It probably is for anyone that actually makes that claim - but what competent scientist does? Those in the field know that the best they can do is demonstrate that it was possible.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It probably is for anyone that actually makes that claim - but what competent scientist does? Those in the field know that the best they can do is demonstrate that it was possible.The first living cell from chemical soup.
Since nobody knows the structure of it, no test is possible.
But Still it’s presented as a “ fact” it happened.
So Actually it’s just a faith statement.
Oh .. good grief! You cite an article on history of the development of Fluid Mechanics, by human beings, with even their specific names included, and then ask how conscious minds could have created it? Are you serious? What were you reading before you asked that question?As I have pointed out in other threads, your concept of a mind dependent reality seems to be fundamentally flawed, because it lacks the ability to explain how conscious minds can create anything new. For example, here's a link to a random article.
http://majdalani.eng.auburn.edu/courses/02_fluids/handout_f01_history.pdf
So now you miscomprehend what true 'mind independence' means. The term covers all human minds .. not just your own.partinobodycular said:Absent an independent source your mind now needs to create from whole cloth an article which is in every way identical to the article which my mind has created.
How is your mind going to do that?
i) The distinction between subject and object always was, (figuratively speaking), a mind dependent distinction.I'm not sure exactly what is meant by 'subject to', but a belief in something not 'subject to' logic, reason or existence, sounds like a belief in something illogical, irrational, and non-existent...
No, I'm not asking how human minds could've created it. That's irrelevant. I'm asking how it is that our minds, yours and mine, have created the exact same article without an independent source from which to draw?Oh .. good grief! You cite an article on history of the development of Fluid Mechanics, by human beings, with even their specific names included, and then ask how conscious minds could have created it? Are you serious? What were you reading before you asked that question?
Ok .. (I got a little excited in my last reply ..)No, I'm not asking how human minds could've created it. That's irrelevant. I'm asking how it is that our minds, yours and mine, have created the exact same article without an independent source from which to draw?
What 'creator' do you mean there? An original author writes in language that conveys their meaning to subsequent readers. Its a cumulative buildup of knowledge thing going on there, no(?) There's a bunch of minds building on their predecessor's work .. so where's the evidence of 'mind independent things', when all we see is a bunch of active minds thinking in similar ways?partinobodycular said:To get from the creator's mind, to our minds there must be an actual mind independent medium by which that information gets from its creator's mind to ours. Which means that something must exist independent of our human minds.
Huh? Not at all necessarily so. Where's you objectively tested evidence for that conclusion? Can you even cite the test?partinobodycular said:Which then leads to a second question. Where did the creator of that article get the information? It too must have come via a mind independent source.
True, it's a cumulative buildup of knowledge, but as I see it there are two distinct problems. The first problem is how that knowledge makes the transition from one mind to another. Once the author writes that article and publishes it in some form such as a book or an internet article the author no longer needs to exist for that information to persist. It has in effect taken on an existence of its own that's now independent of both the mind that created it, and anyone else who may subsequently read it. And mustn't all information exist in some independent form in the interim between one mind and the next, even if that existence is simply in the form of spoken words? (I.E. soundwaves propagating through a medium)What 'creator' do you mean there? An original author writes in language that conveys their meaning to subsequent readers. Its a cumulative buildup of knowledge thing going on there, no(?)
A paper written in human interpretable form's content, is objectively testable. So what? The encoded information there is in no way mind independent: a human wrote it, and a human read it (and then maybe even observably acted upon the content).True, it's a cumulative buildup of knowledge, but as I see it there are two distinct problems. The first problem is how that knowledge makes the transition from one mind to another. Once the author writes that article and publishes it in some form such as a book or an internet article the author no longer needs to exist for that information to persist. It has in effect taken on an existence of its own that's now independent of both the mind that created it, and anyone else who may subsequently read it. And mustn't all information exist in some independent form in the interim between one mind and the next, even if that existence is simply in the form of spoken words? (I.E. soundwaves propagating through a medium)
That's just philosophical mumbo-jumbo, with philosophers creating nonsense problems for themselves and then trying to 'discover the hidden answers' to their self-made conundrums. Mumbo jumbo, it is.partinobodycular said:The second problem is an age old one, and it's the problem of an infinite regress. If each mind builds upon knowledge obtained from other minds, and those other minds obtained their knowledge from still others, then where did the first mind get it's knowledge from?
The human mind gives 'the existence of knowledge' its meaning .. all mind dependent stuff.partinobodycular said:An infinite regress of minds would seem to be insufficient to explain the existence of knowledge.
