Limits of Science

[Radrook]

Perhaps the inability to grasp the concept is based on insufficient knowledge in reference to what sense impressions really are. If such is the case, then no amount of cogent reasoning will be effective in clarrifying the matter.

Neurotransmission is the releashe odf chemilacal called neurotranmitters between the synapses or spasce betweebn nerve calls called neurons. These chemnical electrical sugnals must travel to the centers of the brain in order to be deciphered.

That is all we receive from the supposed outside world.
Chemo-electrical signal via our nervous system.

The problem is that such signals the brain can produce by itself.
That's why we dream.
So if the brain can do this by itself, who is to say that it is not doing it all the time?

That is as clea as I can explain it for now.

 

[thaiboxerken]

DBL post

 

[Iacchus]

The problem is that such signals the brain can produce by itself.
That's why we dream.
So if the brain can do this by itself, who is to say that it is not doing it all the time?

That is as clea as I can explain it for now.

Capable of producing them or, capable of receiving them? Or both? Because you do realize that the mind receives its input through our sensations, right? So when we dream, where are the sensations in our dreams coming from? From within the mind or, possibly someplace else?

 

[Z]

Again, either you are a solipsist, or you aren't.

If you are, then you can be certain of nothing. You have to take EVERYTHING on faith, and therefore are more likely to take ANYTHING on faith.

If you aren't, then you realize that nothing unreal exists, and that proof, science, and reality are quite real.

There isn't anything more to it than that.

Thus, what is real, exists; what exists, can be sensed; what can be sensed, can be interacted with; and this is all that matters.

What is unreal, does not exist; what does not exist, cannot be sensed; what cannot be sensed, cannot be interacted with; and this does not matter at all.

(Please keep in mind, the tools and instruments used to detect things beyond our level to detect them become, in effect, extensions of our senses, and so can count toward the sensory argument.)

However, since Rad thinks the only reality comes bound in pseudo-leather, translated into NIV only, and that all else is a lie, then I guess it doesn't matter what reality is.

 

[Iacchus]

Again, either you are a solipsist, or you aren't.

We're all solipsists, in the pluralistic sense that is.

 

[Iacchus]

We're all solipsists, in the pluralistic sense that is.

Just like every living cell in the human body has a membrane which separates it -- thus endowing it with its own identity so to speak -- from all the rest of the cells.

 

[kittynh]

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.

False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.


... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

False, science is the only reliable method of determining physical reality. It is a tool that has proven itself and is still proving itself every day. Science is really on my side because I use it all of the time and my conclusions are based on evidence which can be verified by science.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

This is another BS way of saying that testimonials are evidence. Science has shown over and over again that human perception is not reliable as evidence. Human perception must be validated by scientific evidence in order to be considered.

This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

One can rationalise that there is a pink unicorn in their backyard if they use false axioms and assumptions in their rationalisation. Obviously, if you rationalise that there is a god, you must have some falsity in your assumptions and premises OR you really do have verifiable evidence of a god. I doubt that you have the latter.




... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.

WRONG. Science is constantly learning more and more things everyday and it is the leading source of knowledge when it comes to explaining reality. No other method even comes close. The only limits to science comes from technology currently being used and the people using it.


Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system.

You are correct, it is knowledge.


It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.

Yes, you are correct. It is a leap of faith to think that this other world exists at all.

Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.

That's because the question is loaded, it assumes that the scientist has been working on unreal things, which is false.

Thai, this was a very good post. The kind of arguement back and forth I at least like to see. Posts like this keep me reading!

thank you

 

[kittynh]

Science, as explained, is nought else but an explanation of the order which exists amongst the sensed-things (unreal things) within awareness.

False, science seeks to explain all things that exist regardless of it's "order/chaos" properties. Science also seeks to explain those things that are not sensed. Humans have very limitted sensed, so science has developed tools to measure and observe these things that we cannot sense. I've just refuted the assumptions you have made in your argument, I suggest you come up with something substantial next time.


... Therefore, science is useless in the formulation of any philosophy which seeks to propose that there is a real world-of- things "out there". The materialists and atheists of this world are clueless if they think that science is on their side.

False, science is the only reliable method of determining physical reality. It is a tool that has proven itself and is still proving itself every day. Science is really on my side because I use it all of the time and my conclusions are based on evidence which can be verified by science.

Only unreal things can be sensed. The sensations are real, but like the artist's paint, the things they portray are not. Therefore, by default, it is impossible to sense the reality of anything. It is impossible to provide perceptual evidence of reality. You cannot, logically, berate a theist for having no sensed-evidence of his God.

This is another BS way of saying that testimonials are evidence. Science has shown over and over again that human perception is not reliable as evidence. Human perception must be validated by scientific evidence in order to be considered.

This is not true. Not in my case anyway. I think that there is a God because I have rationalised that there is a God.

One can rationalise that there is a pink unicorn in their backyard if they use false axioms and assumptions in their rationalisation. Obviously, if you rationalise that there is a god, you must have some falsity in your assumptions and premises OR you really do have verifiable evidence of a god. I doubt that you have the latter.




... But science is useless in regards explaining the nature of reality, as explained. Hence the limits of science.
You keep overlooking this fact.

WRONG. Science is constantly learning more and more things everyday and it is the leading source of knowledge when it comes to explaining reality. No other method even comes close. The only limits to science comes from technology currently being used and the people using it.


