Debating

[JMJones0424]

The cool thing is that it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or how suspicious or strange it is. It only matters what the evidence is and how strong it is.

I think this sentiment needs to be reiterated as often as possible.

[Eclogite]

PersonalPronoun, I have no doubt that you are a sincere person who sincerely believes what they are saying. However, almost every one of your statements reveals your ignorance of many topics, your faulty belief in the value of personal observation, or anecdote, your misunderstanding of science, and your inabilty to avoid logical fallacies. The good news is that if you were to think about what pgrmdave and JMJones and I are saying you could improve in each of these areas. Do you want to?

 

I should like to address one point at a time and see if I can hel you reach a degree of enlightenment. Are you game, or will you play the "you partronising bastard" card"

 

This is not random bitching. It's got to be obvious that all of our environmentally poor actions have added up to the situation we find ourselves in. 
We don't need years of study to know that our activity has gotten out of hand.

This is an example of the strawman fallacy. No one has said that we should wait for years of study, yet your implication is that we are recommending that and that we are wrong.

 

Now, although we did not say that was the case guess what, it is true.

 

How do we know that global warming is occuring? It is not down to anecdotes. It is down to decades of study of climate and weather and atmospheric conditions and ocean currents and a host of other disciplines. Global warming is obvious because of that study.

 

So let us proceed on this single point and the two issues deriving from it:

1. You used a logical fallacy.

2. You are mistaken in thinking we did not need years of study to recognise global warming.

 

Please respond.

[PersonalPronoun]

Science doesn't fix problems - it makes predictions about the future. That's all. Those predictions can then be used by engineers to fix problems, or make problems, or make money, or lose money. 

B.S. again. 

In this case we are not talking about science but the practitioners thereof.

The scientists. 

It was scientists, using science, who built the atom bombs that we used against Japan. 

Depending on your view point, they were either responsibly solving a problem, or irresponsibly creating something that they knew had the power to destroy the world. 

Either way, they certainly did more (or perhaps less,) than make predictions about the future. 

 

Again the claim is being made that human kind is causing global warming, but scientists and babes in arms are the only people who are innocent of responsibility. 

 

 

Science remains neutral.

That's convenient. 

They're the best group of people on the planet for helping to develop a solution to a global problem.

But ok, let them stand there and watch the ship sink. 

Maybe they will last a few minutes longer than the rest of us if they climb up in the crows nest and watch from there. 

 

 

So long as their research is published, it doesn't matter who paid for it. 

The evidence will stand or fall on its own. If the private companies aren't publishing their results, then yeah - that's irresponsible.

Seriously?

Let's say I lend my friend a rifle so he can go deer hunting. 

Instead of hunting deer, he shoots up someone's house. 

The police take my rifle, and my buddy goes to jail for a while.

I certainly bear no responsibility for my buddies decision to shoot up the house.

We're in agreement up to this point. 

 

Now my buddy is out of jail, and he comes back to ask for another rifle to go deer hunting with. 

I give it to him and he kills a person with it. 

Do I still bear no responsibility? None at all? 

 

(There's also real, systemic issues in science related to non-publishing of results and a bias toward positive results, but in order to discuss those problems realistically you first have to accept science as the primary model for learning and understanding the universe)

I agree that science is now being used by humanity as the primary model for learning about and understanding the universe. 

I do not agree that this is the correct thing for humanity to do. 

I do not agree that the "primary model" is the only correct way of learning and understanding the universe. 

 

Indeed we are running into a bit of a word problem. 

 

I maintain that we human beings, having been created by the universe, from the same material as the universe, do have an effect on the universe, and are able to understand the universe through more methods than science alone. 

 

You very quickly fall into the trap of conflating engineers and scientists. While there is significant overlap, science is merely the study of the universe to make predictions while engineering is the application of those predictions to design and build things. 

I refer you back to the atom bomb. 

I do not use that example for the purpose of any kind of blame. 

I use it to show an exception to the rule you are proposing about role science takes in the human experience. 

If they can do it in one case, they can certainly do it in this case, if they choose to.

 

You are arguing the exact same thing in the vaccination portion of the debate. 

If people have the ability to help stop the deaths of others, and choose not to do so, for whatever reason, they are irresponsible and selfish. 

 

The difference is that I wouldn't advocate forcing scientists to do the right thing. 

 

you speak as though you think scientists have a voice at the table when it comes to politics. The total budget of NASA, the NSF, and the EPA in 2013 was $34.2B while the total budget for the DoD was $672.9B - if scientists had any real power do you really think the ratio would look like that?

Who provides the data that engineers use in building the defense apparatus? 

 

Yes, I think scientists have a voice at the table. 

It is perhaps, not a voice that is freely given, but it is absolutely one that can be taken. (unless, of course, the scientists really are those innocent little babes.)

If you accept that science is the only valid way of understanding the universe, then you must believe that that ability carries a great deal of power. 

Regardless of which of us is right about the validity of science's superiority in the understanding department, science provides a great deal of the information that the government wants.

That's inherent power.

 

Like...end polio and smallpox? Give us the equations we need to walk on the moon? Or build a computer that runs millions of calculations per second and fits in your hand? Or let us predict, within a few degrees, the temperatures going out a few days? And within 10 degrees, out a full week or two? Or maybe do something like figure out the structure of the atom, or the chemical makeup of stars that have long-since burned away? Those kinds of things aren't special enough for you?

No. Those are the things science does every day. 

Gandhi, did something special. 

Americans, when they told King George to shove it, then backed it up, did something special.

 

I want scientists to TAKE their voice at the table.

