as expressed by an atheist and not be obligated to embrace his atheism. For example, I have books by Asimov on Astronomy and agree with the accuracies he has taught me. But that does not obligate me to be an atheist. I also am aware that Asimov has written books criticizing the biblical account. In fact, I read that book. Does that mean that if one of his short stories contains a truth that I agree with I should reject it because--well--Asimov is an atheist? Of course not. All of us agree on different issues with people who are not of our religious views. President Clinton wrote a book recently recounting his presidency. Do you agree with everything he says in that book? Most people will agree with some and not with others.

If this is so and I am more than certain that you are very aware that it is, then why hone in on Asimov and try to make his writings an exception to the generally accepted rules?

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense.



Perhaps the scientific method is horrible, but do you have something else that can consistantly work over decades?

This thread wasn't meant as an attack on the scientific method.
It was merely meant as a reminder to remember its limitations.



BTW

You are entitled to see irony in my usage of Asimov's short story.
However, that perception does not invalidate its relevancy to the matephysical issue.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Radrook

Each alien touches a red hot piece of metal.

One describes it as too cold to handle.
Another tells us that it is merely warm,
The other doesn't register any temperature at all.

...

Whose perception is to be given the seal of approval of being the REAL one?


What is more real, Farenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin?

The important thing is that they are all touching something that has some temperature. If we can find a relationship between temperature measurements, then we can still understand the aliens, and we can all understand that while the way we discuss the temperature varies, what we are all measuring is something that is real.

[The Cats Venm]

Provided we could communicate with them, aliens with vastly different sense systems would be quite a valuable asset to scientific study. It would allow more objective, unbiased, observation.

Science is all about understanding the limitations of perception and trying to reduce its distortion. That is why tests are done blind. Good scientists know that they are always fighting against misconceptions and do their best to avoid them.

It's funny when people accuse science for not knowing its limitations, when it is all about knowing ones limitations.

If one decides to ‘reject’ science, they are essentially saying: “I don’t care what’s real as long as it feels right.” There’s nothing wrong with that approach, and many people live perfectly happy lives needing nothing more, but when it comes to finding real answers and solutions science is the only way to go. Otherwise, how do you know you’re not just fooling yourself?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say.
What would Stimpson say?

Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.
How does denying the comment lead to a rejection of Materialism and Naturalism?

[UserGoogol]

Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

No... but a "materialist" might say that the aspects of the universe which are not observable by science are unknowable and not particularly interesting anyway.

Science is used to make predictions about the universe. It works in a very sensible fashion, by looking at the universe, checking for patterns, and then repeatedly checking to see if the pattern continues. Now, if a phenomena is not at all observable by science, then it follows no observable pattern. And if we can't find a pattern, what's the point? We would not be able use our "theory" for any purpose, because our observations, in a broad sense of the term, are all we ever experience.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by jzs [/b]

[quote]What is more real, Fahrenheit, Celsius, or Kelvin?

All are equally SUBJECTIVELY real.



The important thing is that they are all touching something that has some temperature.

The important thing in relation to metaphysics of reality is that the nature of the stimulus cannot be objectively determined due to the subjective nature of perception.

What we are considering at present is not subjective reality.
It is objective realty. Not the phenomena but the nouma,
Ultimate reality unfiltered by the senses.



If we can find a relationship between temperature measurements, then we can still understand the aliens, and we can all understand that while the way we discuss the temperature varies,

Yes, some aliens would be understandable and probably become predictable after we have had time to figure out just what our perceptual differences are.


what we are all measuring is something that is real.

Something that SEEMS like a real stimulus because it is temporally prior to the reaction.

But can we be absolutely sure that simply because it precedes our reaction that it is what is causing the reaction? Or is it that our minds are habituated in imputing cause simply because there is temporal priority and spatial propinquity prior to our reaction?

Hume concluded that it might just be the case.


Sure, as you say, all the millions of aliens can agree that something is stimulating the different responses.

But what?
Since it is causing the diversity of perceptions, its nature cannot be all at once. For example, it cannoyt be a sphere and a cube at once. It cannot be two dimentional and three dimensional at once. So its nature must be something else.

Also, we cannot even be absoluelt sure that what is causing the reactions is mind external. There is no way to prove that an Perhaps an extramental force is not playing on all the minds and causing them to imagine that something is there.

In fact, there might not really be an out there at all since the whole thing might be mind generated--including the illusion of a dimensional exterior world.


But let's assume that there is an exterior world and that something is there really causing these reactions.

Even then what the ultimate nature of that something might be is anybody's guess.

Successful comunication:

Sure, I agree, a certain amount of interspecies communication might be possible between us and the less extreme of the perceivers. But communication does not resolve what that stimulus causing the confusion among all the perceivers is.

Any alien perceiving a liquid where another perceives a fluid or a cube where another perceives a two dimensional square could never again be sure that what he perceives is the true nature of that seeming causing the perception.


In short, all these aliens, including us of course, would be required to simply believe via having faith.

[Z]

What you fail to grasp, Radrook, is that while, yes, everything you experience may be a biochemical sham, the facts as known presently is that if 100 people come to a metallic sphere with a temperature of 500 degrees celsius, regardless of their ability to perceive, then 100 people will perceive a metallic sphere with a temperature of 500 degrees celsius. HOW they perceive that sphere is irrelevant; the sphere itself is immune to perceptual bias. Some may not perceive all features of said sphere, just as you may not perceive the exact atomic structure of the monitor you are staring at right now; however, it exists, irrelevant of their perception. Indeed, if no one were present, the sphere still would exist, and continue to do so unless acted upon by some other stimulus.

The story you mentioned only serves to illustrate the point: all those other wavelengths exist, all around us, all the time, yet we are unable to perceive them without specific tools and instruments. Does that mean, because we do not perceive them, that they are not there? Nonsense... in fact, their continued presense in SPITE of our perception has helped to bring most who think along those lines back to a more stable sense of reality.

I think someone has been watching too much Matrix lately, frankly.

If you perceive something, and no one else does in any way, then two possibilities exist: one: You are mad, hallucinating, or 'seeing things'. Two: you possess a perceptive ability that they lack.

Since most things are not so one-dimensional as to be only perceived in one way, we can define our reality fairly easily even in terms excluding one or two senses. Energy is complicated but instruments help us determine the presence of some energies, so we're good there, too.

Science removes perceptual bias and objectifies knowledge. Which is probably why religion never stands up for very long under the light of science.

[Z]

And, of course, the fact you're using a completely fantasy example does nothing for your case.

Consider the hundreds of life-forms on Earth alone, with the dozens and dozens of different perceptive abilities here alone. Even then, they will all perceive a cube when a cube is presented to them, regardless of other issues.

Your example is garbage. You're trying to debate how people would perceive a chimera or unicorn if one suddenly appeared in Central Park.

Please... try to limit your discussions to intelligent thoughts instead of dragons and antichrists.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

The story you mentioned only serves to illustrate the point: all those other wavelengths exist, all around us, all the time, yet we are unable to perceive them without specific tools and instruments. Does that mean, because we do not perceive them, that they are not there? Yes, and what if we applied this to the same notion of God?

[UserGoogol]

We have not yet devised a mechanism for observing God, so we'll have to wait for that time before we can make any claims on his existance. We know Radio Radiation exists because we can see how it reacts with other things in predictable ways. But if you went back in time, and told a random serf about radio waves, he wouldn't believe you.

And rightly so. Even though you're right, he has know way of knowing this. And it's not a Good Thing to blindly believe any strangely dressed man you see walking down the mud path.

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Radrook


Sure, I agree, a certain amount of interspecies communication might be possible between us and the less extreme of the perceivers. But communication does not resolve what that stimulus causing the confusion among all the perceivers is.

Why couldn't successful communication solve the confusion? Being able to look at something in two different ways would be incredibly illuminating. The more information one has, the better able they are to refine their ideas.


Any alien perceiving a liquid where another perceives a fluid or a cube where another perceives a two dimensional square could never again be sure that what he perceives is the true nature of that seeming causing the perception.


In short, all these aliens, including us of course, would be required to simply believe via having faith.

Not faith, expanded knowledge of the way things are.

Currently, a cube, is a cube, is a cube. If in the future we get evidence that that is not always true, then we will change the way we look at the world. Until that evidence comes, it is foolish (and worthless) to believe anything else.

[Z]

Yes, and what if we applied this to the same notion of God?

Show me an instrument that can detect God.

Show me even ONE example of God affecting the material universe in some way.

Show me the theorem whereupon God should exist in order for other natural physical laws to work.

This notion of detecting that beyond our perceptions only works for the material world. God is immaterial, and therefore outside of detectable means.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Ian
would say consciousness is immaterial ie the intrinsic qualitative feel of experience. We can be more certain than anything else that such experiences exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


\
Oh, I remember this argument - I thought we debunked that mess already.



Debunked the idea we have experiences?? :eek: :rolleyes: Nothing you could possibly say will convince me that I am not conscious.



If you can experience consciousness, it's not immaterial.



a) You do not experience consciousness. Experience is consciousness. You can argue you "experience" your own self, but a materialist must reject the notion of such a self.

b) Your statement that consciousness is not material, is equivalent to saying that consciousness is material. I have shown this to be false on numerous occasions. Allow me to paste in what I've said before.

Let me address the reason why I think materialism is unintelligible. What we need to do is take a look at materialism to see if it is internally consistent. Now the particular question I would like to address is why should we suppose that other peoples’ bodies are "inhabited" by conscious minds (or why phenomenal consciousness is associated with brains). Your argument no doubt will be that materialism stipulates this to be so; it is an axiomatic premise of materialism. But this makes your definition of materialism an arbitrary one. A metaphysic which glosses over awkward facts. Allow me to explain.

It seems to me that materialism should stipulate that the physical exhausts reality. That once we have completely described the Universe in physical terms then we have said all that can be said about the Universe or reality.

But what is the physical? It seems to me that it should be everything, that, at least in principle, can be observed by anyone with appropriate faculties and suitable instruments. In other words all that is objective exists, or to put it another way, all that is discernable from the third person perspective exists. This will also include things which can only be indirectly seen (although strictly speaking I reject the direct/indirect dichotomy). This then includes such entities as electrons, because although they can only be "indirectly" seen they nevertheless play fruitful roles in our theories describing the world ie we need to hypothesise electrons in order to explain certain aspects of reality.

Now there is something peculiar about conscious experience which marks it off from all other existents. It is simply this. It cannot be observed or detected by anyone with appropriate faculties and/or suitable instruments! Thus according to my prior definition of the physical it is not a physical existent. Thus I may have toothache to take an arbitrary example. But you cannot observe that toothache, all you can observe is the effects of the toothache, the grimace of pain for example. Conscious experiences in other words are irreducibly private.

Now you will no doubt say that by observing the grimace, or at least by observing the neurons fire, then you are observing the toothache since materialism holds that the toothache and its neural correlates are one and the same thing, or at least aspects of the same thing. But an objective examination of this toothache will necessarily leave out the subjective irreducibly sensation of pain. The actually sensation of pain does not figure into the physical facts about the pain according to our prior definition of the physical. Nor can we infer the sensation of pain since, unlike an electron, the (phenomenological) pain does not play a part in any description of our behaviour. The pain per se cannot play a part because pain per se is not part of the objective publically accessible realm. Only the neural correlates of the pain can play any fruitful role in our theories.

In short then either a materialist has to concede his metaphysic is internally inconsistent, or he must arbitrarily include phenomenological consciousness within his world picture. But if he opts for the latter then the whole prima facie plausibility of his world view crumbles away. No longer can he say that for something to exist it must be in principle be directly observable or play a fruitful role in some theory about the world, because this then necessarily precludes phenomenological consciousness. He
has to expand the notion of the physical to even include things that cannot be directly or even indirectly detected, even in principle! :eek:

And just last night in the paranormal forum I said:

The materialists have rendered the term "consciousness" as ambiguous. People normally understand it as an intrinsic, qualitative phenomenon; that is the raw feel of experience. The materialists however define it as being purely a functional process.

Now I am in absolute agreement that in principle a complete scientific description of the world might be able to incorporate this materialist definition of consciousness i.e one of function. But what it cannot do is incorporate the definition of consciousness understood as an intrinsic, qualitative phenomenon.

Why is this? Because the proper materialist i.e the reductionist materialist, holds that mental properties supervene on physical properties. That is to say that mental properties (the raw feel of experience) are necessarily entailed by certain physical facts. But this simply cannot be done. It cannot be done in principle, not ever, no matter how many thousands of years of advancement in the fundamental sciences. Why? Because physics only ever deals with structure and function. Thousands of years might pass in the advancement of science, millions of years might pass in the advancement of science, but this ain't gonna change cold facts. One cannot (logically) derive qualitative intrinsic experiences from structure and function. To suppose otherwise is to misunderstand what the fundamental science ie physics, is all about.

Materialism is refuted.

It's a stone cold fact.



Anyway, let's not dredge up that old nonsense, shall we?



It doesn't seem to me that you understood that you are clearly wrong. Read my post above.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by dmarker


I dunno that it is, Rad.

I mean Asimov himself was a scientist and a big believer in science itself. Very ironic that you mention his short story in this thread about the limits of science since the body of his fiction embrace science whole heartedly.

Perhaps the scientific method is horrible, but do you have something else that can consistantly work over decades?

I think Rad was attacking the idea that science characterises reality per se. As such this would not be an attack on science as such, but a certain extremely common interpretation of science.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UserGoogol


No... but a "materialist" might say that the aspects of the universe which are not observable by science are unknowable and not particularly interesting anyway.

Science is used to make predictions about the universe. It works in a very sensible fashion, by looking at the universe, checking for patterns, and then repeatedly checking to see if the pattern continues. Now, if a phenomena is not at all observable by science, then it follows no observable pattern. And if we can't find a pattern, what's the point? We would not be able use our "theory" for any purpose, because our observations, in a broad sense of the term, are all we ever experience.

What confused nonsense is this?? What does "observable by science" mean. Contrary to what you say, if some existent does not follow physical laws, then that is extremely interesting.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]What you fail to grasp, Radrook, is that while, yes, everything you experience may be a biochemical sham,



LMAO!! Oh dear :(

It never fails to astound me the utterly preposterous nonsense that people believe in.

So the totality of everything we ever experience is an illusion . .ummm . .right . .

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Show me an instrument that can detect God.The human mind.


Show me even ONE example of God affecting the material universe in some way.God permeates everything and in that sense affects the whole material universe.


Show me the theorem whereupon God should exist in order for other natural physical laws to work.Is not energy the precursor to matter?


This notion of detecting that beyond our perceptions only works for the material world. God is immaterial, and therefore outside of detectable means. Without the instrument of the human mind, what purpose would Science serve? So we should be careful not to let the tail wag the dog. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
We have not yet devised a mechanism for observing God, so we'll have to wait for that time before we can make any claims on his existance.

We have not devised any mechanism for observing minds either. I ain't gonna start disbelieving in the existence of my own though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UserGoogol
We have not yet devised a mechanism for observing God, so we'll have to wait for that time before we can make any claims on his existance. We know Radio Radiation exists because we can see how it reacts with other things in predictable ways. But if you went back in time, and told a random serf about radio waves, he wouldn't believe you.



You do understand don't you that materialism implies not just the non-existence of God's mind, but all minds whatsoever?? Yet clearly we do have minds. This entails that your argument is flawed. Minds/consciousness exists. If finite minds exist there is no obvious conceptual hurdle to supposing an infinite mind; at least not from this angle.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]

Show me an instrument that can detect God.

Show me even ONE example of God affecting the material universe in some way.



Show me ONE example of your consciousness affecting the material Universe in some way. No? Does this mean your consciousness doesn't exist??


Show me the theorem whereupon God should exist in order for other natural physical laws to work.

Show me the theorem whereupon your consciousness should exist in order for other natural physical laws to work.


This notion of detecting that beyond our perceptions only works for the material world. God is immaterial, and therefore outside of detectable means.

Yeah, God is physically undetectable. So what?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

This notion of detecting that beyond our perceptions only works for the material world. God is immaterial, and therefore outside of detectable means. And if we had a soul, wouldn't that be immaterial as well? In which case yes, we do have the means by which to detect the immaterial.

[Z]

As usual, II is using his 'quantity over quality' posting system, and attempting to usurp a thread to push his own lunacy...

But what the heck. Let's play.

Debunked the idea we have experiences?? Nothing you could possibly say will convince me that I am not conscious.

And I never said so. I know your memory is brief, but the stance I took was that consciousness exists, being the sum of a series of physical and energy reactions within the human brain. Therefore, it exists... therefore, we have experiences. Not debunking that, you loony, just your view on what experience and consciousness is.

a) You do not experience consciousness. Experience is consciousness. You can argue you "experience" your own self, but a materialist must reject the notion of such a self.

