Can mankind transcend the fabric of space and time?

[robertm]

Yeah I wasn't very clear with that one,
My point being that simply using philosophy, no one could ever discovery the wealth of information we know about each of those subjects (and many others). Philosophy can not be used to derive integral facts about the physical universe, though it has many other significant applications.

 

[Moridin]

So what do you mean by the term "sun"? Surely, explaining what that is require concept formation, i.e. philosophy, no? :D

 

[Crosson]

At least there is evidence instead of empty words, when you use the methods of science. Even if it is interpreted incorrectly, the evidence exist independent of the observer.

Hilarious! Misinterpreted evidence is more dangerous then nothing at all. As I said, the evidence is weaker then the conclusion. Any proposition can be derived from any other, in the case that the premises are weaker then the conclusion.

It really is no different to me then the people who think that the bible is evidence, it's just that these neurologists are a tad bit more sophisticated in the art of proof.

You have failed to understand my criticisms so far, or at least you have failed to defend your position against them. Consider for a moment that your evidence is fatally flawed because you are missing some of the criticisms in this thread; how could we present it to you any differently?

If we could measure (in the way that Christof Koch described) the biological activity of all the neurons in your body, I could see exactly what you think of the smell.

I agree that is a popular premise of science fiction, but don't you see how (even if I assume it is true) it fails to answer the question of whether thoughts are immaterial? I could examine the process of a steam engine and determine it's output i.e. exhaust, but that does not show that the exhaust is the engine (absurd).

What discovery in the nature of the universe has ever arisen from philosophy? Or any scientific discipline for that matter.

Philosophy is the source of the scientific method, as well as the various concepts used throughout science. I agree that philosophy has played less of a role in the last 100 years, but that is because people are contented by the proliferation of technology and have temporarily slowed down on making fundamental progress.

Human beings take more pleasure in their representation than in
the thing, or rather we must say: Human beings take pleasure in
a thing only insofar as they conceive it. It must suit their turn
of mind. And try as they may to raise their way of conceiving
things ever so high above the common run, try as they may to
purify it ever so much, it nevertheless commonly remains but one
way of conceiving things: that is, an attempt to bring many objects
into a certain comprehensible relation that, strictly speaking,
they do not have, and hence the inclination to hypotheses, theories,
terminologies, and systems - which we cannot condemn, since they
must necessarily spring from the organization of our being.

-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[Moridin]

What does it mean for something to be "immaterial"?

 

[robertm]

Hilarious! Misinterpreted evidence is more dangerous then nothing at all. As I said, the evidence is weaker then the conclusion. Any proposition can be derived from any other, in the case that the premises are weaker then the conclusion.

It is dangerous when mandated as truth without clear evidence. I did not claim that any of the theories presented so far in modern neurology had enough clear evidence to be proclaimed as fact. However, I do argue that there is massive evidence in all fields of study pointing towards a materialistic world. Additionally there has never been any evidence to show anything transcendent or immaterial existing in any complex system. Until you can show me one single shred of physical evidence, I will fail to be moved by an argument based solely on a lack of evidence to explain a phenomenon.

By your logic above, the technique of trial by error is dangerous... I don't think so. As I said, misinterpreted evidence when taken as fact is dangerous. But an attempt to explain evidence, even if the conclusion is false, is a much bigger step in the right direction then not drawing any conclusions at all, or in your case just making one up.

It really is no different to me then the people who think that the bible is evidence, it's just that these neurologists are a tad bit more sophisticated in the art of proof.

This is just ridiculous. Religion has no parallel in science unless you consider metaphysics to be science...

Those scientists have ideas, clergy men have orders.

You have failed to understand my criticisms so far, or at least you have failed to defend your position against them. Consider for a moment that your evidence is fatally flawed because you are missing some of the criticisms in this thread; how could we present it to you any differently?

I have failed to accept your criticisms as valid. The only physical evidence you have presented is a lack of evidence. We seem to be on different pages here. I am not offering a full explanation of how the brain is capable of producing thoughts. I am by no means a neurologist. But I am asserting that there is no reason to turn to something immaterial for an explanation. Where do you think it would lead if we applied that reason to other aspects of life? Hhhmmmmm... (hint: starts with an R, ends with eligion)

The main reason there is a bible, or a Koran, or any religion at all is that people could not explain or justify natural phenomenon. So they fell back on metaphysics and the supernatural. And that is a historical fact. The same logical flaw repeated over and over in ancient human history. I think it is about time that we tried something else.

