0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
...there is no reason to say that any species for that matter is superior or inferior to any other one for that matter , in the materialistic sense at least= i think humans are obviously and essentially way too superior to any other known living species or known living organisms on earth at least , despite the fact that many other living organisms do surpass us in this area or that .
QuoteGreat minds discuss ideasAverage minds discuss eventsSmall minds discuss...people .and morons rehash drivel whilst throwing insults at those trying to hold an intelligent discussion.Though I'm not even sure about the precepts here. Anyone can come up with an idea, but it takes a great mind to suggest a critical experiment (i.e. a series of events) that might support or disprove the idea. And it takes a bold mind to question a popular authority. Which is why I value science way above philosophy, and have no time for the discussion of undefined abstractions.
Great minds discuss ideasAverage minds discuss eventsSmall minds discuss...people .
Some people have a pretty high opinion of homo sapiens. But every other species sees us only as food or the enemy. Now with several million other species out there, the majority opinion among God's creation is clearly against us. And when I encounter a pompous fool, I'm tempted to side with the majority.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 12/09/2013 20:15:59...there is no reason to say that any species for that matter is superior or inferior to any other one for that matter , in the materialistic sense at least= i think humans are obviously and essentially way too superior to any other known living species or known living organisms on earth at least , despite the fact that many other living organisms do surpass us in this area or that .I thought this was worth re-quoting just for surreality:)
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 12/09/2013 19:34:00QuoteQuote from: cheryl j on 12/09/2013 19:18:07What is "science proper" ? How does science work without empirical evidence and reproducible results? Even physics, one of the most theoretical areas of the physical sciences, uses empirical observations and measurements to confirm mathematical propositions or conclusions generated by thought experiments. It may, as in the case of Einstein and relativity, take technology decades to catch up with theory, but empirical experiments are eventually done. And when there are contradictions, it causes a lot of head scratching and consternation. But they don't just ignore the data.Well, darling :When you're gonna learn to separate between materialism as just a world view and science , when you will learn to separate science from the materialistic interpretations of science ,when you will learn to separate materialistic world views and materialistic approaches from science results and from scientific approaches , then , and only then , you will be able to understand what i was saying all along .Our physical brain might be just a receiver , in almost the same fashion as the tv set is just a receiver of tv signals, tv signals that stop getting received by that tv set when the tv set or some parts of it at least cease to function or are damaged ...= no comparison, just an analogy .Does that mean that the tv set used to create those tv signals or images when it used to function ? Need more examples or rather analogies? .Just shoot .I would be delighted to learn how to separate science from materialism, just explain how science works with out empirical evidence and reproducible results. Think of the money universities could save without all those fancy laboratories and particle accelerators!
QuoteQuote from: cheryl j on 12/09/2013 19:18:07What is "science proper" ? How does science work without empirical evidence and reproducible results? Even physics, one of the most theoretical areas of the physical sciences, uses empirical observations and measurements to confirm mathematical propositions or conclusions generated by thought experiments. It may, as in the case of Einstein and relativity, take technology decades to catch up with theory, but empirical experiments are eventually done. And when there are contradictions, it causes a lot of head scratching and consternation. But they don't just ignore the data.Well, darling :When you're gonna learn to separate between materialism as just a world view and science , when you will learn to separate science from the materialistic interpretations of science ,when you will learn to separate materialistic world views and materialistic approaches from science results and from scientific approaches , then , and only then , you will be able to understand what i was saying all along .Our physical brain might be just a receiver , in almost the same fashion as the tv set is just a receiver of tv signals, tv signals that stop getting received by that tv set when the tv set or some parts of it at least cease to function or are damaged ...= no comparison, just an analogy .Does that mean that the tv set used to create those tv signals or images when it used to function ? Need more examples or rather analogies? .Just shoot .
Quote from: cheryl j on 12/09/2013 19:18:07What is "science proper" ? How does science work without empirical evidence and reproducible results? Even physics, one of the most theoretical areas of the physical sciences, uses empirical observations and measurements to confirm mathematical propositions or conclusions generated by thought experiments. It may, as in the case of Einstein and relativity, take technology decades to catch up with theory, but empirical experiments are eventually done. And when there are contradictions, it causes a lot of head scratching and consternation. But they don't just ignore the data.
What is "science proper" ? How does science work without empirical evidence and reproducible results? Even physics, one of the most theoretical areas of the physical sciences, uses empirical observations and measurements to confirm mathematical propositions or conclusions generated by thought experiments. It may, as in the case of Einstein and relativity, take technology decades to catch up with theory, but empirical experiments are eventually done. And when there are contradictions, it causes a lot of head scratching and consternation. But they don't just ignore the data.
I have heard of the radio/receiver analogy for consciousness, and it is an interesting idea. But it remains just an idea until you can tell me something scientifically verifiable about that mysterious transmitter.
