Facts vs evidence

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, so my point is that science won't tell us anything about "guidance". Guidance or no guidance is an assumtion we make before we look at the evidence.

But you are correct. So far, the only evidence we have are for natural causes that follow rules we call the laws of nature.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Actually, we are discussing evidence, the different types and that some things do not have objective evidence that can be used to unambiguously demonstrate their existence to others.

Vampires and gods are some of those things.

@PureX said "That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists."

..and that is the context of my reply.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Facts vs evidenceWe believe in things even without evidence. Sure.

Such as believing in the God of the Bible or in other deities.

You are a Christian, so why do you believe in God? Please note that it's not my intention to show disrespect toward you and your beliefs.

Attempts have been made to use science to demonstrate guidance, design and purpose in nature. They have not been fruitful attempts.

As I've said, I believe that there are supernatural phenomena in this world that neither science, the Bible, nor any other religious dogma can rationally explain or disprove. For what it's worth, my belief is based on my personal experiences with the paranormal, which I mentioned in my prior post here.

 

[Audie]

He makes tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could that one day help solve birth defects in humans?

Biologist Michael Levin manipulates electric currents to make odd creatures like tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could his experiments one day lead to medical cures?

www.statnews.com

Such is not so new.
How much did he actually extend what others
have done? Like if he stimulated leg regrowth in
an older frog than anyone else did.
That's where any " new" would be.

And how does this relate to your teleology?

I don't know what point you wish to make?

 

[Audie]

Ok, so my point is that science won't tell us anything about "guidance". Guidance or no guidance is an assumtion we make before we look at the evidence.

You should speak for yourself with that " we",
What " we" do, or don't do.

Deciding ahead of time what to make of the data
is the number one biggest disaster for a scientist.

We do realize it's different for, say, a Christian for
whom faith Is a highest value.
To break faith with God ( like assume he's a big phony)
is unthinkable.

But lots of scientists are Christians, another don't get
sucked into that witless trap that guarantees a failure of scientific integrity.

They, like all other scientists who are intellectually
honest, just don't just assume. Follow the evidence where itleads. Simple.

 

[muhammad_isa]

They, like all other scientists who are intellectually
honest, just don't just assume. Follow the evidence where itleads. Simple.

How so?
An atheist scientist assumes that God does not exist.

 

[osgart]

Such is not so new.
How much did he actually extend what others
have done? Like if he stimulated leg regrowth in
an older frog than anyone else did.
That's where any " new" would be.

And how does this relate to your teleology?

I don't know what point you wish to make?

It answers my question of diverse intelligences in nature and affirms my intuition that there are goal oriented processes in nature.

Levin is known for xenobots:

Focused on the molecular mechanisms that cells use to communicate with one another in developing embryos, Levin’s research aims to harness the bioelectric dynamics towards rational control of growth and form. The language medium: bioelectricity. One proof-of-concept for this view of the world, xenobots – synthetic life forms created in his lab from the skin and heart-muscle cells of frogs – demonstrate the ability of organisms to grow and regenerate through the careful direction of goal-seeking behavior.

A Conversation with Michael Levin | GoodAI

Evolution doesn't produce specific solutions to specific environmental problems. It produces problem solving machines. Machines that can solve problems in other spaces.

www.goodai.com

My philosophy does not enter into what this scientist is doing. My philosophy is that there is an experiencial dimension to nature. My opinion is that there are non living intelligences that may not be alive like humans are, but nonetheless operate in nature by making decisions with goals.

My philosophy is intelligence is eternal.

 

[MikeF]

I am thinking differently that you and getting away with it. So if you think that it makes no sense, then you don't actually explain the world.

You explain the world away so it fits your bias of without bias as being actually possible and that your experience must make positively sense as logical.

The joke is that you and I treat doesn't make sense differently. You treat it as real to you, but unreal for what is actually going on. So for false/wrong/unreal/illogical and all the rest, the reduction ad absurdum is that, it is unreal yet physical or everything is not physical. Take you pick!

And you are reading it right now and I am still illogical, with bias and unreal, yet you are experiencing that. Go figure.

I don't know if it's just with me, Mikkel, but it seems I really get under your skin. I'm sorry for that. It is not my intent. We are communicating through an international forum in order to share thoughts and ideas about various topics. In this particular thread we are dicussing what constitutes evidence. If my comments somehow clash or are anathema to your worldview in a painful or displeasing way, please feel free to put me on ignore.

From my perspective, your assertion that you think differently isn't unique, for in my opinion, each and every one of us thinks differently than everyone else. What is important to me is understanding how and why we each think differently and to understand how those differences affect our ability to learn about and understand the world in which we live, including ourselves.

 

[Audie]

It answers my question of diverse intelligences in nature and affirms my intuition that there are goal oriented processes in nature.

Levin is known for xenobots:

Focused on the molecular mechanisms that cells use to communicate with one another in developing embryos, Levin’s research aims to harness the bioelectric dynamics towards rational control of growth and form. The language medium: bioelectricity. One proof-of-concept for this view of the world, xenobots – synthetic life forms created in his lab from the skin and heart-muscle cells of frogs – demonstrate the ability of organisms to grow and regenerate through the careful direction of goal-seeking behavior.

A Conversation with Michael Levin | GoodAI

Evolution doesn't produce specific solutions to specific environmental problems. It produces problem solving machines. Machines that can solve problems in other spaces.

www.goodai.com

My philosophy does not enter into what this scientist is doing. My philosophy is that there is an experiencial dimension to nature. My opinion is that there are non living intelligences that may not be alive like humans are, but nonetheless operate in nature by making decisions with goals.

