quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
Its a big claim to say that science cannot explain life or sensory perception.

---

quote:

---

I think science already has explained everything it needs to about the chemical reactions that are part of life, the fact that we have trouble defining life is a subjective problem, not an objective problem.

---

quote:

---

Science only concerns itself with the objective.

---

quote:

---

***Of course there is anm external reality.***

---

quote:

---

Where do you think your internal reality comes from?

---

Well anyway.

quote:

---

Sure. You can tell me why you're a materialist.

---

And if the observed world has a set of rules that don't change, those rules are important to me. Hence, science is very important to me.

And of course what goes on inside my mind is important too. But there's no reason to think that what's going on inside my mind can change the observed world or let me defy the laws of physics. And since changes within the observed world have been shown to effect the mind, such as adding prozac for example , I think that studies of the brain are important, whether the brain is the form the mind has chosen for its embodiment or not.

To simplify, I live for the world I live in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJames:
...uh...
Okay LG, you've demonstrated your point. There are lots of people who use materialism to try and disprove your ideas.

---

What I am talkign about, what I mean is explicitly spelled out in another topic 'The Distinction between Subjectivity and Objectivity'. I made a claim in there that there must be an objective reality, because objectivity is truth, objectivity is how things are. As such, anything which is, is objective. This is the condition which result in the necessity of an objective universe.

OBJECTIVE

not material.

LG has interpretted my words to mean material when i have not meant them that way.

My definition of objective must be highly subjective, because i have no way of excaping from my subjective prison, but I can also maintain my logically derived belief in the objective, and my desire to have an accurate understanding of that objective world. It is through Science, which this world is understood.

If, as may be the case, the medium upon which scientific experimentation and scientific thought has had all its energy targetted towards is not the super real objective external world, is not so important, because at least we are understanding a sub-set to the real world, and perhaps finding ways of reaching an understanding of the external world....

meh. i need to think things through properly before I reply to things like this, but I couldn't be bothered. Look at the other topic, and u will see a better explanation of what, and how, I think about this stuff. (I said at the begining that I wasn't going to Hijack this thread with my own thoughts on subjective objective because I already started my own thread, but u didn't seem to notice that line. I often wonder how many lines aer missed like that)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
I already started my own thread, but u didn't seem to notice that line. I often wonder how many lines aer missed like that)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
Exhibit number-1, your honour...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Another God:
Its a big claim to say that science cannot explain life or sensory perception.

---

It's not a claim. It's an absolute-fact. You obviously have a laid-back understanding of the word 'explanation'.

---

No, it's a claim. It's clearly a claim. You obviously have a laid-back understanding of the term "absolute-fact".

Statements like yours above have to be proven. Only then will it be elevated from the status of "conjecture" to that of "theorem".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Ag:- "Its a big claim to say that science cannot explain life or sensory perception."

Lg:- "It's not a claim. It's an absolute-fact. You obviously have a laid-back understanding of the word 'explanation'."

Tom:- No, it's a claim. It's clearly a claim. You obviously have a laid-back understanding of the term "absolute-fact".

Statements like yours above have to be proven. Only then will it be elevated from the status of "conjecture" to that of "theorem".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:
I have to prove that science has not explained sensory-perception or life?
The proof is in the pudding. Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena.

---

Interesting statement.

Whatever science (or any possible discipline) states as a "causality chain" (a term which, btw, is already making assumptions), it is always possible to question its character as "ultimate explanation".

I think it is rather clear that all descriptive/explanatory frameworks (including science, philosophy, and even LG's own brand of argumentation) have this in common: that none explains the what LG calls "the full causality-line of any phenomena"

This feature, of course, is not exclusive of LG definition or mind (where by 'mind' I mean actual set of behavioral patterns, as opposed to his idea of a singularity-based, eternal, timeless God-like entity), but rather an interesting ability of we humans: we seem to always be willing (or, at least, able) to imagine that something lies beyond any description... and many of us feel some level of craving to open that next box.

