Is science scientific?!

[Filthy_Tugboat]

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?

What you’ve proposed is that limitations cause imperfections because they are limitations. I want to know why you think limitations cause imperfection.

Both have limitations! Neither perfection nor infinity is limited.

Is perfection necessarily limitless? Could you explain your answer.

I’m not surprised!

.

I doubt you should be but the dictionary definition of the word arbitrary differs greatly from your proposed definition.

What is the source of unity?

Unity in the sense of the human body? The source would be cellular structure, it could even be more specific than that but that is certainly one of the fundamental recognized sources of bodily unity.

It means you’re not getting something for nothing!

Can you show this to be true? Again, as far as I’m aware nobody has ever encountered nothing in a literal sense. What can be the result of nothing is not something anybody could reasonably conclude on because it would be built out of assumptions that are the result of something and an existence only concerned with something.

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.

The reason one would make such a restriction is based on the fact that nothing without a brain has ever been recorded or recognized to have consciousness. This along with the correlation between brain activity and conscious behavior it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is the result of the brain.

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

Not developed, realized. We learn about mathematics, we do not create it or cause any changes to it.

Unaware of a goal.

They may not be aware of a goal but due to the physical forces of the universe they certainly act in accordance with one.

On what grounds?

The correlation between conscious activity and brain function. As consciousness is exercised the brain performs consistent and relevant actions, they act synonymously rather than one being the result of the other.

Insight is far more effective than blind processes.

Effective for what?

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!

That would be unreasonable to conclude because we have absolutely no understanding of the concept of “nothing” we have nothing to base our conclusions on, only conjecture from a “something” point of view.

Just fundamental!

How can something just be fundamental?

So they are myths.

That’s not what a myth is.

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

I don’t think anything can be intrinsically valuable or objectively successful as those terms can only be used subjectively or relating to a goal.

That is the accepted definition of the term you used.

I doubt that and this disagrees with you.

You’re vacillating…

How so?

So you agree that some achievement is necessary…

Necessary for an achievement to occur.

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

Perhaps that is a poor choice of words, After reviewing the last two posts, I have recognized my mistake. Microbes lacking intention and desire removes the ability to view anything as success or failure. They simply exist and fulfill the functions that are instinctive to them. The concept of success or failure for a microbe comes from the human perspective.

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

I don’t understand?

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

What?

Because for you ethics is mere expediency!

What makes you think that? Ethics is simply the observations of behavior in regards to morals and values.

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

Why would we do that?

That is a logical conclusion for those who are apes!

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

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

Well if you didn’t get the memo, humans are apes. This is a biological fact.

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

It is mostly the result of subjective opinion but fortunate that is usually based upon facts.

 

[razredge]

Well that’s broken the record for the most multi-quotes I’ve seen on a thread page anywhere.

Science cannot prove the empirical method - it can’t prove induction.

All science assumes that what was observed in the past will also hold true for future events, but that itself cannot be proved.

Of course we need to assume that if we want to make any sense of our world.

 

[tonyrey]

Well that’s broken the record for the most multi-quotes I’ve seen on a thread page anywhere.

We haven’t been trying to break any records but it did occur to me that the number of points in each post was increasing at an alarming rate because sometimes I had difficulty in working out what the subject was!

Science cannot prove the empirical method - it can’t prove induction.

All science assumes that what was observed in the past will also hold true for future events, but that itself cannot be proved.

Of course we need to assume that if we want to make any sense of our world.

I doubt if anyone will dispute those points.

 

[tonyrey]

What you’ve proposed is that limitations cause imperfections because they are limitations.

Unity in the sense of the human body? The source would be cellular structure, it could even be more specific than that but that is certainly one of the fundamental recognized sources of bodily unity.Cellular structure doesn’t account for coherent thinking.

Again, as far as I’m aware nobody has ever encountered nothing in a literal sense.

What is in a vacuum?

What can be the result of nothing is not something anybody could reasonably conclude on because it would be built out of assumptions that are the result of something and an existence only concerned with something.

How about a vacuum?

Until you do you have no reason to restrict consciousness to living organisms.

The reason one would make such a restriction is based on the fact that nothing without a brain has ever been recorded or recognized to have consciousness.The absence of records or recognition merely proves ignorance. Co-existence does not establish dependence.

This along with the correlation between brain activity and conscious behavior it is reasonable to conclude that consciousness is the result of the brain.

Complete correlation has not been established. Nor has consciousness ever been explained.

We learn about mathematics, we do not create it or cause any changes to it.

Mathematicians create and develop theorems, methods of calculation and symbolic manipulations of expressions.

