Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: Butterbean on May 22, 2008, 10:39:42 AM
-
As a believer I believe our consciousness = from God.
It would be interesting to hear some other views here on where consciousness originated please.
-
It's an evolutionary trait, developed as a survival tactic for an organic being (homo sapiens) which without it would fair negatively against the predatory animals that have existed during its existence.
Consciousness allows reflects of scenarios, how to deal with situations dynamically.
You might think animals do this, but most of their characteristics to deal with the environment and genetically programmed into their being.
That's that, thread over, please close it.
-
It's an evolutionary trait, developed as a survival tactic for an organic being (homo sapiens) which without it would fair negatively against the predatory animals that have existed during its existence.
Consciousness allows reflects of scenarios, how to deal with situations dynamically.
You might think animals do this, but most of their characteristics to deal with the environment and genetically programmed into their being.
That's that, thread over, please close it.
So are you saying that thoughts, feelings, beliefs, free will etc sprang up one day from purely physical matter?
Also, are you saying that animals don't have consciousness?
-
So are you saying that thoughts, feelings, beliefs, free will etc sprang up one day from purely physical matter?
Also, are you saying that animals don't have consciousness?
No, they developed through our evolutionary lineage. During our existence these abilities have provided a survival advantage for humans, including religion. Our building of societies/tribes is what provided the competitive arena which conciousness had to develop to the advance stage it has in humans.
Other examples of highly concious animals are groups of chimpanzees and pods of dolphins. Alternatively animals like ants are not aware they are in a huge group per say, their actions and behaviour is totally programmed in their DNA.
I'm saying animals are not concious in that they are not self aware (if at all) to the extent that humans are, they do not question their existance.
Do you believe your dog sits there contemplating its existence, wondering how great it would be to soar like and eagle?
-
I'm saying animals are not concious in that they are not self aware (if at all) to the extent that humans are, they do not question their existance.
I believe that animals are concious but I agree w/not to the extent that humans are
No, they developed through our evolutionary lineage.
So are you saying you believe that life began w/o consciousness and didn't have consciousness for many years?
-
As a believer I believe our consciousness = from God.
It would be interesting to hear some other views here on where consciousness originated please.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/penrose/penr.htm
penrose ws a very respectable physicist
-
I believe that animals are concious but I agree w/not to the extent that humans are
So are you saying you believe that life began w/o consciousness and didn't have consciousness for many years?
Are you implying that the most basic animal lifeforms have conciousness? I.E. do you believe a starfish has conciousness?
Yes, that's what I believe, and by many years we're talking millions.
-
Every living thing has consciousness. The old saw of human consciousness of being conscious is what separates us from a conscious sponge or bird.
-
Are you implying that the most basic animal lifeforms have conciousness? I.E. do you believe a starfish has conciousness?
Yes
Yes, that's what I believe, and by many years we're talking millions.
OK thanks. So you think that consciousness somehow developed. But from what? Out of living matter? One is material and one is immaterial - aren't they 2 completely different things? If so, from where does the immaterial conscious come?
Every living thing has consciousness. The old saw of human consciousness of being conscious is what separates us from a conscious sponge or bird.
Decker do you think trees and plants have consciousness or did you mean mainly animals, humans, fish, birds etc?
-
Stella, consciousness is a really tough question. Lots and lots of books have been written about it in the philosophy/psychology/language/neuroscience/evolutionary psychology/... areas.
For example, back around 1990, Daniel Dennett wrote a book called "Consciousness Explained."
A couple years ago, he wrote an article titled "Are We Explaining Consciousness?" :)
-
Stella, consciousness is a really tough question. Lots and lots of books have been written about it in the philosophy/psychology/language/neuroscience/evolutionary psychology/... areas.
For example, back around 1990, Daniel Dennett wrote a book called "Consciousness Explained."
A couple years ago, he wrote an article titled "Are We Explaining Consciousness?" :)
hehehe!
coldude, do you have any thoughts re: how consciousness originated?
-
hehehe!
coldude, do you have any thoughts re: how consciousness originated?
Let's side aside the facts that have trouble defining consciousness, and deciding what is or isn't conscious... (Are dogs conscious? Ants? jellyfish? fly-trapping plants? ...)
The answer lies without a doubt in the evolution of the brain. I define consciousness as the ability of the brain to create a model of the world including itself, and to simulate models of the world of what might be or might have been if... (This definition has its problems, but let that slide for now.)
Obviously, then, there are levels of consciousness in the animal kingdom, with us at the top. Our brains can model the world around us, model their role in the world, think of what might happen if we do this or what else might happen if we do that, etc. They have the ability to deal with symbols: drawings, words, sounds, substituting for the real thing.
My brief answer: consciousness is a progressive development in the evolution of the brain, which expanded both in terms of size and computing capacity over the eons.
That's the best I can do for you right now, Stella :)
-
hehehe!
coldude, do you have any thoughts re: how consciousness originated?
What is your evidence for mind/body dualism? What is the evidence that leads you to believe that consciousness is a lump of magical wonder stuff?
-
Let's side aside the facts that have trouble defining consciousness, and deciding what is or isn't conscious... (Are dogs conscious? Ants? jellyfish? fly-trapping plants? ...)
The answer lies without a doubt in the evolution of the brain. I define consciousness as the ability of the brain to create a model of the world including itself, and to simulate models of the world of what might be or might have been if... (This definition has its problems, but let that slide for now.)
Obviously, then, there are levels of consciousness in the animal kingdom, with us at the top. Our brains can model the world around us, model their role in the world, think of what might happen if we do this or what else might happen if we do that, etc. They have the ability to deal with symbols: drawings, words, sounds, substituting for the real thing.
My brief answer: consciousness is a progressive development in the evolution of the brain, which expanded both in terms of size and computing capacity over the eons.
That's the best I can do for you right now, Stella :)
Boy Columbus Dude, that sure sounds complicated; I prefer the 'god with magic powers' theory.... :D
-
Every living thing has consciousness. The old saw of human consciousness of being conscious is what separates us from a conscious sponge or bird.
This is absolutely false. Ants, starfish, sponges and other such animals are NOT conscious.
Sorry to spoil your hippy delusions, you can stop talking to your garden plants now.
-
Boy Columbus Dude, that sure sounds complicated; I prefer the 'god with magic powers' theory.... :D
OK, fundy nutcase ::)
-
Ro,
I think this quote speaks volumes to the mindset that you and I hold:
"The torments of an aroused conscience are symptoms of spiritual vitality for which a wise man will give thanks on bended knees; but they are useless and worse than useless unless they drive him, in his desperation, to the fountain open for all sin and for all uncleanness."
