0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 11/08/2013 19:52:35... I do not understand why we ,as human beings , are reduced to just neurophysiological , chemical , hormonal ...mechanical processes , unless we view life and the universe through the materialistic lense exclusively...That's all we need to explain it. It's a form of Ockham's Razor; if you can explain observations using the structure of existing knowledge, there is no need to introduce new phenomena. When the Emperor Napoleon read Pierre-Simon Laplace's discourse on secular variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, he asked "'But where is God in all this?"; Laplace replied "Sire, I had no need of that hypothesis". Quite.
... I do not understand why we ,as human beings , are reduced to just neurophysiological , chemical , hormonal ...mechanical processes , unless we view life and the universe through the materialistic lense exclusively...
QuoteSome scientists even say that even human love is just ...chemistry, to put it simply : weird .The hormonal and neurological basis of many emotions is known in some detail, but knowing the why and the how doesn't make being angry or afraid or in love any less of an experience. For a detailed explanation of how consciousness is generated and structured, how emotions produce the feelings they do, and so-on, have a read of Antonio Damasio's 'Self Comes To Mind'. For a perspective on why knowing the science behind our experience only enhances it, see Feynman's 'Ode on a Flower' video. I will try to take a look at those links you provided > Thanks.But, you did not answer my question relating to the "scientific fact " that human love is just ...chemistry : explaining the neurophysiological chemical hormonal ...biological thus side of love does not mean that that biological side of love is all what there is , as many materialists say.QuoteQuantum mechanics is weird and disturbing, but physicists don't reject it - because it works; it explains what we observe.
Some scientists even say that even human love is just ...chemistry, to put it simply : weird .
Quantum mechanics is weird and disturbing, but physicists don't reject it - because it works; it explains what we observe.
QuoteI should have said that science can say nothing about the natures of both human consciousness and of our inner lives, can it ?
I should have said that science can say nothing about the natures of both human consciousness and of our inner lives, can it ?
Depends what you mean by 'nature'; it can tell you how consciousness is generated, why it behaves the way it does (for a fascinating explanation of the interaction and relationship between conscious awareness and the subconscious, check out Daniel Kahneman's 'Thinking, Fast and Slow'), and so-on. An indication of the power of an analytic approach, when applied effectively, is shown by a study of how we process colour perception in the brain, which predicted we should be able to perceive totally new colours that are not normally visible, and then demonstrated how to do it.. this paper, Chimerical Colours, actually describes and demonstrates those novel colours. If your monitor is correctly calibrated, or you have a photo-accurate printer, you can see them for yourself. Literally an eye-opener.
Quote i am not convinced , if our consciousness was produced by the evolution of our brain , evolution as a matter of chance, survival, accident , evolution as a "blind " process , then it's pretty logical to question the validity of our knowledge in general itself as a product of that "blind " evolution , including that concerning evolution itself ...Am i wrong again ?Of course it's logical to question the validity of our knowledge - if you read Kahneman's book you'll discover just how unreliable our thinking processes are. It's a product of evolution and is only just 'good enough' for us to have survived. If it wasn't good enough we wouldn't have survived; perhaps some other hominid would have taken our niche. Any more than just good enough would have been an unnecessary drain on resources; brains are very energy-demanding, and skull size is limited by the female pelvis; so it's only 'good enough' by a process of literal elimination.
i am not convinced , if our consciousness was produced by the evolution of our brain , evolution as a matter of chance, survival, accident , evolution as a "blind " process , then it's pretty logical to question the validity of our knowledge in general itself as a product of that "blind " evolution , including that concerning evolution itself ...Am i wrong again ?
Even when we consciously focus our awareness on problems we make silly mistakes and blunders. This is a major reason progress was so slow until we finally developed and refined rules for critical thinking and a methodology for the reliable acquisition of knowledge - the scientific method. With these tools to assist us, and by following their rules, we can minimise the errors due to cognitive biases and intuitive thinking, and make the most of the limited faculties we have. Here we can see how culture itself has an evolutionary selective advantage, out-competing less organised social systems.
