Science Vs.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by sirnex

 

Um personal experience and communicated personal experience that we agree with IS our reality. Unless you believe someone out there transcends our limitations.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

So only the personal experiences that we *agree* are accurate measures of what is real is thus so?

I'm talking about personal experiences such as, God, psychic abilities, even subjective experiences like pain.

If we both get hit with equal force and it cause more pain for one than the other subject, who is more right? Does that equal force really cause more pain or less pain? That's a subjective experience of pain, neither experience can be accurate for all of pain can it? At that point we would have to not agree on the personal experience of being hit with equal force causing X amount of pain for either one of us.

reply to post by sirnex


Name 1 thing that wasn't a personal experience for someone to see and realize.

When you tell someone to "prove" something, what you are really saying is - show me how to experience that so I can see it to.

Sorry, but you can't have Science without the Scientist.


[edit on 11/25/2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by sirnex

 

Name 1 thing that wasn't a personal experience for someone to see and realize.

When you tell someone to "prove" something, what you are really saying is - show me how to experience that so I can see it to.

Sorry, but you can't have Science without the Scientist.


[edit on 11/25/2009 by badmedia]

Your misusing the term in my opinion. To a point, everything is an experience, but when taken further to bring that experience to become truth or fact that experience must be validated with evidence, research and peer review. No amount of singular experience can ever or will ever be considered a fact, no amount of speculation can ever or will ever be considered a fact.

I agree that we can't have science without the scientist, yet speculation alone or empty claims alone are not science and thus your statement is invalidated. It's a meaningless point as you can't even do the simplest of tasks in providing to me any subsequent research to back up your claims of absolute truth.

I am still left asking for you to cite sources for your claims that science explicitly states that the mind is a separate entity that exists of it's own accord.

I am still left asking you for evidence that you possess knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness and mind as you imply such knowledge with such brazen and bold statements that these things can never be proven while at the same time acting as if you appear to possess full knowledge and truth for these two phenomena.

reply to post by sirnex


The evidence is when you are able to give someone else the same experience. Likewise, things are proven wrong when another person experiences something that goes against the previous.

If the wind never blew you would have no clue it existed. Because it's never been experienced by anyone. If 1 day a person experiences wind, but then it stopped, nobody else could experience it. If that man said wind exists. You would say "prove it". By how could he ever prove to you it existed if you were unable to experience yourself?

You would have to put your trust into something you considered an authority to believe it existed. And the most it could ever be to you is a belief. Until you actually experienced the wind for yourself, it would only ever be a belief to you - if you think it exists or not, you could only ever have a belief about it.

And that is what you ask me to do now. You are asking me to either show you how to experience it yourself, or you are asking for a source you would consider to be an authority that you can "Believe".

Only you deny that experiencing something means anything, due to your bullheaded responses when I tried to show you how to go about having such an experience, combined with tons of insults and the cop out of "prove it" while not willing to take a single step outside to "feel the wind".

So ya know, I really don't care what you think I have or have not done for you. As I said before, I might as well try to prove the color blue to a blind man.

reply to post by badmedia

The evidence is when you are able to give someone else the same experience. Likewise, things are proven wrong when another person experiences something that goes against the previous.

I do not subscribe to the belief that evidence is composed solely upon shared agreed upon personal experiences. Here is why:

Let's take a modest group of just four individuals; Two of them have subjective personal experiences that validate the existence of a deity for those two and the other two have subjective personal experiences that invalidate the existence of a deity.

If the two who have the subjective experience for a deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that, yes, a deity exists.

If the two who have the subjective experience for no deity and compare their experiences, they would be able to conclude that no deity exists.

Yet put all four together and no amount of previous comparisons will ever lead to a conclusive truth or fundamental aspect of reality. The experience of the entire group becomes contradictory and invalid as both can't logically be correct.

At which point *should* a subjectively experienced aspect become accepted as inherently true? When it agrees with your statements, mine or shared amongst all six billion inhabitants of this planet or all life on this planet or all objects in existence?

