Do ideas exist?

[scepticat]

Do ideas exist?

That's not a meaningful question. If a statement cannot be reworded to exclude the words "exist" and forms of "to be" then the statement doesn't mean anything. A specific question of "Existence" means something only if "exist" and "not exist" are observably different. This is the concept of falsifiability. Only statements which make falsifiable predictions can be meaningful.

We derive all statements about the existence of things in the external world from our observations. The observations came first. Existence is an abstraction that is not fundamental. We use the concept of existence as a model that unifies and makes a certain sense out of our observations.

99% of the questions philosophers like to ask can't be worded without the verb to be which renders them meaningless. Frankly I'm tired of it.

Science doesn't make statements about nature. It makes predictions about future observations based on previous observations. It uses models that give us a sense of intuition, but these are not strictly necessary to make the predictions. Quantum mechanics doesn't need an interpertation.

Don't ask questions about existence. Ask questions about observation. These are testable, falsifiable, meaningful questions. Existential questions are only falsifiable if they are translated into questions of observations. Pure existential questions are not falsifiable.

[Dark Jaguar]

Okay I get some of that, but what are you talking about? Of course some things don't exist and some things do. Plus, sometimes it's helpful to step a little outside observation if only to come up with a hypothesis that can be either proven or disproven with future observation. I mean you need the observations to confirm or deny it, but coming up with unproven hypothesis is helpful at least for deciding where to look for new evidence.

[Merko]

I think it makes sense to say that things that can be observed, exist.

Ideas exist as ideas if someone has them. We can point to a book someone wrote about it. Or ask someone if they have the idea. Clearly observable.

The concept that an idea is focused around may still not exist, though. Just because someone has an idea of God, doesn't mean the God exists.

If someone has an idea of gravity, and someone else has an idea of telepathy, we should ask for observable evidence of the concepts before we believe in them. But the ideas surely exist.

[RandFan]

In an abstract sense, of course. That said, some people will draw existential conclusions from semantical arguments. That's a mistake.

[slingblade]

Oh Ed. Another lightcreatedlifecoberstiammewannabeclone.

Merry Christmakwanzaakah!

[fuelair]

Oh Ed. Another lightcreatedlifecoberstiammewannabeclone.

Merry Christmakwanzaakah!

Beat me to it, darn yez!!!:) :) :)

[RandFan]

Oh Ed. Another lightcreatedlifecoberstiammewannabeclone.

Merry Christmakwanzaakah!Your right. It looks mostly like coberst to me though.

[Freddy]

Well, if there are ideas then ideas exist. There are no things that don't exist, and it's impossible for something to "sort of" exist, whatever that might mean. Existence is all or nothing. I had an idea once, so ideas must exist. They aren't concrete objects, of course, but I'd say that they exist.

[Freddy]

Existential questions are only falsifiable if they are translated into questions of observations. Pure existential questions are not falsifiable.

"There is a largest prime number."

That looks like an existential statement to me, and not only is it falsifiable, it's false. And no observation is involved in the proof.

[scepticat]

Freddy, any proof that your mathematical statement is false must look back to the set of axioms from which we construct our particular system of mathematics. Proving the statement incorrect only says the particular axioms we use imply it to be incorrect. The axioms are not proven to be true and indeed, it is possible to construct systems based on a different set of axioms where your statement is actually true.

Mathematics is incomplete. Statements are built on statements that are ultumately built on basic axioms that are taken to be true without proof. Proofs of mathematical statements involve seeing why other statements imply the statement to be true. In mathematics, "exist" means using the clearly, rigorously defined existential quantifier. The mathematical notion of existence is a homonym with the word existence in other fields. It doesn't mean the same thing, and in fact, in some cases, the word doesn't mean anything at all.

The question of whether ideas exist is just a question of symantics. The answer won't give any insights into ideas, it just examines how we define the words. Externally (outside of the definitions of the words it uses), it is meaningless.

In science, exist means something entirely different:

The goal of science is to make predictions. It takes into account observations, looks for patterns, and makes predictions based on these patterns. It doesn't make statements about how nature "is" but rather it makes statements about what we will observe. Science doesn't use axioms, and science can't "prove" anything. All theories are tentative because future observations may be inconsistent with their predictions. Science doesn't make statements about nature and reality. Philosophers may wish to argue about reality and nature, but science moves on. Science doesn't care. There are large portions of quantum mechanics and general relativity that make zero sense when worded with exist and to be, but make perfect sense when worded around observations.

Many get hung up on Wave particle duality. But this is only confusing when asking questions like "Is the electron a wave or a particle?" The response should be that "When observed in manner A, the electron behaves like a wave, and when observed in manner B, the electron behaves like a particle." Even asking the first question requires application of preconcieved assumptions about the nature of things.

Scientists may ask questions like "Do primordial black holes exist" but this is really a linguistic shortcut of asking whether we will ever observe evidence like massive gamma ray bursts or specific planetary motion (both of which are otherwise unaccounted for).

"Is" and "exist" are just words. They are fine for communication but you cannot reason about the world based on the words you use to describe it. Categories, qualities, existence, states, etc ...these are all concepts that humans have come up with to account for their observations. We tend to forget that these are not final truths. Qualities and existence and categories and numbers are never fundamental. They are human constructions that may be useful in many situations. Science can make use of these concepts and develop theories with models based on them, but this is just to provide us with an intuition that isn't strictly necessary.

Finally, it is possible to construct multiple theories that yield the same predictions. When theories are equally predictive, and observably indistinguishable, many resort to Occam's Razor (sp?), but this is really just a preference for simplicity, a concept without a rigorous definition. You can use either theory. It doesn't matter because there is no meaningful difference between observably indistinguishable models.

[Beerina]

Existence is an abstraction that is not fundamental.

:)

This does not square with "I think, therefore I am", the no-longer pre-reflective cogito.

[scepticat]

This does not square with "I think, therefore I am", the no-longer pre-reflective cogito.

Correct. Please provide a list of potential observations that could be used to determine the veracity of "I think, therefore I am".

[RandFan]

Scepticat, do you have a point?

[hammegk]

Please provide a list of potential observations that could be used to determine the veracity of "I think, therefore I am".
I know of none.

Thought, however, Exists. :)

[Moochie]

Do ideas exist?

That's not a meaningful question. If a statement cannot be reworded to exclude the words "exist" and forms of "to be" then the statement doesn't mean anything. A specific question of "Existence" means something only if "exist" and "not exist" are observably different. This is the concept of falsifiability. Only statements which make falsifiable predictions can be meaningful.

We derive all statements about the existence of things in the external world from our observations. The observations came first. Existence is an abstraction that is not fundamental. We use the concept of existence as a model that unifies and makes a certain sense out of our observations.

99% of the questions philosophers like to ask can't be worded without the verb to be which renders them meaningless. Frankly I'm tired of it.

Science doesn't make statements about nature. It makes predictions about future observations based on previous observations. It uses models that give us a sense of intuition, but these are not strictly necessary to make the predictions. Quantum mechanics doesn't need an interpertation.

Don't ask questions about existence. Ask questions about observation. These are testable, falsifiable, meaningful questions. Existential questions are only falsifiable if they are translated into questions of observations. Pure existential questions are not falsifiable.

If you just wrote this, then yes.

If not, then no.

M.

[RandFan]

If you just wrote this, then yes.

If not, then no.

M.:)

Hmmm... demonstrable proof of thought. Not bad.

[Dave1001]

Do ideas exist?

That's not a meaningful question. If a statement cannot be reworded to exclude the words "exist" and forms of "to be" then the statement doesn't mean anything. A specific question of "Existence" means something only if "exist" and "not exist" are observably different. This is the concept of falsifiability. Only statements which make falsifiable predictions can be meaningful.

We derive all statements about the existence of things in the external world from our observations. The observations came first. Existence is an abstraction that is not fundamental. We use the concept of existence as a model that unifies and makes a certain sense out of our observations.

99% of the questions philosophers like to ask can't be worded without the verb to be which renders them meaningless. Frankly I'm tired of it.

Science doesn't make statements about nature. It makes predictions about future observations based on previous observations. It uses models that give us a sense of intuition, but these are not strictly necessary to make the predictions. Quantum mechanics doesn't need an interpertation.

Don't ask questions about existence. Ask questions about observation. These are testable, falsifiable, meaningful questions. Existential questions are only falsifiable if they are translated into questions of observations. Pure existential questions are not falsifiable.

Great thread topic. I'm not sure the doors to non (currently) falsifiable questions or theories should be slammed shut. Let's just treat them with appropriately greater skepticism. There was a technological point at which the theory of atoms wasn't falsifiable, but yet I'm sure having that theory in the sphere of conscious awareness was handy when technology improved to the point at which it was actually testable.

[VonNeumann]

I declare: "Ideas DO exist."

That was my idea to declare "Ideas DO exist.".


Is that meaningless?

[Moochie]

I declare: "Ideas DO exist."

That was my idea to declare "Ideas DO exist.".


Is that meaningless?


What do you think?

M.

[VonNeumann]

What do you think?

M.

I said "I declare: "Ideas DO exist." That was my idea to declare "Ideas DO exist.". Is that meaningless?"

I think I am asking a question because I am undecided. What do you think?

[scepticat]

Randfan, my point in demanding a set of observable demarkation criterion should be evident from my other posts. If no such observation can used to establish the verocity of a claim, the claim has no meaning. (And Dave1001, observations that are not yet technically feasible still count. I'm not dismissing them.)

The language we use is so engrained in our minds from birth, but the ability to identify actual meaning as something distinct from these "communiction devices" is something that many people do not learn, or do not learn very well.

Before we consider "I think therefore I am", we should consider "I observe, therefore the external world is". The answer to the second question will provide insights into the first.

I am inviting everyone to comment on "I observe, therefore the external world is."

[The Atheist]

I am inviting everyone to comment on "I observe, therefore the external world is."I observe an orgy, with a preponderance of young, highly attractive, fit and flexible young women attending.

I have an idea that it would be good to join in.

I am right; I came, I conquered, I'm sore. The external world is a good place to be.

[The Atheist]

"There is a largest prime number."

That looks like an existential statement to me, and not only is it falsifiable, it's false. And no observation is involved in the proof.Ah, but now you have no idea!

[AgingYoung]

Is verocity how Jackie Chan pronounces velocity?
I observe, therefore the external world is.
I observe something I call reality. It could be a delusion. I'm not taking any bets.

Gene

[RandFan]

I said "I declare: "Ideas DO exist." That was my idea to declare "Ideas DO exist.". Is that meaningless?"

I think I am asking a question because I am undecided. What do you think?From your perspective, what we think is irrelevant, well, to a point. You might be in a dream right now and the words you see on the screen are just an illusion.

Descartes should have said, "I think therefore thoughts exist". It does not necessarily follow that the self exists because there is some thinking going on. That requires an assumption first of the self and it also depends on how you define "self".

Thinking on the other hand, there is no question that I think. If I didn't then this entire thread would be nonsensical to me.

[RandFan]

I am inviting everyone to comment on "I observe, therefore the external world is." I've been down this road far too many times (lifegazer anyone?).

There is little to comment on. You have 2 choices.

Assume that the external world is as we observe it.
Assume that the external world is not as we observe it.Either way there is not much you can do to change the fact that the world will behave as we observe it no matter what we think. Reality doesn't care about your philosophy. Here, try this little experiment. Come over to my house, I'll lock you in a room without food, water or toilet. Let's see how long it takes before you agree that your beliefs about the external world are meaningless.

[lifegazer]

I've been down this road far too many times (lifegazer anyone?).

Yeah, I remember him.

Either way there is not much you can do to change the fact that the world will behave as we observe it no matter what we think. Reality doesn't care about your philosophy. Here, try this little experiment. Come over to my house, I'll lock you in a room without food, water or toilet. Let's see how long it takes before you agree that your beliefs about the external world are meaningless.
You never were bright enough to realise that your "little experiment" was nonsense. And why is it nonsense? Because yes, in the experienced world my experienced body/self requires the experience of food/water/toilet. But what does this prove or show? NOTHING!! :-
Does your 'experiment' prove that there is a real body beyond the experience of one, requiring real food/water/toilet? NO. Does it prove that human experience is the result of a real brain? NO.
So wtf are you waffling-on about?

Your complaints were ALWAYS naively irrelevant. You never grasped the seriousness of the philosophical enquiry... and you still don't.

[RandFan]

But what does this prove or show? I've told you over and over what it shows.

"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

It proves that your philosophy is a great big waste of time.

