0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/08/2013 23:53:26.. you seem to disagree with the obvious validity and necessity of finding out about the origin of science itselfNot really; rather, I'm not persuaded simply by your assertion that there is 'an obvious validity and necessity' of finding out about the origin of science itself. That requires you to make a persuasive argument, which, so far, is notably absent.
.. you seem to disagree with the obvious validity and necessity of finding out about the origin of science itself
Personally, I think it may be interesting, potentially useful, background information for some, but I was curious to know why you were making such a song and dance about it.
You continue to assert the 'obvious' importance of knowing the 'real' origins of the scientific method, without explaining what you think it is that makes it so important to a scientist today; perhaps you could give some examples of how this knowledge would help a scientist ?
QuoteIslam also approaches reality , the ultimate reality ,So, what is the ultimate reality, and how do you know how close you are to it? "Proof by assertion" has no legitimacy in my world.
Islam also approaches reality , the ultimate reality ,
This is really a weird discussion : what do you want me to say to prove to you the very importance of the scientific method itself , or rather its origin : such a great scientific method or science that has been transforming our world and ourselves in the process, requires from us to try to find out about how it came to exist , in the first place to begin with .
Why is epistemology in philosophy and in the philosophy of science so important , according to you ?
Practicing science without having a clue about its epistemology is rather a peculiar thing to do for a scientist , don't you think ?
An unexamined life or history are worthless : it's obvious that one should try to know the origins of things one practices and lives :Man without awarness of his / her history in the broader sense is without future , i must add .
I understand the ultimate reality as the very essence of things islam tries to approach as such, or as the whole picture : note that the whole is not the sum of its parts by the way .The essence of things we cannot approach via science , reason or logic : that's something beyond the realm of science , reason, logic ...
Even modern maths had proven the fact that there are some true premises one cannot prove as such , like the very existence of intuition as the highest form of intellect ...
I just started this thread in order to debunk the assertion or false premise of many prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett , Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others , who claim that science, reason , logic and evolution are the major "arguments " against religion , by trying to prove the fact that the scientific method or science itself originated from the very epistemology of the Qur'an , and that evolution was discovered by those early muslims, centuries before Darwin was even born , , thanks to the evolutionary spirit of islam ...and that the essence of things islam tries to approach as such is way beyond the realms of reason, logic , and science , that's all .
author=alancalverd link=topic=48315.msg415989#msg415989 date=1375851342]Without getting sidetracked into ultimate reality, I'm not convinced that you can identify the real origin of the scientific method in any written work.
The algorithm (a word with arabic roots) "observe, hypothesise, test" that we call the scientific method, is pretty much universal among sentient animals. You can see it being used by dogs and birds any day . It seems to have been the guiding principle of our remotest human ancestors, who clearly studied the migration of their prey and engaged in selective breeding of plants and animals - none of which is set down in anyone's bible - and in retrospect is the only way we could have evolved and survived as a naked collaborative ape. In contrast, the perverse and divisive foolishness of faith, replacing discovery with arbitrary authority, seems to be unique to recent humans.
Which just prompted an interesting thought! Anthropologists make a lot of play out of ancient burial rituals. The line usually goes something like "believing in an afterlife, the living provided the dead with ...... in the grave." There are two flaws in that argument. First, having no such belief, I have nevertheless put flowers on the graves of relatives, but on careful reflection I did it for me, not for them. Second, faith in a spiritual afterlife is not the only reason for grave goods. Your best friend isn't moving or breathing, so tidiness and hygeine demand that you should bury him. But suppose your diagnosis was wrong and he was merely in a deep sleep? Then it seems sensible to bury him in a coffin to prevent animals eating him, and to leave his knife and some food just in case he wakes up. "Just in case" is rational and based on experience of catatonia, whereas faith in an afterlife isn't.
I do not understand why do you seem to deliberately prefer to stagnate or freeze in this stage of discussion, as if you were trying to derail the discussion deliberately , instead of addressing the subject of this thread .
what do you think that alleged importance , as you put it
It would be paradoxical to practice science without having a clue about its epistemology
I do not know what you are looking for as an answer to your repeated and stubborn scepticism regarding the obvious importance of the origins of science
Obvious things are extremely difficult to explain thought , sometimes, not the other way around as you seem to understand .
i already mentioned the evolutionary character of epistemology and thus of science , that should be reason enough to consider the origins of science as highly important .This is my final answer to you regarding that .
