The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What's the real origin of the scientific method?  (Read 27439 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #75 on: 23/08/2013 21:59:15 »
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness, for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .
« Last Edit: 23/08/2013 22:02:32 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #76 on: 24/08/2013 00:22:34 »
You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .
I can't parse that sentence.

Quote
Try to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously,  if you want to at least ,while you are at it
I don't recall posting such a link - perhaps you could repost it. I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #77 on: 24/08/2013 00:25:45 »
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness
Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.

Quote
... for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .
No idea what you mean by that.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #78 on: 24/08/2013 09:07:47 »
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness,

Would you care to define consciouness?

Having defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.
« Last Edit: 24/08/2013 09:10:59 by alancalverd »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #79 on: 25/08/2013 23:17:27 »
An interesting coincidence - an article by Mustafa Akyol in the 'Hurriyet Daily News' (Istambul), quoted in 'The Week':
Quote
... Between the seventh and 13th centuries, Muslim scientists and thinkers were "the most erudite and productive ones in the world". ... So what went wrong? There are many complicated reasons behind the loss of influence, but one factor is the change in Muslim outlook. Back then, Muslims were part of a confident, cosmopolitan civilisation that was open to foreign cultures. Today, by contrast, the "common Muslim mind" is "insular", focused on protecting the "Islamic" sphere from the ideas of "the unbelievers".

Having been a target of the unpleasant side of this 'protective' attitude on this thread, I have to agree.

The article continues:
Quote
If Muslims want more Nobel Prizes, and the knowledge and success that goes with them, "we must begin by challenging this close-mindedness".
Quite; I wish them luck.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #80 on: 28/08/2013 17:27:22 »
An interesting coincidence - an article by Mustafa Akyol in the 'Hurriyet Daily News' (Istambul), quoted in 'The Week':
Quote
... Between the seventh and 13th centuries, Muslim scientists and thinkers were "the most erudite and productive ones in the world". ... So what went wrong? There are many complicated reasons behind the loss of influence, but one factor is the change in Muslim outlook. Back then, Muslims were part of a confident, cosmopolitan civilisation that was open to foreign cultures. Today, by contrast, the "common Muslim mind" is "insular", focused on protecting the "Islamic" sphere from the ideas of "the unbelievers".
Having been a target of the unpleasant side of this 'protective' attitude on this thread, I have to agree.

Prior note :
 My earlier "targeting " of  materialism as an exclusive narrow-minded reductionistic mechanical deterministic ...world view which pretends to be scientific ,ironically enough (What an irony that you quoted someone who happened to mention that close-mindedness of many current muslims ) , and therefore my "targeting " of you as a materialist were certainly not a matter of close-mindedness in relation to materialism ,absolutely not : it was a matter of fact :

 You seem to suffer from some sort of selective amnesia as well , i see : i did mention the fact that all cultures, thoughtstreams, religions ...do have some elements of truth , all of them without any exception whatsoever , relatively speaking ,to some extent at least though , including the materialistic and atheistic world views as well , i do learn a lot from as well  ...but that does not mean that i have to agree with all those claims of all those non-islamic cultures, htoughtstreams, religions...

Besides,i do agree with what your provided quote stated  , and  i even did mention the fact , on many occasions on this thread ,regarding the ignorance, backwardness, extremism...of many current muslims today , as some of the reasons which do explain the current muslim decline ,when muslims  abandoned science , reason, logic ...a fact which resulted in the rise of superstition, intolerance  ...among muslims , and a fact which resulted finally in the deserved decline of muslims .

I agree with that quote you provided : I can't ,by the way, but mention the following fact on the subject as well :

The extremely conservative stagnating rock-solid character of the Otthoman empire was one of the retrograde forces of history which paved the way for muslim  decline by closing the door (those of the mind heart of muslims at that time as well ) to any innovations, creativity , ....by closing that extremely innovative dynamic creative reviving  intrinsic islamic door = Al Ijtihad door = islamic theological and other islamic dynamic creative self-reviving think - tanks in islam which were/are and will always be  so important in and to  the evolutionary islam  .

Quote
The article continues:
Quote
If Muslims want more Nobel Prizes, and the knowledge and success that goes with them, "we must begin by challenging this close-mindedness".
Quite; I wish them luck
.

Thanks for that : but current muslims do need much more than just luck to regain their  lost  access to the true revolutionary, evolutionary ,open-minded and tolerant spirit of islam which is open to all cultures, religions, thoughtstreams .........

I certainly do not see how  current Turks have been doing just that : they just embraced western secular thought , values, principles .....while almost entirely abandoning or rejecting their islamic heritage in the process:

The Turkish current model cannot serve as an example for what current muslims should be doing in relation to modernism in fact .

