What are some examples of scientism?

[rational experiences]

The first human is a human the human as species type had varied on earth. Our first is just human.

Mind says however historic first humans deceased now just dusts by biology gone. Fully advised. Why we are still only ever the first species of our kind a human.

Ask a human why were you motivated to theory why you owned human self presence when you are the human present now?

Makes no use of human common sense.

If you ask a human man the theist did you theory two theories first?

One false about biology yours. The other just a machine you built?

One human one machine human?

Yes. Two theories for one purpose the machines reaction.

Why?

Intention to time shift human biology.

The woman life contiunance in human life would need removal my thesis versus machines presence but cojoined by intention.

Never challenged by anyone. The first human theists scientific intent. As a human.

So did you time shift earths biologies?

Yes. But as an attack not a reality. Proven wrong time never shifted as light by time is constant.

He however burnt attacked biology by water mass living single cell bodies living. Removed heavens biological water mass support. Was shifted to a time theme first.....To put gases burning as light mass origin before cooling in its place as historic origin heavens volume.

Why the original human theist lied using two theories against life existing naturally first.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If you want to consider abstract constructs as real, that's fine. How do you distinguish between referencing an actual cat that you have to feed and the abstract concept of the cat in ones mind? I assume for you they both qualify as real.

Aren’t time and space abstractions? Neither are tangible, yet every aspect of the reality we experience is framed by these ethereal constructs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, I don't see that as an example of someone believing that science is the only means to answer all questions.

No, best means to only means depending on interpretation.

-Only means
-Best means
-Overconfidence

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I must be losing it ... for a moment I thought some purely imaginary being called "mikkel_the_dane" had posted here ...

So you accept that you defining something as real, doesn't make it a fact that it is real?

 

[PureX]

Um … the bicycle was the creation (or phenomenon) of a human brain, a brain that uses abstract systems of thought to label, organize, and reason upon. Is this what you mean by meta-physicality?

No human brain ever created or rode a bicycle. It is what happens in the human brain that made these possible. And what happens there are cognitive associations that could not and would not happen in the "objective physical reality" that the scientism crowd thinks defines the reality of existence.

Well, you can call us scientismist crazy all you like but abstract systems of thought are physical.

No, they are not. They are meta-physical. They are cognitive phenomena, not physical phenomena. A thought is not the electrochemical interaction that generates.

They are a product of the very physical central nervous system.

"The product of" but not the same as. Time is the "product of" motion in space. But time is a cognitive phenomenon. It's a relational awareness. Not a physical phenomenon.

I do not think anyone is arguing that the abstract construct of a unicorn is not a real thought in people's brains, the product of neurochemical processes in the CNS. And no one is arguing that we cannot use abstract systems such as language or visual arts to communicate our thoughts and ideas about unicorns.

Unicorns are not about unicorns. They are symbols representing a set of ideas that have nothing to do with unicorns. The abstraction transcends physics and enables an awareness of possibilities that could not have otherwise existed. And we can act on that new awareness to create new things that would not otherwise exist. Like a bicycle. Without that abstracted metaphysical awareness those possibilities were not possible. Metaphysical awareness transcends the limitations of the physicality that enables it to occur. This is what you are refusing to acknowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Um … the bicycle was the creation (or phenomenon) of a human brain, a brain that uses abstract systems of thought to label, organize, and reason upon. Is this what you mean by meta-physicality?



Well, you can call us scientismist crazy all you like but abstract systems of thought are physical. They are a product of the very physical central nervous system. If for example, the first person to imagine a bicycle dies soon after, never having told anyone of his imagined concept nor made an effort to draw or build a bicycle, that abstract creation of a bicycle is lost to the cosmos at brain death. That concept of a bicycle only existed in that person's brain in neurochemical form with the physical properties of neurochemical thought processes. It did not have the physical properties of an actual bicycle, subject to the laws of physics and made of matter/energy, nor could that abstract conception interact with other physical objects in the world. This is the extent or limit of your metaphysicality.



I do not think anyone is arguing that the abstract construct of a unicorn is not a real thought in people's brains, the product of neurochemical processes in the CNS. And no one is arguing that we cannot use abstract systems such as language or visual arts to communicate our thoughts and ideas about unicorns.

Although what we imagine in abstraction, the abstract constructs, are not restricted by physical laws, thoughts in general are bound by the laws that govern neurochemical thought processes. If one wants to implement their abstract concept in the physical world, that implementation would be restricted to physical laws even if the imagined concept is not.

Here is the problem. Take e.g. gravity and use science on it and you get the theory of gravity.
Now take science on subjective meaning as 1st person understanding and you get nothing. How?

Because you can't objectively observe as with objective properties negatives and positives That is where it ends.
That you and I do it differently is a case of different cognition. Now use your model of the brain on us 2 and scan our brains and you will get that we have different brains for how they function. Now only with observation as for error, state how you observe that a given brain is in error.

It is over 25 years now that a scientist told me, that science could observe in my brain, when I was in error as you use it. I checked how observations work. I.e. I replicated what he claimed and found that he claimed something science can't do.
So much for human being fallible. One fallible factor is to subjectively claim that something can be done objectively, when it only can be done subjectively.
Please learn that one and we can continue.

