Who here believes in "Scientism"?

[cladking]

You also said the opposite. I just quoted your words: "I am not a creationist."

I am not not a creationist either.

This is post #509.

I may well have said I'm not a creationist as well since both statements are true.

 

[cladking]

They certainly experience sight.

I'm hardly an expert but my understanding is they have no visual cortex. If a human's optic nerve is cut between the visual cortex and the mid brain he will be able to see but does not experience sight. This is like ancient thought; before homo omnisciencis humans did not experience thought.

 

[cladking]

What's a disagreement if not a different opinion?

If you see a razor from edge on and call it a line and I see it from the side and call it square we are both right. This is the nature of human reality; we are all right. We all make perfect sense in terms of our premises. This does not protect anyone from being wrong.

The lizard does this. Movement -> Insect -> Dinner time! -> tongue extended.

A computer programmer would argue the point. It has proven almost impossible to date to get a computer to figure out what it's looking at. A lizard wouldn't survive long if it ate things that are not food.

This is another of your vague warnings. Somebody's doing something wrong somewhere and it's going to lead to trouble. What's missing are specific examples of this error, what makes them an error, what resulted because of the error, and how to do better. It would be like me saying that people are failing to look ahead and it's going to cost them. What are you going to do with that? Nothing. You can't agree or disagree except to agree that people can be short-sighted and make mistakes. It's just not a meaningful warning. How about I add an concrete example?

We've been through this I believe but some elaboration is warranted.

ALL Look and See Science is very dangerous because it causes beliefs in many people that are injurious to themselves or the commonweal. Most Look and See Science being funded by third parties is designed not to find new truths but to instill falsehoods.

If it's called "science" but it doesn't come with any experiments then it is designed to enrich those who paid for it at the expense of everyone else.

You can't agree or disagree except to agree that people can be short-sighted and make mistakes.

Obviously. Some people can't see beyond the moment. Even companies can make huge mistakes because of unforeseen consequences. It's always a risk.

This is not what I'm talking about.

I think Americans are being pretty slow to recognize that many of them live in areas that are becoming increasingly less habitable due to heat, drought, fire, tornado, hurricane, etc., and eventually, their property will become uninsurable and unsellable for more than peanuts, so, they need to recognize that, find a better location, and sell now before other people start to figure this out and you have no market for your home.

Climates are "evolving" but I doubt that climate can be predicted for most areas within the continental US. Much of this evolution will probably play out over centuries rather than years or even generations. I don't believe in global warming. Or more accurately this is bought and paid for science designed to enrich the few as our one party system uses it as a political football. The government has been intentionally maximizing CO2 production since they conspired with industry to shut down mass transit after WW II. They haven't stopped, merely jawboned.

You want useful warnings? Stop watching the news. It's all lies. The lies are layered so at any given time it's difficult to pick out which lies they are telling.

There isn't really any "news" any longer because everything is a secret to hide what's really going on. God only knows what's really happening. Just pay attention to first hand reports and what you can actually see first hand. Learn to see anecdotal evidence.

 

[cladking]

Yes, they do.

But you can't show that. You are merely interpreting observation.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I may well have said I'm not a creationist as well since both statements are true.

"May well have said"? I quoted both comments. You did, and they can't both be correct in the same sense of the word at the same time (law of noncontradiction).

I'm hardly an expert but my understanding is they have no visual cortex.

The visual pathway projects to the occipital cortex just like in birds and mammals.

If you see a razor from edge on and call it a line and I see it from the side and call it square we are both right.

Yes, but we are not yet in agreement about how the object appears, and we may not realize that we are looking at the same thing, as with electricity and magnetism, until somebody unifies them and shows that they are different aspects of a single thing, electromagnetism in this case.

But you can't show that. You are merely interpreting observation.

So are you. That's what brains do.