They may not be aware of a goal but due to the physical forces of the universe they certainly act in accordance with one.

How do they do it? By good fortune?

As consciousness is exercised the brain performs consistent and relevant actions, they act synonymously rather than one being the result of the other.

Time is irrelevant to intangible realities like consciousness, truth, equality and justice.

Insight is far more effective than blind processes.

Effective for what?For attaining goals.

That would be unreasonable to conclude because we have absolutely no understanding of the concept of “nothing” we have nothing to base our conclusions on, only conjecture from a “something” point of view.

Are you denying that a vacuum exists? And asserting that things **must **exist?

How can something just be fundamental?

Otherwise there is an infinite regress.

That’s not what a myth is.

What is a myth?

I don’t think anything can be intrinsically valuable or objectively successful as those terms can only be used subjectively or relating to a goal.

Then all your assertions are valueless!

That is the accepted definition of the term you used.

I doubt that and this disagrees with you.How?

You’re vacillating…

How so?You used “probably” as if there is an element of doubt…

So you agree that some achievement is necessary…

Necessary for an achievement to occur.So it is necessary!

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

After reviewing the last two posts, I have recognized my mistake. I admire your honesty!

Microbes lacking intention and desire removes the ability to view anything as success or failure. They simply exist and fulfill the functions that are instinctive to them. The concept of success or failure for a microbe comes from the human perspective.

But success and failure occurred before humanity existed.

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

I don’t understand?“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.”!

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

What?“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.”!!

Because for you ethics is mere expediency!

What makes you think that? Ethics is simply the observations of behavior in regards to morals and values.Which you regard as subjective and therefore it is what suits you!

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

Why would we do that?“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.”!!!

Well if you didn’t get the memo, humans are apes. This is a biological fact.

But not a philosophical, psychological, intellectual or moral fact.

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

It is mostly the result of subjective opinion but fortunate that is usually based upon facts.So truth is just a matter of good fortune?

[/QUOTE]

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Per - fect means complete. There are countless examples of incompleteness in the universe.

Undoubtedly but that is irrelevant, why do you think limitations cause imperfection? Why must something perfect be necessarily unlimited/infinite?

God’s absolute perfection is limitless.

Could you support this claim with some measure of evidence and/or reason?

It wasn’t a definition!

This is what you wrote concerning the term 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.”

To me that looks like you tried to define arbitrary as, “absurd, irrational and meaningless.”

Cellular structure doesn’t account for coherent thinking.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

What is in a vacuum?

I don’t know.

How about a vacuum?

What about a vacuum?

The absence of records or recognition merely proves ignorance. Co-existence does not establish dependence.

Not necessarily ignorance because ignorance presumes the alternative is possible and without any kind of documentation or records or evidence at all that seems a bit presumptuous. Although co-existence doesn’t establish dependence, our research into brain function correlating with conscious behavior indicates that the brain is the physical manifestation of the mine. Without any evidence to contradict that, your conclusion that consciousness can exist without a brain appears to be irrational.

Complete correlation has not been established. Nor has consciousness ever been explained.

Agreed, our knowledge on the matter is limited but it is expanding. The knowledge we possess now allows us to make reasonable conclusions though.

Mathematicians create and develop theorems, methods of calculation and symbolic manipulations of expressions.

They certainly do all of these things but they do not create mathematics according to any meaningful definition of mathematics. Mathematics being a property of existence can be studied, not created.

How do they do it? By good fortune?

The genetic structure of the brain allows for the physical forces that direct electrical impulses within cell structures to be used as an advantage for the organism.

Time is irrelevant to intangible realities like consciousness, truth, equality and justice.

OK. How is this relevant to my quoted statement?

For attaining goals.

That really depends on the goal.

Are you denying that a vacuum exists?

No.

And asserting that things **must **exist?

It does appear that way. Is it possible for non-existence to be a reality?

Otherwise there is an infinite regress.

Not necessarily as time is not infinite.

TO BE CONTINUED!

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Continuing on…

What is a myth?

A few good definitions can be found here.

Then all your assertions are valueless!

That depends on who’s doing the valuing.

How?

In all of the definitions given of perspective, it only relates to a particular view. In relation to microbes, the perspective is what comes from their genetic structure effectively forcing them to replicate. It is instinctive and not conscious and is still a perspective.

You used “probably” as if there is an element of doubt…

I used prob ably to be honest, I don’t know everything and don’t claim to, the evidence points one way but that doesn’t make it correct.

So it is necessary!

Yes in relation to a goal, in this case the goal is for an achievement to occur, it is necessary.

I admire your honesty!

Thank you, I often make mistakes and am happy to correct myself or be corrected. It’s all a learning curve.