Here are the relevant explanation of objective for the everyday world.
- expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
- 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
- involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena

Now do all of the world only do that and you can't function as a human, because you run into in effect the is-ought problem.
What you ought to do as a human is in your brain as personal feelings, prejudices, and/or interpretations.
And yes, I can do that differently including how I interpret the world.
That is the end game and it is described in academic literature. It is named cognitive, moral and cultural relativism and that also applies to you and not just everybody else including me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's weird watching someone fight so hard to discredit an idea that they don't understand at all. So much pointless bluster.

Maybe the problem is that you aren't expressing this idea well enough?

I'm just responding to what you are saying.
Maybe you should be clearer then.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're missing the point. The point is that those meta-conceptions are themselves, "real". They are meta-physically real. As opposed to being physically real. They define "real", for us. And more important then that, they are a transcendent reality. A reality that affords possibilities that did not and could not exist, otherwise.

The physical realm cannot produce a bicycle. Bicycles couldn't and wouldn't exist were it not for the ream of the metaphysical; where imaginary combinations of things, interacting, can produce a result greater in possibility than any of the parts, or combination of the parts, otherwise could.

What's the difference between inventing in your brain the concept of a normal bycicle as opposed to one that can transform into a giant flying truck?

I can imagine, conceptualize, think about both things.

In your mind, are these two the same thing?
Yet only one of them can be created in reality.

So clearly there must be a difference.

It sounds to me like you are grasping at anything just to make your faith based religious beliefs look better.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We ALREADY MADE THEM REAL by imagining them as such. An imagined unicorn is a REAL PHENOMENON.

This is where you get sneaky and dishonest imo

What exists there is the IDEA of a unicorn. Not the unicorn itself.

Unicorns don't exists. Concepts / imaginations thereof, do.

But the idea of a thing and the thing itself are not the same thing.


The idea of the Jedi exist. But actual Jedi do not.
The idea of Dart Vader exists. But an actual Dart Vader does not.
The idea of a god.....

You fill in the blanks.

 

[blü 2]

So you accept that you defining something as real, doesn't make it a fact that it is real?

I stand by my definition. Your question is one of processing input.

----- ah jeepers, there I go again, talking to imaginary beings -----

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I stand by my definition. Your question is one of processing input.

----- ah jeepers, there I go again, talking to imaginary beings -----

And I use another understanding of the world and another understanding of real, reason and evidence.
But you are the correct brain for all us, because you are us as an universal we. I do get that you stand for a we that is not there.
Yet you are not you, you are we.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The practical impact is that material monism cannot be true. Reality is not material alone.

You have said nothing that demonstrates that. You are just asserting it.

The practical impact is that subjective conscious experience points to another dimension of reality apart from the material word to which we can access through a careful analysis of our own consciousness.

This to me is nothing but poetic mumbo jumbo that is neither here nor there.
When you say it points to another "dimension", I have no clue what you mean. You certainly aren't using the word "dimension" like a physicist would be. You aren't using that word like the words is used to talk about the dimensions of space-time. Or even the additional dimensions in string theory.

Instead, it is a poetic label which refers only to what goes on inside your head.

The word blue is simply a label we have put to name one aspect of our subjective visual experience.

It's not a random label.
It deals with a very specific physical thing, which our eyes / brains translate into the visual associated with it.

I can give you a hex code consisting of just letters and numbers and if you input that into a drawing software, you will see the color blue. And if you don't, we will know that there is something amiss with your eyes (or monitor)

How you "feel" about the color blue (you like or dislike it) is not interesting to me. Nor does it teach us anything about the real world.

As the french saying goes: les gout et les couleurs, ça ne ce discutte pas ("one doesn't argue about tastes and colors")

If someone is color blind, all we can say is that her subjective experience is such that a blue label cannot be attached to certain parts of it.

"it", being external physical reality.

But notice, all this depends on our prior having of blue subjective experience which cannot be explained through any materialistic theory...ever.

I disagree. There are physical explanation why we see a flower being blue while a wasp for example will see it differently. And that explanation deals with the structure of our eyes.

The fact of subjective experience is perhaps the most fundamental aspect of our reality and materialism/physicalism can have no explanation for it. If that does not bother you then I would suggest you reflect further the the concept of what a worldview is or should be.

It doesn't bother me, because it's neither here nor there.
We can both look at the same flower and might have different opinions about it regarding its beauty or whatever.

But we will see the same flower. We'll see the same colors. We'll have the same sensation when touching it. So much so that if we do NOT, we will know that there is something physiological going on. Like one of us being color blind.


I'm at a loss of what the point is of all this.
Does any of this prevent us from finding out, or investigating, how reality really works?
I say no.

 

[blü 2]

And I use another understanding of the world and another understanding of real, reason and evidence.
But you are the correct brain for all us, because you are us as an universal we. I do get that you stand for a we that is not there.
Yet you are not you, you are we.

Wee? No, I'm moderately tall.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wee? No, I'm moderately tall.

No, you are the we for all humans as you are the correct, objective and rational human. That can't be done differently, because you are the correct, objective and rational human.

