The Profound difference between the Religious World View and the Scientific One:

[wavelength]

Continued here from the Prayer thread:

The point is that your proofs have failed to convince many of us here.

Yes, but why? I only used simple logic. Nobody was able to argue against it. Objectively I have to conclude that if you are still not convinced, you are in denial. Why else would you otherwise still believe in a statement that is either redundant or false? If my argument is so obviously wrong, just argue against it.

Why don't you start telling me if A) why questions are good questions and B) is why questions can ever be definitely answered by theology and philosophy?

I hope I understand correctly. You are referring to 'why-questions', right?

A) This is just a made-up issue. I already agreed that purpose should be left out of the discussion as long as it is still on the level science vs. religion. So just change every 'why-question' into a 'how-question'. Everything I said about these questions still holds true.

I have no concept of 'good' or 'bad' questions. Every question that comes to the human mind is just that - a question.

B) The framework, the human mind has for answering questions, is language and it's inherent logic. There are questions that can be definitely answered by the human mind. Namely, if a statement is e.g. illogical, it must be abandoned, that's definite. You concept of 'why-questions' is too broad. If you e.g. ask me if philosophy or theology can ever definitely answer the question 'why are we here', as in 'what is our purpose', the answer, the human mind must give, is No. Spiritual scripture however points us beyond the thinking mind.

In any case, Philosophy and Theology deal with all sort of questions. Not all questions can be answered satisfactory by the mind. But quite obviously the much more restricted framework of science also further restricts the number of questions which can be answered, so I can't see how this is an argument for the reductionistic world-view.

[Deicide]

Continued here from the Prayer thread:

Yes, but why? I only used simple logic. Nobody was able to argue against it. Objectively I have to conclude that if you are still not convinced, you are in denial. Why else would you otherwise still believe in a statement that is either redundant or false? If my argument is so obviously wrong, just argue against it.

I hope I understand correctly. You are referring to 'why-questions', right?

A) This is just a made-up issue. I already agreed that purpose should be left out of the discussion as long as it is still on the level science vs. religion. So just change every 'why-question' into a 'how-question'. Everything I said about these questions still holds true.

I have no concept of 'good' or 'bad' questions. Every question that comes to the human mind is just that - a question.

B) The framework, the human mind has for answering questions, is language and it's inherent logic. There are questions that can be definitely answered by the human mind. Namely, if a statement is e.g. illogical, it must be abandoned, that's definite. You concept of 'why-questions' is too broad. If you e.g. ask me if philosophy or theology can ever definitely answer the question 'why are we here', as in 'what is our purpose', the answer, the human mind must give, is No. Spiritual scripture however points us beyond the thinking mind.

In any case, Philosophy and Theology deal with all sort of questions. Not all questions can be answered satisfactory by the mind. But quite obviously the much more restricted framework of science also further restricts the number of questions which can be answered, so I can't see how this is an argument for the reductionistic world-view.

You are playing with semantics. It is past midnight here so I will try to address this tommorow if possible.

[MMC78]

Continued here from the Prayer thread:

Yes, but why? I only used simple logic. Nobody was able to argue against it. Objectively I have to conclude that if you are still not convinced, you are in denial. Why else would you otherwise still believe in a statement that is either redundant or false? If my argument is so obviously wrong, just argue against it.

You wish.  Proof by vigorous assertion notwithstanding, show me your 'logical' argument that consciousness must exist outside of science. 

- the stuff matter is made of.
- what space and time is.
- does space and time exist?
- what is consciousness?
- are we more than just passive machines?
- where do we come from?
- does anything exist or not?
- am I real?
- is anybody else real?
- what is reality?
- what is existance?

These are nice diversions but the fundamental question remains.  Why do you insist that your mind is beyond the realm of science and the material world.

[MMC78]

Why should we be limited to scientific means of understanding the world in a cogent and comprehensive manner? Reason is not limited to science. Logic is not limited to science. Language is not limited to science.

Explain why science is necessarily limiting for these topics.

What else is science than a speculation? You e.g. speculate that there could be something like a 'gravitational field' when in fact it could also be invisible leprechauns (or Sagan's invisible dragons) pushing around matter. As long as the mathematical model matches the scientific measurements, we can't tell. If what you have in mind of e.g. the gravitational field is more than just a few mathematical formulas, you have already created an invisible dragon in your mind. So if anyone can be accused of creating invisible dragons, it's the pseudo-philosophic scientists like Sagan. With science, and I quote: "We cannot tell what is real".

