Faith in science?

[ratiocinator]

Yes the evidence should lead the way. What I am saying is that evidence can be interpreted differently depending on the assumptions made.

Only to a very limited degree. If there are two hypotheses (and a hypothesis can only be valid if it is testable and falsifiable), then an observation or experiment either is in accordance with one and not the other or it is irrelevant.

 

[Brian2]

You may consider the evidence sufficient for the existence of spiritual worlds and the soul base don your belief, but science has a higher standard.

Science also has a bias to finding a naturalistic answer. If it cannot then I would imagine it says that the answer is not known yet. Nothing seems to be evidence for spirits.

ALL hypothesis and theories proposed are based on previous knowledge of science. The only result in science is whether the hypothesis or theory can be based on 'objective verifiable evidence. It is the nature of science that it can only test hypothesis based on Methodological Naturalism.

As well as being based on 'objective verifiable evidence' they are also based on the naturalistic methodology. This is what brings in the bias.

 

[shunyadragon]

Science also has a bias to finding a naturalistic answer. If it cannot then I would imagine it says that the answer is not known yet. Nothing seems to be evidence for spirits.

It is not a bias, 'bias' requires subjective judgement, objective verifiable evidence' defines the limits of science, and science CAN ONLY find naturalist answers..

As well as being based on 'objective verifiable evidence' they are also based on the naturalistic methodology. This is what brings in the bias.

"Objective verifiable evidence' defines Methodological Naturalism. No possible bias here, because Science is neutral to any other possible cause and effect relationships outside science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hi, there. Yes, agreed.

It seems to me to be obvious that wolves experience a world as rich and potent as the one we do.

Ok, cool.

Yes, dogs are conscious.

How does this all relate to the OP?

Do you think that the belief science will one day furnish us with a theory of consciousness is faith?

What do you make of the problem of consciousness?

What do I make of the problem of consciousness?

First, I note that we are not conscious of everything -- in fact, we miss an enormous amount of what goes on both outside of us and inside. You must have seen the "invisible gorilla" experiment, just as an example.

A lot of what goes on in our brain goes similarly unnoticed. When I'm trying to solve a cryptic crossword puzzle, for example (most Americans don't do these -- if you want to know what they are, visit puzzles of my own creation.)

I know that in solving these, sometimes I just have to let it go -- do something else. A little while later, I can come back and know the answer the moment I re-read the clue. It was being worked on without my conscious awareness, but the moment I "ask" myself again, the answer is right there waiting, as if on a silver platter.

So what do I think of the problem of consciousness? I think that there are brain cells that have specific tasks to do: experience the touch of my finger on a keyboard, for example. But I also think that (except for reflexes, which do not occur in the brain but in nerves outside of it), many of those cells are not responsible for reacting -- that's up to other cells. But to do that, those other cells must be notified -- made "aware" of -- the firing of those sensory cells.

In exactly the same way, I think that there are systems of brain cells whose responsibility is to be "aware" of whole patterns of activity within the brain itself. And the firing of those systems of cells is what consciousness is.

 

[Yerda]

What do I make of the problem of consciousness?

First, I note that we are not conscious of everything -- in fact, we miss an enormous amount of what goes on both outside of us and inside. You must have seen the "invisible gorilla" experiment, just as an example.

A lot of what goes on in our brain goes similarly unnoticed. When I'm trying to solve a cryptic crossword puzzle, for example (most Americans don't do these -- if you want to know what they are, visit puzzles of my own creation.)

I know that in solving these, sometimes I just have to let it go -- do something else. A little while later, I can come back and know the answer the moment I re-read the clue. It was being worked on without my conscious awareness, but the moment I "ask" myself again, the answer is right there waiting, as if on a silver platter.

So what do I think of the problem of consciousness? I think that there are brain cells that have specific tasks to do: experience the touch of my finger on a keyboard, for example. But I also think that (except for reflexes, which do not occur in the brain but in nerves outside of it), many of those cells are not responsible for reacting -- that's up to other cells. But to do that, those other cells must be notified -- made "aware" of -- the firing of those sensory cells.