Experience may be consciousness, but it is still something intrinsic to the action-reaction system within the human brain. We experience and are conscious of things. Our sum total of experiences is a series of reactions inside the human mind.

Materialism doesn't reject the self, only that the self is somehow seperate from material systems. In fact, materialism properly identifies the self as being part and parcel of materialism - since material must either be observable or affect the universe in some way, the self is required for the materialist to perceive that material. This is not to say that material experience is objective, but that the theorem of materialism requires a theorist.

b) Your statement that consciousness is not material, is equivalent to saying that consciousness is material. I have shown this to be false on numerous occasions. Allow me to paste in what I've said before.

I never said consciousness is not material. YOU are the one claiming an immaterial consciousness. And you're rebuttal has itself been thoroughly taken apart by people far wiser than me.

But to make a long series of arguments short, phenomenological consciousness is a sum of physical interactions of physical phenomena (or energy phenomena - let us agree that energy/matter is the same thing for the purpose of this conversation). It is therefore reproducable and duplicatable.

The materialist doesn't have to concede anything, in spite of your arrogant attempt to claim that necessity, because the materialist knows that all that can be experienced, including experience itself, can and eventually will be analyzed and replicated. That we cannot do so now is irrelevant.

Take, for example, the sensation of pain. We can in fact take a measurement (in the future, of course) of the exact reactions caused when a painful stimulus is applied to a person; we can map these out and study them to the final moment, and then duplicate said patterns in another brain. Thus, two people will have the exact same sensation of that pain.

At this point, you might argue that each would subjectively experience the pain in different ways, but even that so-called difference lies in a series of actions and reactions stored in the body/brain over the lifetime of that individual. In fact, given sufficient time, we will be able to replicate an individual including the effects of all experiences of said individual - perfect cloning - in which case every experience he has will be IDENTICAL to the source individual.. including his reactions to said experiences.

This is materialism extended to its logical extreme.

If consciousness were so flimsy and immaterial, why can we be so certain of anything? We know, for example, that when we paint a room red, that others will see a red room. Those that don't we know, from material sciences, suffer from color-blindness or disorders of the brain - all material causes of perceptual error. And since we know that red is the refraction of a certain wavelength of light, we further know that the color will never change in and of itself based solely on perception, only the individual's perception of that color - which is based entirely on material experience.

Thousands of years might pass in the advancement of science, millions of years might pass in the advancement of science, but this ain't gonna change cold facts. One cannot (logically) derive qualitative intrinsic experiences from structure and function. To suppose otherwise is to misunderstand what the fundamental science ie physics, is all about.

This is only your opinion - and not a very good opinion at that. What we are saying is, that qualitative data will be derived - are derived - from structure and function. But you're dealing purely with physics... other quantitative sciences exist as well, you know. In fact, I'm trying to find the article, but scientists are determining the quantitative data on qualitative experience as regards taste at the moment... Seems they are already tracing the paths and such that cause one person to prefer one flavor over another, and are having some success at doing so. We already know, for example, why chocolate is so popular, and why it soothes women so... Likewise, we know how the sight of the color red can trigger aggression in some people, and why blue and green soothe the mind.

Psychology and sociology are slowly combining with harder sciences to create a picture absolutely abhorrent to immaterialists and the faithful, as more and more of your cherished illusions are stripped away. If consciousness is so immaterial, why will one drug alter your consciousness one way and another another way, in predictable patterns? We know, for example, that Ritalin (in spite of its problems) allows ADHD students to focus and think more clearly - it enhances consciousness. Druggies know that some drugs make you see things and others seem to slow or speed up time for you... Again, predictable alterations in experience. And, to a small extent, scientists are learning WHY and HOW this is done - they are quantifying qualitative experiences... and eventually, it will all fall before the axe of science.

Materialism is refuted. It's a stone cold fact.

Not even close, Irritating Ian. Not even close.

It's about as much 'fact' as that little book written by all those dead lunatics.

It doesn't seem to me that you understood that you are clearly wrong. Read my post above.

Read it... Same back at ya, loony.

What confused nonsense is this?? What does "observable by science" mean. Contrary to what you say, if some existent does not follow physical laws, then that is extremely interesting.

Yes, of course it is extremely interesting - and science then studies it thoroughly until it can adjust its knowledge of physical laws to accomodate the new phenomenon. However, what UG was saying was that something not at all observable by science is a non-existent thing, and therefore of no consequence. Like unicorns, faery dust, or your brain.

LMAO!! Oh dear It never fails to astound me the utterly preposterous nonsense that people believe in. So the totality of everything we ever experience is an illusion . .ummm . .right . .

No, that's not at all what I'm proposing - rather, that the 'consciousness' which you hold to be sooooo precious is the result of the chemical and energy reactions within our brain from our senses. We already know that our senses can be fooled, and that our brain can be told that things are there which are not... therefore, what Rad was claiming was that everything we experience comes filtered through the sense organs and, even worse, through the brain, which might well be lied to. Life may be an illusion... I doubt sincerely that it is, of course, but it is a possibility that is impossible to refute.

Nowhere did I claim to believe in this nonsense. It never fails to astound me how some people will misquote other people.

Now, a brief pause to address Iacchus...

You say the human mind is an instrument which can detect God. Given that concept, then we must also accept the reality of unicorns, dragons, faeries, witches who fly on brooms, other Gods, water turning to blood, moons made of green cheese, alternate universes where demons rule, and anything else we can imagine.

The human mind is an instrument which can imagine God, but not detect God. God has never once been verified as existing, and as an instrument, the human mind is notoriously faulty. So, try again.

As for your second statement,


God permeates everything and in that sense affects the whole material universe.

I agree. Therefore, no single instance of God's direct interaction is possible.

Is not energy the precursor to matter?

Actually, no. Matter and energy are interchangeable properties... It appears uncertain to some whether matter came first, or energy, but this is really a chicken-and-egg argument. Saying energy is the precursor to matter assumes that matter cannot revert to energy. Small point, though.

Without the instrument of the human mind, what purpose would Science serve? So we should be careful not to let the tail wag the dog.

Without the human mind to create Science, Science would not exist - but this concept is entirely beside the point. And you're the one wagging the heck outta that poor Doberman..

Back to Uninteresting Ian...

We have not devised any mechanism for observing minds either. I ain't gonna start disbelieving in the existence of my own though.

Actually, the mechanism of communication allows us to observe minds, therefore belief in the existence of minds is logical. It's not the most perfect mechanism, but it's a primitive tool. More advanced communications are being and will be developed to address this.

You do understand don't you that materialism implies not just the non-existence of God's mind, but all minds whatsoever?? Yet clearly we do have minds. This entails that your argument is flawed. Minds/consciousness exists. If finite minds exist there is no obvious conceptual hurdle to supposing an infinite mind; at least not from this angle.

Your philosophy extends outward from a flawed base. Materialism allows for minds quite easily - as I've said repeatedly. Thus, your rebuttal is fundamentally flawed.

Show me ONE example of your consciousness affecting the material Universe in some way. No? Does this mean your consciousness doesn't exist??

This is ridiculous. ANYONE ANYWHERE can show you MILLIONS of examples of consciousness affecting the material universe. IN fact, the very words you are reading RIGHT NOW are an obvious effect of my consciousness on the material universe - as I think these thoughts, the biomechanism of my fingers translate thought into physical motion, transferring kinetic energy to the keys which, in turn, close connections on electronic and silica bits, allowing new patterns of energy to flow...

And so forth...

Until the light emitted by your moniter filters through your optic sensors and into that pulsing grey mass where, undoubtably, it will become lost in fantasies of reality.

But that statement was sheer stupidity at its finest. I must assume you're very tired or very ill... that statement was dull, even for you.

Show me the theorem whereupon your consciousness should exist in order for other natural physical laws to work.

Point. What I was saying is that at times, physical laws require the existence of something we have no prior knowledge of to work properly. God has never come up in these laws so far (as far as we know, assuming God isn't the sum of the other dimensions). But, likewise, human consciousness hasn't either... nor has the ham and bacon sandwich, so point taken.

And if we had a soul, wouldn't that be immaterial as well? In which case yes, we do have the means by which to detect the immaterial.

Actually, Iacchus, your own statement refutes itself. "If we had a soul" implies uncertainty, i.e. we cannot detect the soul. If the soul is immaterial, then it cannot be detected.

However, I assert the soul is MATERIAL - Yes, children, the soul is material. Why? Because we can see the effects of the soul (life-force, whatever) on the material world. AND - I further assert that the Soul is present in all that has life... and possibly (though this is going WAAAY out there) in things that we believe do NOT have life.

Thus, we may soon observe and quantify the soul - That we lack the means at the moment means nothing.

But the very definition of immaterial refutes any detection, so any time anyone says 'detect the immaterial' they are speaking in paradox.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
As usual, II is using his 'quantity over quality' posting system, and attempting to usurp a thread to push his own lunacy...

But what the heck. Let's play.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debunked the idea we have experiences?? Nothing you could possibly say will convince me that I am not conscious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



And I never said so.



You said the notion of private qualitative experiences has been debunked. Make your mind up will you. :rolleyes:



I know your memory is brief, but the stance I took was that consciousness exists, being the sum of a series of physical and energy reactions within the human brain.



Read and understand my refutation of this.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) You do not experience consciousness. Experience is consciousness. You can argue you "experience" your own self, but a materialist must reject the notion of such a self.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Experience may be consciousness, but it is still something intrinsic to the action-reaction system within the human brain.



A non-sequitur &

Read and understand my refutation of this.



We experience and are conscious of things. Our sum total of experiences is a series of reactions inside the human mind.



Read and understand my refutation of this.



Materialism doesn't reject the self, only that the self is somehow seperate from material systems.



Materialism has to hold there are only experiences, not an experient too. The self is simply the sum of all experiences, not an entity which has such experiences.



In fact, materialism properly identifies the self as being part and parcel of materialism - since material must either be observable or affect the universe in some way, the self is required for the materialist to perceive that material. This is not to say that material experience is objective, but that the theorem of materialism requires a theorist.



This paragraph is completely vacuous. No self is required for materialism. Indeed consciousness is not required for materialism. The phrase "material experience" is a nonsensical one.

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b) Your statement that consciousness is not material, is equivalent to saying that consciousness is material. I have shown this to be false on numerous occasions. Allow me to paste in what I've said before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I never said consciousness is not material. YOU are the one claiming an immaterial consciousness.



My error: not immaterial I meant.



And you're rebuttal has itself been thoroughly taken apart by people far wiser than me.



I have never seen any such rebuttal. Could you point them out?



But to make a long series of arguments short, phenomenological consciousness is a sum of physical interactions of physical phenomena (or energy phenomena - let us agree that energy/matter is the same thing for the purpose of this conversation). It is therefore reproducable and duplicatable.



Unsubstantiated bare assertions do not establish your position.

You need to read and understand my refutation which I have already provided.



The materialist doesn't have to concede anything, in spite of your arrogant attempt to claim that necessity, because the materialist knows that all that can be experienced, including experience itself, can and eventually will be analyzed and replicated. That we cannot do so now is irrelevant.



I'm sorry, what did I say the materialist needs to concede?? Basically your above paragraph is meaningless.



Take, for example, the sensation of pain. We can in fact take a measurement (in the future, of course) of the exact reactions caused when a painful stimulus is applied to a person; we can map these out and study them to the final moment, and then duplicate said patterns in another brain. Thus, two people will have the exact same sensation of that pain.



Well, they will experience similar pains. But what has this got to do with anything??



At this point, you might argue that each would subjectively experience the pain in different ways,



No, I simply ask what has this got to do with anything. Methinks you don't understand my refutation.




but even that so-called difference lies in a series of actions and reactions stored in the body/brain over the lifetime of that individual. In fact, given sufficient time, we will be able to replicate an individual including the effects of all experiences of said individual - perfect cloning - in which case every experience he has will be IDENTICAL to the source individual.. including his reactions to said experiences.

This is materialism extended to its logical extreme.



Sure, if materialism is correct, this is conceivable. However I do not see the relevance this has to anything.

[Interesting Ian]

zaayrdragon
If consciousness were so flimsy and immaterial, why can we be so certain of anything?



Where have I described consciousness as being flimsy?



We know, for example, that when we paint a room red, that others will see a red room. Those that don't we know, from material sciences, suffer from color-blindness or disorders of the brain - all material causes of perceptual error. And since we know that red is the refraction of a certain wavelength of light,



No, red is a certain characteristic experience. You're talking about the causal story behind us experiencing redness.



we further know that the color will never change in and of itself based solely on perception, only the individual's perception of that color - which is based entirely on material experience.



You really are a lousy communicator. The phrase "material experience" conveys nothing to me. And there is no difference between colour and a person's perception of that colour. When we say an object has a certain colour, this simply means under ideal viewing conditions. A person's perception of that colour under such circumstances is the colour of that object. Colour is not neurons firing or a certain wavelength of electromagnertic radiation.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of years might pass in the advancement of science, millions of years might pass in the advancement of science, but this ain't gonna change cold facts. One cannot (logically) derive qualitative intrinsic experiences from structure and function. To suppose otherwise is to misunderstand what the fundamental science ie physics, is all about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is only your opinion



No, you don't understand how scientific theories work. They are written in the language of mathematics. How can you derive private conscious experiences from maths? Science can only ever be used to find order in the patterns of our perceptual sensations, with such order being amenable to a description using mathematics. It cannot be used to derive the self which has these perceptual experiences.



- and not a very good opinion at that. What we are saying is, that qualitative data will be derived - are derived - from structure and function.



Unsubstantiated assertion. Explain how please.





But you're dealing purely with physics... other quantitative sciences exist as well, you know.



Reductive materialism which is the only proper materialism, holds that everything can be reduced to physics.


In fact, I'm trying to find the article, but scientists are determining the quantitative data on qualitative experience as regards taste at the moment... Seems they are already tracing the paths and such that cause one person to prefer one flavor over another, and are having some success at doing so. We already know, for example, why chocolate is so popular, and why it soothes women so... Likewise, we know how the sight of the color red can trigger aggression in some people, and why blue and green soothe the mind.



I think not. How do you even know that what you experience as red, I experience as green, and vice-versa?

[Interesting Ian]

zaayrdragon
Psychology and sociology are slowly combining with harder sciences to create a picture absolutely abhorrent to immaterialists and the faithful, as more and more of your
cherished illusions are stripped away.


How so??




If consciousness is so immaterial, why will one drug alter your consciousness one way and another another way, in predictable patterns? We know, for example, that Ritalin (in spite of its problems) allows ADHD students to focus and think more clearly - it enhances consciousness. Druggies know that some drugs make you see things and others seem to slow or speed up time for you... Again, predictable alterations in experience. And, to a small extent, scientists are learning WHY and HOW this is done - they are quantifying qualitative experiences... and eventually, it will all fall before the axe of science.



Rather than paste my response here which might irritate people since it is rather long, I simple ask you to read my first post in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=40892) thread.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Materialism is refuted. It's a stone cold fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Not even close, Irritating Ian. Not even close.

It's about as much 'fact' as that little book written by all those dead lunatics.



Then show where my argument is in error.

[Interesting Ian]

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What confused nonsense is this?? What does "observable by science" mean. Contrary to what you say, if some existent does not follow physical laws, then that is extremely interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


zaayrdragon
Yes, of course it is extremely interesting - and science then studies it thoroughly until it can adjust its knowledge of physical laws to accomodate the new phenomenon. However, what UG was saying was that something not at all observable by science is a non-existent thing, and therefore of no consequence. Like unicorns, faery dust, or your brain.



Consciousness cannot be observed, but your allegation that it therefore doesn't exist is preposterous.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LMAO!! Oh dear It never fails to astound me the utterly preposterous nonsense that people believe in. So the totality of everything we ever experience is an illusion . .ummm . .right . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, that's not at all what I'm proposing - rather, that the 'consciousness' which you hold to be sooooo precious is the result of the chemical and energy reactions within our brain from our senses.



A complete non-sequitur. How would you feel if I started talking about what's on TV tonight in response to one of your points. Yes, it's that much of a non-sequitur.



We already know that our senses can be fooled, and that our brain can be told that things are there which are not... therefore, what Rad was claiming was that everything we experience comes filtered through the sense organs and, even worse, through the brain, which might well be lied to. Life may be an illusion... I doubt sincerely that it is, of course, but it is a possibility that is impossible to refute.

Nowhere did I claim to believe in this nonsense. It never fails to astound me how some people will misquote other people.



Right, so you agree that reality is at least very similar to our perceptual experiences??



Back to Uninteresting Ian...


II--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have not devised any mechanism for observing minds either. I ain't gonna start disbelieving in the existence of my own though.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Actually, the mechanism of communication allows us to observe minds,



Please pay attention. Read my damn refutation of this!



therefore belief in the existence of minds is logical.



