Hey, Atheists...

[RamiC]

This should be highlighted, underlined, and in all capital letters. Because it means that without some form of empirical evidence your beliefs are just a bunch of hoo ha masquerading as reason.

Take it from a solipsist... I know what hoo ha looks like.

No, philosphy does not require emprical evidence. It is the study of thought.

 

[partinobodycular]

No, philosphy does not require emprical evidence. It is the study of thought.

I agree 100%, which is why its conclusions can't be taken as anything other than flights of fancy. Good for entertainment, but absent empirical evidence, not much else.

 

[RamiC]

I agree 100%, which is why it's conclusions can't be taken as anything other than flights of fancy. Good for entertainment, but absent empirical evidence, not much else.

I do not agree at all. Philosophy's conclusions are not science. You do as you wish with that. I do not do the same, your why is a total philosophical failure.

 

[partinobodycular]

I do not agree at all.

Not surprising.

Philosophy's conclusions are not science.

Obviously.

your why is a total philosophical failure.

What a shame.

... philosphy does not require emprical evidence. It is the study of thought.

Indeed it is. But the human mind is a complicated thing. It loves to see patterns. Which isn't always a good thing. And it loves to create stories to explain those patterns, because for millennia after millennia that's exactly what it did... and is still doing.

But what you need to be careful of, is mistaking the story for the truth... and that's why we have science.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, philosphy does not require emprical evidence. It is the study of thought.

Sometimes it does. It depends on what kind of philosophical analysis you're doing really.

I just thought I'd toss this bit of info your way as a friendly pointer.

Peace!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree 100%, which is why its conclusions can't be taken as anything other than flights of fancy. Good for entertainment, but absent empirical evidence, not much else.

See my prior post just above.

 

[partinobodycular]

See my prior post just above.

I'm always open to input from my intellectual superiors. (And yes you are)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm always open to input from my intellectual superiors. (And yes you are)

You're too kind.

 

[stevevw]

The atheist materialist is treating your philosophy as if it is an attempt as science. He fails at philosophy for that, and if he denies that his atheism requires justification philosophically, he fails again. You cannot do anything except point out that he is flunking philosophy by demanding it complies with scientific method. He needs to stop doing philosophy until he admits that he is making a claim "there is no god" and starts using a flow of logic to support it. By the way, if you are debating the existance of a god, you are by definition in philosophy.

All they are doing is telling you that your philosophy fails as a science experiment, however, you are not failing at anything, because your faith is not an attempt at a science experiment. If you are following the beliefs of any mainstream church, you are practising a philosophy, not conducting a science experiment. If your philosophy enhances your life and works as you live it, you pass (at philosophy).


Philosophy lessons in schools. They will think thoughts matter when they understand what they are....


Science will never get there, you will always think it is going there, an atheist will never...unless the atheist gets an experience from the God you believe in, at which point they won't be an atheist anymore.

Thats true, science will never get there as its aim is to continually question its own theories and thuse proving them wrong. They will never get to the theory of everything because if theres a God or if there is something beyond the material aspects that science measures and they don't include this in the first place then they will always be short on exactly what is going on.

 

[stevevw]

Oh what Kuhn hath wrought. Kuhn's mid-century notion of "paradigm shift" was deeply influenced by the sequence of "revolutions" in the physics he knew. It has built up an expectation for further "revolutions" that we can not justify.

What drives these revolutions are conflicting and unresolved issues in the data.

Yes and sometimes the conflicting data and evidence builds to a point, often because of a resistence to let go of outdated paradigms where a complete revolution in thinking is needed ie QM which in some ways the old paradigm is still being held to and the evidence for current theories is becoming more complicated and contradictory.

I'm glad they caught on.

Yes and to them it was a paradigm shift where they had to revise their beliefs and align them with the reality that science revealed that could not be disputed. It is the same for science. The advocates of the mechanial universe, where reality was the billiard ball scheme of physics.

They had to be revised completely that fundemental reality was not like this but indeterminant. The same thing will happen again and in fact is overdue becasuse materialist are holding onto the materialist paradigm.

I should note that even the existence of those particles was a very recent discovery when QM started.

Not really. There was a long history of the mechanical universe. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction ect. This permeated thinking. Even in medicine. The mind (psychology) was not understood as the source for behaviour for many behaviouralists.

There is no conflicting data driving this transition in fundamental physics. None. The most likely "revolution" to come in fundamental physics would be the unification of gravity with the other forces (a "Theory of Everything"). So far decades of attempts to quantize gravity have failed.

Have you ever considered that this idea may be wrong itself in trying to unite physics this was because it neglects the possibility of non material influences like Mind and consciousness. If there is to be any unified theory then it has to account for consciousness physically which is impossible.

Thus this points itself to a paradigm shift required in the first place. Like you said so for scientists have failed despite all their efforts. When does it get to the point that they may be barking up the wrong tree in the first place.

