|
SeaShrooms
The dude



Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 1,989
Loc: Hitchhiking
Last seen: 3 years, 10 days
|
do you believe science?
#21761768 - 06/04/15 01:45 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Would you believe in anything with enough evidence? If it was strongly suggested God was real (not saying that's the case), would you even consider it?
-------------------- The life of a condemned soul is hatred.
|
Matt87

Registered: 01/03/15
Posts: 3,339
Loc: Tennessee
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms]
#21761825 - 06/04/15 02:00 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Nope. Science just changes its mind too much. Is Pluto a planet or not? Are eggs good for you or not? Science be making stuff up like urry day.
--------------------
  Once you understand the way broadly, you see it in all things. -Musashi
|
Kazak
Friend


Registered: 12/13/13
Posts: 509
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: Matt87] 3
#21761843 - 06/04/15 02:06 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Science isn't changing its mind, people are changing their understanding.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms] 3
#21761933 - 06/04/15 02:31 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: Would you believe in anything with enough evidence? If it was strongly suggested God was real (not saying that's the case), would you even consider it?
If there was evidence I would believe he exists, but I wouldn't worship the little asshole
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms] 1
#21762398 - 06/04/15 05:07 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I believe science 100x more than I believe people. People are so full of shit.
The problem is that a major way of learning about science is by hearing it from people. But there are certain things that can qualify something as a more credible source than another. Like a recent book, report, or someone speaking on a subject they have a PhD in.
If science started finding a compelling body of evidence that god exists then yes, I would believe it was the most likely case.
I like how science changes what they think they know about things. I mean, isn't it a bad sign when people make up their mind and won't budge no matter how much evidence goes against it? It's such a common psychological flaw that it affects our sociology to the core. So many problems could be fixed in the world if everyone were to just stop for a second and think "Is my firmly held conviction on _____ supported by evidence or reason?"
|
BeyondScience


Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 86
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
There's actually evidence that God exists, but these rich people did not like some of the things that he said, and they went about trying to kill him and all the people he brought with him. Those rich people were helped by people who were racist, anarchist, atheist, nihilist, and poor. I know all about it, and can talk to you about it too.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms] 1
#21762616 - 06/04/15 06:19 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
"Science isn't everything, but science is very beautiful." --Robert Oppenheimer
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
RennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms]
#21763140 - 06/04/15 08:23 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I believe in science as it leads to knowledge. But I dont believe in scientists and culture.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: RennHuhn]
#21763216 - 06/04/15 08:39 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Science requires no belief.
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
You would have to define strongly suggested, and no I wouldn't because something unprovable can never be suggested one way or the other, it's just unknowable. I lean towards no god, I mean all the human religions are 100% bullshit if you have half a brain, at the same time i'm not arrogent enough to claim I know something about reality when my species and myself have only occupied .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% (probably less then that) of the entire universe.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
nah man, you're not that small compared to the universe. Unless you're using some larger size for the universe than what we can observe. if the universe is a sphere with a radius of 9.5e15 m, then the volume is around 3.5e48m3. And if your volume is around .0664m3 then your ratio is going to be somewhere around 1.75e-50 of the entire volume of the observable universe. So that's like what you wrote but with only about 47 zeros in front.
|
RennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
|
I thought about writing exactly that. But I am conflicted about that, the scientific theory does not require belief but I decide to write belief because in my daily life science is something I largely believe in, as most I know about science is largely secondhand information and nothing I personally experienced.
Edited by RennHuhn (06/05/15 03:08 AM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: RennHuhn]
#21764480 - 06/05/15 03:13 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You can believe or disbelieve a report, but science does not require belief which is why repeatability is one of its major tenets.
When you turn on your computer, is your mindset (or faith) related in any way to the functioning of the appliance?
--------------------
|
RennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
|
Yeah thats stupid. Just because your assumptions work does not mean that they are right. I dont get how turning my computer on is related in any way to the scientific theory.
You need to make a distinction between the scientific theory, which does not require belief. And science as its role in our culture or the "institution" of science which requires lot of belief from an outsider.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms]
#21764688 - 06/05/15 06:15 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Yes, follow evidence and logic wherever they lead.
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: RennHuhn]
#21764906 - 06/05/15 07:52 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I dont get how turning my computer on is related in any way to the scientific theory.
Not surprising that you don't. Computers are based on quantum physics and the theory of electromagnetism and many other disciplines. As they would never have been conceived nor executed without such scientific theories, how could they possibly be unrelated?
--------------------
|
Sun King



Registered: 02/15/14
Posts: 4,069
|
|
Charlie Babbit invented a computer that didn't use quantum stuff or electromagnetism.
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: Sun King]
#21765801 - 06/05/15 12:47 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
RennHuhn
Stranger