But success and failure occurred before humanity existed.

Intrinsically or relating to goals we set?

“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.”!

Indeed, and I still affirm this statement, what did your comments of vipers and skunks mean in relation to this?

“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.”!!

I don’t see what point you are trying to make.

Which you regard as subjective and therefore it is what suits you!

Indeed, my own ethical and moral conscience are subjective to me, just as yours are to you. I didn’t choose it, it is simply a part of me, as I grew up and lived my conscience developed generally depending on my experiences and opinions.

“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 might need to better explain your intentions with this quote.

But not a philosophical, psychological, intellectual or moral fact.

Well the apes being a biological family and not a specific species pretty much means that philosophy, psychology, intellect and morality have nothing to do with what humans are or are not biologically speaking. Ape is a biological reference only.

So truth is just a matter of good fortune?

My trust was what we were discussing and I generally trust people that give me good reason to. My friends that have my back if someone tries to hurt me, my family that stick with me through thick and thin, everyone that I trust in my life I do so because they earnt my trust in one way or another.

END!

 

[rachard1583]

Stability is natural and relative to morality. The instability plaguing the world today is due to the deliberate violation of the moral principles which sustain life and existence as a whole.

Lebanon Spring Blog

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Stability is natural and relative to morality.

Generally yes and that’s probably because most people like stability.

The instability plaguing the world today is due to the deliberate violation of the moral principles which sustain life and existence as a whole.

Which instability?

What are the moral principles that sustain life and existence as a whole.

 

[John21652]

Generally yes and that’s probably because most people like stability.

Which instability?

Middle East.
Pakistan
Terrorism
Ruined marriages.
Juvenile delinquency
Unwanted pregnancies
Abortions
Crime
etc
etc
etc

What are the moral principles that sustain life and existence as a whole.

Right to life
Right to property
Right to respect
Right to associate freely
Right to self determination
Right to Justice

etc
etc
etc

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Middle East.
Pakistan
Terrorism
Ruined marriages.
Juvenile delinquency
Unwanted pregnancies
Abortions
Crime
etc
etc
etc

I said. “which” to inquire what he was specifically referring to, for all I know he could have been implying “Godlessness”.

Right to life
Right to property
Right to respect
Right to associate freely
Right to self determination
Right to Justice

etc
etc
etc

Life is sustainable without these, not necessarily enjoyable but certainly sustainable. Most of these are only recent inventions and the concept of slavery basically diminished these rights for large portions of the human population.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rachard

Stability is natural and relative to morality.

Indeed it is!

This is nowhere more evident than among children. Teach them no morals and watch how unstable their lives become!

The question is: who is going to teach the morals?

Science certainly has no warrant for that. You could not begin to teach morals through science.

The State also has no warrant for that. The State teaching morals only means that the State will teach the morals of a bully … Big Brother. Haven’t we seen enough of that in the way the State is ramming immorality into the Courts?

 

[tonyrey]

What is a myth?

Which do you have in mind?

Then all your assertions are valueless!

That depends on who’s doing the valuing.

Then they are not objectively valuable and can be ignored.

In all of the definitions given of perspective, it only relates to a particular view. In relation to microbes, the perspective is what comes from their genetic structure effectively forcing them to replicate. It is instinctive and not conscious and is still a perspective.

An unconscious perspective is in a different category.

I don’t know everything and don’t claim to, the evidence points one way but that doesn’t make it correct.

So you’re not certain?

Yes in relation to a goal, in this case the goal is for an achievement to occur, it is necessary.

Do you think necessity is necessary?

But success and failure occurred before humanity existed.

Intrinsically or relating to goals we set?

To the goals of living organisms.

“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.”!

Indeed, and I still affirm this statement, what did your comments of vipers and skunks mean in relation to this?

How are vipers and skunks ethical?

Indeed, my own ethical and moral conscience are subjective to me, just as yours are to you. I didn’t choose it, it is simply a part of me, as I grew up and lived my conscience developed generally depending on my experiences and opinions.

So all moral views are equally worthless!

Well the apes being a biological family and not a specific species pretty much means that philosophy, psychology, intellect and morality have nothing to do with what humans are or are not biologically speaking.

But you think they are** derived from** biology…

My trust was what we were discussing and I generally trust people that give me good reason to.

My friends that have my back if someone tries to hurt me, my family that stick with me through thick and thin, everyone that I trust in my life I do so because they earnt my trust in one way or another.

So you put your trust in your friends before anything else?
…

.Why do you think limitations cause imperfection?

A limitation is negative.

Why must something perfect be necessarily unlimited/infinite?

Because it is positive and unrestricted - like truth or justice.

