Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[AlanFromWichita]

If it were somehow proven beyond doubt that all our faculties are the result of physical phenomena, how would this change your understanding of what “personhood” entails?

I like this question.

Some people drive cars and are lucky if they know how to put in gas. Some of them have no desire to learn – and even actively resist learning – anything that goes on under the hood.

Others are mechanics.

Everybody needs a mechanic when the car needs to be fixed, whether they understand the mechanic or not. For that matter, they don’t even have to like the mechanic but they need help.

But as long as the car is out of the shop, one is concerned with, is it polished? Am I driving safely? Am I going to get there on time? These are questions about the operation of the car, that persist whether or not you know what’s under the hood. But what happens under the hood doesn’t care whether you’re in a parade or a parking garage when it decides to fail. Or maybe it does. The two world are closely intertwined, but neither person (the operator or the auto expert) needs to know the others’ business. But if they do, things go right on how they were.

Just like with people. Knowing how many ribs I have does not make an impact on my day to day life, and doesn’t probably change the grade I get on a geography test or something. Chances are, the number of my ribs will never be important to me my whole life. But if I’m getting heart surgery, I’d want someone to know each rib personally.

Another example: doing social experiments to determine how people behave doesn’t suddenly make them change behavior.

Those who cling to one philosophy to the exclusion of others, needs to be on watch for group identity issues. We agree with this group but not that group and dualistically decide this one is more capable than that one. (Eye says to the foot “I don’t need you”) We agree with this type of philosophy and not with that. It’s all about groups and labels. Want to see what science says about you?

Take a look at what science has found about the behavior of people in groups, on the topic of OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION.

The Asch Experiment. – Hilarious, if it weren’t scary as hell.

For a more amusing look at group conformity, check out this old clip from the show Candid Camera:

Candid Camera – Elevator psychology experiment.

Alan

 

[Sample]

tonyrey

Not promised but so firmly believed by some physicists they are prepared to devote their lives to it.

I’m not understanding your point. Please clarify.

How do you detect that a person is composed of nothing more than purposeless particles?

No scientist is obliged to prove a negative. Poor question.

My omission is not difficult to complete…

For you.

Do the physical senses have concepts?

I’m not sure I understand this, it smells of philosophy. Consciousness, via human brains, appears responsible for permitting imaginable constructs which we may label concepts.

Has neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to change your beliefs?

Brain damage is not required to change one’s beliefs. In fact, some argue that faith itself is a cognitive illness.

1. In which part of the brain are knowledge, evidence, logic and reason located?

1. Do they consist of electrical impulses?

1. Is a person a biological robot?

Why do you say in question one that those faculties are in the brain at all? I’m not qualified to answer your second question. Regarding three, consider that robots have blueprints whereas biological organisms, such that we are, have genomes.

P.S. for Sair, I see on edit you covered the brain damage bit, I agree with you.

 

[Sample]

A G

If you are not a person of faith, then what brings you here?

I have a little time on my hands and I retain a measure of empathy for devout Catholics. I used to be Catholic. More specifically as to this discussion, I perused the list of topics and chose to read those that piqued my interest.

I am not on the same page with you regarding your so-called proofs. None were compelling to me.

 

[Sample]

Pretty much!

Nice to meet you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I’m not sure I understand this, it smells of philosophy. Consciousness, via human brains, appears responsible for permitting imaginable constructs which we may label concepts.

Now you’re talking! Consciousness is the only “constant basis” on which everything else is built. The world is one big mass of stuff, color, movement, chemistry, etc … and we, having been giving naming rights in the garden, have found if we break the universe into bits and give them names, we can make words and exchange ideas using those names for various ideas – which may be things, memories, theories, etc.

Neither science nor philosophy can prove, in an absolute sense, that it exists outside of human consciousness and in fact I think they do exist entirely in the minds of humans.

Lol. I used the word “neither” as if science and philosophy were two different things.

Brain damage is not required to change one’s beliefs. In fact, some argue that faith itself is a cognitive illness.

Faith is a software issue. Brain damage is a hardware issue. Slightly different rules apply.

Alan

 

[Sample]

Alan,

I can let all that go in your post with few, if any, objections. So, I have to ask, therefore…Yahweh?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

A G

I have a little time on my hands and I retain a measure of empathy for devout Catholics. I used to be Catholic. More specifically as to this discussion, I perused the list of topics and chose to read those that piqued my interest.