This is the other minds problem. We have direct access to our own minds, but can only infer what is happening in the minds of others based in what we can observe and assuming that since those brains and ours arose the same way from the same materials, that there is a conscious agent in that head - an idea we cannot confirm empirically. It is on this basis that I conclude that when my dog behaves like I do - sees something and reacts - that it is also conscious while processing ambient data, which it clearly does.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

"the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions worth answering."

Yes. Kind of?

"the notion that science is the means to answer all questions, or at least is the means to answer all questions answerable."

There, I fixed it.

I don't believe all questions can be answered, and the only way to determine concretely if an answer is objectively correct, is to test it using scientific method.

I agree that there is much to gain through philosophical and theological means, and we should wield them as tools to extract meaning and purpose. However, when applied to many large questions or when they're tested for objectivity, these schools themselves tend to lead to conjecture or subjective conclusions.

I would accept and admit that I may be placing a bit too much significance on the natural sciences, but it what seems the most reasonable to me.

 

[cladking]

"May well have said"? I quoted both comments. You did, and they can't both be correct in the same sense of the word at the same time (law of noncontradiction).

No. This is the nature of language and the reason no statement can be true or false. This goes several times over when the word is "creationist" because it is an abstraction AND it implies a belief which is literally the mother of all abstractions. I neither believe in creationism nor in natural origins. If reality were created I don't know if the Agent were not even conscious or if conscious that it is an entity like you or I. All I can know is what is and through deduction what will come to pass (maybe). I can't even understand what was except in terms of what is.

My best guess based on experiment and observation is that there is a relationship between time and energy which gave rise to matter trillions of eons ago. Maybe God created time so the creatures that arose from it would be reminded they don't have forever to change things. Or maybe to get some (bad) company. Maybe everything is naturally origined as is consciousness. I have no means of knowing and guesses outside of experimental support mean nothing at all. But I do believe that until we recognize the importance of language and thought as well as a point as the 5th dimension we aren't going to make much progress. True intelligence (machine intelligence) might also be necessary.

I do not believe God created reality or consciousness but I also don't believe that there are natural origins to reality. That reality and math are logical is apparent. Perhaps some sort of "Creator" invented logic and everything sprang into existence. Maybe machine intelligence goes off on some tangent, becomes aware that reality can't exist without creation, so invents a time machine and sets everything in motion.

Everyone else knows. I do not. Homo omnisciencis.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I can't even understand what was except in terms of what is.

This alone is why I gave a heart emoji.

Do you entertain the simulation argument/hypothesis?

 

[cladking]

So are you. That's what brains do.

Yes. But, I am looking at all experiment.

This is the other minds problem. We have direct access to our own minds, but can only infer what is happening in the minds of others based in what we can observe and assuming that since those brains and ours arose the same way from the same materials, that there is a conscious agent in that head - an idea we cannot confirm empirically. It is on this basis that I conclude that when my dog behaves like I do - sees something and reacts - that it is also conscious while processing ambient data, which it clearly does.

Of course the dog is conscious. If it urinates on everything outside and circles its bed three times before it lies down, it is conscious.

A dog makes out at most about 1% of the words we use. But these holes in understanding us don't exist in its thinking and it is not using some other abstract language to think. It directly experiences consciousness, not thought. Its thinking is four dimensional because if it were one dimensional like ours it would be a lump of meat. Consciousness makes survival possible but human consciousness is now driven by abstract, symbolic, and analog language. This forces one dimensional thinking and gives rise to the experience we call "thought".

None of this is complex.

 

[cladking]

Do you entertain the simulation argument/hypothesis?

No. I believe everything is as real as a heart attack.

It may seem a simulation to us because we are removed from both reality and our own consciousness by language and thought. If our thoughts are more real than what's around us then it's easy to doubt that what's around us is real. But look at other animals. A scarce crow can actually keep away crows until they wise up to the lack of movement and straw stuffing. Even humans are unlikely to jump off a tall building just because they think they can fly or that the pavement isn't real.