...in the experienced world my experienced body/self requires the experience of food/water/toilet... And nothing else matters. Your philosophy is waste thought and energy. It is so obviously a waste of time, thought and effort that in the many years you have been spouting your nonsense you have not convinced a single person to care. No one agrees with you but you know what? That's not important. Even if you are right (you are not) it wouldn't change a damn thing.

[lifegazer]

I've told you over and over what it shows.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Again, you are discussing EXPERIENCE and incorrectly defining it.

It proves that your philosophy is a great big waste of time.

Actually, what all of this proves is that you know zero about the philosophical problems associated with metaphysics and that you are so embroiled within the experience of being 'randfan' that you don't actually care about a philosophy which destroys that entity, anyway.
But that doesn't prove that my philosophy is a waste of time. It just proves that you have a very small mind.

And nothing else matters. Your philosophy is waste thought and energy. It is so obviously a waste of time, thought and effort that in the many years you have been spouting your nonsense you have not convinced a single person to care. No one agrees with you but you know what? That's not important. Even if you are right (you are not) it wouldn't change a damn thing.
Perhaps there are too many people like you.

If the [experience of the] world ends in absolute despair, then the majority consciousness reflected by 'you' will be the cause. And if such consciousness is destined to be perpetuated indefinitely, then screw it - let the world be damned thus.

You're stupid. You deserve that label because you consistently ignore rational interjection such as this... unlike most people, who are just ignorant.
You're heading for absolute destruction and you have your foot on the accelerator. Adieu.

[RandFan]

Again, you are discussing EXPERIENCE and incorrectly defining it. No I'm not incorrectly defining it. I don't give a damn how it is defined. It's what we experience. Real. Not real. It doesn't make one bit of difference.

Actually, what all of this proves is that you know zero about the philosophical problems associated with metaphysics and that you are so embroiled within the experience of being 'randfan' that you don't actually care about a philosophy which destroys that entity, anyway. Even if that were all true (it's not) it wouldn't change anything if I did know about these philosophical problems and I wasn't "embroiled within the experience of being". Nothing changes no matter what my belief or POV. Nothing. Nothing has changed for you.

But that doesn't prove that my philosophy is a waste of time. Actually it does. Your requirements are the same as mine. Oxygen, water, nutrients, elimination of wastes and shelter.

You're stupid. You deserve that label because you consistently ignore rational interjection such as this... unlike most people, who are just ignorant. Just because you believe something doesn't make it rational.

You're heading for absolute destruction and you have your foot on the accelerator. Adieu. Ok Chicken Little, whatever you say just understand that appeals to emotion are NOT rational.

[lifegazer]

No I'm not incorrectly defining it. I don't give a damn how it is defined. It's what we experience. Real. Not real. It doesn't make one bit of difference.

Of course it makes a difference!
Do you have kids? When they have nightmares, do you use the line "There there darlin', it's only a dream.".

How can you say that the ACTUAL reality of everything we experience is irrelevant to the meaning or significance of our life? How shallow are you??
I think you must have an extremely low IQ. I can't think of any reason whatsoever to persistently defend your position, other than this.

[The Atheist]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377451f74d05e792.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1714)

[The Atheist]

Nobody else wanted to join the orgy?

All the more for me.

Cheers

[RandFan]

Of course it makes a difference!
Do you have kids? When they have nightmares, do you use the line "There there darlin', it's only a dream.". ? When they were young I simply comforted them. When they got older I explained the difference between the ephemeral world of dreams and the consistent world when they are awake. I of course tailored the words so that they would understand. They did just fine. They all figured out on their own at a young age that Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and the Easter Bunny are fantasy (just like their dreams).

How can you say that the ACTUAL reality of everything we experience is irrelevant to the meaning or significance of our life? How shallow are you??What is significant is the experience, not whether it is actually real or not. I choose to think that it is real. Life makes more sense to see it as real rather than pretending that it is not real and living as though it is.

I have no idea what life is like for you. To believe that this is all a dream that you can't wake up from. How odd. How perverse.

I think you must have an extremely low IQ. I can't think of any reason whatsoever to persistently defend your position, other than this. Ad hominem. A refuge of one who cannot debate logically.

[RandFan]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377451f74d05e792.gif

I like it. :D

[VonNeumann]

I'd like to have some understanding of this idea that "ideas don't exist". I found:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/waving_goodbye.htm
Which seems they say that 'you' exist, "your thinking/consciousness exists" but what your consciousness does when it 'ideates', has no existence. To me that seems like bull-oney.

I have to say that a lot of this gibberish sounds like it depends on what "is" is. Didn't Bill Clinton say "depends on the definition of what "is" is."?

I don't want to dismiss it as a meaningless proposition that ideas have existence. In particular, the collection of ideas called 'mathematics' is what I am interested in talking about. Does mathematics exist? I found:

http://perso.unifr.ch/rafael.nunez/warning.html

They say mathematics only exists in the embodied human mind. That's what I want to go into here. I started a thread here on "Did we evolve the capacity to solve Quantum Theory." and it has reached the point of this very question.

I propose that since the ideas of mathematics work so well to model what we observe about the physical laws, I can't get away from thinking that there is something existential about mathematics in some underlying substrate of this physical universe. The best way I can relate this idea to others is maybe this: assume we live in a cellular automaton (CA) universe and we conscious entities evolved therein; here inside the CA, our minds discover/invent the language of mathematics; inside the CA, we use the ideas of mathematics to predict observations; now, changing omniscient point of view outside this CA universe, we know that the cellular automaton is built with logic gates and software and therefore that the mathematics has existence at that level; it is not incredible then that the underlying substrate of CA which uses mathematical laws can be observed indirectly by the conscious entities inside the CA; but the existence of the mathematical logic INSIDE the CA is only in the minds of the simulated conscious entities because the existence of the logic gates transcends the 'real world' of the CA.

Question: could this metaphor possibly be valid to give insight on the 'existence of mathematics' in reference to our own universe?

[VonNeumann]

??

[l0rca]

Why don't we just shortcut this whole argument and just say "to be" is often used in semantical fallacies, and we should be more specific?

Either way, this has already been debated to death by science, linguistics, and philosophy. E-prime arguments happened a long time ago.

Generally when we intelligent, philosophy types use "to be" we mean it as a shortening of jargon. The concepts surrounding semiotics are dense, and we need to be simpler when explaining science, so this is also the reason for "to be" statements.

[Moochie]

Well, I hurt, therefore I am.

M.

[hubbub2]

Try this one: Does existance exist or are we only a figment of our collective imagination, which would lead us to the George Carlin statement, "I think, therefore I am...I think.

[Ichneumonwasp]

If a statement cannot be reworded to exclude the words "exist" and forms of "to be" then the statement doesn't mean anything. A specific question of "Existence" means something only if "exist" and "not exist" are observably different. This is the concept of falsifiability. Only statements which make falsifiable predictions can be meaningful.


Is this not simply logical positivism restated?

Is the proposition "only statements which make falsifiable predictions can be meaningful" itself falsifiable? How would one falsify it? Is the original proposition, therefore, meaningless?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If a statement cannot be reworded to exclude the words "exist" and forms of "to be" then the statement doesn't mean anything.
Let me try:

"That tree is 20 feet tall." versus

"When I measure the height of that tree, I obtain 20 feet."

Hey, that's easy! Is there any statement I can't hack like that?


Is the proposition "only statements which make falsifiable predictions can be meaningful" itself falsifiable? How would one falsify it? Is the original proposition, therefore, meaningless?
Skepticat may not be claiming that his philosophy is an axiomatic system that can prove its own self-consistency.

~~ Paul

[hammegk]

Carlin was close. Better imo though, "The thought exists that I think ...". That one gets my 100% certainty rating. :)

[l0rca]

(Sorry guys: I'm going to be so obvious it'll make your @sshole bleed.)

"I think therefore I am," is a true statement because "am" is not attributed to anything. Though I'm unsure if Descartes meant it like this, it's true as I'm handling it: thinking proves what thinks is an entity of some nature; though that nature is undefined, and the act of thinking does not denote any further logical consequences (it obviously can not, except in terms of restatement, since it is a lone phrase, and can not build upon any other concepts). It alone is still considered an axiom, however, more because it falls into the definition of axiom than carries out its connotations.

It is best to consider the verbs and pronoun in the phrase to be entirely ambiguous. Both "thinking" and "am" are used loosely in the phrase, and their definitions are vague. The best the phrase does for us other than confirm "I" as an entity, is provide some sort of endpoint that further epistemological theories might seek to better satisfy for us. But really, anything other than this phrase being loosely defined is a belief.

[hammegk]

.... thinking proves that thinking is an entity of some nature ...
There, fixed it for 'ya ... ;)

Unfortunately it still says nada-nothing-zip re "I". :)

[l0rca]

Actually, I meant it the way I put it. Either way you put it, though, it arrives at the same idea: that there is some entity thinking. I just want to be as direct as possible.

[hammegk]

Well, *we* could discuss your *I* and my *I*, see where we get ... :p

BTW, I deny *I* am The Solipsist (should such exist). What does your *I* think? ;)

Damn. Or is that *I* deny I am ...

[l0rca]

Lol?

[hammegk]

Er, dare I say, 'think about it'? :D

[VonNeumann]

Try this one: Does existance exist or are we only a figment of our collective imagination, which would lead us to the George Carlin statement, "I think, therefore I am...I think.
When did Carlin say that? The Moody Blues said that in 1969 or 1970 in one of their tunes. But it sounds like it could be original Carlin.

[scepticat]

I0rca, I completely agree with your first post. I do not advocate eprime because I understand the merits of using "to be" as a shortcut. It's something of a dangerous shortcut, but it's not an error as long as you understand why you are using it. As for your later comments on "I think therefor I am,"...my contention is that any statement stronger than "I think therefore at least something exists" is unjustified. However for real insights into my own thought processes, cognition, consciousness, and all that, I would turn to the exciting advances in recent neuroscience research long before I would to descartes or any 15th century thinker.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos, you are certainly headed in the right direction, and your question is exactly relevant. My answer is yes. Here are three statements to start with: "All human behavior is motivated by selfish interests." and "There is no such thing as free will, all actions are predetermined" and "reality is a dream that we do not wake up from". As it turns out, these statements cannot be falsified through observation because they have nothing to do with observation in the first place. The can't even be stated as observations.

Randfan, you and I may not be as different as you think. I in general do not like philosophy. It has given the world remarkably little, and is a tragic drain on the mental resources of the brightest among us. Arm chair thinking can be interesting, eloquent, and all, but it has never been subjected to the same rigorous standards as science has, and it shows. It shows in the lack of a clear progress over the last 2-3 thousand years. And that aside, philosophers that I know tend to have their elitist and clueless heads stuck in the clouds. Give my arguments some fair consideration. What I am attempting to demonstrate here is the most powerful defense against philosophers who like to make clueless statements about science.


There is little to comment on. You have 2 choices.

Assume that the external world is as we observe it.
Assume that the external world is not as we observe it.
Either way there is not much you can do to change the fact that the world will behave as we observe it no matter what we think. Reality doesn't care about your philosophy. Here, try this little experiment. Come over to my house, I'll lock you in a room without food, water or toilet. Let's see how long it takes before you agree that your beliefs about the external world are meaningless.

You're headed on the right track. My question for you is, Why do you think we have to assume anything at all? As soon as you make such an assumption, you have crossed out of the realm of rationality. You don't have to assume anything. There is no observation that could allow you to distinguish between the two cases you listed, thus, they are not meaningfully distinct. You are falling victim to your belief that there are things that have to be a certain way. Ask yourself why you have this belief. Unfortunately, this belief is so reinforced by the language that we use that it may be impossible or to late for you to see beyond it.

Your experiment is:

1) Irrelevant to my arguments. I have not made claims about the external world or whether it it exists. I have only said that because there is no meaningful distinction between the "dream" theory and the "external world" theory. And because there is no meaningful distinction, it's not a useful question to ask.

2) Specious to the arguments it is designed to attack. Both the "dream" theory and the "external world theory" predict hunger pains, bowel pains, fatigue and ultimate death.


You should have used my arguments to attack lifegazer.



And to everyone else, thanks for posting in this thread. I'm doing my best to read all the replies and respond individually.

[l0rca]

I0rca, I completely agree with your first post. I do not advocate eprime because I understand the merits of using "to be" as a shortcut. It's something of a dangerous shortcut, but it's not an error as long as you understand why you are using it. As for your later comments on "I think therefor I am,"...my contention is that any statement stronger than "I think therefore at least something exists" is unjustified. However for real insights into my own thought processes, cognition, consciousness, and all that, I would turn to the exciting advances in recent neuroscience research long before I would to descartes or any 15th century thinker.