In medicine there is something called a "zebra diagnosis." When you hear the sound of hooves, you expect to see a horse. Occasionally though, it turns out to be a zebra. The same set of observations, even though accurate, can lead you to a false conclusion, because you may be missing (or didn't think to look for) some small piece of critical information that makes a difference. Scientists have wandered down dead end paths for that reason. These kind of errors do not invalidate the entire scientific process and empiricism itself.
You're distorting my views : Who said that science can be or rather exist , let alone function without observation, experience, empirical evidence , without verifiable falsifiable reproducible results ? = that's the very definition of science by the way : what has that to do with materialism as a world view then ?
Here's another banana for the troll.
Quote from: DonQuichotteYou're distorting my views : Who said that science can be or rather exist , let alone function without observation, experience, empirical evidence , without verifiable falsifiable reproducible results ? = that's the very definition of science by the way : what has that to do with materialism as a world view then ? Because experiments, observations, measurements, and empirical evidence are all material processes involving material things!
If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it? It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so. I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up. If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.
Quote from: cheryl j on 13/09/2013 18:27:29If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it? It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so. I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up. If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.There is also another option regarding the approach of consciousness, mainly because no single approach of consciousness can ever be able to claim itself to be totally scientific , not even remotely close thus , including the magical materialistic approach of consciousness thus :Either we wait for some radical shift of paradigm in science ,or rather for a radical shift of meta-paradigm in science,meta-paradigm that's underlying all those paradigms or sub-paradigms in science , a radical shift of meta-paradigm that would disprove the actually mainstream materialistic dominating meta-paradigm in science =the materialistic meta-paradigm in science = that the universe is exclusively material .Or combined with the fact that we can try to approach consciousness via trying to extend our levels of consciousness via personal experiences shaped by certain world views, by the personal experiences of others on the subject , by ancient wisdoms on the subject , by trying to be up to date regarding what science can relatively say about consciousness via studying its alleged receiver some more : the brain : we still do not know much about the extreme complexity of the latter though .... = a multi-approach then that might result in some sort of holistic synthesis someday = science alone cannot really approach consciousness ...we should combine science with a holistic approach ....of consciousness ...Art, literature , philosophy , .....can also have some say on the subject as well thus ...I dunno .That's just my take on that .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 13/09/2013 19:04:04Quote from: cheryl j on 13/09/2013 18:27:29If consciousness is immaterial, that is not made of any form of matter and energy, and cannot be studied by any empirical or physical process, how does one know what it is, or isn't, what it can and cannot do, it's effects on other things, or anything about it? It would seem that one is stuck with the options of 1) a priori reasoning, 2) some intuitive process and/or lucky guess, or 3) divine revelation, all of which are problematic. As powerful as logic and reasoning can be, your subsequent understanding of consciousness will rest on whether or not it is as you originally define it to be, that it has the characteristics you say it does. Lucky guesses and divine revelation will ultimately result in logical fallacies like "appeal to authority," eg something is true because the Bible says so, or the Koran says so, or Jojo's psychic hotline says so. I guess the forth option is just to say it is unknowable, but that seems rather like just giving up. If I am overlooking some path to knowledge about something which is immaterial, please fill me in.There is also another option regarding the approach of consciousness, mainly because no single approach of consciousness can ever be able to claim itself to be totally scientific , not even remotely close thus , including the magical materialistic approach of consciousness thus :Either we wait for some radical shift of paradigm in science ,or rather for a radical shift of meta-paradigm in science,meta-paradigm that's underlying all those paradigms or sub-paradigms in science , a radical shift of meta-paradigm that would disprove the actually mainstream materialistic dominating meta-paradigm in science =the materialistic meta-paradigm in science = that the universe is exclusively material .Or combined with the fact that we can try to approach consciousness via trying to extend our levels of consciousness via personal experiences shaped by certain world views, by the personal experiences of others on the subject , by ancient wisdoms on the subject , by trying to be up to date regarding what science can relatively say about consciousness via studying its alleged receiver some more : the brain : we still do not know much about the extreme complexity of the latter though .... = a multi-approach then that might result in some sort of holistic synthesis someday = science alone cannot really approach consciousness ...we should combine science with a holistic approach ....of consciousness ...Art, literature , philosophy , .....can also have some say on the subject as well thus ...I dunno .That's just my take on that .I don't see where you have really provided another option than the ones I listed above.ancient wisdom - appeal to authority, divine revelationphilosophy - a prior reasoning, appeal to authoritypersonal experience - intuitive process, lucky guess, or divine revelationother people's personal experience - appeal to authorityExpanding consciousness to understand consciousness - intuitive, or a priori reasoningart, literature - intuitive process, more appeals to authority.Paradigm shift - to what? Belief in the immaterial? Which can be known or understood by what means? See above.Combining all of the above in some "holisitic" way does not solve your problem.
What's so surreal about it then ?
Why did you ignore my other quotes ? because you could not answer them maybe ?
I dunno .That's just my take on that .
P.S.: I am not really responsible for the potential errors that might or might not be contained in this post of mine , blame that eventually on the speed of "light " through which i wrote this post .
Why I like science:<wise words>