P.S.: I did also mention the unique vision in that context of philosopher Muhammad Iqbal ,as a muslim liberal ,an original vision of his which tried to reconstruct religious thought in islam , in the light of modern western thought , and  within the islamic context and terms : See that masterpiece of Iqbal on the subject ,as 1 of my sources for this thread :

You seem to prefer that ironic hypocritical vague vision of that guy from that Turkish newspaper ,to that masterpiece of Iqbal on the same subject , ironically enough :

Iqbal did study western thought and philosophy , western literature , ethics ...and did confront them with those original ones of islam as well, within the islamic terms, and in light of the modern western thought ...

Did i not mention that Iqbal proved in that master piece of his, that modern western thought was just an extension of the islamic original one ? , an extension which has been taking its own materialistic secular path ?

Did i not mention that Iqbal proved the fact that most great ideas of western modern thought were already developed by prior ancient muslims ?....

Did i not mention the fact stated by Briffault as well as by Koshul and Iqbal, among many others ,the fact that the islamic fundamental influences were so far reaching that there was / is  no single aspect of western growth which could not / cannot be traced back to those islamic  influences ?

Did i not mention the fact of this thread as well regarding the indeniable fact that those islamic influences were so far reaching that they were the true originators of the scientific method itself ? 


As Iqbal stated , current muslims should learn from the great advances of modern western thought ,within the original islamic terms which gave rise to modernism , in the first place to begin with , in order for current muslims to catch up with all those lost centuries of muslims' slumber .

Koshul was even more clear on this same subject at the end of his above mentioned essay ,as 1 of my sources for this thread afterwards: he stated the fact that medieval backward barbaric superstitious ...Europe back then, was clever and open-minded pragmatic enough to learn from those prior islamic influences , and was therefore able to surpass them in many ways afterwards  :

So,current  muslims should do the same ,by trying to learn from the modern west ,in order to defeat their own current backwardness, ignorance, superstition , extremism...


Iqbal was qualified enough to stand between and to know both worlds : the islamic as well as the western one : and he was original enough to try to reconstruct the islamic religious thought which has been stagnating for more than 5 centuries now  , for the above mentioned reasons , in the light of western modern thought , but within the islamic original terms and contexts .

Instead of taking a close look at that islamic liberal vision of Iqbal, you prefer to quote someone whose own culture had chosen  to abandon its own islamic original identity by almost entirely replacing it by the western secular modern thought ...= weird attitude of yours  which reveals your  exclusive and narrow-minded Eurocentric materialistic  world view on the subject , ironically enough .

Not to mention that i talked to you , earlier, about that "Geography of Thought ..." of Nisbett , and that "Global brain" vision of Peter Russell , you seem to have completely discarded ....= your exclusive narrow-minded materialistic Eurocentrism is very revealing indeed : you just want muslims to be completely subjected to Eurocentrism in fact , deep down ,so. 


Do correct me if i am wrong though , please .

Final note :

 i think you should read Edward Said 's "Orientalism " masterpiece , in order to know about that exclusive narrow-minded racist paternalistic imperialistic western Eurocentric vision regarding Islam mainly  .

Thanks, appreciate indeed .

Kind regards

Abdel
« Last Edit: 28/08/2013 18:33:19 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #81 on: 28/08/2013 18:40:44 »
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness,

Would you care to define consciouness?


I am not qualified enough to do just that : human consciousness is as obvious as human free will is that they do not need to be defined really though, i guess.

Or as Augustine used to say regarding the human free will, for example : i do not know what free will is , where it begins or where it ends , but i do  know that free will does exist .

Quote
Having defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.

Please do identify a biological non-human system, as you put it , or a non-human living organism which does possess human consciousness .
« Last Edit: 28/08/2013 18:42:27 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #82 on: 28/08/2013 18:49:52 »
The so-called computation mechanisms cannot be applied to non-biological processes such as human consciousness
Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.

Indeed : you are perfectly entiteld to that opinion of yours : just do not tell me it is a scientific fact : see the difference ?

Quote
Quote
... for obvious reasons only materialists cannot detect ,even the blind can see ,even the deaf can hear , even the slow of mind can understand ....even the scientific method can acknowledge as such, ironically enough .
No idea what you mean by that.

What i meant is : that so-called computation or emergence property theory cannot be applied to human consciousness, for obvious reasons ,simply because human consciousness is a non-biological process ,otherwise ,science should be able to approach human consciousness as such = science can obviously neither prove the fact that we are conscious and therefore have inner lives , nor can science approach the subjective human consciousness as such , for obvious reasons, even though our human consciousness does have some universal elements , in the sense that all humans are , in principle at least , ...conscious beings .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #83 on: 28/08/2013 19:00:20 »
You quoted unfinished statements : see above ,later .
I can't parse that sentence.