The difference is that there's no evidence for the existence of the invisible dragon whereas there is copious evidence for the existence of gravity.  What's more, our model of gravity allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions whereas the pink dragon theory does not.  I think you may have missed the point of that passage. 

[wavelength]

You wish.  Proof by vigorous assertion notwithstanding, show me your 'logical' argument that consciousness must exist outside of science.

I was talking about the statement 'there is nothing to the world than what can be derived from science', which is the basis of the scientific-positivistic world view. The logical argument I used to show that such a statement can only be meaningless or wrong, but never true, is yet unchallenged.

But the same goes of course for the statement 'there is nothing to consciousness than its scientific aspects'. The deduction also shows in this case, that the statement cannot be true. I repeated the simple argument several times in this thread, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat again.

I honestly don't understand how someone can block out such simple logic from a discussion about the explanatory power of science.

These are nice diversions but the fundamental question remains.  Why do you insist that your mind is beyond the realm of science and the material world.

Once again, the 'material world' must be left out of this discussion. For why the mind is more than its scientific aspects, see above. All I said in this regard is based on simple logic, its not me who is 'insisting' on anything.

And how is the question 'what is space and time' a diversion? Space and time are the basis of science, yet they are fundamental to it, meaning, they cannot be explained within science.

Explain why science is necessarily limiting for these topics.

The point was that it was assumed by Deicide, that the scientific limitations would also apply to reason, which is not true. If you want to know about the restrictions of science, just look it up in any encyclopedia. Science is restricted to mathematical models and scientific observations of the world.

The difference is that there's no evidence for the existence of the invisible dragon whereas there is copious evidence for the existence of gravity.  What's more, our model of gravity allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions whereas the pink dragon theory does not.  I think you may have missed the point of that passage.

Not at all, rather you have missed my point entirely. There is no (and can never be) scientific evidence whatsoever, that there really is something like a gravitational field, meaning a mysterious force field that would make bodies move in a certain way. If you are a pure scientist, all you are allowed to have in mind when talking about a gravitational field, is just a set of mathematical formulas predicting the motion of objects. Calling it a field, is only a helpful suggestion for the mind. But as soon as you believe that there really is something like this force field, you have created an invisible dragon. This 'field'-dragon does not come from science, it is purely made up by your mind. If instead of such a mysterious force field, you would have in mind mysterious invisible dragons, that would somehow manage to move the bodies in exactly the same way, scientifically it would make no difference at all. What Sagan and his positivistic friends don't understand is that their 'Field' is nothing else than an invisible dragon.

[MMC78]

I was talking about the statement 'there is nothing to the world than what can be derived from science', which is the basis of the scientific-positivistic world view. The logical argument I used to show that such a statement can only be meaningless or wrong, but never true, is yet unchallenged.

But the same goes of course for the statement 'there is nothing to consciousness than its scientific aspects'. The deduction also shows in this case, that the statement cannot be true. I repeated the simple argument several times in this thread, so I don't think it's necessary to repeat again.

Once again, the 'material world' must be left out of this discussion. For why the mind is more than its scientific aspects, see above. All I said in this regard is based on simple logic, its not me who is 'insisting' on anything.

What you are insisting upon is that that consciousness absolutely cannot be explained by science, yet you have provided no evidence for this.  This is a very different claim from insisting that there exist unprovable statements in science. 

Not at all, rather you have missed my point entirely. There is no (and can never be) scientific evidence whatsoever, that there really is something like a gravitational field, meaning a mysterious force field that would make bodies move in a certain way.

Science is a modeling language and it's a predictive language.  We believe in the theory of gravity because our model allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions about the nature and affects of this invisible force.  It is not the same as an invisible dragon -- which has no affect on the outside world, nor whose behavior can be understood or predicted via scientific modeling.  Do you see the difference?

[Deicide]

Major Communication Meltdown.

[wavelength]

What you are insisting upon is that that consciousness absolutely cannot be explained by science, yet you have provided no evidence for this.  This is a very different claim from insisting that there exist unprovable statements in science.

OK, I will repeat once again:
We look at the statement 'All there is to the world can be derived from science'. This is the basis for the scientific-positivistic world view (Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, Atkins, etc.).

If this statement is made from within science, it is completely meaningless. This is because, a pure scientist must reduce this statement to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of the world can be derived from science', which is self-evident and therefore redundant.