It's L0rca, actually, as in Federico-Garcia Lorca, the poet. And I agree with your ideas on "I think therefore I am." I also agree that neuroscience is a better resource than Descartes. While he was an inspirational thinker, I disagree with almost everything he thought.

[Kopji]

I guess I don't understand why philosophy is not 'useful', like mathematics. Mathematics discusses things that cannot be observed or measured - or even completely understood, yet has practical use. Why then, cannot philosophy be useful in a similar way?

Ideas like 'justice' or 'truth' do not cease to exist when I am gone or not thinking about them. They cannot be falsified, but why are they not 'real'?
Or maybe more to the point, why assert that are they meaningless?

Ideas are merely objects of thought, philosophy discusses the commerce of ideas.

[qayak]

I guess I don't understand why philosophy is not 'useful', like mathematics. Mathematics discusses things that cannot be observed or measured - or even completely understood, yet has practical use. Why then, cannot philosophy be useful in a similar way?

Ideas like 'justice' or 'truth' do not cease to exist when I am gone or not thinking about them. They cannot be falsified, but why are they not 'real'?
Or maybe more to the point, why assert that are they meaningless?

Ideas are merely objects of thought, philosophy discusses the commerce of ideas.

In my view: As science took off, the advancements were made so fast that philosophy did not, or could not, keep up. As a result, philosophy was left discussing things that science had surpassed a hundred years before. It was left to the scientists to become the philosophers, to decide the ethics and morals of what they were discovering.

Cloning is a perfect example. Religions want to discuss the effects of cloning on the soul. Because scientists know the process of cloning they understand that, even if it exists, there is no issue with the soul or, at least, no more issue than already exists in nature.

It isn't that philosophy isn't useful, it is that philosophy needs to change to keep up with our ever changing world and historically it hasn't. However, read Darwin, Sagan, Feynman, Shermer, Dawkins, Suzuki, et al, and you will see that there is a new and relevent philosophy already out there. The more we find out about where we came from and what makes us tick, the more we find a system of philosophy that works for all humanity. Not based on how we get to heaven and what sort of paradise awaits us but based on the natural world, right here on Earth and in the universe.

How different a philosophy must be once the people understand that there is no supernatural being going to magically save us, that we are never going to get off this planet and that we are not likely to make contact with others in the universe, if they exist.

Science has given us the two greatest creation stories ever known. One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other the story of the creation of life in it. These are not myths, they are true and any philosophy would be foolish not to have these two stories as its basis.

[Dave1001]

In my view: As science took off, the advancements were made so fast that philosophy did not, or could not, keep up. As a result, philosophy was left discussing things that science had surpassed a hundred years before. It was left to the scientists to become the philosophers, to decide the ethics and morals of what they were discovering.

Cloning is a perfect example. Religions want to discuss the effects of cloning on the soul. Because scientists know the process of cloning they understand that, even if it exists, there is no issue with the soul or, at least, no more issue than already exists in nature.

It isn't that philosophy isn't useful, it is that philosophy needs to change to keep up with our ever changing world and historically it hasn't. However, read Darwin, Sagan, Feynman, Shermer, Dawkins, Suzuki, et al, and you will see that there is a new and relevent philosophy already out there. The more we find out about where we came from and what makes us tick, the more we find a system of philosophy that works for all humanity. Not based on how we get to heaven and what sort of paradise awaits us but based on the natural world, right here on Earth and in the universe.

How different a philosophy must be once the people understand that there is no supernatural being going to magically save us, that we are never going to get off this planet and that we are not likely to make contact with others in the universe, if they exist.

Science has given us the two greatest creation stories ever known. One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other the story of the creation of life in it. These are not myths, they are true and any philosophy would be foolish not to have these two stories as its basis.

I think on balance you're right. In particular, neuroscience and economics are rising to fill the void left by philosophy and philosophy-based ethics. In discussing ideas like "truth" and "justice" neuroscience and economic analysis of human behavior are useful places to start.

[Kopji]

I think on balance you're right. In particular, neuroscience and economics are rising to fill the void left by philosophy and philosophy-based ethics. In discussing ideas like "truth" and "justice" neuroscience and economic analysis of human behavior are useful places to start.

And I don't disagree with either of you.

[qayak]

I think on balance you're right. In particular, neuroscience and economics are rising to fill the void left by philosophy and philosophy-based ethics. In discussing ideas like "truth" and "justice" neuroscience and economic analysis of human behavior are useful places to start.

We can talk about good and evil, right and wrong, and any other moral question, based on evolutionary ethics.

[aggle-rithm]

I was thinking yesterday about the idea that complex processes, such as evolution, can create the ILLUSION of intent. In fact, I thought, the complex electro-chemical reactions in the brain create such an illusion.

Then, it occured to me, how can there be an illusion if the object of the illusion -- the thing you think it is -- doesn't exist? The complex processes are experienced subjectively as intent, therefore they ARE "intent". It's just that what we experience as intent has a different nature than we think it does, not that it's an illusion of what we think it IS.

So, I guess, the fallacy is in comparing the process we subjectively experience as "intent" to other processes which produce similar results.

To address the main question: Do ideas exist? Well, it depends on the situation.

[qayak]

Here are three statements to start with: "All human behavior is motivated by selfish interests." and "There is no such thing as free will, all actions are predetermined" and "reality is a dream that we do not wake up from". As it turns out, these statements cannot be falsified through observation because they have nothing to do with observation in the first place. The can't even be stated as observations.

I do not understand what the point of these three statements is if what you say about them is true which I don't think is so.

What I am attempting to demonstrate here is the most powerful defense against philosophers who like to make clueless statements about science.

The new philosophers are the scientists and they are eminently qualified to make statements about science. It is simply a matter of listening to the right philosophers.

You're headed on the right track. My question for you is, Why do you think we have to assume anything at all? As soon as you make such an assumption, you have crossed out of the realm of rationality.

I completely disagree with you. It is necessary to make assumptions in many cases. Those who refuse to assume will soon be stalled in their investigations.


You don't have to assume anything. There is no observation that could allow you to distinguish between the two cases you listed, thus, they are not meaningfully distinct.

But there are ways to distinguish. The observation and distinction has already been made. When the sensations are experienced only by the brain and not by the sensors inputting to the brain, then it is a dream. If it is being experienced by the sensory system and transmitted to the brain it is reality, unless there is a problem witht he sensors and then it could be an hallucination.

In answer to the OP: Yes, ideas exist. They must, they are a prerequisite to thinking and thinking is a prerequisite to altering our environment in any meaningful way. There are many other aspects to thought, but first is the idea.

Human thought is remarkable only in complexity which is a result of our evolutionary qualities. We look for and identify patterns which is a large part of our ability and desire to build histories. We know that the more we remember from the past, ours and that of others, the better our future choices will be. Using history we can ferret out ideas that are not likely to work and focus on the once that are most likely to have the results we desire.

[RandFan]

Randfan, you and I may not be as different as you think. I in general do not like philosophy. It has given the world remarkably little, and is a tragic drain on the mental resources of the brightest among us. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I'm willing to respect most but I'm rather tired of this observation as I find it ignorant and perhaps willfully so on the part of many. It was philosophy that got us, in large part, to where we are today. This might come as a shock to you but science is a branch of philosophy.

Arm chair thinking can be interesting, eloquent, and all, but it has never been subjected to the same rigorous standards as science has, and it shows. It shows in the lack of a clear progress over the last 2-3 thousand years. Let me ask your forgiveness up front. This is where I always get into trouble. With all due respect scepticat, excrement. This is an ignorant statement in many ways.

Please pick up a book and read it. At the risk of patronizing you I would recommend Philosophy for dummies (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Dummies-Tom-Morris/dp/0764551531/sr=1-1/qid=1167333282/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4813252-7181565?ie=UTF8&s=books) or Sophie's World (http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-about-History-Philosophy/dp/0425152251).

Scepti, rational thought began with early Greek philosophers. We have them to thank for our science.

Check out Pythagoras, Plato, Socrates and Aristotle as well as many others. I won't go through the contributions of all of them. I haven't the time but I will tell you that it was Aristotle's focus on empiricism and the development of categorical knowledge that played a very big role in the development of the scientific method.

And that aside, philosophers that I know tend to have their elitist and clueless heads stuck in the clouds. Give my arguments some fair consideration. What I am attempting to demonstrate here is the most powerful defense against philosophers who like to make clueless statements about science. If you say so. I'm willing to give you some fair consideration, but please, learn something about what you are talking about. Otherwise, what's the point?

You're headed on the right track. My question for you is, Why do you think we have to assume anything at all? I don't think we do have to assume anything at all. Only that if we do then we must question the consequences of the assumptions. My only point is that there is no point. In other words your OP is a waste of time. It's navel gazing.

As soon as you make such an assumption, you have crossed out of the realm of rationality.

This is a philosophical statement.
This is not argument.
This is simply an assertion.
This is silly.You don't have to assume anything.(emphasis mine) "Anything"? Ever? Really?

This is a philosophical statement. Odd since you eschew philosophy. In any event, aside from navel gazing and a Lewis Carrol world this statement is nonsensical.

There is no observation that could allow you to distinguish between the two cases you listed, thus, they are not meaningfully distinct. Again, this is a philosophical statement. Look scepti, I would suggest that if you don't want to play in the sandbox then go home. It's rather silly to use philosophical statements to make arguments while you decry philosophy.

You are falling victim to your belief that there are things that have to be a certain way. No. Do me a favor? Don't tell me A.) what my beliefs are and B.) What I'm falling victim to.

To do so requires assumptions on your part and we know how much you don't like assumptions. In any event it is not fair to me.

Ask yourself why you have this belief. Unfortunately, this belief is so reinforced by the language that we use that it may be impossible or to late for you to see beyond it. {sigh} More philosophy. Damn dude, make up your mind.

Your experiment is:

1) Irrelevant to my arguments. I have not made claims about the external world or whether it it exists. I have only said that because there is no meaningful distinction between the "dream" theory and the "external world" theory. And because there is no meaningful distinction, it's not a useful question to ask.

You don't have an argument as far as I can tell.
I'm only demonstrating that your point is pointless precisely BECAUSE there is no meaningful distinction.2) Specious to the arguments it is designed to attack. Both the "dream" theory and the "external world theory" predict hunger pains, bowel pains, fatigue and ultimate death. I'm NOT attacking any arguments. I don't see any argument to attack. You are asking us to comment on a philosophical concept.

My comments are:

I don't take issue with the concept.
I think that it is important from an epistemological POV.
There are few if any practical benefits beyond understanding the limits of our ability to answer existential questions.You should have used my arguments to attack lifegazer. What arguments?

[VonNeumann]

Science has given us the two greatest creation stories ever known. One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other the story of the creation of life in it. These are not myths, they are true and any philosophy would be foolish not to have these two stories as its basis.

You say, "Science has given us ...the story of the creation of the universe ... [and these stories are ] not myths, they are true ..."

Firstly, Science (by definition) is not about "truth".

But you believe science has delivered some non-mythical truth about the creation of the universe, so I am curious to know what you think those truths are. Are you talking about that you know what it is that substantiates the quantum vacuum fluctuations from which baby universes might be born?

[qayak]

Firstly, Science (by definition) is not about "truth".

Secondly, I never said it was but I disagree with your above statement. By definition (a proven or verified fact or principle) "truth" is exactly what science is about. I think you will have a tough time convincing scientists of your position.

Are you talking about that you know what it is that substantiates the quantum vacuum fluctuations from which baby universes might be born?

If you are trying to suggest that our philosophy should NOT be based on the best explanation we have for the existence of the universe and life in it, you have sorely failed.

We do not need to know the cause of something to know the effect. Because science is concerned with all things natural, are you suggesting that it was a supernatural being that caused the Big Bang? That's the only way your statement would be relevent to my point. A few years ago, god filled the universe. Today, thanks to science, he is gone from it. Now you suggest he sits just outside at its beginning?

[VonNeumann]

Secondly, I never said it was but I disagree with your above statement. By definition (a proven or verified fact or principle) "truth" is exactly what science is about. I think you will have a tough time convincing scientists of your position.

If you are trying to suggest that our philosophy should NOT be based on the best explanation we have for the existence of the universe and life in it, you have sorely failed.