Never mind , i was not done with that post of mine when you quoted it ,that's all .
But , that sentence you happened to quote was indeed finished though , my mistake , sorry .
Quote
Quote
Try to respond to what i said about that materialistic computation mechanism refferring to the "emergence " of human consciousness from the brain as well,you provided a link for previously,  if you want to at least ,while you are at it
I don't recall posting such a link - perhaps you could repost it.

Here is  your quote and link : regarding that lecture of Peter Russell :

Quote
It's full of holes (it's practically made of holes) and I don't buy it. I buy this though.


Quote
I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.

Self-projections , i presume :

You are the one who seems to prefer a materialistic explanation, above all ,ironically enough .

Worse : you present it as a scientific fact ,which is certainly not .


« Last Edit: 28/08/2013 19:05:15 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #84 on: 28/08/2013 23:19:10 »
Do correct me if i am wrong though , please .

Wrong in as much as my last post was simply referring to the unpleasant nature of some of your responses (e.g. the ones you apologised for).
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #85 on: 28/08/2013 23:33:40 »
Never mind , i was not done with that post of mine when you quoted it ,that's all .
Oh, I see. Perhaps it would help if you finished writing it before posting it.

Quote
Quote
I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.
You are the one who seems to prefer a materialistic explanation, above all ,ironically enough .
Well yes, that's true; you prefer a non-materialistic explanation, I prefer a materialistic one. How is that ironic?

Quote
Worse : you present it as a scientific fact ,which is certainly not .
No; as always, I suggest it is the most plausible explanation given prior knowledge and the evidence to date.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #86 on: 28/08/2013 23:52:55 »
@ dlorde :

Never mind my bold and harsh language : i mean it well .

It's only via some honest passionate hard talk that we can progress indeed .

No disrespect  intended or meant ,no harm done or intended , let alone meant .

Np hard feelings , i hope .

I will respond to your comments later on, when you will finish responding to mine as well .
Thanks , appreciate indeed .

I have respect for you and for your world views , as long as you do not try to impose them on me , as ...scientific facts .

All the best

Nice talking to you again :  the pleasure is all mine

I just like to shock people sometimes , which does bring me in trouble with people haha , simply because there is nothing more stimulating for human intelligence than shocks ...

High regards

Good night, sleep tight and don't let the bed bugs bite .   kidding

Bye
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #87 on: 29/08/2013 00:01:18 »
Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.

Indeed : you are perfectly entiteld to that opinion of yours : just do not tell me it is a scientific fact : see the difference ?
I wouldn't dream of it; it's simply the most plausible explanation for the available evidence - see the difference?

Quote
What i meant is : that so-called computation or emergence property theory cannot be applied to human consciousness, for obvious reasons ,simply because human consciousness is a non-biological process
Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is non-biological, then you can't examine it from a biological perspective. But why make that assumption?

Consciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.

By studying it as a biological process, we have learned a great deal that we would not otherwise have learned. That's all we aim to do; learn about and try to explain what we observe.

For proof and truth try mathematics or logic.
« Last Edit: 29/08/2013 00:15:01 by dlorde »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #88 on: 29/08/2013 00:14:05 »
Never mind my bold and harsh language : i mean it well .
Insults are rarely meant well.

Quote
It's only via some honest passionate hard talk that we can progress indeed .
Progress is made by informed debate. If you want to be taken seriously, try omitting the ad hominem attacks; they're are usually taken as a sign that you don't have a good argument or refutation.  If you have a good argument or refutation use it, concisely if possible.


 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #89 on: 29/08/2013 00:25:55 »
Would you care to define consciouness?


I am not qualified enough to do just that : human consciousness is as obvious as human free will is that they do not need to be defined really though, i guess.

Or as Augustine used to say regarding the human free will, for example : i do not know what free will is , where it begins or where it ends , but i do  know that free will does exist .

In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, and you know the name of someone else who didn't know what he was talking about. 

Quote
Quote
Having defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.

Please do identify a biological non-human system, as you put it , or a non-human living organism which does possess human consciousness .


I didn't "put it". But since you ask, a biological nonhuman system could be a bacterium or a tree. However as you won't tell me what you mean by consciousness, I can't possibly tell you if either of them possesses it, and by your own admission above, you wouldn't understand the answer anyway.

Face it, Don, just stringing words together does not constitute intelligent conversation, especially if you don't know what they mean.
« Last Edit: 29/08/2013 00:31:34 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #90 on: 29/08/2013 20:54:24 »
Those of us who think consciousness is a biological process must differ.

Indeed : you are perfectly entiteld to that opinion of yours : just do not tell me it is a scientific fact : see the difference ?
I wouldn't dream of it; it's simply the most plausible explanation for the available evidence - see the difference?

Good then , i just do not think that 's the most plausible explanation to date ,no way : may i ?

Try to convince me then instead .

Quote
Quote
What i meant is : that so-called computation or emergence property theory cannot be applied to human consciousness, for obvious reasons ,simply because human consciousness is a non-biological process
Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is non-biological, then you can't examine it from a biological perspective. But why make that assumption?

