[alancalverd]

See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Apart from everyone else, that is.

[dlorde]

See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Apart from everyone else, that is.

Yeah. We covered that at length in What's the real origin of the scientific method?, where it turned out the title was less a question, more a rhetorical preface to a diatribe on the Islamic contribution. For example:

Those muslims did much much more , including giving birth to science itself ... i am talking here mainly about the fact that science owes its very existence to muslims indeed .

and so-on.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

We should thus stop seeing religion, or Islam in this case ,  and science as concurrents or as opposite opponents .

*** Exactly my point!

You appear to be attacking science because it is not religious enough.

No, i was just attacking that untrue ideological reductionism as a secular religion in science : see the difference ?

it is a false conception of nature and the universe

That cannot be. Science, by its very nature, is only a tool to "investigate" and "explain" the nature of the universe. This is like saying that a microscope is a conception of the nature of micro-biology.

I am talking , once again, about reductionism as an ideology in science,not about science proper  : can't you see the difference ?

we cannot know everything there is to know out there via our human limited faculties

Nobody on this forum would disagree with you there but, as you said, we have more to come. I am sure that this universe - Gods universe - hasn't finished with us yet - one day we may not even be able to call ourselves human by any yardstick we use today. Until then, and beyond, I hope with all my heart, that science continues on its mission, using whatever tools best fit the job, and tries to explain absolutely everything WITHOUT reference to God; better still, on the fundamental assumption that there is no God - it's ALL up to us. This is the best way to learn. Whether by chemistry or divine will we have been given the drive to classify and the tools with which to do it. My guess is, either way, that means that we are meant to use them.

God is not the field of science : science is not interested in God ,so to speak,  science can thus neither pretend to prove nor disprove the existence of God : why bring God up in this discussion then , discussion concerning reductionism in science ?.
The main issue here is that dominance of that untrue reductionism in science , not science proper .
That reductionism in science that gotta be replaced by a more or less valid conception of nature .

Gennlemen, if this works then thank you indeed!

What are you talking about ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..

Ouch - there goes another irony meter...

Thanks for that cheryl, I missed it first time round.

I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...

As Feynman said, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool".

I did already say that that alleged "radar " haha was not really realiable, as my own belief warns me about by the way .
Why don't you try to focuss on the real issues i was bringing up, instead of this unnuanced none-sense of yours ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Apart from everyone else, that is.

Yeah. We covered that at length in What's the real origin of the scientific method?, where it turned out the title was less a question, more a rhetorical preface to a diatribe on the Islamic contribution. For example:

Those muslims did much much more , including giving birth to science itself ... i am talking here mainly about the fact that science owes its very existence to muslims indeed .

and so-on.

Well, that thread in question speaks for itself ,so.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

See how muslims were the first ever to "invent " and practice the scientific method, thanks to that Qur'anic epistemology .

Apart from everyone else, that is.

What do you have to say about reductionism in science , genius ?

[dlorde]

... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..

Ouch - there goes another irony meter... I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...

I did already say that that alleged "radar " haha was not really realiable, as my own belief warns me about by the way .

Oh boy... your own belief warns you when the 'sophisticated radar or 6th sense' that allows you to tell what's reliable, is unreliable?

Why don't you try to focuss on the real issues i was bringing up, instead of this unnuanced none-sense of yours ?

If you could post them clearly and concisely instead of camouflaging them in flannel and distractions, they might be easier to focus on. Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

There gotta be some more fundamental underlying principles , more fundamental than those laws of physics , otherwise , neither the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of evolution , nor the mainstream reductionist misinterpretation of the origin of life , to mention just that , can explain the emergence of life from dead or inanimate inorganic matter , or can explain consciousness ...