It seems to me that the material paradigm worked up to a certaiun point because it could explain the superficial aspects of reality. But now we are at the fundemental level it no longer works and a complete paradigm shift is needed.

And what would come of this revolution? Perhaps the source of the cosmological "placeholders" Dark Energy and Dark Matter, but I would not expect any impact on the science of "mind".

Chalmers has something to say on this and I think its simple, logical and elegant.

All we get from physics is this big black and white abstract structure, which we metaphysicians must somehow color in with concrete categorical nature. Assuming the falsity of substance dualism,16 we know how to color in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are colored in with consciousness. How to color in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to color in the rest of the world with the same pen.

If you can’t explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals i.e. space, time, mass, charge then as a matter of logic you need to expand the list. The natural thing to do is to postulate that consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature.

More importantly, it would *finish* the most important scientific revolution of the industrial age -- the Unification Revolution. Starting with the unification of electric he laws of physics, and for cellular biology on the foundation of chemistry is a profoundly important realization.and magnetic fields and proceeding to the Standard Model of particle physics. There is an equally and more profound unification that has proceeded in parallel and that is the unification of sciences. That we know understand that the laws of chemistry are just built on the foundation of t

Except none of it can explain consciousness. Thats the most important issue that needs unification. Except the sciences have not woken up to the reality that this can never be unified with the material paradigm.

We already have found a new way of looking at the world through unification and that's what frightens people. The "fundamental mind" appears to be nothing more than a desperate grasping to avoid the inevitable conclusion.

How can you say this. What science are you looking at. In fact the science as far as I understand are saying the complete opposite. That the fundemental mind is everything beyond the unification of material processes.

In fact I think thats the true fear for most m,aterialist. That if there is mind beyond the material brain then this points to mind behind reality and then God. They will do everything to avoid this and thus why we are overdue for a paradigm shift of major proportions.

Otherwise like Chalmers bet over 25 years ago that science would still not solve the Hard problem, another 1000 years will go by without any resolution and we will still be stuck with the same problems. Its not a case of more materialism but a complete change in paradigm.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes and sometimes the conflicting data and evidence builds to a point, often because of a resistence to let go of outdated paradigms where a complete revolution in thinking is needed ie QM which in some ways the old paradigm is still being held to and the evidence for current theories is becoming more complicated and contradictory.

Yes and to them it was a paradigm shift where they had to revise their beliefs and align them with the reality that science revealed that could not be disputed. It is the same for science. The advocates of the mechanial universe, where reality was the billiard ball scheme of physics.

They had to be revised completely that fundemental reality was not like this but indeterminant. The same thing will happen again and in fact is overdue becasuse materialist are holding onto the materialist paradigm.

On the relative recency of the discovery of particles to the development of QM, you wrote:

Not really. There was a long history of the mechanical universe. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction ect. This permeated thinking. Even in medicine. The mind (psychology) was not understood as the source for behaviour for many behaviouralists.

which has nothing to do with what I wrote, other than to "not really" deny reality.

The electron was discovered 1897 by Thompson.
The atomic nucleus in 1911 by Rutherford.
The evidence of atoms developed by chemistry over the 19th century. The definitive demonstration of the existence of tiny "particle" atoms was by Perrin in 1908 using the 1905 formulation of Einstein for Brownian motion.

The first quantum model of an atom was the Bohr's model of the hydrogen atom in 1913 and Schrödinger's equation of QM in 1925, so *YES*, the building of QM mechanics followed quickly from the identification of things to be quantized (atoms, nuclei, electrons).

Have you ever considered that this idea may be wrong itself in trying to unite physics this was because it neglects the possibility of non material influences like Mind and consciousness.

No, of course not. Physics deals with material stuff. (I have considered the possibility that the SM and GR may not actually be unified.

If there is to be any unified theory then it has to account for consciousness physically which is impossible.

Consciousness is not physics. It is psychology. There are a few layers of approximation in between.

Thus this points itself to a paradigm shift required in the first place. Like you said so for scientists have failed despite all their efforts. When does it get to the point that they may be barking up the wrong tree in the first place.

It seems to me that the material paradigm worked up to a certaiun point because it could explain the superficial aspects of reality. But now we are at the fundemental level it no longer works and a complete paradigm shift is needed.

The "superficial aspects of reality", eh. Good grief. Everything you can see is made of matter, matter described by those laws of physics you dismiss as "superficial".

Chalmers has something to say on this and I think its simple and logical

All we get from physics is this big black and white abstract structure, which we metaphysicians must somehow color in with concrete categorical nature. Assuming the falsity of substance dualism,16 we know how to color in one bit of it: the brains of organisms are colored in with consciousness. How to color in the rest? The most elegant, simple, sensible option is to color in the rest of the world with the same pen.

If you can’t explain consciousness in terms of the existing fundamentals i.e. space, time, mass, charge then as a matter of logic you need to expand the list. The natural thing to do is to postulate that consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature.