I want them to step out of their traditional role and do something different.

I'm suggesting that scientists stand up and take the lead for a while and be responsible for the human condition that they are a part of. 

THAT would be something special. 

 

And just for sake of clarity:

I'm not suggesting or implying that science has the only true answer, or is capable of the only true answer. 

Just that it's in the perfect position to help with a problem that certainly affects scientists as much as it affects the rest of us. 

[PersonalPronoun]

Nothing new in the first paragraph. I professed my ignorance of science in my very first post at these forums. If you missed my introduction, you can see it any time you like. 

 

 

I should like to address one point at a time and see if I can hel you reach a degree of enlightenment. Are you game, or will you play the "you partronising bastard" card"

I'm not sure where you drew the implication that I have played the, "you patronizing bastard" card.

 

I disagree passionately that science, by itself, is the highest authority in understanding reality.

You've made it quite clear that you are in direct and passionate opposition to this. 

 

If you can, then teach me how we can approach a debate of this nature without seeming to be somewhat patronizing to one another. 

Teach me how we can each make a sincere attempt at understanding one another without being able to speak the same language. 

 

I guess if I'm honest I will have to admit that some of your patronizing bastard attitude is offensive, and that because of it, I make no attempt to not be patronizing in my own. 

 

Above, you ask if I will allow you to help me reach a degree of enlightenment. 

Then, you try to affect my answer by asking if I will only play the patronizing bastard card. 

 

So:

1) you imply that only the version of the truth that you follow is enlightened.

2) you imply that I am therefore not enlightened. 

3) That I am the bastard if I do not agree with you. 

4) It feels like there is an implied threat that if I do not agree with your proposal you won't talk to me any more. 

 

To number 1) Well, that's what the whole debate is about. Are you asking me to just say: "Ok, you win the debate. What's next?"

 

To number 2) yeah, number two is the actual patronizing part. I swear we can get past that issue.

 

To number 3) If nothing else, I'm quite grown up. Peer pressure has never been much of an issue for me. 

One of my basic philosophies is, that "freedom" is the ability to seek out and conquer, and or live with, my own fears, rather than those of someone else's. 

In short, I'm not afraid that my face will melt if you think I'm a bastard. 

 

To number 4) if indeed that is the implied threat, I hope you will reconsider. I did come here to learn something, but I reserve the right to do so in my own way. Please allow me to take the lessons of my choosing rather than those of your choosing. 

If I'm correct about the implied threat, and if this answer is not acceptable to you, then I will regret not debating with you. 

Again, long answer short:

Try to accept me as I am, or be done with me. 

I accept you as you are, but I'm still going to disagree with you. 

 

(by the way, I've long understood the straw man, circular reasoning, and quite a number of other logical fallacies that get used in a debate. I think below, you will find an example of how my lack of writing skills can look like something different.)

 

This is an example of the strawman fallacy. No one has said that we should wait for years of study, yet your implication is that we are recommending that and that we are wrong.

How do we know that global warming is occuring?

What I meant was that we do not have to wait for years of study to know that we are being irresponsible with our environment. 

There's so much to say, so many connections to make. 

I don't know how to say it all, in a debate format. 

 

There's this connection: 

Our society is too large to survive. 

This idea alone is cause for several necessary paragraphs.

 

1) it connects with a valid argument against the form of education we have. 

2) it connects with the anti-vaxxers issue.

3) the personal freedom issue.

And more, and thats just one of the main connections I see.

Each of those points is going to require at least one paragraph of explanation before you can even begin to decide if my thinking on them is fallacious. 

 

     A) The personal freedom issue.

In a smaller society, there are compensations for certain  freedoms that you must be willing to give up to be part of the society. 

           I) You have a real voice at the political table.

          II) you can see, first hand, the value of your own              

               contributions.

         III) There is less need for debates like the anti-vaxxers      

              debate because you have stronger motives to protect the                                     

              People you love and live with.

              (Don't need Darwin to tell me that I have a proclivity              

               toward family over strangers.) 

    B) The education issue.

               I) modern education is a fishing expedition. 

              II) The modern education has certainly already caused     

                   developmental changes in maturity growth of children. 

                    (I don't even know if this has been studied by science    

                     but it is clear nonetheless.)

Again, there are many more points that I'm leaving out, and each one requires at least one paragraph of explanation.

      C) connects with father absenteeism. 

                      I) if a father is not working 20 miles from home, as a  

                         wage slave, in a job he knows is not particularly 

                         beneficial to his family, he has more time, and 

                         mental energy, and motive to be with his children. 

Again, there are many other points in connection to this, but I think you get the point I'm making. 

 

I have not looked at a single exhaustive scientific study about any of these things.

However the results of the truths contained in all of these things paint a picture. 

It may not be the crystal clear picture that science provides with its wondrous method. 

But it's a useful picture nonetheless. 

Furthermore, a prediction resulting from a five year study, is no more valuable than five years of trying a new path and seeing what happens. 

 

Here is something I am willing to admit about science as apposed to learning from experiencing:

 

Science excels at telling us about why the universe works the way it works. 

I get that, and it's the debate form, along with the little personality issues, that make it so difficult to concede points in a debate. 

 

But science doesn't tell us what things are important to experience. 

It doesn't tell us whether it's more important to put our resources into the better light bulb, or to put them into finding new energy.

It doesn't tell us whether we should build better weapons, or figure out an alternative to the necessity of better weapons. 

These things are, as you will undoubtedly point out, not in the purview of science. 

I agree, and it is exactly my point. 

These things are as important to human beings as science. 

Learning these things are not only best served through methods other than science, but are probably not even learnable through science.