QuoteMaterialism which views even life itself as just material processes exclusively can only come up with material or materialistic interpretations of scientific results .Of course. I notice you keep using loaded language 'reduced to just...', 'just material processes', 'only come up with', etc. I refer you to Feynman's argument. It helps if you understand the many layers of complexity at each scale from sub-atomic particles to the human scale and beyond, and the many emergent behaviours on each level that contribute to the complexity of the next (e.g. knowing everything there is to know about a water molecule won't tell you that water is wet; that's an emergent property of water molecules in bulk). Check out this dynamic visualisation of different the scales of the universe. I suggest that your implicit denigration of materialism is another form of argument from incredulity - 'there must be more than this'. I was brought up in a Christian Catholic tradition, taught by Benedictine monks, but I dropped that belief system when my eyes were opened to the beauty, complexity and sheer awesomeness of the real, material world around us. It made their absurd contradictory god and the associated rituals seem meaningless. I could see the social and cultural advantages believers got from their religious club, but the rest was all wishful thinking, completely without evidence, fueled by a wish to belong, guilt, and a fear of death. There is more evidence for the tooth fairy (I used to get cash for my baby teeth!). But enough autobiography.
Materialism which views even life itself as just material processes exclusively can only come up with material or materialistic interpretations of scientific results .
The point is, regardless of what you'd like and other wishful thinking, what's happening is that observations are being explained as simply as we can in terms of testable knowledge that makes predictions. So far, there is no requirement for any non-materialistic or non-physical explanations, and, understandably, no evidence has been found of any such thing. There are a few areas where we don't have enough information, or it's hard to see how to apply our knowledge acquisition rules (singularities. i.e. black holes, the origin of the universe, the nature of subjective experience, etc.), but even if we find that some such things are inevitably unexplainable, that doesn't make it reasonable to invent some non-materialistic fantasy around them. It is OK to say "we don't [yet] know".
QuoteDo you believe in the existence of the human soul by the way ? Not as some paranormal or supernatural essence of self that transcends death, no. As a metaphor for the sum of an individual's mental life - experiences, beliefs, social, cultural, & moral stances, etc., yes.
Do you believe in the existence of the human soul by the way ?
QuoteNo, that's not a pattern: when i say that science is not the only valid source of knowledge , i actually mean materialism in science , materialism which excludes all non-materialistic paradigms ...materialism which considers itself to be scientific and true exclusivelyYou misunderstand it; it simply has no need of non-materialistic paradigms - or anything else that has no discernable effect on the universe
No, that's not a pattern: when i say that science is not the only valid source of knowledge , i actually mean materialism in science , materialism which excludes all non-materialistic paradigms ...materialism which considers itself to be scientific and true exclusively
Quote"Science (and reason, logic ...) is the only valid source of knowledge " is the "conviction" of many scientists , especially the materialistic ones : that's what i meant also ... People are inherently prone to irrationality, magical thinking, superstition, and other shortcuts and simplifications. Scientists are human too. However, the statement is ambiguous; one could argue that a child playing in a sandpit, trying out ideas, seeing what succeeds and what fails, learning about sand and structure, is doing science - not applying an explicit methodology but observing, hypothesising, and experimenting. By this view any empirically based knowledge aquistion could be called science. One could equally argue that by 'valid' they mean suitable for addition to the established body of existing scientific knowledge; reliable, repeatable, independently verifiable, and so-on. I suspect the latter is closer.
"Science (and reason, logic ...) is the only valid source of knowledge " is the "conviction" of many scientists , especially the materialistic ones : that's what i meant also ...
Quotewhat other valid sources of knowledge do you accept as such, outside of reason, logic , science ? Depends what you mean by 'valid'. I accept imagination, reported experience, personal perception, etc., as valid sources of various kinds of knowledge, but I don't accept them as necessarily having any direct relevance or import to the body of accumulated human knowledge; i.e., not necessarily valid in a scientific sense.
what other valid sources of knowledge do you accept as such, outside of reason, logic , science ?
