Faith in science?

[firedragon]

Needs clarification, science is based on the knowledge of science, and 'objective verifiable evidence.' No superiority complex involved. If one makes propositions based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of science it is based on self-imposed ignorance, because the books, college courses and internet information is available to acquire the knowledge and understanding of science.

Great. Yet you missed the point.

 

[Yerda]

It seems to me to be akin to faith to me, but not in science so much as in the naturalism that science labours under.

Maybe. Though if we imagine a working theory of consciousness then whatever entities the theory posits would be considered natural, no?

I think that people can be amazingly clever, especially when they're cooperating. Maybe I'm just confident that people have the smarts to make sense of anything we can think about.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe. Though if we imagine a working theory of consciousness then whatever entities the theory posits would be considered natural, no?

I think that people can be amazingly clever, especially when they're cooperating. Maybe I'm just confident that people have the smarts to make sense of anything we can think about.

Learn to doubt human cognition like you doubt human mobility. You can't just move around like you like. So how come you believe that we can make positive sense of everything?

 

[shunyadragon]

Great. Yet you missed the point.

Your point needs clarification.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are an Authoritarian Cultural Imperialist and I will fight you. You are so subjective in your understanding, but you are unable to understand that!!!

lol

 

[shunyadragon]

It is a book by 2 professors.

Does not help the fact that it is non-scientific source. It could be written by 100, no help.

 

[Clara Tea]

A stimulus from my finger hitting these keys is carried to my brain and from there it whizzes about and fizzes and pops and whatnot and then I feel the keys. Where in that process is the feels?
.......
There's a whole cascade of action/reaction going on when I see this screen. But none of it seems to imply blueness.

Confusion is the first step to understanding.

MRIs, PET scans and EEGs show active areas of the brain. What occurs in those active areas is not shown. There are various reasons for depression, and some are not well understood (yet).

Depression Diagnosis With Brain Scans

The link, above, shows that scans can pinpoint 4 types of depression.

MRI Scans Pick Up Brain Abnormalities of Depression

MRI's (according to the link above) can detect some depression (mood).

PET scan of the brain for depression

The link, above, shows that a PET scan shows depression.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

lol

And that is based on reliable objective verifiable evidence, right?!! It is the Natural Scientific Law of lol. You don't understand that you are as much a product of nature and nurture as everybody else and that your subjective understanding of what science is, is a cultural biased social product.

So here is an Internet source you have used yourself and then denied when I used it.
https://iep.utm.edu/ You are so subjective, that you are unable to understand that you are subjective.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. You are indeed exercising faith in science, as everyone probably should and probably do one way or another anyway. Not blind faith though.

As far as that goes, I expect to get à covid vaccine and hope I don't suffer a bad response. Not blind faith but hoping not for a bad outcome.

 

[YoursTrue]

Confusion is the first step to understanding.

MRIs, PET scans and EEGs show active areas of the brain. What occurs in those active areas is not shown. There are various reasons for depression, and some are not well understood (yet).

Depression Diagnosis With Brain Scans

The link, above, shows that scans can pinpoint 4 types of depression.

MRI Scans Pick Up Brain Abnormalities of Depression

MRI's (according to the link above) can detect some depression (mood).

PET scan of the brain for depression

The link, above, shows that a PET scan shows depression.

Nobody has to prove to me that brainwaves can be seriously affected by birthright or life's circumstances. I just know it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does not help the fact that it is non-scientific source. It could be written by 100, no help.

Yes, and you have used no scientific sources yourself. You used this one: What Hard Problem? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now And that is philosophy.
You have a highly visible double standard: It is, that you subjective find what confirms your bias and then treat it as if it is not a bias.

So no, you are as subjective as everybody else including me. Your problem is that you don't understand that you are subjective and apply a double standard.

 

[YoursTrue]

Unless you are born into bad circumstances as per nature or nurture. Like how you actually didn't answer.

I kinda said the same thing before I read your post.

 

[Yerda]

Learn to doubt human cognition like you doubt human mobility. You can't just move around like you like. So how come you believe that we can make positive sense of everything?

That is a fair point. There is a reason we don't teach calculus to chimps.

But we are able to think about our own consciousness in many different ways, while I'm pretty certain chimps don't have the cognitive tools for thinking about abstractions like limits and continuity.

It is possible this is beyond us, I suppose. I know that's not an unheard of position in philosophical circles (I think they refer to it as mysterianism).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is a fair point. There is a reason we don't teach calculus to chimps.

But we are able to think about our own consciousness in many different ways, while I'm pretty certain chimps don't have the cognitive tools for thinking about abstractions like limits and continuity.

It is possible this is beyond us, I suppose. I know that's not an unheard of position in philosophical circles (I think they refer to it as mysterianism).

I am a skeptic. I doubt that human cognition can do anything. I can give you my reasoning based on a natural world.

 

[Yerda]

I am a skeptic. I doubt that human cognition can do anything. I can give you my reasoning based on a natural world.

Please, I'm curious to hear this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Please, I'm curious to hear this.

Okay, no supernatural.

Remember there is no objective purpose, meaning or cognition in the world. That is in humans and in some sense in computers.
So biological evolution didn't make us to understand everything or we couldn't survive. That is so, because we are a result of life that is not cognitive, yet it can survive. Rather in biological terms cognition allows us to inhabit a biological niche. That doesn't require that we can understand everything. It only requires that we can live and reproduce.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and you have used no scientific sources yourself. You used this one: What Hard Problem? | Issue 99 | Philosophy Now And that is philosophy.
You have a highly visible double standard: It is, that you subjective find what confirms your bias and then treat it as if it is not a bias.

So no, you are as subjective as everybody else including me. Your problem is that you don't understand that you are subjective and apply a double standard.

No, academic science is the standard, not I.

 

[shunyadragon]

And that is based on reliable objective verifiable evidence, right?!! It is the Natural Scientific Law of lol. You don't understand that you are as much a product of nature and nurture as everybody else and that your subjective understanding of what science is, is a cultural biased social product.

So here is an Internet source you have used yourself and then denied when I used it.
https://iep.utm.edu/ You are so subjective, that you are unable to understand that you are subjective.

I do not use my own understanding. I use the evolved academic science based Methodological Naturalism, which is uniform over all the cultures of the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, academic science is the standard, not I.

Yet you use academic philosophy and not science, when you have to.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yet you use academic philosophy and not science, when you have to.

No, academic science based on objective verifiable evidence. .