 

So instead of trying to change me, why not try to understand me, and see if my thoughts have value, in spite being non-scientific?

 

I pose the counter challenge back to you. 

 

You've spent a good bit of time engaging with me so far. 

Is science the only way forward in the debate, in the human connection that we are making? 

 

Please respond.

Ditto.

[JMJones0424]

I disagree passionately that science, by itself, is the highest authority in understanding reality.

You've made it quite clear that you are in direct and passionate opposition to this. 

I'm afraid I may be muddying the waters, as you're already engaged in a discussion with two different people and I am interjecting myself.  If so, I apologize.  However, I think by focusing on this statement of yours, we can highlight a possible difference in our approach to understanding reality.

 

What, other than science, do you propose as being an authority in understanding reality?  How have you determined that this other approach is useful to understand reality?

 

Some clarification of definitions may be appropriate. 

 

Science, in my eyes, is defined by the study of falsifiable hypotheses.  I cannot show that Russell's teapot doesn't exist, as such a claim is unfalsifiable.  What I can do, ideally, is test claims that are falsifiable in order to show that they are incorrect.  In reality, I am too ignorant and ill-equipped to test nearly all claims that I am confronted with.  Because of this, I judge the likelihood of the veracity of the claim by referencing others' attempts to falsify the claim.  A vast majority of scientific claims will forever be out of my reach to test, but if the results of others' tests are repeatable and agree with each other, then I feel safe accepting their tests as a proxy for my own.

 

Reality, as I define it, is that which I experience or have the capability to experience.  For example, if x exists in any meaningful way to me, then I should be able to accurately verify its existence.  If I can't, then while I have not shown that x doesn't exist, I have failed to show that x does exist, and therefore, I do not consider x to be a part of reality.  This is an indefensible assumption, but it is an assumption that works so well that I am willing to stick with it.

 

Given those two definitions, I'd say that not only is science the highest authority in understanding reality, it is the only authority.  If any other means were successful in explaining reality, it would immediately be incorporated into what I call science.

Edited February 14, 2015 by JMJones0424

[PersonalPronoun]

I'm afraid I may be muddying the waters, as you're already engaged in a discussion with two different people and I am interjecting myself.  If so, I apologize.

Please, feel free to join in any part of any discussion I am having with anyone. 

 

However, I think by focusing on this statement of yours, we can highlight a possible difference in our approach to understanding reality.

 

What, other than science, do you propose as being an authority in understanding reality?  How have you determined that this other 

approach is useful to understand reality?

 

Some clarification of definitions may be appropriate. 

 

Science, in my eyes, is defined by the study of falsifiable hypotheses.  I cannot show that Russell's teapot doesn't exist, as such a claim is unfalsifiable.  What I can do, ideally, is test claims that are falsifiable in order to show that they are incorrect.  In reality, I am too ignorant and ill-equipped to test nearly all claims that I am confronted with.  Because of this, I judge the likelihood of the veracity of the claim by referencing others' attempts to falsify the claim.  A vast majority of scientific claims will forever be out of my reach to test, but if the results of others' tests are repeatable and agree with each other, then I feel safe accepting their tests as a proxy for my own.

Alright. I will gladly attempt to define my viewpoint again, but first:

Can you please provide an example of how any of the following theories are shown to be falsifiable? 

 

Darwin's theory of evolution. 

Global warming.

The existence of back holes. 

 

If you can not show falsifiability in these theories, then I will have to object to the above definition of reality if we do indeed agree that all of these theories are correct. 

I agree that Evolution is true, and that global warming is real, and that black holes exist, but I believe they are all currently unfalsifiable. 

 

This does not, -to me-, argue for the validity or non-validity of the theories themselves, but rather against the validity of falsifiability as an argument, or a consistent definition, in this debate. 

 

Reality, as I define it, is that which I experience or have the capability to experience.  For example, if x exists in any meaningful way to me, then I should be able to accurately verify its existence. 

 If I can't, then while I have not shown that x doesn't exist, I have failed to show that x does exist, and therefore, I do not consider x to be a part of reality.  This is an indefensible assumption, but it is an assumption that works so well that I am willing to stick with it.

 

Given those two definitions, I'd say that not only is science the highest authority in understanding reality, it is the only authority.  If any other means were successful in explaining reality, it would immediately be incorporated into what I call science.

How to we discuss within a framework of a definition that you consider to be indefensible? 

 

I'll attempt to give a more comprehensive definition of my thoughts in a following post.

[PersonalPronoun]

What, other than science, do you propose as being an authority in understanding reality?  How have you determined that this other 

approach is useful to understand reality?

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can define the first part of your question than I already have.

 

I propose that ALL of the experiences of life including science, to be the ultimate authority in understanding reality. 

 

I determine this to be useful because there are clearly areas of reality that science can not speak to. 

I do not say that this is indefensible, but I do not know how to defend it.....yet. 

 

An example, which is likely to make you guys cover your ears, squeeze your eyes tightly closed, and rock back and forth while repeating "Not there! Not there! Not there!" over and over again, would be something like the question of the soul. 

 

My simplest possible definition of my soul would be:

 

A conscious representation of "me" that is not bound by "physical" reality. 

 

Suffice it, for the moment, to say that I have experience of my soul. I can not prove it scientifically. It's not falsifiable. 

It is indeed not science, and I do not claim that it is science, and that is the point.

 

Even though the soul is not science, the concept of the soul has effects in reality.

It affects the things people do, and the things people do help to define and change our understanding of reality. 

 

A simple path:

1) we define reality based upon our ways of experiencing reality. 