In exactly the same way, I think that there are systems of brain cells whose responsibility is to be "aware" of whole patterns of activity within the brain itself. And the firing of those systems of cells is what consciousness is.

Ok, yeah that's not at all unlike some of the other posters have suggested. Is this just a hunch or something you've read about?

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask science why did you brothers design science and he writes a document stating anti.

To a naturalist that circumstance says knew. Was informed. Owned a personal human motivation.

To be a hu.man equal and get life sacrificed. Hurt. Knowing by awareness science changed your atmosphere.

Evidence ice melting.

Story teaching says ice returning every year balances and keeps animal and human bio life stable. As we own similar life bodies. Animals live as a community yet can live for the same life span.

About survival 100 years but not as any baby.

The scientific reasoning first born..meaning first babies two of natural human parents died. Then quotes DNA healed and they miraculously returned to re owning life.

Science quoted biology the reason for an ape man radiation effect.

Less than self common man doing assessment.

Science defined it to choose. As science is in fact the chosen anti condition of natural.

Science in life therefore proves it never discussed life creation.

Science said why mutated DNA came back returned via atmospheric changes.

All themes by humans always was.

Which introduced the spiritual human theme.

A human knowing man men designed machines that cannot react. They are controlled by the human designer.

Which brings the onus back to man men scientist. For what reason,?

And it was spiritual.

If God determined O earth history came from the eternal. And science quotes so did humans. If you theoried to remove God by conversion then the theory was to remove self also.

Logic. Common sense

Theory not common sense.

Then you read science discussing shifting time yet making no change. About belief of pyramid being that type of machine.

Then you realise it is a spirit story.

To take self back to the term the eternal.

What God he said was removed from.

And it is a true history.

Science quotes. I do not really know the highest state before big bang burning gain energy presence. But I theoried to return to it.

The same destroyer mentality that he wrote about in his man men holy book as a human warning.

A vision how he gained scientific advice. Sun converted earth crystalline mass non burning cold gas atmosphere. Flood saved the life of God earth.

Vision a radiation reaction evil. Saved. Cooled. Higher advice as water cooled it.

His life human mainly water.

Reaction evil cooling holy.

Reaction science vision not holy..the lie.

 

[Yerda]

If you ask science why did you brothers design science and he writes a document stating anti.

To a naturalist that circumstance says knew. Was informed. Owned a personal human motivation.

To be a hu.man equal and get life sacrificed. Hurt. Knowing by awareness science changed your atmosphere.

Evidence ice melting.

Story teaching says ice returning every year balances and keeps animal and human bio life stable. As we own similar life bodies. Animals live as a community yet can live for the same life span.

About survival 100 years but not as any baby.

The scientific reasoning first born..meaning first babies two of natural human parents died. Then quotes DNA healed and they miraculously returned to re owning life.

Science quoted biology the reason for an ape man radiation effect.

Less than self common man doing assessment.

Science defined it to choose. As science is in fact the chosen anti condition of natural.

Science in life therefore proves it never discussed life creation.

Science said why mutated DNA came back returned via atmospheric changes.

All themes by humans always was.

Which introduced the spiritual human theme.

A human knowing man men designed machines that cannot react. They are controlled by the human designer.

Which brings the onus back to man men scientist. For what reason,?

And it was spiritual.

If God determined O earth history came from the eternal. And science quotes so did humans. If you theoried to remove God by conversion then the theory was to remove self also.

Logic. Common sense

Theory not common sense.

Then you read science discussing shifting time yet making no change. About belief of pyramid being that type of machine.

Then you realise it is a spirit story.

To take self back to the term the eternal.

What God he said was removed from.

And it is a true history.

Science quotes. I do not really know the highest state before big bang burning gain energy presence. But I theoried to return to it.

The same destroyer mentality that he wrote about in his man men holy book as a human warning.

A vision how he gained scientific advice. Sun converted earth crystalline mass non burning cold gas atmosphere. Flood saved the life of God earth.

