But there are several limitations of reason, when applied to material analysis.
1. Science cannot address the question: "Are our inner-perceptions a proof of an external reality?". The bottom-line is that science cannot do this. But what law prevents us from applying reason to such a question?
2. Science cannot know the primal-cause of time/change (if such a thing exists); because science is a practise which deals with effects in time. Clearly, a primal-cause of time would not be visible in time. Consequently, reason which is confined to time/change, is limited reason.
3. It is an invalid myth that reason needs to be confirmed with observation. Only material-predictions need to be confirmed with observation. Reason which transcends perceptory-existence is not subject to such a limitation - yet is still valid as a reasonable argument in itself. Those who scorn reasoned conclusions which cannot be confirmed with observation, know very little about logic.

Materialists are the laziest philosophers that ever lived. To assume the existence of an external-reality to our inner-perceptions, is bad enough. But to then reason that "Science works" and therefore supercedes rational-philosophy (which created science and math), is amongst the biggest load of BS that the people of this world have ever had to endure.
There is nothing wrong with science. But it's about time that it recognised its own limits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
But there are several limitations of reason, when applied to material analysis.
1. Science cannot address the question: "Are our inner-perceptions a proof of an external reality?". The bottom-line is that science cannot do this. But what law prevents us from applying reason to such a question?
2. Science cannot know the primal-cause of time/change (if such a thing exists); because science is a practise which deals with effects in time. Clearly, a primal-cause of time would not be visible in time. Consequently, reason which is confined to time/change, is limited reason.
3. It is an invalid myth that reason needs to be confirmed with observation. Only material-predictions need to be confirmed with observation. Reason which transcends perceptory-existence is not subject to such a limitation - yet is still valid as a reasonable argument in itself. Those who scorn reasoned conclusions which cannot be confirmed with observation, know very little about logic.

Materialists are the laziest philosophers that ever lived. To assume the existence of an external-reality to our inner-perceptions, is bad enough. But to then reason that "Science works" and therefore supercedes rational-philosophy (which created science and math), is amongst the biggest load of BS that the people of this world have ever had to endure.
There is nothing wrong with science. But it's about time that it recognised its own limits.

---

Scientists are very well aware of their limitations. Often ideas, speculation, theory must come before experimentation by many years. Many of the ideas concerning quantum gravity are yet to be tested and will not be tested until the expensive equipment that is needed is built. So you are wrong in claiming that science only deals with what it can directly observe or test by experiment. Much of it is as speculative as theology with the difference that it aims to explain and predict the world and is prepared to change its theories on the basis of new evidence or more convincing arguments. It is also built on a solid tradition and cannot simply make up everything; it takes into account the long line of progression from early science to Newton, Einstein and beyond.

The pressure from working within a scientific community is strong enough to eliminate most nonsense. In theology or pseudo-science, anything goes, anything can be said and it need never be verified or falsified. Here, I mean theology as the study of god and not bible scholarship.

Elementary particle physics is probably the wrong level at which to address most spiritual questions. They can be dealt with adequately by psychology, anthropology, sociology, linguistics and other such disciplines. Mathematics and physics does not have to concern itself with such statements as "God is love" because it has nothing to say on the matter. It can have an opinion, though, on the question of the origins of the universe and life.

If by scientist you mean physicists, they do not have to be philosophers; it's not their job. You don't have to know anything about Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza, etc to do your work in theoretical astrophysics. Likewise, most philosophers are lousy scientists but they can say some useful things about the history of ideas, including scientific ideas.

I think too that many, many scientists are far more sophisticated than you believe them to be. The idea of reality which you ascribe to them is remarkably crass. As far as I can see it, quantum cosmology is about including all observers within the theory; they are a part of the reality. It is not something independent of those doing the observing. Reality then is relational; it about processes and change.

It seems you want a god to kick-start the entire process; you want there to be more than there is. If science can explain what it needs to explain without there being a god, you are dissatisfied. But don't worry, god won't go away; the entire theology industry has a reasonance which appeals to people, whether it is true or not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
Much of it is as speculative as theology

---

quote:

---

It is also built on a solid tradition and cannot simply make up everything

---

quote:

---

In theology or pseudo-science, anything goes, anything can be said and it need never be verified or falsified.

