Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[PureX]

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.

They are one and the same thing. Especially when "nature" defines existence, as it does for the philosophical materialists that are 'scientism' believers.

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.

The problem comes from presuming that this is the only means by which humans become human, to the exclusion of any and all other possibilities. That's when it becomes 'scientism', instead of science. And when it becomes blinding, instead of illuminating.

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.

Offering other possibilities is not "arguing with" evolution unless you have already presumed that evolution is the only possible solution. And that's 'scientism', not science.

 

[Audie]

They are one and the same thing. Especially when "nature" defines existence, as it does for the philosophical materialists that are 'scientism' believers.

The problem comes from presuming that this is the only means by which humans become human, to the exclusion of any and all other possibilities. That's when it becomes 'scientism', instead of science. And when it becomes blinding, instead of illuminating.

Offering other possibilities is not "arguing with" evolution unless you have already presumed that evolution is the only possible solution. And that's 'scientism', not science.

Religionism, such as informs all your
" philosophy" is the issue you'd better concern
yourself with rather than pursuing this chimera
" scientism" on the part of no person present.

Unlike " scientism" it's very real and very present.

And far more capable of distorting thiught and
perception into the most grotesque forms.
As we've been seeing.

 

[blü 2]

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).

Do you recall the scene in Arnie's first Terminator movie where we see the world through the Terminator's eyes, and down the LHS of his view runs a printed column of data inputs about his environment? Well, 'qualia' are our equivalent of those, the brain's evolved biochemical and bioelectrical responses to its various sensory inputs, whereby the conscious self is made aware of what's out there and its relevance.

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.

I work on three assumptions ─ they have to be assumptions because I can't demonstrate the correctness of any of them without first assuming it's correct. They are, that a world exists external to me, that my senses are capable of informing me about that world, and that reason is a valid tool. Since anyone who posts on RF thereby demonstrates a shared belief regarding the first two, and fingers crossed the third as well, we start from a common basis.

If you disagree, I'll be interested to hear your reasoning.

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.

Y'don't say!

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.

So what? I perceive the world via the input of my senses. That's why I say the universe is divided into me and everything else. For me, you are part of nature, and I'm the observer. For you, I'm part of nature and you're the observer. And so on for each observer.

As for the boundaries of consciousness being the boundaries of my body, that’s self evidently false.

You appear to be attributing to me a definition of consciousness that (in this context) I don't share. As far as I'm concerned, the basis meaning of consciousness here is the mental state of being awake and aware. That has nuances, but nothing very subtle.

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.

Therefore?

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.

That's simply a matter for ongoing research. The brain is a biological apparatus of enormous complexity, but we're steadily getting to understand it, to map its regions and their functions and how they intercommunicate and why, and the role of hormones, and so on. We have a long way to go, but if you compare our present knowledge to what we knew before better tools became available in the 1990s, our progress is excellent, though the distance to be traversed yet is still very large.

 

[blü 2]

They are one and the same thing. Especially when "nature" defines existence, as it does for the philosophical materialists that are 'scientism' believers.

No, they're not the same thing. One is an informed understanding of what science is and is useful for, and the other is (an accusation of) blind faith.

The problem comes from presuming that this is the only means by which humans become human, to the exclusion of any and all other possibilities.

Like what? Are they imaginary or can you show them to me?

 

[cladking]

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.

You don't get to define words other people use!!!!!

You're engaging in semantics again.

Homo sapiens sapiens, and as with all critters, our bodies and brains have evolved to provide the important elements for
surviving and breeding.

You area assuming the conclusion. There is no evolution and if there were it is not a march toward perfection. It is more like a random walk with a lot of stumbling. We're up, we're down, and we change positions suddenly.

You believe in survival of the fittest and you believe in science. You believe that there is only one way to interpret evidence and science has all the formatting of reality along with most of the details.

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

We can address this when you can address that consciousness = life.

 

[cladking]

No, they're not the same thing. One is an informed understanding of what science is and is useful for, and the other is (an accusation of) blind faith.

There is a rational understanding of science and an irrational understanding of science. Belief in Peers, evidence, or omniscience is irrational. Believing that the scientific method can provide insights into reality when done properly is rational.

By the same token belief in a Creator can be rational or irrational.

I don't think there is ever a problem with a rational "belief" in science. The problem is with the proselytizing of believers in science who tell us what is and what is not.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Forgetting what you are and where you have come from,
You have sold your soul for a handful of dust.
What a terrible bargain you have made.
Give back the dust
And recognise your worth.

