Is science scientific?!

[tonyrey]

How would you ensure that none of these evils occur?

The fact that evils exist merely shows that the world is imperfect - which is to be expected.

How does that make existence or life for that matter valuable? Why are opportunities valuable beyond our subjective opinions of them?

According to you nothing is valuable - including your reasoning!

There is no guarantee that an instrument will be used wisely or well.

Indeed, relevance?

To reasoning.

Exactly! Me = brain activity.

I would expand that “me” to my entire body but yeah, you’ve pretty much got the gist of my point.

Good.

It merely implies that you are a myth! You are just a collection of neural events.

How does that make me a myth?

A person is not generally regarded as a collection of neural events, e.g. in a law court or in daily life.

I’ve just looked over this little line of discussion and I’ve noticed quite a bit. You see the concept of the brain being a physical manifestation of the mind to make responsibility of the person null and void due to the lack of conscious and rational causes that accompany brain function. Is this correct?

Yes.

Ok, then you have suggested that we, implying humans, are a cause with consciousness and rationality. Now, what causes consciousness and rationality? Let’s see if we can analyze this little bit here and see if we can’t alleviate some confusion of this discussion.

Nothing causes consciousness and rationality! The mind is a fundamental reality.

What assertion? I expressed that your assertion appeared to oppose the design argument and that is because no reasonable definition of a designer has been given, only that the universe is the result of the supernatural. A claim that is unfounded and unnecessary.

The universe is the result of powerful intelligence, not **purposeless **particles.

It applies physically - which is also objectively.

What? This comment came from your comment of the opportunity for physical development, I asked if it is valuable and why? Then you said that I would find out if I were paralyzed, you made it entirely subjective with that comment. Paralyzation does apply physically and it is objective but that doesn’t make it physical development universally valuable, unless you can show otherwise?

I gave you one example of** an objective physical disability** which is negative and not subjective.

Nothing, I made my point, supernatural claims are unlikely to be true.

Only in your opinion - which you have agreed is worthless!

Not all goals are subjective. The goal to survive is an objective feature of life.

Agreed. However, if something is objectively valuable towards a goal that does not make it universally valuable.

You admit that some things are objectively valuable then?

In that case we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons!.

If you so desire but this would apply to everyone.

Then why do you bother to discuss anything?

Are all goals unnecessary? You sound like a nihilist…

Necessity requires a goal. Nothing can just be Necessary, it has to be necessary for something.

Thank you for supporting Design!

There there is no “I” - no entity but merely “a bundle of perceptions”, to use Hume’s phrase.

That bundle happens to form an entity that can look at itself and say I.

One can say anything! Whether it makes sense is another matter.

Correlation implies an entity to which the brain is related…

Not necessarily an entity, if we look at the two separately for example, analyze brain function while someone is doing a crossword, then we can analyze the correlation, we could look at many activities and try to better understand the correlation between conscious activity and brain function.

If one is the product of the other it is a direct relation.

Instincts are automatic, not intentional or rational.

Thoughts are not intentional or rational, they appear to be instinctive, they are not learned, they are a result of the brain forming.

Then they are merely electrical impulses which know nothing… You have succeeded in destroying the foundation of all your arguments! Congratulations…:whackadoo:

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

The fact that evils exist merely shows that the world is imperfect - which is to be expected.

I was under the impression that the design argument suggests that everything in this universe and controlling this universe is so “perfect” that it can only be the result of a “perfect” designer. So quite the opposite really, perfection is to be expected if we permit the design argument.

According to you nothing is valuable - including your reasoning!

I never said that, nothing is objectively valuable without a goal is my opinion on the matter. Nothing is simply valuable beyond a subjective interpretation and that includes the goal that one can set.

A person is not generally regarded as a collection of neural events, e.g. in a law court or in daily life.

How does that make me a myth though?

Nothing causes consciousness and rationality! The mind is a fundamental reality.

So consciousness just is? Why is consciousness only present in organisms with a brain? Do you have any evidence to support the notion that consciousness has no cause?

