Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

[Roboramma]

Not only are you advocating mind over matter, but you are supposing that the brain makes us do things.
I think, you need, to examine that.

In other words, you have no response to the well thought out, well written, and well reasoned post that you nevertheless chose to quote in full?

Okay.

 

[Jonesboy]

In other words, you have no response to the well thought out, well written, and well reasoned post that you nevertheless chose to quote in full?

Okay.

It's not that hard.

I said
"Not only are you advocating mind over matter, but you are supposing that the brain makes us do things.
I think, you need, to examine that. "

Mind over matter? scientific?
Brain makes "me" do things? Where's this "me"?
I can pick out bad ideas, even more so if they are spread out in yards of text.

 

[Roboramma]

It's not that hard.

I said
"Not only are you advocating mind over matter, but you are supposing that the brain makes us do things.
I think, you need, to examine that. "

Mind over matter? scientific?
Brain makes "me" do things? Where's this "me"?
I can pick out bad ideas, even more so if they are spread out in yards of text.

Yes, I know what you said. None of what you said in that post or this one was in any way a response to the post you quoted.

 

[bikerdruid]

Hello Biker druid
how would you know that the maths was meant to be about gravity, unless someone told you what gravity was? Eh?

nonsense

 

[Lowpro]

Sorta like how you climb a ladder to observe entangled electrons

 

[MRC_Hans]

I don't think so. But you can start first if you want. Just to try it out. You have to try it out. And more to the point, look your best as well. That's what I say to myself. That's what my friends say to themselves. Me and all my friends say to ourselves
You always have to look your best.
You always have to look your best.
You always have to look your best.

You're not doing very well here, then.

- Unless obtuse bickering really IS your best.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

But this is no more a "wonder of science" than the wonder got from climbing up a ladder to have look.

Science is a ladder. A wonderful one.

Hans

 

[pakeha]

...Science is western ethno-centric flag waving.

That's quite an observation.
What has led you to think that?

My own observation is that religion is ethno-centric flag waving, whether of east or west.

... 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.

Could you explain this more fully?
How is the church the backbone of science proper?

...But if science doesn't tell us 'which things we ought to explore' then how are we to choose among them?

Is the 'how' in 'how are we to choose' important to you?
Isn't starting with what interests you enough?

 

[quarky]

I don't think so. But you can start first if you want. Just to try it out. You have to try it out. And more to the point, look your best as well. That's what I say to myself. That's what my friends say to themselves. Me and all my friends say to ourselves
You always have to look your best.
You always have to look your best.
You always have to look your best.

Too bad. Because I like to play with puppies.

 

[Dave Rogers]

There are no ideas that are not commensense.

Tell me, then, the answer to the following questions, using nothing but common sense: If you take a block of silicon, with one thousandth of a percent of phosphorus as an impurity on one side, and one thousandth of a percent of arsenic on the other, and connect two wires, a battery and an ammeter to it, so that one wire goes to each side, does it make a difference which way round you connect the battery? If you take an identical block of silicon except that the second side now contains one thousandth of a percent of boron instead of arsenic, does it make a difference which way you connect the battery this time?

Dave

 

[Dancing David]

No, science hasn't determined an object. Science told us how to get to one - where we wanted to go.
And for "Science" read "crafts".

No, science is a method of investigation.

 

[Dancing David]

-. Are you saying that mind can affect matter?
Try this though. Is mind "effected" by matter?

Um they are one and the same.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't know if you care to call it a duality, but you will never find a colour, or a sound, or sadness.

Unsupported assertion of conclusion.

 

[Dancing David]

You tHink III got a problem with that?! Hey man, point out the sleeping man.

Yes, you are asserting a strawman about the BBE, which is rather typical by some who post here

"the BBe came from nothing", etc...

 

[godless dave]

-. Are you saying that mind can affect matter?
Try this though. Is mind "effected" by matter?

Alcohol is matter. Drink some* and let me know if it affects your mind.









*Assuming you are of legal drinking age and don't have any health problems that preclude the consumption of alcohol.

 

[arthwollipot]

I don't know if you care to call it a duality, but you will never find a colour, or a sound, or sadness.

I've found a sound. Hark! There it is now! It's the sound of Jim Parsons accepting an Emmy!

 

[godless dave]

Neurologists have found representations of sound in the human brain. For a fascinating, if dense, read, check out "This is Your Brain on Music" by Daniel J. Levitin.

 

[Dinwar]

There are no ideas that are not commensense.

Ah. This is a case where you've re-defined a word to mean something that it doesn't normally mean, and forgot (and this is a generous interpretation) to tell us.

The statement is false. As the French say, "Les sense common n'est pas si common." You also have the absant-minded professor types who are VERY intelligent, but do things like walk onto busy streets because they were thinking about n-dimensional morphospace. There's also all the ideas in science which contradict common sense--for example, rocks are very, very weak over long periods of time, or the whole concept of singularity (meaning black holes, not computers and people).

But if science doesn't tell us 'which things we ought to explore' then how are we to choose among them?

Simple: we explore ALL OF THEM, in a systematic fashion.

In "greater" detail?

I once found a rock in my dad's back yard. My family by and large said "Oh, look at the pretty rock!" I spent a few hours looking at the rock. Where they saw simply an innert lump of matter, I saw three different episodes of shattering and re-forming, over a few million years. I saw evidence of tonns of liquid-hot rock flowing through tonns of overburden. I saw water build up in the crystals and re-shape the chemistry. Where my family saw a pretty rock, I saw the story the rock had to tell. So yeah, we can wonder in greater detail.

the church was the backbone of science proper, and is still inseparable from it.

No. The church (and anyone who uses this term means Christianity) and science don't actually get along that well. And given the number of atheists in science, I think it's safe to say at minimum that the church and science are separate.

 

[Almo]

Very nice try with the long post, Hans. It was well-written and interesting. Shame our student hasn't learned anything from it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

In "greater" detail?

Do you have a problem with that?

Hans