-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Hard Question
- Thread starter deeoracle
- Start date
outhouse
Atheistically
No. Not similar in any way.
No. Unsubstantiated rhetoric on your part.
Define qualia and then we can have a reasonable discussion.
Why do you believe this?
perhaps in consecutive ages the inquiry of science has been one of limitation- and motivated bythe possibility of monetizing any findings- to the general malaise of questions to which qualia pertains
outhouse
Atheistically
Has nothing to do with the reality of science. It is another unknown aspect of the conscious mind, a descriptive term for what we don't know.
outhouse
Atheistically
It does not question anything as of such, unless one perverts the definition, which itself is highly subjective and open to interpretation as vague as imagination.
outhouse
Atheistically
What are they ignoring? Some ones perversion of the word/term that is philosophically subjective?
Vernacular that demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how the sciences work.
There are subjective realities, and the objective reality. The objective reality is unreachable by subjects, as per definition. However, some subjective realities are closer in accuracy to the objective reality than others; they're not all equally accurate.
In this case, exactly what consciousness even is is still in the process of being determined and adequately defined.
Levite
Higher and Higher
But...evolution doesn't reduce my religious beliefs to nothing. It doesn't reduce them in any way. In fact, it doesn't reduce the religious beliefs of nearly anyone I know-- no one who isn't a fundamentalist literalist, and fundamentalist literalists are a minority of religious people. Actually, I would say that evolution enhances my religious beliefs.
So, in any event, why should the existence or valuation of qualia reduce the value of science to nothing? It seems to me that, at best, it says that there are still things that science has yet to fully explain (an idea with which I would imagine most scientists would concur), or at worst, it says that there are some phenomena best dealt with outside the scientific paradigm.
But even that latter case should only appear threatening to science if you feel that each and every phenomenon of experience, both internal and external, physical and metaphysical, intellectual and emotional, concrete and abstract, should be approached and understood exclusively using scientific methodology. If one does not take such a position, but instead is willing to grant that there may be things which science is not the best tool for, just as there are also things for which it is the best tool, then there should not be anything about the existence or valuation of qualia at all to be deemed threatening to science.
I hope this is a consensus view- if it is anything otherwise, if there is an organized monetized pattern of rejecting such a paradigm- then we must call science into question as a biassed form of intelligence
outhouse
Atheistically
Science is methodology, not really a form of intelligence.
Doo you have another method better then reporting on observations?
Or do you propose we imagine what we should know?
No. Well, that wasn't so hard after all, was it?