The universe is the result of powerful intelligence, not **purposeless **particles.

Could you support these claims with evidence?

I gave you one example of** an objective physical disability** which is negative and not subjective.

No, you didn’t, you gave me a physical disability that does exist and then suggested it was negative because I and many others think it is a negative attribute. It is only negative to us with respect to a goal and that goal often revolves around the concept of ‘fitting in’ and achieving personal goals.

Only in your opinion - which you have agreed is worthless!

When did I agree that my opinion is worthless?

You admit that some things are objectively valuable then?

The most objectively that something can be valued is when it is put in contrast with a goal and that goal can be anything and is set from the subjective perspective of individuals.

Then why do you bother to discuss anything?

You are the one who thinks it prudent to ignore people, I never suggested I felt the same way.

Thank you for supporting Design!

How do you propose I did that?

One can say anything! Whether it makes sense is another matter.

Indeed.

If one is the product of the other it is a direct relation.

Yes, it is and from the looks the mind is the product of brain function. It seems our thought processes and our ability to ‘consciously’ control our muscles all stems from the brain.

Then they are merely electrical impulses which know nothing… You have succeeded in destroying the foundation of all your arguments! Congratulations…:whackadoo:

How has that destroyed the foundations of my argument?

 

[tonyrey]

I was under the impression that the design argument suggests that everything in this universe and controlling this universe is so “perfect” that it can only be the result of a “perfect” designer. So quite the opposite really, perfection is to be expected if we permit the design argument.

Only God is perfect in every respect. Finite beings are necessarily imperfect.

I never said that, nothing is objectively valuable without a goal is my opinion on the matter. Nothing is simply valuable beyond a** subjective** interpretation and that includes the goal that one can set.

“a subjective interpretation and that includes the goal that one can set” implies that nothing is objectively valuable.

A person is not generally regarded as a collection of neural events, e.g. in a law court or in daily life.

How does that make me a myth though?

Your concept of person is a myth as far as the vast majority are concerned. Test it in a law court or when you apply for a job!

Nothing causes consciousness and rationality! The mind is a fundamental reality.

So consciousness just is?

No. The Supreme Mind just is.

Why is consciousness only present in organisms with a brain?

It isn’t! Do you always judge by appearances? Do you depend on things to be aware of yourself?

Do you have any evidence to support the notion that consciousness has no cause?

Can you suggest anything more fundamental than the mind?

The universe is the result of powerful intelligence, not purposeless particles.

Could you support these claims with evidence?

The success of science.

I gave you one example of an objective physical disability which is negative and not subjective.

No, you didn’t, you gave me a physical disability that does exist and then suggested it was negative because I and many others think it is a negative attribute. It is only negative to us with respect to a goal and that goal often revolves around the concept of ‘fitting in’ and achieving personal goals.

A **physical disability is a negation of a physical **goal - not confined to persons.

Only in your opinion - which you have agreed is worthless!

When did I agree that my opinion is worthless?

With regard to reasoning.

You admit that some things are objectively valuable then?

The most objectively that something can be valued is when it is put in contrast with a goal and that goal can be anything and is set from the subjective perspective of individuals.

The goal to survive exists regardless of the subjective perspective of individuals.

Then why do you bother to discuss anything?

You are the one who thinks it prudent to ignore people

A gratuitous assertion,

I never suggested I felt the same way.

Your contempt for reasoning: “we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons”.

Thank you for supporting Design!

How do you propose I did that?

Necessity requires a goal…

One can say anything! Whether it makes sense is another matter.

Indeed.

If one is the product of the other it is a direct relation.

Yes, it is and from the looks the mind is the product of brain function. It seems our thought processes and our ability to ‘consciously’ control our muscles all stems from the brain.

Once again you demonstrate your contempt for reasoning!

Then they are merely electrical impulses which know nothing… You have succeeded in destroying the foundation of all your arguments! Congratulations…

How has that destroyed the foundations of my argument?

