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

[YoursTrue]

So you are a methodological naturalist.

whatever that means

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, our species goes back 300,000 years or so and they had parents as well.

hmm I wasn't talking about what you consider our "species."

 

[Pogo]

hmm I wasn't talking about what you consider our "species."

That's funny you used the word humans and said they preexisted us,
Humans are homo Sapiens (wise man) our species. were you referring to something else?
If so what?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's funny you used the word humans and said they preexisted us,
Humans are homo Sapiens (wise man) our species. were you referring to something else?
If so what?

I think you misunderstood my placement. I was responding to one's PARENTS not the species. @sayak83 asked in a post, "Did your parents preexist you or not?"

 

[sayak83]

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.

My knowledge of the universe is in my head.
The universe is not in my head.
I do not see why this basic distinction is so difficult to grasp.
If the universe was in my consciousness only and emerges out of my mind, then the universe is no different than my fantasies or dreams. But this is patently not true as evidenced from my own experiences of the universe. I cannot make the day change to night if I wish it etc etc. The only coherent theory of what I experience is that I am experiencing a reality that is independent of my consciousness and which is interacting with my consciousness through my senses. I challenge you to explain our experiences any other way.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Well, your belief that you can test the axiomatic assumptions is just that, a belief without evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

And understanding the limits of what can be tested.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Interesting. How do you define scientism as equal to rationalism? Especially in the context of your own discussion or God and Religion? It does not fit. You seem to put scientism and rationalism in the same basket arbitrarily while talking about God and religion. It's a contradiction.

Scioentism is not rationalism. they are not opposite, but they are not the same. Check with genuine philosophy. Science takes the axiom of naturalism methodologically so you cannot super impose the metaphysical into it. If anyone is basing everything on science, you have to by default abide by its axioms. But the OP is not.

Anyway, what ever you wish to do has its own authority because in a theistic worldview you have freewill.

Cheers.

Well, one version. You will find those who claim they that in effect philosophical naturalism is with evidence and that science is the best/only way to understand the universe.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Did your parents preexist you or not?

Well, yes. If the unverse is and was fair, orderly and knowable.

Here is a related part to this problem:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.["
eel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

You can't avoid philosophy of science. You can learn the limits of knowledge and be honest about them.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Not even close. We have many individual consciousness that interact with each other. That leads to structured behavior, not consciousness.

If everything is connected, and the old classical conception of discrete entities interacting mechanistically is inadequate if not redundant, then it surely follows that the concept of discrete consciousness interacting superficially is also inadequate if not redundant.

If the cosmos is an entangled state - and QM certainly invites us to consider this possibility (the linear evolution of Schrodinger’s equation since the Big Bang preserving the initial entanglement) - and if entangled states are fundamental wholes, then the cosmos itself is a fundamental whole, and that would apply to all constituents of that whole; individual consciousness included.

My friend’s Indian father, a doctor and psychiatrist, was fond of saying “we are all facets of one consciousness, experiencing life subjectively.”

 

[RestlessSoul]

Pansychism, over my head too, I don't even do angels on a pinhead. Thanks

Maybe you should try looking up now and then.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My knowledge of the universe is in my head.
The universe is not in my head.
I do not see why this basic distinction is so difficult to grasp.
If the universe was in my consciousness only and emerges out of my mind, then the universe is no different than my fantasies or dreams. But this is patently not true as evidenced from my own experiences of the universe. I cannot make the day change to night if I wish it etc etc. The only coherent theory of what I experience is that I am experiencing a reality that is independent of my consciousness and which is interacting with my consciousness through my senses. I challenge you to explain our experiences any other way.

Your head is a part of the universe.
Let me construct an absurd case of how your head works if not in the universe.
You think something in your head. You want to write it on your computer. The computer is in the universe.
Now something not in the universe causes something to happen in the universe.

That is the problem with the strong ontological duality for if something is different, it is not connected in any sense to something else.
That one is standard in philosophy and revolves around at least 3 versions.
Everything is in the mind.
Everything is not in the mind.
Everything includes minds and can't be reduced to either only mind or not minds.

 

[Madsaac]

I think people make things seem more confusing than they actually are. If you are reading this, then you are here and you are conscious.

'Science' can explain everything up to a certain point, your moral choices, your opinions of a piece of music, why you dreamt what you dreamt, or your brain content whilst meditating or what dark energy is?

And you could argue that it's just a matter of time before science helps us understand these things better. And may even be able to prove them 100% one day.

