Is science scientific?!

[reggieM]

Why? I don’t know how you reached this conclusion. The whole of this response is that existence is valuable because without existence nothing could be valued. This in itself is a construct which has introduced the objective of ‘being capable of valuing’. If that is the objective then the statement “existence is valuable” appears to only be true if we consider the capabilities of evaluation to be valuable. Is there a universal reason as to why existence is valuable or did you already post it and I misread? I am known to miss things so sorry in advance if I misrepresented your post.

One thing that might be missing here is that you appear to be proposing a universe where valuation (evaluating things) does not exist.

But valuing things not only exists – it is integral (universal) to human life.

You’re seeking some “objective” quality. Objectivity itself is a valuation - a value statement. You’re saying that subjectivity has less (or at least different) value than objectivity.

Objectively, the common and most essential (actually indispensible) element of everything that is valued is Existence. This is not a subjective claim – it’s based on the objective facts.

So, existence has this high value because it is necessary. It is necessary for this universal action - to value.

It’s not the only objectively necessary and universal thing of value. Rational intelligence is also necessary since that makes the act of valuing things possible (by comparing degrees of value, more or less).

The ideas of more and less, perfect and less perfect, worse, better, good, best … those are the results of the action of evaluating (valuing).

But the function of valuing exists as an objective fact and it necessarily depends on existence and intelligence.

 

[Warrior1979]

: clap clap clap:

I’d make a distinction however - for the committed empiricist there is no discomfort. The drive is toward discovery - regardless of what the outcome might entail. Granted of course, even that personality type is rare amongst scientists…

It’s rare among the population in general…well, maybe excepting practicing Buddhists.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

One thing that might be missing here is that you appear to be proposing a universe where valuation (evaluating things) does not exist.

Not at all, I’m questioning the objectivity of the claim that existence is valuable.

But valuing things not only exists – it is integral (universal) to human life.

Yes, subjectively it is integral. How does humanity finding something valuable make that thing absolutely valuable though?

You’re seeking some “objective” quality. Objectivity itself is a valuation - a value statement. You’re saying that subjectivity has less (or at least different) value than objectivity.

Subjective feelings and opinions have no bearing on whether something is objectively true or not. Of course subjectivity has different value to objectivity, subjectivity applies only to the self while objectivity applies to the broad spectrum and when concerning absolute statements, to the absolute.

Objectively, the common and most essential (actually indispensible) element of everything that is valued is Existence. This is not a subjective claim – it’s based on the objective facts.

Everything that is valued is not necessarily valuable, that’s what I’m asking you to demonstrate.

So, existence has this high value because it is necessary. It is necessary for this universal action - to value.

Yes, it is valuable for those that value, this is another construct which does not show that it is necessarily valuable in an objective sense.

It’s not the only objectively necessary and universal thing of value. Rational intelligence is also necessary since that makes the act of valuing things possible (by comparing degrees of value, more or less).

Only those with rational intelligence value it as much and even then some do not value existence so there is not even a consensus between those that do have the capability to value.

The ideas of more and less, perfect and less perfect, worse, better, good, best … those are the results of the action of evaluating (valuing).

Yes, and they are all subjective.
reggieM;7833677:

But the function of valuing exists as an objective fact and it necessarily depends on existence and intelligence.

Agreed, that does not inherently make existence or the traits of what exists objectively valuable, only subjectively valuable and even then, not to all.

 

[reggieM]

Not at all, I’m questioning the objectivity of the claim that existence is valuable.

If anything is valuable, then existence is valuable because existence is required for anything to be valuable.

It is a universal, objective fact that things are valued. Thus, existence is necessarily valuable.

The closer something approaches “zero value”, the closer it is to non-existence.

How does humanity finding something valuable make that thing absolutely valuable though?

Value is a measure of existence. The fact that there is existence means it can be valued.

Only those with rational intelligence value it as much and even then some do not value existence so there is not even a consensus between those that do have the capability to value.

In valuing anything at all, one must necessarily value existence.

All human beings, universally and objectively, engage in “valuing”. Thus, every human being values existence.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

If anything is valuable, then existence is valuable because existence is required for anything to be valuable.