Registered: 03/12/15
Posts: 75
Last seen: 3 years, 8 months
|
|
Your straw mans are great. I never claimed that the scientific theory is wrong or that the computer could exist without science.
But to use a computer I dont need the scientific theory. And I dont need to understand it.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: RennHuhn]
#21767221 - 06/05/15 07:12 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
So the atomic bomb was made by hope and chance? You don't have an a bomb with out science.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: So the atomic bomb was made by hope and chance? You don't have an a bomb with out science.
True, but it took some real a holes to unleash that monster. And don't tell me how great nuclear is for power, it isn't.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
I don't feel strongly about atomic science one way or the other. I'm just curious how you apply that to your own theory.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: I don't feel strongly about atomic science one way or the other. I'm just curious how you apply that to your own theory.
Unlike some, I don't worship those that create weapons regardless of the "science" involved. The above ground nuclear bomb testing of the 50s is a good example of science "in action" poisoning people with radioactive fallout. Now we have a weapon that threatens our very existence on this planet, and a fearless leader who appears stupid enough to provoke the other major superpowers.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
i like cow poo
Nature Lover


Registered: 10/20/09
Posts: 4,041
Loc: Mother Nature's Vagina
Last seen: 1 year, 3 months
|
|
Bombhrt
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
"Worship weapons" What are you talking about? So believing the scientific method is the best thing we have so far = weapon warship?
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, assuming you think logically?
What about biological poisons also viruses and bacteria killing untold millions?
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
Edited by Cognitive_Shift (06/05/15 09:47 PM)
|
Rahz
Alive Again



Registered: 11/10/05
Posts: 9,230
|
|
It's possible to have a kind of faith in science that is irrational. In a practical sense science doesn't deal in absolutes. The excitement of science is in what it may portend but nowhere in there does it become a substitute for a faith crutch or offer any guarantees on what the future holds. Science is a method of inquiry. It does provide results but not always the results we are hoping for.
-------------------- rahz comfort pleasure power love truth awareness peace "You’re not looking close enough if you can only see yourself in people who look like you." —Ayishat Akanbi
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: Rahz]
#21768453 - 06/06/15 12:45 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Science is science. It's simply the best method we've got for understanding things. It's not a metatheory. To compare it to religion or faith is apples and oranges.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
circastes
Big Questions Small Head



Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 8,781
Loc: straya
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
The problem with finding proof of God is that it's down to individual experience, that's the sphere where understanding takes place, and it's the one place science completely discounts. If God is in the mind how will science ever find proof of it? It's down to you, and what you understand. No one can investigate your present apprehension of immediate experience but you.
The ruling class don't want you to know about this space, because there you rule over everything and they no longer exist.
Scientific knowledge is a team effort. Understanding reality is not. Understanding is down to you and you best be trusting yourself now, ya hear.
-------------------- My solitude... My shield... My armour... TESTED WITH FULL FORCE
Edited by circastes (06/06/15 03:57 AM)
|
mustangbob3
Mad Myrmecologist



Registered: 10/15/14
Posts: 1,685
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: You would have to define strongly suggested, and no I wouldn't because something unprovable can never be suggested one way or the other, it's just unknowable. I lean towards no god, I mean all the human religions are 100% bullshit if you have half a brain, at the same time i'm not arrogent enough to claim I know something about reality when my species and myself have only occupied .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% (probably less then that) of the entire universe.
jainism the oldest religion is pure in its virtues and nobody who looks into it can disagree. its the religion for the masses. seem quite ascetic at first glance but a further look will see lay follows rules are really relaxed and should be tried to observe and respect not have to be followed whole heartedly. more a gradual progression of enbetterment is expected and respect thats all.
hers the stages you should be trying to achieve to go through. really relaxed and funny really
01 Wrong believer 02 One who has a slight taste of right belief 03 Mixed belief 04 True belief but no self-discipline 05 Partial self-control 06 Complete self-discipline with some negligence 07 Complete self-control without negligence 08 Gross occurrence of passions 09 Utilizing meditation to further minimize passions 10 Subtle occurrence of passions 11 Every passion is suppressed but still does not possess omniscience 12 Every passion is annihilated but still does not yet possess omniscience 13 Omniscience (Kevala Jnana) with activity 14 Omniscience without any activity
the rest is more a moral code of conduct between man. oldest and purest religion and a religion for the masses if it had been adopted in modern times.
check this link and you will see how far removed from mainstream religion it is and how it suits the philosophys of most psychedelic substance users.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism
--------------------
|
SeaShrooms
The dude