We do not need to know the cause of something to know the effect. Because science is concerned with all things natural, are you suggesting that it was a supernatural being that caused the Big Bang? That's the only way your statement would be relevent to my point. A few years ago, god filled the universe. Today, thanks to science, he is gone from it. Now you suggest he sits just outside at its beginning?

You said:
"Science has given us the two greatest creation stories ever known. One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other the story of the creation of life in it. These are not myths, they are true and any philosophy would be foolish not to have these two stories as its basis."

See where you said "they are true"? And above I quoted and put in bold that you said that you never said science was about truth. Make up your mind... or learn to say what you mean. Otherwise you are going to get people like me asking you what you mean.

If you still think science is about 'truth' then we argue definition. You can look up the definition of science yourself.

You also confuse me when you called the origin of the universe a"creation story" and said it is "not myth" at the same time. Which is it? Okay, that's right, you said it was "true" so to you, it's a true story. But you didn't say what the story is? Something along the lines of Steven Hawkings book "Brief History..."? That doesn't say what the primal cause was, see? That's why I ask if you have some information about what caused the big-bang (presuming that is the creation story you are talking about). I don't know if anyone has an explanation for that other than "it just happened".

I didn't suggest anything about a supernatural being. I didn't use the word god either - you did. You said we have a creation story so I wanted to hear the creation story.

BTW, Lee Smolin (of Quantum Gravity fame) is fond of the idea that universes 'evolve'. He thinks it plausible that vacuum fluctuations can be large enough to spawn whole new baby universes. He thinks a universe could be birthed that has some of the physical laws and constants 'right' and that would cause that universe to 'live long enough' so to speak to procreate new baby universes. The new baby universes would inherit the sort of 'right' physical laws. See, a sort of random mutation and natural selection process at the level of universes. I saw some exchange on the internet between Smolin and Dawkins on it. I think Smolin really hoped Dawkins would say 'way to go chap - brilliant idea!' But he didn't! Dawkins didn't buy it.

I need to see if I can find that. It would be interesting to post it on this forum.

You get the idea? Where is the creation story? It is only a history theory for what happened after the 'creation' of the physical laws and constants.

[Mercutio]

sheesh.

word games.

sheesh.

[VonNeumann]

sheesh.

word games.

sheesh.
Here's a word game:

Punctuate the following:
"While Jack had had had Jill had had had had had had had had the teachers approval."

[Tricky]

Here's a word game:

Punctuate the following:
"While Jack had had had Jill had had had had had had had had the teachers approval."
Even better,
Jack, while Jill had had "had", had had "had had". "Had had" had had the teacher's approval.

Eleven consecutive "hads" and perfectly grammatical.

[Mercutio]

Damn you Trixie. That was child's play.

I was so hoping you had posted something else. Had you had "had had had", had "had had" had "had had had had", "had had had" had been utterly irrelevent.

Or something like that.

Now, put it into limerick form and I'll be impressed.

[Tricky]

Damn you Trixie. That was child's play.

I was so hoping you had posted something else. Had you had "had had had", had "had had" had "had had had had", "had had had" had been utterly irrelevent.

Or something like that.

Now, put it into limerick form and I'll be impressed.
"There once was a young lad named Had..."

No, I can't do it

[VonNeumann]

Eleven consecutive "hads" and perfectly grammatical.
Yikes! That's right. Thanks.

[VonNeumann]

In Feynmann's "Surely You're Joking..." he said he wrote a poem in English class that went (hope I remember right):
I wonder why.
I wonder why I wonder.
I wonder why
I wonder why I wonder.
I wonder why I wonder why, I wonder why I wonder.

[VonNeumann]

Science has given us the two greatest creation stories ever known. One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other the story of the creation of life in it. These are not myths, they are true and any philosophy would be foolish not to have these two stories as its basis.

I found it. Here is some speculation between Lee Smolin and Dawkins on origin of the universe. What is interesting is the pondering goes back to mid 1700s.

http://www.edge.org/discourse/smolin_natselection.html

I'd hardly call these speculations as 'creation stories', but seems it's the best we can do. Or do you have some other speculation?

[qayak]

You said:
"Science has given us the two greatest creation stories ever known. One is the story of the creation of the universe and the other the story of the creation of life in it. These are not myths, they are true and any philosophy would be foolish not to have these two stories as its basis."

See where you said "they are true"? And above I quoted and put in bold that you said that you never said science was about truth. Make up your mind... or learn to say what you mean. Otherwise you are going to get people like me asking you what you mean.

I said that two scientific ideas were true, I didn't say science was about truth. It is a moot point though, because I agree with the idea that science is about truth.

If you still think science is about 'truth' then we argue definition. You can look up the definition of science yourself.

It is automatically inferred from the definition of science that it is about seeking the truth. Science is a system of finding out how the natural world works. That means, it is a system for finding out the truth about how it works. If this was not so, then science would be about figuring out how the natural world DOESN'T work. And that would just be absurd.

You also confuse me when you called the origin of the universe a"creation story" and said it is "not myth" at the same time. Which is it?

That's why I used the word story instead of myth. See, a story is not a myth. It is the narration of a chain of events told or written in prose or verse. The stories I am talking about are the Big Bang and Evolution and they are non-fiction.

That doesn't say what the primal cause was, see?

It doesn't matter what the primal cause was. It is a fact that the universe we see today and the laws that govern it were not in existence before the Big Bang. It was the Big Bang that created the universe as we know it. Did something cause the Big Bang? Undoubtedly, but that has little bearing on the universe as we see it.

I didn't suggest anything about a supernatural being. I didn't use the word god either - you did. You said we have a creation story so I wanted to hear the creation story.

I assumed that if you didn't believe in a god then you would have heard of both the Big Bang and Evolution and you would understand how they work. Because you were questioning the truth of the two stories, I came to the conclusion that you chose to believe in myths instead.

BTW, Lee Smolin (of Quantum Gravity fame) is fond of the idea that universes 'evolve'. He thinks it plausible that vacuum fluctuations can be large enough to spawn whole new baby universes. He thinks a universe could be birthed that has some of the physical laws and constants 'right' and that would cause that universe to 'live long enough' so to speak to procreate new baby universes. The new baby universes would inherit the sort of 'right' physical laws. See, a sort of random mutation and natural selection process at the level of universes. I saw some exchange on the internet between Smolin and Dawkins on it. I think Smolin really hoped Dawkins would say 'way to go chap - brilliant idea!' But he didn't! Dawkins didn't buy it.

I wonder why Smolin would go to an evolutionary biologist to confirm his ideas about the origins of the universe. Wouldn't he have been better to take it to a physicist? Are you sure Dawkins was making a judgement on Smolin's idea and not on how Smolin was trying to fit evolution into his theory? I have heard Dawkins decline to comment on areas outside his expertise, which is what makes me wonder.

I would love to read the idea, if you can find it.

[VonNeumann]

I would love to read the idea, if you can find it.
Look at my previous post where I found something on The Edge. I agree that Dawkins would not be the one to ask except that Dawkins has a high profile (the high priest :D ) .

For some reason, I thought I remembered Dawkins dismissed the question from Smolin with less tact. But reading this, he seems pretty cool about it.

To me, this is more of a 'creation story' because it suggests something that instantiated the 'big bang'. It is also pure speculation - which is to the point of my asking you why you used the words you did.

[VonNeumann]

I assumed that if you didn't believe in a god then you would have heard of both the Big Bang and Evolution and you would understand how they work. Because you were questioning the truth of the two stories, I came to the conclusion that you chose to believe in myths instead.

Things aren't so black and white, are they? I believe that confirmation of any theory we have on origins lies outside of what the scientific method can do for us. This being a forum of "skeptics", I would expect it be okay to NOT have a belief on some matters. Or does "skeptic" mean to you that you are damn sure you know the truth about origins. I doubt you mean that, but see where I'm coming from?

Even if life on Earth was directed here from somewhere else (far far away) as posited by biologist Francis Crick and by Fred Hoyle (see www.panspermia.org), that still doesn't tell us anything about 'origins'. Even if Stephen Hawkings is accurate in what happened up until the first 10^-43 seconds, isn't 'origins' about that origination point and for that we have nothing?

[Ichneumonwasp]

Skepticat may not be claiming that his philosophy is an axiomatic system that can prove its own self-consistency.

~~ Paul

Perhaps not. But then, what's the point. Either statements to be true must be falsifiable or not. If he merely restates Popper and science for the past 500 years, then this is all a waste. If he makes a greater claim, then it is at least worth consideration even if it was argued wrong almost 100 years ago.

[President Bush]

put it into limerick form
A young lad named Had had had HAD (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=64756844-6729-48F6-94BB-ACCC6FF2764F)
HAD (http://www.hadnet.org.uk/) had HAD (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=26DCD7D5-A8D8-488B-8988-A99CD8882C1F) for the HAD (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=64756844-6729-48F6-94BB-ACCC6FF2764F) Had had had
Had would have had his HAD (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=64756844-6729-48F6-94BB-ACCC6FF2764F) hid
Had Had had Hud's id...
Had HAD (http://www.hadnet.org.uk/) had HAD (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=64756844-6729-48F6-94BB-ACCC6FF2764F) HAD (http://www.acronymfinder.com/acronym.aspx?rec=26DCD7D5-A8D8-488B-8988-A99CD8882C1F) Had (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadit) had had?

[qayak]

I believe that confirmation of any theory we have on origins lies outside of what the scientific method can do for us.

What method do you think will offer confirmation? Is there another method? If science deals with all things natural and it is outside science, are you saying that there will be supernatural confirmation?

This being a forum of "skeptics", I would expect it be okay to NOT have a belief on some matters.

Only in matters where there is no evidence or little evidence. I don't think this is the case for either Evolution or the Big Bang. If you do not have an opinion on these then it cannot be because you are a skeptic but that you are not familiar with the evidence.

Or does "skeptic" mean to you that you are damn sure you know the truth about origins. I doubt you mean that, but see where I'm coming from?

To me, skeptic means that I don't believe things unless the evidence supports them. So, the origin of our universe is the Big Bang. What came before is hardly relevent and maybe impossible to know.

. . . isn't 'origins' about that origination point and for that we have nothing?

The origination point of our universe was the Big Bang. Before that the laws were different and the physical make up was entirely different. It was the Big Bang that created all these things we see and all the laws that govern those things. Without the Big Bang, our universe would not exist.

[VonNeumann]

So, the origin of our universe is the Big Bang. What came before is hardly relevent and maybe impossible to know.

"the origin is the big bang": isn't that like saying you began when you were born?

"maybe impossible to know": yes, that's my point.

"Irrelevent": okay for you. Not for me.

[qayak]

"the origin is the big bang":isn't that like saying you began when you were born?

No, not at all.

"Irrelevent": okay for you. Not for me.

Irrelevent to the universe as we know it.

I think it is funny that you do not answer any of the questions I pose. You avoided the last couple like the plague. Here they are again:

"What method do you think will offer confirmation? Is there another method? If science deals with all things natural and it is outside science, are you saying that there will be supernatural confirmation?"

You did state this: "I didn't suggest anything about a supernatural being. I didn't use the word god either. . ."

But, you have suggested things about a supernatural being all through this discussion and when it gets to a point where you must flat out make a statement regarding your belief, you run from the question.

People might start to think you are aren't a skeptic but an actual, dyed-in-the-wool, believer! Come on, 'fess up! :D :D :D

[hammegk]

People might start to think you are aren't a skeptic but an actual, dyed-in-the-wool, believer! Come on, 'fess up! :D :D :D
Indeed. You appear to believe that the world of perception we share --that science describes-- offers a complete description of reality.

Some of us are unsure that statement is 100% correct.

[qayak]

Indeed. You appear to believe that the world of perception we share --that science describes-- offers a complete description of reality.

Some of us are unsure that statement is 100% correct.

Science does not always describe what we perceive. In fact, most of what science is describing today, and for the last many years, is beyond our powers of perception. The idea that something is beyond our perception so it must be supernatural, is false. (This last sentence is not a claim you made but one VonNeumann has often hinted at.)

Science does not offer a complete description of reality but there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to work towards one. The universe is a big place and there are a lot of things in it. Somethings have been figured out, some are a work in progress. The question is not, "Does science offer a complete desription of reality?" but "Can science offer a complete description of reality?"

[RandFan]

Science does not always describe what we perceive. In fact, most of what science is describing today, and for the last many years, is beyond our powers of perception. The idea that something is beyond our perception so it must be supernatural, is false. (This last sentence is not a claim you made but one VonNeumann has often hinted at.)