Well, when you discover them and can identify them, and verify to others that they exist, let me know. So far this is all I could find in the past 12 pages of posts that you have offered as an alternative a means to understanding consciousness, and I quote:

"The real awareness or self awareness ,  the real consciousness or self-consciousness do exist only at the levels of some adult humans , and they can be improved as well = extended levels of awareness , self-awareness, consciousness, self-consciousness ...they can be extended via meditation , personal experiences , ....via prayers ...via hard work ...via certain world views ...
Action triggered by or in fact as equal to the human mind put in motion via Higgins' field that maybe , just maybe gets in its turn made in motion by a higher power that might hold everything existing together for that matter, our minds that depend on or tend to long for unity with that fundamental root capacity of that higher power or root  Self  , that action might be the core " building block element " of the  "structure "  of the universe , who knows ?
(Heart's intelligence as the highest form of intelligence or intellect , heart as no emotions feelings , or biological organ , once again. Heart as intuition or intuitive insights : informed experienced developed extended intuition, not the ordinary intuition that 's not really reliable though  )
...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..
I think that human consciousness does not only hold THE  key to unveiling major mysteries in this universe , but also that  the most important and next level of human evolution at the level of consciousness  is yet to be undertaken by humanity as a whole  , while grasping its incredible implications for all humanity...
But, it takes hard work, life experiences, it takes flirting with death itself and looking it deep in the eye  ....it takes blood sweat and tears , joy , rise and fall ,setbacks and breakthroughs ....to just be able to develop that 6th sense that makes one sharp alert and awake sober lucid enough to know , not just believe in, there are   whole unimaginable dimentions and levels of reality out there our powerful developed mind can make us able to approach somehow , to some degree at least .
humans can be trained to develop those consciousness powers or skils in themselves, by developing their 'contacts " with their consciousness via some means
High levels of consciousness can also be experienced only under certain meditation and other spiritual circumstances where the body or the material world cease to "exist " or cease to be perceived as such for the given person under those meditation or under other spiritual states ,due to that extremely targeted attention or focuss of the given person at the level of the pure consciousness
Critical thinking might be a better word to approach what people claim to experience , but then again, critical thinking fails short at the level of "pure " consciousness  "beyond thought "
This might seem to you as just semantics , but i see no better way to put it to you , since "pure 'consciousness via meditation and via other spiritual means is , per definition, uncommunicable = words fail short to describe it .
The only way to figure out all that for yourself in that regard is by trying to experience those states of consciousness yourself via meditation or via other spiritual means : science or critical thinking alone cannot help you in that regard ,since "pure " consciousness is beyond thought , science .
But then again, you would say : there is nothing more tricky deceptive and elusive than spirituality ,i would say : that's the beauty of it : we gotta try to figure it out for ourselves = an endless restless dynamic journey = a journey far more exciting and challenging difficult ..than science can ever be ,even thou science can help us somehow on that spiritual path we gotta take as well
I see this natural reality as just a veil that deprives us from seeing  the underlying true real reality ,the latter we can only See above : the only way to figure that out for yourself is by trying to experience those states of consciousnsess, via meditation and via other spiritual means = that's beyond the territory of conventional science and thought . try to approach via spirituality,once again
Only real true mystics can experience the relatively full scale of human consciousness or pure consciousness and beyond
But , art , meditation, spirituality , creative work ....music ....love...do make me get in touch , sometimes , with incredible states of consciousness , awareness, self-awareness ...that are , per definition, uncommunicable as the mystics say , science can never be able to give me .
Words cannot describe those states of consciousness i do experience sometimes , and i can tell you with relative confidence= i am not really sure , who can be in that context ?,  that i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..
Did it ever occur to you that human consciousness might exist and function outside of the laws of physics ?"

End Quote

Well, do not try to derail the discussion, honey, please :
In a discussion, views change , thanks to that discussion exchange: that's the purpose ,beauty ,meaning , value, and utility of a constructive discussion .
I was  just  talking about the disease and its sympthoms in science = reductionism and its exclusively physical biological conception of nature that's obviously untrue .
Nagel ,so far as i can tell from reading some parts of his "Mind and cosmos ..." book , proposes an alternative to reductionism in the form of a non-reductionist naturalism : that's all what a secular guy can come up with : a non-reductionist naturalism in science that allegedly can explain the fact concerning how nature might have  generated the mind or consciousness ,reductionism cannot explain the latter via its handicaped reductionist and incomplete exclusive physical biological approach or rather conception of nature ,obviously  .
I ,personally , think that science cannot alone explain consciousness, there gotta be a holistic approach to that that can try to tackle that hard problem of consciousness,life ...and their evolutions via a non-reductionist conception of nature . .
Sheldrake, for example, talks about morphic fields underlying the laws of physics, i suppose , if i am not mistaken .
In short :
The best way to solve the  problem of reductionism in science is by trying to put the finger on the problem itself and its sympthoms ,by defining them  clearly,as Nagel does ,for example,  ,and then by trying to look for some alternatives to the reductionism problem in science that has been crippling science in trying to figure out consciousness, life ...and their evolutions via a complete valid alternative that's not reductiionistic  . .

