I mean "anyone" in the context that actually there isn't anyone on the planet, merely it's an evolved and socially useful construct through which to pursue the fulfilling of acquired needs.
Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion
- Thread starter Nick227
- Start date
I mean "anyone" in the context that actually there isn't anyone on the planet, merely it's an evolved and socially useful construct through which to pursue the fulfilling of acquired needs.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Objectively acquired data can't be given evidential weight above subjectively acquired. That's materialism.
Last edited:
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What conclusion do you come to if their perception that it works is contradicted by the results of controlled trials, which you have accepted as a valid test of homoeopathy?
Same answer.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
What conclusion about the efficacy of homoeopathy do you come to if their perception that it works is contradicted by the results of controlled trials, which you have accepted as a valid test of homoeopathy?
TheAdversary
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2015
- Messages
- 1,548
+Nick227 'And so it starts to slowly become apparent to the public that actually scientists really are pretty mad and maybe things like reiki and homeopathy are no worse
than their lunacy.'
I've argued before that the social and mind sciences like psychology, that deal with 'mental states', are becoming increasingly pathological exactly
because there's something wrong with the selfless brain model. The pathological state of psychology can be seen as the logical trivialism that is the
consequence of the occurrence of a contradiction somewhere.
That is, I see this increasing insanity in the mind sciences as evidence for the incorrectness of the selfless brain model, but since I assume that
the science has been attempting to be as sincere as possible and to stick to the facts as much as possible, the contradiction must not be the fault
of the scientists making a wrong assumption somewhere. Hence I concluded that it must be a dialetheism. A true contradiction that actually exists
in nature which when rigorously analyzed just leads to the result that comes from any contradiction : Nonsense/trivialism.
than their lunacy.'
I've argued before that the social and mind sciences like psychology, that deal with 'mental states', are becoming increasingly pathological exactly
because there's something wrong with the selfless brain model. The pathological state of psychology can be seen as the logical trivialism that is the
consequence of the occurrence of a contradiction somewhere.
That is, I see this increasing insanity in the mind sciences as evidence for the incorrectness of the selfless brain model, but since I assume that
the science has been attempting to be as sincere as possible and to stick to the facts as much as possible, the contradiction must not be the fault
of the scientists making a wrong assumption somewhere. Hence I concluded that it must be a dialetheism. A true contradiction that actually exists
in nature which when rigorously analyzed just leads to the result that comes from any contradiction : Nonsense/trivialism.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Um, and that has nothing to do with your OP or thread topic.
This is not about how materialism and the scientific method devastate anything.
Do you read scientific literature, there is considerable discussion of significance?
Which again has nothing to do with materialism.
Or are you here for other reasons in this thread?
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Sorry this sophistry is just amazing, 'anyone' usually applies to a set of specific organic bodies, generally labels as the living members of the set labeled homo sapiens sapiens
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Nope, Nick227 that is still just your false fallacy of construction.
You keep failing to provide a cogent line of reasoning and just assert your conclusion.
materialism in no way leads to that conclusion despite what appears to be your effort to force a large square peg into a small round hole.
Under any ontology (that is the part you seem to really miss) the effects are exactly the same.
If by gathering data 'someone' determine that a treatment is as effective as no treatment under a large number of trials, the ontology makes no difference. The data will show that treatment is effective as no treatment at all.
Now if you wish the personal comfort and palliative effects are an area of discussion.
Last edited:
BadBoy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,512
ok, but the point I was making is that after this conversation ends, science will still continue to produce results, and Homeopathy won't. This fact IMO indicates there is a problem with your line of reasoning.
You can sit in a room and philosophize all day long, but your argument doesn't produce anything of any worth. If we accept your premise and its conclusion, where do we go from there? It reminds me of the Truth Movement and their controlled demolition argument. If you stop for one second and accept their assertion of CD, it then goes absolutely nowhere because there is not a single shred of evidence for it or any conspiracy, they still have all their work todo.
Mojo
Mostly harmless
So basically we're at:
Option 1: There is an objective reality that exists outside my senses perception of it.
Option 2: I'm gonna act like there's an objective reality that exists outside my senses except when I want to firebomb to entire concept of "knowing" to either act "deep" or distract from the fact that I have some pet Woo I have zero evidence for.