Well, i can turn those statements of yours upside down ,by stating the exact opposite of your words : Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is biological , then you cannot examine it from a non-biological perspective .But , why make that assumption then ?

What makes you think that consciousness is biological ?

It would startle haha you somehow to read about this great mystic poet's theory of evolution : Rumi who happened to live many centuries before Darwin was even born by the way : I am giving you  a link to it ,not for its 'scientific value " though ,  just try to read this little essay on the matter , just for the fun of it :

 Rumi saw universal love mainly as THE drive behind human evolution ,not the natural selection : via the  google search  link below you can download that little essay for free , first link with (PDF) label : enjoy : do not read it via your scientific mind though : but via your heart : just for a change then  :

https://www.google.com/search?q=rumi%27s%20theory%20of%20evolution.pdf&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=np&source=hp

Quote
Consciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.


Look, my personal experiences (Human consciousness is a subjective process mainly , i must remind you of , even though consciousness  has some universal elements as well ,we all seem to share with each other ,as human beings )  ,my humble knowledge , ancient wisdoms,  personal experiences  of others on the matter , ...my own beliefs ..my intuition ...my common sense ...do tell me that humanity will never be able to know what the nature or function of human consciousness are , but i might be wrong indeed : you have to come up with some serious explanation of human consciousness ,if you wanna convince me ,simply because i do not buy that materialistic explanation of consciousness that has more to do with materialism as a world view than with science itself though  , a materialistic explanation or rather interpretation of human consciousness which does make no sense to me whatsoever  .
I see consciousness as being intimately connected with our whole beings , with every cell , organ and atom of our beings ,not just with our brains our consciousness cannot do without ,but this humble statement of mine has no scientific claims ,as your above statement  seems to have .
And who said that consciousness functions independently via some mysterious "mechanisms " ,otherwise it would not need our bodies .
Our consciousness will not need our bodies after death though (This is also no scientific statement of mine as well  ) :
I think that the next level of human evolution will occur at the level of human consciousness (and then , some evolved humans at the level of consciousness thus  will become  some sort of "gods " somehow ,metaphorically speaking then  , by actively participating in the further dynamic creation of the universe by God , as the universe is still expanding,which might result in the establishment of some sort of highly  evolved  democratic  societies  of human "gods " ,the latter is a metaphor, once again ) and then , after death ,that ultimate evolution of man will go on ,resulting in the independence of our souls delivered from the burden and weight of our bodies = our ultimate evolution will be spiritual ,as the ultimate reality is .

Quote
By studying it as a biological process, we have learned a great deal that we would not otherwise have learned. That's all we aim to do; learn about and try to explain what we observe.


Well, see above : human consciousness has a biological side it cannot do without indeed : our brain mainly : that's what gives you the illusion that consciousness is biological only = our brains or bodies are just its hosts it cannot do without  on this earth and in this life on earth at least , but the ultimate nature and function of our consciousness is not biological :
Otherwise , just try to explain to me then and once again , something i asked you many times to do ,but you did not try to do so far  , explain to me then how , on earth, can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ?

Quote
For proof and truth try mathematics or logic.

I assume  that my earlier links concerning maths had proved to you the fact that there are unprovable things out there ,and that even maths cannot prove certain true premises to be true .
You just ignored that fact which was demonstrated by some brilliant mathematicians ...

Besides, our reason, logic , science ....cannot cross the boundaries of the realm of the natural reality ,once again : there are many other levels of reality out there ,you cannot just deny the possible existence of via reason, logic , science ...even though , there are also superstitions , fairytales , illusions , delusions ...out there as well that famous tea pot argument of Bertrand Russell does not and cannot absolutely cover .
« Last Edit: 29/08/2013 21:03:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #91 on: 29/08/2013 21:35:56 »
Would you care to define consciouness?


I am not qualified enough to do just that : human consciousness is as obvious as human free will is that they do not need to be defined really though, i guess.

Or as Augustine used to say regarding the human free will, for example : i do not know what free will is , where it begins or where it ends , but i do  know that free will does exist .
Quote
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about, and you know the name of someone else who didn't know what he was talking about. 

Funny : that's a rather peculiar way of looking at what i was saying that really made me  laugh ,because it was so funny indeed :

No, i said that , simply because i do not know what consciousness is,or rather what the nature of consciousness is  ,as Augustine and many others did not /do not / will never know ,not in this life on earth at least  : you should try to look for the simplest explanation of my words= Occams' sort of razor  , instead of speculating about them wildly  .

Quote
Quote
Quote
Having defined it, please identify a nonbiological system that possesses it.
Please do identify a biological non-human system, as you put it , or a non-human living organism which does possess human consciousness .

