Science is a metaphysical party pooper.

Page 4 of 17 [ 259 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 Jan 2009, 6:48 pm

starvingartist wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

starvingartist wrote:

TallyMan wrote:

do you feel that philosophy is irrelevant? i fail to see how it is any less relevant than the arts, for example, but perhaps you see the arts as irrelevant too?.....but i am an artist and an amateur philosopher so i guess that makes my opinion biased.

For thousands of years philosophers have pondered The Big Questions:

1. Free Will
2. How do we know what we know
3. Is reality real or is it an illusion
4. What is RIght and what is Wrong
and so on infinitum.

And for thousands of years no one has really given satisfactory answers to these questions.

On the other hand, the natural sciences do deliver not only answers but useful arts, applications and techniques. In short, science delivers and philosophy does not.

ruveyn

but how can you quantify what pondering these questions philosophically achieves for the human soul? and notice i say ponder, and not answer, because i think sometimes the question and the seeking is more important than the answer itself. it's what you learn about yourself through asking those questions, not what you establish to be 'physically true' of the world outside yourself, that matters in that context. it is the journey, not the destination, that matters to the soul. does that count for anything? probably not if you can't stick a number or a unit of measurement to it, i guess. what a narrow view of life.

A very narrow view of life. Always going for the easy answers, the certainties. What cowardice. What laziness.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

22 Jan 2009, 6:55 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

And for thousands of years no one has really given satisfactory answers to these questions.

On the other hand, the natural sciences do deliver not only answers but useful arts, applications and techniques. In short, science delivers and philosophy does not.

ruveyn

Ok? If philosophy has under it's framework, the problem of "purpose" or the problem of "right and wrong", then it is incorrigible, because any use of science will always be done for the sake of some person's philosophy about purpose and according to someone's philosophy of right and wrong, and thus while science can improve lives, philosophy is incorrigible, by even denying it's value you have to reassert it to make the claim.

Medical research for example, conflicts or controversies related to embrios, cloning, the ideology and legislation against experimenting with humans are based on philosophical principles which put a limit on scientific research.

Psychiatry and Psychology seem to fall into a conflict between science, philosophical and cultural values, which seem to become questionable in some aspects, given that. And they are considered to be scientific, I gather that there are some who question that.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

22 Jan 2009, 8:11 pm

starvingartist wrote:

Pondering and $3.25 will get me a small coffee and a plain dough nut at the local Dunkin' Donut (tm).

ruveyn

starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

22 Jan 2009, 9:12 pm

ruveyn wrote:

starvingartist wrote:

Pondering and $3.25 will get me a small coffee and a plain dough nut at the local Dunkin' Donut (tm).

ruveyn

if that's the limit of your imagination, then i guess that is all you would get for pondering.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

22 Jan 2009, 11:05 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

Philosophy presents a possible framework for validation. It is merely a proposed paradigm. It may be internally consistent but without external evidence of its congruence to actuality it is merely a personal point of view. Science takes these proposals and attempts to discover if and how it fits into actuality. Without validation philosophy is mere daydreaming and may be amusing or may present a plan for exploration of reality from a different viewpoint but it is useless without validation.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

22 Jan 2009, 11:17 pm

Sand wrote:

Well, the issue is that a lot of philosophical issues and scientific issues do not have a *lot* of intersection, like ethics and political philosophy don't, and the few that do such as philosophy of mind or metaphysics are usually not contingent upon physics data to a great extent.

In any case, science is escapable. You can start behaving like a random mess without thought or plan, and avoid technological things, we can argue that you will not live that long, but philosophy is the field that allows that fact to mean anything. Philosophy cannot be avoided, you cannot lack a framework. Thus, my position seems to hold.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Jan 2009, 3:04 am

starvingartist wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

starvingartist wrote:

Pondering and $3.25 will get me a small coffee and a plain dough nut at the local Dunkin' Donut (tm).

ruveyn

if that's the limit of your imagination, then i guess that is all you would get for pondering.

I merely point out that Pondering has its place and its Limits. Pondering as such and by itself will not get the wash done.

I recently participated in a brain study at Rutgers University. I was given several MRI scans of my skull and the brain therein. I asked the researcher if he was able to detect either a mind or a soul. He looked at me funny like. In any case I did not get a definite answer to my question. On the other hand he did ask me if I had AS (keep in mind this researcher had never examined me before). Apparently he saw some kind of anomaly in the brain scan.

ruveyn

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Jan 2009, 8:28 am

Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn. :roll:

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

23 Jan 2009, 8:51 am

ruveyn wrote:

I recently participated in a brain study at Rutgers University. I was given several MRI scans of my skull and the brain therein. I asked the researcher if he was able to detect either a mind or a soul. He looked at me funny like. In any case I did not get a definite answer to my question.

But he could see quite well all activities, you may bring in association with "mind" or "soul", like current religious feeling, love, counting, anger, angst, joy, etc. In a functional MRI active regions in the brain get highlighted and they can be quite well associated to certain states of the mind.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Jan 2009, 9:55 am

slowmutant wrote:

Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn. :roll:

I share the opinion of Demokritos and Lukippus. All that is, are atoms moving in the void. If mind and soul exist they should be objectively detectable.

Thus far no one has ever perceived a mind in any one's skull but his own. Which suggests that the notion of mind is delusional. Also no one has ever objectively detected/observed a soul (whatever that is).

On the other hand I can observer your brain in action and you can observe my brain in action. Conclusion: Brains exist.

ruveyn

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

23 Jan 2009, 10:01 am

Spoken like a true Aspie.

starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

23 Jan 2009, 10:24 am

ruveyn wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn. :roll:

ok you can show me your brain for my eyes to see, but i can't show you my soul for your eyes to see, so i guess you win. man, i guess i really am delusional :lol:

you're not the first to call me that, and i am positive you won't be the last

starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

23 Jan 2009, 10:29 am

ruveyn wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn. :roll:

one more thing though.....can't remember who first came up with idea of atoms, but i bet a lot of people in his time thought he was delusional because i'm pretty sure it was before they had electron microscopes and he couldn't show them to anybody. good thing he didn't listen to those people

just because i don't have a device that can 'measure' or quantify my soul for you, DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST. just means we haven't been able to demonstrate it scientifically yet. and if you think we can measure everything there is to measure in the universe, you are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly foolish. or both.

p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too :wink:

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Jan 2009, 11:24 am

starvingartist wrote:

.

p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too :wink:

I am sure Einstein believed in -his- soul.

ruveyn

starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

23 Jan 2009, 12:26 pm

ruveyn wrote:

starvingartist wrote:

.

p.s. - i'm pretty sure einstein believed in souls. guess he was delusional too :wink:

I am sure Einstein believed in -his- soul.

ruveyn

your arguments sound a lot like "whatev" to me.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

23 Jan 2009, 12:46 pm

starvingartist wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

slowmutant wrote:

Naturally, an MRI won't be able to detect abtract things like mind or soul. You are one funny Hebrew, ruveyn. :roll:

In Berlin in February 1921 Einstein received from a woman in Vienna a letter imploring him to tell her if he had formed an opinion as to whether the soul exists and with it personal, individual development after death. There were other questions of a similar sort. On 5 February 1921 Einstein answered at some length. Here in part is what he said:

The mystical trend of our time, which shows itself particularly in the rampant growth of the so-called Theosophy and Spiritualism, is for me no more than a symptom of weakness and confusion. Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.

Page 4 of 17 [ 259 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 17 Next

Jump to:

Science is a metaphysical party pooper. Post Reply New Topic

Science is a metaphysical party pooper.