How Can Molecules Think?

[Yaaten]

You gave a sort of definition of scientism, and
a list of names that you pretend are doing
"Scientism".
But no actual examples at all.
Perhaps you should stop wasting time
on yourself since you are, as I noted,
talking nonsense.

How am I "talking nonsense"? Is this something you could actually explain here? You know, give reasons rather than just insult me. Your claim that I'm "talking nonsense" is, itself, utterly nonsensical.
Look, the truth is that you've become so defensive and emotional because there really is no justification for atheism; it's an irrational position to hold, a belief based upon literally nothing (which apparently is where the whole universe came from).

 

[Astrid]

A "sort of" definition? Here's the definition that comes up when you type in the words "scientism definition" into Microsoft Bing. It's a very simple definition, but it's one that I can accept, one that I agree with.
sci·en·tism
[ˈsʌɪəntɪz(ə)m]
NOUN
rare

1. thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
   • excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

You are right. It wasnt a sort of definition. It was a sketchy
description.
Later, you posted a cut n paste.

We've noticed you are into snipping part of a post
and addressing only that.
And equivocation.

So, when you lump together the idle talk of some idiots
and the methods of every scientist on earth under the
label " scientism" what exactly might your actual chosen
meaning for the word be?

If you are accusing Tyson ( and on and on) of a ting like
scientists, fair enough. If you are claiming some" excessive"
thing, then let's see an example.

Like what you could / would have given long ago if you had one.

 

[Yaaten]

You are right. It was t a soft of defi ition. It was a sketchy
description.
Later, you posted a cut n paste.

We've noticed you are into snipping part of a post
and addressing only that.
And equivocation.

I really do think you have me confused with someone else here. I only just joined this site yesterday, so how could I possibly have a reputation for "snipping"?
Never mind, it's quite clear you'll never understand my point of view, and the evidence for that is that you keep misrepresenting it.

 

[Bradskii]

Where do I say that? Point it out to me, because I'm fairly certain I didn't. I don't resort to supernatural explanations simply because I can't think of a natural one; there's much more to it than just that.

You said that you have had experiences that have led you to believe that the mind and the body are separate entities. If so, they would certainly be odd experiences. Perhaps you can tell us about them. And explain them in some way. If you can't then they'd be both odd and inexplicable.

 

[Bradskii]

...excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

And a term generally used by people who object to having it suggested that a claim requires some facts and/or evidence. Such as...I dunno...an out of body experience perhaps.

 

[Yaaten]

You said that you have had experiences that have led you to believe that the mind and the body are separate entities. If so, they would certainly be odd experiences. Perhaps you can tell us about them. And explain them in some way. If you can't then they'd be both odd and inexplicable.

You've taken my comment out of context, a comment I made to Hans Blaster, who wrote:
"I have had no experiences that would make me think that my mind and body are somehow 'separate'."
He was giving a personal reason for his beliefs, and I pointed out that I have had experiences that have drawn me in the opposite direction. My point was that just because we may not have experienced something first-hand, that that, in and of itself, isn't a good enough reason to entirely discount whatever it is that one is sceptical about.

 

[Bradskii]

You've taken my comment out of context, a comment I made to Hans Blaster, who wrote:
"I have had no experiences that would make me think that my mind and body are somehow 'separate'."
He was giving a personal reason for his beliefs, and I pointed out that I have had experiences that have drawn me in the opposite direction. My point was that just because we may not have experienced something first-hand, that that, in and of itself, isn't a good enough reason to entirely discount whatever it is that one is sceptical about.

So could you tell us what they were and then we can decide if they were, as I suggested, odd. And if you could explain them as well so we can see if they were, as I suggested, inexplicable.

If they were mundane and there are obvious explanations for them then I'll apologise for suggesting otherwise.

 

[Yaaten]

And a term generally used by people who object to having it suggested that a claim requires some facts and/or evidence. Such as...I dunno...an out of body experience perhaps.

That depends on what the claim is. For example, I can't provide "evidence" to you that I really do exist, even though it's one of the very few things I don't doubt. If someone wanted to, they could stubbornly insist that I actually don't, and that everything I've written here thus far is just the output of some bot.
I believe in the existence of objective reality, but I can't prove it, and as for "evidence"... well, where would I even begin? Some people seriously think that our reality is nothing more than an elaborate computer programme, that we're living in some kind of weird "simulation". I don't believe that, because I think it's silly, and I have to reject it not due to a lack of evidence (which there is), but because the idea is unfalsifiable.
It's one of the many questions that science simply cannot address, and is the reason why we have philosophy.

 

[Astrid]

How am I "talking nonsense"? Is this something you could actually explain here? You know, give reasons rather than just insult me. Your claim that I'm "talking nonsense" is, itself, utterly nonsensical.,
Look, the truth is that you've become so defensive and emotional because there really is no justification for atheism; it's an irrational position to hold, a belief based upon literally nothing (which apparently is where the whole universe came from).

I identified the nonsense in the first post.

Insults?
As if you've some high ground, after that
"don't care about truth " bit. Which you just made up.

Next we see your regard for "the truth" in what you make up about me
being defensive and emotional.