2) we live according to those definitions.

3) we imagine, and create new ways to experience reality. 

 

I'm sure you'll have more questions about my definitions, as I did yours, so back to you. 

[JMJones0424]

One of the many ways that evolution could be falsified is if we observed that phenotypic traits were not heritable.  Any evidence that shows that increased atmospheric CO2 from human sources is not responsible or a driving factor for increased heat retention would falsify AGW.  Any evidence that matter cannot collapse past its Schwarzschild radius would falsify black holes.  To be able to falsify a claim means simply that the claim is made in such a way that it can be shown to be false.  The classic example is the case of the color of swans.  If I make the claim that all swans are white, based on my observation of several swans, this is a falsifiable claim because it can be shown to be false by providing evidence that black swans exist.

 

My concept of reality is based on an assumption that I cannot show to be correct.  There exists the possibility that I am nothing more than a subroutine in a massive simulation.  However, entertaining that assumption has no utility for me.  Entertaining my assumption that reality is that which I experience or have the capability to experience is useful.  I do not need to concern myself with the question of the existence of things that cannot be shown to affect my cosmos.

 

What evidence do you have that your definition of soul is correct, or even that souls exist?  How do you know that you aren't fooling yourself?  Your experiences exist as memories.  The fact that you think you experiened what you experienced exists.  However, delusional states also exist.  If, due to severe trauma, I find myself in a near-death experience complete with the tunnel and the white light, this is not appropriate evidence for an after-life, soul, white-lights, or anything else other than that my oxygen-starved brain is misbehaving.  What measurements have you made or could you make to confirm your experiences of a soul?  If there can be no confirmation, then I may as well dismiss your claim.

 

The concept of the soul has effects in reality only because some people think the soul exists.  There is no evidence that there is such a thing as the soul.  While the concept of a soul clearly has meaning to you, it is no more a valid part of reality than angels, demons, elves, unicorns, or any other fantasy.

 

You did not answer the second part of my question.  " How have you determined that this other approach is useful to understand reality?"

Edited February 15, 2015 by JMJones0424

[Eclogite]

@Personal Pronoun: the belief that some children have in Santa Claus influences their behaviour, sometimes in profound ways. This does not mean that Santa Claus exists. Yet we can explore the impact of a belief in Santa Claus through such disciplines as psychology, ethology, neurology, biochemistry, etc. At the same time, based on scientific methodology, we can reject the existence of Santa Claus.

 

In short, science can reveal aspects of reality with great efficiency. I trust you see that belief in a soul maps onto this point rather well. All of the characteristics you claim for the soul are available to "self", except that "self" is bound initmately to the brain and the body. What reason do you have for thinking the sould is independent?

 

SInce you like anecdotes, here is one for you. After my first stroke friends (and myself) noticed a distinct change in my character. One colleague nailed it by saying it was as if he was talking to my twin. How did this occur if my soul is independent of my brain?

[PersonalPronoun]

One of the many ways that evolution could be falsified is if we observed that phenotypic traits were not heritable.  Any evidence that shows that increased atmospheric CO2 from human sources is not responsible or a driving factor for increased heat retention would falsify AGW.  Any evidence that matter cannot collapse past its Schwarzschild radius would falsify black holes.  To be able to falsify a claim means simply that the claim is made in such a way that it can be shown to be false.  The classic example is the case of the color of swans.  If I make the claim that all swans are white, based on my observation of several swans, this is a falsifiable claim because it can be shown to be false by providing evidence that black swans exist.

Yeah, I've written fictional stories about black swan events. 

 

You do illustrate my point though. Before the black swans were discovered, I could have argued with you, or any science minded person, for years about the possibility of the existence of black swans. You would have argued as vehemently with me about that, as you guys are about this. 

 

My concept of reality is based on an assumption that I cannot show to be correct.  There exists the possibility that I am nothing more than a subroutine in a massive simulation.  However, entertaining that assumption has no utility for me.  Entertaining my assumption that reality is that which I experience or have the capability to experience is useful.  I do not need to concern myself with the question of the existence of things that cannot be shown to affect my cosmos.

 

What evidence do you have that your definition of soul is correct, or even that souls exist?

The evidence I have exists only in my personal experience. 

Please understand that I realize the problem this represents to a scientist. I get it. 

 

How do you know that you aren't fooling yourself?

I do not know that I am not fooling myself any more than you know that reality is as you perceive it rather than numbers in the mainframe. 

Further, entertaining the idea is useful to me. 

 

 

Your experiences exist as memories.  The fact that you think you experiened what you experienced exists.  However, delusional states also exist.

 

 

Yes. Delusional states exist. 

I just don't know how to argue against this fear.

If I am deluding myself by believing I have a soul, then what are the consequences I should fear?

 

If, due to severe trauma, I find myself in a near-death experience complete with the tunnel and the white light, this is not appropriate evidence for an after-life, soul, white-lights, or , anything else other than that my oxygen-starved brain is misbehaving.

 

 

How is it that you've determined that the visions are appropriate evidence of your oxygen-starved brain misbehaving? 

Indeed that is certainly a possibility. 

 

It's frustrating though, when you say on one hand that proper studies need to be done, but then on the other hand, without study at all, you can confidently claim "delusion" and/or "lack of oxygen" as the culprit. 

I know that the mind can do funny things when the brain is not getting oxygen, but surely there are other possibilities for these phenomena. 

 

What measurements have you made or could you make to confirm your experiences of a soul? 

If there can be no confirmation, then I may as well dismiss your claim.

This is the idea that I most strongly argue against. 

It's dismissed because you can't do anything with it? 