I can learn interesting things about an imaginary world in literature or film that may not be reasonable, logical, or scientific, but it's only valid within the constraints of its particular context. It has no application or validity to the accumulated body of knowledge of the world, except in its indirect effects on the people who find it interesting or entertaining. For me, this also applies to magical thinking, superstition, and paranormal, supernatural and religious beliefs (in which I am very interested, from the point of view of finding people's reasons for believing in such things; sadly, for the most part, they either seem either unable to articulate their reasons, or the reasons are incoherent, failing even simplistic critical examination).
QuoteQuoteI wonder what those ancient Islamic scholars would say.They would probably say that science , reason , logic , islamic revelation ...are all valid sources of knowledge , i presume , while separating science from islam in the process, i presume .Quite. As I understand it (very little), they saw their task as discovering the wonders of the material world they found themselves in, without regard to immaterial religious considerations.
QuoteI wonder what those ancient Islamic scholars would say.They would probably say that science , reason , logic , islamic revelation ...are all valid sources of knowledge , i presume , while separating science from islam in the process, i presume .
I wonder what those ancient Islamic scholars would say.
I used the word "weird " in the sense that it makes no sense to say that love is just chemistry .as many materialists say .
I meant by "nature " what consciousness or our inner lives actually are : science can say nothing about just that , simply because the natures of those 2 are immaterial .
So, our thinking (The evolution of our senses and brains ) was/ is just a survival strategy and hence our knowledge is just that also as a result ,which also means that our very knowledge of evolution itself are just survival strategies : a paradox : how can all that knowledge be valid or true enough then, including our knowledge concerning evolution itself then ?
Second : how come that Darwin's theory of evolution which was only concerned with the biological evolution, be extended to the so-called evolutions of cultures , thought , consciousness, politics, economy, science, ethics......that theory does not cover as such ?
Third : how come that some primitive forms of cultures , some primitive forms of religions , and even some "evolved " religions ...how come they still exist ?
I am afraid , your own personal experience with religion or with christianity in this case (Catholicism ) is just that : your own subjective personal experience : it's good to know about , but it cannot be generalized or be valid.
How can you be so sure then of the "fact " that what escapes or lays outside of the realms of science , reason, logic ....does not exist as such ? You tell me ..
Does the abscence of evidence always mean the evidence of abscence ?
don't think your argumentation here is waterproof, the same goes for mine .
What then if there is a whole universe out there , whole levels of reality as i like to put , which escape any of our observations, reason, empirics,logic ....? What then ? have you ever considered that possibility or option ? You should have as a rational scientific person , don't you think ?
How can you be so sure there is nothing else out there then ?
Have you become an apologist for materialism ?
There are indeed some superstitions, fairytales, illusions ,delusions ...out there , but that's no reason to say that all what there is out there is just that : illusions, superstitions ...
Why don't you then accept intuition, even thought it's not always reliable, feeling as a thought-project in the making , even though feeling is not always reliable , as relatively valid sources of knowledge ?
Taking into consideration the very evolutionary nature of our epistemology and scientific method , science ....what if , in the future, mankind would discover some other reliable sources of knowledge we do not know nothing about yet right now ? Are you gonna keep on being agnostic about that also ?
What if humankind would develop , in the future , some sophisticated , not exclusively materialistic, psychology, science ....that would be able to approach mystic and the true religious experiences properly ? (Materialism will be history, soon enough = inevitable = just a matter of time : many scientists whistleblowers such as Linda Jean Shepherd and many others have turned their back on that exclusive materialistic approach in science and elsewhere by the way )
Make no mistake, buddy :Imagination , feeling , emotion even , and intuition were/are and will be behind many scientific and other discoveries .Imagination especially is very important in this regard : that's why Einstein said once :"Imagination is more important than knowledge " : He knew that first hand : without imagination, he could never have been able to come up with his relativity theory ...Sometimes, literature and art can convey some universal wisdom or approaches of some truths via symbols, fairytales , stories, fiction ....than science, reason,logic ...can ever do : that's 1 of the reasons why good movies, good literature, good art ...are so appealing , because they know how to touch the human soul, imagination and the deepest human consciousness and sub-consciousness in ways science, reason, logic ...can only dream about doing
I can give you a long list regarding that all .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 13/08/2013 17:24:32I used the word "weird " in the sense that it makes no sense to say that love is just chemistry .as many materialists say .It's supposed to be an ironic joke, like when someone points to a raging ocean and you say "It's just water molecules...". An ironic joke that implicitly acknowledges that chemistry and a couple of billion years of evolution can produce something sublime - via the many levels of emergent behaviours and complexity I mentioned previously.
