Science Vs.

reply to post by Jezus

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.

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 the collective life of the universe or of all objects in existence?
...

I'm not saying it isn't possible at all, but that there is no evidence in which for me to accept what you state as true. I am asking for such evidence in which I can pass judgment upon as being true. Claiming it's just something you have to understand or that we are that evidence is not true evidence, but a cop-out tactic used in such manner to avoid researching the problem and producing such evidences in favor.

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

How can you claim that evidence is not composed solely upon shared personal experiences when that is the only reality that we can even discuss?

Originally posted by sirnex
I am asking for such evidence in which I can pass judgment upon as being true. Claiming it's just something you have to understand or that we are that evidence is not true evidence, but a cop-out tactic used in such manner to avoid researching the problem and producing such evidences in favor.

What you want is some sources of people you can believe are intelligent and logical who have organized their observations.

To discuss consciousness you have a primary document that no one else exactly has.

No matter how much we organize these observations science itself is "composed solely upon shared agreed upon personal experiences" simply because their is nothing else.

Originally posted by Jezus

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.

reply to post by Jezus

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.

I never made no claim that reality explicitly exists outside of perception of anything, be it human, some other Earthly species or an Alien from Tau Ceti.

I've asked for evidence for the self proclaimed explicit knowledge of reality and that the mind is separate from body.

Now that is a discussion about Out of body experiences.

This is not an issue that I have raised and thus is pointless and meaningless to me at this time.

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.

It is of no fault of my own if one is incapable of comprehending what they are reading, please don't place your faults upon my arguments. The act of seeking evidence does not equate to an act of believing blindly against that evidence. I am open to the possibility of your statements being true, but that I shall reserve judgment upon that truth pending evidence for it being true.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

This is not an issue that I have raised and thus is pointless and meaningless to me at this time. I will not accept a straw man argument as evidence for anything claimed without evidence.

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.

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 and is the drive and mechanism behind evolution, I would appreciate for the Nth times for you to produce such evidence and research.

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.

If you have any evidence that consciousness is the same explicit state that operates and perceives across all things alive in the entire universe then I would appreciate such evidence in which to review. I do not accept empty claims as evidence of anything.

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.

I don't accept assumed speculations depicted as absolute facts. This aspect of acceptance falls not only towards subjectivity, but also towards objectivity. Both conceptions could be inherently wrong and it may be discovered some day that there is a third aspect that has yet to be conceived that is a better descriptor of reality. Hence my inherent doubt and skepticism of all self proclaimed truths without evidence for those truths. I do not blindly follow false prophets of self proclaimed truth.

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.

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.

reply to post by Jezus

How can you claim that evidence is not composed solely upon shared personal experiences when that is the only reality that we can even discuss?

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.

What you want is some sources of people you can believe are intelligent and logical who have organized their observations.

To discuss consciousness you have a primary document that no one else exactly has.

No matter how much we organize these observations science itself is "composed solely upon shared agreed upon personal experiences" simply because their is nothing else.

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.

reply to post by sirnex


Optimism does not replace factuality no matter how many may think otherwise. We may one day transcend our limitations it is true. Notice I said, MAY transcend. But, right now, we ARE limited and to pretend otherwise is extremely unrealistic at best.

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

 

Optimism does not replace factuality no matter how many may think otherwise. We may one day transcend our limitations it is true. Notice I said, MAY transcend. But, right now, we ARE limited and to pretend otherwise is extremely unrealistic at best.

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 all future discoveries, then I can determine the validity of this statement.

...

You are correct, right now we are limited in capacity, thus we can not determine as a matter of fact any aspect of reality as an absolute truth, hence my defiant acceptance of such self proclaimed absolute truths as being absolute for all of reality. If one wishes to exclaim to hold such truth, I kindly ask for evidence of said truth. I don't accept empty claims of truth nor do I blindly follow prophets of self proclaimed truth and knowledge of all that exists within the vastness of the universe and all of reality and all that it contains.

I just can't for the life of me figure out why such humility and reserve of judgment and complete honesty with one's self knowledge and it's limitations is such a hard concept to understand and accept.

It's like you folks strive towards arrogant ignorance and self proclaimed supremacy of knowing all that there is to know while demand others accept that self proclaimed truth with blind faith that you speak of truth. ATS, better than a mental state school ...

