Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[blü 2]

Yeah, and that also applies to the "I" as a word. We as humans have no coherent definition as for what it means to be a human.

It means to be, or to have been, a member of the subspecies H sap sap.

Your problem is that for relevant parts of these debates you as you don't notice when you are not using truth and using your individual subjective reason.

So you have no clear idea of what you mean when you say, "I'm conscious"?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It means to be, or to have been, a member of the subspecies H sap sap.

So you have no clear idea of what you mean when you say, "I'm conscious"?

No, it doesn't. That is to vague and neither true or false in the big picture, rather it is too simple and over reductive.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Consciousness is simply being awake and able to perceive. It's a portion of a spectrum of mental states, which include sleep, anesthesia, unconsciousness, and at the far end, death.

To be awake is to be conscious, sure. But that simple statement doesn't define consciousness, draw it's parameters, nor give an account of it's relationship with objective reality.

Most significantly, the fact of being awake and aware, both of self and of the world external to the self, doesn't tell us where the boundaries are between these things, nor does it adequately describe the nature of their interdependence. Put simply, no description of objective reality can be complete, which does not give a full account of the consciousness of the observer.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To be awake is to be conscious, sure. But that simple statement doesn't define consciousness, draw it's parameters, nor give an account of it's relationship with objective reality.

Most significantly, the fact of being awake and aware, both of self and of the world external to the self, doesn't tell us where the boundaries are between these things, nor does it adequately describe the nature of their interdependence. Put simply, no description of objective reality can be complete, which does not give a full account of the consciousness of the observer.

Now here is one way to understand it as per psychology for in effect the objectivists and not just Ayn Rand Objectivists . Now remember it is a specific example of a general form of cognition that can be observed in all of these debates:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

Strip away the particulars and what she, Ayn Rand, did, is a perfect example of how it goes wrong.
She assumes all words have objective reference and coherence and yet she herself uses words without objective referents. And she did a variant of if you don't think like me, you will go to naturalistic Hell as you are no longer in reality.
The latter one is a case for all the variants of negatives assigned to other humans as in effect for irrational in the Western philosophical traditions.

I have learned the general way of catching our resident objectivists and it is always the same method. A part of the everyday world functions objectively, therefore everything is in the end objective and that is how we do good in the end. To be objective is good.
The problem is that the bold is subjective, but they can't understand that, because they take their subjective thinking for granted and don't doubt it.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Now here is one way to understand it as per psychology for in effect the objectivists and not just Ayn Rand Objectivists . Now remember it is a specific example of a general form of cognition that can be observed in all of these debates:
"All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality."

Strip away the particulars and what she, Ayn Rand, did, is a perfect example of how it goes wrong.
She assumes all words have objective reference and coherence and yet she herself uses words without objective referents. And she did a variant of if you don't think like me, you will go to naturalistic Hell as you are no longer in reality.
The latter one is a case for all the variants of negatives assigned to other humans as in effect for irrational in the Western philosophical traditions.

I have learned the general way of catching our resident objectivists and it is always the same method. A part of the everyday world functions objectively, therefore everything is in the end objective and that is how we do good in the end. To be objective is good.
The problem is that the bold is subjective, but they can't understand that, because they take their subjective thinking for granted and don't doubt it.

And whilst the axiom that “existence exists” may appear self evident, this world view ignores certain other equally valid axioms, to whit; that nothing in existence is fixed, and that all observations of things that exist are dependent on a frame of reference which is unique to each observer. In short, there are no fixed points either methodological or physical, to which we may anchor our perceptions, other than that which we arbitrarily appoint.

 

[PureX]

Within the last few months or so, it's been claimed that there are "many" here at RF who believe in and/or advocate for "scientism", i.e., the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering.

I've been a member here for quite some time, but I can't recall seeing anyone advocating such a view. So, to clear this up I'm starting this thread for all of you RF members who do. If you are an advocate for "scientism", please reply to this post with something like "Yes, I am an advocate for scientism as you have described it".

Also, let's keep this focused on the point of the thread, which means no debates about what is or isn't "scientism", whether gods exist, evolution/creationism, or anything else. The thread quite literally has a singular purpose and I'd like to keep it that way.

Scientism is quite like an addiction, or a cult, where those who have succumbed to it vociferously deny having succumbed to it. They even deny that it exists at all. And they believe what they are saying, too, even as everyone else can see otherwise.

 

[blü 2]

To be awake is to be conscious, sure. But that simple statement doesn't define consciousness,

Basically it does just that for me.