Registered: 09/13/05
Posts: 1,989
Loc: Hitchhiking
Last seen: 3 years, 10 days
|
|
I find it interesting how both sides of this have made it very clear they can never be wrong.
-------------------- The life of a condemned soul is hatred.
|
crumblebum
The Guy Who's Really Bad At Sex


Registered: 04/24/07
Posts: 1,459
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: Would you believe in anything with enough evidence? If it was strongly suggested God was real (not saying that's the case), would you even consider it?
If there was evidence I would believe he exists, but I wouldn't worship the little asshole 
Same.
--------------------
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: "Worship weapons" What are you talking about? So believing the scientific method is the best thing we have so far = weapon warship?
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, assuming you think logically?
What about biological poisons also viruses and bacteria killing untold millions?
I wouldn't even know how to respond to your drivel.
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
Quote:
Hippocampus said: nah man, you're not that small compared to the universe. Unless you're using some larger size for the universe than what we can observe. if the universe is a sphere with a radius of 9.5e15 m, then the volume is around 3.5e48m3. And if your volume is around .0664m3 then your ratio is going to be somewhere around 1.75e-50 of the entire volume of the observable universe. So that's like what you wrote but with only about 47 zeros in front.
This is very interesting mathematically. But the assumption of 'size' is of course based upon defining oneself as a physical object bounded by skin, embedded in and comprised of the same space-time continuum as the rest of the expanding universe. There is also the ontological definition of a human being as 'being' as well as 'human.' Most people never tease the linguistic expression 'human being' into its existential and ontological components, as say, Buddhism does. Only in the existential and 'common-sensical' definition can quantification even be considered. Otherwise, 'being' is co-extensive with whatever is fundamentally, Ultimately Real. That would be the Metaphysical Mystery which Originated the universe.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
Quote:
MushroomTrip said:
Quote:
SeaShrooms said: Would you believe in anything with enough evidence? If it was strongly suggested God was real (not saying that's the case), would you even consider it?
If there was evidence I would believe he exists, but I wouldn't worship the little asshole 
If the linguistic convention 'God' is equated with 'THAT which is Ultimately Real,' there can be no denying that 'God is Real' because logically then, 'God = Ultimate Reality.' Whatever is ontologically prior to physics (nature) is called 'metaphysical.' One does not direct an emotional response towards the incomprehensible, metaphysical Reality. There are no known attributes to be the focus of human contempt. Only to a human anthropomorphized mental construct, an idol based on a middle eastern despot, can an emotional response make any sense, especially if 'belief' in such an idol is the immediate cause of all manner of atrocities perpetrated in its name.
It is understandable to object to a tribal deity like YHVH in the Tenach (Old Testament) for being a genocidal tyrant, oppressor of womankind, and general demiurgic monster. BUT, it is difficult to express the same emotions towards the Tao as expressed in Chinese Taoism, which also admits of a transcendental principle that orders primal chaos into an intelligible and intelligent universe. Both the tribal deity and the Tao are mental constructs, but the latter is an open-ended construct into which the human mind can expand to the point of identity.
One can only marvel at the symmetry formed of random iron filings on a sheet of paper, placed over a common magnet. The "evidence" of intelligence is this conversation, and intelligence is not an epiphenomenon of molecular biology so much as a signal 'received' by us "carbon units" from the 'carrier wave' of Ultimate Reality in which Ideas are encoded. If you strike a piece of iron with a hammer, the iron becomes magnetized. Is the magnetism produced by the iron? Our consciousness may well be droplets, momentarily cast off from the Ocean, alienated in our free-fall of life, only to reunite with it again in the end.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
BeyondScience


Registered: 03/26/15
Posts: 86
Last seen: 4 years, 3 months
|
|
I wish i had some of the photographs, because His latest creations are amazing- things like Frylock (aqua teen hunger force), Towlie (southpark), and gorgeous looking people and technology. Its art come to life. I've actually been to Rhea on a rocket ship; Rhea is a moon of Saturn.
So, what mankind ultimately needed was to understand the laws of physics, and his own limitations, which amount to the inability to create intelligent life the way evolution has done so with him. God currently walks the Earth, and is drawing art and having it come to life, and be useful and enlightening.
|
Hippocampus