-- F.W. Boreham
-
OK, fundy nutcase ::)
Well, as you know I don't believe in evolution; it is clear from the Bible that god used his magic powers to zap everything into existence just as it is.
-
Well, as you know I don't believe in evolution; it is clear from the Bible that god used his magic powers to zap everything into existence just as it is.
Glad to hear that bro. It brings me great joy to learn that the good Christian folk on here finally managed to bring even a lowly sinning filthy atheist like you to Jesus.
Praise the Lord!!!
-
Glad to hear that bro. It brings me great joy to learn that the good Christian folk on here finally managed to bring even a lowly sinning filthy atheist like you to Jesus.
Praise the Lord!!!
The Lord truly works in mysterious ways; one day I woke up and realised the Jesus is the son of god....and that Harvard, Oxford and MIT are deliberately deceiving the world with their evil theory called evolution.
-
Yes
OK thanks. So you think that consciousness somehow developed. But from what? Out of living matter? One is material and one is immaterial - aren't they 2 completely different things? If so, from where does the immaterial conscious come?
Decker do you think trees and plants have consciousness or did you mean mainly animals, humans, fish, birds etc?
Every living thing has some degree of awareness. Plants included.
-
This is absolutely false. Ants, starfish, sponges and other such animals are NOT conscious.
Sorry to spoil your hippy delusions, you can stop talking to your garden plants now.
Hippy delusion? Read any existential philosopher.
Isn't consciousness another term for awareness?
So your criticism makes no sense.
Or aren't ants aware of the crumbs they pick up off the ground?
What does consciousness mean to you that you think you're an authority on the matter?
Where I'm from, it's still a pretty big mystery.
-
Hippy delusion? Read any existential philosopher.
Isn't consciousness another term for awareness?
So your criticism makes no sense.
Or aren't ants aware of the crumbs they pick up off the ground?
What does consciousness mean to you that you think you're an authority on the matter?
Where I'm from, it's still a pretty big mystery.
A plant or primitive animal isn't aware of anything, it just has a nervous system that reactions to stimulants like touch, vibrations or chemicals.
Philosophy has no ground to compete with scientific knowledge. It's simply scientific fact that the underdeveloped nervous system (or complete lack of one i.e. plants) cannot possibly provide the animal with a consciousness.
Don't apply your human thought process with that of the behaviour of animals, especially primitive ones like starfish ::).
Prove me wrong.
-
A plant or primitive animal isn't aware of anything, it just has a nervous system that reactions to stimulants like touch, vibrations or chemicals.
Philosophy has no ground to compete with scientific knowledge. It's simply scientific fact that the underdeveloped nervous system (or complete lack of one i.e. plants) cannot possibly provide the animal with a consciousness.
Don't apply your human thought process with that of the behaviour of animals, especially primitive ones like starfish ::).
Prove me wrong.
I think many evolutionary biologists would be outraged to hear you call starfish primitive!!!!!!!
-
A plant or primitive animal isn't aware of anything, it just has a nervous system that reactions to stimulants like touch, vibrations or chemicals.
Philosophy has no ground to compete with scientific knowledge. It's simply scientific fact that the underdeveloped nervous system (or complete lack of one i.e. plants) cannot possibly provide the animal with a consciousness.
Don't apply your human thought process with that of the behaviour of animals, especially primitive ones like starfish ::).
Prove me wrong.
What exactly do you think consciousness is?
You've proven nothing. You haven't defined what you mean by consciousness yet you criticize my fundamental description of it as awareness as wrong.
You argue nothing yet you criticize me and in a rather snotty manner I might add.
-
I think many evolutionary biologists would be outraged to hear you call starfish primitive!!!!!!!
An evolutionary biologist can't possibly argue with me ;)
A starfish is "as evolved" as any other organism on Earth, but the fact remains that it's body layout is primitive and has existed for millions of years with little change.
What exactly do you think consciousness is?
You've proven nothing. You haven't defined what you mean by consciousness yet you criticize my fundamental description of it as awareness as wrong.
You argue nothing yet you criticize me and in a rather snotty manner I might add.
Awareness is one of the highest levels of conciousness. Me and you are aware of our surroundings and our own place in the system. We are aware of the universe and other such complex things.
Trees and primitive animals are not. Fact.
-
A plant or primitive animal isn't aware of anything, it just has a nervous system that reactions to stimulants like touch, vibrations or chemicals.
That's one scientific aspect of a plant or "primitive" animal. There is no scientific prove that this should be all to it. Rather, there is logical prove that it isn't.
Philosophy has no ground to compete with scientific knowledge. It's simply scientific fact that the underdeveloped nervous system (or complete lack of one i.e. plants) cannot possibly provide the animal with a consciousness.
Science has no ground to compete with philosophy on the philosophic level, which is of course above the scientific level - alone by definition. Your "simple scientific fact" can only be a scientific theory about certain scientific aspects of consciousness.
Don't apply your human thought process with that of the behaviour of animals, especially primitive ones like starfish ::).
I completely agree to this one. It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.
-
My brief answer: consciousness is a progressive development in the evolution of the brain, which expanded both in terms of size and computing capacity over the eons.
That's the best I can do for you right now, Stella :)
Thanks for the answer coldude!
In your opinion, was the "stuff" needed for consciousness always present in the matter from which is "developed?"
Ro,
I think this quote speaks volumes to the mindset that you and I hold:
"The torments of an aroused conscience are symptoms of spiritual vitality for which a wise man will give thanks on bended knees; but they are useless and worse than useless unless they drive him, in his desperation, to the fountain open for all sin and for all uncleanness."
-- F.W. Boreham
I agree Ro :)
Or aren't ants aware of the crumbs they pick up off the ground?
Decker I agree w/you that ants/starfish etc. have consciousness. I guess I've never thought thoroughly regarding the consciousness of plants/trees but I do find it interesting to consider.
An evolutionary biologist can't possibly argue with me ;)
A starfish is "as evolved" as any other organism on Earth, but the fact remains that it's body layout is primitive and has existed for millions of years with little change.
Awareness is one of the highest levels of conciousness. Me and you are aware of our surroundings and our own place in the system. We are aware of the universe and other such complex things.
Trees and primitive animals are not. Fact.
