I was listening to a pastor speak when this one passage caught my attention. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained. Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dictates how the world operates". (Dont ask me how i remember it, it was just so supremely absurd to me)
The above statement is both a logical fallacy as well as a bellweather on the education and common sense of religious figures in our society today.
I cannot agree with or disagree against the first part of the statment. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained." I am firmly rooted in the notion that science, while still primitive, will one day answer all the questions that human beings have to answer. Science provides a reliable method based on observation, logical reasoning and experimentation, for human beings to answer their quesions. While many of humanities quesions (ie. How was the universe formed, How was life seeded on earth ) cannot be explained as of now, i believe that future generation's will have the adequate technology to answer these question. But i digress. I cannot disagree or agree with that first statement because i have no independant access to the event described. (i.e i have never seen a "miracle") However the adjoining sentence "Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dicates how the world operates" frankly makes no logical sense. By explaining "part A" (There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained.) with "part B" (Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dictates how the world operates) is ridiculous and a gross perversion of logic. If you dont understand something (Part A) YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT. It is perfectly fine to say you dont understand something. However by saying Part B answers Part A is stupid and illogical. Saying that a lack of evidence proves the presence of a supernatural being is a contradiction and is akin to saying "I cant explain something , THEREFORE i can explain something".
PART A (There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained) -> PART B (Therefore it is PROOF that there is a supernatural being whom dictates how the world operates)
=
"I cant explain something" -> "Therefore i can explain it" What you cannot answer is an anomaly. Nothing more. Just because you cannot answer something does not immediately make it "touched" by a supernatural being. It is just that. "You cannot explain it".
This is a very common "tactic" used, Dawkins refers to it as the "God of gaps". Whenever there is something that science has not figured out religious groups will jump at the chance to fill the "gap" with God. It is pretty annoying and overused but is clearly illogical; as you stated, just because science does not yet know the answer, doesn't mean that their theory is automatically correct.
"...who dictates how the world operates." "Whom" should be used when the individual in question is an object (either direct or indirect, or the object of a preposition).
But I agree with you. Religious people make things up so others believe them.
This is called faith. Unfortunately telling this is stupid or non-logical isnt exactly right, at best you can say that "this is logically incorrect". To be honest this is just a faith based statement disguised under a pseudo-logic (incorrect) argument.
make sense, except that what if that think you cant explain is actually explained by a supernatural (god) and just because u have perceived notion that it is impossible doesnt mean it isnt... no person can say anything really that is absolute there always exist a possibitly of something else. Any how if you are talking about science it is evident it is finely tuned to support life and the system works quite well. To demonstrate a simple example has science made food better, well no more people are obese, have diabetes, and also die from a heart stroke. We have modified our food so much that it hardly resembles what was first on this planet that were are getting from little to no nutrition. The question really should be is there things beyond our understanding or do we continuely fail to understand these things which are believed to be beyond our understanding...
The real mystery is why you felt the need to share this revelation with the world. Yeah, there are a lot of people who make unsound arguments. Try to tune them out.
Also, parts of this sound like they were directly lifted from a youtube video that was recently posted =/
Taking the word of one pastor you heard from long ago whose name and the time and place the statement was made you don't recall as something that represents all people of the Christian faith is problematic.
No Christian would grant you that assumption.
EDIT Now I've read the rest of your post...
And I don't agree with your conclusion. You're actually talking about something that loosely connects to a still active field of philosophy. The mind/body philosophy deals with the physical vs phenomenal.
Your argument goes something like...
1. There are events that cannot be explained via physical means. 2. Phenomenal events cannot be explained by physical means. 3. Physicalism is not complete. 4. Physicalism can explain all events. 5. Therefore, those unexplainable events are not phenomenal. 6. Therefore, their explanation exists in the incomplete side of physicalism.
No Christian, or even a phenomenalist (which includes any religious person and even certain philosophers and certain agnostics) would accept assumption 4.
You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world. It's also a huge, huge, huge, HUGE assumption in my opinion to say that the yet-to-be-complete physicalist picture WILL eventually lead to everything being physically reducible.
You're jumping the gun very badly. It's also a very circular argument.
Well if a God exists and you could reach salvation through faith then why would that God provide you with tangible proof of his existantce ? That basically nullifies the need for faith, as there's no need to believe something exists when you have a proof that it does. You would just know God exists and obey Him.
Even if his arguments are flawed and a good amount of people could disprove his logic, mentioning proof and supernatural in the same sentence, even without any solid arguments, is a good way to convince a good chunk of people. Just let it go.
On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote: You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world.
No, you don't.
Yes, you do.
I guess if you have a rather immature intellect, you might need to do that. A rather more developed mind is able to accept that perhaps the physical world IS all there is, despite the unfortunate implications.
On July 04 2009 15:00 PH wrote: You need to prove that nothing exists beyond the physical world.
No, you don't.
Yes, you do.
I guess if you have a rather immature intellect, you might need to do that. A rather more developed mind is able to accept that perhaps the physical world IS all there is, despite the unfortunate implications.
lol. It's also immature and pretentious to assume that one who disagrees with you has an "immature intellect," whatever the fuck that means solely because he disagrees with you.
That's really my point, lol. You can't assume either way. You have to prove either way.
I don't think I ever directly said that physicalism is wrong and phenomenalism is right...if I did, then I didn't mean to.
There are lots of arguments for both written by people much smarter and well read than anyone here, and it's still inconclusive. This is also a logical fallacy, but I highly doubt anyone here has a solid answer that will win me, or anyone else, over.
can only quote that awesome post from heavenpanda in one of travis's spiritual topics. that would be my answer to religious probability. this whole blabbering about "you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove ..." hasn't advanced humanity one bit, only functional reasons for the things happening around us have. if people like galilei hadn't voiced their observations we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe (how ever appealing that may sound).
there are no final answers at this state of evolution, i'm sorry
On August 07 2008 19:34 HeavenPanda wrote:
My Philosophy:
The universe is everything that exists, and is limited by physical laws that all things within it must adhere to. Everything in the universe is in a constant state of change and the measurement of change is known as Time. Humans have come to be inside the universe, bound to its physical laws, for the period of Time that our bodies can maintain active consciousness before the change in our cells reach a point where they can maintain it no longer. Throughout this period of consciousness, the brain maintains homeostasis, and actively seeks the instinctual wills of self-preservation and race advancement that has, through pure random chance, allowed it to grow and survive on this planet compared with other evolutionary strains of life. The universe does not care for or value humans. Humans care for and value the universe, because it is beneficial to them. Luckily, the universe and its physical laws can be predicted, and from it we derive logic. It is impossible to 100% prove the laws of the physical universe from within it, but we have come to such a point of observation as to assume them as true. Therefore, we can present argument, we can debate, and we can advance our own understanding of ourselves and the universe we are lucky enough to reside in using irrefutable reasoning. We can theorize about our roles in the universe, our purpose, our meaning of life. But additionally, we can expound those theories with logic and reason, overriding emotion and pseudo-science, to achieve greater truth then simply making guesswork and following what sounds satisfactory. The language of life is not spiritual; it is simple and logical, and because of that, numbingly complex. The only way I feel I can live my life is not by devoting it to frivolous spiritual pursuits, but instead staying true to my biological nature- self preservation, race advancement, and the adherence to logic and reason above all things. These concepts are what award me inner peace, so I label them as philosophy, although there is very little 'philosophical' about them.
On July 04 2009 14:07 DreaM)XeRO wrote: I cannot agree with or disagree against the first part of the statment. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained." I am firmly rooted in the notion that science, while still primitive, will one day answer all the questions that human beings have to answer. Science provides a reliable method based on observation, logical reasoning and experimentation, for human beings to answer their quesions..
I was listening to some random TL kid speak when this one passage caught my attention. "There are events in the physical world that cannot be explained. Therefore it is PROOF that there is a scientific basis dictates how the world operates on every level".
The above statement is both a logical fallacy as well as a bellweather on the education and common sense of scientific figures in our society today.
There is no complete rational basis for human action; everyone who does anything operates on certain fundamental assumptions. One of yours is clearly that science will explain everything. Another is probably that science will make everything better. Beyond that, you might even believe that science will save the world and stop it from exploding, that it will reconcile all the problems we have. Those beliefs were not derived form your senses of sight, smell, taste, hearing, or touch; those are not scientifically reasoned beliefs.
Also, consider this: what defines science? Just things that you have directly observed? Are things that people tell you are experimentally proven scientifically correct and therefore "right"? So when North Korean schoolteachers tell their students about the well proven divinity of Kim Jong Il, is that right? Trust is not a sense; it is something we establish based on trends in human interaction but it is certainly not consistent with the scientific basis.
Contrary to popular belief, modern science is derived not from Aristotilean "empiricism," which was the primary emphasis of late-medieval science.