It is not a failing that our understanding is incomplete; it will never be complete in the sense LG seems to demand. But science is an ongoing enquiry and in many areas we are getting closer and closer to explanations and descriptions which, if you want, are closer to reality, closer to the truth. And if you are of a different philosophical persuasion, you could say science is aiming for greater and greater consensus by arriving at explanations which are more helpful or useful, which explain more than previous explanations were able to do.

If there is one thread that is common to all scientific enquiry, whether its theoretical astrophysics or linguistics, it's that you rule out the supernatural because the supernatural is not an answer, it is merely another, and not very helpful, question. If the supernatural at some later date pops into or existence, then you apply scientific method to understand it. So far, it hasn't jumped into the lab and doesn't seem likely to do so.

There are areas of science or fields of scholarship which look at the supernatural, say theology, varieties of anthropology, sociology, etc and they attempt to understand how our behavior, language etc is affected by theist beliefs. They also look at how theist beliefs change, adapt, etc.

But at the level of elementary particle physics or attempting to find out how life evolved from atoms or how consciousness becomes possible, the supernatural perspective does not add anything to the explanation. A number of scientists are believers but their beliefs in no way interfere with their scientific work, other than as a motivating factor of course.

LG seems to think that all scientists are blinded by materialism. Some are materialists, some aren't. Also, there are many different kinds of materialist. If fulltime scientists seem at times rather dim in matters of philosophy, it is simply because they don't spend their time doing philosophy; that's a separate discipline with its own demands.

Any former scientist who gets into philosophy, say Feyarabend or Kuhn, exits the field of fulltime science and becomes a philosopher of science. They might still read all the journals and papers but they are no longer doing science, they are talking about science.

All of us who have the time to spare here are in a sense dabblers (though I am sure there are fulltime scientists who read and post here). I am a photographer by profession. I can get some broad overview of what is happening in science, I can read the books for laymen written by scientists so that I know what they are doing but if I, for example, go to the string theory website and attempt to understand the mathematical formalism, I am lost. I have no insights or understanding at that level.

LG obviously has a right to everyone of his opinions but I must say they display a lack of insight into what science is, does and is trying to do.

Why is it that our minds are so influenced by scientific belief? I ask this because you postulate that the mind produces reality. So why is it that our minds never produce realities that "defy the laws of physics", so to speak? We're perfectly capable of imagining such realities, but they don't manifest themselves in the "real world".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
I have a question for you, LG. It's about the topic:

Why is it that our minds are so influenced by scientific belief? I ask this because you postulate that the mind produces reality. So why is it that our minds never produce realities that "defy the laws of physics", so to speak? We're perfectly capable of imagining such realities, but they don't manifest themselves in the "real world".

"Evil" is not a scientific word.

---

I will answer that (for me, not LG). We imagine god and by doing so create god so that god seems to exist out there independently of each person's thoughts. From the concept of god invented by humans, we have churches, demoninations, holy texts, ie a real world created by an exercise of imagination.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
I have a question for you, LG. It's about the topic:

Why is it that our minds are so influenced by scientific belief? I ask this because you postulate that the mind produces reality. So why is it that our minds never produce realities that "defy the laws of physics", so to speak? We're perfectly capable of imagining such realities, but they don't manifest themselves in the "real world".

"Evil" is not a scientific word.

---

I will answer that (for me, not LG). We imagine god and by doing so create god so that god seems to exist out there independently of each person's thoughts. From the concept of god invented by humans, we have churches, demoninations, holy texts, ie a real world created by an exercise of imagination.

================
Should I hit it
with a hammer?

---

I don't see how this answers my question. Also, why do you think that imaginig God is the same thing as creating Him. I could imagine the personification of the perfect human being, that doesn't mean that I can create him/her.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by N_Quire:
[quote]Originally posted by Mentat:
"Evil" is not a scientific word.

---

I don't see how this answers my question. Also, why do you think that imaginig God is the same thing as creating Him. I could imagine the personification of the perfect human being, that doesn't mean that I can create him/her.
~"Evil" is not a scientific word.~

---

A human being is something we can all agree upon; they come in all shapes and sizes but there is total (or almost) agreement on what's human and what's not. We can even reach some kind of agreement on what a perfect human being might be like, even though no actual being would be created out of the though process.