QuoteI meant by "nature " what consciousness or our inner lives actually are : science can say nothing about just that , simply because the natures of those 2 are immaterial .They are processes.
QuoteSo, our thinking (The evolution of our senses and brains ) was/ is just a survival strategy and hence our knowledge is just that also as a result ,which also means that our very knowledge of evolution itself are just survival strategies : a paradox : how can all that knowledge be valid or true enough then, including our knowledge concerning evolution itself then ?Evolution doesn't really have a strategy, although people do tend to describe it in anthropmorphic terms. We still have the basic drives, survival, reproduction, curiosity, etc., but we also evolved the capability to reason and plan, so we can direct and focus those drives according to rational log-term goals (at least, in principle - in practice, the desire for short term gratification usually wins out). As I said before, we have developed methods & procedures for acquiring reliable knowledge - it works doesn't it? you can talk to almost anyone on the planet just by pushing a few buttons, you can perform wonders that earlier peoples would consider magic. The power of knowledge that works.
QuoteSecond : how come that Darwin's theory of evolution which was only concerned with the biological evolution, be extended to the so-called evolutions of cultures , thought , consciousness, politics, economy, science, ethics......that theory does not cover as such ?Darwin's theory was evolution by natural selection. Other forms of evolution have different drivers, but most involve the generation of variants on a theme, of which only the most successful go on to be the source of further variants and so-on. Stepwise development and refinement.
QuoteThird : how come that some primitive forms of cultures , some primitive forms of religions , and even some "evolved " religions ...how come they still exist ?They fill their particular niches; as long as they don't compete directly or significantly enough with the mainstream forms to be the focus of their attentions, they may continue. Having said that, they're all going extinct at an ever accelerating rate. How many languages have been lost in the last 100 years? How many hunter gather tribes remain?, how many nomads?
QuoteI am afraid , your own personal experience with religion or with christianity in this case (Catholicism ) is just that : your own subjective personal experience : it's good to know about , but it cannot be generalized or be valid.Well, yes; personal experience is personal experience. Whether it can be 'generalized' or be 'valid' rather depends on what you mean. Ultimately, we only have our personal experience, so we have to generalize it or be solipsistic. 'Valid' can mean a multitude of things in the context of personal experience.
QuoteHow can you be so sure then of the "fact " that what escapes or lays outside of the realms of science , reason, logic ....does not exist as such ? You tell me ..How can you be so sure science and materialism is a useless waste of time? What, you didn't say that? Tell you what - you stop telling me what I think, and I'll consider continuing the discussion.
What lies beyond science, reason, and logic is, by definition, illogical, irrational, and unscientific. I'm sure there are plenty of ideas that fit the bill. You're welcome to them.
QuoteDoes the abscence of evidence always mean the evidence of abscence ?Not necessarily
Quotedon't think your argumentation here is waterproof, the same goes for mine . I noticed.
QuoteWhat then if there is a whole universe out there , whole levels of reality as i like to put , which escape any of our observations, reason, empirics,logic ....? What then ? have you ever considered that possibility or option ? You should have as a rational scientific person , don't you think ?If it doesn't it impinge on us in any detectable way, how would we be aware of its existence? what should/could we do about something we are unaware of?
However, some cosmologists are developing various ideas about a multiverse, in which our universe is one of (possibly infinitely) many, none of which we can ever detect or interact with (well, in most ideas). So, yes, the possibilities have been, and are taken seriously. These ideas are based on the mathematics behind the physical models that explain the development of our own universe; rational speculation based on what is known, and the techniques developed have fed back to help work being done on the physics of our universe, so they're not entirely without practical value.
QuoteHow can you be so sure there is nothing else out there then ? How can you be so sure that the universe is shaped like a banana? what - you didn't say that?