- Jalalludin Rumi

 

[Audie]

Forgetting what you are and where you have come from,
You have sold your soul for a handful of dust.
What a terrible bargain you have made.
Give back the dust
And recognise your worth.

- Jalalludin Rumi

So give it back already

 

[Audie]

No, they're not the same thing. One is an informed understanding of what science is and is useful for, and the other is (an accusation of) blind faith.

Like what? Are they imaginary or can you show them to me?

Hey, he's the only one who believes in
scientism so he should know how they think

 

[blü 2]

You don't get to define words other people use!!!!!

You mean like 'consciousness'? But you have no idea what you mean by 'consciousness'. Whereas when I say 'consciousness', I have a reasonably clear idea of what I'm talking about.

But you don't get to define words other people use either. And although it's plain you don't own a dictionary, go on the net and see what the open dictionaries there have to say about 'scientism'.

You're engaging in semantics again.

'Semantics' is the study of meaning in linguistics. Any definition is 'engaging in semantics'. You should try it some time.

You area assuming the conclusion. There is no evolution and if there were it is not a march toward perfection.

No one suggests that evolution is 'a march toward perfection'. It's simply a march that tends to favor survival and breeding in the present circumstances.

It is more like a random walk with a lot of stumbling. We're up, we're down, and we change positions suddenly.

It's a very simple principle. IF the genetic difference between you and the rest of the local representatives of your species gives you an advantage favoring survival and breeding in the present circumstances, THEN your genetics are more likely to be represented in the next generation ie your advantage is more likely to be passed on. BUT that's a tendency, a possibility, not a certainty. AND in a large population, the advantage may be diluted to irrelevance in fairly short order.

We can address this when you can address that consciousness = life.

Consciousness = life? In what sense? What aspect of a smallpox virus, or a fungus cell, or a grape, demonstrates its consciousness?

Your body is made up of trillions of cells, a bit under half of them yours. So, you say, there are trillions of consciousnesses in each of us?

And every time you pluck a peach from a tree and bite into it, you're eating a conscious entity?

That sounds absurd to me. Please clarify.

Because right now I continue to think you haven't a clue about what 'consciousness' is.

 

[Audie]

You mean like 'consciousness'? But you have no idea what you mean by 'consciousness'. Whereas when I say 'consciousness', I have a reasonably clear idea of what I'm talking about.

But you don't get to define words other people use either. And although it's plain you don't own a dictionary, go on the net and see what the open dictionaries there have to say about 'scientism'.

'Semantics' is the study of meaning in linguistics. Any definition is 'engaging in semantics'. You should try it some time.

No one suggests that evolution is 'a march toward perfection'. It's simply a march that tends to favor survival and breeding in the present circumstances.

It's a very simple principle. IF the genetic difference between you and the rest of the local representatives of your species gives you an advantage favoring survival and breeding in the present circumstances, THEN your genetics are more likely to be represented in the next generation ie your advantage is more likely to be passed on. BUT that's a tendency, a possibility, not a certainty. AND in a large population, the advantage may be diluted to irrelevance in fairly short order.

Consciousness = life? In what sense? What aspect of a smallpox virus, or a fungus cell, or a grape, demonstrates its consciousness?

Your body is made up of trillions of cells, a bit under half of them yours. So, you say, there are trillions of consciousnesses in each of us?

And every time you pluck a peach from a tree and bite into it, you're eating a conscious entity?

That sounds absurd to me. Please clarify.

Because right now I continue to think you haven't a clue about what 'consciousness' is.

Is that the only thing?

 

[blü 2]

The problem comes from presuming that this is the only means by which humans become human, to the exclusion of any and all other possibilities.

The trouble is that when the materialist (and I'm one) says, More? Show me, all that comes back is a deafening silence where a demonstration is required.

I'm not totally lacking in imagination. I grew up reading science fiction, and ghost stories, and Superman comics, and other things proper to a healthy diet.

But I also underwent confirmation as a Pisco when I was 14, and (after all the excitement and implied Big Deal) nothing happened, the world proceeded unchanged. Thus before long, so did I.

Outside the debate forums, I respect your right to believe whatever you please if it's not harmful. But here, I expect to have to defend my statements reasonably, and I expect the same of others.

Telling me to believe instead of showing me doesn't cut it.