Heisenberg in Tradition in Science (my own translation):
The role of tradition in science is not merely limited to the selection of problems...tradition exercises its entire influence in the deeper folds of the scientific process, where it is not easily recognized... In the scientific work of our century we still follow more or less the methods which were discovered by Copernicus, Galileo, and their successors in the 16th and 17th centuries. At the same time, these methods are misunderstood, in the sense that one identifies them as empirical science, in contrast to the speculative science of previous centuries. In reality, Galileo departed from the empirical, aristotilean science of his age, and adopted the philosophical ideas of Plato. He displaced the descriptive science of Aristotle with the structural science of Plato...
Galileo understood Copernicus exactly, that one should discover, departing from immediate experience and through the idealization of experience, mathematical structures within phenomena, and thereby reach a renewed simplification as the basis for a new understanding.
Now, modern physics has radically changed the positivistic assumptions of the 19th century, whereby quantum mechanics and its most widely-accepted interpretations eschew either a complete or objective understanding of the physical process. Whether one would interpret this as the non-existence of physical causality, or merely the unknowability of such systems, is debatable. However, its dilemmas place human beings back in the center of the physical system, and in that sense Ptolomy may be given a new interpretation: the earth is again at the center of the universe, because it is the only place where the universe is seen, studied, and explored.
On July 04 2009 17:04 PH wrote: That's really my point, lol. You can't assume either way. You have to prove either way.
I don't think I ever directly said that physicalism is wrong and phenomenalism is right...if I did, then I didn't mean to.
There are lots of arguments for both written by people much smarter and well read than anyone here, and it's still inconclusive. This is also a logical fallacy, but I highly doubt anyone here has a solid answer that will win me, or anyone else, over.
There is no evidence supporting a need to consider that you would have to prove that anything exists past what we can observe. This is the exact opposite of everything that science and logic stand for. It's not even an argument, just a cop out.
As far as I know, Hume's interest was limited to the validity/falsifiability of statements, and his empiricism was epistomological, whereas Aristotle's empiricism was argued on a metaphysical basis.
I've also thought that Hume was a kind of precursor to quantum indeterminancy in that Hume philosophically postulated that our notion of causality was the description of extreme statistical probabilities.
BTW, a couple of funny videos on a topic Hume also occupied himself with: miracles, and perhaps also relevant to this blog. I found a couple of videos reenacting the historical debates between Chesterton and Blachford/Darrow. Of course, these debates are reconstructred and inaccurate, but gives the general gist of the respective positions:
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.
What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.
However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-
Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.
Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.
So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.
On July 04 2009 21:45 Ghardo wrote: can only quote that awesome post from heavenpanda in one of travis's spiritual topics. that would be my answer to religious probability. this whole blabbering about "you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove that you can't prove ..." hasn't advanced humanity one bit, only functional reasons for the things happening around us have. if people like galilei hadn't voiced their observations we would still believe that the earth is the centre of the universe (how ever appealing that may sound).
there are no final answers at this state of evolution, i'm sorry
The universe is everything that exists, and is limited by physical laws that all things within it must adhere to. Everything in the universe is in a constant state of change and the measurement of change is known as Time. Humans have come to be inside the universe, bound to its physical laws, for the period of Time that our bodies can maintain active consciousness before the change in our cells reach a point where they can maintain it no longer. Throughout this period of consciousness, the brain maintains homeostasis, and actively seeks the instinctual wills of self-preservation and race advancement that has, through pure random chance, allowed it to grow and survive on this planet compared with other evolutionary strains of life. The universe does not care for or value humans. Humans care for and value the universe, because it is beneficial to them. Luckily, the universe and its physical laws can be predicted, and from it we derive logic. It is impossible to 100% prove the laws of the physical universe from within it, but we have come to such a point of observation as to assume them as true. Therefore, we can present argument, we can debate, and we can advance our own understanding of ourselves and the universe we are lucky enough to reside in using irrefutable reasoning. We can theorize about our roles in the universe, our purpose, our meaning of life. But additionally, we can expound those theories with logic and reason, overriding emotion and pseudo-science, to achieve greater truth then simply making guesswork and following what sounds satisfactory. The language of life is not spiritual; it is simple and logical, and because of that, numbingly complex. The only way I feel I can live my life is not by devoting it to frivolous spiritual pursuits, but instead staying true to my biological nature- self preservation, race advancement, and the adherence to logic and reason above all things. These concepts are what award me inner peace, so I label them as philosophy, although there is very little 'philosophical' about them.
A looot of that is still being debated.
The "physical laws" based upon logic/mathematics that we apply to the universe are only applied to the universe. It is currently has yet to be proven that the physical laws we understand the universe by would exist without us. That's a project Frege and Russell tried to undertake, but both ultimately failed at.
"The universe is everything that exists, and is limited by physical laws that all things within it must adhere to."
No phenomenalist would accept that either. The first part is vague and unacceptable. Something phenomenal, and thus not physical, would not be bound by physical law. If you consider the "universe" to be the totality of all physical things, then the phenomenalist does not believe the "universe" to be all that there is...it is simply a grouping of certain objects that fall under the "physical" category, leaving out the phenomenal part of what would be...umm...everything.
Quite frankly, most of what HeavenPanda is saying is simply another perspective looking at things. He makes no solid metaphysical argument that really supports anything he says...and forces one to ask as many questions as he tries to answer.
Because I can't seem to go on without saying this, I'm...going to say it. I'm neither a solid physicalist or a phenomenalist. I'm content not knowing which is ultimately correct. I also don't think that phenomenalism being true points directly to the existence of god. I also don't think it implies that we need to have spiritual lives, or whatever.
I probably lean towards phenomenalism, though, but I haven't taken a solid stance yet, and as this is philosophy, not politics, that's completely acceptable. I've argued in both directions before, and am probably playing devil's advocate here solely because IT IS NOT LOGICALLY VALID TO ASSUME PHYSICALISM IS TRUE...which is the argument that EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU HAS MADE.
I'm getting owned by the internet, right now...but I really can't seem to get over it.
I've stopped taking most of the internet seriously for a rather long time. I only posted in this thread because the post Track made in this thread about intellect made me lol like a bitch.
On July 04 2009 14:16 Kickstart wrote: This is a very common "tactic" used, Dawkins refers to it as the "God of gaps". Whenever there is something that science has not figured out religious groups will jump at the chance to fill the "gap" with God. It is pretty annoying and overused but is clearly illogical; as you stated, just because science does not yet know the answer, doesn't mean that their theory is automatically correct.
You are also assuming that science can in fact explain everything?
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.
What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.
However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-
Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.
Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.
So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.
Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.
This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.
wait.. say science CAN explain all things in due time.. but wat if science is too late?
Say there was another dimension which would have allowed us to learn about the big bang or something along those lines and say that before science could reach the point of realizing/using this knowledge the "dimension" collapsed. In such a case would science still be able to find the truth to big bang or whatever it may be?
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.
What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.
However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-
Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.
Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.
So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.
Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.
This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.
I love how people like you push arguments not even doctors use. This is not a finished subject and is still being debated, and that's is hardly a solid argument. Get over yourself. Now let me give you a more solid answer myself:
There are questions science cannot answer that we are aware of.
Here's one great example...
The big bang is currently the most popular theory as to what caused the universe to form into what it is now. It is the "beginning" so to speak of how it exists now. I don't know specifics, but it's something like there existed all matter/energy (aren't they essentially considered the same thing now?) existed in one place which for whatever reason exploded out, and what we're living in is the result of that.
Ask any physicist or whatever expert in whatever "scientific" field. You won't find a single credible person who won't readily and easily admit that science can only answer and even talk about what happened just after the Big Bang. One of my professors even said something along the lines of, "whatever happened before the Big Bang belongs to religion and philosophy, not science".
What are you going to do now? Try to argue that until the big bang, the universe didn't exist? I think it's debatable that time even existed back then.
One can theorize that if the big bang happened, something must have been before the big bang, and that something was "god." But one has to admit that's a very unsound argument, because there's no more reason to believe god caused the big bang than there is to believe anything else did.
The Big Bang itself is a good theory because it's observable, and testable. We can explain things with it. We can't explain anything with "it was in god's plan." What isn't in god's plan? How can we even use that information? I might as well start thinking I'm schizophrenic and everything I interact with is a product of my imagination. It doesn't help me do anything. I can't test it or observe it or even utilize it.
What's unknown is unknown. What was there before the big bang? I don't know. That doesn't mean it was god, that doesn't mean it wasn't. That just means there's no argument (or theory) for either yet.
EDIT: I think it should also be mentioned that "The Big Bang" is not the answer to the question "How was the universe created?" It's the explanation for "Hey, everything in the universe seems to be moving out from one point, I wonder why that is? It wouldn't be a huge leap to say it all came from one point, and the only reason I can think of for everything to leave that point in a straight line is that there was an explosion." It's not necessarily what happened, but it's the most believable and USEFUL.