Nordic, if Starfish and other creatures you may consider primitive are unaware of themselves and their surroundings, how do you explain that they know they must eat and pursue things to eat and also try to escape predators?
-
...Awareness is one of the highest levels of conciousness. Me and you are aware of our surroundings and our own place in the system. We are aware of the universe and other such complex things.
Trees and primitive animals are not. Fact.
What are the levels of consciousness?
I pretty much break it down the lines of phenomenological and perspective. PHenomenological consciousness is what all living things have. You use terms of art like instinct or reflex, I say it's a type of consciousness or awareness. Then I look at perspective consciousness where the subject experiencing awareness of phenomena is aware that he/she is experiencing phenomenon (aware of) and higher evaluative mentation takes place.
That's a fancy way of saying "I think about thinking" and that's what separates me from awareness belonging to other creatures.
-
...
Decker I agree w/you that ants/starfish etc. have consciousness. I guess I've never thought thoroughly regarding the consciousness of plants/trees but I do find it interesting to consider.
...
Did you ever watch plants? Overtime they will bend towards sunlight. The will shape their bodies around objects. Why? B/c they have some sort of awareness of their surroundings and they adapt.
-
That's one scientific aspect of a plant or "primitive" animal. There is no scientific prove that this should be all to it. Rather, there is logical prove that it isn't.
Science has no ground to compete with philosophy on the philosophic level, which is of course above the scientific level - alone by definition. Your "simple scientific fact" can only be a scientific theory about certain scientific aspects of consciousness.
I completely agree to this one. It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.
Philosophical musings cannot be applied to the consciousness of a starfish or plant, not matter how much LSD is consumed by the philosopher.
Decker I agree w/you that ants/starfish etc. have consciousness. I guess I've never thought thoroughly regarding the consciousness of plants/trees but I do find it interesting to consider.
Nordic, if Starfish and other creatures you may consider primitive are unaware of themselves and their surroundings, how do you explain that they know they must eat and pursue things to eat and also try to escape predators?
So you believe something that absolutely isn't true? Somewhat explains you belief in God I suppose.
Ants find crumbs through chemical pathways similar to us smelling a flower. The ant is pre-programmed via its DNA to be attracted to smells within a specific spectrum. Depending on the species of ant it may be "sugary" smells or maybe the distinct smell of insects for carnivorous ants.
They must eat because their body tells them so on a chemical level, they don't for one second think to themselves "golly gosh I AM hungry". This once again demonstrates you can't detach yourself from apply your human thought process to that of an animal.
Honestly, believing plants or starfish are self aware is one of the least intelligent statements I have EVER come across.
What are the levels of consciousness?
I pretty much break it down the lines of phenomenological and perspective. PHenomenological consciousness is what all living things have. You use terms of art like instinct or reflex, I say it's a type of consciousness or awareness. Then I look at perspective consciousness where the subject experiencing awareness of phenomena is aware that he/she is experiencing phenomenon (aware of) and higher evaluative mentation takes place.
That's a fancy way of saying "I think about thinking" and that's what separates me from awareness belonging to other creatures.
Organisms with a primitive or totally lacking nervous system are not self aware in ANY shape or form, they simple react to stimulus's, be it touch, heat or chemical.
Did you ever watch plants? Overtime they will bend towards sunlight. The will shape their bodies around objects. Why? B/c they have some sort of awareness of their surroundings and they adapt.
False, they are genetically programmed to follow the sun light. They don't for one second "know" where the sun is.
-
What is your evidence for mind/body dualism? What is the evidence that leads you to believe that consciousness is a lump of magical wonder stuff?
You may be interested in the findings of Wilder Penfield (a Neurosurgeon) interesting:
“Through my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind,” he writes, but he has had to change his mind after performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients. In the course of this, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and mind are actually distinct from each other, though they clearly interact. - Penfield
To quote another neuroscientist, Lee Edward Travis: “Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electric current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a non-physical reality that interacted with the brain.” To quote Penfield’s own summary of his findings: “To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd...What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit.” (The Mystery of the Mind, Princeton University Press, 1975, pp.79 & 85).
-
...They must eat because their body tells them so on a chemical level, they don't for one second think to themselves "golly gosh I AM hungry". This once again demonstrates you can't detach yourself from apply your human thought process to that of an animal.
Honestly, believing plants or starfish are self aware is one of the least intelligent statements I have EVER come across.
Organisms with a primitive or totally lacking nervous system are not self aware in ANY shape or form, they simple react to stimulus's, be it touch, heat or chemical.
False, they are genetically programmed to follow the sun light. They don't for one second "know" where the sun is.
You are confusing thinking with consciousness. As I pointed out, there's awareness and then there is informed awareness. Both types of awareness are kinds of consciousness.
You are completely missing the not-so-subtle distinction I'm making and you still have not answered the question of "what do you think consciousness is?
-
Philosophical musings cannot be applied to the consciousness of a starfish or plant, not matter how much LSD is consumed by the philosopher.
I'm sorry but I think you do not have a clear concept of neither science nor philosophy. Can you tell me what you think the difference between science and philosophy is?
-
You are confusing thinking with consciousness. As I pointed out, there's awareness and then there is informed awareness. Both types of awareness are kinds of consciousness.
You are completely missing the not-so-subtle distinction I'm making and you still have not answered the question of "what do you think consciousness is?
This is from Wikipedia and basically how I'd define consciousness:
Consciousness is a state that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of self, although not necessarily all of these.[1] Consciousness is a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.[2] Julian Jaynes has emphasized that "Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse consciousness with perception." [3]
Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself (being something), and access consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).[4]
More on consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
Thinking and consciousness go hand in hand.
Your own definition of awareness is too unambiguous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness
I'm sorry but I think you do not have a clear concept of neither science nor philosophy. Can you tell me what you think the difference between science and philosophy is?
Science is a subset of philosophy (previously known as natural philosophy). Science deals with the natural world, whilst philosophy deals with everything BUT the natural world.
Considering the understanding of the nervous system and body plan of a starfish by the scientists of today, it can be said with great probability that the discussion of a starfishes "consciousness" can be undertaken by science.
-
This once again demonstrates you can't detach yourself from apply your human thought process to that of an animal.
It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.
!!
They must eat because their body tells them so on a chemical level, they don't for one second think to themselves "golly gosh I AM hungry".
I find it interesting that you can presume to know if an ant or starfish etc feels hunger or not.
-
It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.
This is a fallacy, homo sapiens ARE nothing more than evolved animals.