I suggest you drop the according-to-you-at-least alleged importance of the origin of science and focus on this thread's subject .Deal ?
... it is clear that we must get to know the primary premises by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. … it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premises, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premises. … If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge.
<mangled quoting>
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/08/2013 01:09:41I understand the ultimate reality as the very essence of things islam tries to approach as such, or as the whole picture : note that the whole is not the sum of its parts by the way .The essence of things we cannot approach via science , reason or logic : that's something beyond the realm of science , reason, logic ...How does one 'approach' things that are beyond, and unapproachable via, reason, logic, or science?Is there some irrational, illogical, unscientific method?
Bit of a red herring; intuition as a form of intellect is not a mathematical concern, and the Incompleteness Theorems only apply to axiomatic arithmetical systems, not the world in general. 'This sentence is false' and its ilk have no great relevance in the wider scheme of things.
QuoteI just started this thread in order to debunk the assertion or false premise of many prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett , Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and many others , who claim that science, reason , logic and evolution are the major "arguments " against religion , by trying to prove the fact that the scientific method or science itself originated from the very epistemology of the Qur'an , and that evolution was discovered by those early muslims, centuries before Darwin was even born , , thanks to the evolutionary spirit of islam ...and that the essence of things islam tries to approach as such is way beyond the realms of reason, logic , and science , that's all .So all this talk about scientists and the epistemology of the scientific method, was intended to debunk the claims of atheists?Leaving aside that 'atheist' and 'scientist' are not synonymous, it seems to me that it is the irrational, superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural claims of religion that the people you mention are wielding science against, and it has been very effective in those areas, hence 'God of the gaps', etc.
I think you'll find that Dawkins and co., have great admiration for the scientific and mathematical achievements of early scholars, Islamic and otherwise, but not for the irrational, superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural aspects of their belief systems. If we could strip out that stuff from all the scriptures of these belief systems, leaving the rational, the pragmatic, the scientific, and the philosophic, I'm sure those atheists would be overjoyed.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/08/2013 00:50:44This is really a weird discussion : what do you want me to say to prove to you the very importance of the scientific method itself , or rather its origin : such a great scientific method or science that has been transforming our world and ourselves in the process, requires from us to try to find out about how it came to exist , in the first place to begin with .The point I have bolded is the reason I asked you to explain why you seem so exercised about the origins of the scientific method. Whatever the knowledge of it's origins in the scientific community, they seem to be doing well enough. There may be some problems or concerns with the correct application of the method, or with the ethics of its application, but you seemed to be saying a better knowledge of its origins would be helpful in some way - some way you seem quite unable to articulate
QuoteWhy is epistemology in philosophy and in the philosophy of science so important , according to you ?I haven't made any comment about its importance here, and it's too wide a topic to address properly in a paragraph.
QuotePracticing science without having a clue about its epistemology is rather a peculiar thing to do for a scientist , don't you think ?It might be, if that was really the case. I suspect that most scientists doing useful and productive work have a sufficient knowledge of the epistemology of their field; the scientists I know personally certainly do, and many scientist authors of popular science books clearly do. I don't have any wider data on scientists in general - do you?
QuoteAn unexamined life or history are worthless : it's obvious that one should try to know the origins of things one practices and lives :Man without awarness of his / her history in the broader sense is without future , i must add .More assertion and platitude. If you believe it is obvious, you should be able to explain why - or is faith involved here?Ironically, the epistemology of your assertion is absent.This is not to say I disagree with the general point about epistemology; but you have yet to provide a reasonable (or any) argument to support your assertion of the exceptional importance of knowledge of the origins of the scientific method.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/08/2013 00:55:03I do not understand why do you seem to deliberately prefer to stagnate or freeze in this stage of discussion, as if you were trying to derail the discussion deliberately , instead of addressing the subject of this thread .You can't expect to make an emphatic assertion without being asked for an explanation of the reasoning behind it. If asking you to explain the reasons behind the main assertion of your thread is derailing, colour me guilty
Quote what do you think that alleged importance , as you put it You are mistaken; I haven't mentioned 'alleged importance'.