How do you defined consciousness?

nor give an account of it's relationship with objective reality.

The All is divided into two parts ─ you, and everything else. Your genetics have equipped you, brain and body, with senses to inform you of the world external to you, and a brain to edit, interpret and respond to that information.

Most significantly, the fact of being awake and aware, both of self and of the world external to the self, doesn't tell us where the boundaries are between these things.

Of course it does. The boundaries are the boundaries of your body, within which all the systems to keep you alive are found, and your brain, its instincts, learning, skills, abilities, are found.

You may known of those experiments a decade or more ago which showed that your brain may have already made and begun to act on certain decisions before your conscious part was aware that this had occurred. That's one sense in which consciousness is routinely overrated.

nor does it adequately describe the nature of their interdependence.

What do you mean, 'their independence'?

Put simply, no description of objective reality can be complete, which does not give a full account of the consciousness of the observer.

So what? Your brain has evolved to let you as an earthling best survive and breed, a tribal being with social instincts that help you obtain the benefits of cooperative action.

Sure, there are plenty of puzzles because our studies of the brain are a work in progress, but the only way in which the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, ideas, things imagined, within individual brains.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Basically it does just that for me.

How do you defined consciousness?

The All is divided into two parts ─ you, and everything else. Your genetics have equipped you, brain and body, with senses to inform you of the world external to you, and a brain to edit, interpret and respond to that information.

...

Yeah, and I am everything else as everything else and you are you. I am the external world as objective and thus you must obey me, because I am the objective truth as everything else.
In fact I am the computer running the simulation of everything else than you and that is objectively true, because I am everything else.

 

[cladking]

Scientism is quite like an addiction, or a cult, where those who have succumbed to it vociferously deny having succumbed to it. They even deny that it exists at all. And they believe what they are saying, too, even as everyone else can see otherwise.

Nobody can prove Evolution, life is competition, or the big bang therefore Evolution, life is competition, and the big bang are all real.

Nobody can prove the belief in science closes the mind rather than opening it therefore it's poppycock.


Scientism wraps everything up with a nice little bow and can make us all omniscient.

 

[cladking]

Consciousness is simply being awake and able to perceive. It's a portion of a spectrum of mental states, which include sleep, anesthesia, unconsciousness, and at the far end, death.

You haven't defined "consciousness" but merely postulated the existence of many different states of unconsciousness. Other than potential how does your unconscious sleep walker differ from a rolling stone or a sleeping Rolling Stone? When they both get down how can either ever get up again?

 

[PureX]

Nobody can prove Evolution, life is competition, or the big bang therefore Evolution, life is competition, and the big bang are all real.

Nobody can prove the belief in science closes the mind rather than opening it therefore it's poppycock.


Scientism wraps everything up with a nice little bow and can make us all omniscient.

I assume you're being sarcastic.

 

[blü 2]

You haven't defined "consciousness" but merely postulated the existence of many different states of unconsciousness.

You have no idea what you're talking about or you would have provided a clear and coherent definition of 'consciousness' by now.

 

[cladking]

I assume you're being sarcastic.

Not so much "sarcastic" per se as just looking at it from the point of view of believers. Believers can't seem to remember that they can't prove their own theories nor disprove anyone else's yet they weaponize words. "Belief" is unquestioning acceptance and believers in science have lost sight of their assumptions, metaphysics, and the very nature of science. Rather than being a technique to learn about patterns and processes it has become the technique that was used to learn everything and Peers are its priests.

 

[cladking]

You have no idea what you're talking about or you would have provided a clear and coherent definition of 'consciousness' by now.

Consciousness is life!

 

[RestlessSoul]

Basically it does just that for me.

How do you defined consciousness?

The All is divided into two parts ─ you, and everything else. Your genetics have equipped you, brain and body, with senses to inform you of the world external to you, and a brain to edit, interpret and respond to that information.


Of course it does. The boundaries are the boundaries of your body, within which all the systems to keep you alive are found, and your brain, its instincts, learning, skills, abilities, are found.

You may known of those experiments a decade or more ago which showed that your brain may have already made and begun to act on certain decisions before your conscious part was aware that this had occurred. That's one sense in which consciousness is routinely overrated.

What do you mean, 'their independence'?

So what? Your brain has evolved to let you as an earthling best survive and breed, a tribal being with social instincts that help you obtain the benefits of cooperative action.

Sure, there are plenty of puzzles because our studies of the brain are a work in progress, but the only way in which the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, ideas, things imagined, within individual brains.