Science does not offer a complete description of reality but there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to work towards one. The universe is a big place and there are a lot of things in it. Somethings have been figured out, some are a work in progress. The question is not, "Does science offer a complete desription of reality?" but "Can science offer a complete description of reality?"Assuming that science can't offer a complete description of reality is no reason to draw conclusions from that assumption. This is called argument from ignorance. It's fallacy.

[qayak]

Assuming that science can't offer a complete description of reality is no reason to draw conclusions from that assumption. This is called argument from ignorance. It's fallacy.

You are absolutely correct. Just because science doesn't understand what came before the Big Bang, does not add validity to the idea that god caused it. The god idea must stand on its own merits.

[RandFan]

You are absolutely correct. Just because science doesn't understand what came before the Big Bang, does not add validity to the idea that god caused it. The god idea must stand on its own merits.Agreed.

According to Green we can't really address a question like "what was there before time". Since time ostensibly began at the moment of the big bang then the question is problematic.

It's interesting. I think Hawking has a different take on it. It all just makes my head hurt.

[hammegk]

Science does not always describe what we perceive. In fact, most of what science is describing today, and for the last many years, is beyond our powers of perception. The idea that something is beyond our perception so it must be supernatural, is false. (This last sentence is not a claim you made but one VonNeumann has often hinted at.)
Try reading what you respond to. I thought it obvious I used "perceive" in the sense all our known communication with reality is by photon mediated forces which among other things allow us to read, hear, think, etc. Of course another component of communication is mediated by our baryons communicating with all baryons elsewhere in the universe. If the gravity component has any effect or affect on the operation of brains (as we perceive them) is an unknown at the moment, even beyond any rational speculation as this time.

Supernatural is your strawman, not mine.

Science does not offer a complete description of reality but there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to work towards one. The universe is a big place and there are a lot of things in it. Somethings have been figured out, some are a work in progress. The question is not, "Does science offer a complete desription of reality?" but "Can science offer a complete description of reality?"
Why yes, "Can it?" is the question. My answer is "maybe" it "offers" that complete description.

[qayak]

Supernatural is your strawman, not mine.

Actually it was VonNeumann's and I stated that part was for him.

Why yes, "Can it?" is the question. My answer is "maybe" it "offers" that complete description.

And my answer is that science has gotten us this far and there is no known system that is more likely to get us to a complete description of reality. We can debate it all we want but neither one of us is going to know until we get there. According to the evidence, I will raise you "maybe" to a "probably."

[hammegk]

According to the evidence, I will raise you "maybe" to a "probably."

As an objective idealist, my "maybe" is fully contained within my worldview.

How do you account for the difference between your "probably" and the "must" that is all that a logical materialist has available to him?

[hodgy]

Descartes should have said, "I think therefore thoughts exist". It does not necessarily follow that the self exists because there is some thinking going on. That requires an assumption first of the self and it also depends on how you define "self".


I don't agree, I think Descartes hit the nail square on the head.

If 'I' think is given then there must be an 'I', irrespective of what 'I' or 'think' means. Thoughts cannot exist without a thinker. Your descent into the discussion of self is not relevant to Descartes' simple logical claim.

[hammegk]

Will you dispute that "thought exists that I think"?

I accept that one as 100% certain.

[qayak]

As an objective idealist, my "maybe" is fully contained within my worldview.

How do you account for the difference between your "probably" and the "must" that is all that a logical materialist has available to him?

I think you are greatly confused here. One has nothing to do with the other. A materialist rejects, as a certainty, any believe in the supernatural. So, the natural world MUST be the only thing. My "probably" was in regard to science being able to provide us with a complete description of reality. The fact that I am not certain it can has no bearing on the fact that I must be certain to be a materialist.

Science is not the natural world. It is a system to investigate the natural world. If it fails in the end, that doesn't mean the natural world failed and a supernatural one exists.

Unless, of course, you mean something completely different by your post and if so could you please clarify?

[RandFan]

I don't agree, I think Descartes hit the nail square on the head.

If 'I' think is given then there must be an 'I', irrespective of what 'I' or 'think' means. Thoughts cannot exist without a thinker. Your descent into the discussion of self is not relevant to Descartes' simple logical claim.There are a number of criticisms of Descartes. I used to argue in favor of cogito ergo sum for years on this forum. I'm no longer convinced.

I am right BTW that the argument requires an extra premise. Descartes conceded this point. He just didn't think it relevant. Bernard Williams also takes Descartes to task for a poorly constructed argument though Williams ultimately agrees with Descartes. Williams does note thats argument by itself fails to justify the "I". So I have no problem disagreeing with Descartes.

FWIW I don't take a hard line either way. If you get the opportunity look up some of Mercutio's excellent arguments on the subject in this forum or see if you can engage him. Otherwise I don't really care.

[VonNeumann]

Actually it was VonNeumann's and I stated that part was for him.



And my answer is that science has gotten us this far and there is no known system that is more likely to get us to a complete description of reality. We can debate it all we want but neither one of us is going to know until we get there. According to the evidence, I will raise you "maybe" to a "probably."

Qayak,
You say "supernatural" was my strawman?

I was merely responding to you. You first brought up "supernatural" and "god".

That was YOUR strawman.

You said, "What method do you think will offer confirmation? Is there another method? If science deals with all things natural and it is outside science, are you saying that there will be supernatural confirmation?"

To you, supernatural is synonomous with god? That's what it seems to me. My point is merely that it depends on what your definition is of "natural" and that "supernatural" lies outside of that.

I shouldn't have responded to your "supernatural" bait as you will see I never brought it up, myself.

[qayak]

I shouldn't have responded to your "supernatural" bait as you will see I never brought it up, myself.

I repeat my earlier post to you:

I think it is funny that you do not answer any of the questions I pose. You avoided the last couple like the plague. Here they are again:

"What method do you think will offer confirmation? Is there another method? If science deals with all things natural and it is outside science, are you saying that there will be supernatural confirmation?"

You did state this: "I didn't suggest anything about a supernatural being. I didn't use the word god either. . ."

But, you have suggested things about a supernatural being all through this discussion and when it gets to a point where you must flat out make a statement regarding your belief, you run from the question.

People might start to think you are aren't a skeptic but an actual, dyed-in-the-wool, believer! Come on, 'fess up! :D :D :D

[VonNeumann]

I repeat my earlier post to you:

I think it is funny that you do not answer any of the questions I pose. You avoided the last couple like the plague. Here they are again:

"What method do you think will offer confirmation? Is there another method? If science deals with all things natural and it is outside science, are you saying that there will be supernatural confirmation?"

You did state this: "I didn't suggest anything about a supernatural being. I didn't use the word god either. . ."

But, you have suggested things about a supernatural being all through this discussion and when it gets to a point where you must flat out make a statement regarding your belief, you run from the question.

People might start to think you are aren't a skeptic but an actual, dyed-in-the-wool, believer! Come on, 'fess up! :D :D :D

I confess that I am a dyed-in-the-wool-believer in this: "there are some things I know I cannot decide".

Yeah, I guess it's funny. I can't answer those questions. But what's funnier is that you think I know. Or you think that I think I know. I don't! ...and I know I don't. How much more skeptical can one be?:D

[hammegk]

A materialist rejects, as a certainty, any believe in the supernatural.
I suggest the word itself is meaningless, but in the usually intended sense of its' conversational use, I also reject it.


So, the natural world MUST be the only thing.
Sure, and I'm discussing at the ontological level at which science remains mute.


My "probably" was in regard to science being able to provide us with a complete description of reality. The fact that I am not certain it can has no bearing on the fact that I must be certain to be a materialist.
If I understand your comment (and I'm uncertain I do)I suggest you should re-think this point from the worldview of a logical, 100%, materialist. It is not 'probably' it's 'must'. Of course before Planck time, and at scales less than Planck length, scientific knowledge is unobtainable.



Science is not the natural world. It is a system to investigate the natural world. If it fails in the end, that doesn't mean the natural world failed and a supernatural one exists.
Huh?


Unless, of course, you mean something completely different by your post and if so could you please clarify?
I can only try.

[qayak]

I suggest the word itself is meaningless, but in the usually intended sense of its' conversational use, I also reject it.

I have noticed you often do this in discussion. You throw out a word and then when someone uses the accepted definition of it to respond, you reject the word and meaning. It is dishonest.

[hammegk]

Pardon me? I said I am 100% certain -- that's a pretty strong belief -- the supernatural does not exist. Now what?

[qayak]

Sure, and I'm discussing at the ontological level at which science remains mute.

Could you clarify this. It is too vague to comment in relation to the discussion.

If I understand your comment (and I'm uncertain I do)I suggest you should re-think this point from the worldview of a logical, 100%, materialist. It is not 'probably' it's 'must'. Of course before Planck time, and at scales less than Planck length, scientific knowledge is unobtainable.

Please explain why science "MUST" provide a complete description of reality. And then please explain the obvious contradiction in your above quote.

Huh?

Can't make it any plainer than I originally phrased it.

[qayak]

Pardon me? I said I am 100% certain -- that's a pretty strong belief -- the supernatural does not exist. Now what?

No, you never said anything of the sort. What you did say was, "Why yes, "Can it?" is the question. My answer is "maybe" it "offers" that complete description.

Which I then raised to a probably.

At which point you asked, "How do you account for the difference between your "probably" and the "must" that is all that a logical materialist has available to him?

Now you are claiming that you said, you were 100% certain.

Can I get some of your drugs?

[hammegk]

Could you clarify this.
Ask a question and I'll try to answer it.


It is too vague to comment in relation to the discussion.
Thanks for sharing, again,that you don't understand what I said.


Please explain why science "MUST" provide a complete description of reality.

We may get there eventually ... although at this point, with you, I don't hold out a lot of hope.

But perhaps your confusion involves missing that my 'must provide' does not imply "complete", only that no other method of description can exist from your viewpoint. I do assume you deem yourself a materialist.


And then please explain the obvious contradiction in your above quote.
What do you find contradictory?


Can't make it any plainer than I originally phrased it.
You said nothing of any possible merit.

You previously said:
Science is not the natural world.
No one said it was. So???


It is a system to investigate the natural world.
No one said it wasn't. So???


If it fails in the end, that doesn't mean the natural world failed and a supernatural one exists.
Er, yes, we agree: the supernatural does not exist. So why repeat it?

[qayak]

I confess that I am a dyed-in-the-wool-believer in this: "there are some things I know I cannot decide".

That wasn't the question.

Yeah, I guess it's funny. I can't answer those questions. But what's funnier is that you think I know. Or you think that I think I know. I don't! ...and I know I don't. How much more skeptical can one be?:D

I accept that you do not know whether another method will result in a complete description of reality but I do not accept that you cannot say yes or no as to whether there is another system of investigation. I know for a fact that there is another one. I don't think it works worth a damn but it is out there and many people follow it.

So I will modify my questions to make them easier to get a grasp on. Do you think religion (any of them) offers a more complete description of reality than science does? Do you think it will be the able to succeed where science fails?

[hammegk]

So I will modify my questions to make them easier to get a grasp on. Do you think religion (any of them) offers a more complete description of reality than science does? Do you think it will be the able to succeed where science fails?
I will take it on myself to answer for 99.99% of people who read here and 100% of those who post here. NO and NO!

Now, can we move on?

[qayak]

Ask a question and I'll try to answer it.

I asked you to clarify your statement. Unless of course you copied it out of a book and have no idea what it means, which is why I asked in the first place.

Thanks for sharing, again,that you don't understand what I said.

I can't understand a statement that means nothing in the context of the discussion we are having, or is so vague as to have no meaningin it, thus I asked you to clarify. I assumed you have the ability to do so but apparently not.

We may get there eventually ... although at this point, with you, I don't hold out a lot of hope.

I thought you said you would answer questions and yet you dodge the questions just like you do everything else. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, you just like to read your own words.

But perhaps your confusion involves missing that my 'must provide' does not imply "complete", only that no other method of description can exist from your viewpoint. I do assume you deem yourself a materialist.

No, my confusion is caused by my assuming that you are an intelligent person engaged in honest debate. I assumed wrong on both counts.

You can't even keep the subject of the statements straight. I talked about science, you talk about me. Ad hominems are another dishonest form of debate. The subject was science and I couldn't understand why even a half intelligent person would claim science was a logical materialist.

What do you find contradictory?

So much for your great intelligence.

You said nothing of any possible merit.

That's a statement of opinion, not of fact or even evidence.

No one said it was. So???

This is so lame. You confused the subjects in a perfectly clear statement and then you try to blame me for your own confusion.

Not that I am surprised, I have seen you debate before. You have never given anything that couldn't be cut and paste from Wikipedia and you have never been able to explain those plagerisms.

