TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
The assumptions underlie science
They really, really don't.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The assumptions underlie science
Peer Review is the last hurdle for testing new hypothesis or testing alternative hypothesis to existing scientific theory.I don't know how many times I've told you that peer review is not a part of the scientific method. Your belief in peer review shows a total ignorance of metaphysics and science.
All of which is produced by your physical brain.
It's a reasonable assumption, considering we don't have any examples of consciousness absent a physical brain. All examples we have of consciousness, comes with a physical brain.
And damaging / altering the brain, damages / alters the consciousness, as one would expect if the brain produces consciousness.
So all seems to indicate that physical brains produce consciousness.
It's the proposition that is supported by evidence.
There is no evidence of consciousness existing absent a physical brain.
So moving forward, which would be the most reasonable assumption?
That consciousness comes from physical brains, which literally all evidence supports?
Or that consciousness can exist absent a brain, which is supported by literally no evidence at all?
There's entire fields dedicated to that.
Neurologists all over the world are studying the brain, putting people under scanners in experiments, creating mind reading devices, etc. The way the brain works is nowhere near properly understood, but a lot more is known then you seem to give credit for.
Especially regarding the link between thought processes / consciousness and the "hardware" (brain) that produces it.
Sure. Underpinned by physical processes. That doesn't diminish you or the "self", you know.
Sure, good question. A neurological question.
Not having the answer to that question, is not a license to start inventing stuff.
It just means that we don't know. It doesn't change anything about all the evidence we do have.
Why would it need to be considered "purposeful"? And "purposeful" in what sense? And what evidence leads you to that conclusion?
Eum... the advantage of natural causes to explain natural phenomenon, is precisely that you don't need to invoke magic...
So no, not by "magic".
That's a big claim. And a dogmatic one at that, what with the word "forever".
So basically, you're saying that it doesn't matter what we say or what science will still discover in the future... You'll just reject it all and go with your own idea for which there is no evidence?
I'm saying you will never experience thoughts first hand other than your own.
That's the gap. You can monitor brain activity while a person is performing tasks that involve thought. But there is no way to tangibly identify a self subject of those thoughts. Where is the self located, and does location have anything to do with identifying the self?
The brain is only electrochemical reactions. Those don't translate to the inner experience of self. That inner experience is not something you will witness in other people via scientific instruments or any other method.
That's what is forever beyond human attainment.
Very likely, considering I can't just burrow someone else's brain. I have to make due with my own brain.
Although theoretically, it might be possible to use technology to "link" one brain to another and have it transfer or share feelings, emotions, and what not. But idd, if that is at all possible, I don't expect such tech to exist in my lifetime.
What do you mean by "self"?
The person? The person is the whole body, brain included.
Maybe try to properly define it first. I don't know what you mean.
So far, as far as I am concerned, you haven't even shown there is something there to begin with.
Try to define it. What do you mean by "self"?
Sounds like you are just asserting that your mind is an entity independent of your brain and then you use that assertion as "evidence" that your mind is independent of your brain.Self is the very you that is the subject of one's own experiences. Self is the unity of being that is an identity different from other identities. I am an individual. The whole of me is one and only one. My mind, will, and heart are of one unified being. I'm not a physical zombie, there is a receiver of the senses that the brain provides.
What makes you think that peer review is not part of the scientific method? It is actually a key part. Here is a simplified flow chart of the scientific method, please note it is not the absolute sole version, there can be variations, but most uses of the scientific method follow this flow chart:
Do you see the last step?
So your opinion that beliefs affect reality is based on an educational system that failed in 1913.
Obviously the opinion of scientists affects the direction that science takes and this has never been more true than after a century of turning out students who can't think and or don't understand the nature of science. The opinion of the scientist at the very top of the Peer pecking order has no effect whatsoever on reality. Nobody's opinion affects the nature of reality.
Unless of course you believe in a god who hands his knowledge down to the high priests of science. This god who is the laws of nature turns over his secrets to those at the top and they share them with lesser priests and those geniuses of the general public who are capable of understanding, It's a nice neat little world and always has been for those who believe what they are told to believe.
Whoa!! Where did you get that crazy idea from? I never made that claim.
Don't accuse others of not being able to think until you can demonstrate that you can think yourself.
And no one in the sciences believe that either. It may seem that way to the uneducated.
YOU said "peer review" was part of the scientific method. If the scientific method is the means we use to understand reality and make predictions then it follows that peer review is required.
This is not semantics. Semantics is "peer review" is part of the scientific method. It is not and this idea arose after the collapse of the educational system.
Peer review is irrelevant to reality, Mother Nature, God, the Laws of Nature, and all the gods (little or big). It is a belief. It is superstition. You are mistaken.
I accused no one of not being able to think. I said the educational system failed and many people no longer think but are mere vessels for what they are told and what they believe.
Many scientists believe in God. A few believe in "Gods". It seems a lot of scientists believe what they are told and that entire list of assumptions. Theory is not reality and unsupported hypothesis usually never will be because good hypothesis usually implies an experiment to test it. This is very simple if you understand basic metaphysics or ever designed an experiment.
https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downlo...etaphysical_Foundations_of_Modern_Science.pdf
The theory of gravity describes and explains the reality of gravity.
Then you must understand what causes gravity and how it does that.
I guess you know everything about gravity and I am wrong about everything.
Of course you also know everything about evolution and every individual fossil. You know everything about that fossil's genes, how it lived, and precisely why it died.