---

quote:

---

I think too that many, many scientists are far more sophisticated than you believe them to be.

---

quote:

---

It seems you want a god to kick-start the entire process; you want there to be more than there is.

---

quote:

---

If science can explain what it needs to explain without there being a god, you are dissatisfied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
I'm of the opinion that reason is not speculative. It is either correct, or incorrect. You seem to be confusing reason with religion.

---

quote:

---

Science is rife with assumptions. You'll find that most scientists automatically assume that our inner-perceptions are representative of an external-reality. You'll find that most scientists assume that thought emanates from matter (the brain). You'll find that most scientists assume that Darwin has somehow discredited the notion of intelligent-design. You'll find that most scientists assume that reason is invalid (or worthless) if it cannot be confirmed with observation. Science is very adept at 'making things up'.

---

Science makes only two assumptions.
1. There is an objective universe (something I now believe to be absolutely true based on my own logical reasoning) and
2. Our subjective realities accurately represent that objective universe.

Now, even if 2 is erroneous, it isn't too devastating to the pursuit of science. because even though we are not making discoveries about the 'True truth' whatever that is, we are still making discoveries about the truth which directly impacts on our lives.

Isn't the truth which directly impacts on our lives important?

The assumptions made by science are acceptable.

quote:

---

Reason should be formulated upon sound logic, where no assumptions are used as the basis of an argument. Unfortunately, reason is abused.

---

quote:

---

Possibly. But if my experiences in this forum are anything to go by, then the pupils have had unsophisticated teachers. The philosophical mistakes are taught without regard to any explanation. Science is responsible for materialism. Materialism is a religion.

---

quote:

---

I can assure you that science has explained very little (if anything) of philosophical concern.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
Science makes only two assumptions.
1. There is an objective universe (something I now believe to be absolutely true based on my own logical reasoning) and
2. Our subjective realities accurately represent that objective universe.

Now, even if 2 is erroneous, it isn't too devastating to the pursuit of science. because even though we are not making discoveries about the 'True truth' whatever that is, we are still making discoveries about the truth which directly impacts on our lives.

Isn't the truth which directly impacts on our lives important?

---

Your points are well-reasoned and seem valid. Science is very effective and does make wonderful contributions.

However, I think part of what the some people find frustrating in debates with materialists is they've very often not just assumed that, "There is an objective universe (something I now believe to be absolutely true based on my own logical reasoning) and . . . Our subjective realities accurately represent that objective universe." There is something else materialists assume, which is there is only an objective universe and, since the senses are the avenue of subjective experience utilized in observing the objective universe, there is also the assumpution that sense experience is the only subjectivity that can be trusted (since it's been so trustworthy in objectivity).

Those assumptions are not valid because there is evidence of another sort of subjective experience; those who've mastered it claim it reveals a non-objective element of reality. What materialists/objectivists do when they hear this is say, "well, it doesn't show up in objective study, therefore it is probably doesn't exist, and in any case is not useful."

Of course something that cannot be made into an "object" (such as something indivisible) will not be exposed by a discipline that utilizes deduction and analysis. And of course something that is not perceived through normal sense avenues can't be observed. So the assumption that the material universe is all there is comes about because the method objectivists are using only reveals that, and not necessarily because it's all there is. And when they say "it is not useful," all they are saying is that it doesn't lend itself to objective study, which isn't the same thing as not being useful.

What I think we need for any meaningful discussion between the two camps is for both sides to understand how its discipline is effective, and also a certain dedication to understanding the whole of truth seeking (not just their particular interest). Dedication to truth seeking, rather than to a particular philosophy or religion, would mean investigating any and all fruitful avenues, and employing whatever human skills possible in the pursuit.

If there is evidence of a non-material aspect of reality, then there is and that should be accepted. If there isn't, then that is how it is and that should be accepted. Why should anyone take a stance one way or another before carefully examining all the evidence unless, that is, rather than being dedicated to truth seeking they are dedicated to having the "truth" turn out to appear a certain way.