Vision a radiation reaction evil. Saved. Cooled. Higher advice as water cooled it.

His life human mainly water.

Reaction evil cooling holy.

Reaction science vision not holy..the lie.

Mate, I can't make heads or tails of any of your posts. Is english your first language?

 

[Brian2]

You said scientists claim theories as
fact and use them against religion.
I asked you for an example.

An example of any scientist doing that.
Not an example of a theory so used.

If many scientists claim theory as fact,
name even one. That was the challenge.

Some misconceptions to clear up.

A theory is not a fact.
Anyone who says it is, is simply ignorant.
We can't do much about what ignorant
people say.

In science, "fact" is limited to such as
"Its a fact that this is my data ".

No scientist will claim a theory is a fact.

Ok so far? If so we can look at the next one.

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia.
Theory and the Fact of Evolution | National Center for Science Education
https://www.nature.com/articles/nsmb0205-101.pdf?origin=ppub
Science and evolution

 

[Brian2]

Only to a very limited degree. If there are two hypotheses (and a hypothesis can only be valid if it is testable and falsifiable), then an observation or experiment either is in accordance with one and not the other or it is irrelevant.

God is irrelevant in science but that does not mean that God did not do it.
Natural processes can be observed today but that does not mean that those processes are responsible for all of what happened in the past or that they could even come close to being responsible. How can theories of tested and falsified for things that happened in the past?

 

[Brian2]

It is not a bias, 'bias' requires subjective judgement, objective verifiable evidence' defines the limits of science, and science CAN ONLY find naturalist answers..

Then the only naturalistic answers is where the bias comes in and that should be made plain to all.

"Objective verifiable evidence' defines Methodological Naturalism. No possible bias here, because Science is neutral to any other possible cause and effect relationships outside science.

And the atheists look at science and see what science claims and uses it against religion as if science has discovered the truth. The truth about what science can speak about and what science is seems to be hidden and replaced with the claim that science is the best way to determine the truth.

 

[Brian2]

What do I make of the problem of consciousness?

First, I note that we are not conscious of everything -- in fact, we miss an enormous amount of what goes on both outside of us and inside. You must have seen the "invisible gorilla" experiment, just as an example.

A lot of what goes on in our brain goes similarly unnoticed. When I'm trying to solve a cryptic crossword puzzle, for example (most Americans don't do these -- if you want to know what they are, visit puzzles of my own creation.)

I know that in solving these, sometimes I just have to let it go -- do something else. A little while later, I can come back and know the answer the moment I re-read the clue. It was being worked on without my conscious awareness, but the moment I "ask" myself again, the answer is right there waiting, as if on a silver platter.

So what do I think of the problem of consciousness? I think that there are brain cells that have specific tasks to do: experience the touch of my finger on a keyboard, for example. But I also think that (except for reflexes, which do not occur in the brain but in nerves outside of it), many of those cells are not responsible for reacting -- that's up to other cells. But to do that, those other cells must be notified -- made "aware" of -- the firing of those sensory cells.

In exactly the same way, I think that there are systems of brain cells whose responsibility is to be "aware" of whole patterns of activity within the brain itself. And the firing of those systems of cells is what consciousness is.

It does not say what this consciousness is or what produces it however. What decides where to focus our attention?

 

[shunyadragon]

Then the only naturalistic answers is where the bias comes in and that should be made plain to all.

Miss use of the word 'bias' based on a religious agenda.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bia...i395i433l4.4833j1j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

bias - prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.

Again . . . 'Objective verifiable evidence' defines Methodological Naturalism. No possible bias here, because Science is neutral to any other possible cause and effect relationships outside science.

And the atheists look at science and see what science claims and uses it against religion as if science has discovered the truth. The truth about what science can speak about and what science is seems to be hidden and replaced with the claim that science is the best way to determine the truth.

Science has nothing to do with the atheist belief system. Science is neutral to philosophical/theological beliefs concerning the existence of God. I am a Theist and a scientist, and believe in the harmony fo science and religion.