On July 05 2009 06:46 Chef wrote: You sure it hasn't degenerated even further into a high school debate club full of pseudo intellectuals?
i'm not sure what's the difference
One is full of people hopelessly trying to persuade other people, and the other has the occasional person who just likes thinking out loud. The former is political babble, the latter is vital to human progress.
Time actually STARTED along with space, because as Einstein proved, matter and time are actually interacting.
One should absolve their mind of the general notion of time that we humans perceive. Time is not something universally independent, time and space are actually 'bent' around each other. Time can actually be 'faster' or 'slower', depending on local conditions.
I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread has not devolved into a slimy God fest by now.
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.
What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.
However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-
Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.
Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.
So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.
Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.
This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.
I love how people like you push arguments not even doctors use. This is not a finished subject and is still being debated, and that's is hardly a solid argument. Get over yourself. Now let me give you a more solid answer myself:
There are questions science cannot answer that we are aware of.
Here's one great example...
The big bang is currently the most popular theory as to what caused the universe to form into what it is now. It is the "beginning" so to speak of how it exists now. I don't know specifics, but it's something like there existed all matter/energy (aren't they essentially considered the same thing now?) existed in one place which for whatever reason exploded out, and what we're living in is the result of that.
Ask any physicist or whatever expert in whatever "scientific" field. You won't find a single credible person who won't readily and easily admit that science can only answer and even talk about what happened just after the Big Bang. One of my professors even said something along the lines of, "whatever happened before the Big Bang belongs to religion and philosophy, not science".
What are you going to do now? Try to argue that until the big bang, the universe didn't exist? I think it's debatable that time even existed back then.
Simply because we currently don't understand what happened before the big bang does not mean that we won't. The scientific method works for things that can be TESTED. The answer has been, and always will be, a solid "we don't know," never a "must be this," until we figure it out. You seem to be uninformed on how the scientific method works, even at a fundamental level.
Additionally, there are basic theories in the works relating to string theory that could potentially explain the big bang. Kick this fake science habit, and do some solid research.
On July 05 2009 10:44 Chef wrote: One can theorize that if the big bang happened, something must have been before the big bang, and that something was "god." But one has to admit that's a very unsound argument, because there's no more reason to believe god caused the big bang than there is to believe anything else did.
The Big Bang itself is a good theory because it's observable, and testable. We can explain things with it. We can't explain anything with "it was in god's plan." What isn't in god's plan? How can we even use that information? I might as well start thinking I'm schizophrenic and everything I interact with is a product of my imagination. It doesn't help me do anything. I can't test it or observe it or even utilize it.
What's unknown is unknown. What was there before the big bang? I don't know. That doesn't mean it was god, that doesn't mean it wasn't. That just means there's no argument (or theory) for either yet.
EDIT: I think it should also be mentioned that "The Big Bang" is not the answer to the question "How was the universe created?" It's the explanation for "Hey, everything in the universe seems to be moving out from one point, I wonder why that is? It wouldn't be a huge leap to say it all came from one point, and the only reason I can think of for everything to leave that point in a straight line is that there was an explosion." It's not necessarily what happened, but it's the most believable and USEFUL.
I don't give a shit about god or God or any other "supernatural being". My point was to bring up the fact that science cannot observe or test anything until after the big bang occurred.
On July 05 2009 11:27 minus_human wrote: There is no 'before' the Big Bang.
Time actually STARTED along with space, because as Einstein proved, matter and time are actually interacting.
One should absolve their mind of the general notion of time that we humans perceive. Time is not something universally independent, time and space are actually 'bent' around each other. Time can actually be 'faster' or 'slower', depending on local conditions.
I'm pleasantly surprised that this thread has not devolved into a slimy God fest by now.
It's on the verge of it. For some reason people seem to be convinced that I'm a Jesus freak threatening their "objective" and final religion of science.
Time most definitely did not exist before the big bang occurred, and probably didn't exist as we know it now from the beginning. However, there still was some mode of existence...everything that we see now existed in some way before that bang thing happened. If that can't be explained by science, or physicalist picture, as I've been calling it, then it follows that there exists at least one thing beyond the physical. That's all it means, and that's all I'm saying. I don't see any implication of god or shiva or whatever in there, but everyone else seems to be pushing for that. -____-;;
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.
What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.
However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-
Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.
Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.
So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.
Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.
This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.
I love how people like you push arguments not even doctors use. This is not a finished subject and is still being debated, and that's is hardly a solid argument. Get over yourself. Now let me give you a more solid answer myself:
There are questions science cannot answer that we are aware of.
Here's one great example...
The big bang is currently the most popular theory as to what caused the universe to form into what it is now. It is the "beginning" so to speak of how it exists now. I don't know specifics, but it's something like there existed all matter/energy (aren't they essentially considered the same thing now?) existed in one place which for whatever reason exploded out, and what we're living in is the result of that.
Ask any physicist or whatever expert in whatever "scientific" field. You won't find a single credible person who won't readily and easily admit that science can only answer and even talk about what happened just after the Big Bang. One of my professors even said something along the lines of, "whatever happened before the Big Bang belongs to religion and philosophy, not science".
What are you going to do now? Try to argue that until the big bang, the universe didn't exist? I think it's debatable that time even existed back then.
Simply because we currently don't understand what happened before the big bang does not mean that we won't. The scientific method works for things that can be TESTED. The answer has been, and always will be, a solid "we don't know," never a "must be this," until we figure it out. You seem to be uninformed on how the scientific method works, even at a fundamental level.
Additionally, there are basic theories in the works relating to string theory that could potentially explain the big bang. Kick this fake science habit, and do some solid research.
Do you even understand the implications of what a complete physicalism entails? Do you even know what you're saying?
What makes you think that science can eventually solve all answers? What makes you believe that at some point in the distant future, there will no longer be such a thing as "subjective"? From what you're saying at this point, it honestly sounds like you're taking a leap of faith. How is that any different from the religious people you love to condemn? To be honest, it's comical.
I'm not a scientist, I study philosophy. I have never claimed science to be my forte or expertise in any way, but I'm quoting doctorates in physics I've actually talked with in real life. One of the cool things about science is that it can bend back on itself and shift/alter itself based upon new information; it's constantly updating itself.
If some new development in string theory really does think it can explain what occurred before the Big Bang, then that's great. If...IF...it ever works out and is finalized into a full blown scientific theory, then really, all that'll mean for me is one point towards physicalism, and one example the phenomenalist can no longer use.
However, that still does not suddenly destroy phenomenalism and prove that everything can be reduced physically. I at least understand how the scientific method works at a fundamental level...I won't try to parade myself as being something I'm not. That, however, is where the limitation of science lies...if it is not readily observable, recreatable and testable, then how do you prove it on a "scientific" basis?
Do me, yourself and all of us a favor and try reading that. It's one of my favorite essays in philosophy, done by a contemporary philosopher named Thomas Nagel. Unfortunately, it was both the first and last of his works in the field. He takes the position of one who would be excited if physicalism were true, but finds what he believes to be an irreconcilable problem with it involving perspective and objectivity vs subjectivity. This essay is considered a classic in modern philosophy, and is definitely a head scratcher.
Even if you're not Vedic, I highly recommend that essay...it's a lot of fun.
On July 05 2009 16:59 PH wrote: Do you even understand the implications of what a complete physicalism entails? Do you even know what you're saying?
What makes you think that science can eventually solve all answers? What makes you believe that at some point in the distant future, there will no longer be such a thing as "subjective"? From what you're saying at this point, it honestly sounds like you're taking a leap of faith. How is that any different from the religious people you love to condemn? To be honest, it's comical.
I'm not a scientist, I study philosophy. I have never claimed science to be my forte or expertise in any way, but I'm quoting doctorates in physics I've actually talked with in real life. One of the cool things about science is that it can bend back on itself and shift/alter itself based upon new information; it's constantly updating itself.
If some new development in string theory really does think it can explain what occurred before the Big Bang, then that's great. If...IF...it ever works out and is finalized into a full blown scientific theory, then really, all that'll mean for me is one point towards physicalism, and one example the phenomenalist can no longer use.
However, that still does not suddenly destroy phenomenalism and prove that everything can be reduced physically. I at least understand how the scientific method works at a fundamental level...I won't try to parade myself as being something I'm not. That, however, is where the limitation of science lies...if it is not readily observable, recreatable and testable, then how do you prove it on a "scientific" basis?
Do me, yourself and all of us a favor and try reading that. It's one of my favorite essays in philosophy, done by a contemporary philosopher named Thomas Nagel. Unfortunately, it was both the first and last of his works in the field. He takes the position of one who would be excited if physicalism were true, but finds what he believes to be an irreconcilable problem with it involving perspective and objectivity vs subjectivity. This essay is considered a classic in modern philosophy, and is definitely a head scratcher.
Even if you're not Vedic, I highly recommend that essay...it's a lot of fun.