I don’t have a comprehensive definition of consciousness, that is exactly my point. Limited, reductionist definitions might serve in strictly limited domains, but no credible source from either science or philosophy claims to explain why it is tgat physical processes in the brain, give rise to the phenomenonal qualities of experience (qualia).

You may divide “the All” into two parts, but there is no sound logical or empirical basis for this assertion; it’s just your prejudice, or your lazy assumption. The idea that the world is composed of discreet entities interacting with each other through direct contact, in the manner described by the old Newtonian physics, is at odds with the last century of theoretical physics. You are in the world and the world is in you, and the division between those separate entities is illusory; all of reality is waves in space, or fluctuations in a quantum field, interwoven with other fields over perhaps multiple dimensions.

As for the boundaries of consciousness being the boundaries of my body, that’s self evidently false. Im typing this on the bus going home; I’m conscious of the bus, the other passengers, and the people and buildings going past. I’m also conscious, less immediately and vividly so, of the place of work I have just left, and the home I will soon be arriving in. I’m also acutely conscious of a ball of fire 93 million miles away, because summer has finally arrived here.

Whilst those experiments are interesting, they go no way to explaining why the performance of cognitive and behavioural functions are accompanied by experience. In fact I’d say they make the experience of awareness all the more inexplicable.

 

[lukethethird]

Scientism is quite like an addiction, or a cult, where those who have succumbed to it vociferously deny having succumbed to it. They even deny that it exists at all. And they believe what they are saying, too, even as everyone else can see otherwise.

I am most certainly not addicted to scientism, I mean it doesn't even exist at all. That's what I believe and everyone knows it.

 

[blü 2]

Nobody can prove Evolution, life is competition, or the big bang therefore Evolution, life is competition, and the big bang are all real.

Don't be silly. Here's a link to a famous experiment demonstrating evolution occurring. Watch it and learn something for a change.

Scientism wraps everything up with a nice little bow and can make us all omniscient.

If you're using the derogatory meaning of 'scientism' then in some cases you may be correct.

But if you're just making another uninformed swipe at science, then you continue to misunderstand.

Science makes no claim to answer all questions or to provide perfect answers. What it claims instead is that scientific method is easily and by far the best way to explore, describe and seek to explain objective reality aka nature, the world external to the self, the realm of the physical sciences &c.

The justification for science is not that it's perfect, but that it works better than any other known method for its particular purposes.

 

[cladking]

But if you're just making another uninformed swipe at science, then you continue to misunderstand.

Science makes no claim to answer all questions or to provide perfect answers. What it claims instead is that scientific method is easily and by far the best way to explore, describe and seek to explain objective reality aka nature, the world external to the self, the realm of the physical sciences &c.

Science and reason are far and away the best means to learn to recognize the patterns and forces of nature and to recognize truth or at least to approximate it in human terms. "Scientism" is belief in science rather than a rational understanding of the way science works and its results. If you believe that science can answer important questions and guide one's life then you believe in science. Most such believers think that science already has all necessary answers. It is a modern day cult and still growing.

Don't be silly. Here's a link to a famous experiment demonstrating evolution occurring.

There is no question that change in species occurs. The question is is it gradual or sudden. Is it caused by survival of the fittest? Every experiment including this one suggests Darwin was wrong and we are misinterpreting results.

 

[Audie]

Nor does anyone, and until we do no description of reality is complete. I think that was the point.

Impossible to ever be complete
So that ain't saying much

 

[blü 2]

"Scientism" is belief in science rather than a rational understanding of the way science works and its results.

No, as I said, 'scientism' has two meanings. The original meaning is confidence in the scientific method as the best means of exploring, describing and seeking to explain the elements of nature. The second and sarcastic meaning is blind and uncomprehending faith in science.

If you believe that science can answer important questions and guide one's life then you believe in science. Most such believers think that science already has all necessary answers. It is a modern day cult and still growing.

Of course science doesn't have all necessary answers. But if you're a human, science can make a lot of things clearer. For instance, we are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, and as with all critters, our bodies and brains have evolved to provide the important elements for
surviving and breeding.

There is no question that change in species occurs. The question is is it gradual or sudden. Is it caused by survival of the fittest? Every experiment including this one suggests Darwin was wrong and we are misinterpreting results.

I've already pointed out to you that it's idle to argue with Darwin, dead these 140 years or more. You have to address the modern theory of evolution, and thus your first task is to understand what it actually says and why it says it. Instead you appear to find it simpler to wish it to be whatever you like so you can accuse it of anything you please.

And you still haven't provided any clear and concise definition of 'consciousness'.