I am not on the same page with you regarding your so-called proofs. None were compelling to me.

I was a 25 year old cradle Catholic, having gone to Catholic grade school, and never cracked open a Bible before, until I saw a TV preacher talking about “faith.”

Funny thing. Everything he said was functionally identical to a guy on an infomercial selling self-talk tapes for $300. It was weird. The only reason I watched the preacher was I was too stoned to care enough to get off the couch and change the channel when he came on. But it hit me like lightning. I had almost bought the self-talk tapes the night before because I saw the guy’s model and agreed with it. He used a “floppy disk” (memory storage device) as an analogy of the subconscious mind and how it gets filled with stuff that either you or others type on the keyboard.

Anyway it was fascinating. But instead of the tapes, I bought the a Bible for 12 bucks and watched the TV preacher every week. I didn’t believe nor disbelieve in God at that point, I just saw that this preacher was showing me useful “thought exercises” that the concept of “faith” was able to explain, consequently he was showing me how to actually derive benefit from the Bible. Until then, the Bible was just a bunch of stories and rules. So the TV preacher kicked butt compared to any other preacher I’d heard in my life – as far as giving me something other than feel-goodism, rules, bribes, and threats, as reason to listen to them.

I haven’t spoken much of it lately, but in order to reconcile my agnosticism I’ve had to come up with a system of thinking that gives me a happy life no matter whether God exists or not. So I say God exists, although not in the image anybody makes Him in, as either an entity or a concept. My brain has no focused insight on whether God exists, but for that matter I don’t know you exist other than a screen name and a bunch of posts with words and emoticons. So I don’t know whether you are God, a bot, a human, or even my hallucination, but from my point of view I can carry on this conversation without having to choose which I “truly” believe. If I assume you were a human but turns out you were a bot, I’ve still had a nice discussion and it impresses me that a bot could do that. If I live my life under principles that give me peace and joy regardless of any religion or philosophy that others may hold, then honestly I don’t have to know whether there is a God. It’s much more fun watching others fight over it.

Alan

 

[Sample]

Alan

I’ve had to come up with a system of thinking that gives me a happy life

This is very likely true. Thank you for sharing.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan,

I can let all that go in your post with few, if any, objections. So, I have to ask, therefore…Yahweh?

Ummm… IDK.

I use “Yahweh” when around “Yahweh” people. Especially if they are paying me to play music for them.

 

[Sample]

Alan,
IDK.

Best answer I’ve read all day.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not understanding your point. Please clarify.

Ever since Theodore Franz Kaluza had proposed a five dimensional unified field theory to combine Einstein’s theory of relativity with Maxwell’s electro-magnetic theory around 1920, the physicists have been inspired to consider theories which attempt at unifying the fundamental forces in multi-dimensional universes. There is a great deal of excitement at present about superstring theories which can possibly unify all of the fundamental forces into the TOE.

No scientist is obliged to prove a negative. Poor question.
A poor answer which reveals unwillingness to admit there is not one jot of evidence… Why you believe physical reality is the sole reality?

For you.

Do you genuinely believe you couldn’t deduce the meaning of the sentence?

Do the physical senses have concepts?

I’m not sure I understand this, it smells of philosophy.
On a philosophy forum such questions are to be expected.

Do the physical senses understand what they are doing? If not **what **does understand what the senses are doing?

Consciousness, via human brains, appears responsible for permitting imaginable constructs which we may label concepts.

What precisely is the mechanism of consciousness?

Has neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to change your beliefs?

Brain damage is not required to change one’s beliefs.
What changes them?

In fact, some argue that faith itself is a cognitive illness.

That description certainly applies to blind trust in the power of purposeless particles to produce purposeless persons! It is a cognitive illness to reject the rational foundation of cognition in favour of mindless objects.

1. In which part of the brain are knowledge, evidence, logic and reason located?

Why do you say in question one that those faculties are in the brain at all?
Where else in the body would you locate them?

1. Do they consist of electrical impulses?

I’m not qualified to answer your second question.
Who is?

1. Is a person a biological robot?

Regarding three, consider that robots have blueprints whereas biological organisms, such that we are, have genomes.
Do genomes determine **all **your assumptions, beliefs, decisions and conclusions?