Originally posted by sirnex
I've asked for evidence for the self proclaimed explicit knowledge of reality and that the mind is separate from body.

The best evidence is your conscious experience.

You don't need anything else.

However, to help in this understanding you could research brain damage studies, memory studies, and dream studies.

This will help to understand that the brain is specialized and mechanical but is not the receiver of the conscious experience.

That mind receives the signal.

Originally posted by sirnex
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.

Understanding the innate abstract characteristic of consciousness doesn't require any knowledge of future discoveries.

Now, science will eventually (as it already is) allow us to understand the nature of out of body experiences but this will not make consciousness provable on a scientifically level only a logical level.

Originally posted by sirnex
This is not an issue that I have raised and thus is pointless and meaningless to me at this time.

You should definitely research out of body experiences.

Avoiding this subject while trying to discuss consciousness will never allow you to comprehend the nature of the mind.

Abstract thought is not something to be afraid of.

You are looking for the "answer" from scientists but not everything is so simple.

You can research the physical structure of the brain but this will only take you so far, eventually you are going to have to think critically if you really want to understand the fundamental aspects of reality.

reply to post by sirnex


You folks eh? I am not one telling someone what is and/or is not true or possible friend. Before you launch into and more self-gratifying monologues. I am merely pointing at our current level of knowledge is all we have and to pretend we are above it is silly. Which includes the factual backing to declare the existance or lack there of a "god"/higher power/deity/whatever. It's simply not there either way and simply because we might in the future somehow prove one way or the other is not an factually based argument.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

You folks eh? I am not one telling someone what is and/or is not true or possible friend. Before you launch into and more self-gratifying monologues. I am merely pointing at our current level of knowledge is all we have and to pretend we are above it is silly.

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.

Which includes the factual backing to declare the existance or lack there of a "god"/higher power/deity/whatever. It's simply not there either way and simply because we might in the future somehow prove one way or the other is not an factually based argument.

Your right, it's not a factually based argument, it's an exploratory based argument of reality. What it is not also is a self proclaimed knowledge of all that there is to know, both now and in the future. In order to state something as an absolute fact, one must be willing and able to prove such a claim as an absolute fact lest they be viewed as a pompous buffoon pretending to know all that there is to know about reality.

Come on, your smarter than this. This should be an easy thing for you to understand, I've read previous posts by you, most were thought out pretty damn decently in my opinion. Yet now your being a follower rather than an explorer?

reply to post by Jezus

The best evidence is your conscious experience.

You don't need anything else.

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 the collective life of the universe or of all objects in existence?
...

I'm not saying it isn't possible at all, but that there is no evidence in which for me to accept what you state as true. I am asking for such evidence in which I can pass judgment upon as being true. Claiming it's just something you have to understand or that we are that evidence is not true evidence, but a cop-out tactic used in such manner to avoid researching the problem and producing such evidences in favor.

However, to help in this understanding you could research brain damage studies, memory studies, and dream studies.

All scientific research I have read based on these studies have not explicitly indicated that the mind is separate from the brain. If you have any research or evidence that suggests the contrary I would appreciate citing those sources. I have continuously asked for these sources of evidence and yet you continuously fail to produce them.

This will help to understand that the brain is specialized and mechanical but is not the receiver of the conscious experience.

That mind receives the signal.

All scientific research I have read based on these studies have not explicitly indicated that the mind is separate from the brain. If you have any research or evidence that suggests the contrary I would appreciate citing those sources. I have continuously asked for these sources of evidence and yet you continuously fail to produce them.

Understanding the innate abstract characteristic of consciousness doesn't require any knowledge of future discoveries.

To state as a matter of fact that all there is to know about the subject as it exists today is to imply knowledge of future discoveries or knowledge of all there is to know about the subject implying that no further discoveries on the subject will ever be discovered.

...

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.

Now, science will eventually (as it already is) allow us to understand the nature of out of body experiences but this will not make consciousness provable on a scientifically level only a logical level.

This presumes factual knowledge that these experiences are actual phenomena existing as they are described to exist in reality and not existing as how they are biased-ly perceived to exist. I do not except assumption based arguments as evidence for anything. If you have any evidence that these phenomena exist as they are described to exist in reality I would appreciate such evidence to be brought forth.

You should definitely research out of body experiences.