 

[cladking]

You mean like 'consciousness'? But you have no idea what you mean by 'consciousness'. Whereas when I say 'consciousness', I have a reasonably clear idea of what I'm talking about.

You essentially mean "awake". The word has no real meaning when it is a synonym for not unconscious.

Meanwhile life as consciousness says everything you really need to know about the formatting of life and reality itself.

As the formatting of all life which is only individual it also has many aspects such as pattern recognition and memory which are the very means by which all life thrives. All the characteristics of consciousness combine in individuals which together with experience and physiology create all behavior which is what actually drives change in species which you euphemistically call "Evolution" and believe derives from competition rather than cooperation.

We can't experience consciousness directly like every other individual on the planet and must derive our understanding from our beliefs. No wonder there exists such a simplistic "definition" of consciousness as "awake". Being awake doesn't make you conscious any more than being asleep makes you dead or unable to have consciousness.

I could go on for hours defining consciousness and citing the experiments that show it in humans and other life forms and you would dismiss it all as "conjecture". In a sense you'd be right because revery damn paradigm ever invented has been nothing more than conjecture about the simplest explanation for experiment.

"Scientism" is the belief that we already have the answers. We have no answers and probably never will but consciousness as life is a step forward from the morass of 19th century assumptions and a clockwork reality. I believe it is even the pole to vault beyond the unified field theory.

 

[cladking]

IF the genetic difference between you and the rest of the local representatives of your species gives you an advantage favoring survival and breeding in the present circumstances, THEN your genetics are more likely to be represented in the next generation ie your advantage is more likely to be passed on.

This is perfectly logical and derived from illogical language not from experiment.

Reality isn't so simple. All individuals are equally fit so no species can become more fit by killing off the weaklings and promoting the strong. The more you thing about it the sillier it is. Nature simply would never waste resources making the unfit. Every individual will thrive given proper conditions. Mistakes become lunch but most individuals are not errors of nature.

 

[cladking]

What aspect of a smallpox virus, or a fungus cell, or a grape, demonstrates its consciousness?

The simpler the consciousness the more difficult it is to see.

Have you ever looked for consciousness even in a rabbit or a toad?

Science ascribes virtually all behavior not to experience and genetics but to instinct and chance. You believe the more fit survive but then you can't even see that it is consciousness that more than anything defines what you believe is "fitness".

 

[blü 2]

You essentially mean "awake". The word has no real meaning when it is a synonym for not unconscious.

You essentially don't mean anything except some connotation of woo you find agreeable.

Whereas when I say 'awake', you know exactly what I mean, since it's part of your experience. It's true that we don't have a perfect description of how the brain moves from unconscious to conscious when you wake up, but medical science's enquiries into the question are making progress. For example I found this snippet with a quick net search ─

One of the major systems in the brain that wakes you up is called the reticular activating system, or RAS. The RAS is a part of your brain located just above your spinal column. It’s about two inches long and the width of a pencil. The RAS acts like a gatekeeper or filter for your brain, making sure it doesn’t have to deal with more information than it can handle.​

​

The RAS can sense important information and create neurochemicals that wake up other parts of the brain. It also keeps you awake throughout the day.​

​

If you have to go to the bathroom in the middle of the night, the RAS senses that signal from your body and flips a switch to wake your brain up – just like a light switch. Signals coming from outside of your body, like the sound of an alarm clock or a parent waking you up, can also flip on your RAS.​

​

Once the RAS switch turns on, it can take some time for your whole brain and body to wake up. This is because it takes a few minutes to clear all the “sleepy” neurochemicals from your brain, which is why you may feel groggy when an alarm clock wakes you up.​

There have also been articles on how anesthesia works, but I didn't find them with that search. However, nothing stops you from doing your own homework except of course yourself.

Meanwhile life as consciousness says everything you really need to know about the formatting of life and reality itself.

Not until you answer my questions satisfactorily, it doesn't. Until you do that, your "life=consciousness" remains pure gobbledygook.

Start by telling me in what sense a virus is 'conscious'. Then tell me in what sense the grape is conscious. Then tell me why there aren't trillions of consciousnesses in your body, one per cell.

 

[RestlessSoul]

The trouble is that when the materialist (and I'm one) says, More? Show me, all that comes back is a deafening silence where a demonstration is required.

I'm not totally lacking in imagination. I grew up reading science fiction, and ghost stories, and Superman comics, and other things proper to a healthy diet.