There's a multitude of imaginable things I have no evidence of; some are reasonably likely, given what we know about the world; some are fairly unlikely; some very unlikely; and some contradict the most fundamental knowledge we have about the world. A reasonable man treats them accordingly.
QuoteHave you become an apologist for materialism ?Weasel words. Have you stopped beating your wife?
QuoteThere are indeed some superstitions, fairytales, illusions ,delusions ...out there , but that's no reason to say that all what there is out there is just that : illusions, superstitions ...No, indeed.
QuoteWhy don't you then accept intuition, even thought it's not always reliable, feeling as a thought-project in the making , even though feeling is not always reliable , as relatively valid sources of knowledge ? Did I say that? Intuition can be extremely useful in appropriate contexts. Check out Malcolm Gladwell's 'Blink'. When you are expertly familiar with a field, intuition can be one of the most useful tools. In a field you are not expertly familiar with, it can make a complete fool of you. As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool".
QuoteTaking into consideration the very evolutionary nature of our epistemology and scientific method , science ....what if , in the future, mankind would discover some other reliable sources of knowledge we do not know nothing about yet right now ? Are you gonna keep on being agnostic about that also ?What am I being agnostic about?
QuoteWhat if humankind would develop , in the future , some sophisticated , not exclusively materialistic, psychology, science ....that would be able to approach mystic and the true religious experiences properly ? (Materialism will be history, soon enough = inevitable = just a matter of time : many scientists whistleblowers such as Linda Jean Shepherd and many others have turned their back on that exclusive materialistic approach in science and elsewhere by the way ) What if it turns out the Jews were right? what if we're all characters in a simulation? what if I'm a brain in a jar? what if I'm a butterfly dreaming I'm a man? what if the moon is made of cheese?
When the time comes, I will do what I think is right.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 13/08/2013 17:35:54Make no mistake, buddy :Imagination , feeling , emotion even , and intuition were/are and will be behind many scientific and other discoveries .Imagination especially is very important in this regard : that's why Einstein said once :"Imagination is more important than knowledge " : He knew that first hand : without imagination, he could never have been able to come up with his relativity theory ...Sometimes, literature and art can convey some universal wisdom or approaches of some truths via symbols, fairytales , stories, fiction ....than science, reason,logic ...can ever do : that's 1 of the reasons why good movies, good literature, good art ...are so appealing , because they know how to touch the human soul, imagination and the deepest human consciousness and sub-consciousness in ways science, reason, logic ...can only dream about doingMake no mistake buddy, I'm well aware of the power of imagination; and if I hadn't been, this discussion would do it.
QuoteQuoteI can give you a long list regarding that all .Please don't trouble yourself.
QuoteI can give you a long list regarding that all .Please don't trouble yourself.
Well, many materialistic scientists do not see that as a joke : they are very serious about it , as Dennet and others think seriously that the evolutionary complexity of the "organization " of neurons had produced human consciousness haha .
It would be really a weird joke to say that love is just chemistry though : what a weird and silly sense of humor that would be haha .
.. if human love is a product of evolution, then it is just a sophisticated pragmatic practical "sub-conscious " survival strategy or self-deceit without any intrinsic value : do you really actually think that your mother's or your other beloved's love for you is just that ? : that we love each other in order just to survive , deceiving ourselves and others in the process ?
What about values or virtues such as honesty , altruism , self-sacrifice , dedication, loyalty , solidarity ...then , or ethics in general ? Do you see them also as just pragmatic survival strategies ?
What a sinister cynical world that would be if that was the case .
i already mentioned that human consciousness was/ is and will be a dynamic processes , i think : but it is not just material processes , even though science can study its material biological impact on or its interaction with the body ...
I used the concept "survival strategy " in Dawkins' terms he displayed in his "Selfish Gene " : survival strategies via the natural selection as something not "conscious "
The whole point of that book was to prove the "fact " that we are just some kindda robots driven by DNA ....and that altruism, for example , is in fact just "selfishness in disguise "
So, if we are just robots driven by mechanical survival strategies via the natural selection , how come that we consider our knowledge , ethics , spirituality , consciousness, feelings,, emotions, love, conscience ....as real or valid concepts ? = makes no sense .
