The Believers are OFf with the Faeries

[RoyLennigan]

That's precisely why you are scientific fundamentalist. You think science can answer ALL questions about the universe,

Your misunderstanding is like that of many other theists. But that's okay, you aren't familiar with science because of your own endeavors. Most scientists make the same mistake you make, too.

Science is not an absolute. There is no one, definite way to come to a scientific conclusion. Everyone does it differently. Science has the potential to answer all questions about the universe, even spiritual. The only thing is that we have to open our minds to other possibilities and ways of thinking--other modes of logic that we haven't discovered yet. In this, science will change just as its theories do.

The basics of science are similar, though, which is what makes it scientific. These basics are inherent in coping with cause and effect--they are not arbitrary steps in logic created by any one person. You could say that science itself was discovered by man, not invented by man. There is only one way in which a specific event causes a specific reaction, such as in chemistry.

 

[RoyLennigan]

It is impossible to provide evidence for the non-material.

What is a relation? Is it material? No. Then it must be non-material. There is much evidence for relations.

 

[grover]

Now you're getting somewhere.

If you start with the two assumptions:
It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.
It is not possible to prove that something is immaterial.

Note then how these two become synonymous.

Is immaterial = does not exist.

-OK, I just got your point with this argument. What my point is is this...not being able to prove that God doesn't exist does not prove that God does exist. It is impossible to prove the existence of the immaterial scientifically (since since is a method for studying the material). So in other words science can not answer for us whether or not only material exists. Does that mean we should not attempt to answer the question as to whether or not only that which is material exists? Is this not the same as saying science can answer all questions and any questions science can not answer should not be asked(meaning anything not answered by science is insignificant)? And if that's what you are saying, how does that differ from the Church saying the Bible answers all questions and any question not answered is of no significance? They both seem arbitrarily limiting to me. (Note: do not read into this that I am stating the Bible as the infallible word of God).
-Remember from our other discussion I'm not claiming you should believe in the immaterial or God simply because it can't be proven that it doesn't exist or take it on faith that it does. I'm merely pointing out here that science can not answer this question. I do however believe there are other modes of inquiry besides science or blind faith that can resolve this question. (i.e., the individual is capable of enlightenent experiences).

This is deduction from your own words, on the two claims you have made.
I know it is flawed - as you have yet to actually prove that "it is impossible to prove something is immaterial".

The fact that no one has proven this is either proof that the immaterial does not exist or that if it does exist it can't be proven. Science can't resolve this for us.

Don't get me wrong - "consciousness" is a remarkable thing.
But all the evidence points to the fact that it is entirely derived from the complexity of our brain - from the purely physical interactions that go on within our heads.
Remove head - remove consciousness.
In this regard "consciousness" is just a word we use to describe a certain property of our brain - a property that is driven and derived from physical interactions.

Just as a building has "height". But what is "height"? What is it made up of?
Nothing, so it is immaterial?
No - it is a word to describe a property derived and driven by the purely physical. And as such, "height" is purely physical. It is not an "immaterial" thing.

Consciousenss is not a physical property like height. We have no way to measure consciousness as we do for height. Which is one of the reasons consciousness is so strange. We have no way of measuring it. Why?

Have you been smoking from the LG tree? Are you actually LG in a different guise???
He is the only other person on this site I know that uses the same terminology as you: "mysterious" etc.
Or maybe it is just a result of similar "training"?

Sorry Bud, consciousness is mysterious. Why can't we measure it?

Anyhoo - I agree that consciousness is a... bizarre... thing.

Bizarre huh? Justbe sure not to call it mysterious.

And it certainly could help in its study, and the study of behaviour, to treat it as a separate thing (a Dualist approach).
It might also be an irreducible property - i.e. not visible once you reduce it to a sum of the mere parts.

Consciousness has parts?

But that is a far cry from calling it "immaterial", and it certainly isn't evidence for it.

Well I think it is self-evident that consciousness is a different order of phenomena than a purely material thing...hence our inability to measure it, or put it in a jar. I could be wrong. But of this I am not wrong: there is no scientific evidence that consciousness is a material thing...otherwise there would be peer-reviewed tests published in scientific journals - there aren't. So, when people state that consciousness is material that is an article of faith.

