Conscience conspiracy against metaphysics

Let's define metaphysics besides being a common point of derailment of many threads across ATS.

We can say there are doctorates and philosophers of science that recognize the brain as at least partly metaphysical. From Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (emphasis added):

Secondly, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things; the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.

When talk about the brain and origins, the discussion usually involves the conscience, a well-known anomaly in science, so from the same encyclopedia, and to back up with others have said about the conscience:

Through conscience and its related notion, synderesis, human beings discern what is right and wrong. While there are many medieval views about the nature of conscience, most views regard human beings as capable of knowing in general what ought to be done and applying this knowledge through conscience to particular decisions about action. The ability to act on the determinations of conscience is, moreover, tied to the development of the moral virtues, which in turn refines the functions of conscience.

Medieval Theories of Conscience

It is obvious the conscience itself is the entire pivotal point of debate from any personal position, and that is why it remains a well-known anomaly. There is still no science exactly where the conscience is located, yet people generally regard it as from the brain. Since the conscience itself is unproven, by stated anomaly, it is metaphysical. It is "beyond" physical proof.

To derail topic that involves the possibility of metaphysics in any manner towards the conscience is like Godwin's Law.

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups.

Ah, so if I call you a Nazi, I lose, while if you are a Nazi, you win...

In other words, "Ah, so if I can't get you to debate about the conscience, you lost, unless you prove your existence and reason for debate."

However, even if you narrow down examples from Standford's encylopedia, it still notes:

Twentieth-century coinages like ‘meta-language’ and ‘metaphilosophy’ encourage the impression that metaphysics is a study that somehow “goes beyond” physics, a study devoted to matters that transcend the mundane concerns of Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. This impression is mistaken.

Metaphysics is not mistaken as in that it merely "goes beyond" physics, yet it is mistaken to think it "goes beyond" Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg. The very nature of mechanics learned in by physicals can still be applied to metaphysics, yet don't expect plain simple physical proof that doesn't involve metaphysical concepts.

Metaphysics is like the Physics 102 class that is "after" the Physics 101 class.

To simply claim metaphysics as off-topic to any in regards to the brain is to attempt an undeniable truth. An undeniable truth is a fallacy in science defined by science. It is when someone denies a truth from someone else based upon their own "knowing" truth, their conscience truth. As above in the encylopedia, one can't prove their conscience truth to another because it involves the nature of metaphysics.

In a discussion about a New Theory of the Big Bang, which would be metaphysical, it is "beyond" physics, as it is beyond space-time, it is meta-space-time. As I stated in my other post:

When there is no math to explain the phenomena, they simply call it metaphysics. What has happened is that anything labeled "metaphysical" also gets considered "delusional mumbo-jumbo." It's as if someone tried to take the literally meaning of the prefix "meta" to not mean what it does when attached to the word "physical."

Note that such theory involves the "brane" which sounds just like "brain." Would it be metaphysical to say these sound the same and in some way that they actually refer to the same meaning, yes it is metaphysical at this modern time.

I hope this helps other prevent the redundant discussion we find in many threads. We've obviously have done this redundant debate over and over again, and it becomes very unfortunately when a lively discussion of people in complete disagreement can continue debate except those that start to go down that Godwin's Law path about conscience.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by dzonatas]

metaphysics does not work in the construct of physics because when you impose the knowledge you have of meta on non meta you change the properties of non meta.if science and religion want to continue in the path it has created to disregard metaphysics would be good for its present state, by my perspective.there may not be a conspiracy but a state of confusion/knowingness that is not possible to maintain within the present construct of science/theology if the knowledge gained after being adept in either of these fields is regurgitated back into its system.

reply to post by Ausar


I agree with much you said.

Even if we prove there wasn't a conspiracy, there still is a con- word that even denotes the mechanics of the science against metaphysics.

What changes versus what does not change, and vice-versa.

With a quick glance over an article, this passage stood out about diametrically-opposed truths:

When the twentieth century opened, science and religion were locked in a protracted war in which it seemed no compromise was possible. There were two primary reasons for this. The first was epistemological,1 involving different notions about what constitutes truth and how it can be known. While science boasted that scientific truths could be tested and verified through empirical experiments, religion apparently demanded that spiritual truths be accepted on blind faith.

The second reason was ontological.2 That is, science and religion were founded on diametrically opposed views concerning the fundamental nature of reality. Religious believers insisted that, ultimately, the nature of reality was spiritual, and that, apart from this All-Encompassing Spiritual Reality, nothing would or could exist. Advocates for science, on the other hand, adopted a strictly materialist position, arguing that everything could be reduced to, and explained by, the interactions of independently existing atoms and the physical forces which acted on them.

Science and Mysticism in the Twentieth Century

Almost obviously, when we combine the metaphysical with the physical in a diametrically oppose mannerism, we achieve results known as constellations.

When we don't allow this to happen, as if when there is a conspiracy, then there are stellar consequences, like lost truth. Maybe those that redundantly question their existence and do it by how the question others are in search of their lost truth, are slow learners or are those that don't need to be taught what they have always known.