Yes, “if anything is valuable.” A very good question and I believe we can only affirm this subjectively.

It is a universal, objective fact that things are valued. Thus, existence is necessarily valuable.

What about the things that exist that are not valued? The planet a solar system across that nothing capable of valuing has ever come across, nobody values that portion of existence. Again, just because things are valued does not make existence objectively or inherently valuable, only subjectively.

The closer something approaches “zero value”, the closer it is to non-existence.

Again, the planet that nobody has come across, nobody values that but it most certainly exists.

Value is a measure of existence. The fact that there is existence means it can be valued.

This I completely agree with and it makes no claims of inherent value.

In valuing anything at all, one must necessarily value existence.

Indeed, but again, subjective value does not relate to objective truth.

All human beings, universally and objectively, engage in “valuing”. Thus, every human being values existence.

I may have phrased my comment poorly, I was referring to those not valuing their own existence, there are many that do not value there existence and do not want to continue with their existence, some end their existence.(let’s just pretend I added (Their conscious self) after each one of my comments on valuing ones own existence).

 

[reggieM]

I may have phrased my comment poorly, I was referring to those not valuing their own existence, there are many that do not value there existence and do not want to continue with their existence, some end their existence.(let’s just pretend I added (Their conscious self) after each one of my comments on valuing ones own existence).

Ok, that’s a different point and it explains the confusion.

The term “existence” is not limited to “oneself”. It means “Being” of any kind and degree.

It is not possible for a person to avoid, or be incapable, of valuing Existence.

The term “to value” requires existence and intelligence capable of Valuing.

By objective fact, such existence and intelligence exist – and also, Valuing is Absolutely Required, Essential, Necessary and Impossible to Prevent, Avoid or Stop in every being capable of Valuing.

A person who does not value his own existence, still necessarily Values Existence itself to some degree. He chooses one thing (by valuing it) higher than another. Only Existence allows him to make that choice.

It does get complicated when it seems that the person is choosing non-existence.

However, if the person was truly capable of not valuing Existence, it would be impossible for him to choose suicide. In choosing non-life, he is valuing the idea of nothingness which can only be given to him by his Being itself. He is choosing to follow the illusion of nothingness – Valuing that higher than anything else. But the illusion of nothingness is the product of Existence itself. He values that thing (that illusion) very highly and risks everything in the belief that it is correct.

He believes that there is no judgement in the afterlife. He decides that idea is correct, and the act of killing himself is better (thus valuing that Act higher) than living is.

So, he values his own decision-making power so highly that he’s willing to follow it to his own self-murder. He values his belief in nothingness after death – convinced that he knows the truth. That is a very high value in his own belief system – thus existence itself makes it possible.

So, by the act of Valuing – he is valuing Existence. Not his own existence directly, but the “state of existence” that allows him to choose death. He prefers the ideas in his own mind that to Catholic morality, for example, that forbids self-murder.

The choice of death, the justifcation for his actions – all are arguments that in his own mind that he values so highly that he’s going to follow them.

Those arguments, illusions, ideas – all are products of, and can only come from Existence itself.

 

[reggieM]

This is a nice illustration of the difference between Shannon Information and Functional Information. I hope my sources on CAF won’t lie to me and fail to mention this any more.

“Shannon information,” means mere complexity. Under this definition, a functionless stretch of randomly garbled junk DNA might have the same amount of “information” as a fully functional gene of the same sequence-length. For example, under Shannon information, the following two strings contain identical amounts of information:

String A:

SHANNONINFORMATIONISAPOORMEASUREOFBIOLOGICALCOMPLEXITY

String B:

JLNUKFPDARKSWUVEYTYKARRBVCLTLODOUUMUEVCRLQTSFFWKJDXSOB

Both String A and String B are composed of exactly 54 characters, and each string has exactly the same amount of Shannon information–about 254 bits. Yet clearly String A conveys much more functional information than String B, which was generated using a random character generator. For obvious reasons, Shannon complexity has a long history of being criticized as an unhelpful metric of functional biological information. After all, biological information is finely-tuned to perform a specific biological function, whereas random strings are not. A useful measure of biological information must account for the function of the information, and Shannon information does not take function into account.