If the wind never blew you would have no clue it existed. Because it's never been experienced by anyone. If 1 day a person experiences wind, but then it stopped, nobody else could experience it. If that man said wind exists. You would say "prove it". By how could he ever prove to you it existed if you were unable to experience yourself?

You would have to put your trust into something you considered an authority to believe it existed. And the most it could ever be to you is a belief. Until you actually experienced the wind for yourself, it would only ever be a belief to you - if you think it exists or not, you could only ever have a belief about it.

That is such an infantile analogy, it 'blows' ... I doubt you would see the obvious point I'm making here.

And that is what you ask me to do now. You are asking me to either show you how to experience it yourself, or you are asking for a source you would consider to be an authority that you can "Believe".

As with the given example above, there is a distinct viable reason to *not* trust personal experiences, including your or mine as accurate measures of reality. You demand that I just blatantly believe your personal experience through blind belief. That isn't acquiring truth, that's acquiring faith.

Only you deny that experiencing something means anything, due to your bullheaded responses when I tried to show you how to go about having such an experience, combined with tons of insults and the cop out of "prove it" while not willing to take a single step outside to "feel the wind".

Now your either blatantly lying or my memory is very faulty today. Can you please quote one instance of where you gave me a viable mechanism for experiencing the statements you claim as absolute facts in regards to a disembodied mind that exists of it's own accord without being inherently a byproduct of the brain?

So ya know, I really don't care what you think I have or have not done for you. As I said before, I might as well try to prove the color blue to a blind man.

This is a cop-out tactic *not surprising*. You have deemed it perfectly acceptable to place any claim you wish and call others blind if they don't accept your claims at face value. Your a pompous buffoon pretending to have the truth, a prophet if futility. I have no respect for such people as they are the worst of all people. Please stop pretending you have stumbled upon some profound truth of reality, you sound unintelligent when you do so and fail to prove this profound truth you state as an absolute fact.

Originally posted by sirnex
Can you cite any sources or evidence for this or at the very least describe a viable mechanism for this occurrence than can be proved as valid?

A mechanism is simply biological chemistry or physiological psychology.

This is the moving hardware.

If you can't handle discussing abstract concepts you aren't discussing consciousness, you are just talking about correlations between observable brain activity and behavior.

Originally posted by sirnex
**I will repeat this again, I do not accept empty claims given as evidence for anything. If you are going to tell me that something is a proven fact and is absolutely true then please cite your sources and evidence. It's an amazingly simple concept that you *should* be able to grasp.

An even simpler concept is that the evidence for the fact that the brain is separate from the mind is the conscious experience you *should* be having right now a fellow human being.

Ironically this is an assumption on my part. All the while you claim to be a biological robot, and I can't ever prove you really do have a mind.

This below quote seems to suggest you may be on the verge of comprehending this issue.

Originally posted by sirnex
Not really, not to me at least. Personal experiences are unique to the subject in which experiences, hence the word personal that comes before experience. You can't experience everything I experience as I can't experience everything you experience. If we both experience contradictory "truths" or aspects of reality, then how do we determine who's experience of reality is more valid?

Is your experience more valid than mine or is my experience more valid than yours? If we can't determine who's experience is more valid for measuring reality or for learning what is true, then I can't imagine that using personal experiences is a good way to determine what is true for all thing's in reality.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by Jezus

A mechanism is simply biological chemistry or physiological psychology.

I disagree, as well as apparently physics. There are a variety of mechanisms in physics called laws that seemingly allow certain aspects of the universe to operate. If a mechanism is only that in which you describe, then can you please substantiate the claim for the above and against physics itself?

If you can't handle discussing abstract concepts you aren't discussing consciousness, you are just talking about correlations between observable brain activity and behavior.

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

An even simpler concept is that the evidence for the fact that the brain is separate from the mind is the conscious experience you *should* be having right now a fellow human being.