No matter what happens, science being unable to provide an answer does not prove anything aside from the fact that the universe is not set up in a way that facilitates the ability to grasp it's finer details. There is no faith in what I said - you simply didn't read it properly. I most specifically said that it is quite likely that we will figure it out in the future, but even if we don't, the answer will ALWAYS remain "we don't know" until we do.
Please, cite the people with physics doctorates you have spoken to, and the papers they have written. I'd very much like to see any sort of support for what you are saying circulating anywhere outside of the "intelligent design" community.
Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.
I already know the answer, and it is that you can not. You can't use a physical test against something that isn't physical, so you will never be able to transition from wild philosophical assumption to actual science. Not now, not later, not ever. On the flip side, every single test you ever do is a testament to the fact that the physical realm does indeed exist.
On July 05 2009 21:25 Vedic wrote: Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.
You have isolated the debate incorrectly into your realm of what is scientifically testable right now. A physical test with reproducible results definitionally leads to results within the physical world. However, it is *possible* that there are nonphysical elements to reality that are fundamentally unprovable, and therefore beyond the scientific realm of consideration.
To say anything non-scientific is not possible is a fallacy; because in this assertion you assume that your science right now is absolutely complete, that it encompasses and describes everything that exists with absolute certainty. This is simply not true. Imagine if scientists themselves assumed that science at the time was "right" and complete; we would still think the sun revolved around the earth.
So now consider that science can be wrong; that is, at a future date humanity will come to a better description of reality and call that science. Since science is not absolute and complete there can be things outside of it, about which we are completely uncertain. Is it "wrong" to say that something exists in absolute uncertainty? Is it more "right" to assert as you have that nothing can exist in that realm about which you do not know anything? Both are random, unverified claims. In my opinion, the only assholes in this debate are the ones who pretend that they are certain about what no one can be certain about.
I don't give a shit about god or God or any other "supernatural being". My point was to bring up the fact that science cannot observe or test anything until after the big bang occurred.
How insightful... ? I mean, that's kind of the folly of being born after the big bang, I guess. We can still make pretty good guesses as to what would be needed to make a big bang, and thus we can think of what happened just before it, maybe. Test things in our own world that DO exist, that we think are similar to the big bang. It's just kinda difficult to go there because you set up a string argument... We don't know for sure the big bang is what happened, it's just our best explanation. If it wasn't, then any time we spend on trying to explain what caused the big bang is wasted. Although I would be very shocked to hear we hadn't at least spent some time on it.
On July 05 2009 16:59 PH wrote: Do you even understand the implications of what a complete physicalism entails? Do you even know what you're saying?
What makes you think that science can eventually solve all answers? What makes you believe that at some point in the distant future, there will no longer be such a thing as "subjective"? From what you're saying at this point, it honestly sounds like you're taking a leap of faith. How is that any different from the religious people you love to condemn? To be honest, it's comical.
I'm not a scientist, I study philosophy. I have never claimed science to be my forte or expertise in any way, but I'm quoting doctorates in physics I've actually talked with in real life. One of the cool things about science is that it can bend back on itself and shift/alter itself based upon new information; it's constantly updating itself.
If some new development in string theory really does think it can explain what occurred before the Big Bang, then that's great. If...IF...it ever works out and is finalized into a full blown scientific theory, then really, all that'll mean for me is one point towards physicalism, and one example the phenomenalist can no longer use.
However, that still does not suddenly destroy phenomenalism and prove that everything can be reduced physically. I at least understand how the scientific method works at a fundamental level...I won't try to parade myself as being something I'm not. That, however, is where the limitation of science lies...if it is not readily observable, recreatable and testable, then how do you prove it on a "scientific" basis?
Do me, yourself and all of us a favor and try reading that. It's one of my favorite essays in philosophy, done by a contemporary philosopher named Thomas Nagel. Unfortunately, it was both the first and last of his works in the field. He takes the position of one who would be excited if physicalism were true, but finds what he believes to be an irreconcilable problem with it involving perspective and objectivity vs subjectivity. This essay is considered a classic in modern philosophy, and is definitely a head scratcher.
Even if you're not Vedic, I highly recommend that essay...it's a lot of fun.
No matter what happens, science being unable to provide an answer does not prove anything aside from the fact that the universe is not set up in a way that facilitates the ability to grasp it's finer details. There is no faith in what I said - you simply didn't read it properly. I most specifically said that it is quite likely that we will figure it out in the future, but even if we don't, the answer will ALWAYS remain "we don't know" until we do.
Please, cite the people with physics doctorates you have spoken to, and the papers they have written. I'd very much like to see any sort of support for what you are saying circulating anywhere outside of the "intelligent design" community.
Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.
I already know the answer, and it is that you can not. You can't use a physical test against something that isn't physical, so you will never be able to transition from wild philosophical assumption to actual science. Not now, not later, not ever. On the flip side, every single test you ever do is a testament to the fact that the physical realm does indeed exist.
lol...no, I'm done with you. You're not understanding what I'm saying, you're not properly understanding what we're talking about now, and yes, your faith that science and physicalism holds all the answers, just that we don't know them yet (or are capable of knowing them), in my opinion parallels religious faith.
Talking to you is like talking to an evangelist that relies on the same circular argument. Yes, by the way, you have been repeating the same circular argument over and over again. "Science is capable of testing all there is in the universe concretely, so anything that science can't test doesn't exist."
That's great...but I deny your premise. I deny that science is the end all be all, and I deny that just because it isn't physical, it doesn't exist.
I have written papers defending physicalism before, and just like the papers I wrote supporting phenomenalism, there were debatable and presumptuous premises that had to be made that any supporter of the opposition would jump on. There is a reason why it is still an active area of discussion today. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an undergrad dumb enough to try to debate this over the damn internet.
I doubt you even glanced at that paper I linked you to...no...something written by a respected philosopher doesn't concern you, does it? He's not a man of science...he dares to think outside the box, after all. You challenge me to give you information about the professor at my school and to somehow quote something he said in a lecture a year ago, and you don't even seem to have any respect for, nor put any stock into the discipline of philosophy...it's not even worth keeping this up with you.
I don't give a shit about god or God or any other "supernatural being". My point was to bring up the fact that science cannot observe or test anything until after the big bang occurred.
How insightful... ? I mean, that's kind of the folly of being born after the big bang, I guess. We can still make pretty good guesses as to what would be needed to make a big bang, and thus we can think of what happened just before it, maybe. Test things in our own world that DO exist, that we think are similar to the big bang. It's just kinda difficult to go there because you set up a string argument... We don't know for sure the big bang is what happened, it's just our best explanation. If it wasn't, then any time we spend on trying to explain what caused the big bang is wasted. Although I would be very shocked to hear we hadn't at least spent some time on it.
That's all fair and fairly true, I think. I used that to allow for some kind of base to further my points off of, and isn't really an end-all example. After all, it's a far cry from being able to theorize and make guesses and to be able to actually test things out...
On July 06 2009 03:05 PH wrote: lol...no, I'm done with you. You're not understanding what I'm saying, you're not properly understanding what we're talking about now, and yes, your faith that science and physicalism holds all the answers, just that we don't know them yet (or are capable of knowing them), in my opinion parallels religious faith.
Talking to you is like talking to an evangelist that relies on the same circular argument. Yes, by the way, you have been repeating the same circular argument over and over again. "Science is capable of testing all there is in the universe concretely, so anything that science can't test doesn't exist."
That's great...but I deny your premise. I deny that science is the end all be all, and I deny that just because it isn't physical, it doesn't exist.
I have written papers defending physicalism before, and just like the papers I wrote supporting phenomenalism, there were debatable and presumptuous premises that had to be made that any supporter of the opposition would jump on. There is a reason why it is still an active area of discussion today. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an undergrad dumb enough to try to debate this over the damn internet.
I doubt you even glanced at that paper I linked you to...no...something written by a respected philosopher doesn't concern you, does it? He's not a man of science...he dares to think outside the box, after all. You challenge me to give you information about the professor at my school and to somehow quote something he said in a lecture a year ago, and you don't even seem to have any respect for, nor put any stock into the discipline of philosophy...it's not even worth keeping this up with you.
You're trying to argue a point which fail even the most basic logic tests. Your entire argument is as valid as supporting the FSM, with just as much supporting evidence and rationalism. You could use your same argument via existentialism to SUPPORT physicalism, simply because there is no burden of logic or proof. Why argue any specific point when they are all equally invalid?
You linked me to philosophy, which is unrelated - I asked for the papers written by physics doctorates who support what you are saying. You said you are "quoting doctorates in physics I've talked to in real life", yet you provide no names or any papers they have made supporting the subject. So, now that you apparently concede that you actually don't have any scientist supporting what you are saying, we can move on...
You were asked for one example of any point in the history of our existence where any testable result could show that there was any reason to believe that there is anything outside the scope of infinite physical existence. Just one. Again, you failed to provide even so much as an attempt to support your wild speculation. You should introduce yourself to elementary particle physics and thermodynamics, as you seem to care enough about the discussion to argue it, but you simply lack any knowledge beyond a wikipedia degree.