Some leading theorists recognize this point. In 2003, Nobel Prize winning origin of life researcher Jack Szostak wrote in a review article in Nature lamenting that the problem with “classical information theory” is that it “does not consider the meaning of a message” and instead defines information “as simply that required to specify, store or transmit the string.” According to Szostak, “a new measure of information – functional information – is required” in order to take account of the ability of a given protein sequence to perform a given function.

In 2007 Szostak co-published a paper Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with Carnegie Institution origin of life theorist Robert Hazen. Attacking those who insist on measuring biological complexity using the outmoded tools of Shannon information, the authors wrote, “A complexity metric is of little utility unless its conceptual framework and predictive power result in a deeper understanding of the behavior of complex systems.”

 

[Rolypoly]

It seems obvious that science cannot justify or explain itself. Do you agree or disagree?

Agree.

A while ago I heard of a story about a priest who was captured by the communists and sent to Siberia. He was kept in the freezing cold and was suffering miserably until he began to see Our Lady, at which point all pain left him and his eyes were fixed upon her. The captors immediately took him and analyzed him thoroughly.

I remember this story because I think that science and religion are competing neck and neck these days. I think science is trying to replace religion. We hear of scientific miracles. We hear of religion and the spread of religion as being analogous to the spread of a virus. Science these days can do amazing things and people are putting more and more faith into it. Science aids faith when it is moral but when severed from morality it is one of faith’s biggest enemies.

 

[tonyrey]

You would need to justify that speculation because there is no evidence in its favour and no obvious motive for doing so.

The speculation that “a designer made this happen” (referring to an increase in the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds).

I have never come across any, only blanket assertions and people claiming a personal relationship, but the problem is, similar people say the same thing while talking about completely different Gods, both inside and outside of their religion.

Their views of God are different but they still refer to the same God.

What method is there for verifying these claims? The rest of it are claims that ancient documents whose authenticity is questionable at best are evidence of Gods existence and I have no method for differentiating which religious promotional text is correct.

Those which correspond to the moral values implicit in the UNDHR.

Your blanket assertion is falsified by the immense value of existence…
Why is existence valuable? Are you suggesting this from your own subjective point of view or do you have some kind of evidence to support this assertion? On top of that, presuming that existence is valuable why is it ‘immensely valuable’?

Existence is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment. Do you reject the value of your existence?

You also need to explain how you are capable of reaching that conclusion. Where do you obtain your power of reason? From inanimate particles?

Most probably. I have certainly never come across anything to suggest that anything beyond inanimate particles exists.

Then you must regard yourself as mindless!

 

[tonyrey]

Agree.

A while ago I heard of a story about a priest who was captured by the communists and sent to Siberia. He was kept in the freezing cold and was suffering miserably until he began to see Our Lady, at which point all pain left him and his eyes were fixed upon her. The captors immediately took him and analyzed him thoroughly.

I remember this story because I think that science and religion are competing neck and neck these days. I think science is trying to replace religion. We hear of scientific miracles. We hear of religion and the spread of religion as being analogous to the spread of a virus. Science these days can do amazing things and people are putting more and more faith into it. Science aids faith when it is moral but when severed from morality it is one of faith’s biggest enemies.

Precisely! It increases man’s power to do evil - a reality unknown to science…

 

[tonyrey]

1. All our knowledge is based on the evidence of our interior experiences.
   I think I understand what you are saying here. I believe that Australia exists despite not having been there myself. Does this comply with your statement?

What you just stated sounds subjective. Aging a tree based on its rings and carbon dating is objective.It is subjective! Our interior experience is our primary datum and sole source of direct knowledge.

1. We infer the existence of material things from the evidence of our perceptions. Would there be any other reasonable way?

None whatsoever! We cannot get outside our mind… except with our thoughts and images.

4. Science presupposes our power of reason which is intangible and unobservable by the senses.

Would there be any other reasonable way?None.

5. The belief that science is the only way that we know something is obviously false.

Give an example of something you know that is not scientific. When I ask why you know it, what method could you confirm it?I know I am thinking. I don’t need to confirm it because I am the one who knows I am thinking!