Option 1: There is an objective reality that exists outside my senses perception of it.
Option 2: I'm gonna act like there's an objective reality that exists outside my senses except when I want to firebomb to entire concept of "knowing" to either act "deep" or distract from the fact that I have some pet Woo I have zero evidence for.
We're not just talking about quirks. Language is important because it's an agreed upon view of reality.
When we talk about our minds, we're talking about things: "My mind is made up". When we refer to our minds, we're also referring to places where thoughts occur, where we relive memories, experience emotions, etc. "That just popped into my mind".
If our minds are simply brain functionings, then you're going to end up where Nick is at: there is no you, no observer (no thing that observes)- only a bunch of brain functions that we (erroneously) have been categorizing as a thing that physically exists. When someone says "I'm afraid I'm losing my mind" we know what they mean. You would never say "I'm afraid I'm losing my running". If you had concerns about how fast you can run, you would talk about your legs, not "your running". And it's not like we're primitives talking about things we have no clue about. Even with all the knowledge we've accumulated, we still differentiate between mind and brain.
This goes back to the simulation argument. Does a simulated tornado exist? Only so long as someone is around to observe it. If no one is around to observe the simulation, there's no simulated tornado. A program is just a particular sequence of switching operations. Do programs exist? Only so long as someone is around to assign meaning to the various combinations of switching operations that the program dictates. If we're just a bunch of neural processes, then the same problem arises: what exists to give the particular brain states meaning?
Bullhockey. Language is an agreed upon standard to describe things on a practical level. The fact that it breaks down and gets imprecise and inconsistant when describing esoteric concepts isn't the key to some mystery of the univere.
Yes because language is a inexact concept. Again you're trying to wring forced enlightenment out of silly word games.
No I don't.
Okay people do get that not everyone finds the distinction you and Nick are trying to force as meaningful right? I don't recognize the hair you split so I'm under no obligation to choose a side.
Our "mind" is a biochemical process in our brain. Period. End of discussion. You accept that or are wrong. That is what every single piece of evidence we have shows.
You're making some grand show out of dissecting the language to prove otherwise but you'd get the same mileage about using the language to prove the front of your trousers is a small winged insect because it would be the exact same logic.
annnnoid
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,703
…except that what you so dismissively refer to as a mere ‘biochemical process’ produces not only every single one of your 4,897 dubious posts but also the point of view that is presented within them. As of this point in time there isn’t a scientist on the planet who has the faintest clue how that happens. So…as biochemical processes go, not only is it one great big mystery…what ‘it’ produces is also one great big mystery. And ‘it’ does produce ‘something’…or are you actually going to argue that ‘you’ do not exist?
Feel entirely free to continue to bury your head in whatever convenient pile of dirt presents itself.
Uncivilily aside... yeah. Your point? Yes the biochemical process of my brain has produced every single one of my posts and the point of view presented in them.
And?
And that is pretty much the single most factually incorrect thing ever said.
Again... absolutely across the board false.
So you're just choosing not to know that the entire science of neurology exists?
I'm saying the false, forced distinction without difference between "me" the biochemical process in my brain and "me" the... well anything else isn't there outside of semantics and silly word games.
*Shrugs* And feel free to continue silly word games about whether my head or the pile exists.
That would be fine if we were zombies, but there's that pesky problem of experience. I have no problem with biochemical/neural activity causing mental states, but if you're claiming that my experience of pain is the same as a biochemical/neural state, you've completely missed the point of what pain is. Any definition of pain has to include the fact that pain feels bad. Saying pain is solely neurons XYZ doing activity ABC doesn't cut it.
You not liking the answer isn't the same thing as it being wrong. If you hold the opinion that having a logical, real word reason for why you feel pain "cheapens" it that's your problem.
The actual real world reason "doesn't cut it" for you because you add stuff on that really doesn't mean anything.
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 13,001
Gotta side with Fudbucker on this one -- this is basic 3rd person vs. 1st person, outside vs inside, objective vs subjective, in my understanding.
Natural language theory tells us something -- that something exists in the language means that it has seemed that way to people for a long time.
Against Fudbucker, I say -- mind is what brain does works for me.
Natural language theory tells us something -- that something exists in the language means that it has seemed that way to people for a long time.
Against Fudbucker, I say -- mind is what brain does works for me.