Registered: 04/01/15
Posts: 753
Last seen: 6 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
MarkostheGnostic said:
Quote:
Hippocampus said: nah man, you're not that small compared to the universe. Unless you're using some larger size for the universe than what we can observe. if the universe is a sphere with a radius of 9.5e15 m, then the volume is around 3.5e48m3. And if your volume is around .0664m3 then your ratio is going to be somewhere around 1.75e-50 of the entire volume of the observable universe. So that's like what you wrote but with only about 47 zeros in front.
This is very interesting mathematically. But the assumption of 'size' is of course based upon defining oneself as a physical object bounded by skin, embedded in and comprised of the same space-time continuum as the rest of the expanding universe. There is also the ontological definition of a human being as 'being' as well as 'human.' Most people never tease the linguistic expression 'human being' into its existential and ontological components, as say, Buddhism does. Only in the existential and 'common-sensical' definition can quantification even be considered. Otherwise, 'being' is co-extensive with whatever is fundamentally, Ultimately Real. That would be the Metaphysical Mystery which Originated the universe.
I agree that it's completely unreliable to figure out a person's ratio to the universe. But I'm coming from more of a physicalist atheist philosophy. I just think the observable universe and the true universe could be completely different sizes. It's not a very good assumption that as far as we can see is the only universe that exists. If the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into? And what about inflation from the early universe? We have yet to catch up to that expansion. I was just having a little fun doing a little light-hearted math exercise.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: "Worship weapons" What are you talking about? So believing the scientific method is the best thing we have so far = weapon warship?
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, assuming you think logically?
What about biological poisons also viruses and bacteria killing untold millions?
I wouldn't even know how to respond to your drivel.
That drivel is your logic. Thank you for finally seeing how nonsensical it is.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said:
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: "Worship weapons" What are you talking about? So believing the scientific method is the best thing we have so far = weapon warship?
I'm curious how you came to this conclusion, assuming you think logically?
What about biological poisons also viruses and bacteria killing untold millions?
I wouldn't even know how to respond to your drivel.
That drivel is your logic. Thank you for finally seeing how nonsensical it is.
What about the live anthrax the DOD shipped out recently "by mistake". Was that a "good thing" because they are a research lab? What if they develop some amazing vaccine with the live anthrax that only makes a few thousand sick but saves millions of lives? Why would you fight that?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
I think theres only a handful of people who think live anthrax being shipped with out proper safety protocols is not a good thing, i'm one of those people.
Danger is danger biological or man made. I don't hold one higher or lower than the other.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
LunarEclipse
Enlil's Official Story


Registered: 10/31/04
Posts: 21,407
Loc: Building 7
|
|
Are you in favor of vaccines?
-------------------- Anxiety is what you make it.
|
Titus_Pullo


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 461
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: SeaShrooms]
#21789495 - 06/10/15 05:51 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I believe the scientific method is one of the best ways of understanding the world around us, but it is not the only way.
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Quote:
LunarEclipse said: Are you in favor of vaccines?
It depends on the person/child. I don't think reality is black and white.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Except in prison.
"Whatcha mean 'You people?'?"
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
There are shades of mexicans a such, it's not all black and white
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|

Badgers? We don't need no steenkin' badgers!
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
hahahahahhahahah great pic!
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
This sure is a fun topic.
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Yeah like a belief in science is a choice, silly goose OP. It works with out belief.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|

I'm funny, how?
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
--------------------
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
I believe the scientific method is one of the best ways of understanding the world around us, but it is not the only way.
Out of curiosity, can you name others?
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
If the universe is expanding, then what is it expanding into?
Exactly my point about metaphysics, which requires philosophical thinking not scientific thinking. At the theoretical 'edge' physics( Greek: 'physis' = nature) is being created, or perhaps less magickally-sounding, potential is becoming actual. There is no 'outside' the boundary. At that juncture there is the Unmanifest, Non-existence. This is a transcendental Reality, Undefined as the notation 1/0. Theologically it is variously referred to in mystical Judaism or Christianity, and always it is utterly transcendental, without known attributes. The best metaphor I have uses our own dreamscapes, which exist solely in consciousness, not in space-time. Correspondingly (and a strict materialist won't like this at all because it posits Mind as the metaphysical substratum of physical reality) but, the metaphor is that the physical universe is akin to the dream of God (Ultimate Reality) expanding into the Unmanifest not-yet, just as our own dreamscapes expand in our mind, not 'within' our physical skull. But this metaphor works if and only if mind is not equated with an energetic epiphenomenon of electro-biochemical neural processes. In other words, mind derives from Mind, not from matter. Matter also derives from Mind insofar as THAT which preceded the Big Bang, preceded physical particles and matter. Only Mind becomes self-conscious through developments in the Great Chain of Being which began with the first positive and negative particles coalescing from the Primal Plasma into Hydrogen all the way up to the complexity of a human being. That which is 'prior to physics' is metaphysical.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
MinnesnowtaNice
FriendofHagrid