On July 06 2009 00:50 duckett wrote: You have isolated the debate incorrectly into your realm of what is scientifically testable right now. A physical test with reproducible results definitionally leads to results within the physical world. However, it is *possible* that there are nonphysical elements to reality that are fundamentally unprovable, and therefore beyond the scientific realm of consideration.
What's your point? If we debated what there could be without supporting evidence, we could debate every silly religion, philosophical, and simply random view point to the end of time (or end of humanity) with no physical gain. This is both counter-intuitive to logic, and counter productive to an intelligent species.
I think all matter is pink at an intangible/immeasurable level. Discuss. I think time is actually going in reverse. Discuss. I think that sources of light are actually dark-suckers. Discuss. Apples are clearly better than oranges. Discuss.
On July 06 2009 06:13 Vedic wrote: This is both counter-intuitive to logic, and counter productive to an intelligent species.
But the two are not the same. Define "productive." I find the irrational confidence in the ultimate resolution of all my problems that religious belief gives me to be "productive." Then again, maybe I'm not "intelligent," but I believe I am a human.
I've honestly stopped taking most of you seriously. The majority of you really aren't grasping what I'm saying, and have a limited understanding both of modern science and of what it means for something to exist beyond the natural.
What I linked to above is a famous article from the '68 I think that further developed one of the most famous cases for epiphenomenalism. While even the author Jackson eventually abandoned his own theory, there is still a very large camp of philosophers who use it, albeit edited to cover up for one major flaw of philosophical epiphenomenalism which Daniel Dennett hits straight on the head.
However, more recent phenomenalists have, as far as I'm concerned, somewhat made it a non-issue. I can't find any of the other articles, though. I only have photocopies. -____-
Simply telling me over and over that it's stupid of me or anyone else to think that there is anything beyond the physical realm is a circular argument, folks. That is a premise that no phenomenalist would accept, and so you need to argue for it.
Keep in mind, a phenomenalist is not immediately a religious person, and does not immediately point to the existence of a god, anthropomorphic or not.
So...it is logically fallacious to assume, without support, that physicalism completes the picture of the universe.
Have you ever seen something not exist? Can you prove that something does not exist? No, of course not - you've never seen something not exist, so how can you prove that anything doesn't exist? Oh wait, you can't - that's not logical. Much like religion, you're coming up with a solution for a problem that only exists because you created the problem. You want to have this grand theoretical argument, but it fails at the very basics of logic itself.
This is the argument that the "intelligent design" followers think that they can use in order to try to use science to prove god. Both the scientific community, an religious types who understand what faith means, have had quite a laugh at the expense of people trying to push this silliness.
I believe what PH is getting at roughly is that our knowledge of the physical world depends heavily upon the structure of our minds, so much so that we have no way of knowing whether our sciences correspond to the "true" nature of the world or if there is such a thing. I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way? PH a large of your posts talk about stuff no one understands because they haven't read the shit you've read so in the case of this discussion it becomes quite annoying since you never bothered to explain anything yourself. Construct a clear argument, stop referring to other shit please.
I posted the essays I referred to and welcomed you all to read them. I got to that point because of Vedic's fanaticism. He's stuck in his own little box and refuses to entertain anything beyond it.
I think I've only referred to one essay directly that I didn't post. The points I want to make are written more clearly, intelligibly and eloquently in those papers than I could ever articulate myself, and trying to write them out on my own would result in a big gobbled mess.
I've tried approaching it from different angles, Vedic has been throwing the same thing at me over and over again. If I wasn't as clear as I could have been, that's my mistake. I'm fine with trying to explain things further or attempting to clarify something unclear, but not when I'm being challenged with the kind of attitude I'd normally expect from a street corner evangelist about the bible.
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy.
Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation.
By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive.
On July 06 2009 07:52 PH wrote: I posted the essays I referred to and welcomed you all to read them. I got to that point because of Vedic's fanaticism. He's stuck in his own little box and refuses to entertain anything beyond it.
I think I've only referred to one essay directly that I didn't post. The points I want to make are written more clearly, intelligibly and eloquently in those papers than I could ever articulate myself, and trying to write them out on my own would result in a big gobbled mess.
I've tried approaching it from different angles, Vedic has been throwing the same thing at me over and over again. If I wasn't as clear as I could have been, that's my mistake. I'm fine with trying to explain things further or attempting to clarify something unclear, but not when I'm being challenged with the kind of attitude I'd normally expect from a street corner evangelist about the bible.
You said it yourself these are very basic problems of philosophy which is argued in every phil 101 class which makes everything explainable in laymen terms without having people who don't read philosophy to look up stuff like phenomenalism. I think it's good etiquette to clarify your own arguments to the best of your abilities no matter how much you hate the other person or else this may as well be a flame war. Lots of people can explain this stuff better than us but for the sake of the clarity of this discussion let's just do it ourselves. I'm tired of every discussion on TL turning into giant turds over small matters.
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy.
Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation.
By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive.
Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. Science has become standardized to stop the very problems that philosophy creates. Without acceptable standards with which to judge and be judged, there can be no obejctive discussion. Again, this lack of objectivity allows for any argument to be made at any time, without need for verification or reason.
Logic and science DO exist because we CAN perceive them. A concept is merely the result of the existence of your brain, and the operation of your brain by electricity, organs, cells, atoms, subatomic particles, etc... At each point, we can prove that you are operating within all physical bounds, and the actions/responses that you come up with are a result of the sum of your experiences in the physical world.
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy.
Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation.
By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive.
Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. Science has become standardized to stop the very problems that philosophy creates. Without acceptable standards with which to judge and be judged, there can be no obejctive discussion. Again, this lack of objectivity allows for any argument to be made at any time, without need for verification or reason.
Logic and science DO exist because we CAN perceive them. A concept is merely the result of the existence of your brain, and the operation of your brain by electricity, organs, cells, atoms, subatomic particles, etc... At each point, we can prove that you are operating within all physical bounds, and the actions/responses that you come up with are a result of the sum of your experiences in the physical world.
Cogito ergo sum is NOT the basis nor has anything to do with existentialism. What makes you think that? Just because my interpretation of him, which is very standard, differs from yours does not make my scholarship inferior to yours.
Science has not solved the problems philosophy creates. Being able to hold an objective discussion or having a unified theory is not the goal of philosophy. Good philosophical arguments are and have always been logically sound. Reason and logic are also topics within philosophy.
Logic and Science are mental concepts which have no direct correspondence in the physical world. We do not perceive them with our senses. Are you saying everything we can think of in our minds exist outside as well.
On July 06 2009 09:05 Vedic wrote: Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism.
Noooo way. If a basis has an opposite, then that's what Descartes's statement is to existentialism. I think most existentialists would say that Descartes never even began to describe what it means to be a human.
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
Ok first of all, the phrase "I think, therefore I am." or cogito ergo sum was written by Rene Descarte who was one of the great rationalist philosophers. The physical sciences of today are founded upon the rationalist and empiricist philosophical schools of the 18th century of which Descarte was a large part of. Science is inseparable from philosophy in that it actually comes from philosophy all the way back to the Greeks. In fact what we are discussing right now is the philosophy of science which is a subject that has a rich tradition within continental philosophy.
Your point, as I can see, has no relation to what PH said. What Descarte meant was that only the existence of the subjective mind can be proven. From there on nothing outside of the mind can be proven to exist without doubt. Descarte never said to be perceived = to exist (someone else did though), you made your own leap of logic without explanation.
By your assumption, logic and science do not "exist" because they are not physical objects we can perceive. We can test physical science's validity only through a process of deductive empiricism which is different from induction, aka I think therefore I am. So if you say, what cant be perceived doesn't matter because it can't be proven by science. That would be stating nothing as the very basis of science relies on sensory phenomena, or shit that we can perceive.
Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. Science has become standardized to stop the very problems that philosophy creates. Without acceptable standards with which to judge and be judged, there can be no obejctive discussion. Again, this lack of objectivity allows for any argument to be made at any time, without need for verification or reason.
Logic and science DO exist because we CAN perceive them. A concept is merely the result of the existence of your brain, and the operation of your brain by electricity, organs, cells, atoms, subatomic particles, etc... At each point, we can prove that you are operating within all physical bounds, and the actions/responses that you come up with are a result of the sum of your experiences in the physical world.
Cogito ergo sum is NOT the basis nor has anything to do with existentialism. What makes you think that? Just because my interpretation of him, which is very standard, differs from yours does not make my scholarship inferior to yours.
Science has not solved the problems philosophy creates. Being able to hold an objective discussion or having a unified theory is not the goal of philosophy. Good philosophical arguments are and have always been logically sound. Reason and logic are also topics within philosophy.
