Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The scientific method is a structured form of inquiry, no? When we inquire about something, we do it for the purpose of gaining knowledge, which stands in opposition to belief. Gain and benefit are related.
you are mixing two ideas together.
The science deals in uncertainty. "what is going on?"
The scientific method was design to remove "how does it benefit ..." from deciding how "true" something is. The scientific method was designed to deal with processing the uncertainty in the best way we can.
Believing we are part of a larger more complex is just a fact of life. I think you will agree that how it benefits you is on you. Its like the double o-ort cloud is to my brother. He doesn't care at all. It doesn't change his life at all.
Me denying or avoiding the evidence that points to it being there because its serves him no purpose is what?
The science deals in uncertainty. "what is going on?"
The scientific method was design to remove "how does it benefit ..." from deciding how "true" something is. The scientific method was designed to deal with processing the uncertainty in the best way we can.
Believing we are part of a larger more complex is just a fact of life. I think you will agree that how it benefits you is on you. Its like the double o-ort cloud is to my brother. He doesn't care at all. It doesn't change his life at all.
Me denying or avoiding the evidence that points to it being there because its serves him no purpose is what?
I agree that the "something more" doesn't care about my benefits or doesn't care if I investigate it. It will continue to exist without me. You said, "science deals with uncertainty" and not benefits and this leaves me with the impression that you want me to view science as an independent model, free of human bias. But whose uncertainty are we talking about? Science's uncertainty? Human's uncertainty?
My guess is it's human's uncertainty which makes the use of the scientific model bias towards humans.
He is made insecure about his own beliefs when he encounters someone more confident in a different worldview. He wants us all to live in a world of relative truth where the meaning of every word is in flux.
You nailed it absolutely. It is the result of incomplete understanding due to uncertainty and fear.
I agree that the "something more" doesn't care about my benefits or doesn't care if I investigate it. It will continue to exist without me. You said, "science deals with uncertainty" and not benefits and this leaves me with the impression that you want me to view science as an independent model, free of human bias. But whose uncertainty are we talking about? Science's uncertainty? Human's uncertainty?
My guess is a human's uncertainty which makes the use of the scientific model bias towards humans.
In fact, I am saying the opposite. The scientific method deals directly with beliefs and human bias. It deals with them head on.
Most scientist understand there is nothing that we can describe that is not human biased. For example: when we describe the sun, it is totally from a human perspective. The question is, when we describe it, is it as true as humanly possible. Can a non human thing look at what we described and say to themselves, they are describing [whatever they call a star].
How is a person supposed to respond to you unless you first supply your own personal definition of "is" and "actual" so we know what you're asking. It's hard to discern what point you are trying to make. Please clarify. Thanks.
the problem is agenda. We are not in an agenda free environment. Too people are here are out to stop religion in the west and some are here therapy.
so on one side we have deity believers and on the other we have anti-religous believers. They both are in boxes and the rest of us are walking around trying to sort things out. The problem is we (the people not really defined by religion) are in warehouse full of boxes stackked to the ceiling and the shouting from within is so loud we can't talk.
Spot on. "I just feel it" and there is no need to have to prove it to others because you can't.
The correct time to believe something is when there is evidence to support it. If you cannot demonstrate it to others, and you cannot demonstrate it to yourself, then you should not believe it. Faith is not a reliable path to learning what is true or real. Neither are “feelings”.
All of the available neuroscientific evidence indicates that consciousness is linked to the brain. When the brain ceases to function at our final time of death, the human being that was us is simply gone.
The correct time to believe something is when there is evidence to support it. If you cannot demonstrate it to others, and you cannot demonstrate it to yourself, then you should not believe it. Faith is not a reliable path to learning what is true or real. Neither are “feelings”.
All of the available neuroscientific evidence indicates that consciousness is linked to the brain. When the brain ceases to function at our final time of death, the human being that was us is simply gone.
That is what the evidence shows.
the physics points to the brain as just a node of complexity in the system. It is not independent or separate from the system in any way.
I don’t see any evidence to indicate that the brain is a node in a system.
you don't? ...
Then you shouldn't be commenting on it at all my man. The problem isn't that you don't know what you don't know. The problem is how you think what you know is enough to comment.
And you actually think, based on how much you clearly don't know, that you are in a position to tell others and/or me that you do not see any evidence. That's like a person that can't read saying "I don't see any evidence of a story in that" when I say "look, the story is right here in this book."
the physics points to the brain as just a node of complexity in the system. It is not independent or separate from the system in any way.
now what?
I don’t see any evidence to indicate that the brain is a node in a system.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 12-19-2020 at 09:37 AM..
Reason: Double post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... 