QuoteIt would be paradoxical to practice science without having a clue about its epistemologyParadoxical how?
QuoteI do not know what you are looking for as an answer to your repeated and stubborn scepticism regarding the obvious importance of the origins of scienceAs I have already said I don't disagree with your general point about the epistemology of science; I simply requested a reasonable (or any) argument to support your assertion of the exceptional importance of knowledge of the origins of the scientific method.
QuoteObvious things are extremely difficult to explain thought , sometimes, not the other way around as you seem to understand .Again ironically, it is the epistemology of science itself that should lead us to question our assumptions and seek explanations for what seems obvious. Looking for explanations and questioning is what scientists do. If something seems obvious, but is hard to explain, a scientist should ask why, and question the assumptions behind it, don't you agree?
Quote i already mentioned the evolutionary character of epistemology and thus of science , that should be reason enough to consider the origins of science as highly important .This is my final answer to you regarding that .Epistemology and science evolve, therefore their origins are highly important? That's it?OK. Time to move on.
QuoteI suggest you drop the according-to-you-at-least alleged importance of the origin of science and focus on this thread's subject .Deal ?As I already explained, that is putting words in my mouth; misrepresentation. If you drop the misrepresentation, I'll have a stab at the origins of the scientific method - deal?
As you say, it has evolved over time. My understanding is that the first recorded methodologies concerning natural science are from Egyptian and Babylonian cultures (medical and astronomical/mathematical respectively) from around 1600 BC on. Babylonian astronomical science informs subsequent astronomy in India, Greece, the Islamic world, and the West. The pre-Socratic ancient Greeks (600BC) developed theoretical science based on natural causality, and both Indian & Greek thinkers subsequently theorised atomism. From around 400BC onwards, the philosophy and practice of science progressed in Greece, introducing deductive reasoning to maths, geometry, astronomy, and subsequently medical experimentation. Aristotle discussed empiricism, inductive reasoning, and a model of scientific inquiry via deductive syllogism.
It's worth noting, given your earlier mentions of intuition, that Aristotle is quoted as saying: Quote... it is clear that we must get to know the primary premises by induction; for the method by which even sense-perception implants the universal is inductive. … it follows that there will be no scientific knowledge of the primary premises, and since except intuition nothing can be truer than scientific knowledge, it will be intuition that apprehends the primary premises. … If, therefore, it is the only other kind of true thinking except scientific knowing, intuition will be the originative source of scientific knowledge.Right : many modern great mathematicians even, for example , did admit the fact that intuition was THE biggest player behind their works (And even feeling , feeling as a potential thought -project in the making ) .....but the definition of intuition i was talking about goes way further beyond that of Aristotle , as the Qur'an, for example , define it by saying on many occasions , and repeatedly , about some people : Do they not have hearts through which or with which they can reason ? : seems contradictory , because reason and the conventional understanding of heart as emotions and feelings do not go together ,as i mentioned earlier in some of my posts (But even emotions and feelings are thoughts-projects in the making though : see how that conventional difference between feeling or emotion and reason and that the latter cannot explain the firsts is ...history nowadays ): The Qur'anic definition of heart in this particular sense at least does not refer to the biological heart , but to intuition , intuitive insights , to heart's intelligence as the highest form of intellect , post-modernists had just discovered as such , so to speak : Many great muslim mystics such as Ibn Al Arabi and Rumi talked extensively about that Qur'anic definition of that particular heart which has many levels as the human consciousness has many levels ...But that's another discussion indeed .QuoteDuring the low Middle Ages, it was the Islamic world, Arabic & Persian, that built on the somewhat piecemeal and embryonic Hellenistic legacy, integrating, rationalising, and developing it into more recognisable empirical scientific methodologies involving systematic observation, experiment, and argument, and using it to make considerable progress in a number of fields. Renaissance Europe emerged from the Dark Ages around the 12th century, inheriting both Islamic and Greek texts, achieving a preliminary synthesis with Grosseteste, leading to Bacon describing a detailed prototype of the modern scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent replication & verification) in the 13th century.Prior note : Islamic Spain mainly did indirectly trigger both the Renaissance as well as the protestant