In order for the original statement to have any meaning at all, it must therefore be made from without science. This means, a scientist who makes such a statement automatically becomes a philosopher - he must derive this statement from without science. Thus, we have created at least one statement about the world, which cannot be derived from science. Therefore it is self-contradictory and therefore false.

You can easily apply the same argument to the statement 'All there is to consciousness can be derived from science'. Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of consciousness can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about consciousness, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.

Please tell me exactly where in this simple argument I insist on anything other than pure simple logic.
Please tell me exactly why you say I provide no evidence. Isn't simple logic evidence enough?
Please tell me where in this argument I talk about 'unprovable statements in science'?

This simple argument remains unchallenged in this whole thread. It requires no believe, faith, or insistence at all, just a little logic comprehension.

Science is a modeling language and it's a predictive language.  We believe in the theory of gravity because our model allows us to make incredibly accurate predictions about the nature and affects of this invisible force.  It is not the same as an invisible dragon -- which has no affect on the outside world, nor whose behavior can be understood or predicted via scientific modeling.  Do you see the difference?

What you describe here is exactly the reason why inaccuracy leads to obsolete quarrels between philosophers/theologists and scientists. There are two sides of this argument. One is the scientific side and one is the philosophic side:

A) Scientific side:
We have the theory of gravity. If we stay within the scientific realm, all we have is a mathematical formula and scientific observations. As long as our scientific observations match the formula, the scientific theory holds true. That's it. In the mathematical formula, you will not find an actual 'force field'. The formula just predicts the motion of objects (resp. the force needed to stop them from moving).

A scientist tries to explain the theory of gravity by saying there is an 'invisible force field'. This is tricky. As long as he knows that he just uses the term 'force field' as a synonym for the mathematical formula - without an actual imagination of a real, mysterious, invisible field of force behind it - this is still fine. In this case he can still claim to remain within the realm of science. Of course, he doesn't really provide an explanation, just a different name for the formula.

B) Philosophic side:
The error of Sagan is that he must already imagine such a real field of force behind the theory of gravity to be able to compare it to the imagination of a real invisible dragon. Both theories are not scientific theories anymore, since they are made up by the mind as possible reasons for the scientific theory. The theory of the invisible dragon is not a competition to the scientific theory of gravity (the formula). Rather, the invisible dragon is competition to the philosophic theory of the invisible force-field.

Again, the simple thought experiment: Imagine that there are invisible dragons that somehow manage to move objects exactly in the way, the formula of gravitation predicts. For science it is impossible to determine whether the imagination of the mysterious force field or the imagaination of the invisible dragons is more valuable. Science is not concerned with it at all. There is no scientific evidence that would support one or the other philosophic theory.

That's why articles like the one from Sagan must be dismissed as pseudo-philosphy. He thinks he is still argueing from within science when in fact he must have already left the realm of science to write such an article. What slips his mind is the necessary step from the pure scientific theory to the imaginary explanation which is already outside of science.

[MMC78]

You can easily apply the same argument to the statement 'All there is to consciousness can be derived from science'. Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of consciousness can be derived from science' -> redundant. To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about consciousness, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.

Let me generalize and rephrase (and I'm repeating myself here too):

'All there is to X can be derived from science'.
Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of X can be derived from science' -> redundant.   To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about X, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.

You've proven that everything science says is either redundant or false.  You've also proven all of philosophy redundant or false.  This is kind of a cool paradox.  I have to think more on how to reduce this to a more well known paradox.  So you're either wrong or you have shattered the logic that guides all intellectual human endeavours.  Smart money is on the fact that you're wrong.

Regardless, if the above can apply to ANY topic, then why is consciousness different?
 

A) Scientific side:
We have the theory of gravity. If we stay within the scientific realm, all we have is a mathematical formula and scientific observations. As long as our scientific observations match the formula, the scientific theory holds true. That's it. In the mathematical formula, you will not find an actual 'force field'. The formula just predicts the motion of objects (resp. the force needed to stop them from moving).

A scientist tries to explain the theory of gravity by saying there is an 'invisible force field'. This is tricky. As long as he knows that he just uses the term 'force field' as a synonym for the mathematical formula - without an actual imagination of a real, mysterious, invisible field of force behind it - this is still fine. In this case he can still claim to remain within the realm of science. Of course, he doesn't really provide an explanation, just a different name for the formula.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  The formula is an approximation to reality.  You seem to get hung up on this invisibility thing for some reason.  Invisible things aren't special outside of the fact that your eyes can't perceive them, you have more interactions with invisible things each day than you do with visible ones. 