My point was: you don't try to understand a whale by looking at it via the perspective of a gorilla and you don't understand a fly by looking at it via the perspective of a starfish.
-
Science is a subset of philosophy (previously known as natural philosophy). Science deals with the natural world, whilst philosophy deals with everything BUT the natural world.
That's not true. Science deals with the scientific aspects of the world, while philosophy deals with all aspects of the world, mostly leaving out specialized aspects (like the scientific aspects) for obvious reasons. But of course philosophy deals with the natural world - just in a holistic way.
Considering the understanding of the nervous system and body plan of a starfish by the scientists of today, it can be said with great probability that the discussion of a starfishes "consciousness" can be undertaken by science.
The question of consciousness can only be undertaken by science as far as the scientific aspects of it are concerned. In this regard, there is no difference at all between investigating at a starfish or a human being. The "understanding of the nervous system and body plan" you are talking about is just a different expression for the current scientific theories in this field. No scientific theory can ever add to the understanding of consciousness more than what it is allowed by its self-imposed restrictions.
I think you just have to decide if you want to make statements about the scientific aspects of things or you want to make philosophic (holistic) statements. Mixing the two leads to confusion and simply untruths.
-
This is from Wikipedia and basically how I'd define consciousness:
Consciousness is a state that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of self, although not necessarily all of these.[1] Consciousness is a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.[2] Julian Jaynes has emphasized that "Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse consciousness with perception." [3]
Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself (being something), and access consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).[4]
....
Does that bold faced material look familiar? Thinking is a subset of consciousness.
-
Homo sapiens ARE nothing more than evolved animals.
And you come to this conclusion, how? Evolution theory only talks about biological aspects, by definition. To state the above, you must actually come to the conclusion that there is nothing more to a human beeing than his biological aspects. Science cannot provide you with such a conclusion, so you must have gotten it from somewhere else.
-
That's not true. Science deals with the scientific aspects of the world, while philosophy deals with all aspects of the world, mostly leaving out specialized aspects (like the scientific aspects) for obvious reasons. But of course philosophy deals with the natural world - just in a holistic way.
The question of consciousness can only be undertaken by science as far as the scientific aspects of it are concerned. In this regard, there is no difference at all between investigating at a starfish or a human being. The "understanding of the nervous system and body plan" you are talking about is just a different expression for the current scientific theories in this field. No scientific theory can ever add to the understanding of consciousness more than what it is allowed by its self-imposed restrictions.
I think you just have to decide if you want to make statements about the scientific aspects of things or you want to make philosophic (holistic) statements. Mixing the two leads to confusion and simply untruths.
An "untruth" would be a definitive definition of philosophy. My definition isn't any less correct that yours. You can continue the pseudo intellectual criticism of my separation of philosophy and science if you like but it will be ignored from here on out.
Who's terms are we to debate this on? You seem to believe I should be debating on your terms which you are making clear you believe homo sapiens isn't a result of evolution.
Here's my statement: science provides a framework that can explain whether a primitive organism such as a starfish is capable of being self aware.
You're free to pursue the philosophical pathway of the same questions if you like.
I find it interesting that you can presume to know if an ant or starfish etc feels hunger or not.
I can assume this with a very high probability thanks to scientific knowledge.
I also think your post about the mind and brain being 2 different things to be false.
And you come to this conclusion, how? Evolution theory only talks about biological aspects, by definition. To state the above, you must actually come to the conclusion that there is nothing more to a human beeing than his biological aspects. Science cannot provide you with such a conclusion, so you must have gotten it from somewhere else.
I'm not here to protect my belief in evolutionary science.
There is simply an overwhelming selection of evidence showing humans are nothing more than a product of evolution.
-
You may be interested in the findings of Wilder Penfield (a Neurosurgeon) interesting:
“Through my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind,” he writes, but he has had to change his mind after performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients. In the course of this, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and mind are actually distinct from each other, though they clearly interact. - Penfield
To quote another neuroscientist, Lee Edward Travis: “Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electric current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a non-physical reality that interacted with the brain.” To quote Penfield’s own summary of his findings: “To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd...What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit.” (The Mystery of the Mind, Princeton University Press, 1975, pp.79 & 85).
Findings from 30+ years ago? The field of neuroscience has marched on since then.
Tell me, what does a Soul look like? Is it intangible? Can it grasp objects? How does it speak if language is dependent on the brain?
-
An "untruth" would be a definitive definition of philosophy. My definition isn't any less correct that yours. You can continue the pseudo intellectual criticism of my separation of philosophy and science if you like but it will be ignored from here on out.
The most substantial philosophic books deal with the natural world. Name me one philosophic work that completely excludes the "natural world". Define for me in scientific terms, what the "natural world" is, and what the opposite would be.
I hope I haven't offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I just think that your statements about science and philosophy are based on a misunderstanding.
Who's terms are we to debate this on? You seem to believe I should be debating on your terms which you are making clear you believe homo sapiens isn't a result of evolution. Here's my statement: science provides a framework that can explain whether a primitive organism such as a starfish is capable of being self aware. I can assume this with a very high probability thanks to scientific knowledge.
My point is this: a scientific definition of awareness must automatically reduce it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So what you are allowed to talk about as a scientist is always only the scientific aspects of things. Of course science provides a framework to analyze this scientific model of awareness, that's the purpose of the model. What you can assume "with a very high propability thanks to scientific knowledge" is always restricted to statements about this model.
I also think your post about the mind and brain being 2 different things to be false.
I'm not here to protect my belief in evolutionary science.
There is simply an overwhelming selection of evidence showing humans are nothing more than a product of evolution.
You don't have to protect anything, there is nothing to protect in science. It's just a misconception that the explanatory power of scientific theories goes beyond the scientific models of the world. The "overwhelming selection of evidence" you are talking about is only "evidence" in the realm of these models.
-
The most substantial philosophic books deal with the natural world. Name me one philosophic work that completely excludes the "natural world". Define for me in scientific terms, what the "natural world" is, and what the opposite would be.
I hope I haven't offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I just think that your statements about science and philosophy are based on a misunderstanding.
My point is this: a scientific definition of awareness must automatically reduce it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So what you are allowed to talk about as a scientist is always only the scientific aspects of things. Of course science provides a framework to analyze this scientific model of awareness, that's the purpose of the model. What you can assume "with a very high propability thanks to scientific knowledge" is always restricted to statements about this model.