Science makes no effort to determine 'truth.' Methodological Naturalism simply is the scientific methods for describing the nature of our physical existence, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[ratiocinator]

How can theories of tested and falsified for things that happened in the past?

By putting constraints on what else we might find, for example the theory of evolution puts a lot of constraints on where we might find fossils of different types. Another example is that the discovery of genetics could have totally falsified evolution if had been obvious that the genomes for each species were obviously independent, in fact, we could now make the entire case for evolution from genetics alone.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It does not say what this consciousness is or what produces it however. What decides where to focus our attention?

I have a feeling you might not like my suggested answer.

 

[Audie]

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia.
Theory and the Fact of Evolution | National Center for Science Education
https://www.nature.com/articles/nsmb0205-101.pdf?origin=ppub
Science and evolution

Doesn't say that a theory can be a fact.

 

[Audie]

God is irrelevant in science but that does not mean that God did not do it.
Natural processes can be observed today but that does not mean that those processes are responsible for all of what happened in the past or that they could even come close to being responsible. How can theories of tested and falsified for things that happened in the past?

Its not so much that " god " as such is irrelevant.
ANYTHING for which there is zero data
is not taken into consideration.
But of course science does not and cannot rule out God.

What is an example of something that
happened in the past. / theory that you
have in mind ?

 

[Audie]

Then the only naturalistic answers is where the bias comes in and that should be made plain to all.



And the atheists look at science and see what science claims and uses it against religion as if science has discovered the truth. The truth about what science can speak about and what science is seems to be hidden and replaced with the claim that science is the best way to determine the truth.

That only a god- explanation could be true
is a bias that should be made clear?

Actually, in science, there is no " truth ",
no certainty the way there is (thought to be )
in religions.

As an atheist I don't believe in God.
I don't believe there are living passenger pigeons. But, show me one and, I will believe.

There is no science that can be used against religion.

However- sometimes a person may make a positive claim about some particular aspect or belief within their chosen religion,

Say, that Noah's ark was real, there was a world wide flood, etc.

All known relevant data from many fields of
science can be compared to the story, and,
the story just doesn't work.

It is really ignorant to think there was a flood.

Educated Christians may or may not speak against flood -belief, but they know its just a story, could not be true.

Its a poor faith that in any way that is threatened by facts!

Do you find fault in this kind of challenge to
ignorant religious beliefs?

 

[night912]

Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia.
Theory and the Fact of Evolution | National Center for Science Education
https://www.nature.com/articles/nsmb0205-101.pdf?origin=ppub
Science and evolution

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution, is a theory. A lot of people don't use it interchangeably, and they would be wrong. Evolution is a process, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how the process works.

 

[Audie]

Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution, is a theory. A lot of people don't use it interchangeably, and they would be wrong. Evolution is a process, the Theory of Evolution is the explanation of how the process works.

should be clear, and possible to move on from that new

 

[rational experiences]

Basic advice.

Non subliminal interference.

Subliminal AI effect machine caused encoded feedback.

Designer human.
Designer builds machine from God mass O planet.

Mass converted first to not be stone God just melted then artificially cooled.

Machine no volition no action.

Man designer controls it. Not God.

Then takes God mass and does converting again.

God was the seal. The angel stone that kept life safe from Satan the teaching.

No man is God.

Heavens gases.

Then water oxygen mass heaven.

Garden...animals...humans live in holy water generation ox....Christ term. Oxygen.

Taught relativity.

Where did we come from.

Science does not want a spiritual answer.

We got released from the eternal. Only after all God spirits X mass existed.

Science says I will know it. Claims.

Humans began as Satan.
Or humans began as the image alien in cloud mass then evolved.

A want today. Cloud reactions for new resource theme.

I want you to have begun as Satan or an alien and not a human.

Biology accurate science. A human is one whole body after an ape life by similarities.

Said against occult theism.

Satan before God means being burnt to death.

Basic advice in science about theism just for a machine.

When a machine is taken from God. Man is not a machine.

When a reaction is taken from God....no man is God.

Today we have to preach no man is a machine.

Stephen a King science warning.