Does anything exist?

[Belz...]

No, philosophy and religion cannot answer to fundamental questions, however they can ask questions that science does not or will unlikely have the answers.

Asking questions might make someone feel smart, but it's answering questions that bears actual fruit. Science can do that. Philosophy can't.

For example: 'Why is there something instead of nothing?'.

Oh, I've got this one: because the concept of "nothing" is incoherent; it's impossible. There's no such thing as "nothing". So "something" is the only possibility.

You're welcome.

Such questions aren't stupid questions.

No, it's not a stupid question, but it's a meaningless one, turns out.

 

[Scorpion]

Science has now gone a long way into explaining all sorts of aspects of what we call "consciousness", and explaining how and why we have that experience. Philosophy, afaik, has no genuine explanation (except to repeat the science).

But we've been over this so many times in these forums that if you really do not know what scientific studies have been done on consciousness, and really do not know what has been discovered and explained, then it's wasting everyones time and good will to explain it all over again here for the 100th time.

You are not claiming that consciousness has been explained you are just citing unproven theories. This may make you feel that consciousness will be explained to make you comfortable in your atheist beliefs. But the fact remains science has not explained consciousness. Therefore your opinion is no more valid than someone like me who holds the view that consciousness is spiritual and not physical in origin.

 

[IanS]

Strong scientism seems to be part of the forum’s ontological landscape.

Where did the word "scientism" come from? That sounds like a complaint claiming that people are putting too much confidence in science and giving it too much credit.

But more than half the world is religious, and most of those people are in the position of either denying or else downplaying the importance of scientific discoveries like evolution which are so damaging to religious faith. So those many millions (if not billions) of theists are certainly not giving science too much credit ... on the contrary, most of them are trying to pretend that science is just another subject of academic study with just another set of beliefs, much like any other subject that anyone might care to believe.

And beyond that religious "half" of the worlds population (or whatever fraction it actually is), most of the remaining section of the population have very little education in science beyond their early schooldays. So most of them are not pushing science in any unreasonable or unwarranted way either.

Frankly the world would be a much better place if vastly more people did have a good education in science. That would stop a whole load of people believing all sorts "Woo" about all sorts of things, from anti-vaxxers to faith healers to preachers, psychics, mystics & gurus etc. etc. ... where their anti-science beliefs are (a) a huge drain on society as a whole, and (b) where the views become seriously dangerous (eg the current opposition to Coronavirus vaccines).

If it's “scientism” to put your trust in coronavirus vaccines, or to trust that modern medical treatments are better than “alternative medicines/therapies” or better than praying, or to accept that science alerts us to things like climate change and the dangers of pollution from all sorts of industry let alone an excessive use of road vehicles in big cities. Or to realise that when theists and certain philosophers & others make all sorts of claims about how the universe began or how our planet originally formed, they are of course already relying on a vast mass of stuff that science has already discovered and explained about things like the Big Bang and about how galaxies, stars and planets formed. If acknowledging the enormous debt that we owe to science for all of that, and for a million more such things, is to be called “scientism” … then frankly “scientism” is a very good thing, and the opposition to such “scientism” is extremely stupid as well as ultimately extremely dangerous.

 

[IanS]

You are not claiming that consciousness has been explained you are just citing unproven theories. This may make you feel that consciousness will be explained to make you comfortable in your atheist beliefs. But the fact remains science has not explained consciousness. Therefore your opinion is no more valid than someone like me who holds the view that consciousness is spiritual and not physical in origin.

You are replying to things that I did not say.

In the past I have responded to posts like yours by politely explaining it all again for people. But I have slowly come to the conclusion that it's a waste of time when the other person is actually not reading or replying to what was said. Just read it more carefully (and without the confirmation bias).

 

[Belz...]

You are not claiming that consciousness has been explained you are just citing unproven theories. This may make you feel that consciousness will be explained to make you comfortable in your atheist beliefs. But the fact remains science has not explained consciousness.

And that makes you comfortable in your theistic beliefs.

How about we stick to the facts? The fact of the matter is that the soul was for a long time assumed to include personality, memories and consciousness. We now know that these are based in the brain. It doesn't matter that we don't know exactly, for now, how consciousness arises. It's sufficient to know that it's not from a spirit.

And so the soul is left with zero function or detectable action. And from neurological experiments we know that consciousness is not the actor, but the audience. Everything is basically done unconsciously, and then action is taken and consciousness updated.

There is no place left for the soul.

 

[Scorpion]

It doesn't matter that we don't know exactly, for now, how consciousness arises. It's sufficient to know that it's not from a spirit.

If you do not know how consciousness arises, you do not know its not from a spirit.

 

[IanS]

No, philosophy and religion cannot answer to fundamental questions, however they can ask questions that science does not or will unlikely have the answers.

For example: 'Why is there something instead of nothing?'. Do you seriously think that some quantum fluctuation or something like that is the satisfying answer, considering that it's obviously something?

Such questions aren't stupid questions. Philosophy is actually nice when it's without dogma.