You don't have to protect anything, there is nothing to protect in science. It's just a misconception that the explanatory power of scientific theories goes beyond the scientific models of the world. The "overwhelming selection of evidence" you are talking about is only "evidence" in the realm of these models.
Offensichtlich glaubst Du, dass 'Warum' Fragen durch Philosophie beantwortbar sind. Inwiefern sind solche Fragen nicht vom Menschen erfunden?
-
Offensichtlich glaubst Du, dass 'Warum' Fragen durch Philosophie beantwortbar sind. Inwiefern sind solche Fragen nicht vom Menschen erfunden?
Every question is "made up" by man. I never made a distinction between "how" and "why". As I have pointed out before, that's just one of the catch phrases of a pseudo philosophic scientist. Science can neither explain "why" nor "how" anything happened beyond the scientific realm.
-
Every question is "made up" by man. I never made a distinction between "how" and "why". As I have pointed out before, that's just one of the catch phrases of a pseudo philosophic scientist. Science can neither explain "why" nor "how" anything happened beyond the scientific realm.
Aber reine Philosophie kann die groessten Fragen der Menschheit beantworten...uhuh.... ::)
-
Aber reine Philosophie kann die groessten Fragen der Menschheit beantworten...uhuh.... ::)
That's a different issue.
Science can't answer the substantial questions of mankind, by definition. IMO, in the end, philosophy can't either. But at least it's a step in the right direction, into a system with less restrictions.
-
That's a different issue.
Science can't answer the substantial questions of mankind, by definition. IMO, in the end, philosophy can't either. But at least it's a step in the right direction, into a system with less restrictions.
Und wo bleibt denn Theologie?
-
The most substantial philosophic books deal with the natural world. Name me one philosophic work that completely excludes the "natural world". Define for me in scientific terms, what the "natural world" is, and what the opposite would be.
I hope I haven't offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I just think that your statements about science and philosophy are based on a misunderstanding.
My point is this: a scientific definition of awareness must automatically reduce it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So what you are allowed to talk about as a scientist is always only the scientific aspects of things. Of course science provides a framework to analyze this scientific model of awareness, that's the purpose of the model. What you can assume "with a very high propability thanks to scientific knowledge" is always restricted to statements about this model.
You don't have to protect anything, there is nothing to protect in science. It's just a misconception that the explanatory power of scientific theories goes beyond the scientific models of the world. The "overwhelming selection of evidence" you are talking about is only "evidence" in the realm of these models.
Like I said, I'm not here to provide you with my definitions, which quite clearly collide with your own on topics which can't possibly be definitively defined.
From your perspective and understanding of philosophy my statements might very well be seen as misunderstood, this is because we're different wavelengths.
For example, I'm very well aware of what science is and sets out to do. But, for me, my belief in science provides factual answers. Evolution for example to me isn't just a theory, I believe it as fact. I don't believe in a soul, any human representation of a soul is just the conscious mind at work, giving the human a place in its environment.
Are you a deist?
-
Findings from 30+ years ago? The field of neuroscience has marched on since then.
I wasn't aware those findings had been refuted. Have they?
Tell me, what does a Soul look like? Is it intangible? Can it grasp objects? How does it speak if language is dependent on the brain?
Not sure but I would think the soul would be invisible and not able to grasp objects or speak with sound that we would normally need to hear without a body.
-
How do people explain animals, dogs and cats for instance, who have managed to find their way home when lost 100s of miles away? They aren't on some predisposed genetic migration route. What about people who have very real psychic experiences? Aren't there at least a few different states of consciousness, some of which we aren't even aware?
-
How do people explain animals, dogs and cats for instance, who have managed to find their way home when lost 100s of miles away? They aren't on some predisposed genetic migration route.
They can keep navigation plans in their brains via reference points. This is an ability in recognition.
What about people who have very real psychic experiences?
Very real psychic experiences simply do not and cannot exist in my opinion. I can't possibly comprehend thinking like you and even believe it for a SECOND.
Aren't there at least a few different states of consciousness, some of which we aren't even aware?
For example?
-
They can keep navigation plans in their brains via reference points. This is an ability in recognition.
I'm talking about animals that were driven long distances along some highway... then found their way home taking the long detour.
Very real psychic experiences simply do not and cannot exist in my opinion. I can't possibly comprehend thinking like you and even believe it for a SECOND.
Lol, well I'm not some crystal worshiping, caftan wearing, new ager, but these experiences are documented. Perhaps there is some scientific explanation. People have been trying, without success, to find them.
How do you explain people having terrible premonitions that become realized, for instance?
For example?
Well, I'm thinking of problem solving, or creative inspiration during dream sleep, that sort of thing. When the right and left brain seem to work better together.
-
I'm talking about animals that were driven long distances along some highway... then found their way home taking the long detour.
I think (not 100% sure) that a lot of animals have navigation devises beyond that of our own. Eyesight, hearing are beyond that of human comprehension. Some animals also have tracking which is aided by the magnetism of the earth allowing them to formulate grids in their brain which can aid in finding a destination, my only knowledge of this is in newts and other amphibians, I can't say dogs/cats have this ability, they might have but I doubt it.
Lol, well I'm not some crystal worshiping, caftan wearing, new ager, but these experiences are documented. Perhaps there is some scientific explanation. People have been trying, without success, to find them.
How do you explain people having terrible premonitions that become realized, for instance?
They might be documented but I believe 100% they can be explained scientifically.
Premonitions are a collection of coincidences plus other inputs related to the event which the person might pick up on. This is my opinion and I believe it to be 100% true. People cannot see into the future by magical means. The human brain is simply a great piece of equipment for situation analysis and predicting the outcome of events which may lie into the future. Mix this with some coincidence and there you have your explanation.
Well, I'm thinking of problem solving, or creative inspiration during dream sleep, that sort of thing. When the right and left brain seem to work better together.
Research the unconscious mind. The mind when YOU are not in control of your own thoughts. Sleep is a special time for the brain to make sense and process the information it has acquired on its daily routine.
-
Und wo bleibt denn Theologie?
Theology (like spiritual scripture in general) is the attempt of explaining the divine, something that is principally beyond the comprehension of the thinking mind. Since it still uses the same tools as philosophy, it unfortunally must always remain a bad translation of the truth, open to false interpretation.
-
Like I said, I'm not here to provide you with my definitions, which quite clearly collide with your own on topics which can't possibly be definitively defined. From your perspective and understanding of philosophy my statements might very well be seen as misunderstood, this is because we're different wavelengths.