Not of conscious experiences. You cannot derive the existence of conscious experiences from materialism.




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do understand don't you that materialism implies not just the non-existence of God's mind, but all minds whatsoever?? Yet clearly we do have minds. This entails that your argument is flawed. Minds/consciousness exists. If finite minds exist there is no obvious conceptual hurdle to supposing an infinite mind; at least not from this angle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Your philosophy extends outward from a flawed base. Materialism allows for minds quite easily - as I've said repeatedly. Thus, your rebuttal is fundamentally flawed.


How does it allow for minds?? Materialism only ever entails structure and function. No minds, no conscious experiences. They simply have to be tacked onto the materialist metaphysic.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Show me ONE example of your consciousness affecting the material Universe in some way. No? Does this mean your consciousness doesn't exist??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is ridiculous. ANYONE ANYWHERE can show you MILLIONS of examples of consciousness affecting the material universe. IN fact, the very words you are reading RIGHT NOW are an obvious effect of my consciousness on the material universe



If consciousness affects the world, then the world is not causally closed. You either have a physical explanation for peoples' behaviour, or an explanation in terms of intentions. You can't have both. You have to say it's not consciousness which makes us do what we do, but rather physical laws. And if you say physical laws are simply an expression of our freely chosen actions, then so are all the physical laws in the Universe a expression of God's freely chosen actions. The point being that you cannot argue against God from this angle without also arguing against the existence of our consciousnesses.

It is a bit of a complex subject though.


- as I think these thoughts, the biomechanism of my fingers translate thought into physical motion,



Hang on, hang on, hang on! You think thoughts and then a physical process happens?? That's interactive dualism I'm afraid.




But that statement was sheer stupidity at its finest. I must assume you're very tired or very ill... that statement was dull, even for you.



I didn't start it. You said that God doesn't affect anything in the Universe. By parity of reasoning neither do we. It doesn't matter whether we are materialists or not, this is true. You cannot say God doesn't have any affect on the Universe without saying we don't either. Simple, but I very much doubt you'll understand.

[metacristi]

The ultimate limit of science is that we do not have some first principles beginning from which to determine step by step everything that can be potentially known,the dream of Aristotle...science must rely on some basic axioms.

Thus 'evidence' is never enough to base an absolute epistemological privilege for the accepted scientific enunciations and for what is labeled usually the 'scientific method' (a topic hotly debated in the philosophy of science,where Feyerabend performed to cast serious doubts against the existence of a rigid method of making science).

We must rely also on the principle of sufficient reason,the base of human rationality,which favorize the coherence of explanations,to be in a position to rationally grant an epistemological privilege to the actual scientific method.

Unfortunately this epistemological privilege is itself openly fallible and even more,history proves clearly that if scientists had applied rigidly all the requirements of the actual scientfic method then the advance of science would have been significantly lower (happily that the majority of scientists have been and still are open minded).

This is why,in my acception,all we can defend rationally is a minimum of requirements of sciencificity as indicated by the principle of sufficient reason,favorizing also the coherence of accepted enunciations (the way how hypotheses are 'invented' is another thing,here indeed there is no method at all).

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Materialists/Skeptics believe that reality is exhausted by what science can possibly say about it. There can be nothing more to reality than what science can in principle say. Denying this not only commits you to rejecting materialism, but also commits you to rejecting Naturalism.

You're putting your cart before your horse, Ian.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Radrook

This thread wasn't meant as an attack on the scientific method.
It was merely meant as a reminder to remember its limitations.


However, as Lucianarchy has shown us, sometimes the one is a cover for the other.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Actually, Iacchus, your own statement refutes itself. "If we had a soul" implies uncertainty, i.e. we cannot detect the soul. If the soul is immaterial, then it cannot be detected.Yes, it implies uncertainty to those who don't know we have one. So, how else would you have me phrase it? I just can't come right out and say so without you having the means to detect it can I? While the same thing applies to God. It's just a big "if" to most of us, right?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Now, a brief pause to address Iacchus...

You say the human mind is an instrument which can detect God. Given that concept, then we must also accept the reality of unicorns, dragons, faeries, witches who fly on brooms, other Gods, water turning to blood, moons made of green cheese, alternate universes where demons rule, and anything else we can imagine.However, within the mythological dimension/realm, otherwise known as the collective unconscious (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97), all these things are possible. Now who's to say the imagination is not alive and well and living in all of us? ... as much as we try to repress it? We are living beings aren't we? So what is it about the imagination that's not alive? Do dead things have imaginations?


The human mind is an instrument which can imagine God, but not detect God. God has never once been verified as existing, and as an instrument, the human mind is notoriously faulty. So, try again.Really? Why have we had religion for thousands of years then? Just one of those totally arbitrary occurrences, right? You know, like the beginning of the Universe and the Big Bang?


I agree. Therefore, no single instance of God's direct interaction is possible.Unless of course, there was this immaterial thing called a soul or, spirit if you will.


Actually, no. Matter and energy are interchangeable properties... It appears uncertain to some whether matter came first, or energy, but this is really a chicken-and-egg argument. Saying energy is the precursor to matter assumes that matter cannot revert to energy. Small point, though.If, in fact energy can't be destroyed, where was all this latent energy stored before the Big Bang?


Without the human mind to create Science, Science would not exist - but this concept is entirely beside the point. And you're the one wagging the heck outta that poor Doberman..Without the human mind, Science would not be a possibility, neither would Religion, at least for human beings anyway. ;)

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Radrook


Very cute.

My arguments are based on a profound study of metaphysics.


Solipsism is not profound, Radrook. It's naive. If there is not an objective, real base to what is going on "out there" (no matter whether your monism is mind or matter), then there is only solipsism, and you can just plug your ears and say 'I am the only thing that exists and everything else isn't real'. Stop eating and tell me reality is totally based upon our subjective experience. If there is, we can study the patterns: that's science.

What you seem to want to know is whether there is anything that is purely subjective. There are! Like beauty, art, and the divine. The kicker is these are all human inventions, and qualities we imbue upon things, and the only measuring instrument is us. Part of science is determining what we make up, and what is really there. The ideomotor effect is a great example or this. We have yet to find a physical process that has anything to do with beauty, other than ourselves. That should tell you the source of "beauty".

Science is nothing more than a test for *external* truth, at least as much as we can muster. You seem to think science should be able to answer the questions about everything, but obviously it can't, since it doesn't concern itself with "why?" in any more than a causative sense. Nor does it answer "internal questions" since multiple people cannot observe it.

Furthermore, either we can observe something, or not. If we cannot observe it, we cannot say it exists. Science is the study of the patterns of observation, no more.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

The story you mentioned only serves to illustrate the point: all those other wavelengths exist, all around us, all the time, yet we are unable to perceive them without specific tools and instruments. Does that mean, because we do not perceive them, that they are not there?

I am not trying to prove that what is unperceived by the human senses is not there.

[UserGoogol]

My favorite argument against solipsism (or roughly comparable theories) is this one I picked up from Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)

Since you have no control over the "universe" you are creating for yourself, there must be some unconscious part of your mind creating it. If you make your unconscious mind the object of scientific study (e.g. by conducting experiments) you will find that it behaves with the same complexity as the universe offered by materialism; therefore, the distinction between materialism and solipsism collapses - what materialism calls "the universe", solipsism calls "your unconscious mind", but these are just different names for the same thing: both are massively complex processes external to your conscious mind, and the cause of all your experiences -- possibly merely a semantic distinction.

Materialism might be the wrong word though.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook


One can embrace a concept as expressed by an atheist and not be obligated to embrace his atheism. For example, I have books by Asimov on Astronomy and agree with the accuracies he has taught me. But that does not obligate me to be an atheist. I also am aware that Asimov has written books criticizing the biblical account. In fact, I read that book. Does that mean that if one of his short stories contains a truth that I agree with I should reject it because--well--Asimov is an atheist? Of course not. All of us agree on different issues with people who are not of our religious views. President Clinton wrote a book recently recounting his presidency. Do you agree with everything he says in that book? Most people will agree with some and not with others.

If this is so and I am more than certain that you are very aware that it is, then why hone in on Asimov and try to make his writings an exception to the generally accepted rules?

Sorry, but it doesn't make any sense.




This thread wasn't meant as an attack on the scientific method.
It was merely meant as a reminder to remember its limitations.



BTW

You are entitled to see irony in my usage of Asimov's short story.
However, that perception does not invalidate its relevancy to the matephysical issue.

LOL, but why is it relevant? The story is fiction about Martians. Where is the truth in it? That some other species can see in a different spectrum than us? We don't have to go any further than bees for that. Bees see in the ultraviolet which humans do not. Using a camera to take pictures of flowers in ultraviolet wave length, we can see what the bees see. Solid colored flowers have ultraviolet X's, landing strips, all leading to the free gift of nectar and the load of pollen to start the next generation.

And guess what opened our eyes to the world of the honey bee, science. All the religion of the world would never give us the glimpse into this part of nature.

And what are the limitations of science?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, and what if we applied this to the same notion of God?

Then why are some people able to percieve god and others aren't?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by The Cats Venm


Why couldn't successful communication solve the confusion? Being able to look at something in two different ways would be incredibly illuminating. The more information one has, the better able they are to refine their ideas.


Kind of like my bee example, if aliens percieved things in vastly different ways, we could build instruments to bridge the gap just as we have with the bee.

Oh, and the elephant who commicate using sounds pitched lower than the human ear can detect.

[thaiboxerken]

Science is the most reliable method in determining what is real and what is not. Is there any other method that even comes close? There is no limit on what science can do, only what scientists can.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


Then why are some people able to percieve god and others aren't?

Perceptual usage of freedom of choice does not prove inherent perceptual inability.

[Z]

To Interesting Ian: Until you can actually argue coherently, I choose to ignore the majority of your spam.

After all, just shouting "Read and understand" does nothing. I read your so-called rebuttal (refutation, whatever).... AND gave my responses to it, point for point.

Your philosophy is meaningless claptrap, and doesn't even come close to making any sense.... and since your main answer to a point-by-point rebuttal is "Read and understand" it is clear that it is you who is unable to communicate or understand.

Obviously, I've read your silly post... and obviously, I disagree heartily with said post. Further, I understand the point you are trying to make - but it is a very weak point at best, and easily refuted on so many levels.

Further, you display an amazing ignorance of simple science. For example, you insist that color is purely subjective, when in fact science has known for quite some time now that objects either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light (or allow them to pass through, obviously), and these wavelengths can be interpreted by the optic nerves as colors... And just as we can firmly claim that a particular flower is yellow, if we have the means we can also claim said flower is also ultra-violet (which many are; bees are amazing little critters!) in spite of being utterly unable to perceive this ourselves.

Likewise, a flower remains yellow whether observed or not, or observed by the color-blind or the totally blind. Color is therefore an objective quality, not a subjective one.

This argument of "what you see as red, I see as green" is a very old argument that generally shows the logical immaturity of the person making the argument. The simple fact is, if wavelengths of light which yield 'red' to my brain also reach your brain, and we share a common experience base, education, and system of communication, assuming no deficiency in your visual capabilities, you will also see 'red'. In fact, if you state that you see 'green' when I declare 'red', only a handful of possible explanations exist:

1) you are lying about what you see;

2) you have been educated to believe that this particular wavelength is called 'green' and will therefore call all other red things 'green';

3) you have suffered a recent injury, illness, or other condition causing alterations either in your optic system or in your brain causing mis-interpretation of colors, which means once again that you will continue calling 'red' 'green';

4) you are insane.

At any rate, the color Red continues to exist, regardless of observation. This is elementary education at best; it's a fine indicator of the validity of the remainder of your argument.

Already, though, I've wasted valuable time and energy on you. Since you cannot properly address my comments without crying about your original missive on 'materialism' (which, methinks, you do not fully understand), there is no further purpose in discussion with you.

As to Iacchus...

Really? Why have we had religion for thousands of years then?

For the same reason we've had mythology for thousands upon thousands of years. In fact, isn't religion just another term for mythology?

Man has believed in sea monsters, werebeasts, faeries, and animal-spirits far longer than Man has believed in what we would now call 'religion'. Man likes to believe in things. Since Man fears what Man cannot understand, Man makes every attempt to understand it that He can. This, too, is elementary.

Religion is nothing more than a modern mythos, one that even I fall prey to. But, then, I'm also willing to believe in faeries and dragons... :D

The point I was making was that God falls firmly in line with Dragons, Faeries, Elves, Angels, Demons, Werewolves, Vampires, and all other critters of the imagination. We might have believed once that these things existed, but we've proven ourselves wrong on most of them... so they've been relegated safely to the realm of the imaginary and the fantastical. Unfortunately, God is very difficult to disprove, and a lot of people would prefer to believe in something until it's disproven, rather than believe in only what has already been proven... thus religion persists. Plus, with God, you think your soul is at stake. Damnation can be a helluva motivational factor in maintaining outlandish belief. Look at how many cultures and people today STILL are afraid of getting cursed by witch doctors, avoid black cats, tremble at the thought of a Friday the 13th popping up, and read horoscopes! All nonsense, of course, but somewhere in the back of the human mind, there's a tiny voice saying, "But what if it's true? I could be in trouble!"

Religion, unfortunately, has been amplifying this voice for ages. "Believe in God, or burn in Hell!" "If you don't love Jesus, you are a terrible person!"

What's a child supposed to think, raised with this kind of terror? I can just imagine how prevalent Santa would be if we threw in some horrors around his story too.. "Now go to sleep, or Santa will come in the night and EAT YOUR SPLEEN! Look, it's written, here, in the Book of Clause, chapter 15-3..."

So it's no wonder religion has existed for thousands of years... right alongside superstition, mythology, and idiocy.

[Radrook]

And what are the limitations of science?




Of course we do not have to go beyond the bees or any other insect for that matter to illustrate the point. I could just as easily have used the examples you mention or others easily at my disposal. But I chose aliens didn't I?

Furthermore, if you have not understood what I am referring to YET, then I strongly suggest that you read Descartes and become familiar with his Methodical of Doubt approach and follow it up with a study of Hume and become familiar with his sense impressions concepts.

Only then will we have a common ground for communicating on the subject. Otherwise it is useless to continue since everything I say might otherwise come across as silly.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]To Interesting Ian: Until you can actually argue coherently, I choose to ignore the majority of your spam.

After all, just shouting "Read and understand" does nothing. I read your so-called rebuttal (refutation, whatever).... AND gave my responses to it, point for point.

Your philosophy is meaningless claptrap, and doesn't even come close to making any sense.... and since your main answer to a point-by-point rebuttal is "Read and understand" it is clear that it is you who is unable to communicate or understand.

Obviously, I've read your silly post... and obviously, I disagree heartily with said post. Further, I understand the point you are trying to make - but it is a very weak point at best, and easily refuted on so many levels.

Further, you display an amazing ignorance of simple science. For example, you insist that color is purely subjective, when in fact science has known for quite some time now that objects either absorb or reflect certain wavelengths of light (or allow them to pass through, obviously), and these wavelengths can be interpreted by the optic nerves as colors... And just as we can firmly claim that a particular flower is yellow, if we have the means we can also claim said flower is also ultra-violet (which many are; bees are amazing little critters!) in spite of being utterly unable to perceive this ourselves.

Likewise, a flower remains yellow whether observed or not, or observed by the color-blind or the totally blind. Color is therefore an objective quality, not a subjective one.

This argument of "what you see as red, I see as green" is a very old argument that generally shows the logical immaturity of the person making the argument. The simple fact is, if wavelengths of light which yield 'red' to my brain also reach your brain, and we share a common experience base, education, and system of communication, assuming no deficiency in your visual capabilities, you will also see 'red'. In fact, if you state that you see 'green' when I declare 'red', only a handful of possible explanations exist:

1) you are lying about what you see;

2) you have been educated to believe that this particular wavelength is called 'green' and will therefore call all other red things 'green';

3) you have suffered a recent injury, illness, or other condition causing alterations either in your optic system or in your brain causing mis-interpretation of colors, which means once again that you will continue calling 'red' 'green';

4) you are insane.

At any rate, the color Red continues to exist, regardless of observation. This is elementary education at best; it's a fine indicator of the validity of the remainder of your argument.

Already, though, I've wasted valuable time and energy on you. Since you cannot properly address my comments without crying about your original missive on 'materialism' (which, methinks, you do not fully understand), there is no further purpose in discussion with you.



I agree that there is no purpose communicating with you. You comprehensively fail to understand, as do the vast majority of people on this board.