B) Philosophic side:
The error of Sagan is that he must already imagine such a real field of force behind the theory of gravity to be able to compare it to the imagination of a real invisible dragon. Both theories are not scientific theories anymore, since they are made up by the mind as possible reasons for the scientific theory. The theory of the invisible dragon is not a competition to the scientific theory of gravity (the formula). Rather, the invisible dragon is competition to the philosophic theory of the invisible force-field.

Why?  Why does an idea about the nature of gravity have to exist outside of science?  Hypotheses formation is key to the scientific method.

Again, the simple thought experiment: Imagine that there are invisible dragons that somehow manage to move objects exactly in the way, the formula of gravitation predicts. For science it is impossible to determine whether the imagination of the mysterious force field or the imagaination of the invisible dragons is more valuable. Science is not concerned with it at all. There is no scientific evidence that would support one or the other philosophic theory.

If both theories provide the same predictive powers and are equivalently accurate, then the simple one wins.  This isn't because we don't like dragons, it's because whether it's a dragon or a 'force field' isn't discernible at all.  Your point is moot.

[Deicide]

Let me generalize and rephrase (and I'm repeating myself here too):

'All there is to X can be derived from science'.
Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of X can be derived from science' -> redundant.   To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about X, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.

You've proven that everything science says is either redundant or false.  You've also proven all of philosophy redundant or false.  This is kind of a cool paradox.  I have to think more on how to reduce this to a more well known paradox.  So you're either wrong or you have shattered the logic that guides all intellectual human endeavours.  Smart money is on the fact that you're wrong.

Regardless, if the above can apply to ANY topic, then why is consciousness different?
 


I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  The formula is an approximation to reality.  You seem to get hung up on this invisibility thing for some reason.  Invisible things aren't special outside of the fact that your eyes can't perceive them, you have more interactions with invisible things each day than you do with visible ones. 

Why?  Why does an idea about the nature of gravity have to exist outside of science?  Hypotheses formation is key to the scientific method.

If both theories provide the same predictive powers and are equivalently accurate, then the simple one wins.  This isn't because we don't like dragons, it's because whether it's a dragon or a 'force field' isn't discernible at all.  Your point is moot.

You are my champion Sir!

I have a background in the social sciences and humanities, yet am firmly a reductionist/positivist.

There is just something in Wavelength's arguments that fails to convince me; quite utterly actually.

[wavelength]

Let me generalize and rephrase (and I'm repeating myself here too):

'All there is to X can be derived from science'.
Scientifically, the statement must be reduced to: 'All there is to the scientific aspects of X can be derived from science' -> redundant.   To make it non-redundant, it is necessary to derive this statement from without science. Now we have created a statement about X, which is not derived from science -> self-contradictory -> false.

You've proven that everything science says is either redundant or false.  You've also proven all of philosophy redundant or false.  This is kind of a cool paradox.  I have to think more on how to reduce this to a more well known paradox.  So you're either wrong or you have shattered the logic that guides all intellectual human endeavours.  Smart money is on the fact that you're wrong.

I don't see how this is a repetition, but very nicely done!

Except for one point: I have not proven that "everything science says is either redundant or false". What I (and apparently - you) have proven, is only that every statement 'All there is to X can be derived from science' is redundant or false (with X being of course a topic not already reduced to its scientific aspects by definfition alone). You are completely right in this regard.

This does of course not mean that science cannot say anything about the world, it just proves that there is more to the world than what science can say about it. E.g. the statement 'science can predict the (scientifically measurable aspect of the) motion of two objects using the formula for gravitation', is (at least empirically) true. So quite obviously, not everything science says is either redundant or false.

Regardless, if the above can apply to ANY topic, then why is consciousness different?

Perfect, I don't have to argue anymore.
You are again completely right. Consciousness is in no way different than any other topic. For each topic, there is more to it than science can say about it. Again, this does not mean that science can say absolutely nothing about it. What science deals with is the scientific aspects of the topic, namely, what can be scientifically observed and put into mathematical formulas.

As already mentioned in this thread, the statement can even be more generalized by using 'System Y' instead of 'Science'.

I have to conclude that my (and now also your) deduction remains unchallenged.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.  The formula is an approximation to reality.  You seem to get hung up on this invisibility thing for some reason.  Invisible things aren't special outside of the fact that your eyes can't perceive them, you have more interactions with invisible things each day than you do with visible ones.

A scientific formula is only an approximation to the scientifically measurable aspects of reality. I only brought up invisibility, because it is one of the properties of Sagan's Dragon - as well as the gravitational field.