I didn't "put it". But since you ask, a biological nonhuman system could be a bacterium or a tree. However as you won't tell me what you mean by consciousness, I can't possibly tell you if either of them possesses it, and by your own admission above, you wouldn't understand the answer anyway.
I just stated a fact by saying i do not know
Ok, Mr.unique unparalleled-in-the-history-of-all-mankind  so far genius Messiah : do  please tell me what the nature of human consciousness is then,then we can all solve this almost eternal impossible issue definitively ,thanks to you we have been waiting for all along during all these thousands of years of humankind's existence on this tiny planet and go on about our business afterwards ,instead of wasting our time here  .


Quote
Face it, Don, just stringing words together does not constitute intelligent conversation, especially if you don't know what they mean.

Bombastic hollow pretentious statements neither in fact .

The intelligent thing to say when one does not know something is to say : i do not know , i just did that again .

But you are so bombastic as to say that you do know the answer to that i might not even understand : well, try me then, bombastic genius : you might be the only person on earth to know the answer ,who knows ? We might be all idiots indeed in that regard : enlighten us then , Einstein .

Pleeeease do .

Deal ?
.


 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #92 on: 29/08/2013 23:42:02 »
.. i can turn those statements of yours upside down ,by stating the exact opposite of your words : Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is biological , then you cannot examine it from a non-biological perspective .But , why make that assumption then ?

What makes you think that consciousness is biological ?
Quote
Consciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.
Quote
Look, my personal experiences ... ,my humble knowledge , ancient wisdoms,  personal experiences  of others on the matter , ...my own beliefs ..my intuition ...my common sense ...do tell me that humanity will never be able to know what the nature or function of human consciousness are , but i might be wrong indeed
Indeed. The history of knowledge acquisition shows that uncorroborated personal experience, intuition, ancient wisdom, and common sense, are poor guides to objective reality; that's precisely why the scientific method you made such a fuss about earlier has been so successful - it attempts to minimize the effects of those influences.

Quote
you have to come up with some serious explanation of human consciousness ,if you wanna convince me...
I don't want to (and clearly can't) convince you. Only you can do that.

Quote
And who said that consciousness functions independently via some mysterious "mechanisms " ,otherwise it would not need our bodies .
Our consciousness will not need our bodies after death though
To me, this is contradictory. If consciousness doesn't need the body after death, then it must be able to function independently. To do this, there must be some means to sustain it, i.e. some unspecified and unevidenced (mysterious) mechanism.

Quote
This is also no scientific statement of mine as well
Nor is it coherent or consistent.

Quote
human consciousness has a biological side it cannot do without indeed : our brain mainly : that's what gives you the illusion that consciousness is biological only = our brains or bodies are just its hosts it cannot do without  on this earth and in this life on earth at least , but the ultimate nature and function of our consciousness is not biological
Which is it - consciousness can't exist without the biological body, or it can?

Quote
just try to explain to me then and once again , something i asked you many times to do ,but you did not try to do so far  , explain to me then how , on earth, can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ?
I've already explained and provided references for how it arises from coordinated brain processes. What is not yet explained is the nature of subjective experience - beyond simply 'that is what it is like to be a human/ape/dolphin/etc'. Nevertheless, it is early days in the exploration of the nature of subjective experience. So far, all indications are that it is a complex emergent phenomenon generated by brain processes. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

Quote
Quote
For proof and truth try mathematics or logic.
I assume  that my earlier links concerning maths had proved to you the fact that there are unprovable things out there ,and that even maths cannot prove certain true premises to be true .
You just ignored that fact which was demonstrated by some brilliant mathematicians ...
I'm well aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. He proved them using mathematics and logic. That axiomatic systems can make certain true statements that are not provable within the system is a restricted result; it has no effect on mathematical provability in general. I assumed you would know that.

So, to date, I've given numerous reasoned explanations why I take the approach and viewpoint that I do. All I've seen from you is screeds of handwaving, ad-hominems, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the science, and (mainly) argument from incredulity and assertions of belief. No reasoned or rational arguments at all.

If you wish to maintain that consciousness is somehow special, and can't be treated like any other phenomenon arising from physical processes, yet can't or won't give a reasoned explanation for that position, that's a fallacy known as 'special pleading'. But you knew that, right?


 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #93 on: 30/08/2013 17:18:39 »
Never mind my bold and harsh language : i mean it well .
Insults are rarely meant well.

No, those were no insults ,just hard talk = my own expression of tough love for you as a fellow human being .


Quote
Quote
It's only via some honest passionate hard talk that we can progress indeed .
Progress is made by informed debate.

What i mean by hard talk is informed non-hypocritical , non political -correct talk .

Quote
If you want to be taken seriously, try omitting the ad hominem attacks; they're are usually taken as a sign that you don't have a good argument or refutation.  If you have a good argument or refutation use it, concisely if possible
.

I was just trying to make you realise the fact that you do confuse materialism as a world view with scientifc facts , that's all .

