A few important questions to ponder
- Thread starter ThaG
- Start date
The questions I posted were intended to mock the scholasticism-like discussion that were going on in other threads. Because the "methodology" was very similar - pointless pondering over things that don't even exist with zero data points involved
That's the problem, there isn't. It's faith vs reason and I am on the side of reason, remember?
1. That's a vague enough definition for it to be meaningless
2. What does "existence" mean and how do you define "a living entity". If you define it as a living organism, does the "spiritual" include bacteria and viruses, and if not, why not?
3. "Consciousness", and I prefer to use the term very cautiously, has emerged exactly through a purely materialistic process and that fact alone is sufficient to throw your "spirituality" in the garbage bin
Again, either engage in some meaningful intellectual activity, or go hide somewhere with your holy book and don't waste the time of the grown folks
That's the problem, there isn't. It's faith vs reason and I am on the side of reason, remember?
1. That's a vague enough definition for it to be meaningless
2. What does "existence" mean and how do you define "a living entity". If you define it as a living organism, does the "spiritual" include bacteria and viruses, and if not, why not?
3. "Consciousness", and I prefer to use the term very cautiously, has emerged exactly through a purely materialistic process and that fact alone is sufficient to throw your "spirituality" in the garbage bin
Again, either engage in some meaningful intellectual activity, or go hide somewhere with your holy book and don't waste the time of the grown folks
You do not know what exists. You only know a few items that happen to have come in contact with your imperfect senses. The problem is, you think those two categories are the same.
No. It isn't faith versus reason. And there is a methodology to spiritual understanding. The problem is that you can't even grasp the most basic concept of self to be able to understand that methodology.
It isn't vague at all. You just don't grasp it.
"Existence" defined.
Try to follow. If the living entity is a fundamental part of existence, and the physical body itself is subject to dissolution, then the living entity is different from the physical body. If the living entity is an irreducible part of existence, and the physical body can be reduced into various components, then the living entity is different from the physical body. Therefore, the physical forms of bacteria and viruses are different from the living entities that may inhabit those forms.
This is not a fact. This is your fundamental belief in your physicalist/naturalist philosophy. In this regard, one is not able to look at the world and then know the nature of self. To presume as if this is possible is to have initially decided a physicalist philosophy. So it is not that you or others made some scientific observations and then concluded that consciousness emerges from a purely materialistic process. It is that you or others have decided that it must before proceeding with your so-called scientific observations.
You are the one incapable of meaningful, intellectual activity. You think that all truths must be a posteriori and thus your intellect is stifled. You have chosen a philosophy, a priori, and you don't even realize it. This is the crux of the matter. In other words, you have decided, prior to observation, that truth can only be found through observation. Your position is self-defeat.
No. It isn't faith versus reason. And there is a methodology to spiritual understanding. The problem is that you can't even grasp the most basic concept of self to be able to understand that methodology.
It isn't vague at all. You just don't grasp it.
"Existence" defined.
Try to follow. If the living entity is a fundamental part of existence, and the physical body itself is subject to dissolution, then the living entity is different from the physical body. If the living entity is an irreducible part of existence, and the physical body can be reduced into various components, then the living entity is different from the physical body. Therefore, the physical forms of bacteria and viruses are different from the living entities that may inhabit those forms.
This is not a fact. This is your fundamental belief in your physicalist/naturalist philosophy. In this regard, one is not able to look at the world and then know the nature of self. To presume as if this is possible is to have initially decided a physicalist philosophy. So it is not that you or others made some scientific observations and then concluded that consciousness emerges from a purely materialistic process. It is that you or others have decided that it must before proceeding with your so-called scientific observations.
You are the one incapable of meaningful, intellectual activity. You think that all truths must be a posteriori and thus your intellect is stifled. You have chosen a philosophy, a priori, and you don't even realize it. This is the crux of the matter. In other words, you have decided, prior to observation, that truth can only be found through observation. Your position is self-defeat.
Nothing that there is zero evidence for can be considered to "exist", until proven otherwise
What else if not faith is it to proclaim the existence of something that we have zero evidence that it exists and although we can't disprove it because it is a conveniently unfalsifiable hypothesis, plenty of reasons to think we made it up?
Let's hear what it is?
So what exactly is the "self"? The first step to having a meaningful discussion is getting our terminology and means of communication straight. This means working with clear definitions, evidence, data and clearly formulated hypothesis to test. Vague terms that can be interpreted in any way you want do not help.
