Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

[Jonesboy]

Really? You can't use your mind to lift your arm up?

Are you saying that mind can move matter?

 

[Jonesboy]

Wait wait, he's saying that the mind = brain is a MYTH?! Well I'm trying to read what he implies and I can't find out why he's calling brain = mind a myth. The way I see if, you take away some part of the brain, and you take away part of the mind too and...well...read sig for further details...

The Science creation myth of consciousness is non-Newtonian, and is that certain materials and material shapes cause consciousness.

These are myths because they feed our intuition. It isn't my intuition though, that cause is involved.

 

[Jonesboy]

No, 4 corner days actually exist, and Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God. Imaginary Cubed Earth has 4 Days within simultaneous rotation. I CREATED 4
DAYS IN ON EARTH ROTATION.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Greenwich Time is a Lie.

Science shows us four types of causality. Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form. All but the Newtonian causality are employed in two creation myths - mind, and the physical universe.

For more on this see my original post at the top of this thread.

 

[Jonesboy]

Ah, data and evidence, citations are lacking.

Welcome to the JREF.

Citations, any?

No just apparent mental masturbation on your part.

Too bad you won't converse, we could learn from you. But your introspective navel gazing is boring.

You like so many assume that no one else has ever pondered these things, and that you are elucidating new concepts. Actually most of us have.

You can keep babbling to here yourself, or you can join the conversation. Many a fine philosopher has, I still miss HammeGK.

I can't see what you are replying to. But as I remember, what you wanted was unnecessary. To find out why, you had to read the whole sentence, maybe the paragraph too. I meant what I said.

 

[HansMustermann]

Are you saying that mind can move matter?

Actually, what science actually says is that the "mind" is a product or emergent property of matter, rather than something distinct. Sort of like the ticking or timekeeping of a cuckoo clock is a property resulting from the way those cogs and levers and springs work together. It's not the ticking that moves matter (e.g., the weights and arms of the clock and the cuckoo), it's simply matter moving matter AND creating the ticking.

So basically asking "Are you saying that mind can move matter?" is as stupid as asking "Are you saying that The Ticking can move matter?"

IOW, please, if you want to criticize science, then please have the basic decency to first learn what it says. Mistaking your own ignorance and unfounded mis-conceptions for reality don't make science mythological, but it does make you delusional.

 

[HansMustermann]

Science shows us four types of causality. Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form. All but the Newtonian causality are employed in two creation myths - mind, and the physical universe.

For more on this see my original post at the top of this thread.

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."

Lewis Caroll - "The Hunting Of The Snark (an Agony in Eight Fits)"​

However, since we're IRL and not in an absurdist poem, repeating the same ignorant BS a third time won't actually make it true, you know.

 

[dlorde]

That's pretty much how it is. The natural vs the unnatural.
Bit daft though, to make it a charged issue.

So why the OP? clearly a bit daft...

 

[the PC apeman]

Science has four types of causality:

Getting suspicious

...Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form.

Giving up

...All but the Newtonian causality are employed in two creation myths - mind, and the physical universe.

Kicking self for pushing through

wandering away...

 

[Dave Rogers]

Are you saying that mind can move matter?

How did your thought end up on my computer screen?

Dave

 

[Jonesboy]

Through context and learning context of emotions.

Unless you engage in some kantian ******** and believe that emotions are inherently existing and self defining.

Which they are not.

You are saying that wonder is taught. Who decides what specific objects must be regarded with a sense of wonder?

 

[Jonesboy]

I know what you mean, there is no meaning. Just reality, which is wonderful.

If the sun was 1 mm in diameter than alpha centauri is 18 miles away.

The galactic center is 117,000 miles away.

Mind blowing scale.

Are you saying that there is a group of people called scientists who have the power to wonder at things that should be wondered at?

 

[Jonesboy]

Your error is in assuming, without any justification or explanation, that it is the scientists who are wrong. This is not correct--it is the rest of the world who splits the universe between scientific wonders and the mundane. Scientists realize that ALL objects are wonders, from the smallest to the largest and everything in between.

You hate scientists. That's become obvious. Why do you bother to continue to post here?

Ah. This explains it. You're upset because science doesn't support your pet god (and it IS a pet, tame, docile, and obedient).

Here's the thing, kid: science is a way to gather INFORMATION. If there are any "wonders of science" it's the theories--gravity, electromagnatism, plate tectonics, and all the rest. The objects are in nature, and almost no scientist today talks of objects as "wonders of science" except in the most poetic sence (I get the impression that you don't understand that scientists can use metaphores, but really, we do). Again, it's NOT the scientists who divided the world between science and the mundain. There's a story of a lab where the blackboard got a film over it every night. Being a lab, someone took a sample and analized it for fun. Turned out to be something of an important discovery, in that it demonstrated some disturbing issues with old computer monitors. Another example is the entire field of geology: geologists quite literally are facinated BY DIRT. The quickest way to shut me up for an hour is to find a rock the size of my fist--any rock will do--and ask me to tell you all I can about it. And I'm hardly unique in that. Scientists are facinated by everything.

Why are you talking about gods? If you are god-happy then the only god I can see here is your's - scientism.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You are saying that wonder is taught. Who decides what specific objects must be regarded with a sense of wonder?

You do. You decide which ones YOU regard as wonders.

And I'll decide mine.

Fair?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Are you saying that there is a group of people called scientists who have the power to wonder at things that should be wondered at?

We all have that power.

Scientists, however, can wonder in greater detail.