What could you do with it if it was proved to be true? 

Why does it need to be usable, or even quantifiable, to have meaning? 

Why do predictions need to be made in order to have value in an idea? 

 

The concept of the soul has effects in reality only because some people think the soul exists.

 

 

How do you know that it's only because some people think it exists? 

This is not equal to me saying "well, you haven't proven it doesn't exist!" 

This is equal to me saying that you are acting as though you have proven that it does not exist. 

You are not merely doubting it, you are completely dismissing it. 

I believe that is a mistake.

 

The other thing is: The concept of the soul has effects in reality for whatever reasons it has effects in reality. 

What different effects would it have if it were proven to exist?

You still couldn't build a soul powered electric generator, if indeed it existed but was unbound by the physical.

 

There is no evidence that there is such a thing as the soul.  While the concept of a soul clearly has meaning to you, it is no more a valid part of reality than angels, demons, elves, unicorns, or any other fantasy.

There once was no discovered evidence of black holes. 

 

Yet fantasy itself has value in reality. 

Indeed fantasy is not only useful to humans, other animals seem to engage in it as well. 

Furthermore, fantasy is produced by the imagination and the imagination comes before many of our discoveries.

 

You did not answer the second part of my question.  " How have you determined that this other approach is useful to understand reality?"

I thought I did answer that. 

Bad things happen to our bodies if we eat potatoes and meat exclusively. 

We need some nutrition that other things provide. 

That's why the other approach is useful in understanding reality. 

Science is the meat and potatoes, but if that's all we eat we get sick.

[PersonalPronoun]

Thanks for staying in it.

@Personal Pronoun: the belief that some children have in Santa Claus influences their behaviour, sometimes in profound ways. This does not mean that Santa Claus exists. Yet we can explore the impact of a belief in Santa Claus through such disciplines as psychology, ethology, neurology, biochemistry, etc. At the same time, based on scientific methodology, we can reject the existence of Santa Claus.

The thing those disciplines miss, in my opinion, is why it's important not to reject the existence of Santa claus. 

It's not because there's really a white haired man at the north pole with elves and reindeer. Of course, he is not real in that sense. 

But he is real in another sense: His story creates something in the minds of those children. That thing is real. That thing can be studied by the methods you mention but can not be understood by those methods alone. 

If the people making those studies had, for whatever reason, never heard of Christmas or the idea of Santa, 

They would have no way to relate to those ideas. 

Regardless, the methods of science can study Santa Claus, and reject him as being real, but those methods can not tell you what society looks like in a thousand years, if you could somehow remove the concept of Santa Claus from existence. 

 

So again I say: Science can tell you what and how, but it fails at explaining the why. 

Had there been no medieval belief in God (s) there may never have been science. 

Go back in time and kill hitler and you just might return to find the world ruled by Russia.  

 

In short, science can reveal aspects of reality with great efficiency. I trust you see that belief in a soul maps onto this point rather well. All of the characteristics you claim for the soul are available to "self", except that "self" is bound initmately to the brain and the body. What reason do you have for thinking the sould is independent?

 

What reason do you have for thinking that the self is bound intimately to only the brain/body? 

 

I do have reasons for believing that the soul is exists. 

I didn't mean to suggest that it was independent of me, but yes, independent from the physical. 

What of Descartes mind/brain? 

 

As for the reasons I have for thinking that the soul is independent of the physical, I don't know how to answer that. I've tried several times, and I see as well as you do, that my explanations are ineffectual. 

(I've not, at any point, blamed you in my own thoughts for not getting what I'm saying.)

 

When I put together all of those examples of "anecdata" the point I was trying to make is that the information you are asking me to supply is so spread out, that I could not write it in a simple post here. 

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter if I were able to, you could pick it apart all day long. 

 

I said in another post that I remember the womb. 

The first memory I have is: seeing a pattern. 

I couldn't describe the pattern, I had nothing to relate anything to. 

But, I didn't want the pattern to go away. I wanted to know it. 

 

I've been gathering, or collecting, patterns from the skein all of my life; Observing everything that comes into my experience with eyes wide open. 

As pgrmdave pointed out, this is pattern recognition. 

However, pattern recognition is not so easily dismissed.

 

Please don't feel it necessary to answer the following crap, it's not my intent to start another pointless argument. 

It's meant to show only that I have grounds I could argue from, just as you do. 

 

I could bring up the recent peer review scandals. 

I could provide many examples of science getting it wrong. 

I could point out that some of the most important concepts, like time, do not have definitions that scientists agree upon. 

I could point out that so many different interpretations of quantum mechanics clearly shows a major lack of understanding.

I could bring up the disparity between Q.M. and classical physics. 

 

I just didn't really want to have that particular debate. 

 

I had hoped you would fairly admit that science does have failings. That humans are not perfect, and can neither build a perfect method, nor execute it perfectly. 

 

SInce you like anecdotes, here is one for you. After my first stroke friends (and myself) noticed a distinct change in my character. One colleague nailed it by saying it was as if he was talking to my twin. How did this occur if my soul is independent of my brain?

If the mind is not the same as the brain, it would still be accustomed to the (settings) way the brain functions. If the brain got injured and changed its function, then the mind would have to interact with the new brain in new ways. 

 

Again, I did not mean to imply that the soul was independent of "me," and I made no suggestion at all of what parts of that "me" continues with the soul after death. 

 

I have an open question for all of you in the next post..........

[PersonalPronoun]

If we humans are created by the natural forces of the universe, out of the building blocks of matter, the same matter that the universe itself is made of, what makes us separate from the universe? 