Logic and Science are mental concepts which have no direct correspondence in the physical world. We do not perceive them with our senses. Are you saying everything we can think of in our minds exist outside as well.
It has everything to do with it in principle, not relating to philosophical or historical events. Understanding it is more important than reading it.
You're describing philosophy being used with scientific properties. Philosophy needs varying use of science to work, but science has no need for philosophy.
Logic and science are both concepts with physical properties, as they are merely physical activity interacting in your brain. The ability for them to be concepts is perception through physical interaction.
Do you believe that flying, pink, invisible, intangible, unicorns exist? Serious question.
Can you explain perhaps how Descarte created the basis for existentialism instead of just refuting what I said? Are you questioning my understanding of the topic at hand because I disagree with you?
I don't understand
Logic is not a physical property. It is a relationship between objects. If we can't agree on that then there's nothing more to discuss. A property is something which belongs to the essence of something else, the physical world does not have to exist for the concept of logic to exist.
On July 06 2009 10:14 zulu_nation8 wrote: its a simple, question, do they exist where? in our minds, in the physical world? in your head? do you understand what i'm asking?
On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy.
Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am."
On July 06 2009 07:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I don't really understand your response Vedic can you perhaps phrase it in another way?
I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy.
Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am."
On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy.
Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am."
Have you decided if the unicorn exists yet?
You still failed to answer his question.
It is up to him to accept exist as the standard by which it is defined, or to skirt around it with philosophy. Either way, the question can be answered.
hmm Vedic I guess I see your point. Sorry if I questioned your philosophical background. I guess I've never thought of Existentialism from that particular perspective. Who did you read mostly?
I think Unicorns don't exist because there hasn't been scientific proof. Invisible also doesn't exist because it can never be seen. Flying does exist because I was on an airplane once. Pink does exist because it's something I once saw. Intangible does exist because I can think of that concept in my brain.
On July 06 2009 10:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: hmm Vedic I guess I see your point. Sorry if I questioned your philosophical background. I guess I've never thought of Existentialism from that particular perspective. Who did you read mostly?
I think Unicorns don't exist because there hasn't been scientific proof. Invisible also doesn't exist because it can never be seen. Flying does exist because I was on an airplane once. Pink does exist because it's something I once saw. Intangible does exist because I can think of that concept in my brain.
I'm not a fan of any philosophy, as you may have already noticed.
Have you ever seen a unicorn not exist? Have you ever seen invisibility not exist? Why do you believe in intangibility if you don't believe in invisibility?
See, these are the issues you hit when not adhering specifically to objective scientific standards. If we are able to selectively scale our use of logic and reasoning, any and every possibility would need to be considered, regardless of it's ability to be solved. I don't see how this can be viewed as anything but counter-productive.
Yea but you must've gotten that definition from somewhere and I'm interested in where because it's quite a good one and pretty sums up the later philosophies of Nietzsche.
No I have not seen a unicorn not exist. Yes Because I can think of something intangible but not something invisible.
Yes but even with rigorous scientific standards I still have trouble understanding the concept of invisibility and how it can exist in the physical world.
Vedic, it is obvious that you have taken Philosophy 101 and passed with flying colours.
On July 06 2009 07:56 Vedic wrote: I think, therefore I am. Logic and science exist to be tested because they can be perceived. Anything outside the scope of possible physical human perception can not, and never will be. Philosophy is basically an ancient version of trolling.
When you think, or post in riptide's case, it draws the world towards you, making you the center which states one of the fundamental concepts of Sartre, the "consciousness of being."
Vedic I see you dislike philosophy but strangely enough a lot of what you have said about philosophy display a pretty good understanding of some of the more difficult philosophical terms, particularly those of Sartre and Nietzsche, which I admit I find impressive.
Perhaps Macbeth was existentialist? This was before it existed as a philosophical movement, but still.
Is this a dagger which I see before me, The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee. I have thee not, and yet I see thee still. Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but A dagger of the mind, a false creation, Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain? I see thee yet, in form as palpable As this which now I draw.
On July 06 2009 10:53 zulu_nation8 wrote: Yea but you must've gotten that definition from somewhere and I'm interested in where because it's quite a good one and pretty sums up the later philosophies of Nietzsche.
No I have not seen a unicorn not exist. Yes Because I can think of something intangible but not something invisible.
Yes but even with rigorous scientific standards I still have trouble understanding the concept of invisibility and how it can exist in the physical world.
What do you know of that is intangible but not invisible? I worked out my position on my own, while only doing research on philosophy and other religions after I had a firm grasp of what I needed to dictate a logical basis for decisions.
I started off as a Christian until the age of about 14, at which point there came a night where I had questioned why God allowed bad things to happen. Like the traditional path to atheism, I went the route of proof. The thing is, if you stop at just requiring proof of god, you haven't evaluated your position enough. One cannot possibly perceive anything outside their own perception, so one should accept that logic itself is relative.
You can interact with me in physical terms, but I have no way of ever knowing that you actually perceive or exist beyond my ability to view you. If I didn't perceive, would the universe still exist? I can see the moon, but without ever traveling there, can I be sure that it truly exists? There are stars so far away that I would not be able to travel there in my lifetime, even at the speed of light. For all intents and purposes, that star does not exist.
The unicorn situation is meant to promote this line of thinking. To say something doesn't exist, or can't exist, is irrelevant. You have only ever seen something exist, and that is where logic comes from.
On July 06 2009 11:21 zulu_nation8 wrote: so vedic it is true that god doesn't exist because he is outside of perception right.
Even if he showed himself to me, I am still restrained by my own perception. I cannot verify anything outside the realm of physical logic that my perception allows. The barrier that all logic faces is it's own view point.
I disagree, when people do LSD they can experience events which humans can't experience with their normal perceptions. That is how many come to believe in the existence of God through personal experience. Logic does not rule the human mind at all times. Sometimes I can do illogical things too and still be human. And in doing those illogical activities I can be unrestrained from the normal boundaries of the physical world.
On July 06 2009 11:29 zulu_nation8 wrote: I disagree, when people do LSD they can experience events which humans can't experience with their normal perceptions. That is how many come to believe in the existence of God through personal experience. Logic does not rule the human mind at all times. Sometimes I can do illogical things too and still be human. And in doing those illogical activities I can be unrestrained from the normal boundaries of the physical world.
The actions you take still come back to a root chemical and electrical compound. It's not that logic rules the mind, but that the mind creates logic because it can perceive. Schrödinger's cat is a great illustration of this, and why logic is relative.
yes but even though the chemical and electrical reactions of the body are based upon logical relations, i can still perform illogical and irrational actions which disobey the normal laws of the physical world. logic is not really relative because its inherent in all relationships in the world on the atomic level. Everything in and immediately outside of the atom is based upon logical scientific law therefore everything in the universe is based upon logical actions. Except human beings who have souls.
also i dont think schrodinger's cat proves anything except that quantum mechanics is problematic to say the least. the fact is that in the real world, the cat can not be simultaneously alive and dead, which goes along with what I say that everything made up of atoms follows logical actions except for humans.
On July 06 2009 11:45 zulu_nation8 wrote: yes but even though the chemical and electrical reactions of the body are based upon logical relations, i can still perform illogical and irrational actions which disobey the normal laws of the physical world. logic is not really relative because its inherent in all relationships in the world on the atomic level. Everything in and immediately outside of the atom is based upon logical scientific law therefore everything in the universe is based upon logical actions. Except human beings who have souls.
You are the sum of your experiences. The logic you perceive between atoms is there because you yourself were able to project logic on it. What you say is illogical or irrational is a creation of your perception, not any universal governing law. If I have a permanent mental disorder that makes certain people look like killer bugs coming after me, my decision to try to kill them would be logical and reasonable.
On July 06 2009 11:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: also i dont think schrodinger's cat proves anything except that quantum mechanics is problematic to say the least. the fact is that in the real world, the cat can not be simultaneously alive and dead, which goes along with what I say that everything made up of atoms follows logical actions except for humans.
Have you ever seen a cat not be simultaneously alive and dead? Again, the actual position of the cat is irrelevant until you view it. Up until that point, you can't have a justifiable position.
Wow...after reading all that, it would seem that Vedic and I were arguing about two different things from two different places.
Again, my bad for not clarifying my terms and being unclear/ambiguous, but I still find it dumb and useless to try discussing any of this with a guy who finds philosophy to be "trolling" and yet still tries to tell me I don't understand logic. -_______-;;
Yea but didn't you say that logic was a physical property? Logical relations are found everywhere in the physical world and do not need a mind to confirm them. What I mean with humans is that with the mental disorder you described I can both kill and not kill people and not killing people would be illogical but still possible because I have a soul, like all human beings. Physical objects such as an ipod doesnt have souls and it is what separates everything else from humans. This soul enables me to make decisions which are illogical and unreasonable for whatever reason and thats why I can break the shackles of physical, rational, law. It is the first step in what many religions recognize as the path to nirvana, becoming self conscious of your soul.