There is a big difference though between knowledge that works, as you put it = pragmatic practical knowledge , and between true knowledge .
Darwin's theory of evolution was only biological : why is it then applied to cultures , thought , ethics ...?
Otherwise , how come that primitive cultures, primitive religions ....primitive societies even ...still exist ?
not to mention the fact that evolution is not always "progressive " = it fails to explain progress , for example, to mention just that .
BY the way : do you think that liberal secular democracy and its capitalist economic wing are the "highest " forms of culture ,or that they are "The end of history " ? , considering the fact that evolution is purposeless : high or low , developed or primitive judgements of value have no meaning in evolutionary terms.
strong cultures or strong empires tend to oppress and annihilate the weaker ones ,on purpose , in order to dominate them : misuse of power : that's a conscious misuse of power that's deeply hidden in the human nature
... that can be resisted though .
That has nothing to do with evolution : that's what empires tend to do mostly : that's what the human nature , if not restrained , does to others and to other cultures
Every personal experience is unique and relative , not to mention that it is mostly subjective, even though , it contains some cognitive elements ...
My sincere genuine apologies ... i am not telling you what to think , i just question your words, that's all .
We can "see" some of what lies beyond that as something existing in other dimensions , other universes ,or in other levels of reality , why not ?
As there might be other living species outside of our known universe , there can be whole of other levels of reality with their own set of rules, logic , reason ....as well , Why not ?Is this not an option ?
.. why should we exclude the possibility or probability that there might be some other levels of reality out there which require other forms of evidence than just our poor reason, logic , science ...can provide ?
So, why should we think that we can know everything about all that unknown , as a mortal species ?
You were trying to find excuses for materialism , so : that makes you an apologist of it , no offense , sorry .
Well, then you should be humble enough not to exclude any unknown existences that Russell's tea pot argument does not cover ,unless you are absolutely sure they do not exist .
What then , what would you say to your creator when you will meet Him ? simply put .Will you tell Him that science , reason, logic ....could not , per definition, prove to you His existence ...?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 14/08/2013 20:22:02Well, many materialistic scientists do not see that as a joke : they are very serious about it , as Dennet and others think seriously that the evolutionary complexity of the "organization " of neurons had produced human consciousness haha .I think they're right.
QuoteIt would be really a weird joke to say that love is just chemistry though : what a weird and silly sense of humor that would be haha .I can only explain it, I can't make you understand it.
It would be really a weird joke to say that love is just chemistry though : what a weird and silly sense of humor that would be haha
Quote.. if human love is a product of evolution, then it is just a sophisticated pragmatic practical "sub-conscious " survival strategy or self-deceit without any intrinsic value : do you really actually think that your mother's or your other beloved's love for you is just that ? : that we love each other in order just to survive , deceiving ourselves and others in the process ?It's intrinsic value is it's contribution to the survival of the species. The associated rewarding emotional feelings are another form of intrinsic value. The latter is the chief driver of the former.
QuoteWhat about values or virtues such as honesty , altruism , self-sacrifice , dedication, loyalty , solidarity ...then , or ethics in general ? Do you see them also as just pragmatic survival strategies ?Yup. Again with the loaded qualifier 'just' - your bias is showing...
QuoteWhat a sinister cynical world that would be if that was the case .Naked appeal to emotion? Objectively they are rooted in pragmatic survival strategies. Subjectively they are core of human social & cultural experience. The distinction between objective and subjective is important. However you view it, the natural world is what it is, and has no obligation to pander to your tender sensibilities.
Quotei already mentioned that human consciousness was/ is and will be a dynamic processes , i think : but it is not just material processes , even though science can study its material biological impact on or its interaction with the body ...QuoteI used the concept "survival strategy " in Dawkins' terms he displayed in his "Selfish Gene " : survival strategies via the natural selection as something not "conscious " Dawkins doesn't exclude the development of consciousness from evolutionary survival strategies; He's saying all evolutionary strategies (including cognitive strategies) can be viewed in terms of genetic survival because the gene is the unit of heredity and genetic change supplies the variation on which natural selection operates.