 

[Sarkus]

-OK, I just got your point with this argument. What my point is is this...not being able to prove that God doesn't exist does not prove that God does exist. It is impossible to prove the existence of the immaterial scientifically (since since is a method for studying the material). So in other words science can not answer for us whether or not only material exists.

You are hung up on science only being about the "material".
It's not.
It is about anything.
The point is that ONLY the material THUS FAR has been shown to exist.

I do however believe there are other modes of inquiry besides science or blind faith that can resolve this question. (i.e., the individual is capable of enlightenent experiences).

Again - the fact of such an "experience" is not questioned - only your interpretation that it is a direct perception of God.
The simpler explanations (per Occam's Razor) might be more mundane and less fanciful - but they ARE the simpler explanations. They may also be explanations that can not yet be fully understood or explained through our lack of knowledge concerning the brain.
But the one thing science does not do is jump on a claim of "immaterial" to fill the gaps in knowledge.

The fact that no one has proven this is either proof that the immaterial does not exist or that if it does exist it can't be proven.

The alternative that you have overlooked is that if it does exist, NO EVIDENCE has yet been provided for it.

Consciousenss is not a physical property like height. We have no way to measure consciousness as we do for height. Which is one of the reasons consciousness is so strange. We have no way of measuring it. Why?

Maybe because as yet we do not fully understand it.

Sorry Bud, consciousness is mysterious. Why can't we measure it?

Is that the definition of "mysterious"?

Bizarre huh? Justbe sure not to call it mysterious.

I don't want to use the term "mysterious" as you may have an understanding of that word that differs from mine.

Consciousness has parts?

Yep - the little cells in the brain - the synapses, neurons etc. Everything that makes up the brain etc.
Or at least this is what one assumes until we find evidence that does not fit this most likely of explanations (per Occam's Razor).

Well I think it is self-evident that consciousness is a different order of phenomena than a purely material thing...hence our inability to measure it, or put it in a jar. I could be wrong.

Just because it is different to what we normally understand as "material" does not necessarily make it immaterial.
We just DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT YET.
Until we do science takes the most simplest of explanations and works with that until evidence comes along that counters the explanation - and then science will move onto a new explanation that includes the new evidence.

But of this I am not wrong: there is no scientific evidence that consciousness is a material thing...

Remove brain, remove consciousness.

 

[grover]

Again - the fact of such an "experience" is not questioned - only your interpretation that it is a direct perception of God.

I'm not interpreting it. People that have it claim that's what it is. Do not read into this that I'm saying you should believe in God. You have not seen evidence of God or had direct experience and therefore should not believe in it.

The simpler explanations (per Occam's Razor) might be more mundane and less fanciful - but they ARE the simpler explanations.

I think that's just your opinion. I'm not saying it's rith or wrong. Just that it is only opinion and not consensus fact.

They may also be explanations that can not yet be fully understood or explained through our lack of knowledge concerning the brain.
But the one thing science does not do is jump on a claim of "immaterial" to fill the gaps in knowledge.

Your right we don't know much about the brain. If science ever proves it is material I will whole-heartedly accpet it. But science has come nowhere near proving it is material and in my opinion it is self-evidently not material (which is why it has no material qualities, and can't be measured).

The alternative that you have overlooked is that if it does exist, NO EVIDENCE has yet been provided for it.

Your right, maybe at some point evidence will be provided.

Maybe because as yet we do not fully understand it.

Agree.

Is that the definition of "mysterious"?

No, is "not fully understanding something" the definition of mysterious?

I don't want to use the term "mysterious" as you may have an understanding of that word that differs from mine.

OK

Yep - the little cells in the brain - the synapses, neurons etc. Everything that makes up the brain etc.
Or at least this is what one assumes until we find evidence that does not fit this most likely of explanations (per Occam's Razor).

The brain is not synonomous with consciousness (we need an abbreviation fo that word). That's one of the mysterious things about consciousness, how is it produced by the brain? We know where the brain doesn't different things like think, or feel fear, but we have no idea how the brain produces consciousness or even if it does?

Just because it is different to what we normally understand as "material" does not necessarily make it immaterial.

OK

We just DO NOT UNDERSTAND IT YET.

Yeah man, it's mysterious

Until we do science takes the most simplest of explanations

No, science requires a testable hypothesis. Science doesn't just simply accept anything.

Remove brain, remove consciousness.

