Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrumiousBandersnatch" data-source="post: 73946479" data-attributes="member: 241055"><p>Why can't you drop the teleological blinkers? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>I said '<em>some people like to think that it is part of a greater purpose</em>', not '<em>some people like to think it's a belief</em>'.</p><p></p><p>Belief isn't a dirty word, but it is often used to mean absolute confidence in the truth of something, and also absolute confidence in the truth of something despite a lack of, or insufficient, evidence to support that level of confidence. I don't wish what I say to be mistaken for that, so I prefer to use more provisional terms.</p><p></p><p>OIC - well if you can accept that our behaviours are mediated by chemical responses, that ought to make intentionality less mysterious - as ultimately a set of chemical responses that have a particular class of effects... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>OK, but the people who do the research to obtain and collate the empirical evidence are of the same opinion, i.e. I'm agreeing with them. If you can point me to alternative models based on the empirical evidence, I'd be interested to see them.</p><p></p><p>I don't know of one. The <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infer" target="_blank">Cambridge English Dictionary</a> says to infer means "to <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/form" target="_blank">form</a> an <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/opinion" target="_blank">opinion</a> or <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guess" target="_blank">guess</a> that something is <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/true" target="_blank">true</a> because of the <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/information" target="_blank">information</a> that you have". It seems to me that a mouse freezing or running when a shadow appears is the simplest example of a guess that something is true, i.e. imminent danger, given certain information, i.e. the shadow. So simple, in fact, that its logic can be behaviourally hard-wired. But like I said, I'm happy to accept the more high-level logic-engine versions as 'true' inference.</p><p></p><p>Not sure how that's relevant - if you've never seen an apple and one appears in your visual field, it will just be a vague blob of colour until you look directly at it and get a decent image of it.</p><p></p><p>If everything was solved, scientists would have to find another job.</p><p></p><p>Drivers of black cabs...</p><p><img src="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/11/20/black76816554_DFER6K_Bl_3523767b_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpJliwavx4coWFCaEkEsb3kvxIt-lGGWCWqwLa_RXJU8.jpg?imwidth=450" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Such as whom?</p><p></p><p>I was at some lectures recently by <a href="https://www.tcd.ie/research/profiles/?profile=kemitche" target="_blank">Kevin Mitchell, associate professor of genetics & neuroscience at Trinity College, Dublin</a>, who studies genetic influences on brain wiring, and <a href="https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?enc22" target="_blank">Emma Cahill, lecturer in neurophysiology at University of Cambridge</a>, a who studies memory and how memories are made, and it was clear that they, and the field in general, share that view. I don't really see how one could make sense of neuroscience without it - can you explain?</p><p></p><p>I didn't say it would falsify the existence of personality or moral values, but the receiver hypothesis. Why do you think the prediction is wrong, do you think messing with the receiver can change the content of the broadcast?</p><p></p><p>I don't think of indigenous peoples as 'primitive', we're all the same species, and very similar; lacking in genetic diversity because of a recent genetic bottleneck - it's said there's less genetic diversity among humans as a whole than between two gorilla troops.</p><p></p><p>Given a choice between hunter-gather communities, living in relative balance with their environment, and modern technologically advanced communities, trashing the environment with consumption and growth, I know which I consider the more 'civilised'...</p><p></p><p>Which biologists? in what field?</p><p>Maybe they don't understand evolution, which seems unlikely, or maybe they mean they don't understand the exact mechanisms involved. The 'will to live' is an interpretation of behaviour using the intentional stance (e.g. teleological, anthropomorphic, or metaphorical); the vast majority of creatures don't have a brain, so it seems they have nothing to 'want' with. Natural selection weeds out those without self-protective behaviours.</p><p></p><p>As opposed to not being an illusion; i.e. being a perception corresponding to some actual state of affairs rather than a misperception corresponding to some counterfactual state of affairs. I thought the McGurk effect and phantom limb examples would be sufficient, but here's another, the Rotating Mask illusion:</p><p>[MEDIA=youtube]sKa0eaKsdA0[/MEDIA]</p><p></p><p>I say "experientially real" to emphasise that it does not necessarily correspond to some state of affairs in the world. Again, I refer you to phantom limb syndrome. </p><p></p><p></p><p>As Descartes discovered, and Hume pointed out, we can't know anything for sure about reality. But going beyond that is a long and winding philosophical road. </p><p></p><p>We have <a href="http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2019/04/where-did-earths-water-come-from" target="_blank">a pretty good idea</a>, but need more data to be sure.