What is naturalism?

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are other factors other than sight which allows us to determine the reality in which we reside, or have you forgotten those in your trolling adventure?

Please specify what external sensation you use. I don't want your cognition or feelings. I want observation. Just as I can't see God and God is subjective, I can't see real, because real is subjective. It is an idea in your head.

 

[Goddess Kit]

From what I can gather of viewing your human species, you use the five senses. You can touch a tree, see a tree, hear the sounds coming from a tree as wind passes through it, taste the bark of a tree, and smell that which the tree exudes.

Am I mistaken in any way? Could you not determine a tree exists realistically by those five senses?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

From what I can gather of viewing your human species, you use the five senses. You can touch a tree, see a tree, hear the sounds coming from a tree as wind passes through it, taste the bark of a tree, and smell that which the tree exudes.

Am I mistaken in any way? Could you not determine a tree exists realistically by those five senses?

Do the same with real!?? I.e. the real world is a concept in your brain, because real has no objective referent. A tree has objective referents. You do know, what an objective referent is, right?

 

[Goddess Kit]

Do the same with real!?? I.e. the real world is a concept in your brain, because real has no objective referent. A tree has objective referents. You do know, what an objective referent is, right?

Are you informing me that you're of the belief that what humans perceive to be the world is nothing more than the mind in the vat concept? If so, what evidence do you have to prove that positive claim?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you informing me that you're of the belief that what humans perceive to be the world is nothing more than the mind in the vat concept? If so, what evidence do you have to prove that positive claim?

Yes, that there is no real world, because that the world is real is an idea in your head. Nobody have solved solipsism.

Is 2+2=5? No, I just have to show the negative as when it comes to the real world. You can't know objective reality as independent of your mind, because you know through your mind. See, it is that simple.

I do believe in the real world, but I know it is a belief.

 

[Goddess Kit]

Am I correct in understanding, since you hold this concept of reality to be truthful to you, that if you were to drive your car down the road and suddenly ride on the wrong side of the road whereby you encountered a fatal accident with an oncoming vehicle that your simulation would come to an end?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Am I correct in understanding, since you hold this concept of reality to be truthful to you, that if you were to drive your car down the road and suddenly ride on the wrong side of the road whereby you encountered a fatal accident with an oncoming vehicle that your simulation would come to an end?

I don't consider the real world a simulation, so I believe I would die. And no, I don't believe in reincarnation nor heaven/hell.

I believe in the real world. I just don't believe in natural world and science like some people do.

 

[Nakosis]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

An axiom.

 

[blü 2]

No! I want to actual physical state of things, that are not objective real. Everything is physical states, so I want the physical state of things, that are not objective real.

You still haven't told me how to distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary.

So far it appears that you can't. If so, it follows that when you say there's such a distinction, you mean you wish there was, not that there actually is.

If you read the link I gave you and pursue your enquiries from there, you'll find all the net can tell you. Normally that would be my job, but as I said, I don't believe you have any inclination to be persuaded, and that being the case, you can do your own homework or not, as you please.

 

[Milton Platt]

What is naturalism?
That is my question.

I was going to type something out, but this article sums it up pretty well:

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

 

[paarsurrey]

I was going to type something out, but this article sums it up pretty well:

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

Does one believe in Naturalism, please?

Regards

 

[Milton Platt]

Does one believe in Naturalism, please?

Regards

Which kind?

 

[blü 2]

I was going to type something out, but this article sums it up pretty well:

Naturalism (philosophy) - Wikipedia

I'm inclined to argue with parts of the section titled "Providing assumptions required for science". I'd say the actual assumptions are (a) that a world exists external to the self (b) that our senses are capable of informing us of that world and (c) that reason is a valid tool. We also need to agree that truth ─ accurate and plain statements about reality ─ is highly desirable. From those we can derive arguments supporting the use of empiricism and induction as methods, and from empiricism and induction we can justify ideas such as the existence of at least some consistencies in the way physical entities interact ('laws of nature') ─ always alert for exceptions.

The justification for science will always be, not that it possesses absolute truths, but that it works better than any known alternative when it comes to describing reality and as a place to stand when we seek to explain it.

 

[paarsurrey]

I'm inclined to argue with parts of the section titled "Providing assumptions required for science". I'd say the actual assumptions are (a) that a world exists external to the self (b) that our senses are capable of informing us of that world and (c) that reason is a valid tool. We also need to agree that truth ─ accurate and plain statements about reality ─ is highly desirable. From those we can derive arguments supporting the use of empiricism and induction as methods, and from empiricism and induction we can justify ideas such as the existence of at least some consistencies in the way physical entities interact ('laws of nature') ─ always alert for exceptions.