Scientists do not need philosophers to tell them what questions remain unanswered. On the contrary, whatever field of study it is, e.g. (say) Big Bang cosmology, the scientists who are researching in that field generally know infinitely more than the average philosopher about every aspect of current (or past ... or planned future) research in that field, and they are usually in a vastly better informed position to know about all sorts of questions that would not even be apparent to philosophers and others who are not directly involved in the research.

If the main (or only?) role of philosophy is now reduced to the claim of “asking questions”, then that is really no longer a valid basis for using taxpayers money to keep running degree courses or university research qualifications in philosophy.

Really what has happened is the slow realisation, from Galileo onwards, that science has made most of philosophy redundant. At one time (e.g., roughly pre. Galileo) philosophy was claiming to explain the world around us. And at the time it seemed to be the only option (apart from religious belief of course). But science has changed all that. Quite simply – philosophy has proved almost useless at discovering and properly explaining the world around us. Whereas science has turned out to be phenomenally successful at it,... to a level waaay beyond anyone's wildest dreams/imagination.

If you want to spend your life engaging people in endless arguments about the meaning of words from a dictionary, then philosophy is an excellent way to do that. But if you actually want to understand the world around us, then the only known way is through science (and it's turned out amazingly good at it!).

 

[Belz...]

If you do not know how consciousness arises, you do not know its not from a spirit.

Yes I do. Did you not read what I wrote? Try that argument with anything else. If you do not know how volcanoes work, then you don't know it's not from a spirit. You clearly can know enough about something to know what it's not without knowing what it is. Doctors have this problem all the time.

Do you know anyone who underwent cardiac arrest? I do. Between the moment they flatline to the moment they're revived, which can be several minutes, there is no passage of time, memory or perception. If the soul existed and was the source of consciousness, it would at least be aware of itself in the interim. Furthermore you can alter consciousness with various drugs or brain damage. Clearly consciousness is not independant from the brain.

I know you REALLY want to be immortal. I do too, but you can't argue against reality.

 

[Belz...]

Scientists do not need philosophers to tell them what questions remain unanswered. On the contrary, whatever field of study it is, e.g. (say) Big Bang cosmology, the scientists who are researching in that field generally know infinitely more than the average philosopher about every aspect of current (or past ... or planned future) research in that field, and they are usually in a vastly better informed position to know about all sorts of questions that would not even be apparent to philosophers and others who are not directly involved in the research.

If the main (or only?) role of philosophy is now reduced to the claim of “asking questions”, then that is really no longer a valid basis for using taxpayers money to keep running degree courses or university research qualifications in philosophy.

Really what has happened is the slow realisation, from Galileo onwards, that science has made most of philosophy redundant. At one time (e.g., roughly pre. Galileo) philosophy was claiming to explain the world around us. And at the time it seemed to be the only option (apart from religious belief of course). But science has changed all that. Quite simply – philosophy has proved almost useless at discovering and properly explaining the world around us. Whereas science has turned out to be phenomenally successful at it,... to a level waaay beyond anyone's wildest dreams/imagination.

If you want to spend your life engaging people in endless arguments about the meaning of words from a dictionary, then philosophy is an excellent way to do that. But if you actually want to understand the world around us, then the only known way is through science (and it's turned out amazingly good at it!).

This.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

If you do not know how consciousness arises, you do not know its not from a spirit.

You know that that's a literal textbook argument from ignorance fallacy, right?

I mean, equally you don't know if it wasn't created by my imaginary cat last thursday, but you have no logical reason to assume it did.

 

[Scorpion]

Yes I do. Did you not read what I wrote? Try that argument with anything else. If you do not know how volcanoes work, then you don't know it's not from a spirit. You clearly can know enough about something to know what it's not without knowing what it is. Doctors have this problem all the time.

Do you know anyone who underwent cardiac arrest? I do. Between the moment they flatline to the moment they're revived, which can be several minutes, there is no passage of time, memory or perception. If the soul existed and was the source of consciousness, it would at least be aware of itself in the interim. Furthermore you can alter consciousness with various drugs or brain damage. Clearly consciousness is not independant from the brain.

I know you REALLY want to be immortal. I do too, but you can't argue against reality.

I do not know anyone who flatlined but I know lots of people who did have claimed they had spiritual experiences while they were apparently dead.

As for drugs altering consciousness you are talking to someone who has fought a battle against being dependent on anti psychotic drugs from 1969 when I was diagnosed a schizophrenic. I long ago dispensed with the services of psychiatrists, because I tried to tell them things like, I had experienced telepathy, and they never believed a word I said.
But I know from experience telepathy exists, and if it does it means consciousness can project itself beyond the brain.

In any case you plainly said you do not know how consciousness arises, and in that event you cannot know it is not from a spirit.

 

[suren]

No, it's not a stupid question, but it's a meaningless one, turns out.

We will all eventually die, so is there no point in living overall? Some people are just interested in philosophy, like many people have hobbies. They can even earn money by teaching philosophy, sure it's not the most profitable job, but there are plenty of jobs with far worse salaries.

Humans are curious beings, they want to know everything about our world, which obviously has mysteries and people want to think and ask questions about them. If something is meaningless and uninteresting for you, it isn't necessarily true for other people.