**I will repeat this again, I do not accept empty claims given as evidence for anything. If you are going to tell me that something is a proven fact and is absolutely true then please cite your sources and evidence. It's an amazingly simple concept that you *should* be able to grasp.

...

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Ironically this is an assumption on my part. All the while you claim to be a biological robot, and I can't ever prove you really do have a mind.

Can you please quote the explicit statement made by me as claiming as such?

This below quote seems to suggest you may be on the verge of comprehending this issue.

You misunderstand the given quote as it does not imply in any substantial manner to the possibility of the mind being a separate thing capable of existing of it's own accord without being an inherent byproduct of the brain. Please don't attempt to misrepresent me with straw man arguments or lack of comprehending a giving paragraph of text.

Originally posted by sirnex
You misunderstand the given quote as it does not imply in any substantial manner to the possibility of the mind being a separate thing capable of existing of it's own accord without being an inherent byproduct of the brain. Please don't attempt to misrepresent me with straw man arguments or lack of comprehending a giving paragraph of text.

I didn't misunderstand you at all...

I was simply stating that this paragraph suggested you might be on the verge of comprehending the issue.

Originally posted by sirnex
Not really, not to me at least. Personal experiences are unique to the subject in which experiences, hence the word personal that comes before experience. You can't experience everything I experience as I can't experience everything you experience. If we both experience contradictory "truths" or aspects of reality, then how do we determine who's experience of reality is more valid?

What you need to comprehend is that science is only going to allow us to further understand the brain side of the equation.

If you can't handle the discussion of abstract issues then you aren't discussing consciousness.

Consciousness is innately abstract.

You and I are receiving the signal sent to us by our brain.

When you look at variables and decide to do something with them the entity that is deciding and was able to "create" a new idea is YOU/your soul/your mind.

Without this variable of the mind a person would simply be a biological robot. Responding to stimulation but unable to create new ideas.

The fact that the mind is separate from the brain is supported by science but it is PROVEN by logically comprehending the experience of reality we are both happen.

Again, while I assume this is true and that you are a conscious person I can never really know for sure that you have consciousness. All I know is that you have behavior and respond to stimulation.


[edit on 25-11-2009 by Jezus]

reply to post by sirnex

So only the personal experiences that we *agree* are accurate measures of what is real is thus so?

No. I misspoke in part and you are missunderstanding in the other. Accepted personal experiences not our own that we accept from sources we consider crebible *IE faith that what they tell us is true* coupled with our personal experiences is what we use to measure what is real. Doesn't mean it is of course, thus the constant and exhaustively repetative arguments as to the nature of reality like this one.

What is real to us is nothing more than electrical signals intrepreted by our brains and it IS an imperfect system with pitfalls through out the process.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

No. I misspoke in part and you are missunderstanding in the other. Accepted personal experiences not our own that we accept from sources we consider crebible *IE faith that what they tell us is true* coupled with our personal experiences is what we use to measure what is real. Doesn't mean it is of course, thus the constant and exhaustively repetative arguments as to the nature of reality like this one.

How is that a misunderstanding when you say the same thing, only with a few more words and worded differently? It's the same exact concept of what I previously mentioned. Our singular personal experiences coupled with the personal experiences of other as being told as true to the effect that we all agree upon it being true. There, I said the same exact thing with a few more words and worded differently a third time.

What is real to us is nothing more than electrical signals intrepreted by our brains and it IS an imperfect system with pitfalls through out the process.

Right, subjective personal experiences alone whether singularly experience or group experience and agreed upon is fundamentally a flawed measure of what reality is. It's inherent flaw is the presupposition that only subjectively measuring reality through the act of conscious observation is accurate while disregarding that not all things to our knowledge possess the capacity for conscious subjective personal experiences.

A rock to our knowledge lacks such a capacity, so for a rock such a capacity is not real. Yet, that same capacity does appear to be an inherent aspect of reality to us. Is the rock real or are we real? If we're both real then why isn't the rock capable of subjective experience and we are?