[JMJones0424]

Yeah, I've written fictional stories about black swan events. 

 

You do illustrate my point though. Before the black swans were discovered, I could have argued with you, or any science minded person, for years about the possibility of the existence of black swans. You would have argued as vehemently with me about that, as you guys are about this.

You've entirely missed the point.  A black swan event is an event that is highly unlikely, and yet occurs, and in so doing fundamentally changes our understanding.  This has utterly nothing to do with falsifiability.  You are an elephant.  This is a falsifiable claim because it is possible, regardless of the veracity of the statement, to show that the claim is false.  You are a human being posting on this forum as PersonalPronoun is also a falsifiable statement. "There once was no discovered evidence of black holes," is a true statement.  And the yet the hypothesis that an object could be so dense that even light could not escape its gravity was just as falsifiable then as it is now.  The falsifiability of a claim is independent of its veracity and of evidence to show that the claim is correct.

 

If the evidence you have for the existence of the soul exists only in your personal experience, and you cannot show how you could verify your evidence to me, then your evidence is just as useful to me as the evidence provided in the email I received a few years ago about a misfortunate Nigerian prince in desperate need of help.  It is easy for me to dismiss your evidence, as you haven't provided any.  And, without evidence, your claim is worthless.

 

You have made the claim that apparently unmeasurable and unverifiable experiences made by you are an appropriate description of reality.  For instance, "I know that the mind can do funny things when the brain is not getting oxygen, but surely there are other possibilities for these phenomena."  No, not surely at all, or at least you have failed to show me that other possibilities should be considered.  Should I consider the possibility that an invisible pink dragon was whispering into my ear when I had these experiences?  If you have no evidence, why should I consider any claim you make?

 

 

I do not know that I am not fooling myself any more than you know that reality is as you perceive it rather than numbers in the mainframe. 

Further, entertaining the idea is useful to me.

 

Granted.  However, entertaining your fantasies is not at all useful to me.  It does me no good.  It may very well be that your view of reality is correct and every other sentient being in the universe is incorrect.  Without evidence, and especially when you claim that no evidence is possible, I have absolutely no way to evaluate your claim other than accepting your revealed truth as accurate.  Therefore I happily reject your claim as being useless to me.  What can be said about my assumption, though, is that it leads to accurate predictions about the reality I experience.  My assumption can provide explanations of phenomenon than can be tested to show whether or not those explanations are correct.  Your assumption is only useful if one is willing to accept your description of reality without evidence or questioning.  I am not.

 

 

Bad things happen to our bodies if we eat potatoes and meat exclusively. 

We need some nutrition that other things provide. 

That's why the other approach is useful in understanding reality. 

Science is the meat and potatoes, but if that's all we eat we get sick.

This is, at the most charitable level, a ludicrous analogy.  I need numerous different substances to remain healthy, and I've never claimed otherwise.  What I have claimed is that if you can't provide evidence for your claims, then they are useless to me.  Your claims are not broccoli.

 

If we humans are created by the natural forces of the universe, out of the building blocks of matter, the same matter that the universe itself is made of, what makes us separate from the universe?

 

Nothing.  If you need a fairy tale to convince you that you are special, then by all means, recite that fairy tale to yourself every time it suits you.  Don't pretend to claim your particular fantasy is representative of reality, though, when the only evidence you have is your own unverifiable claims.

Edited February 16, 2015 by JMJones0424

[PersonalPronoun]

You've entirely missed the point.  

Ok. I'll except this judgement and move on. It's not what the debate is about.

 

 

If the evidence you have for the existence of the soul exists only in your personal experience, and you cannot show how you could verify your evidence to me, then your evidence is just as useful to me as the evidence provided in the email I received a few years ago about a misfortunate Nigerian prince in desperate need of help.  It is easy for me to dismiss your evidence, as you haven't provided any.  And, without evidence, your claim is worthless.

Ok then. Let it be worthless to you. 

 

 

You have made the claim that apparently unmeasurable and unverifiable experiences made by you are an appropriate description of reality.  For instance, "I know that the mind can do funny things when the brain is not getting oxygen, but surely there are other possibilities for these phenomena."  No, not surely at all, or at least you have failed to show me that other possibilities should be considered.

 

 

That's a clever way to ignore my question. 

What was the evidence that loss of oxygen was responsible for the visions you mentioned?

 

The more important follow up question is: how do you justify the claim that lack of oxygen was responsible, while at the same time claiming that there are not "surely" other possibilities, which you apparently do without any study at all?

 

Finally, I feel confident making the claim that "surely" there are other possibilities, because we very rarely discover anything that's proved impossible. 

There is rarely only one way of doing, or being. 

If there were there would be no biodiversity, every sun, every planet, everything would be exactly the same. 

 

 

Should I consider the possibility that an invisible pink dragon was whispering into my ear when I had these experiences? 

Not at all. If you were interested, you might however, consider some other possibility that might be more likely than the pink elephant. 

But you considered no other possibility and judged the whole thing worthless, which seems to be nearly the exact opposite of what you accuse me. 

 

 

 If you have no evidence, why should I consider any claim you make?

 

Why not consider it? What are you doing here? 

Does science never just imagine what could be? 

Is your existence so rigid that there is no room to just think about something different? 

 

Direct answer: Don't consider it if you don't want to. 

 

 

Granted.  However, entertaining your fantasies is not at all useful to me.  It does me no good.  

It may very well be that your view of reality is correct and every other sentient being in the universe is incorrect.  

Wow. So every other sentient being in the universe disagrees with my view of reality? 

I see you have a flair for the dramatic, the fantastical even.