On July 06 2009 11:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: also i dont think schrodinger's cat proves anything except that quantum mechanics is problematic to say the least. the fact is that in the real world, the cat can not be simultaneously alive and dead, which goes along with what I say that everything made up of atoms follows logical actions except for humans.
Have you ever seen a cat not be simultaneously alive and dead? Again, the actual position of the cat is irrelevant until you view it. Up until that point, you can't have a justifiable position.
i have not seen a cat like that, hence what I mean by quantum mechanics is problematic in that its conclusion is illogical and can never happen in the physical world. Pretty sure theres never gonna be a cat simultaneously alive and dead so I can safely assume quantum mechanics is wrong in this case and a dead/alive cat can never exist.
On July 06 2009 12:09 zulu_nation8 wrote: Yea but didn't you say that logic was a physical property? Logical relations are found everywhere in the physical world and do not need a mind to confirm them. What I mean with humans is that with the mental disorder you described I can both kill and not kill people and not killing people would be illogical but still possible because I have a soul, like all human beings. Physical objects such as an ipod doesnt have souls and it is what separates everything else from humans. This soul enables me to make decisions which are illogical and unreasonable for whatever reason and thats why I can break the shackles of physical, rational, law. It is the first step in what many religions recognize as the path to nirvana, becoming self conscious of your soul.
Logic is a physical property in that it exists as a physical state in your mind. Your emotions, thoughts, memories, everything... They're all in your mind in a physical form, and they make up what allow you to perceive. However, again, without actually having perception, there could be no way to verify that they exist. Logic is just a form of testable demonstration.
On July 06 2009 11:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: also i dont think schrodinger's cat proves anything except that quantum mechanics is problematic to say the least. the fact is that in the real world, the cat can not be simultaneously alive and dead, which goes along with what I say that everything made up of atoms follows logical actions except for humans.
Have you ever seen a cat not be simultaneously alive and dead? Again, the actual position of the cat is irrelevant until you view it. Up until that point, you can't have a justifiable position.
i have not seen a cat like that, hence what I mean by quantum mechanics is problematic in that its conclusion is illogical and can never happen in the physical world. Pretty sure theres never gonna be a cat simultaneously alive and dead so I can safely assume quantum mechanics is wrong in this case and a dead/alive cat can never exist.
But if the cat was put in the box, and you were told that the cat was both simultaneously alive and dead, you could not say that the cat was or was not until you opened the box and were able to verify.
yea but has anyone found brain cells which holds specific memories or emotions? I don't think so and I doubt we will ever be able to. So you really can't say memories and emotions are physical states in your mind, I would actually call them mental states in your mind. Until the day we can label cells "ignorance" or "anger" we can't really give emotions physical properties.
On July 06 2009 11:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: also i dont think schrodinger's cat proves anything except that quantum mechanics is problematic to say the least. the fact is that in the real world, the cat can not be simultaneously alive and dead, which goes along with what I say that everything made up of atoms follows logical actions except for humans.
Have you ever seen a cat not be simultaneously alive and dead? Again, the actual position of the cat is irrelevant until you view it. Up until that point, you can't have a justifiable position.
i have not seen a cat like that, hence what I mean by quantum mechanics is problematic in that its conclusion is illogical and can never happen in the physical world. Pretty sure theres never gonna be a cat simultaneously alive and dead so I can safely assume quantum mechanics is wrong in this case and a dead/alive cat can never exist.
But if the cat was put in the box, and you were told that the cat was both simultaneously alive and dead, you could not say that the cat was or was not until you opened the box and were able to verify.
that's exactly my point, the guy who told me the cat is both alive and dead is a liar and has no proof because he didn't actually see a dead and alive cat.
On July 06 2009 12:29 zulu_nation8 wrote: yea but has anyone found brain cells which holds specific memories or emotions? I don't think so and I doubt we will ever be able to. So you really can't say memories and emotions are physical states in your mind, I would actually call them mental states in your mind. Until the day we can label cells "ignorance" or "anger" we can't really give emotions physical properties.
Yeah, actually, we have. There's a lot of huge advances in technology interface with the brain. Just recently, they were even able to extract very rough monochrome images from a live patient.
On July 06 2009 11:49 zulu_nation8 wrote: also i dont think schrodinger's cat proves anything except that quantum mechanics is problematic to say the least. the fact is that in the real world, the cat can not be simultaneously alive and dead, which goes along with what I say that everything made up of atoms follows logical actions except for humans.
Have you ever seen a cat not be simultaneously alive and dead? Again, the actual position of the cat is irrelevant until you view it. Up until that point, you can't have a justifiable position.
i have not seen a cat like that, hence what I mean by quantum mechanics is problematic in that its conclusion is illogical and can never happen in the physical world. Pretty sure theres never gonna be a cat simultaneously alive and dead so I can safely assume quantum mechanics is wrong in this case and a dead/alive cat can never exist.
But if the cat was put in the box, and you were told that the cat was both simultaneously alive and dead, you could not say that the cat was or was not until you opened the box and were able to verify.
that's exactly my point, the guy who told me the cat is both alive and dead is a liar and has no proof because he didn't actually see a dead and alive cat.
Actually, the thought experiment is not that he is either alive or dead, but in a state of neutrality. You've never seen a cat not be alive or dead, so logic dictates that it certainly must be one of the two, however, the same logic that told you that you haven't seen a cat be neither alive or dead must now also dictate the fact that you can't see the current status of the cat.
I read a recent article in scientific american in which George Armitage Miller, a famous neuroscientist stated that to connect our emotions to specific physical processes on a cellular level is still impossible in the foreseeable future. Where did you get your information from? Also if everything is physical, what is mental then? The soul?
On July 06 2009 12:42 zulu_nation8 wrote: I read a recent article in scientific american in which George Armitage Miller, a famous neuroscientist stated that to connect our emotions to specific physical processes on a cellular level is still impossible in the foreseeable future. Where did you get your information from? Also if everything is physical, what is mental then? The soul?
I'm not quite sure what to make of what he said. We've been both studying emotions and interacting with them via medication for a long time. I can't imagine that this article was written in the past few decades. We've already mapped neurotransmitters to emotions, and we understand the finer details of all the receptors. All emotional response comes from specific chemical reactions, which we are able to interact with via medical advances with greater and greater accuracy.
The mental state is merely a result of physical existence.
they aren't physical in that I don't think I can touch or see imagination and reason. I think you're getting the concepts of physical and mental confused vedic.
On July 06 2009 13:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: they aren't physical in that I don't think I can touch or see imagination and reason. I think you're getting the concepts of physical and mental confused vedic.
You can't touch or see a smell or taste, but you can still respond to them. All a mental process is made from is millions upon millions of small chemical and electrical binary operations, all custom tailored to your view point as set forth by your memory.
On July 06 2009 13:46 zulu_nation8 wrote: what about shape, or isosceles triangle then? We should just talk about them as corresponding brain activity since that's all they are right
Yeah, and those are just cells, which are in turn made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles, etc... You're looking for answers which would provide justification for these truths, but this is a relative matter.
no dude theyre called abstract concepts which may have physical justification but that is irrelevant, you also don't know shit about philosophy but continue to insist on arguing and talking about existentialism and the mind/body problem with terrible reasoning. And then tell me I don't understand philosophers because you can't figure out anything other than your dumb shit reasoning. You probably have never even WIKI'd Descarte but then say some shit like oh you don't understand him while you're just talking out of your fucking ass and being condescending because you have trouble admitting you don't know shit.
You are close minded. You are incapable of comprehending the very basic concept of an abstract idea. Your logic is seriously shit, most of the time you don't answer to what anyone else say because you don't know what we're talking about. You're prejudiced against philosophy as a WHOLE roflmao. You are a fucking retard who should learn some humility before you talk out of your ass again.
"Descartes specifically made that quote in relation to logical perception, and it's the basis of existentialism. Either you haven't been reading his work, or you've misunderstood the reasoning behind it. "
You basically just said something completely made up aka you talked out of your ass. But then you get defensive like a fucking bitch and question my understanding roflmao. WHY DO YOU DO THIS. Why can't you just admit you don't know shit instead of sticking to your own bullshit? Seriously why? You honestly think your fucking 3 year old understanding of philosophy is superior to mine and everyone elses? Do you realize that you're talking about your ass, or do you actually truly believe thats what existentialism or Descarte talks about? I seriously wanna know write me back.
On July 06 2009 21:11 zulu_nation8 wrote: no dude theyre called abstract concepts which may have physical justification but that is irrelevant, you also don't know shit about philosophy but continue to insist on arguing and talking about existentialism and the mind/body problem with terrible reasoning. And then tell me I don't understand philosophers because you can't figure out anything other than your dumb shit reasoning. You probably have never even WIKI'd Descarte but then say some shit like oh you don't understand him while you're just talking out of your fucking ass and being condescending because you have trouble admitting you don't know shit.