Electrical impulses know nothing…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

Electrical impulses know nothing…

I love it! :clapping::dancing:

“It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if anyone maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself.” Blaise Pascal

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

Electrical impulses know nothing…

I love it! :clapping::dancing:

“It is impossible that our rational part should be other than spiritual; and if anyone maintain that we are simply corporeal, this would far more exclude us from the knowledge of things, there being nothing so inconceivable as to say that matter knows itself. It is impossible to imagine how it should know itself.” Blaise Pascal

My goodness! I didn’t know Pascal wrote that. As I read the Pensees a long time ago It must have become a part of me. It goes to show I’m less original than I thought but at least I’m keeping his idea(s) in circulation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

tonyrey

… but at least I’m keeping his idea(s) in circulation.

A noble enterprise!

 

[tonyrey]

tonyrey

… but at least I’m keeping his idea(s) in circulation.

A noble enterprise!

He was a very saintly man so I’m hoping he will put in a good word for me - and you of course! ,

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Only God is perfect in every respect. Finite beings are necessarily imperfect.

Why? Why does being finite compromise perfection?

“a subjective interpretation and that includes the goal that one can set” implies that nothing is objectively valuable.

Pretty much. If the goals set are arbitrary and dependent on the one setting them then they are subjective.

Your concept of person is a myth as far as the vast majority are concerned. Test it in a law court or when you apply for a job!

Your opinion of my concept hasn’t yet represented the concept I propose correctly.

No. The Supreme Mind just is.

What is the supreme mind? Could you support this claim with evidence?

It isn’t! Do you always judge by appearances? Do you depend on things to be aware of yourself?

So there is consciousness in organisms without a bran? I depend on many things to be aware of myself, oxygen, sustainence, brain function, etc…

Can you suggest anything more fundamental than the mind?

The brain, given without the brain it appears the mind could not exist.

The success of science.

How does that support your claims?

A **physical disability is a negation of a physical **goal - not confined to persons.

Agreed, how does that make it valuable beyond the concerns of that person and those who know them? How is a goal physical?

With regard to reasoning.

You might have to specify.

The goal to survive exists regardless of the subjective perspective of individuals.

The goal to survive is based on the subjective perspective of individuals.

A gratuitous assertion,

You,“In that case we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons!”
Me, “If you so desire but this would apply to everyone.”

It appears you are the one promoting ignorance, I simply permitted you to do so.

Your contempt for reasoning: “we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons”.

What?

Necessity requires a goal…

Yes, something can only be necessary in order for something to be achieved.

Once again you demonstrate your contempt for reasoning!

How? Recognizing that the mind and everything that we do stems from brain function has nothing to do with contempt for reasoning.

Electrical impulses know nothing…

So? The living cells within the brain are very capable of retaining knowledge, often this is why brain damage can drastically effect what we know. Sometimes it can completely destroy our motor function memory retention, people can’t walk after certain types of brain damage, they can learn again which implies that the damage was not permanent, which implies knowledge loss.

 

[WTSherman]

Modern science has been disgraced by the same source as modern universities, a false reality they’ve been living in which has left civilization a future of retarded technology and development.

 

[tonyrey]

Only God is perfect in every respect. Finite beings are necessarily imperfect.

Finitude entails limitation.

“a subjective interpretation and that includes the goal that one can set” implies that nothing is objectively valuable.

Pretty much. If the goals set are arbitrary and dependent on the one setting them then they are subjective.

Are the goals of survival and development arbitrary? Do you believe everything is arbitrary?

Your concept of person is a myth as far as the vast majority are concerned. Test it in a law court or when you apply for a job!

Your opinion of my concept hasn’t yet represented the concept I propose correctly.

What is the correct concept of a person?

No. The Supreme Mind just is.

What is the supreme mind? Could you support this claim with evidence?

Since minds do not explain themselves it is reasonable to believe they are created by one Supreme Being with powers which far exceed ours.

Do you depend on things to be aware of yourself?

No reply!

So there is consciousness in organisms without a brain?