 

Without evidence, and especially when you claim that no evidence is possible,

I don't believe I said no evidence is possible. If you inferred that from what I said then allow me to clarify:

 

I don't know how to show the evidence. That does not mean there is no evidence, nor does it mean that there will not come a time when that evidence is more readily available. 

 

 I have absolutely no way to evaluate your claim other than accepting your revealed truth as accurate.

Therefore I happily reject your claim as being useless to me.

Why should it be so damnably important to me whether you can prove what I think? 

I happily allow for you to be responsible for what you consider to be useful to you. 

By the way, my claim about the soul was not, and is not what I am debating about. That was an example, and I only attempted to answer your questions about that example. 

Furthermore, this is nothing more than a discussion. I'm not here to take something away from you. 

It doesn't have to be so serious. 

 

What can be said about my assumption, though, is that it leads to accurate predictions about the reality I experience.  My assumption can provide explanations of phenomenon than can be tested to show whether or not those explanations are correct.  

If predictions about your reality are the most important thing in your reality, the all I can say is: Enjoy that.

 

Your assumption is only useful if one is willing to accept your description of reality without evidence or questioning.  I am not.

Ok.

 

 This is, at the most charitable level, a ludicrous analogy.  I need numerous different substances to remain healthy, and I've never claimed otherwise.  What I have claimed is that if you can't provide evidence for your claims, then they are useless to me.  Your claims are not broccoli.

This is neither charitable, nor less ridiculous than anything you've claimed of what I've written. 

However I'll replace it with a quote:

 

"While physics and mathematics may tell us how the universe began, they are not much use in predicting human behavior because there are far too many equations to solve."

 

-Stephen Hawking

 

 

Nothing.  

 

That's a start. Thanks.

 

 

 

Don't pretend to claim your particular fantasy is representative of reality, though, when the only evidence you have is your own unverifiable claims.

Dad? 

 

You joined the discussion, and when you did, you implied that you had been reading what we'd all been saying. 

I dont really understand why you wanted to join unless it was to just express your anger at my views, but I happily invite you to continue in the discussion. 

However, if you feel my views injure you in some way, I also happily invite you not to read anything more that I write. 

If I've disrupted your smooth pond, then let the ripples die and go back to it. 

[Eclogite]

If we humans are created by the natural forces of the universe, out of the building blocks of matter, the same matter that the universe itself is made of, what makes us separate from the universe? 

What a bizarre question. We are not separate from the universe. We are most certainly a part of it, in out entirety. Why would you ever think that we are separate from the universe? There is zero evidence that we are separate from the universe and several libraries full of evidence to show that are fully a part of it.

 

You joined the discussion, and when you did, you implied that you had been reading what we'd all been saying. 

I dont really understand why you wanted to join unless it was to just express your anger at my views, but I happily invite you to continue in the discussion. 

However, if you feel my views injure you in some way, I also happily invite you not to read anything more that I write. 

If I've disrupted your smooth pond, then let the ripples die and go back to it.

You do not seem to be listening to anything that anyone is saying to you. JMJones has expressed no anger at your views. He has, perhaps, expressed frustration at the persistent failure to apply logic and the consistency with which your ignore the dbunking of your arguments. Please do not flatter yourself that any of your sophomoric ramblings are disrupting JMJones's "smooth pond". We are attempting to rescue you from the quagmire of your delusions. But sooner or later you will have to play a part in that.

[PersonalPronoun]

You do not seem to be listening to anything that anyone is saying to you. 

I accuse you guys of the exact same thing. 

The conclusion you jump to, in my question below is a perfect example. 

I will explain when I get to that part.

 

JMJones has expressed no anger at your views. He has, perhaps, expressed frustration at the persistent failure to apply logic and the consistency with which your ignore the dbunking of your arguments.

It makes no difference if you call it anger or frustration. The only point he makes in the entirety of the post is to tell me how worthless my opinion is to him. 

While at the same time, he and you, and pgrmdave completely ignore the places where you do exactly what you so pompously accuse me of. 

You each make conclusions without any scientific evidence or study, while in the middle of telling me how wrong I am in doing the same.

And when I challenge you on it, you completely ignore the challenge or answer it with the same appeal to "common sense" that I so often make. 

 

"should I assume a pink elephant whispered it in my ear?" 

That's the answer I got when I challenged jmjones of Making conclusions with out any evidence, which he clearly does while berating me for the same thing. 

 

I'm not listening? 

Bullshit! 

I have admitted my lack of scientific understanding to you countless times, not only in this debate, but in every thread In which I have spoken to you Eclogite. 

All in spite of the fact that I have purposely stayed away from the sub forums that are directly about science. 

I purposely posted my idea about racial memory in the philosophy weight room sub forum specifically because I realize it is not science. You came in and accused me of being unscientific. Yes, it's unscientific. It was just an idea. 

 

Debunking my ideas?

You have not even relaxed your religious-like adherence to science enough to realize that I have DIRECTLY, not kind of, not just a little bit, but CLEARLY and CONCISELY, admitted that I have no scientific grounds to stand on in the individual examples I have spoken of. There is nothing to debunk. 

 

This entire debate since I have joined it, has come from a single statement I made about science not being the final authority in understanding the whole of reality. 

Even in that first statement I did not, in any way, cast any aspersions against science itself. 

However, in every post you act as if I'm trying to destroy your whole way of life. 

You have not once admitted that you could possibly be wrong about any thing. 

 

Who asked you to "save" me from anything? I didn't. 

I just wanted to have a conversation. The fact that you think I need saving at all, shows how disproportionally threatened you feel. 