You are close minded. You are incapable of comprehending the very basic concept of an abstract idea. Your logic is seriously shit, most of the time you don't answer to what anyone else say because you don't know what we're talking about. You're prejudiced against philosophy as a WHOLE roflmao. You are a fucking retard who should learn some humility before you talk out of your ass again.
The natural, and most predictable response to the truth is anger. This is clearly no longer a debate (stopped being when you were caught improperly applying logic to invisibility and intangibility) and I will leave you to your rage so that you may find your path accordingly.
When you're ready to calm down and have a real discussion again, let me know.
On July 06 2009 10:19 zulu_nation8 wrote: can you answer where you got descarte formed the basis of existentialism from? cuz i have this strong feeling you don't know shit about philosophy.
Existentialism is about putting yourself at the center of the universe - a move directly influenced by thinking such as "I think, therefore I am."
Have you decided if the unicorn exists yet?
you completely made this up too, it's clearly you have never read a word on anything resembling existentialism before giving it a definition. Seriously why do you do this? You're basically just making up random shit for the sake of argument because you don't have the ability to admit you don't know shit. Like you have so much ego and faith in your own bullshit that you will defend it to the grave and then you deride all of philosophy just in case someone tries to bring it up. But you dont hesitate to just define any shit you think of and throw it into an argument. You're the most rofl person I have ever seen on this forum. Everyone else at least shy away from shit they don't know but you embrace it and give it new definitions for the sake of just talking bullshit. A kind advice for the future, shut the fuck up.
On July 06 2009 21:11 zulu_nation8 wrote: no dude theyre called abstract concepts which may have physical justification but that is irrelevant, you also don't know shit about philosophy but continue to insist on arguing and talking about existentialism and the mind/body problem with terrible reasoning. And then tell me I don't understand philosophers because you can't figure out anything other than your dumb shit reasoning. You probably have never even WIKI'd Descarte but then say some shit like oh you don't understand him while you're just talking out of your fucking ass and being condescending because you have trouble admitting you don't know shit.
You are close minded. You are incapable of comprehending the very basic concept of an abstract idea. Your logic is seriously shit, most of the time you don't answer to what anyone else say because you don't know what we're talking about. You're prejudiced against philosophy as a WHOLE roflmao. You are a fucking retard who should learn some humility before you talk out of your ass again.
The natural, and most predictable response to the truth is anger. This is clearly no longer a debate (stopped being when you were caught improperly applying logic to invisibility and intangibility) and I will leave you to your rage so that you may find your path accordingly.
When you're ready to calm down and have a real discussion again, let me know.
this stopped being a debate when you first opened your fucking mouth. Seriously just tell me why you talk about shit you've never read. Like what's the motive behind it?
On July 05 2009 16:59 PH wrote: Do you even understand the implications of what a complete physicalism entails? Do you even know what you're saying?
What makes you think that science can eventually solve all answers? What makes you believe that at some point in the distant future, there will no longer be such a thing as "subjective"? From what you're saying at this point, it honestly sounds like you're taking a leap of faith. How is that any different from the religious people you love to condemn? To be honest, it's comical.
I'm not a scientist, I study philosophy. I have never claimed science to be my forte or expertise in any way, but I'm quoting doctorates in physics I've actually talked with in real life. One of the cool things about science is that it can bend back on itself and shift/alter itself based upon new information; it's constantly updating itself.
If some new development in string theory really does think it can explain what occurred before the Big Bang, then that's great. If...IF...it ever works out and is finalized into a full blown scientific theory, then really, all that'll mean for me is one point towards physicalism, and one example the phenomenalist can no longer use.
However, that still does not suddenly destroy phenomenalism and prove that everything can be reduced physically. I at least understand how the scientific method works at a fundamental level...I won't try to parade myself as being something I'm not. That, however, is where the limitation of science lies...if it is not readily observable, recreatable and testable, then how do you prove it on a "scientific" basis?
Do me, yourself and all of us a favor and try reading that. It's one of my favorite essays in philosophy, done by a contemporary philosopher named Thomas Nagel. Unfortunately, it was both the first and last of his works in the field. He takes the position of one who would be excited if physicalism were true, but finds what he believes to be an irreconcilable problem with it involving perspective and objectivity vs subjectivity. This essay is considered a classic in modern philosophy, and is definitely a head scratcher.
Even if you're not Vedic, I highly recommend that essay...it's a lot of fun.
No matter what happens, science being unable to provide an answer does not prove anything aside from the fact that the universe is not set up in a way that facilitates the ability to grasp it's finer details. There is no faith in what I said - you simply didn't read it properly. I most specifically said that it is quite likely that we will figure it out in the future, but even if we don't, the answer will ALWAYS remain "we don't know" until we do.
Please, cite the people with physics doctorates you have spoken to, and the papers they have written. I'd very much like to see any sort of support for what you are saying circulating anywhere outside of the "intelligent design" community.
Your problem, as stated before, is that you're trying to twist science to give you a reason to be able to form a theory. Can you provide any scientific evidence at any point in history that has shown a physical test, with reproducible results, pointing to anything outside the scope of physical existence? Just one, that's all you need.
I already know the answer, and it is that you can not. You can't use a physical test against something that isn't physical, so you will never be able to transition from wild philosophical assumption to actual science. Not now, not later, not ever. On the flip side, every single test you ever do is a testament to the fact that the physical realm does indeed exist.
lol...no, I'm done with you. You're not understanding what I'm saying, you're not properly understanding what we're talking about now, and yes, your faith that science and physicalism holds all the answers, just that we don't know them yet (or are capable of knowing them), in my opinion parallels religious faith.
Talking to you is like talking to an evangelist that relies on the same circular argument. Yes, by the way, you have been repeating the same circular argument over and over again. "Science is capable of testing all there is in the universe concretely, so anything that science can't test doesn't exist."
That's great...but I deny your premise. I deny that science is the end all be all, and I deny that just because it isn't physical, it doesn't exist.
I have written papers defending physicalism before, and just like the papers I wrote supporting phenomenalism, there were debatable and presumptuous premises that had to be made that any supporter of the opposition would jump on. There is a reason why it is still an active area of discussion today. But I'm not an expert, I'm just an undergrad dumb enough to try to debate this over the damn internet.
I doubt you even glanced at that paper I linked you to...no...something written by a respected philosopher doesn't concern you, does it? He's not a man of science...he dares to think outside the box, after all. You challenge me to give you information about the professor at my school and to somehow quote something he said in a lecture a year ago, and you don't even seem to have any respect for, nor put any stock into the discipline of philosophy...it's not even worth keeping this up with you.
I don't give a shit about god or God or any other "supernatural being". My point was to bring up the fact that science cannot observe or test anything until after the big bang occurred.
How insightful... ? I mean, that's kind of the folly of being born after the big bang, I guess. We can still make pretty good guesses as to what would be needed to make a big bang, and thus we can think of what happened just before it, maybe. Test things in our own world that DO exist, that we think are similar to the big bang. It's just kinda difficult to go there because you set up a string argument... We don't know for sure the big bang is what happened, it's just our best explanation. If it wasn't, then any time we spend on trying to explain what caused the big bang is wasted. Although I would be very shocked to hear we hadn't at least spent some time on it.
That's all fair and fairly true, I think. I used that to allow for some kind of base to further my points off of, and isn't really an end-all example. After all, it's a far cry from being able to theorize and make guesses and to be able to actually test things out...
PH, I'm interested in this idea. Apart from the big bang stuff are there any other physicalist' areas that would indicate that phenomenalism is a valid viewpoint? I'm not trolling, I'm nearly post-grad physics and philosophy greatly interests me.
Just from reading what you've posted before (I'm going to read Nagel, that looks awesome) it looks like phenomenalism is creating a dichotomy between the physical and non-physical world - which is fine - but what exists outside of the physical world? I'm going to go with "abstract ideas". You could possibly argue the land of platonia is the realm of the phenomalistic, but I think platonia only contains ideas logically consistent with the physical world. Any idea, even if false, would be a valid "object" outside the physical world. Dreams possibly? Actually that's very likely. Vedic - ever been daydreaming then snapped back into physical reality?
Vedic if you read this you'll probably argue that things such as "dreams" and "abstract ideas" leave a physical footprint - ie you can wack a person inside of an MRI scanner and watch their brain work while they're dreaming or track physiological reactions to "emotions" and when people are thinking abstractly - but what you're missing here is that for you; for yourself it is impossible to differentiate between reality and dreamstates most of the time. And since you do not occupy more than one mind at a time the body of scientific knowledge and the scientific method can't be properly applied by you to yourself when you're dreaming.
I apologize. Philosophy is icky and generally doesn't put bread on the table.
Shit i'm ganna play this video over and over to all my classes until they can all interrupt and give their personal example of what open minded and reasoning is about.
EPT
One more philosophical zombie who actually thinks he exists to our collection. ^^ 