In my opinion, in order to understand the universe we must first learn *how* to understand the universe. What is fundamentally true for all existent things in reality? Do we simply assume that reality can be humanized and learned only through human subjective experiences? Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous and arrogant?

reply to post by sirnex


How do you know that a rock is incapable of a subjective experience? I am not trolling please believe me. But, in the end your assertion that you do not rely on personal experience is incorrect.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by sirnex

 

How do you know that a rock is incapable of a subjective experience? I am not trolling please believe me. But, in the end your assertion that you do not rely on personal experience is incorrect.

I'm not stating it as an absolute fact, which should be apparent if understood in context: "to our knowledge". It may be possible a rock might possess subjective experience. I can't state as absolute fact that it does not.

Yet if it does possess subjective experience, can we humanize that experience? Should we humanize the experiences of all life or things capable of experience? Suppose a rock can posses subjective experience; A rock doesn't appear to be built up the same way we are, it doesn't appear to have neurons or organs. Would it's experience be unique to a rock or the same for a human?

If we measure the totality of all reality based solely upon humanized concepts of what is real, I think we won't be able to discover any fundamental aspect of reality. Like I said, in order to understand reality we have to first learn how to understand reality. We can't just simply humanize all of reality and deem ourselves prophets of truth. It's just to bold and arrogant of an endeavor in my opinion. There isn't anything more inherently special of us than there is of a pile of steaming feces.

reply to post by sirnex


I must first say you pleasantly suprised me with your response. Just goes to show how one mustn't stay wedded to ones impressions. But I do digress.
The problem with finding the correct *how* is that we cannot transcend our limitations. Really the correct *how* to anyone person is inevitably tied to their preconceptions as to the correct *how*. We humanize things because we are human and really can't step beyond that basic fact. I view the problem as somewhat that of perspective, some of the best observations tend to be ones garnered from stepping "outside" the problem so to speak. But we cannot step "outside" reality or our own limitations so thusly our observations are inevitably skewed.
Am I making any sense at all? Feel free to say no.

Originally posted by sirnex
If we measure the totality of all reality based solely upon humanized concepts of what is real, I think we won't be able to discover any fundamental aspect of reality. Like I said, in order to understand reality we have to first learn how to understand reality. We can't just simply humanize all of reality and deem ourselves prophets of truth. It's just to bold and arrogant of an endeavor in my opinion. There isn't anything more inherently special of us than there is of a pile of steaming feces.

Well you are assuming that reality exists without a human consciousness to perceive it.

The only reality that exists for a human is one "based solely upon humanized concepts of what is real".

The idea that their is an objective reality that exists without being perceived is in it of itself a product of human perception.

It is an assumption based on speculation.

reply to post by Jezus


Exactly!

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

The problem with finding the correct *how* is that we cannot transcend our limitations.

That's to assume there is an absolute limit in our capacity to learn. I'm sure the same could equally be said about flight in ancient times, and yet we've transcended those ancient limitations and have gone so far as to place man on the moon.

...

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to reality then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Really the correct *how* to anyone person is inevitably tied to their preconceptions as to the correct *how*. We humanize things because we are human and really can't step beyond that basic fact. I view the problem as somewhat that of perspective, some of the best observations tend to be ones garnered from stepping "outside" the problem so to speak. But we cannot step "outside" reality or our own limitations so thusly our observations are inevitably skewed.

That's to assume there is an absolute limit in our capacity to learn. I'm sure the same could equally be said about flight in ancient times, and yet we've transcended those ancient limitations and have gone so far as to place man on the moon.

...

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to reality then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Am I making any sense at all? Feel free to say no.