This isn't to say that it's impossible that this is a movie or a matrix, merely that there is no need to construct such hypotheses nor a means to test them.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Yes. But, I am looking at all experiment.


Of course the dog is conscious. If it urinates on everything outside and circles its bed three times before it lies down, it is conscious.

A dog makes out at most about 1% of the words we use. But these holes in understanding us don't exist in its thinking and it is not using some other abstract language to think. It directly experiences consciousness, not thought. Its thinking is four dimensional because if it were one dimensional like ours it would be a lump of meat. Consciousness makes survival possible but human consciousness is now driven by abstract, symbolic, and analog language. This forces one dimensional thinking and gives rise to the experience we call "thought".

None of this is complex.

Are you saying the Dog is lacking autonomy or free will?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

no need to construct such hypotheses nor a means to test them.

Unfortunately it gets us nowhere, but it's fun. Hence my choice of words with 'entertain'.

 

[cladking]

Are you saying the Dog is lacking autonomy or free will?

No. Free will, autonomy, and pattern recognition are all defining characteristics of consciousness.

 

[cladking]

Unfortunately it gets us nowhere, but it's fun. Hence my choice of words with 'entertain'.

Such thoughts rarely cross my mind since I adopted the axioms I have. The one that is most directly contradicted is that all things are as they appear to people. I can step outside these axioms but rarely have any motivation to do so. I find books, movies, and even cosmological hypotheses that contradict them to usually be at least a little disturbing. I often say I live in a world with an infinite number of pyramids built with an infinite number of ramps but there is no world with even one pyramid made by another means.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I neither believe in creationism nor in natural origins. If reality were created I don't know if the Agent were not even conscious or if conscious that it is an entity like you or I.

By my reckoning, you're not a creationist. Nor a theist unless you believe a god exists but didn't create the world. That makes you an agnostic atheist as I use those words. That's how I describe myself as well.

A dog makes out at most about 1% of the words we use. But these holes in understanding us don't exist in its thinking and it is not using some other abstract language to think. It directly experiences consciousness, not thought.

It seems we mean different things by the word thinking. You seem to mean what I would call thinking in words. My dogs take in sensory data, and using memory, make judgments and solve problems. They express emotions in anticipation of desired and feared outcomes. The harnesses come out and they dance with happiness about going to the car. I call that thinking, just not in words.

 

[cladking]

By my reckoning, you're not a creationist. Nor a theist unless you believe a god exists but didn't create the world. That makes you an agnostic atheist as I use those words. That's how I describe myself as well.

It seems we mean different things by the word thinking. You seem to mean what I would call thinking in words. My dogs take in sensory data, and using memory, make judgments and solve problems. They express emotions in anticipation of desired and feared outcomes. The harnesses come out and they dance with happiness about going to the car. I call that thinking, just not in words.

We seem to be in quite a bit of agreement but are using different words. This has been very much my point all along; words have no meaning because they are defined and mean something different to each observer. Since we think in words and use them to communicate we ascribe words to all things rather than meaning. These words are each "loaded" as well since along with meaning they carry connotation and their placement in a sentence modifies their meanings as well.

It's not so much the words that are the chief problem in science. We each know what we mean by each word so there's not so much confusion in thought but words, grammar, and language also carry numerous assumptions that are passed down to us as we learn language.

So long as we believe something like "there is a God or there is no God" we will not be able to see any other reality. Without any substance, referent, or even a definition for "God" the sentence would have no meaning even if it were true and it is not.

I am trying to provide a work around for our vast ignorance and this work around appears to be very much the very basis of consciousness and the same natural science used by all other species.