No one said it wasn't. So???

In your confusion, that is exactly what you said. Apparently, you can't read either.

Er, yes, we agree: the supernatural does not exist. So why repeat it?

It was repeated because I thought you missed the point but now I know you were just confused regarding the subject of my statements.

Perhaps, if you manage to wrap your head around the more complex ideas, we will be able to continue but I won't hold my breath.

Thanks for coming out and giving it your best shot though.

[hammegk]

I asked you to clarify your statement. Unless of course you copied it out of a book and have no idea what it means, which is why I asked in the first place.



I can't understand a statement that means nothing in the context of the discussion we are having, or is so vague as to have no meaningin it, thus I asked you to clarify. I assumed you have the ability to do so but apparently not.



I thought you said you would answer questions and yet you dodge the questions just like you do everything else. I don't think you have a clue what you are talking about, you just like to read your own words.



No, my confusion is caused by my assuming that you are an intelligent person engaged in honest debate. I assumed wrong on both counts.

You can't even keep the subject of the statements straight. I talked about science, you talk about me. Ad hominems are another dishonest form of debate. The subject was science and I couldn't understand why even a half intelligent person would claim science was a logical materialist.



So much for your great intelligence.



That's a statement of opinion, not of fact or even evidence.



This is so lame. You confused the subjects in a perfectly clear statement and then you try to blame me for your own confusion.

Not that I am surprised, I have seen you debate before. You have never given anything that couldn't be cut and paste from Wikipedia and you have never been able to explain those plagerisms.



In your confusion, that is exactly what you said. Apparently, you can't read either.



It was repeated because I thought you missed the point but now I know you were just confused regarding the subject of my statements.

Perhaps, if you manage to wrap your head around the more complex ideas, we will be able to continue but I won't hold my breath.

Thanks for coming out and giving it your best shot though.
Thank you for clarifying my suspicion you belong on my ignore list.

<plonk>

[VonNeumann]

That wasn't the question.

I accept that you do not know whether another method will result in a complete description of reality but I do not accept that you cannot say yes or no as to whether there is another system of investigation. I know for a fact that there is another one. I don't think it works worth a damn but it is out there and many people follow it.

So I will modify my questions to make them easier to get a grasp on. Do you think religion (any of them) offers a more complete description of reality than science does? Do you think it will be the able to succeed where science fails?
You think I'm an expert in religions? Science at it's best (physics- which is the science I love more than any other), has run out of being able to do 'science' into the inquiry of 'a more complete description of reality'. Didn't you know that? To take science very much farther, will be taken at the risk of turning science into religion itself which seems already to be happening it seems to me by listening to some of the so-called skeptics who pack into this place. Go read "Not Even Wrong" which will tell you why String Theory is religion.

So you see why your question is senseless?

Your question is clearer to me than you realize. You think science is not religion and that religion is ridiculous and further you see me as religious because I point out a little bit about the 'big picture' to you and you can't accept it into your paradigm.

If you think science is going to tell you where we come from, you ARE a fundie.

[qayak]

To take science very much farther, will be taken at the risk of turning science into religion itself which seems already to be happening it seems to me by listening to some of the so-called skeptics who pack into this place.

Are you are using the most uncommon use of the word religion to mean "something of overwhelming importance to a person?" If so, I can see your point but I don't think it is a valid concern. If not could you elaborate on this idea because I don't see how science can ever go from being a system for investigating the natural world to a belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.

Your question is clearer to me than you realize. You think science is not religion and that religion is ridiculous and further you see me as religious because I point out a little bit about the 'big picture' to you and you can't accept it into your paradigm.[/QOTE]

No, I asked you if you were religious and if you thought religion would, in the end, offer a more complete description of reality than science. It is a simple question that you keep trying to make much bigger than it really is.

If you think science is going to tell you where we come from, you ARE a fundie.[/QUOTE]

Can you also explain what the problem with being a science literalist would be? The problem with being a religious fundamentalist is that one takes the bible or koran literally. Seeing as these are based on myth, have no basis in reality and that they condone some pretty nasty behaviour, taking them literally is rather foolish.

Seeing as science is based on the understanding of reality, taking it literally doesn't have the same negative connotation. Unless you can convince me that there are times gravity doesn't work, perpetual motion is possible and I really can travel faster than light.

[VonNeumann]

Are you are using the most uncommon use of the word religion to mean "something of overwhelming importance to a person?" If so, I can see your point but I don't think it is a valid concern. If not could you elaborate on this idea because I don't see how science can ever go from being a system for investigating the natural world to a belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny.

Can you also explain what the problem with being a science literalist would be? The problem with being a religious fundamentalist is that one takes the bible or koran literally. Seeing as these are based on myth, have no basis in reality and that they condone some pretty nasty behaviour, taking them literally is rather foolish.

Seeing as science is based on the understanding of reality, taking it literally doesn't have the same negative connotation. Unless you can convince me that there are times gravity doesn't work, perpetual motion is possible and I really can travel faster than light.

What science really is, is well-defined. Like playing baseball, there are rules, and you play by those rules. Imagine being such a baseball fan that to you, everything is baseball. Your wife is baseball, your job is baseball, even football is baseball. If it's not baseball, it doesn't exist. But that is pathological. There is more than just baseball.

So don't think that everything is science. Science is a human philosophy and it is a method of achieving understanding. When a person begins to believe that science explains or can explain everything you need, then it is like thinking everything is baseball. It's like a cult - like being brainwashed.

I will trust that gravity will keep working everywhere and I won't waste my time trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. But at the same time, science has provided me with other things that it cannot probe any further by the scientific method. It takes you to the dance but it can't dance.

To stop wondering about what is the rest of the story, just because science cannot corroborate it, is sort of like a fundie who will not allow it into his belief system that the earth has been here 4+billion years. Whatever there is, at some level, "is", even though there will be no evidence for it via scientific inquiry.

Here, maybe this will help you. As you probably know, mathematicians constantly develop some formal system for which an application in the world is unknown. THey don't care - it doesn't need application. It may some day produce usefulness to something "real" but the human mind has the imagination to come up with something that has no "reality", as far as we know.

So if we can deduce what we "prove" to be "truths" with no observation or evidence from the real world, that alone suggests we can know more than merely what science can show us. We can know more!

I think we should be free to be able to think this way and not suffer mind control from the government school system or any other tyranny. But Science has been coupled with modern government as closely as the catholic church became coupled to the European monarchies.

We can know more. The scientific method is good for what it is good for. But it will never discover mathematical truths - by definition. There is one exception right there. But to say that the only knowledge is the knowledge from western science, is dogma - it is religion. To say "teleology does not exist", is dogma - it is a chosen mindset.

Think of a Venn diagram. Here is a big circle - our universe. Here is a smaller circle inside the big circle. The small circle is all that can be observed by the scientific method. If that small circle is all that exists for you, then I say you are being religious.

[qayak]

What science really is, is well-defined. Like playing baseball, there are rules, and you play by those rules. Imagine being such a baseball fan that to you, everything is baseball. Your wife is baseball, your job is baseball, even football is baseball. If it's not baseball, it doesn't exist. But that is pathological. There is more than just baseball.

So don't think that everything is science. Science is a human philosophy and it is a method of achieving understanding. When a person begins to believe that science explains or can explain everything you need, then it is like thinking everything is baseball. It's like a cult - like being brainwashed.

I will trust that gravity will keep working everywhere and I won't waste my time trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. But at the same time, science has provided me with other things that it cannot probe any further by the scientific method. It takes you to the dance but it can't dance.

To stop wondering about what is the rest of the story, just because science cannot corroborate it, is sort of like a fundie who will not allow it into his belief system that the earth has been here 4+billion years. Whatever there is, at some level, "is", even though there will be no evidence for it via scientific inquiry.

Here, maybe this will help you. As you probably know, mathematicians constantly develop some formal system for which an application in the world is unknown. THey don't care - it doesn't need application. It may some day produce usefulness to something "real" but the human mind has the imagination to come up with something that has no "reality", as far as we know.

So if we can deduce what we "prove" to be "truths" with no observation or evidence from the real world, that alone suggests we can know more than merely what science can show us. We can know more!

I think we should be free to be able to think this way and not suffer mind control from the government school system or any other tyranny. But Science has been coupled with modern government as closely as the catholic church became coupled to the European monarchies.

We can know more. The scientific method is good for what it is good for. But it will never discover mathematical truths - by definition. There is one exception right there. But to say that the only knowledge is the knowledge from western science, is dogma - it is religion. To say "teleology does not exist", is dogma - it is a chosen mindset.

Think of a Venn diagram. Here is a big circle - our universe. Here is a smaller circle inside the big circle. The small circle is all that can be observed by the scientific method. If that small circle is all that exists for you, then I say you are being religious.

Now this is an excellent post! Thank you very much. Let me digest it and read it a few more times before I respond.

[RandFan]

What science really is, is well-defined. Like playing baseball, there are rules, and you play by those rules. Imagine being such a baseball fan that to you, everything is baseball. Your wife is baseball, your job is baseball, even football is baseball. If it's not baseball, it doesn't exist. But that is pathological. There is more than just baseball. Agreed.

So don't think that everything is science. Science is a human philosophy and it is a method of achieving understanding. When a person begins to believe that science explains or can explain everything you need, then it is like thinking everything is baseball. It's like a cult - like being brainwashed.No. As one who has started a thread defending philosophy and even current academic philosophical pursuit I have to take exception. There just is no basis for this statement. I have a big disagreement with Capel Dodger but I would not characterize his adherence to the scientific method or science in general as pathological or cult like. To be fair I don't really know him. If if found out that all of his conversations are centered around science and he has become anti social because of science then you would have a point. I don't doubt that there are people who are pathologically fixated with science. However holding that the scientific method is the only way to objectively find truth is not pathological.

I will trust that gravity will keep working everywhere and I won't waste my time trying to invent a perpetual motion machine. But at the same time, science has provided me with other things that it cannot probe any further by the scientific method. It takes you to the dance but it can't dance. I like philosophy because we do have limits to our understanding. I don't have a problem with that. We can use philosophy to explore those areas but we should understand the limits of philosophy to finding truth. In the end it doesn't matter if Scientists choose to avoid academic philosophy.

I've watched Sagan, and Dawkins. I've read Einstein, Niels Bohr and Green along with many other. I recently watched (twice) all 15 hours of the Beyond Belief videos (http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/) with Niel deGrasse Tyson, Carolyn Porco (I saw her at TAM), Francisco Ayala among others and I have to say that if you truly believe that science can't dance then you do not know science.

To stop wondering about what is the rest of the story, just because science cannot corroborate it, is sort of like a fundie who will not allow it into his belief system that the earth has been here 4+billion years. I'm sorry but I have a very hard time with this statement. Theoretical physicists are currently wondering about what is the rest of many stories. Many scientists simply state that what we can't currently answer we can't answer. They are not concerned with that and that is fine.

Here, maybe this will help you. As you probably know, mathematicians constantly develop some formal system for which an application in the world is unknown. THey don't care - it doesn't need application. It may some day produce usefulness to something "real" but the human mind has the imagination to come up with something that has no "reality", as far as we know. There is no real controversy here. There are just people with opinions. Some like hard science. Some like practical science. Some like theoretical science. Some like math. Some like philosophy. There is room enough for all and when, WHEN a philosopher or mathematician makes a breakthrough and provides objective data and logical argument for that breakthrough then the scientist will be there.

So if we can deduce what we "prove" to be "truths" with no observation or evidence from the real world, that alone suggests we can know more than merely what science can show us. We can know more! "Know"? How do you "know" without objective or logical proof? I don't accept your statement. No scientist will dispute a logically valid equation. If it is correct then we know it. If it is not logically demonstrable then we CAN'T know it.

I think we should be free to be able to think this way and not suffer mind control from the government school system or any other tyranny. But Science has been coupled with modern government as closely as the catholic church became coupled to the European monarchies. Huh? Oh come on. New Age crap fills popular books stores. Do me a favor. Go to your local book store tonight and count the number of books on religion and philosophy (include New Age, Muslim, Sikh, Budhist, Confusist, Bahai, Mormon, JW, Jew and of course Christianity and all of the rest). Now, compare that to the science books?

Huge, huge difference. Unless you live in a totalitarian regime then you are free. Don't give us this mind control crap because it is just that, crap.

We can know more. The scientific method is good for what it is good for. But it will never discover mathematical truths - by definition.Science relies heavily on math. They are not mutually exclusive.