I just feel occasionally obliged to refute some of the cr@p that people spew forth on here.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

The point I was making was that God falls firmly in line with Dragons, Faeries, Elves, Angels, Demons, Werewolves, Vampires, and all other critters of the imagination. We might have believed once that these things existed, but we've proven ourselves wrong on most of them... so they've been relegated safely to the realm of the imaginary and the fantastical. Unfortunately, God is very difficult to disprove, and a lot of people would prefer to believe in something until it's disproven, rather than believe in only what has already been proven... thus religion persists.This is called the collective unconscious (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97) by the way, and it does exist. Albeit some gods are more relative than others.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The human mind.
How does the mind detect God?

Is not energy the precursor to matter?
Energy and matter are identical, they are two sides of the same coin.

Matter is congealed energy, much like ice is congealed H₂O.

[Z]

The year 1641 saw the appearance of Descartes' Meditationes de prima philosophia, in quibus Dei existentia, & animae à corpore distinctio, demonstratur In 1649, on the eve of his departure for Stockholm to take up residence as instructor to Queen Christina of Sweden, Descartes sent the manuscript of the last of his great works, Les passions de l'ame[3], to press. Les passions [see figure 3] is Descartes' most important contribution to psychology proper. In addition to an analysis of primary emotions, it contains Descartes' most extensive account of causal mind/body interactionism and of the localization of the soul's contact with the body in the pineal gland. As is well known, Descartes chose the pineal gland because it appeared to him to be the only organ in the brain that was not bilaterally duplicated and because he believed, erroneously, that it was uniquely human. In February of 1650, returning in the bitter cold from a session with Queen Christina, who insisted on receiving her instruction at 5 a.m., Descartes contracted pneumonia. Within a week, the man who had given direction to much of later philosophy was dead. By focusing on the problem of true and certain knowledge, Descartes had made epistemology, the question of the relationship between mind and world, the starting point of philosophy. By localizing the soul's contact with body in the pineal gland, Descartes had raised the question of the relationship of mind to the brain and nervous system. Yet at the same time, by drawing a radical ontological distinction between body as extended and mind as pure thought, Descartes, in search of certitude, had paradoxically created intellectual chaos.

So one kook, whose basic paradigms were proven wrong, albeit he may have been on the right track, and...

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-David-Hume-Philosopher.htm

Another kook, who just didn't have all the facts in at the time to make any sense. Well, here's the solutions to Hume's problems, neatly spelled out by a theory (JUST A THEORY) that neatly fits quite nicely with what we know.

OK, so I've looked through Descartes and Hume - Once again, Radrook, you'd rather trust in the words and philosophies of long-dead and debunked authors, than in modern knowledge and facts.

Frankly, anyone debating science from the standpoint of philosophy is doing so pointlessly - throwing pebbles at a steel wall, hoping the wall will erode away.

I.I., what IS it in your mental make-up that makes you fail to understand that YOU ARE WRONG? Painfully, woefully, and completely WRONG?? Now, mind ye, I'm not suggesting that a majority consensus determines fact or fantasy, but in this case, I'd think you'd have to at least consider how ridiculous and ignorant your arguments are.

And finally Iacchus (part III of the kooks trilogy) - The only 'relevance' involved in imaginary beings are the weight given them by populations of people. I will, therefore, agree that the Christian God bears more relevance than the Easter Bunny, let's say, since more people are convinved of the former's reality than the latter, and since more people are likely to take specific action based on said belef. This does not, however, cause the former to be any less imaginary than the latter.

Radrook, you are definitely the 'father' of the Trilogy - you OCCASIONALLY make some sort of sense, and seem to act most maturely - up to the point where anyone refutes your arguments. Iacchus, you'd be the son, as your posts tend to be more erratic and immature. As for I.I. - He's gotta be the ghost, 'cuz he just lacks substance.

:D

edited to change 'kiiks' to 'kooks'

[Iacchus]

Do you mind if I ask why you continue to flip-flop on the matter? Why do you seem to be open to the possibility that God exists for yourself, and then turn around and call eveyone else a kook for believing the same thing? Is there something that we all seem to be missing here? ... Or what?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

How does the mind detect God?How does the mind detect anything? Regardless, both Science and Religion manifest themselves through the human mind.


Energy and matter are identical, they are two sides of the same coin.

Matter is congealed energy, much like ice is congealed H₂O. Energy is unbound matter? Or, is energy bound into matter? It's not possible for matter to permeate energy is it? Albeit it is possible for energy to permeate matter, right? This would be my guess anyway. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you seem to be open to the possibility that God exists for yourself, and then turn around and call eveyone else a kook for believing the same thing?

It's possible for pink unicorns to exist as well, but people that actually believe such things to exist are kooks.

his is called the collective unconscious by the way, and it does exist.

What the hell is collective unconscious? What is the definition, and do you really have evidence that it exists?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It's possible for pink unicorns to exist as well, but people that actually believe such things to exist are kooks. There's no doubt in my mind that pink unicorns do exist, albeit I haven't seen one personally. I have seen Pegasus though. ;)


What the hell is collective unconscious? What is the definition, and do you really have evidence that it exists? It seemed to be the whole thing that spurred Jung on. And, if he can access it, why can't anyone else?

[Z]

I don't deny anyone the right to belief in God, Dragons, Pink Unicorns, or anything else, for that matter.

But the moment you come to a skeptic board and make a statement that either attempts to PROVE God, or is based on faith in God, I have to take issue with this.

God, Faith, and Belief are concepts completely outside the realm of science, logic, and reality. That I choose to believe in Deity is irrelevant to the issue of the evidence that Deity exists. I have no proof in Deity, and would never claim that Deity must exists because of ---- or that ---- must exist because of Deity.

However, you seem to hinge everything on the existence of Deity, and see design in everything based on at least a notion of Deity. As long as you are trapped in the Deity paradigm, your logic and reason are faulty.

The fact is, Deity is outside of Proof, outside of Reason, and outside of Logic. If you can, in fact, accept that there is no proof whatsoever of Deity, nor any logical reason to suppose the existence of Deity, yet still maintain faith in Deity, isn't your faith then truly a wonderous thing?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
I don't deny anyone the right to belief in God, Dragons, Pink Unicorns, or anything else, for that matter.But they're just freaking crazy for believing so, right?


But the moment you come to a skeptic board and make a statement that either attempts to PROVE God, or is based on faith in God, I have to take issue with this.In other words why bother to discuss anything, right?


God, Faith, and Belief are concepts completely outside the realm of science, logic, and reality. That I choose to believe in Deity is irrelevant to the issue of the evidence that Deity exists. I have no proof in Deity, and would never claim that Deity must exists because of ---- or that ---- must exist because of Deity. You choose to believe in that which is irrelevant then? How so if, in fact this is the very topic we're discussing?


However, you seem to hinge everything on the existence of Deity, and see design in everything based on at least a notion of Deity. As long as you are trapped in the Deity paradigm, your logic and reason are faulty.And yet how can you be so sure, about that which is so uncertain?


The fact is, Deity is outside of Proof, outside of Reason, and outside of Logic. If you can, in fact, accept that there is no proof whatsoever of Deity, nor any logical reason to suppose the existence of Deity, yet still maintain faith in Deity, isn't your faith then truly a wonderous thing?Perhaps you should try proving it to yourself, before you go around spouting off these things to everyone else? Otherwise you'll be busy proving how much you don't know. ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus

It seemed to be the whole thing that spurred Jung on. And, if he can access it, why can't anyone else?

Probably because it's not real.

[thaiboxerken]

But they're just freaking crazy for believing so, right?

Yes, delusion does tend to indicate that a person is crazy in a way.


In other words why bother to discuss anything, right?

Discussion is fine, but spouting nonsense is just annoying and unproductive.


You choose to believe in that which is irrelevant then? How so if, in fact this is the very topic we're discussing?

???


And yet how can you be so sure, about that which is so uncertain?

It is certain that people who spout beliefs as being facts are kooks.


Perhaps you should try proving it to yourself, before you go around spouting off these things to everyone else? Otherwise you'll be busy proving how much you don't know.

This attempt at wit only shows how faulty your logic is and how unsane you truly are. If you are going to make claims that there is a god, it's YOU that should be giving the evidence to back up your claims. It is not upon the doubters to prove you wrong.

[Z]

Thank you Thaiboxetc... Too tired to reply sanely.

I believe Deity exists. But I do not assert this as fact, only as my belief. What I assert as fact is there is no evidence of intentional design to the Universe, nor any extant proof of God.

Yet I believe in spite of that proof. And I do not require you or anyone else to accept or deny this belief. I will not assert as fact that 'Deity exists', but only that 'I believe that Deity exists.' When asked why, I will merely answer, 'because I choose to do so', or possibly, 'because I feel this to be true, in spite of evidence.'

This thread started out as 'Limits of Science'. I propose that science is only limited in that it may never be able to make any statements as to the existence or non-existence of God, but that science is theoretically unlimited in all other ways.

Of course, if you want to play semantics, then even this is true.

Theology - the rational and systematic study, or science, of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth . Since this, too, is science, then we can safely say (through semantic application) that even God is not immune to Science.

:D

too tired to make any sense right now... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Iacchus]

So tell me (in reference to the last two replies), can you explain to me what chocolate tastes like? It's not possible, unless I taste it for myself, right? But let's say you don't know what it tastes like, and I do. Now, does that make me crazy or, the least bit delusional for having tasted it myself? Not hardly. However, it could mean somebody else who, insists on levying all these charges and additional nonsense, is only out to prove one thing, how much they don't know? If not to anyone else, then at least to me? ...

Also, if one person can experience the taste of chocolate, that means others can experience the taste of it as well. However, it's not up to me to get others to take the first bite. Got it? ;)

[UserGoogol]

Jung's Collective Unconciousness wasn't like that. It wasn't that there's one massive collective unconciousness, it's that conciousnesses have common properties more-or-less regardless of culture.

[thaiboxerken]

I believe Deity exists. But I do not assert this as fact, only as my belief. What I assert as fact is there is no evidence of intentional design to the Universe, nor any extant proof of God.

Wow, it is extremely rare for a believer to actually be honest and intelligent about their beliefs. It's refreshing to see a believer that is still skeptical. Thank you.

So tell me (in reference to the last two replies), can you explain to me what chocolate tastes like? It's not possible, unless I taste it for myself, right?

No, it's not impossible if we can find some other comparable taste. Oh and people don't have to believe in chocolate to taste it.

Your arguement is stupid.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No, it's not impossible if we can find some other comparable taste. Oh and people don't have to believe in chocolate to taste it.

Your arguement is stupid. Well, remind me not to share it with you then. :p

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by UserGoogol

Jung's Collective Unconciousness wasn't like that. It wasn't that there's one massive collective unconciousness, it's that conciousnesses have common properties more-or-less regardless of culture. However, I understand that he did a lot of work with dreams as well as archetypes and myths. Whereas if he did not carry this over into the spiritual realm, then that's only the next logical step. Why? Because it does exist.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well, remind me not to share it with you then.

Please don't, and while you're at it.. do humanity a favor and keep it to yourself.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, I understand that he did a lot of work with dreams as well as archetypes and myths. Whereas if he did not carry this over into the spiritual realm, then that's only the next logical step. Why? Because it does exist.

That's a bunch of BS. THere is no evidence to support your claims. You are full of crap.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So the totality of everything we ever experience is an illusion . .ummm . .right . .


Can you prove conclusively that it is not?
Hume proved conclusively that the provision of such proof is an impossibility. His conclusion, backed up by irrefutable logic, has been and still is recognized as being accurate.Actually, no one familiar with his deep studies of the subject would venture to say otherwise lest he be imediately recognized for lacking in knowledge and begin cutting a comical figure.


As Hume conclusively proved to the satisfaction of both scientists and philosophers, all we can ever aspire to do is to perceive what appears to be external stimuli and trace that perception to what appear to be sense impressions.

In short, all we really have to work with are what we perceive as neurotransmissions sequences that seem to be interpreted by what seem to be the diverse areas of the brain, such as the visual occipetal lobe and the auditory temporal lobes, in the manner that seems to be perception of something seemingly exterior to the mind.

But proving the real nature of what appear to be the sources of what appear to be neurontransmissions is impossible Neyjer can anyone prove that there is anything exterior to the mind itself. Descartes resorted to rewligion to assert otherwise. But modern philosdophers consdider that cheating.

Strictly speaking, the exterior world cannot be proven to be exterior of the mind because there is no known, acceptable, method independant of the senses which can be employed to prove its independence.

Unless, of course, you have one.
If so, please share.

BTW
Before I am accused of an inacuracy,
I am aware of internal stimuli as well but restricted it to external stimuli to keep the subject on track.

[lifegazer]

Seems to me that Radrook is trying to say the same things I've been saying.

... When we acknowledge the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing, we must also acknowledge that sensed-things are not real in themselves.

The human experience of existence consists of judgements and emotions made in response to the awareness of a succession of sensed-things. We know the reality of no thing. Our awareness of things springs directly from the sensations that we have.

In truth, science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things within our awareness. Science is not a study of the order which exists amongst the reality of things beyond our sense of them.

Therein lies the limits of science: it can tell us absolutely nothing about any reality beyond our sense of one. Science is the study of the world "in here" - not "out there".

Those that look to science to base their philosophical ideas upon are naive, to be blunt. Most atheists I've spoken too fall into this category.

[Iacchus]

Well I believe that an external reality exists. Why? Because I have to interact with it all the time. Just like you are interacting with me and everyone else over the Internet. However, like you say it's strictly up to our senses to justfiy this belief.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

That's a bunch of BS. THere is no evidence to support your claims. You are full of crap. Depends on what you wish to construe or, misconstrue as evidence.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Well I believe that an external reality exists. Why? Because I have to interact with it all the time.

That's not true. You interact with sensed-things all the time. They exist within your awareness. You have no idea what an external reality of things is, so how can you interact with it?

Just like you are interacting with me and everyone else over the Internet.

I'm interacting with you and everyone else on the internet, but all these things exist within awareness, and my knowledge of them is discerned via my sensation of them. So, my interaction with you and the internet is an interaction of my rational and emotional responses to sensed-things. A completely internal interaction.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
That's not true. You interact with sensed-things all the time. They exist within your awareness. You have no idea what an external reality of things is, so how can you interact with it?
I have no idea what electrical fields are, so how can I interact with them...

I'm interacting with you and everyone else on the internet, but all these things exist within awareness, and my knowledge of them is discerned via my sensation of them. So, my interaction with you and the internet is an interaction of my rational and emotional responses to sensed-things. A completely internal interaction.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iacchus is a person who exists outside of your mind. Or I could use myself as an example, I do indeed exist outside of your mind as well. I think the interaction involves a few external components (myself, Iacchus, your keyboard, computer, world wide information superhighway, etc.).

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I have no idea what electrical fields are, so how can I interact with them...

Our knowledge of anything - electrical fields included - has been discerned via what the senses are telling us. Scientific understanding/acknowledgment of electrical fields comes via a study of our sensory awareness. So, 'electrical fields' are in fact something which we discern to exist within the world of our senses.

Your interaction with the order of the senses is not dependent upon you understanding this order. The way things are, within awareness, is the way things are, whether you understand them or not.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iacchus is a person who exists outside of your mind. Or I could use myself as an example, I do indeed exist outside of your mind as well.

"Iacchus" is a sensed-thing, as experienced by awareness. Iacchus does not have a mind. Rather, Iacchus exists within a mind.
Similarly, "Yahwah" is a sensed-experience, had by a mind. Yahwah does not have a mind but exists, as perceived, within a mind.
The question is, Whom does that mind/awareness belong to?

My philosophy gathers all perceived experiences unto one Mind. So that the awareness of being Iacchus and the awareness of being Yahwah and the awareness of being lifegazer, etc., is had by this one mind.

I think the interaction involves a few external components (myself, Iacchus, your keyboard, computer, world wide information superhighway, etc.).
Everything you perceive about your body - like every thing else -is sensed and then rationalised/emotionalised.

You cannot give life to any thing as distinct and separate from the awareness of it. You have absolutely no knowledge of any thing that is external to the awareness of it.

Iacchus is not external to awareness... of being Iacchus.
Yahwah is not external to awareness... of being Yahwah.
Lifegazer is not external to awareness... of being lifegazer.
The internet is not external to awareness... of the internet.

Awareness embraces the sense of all things.
All things exist within awareness.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

That's not true. You interact with sensed-things all the time. They exist within your awareness. You have no idea what an external reality of things is, so how can you interact with it?