Hans

 

[Jonesboy]

Hm...May have been useful in my pre-matrimonial years. I prefer the woman who was impressed by long discussions of actual data, and who considered going to a talk on using magnetite to gauge plutonic intrusion flow direction a good date myself.

This is what we call a "lie". It's information you know is false, yet are passing off as true anyway. See, scientists DO pass down information--for example, I know about spring deposits because of Quade and his cohorts, I know about alluvial fans in the Mojave thanks to Ponti (1985 and a series in 1981--just go to the USGS publications warehouse and type in "Ponti" to get a real education on the topic). I know about the Cambrian Explosion via Gould. The difference isn't that scientists don't pass on knowledge. There are in fact two critically differences between science and a craft. First, science advances by design. Knitting has stayed the same for many, many decades, with relatively few advancements. Pottery has remained essentially the same for millenia. Same with painting. Science, on the other hand, change as often as journals have issues published--by design. The second difference is that science requires all data--ALL data--to be independantly verifiable. Crafts MAY have data independantly verified, but they do not generally require it.

And if science, an ever-growing, ever-expanding method of learning new things about reality itself and composed of so many branches and sub-branches that most people don't have any incling of what they all are, is borring to you, how are crafts, which are almost by definition and certainly by general practice static, any more interesting? And that convoluted question is giving you the best of it: any real scientist knows that one's feelings mean nothing, only facts matter. If science is boring, DO SOMETHING ELSE. What you CANNOT do is use your bordome to condemn science, any more than I can say a play is bad because it had poor brushstroke techniques.

You think that it is a lie that only crafts are passed down and not science? I can console your tears and sense of betrayal only up to a point.

There is no Science. No method of science, and no wonders of science. We always had common sense, methodical practice, and insight. Science is western ethno-centric flag waving.

 

[HansMustermann]

Are you saying that there is a group of people called scientists who have the power to wonder at things that should be wondered at?

No. First of all, that's not what he was saying. Try to learn to read, instead of just replying to your own delusions. It might pay off some day.

Second, if you actually want a defining trait, try this: there is a bunch of people called scientists who know that any attempt at explaining reality must be checked against actual observations of reality, not just mental masturbation exercises. At the end of the day, that's what makes them scientists.

Or as Vince Ebert put it, "The Scientific Method is, simply put, just a way to test suppositions. If I supposed for example 'there might be beer in the fridge' and go look in the fridge, I'm already doing science. Big difference from Theology. There they don't usually test suppositions. If I just assume 'There is beer in the fridge' then I'm a theologian. If I go look, I'm a scientist. And if I go look, find nothing inside, and still insist that there's beer in the fridge, that's esoteric."

Really, that's what makes it science or what makes someone a scientist: actually looking in the fridge. You know, instead of just writing whole pages of delusional BS about why there must be a beer in the fridge and what's wrong with those who insist on checking that.

Of course, it helps if one also has the curiosity to wonder about various stuff, which is what Dave was saying: scientists tend to wonder about lots of stuff. But that is not the defining trait of a scientist there. Applying the scientific method is.

 

[Jonesboy]

We all have that power.

Scientists, however, can wonder in greater detail.

Hans

Please, don't struggle to assert differences between 'scientists' and ordinary folk in this way. Just bite the bullet. There is no difference, there is nothing for there to be a difference between.

 

[HansMustermann]

You think that it is a lie that only crafts are passed down and not science? I can console your tears and sense of betrayal only up to a point.

There is no Science. No method of science, and no wonders of science. We always had common sense, methodical practice, and insight. Science is western ethno-centric flag waving.

Science is why you have a computer to post such delusional idiocies with. Because someone actually was scientific about why a bunch of stuff happens. Including checking their predictions against reality, instead of just ranting about how their common sense and insight override such things.

 

[Jonesboy]

No. First of all, that's not what he was saying. Try to learn to read, instead of just replying to your own delusions. It might pay off some day.

Second, if you actually want a defining trait, try this: there is a bunch of people called scientists who know that any attempt at explaining reality must be checked against actual observations of reality, not just mental masturbation exercises. At the end of the day, that's what makes them scientists.

Or as Vince Ebert put it, "The Scientific Method is, simply put, just a way to test suppositions. If I supposed for example 'there might be beer in the fridge' and go look in the fridge, I'm already doing science. Big difference from Theology. There they don't usually test suppositions. If I just assume 'There is beer in the fridge' then I'm a theologian. If I go look, I'm a scientist. And if I go look, find nothing inside, and still insist that there's beer in the fridge, that's esoteric."

Really, that's what makes it science or what makes someone a scientist: actually looking in the fridge. You know, instead of just writing whole pages of delusional BS about why there must be a beer in the fridge and what's wrong with those who insist on checking that.

Of course, it helps if one also has the curiosity to wonder about various stuff, which is what Dave was saying: scientists tend to wonder about lots of stuff. But that is not the defining trait of a scientist there. Applying the scientific method is.

You haven't made a case for there being a distinction between scientists and non-scientists. We are all methodical and test suppositions. The example of Theology doesn't work, the church was the backbone of science proper, and is still inseparable from it.

This schism between scientists and non-scientists was invented by a social movement that tried to separate itself from the Church, unsuccessfully we might add.

 

[excaza]

We always had common sense, methodical practice, and insight.

Normally, things get less funny as they get repeated more and more. This line definitely doesn't.

The example of Theology doesn't work, the church was the backbone of science proper, and is still inseparable from it.

*snork*