 

[Scorpion]

You know that that's a literal textbook argument from ignorance fallacy, right?

I mean, equally you don't know if it wasn't created by my imaginary cat last thursday, but you have no logical reason to assume it did.

Semantics.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

@OP No.

Neither the thread nor this response are more than a figment of your humunculous' imagination, today featuring a stand-in from the recently unionized Hu-muck Assn. Time to pay for your sins, real or imaginary, in this universe or any other, real or imaginary, until the end of time in any and all, or for all eternity. Squared.

 

[Belz...]

I do not know anyone who flatlined but I know lots of people who did have claimed they had spiritual experiences while they were apparently dead.

No you don't. You're talking about near-death experiences. The keyword here is NEAR. It's well known that oxygen-deprived brains in that state tend to hallucinate. Happens in all sorts of situations.

As for drugs altering consciousness you are talking to someone who has fought a battle against being dependent on anti psychotic drugs from 1969 when I was diagnosed a schizophrenic. I long ago dispensed with the services of psychiatrists, because I tried to tell them things like, I had experienced telepathy, and they never believed a word I said.

That is completely irrelevant to what I said.

But I know from experience telepathy exists, and if it does it means consciousness can project itself beyond the brain.

No you don't, and no it doesn't. First of all, your personal perception of telepathy doesn't mean that this is what happened. And second, projection of thought, assuming such a thing is possible, does not necessarily require a soul.

Are you going to address any of the points I made about why the soul is a redundent theory?

In any case you plainly said you do not know how consciousness arises, and in that event you cannot know it is not from a spirit.

And I've responded to that. Do you even read what you respond to? You seem to think that "don't know" is some big "gotcha" moment for you. It's not. Ignorance is not a license to make **** up. And I've also explained how not knowing the actual answer doesn't mean you can't know that some answers are wrong.

But it's clear that you have no interest in discussion on this issue. If you did, you'd read the posts you respond to and answer the actual points made.

 

[Belz...]

We will all eventually die, so is there no point in living overall?

Who cares?

Make your own purpose. Why do you need the universe to give one for you?

Some people are just interested in philosophy, like many people have hobbies.

And that's fine. Just don't pretend that it's useful or important.

 

[Belz...]

Semantics.

You clearly have no idea what that word means.

 

[bruto]

I agree that there are good reasons for philosophy and its questions, but I also think the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" is probably not one of them. If there were not something nothing, including that dilemma, would ever arise or have any meaning, and its answer would be by necessity a logical impossibility. Many philosophical thinkers seem to share the mystics' error of thinking of nothing as some kind of diluted something.

You can wonder about why the something there is is as it is, but to wonder why there is something at all relies on an implicit something before it.

Note...I am typing this ona tablet and mu skewed vision males me hit many erong keys, so I am unlikely to pirsue this and other threads with my usual alacrity!

 

[suren]

I agree that there are good reasons for philosophy and its questions, but I also think the question "Why is there something rather than nothing" is probably not one of them. If there were not something nothing, including that dilemma, would ever arise or have any meaning, and its answer would be by necessity a logical impossibility. Many philosophical thinkers seem to share the mystics' error of thinking of nothing as some kind of diluted something.

You can wonder about why the something there is is as it is, but to wonder why there is something at all relies on an implicit something before it.

Note...I am typing this ona tablet and mu skewed vision males me hit many erong keys, so I am unlikely to pirsue this and other threads with my usual alacrity!

The existence of something is a brute fact, i.e. fact that has no explanation.

 

[theprestige]

Where did the word "scientism" come from? That sounds like a complaint claiming that people are putting too much confidence in science and giving it too much credit.

Yes, exactly. Labeling something as "scientific" doesn't necessarily mean it's actually science. Nor does the title of scientist confer the quality of infallible reason on someone. But the term does give the appearance of authority and credibility to people who put their faith in the idea of science, rather than applying scientific thinking to the question at hand.

Is Neil DeGrasse Tyson correct because he is a scientist? No, of course not. He is correct when - and only when - he actually does science. For questions of little importance, we can assume as a rule of thumb that he's probably correct by virtue of his being a scientist. But it would be scientism to accept any important claim simply because it was labeled as "scientific".

Snake oil salesmen often make bogus appeals to science, in order to appeal to the scientism mentality in their audience. People who have been encouraged to have faith in science, but have not actually been educated to apply scientific reasoning. Their idea of science is really just "substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen". It is more like religious belief than it is like scientific reasoning.

Too, scientists are human, and are as susceptible to regulatory capture and political influence as anyone else. It can be difficult to tease apart threads of good science from threads of politically-motivated science (or "science"). Lay audiences can be encouraged to support a scientific orthodoxy by appealing to their scientism, even if the orthodoxy is not actually well-supported scientifically.

There are several good examples of scientistic reasoning - appeals to a handwaved "science!", rather than critical examination of the scientific support for certain claims - in The Other Thread. The claim that the science is settled is often repeated. But the actual scientific support is never produced. Instead, those that ask for it are taken to task for not simply accepting the "science" like good little skeptics are supposed to do.