My point was that it is just not true that philosophy does not deal with the natural world (which is what you said). Im sorry but this is not open to discussion, it is a fact. If your statements are based on the assumption that scientists are serious observers of the "natural world" while philosophers are LSD consuming junkies who phantasize about supernatural nonsense, the statements cannot be taken seriously.
For example, I'm very well aware of what science is and sets out to do. But, for me, my belief in science provides factual answers. Evolution for example to me isn't just a theory, I believe it as fact.
Then it seems like you misunderstood the purpose of science. Science does not provide you with anything you could believe in or not. It provides you with scientific theories applied to scientific models of the world. Evolution e.g. is a scientific theory about the development of the biological aspects of life. It could very well be that new theories overthrow evolution theory, just like it happened in every other scientific field. But the main point is that whatever scientific theory is widely accepted at a certain point in time, it remains just that. I have no problem with the "fact" that biologically, my ancestors are apes. But what you seem to mean by "fact" is that there is nothing more to a human being than his biology. That's a "fact" that cannot be provided by science.
I don't believe in a soul, any human representation of a soul is just the conscious mind at work, giving the human a place in its environment.
That's your choice of course. A choice however, that cannot be derived from science either.
Are you a deist?
Such categories stem from people who don't understand anything about spirituality. As soon as one tries to assign attributes to the divine and not understand that these attributes can only be pointers but never the literal truth, he is already on the wrong path.
-
I think (not 100% sure) that a lot of animals have navigation devises beyond that of our own. Eyesight, hearing are beyond that of human comprehension. Some animals also have tracking which is aided by the magnetism of
I think you're probably right, but that implies a certain type of inexplicable consciousness, doesn't it? It also doesn't explain the tremendous drive these animals have to be rejoined with their owners, rather than make the best of it with new ones. Can't that imply some connectivity beyond instinct, with their beloved human companions?
They might be documented but I believe 100% they can be explained scientifically.
Premonitions are a collection of coincidences plus other inputs related to the event which the person might pick up on. This is my opinion and I believe it to be 100% true. People cannot see into the future by magical means. The human brain is simply a great piece of equipment for situation analysis and predicting the outcome of events which may lie into the future. Mix this with some coincidence and there you have your explanation.
At the risk of sounding like a complete ass, here are some examples. I've told friends they were pregnant before they realized it themselves. I've also been overwhelmed with sudden feelings of sadness, with very clear perceptions that the person I'm talking to was going to die. I believe when people are sick with cancer, or are pregnant, their hormonal changes can be picked up by people who may be extra-sensitive, on a subconscious level, to smell. But that does imply some level of consciousness that is beyond the "thinking" mind.
I've also, while driving around mindlessly, been overwhelmed with the urge to go miles out of my way to get to someone's house, knowing something was wrong... to arrive and find their dog half dead in the driveway after being hit by a car. I don't think these experiences are magical or coincidental, how can they be... but do believe in some subconscious hive connectivity that ties all living things together. Perhaps it's simply energy floating around that people can sense and interpret. That to me is "God." And I know I sound like an ass, ;D but people have these experiences all the time.
Research the unconscious mind. The mind when YOU are not in control of your own thoughts. Sleep is a special time for the brain to make sense and process the information it has acquired on its daily routine.
Yes, but that's a layer of consciousness, that is beyond the "thinking" mind. Perhaps there are other layers we aren't really aware of...
-
I think you're probably right, but that implies a certain type of inexplicable consciousness, doesn't it? It also doesn't explain the tremendous drive these animals have to be rejoined with their owners, rather than make the best of it with new ones. Can't that imply some connectivity beyond instinct, with their beloved human companions?
At the risk of sounding like a complete ass, here are some examples. I've told friends they were pregnant before they realized it themselves. I've also been overwhelmed with sudden feelings of sadness, with very clear perceptions that the person I'm talking to was going to die. I believe when people are sick with cancer, or are pregnant, their hormonal changes can be picked up by people who may be extra-sensitive, on a subconscious level, to smell. But that does imply some level of consciousness that is beyond the "thinking" mind.
I've also, while driving around mindlessly, been overwhelmed with the urge to go miles out of my way to get to someone's house, knowing something was wrong... to arrive and find their dog half dead in the driveway after being hit by a car. I don't think these experiences are magical or coincidental, how can they be... but do believe in some subconscious hive connectivity that ties all living things together. Perhaps it's simply energy floating around that people can sense and interpret. That to me is "God." And I know I sound like an ass, ;D but people have these experiences all the time.
Yes, but that's a layer of consciousness, that is beyond the "thinking" mind. Perhaps there are other layers we aren't really aware of...
There are many documented accounts of Psychic phenomena on record. There are also people that have the ability to "remote View", which means see and describe locations that are thousands of miles away. I have personally been able to get an EVP(electronic voice phenomena) captured on tape of the voice of a close friend who had benn dead for several months, actually responding to me..no bullshit or trickery. Even her family members verified it was her voice on the tape. Until that moment (a few months back), I had doubted the existence of consciousness surviving death. I am not religious but I believe science will eventually prove some of these phenomenas so they aren't relegated to being just people who are considered nutcases. I know I will get flamed by people who will disbelieve what i wrote about the EVP, but there are books by credible people who have heard hundreds of them. So, I won't post back trying to defend my beliefs or worry that I will be ridiculed, just wanted to share this. Definitely couldn't care if anyone believes me or not.
-
My point was that it is just not true that philosophy does not deal with the natural world (which is what you said). Im sorry but this is not open to discussion, it is a fact. If your statements are based on the assumption that scientists are serious observers of the "natural world" while philosophers are LSD consuming junkies who phantasize about supernatural nonsense, the statements cannot be taken seriously.
Then it seems like you misunderstood the purpose of science. Science does not provide you with anything you could believe in or not. It provides you with scientific theories applied to scientific models of the world. Evolution e.g. is a scientific theory about the development of the biological aspects of life. It could very well be that new theories overthrow evolution theory, just like it happened in every other scientific field. But the main point is that whatever scientific theory is widely accepted at a certain point in time, it remains just that. I have no problem with the "fact" that biologically, my ancestors are apes. But what you seem to mean by "fact" is that there is nothing more to a human being than his biology. That's a "fact" that cannot be provided by science.
That's your choice of course. A choice however, that cannot be derived from science either.