Yes, your limiting future knowledge solely based upon current limitations that exist today. Your stating as a matter of absolute fact that we can never discover a fundamental aspect of reality that exists for all things because the human species is too arrogantly ignorant to step outside it's perceived box in which to possess the capacity to someday have a better ability to logically, reasonably and more accurately describe reality as it exist from the viewpoint of all things in reality rather than around an arrogantly assumed anthropomorphic assumption that the human mind arises solely because of our one insignificant species.

...

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to reality then I can determine the validity of this statement.

Exactly!

Please reply with more substance than a one word response and ego stroking back patting.

reply to post by Jezus

Well you are assuming that reality exists without a human consciousness to perceive it.

Well, that's just cute... Do you place humanity at a special place in the universe to assume the the beginnings of the universe is centered around *only* human consciousness and arose only through human consciousness? That is such a bold and brazen extraordinary claim.

I would really hope there is plenty of evidence that you possess that explicitly states that the universe began with human consciousness *only* along with a slew of viable mechanism for how that beginning give's rise to a seemingly older universe along with all subsequent research that verifies through reproducibility such evidences.

The only reality that exists for a human is one "based solely upon humanized concepts of what is real".

Well, that's just cute... Do you place humanity at a special place in the universe to assume the the beginnings of the universe is centered around *only* human consciousness and arose only through human consciousness? That is such a bold and brazen extraordinary claim.

I would really hope there is plenty of evidence that you possess that explicitly states that the universe began with human consciousness *only* along with a slew of viable mechanism for how that beginning give's rise to a seemingly older universe along with all subsequent research that verifies through reproducibility such evidences.

The idea that their is an objective reality that exists without being perceived is in it of itself a product of human perception.

Well, that's just cute... Do you place humanity at a special place in the universe to assume the the beginnings of the universe is centered around *only* human consciousness and arose only through human consciousness? That is such a bold and brazen extraordinary claim.

I would really hope there is plenty of evidence that you possess that explicitly states that the universe began with human consciousness *only* along with a slew of viable mechanism for how that beginning give's rise to a seemingly older universe along with all subsequent research that verifies through reproducibility such evidences.

...

Do we simply assume that reality can be humanized and learned only through human subjective experiences? Wouldn't that be a little presumptuous and arrogant? Can all of reality be 'humanized' and subjected to human nature? Can the existence of an atom be shown to exist only because a human exists? Can reality viewed from a subjective experience of a human be shown to be the exact experience of a lion or an alien from Tau Ceti?

It is an assumption based on speculation.

I don't accept assumed speculations depicted as absolute facts. Unless you have substantial evidence that indicates and verifies a significant special place for humanity in the universe as well as a beginning of the universe through human consciousness only, then we can neither assume that the universe is due to human consciousness and not the consciousness of an alien from the Andromeda Galaxy.

reply to post by Jezus

I didn't misunderstand you at all...

I was simply stating that this paragraph suggested you might be on the verge of comprehending the issue.

You misunderstand the given quote as it does not imply in any substantial manner to the possibility of the mind being a separate thing capable of existing of it's own accord without being an inherent byproduct of the brain. Please don't attempt to misrepresent me with straw man arguments or lack of comprehending a giving paragraph of text.

What you need to comprehend is that science is only going to allow us to further understand the brain side of the equation.

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

...

If you have any evidence that the mind is a separate entity that exists of it's own accord without being an inherent byproduct of the brain, I would appreciate for the Nth times for you to produce such evidence and research.

If you can't handle the discussion of abstract issues then you aren't discussing consciousness.

Consciousness is innately abstract.

You and I are receiving the signal sent to us by our brain.

When you look at variables and decide to do something with them the entity that is deciding and was able to "create" a new idea is YOU/your soul/your mind.

Without this variable of the mind a person would simply be a biological robot. Responding to stimulation but unable to create new ideas.

The fact that the mind is separate from the brain is supported by science but it is PROVEN by logically comprehending the experience of reality we are both happen.

Again, while I assume this is true and that you are a conscious person I can never really know for sure that you have consciousness. All I know is that you have behavior and respond to stimulation.