Conscious persons are not just biological organisms. The lumps of tissue we call brains don’t know they exist.

Can you suggest anything more fundamental than the mind?

The brain, given without the brain it appears the mind could not exist.

Appearances are deceptive.

The success of science.

How does that support your claims?

It is the product of creative reasoning.

A physical disability is a negation of a physical goal - not confined to persons.

Agreed, how does that make it valuable beyond the concerns of that person and those who know them?

Being positive is superior to being negative!

How is a goal physical?

Have you played football?

With regard to reasoning.

You might have to specify.

Specify what?

The goal to survive exists regardless of the subjective perspective of individuals.

The goal to survive is based on the subjective perspective of individuals.

Amoeba have no perspective!

You,“In that case we can safely ignore your beliefs and reasons!”

Me, "If you so desire but this would apply to everyone."It appears you are the one promoting ignorance, I simply permitted you to do so.

So you **do **believe your beliefs and reasons are worth considering!

Necessity requires a goal…

Yes, something can only be necessary in order for something to be achieved.

And you reject the necessity of any achievement!

Once again you demonstrate your contempt for reasoning!

How? Recognizing that the mind and everything that we do stems from brain function has nothing to do with contempt for reasoning.

You reject its effectiveness, i.e. its value.

Electrical impulses know nothing…

.So? The living cells within the brain are very capable of retaining knowledge, often this is why brain damage can drastically effect what we know.

They don’t retain knowledge any more than the liver or kidneys! They retain markers…

Sometimes it can completely destroy our motor function memory retention, people can’t walk after certain types of brain damage, they can learn again which implies that the damage was not permanent, which implies knowledge loss.

The power of learning and the capacity for creativity have not been lost…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Finitude entails limitation.

Indeed but how does that reduce the capability of perfection?

Are the goals of survival and development arbitrary? Do you believe everything is arbitrary?

To me it is not but I’ve never encountered a reason to believe that in an objective or universal sense existence is anything but arbitrary.

What is the correct concept of a person?

I don’t know what the correct concept, I only have my opinions on the concept of a person.

Since minds do not explain themselves it is reasonable to believe they are created by one Supreme Being with powers which far exceed ours.

Why?

Conscious persons are not just biological organisms.

What else are they?

The lumps of tissue we call brains don’t know they exist.

If the mind and knowledge are apart of the brain then yes, it would seem that they do.

Appearances are deceptive.

In this case, how so?

It is the product of creative reasoning.

Indeed, how does this support your original claims?

Being positive is superior to being negative!

Why? What makes it so beyond our interpretation and perspective on positive and negative?

Have you played football?

Aussie Rules, yes. Nice equivocation .

Specify what?

Specify what you mean by that statement.

Amoeba have no perspective!

Could you support this claim with evidence? The organism certainly has a perspective and reacts to it’s environment and has a drive to survive.

So you **do **believe your beliefs and reasons are worth considering!

Not necessarily, it depends on the intentions and desires of the one potentially considering.

And you reject the necessity of any achievement!

What is the necessity of an achievement? Is it only necessary in contrast with another achievement?

You reject its effectiveness, i.e. its value.

When did I reject it’s effectiveness? I’m sure you mean value subjectively here.

They don’t retain knowledge any more than the liver or kidneys! They retain markers.

Markers which can be used by the brain later on as the function of what we call knowledge.

The power of learning and the capacity for creativity have not been lost…

Have you seen many brain damaged victims? Some are completely gone, incapable of motor capabilities, some are just outright in a coma.

 

[Curious_Seed]

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

So sad thoughts like that still exist.

Soooooooooooooooooo sad.

I love this Forum for the variety of minds that meet.

Some thoughts like the one above sadden me to no end, however.

Fortunately, the thinking is personal and not Catholic.

 

[tonyrey]

Finitude entails limitation.

It results in failure, fallibility, frustration and incompleteness.

Are the goals of survival and development arbitrary? Do you believe everything is arbitrary?

To me it is not but I’ve never encountered a reason to believe that in an objective or universal sense existence is anything but arbitrary.