See above and give me a clear, well articulated definition (that is not vague) if that's the case
So which exactly of the 5 definitions is the one you mean?
They do not mean the same thing. I go with #4.
Why should the "living thing" be a "fundamental part" of existence? What the fuck does the "fundamental part of existence" crap mean to begin with. I would say with the current state of knowledge, fundamental part of existence are quarks, or if string theorists are right, some tiny strings. But life is so bigger than that and in the same time a product of the properties of everything smaller than it that it is made of that I can only say that you just broke the scale of my bullshitometer wiht this.
There are no living entities that are different from the physical forms of viruses, that's pure lunacy.
Do not confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. That's a very basic mistake and if you make it, you deserve it be laughed out of the room if in the same time you claim to understand anything about philosophy. That does not mean I am not a philosophical naturalist too, but there is not evidence to prove or disprove that position (and there can't be).
See above. Learn the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and the come back.
Also, if we do a perfectly good job of explaining consciousness without having to invoke the supernatural, why should we do it.
I'll give you a hint - because some people have already decided that this is the case and they are seeking to incorporate it into the existing scientific theories. This is exactly the thing you accuse us of doing, which just show, for yet another time, that the best way to expose the creationist (or any related beast) is to turn his own argument against himself.
see above
What else if not faith is it to proclaim the existence of something that we have zero evidence that it exists and although we can't disprove it because it is a conveniently unfalsifiable hypothesis, plenty of reasons to think we made it up?
Let's hear what it is?
So what exactly is the "self"? The first step to having a meaningful discussion is getting our terminology and means of communication straight. This means working with clear definitions, evidence, data and clearly formulated hypothesis to test. Vague terms that can be interpreted in any way you want do not help.
See above and give me a clear, well articulated definition (that is not vague) if that's the case
So which exactly of the 5 definitions is the one you mean?
They do not mean the same thing. I go with #4.
Why should the "living thing" be a "fundamental part" of existence? What the fuck does the "fundamental part of existence" crap mean to begin with. I would say with the current state of knowledge, fundamental part of existence are quarks, or if string theorists are right, some tiny strings. But life is so bigger than that and in the same time a product of the properties of everything smaller than it that it is made of that I can only say that you just broke the scale of my bullshitometer wiht this.
There are no living entities that are different from the physical forms of viruses, that's pure lunacy.
Do not confuse methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. That's a very basic mistake and if you make it, you deserve it be laughed out of the room if in the same time you claim to understand anything about philosophy. That does not mean I am not a philosophical naturalist too, but there is not evidence to prove or disprove that position (and there can't be).
See above. Learn the difference between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism and the come back.
Also, if we do a perfectly good job of explaining consciousness without having to invoke the supernatural, why should we do it.
I'll give you a hint - because some people have already decided that this is the case and they are seeking to incorporate it into the existing scientific theories. This is exactly the thing you accuse us of doing, which just show, for yet another time, that the best way to expose the creationist (or any related beast) is to turn his own argument against himself.
see above
Because the question wasn't correct
I said that "New Atheism is the best approach to dealing with religion" and by that I mean that atheists should come out and say what they think about religion straight in everybody's face. That's the only way things can change, and they mostly will because the group of atheists is highly enriched for top scientists, thinkers and other respectable people. It may not help in a openly anti-intellectualist society that will rather do without such people than listen to them, and it is an open question whether the US is such (I fear it is) but without testing it, we will never know. Anyway, the accomodationist approach does not work so we should try something more radical
I said that "New Atheism is the best approach to dealing with religion" and by that I mean that atheists should come out and say what they think about religion straight in everybody's face. That's the only way things can change, and they mostly will because the group of atheists is highly enriched for top scientists, thinkers and other respectable people. It may not help in a openly anti-intellectualist society that will rather do without such people than listen to them, and it is an open question whether the US is such (I fear it is) but without testing it, we will never know. Anyway, the accomodationist approach does not work so we should try something more radical
Why do you think that:
(1) Discovery channel gathers a huge audience
(2) Discovery channel effectively communicates the principles of science?
Of course it will not happen all of a sudden, it may not happen until a very long time after the campaign has started in fact, if the indoctrination is too rigid to be overcome easily.
But if we are too careful not to hurt the feelings of the religious, we won't get anywhere. And we will hear news like this all the time:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/st...l-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html
(1) Discovery channel gathers a huge audience
(2) Discovery channel effectively communicates the principles of science?