I'm not the one thrashing about like a foul- hooked
alligator trying to bite anything within reach.

Ah, let's attack atheism! ( Bite your own foot)
Aka in this case as "psychotically projection"

" Based on nothing" is what belief in the supernatural is.
Nobody has ever produced a speck of evidence for any of it

It's quite irrational to try make things up.as you do, and present them
as truth, but that what you do and it's what religions generally are based on.

Irrational too to think that not believing something is a belief.

Now, diversions and smokescreens aside, do you have even one
example, like a quote, from a yone who displays this "scientism"
that you feel cled on to " question"?

It's quite irrational to question something when you actually have
nothing to question.

 

[Astrid]

That depends on what the claim is. For example, I can't provide "evidence" to you that I really do exist, even though it's one of the very few things I don't doubt. If someone wanted to, they could stubbornly insist that I actually don't, and that everything I've written here thus far is just the output of some bot.
I believe in the existence of objective reality, but I can't prove it, and as for "evidence"... well, where would I even begin? Some people seriously think that our reality is nothing more than an elaborate computer programme, that we're living in some kind of weird "simulation". I don't believe that, because I think it's silly, and I have to reject it not due to a lack of evidence (which there is), but because the idea is unfalsifiable.
It's one of the many questions that science simply cannot address, and is the reason why we have philosophy.

Do you reject all belief in the supernatural because it's unfalsifiable?

 

[Yaaten]

So could you tell us what they were and then we can decide if they were, as I suggested, odd.

It's complicated, and I don't know if I can keep it simple and concise. My beliefs about the nature of reality often change, because it's something that I think about a lot. I haven't had what some might call a supernatural experience (i.e. no NDE's, seeing ghosts - nothing like that), but the simplest way to put this would be to say that I've come to the conclusion that to believe that our physical universe is all there is is nothing short of insane, given that we haven't been around for very long, aren't omniscient, and don't even understand how what we can actually observe with our puny senses works yet.
Many like to believe that we've got the basics at least all figured out, but no, we haven't. I can't say for sure there isn't an afterlife, for example, but I've come across some who were certain there isn't one, but how can they possibly know this?

 

[Astrid]

I really do think you have me confused with someone else here. I only just joined this site yesterday, so how could I possibly have a reputation for "snipping"?
Never mind, it's quite clear you'll never understand my point of view, and the evidence for that is that you keep misrepresenting it.

Goodness, now you are making it up that anything was said about
reputation.

Just regard how many posts you trimmed in this thread alone.
Skipping any tough parts, going for the easy and insignificant.
You may well acquire a reputation tho as you noted, it's early still.

Part of the reputation will be as one who won't respond on topic.

 

[Yaaten]

Do you reject all belief in the supernatural because it's unfalsifiable?

'Belief' is a word I try to avoid using, because it implies 100% certainty, and that's something I just don't have about most things. I believe that I exist. I believe in the existence of objective reality, that the world will still be here after I'm gone. I believe in the reality of the past and the existence of other minds. I believe (even though I can't prove it to anyone else) that there is more - much more - to reality than just what we can perceive with our five senses.
If someone is putting forth an idea and claiming that it "has the backing of science" (ex. the notion that we're living in a simulation, or that aliens exist), then yes, I will ask them if their belief(s) can be falsified. If someone tells me they hold a belief based upon faith, for example, then I won't, because their reasons for believing what they do will be personal, subjective, and perhaps something they might not want to discuss anyway.

 

[Astrid]

'Belief' is a word I try to avoid using, because it implies 100% certainty, and that's something I just don't have about most things. I believe that I exist. I believe in the existence of objective reality, that the world will still be here after I'm gone. I believe in the reality of the past and the existence of other minds. I believe (even though I can't prove it to anyone else) that there is more - much more - to reality than just what we can perceive with our five senses.
If someone is putting forth an idea and claiming that it "has the backing of science" (ex. the notion that we're living in a simulation, or that aliens exist), then yes, I will ask them if their belief(s) can be falsified. If someone tells me they hold a belief based upon faith, for example, then I won't, because their reasons for believing what they do will be personal, subjective, and perhaps something they might not want to discuss anyway.

Hmm. Ok.
Though I never heard of the word belief implying certainty.

I don't bieve in the supernatural or flying saucers, there
being no credible evidence for either.

My scientific mindset, to the extent I could be said to think
that way, involves no certainties at all.

 

[Yaaten]

I identified the nonsense in the first post.

No, you didn't.

Insults?
As if you've some high ground, after that
"don't care about truth " bit. Which you just made up.

Yes, I do have the high ground.

Next we see your regard for "the truth" in what you make up about me
being defensive and emotional.

I did my best to explain to you what the term 'scientism' actually means, and that I've come across many people who practically worship science (I've worked with quite a few of them you know, and we've had some rather "interesting" discussions about it) but you just consistently brushed this off and implied that I was lying about it.

I'm not the one thrashing about like a foul- hooked
alligator trying to bite anything within reach.

Ah, let's attack atheism! ( Bite your own foot)
Aka in this case as "psychotically projection"

(sigh) Is this really necessary? Drop the attitude! We're not on 'Twitter' you know.