So, i was trying therefore to address materialism as a world view .

The materialistic approach of human consciousness has thus more to do with materialism as a world view ,than with science itself .

If you want me to refute that materialistic view regarding human consciousness , then,it's pretty logical to expect from me that i just address that materialistic world view regarding consciousness ,which is certainly not a scientific fact .

Finally , since science cannot approach our subjective consciousness, then , my reaction to that materialistic view of consciousness would be via alternative non-materialistic world views , not via science : see the difference ?





 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #94 on: 30/08/2013 17:31:02 »
Never mind , i was not done with that post of mine when you quoted it ,that's all .
Oh, I see. Perhaps it would help if you finished writing it before posting it.


Indeed.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I can't make out much of your discussion beyond that you seem to prefer a non-materialist explanation.
You are the one who seems to prefer a materialistic explanation, above all ,ironically enough .
Well yes, that's true; you prefer a non-materialistic explanation, I prefer a materialistic one. How is that ironic?

Right : you are indeed perfectly entiteld to hold any world view you might prefer to hold  , that's just  ironic in the sense that materialism is an exclusive world view : so, when you quoted that Turkish guy talking about that true close-mindedness of many current muslims , you did not realise that materialism is also and mainly an exclusive close-minded ,narrow-minded world view = there is the irony you did not detect .

Quote
Quote
Worse : you present it as a scientific fact ,which is certainly not .
No; as always, I suggest it is the most plausible explanation given prior knowledge and the evidence to date.

No , it's not : i responded to that earlier : you just make the available data concerning neuro-science   fit into your materialistic view of human consciousness = which makes it just a world view , not a scientific one : see the difference ? Hope so .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #95 on: 30/08/2013 18:41:25 »
.. i can turn those statements of yours upside down ,by stating the exact opposite of your words : Clearly, if you make the a-priori assumption that consciousness is biological , then you cannot examine it from a non-biological perspective .But , why make that assumption then ?

What makes you think that consciousness is biological ?
Quote
Consciousness gives every indication of being intimately connected with the function of a specialised biological organ (the brain) of biological creatures (us), and as (despite intensive study) we have no evidence of it functioning independently and no plausible mechanism for it to do so, it seems reasonable to assume it is a biological process until we have plausible evidence that it isn't.
Quote
Look, my personal experiences ... ,my humble knowledge , ancient wisdoms,  personal experiences  of others on the matter , ...my own beliefs ..my intuition ...my common sense ...do tell me that humanity will never be able to know what the nature or function of human consciousness are , but i might be wrong indeed
Indeed. The history of knowledge acquisition shows that uncorroborated personal experience, intuition, ancient wisdom, and common sense, are poor guides to objective reality; that's precisely why the scientific method you made such a fuss about earlier has been so successful - it attempts to minimize the effects of those influences.

Well, you are missing the main point of our discussion here : our subjective immaterial human consciousness cannot be approached by the material ( do not confuse the material or the physical or biological with materialism as a world view though ) science , for obvious reasons , despite what materialists would say about just that , that's 1 of the reasons why materialists see consciousness as just a biological process ,simply because it suits them so well,  otherwise ,they would be refuting their own materialism as a result : can't you see that ? : so, we are dealing here with just materialism as a world view regarding human consciousness , a materialistic world view that can be only addressed by alternative non-materialistic world views : do not involve science in areas where it does not belong thus .

Therefore, we can only address human consciousness via personal experiences, world views, wisdoms...as i said earlier .

Quote
Quote
you have to come up with some serious explanation of human consciousness ,if you wanna convince me...
I don't want to (and clearly can't) convince you. Only you can do that.


You're so right about that i must give you credit for indeed : we can only take people to the fountain ,but we cannot make them drink from it indeed : teachers ,thinkers ...do not teach us anything , we do .

Besides, i have been struggling with materialism as a world view in the exact sciences and in life in general , in human sciences, in art , literature , philosophy,anthropology ,history ,psychology......,since my early teenage time now ,without being ever able to swallow that world view, no way , even though i happened to have a materialistic life style during some certain phase of my life without adhering to materialism of course , and even though my relatives, friends , beloved ones used to tell me back then that i was a materialist at heart , a life style i turned my back to  since : materialism as a world view is just that : a world view ,which was the product of Eurocentric philosophic historic cultural economic political ...circumstances of medieval Europe , as a rebellion against the church = materialism as a world view is just Eurocentric = not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least,  not even remotely close thus .

Quote
Quote
And who said that consciousness functions independently via some mysterious "mechanisms " ,otherwise it would not need our bodies .
Our consciousness will not need our bodies after death though
To me, this is contradictory. If consciousness doesn't need the body after death, then it must be able to function independently. To do this, there must be some means to sustain it, i.e. some unspecified and unevidenced (mysterious) mechanism
.