Not this guy again.

Except none of it can explain consciousness. Thats the most important issue that needs unification. Except the sciences have not woken up to the reality that this can never be unified with the material paradigm.

I didn't give all of the layers of unification. Biological organs and organisms are built on cellular biology. Evolution is built on populations of organism interacting, competing, etc. Then you should feel free to talk to the neurobiologists about mental activity.

How can you say this. What science are you looking at. In fact the science as far as I understand are saying the complete opposite. That the fundemental mind is everything beyond the unification of material processes.

In fact I think thats the true fear for most m,aterialist. That if there is mind beyond the material brain then this points to mind behind reality and then God. They will do everything to avoid this and thus why we are overdue for a paradigm shift of major proportions.

Otherwise like Chalmers bet over 25 years ago that science would still not solve the Hard problem, another 1000 years will go by without any resolution and we will still be stuck with the same problems. Its not a case of more materialism but a complete change in paradigm.

The science that studies fear and other psychological reactions is --- psychology. If you want to understand the fear created by our understanding of the unification of the natural world, I'd start there if I were you.

 

[RamiC]

Sometimes it does. It depends on what kind of philosophical analysis you're doing really.

I just thought I'd toss this bit of info your way as a friendly pointer.

Peace!

Depends if you are doing any analysis, surely? Just being a theist is applying philosophy, is it analysing?

 

[RamiC]

But what you need to be careful of, is mistaking the story for the truth... and that's why we have science.

No. We cannot have science to establish truth, because the question of what truth is is beyond the capacity of science.

 

[RamiC]

The science that studies fear and other psychological reactions is --- psychology. If you want to understand the fear created by our understanding of the unification of the natural world, I'd start there if I were you.

Psychology needs proof that the mind exists in accordance with scientific method before it can be called science.

If the mind is bouncing neurons, it is already covered by neurology, which is a science.

 

[RamiC]

Otherwise like Chalmers bet over 25 years ago that science would still not solve the Hard problem, another 1000 years will go by without any resolution and we will still be stuck with the same problems. Its not a case of more materialism but a complete change in paradigm.

"There is no doubt that from the time humanity began to think it has occupied itself with the problem of its origin and its future which undoubtedly is the problem of life. The inability of science to solve it is absolute." Guglielmo Marconi

Stop counting years...they are not going to solve it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Depends if you are doing any analysis, surely? Just being a theist is applying philosophy, is it analysing?

It is. It just depends on the quality and extent of the personal praxis involved. It also depends upon the work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Psychology needs proof that the mind exists in accordance with scientific method before it can be called science.

Seriously, do you think minds don't exist? Anyway psychology is also the science of individual behavior and that clearly exists.

If the mind is bouncing neurons, it is already covered by neurology, which is a science.

Nothing to worry about then.

 

[RamiC]

Seriously, do you think minds don't exist? Anyway psychology is also the science of individual behavior and that clearly exists.

Nothing to worry about then.

Oh I believe minds exist, I just do not believe that psychology is a true science. Neurology is, as I said, I did not say minds do not matter.

I have nothing against psychology either, as some sort of healing art with mixed results. It can be very helpful, but then I believe a lot of things that are not scientific can.

You might think that if it is not science it is not worth anything, I do not.

 

[partinobodycular]

We cannot have science to establish truth, because the question of what truth is is beyond the capacity of science.

But this is just a product of the previously mentioned philosophical ho-ha. Science requires human consensus in order to define what's 'true', but it doesn't require human consensus in order to discover what's true. That's sort of its mission statement.

Unfortunately, science only concerns itself with a subset of the truth... namely, what's knowable. Sadly, absent science, philosophy is completely impotent on the subject. Good for intellectual stimulation and academic debate, but not much else.

As a solipsist I'm all too familiar with the limitations of philosophical arguments. If you think that yours are better... then good luck.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

But this is just a product of the previously mentioned philosophical ho-ha. Science requires human consensus in order to define what's 'true', but it doesn't require human consensus in order to discover what's true. That's sort of its mission statement.

Unfortunately, science only concerns itself with a subset of the truth... namely, what's knowable. Sadly, absent science, philosophy is completely impotent on the subject. Good for intellectual stimulation and academic debate, but not much else.

As a solipsist I'm all too familiar with the limitations of philosophical arguments. If you think that yours are better... then good luck.

Your definition of what "Philosophy" is may be a bit reductionistic and overly simplied, PB. It's almost like folks don't even know what philosophy is any more as a professional, historical set of fields.

Somehow, I don't think Logic, among other important fields in Philosophy, is going to go bye-bye very soon simply because folks don't value it any longer. Same goes for Philosophy of Law, Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of History, Political Science and many other fields which may require Logic, Metaphysics, Epistemology and Axiology in applied forms to get off the ground.

I know very well you can do better than to settle with your present definition. You have the brain power, PB.