The missing link/intelligent design

[Received]

And keep this in mind, Loudmouth:

I'm a therapist. I'm finding usefulness in this confusing rabbit chase a lot more than you probably are. So how much longer do you want to keep speaking in circles with me?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Technically it can't. I understand a difference between "technical" and how we actually use the word. IOW, I basically equate something with a high probability but is falsifiable (the limits of science) with something that is true and is therefore known (going beyond science, being a human being with other faculties).

Otherwise knowledge is an illusion. And I'm fine with that, but I'm not fine with knowledge being an illusion only if we have to know completely and totally that something isn't false.

And if you go down this road, then we're really back to solipsism or worse: we can't "know" with complete and utter certainty that the external world actually exists (rather than being a Matrix-like deal), that other people exist, or even (let's just say it) that I even exist. I don't know with complete and utter certainty what my "I" even is. And if we go down this road, well...

We wouldn't even be able with any rational justification to open the refrigerator door.

I disagree: that empiricism can't attain 100% certainty, doesn't mean it can't give us 99.999% certainty. While the two aren't the same, it's close enough for me. That's why scientific proof is proof beyond all reasonable doubt (which is good enough), rather than proof beyond all doubt (which is idealised and unobtainable).

All one needs to do is assume empiricism and BAM, goodbye solipsism

 

[Received]

I disagree: that empiricism can't attain 100% certainty, doesn't mean it can't give us 99.999% certainty. While the two aren't the same, it's close enough for me. That's why scientific proof is proof beyond all reasonable doubt (which is good enough), rather than proof beyond all doubt (which is idealised and unobtainable).

All one needs to do is assume empiricism and BAM, goodbye solipsism

I think we're agreeing. I agree with the idea of 99.99% certainty as within the confines of empiricism; all I'm saying is that we have to work beyond empiricism (i.e., have more than just this philosophy) to be able to have a technically allowable definition of knowledge that actually works. You know, knowledge as commonly defined by philosophers: true, justified, believed. 99.99% certainty is not good enough for truth, and therefore knowledge, unless you make the pragmatic jump ("assumption" in your words) that, well, it's good enough, just 'cause. Like you said: it's close enough for me.

And I take issue with this common definition of knowledge, specifically the middle criterion (justification). I think it's good enough for knowledge if you just represent something as it is -- even if (and here's the slippery part) you can't know that you know something. This invites a potential infinite regress (you know that you know, you know that you know that you know, etc.), but that's no big deal. I think the problem is bigger if we keep the common definition, given that it leads to the question: who determines what's good enough for justification? Technically a belief can never be justified completely, given that the attempt to justify that something is true always has the possibility of being wrong.

--------------------------

Anyways, per the original frazzled feathers between me and Davian, I think it all comes down to this distinction:

You can claim that scientific evidence is the limitation of the sphere of science.

You can't claim that scientific evidence is the limitation of truth. If you did, that opens up the syllogism mentioned a million times before.

 

[Davian]

...
Anyways, per the original frazzled feathers between me and Davian, I think it all comes down to this distinction:

No frazzled feathers on this end, unfortunately. I do look forward to those moments.

You can claim that scientific evidence is the limitation of the sphere of science.

That wasn't my claim, and certainly not where I was going in those most recent posts made in response to yours.

You can't claim that scientific evidence is the limitation of truth. If you did, that opens up the syllogism mentioned a million times before.

As you have yet to respond with what your specific problem is with the scientific evidence approach, or the concept of falsification, I will venture out in a different direction:

What of the other side of the 'evidence' coin? Science won't get you to 100% certainty, but it will show you where your claim is certainly false (working with the evidence as presented in a falsifiable hypothesis).

Do you have a problem with some thing that you want/hope/believe to be true, that has been falsified by science? Is your insistence that this 'weakness' of scientific methodology - it doesn't do 'truth' - supposed to leave some other method of establishing truth on higher ground, and pull something in particular out of the "falsified" bin?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

why is the title of this thread about a missing link? Am I missing something?

 

[Davian]

why is the title of this thread about a missing link? Am I missing something?

The OP was misapplying the term "missing link" to the "gap" between the current scientific understanding of the brain and the "immaterial mind", which, of course, begs the question: what "immaterial mind"?

 

[Received]

You can't claim that scientific evidence is the limitation of truth. If you did, that opens up the syllogism mentioned a million times before.

As you have yet to respond with what your specific problem is with the scientific evidence approach...