6. Scientific knowledge is based on our direct, immediate knowledge of ourselves.

Do you have a better method? How would you make your argument convincing? It is not my argument but one accepted by philosophers who have specialised in the theory of knowledge. We are all in the “egocentric predicament”.

[/QUOTE]

 

[reggieM]

None whatsoever! We cannot get outside our mind… except with our thoughts and images…It is not my argument but one accepted by philosophers who have specialised in the theory of knowledge. We are all in the “egocentric predicament”.

I have only just recently discovered the truth of that (and it might go against some concepts of traditional Catholic philosophy???).
There’s no way to prove that there is anything “out there” since the only thing we know is our own thoughts. Claims of objective reality by materialism are false on that basis.

 

[Geremia]

How so?

I think he means that some scientists, unqualified to do so, dabble in philosophy and theology and claim that it is science. Read, e.g., John Haldane’s response to Stephen Hawking’s popular science book *The Grand Design *as well as this post on Why (Some) Physicists Are So Bad at Philosophy.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The speculation that “a designer made this happen” (referring to an increase in the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds).

If we presume a designer based only on the existence of this world and it’s capabilities to support life despite the complexity required for such existence then we have nothing but a faceless creator that could have any motives. The point of the argument from design is not to suggest that we know what the designer has planned, it is to suggest that the universe is too complex and too specific to exist without a designer. So if we permit the design argument, everything that occurs within this universe is subsequently apart of that design.

Their views of God are different but they still refer to the same God.

So a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian and a Jehovah’s Witness are all speaking of the same God when they use the term “God”? Why do they then make different suggestions of what this God has done, plans to do and wants from us?

Those which correspond to the moral values implicit in the UNDHR.

By UNDHR are you referring to the universal declaration of human rights?

Existence is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment. Do you reject the value of your existence?

I value my own existence but I don’t see why what I value should be considered universally valuable.

Then you must regard yourself as mindless!

That all depends on how you are using the term ‘mind’. As far as I’m aware the mind may very well be the result of a certain construct of inanimate particles.

 

[tonyrey]

The speculation that “a designer made this happen” (referring to an increase in the amount of suffering and death in the world caused by natural disasters and accidents to such an extent it would clearly be the worst of all possible worlds).

The opportunities of existence are the motive!

The point of the argument from design is not to suggest that we know what the designer has planned, it is to suggest that the universe is too complex and too specific to exist without a designer. So if we permit the design argument, everything that occurs within this universe is subsequently a part of that design.

Indeed! Including our power to make our own choices and decisions.

So a Muslim, a Hindu, a Christian and a Jehovah’s Witness are all speaking of the same God when they use the term “God”?

Yes. They all refer to the Creator.

Why do they then make different suggestions of what this God has done, plans to do and wants from us?

Because their insight and knowledge are limited.

By UNDHR are you referring to the universal declaration of human rights?

Yes. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Existence is a source of opportunities for development, creativity, enjoyment and fulfilment. Do you reject the value of your existence?

I value my own existence but I don’t see why what I value should be considered universally valuable.

Why should you be an exception?

Then you must regard yourself as mindless!

That all depends on how you are using the term ‘mind’. As far as I’m aware the mind may very well be the result of a certain construct of inanimate particles.

There is no evidence that constructs of inanimate particles have awareness, insight or self-control. What are the mechanisms they use?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The opportunities of existence are the motive!

Why do you think that? For all we know this designer could be a sadist and used creation for it’s own sadistic desires.

Indeed! Including our power to make our own choices and decisions.

Indeed.

Yes. They all refer to the Creator.

They all refer to a creator*. Until any evidence is shown that supports the existence of this creator there is no reason to refer to it as ‘the’ creator.

Because their insight and knowledge are limited.

Agreed.

Yes. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Fair enough, what makes that declaration correct though? Is it just because a majority of the human population that have viewed and read that document and understand it’s notions agree with it? Why does that make it objectively right?

Why should you be an exception?

That was my point, I can’t see why I or anybody else should be considered to have an objective insight into what is or is not valuable.