It is remarkable that you - and every sane person - doesn’t find existence arbitrary when in reality it is! In other words you regard it as absurd, irrational and meaningless.

What is the correct concept of a person?

I don’t know what the correct concept, I only have my opinions on the concept of a person.

What are they?

Since minds do not explain themselves it is reasonable to believe they are created by one Supreme Being with powers which far exceed ours.

Why?

The principle of adequate explanation.

Conscious persons are not just biological organisms.

What else are they?

Autonomous, rational beings.

The lumps of tissue we call brains don’t know they exist.

If the mind and knowledge are apart of the brain then yes, it would seem that they do.

“seem”!

Appearances are deceptive.

In this case, how so?

The brain is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the power of the mind.

It is the product of creative reasoning.

Indeed, how does this support your original claims?

Can you suggest anything more fundamental than the mind? The universe is more reasonably regarded as the result of powerful intelligence than purposeless particles.

Being positive is superior to being negative!

Why? What makes it so beyond our interpretation and perspective on positive and negative?

Nothing shall come from nothing! It is absurd to view negativity as more fundamental than positivity.

Have you played football?

Aussie Rules, yes. Nice equivocation.

My doubtful brand of humour. But it makes the point that goals are not myths.

Specify what?

Specify what you mean by that statement.

What statement? (It helps if you nest quotes as I do).

Amoeba have no perspective!

Could you support this claim with evidence? The organism certainly has a perspective and reacts to **its **environment and has a drive to survive.

Perspective implies intelligence for which the drive to survive is not needed.

So you do believe your beliefs and reasons are worth considering!

Not necessarily, it depends on the intentions and desires of the one potentially considering.

Intentions and desires do not guarantee that beliefs and reasons are worth considering.

And you reject the necessity of any achievement!

What is the necessity of an achievement? Is it only necessary in contrast with another achievement?

So you reject the necessity of all achievements?

You reject its effectiveness, i.e. its value.

When did I reject **its **effectiveness? I’m sure you mean value subjectively here.

The concept of effectiveness is based on success, i.e. a positive result.

They don’t retain knowledge any more than the liver or kidneys! They retain markers.

Markers which can be used by the brain later on as the function of what we call knowledge.

Knowledge is not mechanistic because it requires insight and creative thought - which the brain lacks.

The power of learning and the capacity for creativity have not been lost…

Have you seen many brain damaged victims? Some are completely gone, incapable of motor capabilities, some are just outright in a coma.

I saw a friend of mine in a coma. Shortly before she died she groaned when she heard some one playing a piano.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy… (Hamlet)

 

[tonyrey]

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

So sad thoughts like that still exist.

Why sad?

I love this Forum for the variety of minds that meet.

So do I. That’s not sad!

Some thoughts like the one above sadden me to no end, however.

Why?

Fortunately, the thinking is personal and not Catholic.

There need be no conflict between the two…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

It results in failure

Why?

fallibility

Why?

frustration

Why?

incompleteness.

Why?

It is remarkable that you - and every sane person - doesn’t find existence arbitrary when in reality it is! In other words you regard it as absurd, irrational and meaningless.

Where did you draw that definition of ‘arbitrary’ from?

What are they?

That we are the sum of our parts.

The principle of adequate explanation.

How is that an adequate explanation though?

Autonomous, rational beings.

What are they?

“seem”!

Indeed, our evidence points to that conclusion but no absolute proof exists for anything outside of mathematics.

The brain is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the power of the mind.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

Can you suggest anything more fundamental than the mind?

I already have. the brain.

The universe is more reasonably regarded as the result of powerful intelligence than purposeless particles.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

Nothing shall come from nothing!

Could you support this claim with evidence? I have never encountered nothing and as far as I’m aware neither has anybody else.

It is absurd to view negativity as more fundamental than positivity.

I don’t see either as fundamental.

My doubtful brand of humour. But it makes the point that goals are not myths.

I am well aware that goals are not myths. I did enjoy the joke btw

What statement? (It helps if you nest quotes as I do).