QuoteThe whole point of that book was to prove the "fact " that we are just some kindda robots driven by DNA ....and that altruism, for example , is in fact just "selfishness in disguise "If you think that was the point of the book, you missed the point... (he has said that, with hindsight, he wouldn't have used 'selfish' in the title because so many have misunderstood it). Did you actually read it ?.
QuoteSo, if we are just robots driven by mechanical survival strategies via the natural selection , how come that we consider our knowledge , ethics , spirituality , consciousness, feelings,, emotions, love, conscience ....as real or valid concepts ? = makes no sense .We have evolved the capacity for creative, flexible, adaptable behaviour that enables us to more effectively achieve our goals. It's entirely up to you whether you want to call that 'just robotic' or not.
QuoteThere is a big difference though between knowledge that works, as you put it = pragmatic practical knowledge , and between true knowledge .Hmm, is that 'false dichotomy' or 'no true Scotsman'? The former, I suspect.
QuoteDarwin's theory of evolution was only biological : why is it then applied to cultures , thought , ethics ...? Quote by dlorde : I explained that. The fundamental principle applies beyond biology.
QuoteOtherwise , how come that primitive cultures, primitive religions ....primitive societies even ...still exist ?I already discussed this.
Quotenot to mention the fact that evolution is not always "progressive " = it fails to explain progress , for example, to mention just that .It depends what you mean by progress. Evolution by natural selection is undirected and agnostic on complexity; it acts to remove variations that are not fit for (good enough to survive) their environment. Sometimes the fittest variations are more complex than their predecessors, sometimes less (there are many examples of evolutionary simplification). Drivers like predator prey 'arms races', or sexual selection, often rapidly increase complexity.
QuoteBY the way : do you think that liberal secular democracy and its capitalist economic wing are the "highest " forms of culture ,or that they are "The end of history " ? , considering the fact that evolution is purposeless : high or low , developed or primitive judgements of value have no meaning in evolutionary terms.Unless the world ends tomorrow, they aren't the end of history. Whether they are the 'highest' forms of culture depends on your choice of criteria for height. In practice, they are not without flaws. Churchill amusing said "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
Quotestrong cultures or strong empires tend to oppress and annihilate the weaker ones ,on purpose , in order to dominate them : misuse of power : that's a conscious misuse of power that's deeply hidden in the human nature Quite; it's an expression of some of our most basic evolutionary drives.Quote... that can be resisted though .Yes; the same consciousness can rationalize a broader view, extending the group/tribe to encompass humanity as a whole. It's a struggle, because the natural tendency is towards smaller groups and competition.
QuoteThat has nothing to do with evolution : that's what empires tend to do mostly : that's what the human nature , if not restrained , does to others and to other cultures.That's contradictory, as human nature is a product of evolution - the clue is in the word 'nature'. So it has a lot to do with evolution.
That has nothing to do with evolution : that's what empires tend to do mostly : that's what the human nature , if not restrained , does to others and to other cultures.
QuoteEvery personal experience is unique and relative , not to mention that it is mostly subjective, even though , it contains some cognitive elements ...Unique and relative personal experience is pretty much the definition of subjectivity. Conscious experience is all cognitive...
QuoteMy sincere genuine apologies ... i am not telling you what to think , i just question your words, that's all .Apology accepted. If you want to question my words, why not just do that instead of putting words in my mouth?
QuoteWe can "see" some of what lies beyond that as something existing in other dimensions , other universes ,or in other levels of reality , why not ? I know of no evidence of such things. Can you describe what you 'see' and how you distinguish it from imagination?
QuoteAs there might be other living species outside of our known universe , there can be whole of other levels of reality with their own set of rules, logic , reason ....as well , Why not ?Is this not an option ? You can speculate about whatever you can imagine. Let me know when you find plausible arguments and/or evidence to support whatever it may be.
Quote.. why should we exclude the possibility or probability that there might be some other levels of reality out there which require other forms of evidence than just our poor reason, logic , science ...can provide ?By all means speculate and fantasize to your heart's content. Others feel the observable universe is a more productive use of their time.
QuoteSo, why should we think that we can know everything about all that unknown , as a mortal species ?We don't, that's why we keep on questioning.