There gotta be some fundamental underlying principles out there , obviously, more fundamental than and underlying those laws of physics themsleves , otherwise , there is no true scientific way to approach the hard problem of consciousness, life ...their origins or their evolutions , a true eventual scientific way that should include the fact that consciousness , life ...their origins and evolution cannot be exclusively explained by just physical biological reductionist approaches ,no way  : that materialist reductionist magical approach of consciousness,life ...their origins and their evolutions ... is just a way to avoid the problem that cannot be avoided that way for a long time thus .
See what Nagel has to say on the subject then .
I am really fed up with your silly denials and exit starategies .
Just know that : ideas are first opposed , ridiculed and then accepted as such as obvious evidence afterwards = you gotta try to go through just that process, or not , who cares ...- your silly attitudes won't change the facts on the reality ground concerning all the above ...
Scientific guys  you are , my ass , excuse my French ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

... i developed a sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense , so to speak, that make me able to detect the real thing from fraud or illusions,delusions ..

Ouch - there goes another irony meter... I wonder how he can tell whether his 'sort of a sophisticated radar or 6th sense' is itself the 'real thing' or an illusion or delusion...

I did already say that that alleged "radar " haha was not really realiable, as my own belief warns me about by the way .

Oh boy... your own belief warns you when the 'sophisticated radar or 6th sense' that allows you to tell what's reliable, is unreliable?

Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .
I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .

Why don't you try to focuss on the real issues i was bringing up, instead of this unnuanced none-sense of yours ?

If you could post them clearly and concisely instead of camouflaging them in flannel and distractions, they might be easier to focus on. Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?

What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .
I have even referred you to a more competent guy on the subject than myself .
If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations  and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...

Care to explain how God is relevant to science?

Did i say that God is to science ?
You know what : you are out of the pic again : i am not even gonna respond to the rest of your silly denials,misinterpretations of my views , lack of understanding what people tell you .. ...I will ignore you from now on , simply because you are not only not serious , but you are also a guy who are not willing to consider non-reductionist views ...so, why should i bother wasting my time on you ? I will not , from now on :
Just read that book of Nagel then , or not , who gives a f...?
What kindda "scientific " guys are you ? Unbelievable .

This issue of reductionism in science is an  extremely  relevant one to the progress of science ,you have no idea , not just only to  non-reductionist sites or whatever ...This issue of that untrue rductionism in science is a huge issue to mankind's evolution, progress , development ............................to say just that .

[dlorde]

Stop being a jerk, be serious : and do not try to derail the discussion you obvioulsly cannot handle .
I meant that my own belief warns me against the relative unreliability of that "radar ". so to speak .

I know; but it's hard to be serious when you say stuff like that. Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque
 

... Is there some particular 'real' issue you'd like me to look at?

What ? Do you want me to draw you a picture ? I think i was clear enough .

So, you can't remember either?

If you cannot deliver yourself from those reductionist indoctrinations  and brainwash you obviously do confuse with science proper , that's not my problem , but yours to deal with ,otherwise just go see a ..shrink .

If I don't agree with you I need a psychiatrist? Disappointing stuff... playground taunts really don't help your credibility.

[dlorde]

I see dlorde   saying to you that God is irrelevant for science , it is not the case...

Care to explain how God is relevant to science?

Did i say that God is to science ?

C'mon Don, it's simple logic; if, as you say, God is not irrelevant for science, then in what way is God relevant to science?

... i am not even gonna respond to the rest of your silly denials,misinterpretations of my views , lack of understanding what people tell you .. ...I will ignore you from now on , simply because you are not only not serious , but you are also a guy who are not willing to consider non-reductionist views ...so, why should i bother wasting my time on you ? I will not , from now on :

Oh no, not again...

For everyone else's benefit, why don't you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged?

[Skyli]

No, i was just attacking that untrue ideological reductionism as a secular religion in science : see the difference ?
..
I am talking , once again, about reductionism as an ideology in science,not about science proper  : can't you see the difference ?
 