Such categories stem from people who don't understand anything about spirituality. As soon as one tries to assign attributes to the divine and not understand that these attributes can only be pointers but never the literal truth, he is already on the wrong path.
By natural world I meant physical experiential knowledge. This I don't think philosophy can deal in directly. Sure philosophy does in fact have the scope of the world, the universe and our place in it.
The mistake is yours. Science does provide something tangible to believe in. You can be as unambiguous with your definitions of science as you like.
Science is to process to creating understanding or improve understanding in the physical world with observable evidence as the basis.
So, with this, I can say that my believe in science in itself is not up for debate and most certainly not a misunderstanding no matter how pretentious you chose in being pressing this matter.
At the risk of sounding like a complete ass, here are some examples. I've told friends they were pregnant before they realized it themselves. I've also been overwhelmed with sudden feelings of sadness, with very clear perceptions that the person I'm talking to was going to die. I believe when people are sick with cancer, or are pregnant, their hormonal changes can be picked up by people who may be extra-sensitive, on a subconscious level, to smell. But that does imply some level of consciousness that is beyond the "thinking" mind.
I've also, while driving around mindlessly, been overwhelmed with the urge to go miles out of my way to get to someone's house, knowing something was wrong... to arrive and find their dog half dead in the driveway after being hit by a car. I don't think these experiences are magical or coincidental, how can they be... but do believe in some subconscious hive connectivity that ties all living things together. Perhaps it's simply energy floating around that people can sense and interpret. That to me is "God." And I know I sound like an ass, ;D but people have these experiences all the time.
The hormone thing is more like a chemical feedback mechanism, urges felt because you subconsciously think someone looks/behaves ill. Of course your guess is as good as mine, I know nothing about that topic, and I certainly have no answer the dead dog lol
There are many documented accounts of Psychic phenomena on record. There are also people that have the ability to "remote View", which means see and describe locations that are thousands of miles away. I have personally been able to get an EVP(electronic voice phenomena) captured on tape of the voice of a close friend who had benn dead for several months, actually responding to me..no bullshit or trickery. Even her family members verified it was her voice on the tape. Until that moment (a few months back), I had doubted the existence of consciousness surviving death. I am not religious but I believe science will eventually prove some of these phenomenas so they aren't relegated to being just people who are considered nutcases. I know I will get flamed by people who will disbelieve what i wrote about the EVP, but there are books by credible people who have heard hundreds of them. So, I won't post back trying to defend my beliefs or worry that I will be ridiculed, just wanted to share this. Definitely couldn't care if anyone believes me or not.
You see the EVP info is just something I can't possibly believe in.
Most of me would say they heard what they wanted to hear.
-
How do people explain animals, dogs and cats for instance, who have managed to find their way home when lost 100s of miles away? They aren't on some predisposed genetic migration route. What about people who have very real psychic experiences? Aren't there at least a few different states of consciousness, some of which we aren't even aware?
None of which is an indication that consciousness arises from a lump of magical wonder stuff as many here like to claim.
-
From creationism to new age magic powers, the fun never stops here.
-
Some on here seem to have the worldview that if something can not be measured or detected by our current scientific methods, than it can not exist. That would also mean that they believe that our current state of scientific technology has progressed as far as it will go. If you were to travel back 200 years and attempt to explain to that era's scientists what a television is, you would be met with ridicule. "Well fellows, there is going to be a device that will transmit invisible signals, energy waves if you will..now you won't be able to see them or hear them even though they will be passing right around you. Then we will have this other device, kinda like a box and it will be able to take that signal and project it on a screen and these invisible waves will become pictures with sound and you will be able to see people talking and moving.." It would be beyond their comprehension. All the people that scoffed at Jules Verne's notion(that he wrote in the late 1800's) about a rocket going to the moon, now seem close minded and foolish. Already there has been studies in Quantam Physics that suggest consciousness can influence matter even down to subatomic particles. There are actual films of individuals who have moved objects with their minds. Saying that science has come as far as it's going to go and that any phenomena that doesn't have a current valid scientific explanation can't exist, is a shortsighted viewpoint. How do you know for a fact that the brain isn't capable of transmitting and receiving energy? Why.. because most people can't do it or even have the belief that it's possible? Maybe several years down the line science will have progressed to the point where acceptance of psychic phenomena will be widely held and easily quantified. Nothing wrong with skepticism, but to outright reject the notion when even police have successfully used psychics, seems close minded.
-
Some on here seem to have the worldview that if something can not be measured or detected by our current scientific methods, than it can not exist. That would also mean that they believe that our current state of scientific technology has progressed as far as it will go. If you were to travel back 200 years and attempt to explain to that era's scientists what a television is, you would be met with ridicule. "Well fellows, there is going to be a device that will transmit invisible signals, energy waves if you will..now you won't be able to see them or hear them even though they will be passing right around you. Then we will have this other device, kinda like a box and it will be able to take that signal and project it on a screen and these invisible waves will become pictures with sound and you will be able to see people talking and moving.." It would be beyond their comprehension. All the people that scoffed at Jules Verne's notion(that he wrote in the late 1800's) about a rocket going to the moon, now seem close minded and foolish. Already there has been studies in Quantam Physics that suggest consciousness can influence matter even down to subatomic particles. There are actual films of individuals who have moved objects with their minds. Saying that science has come as far as it's going to go and that any phenomena that doesn't have a current valid scientific explanation can't exist, is a shortsighted viewpoint. How do you know for a fact that the brain isn't capable of transmitting and receiving energy? Why.. because most people can't do it or even have the belief that it's possible? Maybe several years down the line science will have progressed to the point where acceptance of psychic phenomena will be widely held and easily quantified. Nothing wrong with skepticism, but to outright reject the notion when even police have successfully used psychics, seems close minded.
Nothing to do with magic powers or god though...
-
worship the god within yourself !