God’s absolute perfection is limitless.

Could you support this claim with some measure of evidence and/or reason?

God is the Ultimate Reality.

To me that looks like you tried to define arbitrary as, “absurd, irrational and meaningless.”

These are consequences not synonyms.

Cellular structure doesn’t account for coherent thinking.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

Cells don’t think.

What is in a vacuum?

I don’t know.

Precisely, because there is nothing to know!

What about a vacuum?

It’s an example of nothing.

Not necessarily ignorance because ignorance presumes the alternative is possible and without any kind of documentation or records or evidence at all that seems a bit presumptuous.

The power of the mind is well documented.

Although co-existence doesn’t establish dependence, our research into brain function correlating with conscious behavior indicates that the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind.

• which implies the primacy of the mind!

Without any evidence to contradict that, your conclusion that consciousness can exist without a brain appears to be irrational.

Facts, physical constants and logical principles exist without a brain.

Agreed, our knowledge on the matter is limited but it is expanding. The knowledge we possess now allows us to make reasonable conclusions though.

Reasonable by what criteria?

Mathematicians create and develop theorems, methods of calculation and symbolic manipulations of expressions.

They certainly do all of these things but they do not create mathematics according to any meaningful definition of mathematics. Mathematics being a property of existence can be studied, not created.

I stated: “Mathematics is based on logical principles which relate to reality…”

The genetic structure of the brain allows for the physical forces that direct electrical impulses within cell structures to be used as an advantage for the organism.

How did this mechanism originate?

Time is irrelevant to intangible realities like consciousness, truth, equality and justice.

OK. How is this relevant to my quoted statement?

What was your statement?

For attaining goals.

That really depends on the goal.

The goal of survival, for example.

Are you denying that a vacuum exists?

No.

It is an example of nothing.

And asserting that things must exist?

It does appear that way.

But not certain?

Is it possible for non-existence to be a reality?

Why not?

Otherwise there is an infinite regress.

Not necessarily as time is not infinite.

How do you know?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Which do you have in mind?

Probably this one would be the most accurate, “A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”

Then they are not objectively valuable and can be ignored.

Indeed but this does apply to everyone.

An unconscious perspective is in a different category.

But still a perspective.

So you’re not certain?

The only thing I can be truly certain about is that I exist as a conscious being.

Do you think necessity is necessary?

Necessary for what?

To the goals of living organisms.

Then yes, success and failure in relation to the goal of survival did exist before humanity.

How are vipers and skunks ethical?

That depends on what you mean by “ethical”. Ethical as in a description of behavior or ethical as in following some kind of moral code?

So all moral views are equally worthless!

Worthless to whom? Worth and value are subjective concepts.

But you think they are** derived from** biology.

What do i think is derived from biology?

So you put your trust in your friends before anything else?

No, I made that list void of any order.

A limitation is negative.

How so?

Because it is positive and unrestricted - like truth or justice.

If something is unlimited it is by it’s very nature unrestricted. How is it positive?

God is the Ultimate Reality.

Did you miss the part asking for reason and/or evidence?

These are consequences not synonyms.

I wasn’t suggesting they were synonyms, and I was unaware that these are the consequences of absurdity.

Cells don’t think.

No but cells do form larger structures capable of much more than the individual cells that they are compromised of.

Precisely, because there is nothing to know! It’s an example of nothing.

This seems like a bit of a leap. Can you support the notion that a vacuum is “nothing” or that there is “nothing” to know about a vacuum with some evidence?

The power of the mind is well documented.

Indeed, this alone does not have any relevance to the debate that we have going about the mind and it’s relation to the brain.

which implies the primacy of the mind!

No actually, it doesn’t. If the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind it basically means that the conscious mind and the brain are synonymous.

Facts, physical constants and logical principles exist without a brain.

Agreed, this does nothing to assist with the consciousness without a brain point though.

Reasonable by what criteria?

The scientific method should suffice.

I stated: “Mathematics is based on logical principles which relate to reality…”

How did this mechanism originate?

Natural selection.

What was your statement?

The goal of survival, for example.

But not certain?

Nope.

Why not?

That question is really irrelevant and useless, the question “why” deals with supporting evidence, reasoning and the core of any decent argument. The question “why not” does none of this and asks what is prohibiting it’s happening. In most matters there is a place for both but why should always be asked as a priority and certainly answered with more than, “why not?”

How do you know?

Will finish soon, there’s a few parts I missed.

 

[tonyrey]

Probably this one would be the most accurate, “A traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.”

So the goals of living organisms are stories which involve supernatural beings or events?

Then they are not objectively valuable and can be ignored.