. . . Les

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
What do u mean here by the word reason? I associate the word reason with logic.

---

quote:

---

And anyone who has been reading Toms Logic thread should know by now that Logic can be as speculative or as accurate as its premises are sound.

---

quote:

---

Science makes only two assumptions.
1. There is an objective universe (something I now believe to be absolutely true based on my own logical reasoning)

---

quote:

---

and
2. Our subjective realities accurately represent that objective universe.

---

quote:

---

Isn't the truth which directly impacts on our lives important?

---

quote:

---

The assumptions made by science are acceptable.

---

quote:

---

people who dogmatically believe in materialism without reproach are religious. Materialism is not definitively religious.

---

quote:

---

It is quite possible for someone to beleive the doctrine of a material universe, and yet be scientific about it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
Much of it is as speculative as theology

---

I'm of the opinion that reason is not speculative. It is either correct, or incorrect. You seem to be confusing reason with religion.

quote:

---

---

Science is rife with assumptions. You'll find that most scientists automatically assume that our inner-perceptions are representative of an external-reality. You'll find that most scientists assume that thought emanates from matter (the brain). You'll find that most scientists assume that Darwin has somehow discredited the notion of intelligent-design. You'll find that most scientists assume that reason is invalid (or worthless) if it cannot be confirmed with observation. Science is very adept at 'making things up'.

quote:

---

---

Reason should be formulated upon sound logic, where no assumptions are used as the basis of an argument. Unfortunately, reason is abused.

quote:

---

---

Possibly. But if my experiences in this forum are anything to go by, then the pupils have had unsophisticated teachers. The philosophical mistakes are taught without regard to any explanation. Science is responsible for materialism. Materialism is a religion.

quote:

---

---

"Want" has nothing to do with it. I see God as a requirement for ordered existence.
Your second sentence assumes that there is no God.

quote:

---

---

I can assure you that science has explained very little (if anything) of philosophical concern.

---

I don't think it is so simple as reason being correct or incorrect. You have to also introduce the not-yet-known. Science has to concern itself with what it cannot today know and which will not be known in our lifetimes. It speculates on such matters. There is no correct or incorrect answer when talking about the not yet known; what we have is a body of knowledge (the traditions of the science community), tried and tested methods and, yes, many assumptions which are helpful but which might turn out to be wrong. In other words, we work with the tools we have in attempting to explain, for example, consciousness or quantum gravity.

This statement by Smolin from his recent book 'Three Roads to Quantum Gravity' is useful: "Classical logic demands that every statement be either true or false. Classical logic is therefore not a description of how we reason. Classical logic could be applied only by some being outside the universe, a being who could see the whole cosmos..."

You are right, I assume there is no god. I do not see how the concept of god is helpful, useful or explanatory when I think about the universe, about driving my car, about being a father and husband, about deciding which course of action is good and which is bad. When I look at believers I do not see in their behavior or state of mind anything which would make me want to believe. Believers are no better and sometimes much worse than non-believers. I don't look at believers and wish I had what they had.

You seem to insist that I believe in a crass notion of reality but I do not. Reality is relational, I am part of it; I interact, I respond, I affect and am affected. I am part of the unfolding process. My embodied mind makes, perceives, simplifies, confuses, misunderstands, reaches conclusions about and acts in and upon reality. It is a beautiful and complicated process. If I were a dolphin or an ant or a mole my reality would be different.

I don't think my education in matters of philosophy is particularly lacking. But I don't think it's the job of science to do the job that philosophy has assigned to itself. Science can tell you how to make a bomb but it doesn't compel you to drop it; that's the task of public debate. Science can say it needs a Large Hadron Collider to better understand physics at a fundamental level but it is up to others to decide whether to fund and build such a thing. Perhaps the public debate decides it would rather spend the money on cancer or AIDS research, the space program or developing more sophisticated weapons. That's the role of philosophy, to help in such discussions.

Believers like yourself have a special perspective which we need to take in to account. We must always be willing to converse with each other, to negotiate and, where possible, reach agreement on what to do. And if we cannot reach agreement we need to be able to part ways without killing each other or wishing each other harm.

1) You said that "order" is synonymous with "reason". This is entirely false, even by dictionary definition.