This reasoning right here. I open up the idea that you're claiming scientific evidence is the limitation of truth; you respond by asking what's bad about the scientific approach, implicitly agreeing that scientific evidence is the limitation of truth, ignoring my appeal to the syllogism. The problem with this claim is precisely:

Only things that can be evidenced (i.e., through the natural sciences) can be considered true (evidentialism).

Evidentialism has no evidence.

Therefore, evidentialism can't be true.​

What of the other side of the 'evidence' coin? Science won't get you to 100% certainty, but it will show you where your claim is certainly false (working with the evidence as presented in a falsifiable hypothesis).

Science shows where claims are false that are commensurate with the scientific method. Philosophical or logical questions, i.e., aren't commensurate with the scientific method (although science itself is a philosophy and contains a type of logic), therefore there is another side to the evidence coin.

Do you have a problem with some thing that you want/hope/believe to be true, that has been falsified by science? Is your insistence that this 'weakness' of scientific methodology - it doesn't do 'truth' - supposed to leave some other method of establishing truth on higher ground, and pull something in particular out of the "falsified" bin?

1) And keep in my mind I'm not being snarky, but it seems you really want/hope/believe that science will replace all other standards for truth, even if this means contradiction.

2) "Some other method" isn't just some arbitrary preference. It can be proven reductio ad absurdum by the syllogism above: if science negates itself because it can't prove itself, then there must be something more to science in terms of determining truth. Reason is one. Logic is another. And intuition is the basis of all three.

 

[paul becke]

How does the material brain communicate with the immaterial mind - exactly what bridges the gap - how does what is material know,suffer,feel,hear and see - twinc

If you find the answer to that, there's a Nobel prize awaiting you. What has been discovered is that the mind/body relationship is dualistic. Thoughts are NOT a product of the brain, but rather, the brain is a receiver of wave-borne intelligence, in similar fashion to radio and TV waves.

Read the second article, linked below, entitled, Medical Evidence for Near Death Experiences

The Bridge: A Science and Spirituality Resource: Mysticism

Another interesting fact that has been discovered from NDEs is that our eye-sight can operate without functioning eyes, i.e. those of a blind person, one of whom actually said that suddenly seeing everything was a terrifying experience. This had earlier been demonstrated by a young female saint in the 19th century, whose name, unfortunately, I didn't take on board at the time; many years ago.

Also, while technically without any brain-functioning and out of the body, some NDErs were subsequently able to identify items they could only have seen from out of the body, and likewise hear the conversations of the staff in the operating theatre and their families in the waiting area; in some case, in their home, while visiting!

 

[twinc]

The OP was misapplying the term "missing link" to the "gap" between the current scientific understanding of the brain and the "immaterial mind", which, of course, begs the question: what "immaterial mind"?

the problem once again is base over apex and/or vice versa for immaterial mind is not the problem but material brain is - it seems it must be repeated again and again for most til it finally registers that science has dematerialised matter - so it is not a case of no matter never mind but no matter only[immaterial] mind - there is thus no missing link or gap - there is no dualism or duality,there is only mind so mind how you go,mind what you say and mind what you accept - twinc

 

[TheBeardedDude]

the problem once again is base over apex and/or vice versa for immaterial mind is not the problem but material brain is - it seems it must be repeated again and again for most til it finally registers that science has dematerialised matter - so it is not a case of no matter never mind but no matter only[immaterial] mind - there is thus no missing link or gap - there is no dualism or duality,there is only mind so mind how you go,mind what you say and mind what you accept - twinc

That was incomprehensible to me. Anyone got an explanation?

 

[twinc]

That was incomprehensible to me. Anyone got an explanation?

dust and ashes turned into hydrogen that turned into people that turned into dust and ashes - actually dust and ashes and not hydrogen must have turned into people - people are nothing really ? - twinc

 

[TheBeardedDude]

dust and ashes turned into hydrogen that turned into people that turned into dust and ashes - twinc

That sounds like a strawman of what science has to offer about the origins of the universe, the elements, and the origin of life.

Correct me if I am wrong as to the assertion you are making.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

dust and ashes turned into hydrogen

No.

that turned into people that turned into dust and ashes

Yes.

- actually dust and ashes and not hydrogen must have turned into people

No.

- people are nothing really ? - twinc

No.

 

[paul becke]

How does the material brain communicate with the immaterial mind - exactly what bridges the gap - how does what is material know,suffer,feel,hear and see - twinc

Around the 10 minute mark on this vimeo video is Pam Reynolds' NDE:

https://vimeo.com/20420223

 

[paul becke]

That was incomprehensible to me. Anyone got an explanation?

Mind is the primary reality, not matter. That has been established in multiple ways by quantum physics (I believe, with an accuracy to 13* decimal places), the most successful paradigm ever, and upon which most of our modern world relies.

