Cartesian theater in science and religion.

[David T]

You over-estimate me.

I don't dare lose any.
Life is challenging enuf as things are.

Once I misplaced a single IQ point....
I bought an extended warranty.

I have a degree in writers about writing about writers about writing about writing about which writers and their writings are right and which are wrong. This is identical to a singular email chain except my degree involves a singular chain over thousands of years.. So after 2,000 years the emails would make sense only in context to the entire chain to some not others and it will actually make no sense to it's origination and have nothing to do with it. Thats Cartesian theater. When Dennett wrote about that ,it's not literally how the mind works or even neurological function. It's actually is a bit of a mock and criticism by Dennett. So your comment that it was an early theory of his of the mind is totally wrong. That is A writer about writing, writing about the writer, as to what the writer wrote but what was written is not what the original writer wrote... you may believe it to be true but you believing it to be true is not true. So, If you believe what is true is in fact literally not true , and argue with another who believes what is true is infact literally not true which literally not true is true? That's my original question.

Someone said "science is just a tool". I said that's like saying my hand is a skilsaw. That gap between the wrist and the brain statement that science is only a tool, is in religious terms intelligent design, or random chance in scientific terms . I started out in marine biology so that group is a bit different anyway. Random chance and intelligent design has nothing to do with it or much of anything really except for fantasy. And that too is a part of Nature ironically!!!

 

[Revoltingest]

Someone said "science is just a tool". I said that's like saying my hand is a skilsaw.

We're going to have to agree to disagree about science being a tool.
I've used that tool professionally.
It made me a bunch'o money.

 

[David T]

We're going to have to agree to disagree about science being a tool.
I've used that tool professionally.
It made me a bunch'o money.

Well I appreciate science in application i most definitely appreciate tools and yes i do agree that science can take on qualities with people way way beyond what science is. So I am most definitely not in the science is the new religion for me category. It's like being a Baptist in denial! I tend to say to such folks how Baptist of you. And to certain religious folks how atheist of you!!! The science/religion conflict always seems like two identical disagreeing.

 

[siti]

The question Is the religious vs science debates just Cartesian theater arguing with Cartesian theather?

Yes it is. But then the entire universe is entirely subjective in the sense that for anything to 'detect' the presence of 'anything else' it has to interact with it and thereby alter its reality. There's no way to get around this so (as I think it Gregory Bateson who said it) "all we have is maps of maps" - science gives us one kind of 'map' and religion another kind of 'map'. So the question is not which one is true, but which is the most useful map - and it is not necessarily the most detailed - it would be just as difficult to find ones way out of an exact 1:1 3-dimensional map of a maze as it would to get out of the real thing.

(PS - did I understand the question?)

 

[David T]

Yes it is. But then the entire universe is entirely subjective in the sense that for anything to 'detect' the presence of 'anything else' it has to interact with it and thereby alter its reality. There's no way to get around this so (as I think it Gregory Bateson who said it) "all we have is maps of maps" - science gives us one kind of 'map' and religion another kind of 'map'. So the question is not which one is true, but which is the most useful map - and it is not necessarily the most detailed - it would be just as difficult to find ones way out of an exact 1:1 3-dimensional map of a maze as it would to get out of the real thing.

(PS - did I understand the question?)

You know siti I think we aren't to aware of nature. We have a kind of awareness but I am not sure it's as substantive as we tend to believe.

 

[siti]

You know siti I think we aren't to aware of nature. We have a kind of awareness but I am not sure it's as substantive as we tend to believe.

"Nature cannot be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature" ~ Tao te Ching (English version By Archie J Bahm)

 

[David T]

"Nature cannot be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature" ~ Tao te Ching (English version By Archie J Bahm)

Exactly. Nature is not contained in the word nature exactly the Tao what you say the Tao is is not the Tao. Dependencies is a very underappreciated aspect of life like to breathe.

 

[siti]

Exactly. Nature is not contained in the word nature exactly the Tao what you say the Tao is is not the Tao. Dependencies is a very underappreciated aspect of life like to breathe.

Indeed - and that I think is the problem that science has yet to get to grips with - it is as guilty as religion when it comes to reifying its concepts as if the picture of reality it paints is reality as it is in itself - nothing (except religion reifying its concepts) could be further from the truth. But that certainly doesn't mean that science is not much better at uncovering facts than religion - but the facts are about what we see not necessarily what is.

 

[David T]

Indeed - and that I think is the problem that science has yet to get to grips with - it is as guilty as religion when it comes to reifying its concepts as if the picture of reality it paints is reality as it is in itself - nothing (except religion reifying its concepts) could be further from the truth. But that certainly doesn't mean that science is not much better at uncovering facts than religion - but the facts are about what we see not necessarily what is.

In construction we stand out in nature. It is objective and we are subjective to it. It's easy to say and that is easy to think thats clear but for me it took some,serious time out side culture to regain that very old view that literacy media culture tends to get us spun on. I hear very little here about nature not surprisingly. I do hear a lot of ideas theories speculations and hypothesis but mother nature herself not much. Ultimately we have a badly broken view. Obviously there is a growing minority that is realizing it as we struggle to articulate more clearly. Fr. Thomas Berry who was a Catholic monk in the passionist order said " the old narrative is broken and we await a new narrative". working on that ,each one of us, i think is very important. Its below the surface of daily conversations politics and silly debates.