The test of knowing, (at least when restricted to testable outcomes), is akin to the odds a person would give on being right, (ie: 'I'm 95% certain'), where the odds can be deemed as correct if over many instances, the person making the odds ends up breaking even. If they tend to not break even, they need to reassess their sense of what they 'really know'.
(Note also that this suggested operational definition, makes use of science's concept of uncertainty .. as in: 'the odds').
But strangely enough in reality there are no particles.No.
That statement depends entirely on what you mean by the term 'is real'. There are only two ways we know for coming up with a meaning for that term: (i) by way of beliefs or, (ii) by way of the scientific (objective) method.
Particles and fields are given their meanings by way of the scientific method/process. They test out well in theory and practice, when following that process. Because of the abundance of test results consistent with science's category of that type, (aka: 'objectively real'), particles and fields are then concluded as being objectively real.
No doubt this could well be in direct conflict with the other way of determining what's real (ie: the belief way).
That depends on your definition of 'reality', which you've been asked for but haven't supplied.But strangely enough in reality there are no particles.
Its a highly ambiguous statement, methinks. Certainly calls for an explanation.That depends on your definition of 'reality', which you've been asked for but haven't supplied.
If particles aren't real, then very little of our everyday experience of what we call 'reality' is.
Your 'Empire State Building' dialogue only demonstrates that we depend on our senses and reasoning. It doesn't begin to touch the fact that what does exist, exists independent of us noticing it or even knowing it.The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness contradictions creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.
That's what my 'Empire State building' dialogue demonstrates.
Which only goes to show that ya just can't keep a good human down, eh?Your 'Empire State Building' dialogue only demonstrates that we depend on our senses and reasoning. It doesn't begin to touch the fact that what does exist, exists independent of us noticing it or even knowing it.
What I believe about those is irrelevant to the objective science (and resulting evidence) behind the models of Evolution by natural selection.Mark Quayle said:Assuming that you are an atheist who believes in Evolution, what in the world was going on before anybody noticed it? Do you believe nothing existed at that point? Did we create ourselves? How does this work?
As far as I understand matter is 99.99% empty space. We cannot directly observe particles and they are hypothesized theories or equations about physical reality. So whatever is being measured regarding objective physical reality is not really physical and it seems that some other non-physical force/influence is at the fundamental level of nature.Please explain.
Reality has been a hard thing to pin down and its probably become more ambiguous in recent years. But I think it requires a comprehensive all inclusive definition rather than just being physical. WE have to consider what role we play in reality as we cannot separate ourselves from whatever meaning we give.That depends on your definition of 'reality', which you've been asked for but haven't supplied.
I disagree. You premise what is real on particles so if there's no particles then there's no reality. But there may be other ways we know reality such as through conscious experience and belief.If particles aren't real, then very little of our everyday experience of what we call 'reality' is.
The term particle is general in meaning, and is refined as needed, within the various scientific fields of study. (Notice that implies a particle isn't 'a thing' in science .. its a pliable concept, as all science's definitions are). The concept of a particle is deliberately made to be useful model in science.As far as I understand matter is 99.99% empty space. We cannot directly observe particles and they are hypothesized theories or equations about physical reality. So whatever is being measured regarding objective physical reality is not really physical and it seems that some other non-physical force/influence is at the fundamental level of nature.
Ok, so you admit to two realities? I see you saying there are the models, and there is objective reality.Which only goes to show that ya just can't keep a good human down, eh?
(Even when considering a model of a mind independent reality).
What I believe about those is irrelevant to the objective science (and resulting evidence) behind the models of Evolution by natural selection.
No, what I see is people using their minds to come up with different meanings for the word reality there. Those minds do that when they think in two different ways, either: the way of belief or, the way of the scientific (objective) method.Ok, so you admit to two realities?
Minds create models when they express their perceptions using language.Mark Quayle said:I see you saying there are the models, and there is objective reality.
Objective reality MODEL isn't what I am asking you. I thought that was abundantly obvious.No, what I see is people using their minds to come up with different meanings for the word reality there. Those minds do that when they think in two different ways, either: the way of belief or, the way of the scientific (objective) method.
Minds create models when they express their perceptions using language.
The Objective Reality model is formed by the results which test out, following the objective testing method (science).
PS: These aren't just my 'admissions' or 'opinions'. They are conclusions formed on the basis of objective test results. Its science .. not philosophy.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?