There is no evidence that constructs of inanimate particles have awareness, insight or self-control. What are the mechanisms they use?

I suspect that the Brain in humans and many animals is the construct of inanimate particles that permits ‘the mind’ to exist. If you are interested in some of the mechanisms of the brain they can be found here. That should give a decent insight into the current scientific work on the mechanisms of the brain.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The term “existence” is not limited to “oneself”. It means “Being” of any kind and degree.

I am aware of that but this discussion is about valuing existence and subsequently only conscious beings are capable of valuing anything. So necessarily the requirement for value requires consciousness and awareness of “oneself”.

It is not possible for a person to avoid, or be incapable, of valuing Existence.

I find that only applicable to the individual areas of existence, one does not value existence in it’s entirety as there are many things that people specifically hate about existence.

The term “to value” requires existence and intelligence capable of Valuing. By objective fact, such existence and intelligence exist – and also, Valuing is Absolutely Required, Essential, Necessary and Impossible to Prevent, Avoid or Stop in every being capable of Valuing.

Agreed.

A person who does not value his own existence, still necessarily Values Existence itself to some degree. He chooses one thing (by valuing it) higher than another. Only Existence allows him to make that choice.

Agreed, but existence itself is not what is being valued because certain parts of existence are not necessarily valued by the individual.

It does get complicated when it seems that the person is choosing non-existence.

However, if the person was truly capable of not valuing Existence, it would be impossible for him to choose suicide. In choosing non-life, he is valuing the idea of nothingness which can only be given to him by his Being itself. He is choosing to follow the illusion of nothingness – Valuing that higher than anything else. But the illusion of nothingness is the product of Existence itself. He values that thing (that illusion) very highly and risks everything in the belief that it is correct.

Here we’ve gone from valuing existence to valuing a property or capability of existence.

He believes that there is no judgement in the afterlife. He decides that idea is correct, and the act of killing himself is better (thus valuing that Act higher) than living is.

I think beliefs in an afterlife are irrelevant here unless we give this hypothetical subject some kind of religious conviction. The idea of an afterlife is an unsupported assertion of many religious institutions and naturally holds no weight over those that are not apart of or hold no belief in those religious institutions. So by allowing our hypothetical subject to be absent from religion, the concept of an afterlife is irrelevant.

So, he values his own decision-making power so highly that he’s willing to follow it to his own self-murder. He values his belief in nothingness after death – convinced that he knows the truth. That is a very high value in his own belief system – thus existence itself makes it possible.

I agree that value is contingent upon existence but I disagree that that makes existence necessarily valuable. We do not need to repeat that valuing is impossible without existence.

So, by the act of Valuing – he is valuing Existence. Not his own existence directly, but the “state of existence” that allows him to choose death. He prefers the ideas in his own mind that to Catholic morality, for example, that forbids self-murder.

So again he subjectively values a small portion of existence, this does not inherently make existence valuable.

The choice of death, the justifcation for his actions – all are arguments that in his own mind that he values so highly that he’s going to follow them.

Those arguments, illusions, ideas – all are products of, and can only come from Existence itself.

Agreed.

 

[reggieM]

I find that only applicable to the individual areas of existence, one does not value existence in it’s entirety

You offered a number of good points, but I’ll just focus here for a minute … I think that is a key insight.

We cannot value existence in its entirety - true. The first problem is, we cannot fully perceive existence in its entirety. First, because we ourselves only have an imperfect existence. We don’t possess “the fullness of Being”.

That might sound strange because we could say “you either exist or you don’t”. But the state of existence can be changed (by death or destruction) – and our awareness of existence is limited also.

But whatever we value, we’re pointing to a scale of value – worse, better, best.

We know that an existence that is temporary is less complete than an existence that is permanent. We can observe flaws in the quality of existence – for example, we can predict that a building will fall apart in 2 years and be reduced to rubble.

We judge these flaws and defects in existence against a standard – and that is the fullness of existence. We know, as you correctly stated above – that we do not possess an understanding of the fullness of existence.