Well, how would we determine this? We would need someone to tell us if they were conscious after death, and some people make this exact claim. Of course this is just a subjective claim. So it is once again the problem of a subjective claim of direct experience with no way of studying it scientifically (except to perform the experiment of killing yourself). In my opinion we will have to die ourselves to find out if their claims are valid or not.

 

[RoyLennigan]

Grover,

Is your lack of a reply to me because you didn't understand the message? Or have I hit some soft spot?

 

[grover]

No, you didn't hit a soft spot. I was actually parsing things out with Sarkus and didn't feel like getting involved with your tangent. I'll reply.

PS-I'm here to find out what the weak spots in my position are (if any). It's easier to do that with people that challenge you then agree with you, right?

 

[grover]

Your misunderstanding is like that of many other theists.

I don't have a misunderstanding. Scientifc fundamentalists like Dawkins do think science can answer all questions.

But that's okay, you aren't familiar with science because of your own endeavors.

I think I'm reasonably familiar with science.

Most scientists make the same mistake you make, too.

Then my comment isn't unreasonable?

Science is not an absolute.

I know. But many people act like science can answer all questions (i.e., is an absolute).

There is no one, definite way to come to a scientific conclusion.

From my understanding science is a method of investigation that involves observation and testing.

Everyone does it differently. Science has the potential to answer all questions about the universe, even spiritual.

Remains to be seen. You seem to be contradicting yourself here though and stating that science may in fact be an absolute.

The only thing is that we have to open our minds to other possibilities and ways of thinking--other modes of logic that we haven't discovered yet. In this, science will change just as its theories do.

OK.

The basics of science are similar, though, which is what makes it scientific.

That's deep man.

These basics are inherent in coping with cause and effect--they are not arbitrary steps in logic created by any one person. You could say that science itself was discovered by man, not invented by man.

Yeah, you could say that.

There is only one way in which a specific event causes a specific reaction, such as in chemistry.

Are you sure about this?

 

[grover]

What is a relation?

I don't know. Tell me.

Is it material? No. Then it must be non-material. There is much evidence for relations.

First tell me what you mean by relation and provide an example.

 

[RoyLennigan]

I don't have a misunderstanding. Scientifc fundamentalists like Dawkins do think science can answer all questions.

The misunderstanding is not about what any one scientist thinks, its about the general effects of the idea of science.

I think I'm reasonably familiar with science.

How many experiments have you been involved with?

Then my comment isn't unreasonable?

No. But it should be noted that many times what seems reasonable becomes wrong in the near future.

I know. But many people act like science can answer all questions (i.e., is an absolute).

Yes they act like this. But only because science keeps answering more and more questions. It will never answer them all, but it will always have the potential to answer them all. The key is that we do not yet know what will or will not be answered until it is.

From my understanding science is a method of investigation that involves observation and testing.

Everyone observes different things. Everyone tests differently. Everyone's conclusions are not the same.

Remains to be seen. You seem to be contradicting yourself here though and stating that science may in fact be an absolute.

I do not say that it is an absolute, this is your misunderstanding. I say that it has the potential to answer anything, given the right situations and/or enough time.

OK.

Do you agree with the point, or are you just trying to get past it?

That's deep man.

Ever heard of an opening statement for a paragraph? Its usually written purposefully to make it obvious. Science is based on the idea that all our methods are similar enough to be repeatable.

Yeah, you could say that.

And yet you don't. Why?

Are you sure about this?

Actually, no. I'm not exactly sure what that statement had to do with the post. Thinking back, newer theoretical sciences make me think otherwise.

I don't know. Tell me.

First tell me what you mean by relation and provide an example.

Mathematics is just the study of relationships, for example.

A relationship:
Velocity = distance divided by time

Or a relationship such as a point on a graph. In a 3D graph, it requires 3 numbers, say (3, 12, -7). The relationship between those numbers locates the exact position of the point.

 

[RoyLennigan]

No, you didn't hit a soft spot. I was actually parsing things out with Sarkus and didn't feel like getting involved with your tangent. I'll reply.

PS-I'm here to find out what the weak spots in my position are (if any). It's easier to do that with people that challenge you then agree with you, right?

Yes, I fully agree with you.

 

[grover]

Roy, I don't see how we disagree on most things so far. But I want to try and wrap my head around relations being immaterial.
1) A relation as I've understood it from your description is synonomous with concept. 2) When you say concepts are immaterial in what way is this different from saying consciousness is immaterial?