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

[Pogo]

Well, it is about this:
"... According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[54] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals. ..."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is a reason we got science. We gave up on the concept of objectively true knowledge as independent of the mind and went with in effect the assumption that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable.

The first line of which is ;

Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions​

Which was yesterdays conversation.
Have you any reason to question these axioms or would you prefer a different set?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The first line of which is ;

Naturalism's axiomatic assumptions​

Which was yesterdays conversation.
Have you any reason to question these axioms or would you prefer a different set?

No. Sorry, I forget since I answer to many posts.

In short, science is important, but a limited methodlogy and it can't be used as the best or only way to know about the universe.
It is a powerful but limited tool. That is it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is the significance of mind beyond a poorly as yet understood emergent property of the physical brain?
Where is the evidence that it is anything but?

The evidence for consciousness being fundamental, is inherent in your experience of it. All knowledge comes from experience, and all experience is, by definition, conscious experience. We are the universe become conscious, and consciousness is the tool by which we and the universe struggles to understand itself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the significance of mind beyond a poorly as yet understood emergent property of the physical brain?
Where is the evidence that it is anything but?

Well, when you can explain everything only using words with external of the mind referents, get back to us.

 

[PureX]

I disagree. Testing simply requires some sort of repeatable process that anyone can perform to see whether a viewpoint is false or not.

No, it requires and EXTERNAL repeatable process (remember "objectivity" and all that?). And THAT requires a physical (material) medium.

There needs to be agreement *ahead* of time as to what would and would not support a position and there has to be *some* process that manages to test the idea. There is no a priori requirement that the testing be done 'physically': just that it can be performed by someone skeptical of the idea and that has definitive outcomes.

The "a-priori requirement" is an objective test medium. There is no scientific experiment that has ever been conducted without it. Nor will there ever be,

Then that is an issue with epistemology in general: how do we determine the truth or falsity of an ideas

We don't. And science certainly doesn't. Nor does science intend to. This is what you scientism cultists cannot seem to grasp. Science is not looking for the truthfulness of any propositions or hypothesis. It is simply testing to determine the functional viability of a given hypothesis or proposition. And that's it. That's as far is science ever goes.

We know that 'feelings' are unreliable.

This has nothing whatever to do with anything, and no one knows anything of the sort. This is complete bullocks.

We know that people can use logic to arrive at wildly differing conclusions. What science offers is a way to distinguish false from true: test the ideas based on objective results.

No, that is not what science offers us. In fact, science tries hard NOT to pretend to offer anything of the sort. Yet the scientism cultists ignore this, and just keep on preaching the gospel of science-as-truth-oracle anyway.

What other reliable method do you have for finding truth?

There are many methods we humans can use to determine the truthfulness of things, and not one of them can guarantee that truthfulness. And the sooner we accept this fact of our human limitations the more honest and wise we will become.

 

[Eli G]

Something that defenders of scientism forget is that the tools that science uses are the same ones that are already used naturally by all humans. I explain:

A telescope and a microscope are extensions of our own vision, and are based on the fact that realities can be contemplated through the senses. A telescope or a microscope would be useless if humans could not see through them, and be able to interpret those observations obtained with their own rational thinking.

Likewise, medicine is nothing more than the application of natural knowledge that others discovered long before modern science existed; peasants who used herbs for stomach ailments and obtained improvement, and then they discovered herbs for other ailments. There was no modern science when these things had already been discovered by simple experimentation.

So defenders of scientism must learn to modestly discern what the real use of science is, which is not to replace/sustitute the natural observation, experimentation and reasoning of human beings, but to extend them a little more as far as possible.

 

[Pogo]

The evidence for consciousness being fundamental, is inherent in your experience of it. All knowledge comes from experience, and all experience is, by definition, conscious experience. We are the universe become conscious, and consciousness is the tool by which we and the universe struggles to understand itself.

What does this even mean? yes we are concious, at least when there are certain types of activity in our brains, but what does this have to do with the universe?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What does this even mean? yes we are concious, at least when there are certain types of activity in our brains, but what does this have to do with the universe?

Well, as far as I can tell we are in the universe as parts of the universe.
As for consciousness it is emergent, but that is not the same as epiphenomenal.

 

[Eli G]

Science don't create the reality. Humans interact with what already exists. Humans are not creators of physical laws, but observers, users and beneficiaries; sometimes they even exploit them for bad purposes. But reality is as it is and not as humans explain it, unless their explanations express realities.

Who can tell a human being what will happen in a thousand years? What human can tell another what will happen to him when he dies? What human has so much knowledge to be able to prescribe what type of diet would really benefit other in his specific case? Science cannot be so specific in many matters; In reality it is just a baby about knowledge of the world, the human body, the remote past, the future, etc. So why think more about science than it really is.

PS: Propaganda, mass control, brainwashing, etc, only influence the subjective conception of reality, but do not change it. Those are not sciences.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What does this even mean? yes we are concious, at least when there are certain types of activity in our brains, but what does this have to do with the universe?