[/QUOTE]

 

[tonyrey]

Has neuroscience has taught clinicians precisely which physical parts of the brain must be damaged to change your beliefs?

Why do you believe those you love are the same persons in spite of the changes to their bodies?

1. In which part of the brain are knowledge, evidence, logic and reason located?

From what I’ve read, the frontal lobes play a major role.

How do they **understand **what they are doing?

2. Do they consist of electrical impulses?

Amongst other physical phenomena, yes.

What else?

3. Is a person a biological robot?

And if a person were a biological robot, why do you assume this would make them any less a person?

They would not think, choose or do anything for themselves, have a mind or will of their own and no more value, rights or significance than your computer.

Presumably all the capacities we associate with personhood would still be present - we just wouldn’t associate them with an independent, nonphysical soul but would suppose they are the result of intricate physical interactions both within the body and between the body and its environment.

An impersonal object is not regarded as being in the same category as a person for the reasons I have just given.

If it were somehow proven beyond doubt that all our faculties are the result of physical phenomena, how would this change your understanding of what “personhood” entails?

It would cease to exist! Is a person a biological, i.e. impersonal, robot? What is the difference, if any?

 

[Sample]

tonyrey

A poor answer which reveals unwillingness to admit there is not one jot of evidence… Why you believe physical reality is the sole reality?

A. I completely disagree and stand by my response. I can’t see how to make my point any clearer. B. Strawman.

Do you genuinely believe you couldn’t deduce the meaning of the sentence?

I try not to assume when the option of asking for clarification exists. It’s a personal goal that has served me well.

On a philosophy forum such questions are to be expected.

Fair enough.

Do the physical senses understand what they are doing? If not **what **does understand what the senses are doing?

I’ve answered this.

What precisely is the mechanism of consciousness?

I don’t rightly know and neither do you but people are working on that.

What changes them?

In my case, re-examining the core principles of critical thinking and openmindedness certainly was a likely factor.

That description certainly applies to blind trust in the power of purposeless particles to produce purposeless persons!

I am a person with plenty of purposes.

Where else in the body would you locate them?

Non sequitur.

Who is?

What a peculiar response. I don’t need to answer this for my original answer to stand.

Do genomes determine **all **your assumptions, beliefs, decisions and conclusions?

There is a readily available definition online that you can use during your free time if you are interested in what genomes are.

 

[A_G]

A G

I have a little time on my hands and I retain a measure of empathy for devout Catholics. I used to be Catholic. More specifically as to this discussion, I perused the list of topics and chose to read those that piqued my interest.

I am not on the same page with you regarding your so-called proofs. None were compelling to me.

You have “little time on your hands?” This type of answer will not suffice when we stand before God. Nobody is telling you to become a monk. But to you, this might not matter and you’ll most likely ignore this due to your loss of faith.

I didn’t expect you to find my earlier comments compelling, but in short, that was my answer to your question and I stand with my beliefs. You are entitled to your opinions, and you have the gift of free will.

I pray for all non-believers to find Christ.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

You have “little time on your hands?” This type of answer will not suffice when we stand before God. Nobody is telling you to become a monk. But to you, this might not matter and you’ll most likely ignore this due to your loss of faith.

I would like to welcome this poster for coming in and talking to us, for any reason. I’m glad to see someone who doesn’t desert us, and willing to come in and even talk to us about these things – and with apparent honesty even if wrong. To me that might be a fertile field for us to plant seeds of love and feed the lost sheep and all that stuff. I don’t want to welcome the prodigal sheep by demanding good reason for their hanging around the pasture! Who knows but they might hear the call of the Shepherd, and your act of love in this very post will make an impact on this poster. How would you like to hear that after being encouraged by you, he decided to give faith another try?

I pray for all non-believers to find Christ.

Me too.

Dear heavenly Father: Please help me minister to Your lost or straying sheep by helping me attain a heart filled with Your love and compassion, and giving them a taste of You through works of my flesh. I give You my will and my desire to do these things. Through Jesus, Amen.

Alan

 

[davidv]

davidv

Are you suggesting the science that vindicated Galileo had no corrosive effects on the Catholicism?

Certainly the Church is not 100% innocent for all the beliefs that were once held by the faithful as truth but now are taught as allegory? For instance, Augustine believed in a literal Adam & Eve. Just last week, perhaps two weeks now, Cardinal Pell of Australia acknowledged there never were literal people called Adam and Eve but rather emphasized the religious nature of the story.