Why?  Why does an idea about the nature of gravity have to exist outside of science?  Hypotheses formation is key to the scientific method.

Simply because the imagination behind a formula makes absolutely no difference to the scientific theory. Just try it. Imagine anything else (other than a field - whatever that may be) that causes objects to move in the way predicted by a scientific formula. You will see that scientifically it makes no difference at all. Of course such speculations are allowed to start moving things around and getting fresh ideas. But these imaginary speculations must not be confused with actual reality behind scientifically observed phenomena.

BTW, most scientists (even the positivists) agree with me on this point, it is a direct consequence of the restrictions of science.

If both theories provide the same predictive powers and are equivalently accurate, then the simple one wins. This isn't because we don't like dragons, it's because whether it's a dragon or a 'force field' isn't discernible at all.  Your point is moot.

Exactly! You just confuted Sagan's article. His point is that we must dismiss the dragon, because we do not have any scientific evidence for it. Your point here is that you just like the idea of a force field better because it is simpler. The fact of the matter is, both imaginations are made up by the mind and cannot be derived from science.

[wavelength]

There is just something in Wavelength's arguments that fails to convince me; quite utterly actually.

Well, what is it?

[Deicide]

Well, what is it?

I think at core it is the fact that you have failed to convince (us) that theology or philosophy can say anything meaningful or correct about either consciousness or the universe. Mad ramblings and mental masturbation are not very descriptive, enlightening or anything else related, nor do they produce new knowledge. That's the point.

[wavelength]

I think at core it is the fact that you have failed to convince (us) that theology or philosophy can say anything meaningful or correct about either consciousness or the universe. Mad ramblings and mental masturbation are not very descriptive, enlightening or anything else related, nor do they produce new knowledge. That's the point.

Why would you call a simple logic deduction mad rambling or mental masturbation? I see that logic fails to convince you, but shouldn't you at least ask yourself why? I would also prefer to fallback to the much simpler world view of scientific positivism, but logic prevents me to do so.

What I call mental masturbation is what e.g. Dawkins and Atkins do. They write books about a subject they have little to no knowledge of (philosophy and theology) and base it all on a self-refuting statement. As I have said before, this criticism is in no way original, any decent philosopher who actually takes the time to review their books comes to the same conclusion.

And I agree that this thread does not provide much enlightenment. But that's just because I am forced to repeat myself over and over again about a topic which is philosophic child's play. If you want enlightenment beyond scientific aspects, I would recommend substantial philosophic and spiritual scripture, not books written by pseudo-philosophic scientists.

[Deicide]

Why would you call a simple logic deduction mad rambling or mental masturbation? I see that logic fails to convince you, but shouldn't you at least ask yourself why? I would also prefer to fallback to the much simpler world view of scientific positivism, but logic prevents me to do so.

What I call mental masturbation is what e.g. Dawkins and Atkins do. They write books about a subject they have little to no knowledge of (philosophy and theology) and base it all on a self-refuting statement. As I have said before, this criticism is in no way original, any decent philosopher who actually takes the time to review their books comes to the same conclusion.

And I agree that this thread does not provide much enlightenment. But that's just because I am forced to repeat myself over and over again about a topic which is philosophic child's play. If you want enlightenment beyond scientific aspects, I would recommend substantial philosophic and spiritual scripture, not books written by pseudo-philosophic scientists.

Philosophy is a lot of sophistry. Theology is just obfuscation and contrivance. Neither of these 'disciplines' gives us genuine knowledge. What do they do for us? Can they tell us about the brain? About the origin of language? About phonetics? About viruses? About DNA? About how to make a cool computer game? About why meditation works and how it works via the brain? No.

I get your 'logic'. It'a silly game of semantics. You say making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model, disqualifies a scientist. Fine. They are then using 'philosophic' language. Who cares? The inferences and conclusions drawn are still based on testable data and fact. We are worm food. We are animals. Damage one part of the brain and consciousness doesn't work too well; damage it all and it ain't there. You want to call those philosophic statements, by all means go ahead and do so; it is science and the methodology, which has given us this information to spout in 'philosophic' language.

Boom, Wellenlaenge....boom...

A dismally unctuous editorial in the British newspaper the Independent recently asked for a reconciliation between science and "theology." It remarked that "People want to know as much as possible about their origins." I certainly hope they do, but what on earth makes one think that theology has anything useful to say on the subject?