I agree that is a popular premise of science fiction, but don't you see how (even if I assume it is true) it fails to answer the question of whether thoughts are immaterial? I could examine the process of a steam engine and determine it's output i.e. exhaust, but that does not show that the exhaust is the engine (absurd).

It seems so strange to me when people use simplified metaphors to make an argument. Sometimes it works, but I still don't normally feel they are valid.

Your logic is flawed. The output is no different than the input. That is why virtual reality and the like work so well. As I have said before. You can not experience thoughts in anyway that is different than you can experience external stimuli. That is a very big point you have so far failed to address.

Philosophy is the source of the scientific method, as well as the various concepts used throughout science. I agree that philosophy has played less of a role in the last 100 years, but that is because people are contented by the proliferation of technology and have temporarily slowed down on making fundamental progress.

If philosophical thinking lead to the scientific method, then why do you consider it to be less effective than philosophy? Why would philosophers work in reverse? If pure philosophy is better than empirical science, then why would philosophy lead to science and not the other way around?

I do not know enough about historical philosophy to say, but I can see how philosophy leads to science. And I will take your word that it in fact did. But I still maintain my earlier points on it's applications.

I don't know if you missed it, but I would also like to hear your response to this earlier point: Are the measurements made by scientific instruments sense impressions? If so then there is no way to refute or confirm whether the universe is more than the impressions of senses, or whether the universe is the world of sense impressions. If not, then the scientific method should be able to determine which is the case.

 

[robertm]

So what do you mean by the term "sun"? Surely, explaining what that is require concept formation, i.e. philosophy, no? :D

Ok I see your point. Concept formation is philosophy, and science does a whole lot of that, and language of any kind basically is concept formation. So I can not understand or communicate science without philosophy. However, the empirical evidence (which is what science is based on) will still exist independent of the concepts, and anything else humans try to apply to it. Agreed?

 

[Moridin]

How do you justify the relevance of empirical evidence? Philosophy!

 

[robertm]

Yes! But take away my justification and the relevance, and what do you have? My point being that gravity (or any natural process) still worked the way we know it works today, before any living organism had the opportunity to try and understand it. All we are doing is quantifying and reading information that was in existence long before human minds were around to do any sort of philosophical thinking!

I may agree with you that any human thinking is philosophy (im still not 100% on board though), but raw information exists independent of an observer. If it didn't, we could not apply our human philosophical deductive logic to the natural world!

If there is no context to empirical data, then it has no human meaning. So maybe we could agree that: logic, reason, rational, foresight e.ct. The higher facilities of conscious beings require philosophy to have any validity. But even if you take away the meaning the information still exists!

 

[Moridin]

Yes! But take away my justification and the relevance, and what do you have? My point being that gravity (or any natural process) still worked the way we know it works today, before any living organism had the opportunity to try and understand it. All we are doing is quantifying and reading information that was in existence long before human minds were around to do any sort of philosophical thinking!

I may agree with you that any human thinking is philosophy (im still not 100% on board though), but raw information exists independent of an observer. If it didn't, we could not apply our human philosophical deductive logic to the natural world!

If there is no context to empirical data, then it has no human meaning. So maybe we could agree that: logic, reason, rational, foresight e.ct. The higher facilities of conscious beings require philosophy to have any validity. But even if you take away the meaning the information still exists!

You have reached all the conclusions above using philosophy.

 

[robertm]

You have reached all the conclusions above using philosophy.

I will agree with you there. I did reach them using a form of philosophical thinking, however, my conclusions would remain true had I not ever reached them. I gave context, reason, and logic to natural principles that exist independent of of my context, reason, or logic! If my conclusions were not true, then I would not be here to give them context!

So would you agree that philosophy arises from higher (human-like) consciousness? If not, then from whence?

Would you also agree that consciousness arises from biological materialistic functions?

If so, then philosophy is a predictable biological trait, measurable by a third party! Ha!

Knew definition: Philosophy is everything... consciously human!