Of course it will not happen all of a sudden, it may not happen until a very long time after the campaign has started in fact, if the indoctrination is too rigid to be overcome easily.
But if we are too careful not to hurt the feelings of the religious, we won't get anywhere. And we will hear news like this all the time:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/st...l-evolution-law-alberta-classes-teachers.html
I said before that you don't know what exists. You also don't know what is evident.
You're like someone who keeps himself deep in a cave and then insists that there is zero evidence for this so-called sun.
You're not ready for calculus when we're still talking about basic math...
What exactly are you asking about the self? I have already explained the basic consideration - that self is different from the body in that it is a fundamental and irreducible part of existence or reality, if you prefer that term. The evidence is, in fact, the most immediate that you (and all sentient beings) have. Your self-awareness is not dependent upon external observation. You don't fondle quarks and juggle numbers, and then come up with some theory that you exist. You know, prior to external observation, that you exist. Tapping into this understanding is what entails the methodology you're asking about.
If it seems vague to you, then that is because you are still stuck thinking in terms of your "naturalism."
#4 is fine.
This is you still intoxicated with materialism. Everything you say reeks of it. It is like you're all over the road, yet it appears to you that you're driving straight, and you insist that someone proves that you aren't. We'll just have to wait for this intoxication to fade away before you can understand your situation. By the way, the bullshitometer is broken because you breathed into it.
Sotally tober, ociffer.
You HAVE to be a philosophical naturalist if you insist that all knowledge is a posteriori. I am not confusing anything.
No. You see above. The difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism is irrelevant to our discussion. Your methodology, per se, doesn't necessarily deem you a philosophical naturalist. But I never claimed that it did!
This is the saddest statement anyone could ever make. Seriously, I could announce that all the world's children have been brutally raped and murdered, and your statement is still sadder. You are treating knowledge of self as if it is something you consider after you (a self) begin making observations of the physical world, and then, based on this, you regard a transcendental understanding of self as superfluous.
The difference is that my position doesn't lead to self-defeat. I am not saying that all knowledge must be a posteriori or a priori. Also, my position is direct experience. It is therefore not possible to "turn his argument against himself."
See within.
You're like someone who keeps himself deep in a cave and then insists that there is zero evidence for this so-called sun.
You're not ready for calculus when we're still talking about basic math...
What exactly are you asking about the self? I have already explained the basic consideration - that self is different from the body in that it is a fundamental and irreducible part of existence or reality, if you prefer that term. The evidence is, in fact, the most immediate that you (and all sentient beings) have. Your self-awareness is not dependent upon external observation. You don't fondle quarks and juggle numbers, and then come up with some theory that you exist. You know, prior to external observation, that you exist. Tapping into this understanding is what entails the methodology you're asking about.
If it seems vague to you, then that is because you are still stuck thinking in terms of your "naturalism."
#4 is fine.
This is you still intoxicated with materialism. Everything you say reeks of it. It is like you're all over the road, yet it appears to you that you're driving straight, and you insist that someone proves that you aren't. We'll just have to wait for this intoxication to fade away before you can understand your situation. By the way, the bullshitometer is broken because you breathed into it.
Sotally tober, ociffer.
You HAVE to be a philosophical naturalist if you insist that all knowledge is a posteriori. I am not confusing anything.
No. You see above. The difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism is irrelevant to our discussion. Your methodology, per se, doesn't necessarily deem you a philosophical naturalist. But I never claimed that it did!
This is the saddest statement anyone could ever make. Seriously, I could announce that all the world's children have been brutally raped and murdered, and your statement is still sadder. You are treating knowledge of self as if it is something you consider after you (a self) begin making observations of the physical world, and then, based on this, you regard a transcendental understanding of self as superfluous.
The difference is that my position doesn't lead to self-defeat. I am not saying that all knowledge must be a posteriori or a priori. Also, my position is direct experience. It is therefore not possible to "turn his argument against himself."
See within.
Direct experience is very good way of fooling yourself. That's why we developed science - because direct experience was telling us things like the obvious fact that the Sun revolves around the Earth, that the Earth is flat and so on. In other words, you have dug yourself into the deepest epistemiological hole and you have no chance of escaping
No. Knowledge of the revolutions of stars and planets as well as the shape of the earth require external observation because they are external phenomenon. External observation is contrary to what I mean by direct or immediate experience. Therefore, your argument is a straw man. You have sent your straw man into the deepest epistemological hole.