How far is the average scientist or philosopher from knowing “reality?”

[tonyrey]

I’ve long thought that we’ve been way too impressed with our presumed knowledge of how things work. We may have scratched the surface of knowledge but I’m sure we’re clueless as to the totality of what lies beneath.

It just seems that what we do know about the universe is about zero compared to the infinity of things we don’t know.

The success of science proves that we know a lot about a little but the failure of society proves that we know little about the lot!

 

[Robert_Sock]

The success of science proves that we know a lot about a little but the failure of society proves that we know little about the lot!

This is an important lesson on science! Even many things science claims to know a lot, such as mathematical theorems, need to be taken with a grain of salt (E=mc² has been questioned recently). And I strongly sense that the theory of evolution is just a scam.

 

[tonyrey]

This is an important lesson on science! Even many things science claims to know a lot, such as mathematical theorems, need to be taken with a grain of salt (E=mc² has been questioned recently). And I strongly sense that the theory of evolution is just a scam.

Progressive development is a rational process, Robert!

 

[Robert_Sock]

Progressive development is a rational process, Robert!

Let us not forget that we are living in a fallen world. In Heaven all science will be made known to us, down to the finest detail. This is why I consider ourselves to be ignorant meatbots here in this miserable and corrupt world.

 

[carn]

You are assuming that mind = brain. You are also assuming that the only rational beings are human beings - without explaining how the power of reason originated.

I assume mind >= brain and one cannot prove its mind>brain.
And why is explanation relevant?
Human beings are or arent’t the only rational beings. Whatever of both is true does not depend on whether i have an explanation.

In that case human philosophy would be restricted to physical reality, as all thoughts would be nothing but specific interactions inside a human brain.

And?
Neither mind > brain nor mind=brain contradicts anything i know, so i cannot say which is true.

That is a metaphysical principle without which science wouldn’t be possible.

Its not a metaphysical principle, its a property of this universe. Of course noting or at least suggesting the assumption of this property is an important step. Small children do this since ages, fortunately adults got the idea as well.

Neither hunger nor any other physical state explains logic.

Which is not scientifically explicable.
I haven’t questioned the existence of a real world. I have simply pointed out that physical causes do not explain insight and the power of reason.

And why is the lack of explanation important?

It would only be relevant, if we had a perfect understanding of the functioning of the brain and yet could not explain what our brain produces,e.g. insight aand power of reason, and if we would fail to create a human-like AI.
Then and only then the lack of explanation would show, that either we still miss some material aspect of the brain or, in case that can be excluded, mind > brain.

Just because A cannot be explained based on information B does not mean C is true.It is also possible that C is wrong and information D was missing and B+D explain A.

 

[tonyrey]

Let us not forget that we are living in a fallen world. In Heaven all science will be made known to us, down to the finest detail. This is why I consider ourselves to be ignorant meatbots here in this miserable and corrupt world.

We know enough to be responsible for what we do or don’t do and to prevent unnecessary suffering as far as we can. That is the reality that really matters!

 

[tonyrey]

I assume mind >= brain and one cannot prove its mind>brain.
And why is explanation relevant?

If explanation is irrelevant you are left with nothing but assumptions!

Human beings are or arent’t the only rational beings. Whatever of both is true does not depend on whether i have an explanation.

If explanation is irrelevant it doesn’t matter whether you have an explanation or not!

And why is the lack of explanation important?

We are left in the dark!

 

[carn]

If explanation is irrelevant you are left with nothing but assumptions!

If explanation is irrelevant it doesn’t matter whether you have an explanation or not!

We are left in the dark!

I did not say explanation is irrelevant, i suggeested it is irrelevant for the truth of something. Explanation is relevant for our understandeing. Butwhether we understand anything, does not change what is true.

And while it may be uncomfortable to be in the dark, it does not prove an idea, that it would be positive or negative for us, if it were true or false.

You seem to - and maybe i just imagine this, because i have seen the attitude so often - think, that there must be explanations regarding the human mind and that man must be able to understand them, because otherwise there would be no point in this or it would be “unfair”.
I do not understand this, that we do not understand how the human mind works, does in no way prove or disprove that we are anything but biological robots. It just proves, that we lack understanding in that area.

The truth in any statement never depends upon whether it would be nice or feel right for us.

 

[tonyrey]

I did not say explanation is irrelevant, i suggested it is irrelevant for the truth of something. Explanation is relevant for our understanding. But whether we understand anything, does not change what is true.