cladking
Well-Known Member
And science said 'let there be light" and there was light. It was all good.
I'd go farther but I've got to get out and find some photons so I can know everything too.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science cannot solve the final mystery
- Thread starter atanu
- Start date
And science said 'let there be light" and there was light. It was all good.
I'd go farther but I've got to get out and find some photons so I can know everything too.
ecco
Veteran Member
Thank you for stating.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Even were this true all atheists are not autistic and all autistic people are not atheists.
It is an irrelevancy.
ecco
Veteran Member
No. The only thing allegedly "Omniscient and infallible" is your creator god. And look at the mess he made.
ecco
Veteran Member
I think it's been shown that all gods are nothing more than the creations of man's imaginings. Not worthy of more scientific investigation than would be scientific investigations into the factuality of fairies.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I don't think it is difficult at all though it is about consciousness and consciousness might be complex.
Frankly I believe there is a possibility that even consciousness is exceedingly simple except in modern humans who must unravel layers of confused language to view anything directly; including consciousness.
All the necessary clues might already be available. Indeed, simpler life forms might already have a limited understanding of consciousness which is innate to and of itself.
Who said that is what I am doing? I am merely pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Whether you see those flaws or not (and whether your inability is due to a neurological disorder or not) is irrelevant to me.
Maximilian
Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.
I say that's what you're doing and you need to stop.
Maximilian
Energetic proclaimer of Jehovah God's Kingdom.
And the Science shows that those on the far end of the spectrum possess 'an extreme cognitive processing style that predisposes towards Atheism and Agnosticism.'
ecco
Veteran Member
The author of the paper you have been touting is a specialist in Linguistics.
- Investigating the Declarative Procedural Gap for the Indirect Speech Construction in L2 Learners
- Does Attending an English-Language University Diminish Abilities in the Native Language? Data from Turkey
- Do more, say less: Saying “I love you” in Chinese and American cultures.
- Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching Examining the advantage of a live instructor vs. video in a laboratory study
- Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: theoretical implications
- Emotionality Differences Between a Native and Foreign Language: Implications For Everyday Life
- Emotionality differences between a native and foreign language: Implications for cultural marketing
- Are jokes funnier in one's native language
How does that qualify her to write about autism?
This page:
Catherine Caldwell-Harris | Boston University - Academia.edu
...has a list of her papers. The one you cite at https://www.researchgate.net/public...stems_of_Persons_with_High_Functioning_Autism
is not on that list. I have to wonder why.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I am not convinced (but I could be ). In what way would it be impossible to fully understand biology?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Autism appears to be a language acquisition disorder.
I believe it's caused by over exposure to natural logic at a very young age; 4 - 18 mo. This has the unintended consequences of reinforcing natural (mathematical) language. This reinforcement makes the construction of a brocca area more difficult and it also reinforces the natural pathways that were used by those who thought in natural language. If this continues to 24 mo then the child will grow more pathways that bypass the broccas area making translation to the speech center much more difficult.
This is more likely to occur with intelligent parents who obviously tend to have more intelligent children. Mathematically inclined and intelligent children are hence more likely to have the "disorder". It should be noted that quite a few important figures in history were autistic including (most probably) Sir Isaac Newton.
I don't know that a linguist is necessarily more likely to understand autism or not but certainly a linguist would have an interesting perspective on the condition.
I would remind everyone that seeing as how we don't even understand consciousness it is quite unreasonable to consider even cutting edge medical or biological research in this area as necessarily being relevant to consciousness or autism (aspergers).
cladking
Well-Known Member
I doubt that the study is meaningful. It is probably what I call "Look and See Science". Any "science" that doesn't involve "experiment" or make predictions is not really science at all.
I would guess that autistic individuals tends to have atheistic parents and they simply acquire their religion; that there is no God.
I certainly agree that the means autistic individuals process information is different than others in measurable ways but I wager these are principally the effect of their "unusual" pathways and greater "intelligence".
To each his own.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
I never said it was infallible.
But science is at least verifiable, and just because people have come to the wrong conclusions using science doesn't mean we should go off and accept something that can't be verified at all.
Yes. It amounts to saying there are problems we cannot solve. That was a surprise to many, but it shouldn't be after all the results along that line through the last 200 years.
They were in the middle of a sea change in our ideas about what is possible to know, especially Godel and Planck. But the basic revolution was 100 years ago and some people have integrated the new understanding into their ideas.
And I agree. The universe is NOT deterministic. QM has shown that pretty conclusively.
The problems come when people with metaphysical biases (like universal causality or determinism) attempt to rewrite QM into a classical theory, which it is not.
What does it even mean to have 'complete knowledge about the universe' if it is impossible (as we know) to know the momentum of an electron precisely?
cladking
Well-Known Member
I believe everyone makes sense in terms of their premises.
This belief has led me to where I am.
If it's verifiable and has been "verified" isn't there an implication that what is known is certain?
I wouldn't quibble about your words because they are true in the broad context but they can easily be taken wrong. It is principally "experiment" that can be replicated and hence verifiable. The conclusion derived from experiment, interpretation of experiment, and the models resulting from experiment are far more individual. These extrapolations can lead us all wrong because they are largely founded on existing beliefs and are more loosely based on experiment directly.
A lot of what is called "science" now days is not verifiable because it's not based on experiment.
I don't mean to play word games with the meaning of "verifiable" here but many people don't have an appreciation of the nature of scientific knowledge and might use a too literal definition for the word.
From the article:
" I mean a set of rules that in principle at least enable us to predict the future to an arbitrary accuracy, knowing the state of the universe at one time. "
This was the goal of classical physics, which was a deterministic system that , in theory, could do exactly that.
But, for the last 100 years or so, we *know* that the real world is not deterministic. So, with the advent of quantum mechanics we simply do not *expect* to be able to predict the future state of the universe to arbitrary accuracy given the state at one time.
What Hawking is talking about is that the classical goal is not possible to achieve. His argument goes further to say there may not be an 'ultimate' theory, even if we allow the types of quantum indeteminacy we know exist.
Again, I don't find this too surprising. I expect to see a sequence of better and better approximations and not ever a fully encompassing theory.
Do not tell me that Theory of Everything is not a goal of science.
...
But goal of all humans is removal of pain. And knowledge is the only means.
Sure. And what Hawking suggests (but does not show is inevitable) is that there will be a sequence of better and better approximations and not a final TOE.
It is highly unlikely that we will need to know the position and momentum of every electron to be able to reduce pain.