2) You say that the belief that there is no external reality is somehow more logical than the belief that there is. I disagree; at best, the idea that there is no external reality is equal to the belief that there is.

3) You say that it is wrong for science to assume that there is an external reality, and yet you assume that there isn't. Please forgive the use of the word "assume", however if you say that all of the proof supporting the idea that there is an external reality amounts to an "assumption", then I say the same of your reasoning.

I have to ask, what is it that prevents you from believing that there is both the realm of the physical, and the realm of the mental? Yes, it's true that all we ever see is a mind-imposed images. However, did you ever stop to think of what it is that gives our minds the "idea" in the first place? If you accept that there is an external reality, then all of this makes sense (as the physical universe would be that which imposed the idea upon our minds, and in turn our minds would be what imposes it on our awareness), however, if you cling to the belief that all there is is mentally percieve reality, you leave the question "what gave the mind the idea in the first place" unanswered. That is why scientists believe that there is an external reality: because it explains how our minds are constantly getting new images.

quote:

---

Yes... logic. Reason is synonymous with order. If there is order in a system, then reason can be applied to it.

---

quote:

---

There is no logical way of reasoning that an external reality exists beyond our inner- perceptions. None whatsoever. I have no idea how you have come to such a conclusion. I can only assume that you want/need it to be true, and have talked yourself into it. You believe this fact to be true.

---

quote:

---

Actually, our subjective reality is the only reality that exists. Science is the analysis of things experienced by the senses. Science is a study of things perceived within 1-dimensional awareness.
When you look at something, you are looking at a mind-imposed image, projected upon your awareness. You've never experienced anything outside of your own awareness.

---

quote:

---

Of course it is. The first paragraph of my first post makes it clear that science is a credible and practical pursuit. But in terms of rational-debate about reality, it has limitations - which I have tried to point-out to everyone.

---

quote:

---

Absolutely not. I'll explain why:-
Firstly, science has no need to assume that an external-reality exists beyond our inner-perceptions. I assure you that it is still possible to analyse the world of our perceptions without making this assumption.
Secondly, making such an assumption might actually be leading science down the garden-path. Imagine for a moment, that I am right, and that there is no external reality. Do you not realise that such a fact might be essential in the direction of further scientific-research - especially in QM? Or, do you realise that insisting on the reality of an external-realm (that might not exist) could be detrimental to further scientific endeavours?

---

quote:

---

Thirdly, as long as the West clings to the ideas of Materialism, philosophy does suffer. Philosophy cannot proceed to go anywhere until the establishments that-be denounce this belief as detrimental to the future understanding of existence. And as long as scientists (the new heroes of Western culture) insist on clinging to this assumed premise, then people such as myself are never going to be listened to.

---

quote:

---

Pardon me; but believing in a reality for which there is no proof or reason, is tantamount to being a religious belief. Furthermore, ignoring challenges to such a belief is tantamount to bigotry.

---

quote:

---

It is also quite possible - and definitely more reasonable - to not assume the existence of an external reality... and still be scientific about our perceptions.

---

Of course science has limits. You can't use science to form opinions. But science works well within its area, and that is the area of the objective truths of the physical world. The basic premise of science is that the "physical" or "observed" world is consistent. You don't have to prove that the observed world is a seperate entity of its own or the creation of our own minds in order to extrapolate all of science.

Honestly, premises such as, the physical word is an input to our senses, or a premise that the input to our senses is an illusion, come across as unsound to me. And niether is needed to create the logical framework of science.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
1. Science cannot address the question: "Are our inner-perceptions a proof of an external reality?". The bottom-line is that science cannot do this. But what law prevents us from applying reason to such a question?

---

OK, so you want to derive some metaphysical truth about which you can be absolutely sure, and you want to do it without relying on any observation. What can you be sure of, beyond what you observe?

quote:

---

3. It is an invalid myth that reason needs to be confirmed with observation. Only material-predictions need to be confirmed with observation.

---

Back to #1, what can you know for sure without observation?