reformation and enlightenment thus = an understatement .Besides:Try to make the difference between abstract philosophical talk about epistemology and its practical pragmatic use on the reality ground : the early muslims linked the one to the other for the first time ever : see above what i said about that, as the early muslims knew very well that abstract belief is worth nothing without practically acting up on it .One can possess, so to speak , all the knowledge and epistemology of this world , but all that is worth nothing if one does not act up on it , if all that does not reflect on one's life on the reality ground .At the other hand , many people , in the past , present as well as in the future , did not / do not and will not need to be fully aware of epistemology to do what they do,simply because the scientific method as such is intuitively innately instinctively universal , but that did not make those ancient people give birth to science in the modern sense .Only the full epistemological abstract theoretical combined with its practical wing did produce science as we know it : only the early muslims succeeded in combining the 2 necessary wings and therefore gave birth to science as such .I will leave it at that then .Thanks , buddy , for your time, patience , generosity , insights ...i do appreciate so much indeed , i have been learning so much from by the way .Best wishes and nice weekendKind regardsAbdel QuoteThat's probably far enough for originsOh , i forgot about this latest statement of yours :See above :The birth of science required both of its wings : the philosophical epistemological theoretical as well as the practical one on the reality ground : only muslims were able to fly with both of those wings , while the prior rest were not ....That's the very core point of this thread and discussion .Bye , my friend This took me really too much time to write ,(My internet connection is extremely slow today also, so ) but it's worth it and you are worth it , no false modesty , pretention, arrogance , or self-righteousness , am i writing it well ? .My apologies for my modest English though ... Ramadan was over ,so, i have a little holiday i just dedicated some of it to you and to these dear people here .Now, i am gone now ....really .
During the low Middle Ages, it was the Islamic world, Arabic & Persian, that built on the somewhat piecemeal and embryonic Hellenistic legacy, integrating, rationalising, and developing it into more recognisable empirical scientific methodologies involving systematic observation, experiment, and argument, and using it to make considerable progress in a number of fields. Renaissance Europe emerged from the Dark Ages around the 12th century, inheriting both Islamic and Greek texts, achieving a preliminary synthesis with Grosseteste, leading to Bacon describing a detailed prototype of the modern scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and independent replication & verification) in the 13th century.
That's probably far enough for origins
You did obviously not understand what i was saying to you :I said : science was used by those early muslims as an effective tool to approach the natural reality , while separating science form islam in the process ...and then afterwards , they tried to make a synthesis from both islam and science + from wisdom , personal experience + from other forms of knowledge, from art , literature ...in order to approach the ultimate reality or essence of beings and things or the whole picture, the latter as not the sum of its parts though ...I am not gonna repeat myself over and over again , next time , as you presently make me do .
So, as there are many levels of reality
" if you would understand what i was saying , you wouldn't have uttered this non-sense "
God gave us reason, logic , senses ...
There are , once again , many levels of reality as there are many levels of human consciousness and the natural reality as the realm of science is just one single level of reality : so, to pretend that science can cover all those different levels of reality is a very stupid idea , simply because there are whole levels of reality outside of that poor single level of reality covered by science .
... you cannot ignore the existence of those other levels of reality , neither science , reason or logic can approach , otherwise you would be half blind or handicaped
Science is not the only valid source of knowledge , science has no monopoly on the truth ...You will figure that out someday , as you grow further or evolve , i hope , for your own sake , as a human being .
I will talk to you about the boundaries and limits of science another day then ...
... you do deliberately reduce the scope or spectrum of your horizons to the materialistic one only : i have a much broader horizon thus .
QuoteQuoteIt would be paradoxical to practice science without having a clue about its epistemologyParadoxical how?Do you know any carpenter who is not familiar with his/her tools ? or with how to use them ?
Does any kindda evolution not require from us that we should consider its very roots and origins as highly important , so we can try to understand or approach its present and especially its future implications for us all ?Ask Darwin about just that , my dear friend .
