"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[mikkel_the_dane]

Answer me this: Prove that existence depends on demonstration.

Well, first you have to prove existence and prove prove as not depending on human cognition for their referent.

 

[sayak83]

Now you are resorting once again to semantics; tidy up the unclear language, and close the door before anyone looks outside (or inside).

Okay, my last word and I’ll keep it simple. Theories by definition require consciousness, since theories are conscious constructs. Probability theory absolutely needs consciousness, since probability is a concept, and concepts are the output of mental processes. Moreover, probability, given enough information, can be calculated with great precision, but calculation requires consciousness.

Every experiment which validates - or falsifies - every theory, is by definition the contrivance of a conscious agent.

You are confusing a map or a representation of X with that X. Again and again.
Speed of light in vacuum is invariant is real and does not require consciousness.
Knowing that it is real through observations requires a knower and hence a consciousness.
Speed, probabilities, mass etc are reals...real features of the consciousness independent world. Our mental knowledge of these are called concepts and are consciousness dependent. Reality and it's features are utterly independent of whether we have been able to know or conceived of them yet or not. Earth was a sphere before we conceived of things like sphere. Etc

I will keep it simple too. World, it's features and it's relations exist and are instantiated independent of an observing consciousness. When a consciousness grasps them then they become concepts in our minds that represent these reals to us. Our conceptions of reality depend on the real world, but the reals exist independent of our concepts of these. This is true for physical reals as well as mathematical and logical reals as well. It's realism through and through. How do we know this? Because our observations tell us so.

 

[sayak83]

Well, first you have to prove existence and prove prove as not depending on human cognition for their referent.

Feel free to live your life as if the world does not exist... that all this is in your mind.
Why are you writing here?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are confusing a map or a representation of X with that X. Again and again.
Speed of light in vacuum is invariant is real and does not require consciousness.
Knowing that it is real through observations requires a knower and hence a consciousness.
Speed, probabilities, mass etc are reals...real features of the consciousness independent world. Our mental knowledge of these are called concepts and are consciousness dependent. Reality and it's features are utterly independent of whether we have been able to know or conceived of them yet or not. Earth was a sphere before we conceived of things like sphere. Etc

I will keep it simple too. World, it's features and it's relations exist and are instantiated independent of an observing consciousness. When a consciousness grasps them then they become concepts in our minds that represent these reals to us. Our conceptions of reality depend on the real world, but the reals exist independent of our concepts of these. This is true for physical reals as well as mathematical and logical reals as well. It's realism through and through. How do we know this? Because our observations tell us so.

Yeah, but you have no direct access to X as independent of your experince of X. Demonstrate X without using your cognition.

Here is what you should do. Only use words with objective referents and then make a post about how you understand the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Feel free to live your life as if the world does not exist... that all this is in your mind.
Why are you writing here?

I don't believe that. I believe in objective reality, I just don't have any evidence for it.

 

[shunyadragon]

What is your evidence of not relevant to science as objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence.
How is not relevant physical according to your standard?

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe.

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe.

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

Evidence for relevance as by objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence, To me unless you can give evidence for relevance, then relevance is a subjective claim and belief.
So just give evidence for relevance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Really, how? I guess Jyotisha Astrology, Vedic Science, Aryuvedic Medicine etc. are all based on real confirmed scientific data? A large majority of India practices those things and has seeped into their real science community and you're telling me Hindus, especially, get science right? Even their core beliefs? This is laughable.

All of those non physical elements obviously exist or else you wouldn't be able to 'experience' them but science cannot literally observe them happening. Metaphysical concepts such as how the human mind came to exist cannot be answered by science either.

In all cultures in the world there are archaic and ancient beliefs and practices that do not meet the standards of Modern Methodological Naturalism. In the major universities and among academic scientists high academic standards dominate. There are ancient practices in medicine and health that have been researched by science and found beneficial such as Yoga, acupuncture, acupressure, and herbal medicine,

We have the same problem in the West with ancient problems of beliefs such as: Astrology, rejection of the sciences of evolution and global warming based on ancient tribal beliefs

Yes, Methodological Naturalism cannot involve subjective religious beliefs and the metaphysical, because between cultures of the world they are variable and conflicting ancient beliefs without provenance and objective evidence to support these claims and beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes. And still there. it still exists even if nobody knows about it.

What is your test for knowing that? How do you actually do such a test? Please take us through the actual test and make it so that it can be replicated.

 

[shunyadragon]

Evidence for relevance as by objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence, To me unless you can give evidence for relevance, then relevance is a subjective claim and belief.
So just give evidence for relevance.