For the observer (in this case, you), consciousness and the universe are inseparable. You are in the universe looking out, and the universe - all you know of it anyway, which is quite a lot if you happen to be looking at the Milky Way on a clear night - is in you, in the space between your ears. It's all right there, within you and without you; consciousness makes this possible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Well, as far as I can tell we are in the universe as parts of the universe.
As for consciousness it is emergent, but that is not the same as epiphenomenal.

I'm not even sure consciousness is emergent. There are scientists, as well as philosophers, who believe it may be fundamental.

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?.

 

[Pogo]

For the observer (in this case, you), consciousness and the universe are inseparable. You are in the universe looking out, and the universe - all you know of it anyway, which is quite a lot if you happen to be looking at the Milky Way on a clear night - is in you, in the space between your ears. It's all right there, within you and without you; consciousness makes this possible.

ok, that makes more sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not even sure consciousness is emergent. There are scientists, as well as philosophers, who believe it may be fundamental.

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?.

Yeah, I used naturalism without thinking about it.

 

[Pogo]

I'm not even sure consciousness is emergent. There are scientists, as well as philosophers, who believe it may be fundamental.

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?.

we no longer have to worry about how inanimate matter forms minds because mindedness was there all along, residing in the fabric of the universe.

Sorry, I'm not a fan, I'm one of those people who turns Ted Talks off immediately after a Way with Words.

 

[Eli G]

we no longer have to worry about how inanimate matter forms minds because mindedness was there all along, residing in the fabric of the universe.

In the Bible there is a thought that is similar to that one:

the Bible says that Jesus, the Logos (or Word) of God (John 1:1-3), who is also called "the Wisdom" (in Prov.8) and is defined as "the beginning" (Col. 1:15) is he who "sustains all things by the word of" the power of God (Heb. 1:3).

In the Bible it is said that Jesus in his primeval pre-human existence is "the beginning of the creation by God" (Rev. 3:14) and "the firstborn of all creation" (Col. 1:15), so the Bible identifies prehuman Jesus as that "elemental intelligent principle" who sustains the reality, that there is called "the fabric of the universe", from the beginning of the creation by God.

So Jesus is that "mindedness [that] was there all along".

 

[Polymath257]

@Polymath257 Are you serious?
Scientists don't dictate absolutly anything in societies.
Government is not based in science at all.

Isn’t that what I said? The most they can do is determine what is objectively the case (when they are lucky). The rest is outside of science.

 

[Polymath257]

No, that it rests in the one the axiomatic assumption in part that the universe is fair, orderly and knowable, but that is not true or with evidence. That is cognitive base for doing one version of science.

Actually, there is evidence because we have found that we can test ideas and make progress in our understanding. So, at least so far, the universe is understandable.

 

[Polymath257]

No, but it doesn't tell us what you can know as independent of the mind, since you know in the mind.

There is no “the mind”. There are many minds with different perceptions and different ways of thinking. All those minds get to enter into the testing and critique of the tests.

 

[Polymath257]

No, it requires and EXTERNAL repeatable process (remember "objectivity" and all that?). And THAT requires a physical (material) medium.

Why is that? Would not another spirit be an external reality? And if it actually exists, would it not give repeatable results?

The "a-priori requirement" is an objective test medium. There is no scientific experiment that has ever been conducted without it. Nor will there ever be,

And that is partly what distinguishes reality from fantasy.

We don't. And science certainly doesn't. Nor does science intend to. This is what you scientism cultists cannot seem to grasp. Science is not looking for the truthfulness of any propositions or hypothesis. It is simply testing to determine the functional viability of a given hypothesis or proposition. And that's it. That's as far is science ever goes.

And the thing about objective truth is precisely that it is always functional.

This has nothing whatever to do with anything, and no one knows anything of the sort. This is complete bullocks.

Absolutely we do know that feelings are unreliable. Just look at the history of ideas.

No, that is not what science offers us. In fact, science tries hard NOT to pretend to offer anything of the sort. Yet the scientism cultists ignore this, and just keep on preaching the gospel of science-as-truth-oracle anyway.

You seem to think functionality and truth are different. Ultimately, they are not.

There are many methods we humans can use to determine the truthfulness of things, and not one of them can guarantee that truthfulness. And the sooner we accept this fact of our human limitations the more honest and wise we will become.

I agree. But testing can at least ensure that some ideas are false. Eliminate the false and what is left over is true.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not even sure consciousness is emergent. There are scientists, as well as philosophers, who believe it may be fundamental.

Is Consciousness Part of the Fabric of the Universe?.

Nope I don’t but it. A rock is not conscious. Nor is an electron. If your use of language says they are, then you are not talking about I mean when I talk about consciousness.

All consciousness we know is the result of complex interacting systems like those in brains. That seems to be a basic fact that we can use to figure out how consciousness arises in brains like ours.