Registered: 09/18/13
Posts: 1,316
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
|
Science is God, Math is undeniable.
-------------------- we are all thought forms in a cloud of synchronistic events.
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,806
|
|
I believe in the evidence found through scientific methods. My beliefs/opinions have no effect on what reality is. There is more magic in the natural world than we care to acknowledge. Look into astrophysics if you want to know anything about physics and the universe we actually live in.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
Quote:
MinnesnowtaNice said: Science is God, Math is undeniable.
Neither science or theology would concede to this false equation of definitions. Science is logical methodology. Math can only quantify, not qualify, not grasp human valuation of quantity ("How much do you love?" Absurd.). Science, from the Latin scientia means knowledge. However, epistemé is not gnosis, and these refer to scientific knowledge and mystical knowledge, respectively. Epistemé is a corollary of the Thinking function, gnosis is a function of the Intuitive function. Thinking works in consonance with the Sensing function (sense data and reason), Intuition works in consonance with the Feeling function (insight and devotion). The human psyche works through all four of these functions. One-sidedness is simply, well, one-sided. Unconsciousness of one's "inferior functions" results in incompleteness and deficiencies in human development.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
circastes
Big Questions Small Head



Registered: 01/14/10
Posts: 8,781
Loc: straya
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
Consciousness is the other tool besides science for investigating the world.
Change it. It will eventually drift to these higher circuits and stay there.
-------------------- My solitude... My shield... My armour... TESTED WITH FULL FORCE
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: circastes]
#21795347 - 06/11/15 10:38 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Consciousness is the other tool besides science for investigating the world.
You sound like a Phenomenologist! Great!
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Consciousness isn't a tool, consciousness is a part of biology. Unless you think your soft tissue is a tool too
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Which posters are tools?
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
All of the people who hold unreasonable world views which don't hold up to criticism but decide to propagate their ideas anyway refusing to acknowledge they might be wrong. Refused to have a meaningful debate on the subject and just googles hot button words to links they've never read and don't understand as proof their claims "make sense." Because recently something making sense is now proof it's true!
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
Edited by Cognitive_Shift (06/11/15 11:25 PM)
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
Dayum! That was harsh!

FLY for PRESIDENT 2016
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
That has been building up for some time.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I feel your pain, brother. One cannot stem the onrushing tide of ignorance. Devolution is at hand.