Science is responsible for the following knowledge about our origins. We know approximately when the universe began and why it is largely hydrogen. We know why stars form and what happens in their interiors to convert hydrogen to the other elements and hence give birth to chemistry in a world of physics. We know the fundamental principles of how a world of chemistry can become biology through the arising of self-replicating molecules. We know how the principle of self-replication gives rise, through Darwinian selection, to all life, including humans.

It is science and science alone that has given us this knowledge and given it, moreover., in fascinating, over-whelming, mutually confirming detail. On every one of these questions theology has held a view that has been conclusively proved wrong. Science has eradicated smallpox, can immunize against most previously deadly viruses, can kill most previously deadly bacteria. Theology has done nothing but talk of pestilence as the wages of sin. Science can predict when a particular comet will reappear and, to the second, when the next eclipse will appear. Science has put men on the moon and hurtled reconnaissance rockets around Saturn and Jupiter. Science can tell you the age of a particular fossil and that the Turin Shroud is a medieval fake. Science knows the precise DNA instructions of several viruses and will, in the lifetime of many present readers, do the same for the human genome.

What has theology ever said that is of the smallest use to anybody? When has theology ever said anything that is demonstrably true and is not obvious? I have listened to theologians, read them, debated against them. I have never heard any of them ever say anything of the smallest use, anything that was not either platitudinously obvious or downright false. If all the achievements of scientists were wiped out tomorrow, there would be no doctors but witch doctors, no transport faster than horses, no computers, no printed books, no agriculture beyond subsistence peasant farming. If all the achievements of theologians were wiped out tomorrow, would anyone notice the smallest difference? Even the bad achievements of scientists, the bombs, and sonar-guided whaling vessels work! The achievements of theologians don't do anything, don't affect anything, don't mean anything. What makes anyone think that "theology" is a subject at all?

[wavelength]

Philosophy is a lot of sophistry. Theology is just obfuscation and contrivance. Neither of these 'disciplines' gives us genuine knowledge. What do they do for us? Can they tell us about the brain? About the origin of language? About phonetics? About viruses? About DNA? About how to make a cool computer game? About why meditation works and how it works via the brain? No.

Philosophy and Theology will not tell you much about the scientific aspects of what you asked here (simlpy because they are not specialized in that way). But science will not tell you anything about what things really are. 

I get your 'logic'. It'a silly game of semantics. You say making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model, disqualifies a scientist. Fine. They are then using 'philosophic' language. Who cares? The inferences and conclusions drawn are still based on testable data and fact. We are worm food. We are animals. Damage one part of the brain and consciousness doesn't work too well; damage it all and it ain't there. You want to call those philosophic statements, by all means go ahead and do so; it is science and the methodology, which has given us this information to spout in 'philosophic' language.

The problem is, you didn't get it. This is just again a repetition of the claim which has been already disproved. You again say that the 'conclusions are still based on testable data and fact'. What you mean by it is nothing else than 'based on science'. So the only argument you can come up with is again the scientific testability.

I know it sounds like a silly game of semantics. What is behind it is that all absolute statements about the nature of things are simply not derived from science (including the basic statements of scientific positivism). Let's put it this way: there must be something in you which enables you to make such a statement with belief and determination (although in this case the statment is false), which is beyond your scientific aspects.

"Making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model" doesn't disqualify a scientist, it just disqualifies his claim that everything can be derived from science, since in this case he must obviously rely on something which is beyond it, whatever that may be.

I am not taking anything away from science. Science is incredibly interesting, it just has its limitations. The article you pasted here just adds the argument of science vs. superstition (confusing religion and philosophy with superstition). The article itself is of course a philosophic article, or better - a very poor attempt at it.

[Deicide]

Philosophy and Theology will not tell you much about the scientific aspects of what you asked here (simlpy because they are not specialized in that way). But science will not tell you anything about what things really are. 

The problem is, you didn't get it. This is just again a repetition of the claim which has been already disproved. You again say that the 'conclusions are still based on testable data and fact'. What you mean by it is nothing else than 'based on science'. So the only argument you can come up with is again the scientific testability.

I know it sounds like a silly game of semantics. What is behind it is that all absolute statements about the nature of things are simply not derived from science (including the basic statements of scientific positivism). Let's put it this way: there must be something in you which enables you to make such a statement with belief and determination (although in this case the statment is false), which is beyond your scientific aspects.