What I am saying is that when each individual acquires language he becomes a member of our species (homo omnisciencis) because he acquires the assumptions that underlie all models both religious and secular. He acquires the ability to "think" because he compares input to beliefs using the operating system we call "language". It is the nature of this language that is analog, symbolic, and abstract that gives rise to assumptions. The very basis of science has false assumptions. This is dangerous because reason and science are the only game in town. They provide technology and comfort leading many to believe that science can provide answers that it can not and most probably never will. Most people don't understand simple truisms like that science is based in euclidean geometry so if it is wrong everything derived from it is also wrong. They believe everything must be right because the shelves in the stores are stocked with everything they might ever need.

I would consider myself an agnostic but without definitions for the important concepts in its definition the label simply does not apply. I would consider myself a creationist because I believe some day an underlying unifying force will be found to reality but without knowing any of the characteristics of this force the term does not apply. "Logic" does underlie reality I believe but there may well be forces beyond synchronism through which this logic expresses itself. The world is a wondrous place and we still know virtually nothing at all. Even things a gnat takes for granted like its own consciousness we have yet to experience or define scientifically.

Our ignorance knows no bounds.

 

[Khabeni412]

There's no such thing a scientism. It is a yet another strawman from creationists. Of course not all questions can be answered by science. But zero questions can be answered by theology.

 

[shunyadragon]

We seem to be in quite a bit of agreement but are using different words. This has been very much my point all along; words have no meaning because they are defined and mean something different to each observer. Since we think in words and use them to communicate we ascribe words to all things rather than meaning. These words are each "loaded" as well since along with meaning they carry connotation and their placement in a sentence modifies their meanings as well.

It's not so much the words that are the chief problem in science. We each know what we mean by each word so there's not so much confusion in thought but words, grammar, and language also carry numerous assumptions that are passed down to us as we learn language.

So long as we believe something like "there is a God or there is no God" we will not be able to see any other reality. Without any substance, referent, or even a definition for "God" the sentence would have no meaning even if it were true and it is not.

I am trying to provide a work around for our vast ignorance and this work around appears to be very much the very basis of consciousness and the same natural science used by all other species.

What I am saying is that when each individual acquires language he becomes a member of our species (homo omnisciencis) because he acquires the assumptions that underlie all models both religious and secular. He acquires the ability to "think" because he compares input to beliefs using the operating system we call "language". It is the nature of this language that is analog, symbolic, and abstract that gives rise to assumptions. The very basis of science has false assumptions. This is dangerous because reason and science are the only game in town. They provide technology and comfort leading many to believe that science can provide answers that it can not and most probably never will. Most people don't understand simple truisms like that science is based in euclidean geometry so if it is wrong everything derived from it is also wrong. They believe everything must be right because the shelves in the stores are stocked with everything they might ever need.

I would consider myself an agnostic but without definitions for the important concepts in its definition the label simply does not apply. I would consider myself a creationist because I believe some day an underlying unifying force will be found to reality but without knowing any of the characteristics of this force the term does not apply. "Logic" does underlie reality I believe but there may well be forces beyond synchronism through which this logic expresses itself. The world is a wondrous place and we still know virtually nothing at all. Even things a gnat takes for granted like its own consciousness we have yet to experience or define scientifically.

Our ignorance knows no bounds.

The problem is your intentional ignorance compounded by endless posts and 'Blue smoke and mirrors' of nebulous assertions that have no meaning beyond your agenda and very active imagination.

 

[Quintessence]

But zero questions can be answered by theology.

Huh?

So... theology doesn't address questions such as how to build relationships with the gods, methods of worshiping the gods, attributes of the gods, and other various matters about the gods?

Interesting. One must wonder how theology as a discipline came to exist, then. And yet it does. How did that happen?

 

[shunyadragon]

There's no such thing a scientism. It is a yet another strawman from creationists. Of course not all questions can be answered by science. But zero questions can be answered by theology.

I would not conclude that zero questions cannot be answered in theology, but the problem with theology is the subjective diverse conflicting ancient beliefs leave to many questions scattered on the floor with conflicting answers. Theology and Philosophy must be understood in the context of their subjective nature to be meaningful.