-
Some on here seem to have the worldview that if something can not be measured or detected by our current scientific methods, than it can not exist. That would also mean that they believe that our current state of scientific technology has progressed as far as it will go. If you were to travel back 200 years and attempt to explain to that era's scientists what a television is, you would be met with ridicule. "Well fellows, there is going to be a device that will transmit invisible signals, energy waves if you will..now you won't be able to see them or hear them even though they will be passing right around you. Then we will have this other device, kinda like a box and it will be able to take that signal and project it on a screen and these invisible waves will become pictures with sound and you will be able to see people talking and moving.." It would be beyond their comprehension. All the people that scoffed at Jules Verne's notion(that he wrote in the late 1800's) about a rocket going to the moon, now seem close minded and foolish. Already there has been studies in Quantam Physics that suggest consciousness can influence matter even down to subatomic particles. There are actual films of individuals who have moved objects with their minds. Saying that science has come as far as it's going to go and that any phenomena that doesn't have a current valid scientific explanation can't exist, is a shortsighted viewpoint. How do you know for a fact that the brain isn't capable of transmitting and receiving energy? Why.. because most people can't do it or even have the belief that it's possible? Maybe several years down the line science will have progressed to the point where acceptance of psychic phenomena will be widely held and easily quantified. Nothing wrong with skepticism, but to outright reject the notion when even police have successfully used psychics, seems close minded.
You put my thoughts into words exactly! :) Even 40 years ago, I doubt many people could have envisioned the lives we have today. Would be so incredible to know what science will have discovered about the brain and it's thus far hidden layers of consciousness 100 years from now.
-
None of which is an indication that consciousness arises from a lump of magical wonder stuff as many here like to claim.
You're so strict Deicide. :) We were taking a slight tangent... nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian god, or any diety, really. Just musing about the mysteries of the brain.
-
By natural world I meant physical experiential knowledge. This I don't think philosophy can deal in directly. Sure philosophy does in fact have the scope of the world, the universe and our place in it.
If by "natural world", you mean "physical (as in scientific) aspects of the world", that's different. I just pointed it out since scientists often make the mistake of equating the two, leaving philosophy to deal with some "supernatural" nonsense (see your LSD remark).
The mistake is yours. Science does provide something tangible to believe in. You can be as unambiguous with your definitions of science as you like. Science is to process to creating understanding or improve understanding in the physical world with observable evidence as the basis. So, with this, I can say that my believe in science in itself is not up for debate and most certainly not a misunderstanding no matter how pretentious you chose in being pressing this matter.
Science is defined by it's method and language for describing the world. The method is abstracting the world into scientific models and then formulating scientific theories within these models, using mostly mathematics as the language. These theories are then tested via scientific experiments. As long as you are operating within this framework (aka being a scientist), there is no room for believe. You are simply following theses rules and hopefully are able to formulate long-lasting theories. There is also no need for believing in a certain scientific theory, since it holds true automatically until disproven by experiment. So if you say you believe in evolution, it can only mean that you follow the rules of science to accept its validity until disproven. Everything else would actually go against the rules of science, e.g. believing in a theory although it has already been disproven.
What you could e.g. believe in is that the applications of science improve our world. Or you can believe that a certain scientific theory will arise that describes scientific phenomena not covered yet by current theories. What exactly do you mean when you say you believe in it?
-
Science is defined by it's method and language for describing the world. The method is abstracting the world into scientific models and then formulating scientific theories within these models, using mostly mathematics as the language. These theories are then tested via scientific experiments. As long as you are operating within this framework (aka being a scientist), there is no room for believe. You are simply following theses rules and hopefully are able to formulate long-lasting theories. There is also no need for believing in a certain scientific theory, since it holds true automatically until disproven by experiment. So if you say you believe in evolution, it can only mean that you follow the rules of science to accept its validity until disproven. Everything else would actually go against the rules of science, e.g. believing in a theory although it has already been disproven.
You definition is certainly truthful, although I think the statement about scientific statements being automatically true until disproved is not. Unless I've mis-interpreted you?
What you could e.g. believe in is that the applications of science improve our world. Or you can believe that a certain scientific theory will arise that describes scientific phenomena not covered yet by current theories. What exactly do you mean when you say you believe in it?
You've picked a good point here, my abilities in explaining exactly what I mean clearly leave a lot to be desired.
-
You definition is certainly truthful, although I think the statement about scientific statements being automatically true until disproved is not. Unless I've mis-interpreted you?
You've picked a good point here, my abilities in explaining exactly what I mean clearly leave a lot to be desired.
When the effects, a scientifc theory should have on the scientifically observable world, have been verified via experiment, the theory is generally accepted as valid. Usually, two independent sources must verify the experiment, but other than that, the theory must be accepted. Concurrent (competing) theories can only arise, if they all match previoulsy done experiments and would only differ in effect not yet observable by experiment (resp. distinguishable in regard to matching one or the other theory). Additionally, most scientific theories have certain boundaries (e.g. theory of relativity vs. quantum physics).
The reason why I'm interested in statements such as "I believe in science" is that what is usually meant is "I believe in science rather than religion or God". The misconception IMO is that there is such a competition between the two believes. This misconception is the reason for all the fights going on between e.g. creationists and scientific positivists, as can be perfectly observed on this board.
-
When the effects, a scientifc theory should have on the scientifically observable world, have been verified via experiment, the theory is generally accepted as valid. Usually, two independent sources must verify the experiment, but other than that, the theory must be accepted. Concurrent (competing) theories can only arise, if they all match previoulsy done experiments and would only differ in effect not yet observable by experiment (resp. distinguishable in regard to matching one or the other theory). Additionally, most scientific theories have certain boundaries (e.g. theory of relativity vs. quantum physics).
The reason why I'm interested in statements such as "I believe in science" is that what is usually meant is "I believe in science rather than religion or God". The misconception IMO is that there is such a competition between the two believes. This misconception is the reason for all the fights going on between e.g. creationists and scientific positivists, as can be perfectly observed on this board.
Nur Du, Wellenlaenge, hast den wahren Weg gefunden.
-
Nur Du, Wellenlaenge, hast den wahren Weg gefunden.
("Only you, wavelength, have found the right path.")
You also seem to be pretty confident in your views. ;)
I'm of course always only expressing my opinions. I'm not out to offend anybody.
And no doubt, much greater minds than me (including many 'religious' thinkers) have already said what I say here. Nothing that will be posted on this board is in any way original, you can be sure of that.
I think it would be great if the focus of attention would actually be on how to find "the right path" instead of bickering about illusionary conflicts.
-
("Only you, wavelength, have found the right path.")
You also seem to be pretty confident in your views. ;)
I'm of course always only expressing my opinions. I'm not out to offend anybody.
And no doubt, much greater minds than me (including many 'religious' thinkers) have already said what I say here. Nothing that will be posted on this board is in any way original, you can be sure of that.
I think it would be great if the focus of attention would actually be on how to find "the right path" instead of bickering about illusionary conflicts.
Nichts von Illusion hier...
-
Nichts von Illusion hier...
Oops, I meant to say "imaginary".