Knowing how the fact of evolution operates, there could never have been a first human like Adam. That certainly corroded prior beliefs held for millennia. Some are now questioning the logic of Original Sin if there never was a literal Adam who, ironically, was punished for pursuing knowledge.

Science has eroded the “moment of conception” fallacy from being a previously held plausible claim to now, a strict faith claim. Yes this sounds counter-intuitive but science is like that. Science goes where the evidence is which, I admit, isn’t always comfortable for primates with big brains. Knowing there is no evidence for a so-called moment of conception (fertilization is a multi-staged, complicated process lasting not a moment but rather hours and perhaps days) doesn’t that erode the Catholic-fostered belief of a so-called conception moment? The Church, imho, needs to drop the conception fallacy promotionals and develop a belief that there is some sort of Yahweh-chosen “ensoulment” as that would be outside the eroding skill of science.

I’m sorry, but unless I grossly misunderstand the point you tried to make with merely 15 words, I disagree. Science, as I’ve shown, is corrosive to religion. The mere fact that there is such a thing as the god-of-the gaps argument is a testament to that reality.

Yes, you grossly misunderstood my point. What you have shown in the above is that when individuals, whether religious or scientist, pursue there own agenda rather than truth, this is when corrosion exists.

Our late Pope had this to say in his encyclical Fides et Ratio “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth; and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth—in a word, to know himself—so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves.”

So, it is bad science that is corrosive to religion.

 

[Sample]

A G

This type of answer will not suffice when we stand before God.

I’d like you to consider a thought experiment. If a Hindu started a dialogue with you and after a while said, “well, that answer will not suffice when you experience the holy vision of Brahma the Destroyer” will you take umbrage and quake in your sandals or just shrug off the threat? I feel the same way with your threat. No biggie, I don’t believe that Yahweh exists. But your sentiment is meant to be a kindness I suppose, so I appreciate the thought in that sense.

I didn’t expect you to find my earlier comments compelling, but in short, that was my answer to your question and I stand with my beliefs.

Fair enough.

You are entitled to your opinions, and you have the gift of free will

.

Thank you. I’d like to mention that I am skeptical of free will. It may very well be an illusion, or actually, an illusion of an illusion.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Thank you. I’d like to mention that I am skeptical of free will. It may very well be an illusion, or actually, an illusion of an illusion.

Free will also could be an engineering model that works for discussion purposes, that may approximate but not necessarily equate to however “truly free” you wish to consider.

If I believe I’m making a decision and am able to act on it, then with regard to that act, I have exercised free will as far as I can perceive.

I do not have free will to walk through rocks, at least at my current faith level. And if someone points a gun at me and gives me an order, that’s coerced decision not free will. Heaven v hell is even a coerced decision – I don’t claim that one to be free will. I do have free will to be amused when someone tries to anger me.

 

[Candide_West]

Why do you believe those you love are the same persons in spite of the changes to their bodies?
How do they **understand **what they are doing?

What else?

They would not think, choose or do anything for themselves, have a mind or will of their own and no more value, rights or significance than your computer.
An impersonal object is not regarded as being in the same category as a person for the reasons I have just given.
It would cease to exist! Is a person a biological, i.e. impersonal, *robot? What is the difference, if any?

Interesting questions. There’s a lot of fascinating work and research which has been carried out in this area which answers a number of these questions. Especially regarding what it is in your brain that does the understanding, and where memories are stored etc.*

Some books by Daniel Dennett are both really interesting and also accessible to the layman. Well worth looking into if you have an interest in understanding what consciousness really is and how it arises from the functioning of the brain.

 

[Sample]

davidv

Yes, you grossly misunderstood my point. What you have shown in the above is that when individuals, whether religious or scientist, pursue there own agenda rather than truth, this is when corrosion exists.

I was talking about science, not scientists. Scientists are certainly vunerable to error and even deception.

Our late Pope had this to say in his encyclical Fides et Ratio…

I find it statistically improbable that in the history of what, 265 popes now?, that not even one was an atheist. I believe that the current pope may be an atheist. That’s my faith of course so please don’t assail me.

So, it is bad science that is corrosive to religion.

This is a strange application of the No True Scotsman fallacy. There is no such thing as good science or bad science. Only good and bad scientists.