I'm interacting with you and everyone else on the internet, but all these things exist within awareness, and my knowledge of them is discerned via my sensation of them. So, my interaction with you and the internet is an interaction of my rational and emotional responses to sensed-things. A completely internal interaction. Hey, did you notice the use of the word belief in both my first sentence as well as the last which, you didn't bother to comment on? Ha! I even got you fooled! :D


Originally posted by Iaccus

However, like you say it's strictly up to our senses to justfiy this belief.In other words it's totally sensory perceived, right?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Yahweh

I'm going to go out on a limb and say Iacchus is a person who exists outside of your mind. Or I could use myself as an example, I do indeed exist outside of your mind as well. I think the interaction involves a few external components (myself, Iacchus, your keyboard, computer, world wide information superhighway, etc.). Hey you're right, I sure don't feel like I exist within the awareness of his mind, in the strictest sense that is. However, I realize that the only way he can perceive of me is through his awareness which, I think holds true for just about anyone. ;)

[Radrook]

Let's take the faculty of what is considered sight as an example.
Let us assume an exterior world and the existence of a a body as we perceive it.

From that assumed exterior world a certain stimulus we call light enters our eye focuses itself on the retina.

The retina begins reacting to the different wavelengths of the light by firing neurotransmitters across neuronal synapses.

Eventually the pattern of the firing reaches the occipital lobe in the back of the brain and the patterns are interpreted as images of various kinds. This is sort of like what happens with our computer modulators demodulators or MODEMS.

Now, what our mind has received is a pattern of neurotransmissions. Nothing more. This applies to all the senses as well. That is all that the brain has to work with. The brain cannot touch what is out their directly. It must rely on the organs of touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight in order to form a concept. That concept is of an exterior world.

But let's imagine for a moment that our mind itself can produce such a world without the need of the sense organs. Can it? Of course it can. It does so all the time via dreams. When we dream are totally convinced that we are in a real exterior world. Nothing indicates that we are locked within ourselves.

So the question then becomes, if the mind can do this while we are supposedly dreaming, who is to say that it is not doing it all the time but on a more intense mode?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Depends on what you wish to construe or, misconstrue as evidence.

Only scientific evidence really matters. Your philosophical "evidence" is nothing but a bunch of BS.

[thaiboxerken]

Perceptions are just interpretations of outside experiences and influences. They do NOT make up reality. This is evidenced in the mere fact that people's delusions get themselves killed. Some people can percieve a nice sweet fluid that they are drinking as being "healthy" when it can be poison in reality. They never percieve the dangers and it kills them. Snipers are experts at getting people killed that don't percieve the threat. This FACT that perception does not make reality has been tested and observed and evidenced a multitude of times over. The belief that perceptions create reality doesn't have any evidence to support it.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, I understand that he did a lot of work with dreams as well as archetypes and myths. Whereas if he did not carry this over into the spiritual realm, then that's only the next logical step. Why? Because it does exist.

You've never read Jung, you told me so, so you have no basis to say what his "next logical step" was. Shut the fsck up about it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Only scientific evidence really matters. Your philosophical "evidence" is nothing but a bunch of BS. Is this what you claim? You certainly can't prove it to me now can you?

Oh, and if a person is crazy, how do you prove to them that they're crazy? In fact how do you prove anything to anybody, crazy or otherwise?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

You've never read Jung, you told me so, so you have no basis to say what his "next logical step" was. Shut the fsck up about it. Never knew Christopher Columbus either. Doesn't mean I haven't heard of him though.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Never knew Christopher Columbus either. Doesn't mean I haven't heard of him though.

"Heard of" and "knowledgable about his work" are two different things.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Perceptions are just interpretations of outside experiences and influences. They do NOT make up reality. This is evidenced in the mere fact that people's delusions get themselves killed. Some people can percieve a nice sweet fluid that they are drinking as being "healthy" when it can be poison in reality. They never percieve the dangers and it kills them. Snipers are experts at getting people killed that don't percieve the threat. This FACT that perception does not make reality has been tested and observed and evidenced a multitude of times over. The belief that perceptions create reality doesn't have any evidence to support it. Oh, is that to say what you do (based upon what you perceive) doesn't affect anybody else? Don't you realize that everything is based upon how it functions interiorly? How would it work in other words, if everything existed from the outside in?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

"Heard of" and "knowledgable about his work" are two different things. Is reading the items on a recipe card the same as the ingredients that go into the loaf of bread? So what if I have intimate knowledge of the bread, but don't have the recipe card? Now am I to be faulted for not going to cooking school? Is that what you're trying to say?

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is reading the items on a recipe card the same as the ingredients that go into the loaf of bread? So what if I have intimate knowledge of the bread, but don't have the recipe card? Now am I to be faulted for not going to cooking school? Is that what you're trying to say?

Is me telling you my grandma had this incredible piecrust recipe the same as reading it? Will eating the pie enable you to bake it? Will you be able to guess the secret ingredient? The precise ratio of ingredients?

If someone gives you a pie that they claim was made with her recipe, and it wasn't, would you know?

You haven't read Jung, you have second-, third- and fourth-hand knowledge of his work, and thus you have no basis on which to claim that your views are a "logical" progression of his. You cannot be "intimately familiar" with his work without reading it, and your education level is not relevant. As I've said before, I do not have a degree, either, yet I have read his work- not that I'm claiming to be either an expert nor "intimately familiar" with his theories either.

Being that you are willfully ignorant, the only subjects with which you can claim to be "intimately familiar" are your own delusions, which are demonstrably legion. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Is me telling you my grandma had this incredible piecrust recipe the same as reading it? Will eating the pie enable you to bake it? Will you be able to guess the secret ingredient? The precise ratio of ingredients?However, we aren't referring to your grandmother's recipe here. And yes, while the notion of Jung may be comparable to going to cooking school, indeed, it still doesn't belie my ability/inability to bake a pie from scratch.


If someone gives you a pie that they claim was made with her recipe, and it wasn't, would you know?But then again the recipe may not be as important to me, and/or necessary, as you think it is?


You haven't read Jung, you have second-, third- and fourth-hand knowledge of his work, and thus you have no basis on which to claim that your views are a "logical" progression of his. You cannot be "intimately familiar" with his work without reading it, and your education level is not relevant. As I've said before, I do not have a degree, either, yet I have read his work- not that I'm claiming to be either an expert nor "intimately familiar" with his theories either.I am not standing in your shoes, and neither are you in mine.


Being that you are willfully ignorant, the only subjects with which you can claim to be "intimately familiar" are your own delusions, which are demonstrably legion. ;) To thine own self be true.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Iacchus
So tell me (in reference to the last two replies), can you explain to me what chocolate tastes like? It's not possible, unless I taste it for myself, right? But let's say you don't know what it tastes like, and I do. Now, does that make me crazy or, the least bit delusional for having tasted it myself? Not hardly. However, it could mean somebody else who, insists on levying all these charges and additional nonsense, is only out to prove one thing, how much they don't know? If not to anyone else, then at least to me? ...

Also, if one person can experience the taste of chocolate, that means others can experience the taste of it as well. However, it's not up to me to get others to take the first bite. Got it? ;)

Maybe what you tasted wasn't chocolate....

Better bring out science. Because you don't want to leave things you ingest to pure faith.

If I told you chocolate tastes like chicken would you believe me on faith or use science to figure out whether I'm telling the truth or not?

It's funny that you use people's scientifically proven knowledge of chocolate in making your point of the shortcomings of science.

[Iacchus]

Hey, if it tickles my tastebuds I could care less! :D

[Z]

The sensory experience argument is a philosophy that, while technically true (to a degree), is irrelevant to anyone except solipsist. (Is that the right word?)

The concept is that no matter what you experience, it's all within your own experience; you have no way of knowing for sure that there isn't some strange source of sensory input that you're receiving fooling your mind (a la Matrix).

However, unless something is about to go horribly wrong with this 'Matrix' the philosophy is irrelevant. Otherwise, no one would ever advance, or even survive, for fear and doubt about the 'real world'.

The simple fact, skimming off the veneer of philosophical nonsense, is that our senses provide us sufficient consistant data that we can make reasonable and fairly accurate assumptions about the nature of the real world - and since we continue to receive consistant details, we can reasonably expect to continue to do so.

As to 'sensory experience of Yahweh"... the fact is, no one currently alive has accurate sensory experience of Yahweh, Yeshua ben Yosef, or any other significant religious entity (internal sensory experience, i.e. a 'feeling' or 'thought' aside). Therefore, Yahweh doesn't fall into the same category as Iacchus or myself.

Furthermore, those who claim the Bible is the 'Inspired Word of God' and therefore proof positive of God's existance, fail to acknowledge or perhaps are unaware of the fact that the Bible is a collection of about 10-20% of the 'holy writings' of the Christians and Jews, the remainder having been rejected at various points by the Church (composed of human beings), and the remaining texts have been analyzed and proven to be written at different times and by different persons that the texts themselves claim. The entire Christ story, in fact, appears to have been written almost entirely after the death of Yeshua ben Yosef, and get more fantastical the longer after his death they were written.

Apparently, God tends to inspire tall fish tales...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

However, unless something is about to go horribly wrong with this 'Matrix' the philosophy is irrelevant. Otherwise, no one would ever advance, or even survive, for fear and doubt about the 'real world'.No, this only pertains if we wish to get to the root of the matter which, apparently we don't. ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
[B]The sensory experience argument is a philosophy that, while technically true (to a degree), is irrelevant to anyone except solipsists. (Is that the right word?)



Exactly -- and that sums up the whole thing. Good job.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by scribble


Exactly -- and that sums up the whole thing. Good job.

F*cking thick tit.

[RabbiSatan]

Once again, Ian shows his astounding intellect and why he is a true "gift" to civilization. :rolleyes:

[Z]

Irritating Ian shows his maturity and intellectual level once again.

I.I., didn't your momma ever teach you, if you can't say something nice... :D

Iacchus, the 'root of the thing' is that whether the food is real or if we perceive it to be real, the fact is that if we fail to eat it we will starve and die; if we fail to drink the perceived water, we dehydrate and die. If we fire the perceived bullet into our perceived brain, we die.

This is why perception vs. reality is generally irrelevant.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Seems to me that Radrook is trying to say the same things I've been saying.

... When we acknowledge the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing, we must also acknowledge that sensed-things are not real in themselves.

I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Iacchus, the 'root of the thing' is that whether the food is real or if we perceive it to be real, the fact is that if we fail to eat it we will starve and die; if we fail to drink the perceived water, we dehydrate and die. If we fire the perceived bullet into our perceived brain, we die.

This is why perception vs. reality is generally irrelevant. What is reality without its inner perspective? Surely you don't believe everything exists from the outside in do you?

So tell me, what is the you that resides within you? Is it possible to live outside of your skin? Or, what is it about a rock that makes it a rock? Does it not have an inner (spiritual) nature too? Sounds to me like perception has everything to do with reality.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then again the recipe may not be as important to me, and/or necessary, as you think it is?

But then again the recipe may not be as important to me, and/or necessary, as you think it is?


Then again, maybe it is, and you just don't realize it yet?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be. Hey, anything's possible, right? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


F*cking thick tit.

Every night!

...

Can I say that? Someone tell me to edit it if I can't.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Then again, maybe it is, and you just don't realize it yet? But then again, who knows? ;)

[Z]

I say, things exist. We perceive them, but they exist whether we are there to perceive them or not.

Our perceptions can be fooled - intentionally. But this tells me even more so that there is an objective reality.

The 'me' within me, it IS me. I am my skin, my blood, my bones. But bits of 'me' can be removed, leaving Me here... When I had my wisdom teeth pulled, they ceased to be of Me and were themselves. Since they lacked all organs of consideration, I'd consider it absolutely sensible that they are without an inner Self, Soul, etc.

In fact, I'd venture a guess to say that the thing we'd like to consider the Self resides firmly within the cells of the Brain, albeit in no specified part of said brain. The fact that brains can continue to function with huge sections missing or damaged suggests a magnificent redundancy capability of the brain; it further suggests that Self resides throughout the brain in total, and can be adjusted as needed when the brain suffers damage.

Remove a person's brain, and the person cannot live. For all other organs, AFAIK, we can replace organs with machines, devices, etc... but for the brain, nothing can 'sit in' for it. So the 'self' lies in the tissues of the brain.

This being true, what about the rest of the being?

Well, as I see it, the body is a vessel - a highly comlplex machine which serves the brain. It was not designed as such; rather evolutionary forces created this unique scenario. Thus, loss of a body part is irrelevant to the self, save obviously for pain, discomfort, and aggravation of said loss; if I lose an eye, my vision may be impaired, but my self remains. If I lose a limb, likewise.

And we can replace many parts artificially - so the body can be rendered complete once more, albeit not AS complete.

When the self dies, however, what remains is plant food. The body is not sacred; it is just rotting organic matter that should not waste space in some cemetary.

Consider that every 7 years, most of your body is completely new (well, replaced, anyway). Total body replacement happens every seven years, roughly, except for the brain, I think. (May be wrong there). Of course, this doesn't happen all at once, or smoothly across the whole body; but if you could suppress a cellular infestation like AIDS for seven years, there's a chance you could be cured because all of the infested cells would be cycled out of the body.

Does this affect the Self? Apparently not.

At any rate, what I say is, things are external to the Self, and our perceptions of them are consistant enough and accurate enough that we may reasonably assume the reality of our perceptions, and therefore have no need to ponder philosophically on the 'true' nature of things. If you question All-That-Is, then you get nowhere; therefore, questioning the nature of your perceived universe is pointless, useless, and moronic.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I say, things exist. We perceive them, but they exist whether we are there to perceive them or not.

Our perceptions can be fooled - intentionally. But this tells me even more so that there is an objective reality. Or, it could very well suggest there's a greater intelligence to reality than what we perceive? Indeed, the fact that the barn door is wide open on the matter could very insist that it must be. Afterall isn't that what they say, that nature abhors a vacuum?

[thaiboxerken]

Is this what you claim? You certainly can't prove it to me now can you?

I don't have to, science has proven itself and is still proving itself to be reliable over and over and over again.



Oh, and if a person is crazy, how do you prove to them that they're crazy? In fact how do you prove anything to anybody, crazy or otherwise?

You should take a psychology class, idiot.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Oh, is that to say what you do (based upon what you perceive) doesn't affect anybody else? Don't you realize that everything is based upon how it functions interiorly? How would it work in other words, if everything existed from the outside in?

You speak nothing but nonsense, you freaking moron. It's scientific fact that perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.

[thaiboxerken]

Or, it could very well suggest there's a greater intelligence to reality than what we perceive?

Not at all, you would have to show some connective logic to support your assertion. Right now, it's just a jump to conclusion.

Indeed, the fact that the barn door is wide open on the matter could very insist that it must be.

That is complete BS, simply because you think something might be possible doesn't make it have to exist.

Afterall isn't that what they say, that nature abhors a vacuum?

Who are "they"?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You speak nothing but nonsense, you freaking moron. It's scientific fact that perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion. What are you saying that reality doesn't require that it participate -- and how does it do that if not internally ;) -- in order to exist? External reality is only the aftermath of that which happens internally.

[thaiboxerken]

What are you saying that reality doesn't require that it participate

False, reality does not require our perceptions. Reality existed long before humans and will exist long after we are gone. This is a scientific fact.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

That is complete BS, simply because you think something might be possible doesn't make it have to exist.Have you seen the movie, The Matrix? Now why did so many people find that movie compelling? Because, given the right scenario, it is possible right?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

False, reality does not require our perceptions. Reality existed long before humans and will exist long after we are gone. This is a scientific fact. If you say that you don't act upon what you perceive which, of course affects what everybody else perceives and acts upon, then you're full of baloney! Hate to tell you this but this is what reality is all about. ;)

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
If you say that you don't act upon what you perceive which, of course affects what everybody else perceives and acts upon, then you're full of baloney! Hate to tell you this but this is what reality is all about. ;)

That's not what he's saying at all - you and strawmen go hand in hand.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


You speak nothing but nonsense, you freaking moron. It's scientific fact that perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.

I sit in the woods before sunrise, motionless, cradling a high powered rifle, listening. Dawn comes and I'm able to see further and further. Birds sing; squirrels begin to clomp about in the cold, dry leaves. I perceive a squirrel on the ground in front of me. I sit motionless, watching, listening. The squirrel runs up a tree and back down, bounds into the leaves again, and hops onto a fallen tree. He makes his way along the tree, taking his time, yet moving steadily. Then he stops in his tracks. He leans forward, looking. I slowly, slowly turn my head to see what's caught his attention and I see it. Moving like smoke, absolutely quietly, a buck. He's heading toward me. He almost seems to be floating. As he passes behind a brushpile, I raise my rifle and aim at the point at which I think he's going to emerge from behind the brush. He does. He glides into the open and stops, flaring his nostrils. He stomps the ground once. He knows something is close. He's the epitome of alertness. I slowly, slowy inch the sight to his heart and squeeze the trigger.

You're right. Perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Have you seen the movie, The Matrix? Now why did so many people find that movie compelling? Because, given the right scenario, it is possible right?