I don’t like this site for the way it disregards previous quoted material, makes it much more difficult to respond and lose track of an argument.

In any case, the comment you made of, “with regard to reasoning” I didn’t really understand what you meant by it.

Perspective implies intelligence for which the drive to survive is not needed.

No, perspective does not require intelligence, instinct is a form of perspective and all plants have instinct as they often grow towards sunlight and recognize season change.

Intentions and desires do not guarantee that beliefs and reasons are worth considering.

That worth you mentioned is all determined by the intentions and desires of those that are considering the beliefs and reasons they are reading.

So you reject the necessity of all achievements?

I don’t understand the question, what is the necessity of all achievements?

The concept of effectiveness is based on success, i.e. a positive result.

Yes and the concept of success and positive result is based on intentions and desires.

Knowledge is not mechanistic because it requires insight and creative thought - which the brain lacks.

What makes you think the brain lacks those qualities? Why does knowledge require insight and creative thought?

I saw a friend of mine in a coma. Shortly before she died she groaned when she heard some one playing a piano.

Which means she was still reactive to a certain degree. There are certain degrees of coma’s and that generally depends on the extent and location of the brain damage.

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy… (Hamlet)

I don’t see why I should trust this quote.

 

[tonyrey]

It results in failure… fallibility… incompleteness.

Limitations

It is remarkable that you - and every sane person - doesn’t find existence arbitrary when in reality it is! In other words you regard it as absurd, irrational and meaningless.

Where did you draw that definition of ‘arbitrary’ from?

Where did you draw yours from?

What are they?

That we are the sum of our parts.

What makes us out of our parts?

The principle of adequate explanation.

How is that an adequate explanation though?

The effects are proportioned to the cause.

Autonomous, rational beings.

What are they?

You are an example!

Indeed, our evidence points to that conclusion but no absolute proof exists for anything outside of mathematics.

Mathematics implies a mathematician!

The brain is a hopelessly inadequate explanation of the power of the mind.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

Electrical impulses are purposeless.

Can you suggest anything more fundamental than the mind?

I already have. the brain.

Did the brain exist before the mind?

The universe is more reasonably regarded as the result of powerful intelligence than purposeless particles.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

The success of science!

Nothing shall come from nothing!

Could you support this claim with evidence? I have never encountered nothing and as far as I’m aware neither has anybody else.

That supports my claim!

It is absurd to view negativity as more fundamental than positivity.

I don’t see either as fundamental.

What is fundamental then?

I am well aware that goals are not myths.

You think they exist only in the mind.

I did enjoy the joke btw

Good!

In any case, the comment you made of, “with regard to reasoning” I didn’t really understand what you meant by it.

It’s valueless in your opinion.

Perspective implies intelligence for which the drive to survive is not needed.

No, perspective does not require intelligence, instinct is a form of perspective and all plants have instinct as they often grow towards sunlight and recognize season change.

A perspective is a **mental **view - which amoeba and plants do not have.

Intentions and desires do not guarantee that beliefs and reasons are worth considering.

That worth you mentioned is all determined by the intentions and desires of those that are considering the beliefs and reasons they are reading.

So nothing is intrinsically valuable - not even your reasons!

I don’t understand the question, what is the necessity of all achievements?

The need to do anything.

The concept of effectiveness is based on success, i.e. a positive result.

Yes and the concept of success and positive result is based on intentions and desires.

Not always. Microbes have no intentions and desires.

Knowledge is not mechanistic because it requires insight and creative thought - which the brain lacks.

What makes you think the brain lacks those qualities? Why does knowledge require insight and creative thought?

Because animals lack philosophical, ethical, political and scientific, knowledge.

Shortly before she died she groaned when she heard some one playing a piano.

Which means she was still reactive to a certain degree. There are certain degrees of comas and that generally depends on the extent and location of the brain damage.

How do you know when a person is totally inactive?

There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy… (Hamlet)

I don’t see why I should trust this quote.