But god does not have a concrete existence in the sense that human beings do. In fact, god has never been shown to have a concrete existence, or an existence that's independent of human minds, language and customs.

We do know that many people have imagined, talked and written about and even worshipped god. So one useful direction of enquiry is to see god as an invention of our imaginations and yearnings. When enough people can agree on what that concept of god means, it is not a huge step to see the organization of religion into denominations and affiliations. In that sense, something is created out of nothing more than an idea or a yearning. It works the same way as political parties uniting around abstract concepts such as justice or the free market, something concrete results from an idea.

A believer would of course disagree with me, saying that god has an existence independent of human minds, but as we know, this can never be shown to be the case. It is believed, it's a matter of faith.

My take on the matter is that the question of the existence or non-existence of god is unimportant or irrelevant. You can believe or not believe but no experiment or observation is ever going to settle the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned.

In the end, I think humans will get bored by the notion of god, because it doesn't explain anything on a fundamental level, and they will develop other interests. Even today, football, social clubs, hobbies, poetry, fishing, etc, etc are replacing the roles that church once occupied.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Ag:- "Its a big claim to say that science cannot explain life or sensory perception."

Lg:- "It's not a claim. It's an absolute-fact. You obviously have a laid-back understanding of the word 'explanation'."

Tom:- No, it's a claim. It's clearly a claim. You obviously have a laid-back understanding of the term "absolute-fact".

Statements like yours above have to be proven. Only then will it be elevated from the status of "conjecture" to that of "theorem".

---

I have to prove that science has not explained sensory-perception or life?
The proof is in the pudding. Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena.

---

Are you blind, or are you just trying to be difficult? Don't you know that there is a difference between cannot and has not?

Jeez...

Tom

quote:

---

Argument 1:
1. We observe with our minds.
2. Therefore, all things observed must originate from our mind.

A simple counterexample:

1. We manipulate with our hands.
2. Therefore, all things manipulated must originate from our hands.

Argument 1 simply is not valid. It's not logical. We have to see a better argument than that before we can accept it as truth.

---

Another God,

quote:

---

Oh no no no no, he hasn't proved any point. All he has done, as he usually does, is has interpretted my words in a way which is convenient for his own belief system. Of course, since my belief system isn't the same as his, and since my beleif system is not the system which LG believes everyone except himself has, he also has less understanding of what I am saying

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom:
Lg:- I have to prove that science has not explained sensory-perception or life?
The proof is in the pudding. Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena.

- Are you blind, or are you just trying to be difficult? Don't you know that there is a difference between cannot and has not?

Jeez...

---

Endless questions. Clear limits. Science cannot explain the full causality-line of any phenomena.
Conclusion: Materialists are wrong to use science to support their beliefs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CJames:
LG, I'd enjoy hearing a response to this, since it is vital to your hypothesis:

Argument 1:
1. We observe with our minds.
2. Therefore, all things observed must originate from our mind.

A simple counterexample:

1. We manipulate with our hands.
2. Therefore, all things manipulated must originate from our hands.

Argument 1 simply is not valid. It's not logical. We have to see a better argument than that before we can accept it as truth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ahrkron:
Whatever science (or any possible discipline) states as a "causality chain" (a term which, btw, is already making assumptions), it is always possible to question its character as "ultimate explanation".

I think it is rather clear that all descriptive/explanatory frameworks (including science, philosophy, and even LG's own brand of argumentation) have this in common: that none explains the what LG calls "the full causality-line of any phenomena"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mentat:
I have a question for you, LG. It's about the topic:

Why is it that our minds are so influenced by scientific belief? I ask this because you postulate that the mind produces reality. So why is it that our minds never produce realities that "defy the laws of physics", so to speak? We're perfectly capable of imagining such realities, but they don't manifest themselves in the "real world".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lifegazer:

Well; I can reason to an omnipotent; omniscient; omnipresent; and eternal 'entity' - better known as 'God'. God is its own cause... and a primal-cause for everything which follows.
That's what I would call a full causality-line.

---

Well, well. God is its "own cause and a primal cause for everything that follows"? That statement explains and answers a sum total of nothing. How odd that you demand so much of science and accept so little from your "religion" or theism.