QuoteYou were trying to find excuses for materialism , so : that makes you an apologist of it , no offense , sorry .You're welcome to your opinion, but if you think describing how science and critical thinking work is excusing materialism, it probably says more about your agenda or bias than mine.
QuoteWell, then you should be humble enough not to exclude any unknown existences that Russell's tea pot argument does not cover ,unless you are absolutely sure they do not exist .Indeed, we should all be so humble.
QuoteWhat then , what would you say to your creator when you will meet Him ? simply put .Will you tell Him that science , reason, logic ....could not , per definition, prove to you His existence ...? Yes, I probably would. If a hypothetical creator seriously wanted to be acknowledged, one might expect it to do a better job of being noticed
My nice discussion partner left me without saying a word and without any explanation whatsoever haha , despite all the good things and good times we used to have together and used to share with each other ...: i have been dumped before by a couple of my former or ex-girl-friends , but they always had the decency and courtesy to tell me why though
I think i will quit these discussions , simply because their scope is too wide to debate this way , and simply because they do cost me too much time i can hardly afford...
Oh, and the other reason - you'd stopped discussing with me and were disparaging various naive stereotypes and strawmen of your own devising. Clearly time to move on.
I think I've said what I wanted to say about the OP - unless you have some particular issue you're prepared to discuss reasonably; I'm not here for juvenile point-scoring and disparagement.
Look, if the nature as well as the function of our human consciousness is just a matter of material processes which originated from the evolutionary complexity of the human brain (Emergent property theory ), our consciousness , thoughts , knowledge , ethics , progress ...and the rest are just illusions then : just mechanical material determined processes
Otherwise , why can't we convert neurophysiological electrical, chemical ...brain waves to thoughts ,and vice versa ? How come we cannot read the minds of people that way , via that activity of the brain , we should be able to convert to thoughts , in the future maybe ? ...What do you think about all that ?
Can the scientific method or science finally decipher or decode those mysteries of the human consciousness, thought , thought process ?
I would love to download all the human existing knowledge , experiences ,skills....to my brain
author=dlorde link=topic=48315.msg416517#msg416517 date=1376900663]BTW, all-bold text doesn't aid readability...
author=DonQuichotte link=topic=48315.msg416493#msg416493 date=1376855477]Look, if the nature as well as the function of our human consciousness is just a matter of material processes which originated from the evolutionary complexity of the human brain (Emergent property theory ), our consciousness , thoughts , knowledge , ethics , progress ...and the rest are just illusions then : just mechanical material determined processes
They're not illusions, they're real emergent phenomena, unpredictable and qualitatively different from the properties of neurons; like the wetness of water is a real emergent phenomenon, unpredictable and qualitatively different from the properties of water molecules, and heat and pressure are emergent phenomena of the movement of atoms and molecules
QuoteOtherwise , why can't we convert neurophysiological electrical, chemical ...brain waves to thoughts ,and vice versa ? How come we cannot read the minds of people that way , via that activity of the brain , we should be able to convert to thoughts , in the future maybe ? ...What do you think about all that ?We are already making progress in this area. By studying brain activity it is possible determine what someone is reading, and what someone is thinking about in a limited way; i.e. the brain activity associated with certain thoughts is measured and then can be recognised later. The current problems are that the measuring devices are fairly crude, although improving rapidly, and that no two brains are the same, so what they are thinking needs to be learned for each individual. It is possible to imagine a 'companion' system that could learn how a person thinks over many years, observes their facial expressions, behaviour, and body language and so knows what they're thinking, their mood, etc. How that could be used is an interesting speculation.
Past experiences, sensations, emotions, memories, etc., can be 'replayed' by stimulation of the appropriate brain area during surgery; one can imagine making this possible from outside the skull. A lot of ethical issues there
QuoteCan the scientific method or science finally decipher or decode those mysteries of the human consciousness, thought , thought process ?I think so, eventually.
QuoteI would love to download all the human existing knowledge , experiences ,skills....to my brainI would imagine it's more likely that such information would be made available to you on demand transparently, or with minimum effort, rather than be actually stored in your brain in advance.