Indeed but this does apply to everyone.

That means everyone’s reasoning is valueless!

An unconscious perspective is in a different category.

But still a perspective.

Which lacks insight and understanding.

The only thing I can be truly certain about is that I exist as a conscious being.

So your sole certainty is yourself!

Do you think necessity is necessary?

Necessary for what?

For anything. Otherwise “must” is meaningless.

Then yes, success and failure in relation to the goal of survival did exist before humanity.

So success and failure **are **objective facts - and so are goals.

How are vipers and skunks ethical?

That depends on what you mean by “ethical”.

“pertaining to right and wrong”.

So all moral views are equally worthless!

Worthless to whom? Worth and value are subjective concepts.

They are objective because they are related to success and failure.

What do i think is derived from biology?

Philosophy, psychology, intellect and morality.

So you put your trust in your friends before anything else?

No, I made that list void of any order.

So your trust in things is also important?

A limitation is negative.

How so?

It implies that something is lacking.

Because it is positive and unrestricted - like truth or justice.

If something is unlimited it is by its very nature unrestricted. How is it positive?

Because it is an entity!

God is the Ultimate Reality.

Did you miss the part asking for reason and/or evidence?

That is a reason. What else could be the Ultimate Reality?

I wasn’t suggesting they were synonyms, and I was unaware that these are the consequences of absurdity.

Now you know!

Cells don’t think.

No but cells do form larger structures capable of much more than the individual cells that they are comprised of.

They are still physical.

Can you support the notion that a vacuum is “nothing” or that there is “nothing” to know about a vacuum with some evidence?

What is in a vacuum?

The power of the mind is well documented.

Indeed, this alone does not have any relevance to the debate that we have going about the mind and its relation to the brain.

It cannot be the activity of the brain when it exceeds the power of the brain.

which implies the primacy of the mind!

No actually, it doesn’t. If the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind it basically means that the conscious mind and the brain are synonymous.

If they are synonymous why have two words always been used?

Facts, physical constants and logical principles exist without a brain.

Agreed, this does nothing to assist with the consciousness without a brain point though.

They are independent realities which exist without the brain which are recognised and understood only by the only thing you can be truly certain about: yourself!

Reasonable by what criteria?

The scientific method should suffice.

It doesn’t suffice for your knowledge of yourself…

How did this mechanism originate?

Natural selection.

You mean “as a result of blind processes”?

Time is irrelevant to intangible realities like consciousness, truth, equality and justice.

OK. How is this relevant to my quoted statement?
You stated:

As consciousness is exercised the brain performs consistent and relevant actions, they act synonymously rather than one being the result of the other."
The mind too is an intangible reality.

That question is really irrelevant and useless, the question “why” deals with supporting evidence, reasoning and the core of any decent argument. The question “why not” does none of this and asks what is prohibiting it’s happening. In most matters there is a place for both but why should always be asked as a priority and certainly answered with more than, “why not?”

Don’t you **ever **ask “Why not?”?

How do you know time is not infinite?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

So the goals of living organisms are stories which involve supernatural beings or events?

No, I never suggested they were mythical, you did.

That means everyone’s reasoning is valueless!

Depends on who’s valuing.

Which lacks insight and understanding.

Correct.

So your sole certainty is yourself!

Most definitely, everything other than that, I have to assume that my senses are informing me correctly and as far as I know that has absolutely no basis in evidence, reason or logic.

For anything. Otherwise “must” is meaningless.

Saying for anything, doesn’t make something intrinsically necessary, It means that when any objective is placed there, something is necessary for that objective to be completed.

So success and failure **are **objective facts - and so are goals.

Success and failure are only objective when put in front of a goal and that goal can be anything, an event can be both negative and positive depending on what goal is placed in front of it, so by nature, goals are subjective.

“pertaining to right and wrong”.

That depends on what the one evaluating the situation considers right and wrong? Some consider it immoral or wrong for other animals to eat eggs/babies of other animals, others see it as neutral due to the fact that they act instinctively. But again, you asked if animals were capable of ethical behavior, some are and I demonstrated this.

They are objective because they are related to success and failure.

But success and failure are only objective in relation to goals, which are inherently subjective. So naturally morality can only be subjective.

Philosophy, psychology, intellect and morality.

Without life those things wouldn’t exist. Biology being defined as the study of living organisms is a separate issue all together.

So your trust in things is also important?

To me it is.

It implies that something is lacking.

Depends on which perspective as again positive and negative are only objective when in relation to a goal and a goal can make any action negative or positive. Nothing is inherently negative or positive without that goal put in front of it.

Because it is an entity!

How does that make it positive?

That is a reason. What else could be the Ultimate Reality?