" Based on nothing" is what belief in the supernatural is.
Nobody has ever produced a speck of evidence for any of it

Oh for goodness sake, I've been told that I "have no evidence" for what I believe, or at least consider to be possible, so many times already, but seriously - what kind of "evidence" would actually convince you? I'm guessing nothing would.

It's quite irrational to try make things up.as you do, and present them
as truth, but that what you do and it's what religions generally are based on.

I'm not making anything up. Where do I do that?

It's quite irrational to question something when you actually have
nothing to question.

What? I really don't know what you're going on about here.

 

[Bradskii]

It's complicated, and I don't know if I can keep it simple and concise. My beliefs about the nature of reality often change, because it's something that I think about a lot. I haven't had what some might call a supernatural experience (i.e. no NDE's, seeing ghosts - nothing like that), but the simplest way to put this would be to say that I've come to the conclusion that to believe that our physical universe is all there is is nothing short of insane, given that we haven't been around for very long, aren't omniscient, and don't even understand how what we can actually observe with our puny senses works yet.
Many like to believe that we've got the basics at least all figured out, but no, we haven't. I can't say for sure there isn't an afterlife, for example, but I've come across some who were certain there isn't one, but how can they possibly know this?

So you haven't actually had experiences that have led you to believe that the mind and the body are separate entities. It's more a 'gee, there must be more to it than this' type of feeling.

I'm glad that we had the chance to clear that up.

 

[Yaaten]

So you haven't actually had experiences that have led you to believe that the mind and the body are separate entities. It's more a 'gee, there must be more to it than this' type of feeling.

I'm glad that we had the chance to clear that up.

No, I have, but what I meant was that the experiences I have had were nothing like what most people like to write about and discuss (which is why I mentioned ghosts and NDE's). And no, I don't go "Gee, there must be more than this, because... feelings. Yeah, that's it, feelings". I'm not an idiot you know.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's a slippery concept at the best of times. But...if there is something more than the brain that does the thinking and gives us our sense of self then it shouldn't be that hard to show it

Of course it could be hard because at this point consciousness remains a mystery. About all we have been able do is map out parts of the brain that seem to correlate with sensations and processes.

One of the coolest books ever:
https://terebess.hu/zen/mesterek/brain.pdf

 

[Astrid]

No, you didn't.



Yes, I do have the high ground.



I did my best to explain to you what the term 'scientism' actually means, and that I've come across many people who practically worship science (I've worked with quite a few of them you know, and we've had some rather "interesting" discussions about it) but you just consistently brushed this off and implied that I was lying about it.



(sigh) Is this really necessary? Drop the attitude! We're not on 'Twitter' you know.



Oh for goodness sake, I've been told that I "have no evidence" for what I believe, or at least consider to be possible, so many times already, but seriously - what kind of "evidence" would actually convince you? I'm guessing nothing would.



I'm not making anything up. Where do I do that?



What? I really don't know what you're going on about here.

I identified the nonsense first in my comment on
the " current dogma" of " atheistic materialism".

You went on to identify non belief as a belief-
more nonsense, and identify the world scientific
community as practitioners of scientism.

At most points of nonsense and things you
simply made up, I pointed them out at the time.

If you are ok with making things up as a route to the high ground,
climb, or dig, to your content.

If you want to claim evidence for the supernatural, terrif. We already have
seen how little evidence you need for beliefs like that I'm " emotional"
or your guess that no sort of evidence would suit me.

The evidence for and against the supernatural is like that for
flying saucers and bigfoot.

You find it irrational not to believe on the basis of such evidence
as there is for those.

I figure it's more nonsense.

But show me a bigfoot and I will change.

Meantime it's very insensible to base much of anything on belief
that he might be out there.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's complicated, and I don't know if I can keep it simple and concise. My beliefs about the nature of reality often change, because it's something that I think about a lot. I haven't had what some might call a supernatural experience (i.e. no NDE's, seeing ghosts - nothing like that), but the simplest way to put this would be to say that I've come to the conclusion that to believe that our physical universe is all there is is nothing short of insane, given that we haven't been around for very long, aren't omniscient, and don't even understand how what we can actually observe with our puny senses works yet.
Many like to believe that we've got the basics at least all figured out, but no, we haven't. I can't say for sure there isn't an afterlife, for example, but I've come across some who were certain there isn't one, but how can they possibly know this?

My beliefs change as well. My religious perspective is evolving to appreciate metaphor and symbol more than any sort of objective facts. We are beginning to see that the material world is a mirage. This solid table in front of me is mostly empty space. We have discovered that the entity we think is a particle is also a wave. But a wave of what? There has been much talk here about science. I love science. It starts from the bottom up. That is why I like James H. Austin's approach to exploring consciousness through neuroscience. https://www.amazon.com/Zen-Brain-Understanding-Meditation-Consciousness/dp/0262511096 And maybe the most important point of it all is the appreciation of a shift from egocentric to allocentric awareness. Even for an atheist (such as Austin) there is deep value in transcending what seems to be the separate me and realizing, identifying with the greater unity of reality.