It's just a matter of time before science can explain everything, it's a little bit like when people thought god made the stars............

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think people make things seem more confusing than they actually are.

'Science' can explain everything up to a certain point, your moral choices, your opinions of a piece of music, why you dreamt what you dreamt, or your brain content whilst meditating or what dark energy is?

And you could argue that it's just a matter of time before science helps us understand these things better. And may even be able to prove them 100% one day.

It's just a matter of time before science can explain everything, it's a little bit like when people thought god made the stars............

Well, you haven't explain how you know all this. You have just claimed that it is so.
I contrast that with this site by scientists about science:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Madsaac]

From the article "....but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about the contexts that help humans flourish and which of our cognitive capabilities are shared by non-human animals. That knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions."

Yes science may not be able to 'answer' all questions, but it certainly can give part of an answer, to what degree, is the question. At the moment, I thinks it's the best way to explain things.

It may help us understand why we like that painting or make certain moral judgments. It could also help make certain recommendations towards life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From the article "....but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about the contexts that help humans flourish and which of our cognitive capabilities are shared by non-human animals. That knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions."

Yes science may not be able to 'answer' all questions, but it certainly can give part of an answer, to what degree, is the question. At the moment, I thinks it's the best way to explain things.

It may help us understand why we like that painting or make certain moral judgments. It could also help make certain recommendations towards life.

"At the moment, I thinks it's the best way to explain things." But that is not science as it is based on how you think and best has as far as I can tell no evidence for it being best.

 

[sayak83]

Your head is a part of the universe.
Let me construct an absurd case of how your head works if not in the universe.
You think something in your head. You want to write it on your computer. The computer is in the universe.
Now something not in the universe causes something to happen in the universe.

That is the problem with the strong ontological duality for if something is different, it is not connected in any sense to something else.
That one is standard in philosophy and revolves around at least 3 versions.
Everything is in the mind.
Everything is not in the mind.
Everything includes minds and can't be reduced to either only mind or not minds.

Where did I say that the head is not in the universe?
Knowledge of the superset (the universe) can exist in a subset (head or a computer say).
But the superset cannot fully exist inside the subset (logical contradiction).
This shows that there exists a reality external to the consciousness located within my head.
To say that science seeks to find mind independent truths about the universe is simply to say that the knowledge/information of the superset is parsed so as to be independent of the subset into which it is being stored (the harddisk or the mind/head).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Where did I say that the head is not in the universe?
Knowledge of the superset (the universe) can exist in a subset (head or a computer say).
But the superset cannot fully exist inside the subset (logical contradiction).
This shows that there exists a reality external to the consciousness located within my head.
To say that science seeks to find mind independent truths about the universe is simply to say that the knowledge/information of the superset is parsed so as to be independent of the subset into which it is being stored (the harddisk or the mind/head).

Yeah, but because of the problem of whether your experinces correspond or not to the actual objective universe in itself, you can know that it is there as such, but not anything else including whether your experiences correspond or not.

That is it and how you understand methodological naturlism as methodological and how you explain that science is a set of axiomatic assumptions for which there is no evidence for them.

And indeed is how you understand this piece of text by one of your fellow scientists:
"The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists."
Keel, William C. (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis. p. 2. ISBN 978-3-540-72534-3.

If you can solve that you are the first human in recorded history to do that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

My knowledge of the universe is in my head.
The universe is not in my head.
I do not see why this basic distinction is so difficult to grasp.
If the universe was in my consciousness only and emerges out of my mind, then the universe is no different than my fantasies or dreams. But this is patently not true as evidenced from my own experiences of the universe. I cannot make the day change to night if I wish it etc etc. The only coherent theory of what I experience is that I am experiencing a reality that is independent of my consciousness and which is interacting with my consciousness through my senses. I challenge you to explain our experiences any other way.

The universe may not be in your consciousness only, but it is in your consciousness; and it’s only through consciousness that you are able to encounter it. So for you, as a conscious observer, consciousness and the universe are inseparable.

You may say you are able to imagine a universe without you in it, but this remains an imaginary universe; you are unable to observe any universe existing independently of the act of observation

 

[Madsaac]

"At the moment, I thinks it's the best way to explain things." But that is not science as it is based on how you think and best has as far as I can tell no evidence for it being best.

Yes but science may be the best way to explain something because science does require some type of evidence to support a view or opinion. Instead of just an opinion being presented without any evidence at all.

This alone could suggest science is the best way to explain something. A thought/theory with only 20% proof is better then 0% proof? Yes?