Well, i see that  or rather speculate about that as just the evolution of man through this life to the next one : in this life the body had to be 'attached " to the spirit , for reasons i do not know, with this life on earth as just a temporary phase man gotta go through : after death , our souls get liberated from our bodies in order to be able to go to the next and ultimate level of evolution = the spiritual one ...I do not know for sure :
There are only 2 absolute certainties or absolute truths in life though = our death is absolutely certain , and absolute certainty or the absolute Truth with a big T do exist only after death : so, i was just speculating about the above .

Quote
Quote
This is also no scientific statement of mine as well
Nor is it coherent or consistent.

See above . those metaphysical matters regarding the meaning of life , regarding  death and beyond death do escape our reason, logic, science ,so : they are beyond the latters .We can only speculate about them thus via our own personal experiences, via those of others , via certain world views , via certain wisdoms...

Quote
Quote
human consciousness has a biological side it cannot do without indeed : our brain mainly : that's what gives you the illusion that consciousness is biological only = our brains or bodies are just its hosts it cannot do without  on this earth and in this life on earth at least , but the ultimate nature and function of our consciousness is not biological
Which is it - consciousness can't exist without the biological body, or it can?

It's pretty obvious that consciousness cannot exist without the body , in this life at least : see above : death will be the means to liberate our souls from our bodies in order for us to "upgrade " to the next level of human evolution = the spiritual one .
I am just speculating  again , in abscence of the existence of any other alternative explanation or interpretation in that regard in this life at least .

Quote
Quote
just try to explain to me then and once again , something i asked you many times to do ,but you did not try to do so far  , explain to me then how , on earth, can the unconscious matter give rise to the immaterial consciousness ?
I've already explained and provided references for how it arises from coordinated brain processes. What is not yet explained is the nature of subjective experience - beyond simply 'that is what it is like to be a human/ape/dolphin/etc'. Nevertheless, it is early days in the exploration of the nature of subjective experience. So far, all indications are that it is a complex emergent phenomenon generated by brain processes. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it.

Again, that's just a materialistic world view regarding human consciousness , i can address only via other alternative non-materialistic world views .
Besides, i do neither  buy the materialistic "fact " that the evolved brain gave rise to consciousness , nor the materialistic "fact " that science can approach the nature of our subjective experiences ,simply because they are subjective .
In short :
You are just talking about the materialistic world views regarding consciousness, regarding our subjective experiences : do not involve science in that , once again, please .
We cannot approach consciousness and our subjective experiences just via biology neurology ....Do not confuse the one with the other = 2 totally different things , even though they do interact with each other and cannot do without each other .


Quote
Quote
Quote
For proof and truth try mathematics or logic.
I assume  that my earlier links concerning maths had proved to you the fact that there are unprovable things out there ,and that even maths cannot prove certain true premises to be true .
You just ignored that fact which was demonstrated by some brilliant mathematicians ...
I'm well aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. He proved them using mathematics and logic. That axiomatic systems can make certain true statements that are not provable within the system is a restricted result; it has no effect on mathematical provability in general. I assumed you would know that.

Then, i suggest you watch those videos  again ,but i am no expert on the matter though , not even remotely close : i just know that there are things we cannot prove to be true as such ,even though they might be true ...= there might be other levels of reality out there which escape any human reason, logic , science ...simply because we are just a very tiny tiny tiny part of the huge universe or multiuniverses which are still expanding = the materialistic key hole or tunnel vision is just that in fact .

Quote
So, to date, I've given numerous reasoned explanations why I take the approach and viewpoint that I do. All I've seen from you is screeds of handwaving, ad-hominems, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the science, and (mainly) argument from incredulity and assertions of belief. No reasoned or rational arguments at all.

No , you were just confusing materialism as a world view with science , once again .
Second : human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science , which means that we can address them only via world views , personal experiences, wisdoms...

If human consciousness is just a biological process, then one should expect it to be 'captured " , localised , ....Did you ever see it ,touch it ....?

Science might as it actually does shed some important bright light on how our brain functions ....but that has little , if no , effect in trying to explain consciousness as such or rather its nature .

Quote
If you wish to maintain that consciousness is somehow special, and can't be treated like any other phenomenon arising from physical processes, yet can't or won't give a reasoned explanation for that position, that's a fallacy known as 'special pleading'. But you knew that, right?

No, see above : the nature or function of human consciousness do escape any reason, logic , science ....we can only address the firsts via world views, personal experiences, wisdoms ...

Final note :
The issue of human consciousness can only be addressed at the levels of world views, personal experiences ...= that's a form of art mainly , no science .

When science "will be able " to say something about consciousness , then and only then i will listen to you ....
Deal ?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #96 on: 30/08/2013 20:02:49 »

Quote :
"The theory of evolution ,however, has brought despair & anxiety , instead of hope & enthusiasm for life , to the modern world .