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrumiousBandersnatch, post: 73946479, member: 241055"] Why can't you drop the teleological blinkers? ;) I said '[I]some people like to think that it is part of a greater purpose[/I]', not '[I]some people like to think it's a belief[/I]'. Belief isn't a dirty word, but it is often used to mean absolute confidence in the truth of something, and also absolute confidence in the truth of something despite a lack of, or insufficient, evidence to support that level of confidence. I don't wish what I say to be mistaken for that, so I prefer to use more provisional terms. OIC - well if you can accept that our behaviours are mediated by chemical responses, that ought to make intentionality less mysterious - as ultimately a set of chemical responses that have a particular class of effects... ;) OK, but the people who do the research to obtain and collate the empirical evidence are of the same opinion, i.e. I'm agreeing with them. If you can point me to alternative models based on the empirical evidence, I'd be interested to see them. I don't know of one. The [URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infer']Cambridge English Dictionary[/URL] says to infer means "to [URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/form']form[/URL] an [URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/opinion']opinion[/URL] or [URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/guess']guess[/URL] that something is [URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/true']true[/URL] because of the [URL='https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/information']information[/URL] that you have". It seems to me that a mouse freezing or running when a shadow appears is the simplest example of a guess that something is true, i.e. imminent danger, given certain information, i.e. the shadow. So simple, in fact, that its logic can be behaviourally hard-wired. But like I said, I'm happy to accept the more high-level logic-engine versions as 'true' inference. Not sure how that's relevant - if you've never seen an apple and one appears in your visual field, it will just be a vague blob of colour until you look directly at it and get a decent image of it. If everything was solved, scientists would have to find another job. Drivers of black cabs... [IMG]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/11/20/black76816554_DFER6K_Bl_3523767b_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqpJliwavx4coWFCaEkEsb3kvxIt-lGGWCWqwLa_RXJU8.jpg?imwidth=450[/IMG] Such as whom? I was at some lectures recently by [URL='https://www.tcd.ie/research/profiles/?profile=kemitche']Kevin Mitchell, associate professor of genetics & neuroscience at Trinity College, Dublin[/URL], who studies genetic influences on brain wiring, and [URL='https://www.neuroscience.cam.ac.uk/directory/profile.php?enc22']Emma Cahill, lecturer in neurophysiology at University of Cambridge[/URL], a who studies memory and how memories are made, and it was clear that they, and the field in general, share that view. I don't really see how one could make sense of neuroscience without it - can you explain? I didn't say it would falsify the existence of personality or moral values, but the receiver hypothesis. Why do you think the prediction is wrong, do you think messing with the receiver can change the content of the broadcast? I don't think of indigenous peoples as 'primitive', we're all the same species, and very similar; lacking in genetic diversity because of a recent genetic bottleneck - it's said there's less genetic diversity among humans as a whole than between two gorilla troops. Given a choice between hunter-gather communities, living in relative balance with their environment, and modern technologically advanced communities, trashing the environment with consumption and growth, I know which I consider the more 'civilised'... Which biologists? in what field? Maybe they don't understand evolution, which seems unlikely, or maybe they mean they don't understand the exact mechanisms involved. The 'will to live' is an interpretation of behaviour using the intentional stance (e.g. teleological, anthropomorphic, or metaphorical); the vast majority of creatures don't have a brain, so it seems they have nothing to 'want' with. Natural selection weeds out those without self-protective behaviours. As opposed to not being an illusion; i.e. being a perception corresponding to some actual state of affairs rather than a misperception corresponding to some counterfactual state of affairs. I thought the McGurk effect and phantom limb examples would be sufficient, but here's another, the Rotating Mask illusion: [MEDIA=youtube]sKa0eaKsdA0[/MEDIA] I say "experientially real" to emphasise that it does not necessarily correspond to some state of affairs in the world. Again, I refer you to phantom limb syndrome. As Descartes discovered, and Hume pointed out, we can't know anything for sure about reality. But going beyond that is a long and winding philosophical road. We have [URL='http://www.astronomy.com/magazine/2019/04/where-did-earths-water-come-from']a pretty good idea[/URL], but need more data to be sure. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven
Top
Bottom