I don’t even know what you mean by “ultimate reality”, nor do I know how you reached the conclusion of “God”.

Now you know!

Now I know that this is what you believe.

They are still physical.

Yes, they are.

What is in a vacuum?

You seem to be trying to reach your conclusion based on an argument from personal incredulity, just because we don’t know if anything is in a vacuum doesn’t mean nothing is in a vacuum.

It cannot be the activity of the brain when it exceeds the power of the brain.

Can it exceed the power of the brain? What is the brains power? What is the mind’s power?

If they are synonymous why have two words always been used?

Because they are used within different concepts, brains being used when physiology and biology are being considered and mind being used in regards to philosophy. Also the minds relation to the brain was not always known so the two were not always considered synonymous and two words were always required.

They are independent realities which exist without the brain which are recognised and understood only by the only thing you can be truly certain about: yourself!

Yes but even if we separate the brain and mind, facts, physical contents and logical concepts still exist outside of the mind. So either way we look at it, that statement does nothing to support either argument within this debate.

It doesn’t suffice for your knowledge of yourself…

Correct but in absolutely everything we do, we accept the assumption that our senses perceive things accurately because otherwise there would be no reason to do anything.

You mean “as a result of blind processes”?

By blind do you mean, “no observable or obvious final result?” If so, yes, it is a result of a blind process.

You stated:

“As consciousness is exercised the brain performs consistent and relevant actions, they act synonymously rather than one being the result of the other.”
The mind too is an intangible reality.

If by “the mind” you are referring to consciousness, then yes, you already said that. If the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind, this doesn’t change anything so your above statement about intangible realities is irrelevant to this debate.

Don’t you **ever **ask “Why not?”

I told you that it does have it’s place in philosophy but the question, “why?” is always more valuable.

How do you know time is not infinite?

It’s logically demonstrable that time is not infinite:

Here is a simple proof, slightly modified from Kalam, that suggests time cannot be infinite.

1. An infinite amount of time has no end.
2. But now is an end in time.
3. Therefore, time is not infinite.

 

[tonyrey]

No, I never suggested they were mythical, you did.

I used “myth” in the sense of “illusion” with regard to your view of goals.

That means everyone’s reasoning is valueless!

Depends on who’s valuing.

It makes no difference if all values are subjective and do not correspond to reality.

Correct.

You still haven’t explained how they pursue a goal w/o insight and understanding.

So your sole certainty is yourself!

Most definitely, everything other than that, I have to assume that my senses are informing me correctly and as far as I know that has absolutely no basis in evidence, reason or logic.

So why put the brain before the mind?

It means that when any objective is placed there, something is necessary for that objective to be completed.

Not everything needs an objective.

Success and failure are only objective when put in front of a goal and that goal can be anything, an event can be both negative and positive depending on what goal is placed in front of it, so by nature, goals are subjective.

Are you applying subjectivity to animals and plants?

Some consider it immoral or wrong for other animals to eat eggs/babies of other animals, others see it as neutral due to the fact that they act instinctively. But again, you asked if animals were capable of ethical behavior, some are and I demonstrated this.

How? By distinguishing right and wrong?

But success and failure are only objective in relation to goals, which are inherently subjective. So naturally morality can only be subjective.

How is the goal of survival subjective? Is it moral?

Philosophy, psychology, intellect and morality

.
Without life those things wouldn’t exist. Biology being defined as the study of living organisms is a separate issue all together.

Do you restrict life to human beings?

So your trust in things is also important?

To me it is.

Which things do you trust?

Depends on which perspective as again positive and negative are only objective when in relation to a goal and a goal can make any action negative or positive. Nothing is inherently negative or positive without that goal put in front of it.

How did goals originate?

Because it is an entity!

How does that make it positive?

It’s not negative, is it?

I don’t even know what you mean by “ultimate reality”, nor do I know how you reached the conclusion of “God”.

The fundamental reality or to use the Jewish term “He Who Is”.

Now you know!

Now I know that this is what you believe.

What do you believe? That absurdity is without consequences?

They are still physical.

Yes, they are.

So further explanation is necessary. How can one intangible self come many tangible particles?

What is in a vacuum?

You seem to be trying to reach your conclusion based on an argument from personal incredulity, just because we don’t know if anything is in a vacuum doesn’t mean nothing is in a vacuum.

Then why is it called a vacuum? The onus is on you to prove the scientific consensus is false.

What is the brains power?

The brain is limited by its physical causes.

What is the mind’s power?

You have direct knowledge of the mind’s power - your sole certainty!

If they are synonymous why have two words always been used?