Also, the above remark is grossly at odds with the fact that SR, QM, and Evolution (observation based sciences) appear in just about every argument you present.

quote:

---

Reason which transcends perceptory-existence is not subject to such a limitation - yet is still valid as a reasonable argument in itself. Those who scorn reasoned conclusions which cannot be confirmed with observation, know very little about logic.

---

LMAO! Lifegazer, you are the one who thinks that...

*Logical arguments can be formed without assumptions.
*Logic can be used to decide the truth of propositions.
*Logic endorses one and only one philosophy (namely, yours).
*There are no rules of logic, except the ones that back up your philosophy, making the last point self-fulfilling.

The truth is that you do not know jack squat about logic, and others here do, and they call you on it whenever you invoke a fallacy.

quote:

---

Materialists are the laziest philosophers that ever lived.

---

Err...I thought that people who refuse to learn deductive logic are the laziest philosophers who ever lived. Oh, well, since neither you nor I am a philosopher, I suppose both of our remarks can be written off as unqualified opinion.

quote:

---

To assume the existence of an external-reality to our inner-perceptions, is bad enough.

---

Hold on, partner!

In no less than two other threads, I went to great lengths to explain to you that science does not assume the thesis of materialism. Since you are so in love with this straw man argument, you refused to listen to anything I said. I then gave up, and issued a challenge to you to take any scientific theory of your choice and analyze it as a formal system and show explcitly where the materialist thesis comes in. Boulderhead then chimed in with, "Now watch him run away and make the same assertion in another thread."

Now, a couple of months later, here you are doing it.

Pathetic.

quote:

---

But to then reason that "Science works" and therefore supercedes rational-philosophy (which created science and math), is amongst the biggest load of BS that the people of this world have ever had to endure.

---

No, that is

quote:

---

There is nothing wrong with science. But it's about time that it recognised its own limits.

---

Scientists do recognize the limits of science. In fact, the only one who does not seem to recognize those limits is you! You don't mind treating your twisted interpretations of SR, QM, and Evolution as absolute when you "deduce" (and I use that word very loosely here) conclusions from them.

This thread is pure rubbish. Not only is it based on serious misunderstandings of both science and logic, but it is based on misunderstandings that you have held for over a year, despite some very bright people explaining to you why you are mistaken. You are really cheating yourself out of the full use of these forums by not paying attention to, well, anyone. I see just about all of the regular users here growing in understanding, except you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
1) You said that "order" is synonymous with "reason". This is entirely false, even by dictionary definition.

---

quote:

---

2) You say that the belief that there is no external reality is somehow more logical than the belief that there is.

---

quote:

---

I disagree; at best, the idea that there is no external reality is equal to the belief that there is.

---

quote:

---

3) You say that it is wrong for science to assume that there is an external reality, and yet you assume that there isn't.

---

quote:

---

Please forgive the use of the word "assume"

---

quote:

---

however if you say that all of the proof supporting the idea that there is an external reality amounts to an "assumption", then I say the same of your reasoning.

---

quote:

---

I have to ask, what is it that prevents you from believing that there is both the realm of the physical, and the realm of the mental?

---

quote:

---

Yes, it's true that all we ever see is a mind-imposed images. However, did you ever stop to think of what it is that gives our minds the "idea" in the first place?

---

quote:

---

If you accept that there is an external reality, then all of this makes sense (as the physical universe would be that which imposed the idea upon our minds

---

quote:

---

you leave the question "what gave the mind the idea in the first place" unanswered.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
Possibly. But if my experiences in this forum are anything to go by, then the pupils have had unsophisticated teachers. The philosophical mistakes are taught without regard to any explanation. Science is responsible for materialism. Materialism is a religion.

---

What nonsense.

Scientists are human beings. Human beings have beliefs.

Some scientists are Christians. Is science responsible for Christianity?
Some scientists are atheists. Is science responsible for atheism?
Some scientists are Zen Buddhists. Is science responsible for Zen Buddhism?

Some scientists are materialists. Is science responsible for materialism?

You would say "yes" to the last one and "no" to the first one, not for any logical reason, but only because that particular straw man argument suits your purposes.