Most people are stupid, to actually think that the movie is possible is rather stupid.

I enjoyed the movie because of the cool sci-fi, kung-fu action.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

False, reality does not require our perceptions. Reality existed long before humans and will exist long after we are gone. This is a scientific fact. Even something as inaminate as a rock participates in reality. Why? Because if it did not exist as a rock "interiorly" (via its internal structure) it would not be here.

[thaiboxerken]

You're right. Perception does not affect reality in any direct fashion.

Exactly, your example shows this. You did not effect reality directly with your perceptions but with your actions.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Even something as inaminate as a rock participates in reality. Why? Because if it did not exist as a rock "interiorly" (via its internal structure) it would not be here.

False, a rock exists. There is no "external" or "internal", just reality. The rock is not conscious and thus, it has no perception. The universe existed long before humans. It requires no perception to exist.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Exactly, your example shows this. You did not effect reality directly with your perceptions but with your actions.

As you say...

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Exactly, your example shows this. You did not effect reality directly with your perceptions but with your actions. Are you saying that reality in and of itself requires no participation? Is it possible to be standing in water which is over your head without being totally submersed? Now, why should reality be any different? You're either totally submersed in it or you're not. And if you're not, you ain't there. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

False, a rock exists. There is no "external" or "internal", just reality. The rock is not conscious and thus, it has no perception. The universe existed long before humans. It requires no perception to exist. Sounds like a hollow Universe to me. Or, would that be a hologram? :D

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Originally posted by lifegazer:
Seems to me that Radrook is trying to say the same things I've been saying.

... When we acknowledge the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the reality of that thing, we must also acknowledge that sensed-things are not real in themselves.

I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be.
The point of my recent efforts is to show the limitations of science.
All laws (of physics) mirror the order which is present amongst the sensed-things within our awareness. They are laws of the sensed-universe.
Science must study sensed-things since humanity is only aware of the sensations themselves and the "things" depicted by them.

Science only tells us about the order present within awareness. This is a most telling fact: science gives us no reason to believe that there is a reality external to our sense of one.
A leap-of-faith is required to believe in such a reality. It's absolutely impossible to provide any modicum of a philosophical-argument (reason) for the existence of a universe beyond the sense of one. Materialism, or whatever you want to call it, is a complete religion.

As for your enquiry - how I completely rule-out the existence of such a reality - well, keep watching this space.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, anything's possible, right? ;)

Apparently not in Lifegazer's opinion, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by lifegazer

As for your enquiry - how I completely rule-out the existence of such a reality - well, keep watching this space.

I can hardly wait. :rolleyes:

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
But then again, who knows? ;)

Or what...

[Wudang]

Originally posted by lifegazer

As for your enquiry - how I completely rule-out the existence of such a reality - well, keep watching this space.

Really? You avoided that very point in the thread "Upchurch's Question". You haven't addressed it in the "scientific empire" thread. Doubtless you will do the same as usual here and assert your assumption again.

[Z]

Lifegazer, while you may have a point, it only reinforces our points as well. Science deals with sensed phenomenae, yet what else is there but sensed phenomenae? Actually, let me recalibrate that statement: what else can science deal with than phenomenaw which is subject to the senses? In other words, it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.

If there exists something which our senses cannot detect, either directly or through the application of technology, or through logical inference based on sensed observations of interactions between the alleged object and known objects, then this thing is completely irrelevant to our world, since only that capable of being so perceived (as defined earlier in this sentance) has any effect on us whatsoever.

Therefore, science is limited to the real world, and has no power to study the imaginary, unreal, immaterial, or non-existant world.

Since there is only the real world, this really isn't a problem.

[dmarker]

What I asked:

"Then why are some people able to percieve god and others aren't? "


Originally posted by Radrook


Perceptual usage of freedom of choice does not prove inherent perceptual inability.


So people have a choice whether to perceive god or not? And the atheists who came to atheism after trying so many years to believe in a deity didn't really make an effort?

[dmarker]

What I asked:

"And what are the limitations of science?"



Originally posted by Radrook

Of course we do not have to go beyond the bees or any other insect for that matter to illustrate the point. I could just as easily have used the examples you mention or others easily at my disposal. But I chose aliens didn't I?

Furthermore, if you have not understood what I am referring to YET, then I strongly suggest that you read Descartes and become familiar with his Methodical of Doubt approach and follow it up with a study of Hume and become familiar with his sense impressions concepts.

Only then will we have a common ground for communicating on the subject. Otherwise it is useless to continue since everything I say might otherwise come across as silly.

I dunno, you've been saying some pretty silly things so far. I know what you are referring to however.

Just because we are limited in the human fashion, bees cannot see red BTW, doesn't mean that the scientific method is limited.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Lifegazer, while you may have a point, it only reinforces our points as well. Science deals with sensed phenomenae, yet what else is there but sensed phenomenae? Actually, let me recalibrate that statement: what else can science deal with than phenomenaw which is subject to the senses? In other words, it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.

We glean knowledge of a 'thing' directly from the sensations that we experience.
Colours; shades; sounds; touch; tastes; smells: these are the essence of all knowledge.
We cannot study the reality of any-thing. We can only study the impression of a thing, given to awareness by the sensations themselves. We do not study the reality of a thing, but the sense of that thing. Hence our knowledge is completely dependent upon the sensations that we have.

You say: "it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.".
... But we cannot determine anything about any-thing without the sensations. They paint the picture and we see a world therein.
An artist uses coloured-paint to depict a specific reality of things upon his canvas. The mind uses the sensations to do the same thing.
The 'things' seen in the artist's picture, via the paint, are no-more-real than the 'things' given to awareness by the sensations. They are just impressions of things.

Again, I must emphasise the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the actual reality of a thing. The human experience of existence is one whereby the mind embraces and interacts with sensed-things existing therein. In truth, our universe - the universe we experience - does actually exist within us.

All objects are observed via the senses and the senses occur within awareness.
And so, the scientist does not observe the reality of things "out there", beyond his own being. The scientist observes the sense-of-things (the UNreality of things) "in here", embraced by his own mind.

Science is the study of the order which exists amongst the UNREAL things impressed upon awareness by the sensations.
Science tells us absolutely nothing about a "real world". Those that use science to base their philosophical-ideas upon - atheists and materialists, primarily - are absolutely naive about the ineffectiveness of science to discuss anything other than the order which exists within our awareness itself.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


So people have a choice whether to perceive god or not? And the atheists who came to atheism after trying so many years to believe in a deity didn't really make an effort?


People have a choice to perceive certain things and no choice at all in their seeming perception of other things. Perhaps belief is a better word.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook



People have a choice to perceive certain things and no choice at all in their seeming perception of other things. Perhaps belief is a better word.

That's what it boils down to, you see it because you believe not that you believe because you see it.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by dmarker


That's what it boils down to, you see it because you believe not that you believe because you see it.

Do you see abiogenesis?

BTW
My point was that EVERYTHING you believe is assumed.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by lifegazer

We glean knowledge of a 'thing' directly from the sensations that we experience.
Colours; shades; sounds; touch; tastes; smells: these are the essence of all knowledge.
We cannot study the reality of any-thing. We can only study the impression of a thing, given to awareness by the sensations themselves. We do not study the reality of a thing, but the sense of that thing. Hence our knowledge is completely dependent upon the sensations that we have.

You say: "it is not the sensing that defines the object, but rather what we can determine about the object using our senses.".
... But we cannot determine anything about any-thing without the sensations. They paint the picture and we see a world therein.
An artist uses coloured-paint to depict a specific reality of things upon his canvas. The mind uses the sensations to do the same thing.
The 'things' seen in the artist's picture, via the paint, are no-more-real than the 'things' given to awareness by the sensations. They are just impressions of things.

Again, I must emphasise the distinction which exists between the sense of a thing and the actual reality of a thing. The human experience of existence is one whereby the mind embraces and interacts with sensed-things existing therein. In truth, our universe - the universe we experience - does actually exist within us.

All objects are observed via the senses and the senses occur within awareness.
And so, the scientist does not observe the reality of things "out there", beyond his own being. The scientist observes the sense-of-things (the UNreality of things) "in here", embraced by his own mind.

Science is the study of the order which exists amongst the UNREAL things impressed upon awareness by the sensations.
Science tells us absolutely nothing about a "real world". Those that use science to base their philosophical-ideas upon - atheists and materialists, primarily - are absolutely naive about the ineffectiveness of science to discuss anything other than the order which exists within our awareness itself.

Lifegazer, is there anything better than science?

You can pray for wheat or you can plow a field with the plow that applied science has made for us and grow the plants that the applied science of agriculture has given us.

You can pray over someone with diabetes or you can give them insulin to control it.

You can send psychic thoughts to a far way friend or you can call them.

Has there been anything that has delivered as well as consistantly in the real world as science?

[dmarker]

I said:

"That's what it boils down to, you see it because you believe not that you believe because you see it. "

Originally posted by Radrook


Do you see abiogenesis?

BTW
My point was that EVERYTHING you believe is assumed.

And with the same reasoning, your god is just a mere assumption amongst other assumptions.

[Z]

As expected, Lifegazer resorts to the "if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance, baffle'em with bullsh" tactic.

Yes, your perceptual reality is the only reality you can comment on, and yes, everything you experience is the result of interaction of your senses with something else, whose nature you may never be absolutely certain about; however, science doesn't deal with absolute certainty, but with reasonable certainty. It is reasonably certain that our senses detect something which is real; we understand, quite completely, how energy and vibration and other means brings us specific information about the objects 'out there', and how our minds assemble this information to give us reasonably certain knowledge of the world 'out there'.

Science is a tool used to ascertain more about those reasonably assumed objects, they being the only objects we can make reasonable judgements about. At no time does science attempt to make assumptions about anything, other than what is real exists, and what is not real does not exist.

Since we have no evidence that what we perceive to exist does NOT exist (in the vast majority of cases), then we can accept the primary axiom that our senses are giving us accurate information to a degree about what does really exist.

When our senses fail us, it is science that explains why it fails us, and how we can understand the reality that lies behind our false perception.

When the automated chessplayer was making its rounds, people's senses were fooled repeatedly with a clever display of showmanship; the entire interior was displayed to show machinery and empty space, and the chessplayer did its function admirably well. Yet we know now how this was accomplished - a careful stunt involving displaying the interior in sections rather than all at once, allowing the person within to move about and continue to conceal himself. Illusion - but illusion explained.

In this case, we could not perceive the reality of the chessplayer through our casual perception of the device; however, in-depth and analytical perception allows us to pierce the illusion and perceive the reality of the chessplayer.

This is the nature of science - to penetrate the illusions we perceive and reach the root of the reality of that which we perceive.

After all, I cannot in any way perceive an atomic structure, nor refraction of light wave-particle packets, nor a tectonic plate. Yet these things are real, nonetheless, and if I had access to the right tools, instruments, and education, then my perceptions might be enhanced so that I could perceive these things.

Your argument seems to focus on reality being an internal event biased by perception; however, the fact is reality is independent of perception and therefore independent of the internal reality. You can either choose to trust your senses, and accept the reality, or you must deny your senses and thereby know nothing at all. Failure to accept your senses is illogical - unless your senses are so damaged, or your perceptions so inconsistant, as to make you doubt your senses.

Since I choose the first option, accepting my senses, then I must also choose to accept science, for science accurately describes what I sense, and further tells me what I can expect to sense. I can expect, for example, that if I perceive a tank marked "gasoline", closed, which is engulfed in flames, then I can also reasonably expect that said tank may have gas in it, and if so, that the contents may be expanding due to heat, and run a chance of spontaneously igniting - thereby exploding and flinging metal bits abroad, possible resulting in being pierced with flaming metal bits. Since science and perception are consistant, I can make sufficient assumptions to protect my existance and well-being by running the other way.

Yet, if I choose the second option, then I may as well watch, or even approach this strange thing I perceive, since the perception is irrelevant to the reality of what I perceive. Therefore, consistant with logic, it is reasonable to assume that those who fail to trust their senses lead shorter lives than those who trust them.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by dmarker
Lifegazer, is there anything better than science?

You can pray for wheat or you can plow a field with the plow that applied science has made for us and grow the plants that the applied science of agriculture has given us.

You can pray over someone with diabetes or you can give them insulin to control it.

You can send psychic thoughts to a far way friend or you can call them.

Has there been anything that has delivered as well as consistantly in the real world as science?
Of course science is useful. Understanding the order of perceived existence enables us to manipulate that existence for our own requirements, good and bad (yes, science has given us bad things too, such as weapons of mass destruction). But that isn't the issue here.
... The issue in this thread (and my own similar thread), pertains to the limitations of science in regards telling us about the absolute nature of reality.
If you read my posts properly, you'll understand why science can tell us nothing about the nature of reality, since science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.
This is significant for it disarms atheists and materialists of their philosophies, reducing their ideas to absolute religions (pure beliefs).

[Z]

How, exactly, does it do that? Seems to me, rather, that it only further eliminates the immaterialist and dogmatically faithful, since not only do they not have the absolute nature to be sure of, but they also lack any perceptual evidence as well.

All the faithful has, is faith. You believe because you were taught to believe by other believers, and told that one book out of billions contains the truth. Never mind the fact that the book has been re-copied hundreds of times, edited, spliced into and out of form, etc. Never mind the internal inconsistancies, absurdities, archaic thought, or absolute nonsense.

Science tells us what to expect from our perceived reality, and is consistant and constant. We can accept science as such, and have no fear of betrayal; yet religion fails even this much, telling us nothing about nothing, by your way of thinking.

Our knowledge of the world through science may well be seen as a system of belief, but it is a verified system of belief that requires no 'leap of faith' to engage in; in fact, it requires no faith at all, since we need never consider the nature of the reality that things exist in. Whereas religion is an unverified system, indeed, even a disproven system.

No matter how you slice it, Gazer, whether your philosophy is true or not, it does nothing at all to 'disarm' Atheists and Materialists, and only further weakens the position of Dogmatists and the Faithful.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

No matter how you slice it, Gazer, whether your philosophy is true or not, it does nothing at all to 'disarm' Atheists and Materialists, and only further weakens the position of Dogmatists and the Faithful. Yeah, that's why they come out of the woodwork here. :p

[scribble]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, that's why they come out of the woodwork here. :p

No, that's because they're too <a href =http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html>
ignorant to recognize the facts.</a>

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by scribble


No, that's because they're too <a href =http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html>
ignorant to recognize the facts.</a>

Ha! Anyone want to give odds that our man Radrook was a subject in that study? :D

I realize humor was intended here, but let's try to keep things civil.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by scribble

No, that's because they're too <a href =http://www.zenspider.com/RWD/Thoughts/Inept.html>
ignorant to recognize the facts.</a> Hey, facts are easy to recognize. It's when you begin to get into areas requiring a deeper understanding that you begin to have problems. In which case you can throw out all the facts you want and it still doesn't mean anything.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Hey, facts are easy to recognize.

Did you even read that link?

Of course not, what am I asking for? :rolleyes:

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Piscivore


Did you even read that link?

Of course not, what am I asking for? :rolleyes:

That's why I don't bother with Iacchus anymore - any rational person who can objectively examine what Iacchus says and debates with anyone else, will come to the conclusion that all he does is spout nonsense and evades questions and points addressed to him, by spouting even more nonsense, and in respone to people telling him that he is evading, spouts even more nonsense, and so on, until he slips up, is shown that he's contradicted himself, and spouts more nonsense to cover up his own flialing skin.

[Piscivore]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan


That's why I don't bother with Iacchus anymore - any rational person who can objectively examine what Iacchus says and debates with anyone else, will come to the conclusion that all he does is spout nonsense and evades questions and points addressed to him, by spouting even more nonsense, and in respone to people telling him that he is evading, spouts even more nonsense, and so on, until he slips up, is shown that he's contradicted himself, and spouts more nonsense to cover up his own flialing skin.

Yeah, you are quite correct. Nonetheless, Iacchus facinates me in a there-but-for-the-grace-of-getting-laid-go-I sorta of way. :D

[Z]

Hey, facts are easy to recognize. It's when you begin to get into areas requiring a deeper understanding that you begin to have problems.

Deeper understanding? What's deeper than fact?

This is the problem with the 'faithful' - they think belief is somehow more important than fact. The truth is, facts are facts, and facts are far more important than fantasies.

[Z]

Iacchus is like a bad car accident. You can't help but slow down and gawk.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Deeper understanding? What's deeper than fact?

This is the problem with the 'faithful' - they think belief is somehow more important than fact. The truth is, facts are facts, and facts are far more important than fantasies. Hey, I can recognize that I have five fingers on my hand. And that's a fact. So what?

