Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
Actually science doesn't claim anything is true, but rather the best idea that fits the observations. The problem is all the ideas that try to explain the universe, its beginning and beyond appeal to ideas that step beyond and into dimensions that well seem like science fiction and can never be verified.
Some of these ideas are M Theory, Multiverse theory, The Hologram Principle which stems from String theory, quantum field theory, Simulation theory, Panpsychism, QBism and the Mental universe to name a few.
So if science never even says that they are facts, what exactly is your problem with them?
First the Bible is also an historical book on its own about our history without the supernatural claims. It describes the archeology finds, including the places, people and artifacts of that time. It often reveals new knowledge and insight into our past and substantiates the Bible.
But even if we excluded the bible then we would have all these archeological finds and historical texts from other sources outside the bible talking about the same things in the bible except there would be no bible. But when we bring these two together we find each lends weight to their authenticity.
Then why is it that what we find of history in the real world so often contradicts when is said in the Bible? The Exodus from Egypt, for example? Why is there no record of this from the real world?
I think that perception is about our senses. We can be deceived by out sense. For example a stick half in the water looks bent. Light can affect the illumination of objects and people will see things different depending on their vantage point. In fact there are many factors that can cause our perception to trick us. So what we perceive is not an objective fact.
But we can take that into account and make corrects for it. These corrections can then be tested to make sure they are accurate.
Whereas conscious experience is a different kettle of fish to any mechanical or material thing. Its qualia which is a different phenomena to the material view. Its hard to explain but it transcends the material world so we cannot even measure it with science. Its the sensation (how do you measure sensation) of pain, or eating ice-cream or being taken away in awe at the night sky on a clear night.
The point I am making is which is more real, the objective world or our conscious experience.
Our conscious experience can be deceived, as you just so wonderfully demonstrated with you stick in the water example.
And I have no idea how you think a question can be the point you are trying to make.
Though magenta is made up by the brain it is a real colour at least in nature. But that is different to our experience of colours. We experience colours and the world regardless of how it came to be or is measured.
How can you say that magenta is made up by the brain (meaning it is subjective) but is also a real colour that exists in the real world (meaning it is objective)? You appear to be contradicting itself.
A good example is how a colour blind person can learn everything there is to know about the mechanical processes of eyes, light and the brain they still wouldn't know what having an experience is with colours. If they suddenly were able to see colours again then we could say there experience of red is something new they have come to know about reality.
You do know that for the most part colour blind people don't actually see in black and white, right? They can see colours, it's just that some colours appear to be the same for them, even though they look different to most people.
I am not taking anything to extreme or trying to ridicule.
You went to the extreme when you started questioning the existence of what we consider to be reality.
When I say the only thing we can rely on is our conscious experience I mean its the first filter we have for everything even the physical world.
And yet that experience is subjective.
To to say that conscious experience is subjective is to then bring into question everything about what we think reality is even the physical world and how we measures it. This has been postulated by many theoretical physicists and philosophers that reality may not be what we think it is.
And yet when we look at reality, we can find many things for which everyone reaches the same conclusion and which can be demonstrated to anyone at all. How many corners are in a square, for example. And we can also find many things for which this does not hold. Whether strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream, for example. So how about we go from that point and not the extreme "Reality may not even exist so everything might be as subjective as anything else" idea, okay?
I understand your point that conscious experience is subjective. But I am trying to explain that making consciousness subjective or objective is the wrong way to even measure it. I don't think we can measure it. Certainly science cannot even understand what it is to even get to measure it.
Who's trying to measure consciousness? Once again, you seem to be taking things to absurd extremes.
Last edited:
Upvote
0