Are you convinced?
- Thread starter Itseemstome
- Start date
well we have been dealing with the conundrum of the mind - obviously it exists and it also obviously does not hold up to reductionist scrutiny (electrons and neurons).
So if you want to claim reductionism (or natural world view, or however you want to phrase it) is the means of indicating all there is , it runs into difficulties.
I don't need one, however if you know of a reference that establishes the relationships between electrons and neurons (or some other molecular operation) which makes the cuckoo lay its eggs in the nests of other birds, it could help your case considerably
That all phenomena can be reduced to the push/pull forces perceivd on an atomic or sub atomic level.
LG,
I'm interested to know what information led to your conclusions about reductionism. Has it been taken from a particular study or is it something you have made up for yourself?
You keep making these claims and up until now I have ignored them since you offer no support for them.
What case? I don't have a case here.
I'm interested to know what information led to your conclusions about reductionism. Has it been taken from a particular study or is it something you have made up for yourself?
You keep making these claims and up until now I have ignored them since you offer no support for them.
If you accept a paradigm as the final last word in determining phenomena, what else can a phenomena be that exists outside of it?
Cris
Eventhough you haven't said it directly, your case is that reductionism is the final last word in determining evidence (since you insist that if a scientist has not established the physical, ie molecular, reality of something, there is no evidence for it)
The limits of reductionism are quite apparent - I have quoted numerous established scientists to the same effect - the whole discussion is a sub branch of abiogenesis
If I claim "there is no proof that the mind falls within the reductionist model" what support is required? (after all if it wasn't a fact you could quite easily pull out evidence to the contary)
If you say that all silky oak trees can be found in europe, what does such a view make of the claim that a silky oak tree is in America?.
In otherwords when you make a claim about the absolute limitations of determining phenomena (that everything can be reduced to observations of push/pull forces of atoms) you have a stance on all claims that are contrary to it (ie - they don't exist)
LG,
So far no one has demonstrated truths outside of science and logic. If you know of anything then come forward and allow it to be scrutinized.
I still don’t see how reducing all evidence to basic matter and energy leads to a conclusion that the mind does not exist. You will need to explain the reasoning before I can comment further.
You’ve read a great deal into things I have never said or implied. I have never placed any limits on what might constitute evidence, even to the extent that logic itself can be evidence. I have also suggested you offer alternatives, to which you have confusingly and consistently responded that reductionism will not work, without offering alternatives. But the scientific method is not the same as reductionism, and I hope you realize that such methods do not imply that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
So far no one has demonstrated truths outside of science and logic. If you know of anything then come forward and allow it to be scrutinized.
I’ve not noticed any such references in our discussions. And I would disagree that these limits you suggest are apparent, clearly they are not apparent to me.
I simply do not see how reductionism leads to such a conclusion. Possibly it doesn’t help that apparently I am not a reductionist.
I still don’t see how reducing all evidence to basic matter and energy leads to a conclusion that the mind does not exist. You will need to explain the reasoning before I can comment further.
I can't say that there's been anything posted in the Religion forum that has changed my views beyond affirmation and expansion upon my existing views. I have yet to do a 180 on anything due to some truly prophetic rambling.
LG,
It is not that there are claims concerning absolute limitations, it is that no one can show there are other possibilities. Until then science proceeds with what it knows until something else is presented. The good thing about science is that it is entirely open to change and is not dogmatic.
Not sure if science overrides your perception of reductionism, but clearly I am not a reductionist according to your definition.
Ahh I think I’m approaching the error you are making.
It is not that there are claims concerning absolute limitations, it is that no one can show there are other possibilities. Until then science proceeds with what it knows until something else is presented. The good thing about science is that it is entirely open to change and is not dogmatic.
A nice analogy that demonstrates your error. In science nothing is considered an absolute. In this case science would say “all silky oak trees so far discovered have been in Europe”. The discovery of such trees elsewhere would lead science to update its knowledge base.
Not sure if science overrides your perception of reductionism, but clearly I am not a reductionist according to your definition.
I have met people that that did not call themselves agnostic or even humanist that have become atheist because of discussions with atheists.
I think there is such a thing as an anti-epiphany. One where a person suddenly realizes that religion is just bunk, bologna and hokum.
I think there is such a thing as an anti-epiphany. One where a person suddenly realizes that religion is just bunk, bologna and hokum.
Cris
The problem is that it has no higher paradigm to operate out of than reductionism, so anything that falls out side of it is determined, by default, not to exist.
The problem is that such a discovery would work out of a different presentation of evidence - if one insisted that europe was the only place to find oak trees (or as you say, that matter is all we have in existence), then it reaches a kind of stalemate (presenting the paradigm of knowable matter you ask "where is the evidence of life")
The problem is that it has no higher paradigm to operate out of than reductionism, so anything that falls out side of it is determined, by default, not to exist.
The problem is that such a discovery would work out of a different presentation of evidence - if one insisted that europe was the only place to find oak trees (or as you say, that matter is all we have in existence), then it reaches a kind of stalemate (presenting the paradigm of knowable matter you ask "where is the evidence of life")
Unless you can accept that there is matter and living consciousness you are a reductionist - so I think you fit the bill quite snuggly