I wish that was so simple , otherwise , we could solve most of humanity's problems via the scientific method ....
QuoteEpistemology and science evolve, therefore their origins are highly important? That's it?What arguments were you looking for in that regard by the way ? I am just curious
Epistemology and science evolve, therefore their origins are highly important? That's it?
... i do not see the validity of your counter-reasoning in that regard , reasoning you haven't provided so far...
I doubt it very seriously though , with all due respect of course , that you can disprove the very certain , beyond a shadow of a doubt , islamic origin of the scientific method as such , let alone its major and extremely highly importance and worth= the epistemological "discovery " of the scientific method as such by muslims, thanks to islam, , its practice by muslims on the reality ground and its islamic origin : there is way too much overwhelming evidence in favor of this thread's claims you cannot cope with, handle or disprove , with all due respect to you ,of course .
That full awarness and full consciousness , both at the philosophical theoretical as well as at the practical levels , had to wait for the right culture , mentality , environment (This is no racism or ethnicism or sectarianism... ), mindset ....to fully and proudly rise under the sun with all its glory ,in full awarness of itself and of its limitless power.
... many people , in the past , present as well as in the future , did not / do not and will not need to be fully aware of epistemology to do what they do,simply because the scientific method as such is intuitively innately instinctively universal , but that did not make those ancient people give birth to science in the modern sense .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/08/2013 21:42:06You did obviously not understand what i was saying to you :I said : science was used by those early muslims as an effective tool to approach the natural reality , while separating science form islam in the process ...and then afterwards , they tried to make a synthesis from both islam and science + from wisdom , personal experience + from other forms of knowledge, from art , literature ...in order to approach the ultimate reality or essence of beings and things or the whole picture, the latter as not the sum of its parts though ...I am not gonna repeat myself over and over again , next time , as you presently make me do .I understood that part well enough, I didn't ask or want you to repeat it.
You also said, "I understand the ultimate reality as the very essence of things islam tries to approach", and "The essence of things we cannot approach via science , reason or logic", and "the essence of things islam tries to approach as such is way beyond the realms of reason, logic , and science", so I was curious about how one might approach this ultimate reality if it is beyond science, rationality and logic. Seriously, how?
It seems like a reasonable question.
QuoteSo, as there are many levels of realityCan you explain what you mean by 'levels of reality', and how you know there are many?
Quote" if you would understand what i was saying , you wouldn't have uttered this non-sense "QuoteYou think the idea that science has been effective in debunking many irrational, superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural claims is non-sense? Really?OK...
You think the idea that science has been effective in debunking many irrational, superstitious, paranormal, and supernatural claims is non-sense? Really?OK...
QuoteGod gave us reason, logic , senses ... People believe in many different gods; do you mean the god of Islam in particular? I assume you're aware that our reason, logic, and senses are the result of evolutionary processes - so how was this god involved?
QuoteThere are , once again , many levels of reality as there are many levels of human consciousness and the natural reality as the realm of science is just one single level of reality : so, to pretend that science can cover all those different levels of reality is a very stupid idea , simply because there are whole levels of reality outside of that poor single level of reality covered by science .In relating the levels of reality to levels of consciousness, are you suggesting that these levels of reality are mental constructs, internal perceptual realities our brains generate from our senses?
If so, do you have any links to information on this multi-level reality mental model? QuoteIf not, what is a 'level of reality', and what evidence is there for the existence of many of them? i.e. how do you know they exist?
If not, what is a 'level of reality', and what evidence is there for the existence of many of them? i.e. how do you know they exist?
Science is a system for explaining what we observe. If any of this stuff is observable (directly or indirectly), it is within the scope of science. If it isn't observable, directly or indirectly, how do you even know it's there?
Quote... you cannot ignore the existence of those other levels of reality , neither science , reason or logic can approach , otherwise you would be half blind or handicapedAs it happens, I haven't noticed them at all, and my sight is fine, and my health is fine. At present I have no more reason to acknowledge these 'levels of reality' you mention than I have Russell's teapot, or the tooth fairy. What convincing evidence or plausible argument have you for their existence? for example, what convinced you?