Now isn't that real meaningful?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Iacchus is like a bad car accident. You can't help but slow down and gawk. That's bloody awful! And the Titans rent him to bloody shreds! (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html#16)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

That's why I don't bother with Iacchus anymore - any rational person who can objectively examine what Iacchus says and debates with anyone else, will come to the conclusion that all he does is spout nonsense and evades questions and points addressed to him, by spouting even more nonsense, and in respone to people telling him that he is evading, spouts even more nonsense, and so on, until he slips up, is shown that he's contradicted himself, and spouts more nonsense to cover up his own flialing skin. Is this just a recent development though, say like within the last hour or so? Well thank you very much!!! Praise the Lord and Hallelujah!

[RabbiSatan]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is this just a recent development though, say like within the last hour or so? Well thank you very much!!! Praise the Lord and Halelujah!

No, just something that I realised over time debating with you, your idiocy is astounding.

Yes yes, you can get the last word, you win :rolleyes:

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RabbiSatan

No, just something that I realised over time debating with you, your idiocy is astounding.

Yes yes, you can get the last word, you win :rolleyes: Whatever you say. :D

[Z]

Well, I've read quite a bit now about what Iacchus is going on about, and have come to one conclusion:

Lunatic.

Plain and simple.

My advice, Iacchus, is to stay off of drugs and alcohol (or get off them if you're currently on them), stay in school (or go back to school, as is suitable), and stop reading metaphysical nonsense like your Titans link.

This is full of 'I had a dream' and 'I imagined that I saw', etc... in other words, someone with a waaay over-active imagination is going to base a life-philosophy on 'dreams' rather than embrace reality, and therefore is probably going to have a rather miserable life, when all is said and done.

Just out of curiosity - how old are you, Iacchus? Judging by comparison (i.e. the age I was at when I was in your shoes), I'd guess you're 13 to 15, or possibly 19-20. However, this is a judgement based on my own experiences, which are hardly typical, inasmuch as I had rejected Satan before I turned 10, while still accepting religion for another decade.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Piscivore

Did you even read that link?

Of course not, what am I asking for? :rolleyes: Took a hop, skip and a quick jump over there, and as soon as I determined it was already what I thought it was, I didn't bother to stick around.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Of course science is useful. Understanding the order of perceived existence enables us to manipulate that existence for our own requirements, good and bad (yes, science has given us bad things too, such as weapons of mass destruction). But that isn't the issue here.
... The issue in this thread (and my own similar thread), pertains to the limitations of science in regards telling us about the absolute nature of reality.
If you read my posts properly, you'll understand why science can tell us nothing about the nature of reality, since science is the study of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.
This is significant for it disarms atheists and materialists of their philosophies, reducing their ideas to absolute religions (pure beliefs).


So absolute reality cannot be sensed? I ask how do you know that deities aren't just dwellers of your own mind?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

So absolute reality cannot be sensed? I ask how do you know that deities aren't just dwellers of your own mind? I think the word you might be looking for here is "interaction."

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
I think the word you might be looking for here is "interaction."

No, I mean "dwellers". Unlike the bible, I mean what I say.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Well, I've read quite a bit now about what Iacchus is going on about, and have come to one conclusion:

Lunatic.

Plain and simple.Plain as the nose on your face. Now isn't that deep!? That's it isn't it? Everything with you exists merely on the surface. Hey, did I tell you about the dream that I had?


From the thread, Is Sun Worship Idolatry? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41736)


Originally posted by Tricky

So was The Illiad, and it has precedence. If all you require is that something be ancient and recorded, then you have a bit of deciding to do. Are you going to renounce Jesus for Zeus because Zeus has a prior claim? Originally posted by Iacchus

Hey Zeus! ...

Which of course brings up this dream I had. Where I was walking out of the local supermarket. It was a bit rundown looking but, it didn't look altogether different from the one that used to be down the street. It was earlier in the evening but had already gotten dark outside. And there were two men scuffling out in the parking lot and it was beginning to get ugly. And I'm thinking, "Man this isn't right," and I looked straight up and shouted, "Hey Zeus!" ... While thinking, "Maybe you better do something about this." And yes, I was thinking Zeus, except when I said it it sure sounded like the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus! ;)

Well come to find out I wasn't exactly where I thought I was and, all of a sudden I started coming up from the depths of the ocean, and I mean the depths. And, in what seemed like an eternity to reach the surface (at an accelerated rate), it wasn't long before the sea began turning into a brilliant blue-green color. And right up above the surface rested this huge brilliant sun that illuminated everything. And I'm thinking, "Well it's obvious I've invoked some deity here, I'm just not sure I'm ready to look God straight in the face, not at this rate anyway." And don't get me wrong, it was beautiful!

So I was hoping the sensation of surfacing would stop, but no, on it continued, although it seemed like I had already gone way past the point where I should have reached the surface -- the sun was just too brilliant and the sea was too luminescent -- and I'm thinking, "Well, this is just a bit too eerie for me and, as much as I don't wish to offend God, I think I better try to get out of here." So, I pretty much wrenched myself awake and that was the end of it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

No, I mean "dwellers". Unlike the bible, I mean what I say. Yeah, but do you know what you mean?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, but do you know what you mean?

At least he contributes to the conversation.

[thaiboxerken]

Iachus seems to be nothing but a troll, a polite one, but still a troll. He offers no evidence to support his claims, he only keeps repeating his same fallicious arguments ad-nauseum. So, I won't even try to debate with him. I'll just insult him.

Iachus, take your stupid god-beliefs and shove them up your tooty.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
"This is significant for it disarms atheists and materialists of their philosophies, reducing their ideas to absolute religions (pure beliefs)."

How, exactly, does it do that?

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.
... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

Seems to me, rather, that it only further eliminates the immaterialist and dogmatically faithful, since not only do they not have the absolute nature to be sure of, but they also lack any perceptual evidence as well.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

All the faithful has, is faith. You believe because you were taught to believe by other believers

This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

, and told that one book out of billions contains the truth. Never mind the fact that the book has been re-copied hundreds of times, edited, spliced into and out of form, etc. Never mind the internal inconsistancies, absurdities, archaic thought, or absolute nonsense.

This is irrelevant in regards to myself. I am not religious... I have no religion.

Science tells us what to expect from our perceived reality, and is consistant and constant. We can accept science as such, and have no fear of betrayal;

Science, as acknowledged, is useful in that it understands [much of] the order which exists amongst sensed-existence and can manipulate that order for our own requirements.
... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.

Our knowledge of the world through science may well be seen as a system of belief,

Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system. Rather, our ignorance of the fact that science has knowledge of sensed-things as opposed to real-things has allowed people such as yourself to believe that science has knowledge of the real world, when it does not.
It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.
Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by dmarker
So absolute reality cannot be sensed?

Absolutely not. The things you sense are unreal in themselves, just as the things you see in an artist's portrait are unreal in themselves. The senses, like the artist's paint, give impressions of things.
You've never sensed a real thing in your whole life and never will.

I ask how do you know that deities aren't just dwellers of your own mind?
Proving the existence of God is something I will attempt to do in the near future.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Absolutely not. The things you sense are unreal in themselves, just as the things you see in an artist's portrait are unreal in themselves. The senses, like the artist's paint, give impressions of things.
You've never sensed a real thing in your whole life and never will.
Not so. Because the sensation itself is real.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

At least he contributes to the conversation. What's that, to the general overall stupidity?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Piscivore


Ha! Anyone want to give odds that our man Radrook was a subject in that study? :D

Perhaps it is only fair to inform you that repeated ridicule constituting perceived harassment will imediately be reported to the moderator.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Iachus seems to be nothing but a troll, a polite one, but still a troll. He offers no evidence to support his claims, he only keeps repeating his same fallicious arguments ad-nauseum. So, I won't even try to debate with him. I'll just insult him.

Iachus, take your stupid god-beliefs and shove them up your tooty. Why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)

[Radrook]

Originally posted by chance
Radrook. It is better stated that they are bound by the observations of the natural world, reality is too subjective as you have demonstrated by your 3 Aliens examples. However one only needs to devise an additional frame of reference for agreement between the Aliens, e.g. a common temperature standard removes subjective hot and cold feelings.

The alien might register NOTHING at all.
Or might taste light.
Or might see taste.
Or might small color.
Common reference?

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


I have never understood this part of your philosophy, Lifegazer.

While I aknowledge that sensed things MAY not be real in themselves, I don't follow how you can completely rule out the possibility that the sensed 'thing' is what it appears to be.

He did not say that.
He said we have no way of knowing whether it is or not.

[Z]

Iacchus - because you are. Your dream is yet another example of the absurdity you believe.

Rad, if we're going to start screaming 'mod' at every insult, we'll ALL of us be on the carpet, so to speak.

L.G., that's the biggest load of hogwash and bunk I ever heard, but I'll respond in depth:

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness. ... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

What leads you to believe that sensed-things are unreal? Nothing unreal exists. Our senses may act as a sort of filter between us and reality, but they accurately tell us what there is out there. That our senses can be fooled is based not on fooling the senses themselves, but on our minds not understanding some of what we sense.

The 'real world of things', you moron, IS the real world. Science is firmly on the side of materialism, and there is nothing that you could possibly postulate that would refute that, without resorting to nonsense.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

This is a completely flawed premise. Let's look at the definitions of 'real' and 'unreal', as regards the physical universe:

Google the definition of "real" (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:real&sourceid=opera&num=100&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8).

Google the definition of "unreal" (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=define%3Aunreal&btnG=Search)

By this, then, we can see that unreal things can NOT be senses. The sensations are real, and therefore the thing sensed is real as well.

When you sense an artist's painting, you are not sensing a vase, a barn, a woman; you are sensing a painting of a barn, a painting of a vase, a painting of a woman. When you sense a photograph of a person, you are not sensing the person themselves, but a photograph. Only a very primitive mind could make a connection between what you see in the painting and what you see in reality.

As far as providing a perceptual evidence of reality, this is also nonsense. Through the wonders of communication, you and I and a few billion other individuals can share what it is that we perceive, and in doing so, agree that our perceptions are equal and consistant; therefore, in doing so, we assert the reality of a thing. If I perceive a ball to be round, and you perceive a ball to be round, and 10 billion other persons perceive a ball to be round, then the ball is undoubtably round. The real ball is really there, verified by multiple perception, and it is really round, for the same reason.

The only way to refute shared perceptual experience, is to propose that the communication as well, being sensed, may be inaccurate, flawed, or deliberately misleading, in which case you are committing an act of solipsism, which is useless for valid logical argument.

Furthermore, your argument about the inability to debate unsensed perceptions is flawed, in that there is no comparison. Since sensed evidence is the only reality that we have, and sensed evidence proves the existance of the real, then believing in the reality of what you sense is logical; however, believing in the reality of that which you do not sense is illogical. There is no basis for saying that a believer in reality cannot refute a believer in unreality. Have you ever seen, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled God? Of course not. You have imagined God, thought about God, and perhaps 'felt God in your heart'... The first case is imagination, which can create the illusion of unreal things; the second case is conceptual visualization, in which you can consider the possibility of unreal things; and the third is difficult to put into words, because it is the psycho-emotional, which is real but often misleading (like love - but that's an entirely different thread). Each of these is an internal sense, capable of considering the unreal, but being often false and fooled easily.

think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

Yes, you can do that - just as a world leader can rationalize away the death of thousands of people in order to support his political goals, or a man caught cheating can rationalize doing so. Rationalizing the existence of God does not remove it from the concept of faith. You still BELIEVE there is a God - you still have NO PROOF.

This is irrelevant in regards to myself. I am not religious... I have no religion.

You are a liar then, or a fool. You believe in God, therefore you have a religion, therefore you are religious. You can't have it both ways - either you believe in God/Gods/etc or you don't.

But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science. You keep overlooking this fact.

What is the nature of reality? Nature is closely related to essence and substance. Nature is defined possibly as a 'why': why does the world act as it does? And while, yes, science does seek this answer, it does so in small bits.

Why does a rock fall when released? Why does the sky look blue? Why do people get ill? We seek the nature of these things when we ask these questions, and guess what, L.G.? We GET ANSWERS.

Yet our answers lead to more questions, which leads to more answers, which leads to more questions, apparently ad infinitum. Nonetheless, each set of answers we receives tells us MORE about the nature of reality than any religion ever has.

Perhaps, ultimately, science will never learn the ULTIMATE nature of reality; logically speaking, it may not be possible to determine the ULTIMATE cause. Yet it can determine so much about reality that for our purposes, it is enough.

If there is a limit to science, it is in determining ultimates; perhaps, because ultimates do not exist. Ultimate source - ultimate nature - ultimate bounds of the Universe.

In other words, science will never encapsulate infinity. However, this does not mean we cannot determine the nature of reality... only that the infinite may be forever out of grasp.

However, Religion has been proven time and again to be a deception, or even an entire system of deceptions, that make broad assumptions and even outright lies when determining the laws of nature. why does a rock fall? Because it misses the Earth and longs to reunite with it. Why is the sky blue? Because God loves beauty, and the heavens are just like the sea, blue and wet. Why do people get ill? Because demons infest them.

All ignorant notions, lies, what have you. All refuted by science, and all proclaimed by faith.

It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.

Real and distinct from? No, one and the same. There's no difference between the sensed world and the real world; only in how our minds interpret the sensed world. If you 'see' a cube yet no cube exists, you have to remember that 'cube' is an accumulated concept that you have learned to define an object that appears to occupy 3-d space and which has six equally spaced square sides; yet whether you are actually sensing a cube or an optical illusion of a cube, you have to understand that you are sensing photons being reflected from the surfaces of real objects which, from your perspective, resemble a cube. It doesn't change the reality of the senses; only the perception of that reality.

In short, your philosophy, L.G., is about as complex as a Judy Blume novel, and as irrational as a political speech in a campaign year.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Well, I've read quite a bit now about what Iacchus is going on about, and have come to one conclusion:

Lunatic.

Plain and simple.Why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)


This is full of 'I had a dream' and 'I imagined that I saw', etc... in other words, someone with a waaay over-active imagination is going to base a life-philosophy on 'dreams' rather than embrace reality, and therefore is probably going to have a rather miserable life, when all is said and doneWell, might I compliment you in your ability to impart meaning to that which is drab and purposely unmeaningful?


Just out of curiosity - how old are you, Iacchus? Judging by comparison (i.e. the age I was at when I was in your shoes), I'd guess you're 13 to 15, or possibly 19-20. However, this is a judgement based on my own experiences, which are hardly typical, inasmuch as I had rejected Satan before I turned 10, while still accepting religion for another decade. About 17 I believe, because this is when the rebirth experience (http://www.dionysus.org/x0501.html) happened.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Iacchus - because you are. Your dream is yet another example of the absurdity you believe.

Rad, if we're going to start screaming 'mod' at every insult, we'll ALL of us be on the carpet, so to speak.

L.G., that's the biggest load of hogwash and bunk I ever heard, but I'll respond in depth: Why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063)

[Z]

I refuse to soil my subjective experience by responding to your stupid thread, which you seem to be using now multiplicitly rather than doing any logical or reasonable argument.

Stupid.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

I refuse to soil my subjective experience by responding to your stupid thread, which you seem to be using now multiplicitly rather than doing any logical or reasonable argument.

Stupid. What does stupid mean, if all we can manage is a subjective opinion? Obviously my subjective experience does not agree with yours. So how do we decide? Divide the child by two?

[thaiboxerken]

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.

False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.


... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

False, science is the only reliable method of determining physical reality. It is a tool that has proven itself and is still proving itself every day. Science is really on my side because I use it all of the time and my conclusions are based on evidence which can be verified by science.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

This is another BS way of saying that testimonials are evidence. Science has shown over and over again that human perception is not reliable as evidence. Human perception must be validated by scientific evidence in order to be considered.

This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

One can rationalise that there is a pink unicorn in their backyard if they use false axioms and assumptions in their rationalisation. Obviously, if you rationalise that there is a god, you must have some falsity in your assumptions and premises OR you really do have verifiable evidence of a god. I doubt that you have the latter.




... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.

WRONG. Science is constantly learning more and more things everyday and it is the leading source of knowledge when it comes to explaining reality. No other method even comes close. The only limits to science comes from technology currently being used and the people using it.


Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system.

You are correct, it is knowledge.


It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.

Yes, you are correct. It is a leap of faith to think that this other world exists at all.

Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.

That's because the question is loaded, it assumes that the scientist has been working on unreal things, which is false.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.Perhaps there is an External Reality? And yet it's not ours to hold onto.

[Radrook]

Perhaps the inability to grasp the concept is based on insufficient knowledge in reference to what sense impressions really are. If such is the case, then no amount of cogent reasoning will be effective in clarrifying the matter.

Neurotransmission is the releashe odf chemilacal called neurotranmitters between the synapses or spasce betweebn nerve calls called neurons. These chemnical electrical sugnals must travel to the centers of the brain in order to be deciphered.