I can see the difference between a saw and the art of carpentry. Reductionism is a tool, a method, and it produces results. I cannot understand how it could be considered an "ideology" or a "religion".

God is not the field of science : science is not interested in God ,so to speak,  science can thus neither pretend to prove nor disprove the existence of God : why bring God up in this discussion then , discussion concerning reductionism in science ?.

I absolutely agree with the first part of this statement, I do not believe that science is pretending anything - or trying to and I see no reason to imagine that it is. In answer to your question, I didn't; actually you did. I followed your reference to see if you agreed with the first part of your statement.

I would be fascinated to hear what it is about reductionism that makes you classify it as any more than a method or tool, if that would not stray to far off the subject of this thread.

The thanks was for your information on using the quote feature - it wasn't a bad first try!

[cheryl j]

Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them. No matter what logical evidence you support your arguments with, no matter what credible scientific studies provide positive proof for something, they will say "But it fails to explain this other thing," followed by an ideological rant about why something is "obviously" false just because they keep saying it is.  What's worse, they offer no reasonable, verifiable alternative for any of it.
Don essentially says you cannot expect him to provide scientific proof of the immaterial because it is immaterial. And my response is "Great! Go post these immaterial things on the The Mystical Angel My Little Pony Website."

[cheryl j]

For everyone else's benefit, why don't you explain the methods by which science will make progress when all reductionist approaches have been expunged?

Yes, Don, I have asked this, as have several other posters. What is "science proper" ???You keep saying science proper is "more than" reductionism, so tell us how science proper works without isolating and controlling certain variables in an experiment and taking things apart to see how things work?  Tell me how to do a scientific experiment in a "non-reductionist" or "holistic" way. Give me an example. If you can't do that, everything you've said is basically BS, or at least, not science.   

[Europan Ocean]

dlorde, these Doctors are interested in the dualism or humanism, what creates consciousness question:

There is Dr Melvin Morse:
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts06.html

Dr Pim Van Lommel
Dr Eben Alexander who recommends:
http://www.lifebeyonddeath.net/reading-list-0
Dr Peter Fenwick.
Dr Bruce Greyson.
Dr Charbonier.
Dr Donald Whitaker.
Dr Maurice Rawlings.
Dr Heather Ross.
Dr LLoyd Rudy.
Dr George Ritchie.
Dr Raymond Moody.
They are on youtube free...

[dlorde]

dlorde, these Doctors are interested in the dualism or humanism, what creates consciousness question:

OK, thanks. So not doctors in general, but 11 particular doctors.

There are lots of people interested in the dualism/monism issue; I was wondering why you decided to pick a few doctors?

[dlorde]

Well, David Cooper was correct about one thing. Trolls are impossible and it is probably best to ignore them.

They can be useful practice... up to a point. This one either becomes insulting and rude or stops responding (temporarily) when you point out flaws in his logic or try to pin him down to reasoned arguments.

[alancalverd]

Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque
 

But it happens in real life. "Flight 401" is an infamous instance. Approaching their destination, the crew lowered the undercarriage but one of the "three greens" (lamps signifying "undercarriage locked") didn't appear. So they faffed around trying to change the bulb, peer out of the window at the wheels, and generally do everything except fly the plane, which flew itself into the Everglades and killed 101 people.   

I have the same problem with officious twits who insist (at your expense) on putting "warning lights" outside x-ray rooms. If the bulb fails (which it does, because the light is on for most of the working day) you have signalled a dangerous area as safe!   

[dlorde]

Having something that tells you when the something that tells you when something is unreliable, is unreliable, is truly Kafkaesque
 

But it happens in real life. "Flight 401" is an infamous instance. Approaching their destination, the crew lowered the undercarriage but one of the "three greens" (lamps signifying "undercarriage locked") didn't appear. So they faffed around trying to change the bulb, peer out of the window at the wheels, and generally do everything except fly the plane, which flew itself into the Everglades and killed 101 people.

Sorry, I don't get it - how is that similar to having a reliability indicator for a reliability indicator?

I was also wondering if he could use each 'sixth sense' to tell whether the other was reliable, and how reliable the combination could be - which one would he believe?