Because they are used within different concepts, brains being used when physiology and biology are being considered and mind being used in regards to philosophy.

Why is philosophy considered distinct from biology?

Also the minds relation to the brain was not always known so the two were not always considered synonymous and two words were always required.

The mind’s relation to the brain is **still **not known!

Yes but even if we separate the brain and mind, facts, physical contents and logical concepts still exist outside of the mind. So either way we look at it, that statement does nothing to support either argument within this debate.

It means the mind is prior to the brain. The mind knows the brain exists but the brain knows nothing!

It doesn’t suffice for your knowledge of yourself…

Correct but in absolutely everything we do, we accept the assumption that our senses perceive things accurately because otherwise there would be no reason to do anything.

We often misinterpret our senses but we never misinterpret our thoughts.

By blind do you mean, “no observable or obvious final result?” If so, yes, it is a result of a blind process.

I mean non-rational and purposeless.

"As consciousness is exercised the brain performs consistent and relevant actions, they act synonymously rather than one being the result of the other.

"
The mind is intangible and not restricted by time.

If by “the mind” you are referring to consciousness, then yes, you already said that. If the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind, this doesn’t change anything so your above statement about intangible realities is irrelevant to this debate.

The brain is not the physical manifestation of the mind because it has different functions.

Don’t you ever ask “Why not?”

I told you that it does have its place in philosophy but the question, “why?” is always more valuable.

That means “Why not?” shouldn’t be ignored.

How do you know time is not infinite?

IHere is a simple proof, slightly modified from Kalam, that suggests time cannot be infinite.

1. An infinite amount of time has no end.
2. But now is an end in time.
3. Therefore, time is not infinite.

Why is “now is an end in time” when it precedes the future?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I used “myth” in the sense of “illusion” with regard to your view of goals.

I didn’t describe anything in this debate as ‘myth’. Why did you pretend that I did?

It makes no difference if all values are subjective and do not correspond to reality.

Indeed but what makes you think they do not correspond to reality? Most of them are based on reality or at least our perception of it.

You still haven’t explained how they pursue a goal w/o insight and understanding.

I didn’t realise I had to. For many microbes being an obvious organism without insight and understanding (see -lack of brain), the DNA is the major factor in it’s ability to replicate and operate. If we consider replication the goal for this organism then it pursues this goal and succeeds frequently.

So why put the brain before the mind?

When did I suggest that I put the brain before the mind? Either way, this is irrelevant, if I accept the assumption that my senses do relay information accurately then I am left with this universe and so far all of the evidence suggests that the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind.

Not everything needs an objective.

Correct but something can only be necessary in relation to an objective.

Are you applying subjectivity to animals and plants?

No, I’m explaining why goals are necessarily subjective.

How? By distinguishing right and wrong?

You would have to define “right” and “wrong”, what is “right” or “wrong”? Does this change in the case of certain situations or for certain species or cultures? Here and here are some sources that confirm what I am suggesting about other species of animals and their moral capabilities.

How is the goal of survival subjective? Is it moral?

How is it not subjective? Is the goal of life relevant to things that are non-living?

Do you restrict life to human beings?

No.

Which things do you trust?

The list would be quite massive but I have listed a few.

How did goals originate?

I don’t know.

It’s not negative, is it?

No but that doesn’t inherently make it positive.

The fundamental reality or to use the Jewish term “He Who Is”.

This is still not making any sense, what is “The fundamental reality” how can it be explained without already determining the answer to be a supernatural entity?

What do you believe? That absurdity is without consequences?

I thought we were talking about “arbitrary” you are the one that brought up absurdity as a consequence. All I want to know is why?

So further explanation is necessary. How can one intangible self come many tangible particles?

What makes the self “intangible”?

Then why is it called a vacuum? The onus is on you to prove the scientific consensus is false.

I’m saying I don’t know, I have absolutely no idea what’s in a vacuum, if it’s actually nothing or theoretically nothing, how much is known about a vacuum.

The brain is limited by its physical causes.

As limited as everything else in the universe.

You have direct knowledge of the mind’s power - your sole certainty!

Indeed, how does this mean the mind’s power exceeds that of the brain? This seems to be based on the assumption that the mind is a separate entity from the brain.

Why is philosophy considered distinct from biology?

Biology may borrow it’s axioms from philosophy but they are entirely different and work entirely differently.

The mind’s relation to the brain is **still **not known!

It is reasonable to conclude that the mind and the brain are synonymous, there is no evidence contradicting that conclusion and plenty in it’s favor.

It means the mind is prior to the brain. The mind knows the brain exists but the brain knows nothing!

Could you support this claim with evidence?

We often misinterpret our senses but we never misinterpret our thoughts.