**I will repeat this again, I do not accept empty claims given as evidence for anything. If you are going to tell me that something is a proven fact and is absolutely true then please cite your sources and evidence. It's an amazingly simple concept that you *should* be able to grasp.

...

Limiting future knowledge with current technological limitations. I don't accept these arguments as they imply knowledge of future discoveries. If you can prove you have all knowledge of future discoveries in regards to consciousness then I can determine the validity of this statement.

...

If you have any evidence that the mind is a separate entity that exists of it's own accord without being an inherent byproduct of the brain, I would appreciate for the Nth times for you to produce such evidence and research.

Originally posted by sirnex
Your stating as a matter of absolute fact that we can never discover a fundamental aspect of reality that exists for all things because the human species is too arrogantly ignorant to step outside it's perceived box in which to possess the capacity to someday have a better ability to logically, reasonably and more accurately describe reality as it exist from the viewpoint of all things in reality rather than around an arrogantly assumed anthropomorphic assumption that the human mind arises solely because of our one insignificant species.

Well the idea that reality exists outside of perception is an assumption based on speculation. We can never "discover" something outside of our "perceived box" unless we leave it.

Now that is a discussion about Out of body experiences.

And you must have gotten a little confused writing that bold part at the end. YOU are the one that seems to believe the human mind arises solely because of the human brain. The truth is quite the opposite. The "human mind" just like any mind, is eternal. The only difference between human conscious and any other consciousness is the physical vehicle it happens to be inhabiting at the moment.

The mind is eternal, the human species arose solely because of the mind.

The mind is the catalyst for evolution, pushing our physical vehicles to the current state.

Originally posted by sirnexLimiting future knowledge with current technological limitations.

You are correct in that science will soon allow us to understand and possibly induce Out of body experiences (in some ways it already has). However, even when that point happens we will be trusting to a certain extent that people are perceiving what they claim. Logically we have already proven the separation of the human mind from the brain and OOB experiences but because of the innately abstract state of mind we will never be able to scientifically prove that another person has consciousness. Two people could have an OOB experience together and confirm to the rest of us that they each have consciousness but this is not scientific proof.

Originally posted by sirnex
Well, that's just cute... Do you place humanity at a special place in the universe to assume the the beginnings of the universe is centered around *only* human consciousness and arose only through human consciousness? That is such a bold and brazen extraordinary claim.

Quiet the opposite.

The human species is just one possible vehicle for our eternal entities to enter. It was created by evolution interacting with the variables on Earth. The driving force for evolution is the observer's response to reality.

It is not *only* human consciousness that the Universe is centered around, it is consciousness in general. You can speak of the human brain but human consciousness is a temporary state of consciousness, we have always been consciousness but we have not always been human.

Originally posted by sirnex
I don't accept assumed speculations depicted as absolute facts. Unless you have substantial evidence that indicates and verifies a significant special place for humanity in the universe as well as a beginning of the universe through human consciousness only, then we can neither assume that the universe is due to human consciousness and not the consciousness of an alien from the Andromeda Galaxy.

Good.

So you agree that their is no reason to speculate on an objective Universe.

The idea that a reality exists outside of human consciousness is an assumption based on speculation.

Science is a sharp edge of consciousness but to pretend that our organized observations are some how free of the restraint of subjective perception is delusional.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by Jezus]

Originally posted by sirnex
**I will repeat this again, I do not accept empty claims given as evidence for anything. If you are going to tell me that something is a proven fact and is absolutely true then please cite your sources and evidence. It's an amazingly simple concept that you *should* be able to grasp.

You have to trust yourself.

Relying on other people to figure everything out for you and assure you it is true can only get you so far.

You can't play "trust the right person" forever, eventually you are going to have to think critically about your own consciousness using...your own consciousness.

You seem to have a grip of the scientific understanding of "sources and evidence" but you are ignoring the primary document that is your own existence/consciousness for the only real evidence.