What do you trust?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Limitations

You’ve just introduced a logical contradiction known as “circular reasoning”.

Limitations results in failure, fallibility, frustration and incompleteness because of limitations. Wait what? That doesn’t answer the question and it doesn’t explain how finititude relates to imperfection.

Where did you draw yours from?

The dictionary.

What makes us out of our parts?

I don’t understand the question?

The effects are proportioned to the cause.

What?

You are an example!

If you didn’t notice, I am an organism so subsequently you have not provided an example of consciousness outside of living organisms or anything without a brain.

Mathematics implies a mathematician!

Not necessarily, mathematics is a property of reality, a mathematician has some understanding of mathematics and how it relates to reality.

Electrical impulses are purposeless.

You might have to clarify how you are using the term “purpose” here.

Did the brain exist before the mind?

They are likely synonymous.

The success of science!

How does the success of science support your claim that, “The universe is more reasonably regarded as the result of powerful intelligence than purposeless particles?”

That supports my claim!

How so?

What is fundamental then?

Fundamental for what?

You think they exist only in the mind.

Yes.

Good!

Love the use of this exclamation mark too, it gives a funny over reaction kind of vibe to it.

It’s valueless in your opinion.

What makes you think i regard reasoning as valueless? I disagree entirely with that claim, I have a high regard for reasoning.

A perspective is a **mental **view - which amoeba and plants do not have.

What? What makes you think it requires a mental view?

So nothing is intrinsically valuable - not even your reasons!

Probably not.

The need to do anything.

So the necessity of all achievements is for something to be achieved? Makes sense I suppose.

Not always. Microbes have no intentions and desires.

They certainly have instinctive intentions, replication being a big one.

Because animals lack philosophical, ethical, political and scientific, knowledge.

Could you support this claim with evidence? They certainly aren’t as capable as us in regards to those topics but there is much room for political ethical and scientific knowledge and we have every reason to believe they use these forms of knowledge.

The hierarchy of many animal groups, a pride of lions being a big one represents political knowledge.

The ability and will to care for the young of their species even when the child is not their own is prevalent in many animal groups, this represents ethical knowledge.

The ability to overcome problems represents scientific knowledge.

Philosophy is difficult to analyze but I see no reason to conclude that animals are incapable of philosophical thought, perhaps just not as well gifted as we are.

I find it quite relevant that many of these things show correlation to brain size and function.

How do you know when a person is totally inactive?

Brain activity being really low is a big indicator but I suppose one can’t be 100% sure. For some the brain activity can be drastically lower than that of someone without the brain damage.

What do you trust?

Generally people and things that have earned my trust.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Is science scientific?

Science is scientific, but its basic principles are philosophical. That is why it is amusing to hear scientists or scientific wannabes claim that science has displaced philosophy (never mind theology) as a legitimate intellectual pursuit.

A scientific principle such as “falsifiability” is a philosophical notion, not a scientific one. You cannot prove it scientifically. Likewise, you cannot prove that Ockham’s Razor, much in vogue among scientists, is a scientific principle. It may well be that at times the more complicated answer is the more truthful answer. Or as Einstein put it, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Wisdom, the pursuit of the philosopher, is nobler and more important than science.

Only science can give us nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy the human race. But only wisdom can save the human race from using the weapons foolishly created by science.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Is science scientific?

Science is scientific, but its basic principles are philosophical. That is why it is amusing to hear scientists or scientific wannabes claim that science has displaced philosophy (never mind theology) as a legitimate intellectual pursuit.

A scientific principle such as “falsifiability” is a philosophical notion, not a scientific one. You cannot prove it scientifically. Likewise, you cannot prove that Ockham’s Razor, much in vogue among scientists, is a scientific principle. It may well be that at times the more complicated answer is the more truthful answer. Or as Einstein put it, “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

Wisdom, the pursuit of the philosopher, is nobler and more important than science.

Only science can give us nuclear weapons sufficient to destroy the human race. But only wisdom can save the human race from using the weapons foolishly created by science.