--------------------
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
|
Quote:
All of the people who hold unreasonable world views which don't hold up to criticism but decide to propagate their ideas anyway refusing to acknowledge they might be wrong. Refused to have a meaningful debate on the subject and just googles hot button words to links they've never read and don't understand as proof their claims "make sense." Because recently something making sense is now proof it's true!
A thousand times this^
When did people part ways from an honest, humble march toward truth? For too many posters it's a competition; a war between mine and theirs, us and them, my team and their team. MY beliefs must win the war against THEIR beliefs. MY beliefs are special because I hold them!! Why can't we just all be on the same team? Working hard, combining our talents,being accepting of our own and of other's shortcomings, finding the truth together, and improving everyone's lives in the process?? Stubbornness and competitiveness are enemies of the truth, and it seems there are too much of them floating around nowadays.
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Honesty to truth is recognizing it is representational apparatus, like a mirror. It is essentially a statement of A=A, the form closest to certainty, or "what is contained to its subject". (ie. It is a projected analysis, and a tautology and empty shell.)
There is possibly honesty and integrity in a mirror. There is also holding it in certain ways, which creates direction and purpose, and is something people invest in.
Quote:
In some remote corner of the universe, poured out and glittering in innumerable solar systems, there once was a star on which clever animals invented knowledge. That was the highest and most mendacious minute of "world history"—yet only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths the star grew cold, and the clever animals had to die.
One might invent such a fable and still not have illustrated sufficiently how wretched, how shadowy and flighty, how aimless and arbitrary, the human intellect appears in nature. There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it. But if we could communicate with the mosquito, then we would learn that he floats through the air with the same self-importance, feeling within itself the flying center of the world. There is nothing in nature so despicable or insignificant that it cannot immediately be blown up like a bag by a slight breath of this power of knowledge; and just as every porter wants an admirer, the proudest human being, the philosopher, thinks that he sees on the eyes of the universe telescopically focused from all sides on his actions and thoughts...
Quote:
...What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms—in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
Nietzsche - On Truth and Lies in a Non Moral Sense
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: Kurt]
#21796844 - 06/12/15 10:42 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I love the poetic nature of your quotes but I think that we should go to great lengths to avoid thinking in this way. Scientific and philosophical 'truths' have saved lives and have gone a long way to alleviate suffering almost everywhere on the planet. To trivialize 'truth', and even to point out legitimate philosophical objections to otherwise reliable methods of inquiry, in this manner, is unethical. Or are ethics cleared off the table with the rest?
Take this part of your first quote for example:
"There have been eternities when it did not exist; and when it is done for again, nothing will have happened. For this intellect has no further mission that would lead beyond human life. It is human, rather, and only its owner and producer gives it such importance, as if the world pivoted around it."
This is a critique of all that is subjective. Everything we value, everything we could value, is apparently meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Tell me, what could we possibly care about other than the quality of the lives of all that are conscious? Nothing would have happened? WE happened! Some of us lived rich fulfilling lives. Some of us lived horrible, miserable lives. The subjectivity that humans experience, even if it is not an accurate representation of reality, is just as important as if it was. As far as we are concerned, the world does pivot around us. Consciousness is the only thing that can give anything meaning, even in theory. If there comes a day when all conscious creatures are gone, then on such a day, all meaning will have ceased to exist along with it.
I'm also interested to hear what you have to say about what happens when these critiques are turned on themselves? A critique of 'truth' or 'the human intellect' is a critique of the very sentence from which this critique originates. Are we to accept these critiques as true? Doesn't that defeat the point? Are we to hold the human intellects from which these critiques came in high regard? In accepting the above propositions, one has simultaneously rejected them.
I take your comments to mean different things than the quotes you posted. I'm actually quite fond of your mirror metaphor.
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: Consciousness isn't a tool, consciousness is a part of biology. Unless you think your soft tissue is a tool too
Consciousness has ONE invariant feature in Phenomenology. It is Intentional. The conscious being always directs Consciousness, even if it is directed towards itself. In that sense, Consciousness is a tool. But Consciousness is not a "part of biology." That is basic scientific materialism. I do not consider Consciousness to be an epiphenomenon of biology, in fact as I have expressed ad nauseum on these forums, Consciousness, by names psychological, theological, mythological, or phenomenological is the Ultimate Substratum of Reality. It is the Transcendental Mystery whence space-time arose.
I am a Platonist inasmuch as the Forms, the Eternal Ideas, are encoded into the Great Chain of Being which began when the Primal Plasma cooled into Positive and Negative particles, protons and electrons, thence into Hydrogen, then into stars from which all known elements were born, matter, organic molecules, amino acids, proteins, viruses, bacterium, multicellular organisms, etc., etc....Consciousness...Self-Conscious sentient Homo sapien sapiens. I'm a philosophical Idealist in that consciousness is present throughout space-time in a mysterious, spacially and temporally unextended way. Buddhist Sunyata. The Superessential Godhead. Panentheism.
Shape a quartz crystal just so, it resonates at a particular frequency. Put a coil of copper wire and a length of the same, in line with a point of pencil graphite on a safety pin touching a rusty (oxidized) razor blade, attach an ear bud, and you will receive radio signals. Arrange a piece of steel North-South and strike it with a steel hammer, and the steel becomes magnetized. The radio signals are not produced by the copper, steel, and graphite, and neither is magnetism produced by hammered steel. The radio waves and the magnetism surround and interpenetrate, but do not originate with the matter. Likewise with our nervous system, which I view as a receiver not a creator. Matter is not the creator of higher forms of existence, biology is the 'clay' which the "Creative Intelligence" (Consciousness, Huxley's "Mind at large") uses to mirror and express itself for purposes unknown. Just my own philosophical preference.
-------------------- γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
Kurt
Thinker, blinker, writer, typer.