QuoteScience is not the only valid source of knowledge , science has no monopoly on the truth ...You will figure that out someday , as you grow further or evolve , i hope , for your own sake , as a human being .No figuring out required; any educated scientist knows that science doesn't claim to be the only valid source of knowledge, nor does it even address truth. I'm surprised you thought otherwise - or were you just being patronizing?
QuoteI will talk to you about the boundaries and limits of science another day then ...I'll try to restrain my excitement
Meanwhile, I'd be grateful if you could at least try to answer the questions I asked; you give the impression that you are knowlegeable about approaching what is 'way beyond the realms of reason, logic, and science', the multiple levels of reality, etc., and I'm sure you wouldn't post up stuff you didn't understand or couldn't explain, so you shouldn't have any problem explaining them to someone unfamiliar with such ideas.
QuoteAs Einstein said, "If you can't explain something simply, you don't know enough about it", and "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother".
As Einstein said, "If you can't explain something simply, you don't know enough about it", and "You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother".
Quote... you do deliberately reduce the scope or spectrum of your horizons to the materialistic one only : i have a much broader horizon thus .This is a science forum, it's intended to be constrained roughly within those boundaries. You'd have to ask the other members what scopes or horizons they have elsewhere. I suspect that, like me, science is just one facet of their interests and activities. Whose horizons are broadest, I wouldn't know.
We do not have yet the kindda sophisticated psychology to approach mystic or the true religious experiences ,so ,maybe we will have such a thing in the future , who knows .
science can , for example, neither prove nor disprove the very existence of our inner lives or human consciousness
... it would be paradoxical to say that our consciousness was produced by the evolution of our brain : how can our brain as one tool to apprehend reality via our senses give birth, so to speak , to our consciousness that's a mode to grasp reality , otherwise all our knowledge , including science and evolution , as the presumed products of evolution are ....illusions or survival strategies ,we cannot be sure of their truth or validity .
QuoteCan you explain what you mean by 'levels of reality', and how you know there are many?Empirical evidence proved just that partly : Linda Jean Shepherd i mentioned earlier in another post of mine , talked in that unique book of hers about some scientific experiences conducted both on humans and animals which proved the fact that since we are raised a certain way , in order to behave and think a certain way ,we do miss the whole spectrum of other potential levels of reality in the process.
Can you explain what you mean by 'levels of reality', and how you know there are many?
Our consciousness is also fed by non-sensual sources , such as inspiration , revelation , intuition ....in the above mentioned sense , we can develop via our knowledge in the broader sense , via our life and religious experiences ....via wisdom ...That cannot be all just mental or cultural social constructs .
Science is not the only valid source of knowledge .
your own reasoning self implies that only reason, logic , science ...are valid sources of knowledge ,so .
So, all the modern truely scientific achievements of the west and of the rest of humanity originated from the origin or from the birth of science itself , from science thus ( and from all those earlier muslim really and truely scientific achievements ,simply because the pre-islamic era was pre- scientific , despite all those pre-islamic "scientific " contributions to science ) , proper science as such in the modern sense without which those modern scientific achievements would never have been able to take place , in the first place to begin with , don't you think ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/08/2013 20:57:33So, all the modern truely scientific achievements of the west and of the rest of humanity originated from the origin or from the birth of science itself , from science thus ( and from all those earlier muslim really and truely scientific achievements ,simply because the pre-islamic era was pre- scientific , despite all those pre-islamic "scientific " contributions to science ) , proper science as such in the modern sense without which those modern scientific achievements would never have been able to take place , in the first place to begin with , don't you think ?This is an example of a logical fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent'. Wherever you define the origin of science, by definition its antecedents must be pre-scientific, and all following developments dependent. Where you define the origin is an subjective decision, and also a self-fulfilling one - it changes the definition of what science is considered to be to match the choice of origin. I hinted at this in an earlier post; this is why I said that you should avoid over-exaggerating the importance of assigning a particular 'origin' to science. The Islamic era is a reasonable choice, though debatable, but defining an 'origin' of itself doesn't objectively mean a great deal. What counts is the contributions various cultures have made, large or small - and you can still play "our contribution was greater than anyone else's", if that's what floats your boat.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 10/08/2013 20:28:43We do not have yet the kindda sophisticated psychology to approach mystic or the true religious experiences ,so ,maybe we will have such a thing in the future , who knows .You'll be glad to know considerable progress has been made, and it is now possible to produce some mystical and revelatory religious-like experiences be stimulating the areas of the brain that generate these experiences.