That standard of completeness – which is actually Perfection of Being … is a proof of the existence of God who is that fullness, perfection, permanence of Being itself, from which we were given existence.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

You offered a number of good points, but I’ll just focus here for a minute … I think that is a key insight.

We cannot value existence in its entirety - true. The first problem is, we cannot fully perceive existence in its entirety. First, because we ourselves only have an imperfect existence. We don’t possess “the fullness of Being”.

What is, “the fullness of being?” What is a “perfect existence?” Why is our existence “imperfect?”

But whatever we value, we’re pointing to a scale of value – worse, better, best.

Agreed.

We know that an existence that is temporary is less complete than an existence that is permanent.

Why? What is a ‘complete existence’? What makes any form of existence ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’? Is this scale of completeness only subjective to our view of complete or is it objective? Can you demonstrate what represents a ‘complete existence’ or an ‘incomplete existence’?

We can observe flaws in the quality of existence – for example, we can predict that a building will fall apart in 2 years and be reduced to rubble.

We judge these flaws and defects in existence against a standard – and that is the fullness of existence. We know, as you correctly stated above – that we do not possess an understanding of the fullness of existence.

Could this standard not be subjective to each of us? What one finds defective another does not necessarily agree. The standard itself appears to change depending on the person and this makes me feel that the standard arises within each of our experience. We see what we like and what we don’t like and that informs us of what we think is good and what is bad. This standard that we each use, appears to grow out of our expectations which grow out of our experience.

That standard of completeness – which is actually Perfection of Being … is a proof of the existence of God who is that fullness, perfection, permanence of Being itself, from which we were given existence.

I disagree because that standard is entirely subjective ad shows nothing of an objective truth. If the standard were representative of an object truth, like the existence of God, then wouldn’t the standard be eternal and unchanging?

 

[reggieM]

Why? What is a ‘complete existence’? What makes any form of existence ‘complete’ or ‘incomplete’? Is this scale of completeness only subjective to our view of complete or is it objective?

Excellent questions and more good points raised throughout.

Can you demonstrate what represents a ‘complete existence’ or an ‘incomplete existence’?

I can demonstrate three things which are objective and universal.

1. The first one we already saw. The act of “Valuing” is universal and necessary. Evalutions are made and every rational intelligence engages, necessarily and absolutely in this action.
2. The act of valuing uses the concept of a scale of values. One of the terms used on that scale is the term “Better” (or its opposite, “worse”). Those are terms used in the act of Valuing aspects of existence.
3. Whenever the term Better is used (and it always is used universally), it indicates that something is “less better” – or “less perfect”.

With those three demonstrable points, we can logically deduce that we are universally capable of recognizing values in existence. (The specifics about what is better or worse is a different matter).

To say something is better than another, an end point on the scale is the standard from which we measure. If we find a flaw in something, we measure that against flawlessness.

So, the standard must exist since this action of valuation is universal to human nature.

What one finds defective another does not necessarily agree.

True because we’re using “less perfect” reasons or standards by which to measure.

A certain gun is not as good for killing people as another one. Well, that’s probably an immoral standard to use (except in times of war).

So, the reason or purpose for our act of valuing things also can be more or less perfect.

The most perfect reason for valuing things is to participate fully in Goodness (which is the fullness of Being).

The standard itself appears to change depending on the person and this makes me feel that the standard arises within each of our experience. We see what we like and what we don’t like and that informs us of what we think is good and what is bad.

Exactly and that’s why it seems like there is no standard. But even a person seeking to commit a crime or a sin is seeking fulness or completeness, although using the completely wrong approach. So, the standard is the same – Goodness or Happiness in its fullness. We measure things against that and we can see defects. It doesn’t matter what things we’re talking about – as soon as we see a flaw, we’re saying that flawlessness is a standard.

Something being temporary is a flaw as compared to having its Goodness available permanently. The loss of something takes away from existence.

If the standard were representative of an object truth, like the existence of God, then wouldn’t the standard be eternal and unchanging?

Yes, it would. But we have lots of little “mini-standards” that get in the way of the Ultimate – eternal, unchanging Value.

We have to follow the chain of values – up the ladder or up the scale from worse to better to absolute best and perfect.