And we're unsophisticated?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
There is no logical way of reasoning that an external reality exists beyond our inner-perceptions. None whatsoever. I have no idea how you have come to such a conclusion. I can only assume that you want/need it to be true, and have talked yourself into it. You believe this fact to be true.

---

quote:

---

Actually, our subjective reality is the only reality that exists. Science is the analysis of things experienced by the senses. Science is a study of things perceived within 1-dimensional awareness.
When you look at something, you are looking at a mind-imposed image, projected upon your awareness. You've never experienced anything outside of your own awareness.

---

quote:

---

science has no need to assume that an external-reality exists beyond our inner-perceptions. I assure you that it is still possible to analyse the world of our perceptions without making this assumption.
Secondly, making such an assumption might actually be leading science down the garden-path. Imagine for a moment, that I am right, and that there is no external reality. Do you not realise that such a fact might be essential in the direction of further scientific-research - especially in QM? Or, do you realise that insisting on the reality of an external-realm (that might not exist) could be detrimental to further scientific endeavours?
Thirdly, as long as the West clings to the ideas of Materialism, philosophy does suffer. Philosophy cannot proceed to go anywhere until the establishments that-be denounce this belief as detrimental to the future understanding of existence. And as long as scientists (the new heroes of Western culture) insist on clinging to this assumed premise, then people such as myself are never going to be listened to.

---

Objectivity does not necessarily mean 'Materialism'. It means something more akin to 'External Truth'. So, knowing my own perceptions doesn't mean **** to Science. Science needs to know the cause of my perceptions, so that it may be able to infer the cause of everyone elses perceptions.

it is easy enough to say that 'We only know our subjective reality, and therefore thats all there is'... But where does our subjective erality come from? Thats the real question. Thats what I want to know. I already know that I am subjective, and that subjecitivity is all I have.... But why is it all that I have? Where does it come from? How does it come about?

Science is attempting to discover this, by combining many different subjective views, and attempting to create objective truths from them.

Materialism is not inherent in the method.

quote:

---

quote:

---

people who dogmatically believe in materialism without reproach are religious. Materialism is not definitively religious.

---

Pardon me; but believing in a reality for which there is no proof or reason, is tantamount to being a religious belief. Furthermore, ignoring challenges to such a belief is tantamount to bigotry.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

It is quite possible for someone to beleive the doctrine of a material universe, and yet be scientific about it

---

It is also quite possible - and definitely more reasonable - to not assume the existence of an external reality... and still be scientific about our perceptions.

---

Obviously there is a commonality between them, therefore there must eb some common source.

let us discover that source.

quote:

---

3. It is an invalid myth that reason needs to be confirmed with observation. Only material-predictions need to be confirmed with observation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
OK, so you want to derive some metaphysical truth about which you can be absolutely sure, and you want to do it without relying on any observation. What can you be sure of, beyond what you observe?

---

quote:

---

Back to #1, what can you know for sure without observation?

---

quote:

---

LMAO! Lifegazer, you are the one who thinks that...

*Logical arguments can be formed without assumptions.

---

quote:

---

*Logic can be used to decide the truth of propositions.

---

quote:

---

*Logic endorses one and only one philosophy (namely, yours).

---

quote:

---

*There are no rules of logic, except the ones that back up your philosophy, making the last point self-fulfilling.

---

quote:

---

The truth is that you do not know jack squat about logic, and others here do, and they call you on it whenever you invoke a fallacy.

---

quote:

---

Err...I thought that people who refuse to learn deductive logic are the laziest philosophers who ever lived.

---

quote:

---

Oh, well, since neither you nor I am a philosopher, I suppose both of our remarks can be written off as unqualified opinion.

---

quote:

---

In no less than two other threads, I went to great lengths to explain to you that science does not assume the thesis of materialism.

---

quote:

---

This thread is pure rubbish.

---

quote:

---

despite some very bright people explaining to you why you are mistaken.

---

quote:

---

I see just about all of the regular users here growing in understanding, except you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FZ:
Then, in an universe tending towards entropy and disorder, reason cannot be applied to the universe?

---

quote:

---

en•tro•py

Pronunciation: (en'tru-pE), [key]
—n.
1. Thermodynam.
a. (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
b. (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S

---