"Making statements about the world beyond the scientific, algorithmic model" doesn't disqualify a scientist, it just disqualifies his claim that everything can be derived from science, since in this case he must obviously rely on something which is beyond it, whatever that may be.

I am not taking anything away from science. Science is incredibly interesting, it just has its limitations. The article you pasted here just adds the argument of science vs. superstition (confusing religion and philosophy with superstition). The article itself is of course a philosophic article, or better - a very poor attempt at it.

I 'really' just want to concentrate on that.

You keep going on about the way things really are...

What on earth do you mean by that?

And what are things REALLY?

Ich warte mit angehaltenem Atem...

[wavelength]

I 'really' just want to concentrate on that.

You keep going on about the way things really are...

What on earth do you mean by that?

And what are things REALLY?

Ich warte mit angehaltenem Atem...

Well, reductionists think that what things really are is just their scientific aspects.
Your questions implies that there is no reality at all. Is that what you are saying?
What is your definition of reality? Do you have such a definition?
It's funny you ask me about what reality is. You should exactly know what it is, since you constantly talk about it.

The question of reality in the end is the one and only subject to philosophy. If you want to, we can start a philosophic discussion about e.g.

- what time is,
- what space is,
- what matter is,
- what human perception is,
- what human awareness is,
- what morality is,
- etc.

You don't really expect me to answer all of these questions in a single post? Pick a subject and start a thread, this would make a much more interesting discussion, I already agreed on that. But you must be aware of the fact that it will turn out to be a philosophic discussion, if it should provide any substantial results.

[Deicide]

Well, reductionists think that what things really are is just their scientific aspects.
Your questions implies that there is no reality at all. Is that what you are saying?
What is your definition of reality? Do you have such a definition?
It's funny you ask me about what reality is. You should exactly know what it is, since you constantly talk about it.

The question of reality in the end is the one and only subject to philosophy. If you want to, we can start a philosophic discussion about e.g.

- what time is,
- what space is,
- what matter is,
- what human perception is,
- what human awareness is,
- what morality is,
- etc.

You don't really expect me to answer all of these questions in a single post? Pick a subject and start a thread, this would make a much more interesting discussion, I already agreed on that. But you must be aware of the fact that it will turn out to be a philosophic discussion, if it should provide any substantial results.

An accident that was advantageous to the propagation of our DNA; then you can take it apart and see what it is composed of.

I have no idea what you BELIEVE it to be...but do tell.

[wavelength]

An accident that was advantageous to the propagation of our DNA; then you can take it apart and see what it is composed of.

I have no idea what you BELIEVE it to be...but do tell.

By definition alone, awareness means that I am aware of things. It implies a conscious 'me' which is able to experience things. This awareness is the basis for everything which is possible in the human spectrum, including theology, philosophy, science, morality, spirituality, etc. The world as we speak of it - regardless of whether scientifically, or philosophically - does not exist at all without human awareness. This is because, the imagination of an objective world and a consciousness which it emerges in (as our picture of it) must be dismissed, since in this case the 'objective world' has already been subjectivied by the consciousness having such an imagaination. In this regard we can say that it is actually our awareness that produces the world we know (and not just the picture of it). What there should be without human awareness, we can never know (at least not with our thinking mind), since it completely eludes itself from it.

What you have presented is just a tiny scientific aspect of awareness, a tiny aspect BTW, which wouldn't even have arisen in anyone's awareness if awareness wasn't there in the first place. The only BELIEF that would be necessary is to actually think that this should be all there is to it. However, since this belief has already been logically proven to be false, it must be dismissed as blind faith.

[Deicide]

By definition alone, awareness means that I am aware of things. It implies a conscious 'me' which is able to experience things. This awareness is the basis for everything which is possible in the human spectrum, including theology, philosophy, science, morality, spirituality, etc. The world as we speak of it - regardless of whether scientifically, or philosophically - does not exist at all without human awareness. This is because, the imagination of an objective world and a consciousness which it emerges in (as our picture of it) must be dismissed, since in this case the 'objective world' has already been subjectivied by the consciousness having such an imagaination. In this regard we can say that it is actually our awareness that produces the world we know (and not just the picture of it). What there should be without human awareness, we can never know (at least not with our thinking mind), since it completely eludes itself from it.

What you have presented is just a tiny scientific aspect of awareness, a tiny aspect BTW, which wouldn't even have arisen in anyone's awareness if awareness wasn't there in the first place. The only BELIEF that would be necessary is to actually think that this should be all there is to it. However, since this belief has already been logically proven to be false, it must be dismissed as blind faith.

