Did Plank write a peer reviewed scientific paper about consciousness being the precursor to reality?
I don't think so back then. It was a conclusion based on findings from QM. He wasn't the only physicist that came to the same conclusion and in fact today there is a whole industry on this and journals full of papers on it.
Scientists are people. People have opinions, just because someone did some great work it doesn't mean all their opinions are great works.
But some opinions are more qualified than others especially when its about their specialist field. You regard a doctors opinion that smoking is bad than say a mechanic or layperson.
You could calls a claim from a layperson or mechanic who is commenting on a subject they know nothing about as nonse3nse. But its a different story when the claim comes from an expert in that field. Especially when its repeated by many in that field. It may noot be fully qualified but its certainly not nonsense like it would be in how you are claiming it such as coming from someone who doesn't know the field.
OK, so have we made vampires and werewolves real? What zoo can I find them in?
You did not hear what I said. I said that its not the entity that people believe but the fact that people believe in such entities as a natural human cognition. They look for something, anything to fill the void of their natural theism. Or natural immaterial metaphysics if you like.
If there was a God who instilled in us a natural belief in Him as the bible says then its natural that people can misplace this and look for it in other supernatural ideas like witches and warlocks. Its the magical power of the warlocks that people are attracted to as it signifies belief beyond the material world.
Are we talking about beliefs now?
Belief and morality go together. Someone believes in objective morality and therefore a immaterial moral law giver. An atheist believes in subjective morality and a metaphysical belief that reality is only material hense naturalistic evolution. They are both beliefs.
I am open to new evidence of things coming in, but until then, I'm not going to put much stock into this.
Are you sure your open to all possibility. Whaty I find is that atheists or materialist have already decided by the fact that they use materialist methodologies to determine reality for everything. They have to as that is their metaphysical position in being a material athesist.
Everyone brings with them assumptions about what reality is. An atheistic materialist is that reality is material and naturalistic. So the world and reality is measures in naturalistic terms which by nature exclude all alternatives as a matter of methodology. You can't include alternatives beause otherwise you undermine your own philosophical beliefs.
Its called a paradigm wher people are locked into their paradigm which tells them how we should know the world (epistemics) by what methods we should use ie only scientific empricalism is valid and what the world is (ontology) ie only material reality exists and all esle is excluded or unreal. Then they use this to defeat all alternatives which goes beyond the science. So its a belief and not science.
I'm the opposite of this. There is no evidence of all these supernatural or immaterial claims therefore they are either best ignored or simply to be enjoyed in fiction books or movies as a bit of escapism fun.
Thats exactly what I just explained above. So you have confirmed my arguement that you are not open to all possibilities. What you should be saying is that as far as the science method there is no supernaturalism because methological naturalism only looks at a certain aspect of the world and there are other ways of knowing the world that science cannot comment on.
Therefore other ways of knowing and measuring the world ie belief and experience may reveal other aspects of reality that are measured in a diffewrent way to methological naturalism. So science makes a particular claim and not a wholistic claim about reality. But materialist make naturalism and materialms the only way we 'Should' know reality. Which is a belief and not science.
Do you understand the difference between "the appearance of design" vs "the evidence shows that there is clearly design going on here"?
It is weird that you have brought this up. I would have thought that you are smart enough to know this doesn't support your point at all.
I don't know I don't think theres a clear line when it comes to evolution. Dawkins was using the idea of the Blind watchmaker in that natural selection along with random mutations can design body parts and behaviour. That idea no longer stands.
So I think he is running out of explanations for how the appearence of design can be mimicked by nature alone.
No they aren't.
No they don't.
I think you need to re-read what I said with a particular focus on the word "were using". Not ar using. Though they still are. But I was referring to the past. TI gave the evidence from Mayrs changing the use of teleological language into teleonomic language.
Yes, when it comes to threads or discussions about proof for god(s), this is all that needs to be said.
And this is why I am an ignostic atheist. The claim is insufficiently formulated as it doesn't allow for verification or falsification. It is vague and incomplete.
But that does not mean that something is ultimately false. Your right that your position is more a belief than science as you use this belief to dismiss everything that is not verifiable and we know that there are truths, facts if you like and realities that cannot be proven scientifically.
Do you believer in morality or the experience of colors. How do we prove these scientifically. Yet they are real and factual aspects of this world.
This is an excuse, used to try and implore people to look beyond the fact that the claim is incomplete and that there is no evidence in support of the claim. Don't be a doubting Thomas, just believe. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease, just believeeeeeeeeeeee.
Please believe I see experience the color red and love. I can't prove it but the evidence is from my experience of it. Oh that can't be real as theres no scientific evidence for it. That is apart from the experiencers believing its true and real. So do we dismiss their beliefs about these experiences because we cannot scientically verify them. .
The burdon of proof is on those making the claim. Show some credible evidence. What is god made of? Is anything else made of that same stuff? Can we detect that stuff? How did god(s) evolve from that stuff?
Like I said I don't need to as I am not trying to prove god but that you cannot count this out. Do you agree that scientific verification cannot tell us about certain aspects of life. That its limited to the objective world. But there are other phenomena like experiences that are also real that influence reality.
