Wiki the God of Scientism

[Polymath257]

Well I thought that was the premise, to unravel the mystery of origin. You acknowledge that we do not have reason to think that our reasoning can be true.

Read what I said again. I said that we *do* have reason to think it at least partially valid for conditions in which we evolved and for others, a skepticism and thorough testing provides what we cannot know without them.

Well. Well. Now you are pointing to wrong and Ideas.

We come back to the same point.

We qwell know that our senses don't give perfect information about the world around us. We cannot see infrared or ultraviolet. We cannot detect radio waves, or most types of radiation. We cannot hear outside of a certain range of frequencies.

So, no, there is no reason to think we get the whole picture, ever. But we can, and do, find ways to detect and understand these aspects of the world through extending our senses in various ways.

And, again, we do know the tendencies we have for irrationality. We know rationality is hard and needs to be trained. But it is possible and desirable if we want a better understanding of the universe.

But why we would expect our ideas to be correct without testing and careful thought is beyond me. It is quite clear that being careless leads to wrong ideas all the time.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

And you are missing the whole point that religion has different paradigm. Science is rigorous.

And religion is what that is opposed to "rigorous?"

open
random
loose
easy
lenient
lax

So you're basically claiming that since "science is rigorous," there are rules to be followed, and i's need their dots and t's their crosses. But religion is basically allowed to play fast and loose with the rules? Heck... maybe there are no rules. In fact, that seems to be the reality as I witness it on an ongoing basis. Anyone is allowed to believe whatever they want, whenever they want. And all of them clamoring for "respect." Is it anything more than a tragic joke with cosmic aspirations?

 

[atanu]

Read what I said again. I said that we *do* have reason to think it at least partially valid for conditions in which we evolved and for others, a skepticism and thorough testing provides what we cannot know without them.

There is no problem in that.

We qwell know that our senses don't give perfect information about the world around us. We cannot see infrared or ultraviolet. We cannot detect radio waves, or most types of radiation. We cannot hear outside of a certain range of frequencies.

That is a limitation but not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is of superposition of representational pictures (generated by mind-senses in waking state) on all modes of consciousness.

 

[atanu]

And religion is what that is opposed to "rigorous?"

open
random
loose
easy
lenient
lax

So you're basically claiming that since "science is rigorous," there are rules to be followed, and i's need their dots and t's their crosses. But religion is basically allowed to play fast and loose with the rules? Heck... maybe there are no rules. In fact, that seems to be the reality as I witness it on an ongoing basis. Anyone is allowed to believe whatever they want, whenever they want. And all of them clamoring for "respect." Is it anything more than a tragic joke with cosmic aspirations?

I think we are not communicating. I will for the last time earnestly try.

Science is rigorous. So, if we consider abiogenesis in the sense of a scientific proposition, then it is wrong to say "Abiogenesis is a process by which non-living naturally gives rise to living".

I will prefer to say "Abiogenesis is a proposition ......".

Religion does not claim sole use of intellect. Religion may entail use of 'Prajnana' (photo consciousness or wisdom). It suits religion because that is its premise. And many of us know that meditation and prayer work.

Goals of science and religion/s are not same and methods are not same. What suits science may not suit religion and vice versa. But that does not create any conflict in me and many others like me. We make full use of intellect as accurately as possible and then we meditate too.

YMMV.

Bye.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Religion does not claim sole use of intellect.

I see what you are saying to a point. The very ironic (and endlessly amusing to myself personally) thing about your argument is that, even as your argument is made in defense of a religious/spiritual proposition, you are using the statement "science is rigorous and intellectually inclined" as the basis of your argument. Which implicitly admits or implies the opposite about religion. In other words, that religious endeavors are not rigorous, nor disposed to utilize the intellect as heavily. Which basically translates too (in a rough form) - "religion is an undisciplined practice and may not require much thought." So... actually... I am on your side in this. Let's just argue those points together then, shall we?

 

[atanu]

I see what you are saying to a point. The very ironic (and endlessly amusing to myself personally) thing about your argument is that, even as your argument is made in defense of a religious/spiritual proposition, you are using the statement "science is rigorous and intellectually inclined" as the basis of your argument. Which implicitly admits or implies the opposite about religion. In other words, that religious endeavors are not rigorous, nor disposed to utilize the intellect as heavily. Which basically translates too (in a rough form) - "religion is an undisciplined practice and may not require much thought." So... actually... I am on your side in this. Let's just argue those points together then, shall we?

You may wish to amuse yourself in any way you like. If you are truly amused, I will feel good too.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You may wish to amuse yourself in any way you like. If you are truly amused, I will feel good too.

Then feel good my fellow man. Feel very very good.

 

[atanu]

Then feel good my fellow man. Feel very very good.

Thanks, Man.

 

[Polymath257]

There is no problem in that.

That is a limitation but not the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem is of superposition of representational pictures (generated by mind-senses in waking state) on all modes of consciousness.

Could you explain? What you said means nothing to me.

 

[atanu]

Could you explain? What you said means nothing to me.

Yes, although I do not expect an honest evaluation.

If we are in a representation, how can we use that datum to explain the process? If brain creates all scenes how do we know that what brain itself is? If consciousness is a secondary byproduct of physical laws, and if those laws are causally closed then consciousness is irrelevant. Of what objective value are your claims?

 

[Darkstorn]

If we are in a representation, how can we use that datum to explain the process?

Context. If everyone is "in a representation," then the same is true for everyone else. And it would from all evidence seem that we "share" it to a large degree... And in that context, how can we not?

Of what objective value are your claims?

I don't think there's such a thing as "objective value." Value itself is a subjective thing...

 

[atanu]

Context. If everyone is "in a representation," then the same is true for everyone else. And it would from all evidence seem that we "share" it to a large degree... And in that context, how can we not?

You know that that is circular.

I don't think there's such a thing as "objective value." Value itself is a subjective thing...

Value has several meanings. Please read it in context. My question was:

If we are in a representation, how can we use that datum to explain the process? If brain creates all scenes how do we know that what brain itself is? If consciousness is a secondary byproduct of physical laws, and if those laws are causally closed then consciousness is irrelevant. Of what objective value are your claims?

 

[Darkstorn]

You know that that is circular.

I know. I was demonstrating the futility of your premise. Only you are making the claim that we're in "a representation." And i'm still not entirely sure what you even meant by it. Could you explain better?

Value has several meanings. Please read it in context.

I did, there's no such thing as "objective value." In this context you are literally asking the worth of his claims. There is no objective way to measure that. I'm sure you consider yourself objective in all your endeavors, but there's one problem:

"If consciousness is a secondary byproduct of physical laws, and if those laws are causally closed then consciousness is irrelevant"

That is not a logical statement. So how can you be both objective and illogical?