Awesome, Charlemagne II. I agree even though I am a scientist

 

[tonyrey]

Limitations

That’s not surprising! You keep posing questions with obvious answers. So sooner or later we get back to where we started. Ultimately all knowledge is circular because it cannot be linear. What do you begin with? Knowledge?

Limitations results in failure, fallibility, frustration and incompleteness because of limitations. Wait what? That doesn’t answer the question and it doesn’t explain how finititude relates to imperfection.

Both have limitations! Neither perfection nor infinity is limited.

Where did you draw yours from?

The dictionary.

I’m not surprised!

What makes us out of our parts?

I don’t understand the question?

What is the source of unity?

The effects are proportioned to the cause.

What?

It means you’re not getting something for nothing!

You are an example!

If you didn’t notice, I am an organism so subsequently you have not provided an example of consciousness outside of living organisms or anything without a brain.

You have not provided an explanation of the consciousness of living organisms. Until you do you have no reason to restrict consciousness to living organisms.

Mathematics implies a mathematician!

Not necessarily, mathematics is a property of reality, a mathematician has some understanding of mathematics and how it relates to reality.

Mathematics is based on logical principles which relate to reality but it is formulated and developed by **thoughtful **mathematicians.

Electrical impulses are purposeless.

You might have to clarify how you are using the term “purpose” here.

Unaware of a goal.

Did the brain exist before the mind?

They are likely synonymous.

On what grounds?

How does the success of science support your claim that, “The universe is more reasonably regarded as the result of powerful intelligence than purposeless particles?”

Insight is far more effective than blind processes.

That supports my claim!

How so?

You say: “I have never encountered nothing and as far as I’m aware neither has anybody else.” ** A lack of encounter with nothing** (=nothing) produces nothing!

What is fundamental then?

Fundamental for what?

Just fundamental!

You think they exist only in the mind.

Yes.

So they are myths.

Good!

Love the use of this exclamation mark too, it gives a funny over reaction kind of vibe to it.

How about this? “Good!!”!

It’s valueless in your opinion.

What makes you think i regard reasoning as valueless? I disagree entirely with that claim, I have a high regard for reasoning.

But for you it is not intrinsically valuable - or objectively successful.

A perspective is a mental view - which amoeba and plants do not have.

What? What makes you think it requires a mental view?

That is the accepted definition of the term you used.

So nothing is intrinsically valuable - not even your reasons!

Probably not.

You’re vacillating…

The need to do anything.

So the necessity of all achievements is for something to be achieved? Makes sense I suppose.

So you agree that some achievement is necessary…

Not always. Microbes have no intentions and desires.

They certainly have instinctive intentions, replication being a big one.

Can you cite the use of the phrase “instinctive intentions” by a biologist?

Because animals lack philosophical, ethical, political and scientific, knowledge.

Could you support this claim with evidence? They certainly aren’t as capable as us in regards to those topics but there is much room for political ethical and scientific knowledge and we have every reason to believe they use these forms of knowledge.

You’re straining at a gnat! Or trying to swallow a camel!

The hierarchy of many animal groups, a pride of lions being a big one represents political knowledge.

No! A band of skunks… or a nest of vipers…

The ability and will to care for the young of their species even when the child is not their own is prevalent in many animal groups, this represents ethical knowledge.

Because for you ethics is mere expediency!

The ability to overcome problems represents scientific knowledge.

Then we shall have to award diplomas and certificates to foxes and ferrets!

Philosophy is difficult to analyze but I see no reason to conclude that animals are incapable of philosophical thought, perhaps just not as well gifted as we are.

That is a logical conclusion for those who are apes!

I find it quite relevant that many of these things show correlation to brain size and function.

That is also a logical conclusion for those who believe we are apes!

Brain activity being really low is a big indicator but I suppose one can’t be 100% sure. For some the brain activity can be drastically lower than that of someone without the brain damage.

Here we go! For the third time… (I don’t have to tell you again.

Generally people and things that have earned my trust.

How? Is trust an entirely subjective opinion? Or does it correspond to facts?