My philosophy is intelligence is eternal.

OK tnx I guess we're done now.

 

[MikeF]

Well, we have at least one poster that claims everything can done by science with evidence, logic and without bias.

Is that poster me?

If so, it's a mischaracterization of my position.

 

[Yerda]

You should speak for yourself with that " we",
What " we" do, or don't do.

Deciding ahead of time what to make of the data
is the number one biggest disaster for a scientist.

We do realize it's different for, say, a Christian for
whom faith Is a highest value.
To break faith with God ( like assume he's a big phony)
is unthinkable.

But lots of scientists are Christians, another don't get
sucked into that witless trap that guarantees a failure of scientific integrity.

They, like all other scientists who are intellectually
honest, just don't just assume. Follow the evidence where itleads. Simple.

I think we're roughly on the same page here.

So what I'm suggesting is that whether God is guiding evolution of life or the cosmos, or that things are intended to turn out this way, isn't something we can infer from the data. In general I don't think we need to assume anything about the subject of "guidance" but if we are talking about it honestly, most of us have (sometimes unconscious) assumptions regarding the directedness of evolution, for example.

I find it more satisfying to assume that evolution is unguided. It makes more sense to me that way since I don't believe in gods but I don't believe I could find any evidence, one way or the other, from experiment.

 

[MikeF]

I recognize limitations to science. Science can't be used to demonstrate a source of morality, but it can be used to compare two groups and point out the differences in their moralities.

Edit: Or similarities.

I would disagree here. I would argue that science can make a case that human beings are the source of the abstract concept labeled morality.

 

[MikeF]

That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists.

Logically possible has nothing to do with actually possible unless the logic remains synthitic to reality, which in this case it does not. Logic is simply a tool of abstraction and can be used incorrectly.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@PureX said "That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists."

..and that is the context of my reply.

Does being able to ask a question make it logically possible for the subject of the question to exist?

Do invisible aliens live in your underwear and control your destiny?

If asking the question makes it logically possible, then it is something we all have to consider now.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Logically possible has nothing to do with actually possible unless the logic remains synthitic to reality, which in this case it does not. Logic is simply a tool of abstraction and can be used incorrectly.

How fortuitous to respond right behind this post.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would disagree here. I would argue that science can make a case that human beings are the source of the abstract concept labeled morality.

I'll have to think about that. Perhaps that may be so. Certainly, humans are the only source I'm aware of in the physical world. Even the books were written by people.

Of course, I have an issue with what many mean by inspired. I have never considered it to mean dictated, but I think many do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Such as believing in the God of the Bible or in other deities.

You are a Christian, so why do you believe in God? Please note that it's not my intention to show disrespect toward you and your beliefs.



As I've said, I believe that there are supernatural phenomena in this world that neither science, the Bible, nor any other religious dogma can rationally explain or disprove. For what it's worth, my belief is based on my personal experiences with the paranormal, which I mentioned in my prior post here.

I don't really have any other answer than faith.

I can't present evidence for my subjective experiences.

They say that seeing is believing, but I've seen lots of things that weren't what they appeared to be.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People claim lots of things. Bigfoot. Dracula. Thor. OBE. Spontaneous human combustion. Pixies. The list is endless and only limited by our imagination.

If an urn containing the remains of someone's dear departed rested on the fireplace mantel for 10 years without being disturbed and suddenly falls off, is that a miracle? The supernatural? Natural? Did the spirit of the dear departed suddenly become enraged and cause the urn to be pitched to the floor, because it found out that the family was selling this precious place where the urn resides and the person that urn represents lived out their life?

We might consider gravity as the explanation given what we know. But how does a person that concludes the supernatural eliminate all the other possibilities, natural and supernatural, to arrive at their conclusion of a specific supernatural cause? How have they eliminated natural causes? How have they eliminated interference from other dimensions? Demons? Time travelers? Maybe there exists a supernatural agency that doesn't want to be seen, recognized, identified. How might that be eliminated.

All of those conclusions require evidence to come to in the end. Otherwise, it is just a belief system that has been rationalized into existence and sustained on faith.

If there is physical evidence or evidence that can be shared, then science could be employed to examine that evidence.

Pure atheism is no different, since it is claiming knowledge without evidence. In that form it is the closest atheism gets to be a religion as I understand it.

Agnostic atheism, that exists on evidence is not pure atheism, since the follower would believe if there was evidence to persuade them so.

Otherwise, I am not sure I follow you point.

Okay, we agree.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know if it's just with me, Mikkel, but it seems I really get under your skin. I'm sorry for that. It is not my intent. We are communicating through an international forum in order to share thoughts and ideas about various topics. In this particular thread we are dicussing what constitutes evidence. If my comments somehow clash or are anathema to your worldview in a painful or displeasing way, please feel free to put me on ignore.

From my perspective, your assertion that you think differently isn't unique, for in my opinion, each and every one of us thinks differently than everyone else. What is important to me is understanding how and why we each think differently and to understand how those differences affect our ability to learn about and understand the world in which we live, including ourselves.

Yes.
And then learn that there are 5 versions of right and wrong.
Here are 5 questions relevant to the 5 versions.

What happens if a human in earth gravity tries to fly unaided and only with the use of the body?
How do you explain 2+2=11?
How do you know if killing another human is murder?
How do you know what makes you happy?
How do you with logic, reason and science add up all the processes in the universe and get an overall positive answer to any question asked?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is that poster me?

If so, it's a mischaracterization of my position.

No, that is not you.