Your questions and assertions are confusing, vague, obtuse, and incoherent, Your reference of a Danish book has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. It is a well accepted non controversial academic reference that deals with the philosophy and teaching of Social Science at the college level.

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe and no relationship to the reality of science..

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe.

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

Yeah, you don'tt know when you are subjective.

relevant: closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered; appropriate to the current time, period, or circumstances; of contemporary interest.
You are doing a subjective assessment of relevance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, you don'tt know when you are subjective.

You apparently lack the basics of the English language"

"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?

Don't subject yourself to more confusion—learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective" right now and always use them correctly.

www.dictionary.com

Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something. In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only.

In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis.

Something that’s truly objective has nothing to do with a person’s own feelings or views—it just deals with facts. When someone says “Objectively speaking,” they’re indicating that they’re going to give an unbiased assessment—not one based on their personal preferences.

relevant: closely connected or appropriate to what is being done or considered; appropriate to the current time, period, or circumstances; of contemporary interest.
You are doing a subjective assessment of relevance.

Your questions and assertions are confusing, vague, obtuse, and incoherent, Your reference of a Danish book has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. It is a well accepted non controversial academic reference that deals with the philosophy and teaching of Social Science at the college level.

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe and no relationship to the reality of science..

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You apparently lack the basics of the English language"

"Subjective" vs. "Objective": What's The Difference?

Don't subject yourself to more confusion—learn the difference between "subjective" and "objective" right now and always use them correctly.

www.dictionary.com

Subjective most commonly means based on the personal perspective or preferences of a person—the subject who’s observing something. In contrast, objective most commonly means not influenced by or based on a personal viewpoint—based on the analysis of an object of observation only.

In most of its common uses, objective is contrasted with subjective, often as if it’s the opposite. Objective most commonly means not influenced by an individual’s personal viewpoint—unbiased (or at least attempting to be unbiased). It’s often used to describe things like observations, decisions, or reports that are based on an unbiased analysis.

Something that’s truly objective has nothing to do with a person’s own feelings or views—it just deals with facts. When someone says “Objectively speaking,” they’re indicating that they’re going to give an unbiased assessment—not one based on their personal preferences.

Your questions and assertions are confusing, vague, obtuse, and incoherent, Your reference of a Danish book has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. It is a well accepted non controversial academic reference that deals with the philosophy and teaching of Social Science at the college level.

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe and no relationship to the reality of science..

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

Yeah, explain how you observe relevance?

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, first you have to prove existence and prove prove as not depending on human cognition for their referent.

Not answered.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah, explain how you observe relevance?

Objective observable fact versus of the mind only.

Your questions and assertions are confusing, vague, obtuse, and incoherent, Your reference of a Danish book has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. It is a well accepted non controversial academic reference that deals with the philosophy and teaching of Social Science at the college level.

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe and no relationship to the reality of science..

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not answered.

You have to use only words which are objective as per this:
of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

So please do that for relevance.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your questions and assertions are confusing, vague, obtuse, and incoherent, Your reference of a Danish book has absolutely nothing to do with your argument. It is a well accepted non controversial academic reference that deals with the philosophy and teaching of Social Science at the college level.

Not my standard. Itis the International Standard of Methodological Naturalism. The problem is your standard for the comfort and convenience of what you believe and no relationship to the reality of science..

Objective verifiable and predictable evidence of the nature of our physical existence is relevant to science.

Subjective claims and beliefs not supported by evidence are not relevant to science. Example religious beliefs.

Just explain how you observe as objective relevance.

Consider me a broken anolog clock which is never right.
So I give your point about the book and now you give evidence for relevance.

 

[Quester]

Your brain doesn't create reality, it detects it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your brain doesn't create reality, it detects it.

No, not in all cases. Some, but not all.
If you are right you can explain all of the everyday world using only words with objective referents.
So just do that and I will listen to you.

 

[Quester]

No, not in all cases. Some, but not all.
If you are right you can explain all of the everyday world using only words with objective referents.
So just do that and I will listen to you.

The picture is simple ... from the time you were a small child, you had NO idea what you were looking at or dealing with. As you got older, things WERE defined, but, there were still MORE things you had no clue about.

Like in this forum, the distinction of being either a "believer or unbeliever" regarding "GOD" ... When I tell people that I'm neither, that I'm a quester (hence the user name), they're lost as far a what I mean. My final conclusions to date are established, and now I wait to see if something I missed pops up. To date ... nothing. I have my answers regarding this subject - let's see if there's anything else out there.

The idea is, don't lie to yourself regarding what you THINK is the answer ... verify it in as many ways as possible, because the brain hidden in the darkness of your skull doesn't know as much as it thinks it does.