That is your trick and you are not alone in doing that. Thought that everybody else doing it do it with variations.

 

[PureX]

Maybe the problem is that you aren't expressing this idea well enough?

I'm just responding to what you are saying.
Maybe you should be clearer then.

You are responding from within a philosophical paradigm that cannot allow for the subject at hand to exist. So you're trying to fight something that you can't see.

 

[PureX]

This is where you get sneaky and dishonest imo

What exists there is the IDEA of a unicorn. Not the unicorn itself.

What you have rendered yourself incapable of understanding by adopting a materialist philosophical existential paradigm is that "unicorn itself" is an idea. Even "existence" is an idea. Truth is an idea. Reality is an idea. And all these ideas exist. They are real. They just don't all exist as physical matter. Which is why philosophical materialism is such an incoherent existential paradigm, and why you are not able to understand this conversation so long as you hold onto it.

Physicality does not determine reality. Metaphysicality does. And it's subjective. Not objective.

 

[MikeF]

Aren’t time and space abstractions? Neither are tangible, yet every aspect of the reality we experience is framed by these ethereal constructs.

Is tangibility, the ability to touch something the only criteria by which we judge whether a phenomenon is a property or characteristic of the physical world?

Is a mountain a tangible thing? Where exactly does the mountain begin and the valley end? When exactly is a mountain a mountain and not a hill?

I also appreciate your use of the word ethereal:

ethereal - adjective ethe·re·al i-ˈthir-ē-əl
1a: of or relating to the regions beyond the earth
b: CELESTIAL, HEAVENLY
c: UNWORLDLY, SPIRITUAL
2a: lacking material substance : IMMATERIAL, INTANGIBLE
b: marked by unusual delicacy or refinement
this smallest, most ethereal, and daintiest of birds-William Beebe
c: suggesting the heavens or heaven
3: relating to, containing, or resembling a chemical ether

I suppose it is meant to suggest that if I can accept the intangible reality of space and time I should be equally open to the intangible spiritual, heavenly, and unworldly.

The difference, however, lies in what can be experienced. Without experience, they simply remain inventions of the mind.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are responding from within a philosophical paradigm that cannot allow for the subject at hand to exist.

Be specific.

What "philosophical paradigm" and what "subject at hand"?

Why is it that all posts in this topic are so vague, cryptic and ambiguous?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is tangibility, the ability to touch something the only criteria by which we judge whether a phenomenon is a property or characteristic of the physical world?

Is a mountain a tangible thing? Where exactly does the mountain begin and the valley end? When exactly is a mountain a mountain and not a hill?

I also appreciate your use of the word ethereal:

ethereal - adjective ethe·re·al i-ˈthir-ē-əl
1a: of or relating to the regions beyond the earth
b: CELESTIAL, HEAVENLY
c: UNWORLDLY, SPIRITUAL
2a: lacking material substance : IMMATERIAL, INTANGIBLE
b: marked by unusual delicacy or refinement
this smallest, most ethereal, and daintiest of birds-William Beebe
c: suggesting the heavens or heaven
3: relating to, containing, or resembling a chemical ether

I suppose it is meant to suggest that if I can accept the intangible reality of space and time I should be equally open to the intangible spiritual, heavenly, and unworldly.

The difference, however, lies in what can be experienced. Without experience, they simply remain inventions of the mind.

Is appreciate actually physical? Is your experience as an experience physical? Are all your experiences physical? Do you do everything only based on physical experience as per external sensory experience? How do you experience a difference?
You don't have to become religious, you just have to learn to in effect sociology, psychology and philosophy without claiming that only the real physical world is real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you have rendered yourself incapable of understanding by adopting a materialist philosophical existential paradigm is that "unicorn itself" is an idea.

a "materialist philosophical existential paradigm" ?
What a mouthful.

Regardless of your insisting on putting these sweeping labels on everything, yes an imagined unicorn is an idea and not an actual unicorn.

An actual unicorn is a tangible physical entity that can be commonly observed - and that doesn't seem to exist.
An imagined unicorn exists as an abstract idea inside people's minds - not out in the real world.

This is what separates imagination from real things.
Imagination exists - I never said otherwise.

But the things you imagine, don't necessarily exist.
I can imagine both existing and non-existing things.
I can also imagine things that are by definition impossible to actually exist.

Even "existence" is an idea

It is not only an idea. It has an actual existence.
I have a model in my mind that represents my wife. She also actually exists.
If I imagine her with the upper body of Jessica Alba, the face of Jeniffer Aniston and the body of a horse - effectively as a centaur, then she only exists as that idea and not in actual reality.

Why is this so hard to comprehend?

Truth is an idea. Reality is an idea. And all these ideas exist. They are real. They just don't all exist as physical matter. Which is why philosophical materialism is such an incoherent existential paradigm, and why you are not able to understand this conversation so long as you hold onto it.

First, I am not a "philisophical materialist".
Second, it just seems to me that all this nonsense has only one goal: making your religious beliefs look less ridiculous.

Physicality does not determine reality. Metaphysicality does. And it's subjective. Not objective.

Is this you saying that my imagined centaur wife is just as real as my actual wife?