This presumes factual knowledge that these experiences are actual phenomena existing as they are described to exist in reality and not existing as how they are biased-ly perceived to exist. I do not except assumption based arguments as evidence for anything. If you have any evidence that these phenomena exist as they are described to exist in reality I would appreciate such evidence to be brought forth.

Avoiding this subject while trying to discuss consciousness will never allow you to comprehend the nature of the mind.

This presumes factual knowledge that these experiences are actual phenomena existing as they are described to exist in reality and not existing as how they are biased-ly perceived to exist. I do not except assumption based arguments as evidence for anything. If you have any evidence that these phenomena exist as they are described to exist in reality I would appreciate such evidence to be brought forth.

Abstract thought is not something to be afraid of.

I'm not afraid of abstract thought, nor am I afraid of any possible scenario for reality. I do not blindly follow self proclaimed prophets of truth and knowledge of reality. All things are open for speculation, but not all things are open to being deemed absolutely true unless proven absolutely true. It's a deceptively simple concept. To be open minded to all aspects of reality while striving towards humility and reserve of judgment towards reality until proven to be reality. *NOT* to profess knowledge of reality and all there is to know of reality or minute aspects of reality.

You are looking for the "answer" from scientists but not everything is so simple.

I am looking only for those answers from scientists that you proclaim are from scientists. This is an inquiry towards your claims alone.

You can research the physical structure of the brain but this will only take you so far, eventually you are going to have to think critically if you really want to understand the fundamental aspects of reality.

Thinking critically and speculating blindly are not equally the same. You can not call blind speculation a critical thought nor can you profess blind speculation as an absolute fact until you have proven it an absolute fact.

...

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.

I got the sudden feeling that you are just being satirical...

Are you trying to represent a biological robot that doesn't actually have consciousness?

---

Anyway, if your for real you really have to get over your fear of abstract concepts.

Waiting for scientists to explain reality for you is going to take quite along time. Science deals with the physical world, but if you won't take the scientific implications to the next level than you can't discuss consciousness.

Your claim that you can not observe your own conscious experience as evidence of reality is bizarre to say the least, especially since that is the only evidence you have...

reply to post by Jezus

I got the sudden feeling that you are just being satirical...

Nope; I'm being absolutely honest not only to myself, but to you as well. I do not accept empty claims as evidences for anything. I wish I didn't have to repeat myself and have to go back through the entire thread to pick out the same exact sentences and paragraphs over and over, but apparently you love repetition. I expect to repeat things for a kindergartner, such as the alphabet and one two threes, but I never suspected I would have to repeat simple concepts such as blind belief is not absolute truth and blind belief should never be accepted as absolute truth.

Are you trying to represent a biological robot that doesn't actually have consciousness?

Not at all, I am quiet open to the possibilities that what you are telling me us true but I am reserving judgment to that truth until you are able to not only prove it true to me, but true for all of reality. If it isn't true to reality itself, then it isn't true at all. Blind speculation will never amount to any amount of truth.

Anyway, if your for real you really have to get over your fear of abstract concepts.

This has nothing to do with abstract ideas; This has to do with your many claims of absolute truths and facts and those claims being claim to be claimed by different fields of science. If this were true then the act of procuring evidence at least in the regard of science should not be a difficult task. I do not accept shift of burden of proof as evidences for anything; You made the claim, it is your burden to prove that claim lest you wish to sound arrogantly ignorant.

Waiting for scientists to explain reality for you is going to take quite along time. Science deals with the physical world, but if you won't take the scientific implications to the next level than you can't discuss consciousness.

You've made many claims in more than one post in regards to science claiming what you are claiming. Burden of proof is upon you to back up those claims and to cite sources when you are asked to prove those claims. Do not shift burden of proof, it is unacceptable.

Your claim that you can not observe your own conscious experience as evidence of reality is bizarre to say the least, especially since that is the only evidence you have...

Straw man; This was never a claim of mine. I stated that my personal experience dictates a contrary reality to the one you profess exists as an absolute fact hence why I distrust personal experiences. I've given a few different examples of why that personal experience should be distrusted. What I am asking of you is to prove your claim that you are claiming is absolutely true and that science claims what you claim as well as you have claimed that it does.

How hard is it to cite sources in science that you claim agrees with your statements as you claim it does? Am I asking an intelligent person to do a reasonable task or am I asking a three year old to construct a space craft and do a complex docking maneuver on the ISS?