Descartes mentions this yje seperation the physical properties of the natural world (res extensa), with the mental phenomena to the soul, an immaterial substance (res cogitans) entirely other than and external to the physical world though capable of interacting with it.
Huh, this is evidence of something?
Yes referring back to conscious experience being another dimension and reality. We can use the conscious experiences of humans throughout history as evidence also.
Its a different kind of evidence to material science but nonetheless just as powerful in revealing reality. We use this method everyday in how we believe peoples experiences. We don't doubt them and often refer to them as evidence for doing something or not or even believing something of not.
Why are not these ideas proposing strange and beyond our space and time realities. How is it that these are ok and yet any mension of consciousness beyond brain is whacky.
When you add all the scientific ideas proposed as mentions that are beyond our material world and all the experiential evidence ( the vast majority of humans have always believed in some sort of immaterialism. We have a pretty good case that there is something beyond our material world and universe. I could go on as there are the many logical arguements as well.
That is opposed to a minority of people who use a restricted way of measuring the world and then making that the only way to see reality. Which by the way is a belief in itself and not based on science. I would tend to go with the weight of all the lines of evidnece from science, experience and logic.
Fantasy unless some evidence comes to light to show there is something there.
We know we experience consciousness but cannot scientifically verify it. We cannot explain the experience of red or music within the dendrons and neurons firing. We cannot verify love or pain.
Do you think the scientific method is limited to only certain aspercts of reality and that there are aspects it cannot tell us about. If so then to say that unless something is verified then its a fantasy is more a belief then science as its not possible.
So if its not possible for science then anything it cannot m,easure like God, objective morality or conscious experience must remain a possibility and not fantasy. Your over stating science which is more about your belief than science.
Yes of mind. A concept based on a conscious aspect of reality.
Love can be tested somewhat.
I knew you would say that. But once again your conflating correlations as evidence for the nature of something. Can you test your spouse to see if they true love you and have been faithful. I think if you can then its no longer love. Yet its as real as any physical object in the world.
Lots of youtube clips of people's love being put to the test.
Lol putting peoples love to the test. Thats not love, thats the dating game. Imagine doping that to your wife and getting someone to test them. The moment they find out love goes out the window. Love cannot be put in a test tube but is evidence by the experience of it which transcends testing.
Everything that is not materially objective and reduced to quantities. Like all the qualitative apsect of reality like conscious experience. In fact conscious experience is the most direct evidence of reality. Science takes a 3rd person view of reality. But everything like love, pain, experiences of music, sunsets, math, phenomenal beliefs, concepts of mind. All these are the rest and cannot be reduced to material science. Yet are real.
OK, let's just say that someone claims that the Dodo bird exists today.
I tell them that I won't believe it until they show some credible evidence.
I go through life happily thinking the Dodo doesn't exist anymore. But then one day they come to me with the evidence.
I see the evidence and now I accept that the Dodo bird exists. I go through the rest of my days happily thinking the Dodo does exist.
Can you apply this to consciousness or the experience of pain, joy or colors like red. These are real phenomena. So explain to me in scientific terms the experience of say colors like red are.
So, well, I'm happy to think gods don't exist, and if you bring me credible evidence of the existence of gods then I will change to the position of happily thinking gods do exist.
Thats the very opposite of faith. It takes a leap of faith to be able to dicover the evidence. Thats the paradox of faith. Have you ever done something or believed something you never had satisfying evidence for. But when you did you came to a deeper knowledge that confirmed your intuition was right all along.
Please provide specific and credible evidence. It is incredibly lazy to say the evidence is all around us and just leave it at that.
Your asking me to use a method of measuring the evidence that is not conducive for measuring the evidence. Its like saying you must use logic to prove love. Or creationism to prove evolution.
I am telling you the reason you can't see the evidence is all around you is because of the way you measure the world (your epistemic belief about how we should know reality). If you limit the measure to the physical world then how can that measure capture the evidence for non physical stuff.
Now I will give you an example. Most materialist see intuition as imagination, feelings that are unreliable. But studies show intuition is actually based on experience which can give people knowledge of something about reality. This is especially relevant when it comes to morality as its a non material aspect and yet we can have intuitive knowledge about reality.
Great leaders make smart decisions, even in difficult circumstances. From Albert Einstein to Oprah Winfrey, many top leaders ascribe their success to having followed their intuition. New research shows how going with our gut instincts …
www.psychologicalscience.org
The obvious one is out of body experience (OBE). The data base for evidence now is overloaded with cases and many have been verified. Yet the atheist materialist will class the evidence as lies or delusions. So thus they reject all that evidence around them. While others see that evidence everywhere in the testimonies often verified of those who had these OBE.
Show me credible evidence of something immaterial (not just a concept) and I will then no longer be a materlialist. I am open to changing my mind based on evidence. Just not on faith, or emotional appeal or appeal to belief of others.
Even if you were shown you would not change your beliefs. I could show you many cases where people have been cured and claiming it was through prayer. There was no rational explanation for the person to be cured.
Yet atheistic materialist will say that there must be some naturalistic explanation, we just have not found it yet. But there is a rational explanation. Based on this they will reject what would be good evidence for at least (no rational or naturalistic explanation).