Our knowledge of the world through science is NOT a belief-system.

You are correct, it is knowledge.


It requires a leap-of-faith to think that the perceived order of the sensed-world also applies to another world that is real and distinct from this sensed-world.

Yes, you are correct. It is a leap of faith to think that this other world exists at all.

Ask a scientist to know how the things he knows applies to any-thing other than the unreal things that he senses. Then observe the belief-system in his response.

That's because the question is loaded, it assumes that the scientist has been working on unreal things, which is false.

Thai, this is the kind of arguement that I enjoy reading in a debate. It keeps me interested, and the back and forth nature is interesting and well thought out. Thanks.

 

[Iacchus]

(Please keep in mind, the tools and instruments used to detect things beyond our level to detect them become, in effect, extensions of our senses, and so can count toward the sensory argument.)

Is that sort of like Extra Sensory Perception?

 

[dmarker]

Yeah, but do you know what you mean?

Yes, I know. Your god is in your head and nowhere else.

 

[Iacchus]

Yes, I know. Your god is in your head and nowhere else.

No, if my God were in my head, then he must be perceived everywhere. Which, of course is all we really have, our perception.

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, if my God were in my head, then he must be perceived everywhere. Which, of course is all we really have, our perception.

This is nothing but a solipsist bullcrap statement. Perceptions are not reality, they are observations of reality.

 

[Iacchus]

This is nothing but a solipsist bullcrap statement. Perceptions are not reality, they are observations of reality.

Yes, and when somebody snuffs your lights out, where does your reality go? May as well pretend like you were never here.

By the way, you know where bullcrap comes from don't you? And I'm not the one trying to bully people into my view.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, and when somebody snuffs your lights out, where does your reality go?

Reality is not subjective to each person. When I die, the universe still exists.


May as well pretend like you were never here.

A dead person doesn't do anything, let alone pretend to.

By the way, you know where bullcrap comes from don't you?

From bulls.

And I'm not the one trying to bully people into my view.

Yes, you are in a way.. not in any intelligent way, but you are. While I am giving good points based on evidence and reality, you are simply playing a silly game of "metaphysics" with NO evidence to support your position. You are the actual bully here, trying to get people to believe your views despite the lack of evidence.

 

[Ratman_tf]

What's that, to the general overall stupidity?

I see you now.

 

[Iacchus]

Reality is not subjective to each person. When I die, the universe still exists.

How would you know?

Yes, you are in a way.. not in any intelligent way, but you are. While I am giving good points based on evidence and reality, you are simply playing a silly game of "metaphysics" with NO evidence to support your position. You are the actual bully here, trying to get people to believe your views despite the lack of evidence.

Perhaps only in the sense that I'm not telling them what they want to hear. Why? Because they don't understand what they ask.

 

[Iacchus]

A dead person doesn't do anything, let alone pretend to.

Not a dead body anyway.

Yes, you are in a way.. not in any intelligent way, but you are. While I am giving good points based on evidence and reality, you are simply playing a silly game of "metaphysics" with NO evidence to support your position. You are the actual bully here, trying to get people to believe your views despite the lack of evidence.

The problem is that the evidence is not on the outside, but on the inside.

"The kingdom of heaven is within."

 

[Radrook]

Capable of producing them or, capable of receiving them? Or both? Because you do realize that the mind receives its input through our sensations, right? So when we dream, where are the sensations in our dreams coming from? From within the mind or, possibly someplace else?

We don't know.
If we assume from the mind itself, then what prevents the mind from continuing in that ame mode once we enter what we call an awakened state? That awakened state might just be another more intense level of the dream state.

 

[Radrook]

Reality is not subjective to each person. When I die, the universe still exists.

Interesting!
How does this person know that?
After all, if he dies he is completely out of touch with what he says still exists.

He hasn't died yet either as far as i know.

Even if he did the very death would place him beyond perception assuming that death is the cessation of all sense impressions.

But assuming that it isn't doesn't help either because then subjective perception kicks in again.

Or perhaps there is some hint of claiming to have been told by someone who died here?

Which brings us fool circle right back to subjectivity.

Weird!

 

[Z]

Because we've observed death... Reasonable, logical inferrence from observation (i.e. SCIENCE) tells us that the universe continues to exist after death.

This is the problem with you lunatic fringe folks - you fail to understand that science is the tool by which we know we can make reasonable, logical inferrence from observation. When our observations are consistent, logical, fit into a known pattern, etc., then we can accept information about our observations which we do not directly see, because science tells us that, all things being equal, the other information does exist.

I've no idea (from an ignorance perspective) what is inside each person I encounter, just short of taking a knife and cutting everyone open. Yet I can fully infer, with every reason and faculty to do so, that inside each person are organs, bones, blood, etc. I've no reason whatsoever to expect anything else, because science has proven - yes, PROVEN - that these things are in each person.

Further, science has demonstrated that occasionally, the order of organs, bones, etc. may be slightly different. Yet this, too, can be reasonably expected as a possibility, based on consistent and logical evidence and observation. Therefore, if I were to encounter a body, cut it open, and discover an extra organ or missing rib, I might wonder about the CAUSE of this alteration, but I would not at all wonder about the alteration itself.

Therefore, it is reasonable and logical to infer that, upon the death of an individual organism, the universe goes on; thereby proving the utter irrelevance of subjective reality.

But I somehow think reason and logic are alien states to Rad and Iac.