To get an idea of the implications of that, read Niels Bohr's Wikiquotes page. It's fascinating - the more so since Bohr's discoveries would have been carried out more than 60 years ago.

Scan Uncommon Descent blog all the time. You might not understand much of the detail - I certainly don't - but you still learn a lot, if you're not too pained by missing the meaning of a lot of the technical terms.


*I'm not a physicist, so I may have it slightly garbled in that it might refer to a finding obtained within a particular area of quantum mechanics. What is certain is QM's leading-edge, its absolute primacy over the earlier mechanistic, 'classical physics' paradigm, which still holds good for matter at the level of normal life.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Mind is the primary reality, not matter. That has been established in multiple ways by quantum physics (I believe, with an accuracy to 13* decimal places), the most successful paradigm ever, and upon which most of our modern world relies.

Source? This sounds to me like a common misinterpretation of the ill-named 'Observer Effect' (simply put, the effect doesn't mean intelligent human observers dictate or create reality or anything like that; an 'observer' can be the neighbouring atom).

 

[JYJ]

How does the material brain communicate with the immaterial mind - exactly what bridges the gap - how does what is material know,suffer,feel,hear and see - twinc

That's easy. There are areas in the physical brain which act as transmitters and receivers. Humans, like most other of the higher animals, are naturally telepathic. Not only do we have the abilities to sometimes know what others are thinking but, through these physical structures in our brains (they will be found to have minute quantities of crystalline fluids which resonate in as yet unknown mediums) we are able to be in touch with the high minds of our own souls. These we know as our guardian angels but it's really our soul that guides us not an angel. Knowing, feeling, suffering, hearing and seeing are all physical phenomena, of the physical being. Intuition however is not. The higher attributes such as our abilities to visualize, imagine and to "somehow know things". are not physical. We have these abilities. Animals do not. These are the differences. These are not of the physical brain but only connect to our lower personality consciousnesses through the physical brain. After we pass away the personality caused brain ceases but the higher soul mind endures. Think in terms of two minds. The lower which is only of the physical and the higher which is eternal. The brain serves us by allowing connections to both. Easy. The mind researchers suspect all this is true but say nothing because of the near impossibility of proving the high and disassociated soul existence in the spirit world. Science has to be very careful about what it postulates and with good reason.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That's easy. There are areas in the physical brain which act as transmitters and receivers. Humans, like most other of the higher animals, are naturally telepathic. Not only do we have the abilities to sometimes know what others are thinking but, through these physical structures in our brains (they will be found to have minute quantities of crystalline fluids which resonate in as yet unknown mediums) we are able to be in touch with the high minds of our own souls. These we know as our guardian angels but it's really our soul that guides us not an angel. Knowing, feeling, suffering, hearing and seeing are all physical phenomena, of the physical being. Intuition however is not. The higher attributes such as our abilities to visualize, imagine and to "somehow know things". are not physical. We have these abilities. Animals do not. These are the differences. These are not of the physical brain but only connect to our lower personality consciousnesses through the physical brain. After we pass away the personality caused brain ceases but the higher soul mind endures. Think in terms of two minds. The lower which is only of the physical and the higher which is eternal. The brain serves us by allowing connections to both. Easy. The mind researchers suspect all this is true but say nothing because of the near impossibility of proving the high and disassociated soul existence in the spirit world. Science has to be very careful about what it postulates and with good reason.

Do you have any evidence for any of these paranormal claims?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Mind is the primary reality, not matter. That has been established in multiple ways by quantum physics (I believe, with an accuracy to 13* decimal places), the most successful paradigm ever, and upon which most of our modern world relies.

To get an idea of the implications of that, read Niels Bohr's Wikiquotes page. It's fascinating - the more so since Bohr's discoveries would have been carried out more than 60 years ago.

Scan Uncommon Descent blog all the time. You might not understand much of the detail - I certainly don't - but you still learn a lot, if you're not too pained by missing the meaning of a lot of the technical terms.


*I'm not a physicist, so I may have it slightly garbled in that it might refer to a finding obtained within a particular area of quantum mechanics. What is certain is QM's leading-edge, its absolute primacy over the earlier mechanistic, 'classical physics' paradigm, which still holds good for matter at the level of normal life.

Quantum physics doesn't say anything about the mind. It pertains to the function and behavior of quantum particles.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Quantum physics doesn't say anything about the mind. It pertains to the function and behavior of quantum particles.

Clearly you haven't watched What The Bleep Do We Know?!, a perfectly accurate documentary on how quantum mechanics proves that whale song can heal amputees.