Registered: 11/26/14
Posts: 1,688
|
|
Well, I know it is an old idea, at least as old as Plato, but I am not sure how people even begin to think that there is a virtued basis to knowledge. Hence a fascination with "purity" of truth, is what I would I say I am critical of.
My response was partly to how people here are opining about their values, which to me is all pretty much the same in the end.
People who can't let their projected ideas (often with such practical or stereotypical human motivations as their appeal) of the world stand to critique, are not any more questionable than the people saying that the world mirrors propositional analysis in a general way. Both these human gestures, however you like to characterize them (and with whatever impressionistic caricatures that may be found fitting) are in my view equally projectional and dogmatic.
I would say this critique doesn't fold in on itself (a good turn of phrase); it is not epistemelogical nihilism in other words, because it doesn't exclude the possibility of recognizing a narrow use of human reason as something which as Wittgenstein put it "takes care of itself" as logos.
If you take the notion of the mirror analogy, but as I also see it, logical analysis is conditionally ascribed, and even on examination fractured, leading to what, as Nietzsche impressionably put it, would be a much more narrowly circumscribed practical basis of reasoning or thinking than what is suggested in the platonic ideal, or especially in the modern Cartesian ideal of certainty (Two grand rationalists, you'll note).
So Second order, hopefully this comes close to helping to clarify some of your questions.
If I could put one to you, it would be of why you are arguing for a contingent practical ethical basis for what if I am not mistaken, you regard as the universality of reason as analysis? I am not sure if that characterizes your position, correct me if I'm wrong. Here is my question in my own terms.
What if from a basis of assuming that personal integrity is the only realistic basis of ethics (my position, which includes that sincerity may be the fundamental basis of propositions) it was seen that stacking these possibly differently motivated kinds of arguments may seem to just be something of a tell, in either case of ethics or epistemology?
Philosophers like Nietzsche have argued that truth is authenticity, as in telling the truth, and that we tell a story about this, that is about as impressionable as it is melodramatic. (with a less skeptical wit, Heidegger argued for truth as the Greeks called Aleithia of unconcealing) Nietzsche's point is not about subjectivity or objectivity. It is of how we fall in love with our aura of our reflections. That is my interpretation (The rest of the essay is pretty entertaining, insightful and bombastic as well).
This is what everybody ends up arguing about, as some great and claimable intellectual sincerity, the great pursuit of truth - usually from built up positions or in the fun house of dialogue, as if it had something of essential in content in hand, through all this. I don't believe this, and I don't believe the crystalline and pure and reflective value of truth, itself, you could say. I don't think its claimable, and its an illusion, even if like Nietzsche says, an impressionable one.
We tell false gold from true gold; I can go that far, though this already begs certain questions, which we could always be candid enough to ask. My pointed question would be this; that while we have various considerations, how do we consider the proposal of propositions mirroring nature?
So that would be my basic question for you or anyone arguing for the basis of propositionality in general, beyond the modicum of honesty or sincerity. I think what I find is people are quick to impress this as moral (or intellectual degenerency of anyone who does not think the same).
I find the prospects of an epistemic project to be compelling in a certain context, and for this reason I also find certain conscionable emphasis in how this notion of truth (especially in regards to my epoch and culture) is often not recognized as the narrow simulacrum of reality, which it just as often is.
As opposed to what analytic philosophers have called the "state of affairs" of philosophy, (the appeal to propositions mirroring reality) I would not call my position subjectivist (of course this is how the position is said to fold back on itself, because that is how it is constructed), but of perspective.
The wiki on perspectivism represents that position well enough in relavence of propositions. I think the implied point is that it is a way of standing for something that is not prescribed by categorical imperatives of reason, or universal logos:
Perspectivism (German: Perspektivismus) is the term coined by Friedrich Nietzsche in developing the philosophical view (touched upon as far back as Plato's rendition of Protagoras) that all ideations take place from particular perspectives. This means that there are many possible conceptual schemes, or perspectives in which judgment of truth or value can be made. This is often taken to imply that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily entail that all perspectives are equally valid.
This is not such an onslought of craziness I think.
You appeal to ethics first, at least in your post Second Order. I think that is commendable, and I myself believe that sincerity can grant lucidity in what you or any person says. That is what I'd even argue. I wouldn't say that reason can't relate to ethics in any kind of way. But as for this being any particular or set kind of way, I think I'd disagree with this. The purity of truth, logic, (something Wittgenstein himself clucked about) though that is what it is, is an illusion.
I think Aristotle's statement "all men and women's conscious actions seek some form of good", may bear the suggestion of a practical basis of ethical thinking, but that doesn't imply any starting point is given in any domain. It may be that people's sought form of good is inherently at odds with others'.
Speaking of something practical, and real or at least in an epistemelogical domain: Believing certain things, may be practical, and realizable, but this doesn't make it any less of a projection. I would say the utility of truth bearance, such as in the given concrete examples you appealed to of evoking technologies, and mechanics of some redeemable value for humanity, is for whatever its worth, not what you appeal to as accurate reflection of "what is", nature. That would be my criticism, or one way knowledge is not a virtue, and is in some ways clearly demonstrating this too (at least to some minds).
Then again this of course is based on my own perspective for the most part, or namely based on my own naturalistic assumptions, which aside from these particular questions I put, may fold in. I would say it enfolds, as much as I see that enframing and "progress" in dialogue is ceaselessly and uncritically arising as something of value. The value of truth as such. The great progress of dialogue. Is this what we look upon? Well where to?
I am not necessarily always able to put a position in the form of some idealized conjecture, as what rationale may be followed to some end, or in terms of what I think "the nature" of the world is. But I think we may just have open ended questions, and that's what I come to.
What we can know as certain as projected beyond uncertainty, and categorically opposed to it, or vice versa are not generally projected bases I tend to think in. This doesn't mean I don't value epistemology, and I would say to the contrary: How is epistemology grounded? Many have asked. I think many people get lost in the technicality and fun house of discussion. Maybe some sincerity or modesty helps people get around, but that is as far as I'll go to say and really I think there are broader questions, beyond these narrow human ones.
I would say I am a pragmatist, athough I would again clarify that that doesn't mean I value what is practical in self evident or logical way. So, to perspective. Anyway, what I'll say with regards to the priorities you have mentioned, is that I appreciate the exchange of philosophy and inquiry, to the extent my gadfly of a conscience allows it...thanks for reading!
Edited by Kurt (06/12/15 11:48 PM)
|
sudly
Darwin's stagger