Whether we interpret them correctly is not my point, my point concerns the assumption that out senses are correctly relaying information.

I mean non-rational and purposeless.

Well then no, natural selection has nothing to do with rationality and it does give a selecting purpose.

The mind is intangible and not restricted by time.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

The brain is not the physical manifestation of the mind because it has different functions.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

That means “Why not?” shouldn’t be ignored.

I know that but as I’ve pointed out the “why” is a much more valuable question when looking for an in depth and reasonable answer, as I asked why to which you replied “why not?” I was hoping you could answer my question first.

…Gotta rush, will answer rest later.

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t describe anything in this debate as ‘myth’. Why did you pretend that I did?

I didn’t. You do regard some goals as objective?

It makes no difference if all values are subjective and do not correspond to reality.

Indeed but what makes you think they do not correspond to reality? Most of them are based on reality or at least our perception of it.

If they correspond to reality they are objective.

For many microbes being an obvious organism without insight and understanding (see -lack of brain), the DNA is the major factor in** it’s** (=its) ability to replicate and operate. If we consider replication the goal for this organism then it pursues this goal and succeeds frequently.

So some goals are objective.

When did I suggest that I put the brain before the mind? Either way, this is irrelevant, if I accept the assumption that my senses do relay information accurately then I am left with this universe and so far all of the evidence suggests that the brain is the physical manifestation of the mind.

Precisely! The mind exists first!

Correct but something can only be necessary in relation to an objective.

In that case when you don’t have an objective we’re entitled to polish you off!

Are you applying subjectivity to animals and plants?

No, I’m explaining why goals are necessarily subjective.

You are relating subjectivity to goals and not a mental state?

Here and here are some sources that confirm what I am suggesting about other species of animals and their moral capabilities.

So you regard animals as morally responsible?

How is the goal of survival subjective? Is it moral?

How is it not subjective?

The goal is remaining alive. It is both subjective **and **objective.

Do you restrict life to human beings?

No.

So it is a non-human goal.

How did goals originate?

I don’t know.

That points to science of the gaps!

No but that doesn’t inherently make it positive.

So you don’t think a person or truth or justice is positive?

The fundamental reality or to use the Jewish term “He Who Is”.

This is still not making any sense, what is “The fundamental reality” how can it be explained without already determining the answer to be a supernatural entity?

There is no evidence that natural objects can explain themselves.

I thought we were talking about “arbitrary” you are the one that brought up absurdity as a consequence. All I want to know is why?

Because it means “Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”.

How can one

intangible self come from many tangible particles?What makes the self “intangible”?

It cannot be observed by the senses.

Then why is it called a vacuum?

I’m saying I don’t know.

Then a vacuum is a gap in your knowledge! It is doubly negative.

The brain is limited by its physical causes.

As limited as everything else in the universe.

Limited by being unable to have **abstract **knowledge.

You have direct knowledge of the mind’s power - your sole certainty!

Indeed, how does this mean the mind’s power exceeds that of the brain? This seems to be based on the assumption that the mind is a separate entity from the brain.

If it isn’t its powers are limited to observable events - which is untrue.

Biology may borrow its axioms from philosophy but they are entirely different and work entirely differently.

So philosophy is more fundamental than biology?

It is reasonable to conclude that the mind and the brain are synonymous, there is no evidence contradicting that conclusion and plenty in its favor.

Such as?

The mind knows the brain exists but the brain knows nothing!

Could you support this claim with evidence?

Electrical currents don’t know anything.

Whether we interpret them correctly is not my point, my point concerns the assumption that our senses are correctly relaying information.

Which needs to be interpreted correctly.

Well then no, natural selection has nothing to do with rationality and it does give a selecting purpose.

Then the purpose is not rational.

The mind is intangible and not restricted by time.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

We can think of the past and future and eternity.

The brain is not the physical manifestation of the mind because it has different functions.

Could you support this claim with evidence?

It can think of the past and future and eternity.

I’ve pointed out the “why” is a much more valuable question when looking for an in depth and reasonable answer, as I asked why to which you replied “why not?” I was hoping you could answer my question first.

Forgive me for asking in this plethora of posts what it is! (That’s the first time in my long life I’ve ever used that word.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Is this thread for real or just a parody of itself?

Look, if you think that science is all bogus then feel free not to call the doctor next time you get sick… but I’m pretty sure your Pastor would advise against that.

 

[tonyrey]

Is this thread for real or just a parody of itself?

Look, if you think that science is all bogus then feel free not to call the doctor next time you get sick… but I’m pretty sure your Pastor would advise against that.

You don’t get the point. Ever heard of metascience?