The reason is to be found in the unwarranted modern assumption that man's present structure , mental as well as physiological , is the last word in biological evolution , and that death , regarded as a biological event , has no constructive meaning .

The world of today needs a Rumi to create an attitude of hope , and to kindle the fire of enthusiasm for life .

His inimitable lines may be quoted here ;

First man appeared in the class of inorganic things,

Next , he passed therefrom into that of plants ,

For years , he lived as one of the plants ,

Remembering naught of his inorganic state so different

And when he passed from the vegetive to the animal state

he had no remembrance of his state as a plant

Except the inclination he felt to the world of plants

Especially at the time of spring & sweet flowers

Like the inclination of infants to towards their mothers

which know not the cause of their inclination to the breast.

Again the great creator ,as you know

Drew man man out of the animal into the human state

Thus man passed from one order of nature to another..."

........... End quote .


Source : The reconstruction of religious thought in islam by Muhammad Iqbal
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #97 on: 30/08/2013 22:58:19 »
No, those were no insults ,just hard talk = my own expression of tough love for you as a fellow human being .
It speaks volumes about you.

Quote
I was just trying to make you realise the fact that you do confuse materialism as a world view with scientifc facts , that's all .
Little danger of that, they're entirely different, though complementary, concepts.

Quote
The materialistic approach of human consciousness has thus more to do with materialism as a world view ,than with science itself .
Not really; it is more a result of taking a scientific approach.

Quote
If you want me to refute that materialistic view regarding human consciousness, then,it's pretty logical to expect from me that i just address that materialistic world view regarding consciousness ,which is certainly not a scientific fact .
I don't particularly want you to refute a materialistic view of consciousness, but just provide some reasoned argument for your own view. I'm curious to know whether you just believe what you've been brought up to believe, or whether you've somehow reasoned yourself into the view you take, and if so, by what arguments.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #98 on: 30/08/2013 23:08:19 »
Right : you are indeed perfectly entiteld to hold any world view you might prefer to hold  , that's just  ironic in the sense that materialism is an exclusive world view : so, when you quoted that Turkish guy talking about that true close-mindedness of many current muslims , you did not realise that materialism is also and mainly an exclusive close-minded ,narrow-minded world view = there is the irony you did not detect .
I'm open to a reasoned exposition of your world view - I've been asking you for some time now. So far, you've been unable or unwilling to provide it.

Quote
Quote
... I suggest it is the most plausible explanation given prior knowledge and the evidence to date.

No , it's not : i responded to that earlier : you just make the available data concerning neuro-science fit into your materialistic view of human consciousness = which makes it just a world view , not a scientific one : see the difference ? Hope so .
The available data happens to fit; if it didn't you'd have been able to show how it supports a different view. But you couldn't.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #99 on: 31/08/2013 00:02:28 »
... our subjective immaterial human consciousness cannot be approached by the material ( do not confuse the material or the physical or biological with materialism as a world view though ) science , for obvious reasons...
'for obvious reasons', <handwaving> isn't much of an argument. I think we'll leave you to get on with the handwaving, while we continue to learn about the real world.

Quote
Well, i see that  or rather speculate about that..

... so, i was just speculating about the above .

We can only speculate about them ...

...I am just speculating  again ...
OK; in that case, I'll leave you to it.

Quote
Again, that's just a materialistic world view regarding human consciousness , i can address only via other alternative non-materialistic world views .
OK, go ahead. Address the multiple lines of evidence that point to consciousness being a process of the brain via other alternative non-materialistic world views.

Quote
... i am no expert on the matter though , not even remotely close : i just know that there are things we cannot prove to be true as such ,even though they might be true ...= there might be other levels of reality out there which escape any human reason, logic , science ...simply because we are just a very tiny tiny tiny part of the huge universe or multiuniverses which are still expanding = the materialistic key hole or tunnel vision is just that in fact .
Ah... no. There could well be other universes, it's a very promising hypothesis, but Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have nothing to do with it.

Quote
Quote
So, to date, I've given numerous reasoned explanations why I take the approach and viewpoint that I do. All I've seen from you is screeds of handwaving, ad-hominems, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of the science, and (mainly) argument from incredulity and assertions of belief. No reasoned or rational arguments at all.
... human consciousness, our subjective inner lives ...do escape any reason, logic, science , which means that we can address them only via world views , personal experiences, wisdoms...
Odd how it always comes down to either evasion, 'I'm just speculating', or the most egregious special pleading, 'you can't use reason, logic, or science...'. A complete waste of time.

Quote
If human consciousness is just a biological process, then one should expect it to be 'captured " , localised , ....Did you ever see it ,touch it ....?
It is localised - within the brain that produces it, and you can't see or touch a biological process - only its physical effects. Can you see or touch digestion? photosynthesis?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What's the real origin of the scientific method?
« Reply #99 on: 31/08/2013 00:02:28 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums