Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Sriram on October 28, 2019, 06:55:39 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Science, in spite of being materialistic, has in recent decades made discoveries that point to grey areas that could overlap with Spiritual realities. There are some areas where this happens and which could help in understanding spiritual aspects. I have pointed out some of them here. Not exhaustive by any means.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/10/19/science-helps-in-understanding-spirituality/
Cheers.
Sriram
-
OK, so...
Anthropic Principle, as you've espoused, being based upon the fallacy of 'fine tuning' is on rocky ground at best. The unwarranted presumptions in the fine tuning argument are well established.
Quantum Mechanics - the misinterpretation here of the 'observer' is also well-established. There is no requirement for an observer to be conscious in order for a wave-function to collapse. Evidence of this is readily available every time we look up at the stars and see light twinkling. You may suggest that our looking is what causes the wave-function to collapse so that we can see, but the twinkling is caused by interactions with the atmosphere on the way through, waveforms that have to have already collapsed during the interactions; are those ozone molecules 'conscious'?
Evolution - design is not evolution, the two are very, very different. That design can, at times, involve an iterative modelling element does parallel the natural selection element of the current model of evolution, but design is not a random variation on prior success, it's a deliberate researched attempt at progress. Most importantly, though, is the misunderstanding that evolution is a process from simple to complex and one of development. Evolution can move towards simplicity if that's what's of benefit in the instant, there is no overarching framework to evolution with 'development' to somewhere as a goal.
Artificial Intelligence - evolved intelligence will almost certainly diverge from artificial intelligence in some ways, but there's nothing in either that seems to require the supposition of 'soul/spirit/atma'. Whilst it's true that any potential artificial intelligence will not have invented itself, neither did we 'invent' us - we emerged from the iterative process of evolution. You say that 'If automatons can behave like humans, we cannot conclude that we are also automatons!' - we perhaps cannot prove, but it's not an unreasonable supposition based upon the evidence. If two things manifest the same behaviours in response to similar inputs, why would we presume (in the absence of any other evidence) that there are qualitatively different internal processes going on? It's possible, but you need a reason to presume it, not just the possibility.
Spectrum - I'd agree, to an extent, that the human tendency - or, at least, the Western cultural tendency, perhaps - to classify into rigidly defined 'boxes' is increasingly something that the natural sciences are having to undo. Species classificiations, with clearly demarked and defined boundaries are not always the practical reality. However, accepting that biological classifications often fall on a continuum is not sufficient to warrant claims of 'spirit' - saying the line between two species of birds is actually more blurred than was originally thought is not the same as suggesting, therefore, that phoenixes are real.
O.
-
Science, in spite of being materialistic, has in recent decades made discoveries that point to grey areas that could overlap with Spiritual realities. There are some areas where this happens and which could help in understanding spiritual aspects.
What would actually help is if you could be bothered to get a proper understanding of the science you want to talk about, you might even have something to say about it if you did, instead of making endless mistakes.
Just for starters...
The Copenhagen interpretation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation) of quantum mechanics is not the same as consciousness causes collapse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation). The Copenhagen interpretation does not involve consciousness. There is exactly zero evidence that consciousness has any significance in quantum mechanics.
The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is a specific mechanism that applies to replicators with inheritance and variation. Anything else that you might apply the word evolution to is not the same thing. Of course you could apply the idea of memes to things like product design, philosophy, culture, and so on, but the analogy is somewhat controversial and memes are something else that you seem to have misunderstood.
-
OK, so...
Anthropic Principle, as you've espoused, being based upon the fallacy of 'fine tuning' is on rocky ground at best. The unwarranted presumptions in the fine tuning argument are well established.
Quantum Mechanics - the misinterpretation here of the 'observer' is also well-established. There is no requirement for an observer to be conscious in order for a wave-function to collapse. Evidence of this is readily available every time we look up at the stars and see light twinkling. You may suggest that our looking is what causes the wave-function to collapse so that we can see, but the twinkling is caused by interactions with the atmosphere on the way through, waveforms that have to have already collapsed during the interactions; are those ozone molecules 'conscious'?
Evolution - design is not evolution, the two are very, very different. That design can, at times, involve an iterative modelling element does parallel the natural selection element of the current model of evolution, but design is not a random variation on prior success, it's a deliberate researched attempt at progress. Most importantly, though, is the misunderstanding that evolution is a process from simple to complex and one of development. Evolution can move towards simplicity if that's what's of benefit in the instant, there is no overarching framework to evolution with 'development' to somewhere as a goal.
Artificial Intelligence - evolved intelligence will almost certainly diverge from artificial intelligence in some ways, but there's nothing in either that seems to require the supposition of 'soul/spirit/atma'. Whilst it's true that any potential artificial intelligence will not have invented itself, neither did we 'invent' us - we emerged from the iterative process of evolution. You say that 'If automatons can behave like humans, we cannot conclude that we are also automatons!' - we perhaps cannot prove, but it's not an unreasonable supposition based upon the evidence. If two things manifest the same behaviours in response to similar inputs, why would we presume (in the absence of any other evidence) that there are qualitatively different internal processes going on? It's possible, but you need a reason to presume it, not just the possibility.
Spectrum - I'd agree, to an extent, that the human tendency - or, at least, the Western cultural tendency, perhaps - to classify into rigidly defined 'boxes' is increasingly something that the natural sciences are having to undo. Species classificiations, with clearly demarked and defined boundaries are not always the practical reality. However, accepting that biological classifications often fall on a continuum is not sufficient to warrant claims of 'spirit' - saying the line between two species of birds is actually more blurred than was originally thought is not the same as suggesting, therefore, that phoenixes are real.
O.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
Stephen Hawking says "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
2. Stars twinkling has nothing to do with this issue. Please refer to my thread on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments. Observation changes the way particles behave and maybe even changes past events.
3. Evolution has resulted in greater complexity. No doubt about that. Why should complexity arise when organisms can survive just a easily when they are simple? Clearly not due to 'survival' requirements. The answer science has is 'random variations'. This is a non answer. Refer to Donald Hoffman's video in my thread on Nature of reality.
4. AI has developed due to directed evolution of computer technology. No doubt about that. If Artificial Intelligence can develop through Intelligent intervention in the process of evolution (of technology), it is enough reason to believe that Human Intelligence could also have developed in a similar way.
5. Spectrum is a natural phenomenon in all aspects of life. No reason to believe that it cannot extend beyond human mind and psychology.
-
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe
Stephen Hawking says "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
"Seem". He goes on to list many of the reasons why we can't presume that this is evidence of a designed reality, and to explain why it may not be significant.
2. Stars twinkling has nothing to do with this issue. Please refer to my thread on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments. Observation changes the way particles behave and maybe even changes past events.
Twinkling has everything to do with this - 'observation' in this sense does not require a conscious observer, it requires any physical process where the result of that wave function collapse is important.
3. Evolution has resulted in greater complexity. No doubt about that. Why should complexity arise when organisms can survive just a easily when they are simple? Clearly not due to 'survival' requirements. The answer science has is 'random variations'. This is a non answer. Refer to Donald Hoffman's video in my thread on Nature of reality.
Evolution, writ large, has resulted in increased complexity because it started from absolute simplicity - it had no option but to increase complexity. At any given moment, though, there is no overall drive inherent in evolution to increase complexity; at any given evolutionary moment the better fit may be a simpler organism, which is why there are billions upon billions of 'simpler' organisms on Earth for each 'more complex' one.
4. AI has developed due to directed evolution of computer technology. No doubt about that. If Artificial Intelligence can develop through Intelligent intervention in the process of evolution (of technology), it is enough reason to believe that Human Intelligence could also have developed in a similar way.
Could have, yes. All you need do is find the notes within the programming that the programmer left as script marks to whomever followed him up, or a design log, or kickstarter looking for funding. You can't presume 'is' from 'isn't impossible'.
5. Spectrum is a natural phenomenon in all aspects of life. No reason to believe that it cannot extend beyond human mind and psychology.
Most aspects of lift, yes. The reason to think it might not extend beyond human mind and psychology is because there is no reason to think that there is anything beyond those. What is 'bone' and what is 'cartilage' in the human body varies at different ages and times, and to a small degree between ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean in the spectrum of bone to cartilage that we can suddenly presume everyone has a third leg.
O.
-
2. Stars twinkling has nothing to do with this issue. Please refer to my thread on Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments. Observation changes the way particles behave and maybe even changes past events.
And there is still exactly zero evidence that consciousness has anything to do with how measurements affect the quantum state. In fact decoherence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence) (which is just about interaction with the wider environment and nothing to do with observations in particular) partially explains 'collapse'.
3. Evolution has resulted in greater complexity. No doubt about that. Why should complexity arise when organisms can survive just a easily when they are simple? Clearly not due to 'survival' requirements. The answer science has is 'random variations'. This is a non answer.
As Outrider has already explained, complexity varies with evolution but since 'life' (replicators) started out as simple as it could be, an increase was inevitable. Also your generalisation that organisms can survive just a easily when they are simple is simply not true all the time, it depends on the environment and what mutations actually take place. You also have to understand that a population's environment includes other species, most notably those it eats and those that eat it, so you can get evolutionary arms races (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_arms_race).
-
Quantum Mechanics - the misinterpretation here of the 'observer' is also well-established. There is no requirement for an observer to be conscious in order for a wave-function to collapse. Evidence of this is readily available every time we look up at the stars and see light twinkling. You may suggest that our looking is what causes the wave-function to collapse so that we can see, but the twinkling is caused by interactions with the atmosphere on the way through, waveforms that have to have already collapsed during the interactions; are those ozone molecules 'conscious'?
Isn't wave forms collapsing an artefact of the Copenhagen interpretation? In, for example, the Many Worlds hypothesis there is no collapsing of the wave form.
Evolution - design is not evolution, the two are very, very different. That design can, at times, involve an iterative modelling element does parallel the natural selection element of the current model of evolution, but design is not a random variation on prior success, it's a deliberate researched attempt at progress. Most importantly, though, is the misunderstanding that evolution is a process from simple to complex and one of development. Evolution can move towards simplicity if that's what's of benefit in the instant, there is no overarching framework to evolution with 'development' to somewhere as a goal.
Evolution is not random variation on past success, or at least, it is not just random variation on past success. There is a selection process but the selection process is not consciously driven.
By the way, something the creationists get wrong frequently is that complexity is not a feature of good design: simplicity is. Good designers do not embellish their work with unnecessary features (except for decorative purposes).
-
Isn't wave forms collapsing an artefact of the Copenhagen interpretation? In, for example, the Many Worlds hypothesis there is no collapsing of the wave form.
Whether wave function collapse is considered to happen, and what it actually means if it does, depends on the interpretation but it is far from unique to Copenhagen (see Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Comparison (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Comparison)). In fact strictly, Copenhagen is about knowledge of the system rather than what's "out there". Sriram is confusing it with another interpretation entirely (the consciousness causes collapse or von Neumann–Wigner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann%E2%80%93Wigner_interpretation) interpretation).
-
"Seem". He goes on to list many of the reasons why we can't presume that this is evidence of a designed reality, and to explain why it may not be significant.
Twinkling has everything to do with this - 'observation' in this sense does not require a conscious observer, it requires any physical process where the result of that wave function collapse is important.
Evolution, writ large, has resulted in increased complexity because it started from absolute simplicity - it had no option but to increase complexity. At any given moment, though, there is no overall drive inherent in evolution to increase complexity; at any given evolutionary moment the better fit may be a simpler organism, which is why there are billions upon billions of 'simpler' organisms on Earth for each 'more complex' one.
Could have, yes. All you need do is find the notes within the programming that the programmer left as script marks to whomever followed him up, or a design log, or kickstarter looking for funding. You can't presume 'is' from 'isn't impossible'.
Most aspects of lift, yes. The reason to think it might not extend beyond human mind and psychology is because there is no reason to think that there is anything beyond those. What is 'bone' and what is 'cartilage' in the human body varies at different ages and times, and to a small degree between ethnic groups, but that doesn't mean in the spectrum of bone to cartilage that we can suddenly presume everyone has a third leg.
O.
1. You are clutching at straws. Many eminent scientists accept that the universe is fine tuned for life.
2. Twinkling has nothing to do with the true nature of a star. It is an atmospheric effect. ::) On the other hand, a particle behaves like a wave depending on observation. Its actual nature changes. This has been established beyond doubt. I am surprised you are unaware.
3. What do you mean...'there is no option but to increase complexity'??!! ??? That's the most absurd answer I have heard yet. Complexity increases only because there is a need for it. Survival does not need complexity...so there must be some other purpose for it. That is, after rejecting the 'random' explanation of science.
-
1. You are clutching at straws. Many eminent scientists accept that the universe is fine tuned for life.
And many don't. In fact, nobody really knows because we have no context, no tested theory of everything, and no means to know if this 'universe' is one of many or not.
2. Twinkling has nothing to do with the true nature of a star. It is an atmospheric effect. ::) On the other hand, a particle behaves like a wave depending on observation. Its actual nature changes. This has been established beyond doubt. I am surprised you are unaware.
It depends on measurement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_in_quantum_mechanics) - and there is still zero evidence of any link to consciousness.
3. What do you mean...'there is no option but to increase complexity'??!! ??? That's the most absurd answer I have heard yet. Complexity increases only because there is a need for it. Survival does not need complexity...so there must be some other purpose for it. That is, after rejecting the 'random' explanation of science.
The problem here is that you don't understand the basics so are making silly mistakes. The generalisation that "survival does not need complexity" is simply not true all the time.
If you have populations of very simple organisms, then random changes are most likely to increase complexity and some of those changes will be advantageous in the context of the environment, in that instance said complexity is needed for survival because those organisms without the change will be at a disadvantage.
Survival can depend on loss of complexity as well, but as the first replicators were probably about the simplest possible to be viable at all, variation only had one direction to go in.
This isn't all that hard. Why do always refuse to even try to learn about evolution? Why the stubborn, self-imposed ignorance?
-
1. You are clutching at straws. Many eminent scientists accept that the universe is fine tuned for life.
But, importantly, they don't write up scientific papers suggesting it, it's a personal belief not a scientific claim. The universe is not finely tuned for life, we are finely tuned for the small section of the extremely hostile universe in which we've evolved.
2. Twinkling has nothing to do with the true nature of a star.
I wasn't aware I suggested that it was?
On the other hand, a particle behaves like a wave depending on observation. Its actual nature changes. This has been established beyond doubt. I am surprised you are unaware.
No, you've fundamentally misunderstood the point of quantum physics - the point is that quantum events are neither particles nor waves, they are quanta that can be thought of as behaving like particles in some circumstances to make the maths easier, and can be thought of like waves in other circumstances to make other mathematical modelling easier. We discovered the two different aspects at different times in different circumstances and spent a considerable period of time presuming they were two different phenomena, rather than just different ways of looking at the same thing.
3. What do you mean...'there is no option but to increase complexity'??!! ??? That's the most absurd answer I have heard yet.
The earliest life was as basic as it's possible to get - from there, the only option over time is an overall increase in complexity, because less complexity is not viable life.
Complexity increases only because there is a need for it. Survival does not need complexity...so there must be some other purpose for it.
Survival is not the only influence on natural selection; competition is also a selector, and if complexity, at a given point, increases the competitive advantage then it will breed through the line more often.
That is, after rejecting the 'random' explanation of science.
Random isn't the explanation of science, random is the observation of the phenomenon. The theory of evolution by natural selection of random variations is the scientific explanation for how one observed phenomenon (random variation in offspring) feeds into other observed phenomena (the geographic and taxonomic spread of biologically linked organisms on Earth).
O.
-
I like the bit at the end of your link where Emily knows how to make £7472 per hour, on thinking about it there could be some form of spiritual connection to the way Emily's making so much money something else where we haven't got the science that's able to prove there is a wooish connection yet.
(I don't know about India but here in the UK there's an advert tagged on to the end of your link where a woman is promoting how she is making £7472 per hour and wishes to share with us how we could be doing something similar).
Regards & cheers, ippy.
-
If you mean my blog site...I don't see any ad!! And I am not getting any money for it.... ! Hmmm >:(
-
If you mean my blog site...I don't see any ad!! And I am not getting any money for it.... ! Hmmm >:(
Often in cases like this the advert is based on the international site we are accessing and is how they control costs - nothing to do with you, Sriram.
-
Well...ok... :)
-
Well...ok... :)
I guessed that the ad might not be on your Indian service Sriram and that's why the bracketed explanation and thought it would be obvious to most, it looks like you got it.
Regards, ippy.
-
Sriram,
1. You are clutching at straws. Many eminent scientists accept that the universe is fine tuned for life.
You do realise that the fine tuning “argument” is just circular reasoning I hope?
-
Sriram,
You do realise that the fine tuning “argument” is just circular reasoning I hope?
my puddle fits better than yours 😬
-
I am surprised how indifferent you people are to such things and how easily you dismiss them from your world view......
The old science mindset is clearly very complacent and very sure of itself. Always a problem when people are cocksure of something.
-
I am surprised how indifferent you people are to such things and how easily you dismiss them from your world view......
The old science mindset is clearly very complacent and very sure of itself. Always a problem when people are cocksure of something.
Speaking of being cocksure, perhaps you should look a little closer to home. People here keep on pointing out problems both with your understanding and the basic logic of the arguments you attempt to make.
It's very easy to dismiss something that exhibits obvious misunderstandings of the subject matter and errors in reasoning (fallacies). If you took a bit more notice and learned from your mistakes, perhaps it wouldn't be so easy to dismiss what you have to say....
-
Sriram,
I am surprised how indifferent you people are to such things and how easily you dismiss them from your world view......
The old science mindset is clearly very complacent and very sure of itself. Always a problem when people are cocksure of something.
Standard Sriram operating procedure:
1. Post a series of statements and claims
2. Receive explanations for why those statements and claims are wrong
3. Ignore the explanations
4. Accuse the people who provide the explanations of having the wrong "worldview", being "complacent" etc.
5. Repeat Step 1
What does this arrogant ignorance say about you do you think?
-
I am surprised how indifferent you people are to such things and how easily you dismiss them from your world view......
The old science mindset is clearly very complacent and very sure of itself. Always a problem when people are cocksure of something.
What worries me is that you seem at times to be one of the more enlightened people posting on this forum but you're obviously unable to reject woo, in fact it seems to me you'd rather embrace unsupportable ideas, why?
Regards, ippy.
-
What worries me is that you seem at times to be one of the more enlightened people posting on this forum but you're obviously unable to reject woo, in fact it seems to me you'd rather embrace unsupportable ideas, why?
Regards, ippy.
Thanks for your kind words, ippy! :)
If you have some respect for my views maybe the same respect ought to be given to my views on matters related to spirituality also......! ;)
But its not just me...some very eminent and other professional scientists and thinkers share the same fate. Newton, Galileo, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, John Wheeler, Chalmers, Sam Parnia, Peter Fenwick, Donald Hoffman, Jim Tucker....... and many others. All of whom I have quoted on this board but none of which has had any effect whatsoever!
The same disregard from people here, for anything other than the old science and its standard model...
So, I understand why you don't understand...!! :D
-
I am surprised how indifferent you people are to such things and how easily you dismiss them from your world view......
The old science mindset is clearly very complacent and very sure of itself. Always a problem when people are cocksure of something.
We are asking for more convincing evidence than you appear to be providing - we aren't saying you're wrong, we're saying that (currently perhaps) your explanation does not fit the available evidence as simply as other explanations.
You, on the other hand, want to dismiss the collective established wisdom of the single most successful ongoing knowledge-enhancement programme in human history, the body of established scientific theory. One of use might be 'cocksure of something', but I'm pretty sure it isn't us.
O.
-
Sriram,
But its not just me...some very eminent and other professional scientists and thinkers share the same fate. Newton, Galileo, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, John Wheeler, Chalmers, Sam Parnia, Peter Fenwick, Donald Hoffman, Jim Tucker....... and many others. All of whom I have quoted on this board but none of which has had any effect whatsoever!
Another day, same old mistakes...
You may or may not be right about what these people believe or believed, but NONE OF THOSE BELIEFS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SCIENCE THEY DID.
Not sure why you find this so hard to grasp, but hey-ho.
-
Thanks for your kind words, ippy! :)
If you have some respect for my views maybe the same respect ought to be given to my views on matters related to spirituality also......! ;)
But its not just me...some very eminent and other professional scientists and thinkers share the same fate. Newton, Galileo, Max Planck, Niels Bohr, John Wheeler, Chalmers, Sam Parnia, Peter Fenwick, Donald Hoffman, Jim Tucker....... and many others. All of whom I have quoted on this board but none of which has had any effect whatsoever!
The same disregard from people here, for anything other than the old science and its standard model...
So, I understand why you don't understand...!! :D
It'd help your cause Sriram, if you were to find some sort of viable evidence for these, at the moment, far fetched ideas of yours.
Try to release yourself Sriram, away from the A B fan club and install just a modicum of reality.
Regards, ippy.
-
Ippy,
It'd help your cause Sriram, if you were to find some sort of viable evidence for these, at the moment, far fetched ideas of yours.
Try to release yourself Sriram, away from the A B fan club and install just a modicum of reality.
He’s long-since moved the goalposts re evidence. Apparently asking for evidence to justify his claims is just a sign of the limited thinking of the people who ask for it. Well fine, but he’s entirely oblivious to the problem that gives him that, absent evidence, all he has is assertion. And the problem with that is that he then has no basis to deny the “truth” of any other claim of fact anyone else asserts about anything else. Accept Sriram’s claims on the basis he expects you to accept them and he has no choice but to accept the assertions of others about unicorns, leprechauns and the flying spaghetti monster on exactly the same basis.
-
We are asking for more convincing evidence than you appear to be providing - we aren't saying you're wrong, we're saying that (currently perhaps) your explanation does not fit the available evidence as simply as other explanations.
You, on the other hand, want to dismiss the collective established wisdom of the single most successful ongoing knowledge-enhancement programme in human history, the body of established scientific theory. One of use might be 'cocksure of something', but I'm pretty sure it isn't us.
O.
No....I am not ignoring any scientific discoveries. You seem to be still stuck in the old Religion vs Science arguments. I am only saying that there is more to reality than what scientific methods are capable of observing. And that is what the people I have highlighted earlier are also saying.
Its not about evidence. There is plenty of evidence for what I am saying but everything doesn't have the same level of physical observable evidence as you might like.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
-
No....I am not ignoring any scientific discoveries. You seem to be still stuck in the old Religion vs Science arguments. I am only saying that there is more to reality than what scientific methods are capable of observing.
Which makes no sense. Science is a method for investigating observed phenomena - if it's detectable in some way, science is our best-established and most successful means of investigating it. If it's not observable... then what grounds do you have for presuming that it exists in the first place?
And that is what the people I have highlighted earlier are also saying.
Conjecture on possible alternative explanations for reasonably well-understood physical phenomena in order to maintain pre-scientific mysticism isn't an advance on the Enlightenment, it's a step backwards.
Its not about evidence. There is plenty of evidence for what I am saying but everything doesn't have the same level of physical observable evidence as you might like.
It is about evidence, as your comment ably demonstrates. More importantly, it's about what constitutes evidence, and how reliable that evidence is. You offer personal conviction and conjecture in place of evidence, and try to strew the field with arguments from popular support and authority to bolster it, but fundamentally you are suggesting unevidenced explanations for otherwise reasonably well-understood phenomena in the main; when you aren't, you are offering unevidenced explanations for phenomena for which we don't currently have a well-evidenced explanation, but in the absence of evidence for a strong theory the correct response is 'we don't know', not 'ancient woo polished with terms stripped out of quantum theory'.
You post about how most people take on faith what scientists have established through evidence, and I think that's a gross conflation of the word 'faith' with the religious use. People take the scientific community on trust because of their well-established history of continual expansion of the bounds of human understanding in demonstrably successful ways; faith is maintained not on the basis of continued demonstration, but in the absence of - or even despite - the evidence available. People trust the scientific community (generally), they have faith in churches - those are very, very different things.
As to your contention that most evidence is indirect mathematics, that's not quite the case. The mathematics predicts what we should see if a given hypothesis is correct; reality is then directly measured, and if it matches the mathematic prediction, then the prediction is validated. The mathematics isn't the evidence, the measured phenomenon is the evidence, the maths is the theory the evidence supports.
As a note, by the way, Gravity is not a force, it's the effect of a warping of space-time by mass that appears at the macroscopic level to act as a force. Gravity existed, as you point out, before Newton formulated his theory of gravitation - that's the exact opposite of this situation. Here there are no observed phenomena waiting for someone to observe them the right way, there's the concept of woo desperately looking for phenomena to back it up.
We are, at times, limited in our human capacity; not just the blind, for instance, but no humans can directly detect the far reaches of the electro-magnetic spectrum; so we build machines that can reliably detect these phenomena, and measure them, and we calibrate them exhaustively to show that they are consistently effective. If there is a subset of the populace that can detect something ephemeral all we need do is establish the machinery that measures it, and hey-presto - new science. And yet that hasn't happened - it seems not only that some of us can't detect these 'miraclon' fundamental particles, but that they entirely bypass machinery - or perhaps reality.
These technological developments, by the way, rarely came about through 'chance' - for every Fleming fortunately discovering penicillin in his lab there are a thousand von Leeowenhoek's painstakingly moving through iteration after iteration of their design for a working microscope and hundreds of thousands of technicians marginally, incrementally improving existing concepts.
O.
-
No....I am not ignoring any scientific discoveries. You seem to be still stuck in the old Religion vs Science arguments. I am only saying that there is more to reality than what scientific methods are capable of observing. And that is what the people I have highlighted earlier are also saying.
Its not about evidence. There is plenty of evidence for what I am saying but everything doesn't have the same level of physical observable evidence as you might like.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/evidence/
It's nothing to do with religion V science Sriram it' magical mystery and superstition V reason and reality.
O K Sriram the evidence for the things you keep referring to on this forum, where is it, isn't it about time you presented at least some of it?
Regards, ippy.
-
Outy,
It is about evidence, as your comment ably demonstrates. More importantly, it's about what constitutes evidence, and how reliable that evidence is. You offer personal conviction and conjecture in place of evidence, and try to strew the field with arguments from popular support and authority to bolster it, but fundamentally you are suggesting unevidenced explanations for otherwise reasonably well-understood phenomena in the main; when you aren't, you are offering unevidenced explanations for phenomena for which we don't currently have a well-evidenced explanation, but in the absence of evidence for a strong theory the correct response is 'we don't know', not 'ancient woo polished with terms stripped out of quantum theory'.
You post about how most people take on faith what scientists have established through evidence, and I think that's a gross conflation of the word 'faith' with the religious use. People take the scientific community on trust because of their well-established history of continual expansion of the bounds of human understanding in demonstrably successful ways; faith is maintained not on the basis of continued demonstration, but in the absence of - or even despite - the evidence available. People trust the scientific community (generally), they have faith in churches - those are very, very different things.
As to your contention that most evidence is indirect mathematics, that's not quite the case. The mathematics predicts what we should see if a given hypothesis is correct; reality is then directly measured, and if it matches the mathematic prediction, then the prediction is validated. The mathematics isn't the evidence, the measured phenomenon is the evidence, the maths is the theory the evidence supports.
As a note, by the way, Gravity is not a force, it's the effect of a warping of space-time by mass that appears at the macroscopic level to act as a force. Gravity existed, as you point out, before Newton formulated his theory of gravitation - that's the exact opposite of this situation. Here there are no observed phenomena waiting for someone to observe them the right way, there's the concept of woo desperately looking for phenomena to back it up.
We are, at times, limited in our human capacity; not just the blind, for instance, but no humans can directly detect the far reaches of the electro-magnetic spectrum; so we build machines that can reliably detect these phenomena, and measure them, and we calibrate them exhaustively to show that they are consistently effective. If there is a subset of the populace that can detect something ephemeral all we need do is establish the machinery that measures it, and hey-presto - new science. And yet that hasn't happened - it seems not only that some of us can't detect these 'miraclon' fundamental particles, but that they entirely bypass machinery - or perhaps reality.
These technological developments, by the way, rarely came about through 'chance' - for every Fleming fortunately discovering penicillin in his lab there are a thousand von Leeowenhoek's painstakingly moving through iteration after iteration of their design for a working microscope and hundreds of thousands of technicians marginally, incrementally improving existing concepts.
A thoughtful, articulate, humane and unarguable post...
...that will be entirely disregarded by Sriram who if he bothers to reply at all will ignore the reasoning and will go instead straight for an ad hominem response re "your microscopic thinking" etc.
And he'll then have the sheer audacity to call other people "complacent" too.
-
Outy,
A thoughtful, articulate, humane and unarguable post...
...that will be entirely disregarded by Sriram who if he bothers to reply at all with ignore the reasoning and will go instead straight for an ad hominem response re your "microscopic thinking" etc.
And he'll then have the sheer audacity to call other people "complacent" too.
It's just an idea of my own where I think it quite reasonable to assume some of us are far more susceptible to childhood indoctrination than others and whilst the thoroughly and often deeply indoctrinated are often a really decent bunch of well meaning people they seem totally unable to shrug off this indoctrination even in the face of clearly reasoned and rational evidence.
Regards, ippy.
-
Outy,
A thoughtful, articulate, humane and unarguable post...
...that will be entirely disregarded by Sriram who if he bothers to reply at all will ignore the reasoning and will go instead straight for an ad hominem response re "your microscopic thinking" etc.
And he'll then have the sheer audacity to call other people "complacent" too.
Very much agree - #28 was a most interesting post.
-
Which makes no sense. Science is a method for investigating observed phenomena - if it's detectable in some way, science is our best-established and most successful means of investigating it. If it's not observable... then what grounds do you have for presuming that it exists in the first place?
Why? The scientific method did not drop from the skies. It is just a method that some people have devised. It is not infallible. Our senses have evolved for specific purposes and our methods are based on that. Reality does not have to limit itself to our methods. Why is this so difficult to understand?! ???
Conjecture on possible alternative explanations for reasonably well-understood physical phenomena in order to maintain pre-scientific mysticism isn't an advance on the Enlightenment, it's a step backwards.
Enlightenment does not stop with one set of decisions and methods. It is an ongoing process. It evolves like everything else. What you think of as 'enlightenment' today could be seen as the 'dark ages' in the future.
It is about evidence, as your comment ably demonstrates. More importantly, it's about what constitutes evidence, and how reliable that evidence is. You offer personal conviction and conjecture in place of evidence, and try to strew the field with arguments from popular support and authority to bolster it, but fundamentally you are suggesting unevidenced explanations for otherwise reasonably well-understood phenomena in the main; when you aren't, you are offering unevidenced explanations for phenomena for which we don't currently have a well-evidenced explanation, but in the absence of evidence for a strong theory the correct response is 'we don't know', not 'ancient woo polished with terms stripped out of quantum theory'.
Nothing unevidenced at all . There is plenty of evidence . Everything from the origin of Life itself to evolution to emergence to random variations to genetic coding to plasticity to complexity to ecological connections to Consciousness.....everything is evidence of Intelligent intervention and direction. And this is besides subjective experiences and insights.
You people just can't see it in spite of repeated clarifications. You think outlining 'mechanisms' explains everything. Its probably all due to neural connectivity as Newberg has said.
Try this...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
-
Why? The scientific method did not drop from the skies. It is just a method that some people have devised. It is not infallible. Our senses have evolved for specific purposes and our methods are based on that. Reality does not have to limit itself to our methods. Why is this so difficult to understand?! ???
Enlightenment does not stop with one set of decisions and methods. It is an ongoing process. It evolves like everything else. What you think of as 'enlightenment' today could be seen as the 'dark ages' in the future.
Nothing unevidenced at all . There is plenty of evidence . Everything from the origin of Life itself to evolution to emergence to random variations to genetic coding to plasticity to complexity to ecological connections to Consciousness.....everything is evidence of Intelligent intervention and direction. And this is besides subjective experiences and insights.
You people just can't see it in spite of repeated clarifications. You think outlining 'mechanisms' explains everything. Its probably all due to neural connectivity as Newberg has said.
Try this...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
I have taken a look at this post of yours Sriram, I don't see any good or worthwhile reason to go through it piece by piece, where you're going wrong again is, it's meaningless to assert anything whatsoever into existence without some kind of backup for whatever is being asserted, it's plainly silly.
Surly it shouldn't be necessary to point out to you what's involved when using the scientific method, it can't be dismissed, in your case it shouldn't be dismissed.
Outlander was trying to point out as much in a eloquent and kindly way to you and then you posted as though you haven't read it through or if you have read his post you've not taken in one word of it, what made you decide to dismiss this very well thought out post of his?
Regards, ippy.
-
Don't get upset, ippy...! I am honestly writing my views as much as you all are.
And this shows that indoctrination happens as much in materialistic thinking as in religious matters.
-
(Hushed voice) So welcome back everyone to the sixth biennial fallacy top trumps tournament here at the Limping Whippet pub and tearooms in Basildon. Many of you I know are still talking about the shock result last time when, after three tourneys as undisputed champion, Sriram was deposed in the last round when Alan Burns played a blinder with a sneaky piece of circular reasoning to snatch the title.
I’ve heard a whisper that Sriram's been training well at Bullshit Bootcamp in the run-up to this event, so it looks as though he’s going all out to win back the crown. I’m hearing he’s polished the ad hominem to perfection this time too, so let’s see whether that’ll be his secret weapon today.
OK, the lights have just dimmed so here we go then…
Why? The scientific method did not drop from the skies. It is just a method that some people have devised. It is not infallible. Our senses have evolved for specific purposes and our methods are based on that. Reality does not have to limit itself to our methods. Why is this so difficult to understand?!
Ooh, and he’s opened with a straw man mixed with a misrepresentation of evolution! Nicely done! No-one claims that science is infallible of course, and senses haven’t evolved “for” any purpose at all either but he’s clearly hoping that these two pieces of BS combined will distract from his real problem that science is a probabilistically functional method of verification whereas his woo claims have no method of verification of any kind.
A strong start then, so let’s see which fallacy he plays next…
Enlightenment does not stop with one set of decisions and methods. It is an ongoing process. It evolves like everything else. What you think of as 'enlightenment' today could be seen as the 'dark ages' in the future.
OH MY WORD! HE’S GONE STRAIGHT FOR THE FALLACY OF REIFICATION! WHAT A MOVE! Never mind that he’s failed entirely to establish first why he’s “enlightened” rather than just in thrall to some unqualified guesses, just claim it anyway and hope no-one notices. This man’s on fire!
Nothing unevidenced at all . There is plenty of evidence . Everything from the origin of Life itself to evolution to emergence to random variations to genetic coding to plasticity to complexity to ecological connections to Consciousness.....everything is evidence of Intelligent intervention and direction. And this is besides subjective experiences and insights.
Goodness me, he’s done it! He’s actually gone full Deepak Chopra here! What a move! Just chuck in some words that sound a bit “sciency” (having first taken care to denigrate science) and then pretend that he’s thereby found actual evidence for “intelligent intervention and direction” when there’s not a scrap of evidence for any such thing. Surely the title must be his now mustn't it? And so far at least he hasn’t even needed to try his old faithful the ad hominem!
OK, let’s see how he goes now in the next round. Will he give the ad hom an outing for the coup de grace? Let’s see…
You people…
HE’S DOING IT. HE’S ACTUALLY DOING IT!!!
…just can't see it in spite of repeated clarifications. You think outlining 'mechanisms' explains everything.
AND HE’S ADDED A FLAT OUT LIE TO THE AD HOM! There’s pandemonium here – we’ve never seen anything like it I tell you! To the final round then...
Its probably all due to neural connectivity as Newberg has said.
Try this...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
Oh, what a finish! He’s only linked to an article as chock full of fallacies as the efforts he’s tried already! HE’S JUST INVENTED THE OMNI-FALLACY!!!!
What a blinder Sriram has played this time! Come back after the break to seem him collect his well-earned trophy – surely the Arrogant-Wrongheaded Cup must be safe with him for another two years…
-
bluehillside #36
Nice one!!:D
-
Don't get upset, ippy...! I am honestly writing my views as much as you all are.
And this shows that indoctrination happens as much in materialistic thinking as in religious matters.
Don't you worry Sriram, their'll always be a few individual cases that haven't managed to escape your religious type nonsense, well there'll always be some that'll be left by the wayside, its a shame for those left behind.
Try getting in touch when you find anything that might support your pov about woo, oh yes try looking up fallacy in the O E D I checked just to make sure the O E D should do it only your posts give the impression you've not fully grasped the full meaning of the word fallacy.
Do you realise that any science based idea that manages to be shot down in flames gets dismissed there and then unlike your religion based ideas that mostly amount to nonsense especially the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of it.
Regards, ippy.
-
Why? The scientific method did not drop from the skies. It is just a method that some people have devised. It is not infallible. Our senses have evolved for specific purposes and our methods are based on that. Reality does not have to limit itself to our methods. Why is this so difficult to understand?! ???
It isn't difficult to understand, but you're still making the same mistake of giving equal weight to something that has been validated by repeated iteration of our most successful method of enquiry and investigation as you are to unsubstantiated, unevidenced, entirely baseless hypotheticals.
Enlightenment does not stop with one set of decisions and methods. It is an ongoing process. It evolves like everything else. What you think of as 'enlightenment' today could be seen as the 'dark ages' in the future.
It could. Until then, though, we have an effective method of enquiry which is giving us provisionally validated answers. You are giving us unsubstantiated claims based on 'wouldn't it be nice'. There may be a day in a far flung future when our current concept of scientific enquiry is somehow seen as antiquated, but in order to get there we don't just need unsubstantiated claims, we need a replacement method of enquiry.
Nothing unevidenced at all . There is plenty of evidence . Everything from the origin of Life itself to evolution to emergence to random variations to genetic coding to plasticity to complexity to ecological connections to Consciousness.....everything is evidence of Intelligent intervention and direction. And this is besides subjective experiences and insights.
None of those are shown to be evidence of intelligent intervention and direction. The origin of life simply is, we know virtually nothing about it to suggest that it's evidence for anything. Evolution is very definitely shown not to need any sort of intelligent guidance - it doesn't refute it, but it is not evidence for it in any way.
Genetic coding? Is that a reference to the 'specified complexity' nonsense? That's not even a coherent concept, let alone an interpretation of the evidence that stands up - it's the argument from incredulity dressed up with a thesaurus.
Plasticity of what? Neuroplasticity?
Ecological connections are evidence of time and geography.
Consciousness isn't something that's been defined or demonstrated well enough to be considered evidence for anything - attempting to suggest that conscious demonstrates interventionalist supernatural entity is just a 'god of the gaps' argument.
And subjective experiences and insights are evidence for what people believe about reality without necessarily being good evidence for that reality.
You people just can't see it in spite of repeated clarifications.
No, we can't see it because you aren't showing it, you're just asserting it as a given.
You think outlining 'mechanisms' explains everything.
If you don't have a mechanism, then how can your explanation be reliable?
Its probably all due to neural connectivity as Newberg has said.
Probably.
Try this...
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2019/01/13/beyond-science/
It's not definitive that the rise of science and the decline of religion are consequential, they may be parallel influences on a general devlopment of culture and civilisation. Certainly there are places in the world (the US, for instance) which have bucked the trend and the decline of religion has lagged long and slow behind the rise of science, and other areas where we little decline in religion as science spreads (sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle-East).
I've seen it argued that as people realised the lack of substance in religion they went looking for something else, and found science. I don't know which is the case, I suspect it would be difficult to definitively claim one or the other, there's likely elements of feedback in the change that have altered the balance over time.
As you say, the majority of people are still holding to religion, but the trend is for growth to slow where it is growing, and decline to increase where it already exists. It may be that the timeframe was exaggerated, but it seems on current form that religion is on the wane.
As to your contention that 'most people are disappointed with what science has to offer' - based on what? Are they? I don't think, despite the caricature, that most people are looking for science to replace religion entirely; people are looking to science to explain the 'how' which historically religion has laid claim to. The 'why' elements of religion are being replaced with a range of secular moral, ethical and philosophical outlooks; if people are disappointed with science failing to provide those elements, they've misunderstood what science was for. In my experience, though, the only people who've ever suggested that science was trying to replace religion in those areas were religious people desperately trying to undermine science because they think it's the enemy.
Environmental disasters are not the fault of science, they are the fault of people - they've been accelerated in many instances by people applying (or misapplying) science, but as we clarified above, science doesn't answer anything other than 'how'. If you want to know why you should or shouldn't do something, that's not science's bag.
'For all its flamboyance, Science does not touch the inner core of our being and does not explain our hopes and aspirations or morality or life and death.' Well now, here we go - what 'inner core'? Is there any reason to think there is something 'hidden'? Arguably, science may be able to explain our hopes, aspirations and morality, although the current state of neuroscience isn't up to the task; thankfully, we haven't finished science yet, so fingers crossed. Life and death - as physical states, it seems likely that there's a scientific explanation if learn enough.
'Also, Science has a very fragmented view of the world. Infinite and diverse bits of information about infinite different things get generated through the process of scientific investigation.'
Reality is too big to pretend to explain in one simple, neat answer - it's ironic that we're moving away from religion and towards the complexity of scientific explanations for reality at a time when it seems everything else in our reality is attempting to oversimplify enough to fit into 280 twitter characters. The key point you make, though, is that science IS infinite (ish) diverse bits of information, as opposed to religion which is assertion in the absence of information in an attempt to convince people it explains actual phenomena.
'It is like blind men who have never heard of an elephant, touching an elephant in different spots and putting their individual ideas together to get a picture of the whole. They end up with a picture of a tree with a snake hanging on it and a boulder next to it. Hardly a meaningful picture!' Whereas religion tells you it's a sin to even try to conceive of the elephant, which is really a hippo a rhino and an elephant at the same time, but they're intangible so how could you feel them, and they'll trample you to death if you try because they love you dearly, and you now owe the priest ten entirely voluntary pounds or you'll suffer eternal torment. One of those is an inaccurate answer, one of them is not an answer at all, it's just wrong.
'Science therefore has not been able to replace religion completely.' Science hasn't tried to. That's not what science is for. That's like claiming geometry has failed because no-one's put pictures of circles intersecting flat planes in place of the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
O.