Think of a Venn diagram. Here is a big circle - our universe. Here is a smaller circle inside the big circle. The small circle is all that can be observed by the scientific method. If that small circle is all that exists for you, then I say you are being religious.Not a valid diagram. Science doesn't simply exist as a small part of the universe. Science seeks to unlock the mysteries of that universe and I would dare say that science has given us orders of magnitude of data that you could not in your entire life could not learn. Now, compare the mountain of factual data that science has given us to anything not acquired by science. There simply is no comparison.

[VonNeumann]

However holding that the scientific method is the only way to objectively find truth is not pathological..
Did I say that? Not what I meant, exactly. But if a person believes there is nothing else to know except what the scientific method shows, he is at the very least - wrong. I'll take back that it is "sick", if that's what I said.

Why is he wrong? I already said but you didn't agree (?) or didn't understand. Mathematics reveals truths that are superior to scientific "truths". Superior because they can be "proved", unlike scientific "theory" (wait - is that why they call them theories?). So a person who limits himself to scientific observations to evaluate what he considers to be the world of truth, has certainly excluded the mathematics that lies outside of physical application.


In the end it doesn't matter if Scientists choose to avoid academic philosophy. No. It does matter that while he has his scientist hat on, he must avoid academic philosophy and stick to the philosophy of science. But when he goes home....

I have to say that if you truly believe that science can't dance then you do not know science. I must clarify. I'm sure you can't read my mind and I was unclear. I mean that science can take us all the way to, let's say quarks, if we can ever truly directly detect them - that's taking us to the dance. But the rest of it, the dance, is giving us the workings underneath it. That part we've spun wheels for twenty years and now some are saying (I'm listening because I'm not in the circle, I can only read about it) that string theory is arbitrary, unfalsfiable, and not even wrong - science can't deliver here like it did for QED and QCD - that's what I mean.


Unless you live in a totalitarian regime then you are free. Don't give us this mind control crap because it is just that, crap. Does your name indicate you are an Ayn Rand "objectivist"? If you do not believe we live in the constant threat of mind control you need to go back to read the lady - she's so fine. How about "hate crime"? Punish murder, not how much someone hated when they murdered. Some people murder without hating, because they don't give a crap they just wanted the Rolex on their wrist. Give them only 6 months because they didn't hate? Execute the wife who shot her lying cheating husband - she hated him anymore. Stupid laws. How about ozone hole? It is actually 'depletion', not hole. You need to be a skeptic and not let your information sources be in lockstep with government without learning all sides. The materialist mindset is quite convenient for a collectivist government - if that is a strange statement to you, then you need to visit reality. But because you are a Rand fan, I'm probably preaching to the choir. 'nuf sed 'bout politics. I'm sorry. Didn't mean to go there.

Science relies heavily on math. They are not mutually exclusive. .
First statement: TRUE. Second statement: SORT OF. Yes, not mutually exclusive, but "unilaterally exclusive": science requires logic/math but math does not require science.

Not a valid diagram. Science doesn't simply exist as a small part of the universe. Science seeks to unlock the mysteries of that universe and I would dare say that science has given us orders of magnitude of data that you could not in your entire life could not learn. Now, compare the mountain of factual data that science has given us to anything not acquired by science. There simply is no comparison. Being too lazy to see exactly what I said, I'll try to clarify without going back. I meant small circle is what we can use science to observe and model - not science itself. And I didn't mean that the rest of the universe is knowable by other human means. I suggest only that there are things that lie outside what science can determine or observe and yet they exist and we can even make deductions about some things where science is non-functional. Case in point, the human mind can deduce things that science cannot teach us. After all, the idea of science did not come from science, it came from logic. So if you believe all that there needs to be is science to discover objective truth, I say FIRST you needed something OUTSIDE SCIENCE to create the idea of science, in the first place. BTW, I have seen people say "the science of mathematics" but I think they mean "the philosophy of mathematics."

[VonNeumann]

However holding that the scientific method is the only way to objectively find truth is not pathological.
Okay. I went back and read it. In my illustration of the guy who saw everything as baseball - that's what I said was pathological. Please let's keep the literal with the literal and the metaphor with the metaphor.

[RandFan]

Did I say that? Not what I meant, exactly. But if a person believes there is nothing else to know except what the scientific method shows...I'm not sure what this means. "Shows" or can show?

Why is he wrong? I already said but you didn't agree (?) or didn't understand. Mathematics reveals truths that are superior to scientific "truths". Superior because they can be "proved", unlike scientific "theory" (wait - is that why they call them theories?).You are creating a silly dichotomy. Math isn't exclusive from science. On the contrary, science relies very heavily on math. Math is just a human construct, a logical tool to solve abstract problems that can be applied to real world ones. The truths are not "superior". The truths you speak of only exist in an abstract sense. Once the math is applied to a real world problem that all goes out the window.

So a person who limits himself to scientific observations to evaluate what he considers to be the world of truth, has certainly excluded the mathematics that lies outside of physical application.No. Of course not. This is without foundation.

I'm sure you can't read my mind and I was unclear. I mean that science can take us all the way to, let's say quarks, if we can ever truly directly detect them - that's taking us to the dance. But the rest of it, the dance, is giving us the workings underneath it. That part we've spun wheels for twenty years and now some are saying (I'm listening because I'm not in the circle, I can only read about it) that string theory is arbitrary, unfalsfiable, and not even wrong - science can't deliver here like it did for QED and QCD - that's what I mean. It is fallacy to say that the length of time spent to solve a problem is proof that the problem can't be solved. You are arguing from ignorance. In any event, what options do you have that are superior to the scientific method and mathematics?

Does your name indicate you are an Ayn Rand "objectivist"?I'm a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I'm NOT an objectivist.

If you do not believe we live in the constant threat of mind control you need to go back to read the lady - she's so fine. I've got a stack of new books that I haven't read and Rand is not in there. I've gotten as much as I'm likely to get from her. She was not rigorous in her ideas. She is a philosopher only in the loose definition of the term. I come to her defense often but I'm not blind to her shortcomings.

How about "hate crime"? Punish murder, not how much someone hated when they murdered. Some people murder without hating, because they don't give a crap they just wanted the Rolex on their wrist. Give them only 6 months because they didn't hate? Execute the wife who shot her lying cheating husband - she hated him anymore. Stupid laws. How about ozone hole? It is actually 'depletion', not hole.I'm not interested in getting into a political debate in this forum. If you want to start a thread in the Politics forum or even perhaps the Conspiracy Theory forum I'll consider participating. As it is this is just a non-sequitur.

You need to be a skeptic and not let your information sources be in lockstep with government without learning all sides. The materialist mindset is quite convenient for a collectivist government - if that is a strange statement to you, then you need to visit reality. But because you are a Rand fan, I'm probably preaching to the choir. 'nuf sed 'bout politics. I'm sorry. Didn't mean to go there. I would appreciate it if you would not make assumptions about me.

I start my share of threads critical of the government on this forum. Please don't lecture me on skeptical thinking and don't patronize me. Your rhetoric isn't going to sway me. Trust me on this one.

First statement: TRUE. Second statement: SORT OF. Yes, not mutually exclusive, but "unilaterally exclusive": science requires logic/math but math does not require science.(see above)

Being too lazy to see exactly what I said...Not appreciated and most certainly not needed. If you don't want to have a discussion just say so because if you persist in this then I won't bother.

I meant small circle is what we can use science to observe and model - not science itself. And I didn't mean that the rest of the universe is knowable by other human means. I suggest only that there are things that lie outside what science can determine or observe and yet they exist and we can even make deductions about some things where science is non-functional. To quote Dawkins, "the universe is not only queerer than we know but it is likely queerer than we can know".

Yes, I believe that this is possible. So what? History has clearly demonstrated that the best bet to answering the questions of the universe is the scientific method. I'm not against any method for acquiring truth. If you got something let us all know about it. Until then I'll stick with philosophy and science. And I'll expect far more real and practical answers from science.

Case in point, the human mind can deduce things that science cannot teach us. After all, the idea of science did not come from science, it came from logic. So if you believe all that there needs to be is science to discover objective truth, I say FIRST you needed something OUTSIDE SCIENCE to create the idea of science, in the first place.You are saying, if I understand you, is that on the one hand there is the scientific method which consists of a systematic process using logic, reason and empiricism and on the other hand there is logic and reason.

They are the same logic and reason it's just that science adds controls (protocols, methodoly). Science seeks to weed out spurious notions, bias and mistakes.

FWIW, science didn't simply spring into existence. In the beginning it was simply a search for truth. Philosophers sprung up and tried to find effective methods to find truth. To say that there is something outside of science that created science is like saying a polliwog exists outside of the frog. No, one simply became the other.

BTW, I have seen people say "the science of mathematics" but I think they mean "the philosophy of mathematics." Sure, but then science is a branch of philosophy which is why there exists "the philosophy of science".

[VonNeumann]

I'm not sure what this means. "Shows" or can show?
Can show.

You are creating a silly dichotomy. Math isn't exclusive from science. On the contrary, science relies very heavily on math. Math is just a human construct, a logical tool to solve abstract problems that can be applied to real world ones. The truths are not "superior". The truths you speak of only exist in an abstract sense. Once the math is applied to a real world problem that all goes out the window.
I merely mean if a good scientist says that a theory has been proved, then he's speaking informally. Mathematics deals in proof, but scientific theories are not proved. Ever. That's all.

I said "So a person who limits himself to scientific observations to evaluate what he considers to be the world of truth, has certainly excluded the mathematics that lies outside of physical application. " To which you replied,
No. Of course not. This is without foundation. Okay, then maybe they didn't mean it when they said it - I was pointing out that pure materialism must leave out purely mathematical truths from their paradigm, else they are not true materialists.

It is fallacy to say that the length of time spent to solve a problem is proof that the problem can't be solved. You are arguing from ignorance. In any event, what options do you have that are superior to the scientific method and mathematics?. What are you, a lawyer? All this fallacy stuff in midst of conversation. Is this the way you talk to everyone? Let's just have a conversation. You said this in reference to my comment: " I mean that science can take us all the way to, let's say quarks, if we can ever truly directly detect them - that's taking us to the dance. But the rest of it, the dance, is giving us the workings underneath it. That part we've spun wheels for twenty years and now some are saying (I'm listening because I'm not in the circle, I can only read about it) that string theory is arbitrary, unfalsfiable, and not even wrong - science can't deliver here like it did for QED and QCD - that's what I mean. " There is no fallacy in that comment, RandF'. I am not arguing from ignorance. I'm not even arguing - I'm trying to commiserate about the pickle we are in. What options do we have other than science and mathematics? I'd say we still have science but not like it used to be - further inquiry will be mostly pure mathematics where the model is arbitrary. I suggest you go read "End of Science" by John Horgan if you are interested what prompts me to have these views. Horgan used to be editor of Scientific American. I also am somewhat recently affected from reading a couple books by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit about the problems with string theory.

I'm a huge fan of Ayn Rand. I'm NOT an objectivist.?. Well good. Then you can't be too stupid that I can't like you a little bit. Just kidding. See, that's not patronizing, that's just having conversation. To me I come here to visit a little and see what people think but I really don't give a crap what anyone thinks of me or whether I "sway" you or anyone else. I am more interested in how people react to my suggestions. I have my reasons. And sometimes I just yak to have a good time.


Not appreciated and most certainly not needed. If you don't want to have a discussion just say so because if you persist in this then I won't bother.. Hmmm. This comment of yours seems unnecessary since I DID discuss this point. You seem to be getting touchy.

After all this going back and forth, I think you are being unnecessarily contrary to me. Perhaps it is ackward for me to post here and say what I say about materialists because that would be like going on a catholic forum and telling them what's wrong with their thinking. I thought it interesting that you said something about I'm making a silly dichotomy. After that, you misstate my point, in a strawman fashion. I'll say it again. Mathematics does NOT have dependence on Science, it is the other way around. It is a unilateral dependence. Mathematics is NOT about materialism. That is an oxymoron to say that mathematics is about materialism. Mathematics is exclusive (not mutually exclusive) of materialism. But a Materialist must USE mathematics if he wants to get anywhere with Science. So the dichotomy is real and is something a materialist must dance around, in my opinion.

I don't know if you call yourself a materialist but if I found myself in that camp, what I would do is find a new word for what I believe in, because of this glaring dichotomy.