Your knowledge astounds me but then I'm almost perfectly ignorant and thereby named our species "homo omnisciencis". The name is certainly apt and descriptive to describe people who can have their heads pounded full of beliefs in the omnipotence of the priests of science and come to know everything that is knowable.
I apologize for the sarcasm but what other response is possible for someone who ignores what you say while repeating the same omniscience ad infinitum? You simply aver you don't need to understand the nature of consciousness to know whether an animal lives or dies and that the fossil record seems to show gradual change therefore changes are gradual!!! Remarkable! Keep up the good work, some day people will try to figure out how we became so misguided. The most remarkable thing is that believers in all things "science" can't even imagine how they could be wrong even after their noses are rubbed in the facts.
So your opinion that beliefs affect reality is based on an educational system that failed in 1913.
Obviously the opinion of scientists affects the direction that science takes and this has never been more true than after a century of turning out students who can't think and or don't understand the nature of science. The opinion of the scientist at the very top of the Peer pecking order has no effect whatsoever on reality. Nobody's opinion affects the nature of reality.
Unless of course you believe in a god who hands his knowledge down to the high priests of science. This god who is the laws of nature turns over his secrets to those at the top and they share them with lesser priests and those geniuses of the general public who are capable of understanding, It's a nice neat little world and always has been for those who believe what they are told to believe.
Does this imply a metaphysical conviction to naturalism perhaps?
Evidence is a great thing but at some point you use philosophy to infer your conclusions. And the same goes for scientific evidence. Evidence works for physical properties only. Demonstrated physical behaviours is the realm of methodological naturalism. Abstract qualities, such as consciousness, are better understood through philosophies other than naturalism.
Of all the phenomenon in reality abstract qualities require philosophical inferences. And philosophy is opinionated. So your strong intuitions about naturalism do not have to be the default position in concluding facts. There are other possibilities.
Not everything is explained by observation of the physical.
You seem to think that there is this "head" peer or some "authority" among peers who merely "decides" what is correct and what isn't.
The ultimate authority in science is a combination of data and results.
The alternative would be to "just believe" whatever a scientist reports, no questions asked.
No, they vote on it after the the top of the pecking order tells them how to vote.
All scientists pretty much agree on everything and this especially applies to the soft "sciences". If I provide examples you'll ignore it and persist in your beliefs. And the top of the pecking order will probably assign a grad student much smarter than himself to check it out before he signs off on it.
Yes!!! By George I think you have it finally. Experiment always trumps belief and opinion is always irrelevant. Peer review is irrelevant.
There is no alternative for thinking for oneself. If I invent experiment and don't tell anybody the experiment STILL EXISTS. If I create upside down flies and you ignore it they still exist. If a Peer learns something I don't know, it still real even after I don't know it. How can you not understand this? The problem is groupthink. The problem is lack of understanding of metaphysics. The problem is most scientists and most laymen are now engaged not in true science but in a religion characterized by Look and See Science.
Why don;'t you understand that if something is shown by experiment it is real and if something isn't shown by experiment it is a belief.
You believe consciousness doesn't matter to "evolution" but to you "evolution" is just another sacrament or belief to be adopted to show your devoutness. It doesn't matter if this "theory" is founded in experiment or not because you believe in it.
OK, look. Your post isn't really all that bad. There's a lot of truth to your words but the problem is you can see none of the truth in my words. Sure, science in practice is often a collaborative affair and every individual is capable of misthinking experiment or its results. But you don't seem to understand committees and groups are FAR MORE LIKELY to misthink something than an individual. Juries convict or exonerate because a strong personality can take over or a strange idea might get accepted by all. Intelligence levels plummet when people get together. We live in a strange new world where nobody seems to understand anything going on and lobbyists tell Congress what laws to pass. Data are continually being misconstrued and misinterpreted. Peers will not defend their beliefs and suppress data that don't conform.
Meanwhile millions coming out of schools can't even read and millions more think Peer review is part of the scientific method. The world is on the brink of disaster despite the fact we now know everything. People don't notice the contradictions because groupthink always is part of doublethink.
There isn't even such a thing as "evolution" and everyone thinks they understand the cause, direction, and means. Who needs to know how gravity works or what it is to have a "theory of gravity"? The fact that we know species change does not prove they evolve. Calling it "evolution" is simply a circular argument. Calling gravity a "theory" doesn't mean we understand anything about it.
Good grief... sighs
Anyone that has studied the sciences and understands them at all knows that there are often errors made. So what if the uneducated expect too much?You are really something!
Until I sound like what you believe a scientist sounds like and say what you think a scientist would say, experiment, metaphysics, and logic are irrelevant.
It simply would never occur to most people today that science could be wrong about anything at all. It has become the most dangerous religion in human history and it will be a minor miracle if it doesn't cause an extinction of the human race.
Why do you invent nonsense out of thin air and fail to address a single point?
You seem to want to take a giant step backwards towards beliefs that we know to be false.
So you would prefer to let all the crazy or dishonest hacks, cranks and cheaters to write and publish their pseudoscience untestable and untested claims in scientific books and journals all without peer review to double/triple/quadruple check their writings or without supplying verifiable evidence and data?No.
I want to take a step forward to understanding consciousness and how it affects "evolution" and experiment.
Just saying science is right (or mebbe a little wrong and getting less wrong) is the position of a priest or a believer. It is not a scientific perspective.