Yup. I don't find much to disagree with but I think origins are crucial. The origins of awareness were to found on the plains of Africa...it proved useful to have such a faculty.

The non-random selection of random mutations....

[wavelength]

Yup. I don't find much to disagree with but I think origins are crucial. The origins of awareness were to found on the plains of Africa...it proved useful to have such a faculty.

The non-random selection of random mutations....

If you read my previous post again, you will clearly see that you can't agree with it and at the same time state the above.  The origin is awareness out of which science (and everything else) emerges, not the other way round. Your 'origin' can therefore again only be the origin of a tiny aspect of awareness.

[Deicide]

If you read my previous post again, you will clearly see that you can't agree with it and at the same time state the above.  The origin is awareness out of which science (and everything else) emerges, not the other way round. Your 'origin' can therefore again only be the origin of a tiny aspect of awareness.

I might be willing to agree with this statement. But all I can say now is...na und?

[wavelength]

I might be willing to agree with this statement. But all I can say now is...na und?

So what?
It's 'only' what we have been discussing in this whole thread 

If you start from a completely objective point of view when trying to investigate the world, you must start with your own awareness, simply because, this is what allows you to investigate anything. That's your one and only instrument to begin with. You can now say, OK I will use everything this instrument has to offer to investigate the world (philosophy), or you may choose to formulate a more restricted sub-instrument, to just investigate a certain aspect of the world (science). The essential point however is, that what you at least strip the world of, if you choose to make such a restriction, is it's capability of making such restrictions. This means, the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate such a restriction, will not be found anymore in any model of awareness formulated from within the restricted system. Since the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate restrictions, must be assumed to be its essential part - enabling it to consciously formulate anything - the essential part of awareness (what awareness really is) will not be found in the restricted system anymore.

Or, in a nutshell: In the smaller bubble of science, formulated by - and within - the bigger bubble of awareness, you will not be able to find awareness again. All you are able to find there is a mutilated version of it. What this mutilated version in the case of science is, has been elaborately discussed in this thread - namely, a computer.

The first error of reductionists is that they think their starting point is the objective world. What they forget is that this imagination is really only an already subjectivied version of the world emerging in their awarness. So the starting point for reductionists, in reality, is also awareness, not an objective world where they would be able to find awareness. Their second error is that - even if we allow their imaginary starting point of an objective world - they think that they will find everything there is to that objective world within a restricted system. As shown, this can easily be refuted by logic.

If you agree with the above, you agree to everything I have said in this thread, namely that science does not compete with philosophy and theology since it simply cannot answer the questions philosophy and theology are concerned with (what is time, what is space, what is awareness, etc.).

[Deicide]

So what?
It's 'only' what we have been discussing in this whole thread 

If you start from a completely objective point of view when trying to investigate the world, you must start with your own awareness, simply because, this is what allows you to investigate anything. That's your one and only instrument to begin with. You can now say, OK I will use everything this instrument has to offer to investigate the world (philosophy), or you may choose to formulate a more restricted sub-instrument, to just investigate a certain aspect of the world (science). The essential point however is, that what you at least strip the world of, if you choose to make such a restriction, is it's capability of making such restrictions. This means, the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate such a restriction, will not be found anymore in any model of awareness formulated from within the restricted system. Since the part of awareness, which enables you to consciously formulate restrictions, must be assumed to be its essential part - enabling it to consciously formulate anything - the essential part of awareness (what awareness really is) will not be found in the restricted system anymore.

Or, in a nutshell: In the smaller bubble of science, formulated by - and within - the bigger bubble of awareness, you will not be able to find awareness again. All you are able to find there is a mutilated version of it. What this mutilated version in the case of science is, has been elaborately discussed in this thread - namely, a computer.

The first error of reductionists is that they think their starting point is the objective world. What they forget is that this imagination is really only an already subjectivied version of the world emerging in their awarness. So the starting point for reductionists, in reality, is also awareness, not an objective world where they would be able to find awareness. Their second error is that - even if we allow their imaginary starting point of an objective world - they think that they will find everything there is to that objective world within a restricted system. As shown, this can easily be refuted by logic.

If you agree with the above, you agree to everything I have said in this thread, namely that science does not compete with philosophy and theology since it simply cannot answer the questions philosophy and theology are concerned with (what is time, what is space, what is awareness, etc.).

I don't like that you conflate theology and philosophy. One can philosophise in a secular manner but theology in inextricably bound to religion, which is always a bad starting point...