But I also underwent confirmation as a Pisco when I was 14, and (after all the excitement and implied Big Deal) nothing happened, the world proceeded unchanged. Thus before long, so did I.

Outside the debate forums, I respect your right to believe whatever you please if it's not harmful. But here, I expect to have to defend my statements reasonably, and I expect the same of others.

Telling me to believe instead of showing me doesn't cut it.

Demanding that you be shown that which you can discover for yourself if you did but try, doesn’t cut much ice either. You have mistaken the transient illusion for the enduring truth, but you could still find the Great Reality within yourself, if you only cared to search for it. You have been told many times that the Kingdom of God is within you; perhaps you are too invested in the illusion, or perhaps you are afraid to look beyond it?

 

[PureX]

The trouble is that when the materialist (and I'm one) says, More? Show me, all that comes back is a deafening silence where a demonstration is required.

'Seeing is believing' is a silly way to think. And materialism was a failed philosophical proposition right from the start. It denies it's own premise by denying the validity of the cognitive mechanisms that generated it. So when you foolishly demand what you've already decided can't validate any premise, even your own materialism, you look pretty foolish to everyone but you (and your fellow materialists). And of course you're not going to get what you demand because you've predetermined that it can't exist. And yet on and on you all drone; "show me what I will not see" so that you can continue to imagine that it doesn't exist.

I'm not totally lacking in imagination. I grew up reading science fiction, and ghost stories, and Superman comics, and other things proper to a healthy diet.

Those are all examples of other people's imagination. Not yours. Try imagining how God could exist within your own version of reality and see how far you get.

But I also underwent confirmation as a Pisco when I was 14, and (after all the excitement and implied Big Deal) nothing happened, the world proceeded unchanged. Thus before long, so did I.

Religion has nothing to do with any of this. Religions are not theism, and theism is not a religion.

Outside the debate forums, I respect your right to believe whatever you please if it's not harmful. But here, I expect to have to defend my statements reasonably, and I expect the same of others.

But you want to set all the rules of evidence. And you want to be in charge making all the determinations. And you rigged the game so that you'll always be disappointed.

Telling me to believe instead of showing me doesn't cut it.

Until you stop insisting this is about determined belief, instead of the value of the possibilities, you're never going to even be in the game. You're just going to continue sitting there in your own closed mind passing judgment on everyone else's hopefulness. As if anyone but you cares.

 

[blü 2]

Demanding that you be shown that which you can discover for yourself if you did but try, doesn’t cut much ice either. You have mistaken the transient illusion for the enduring truth, but you could still find the Great Reality within yourself, if you only cared to search for it. You have been told many times that the Kingdom of God is within you; perhaps you are too invested in the illusion, or perhaps you are afraid to look beyond it?

On the contrary, I agree with your central proposition ─ the only way in which the supernatural and its entities are known to exist is as concepts, ideas, things imagined, in individual brains. So there are as many gods as there are concepts of those gods, but none of them has objective existence.

 

[blü 2]

'Seeing is believing' is a silly way to think.

Satisfactory demonstration is believing. It's not a silly way to think ─ ask the people who brought you the Higgs boson in 2012.

And materialism was a failed philosophical proposition right from the start. It denies it's own premise by denying the validity of the cognitive mechanisms that generated it.

No it doesn't. Instead it explores, describes, and seeks to explain those cognitive mechanisms; and it's getting better at this all the time. Our mapping of the brain and understanding the functions of its parts and their interrelation with each other is something we've steadily got better at since the development of better tools in the 1990s.

The AI people don't have quite that problem, but they can learn a lot from our understanding of how the brain actually works.

So when you foolishly demand what you've already decided can't validate any premise, even your own materialism, you look pretty foolish to everyone but you (and your fellow materialists).

There's nothing foolish about the demand, Show me. The old expression 'buy a pig in a poke' shows the wisdom of checking the basics.

And of course you're not going to get what you demand because you've predetermined that it can't exist. And yet on and on you all drone; "show me what I will not see" so that you can continue to imagine that it doesn't exist.

On the contrary, I've actually looked into the question, as I mentioned >here<. I'm skeptical, but not blind.

But you want to set all the rules of evidence.

No. I don't. As that link shows.

And you want to be in charge making all the determinations. And you rigged the game so that you'll always be disappointed.

What 'game' and how do you say I 'rigged' it, precisely?