In short, all you guys have shown is that you are caught up in some strange secular religion. 

 

1) religion claims only they know the truth.

1) you guys have repeatedly said that only science knows reality.

 

2) religion wants nothing more than to save us from our sins. 

2) you guys are only trying to save me from the "quagmire of my delusions"

 

3) religion requires a middle man between us and God. 

Only special people can tell you what God wants of us.

3) science requires a middle man between me and reality. 

Only special people can tell me what reality really is. 

 

4) if I don't listen to religion I am doomed to some horrible life, not only here on earth, but also after I die. 

4) if I don't listen to science I am always at risk of some dire consequence here on earth. At least you leave the afterlife alone. 

(kind of)

 

5) Religion has killed and tortured people in an attempt to rid the world of any one who disagrees with them.

5) science has not started killing and torturing yet, but it's already decided that religion is worthless and should be eliminated, and that philosophy is dead. 

 

You play the suffering victim as though I am threatening you with some fate worse than death. 

 

 

 We are attempting to rescue you from the quagmire of your delusions. But sooner or later you will have to play a part in that.

Yes because God only helps those who help themselves. 

 

What a bizarre question. 

We are not separate from the universe. We are most certainly a part of it, in out entirety. Why would you ever think that we are separate from the universe? There is zero evidence that we are separate from the universe and several libraries full of evidence to show that are fully a part of it.

 

If we humans are created by the natural forces of the universe, out of the building blocks of matter, the same matter that the universe itself is made of, what makes us separate from the universe? 

 

This is the question that I asked. I asked it because you guys have repeatedly claimed that we can't understand reality without science, that reality affects us and never the other way round.

 Prgmdave says it directly in one of his posts when he accuses me (albeit indirectly) of "magical" thinking.

It is a little telling, that you automatically conclude that my question assumes that we are not a part of the universe when

the entire prelude to the actual question suggests that I think the exact opposite. Not to mention that it is the main implication of the argument I've been making in this entire debate. 

 

You guys speak as though we are so far removed from reality that we are incapable of understanding it with out the special priests of science to tell us the truth. 

 

These guys say it much more clearly than I can.....

 

"The universe does not exist 'out there,' independent of us. We are inescapably involved in bringing about that which appears to be happening. We are not only observers. We are participators. In some strange sense, this is a participatory universe. Physics is no longer satisfied with insights only into particles, fields of force, into geometry, or even into time and space. Today we demand of physics some understanding of existence itself."

— John Wheeler

 

"The human brain has 100 billion neurons, each neuron connected to 10 thousand other neurons. Sitting on your shoulders is the most complicated object in the known universe."

 

-Michio Kaku

 

"The universe is not indifferent to our existence - it depends on it."

-Stephen Hawking

 

Now, if you wish it so, I'll gladly leave you guys to your own private comfort zone. 

[JMJones0424]

"should I assume a pink elephant whispered it in my ear?" 

That's the answer I got when I challenged jmjones of Making conclusions with out any evidence, which he clearly does while berating me for the same thing.

No.  The answer I gave was, "Should I consider the possibility that an invisible pink dragon was whispering into my ear when I had these experiences?"  In my eyes the two propositions are equally worthless, as neither has any supporting evidence through which I can judge their merit.  This is strikingly similar to your assertion that the soul exists.  One piece of evidence that I left out, because I felt it was unnecessary to the discussion since you admitted that it exists, can be found here:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/peace-of-mind-near-death/  You have failed to provide evidence for the existence of your soul.  And in fact, what I said was that, "No, not surely at all, or at least you have failed to show me that other possibilities should be considered.  Should I consider the possibility that an invisible pink dragon was whispering into my ear when I had these experiences?  If you have no evidence, why should I consider any claim you make?"  This is the common refrain.  You ask me to accept your view of reality without evidence and I refuse until you provide something that I can evaluate.  I will not blindly accept your claim.

 

 

Does science never just imagine what could be? 

Is your existence so rigid that there is no room to just think about something different?

 

Yes, the whole point of science is to imagine what could be, and then to test that imagination.  In fact, that's probably one of the first things done.  Develop a hypothesis to explain observed phenomena.  The next step would be to make testable, or falsifiable, predictions to determine the value of the hypothesis.  This fundamental step is missing in your worldview, and if I understand you correctly, you claim that there are instances where your hypotheses cannot be tested.  This is why I find your view of reality to be worthless.  You are incapable of showing me why I should take your explanations to be accurate at any level.  Without something that is testable, you are left with an appeal to authority alone to support your claim.

 

 

 

You have not even relaxed your religious-like adherence to science enough to realize that I have DIRECTLY, not kind of, not just a little bit, but CLEARLY and CONCISELY, admitted that I have no scientific grounds to stand on in the individual examples I have spoken of. There is nothing to debunk.

 

I addressed this specifically when I then concluded that your claims are worthless because I am incapable of judging the veracity of your claims.  I'm not trying to debunk anything, as you haven't even given me anything I can debunk.  I'm trying to explain why I don't think your claims can even be considered to be an accurate reflection of reality.  I have absolutely no way to measure the veracity of your claims.

 

There are no priests of science for any definition of priest that I am aware of.  Science is the study of falsifiable claims, a definition that you have conceded.  A priest does not make falsifiable claims.  Priests make claims that must be accepted as accurate based on nothing other than the trust one is willing to place in the priest.

 

"Reality cares not for even our fondest imaginings"

-CraigD

 

"In the whole of human history across the entire planet not one deity has volunteered Novocain. It is a telling omission."

-UncleAl

Edited February 17, 2015 by JMJones0424