Registered: 01/05/15
Posts: 10,806
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: All of the people who hold unreasonable world views which don't hold up to criticism but decide to propagate their ideas anyway refusing to acknowledge they might be wrong. Refused to have a meaningful debate on the subject and just googles hot button words to links they've never read and don't understand as proof their claims "make sense." Because recently something making sense is now proof it's true!
Amen to that! I've had a 6 hour discussion with a creationist over the last 2 nights and was told some tremendously silly things. To me it seems that those who hold unreasonable world views, view the world from a subjective perspective instead of an objective one which is why it's so difficult to use objective reality to influence theirs.
He eventually told me that this website was good evidence for creationism. http://www.antievolution.org/cs/mclean_akridge_depo_1
One example is a claim that the suns rate of decay is constant and therefore would be touching the earth a few million years ago.
-------------------- I am whatever Darwin needs me to be.
Edited by sudly (06/12/15 08:19 PM)
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: do you believe science? [Re: Kurt]
#21800814 - 06/13/15 05:06 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You make absolutely no effort to talk to people on their level do you? Haha. Don't take that personally, it's just a comment that stems from my lack of vocabulary and comprehension. I'll try my best to respond to your concerns, under the assumption that I even understood them haha:
Anyone who takes philosophy seriously will occasionally come across a argument, observation or theory that rocks their world. These leave a memorable impression on us and tend to alter the way we think and perceive the world. For myself, I encountered one of the most impactful of these whilst reading "Beyond Good and Evil" in the chapter "On the Prejudices of Philosophers":
Quote:
"And behind all logic and its seeming sovereignty of movement, there are valuations, or to speak more plainly, physiological demands, for the maintenance of a definite mode of life For example, that the certain is worth more than the uncertain, that illusion is less valuable than "truth" such valuations, in spite of their regulative importance for US, might notwithstanding be only superficial valuations, special kinds of maiserie, such as may be necessary for the maintenance of beings such as ourselves."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Although it may seem fairly pedestrian to most, I found this paragraph so profound that it remained as a caveat at the back of my mind ever since. I understand, by your post, that your intention was to magnify the very same shortcoming of the human perspective: that reasoning/logic is, at its core, mere intuition. That our attempt to separate values from reasoning is destined to fail, because the only means by which we can firmly ground reason, is by using further reason, and we are left but nothing to say other than "I value reason." Am I understanding your central point?
I didn't entirely agree with, or entirely understand your use of perspectivism to avoid the argument folding in on itself. If reason is used to criticize reason, and reason wins, then reason also loses. Isn't this just one value judgement over another?
I entirely agree with your main critique, and it unsettles me now as much as it did when it was first brought to my attention by another "gadfly of a conscience": Nietzche (you would have made him proud haha). What do I have to say in reply? Without my reason, I am lost for words. I suppose I make a half-assed effort to simultaneously say "Well it's better than nothing.." and "Okay, so where do we go from here?"
I think the following quote is too apt not to post:
Quote:
“If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn’t value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?”
-Sam Harris
I join him in his stubborn, hopeless attempt to hold dearly to our precious reason. My precioussssss. A few years ago I talked with a metaphysics professor who, after an almost circular discussion, decided to level with me. He said (almost verbatim, although i can't remember exactly) "Eventually you've got to bite the bullet somewhere. How much work you do as a philosopher really just comes down to how big of a bullet you are willing to bite." (Another thought that had a lasting impression on me)
I am glad you hit such deep philosophical bedrock, as it's not very often people are willing to have these sorts of discussions. For now, I'll leave my stance at an only mildly comfortable "isn't seemingness a good enough basis for reason?"
|
LSDreamer
Materialist



Registered: 03/11/08
Posts: 10,052
Last seen: 7 years, 8 days
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said: All of the people who hold unreasonable world views which don't hold up to criticism but decide to propagate their ideas anyway refusing to acknowledge they might be wrong. Refused to have a meaningful debate on the subject and just googles hot button words to links they've never read and don't understand as proof their claims "make sense." Because recently something making sense is now proof it's true!
Preach it, brother! This place can be just a little bit mad sometimes
--------------------
|
|