Quote science can , for example, neither prove nor disprove the very existence of our inner lives or human consciousnessAs previously explained, science is not concerned with proof, but with explanation. Nevertheless, we do now understand a fair amount about the processes that work together to generate consciousness, how consciousness ceases when they cease communicating, how conscious alters when different processes fail to function or to communicate correctly, and much more. You seem to be a way behind the curve on consciousness research; I'm sure you'll be fascinated, in the best traditions of the ancient Islamic scholars. Fortunately, there are plenty of online resources to bring you up to date
Quote... it would be paradoxical to say that our consciousness was produced by the evolution of our brain : how can our brain as one tool to apprehend reality via our senses give birth, so to speak , to our consciousness that's a mode to grasp reality , otherwise all our knowledge , including science and evolution , as the presumed products of evolution are ....illusions or survival strategies ,we cannot be sure of their truth or validity .Not at all; when in doubt, follow the evidence. It's become clear in recent years that other species too have varying degrees of consciousness; some, like our close genetic relatives, recognisably similar to ours (though not as complex in terms of self-awareness). When behavioural traits associated with consciousness have been assessed in other species, the results, have been surprising. In general, the nature and degree of consciousness varies roughly according to complexity of social structure and interaction (which is thought to be one of the drivers of its evolution), and genetically related species tend to rate similarly. Suffice it to say, the evidence from a number of unrelated fields points beyond reasonable doubt to the evolutionary explanation - an explanation that has made testable predictions which have been subsequently borne out. Magic or god-did-it could also explain it all, except those explanations have no utility or predictive power
QuoteQuoteCan you explain what you mean by 'levels of reality', and how you know there are many?Empirical evidence proved just that partly : Linda Jean Shepherd i mentioned earlier in another post of mine , talked in that unique book of hers about some scientific experiences conducted both on humans and animals which proved the fact that since we are raised a certain way , in order to behave and think a certain way ,we do miss the whole spectrum of other potential levels of reality in the process.QuoteI searched these forums for such a mention, but found none. Perhaps it was a different site. I'm guessing the book was 'Lifting The Veil'?"Lifting the veil : The feminine face of science " is the title of that unique book of Linda Jean Shepherd : I recommend strongly that you try to make time to read it : very interesting in many ways .QuoteOur consciousness is also fed by non-sensual sources , such as inspiration , revelation , intuition ....in the above mentioned sense , we can develop via our knowledge in the broader sense , via our life and religious experiences ....via wisdom ...That cannot be all just mental or cultural social constructs .On the contrary, it certainly can; the argument from incredulity was never a particularly robust approach. Again, a lot of new knowledge has emerged from research into these areas, and the experiences of people who've had certain kinds of brain damage have helped a lot. For example, there are cases of damage to certain brain areas that resulted in extraordinary, compulsive artistic inspiration (usually detrimental to other aspects of life). I already mentioned the work on religious experiences, which also shed light on out-of-body experiences and sensations of benign or malevolent presence. Unsurprisingly, drug induced experiences of those kinds also involve the same areas.
I searched these forums for such a mention, but found none. Perhaps it was a different site. I'm guessing the book was 'Lifting The Veil'?
QuoteScience is not the only valid source of knowledge .That wasn't the question. But never mind, I see a pattern here.
Quoteyour own reasoning self implies that only reason, logic , science ...are valid sources of knowledge ,so .A pattern that tells me I'm wasting my time
I wonder what those ancient Islamic scholars would say.
... 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...
Some scientists even say that even human love is just ...chemistry, to put it simply : weird .
I should have said that science can say nothing about the natures of both human consciousness and of our inner lives, can it ?
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 ?
Materialism which views even life itself as just material processes exclusively can only come up with material or materialistic interpretations of scientific results .
Do you believe in the existence of the human soul by the way ?
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
"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 ...
what other valid sources of knowledge do you accept as such, outside of reason, logic , science ?
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 .