The justification for science will always be, not that it possesses absolute truths, but that it works better than any known alternative when it comes to describing reality and as a place to stand when we seek to explain it.

" The justification for science will always be, not that it possesses absolute truths, but that it works better than any known alternative when it comes to describing reality and as a place to stand when we seek to explain it."

In science it works due to scientific method, and in religion it works with religious method, I understand.

Regards

 

[blü 2]

" The justification for science will always be, not that it possesses absolute truths, but that it works better than any known alternative when it comes to describing reality and as a place to stand when we seek to explain it."

In science it works due to scientific method, and in religion it works with religious method, I understand.

Regards

Ahm, what set of practices and procedures constitute "religious method"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You still haven't told me how to distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary.

So far it appears that you can't. If so, it follows that when you say there's such a distinction, you mean you wish there was, not that there actually is.

If you read the link I gave you and pursue your enquiries from there, you'll find all the net can tell you. Normally that would be my job, but as I said, I don't believe you have any inclination to be persuaded, and that being the case, you can do your own homework or not, as you please.

I'm inclined to argue with parts of the section titled "Providing assumptions required for science". I'd say the actual assumptions are (a) that a world exists external to the self (b) that our senses are capable of informing us of that world and (c) that reason is a valid tool. We also need to agree that truth ─ accurate and plain statements about reality ─ is highly desirable. From those we can derive arguments supporting the use of empiricism and induction as methods, and from empiricism and induction we can justify ideas such as the existence of at least some consistencies in the way physical entities interact ('laws of nature') ─ always alert for exceptions.

The justification for science will always be, not that it possesses absolute truths, but that it works better than any known alternative when it comes to describing reality and as a place to stand when we seek to explain it.

I will use your better versus a stone.
I will start with the stone. I can hold it. I can strike it with certain other things and together it will produce sound. There is a lot human as physical interactions, I do with the stone. The physical make-up of the stone can be tested and instruments can be applied to the stone. These instruments are calibrated to scientific measurement standards.

I can't do that with better. Better is immaterial and it is something, you imagine, because it is not real. It is not an real objective thing.
It is that simple.
You can't distinguish the immaterial and imagined, because they are in both cases only in your mind. Something immaterial is imagined and so in reverse. Yet better is real to you, right. Well, so is God to me.
They are both in the mind and nowhere else as far as I can tell.
You believe in a material world and yet you use words like better, which are immaterial and imagined.

You can't with evidence show better.

 

[paarsurrey]

Ahm, what set of practices and procedures constitute "religious method"?

The issue should be resolved from the Word of Revelation from G-d.
A claim from the Word of Revelation from G-d.
Gist of reason/argument also should be from the Word of Revelation from G-d.

Regards

 

[blü 2]

Better is immaterial

No, human judgments ─ 'better', 'important', 'beneficial', 'satisfactory' &c ─ are processes and states carried out by the material brain. They are entirely material, have no element that is not material. That's to say, no magic is involved.

You can't distinguish the immaterial and imagined, because they are in both cases only in your mind.

More accurately, one can't distinguish the immaterial from the imaginary because the immaterial is a subset of the imaginary.

Something immaterial is imagined and so in reverse. Yet better is real to you, right.

Other way round ─ real is better than imaginary in such cases. That's a human judgment and as I said, an entirely material brain state.

Well, so is God to me.

If you're happy with an imaginary god, then go for it! No argument from me.

 

[blü 2]

The issue should be resolved from the Word of Revelation from G-d.
A claim from the Word of Revelation from G-d.
Gist of reason/argument also should be from the Word of Revelation from G-d.

Regards

There are so many claims of "Word of God", "Revelation from God", "holy scriptures" "sacred texts" and the like ─ even that the bible is "infallible", for goodness sake!.

So what test will tell the thoughtful user of religious method which texts or parts of texts are from God, and which are simply the work of our fellow-humans?

 

[paarsurrey]

There are so many claims of "Word of God", "Revelation from God", "holy scriptures" "sacred texts" and the like ─ even that the bible is "infallible", for goodness sake!.

So what test will tell the thoughtful user of religious method which texts or parts of texts are from God, and which are simply the work of our fellow-humans?

All these differences get resolved if the above principle of comparative religions is followed reasonably, I understand.
I have presented it in an informal way. Right, please?

Regards
____________
Religious Method applied:
#181