That is all we receive from the supposed outside world.
Chemo-electrical signal via our nervous system.

The problem is that such signals the brain can produce by itself.
That's why we dream.
So if the brain can do this by itself, who is to say that it is not doing it all the time?

That is as clea as I can explain it for now.

[thaiboxerken]

DBL post

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

The problem is that such signals the brain can produce by itself.
That's why we dream.
So if the brain can do this by itself, who is to say that it is not doing it all the time?

That is as clea as I can explain it for now. Capable of producing them or, capable of receiving them? Or both? Because you do realize that the mind receives its input through our sensations, right? So when we dream, where are the sensations in our dreams coming from? From within the mind or, possibly someplace else? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97)

[Z]

Again, either you are a solipsist, or you aren't.

If you are, then you can be certain of nothing. You have to take EVERYTHING on faith, and therefore are more likely to take ANYTHING on faith.

If you aren't, then you realize that nothing unreal exists, and that proof, science, and reality are quite real.

There isn't anything more to it than that.

Thus, what is real, exists; what exists, can be sensed; what can be sensed, can be interacted with; and this is all that matters.

What is unreal, does not exist; what does not exist, cannot be sensed; what cannot be sensed, cannot be interacted with; and this does not matter at all.

(Please keep in mind, the tools and instruments used to detect things beyond our level to detect them become, in effect, extensions of our senses, and so can count toward the sensory argument.)

However, since Rad thinks the only reality comes bound in pseudo-leather, translated into NIV only, and that all else is a lie, then I guess it doesn't matter what reality is.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

Again, either you are a solipsist, or you aren't.We're all solipsists, in the pluralistic sense that is. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Iacchus

We're all solipsists, in the pluralistic sense that is. ;) Just like every living cell in the human body has a membrane which separates it -- thus endowing it with its own identity so to speak -- from all the rest of the cells.

[kittynh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.

False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.


... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

False, science is the only reliable method of determining physical reality. It is a tool that has proven itself and is still proving itself every day. Science is really on my side because I use it all of the time and my conclusions are based on evidence which can be verified by science.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

This is another BS way of saying that testimonials are evidence. Science has shown over and over again that human perception is not reliable as evidence. Human perception must be validated by scientific evidence in order to be considered.

This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

One can rationalise that there is a pink unicorn in their backyard if they use false axioms and assumptions in their rationalisation. Obviously, if you rationalise that there is a god, you must have some falsity in your assumptions and premises OR you really do have verifiable evidence of a god. I doubt that you have the latter.




... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.

WRONG. Science is constantly learning more and more things everyday and it is the leading source of knowledge when it comes to explaining reality. No other method even comes close. The only limits to science comes from technology currently being used and the people using it.


Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system.

You are correct, it is knowledge.


It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.

Yes, you are correct. It is a leap of faith to think that this other world exists at all.

Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.

That's because the question is loaded, it assumes that the scientist has been working on unreal things, which is false.


Thai, this was a very good post. The kind of arguement back and forth I at least like to see. Posts like this keep me reading!

thank you

[kittynh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.

False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.


... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

False, science is the only reliable method of determining physical reality. It is a tool that has proven itself and is still proving itself every day. Science is really on my side because I use it all of the time and my conclusions are based on evidence which can be verified by science.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

This is another BS way of saying that testimonials are evidence. Science has shown over and over again that human perception is not reliable as evidence. Human perception must be validated by scientific evidence in order to be considered.

This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

One can rationalise that there is a pink unicorn in their backyard if they use false axioms and assumptions in their rationalisation. Obviously, if you rationalise that there is a god, you must have some falsity in your assumptions and premises OR you really do have verifiable evidence of a god. I doubt that you have the latter.




... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.

WRONG. Science is constantly learning more and more things everyday and it is the leading source of knowledge when it comes to explaining reality. No other method even comes close. The only limits to science comes from technology currently being used and the people using it.


Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system.

You are correct, it is knowledge.


It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.

Yes, you are correct. It is a leap of faith to think that this other world exists at all.

Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.

That's because the question is loaded, it assumes that the scientist has been working on unreal things, which is false.


Thai, this is the kind of arguement that I enjoy reading in a debate. It keeps me interested, and the back and forth nature is interesting and well thought out. Thanks.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon

(Please keep in mind, the tools and instruments used to detect things beyond our level to detect them become, in effect, extensions of our senses, and so can count toward the sensory argument.)Is that sort of like Extra Sensory Perception? :D

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yeah, but do you know what you mean?

Yes, I know. Your god is in your head and nowhere else.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Yes, I know. Your god is in your head and nowhere else. No, if my God were in my head, then he must be perceived everywhere. Which, of course is all we really have, our perception. :D

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, if my God were in my head, then he must be perceived everywhere. Which, of course is all we really have, our perception.

This is nothing but a solipsist bullcrap statement. Perceptions are not reality, they are observations of reality.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

This is nothing but a solipsist bullcrap statement. Perceptions are not reality, they are observations of reality. Yes, and when somebody snuffs your lights out, where does your reality go? May as well pretend like you were never here. ;)

By the way, you know where bullcrap comes from don't you? And I'm not the one trying to bully people into my view. :D

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, and when somebody snuffs your lights out, where does your reality go?

Reality is not subjective to each person. When I die, the universe still exists.


May as well pretend like you were never here.

A dead person doesn't do anything, let alone pretend to.

By the way, you know where bullcrap comes from don't you?

From bulls.

And I'm not the one trying to bully people into my view.

Yes, you are in a way.. not in any intelligent way, but you are. While I am giving good points based on evidence and reality, you are simply playing a silly game of "metaphysics" with NO evidence to support your position. You are the actual bully here, trying to get people to believe your views despite the lack of evidence.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Iacchus
What's that, to the general overall stupidity?

I see you now.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Reality is not subjective to each person. When I die, the universe still exists. How would you know?

Yes, you are in a way.. not in any intelligent way, but you are. While I am giving good points based on evidence and reality, you are simply playing a silly game of "metaphysics" with NO evidence to support your position. You are the actual bully here, trying to get people to believe your views despite the lack of evidence. Perhaps only in the sense that I'm not telling them what they want to hear. Why? Because they don't understand what they ask. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

A dead person doesn't do anything, let alone pretend to. Not a dead body anyway.

Yes, you are in a way.. not in any intelligent way, but you are. While I am giving good points based on evidence and reality, you are simply playing a silly game of "metaphysics" with NO evidence to support your position. You are the actual bully here, trying to get people to believe your views despite the lack of evidence. The problem is that the evidence is not on the outside, but on the inside.

"The kingdom of heaven is within."

[Radrook]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Capable of producing them or, capable of receiving them? Or both? Because you do realize that the mind receives its input through our sensations, right? So when we dream, where are the sensations in our dreams coming from? From within the mind or, possibly someplace else? (http://www.dionysus.org/forums/showthread.php?t=97)

We don't know.
If we assume from the mind itself, then what prevents the mind from continuing in that ame mode once we enter what we call an awakened state? That awakened state might just be another more intense level of the dream state.

[Radrook]

Reality is not subjective to each person. When I die, the universe still exists.

Interesting!
How does this person know that?
After all, if he dies he is completely out of touch with what he says still exists.

He hasn't died yet either as far as i know.

Even if he did the very death would place him beyond perception assuming that death is the cessation of all sense impressions.

But assuming that it isn't doesn't help either because then subjective perception kicks in again.

Or perhaps there is some hint of claiming to have been told by someone who died here?

Which brings us fool circle right back to subjectivity.

Weird!

[Z]

Because we've observed death... Reasonable, logical inferrence from observation (i.e. SCIENCE) tells us that the universe continues to exist after death.

This is the problem with you lunatic fringe folks - you fail to understand that science is the tool by which we know we can make reasonable, logical inferrence from observation. When our observations are consistent, logical, fit into a known pattern, etc., then we can accept information about our observations which we do not directly see, because science tells us that, all things being equal, the other information does exist.

I've no idea (from an ignorance perspective) what is inside each person I encounter, just short of taking a knife and cutting everyone open. Yet I can fully infer, with every reason and faculty to do so, that inside each person are organs, bones, blood, etc. I've no reason whatsoever to expect anything else, because science has proven - yes, PROVEN - that these things are in each person.

Further, science has demonstrated that occasionally, the order of organs, bones, etc. may be slightly different. Yet this, too, can be reasonably expected as a possibility, based on consistent and logical evidence and observation. Therefore, if I were to encounter a body, cut it open, and discover an extra organ or missing rib, I might wonder about the CAUSE of this alteration, but I would not at all wonder about the alteration itself.

Therefore, it is reasonable and logical to infer that, upon the death of an individual organism, the universe goes on; thereby proving the utter irrelevance of subjective reality.

But I somehow think reason and logic are alien states to Rad and Iac.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Radrook

We don't know.
If we assume from the mind itself, then what prevents the mind from continuing in that ame mode once we enter what we call an awakened state? That awakened state might just be another more intense level of the dream state. However, there are more references in the Bible (a whole lot anyway) about being in the spirit than you can shake a stick at. For example, consider what it says in Revelation 4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+4) ...


1 After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

2 And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

3 And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

6 And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind. ~ Revelation 4:1-6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=English&version=KJV&passage=Revelation+4)While the whole Book of Revelation continues with this one experience here.

[thaiboxerken]

How would you know?

Because of the evidence. The universe existed long before I existed as well. People die all of the time and the universe does not disappear.

Perhaps only in the sense that I'm not telling them what they want to hear. Why? Because they don't understand what they ask.

No, it's because you are talking nonsense and making stupid assertions not based on any evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

Not a dead body anyway.

There is no evidence to suggest a person can exist without their body.


The problem is that the evidence is not on the outside, but on the inside.

What "inside"? Do you have evidence that such a place exists? I didn't think so.

[thaiboxerken]

Why do you idiots keep quoting bible for your "evidence" of a spirit? That is just a book of mythology, not a book of science or history.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, if my God were in my head, then he must be perceived everywhere. Which, of course is all we really have, our perception. :D

If you stub your toe, could I perceive the pain?

Sorry, what exists in your head is yours alone.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Because of the evidence. The universe existed long before I existed as well. People die all of the time and the universe does not disappear.How do you know the evidence is correct? Is it etched in stone somewhere that says what we perceive has to be real? How can you be so damn sure of yourself and then come to find out later you're wrong? What does that suggest to you? That man is a creature of belief perhaps?


No, it's because you are talking nonsense and making stupid assertions not based on any evidence. Or, could it be stupid assertions based upon what you don't understand? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43033&perpage=40&pagenumber=2) Now one of us is obviously not making sense. Now which is it?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Nevermind ...


Nevermind what?

Finding it hard to debate me?

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

If you stub your toe, could I perceive the pain?

Sorry, what exists in your head is yours alone. Is it possible for a computer to operate more than one peripheral device at a time, and even remotely at that? Or, how about the signal which is broadcast through the cable company? Certainly everybody can tune in to their preferred channel, right? Sounds to me like the possibilities are endless.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Why do you idiots keep quoting bible for your "evidence" of a spirit? That is just a book of mythology, not a book of science or history. Sounds to me like wishful thinking on your part. The thing is you really don't know, do you? Evidence won't do you any good either, because evidence only goes as far as it will take you. Now how you interpret that evidence and, whether you actually have someone qualified to do so, is an entirely different story.

[Radrook]

For the atheists its a must needs believe situation.
Get rid of externals and you get rid of ape ancestry, abiogenesis and all other externals that they hold dear. So they resist the obvious with unrelenting zeal.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is it possible for a computer to operate more than one peripheral device at a time, and even remotely at that? Or, how about the signal which is broadcast through the cable company? Certainly everybody can tune in to their preferred channel, right? Sounds to me like the possibilities are endless.

Not an anologous situation to human brains. Broadcast signals are just that, broadcasted from a single source. Brains cannot broadcast signals. Considering all the stubbed toes which people are probably experiencing around the world right now, I don't think I want brains to broadcast.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Radrook
For the atheists its a must needs believe situation.
Get rid of externals and you get rid of ape ancestry, abiogenesis and all other externals that they hold dear. So they resist the obvious with unrelenting zeal.

What's obvious?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Radrook
For the atheists its a must needs believe situation.
Get rid of externals and you get rid of ape ancestry, abiogenesis and all other externals that they hold dear. So they resist the obvious with unrelenting zeal.

I certainly do not have an emotional investment into evolution. I'd rather believe that some divine being created humanity. However, what I want to believe and what facts are seem to contradict. I'll go with the facts myself. Evolution is a fact.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by dmarker

Not an anologous situation to human brains. Broadcast signals are just that, broadcasted from a single source. Brains cannot broadcast signals. Considering all the stubbed toes which people are probably experiencing around the world right now, I don't think I want brains to broadcast. Well what the heck were talking about then, if you weren't talking about some sort of Universal broadcast ... which God is by the way. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I certainly do not have an emotional investment into evolution. I'd rather believe that some divine being created humanity. However, what I want to believe and what facts are seem to contradict. I'll go with the facts myself. Evolution is a fact. Careful ... ;)

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Careful ... ;)

Of what? EVOLUTION IS A FACTUAL OCCURANCE.

[kittynh]

Evolution is not imcompatible with Christian beliefs.

Even the Pope says so!!!

You know I'm going to have to go with the Pope and Mother Theresa on this one.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Of what? EVOLUTION IS A FACTUAL OCCURANCE. Why does Science merely call it a theory then?

[The Cats Venm]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why does Science merely call it a theory then?

Force of habit.

Evolution is as solid as any other scientific law.

Technically they are all theories, as science is always open to revision upon the discovery of new evidence, but when enough evidence accumulates in support of something with no evidence against it, it is considered fact.

Despite what certain people might have you believe...

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why does Science merely call it a theory then?

The THEORY of evolution is about how evolution happens, what mechanics are involved and what causes evolution to perpetuate.

It is a FACT that evolution happens.

Just like it's a FACT that there is gravity, but we still theorize on how gravity works.

[Iacchus]

However, I'm sure when it's convenient for us to do so, we will use theory of evolution won't we? By the way, I don't particularly have a problem with the theory of evolution myself. In fact I believe it's a perfectly valid theory, for the most part anyway. ;)

[uruk]

Theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence.
A hypothesis is a conjecture based on an observation (educated guess)
Most people confuse theory with hypothesis. When science says "Theory of evolution" they mean it is an idea based on not only observation but hard suporting evidence.
Fact: life is evolving. Fact: there has been documented speciation.
fact: there is fossil evidence showing a development and changing of species. Put all these together and you get a theory of evolution.

it's just like the thoery of gravity. fact: Gravity exists. what is gravity?- we got ideas on that with some observational evidence.(very little). What causes gravity?- Got some ideas on that too.

[Z]

You're wasting your breath - the Bible crowd here doesn't BELIEVE in facts, evidence, or truth.

Though, I would suggest calling Evolution a theory... Still a LOT of holes in that one.

Nonetheless, most of Iacchus' nonsense is waaaaay out there - he's lost any grasp on reality he had. As for Rad...

Well, there's no hope there.

[kittynh]

For conflicting Christian viewpoints see MLynn and myself!:D

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Is it possible for a computer to operate more than one peripheral device at a time, and even remotely at that? Or, how about the signal which is broadcast through the cable company? Certainly everybody can tune in to their preferred channel, right? Sounds to me like the possibilities are endless.

So you're claiming ESP now? How amusing. Sorry what is in your head is still yours alone.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Why does Science merely call it a theory then?

From the site:
http://wilstar.net/theories.htm

"Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis. "



There are the laws of gravity and the theory of gravity. The laws of physics, the theory of relativity, and quantam theory. There are laws of evolution (individuals vary) and the theory of evolution.

Science strives to take laws and make theories from them. Each theory is continually tested and even laws have been revised from time to time.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Iacchus
However, I'm sure when it's convenient for us to do so, we will use theory of evolution won't we? By the way, I don't particularly have a problem with the theory of evolution myself. In fact I believe it's a perfectly valid theory, for the most part anyway. ;)

You are a MORON. There is the fact that gravity exists, and then there is the Theory of Gravity. Just like there is the fact that evolution exists and the Theory of Evolution. Why the freak can't you understand that? Oh, it's because youare a moron.

[Radrook]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


You are a MORON. There is the fact that gravity exists, and then there is the Theory of Gravity. Just like there is the fact that evolution exists and the Theory of Evolution. Why the freak can't you understand that? Oh, it's because youare a moron.

That's a very robust reply!

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

You are a MORON. There is the fact that gravity exists, and then there is the Theory of Gravity. Just like there is the fact that evolution exists and the Theory of Evolution. Why the freak can't you understand that? Oh, it's because youare a moron. Yes, but why call me stupid? (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=43063) ;)

[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.