FWIW, if you are interested in my viewpoint, here is what appears to me to be a breath of fresh air from a fellow that has a similar view to mine:
http://www.ctmu.org/

[RandFan]

Von,

I often come off a bit prickly when I don't mean to. I expect others to be tough on me when it comes to my logic. I will be tough on others when it comes to theirs. This isn't Forum Community (http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=26). If you want to chat about the whether go somewhere else. If you want to make philosophical statements and claims then expect them to be challenged. That's what we do here.

FWIW, don't read into my tone anything more than being hard nosed about the validity of your arguments. It is not personal. If you think I'm getting to heavy let me know and I will try and lighten up.

Ok, here we go....

I merely mean if a good scientist says that a theory has been proved, then he's speaking informally. Mathematics deals in proof, but scientific theories are not proved. Ever. That's all. Yes, but they are "abstract" proofs. There is an important distinction.

Okay, then maybe they didn't mean it when they said it - I was pointing out that pure materialism must leave out purely mathematical truths from their paradigm, else they are not true materialists. No, you are creating a strawman and mischaracterizing science.

What are you, a lawyer? All this fallacy stuff in midst of conversation. Is this the way you talk to everyone? Let's just have a conversation.No, I'm not a lawyer and can't for the life of me think why you would ask that question. Philosophy and science both rely on logic and reason. Fallacy is illogical. In case you hadn't noticed we are in the the Religion and PHILOSOPHY forum.


You said this in reference to my comment: " I mean that science can take us all the way to, let's say quarks, if we can ever truly directly detect them - that's taking us to the dance. But the rest of it, the dance, is giving us the workings underneath it. That part we've spun wheels for twenty years and now some are saying (I'm listening because I'm not in the circle, I can only read about it) that string theory is arbitrary, unfalsfiable, and not even wrong - science can't deliver here like it did for QED and QCD - that's what I mean. " There is no fallacy in that comment, RandF'. I am not arguing from ignorance. I'm not even arguing - I'm trying to commiserate about the pickle we are in. Don't bother commiserating. It's a waste of time.

1.) That we don't know doesn't mean that we can't know.
2.) I seriously don't think you understand what was said about string theory.


What options do we have other than science and mathematics? I'd say we still have science but not like it used to be - further inquiry will be mostly pure mathematics where the model is arbitrary. I suggest you go read "End of Science" by John Horgan if you are interested what prompts me to have these views. Horgan used to be editor of Scientific American. I also am somewhat recently affected from reading a couple books by Lee Smolin and Peter Woit about the problems with string theory. I have Horgan's books. I have read both "End of Science" and "The Undiscovered Mind". I discuss those books in these threads (http://forums.randi.org/search.php?searchid=609969).

Don't tell me to go read books to justify one of your positions. It's a waste of your time. If you want to suggest a book that is fine but don't rely on that as argument.

After all this going back and forth, I think you are being unnecessarily contrary to me. I'm not new age airy fairy. I'm not strictly hard science either like CapelDodger or Tricky. I like philosophy and I'm happy to engage you in philosophical concepts but I have little time for nonsense. If you have a point that is logically valid then I'm happy to discuss it. Hell, I'll gladly discuss Aquinas' proof of god. I think it is 99.9999% happy horse $#!t but it's coherent. The arguments are valid I just don't agree with the premises.

Perhaps it is ackward for me to post here and say what I say about materialists because that would be like going on a catholic forum and telling them what's wrong with their thinking. Bring it on. Just use logic and reason. Otherwise what you have to say is no different than what John Nash had to say when he wasn't mentally stable.


I thought it interesting that you said something about I'm making a silly dichotomy. After that, you misstate my point, in a strawman fashion. I'll say it again. Mathematics does NOT have dependence on Science, it is the other way around. It is a unilateral dependence. Mathematics is NOT about materialism. That is an oxymoron to say that mathematics is about materialism. Mathematics is exclusive (not mutually exclusive) of materialism. But a Materialist must USE mathematics if he wants to get anywhere with Science. So the dichotomy is real and is something a materialist must dance around, in my opinion. Sorry but no. The dancing is all in your head. The measuring devices that scientists use are not science. Lock them in a room and they are exclusive of science. So what? Math is a logical tool. Nothing more. That it can, abstractly, sit aside from science does not suggest anything. It doesn't reveal any deep truth or create some kind of vacuum or threat to science. That's just nonsense. I'm sorry Von but come up with something else. There's no practical consequence of the proposition.

I don't know if you call yourself a materialist but if I found myself in that camp, what I would do is find a new word for what I believe in, because of this glaring dichotomy. I find it odd that one day I'm arguing in favor of philosophy with the scientists on the forum and another day I'm debating the opposite, sort of. I'm not even sure how to categorize your philosophy.

FWIW, if you are interested in my viewpoint, here is what appears to me to be a breath of fresh air from a fellow that has a similar view to mine:
http://www.ctmu.org/

Yeah, I read that as The Formula of Life (http://inthemath.com/) and of course the ever popular TimeCube (http://www.timecube.com/).

Von, I've been exposed to a lot of different ideas and philosophies. I doubt seriously that you are going to introduce me to something new. Stop giving me links. Figure out what it is you believe and then figure out how to cogently argue your position. Then we can really have a good discussion.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Chunol]

Hello again,

The thread is “do ideas exist?”

From what I can tell you are the only one who is willing to commit to a position on the question.

You offer …

Will you dispute that "thought exists that I think"?

I accept that one as 100% certain.



First I don’t know if you equate “ideas” with “thoughts”, I will assume that you do.

My question then is …
Does the thought that you think have the same type of existence as the thing or event that you are thinking about?

If yes, could you tell me why, and give me a short example?

If no, could you tell me why, and give me a short example?

Thank you in advance.

Chunol

[hammegk]

First I don’t know if you equate “ideas” with “thoughts”, I will assume that you do.
An idea without thought I take as meaningless.


My question then is …
Does the thought that you think have the same type of existence as the thing or event that you are thinking about?
LOL. I would like to know ... but I don't, nor do I 'think' the answer is knowable in any sense you & I 'think' we know things.

I term myself an objective idealist, deny I am the Solipsist (should such exist), and consider our world of shared perception that science can analyse an epiphenomena resting on Reality that is not-physical. Physical cannot accept -- even potentially -- attributes like free-will, intent, or sentience. It's antithesis, idealism is a usual term, can.

If we are brains-in-a-vat Thought still exists.

[RandFan]

Physical cannot accept -- even potentially -- attributes like free-will, intent, or sentience.Thinking occurs. About that Descartes was right. Beyond that I'm not convinced that anything beyond "thinking occurs" is knowable in the sense you and I think we "know" things.

What I am convinced of is that that there are coherent arguments for a number of positions depending on the asumptions one makes.

What I don't understand is, the conviction many have that they do indeed have free-will or are in fact sentient in a way that would preclude naturalism or "materialism".

Further, the wink and nod arguments and BS assumptions by folks like the poster President Bush (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=4621) who assume that materialism renders everything meaningless and therefore any question asked by a materialist is meaningless thus negating the question and that this assumption is evidence of something is sheer ignorance.

Materialism and Morality: (http://www.naturalism.org/freewill3.htm) (from http://www.naturalism.org/freewill.htm)

Self-control, on this picture, still exists, but it’s not that an insubstantial self controls behavior, but that a person’s conduct is regulated, for the most part, by socially-approved dispositions that are physically realized in the brain. To control yourself is for such dispositions (e.g., modesty, generosity, tactfulness) to overcome more selfish impulses, not for an inner agent to intervene in guiding neural processes. Being self-controlled doesn't require an I-essence controlling the brain: the brain - the I - gets on just fine without benefit of a non-material agent running the show. Rather, it simply requires that certain culturally desirable values have been sufficiently inculcated. Recent explanations of the brain-mind, such as Stephen Pinker's book How the Mind Works (of which more below), make it plausible that our neural architecture is more than adequate to support the complexities of cognition, rationality and impulse suppression that figure in our socialization, and that are often thought to be beyond the capacities of a strictly physical being.

[President Bush]

Further, the wink and nod arguments and BS assumptions by folks like the poster President Bush (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=4621) who assume that materialism renders everything meaningless and therefore any question asked by a materialist is meaningless thus negating the question and that this assumption is evidence of something is sheer ignorance.
Wasn't aware that from my proof you ask meaningless questions it had been extrapolated other posters here, likewise, ask meaningless questions.

So thank you! Plenary indulgences will be made available (one per day) applying existing merit from the University of Chicago Department of Linguistics. An essential element in such is the application to the penitent of the logical analysis within a monist worldview effected by another.

[hammegk]

Thinking occurs. About that Descartes was right. Beyond that I'm not convinced that anything beyond "thinking occurs" is knowable in the sense you and I think we "know" things.
The Thought exists (so to speak) that *I* didn't realize anyone has managed a convincing argument that Rene was right.


What I am convinced of is that that there are coherent arguments for a number of positions depending on the asumptions one makes.
Well, two positions. If you have another, please help Darat answer the question in my sig.


What I don't understand is, the conviction many have that they do indeed have free-will or are in fact sentient in a way that would preclude naturalism or "materialism".
Nor do I know where you got the idea that anyone has such a conviction.


Further, the wink and nod arguments and BS assumptions by folks like the poster President Bush (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=4621) who assume that materialism renders everything meaningless and therefore any question asked by a materialist is meaningless thus negating the question and that this assumption is evidence of something is sheer ignorance.
Does anyone care to supply a match? Actually, that thing might spontaneously combust. :p

[RandFan]

Wasn't aware that from my proof...You don't have a proof.

...you ask meaningless questions it had been extrapolated other posters here, likewise, ask meaningless questions. Non-sequitur.

Plenary indulgences will be made available (one per day) applying existing merit from the University of Chicago Department of Linguistics. An essential element in such is the application to the penitent of the logical analysis within a monist worldview effected by another.Could you define your terms as you have used them here? Particularly "Plenary indulgences" and "Penitent"

I'm familiar with "plenary" and "penitent" and the rest but I don't understand them with in the context that you have used them. Also, knowing that you can be a world class prick it wouldn't surprise me that you are simply being an asshat. If I'm wrong and in this instance you are not being a jerk then I apologize.

Thanks,

RandFan

[RandFan]

The Thought exists (so to speak) that *I* didn't realize anyone has managed a convincing argument that Rene was right.I thought you had.

Well, two positions. If you have another, please help Darat answer the question in my sig. Nah. Thanks for the offer though.

Nor do I know where you got the idea that anyone has such a conviction.Anecdotal observation. If you are right and that is the case then that would be cool. Of course there wouldn't be folks like PB.

Does anyone care to supply a match? Actually, that thing might spontaneously combust. :pIt's coherent.

[President Bush]

Wasn't aware that from my proof you ask meaningless questions it had been extrapolated other posters here, likewise, ask meaningless questions.

So thank you! Plenary indulgences will be made available (one per day) applying existing merit from the University of Chicago Department of Linguistics. An essential element in such is the application to the penitent of the logical analysis within a monist worldview effected by another.
You don't have a proof.

Non-sequitur.

Could you define your terms as you have used them here? Particularly "Plenary indulgences" and "Penitent"

I'm familiar with "plenary" and "penitent" and the rest but I don't understand them with in the context that you have used them. Also, knowing that you can be a world class prick it wouldn't surprise me that you are simply being an asshat. If I'm wrong and in this instance you are not being a jerk then I apologize.
My wife told me about a dream she had last night. There was a small cottonwood tree in a flowerpot with no dirt. The side of the flowerpot had a sign counting down: "Nine seconds to irreversible damage. Eight seconds to irreversible damage. Seven seconds to irreversible damage..."

But she couldn't find any dirt for the exposed roots. She shouted in her sleep: "Why won't you help me, help me?"

If you can explain this to me, maybe I'll explain my joke. But not until after we get back from Montserrat (http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Caribbean/Stories/2007/01/08/NEWS0000003900.html).

Arranged this last October as a scuba diving trip. We get an added bonus.

[RandFan]

My wife told me about a dream she had last night. There was a small cottonwood tree in a flowerpot with no dirt. The side of the flowerpot had a sign counting down: "Nine seconds to irreversible damage. Eight seconds to irreversible damage. Seven seconds to irreversible damage..."

But she couldn't find any dirt for the exposed roots. She shouted in her sleep: "Why won't you help me, help me?"

If you can explain this to me, maybe I'll explain my joke. But not until after we get back from Montserrat (http://www.caribbean360.com/News/Caribbean/Stories/2007/01/08/NEWS0000003900.html).

Arranged this last October as a scuba diving trip. We get an added bonus.I can't tell you what it means because you never figured out the robots and round buildings. BTW, the truth is out there. :) Good luck.