God without Religion?

[Edgarcito]

45 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Thank you Edgarcito.

 

 

In this forum, we agree that what we have in common is where our bubbles overlap. 

 

This overlap, this commonality is the only place that you and I can communicate meaningfully with each other.

 

So, inside this overlap you and I must be excluding all other possibilities, parameters, variables and such like.

 

All the other immeasurable and infinite unknowns that you've mentioned lie outside our common bubble of overlap.

 

We acknowledge and agree that they exist, but we choose to exclude them.

 

 

And now to our main point of disagreement.  Evidence.

 

Evidence can fall inside our common overlap or it can fall outside of that shared bubble.

 

When you present evidence from outside you exclude me from understanding it.

 

I can only understand evidence that is common to both of us.

 

Therefore, you and I need to agree on a common standard of evidence.

 

A common standard to be used within our common bubble of overlap.

 

 

 

In this thread you asked what the common standard of evidence was.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82693-evidence-types/#comments

 

Posted November 12, 2019

Per our recent conversations.....the question in my mind is what types of evidence will a non-believer accept? 

 

 

I will now set the record straight in my next post.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One, I'm going to attempt an answer but really searching for your definitions of bubble and overlap.  So I will make my own for an example.

 

Within our commonalities there are variables, parameters, and possibilities that I haven't chosen to exclude because they are a real part of the equation.  The infinite and immeasurable lie within our bubble of overlap.  We are on Earth (within the bubble),  subjected to billions of atomic collisions instantaneously (within the bubble yet immeasurable).

 

Let's stop right there for a minute.  We know this is true.  How do you scientifically decide that it's good science to exclude this data?  A constant perhaps??

 

I don't see how science may exclude this subjectivity to yield meaningful data.  You?  Seriously.  Not calling you an ass at the moment.  Please, from a scientific standpoint, how may Edgarcito, the analytical instrument, and Walter, another analytical instrument, find agreement if we are NOT to use what affects/effect our persons.  And the kicker is, the ability to standardize humanity is beyond measure.  So again, how do we standardize humanity when science falls short.  Science demands  that we do really....

 

Let's see.....let's implant a microchip  Yay, issue solved.

[florduh]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Please, from a scientific standpoint, how may Edgarcito, the analytical instrument, and Walter, another analytical instrument, find agreement if we are NOT to use what affects/effect our persons.

 

Who says the goal is agreement? The Mayo Clinic and witch doctors will never agree; are they on equal footing and in need of agreement?

 

Besides, science is the devil's cathedral, right? 

[TruthSeeker0]

I left the religious community because I got sick of trying to measure up to their standards of how one or believes, behaves, or acts to be accepted. Until I became non religious I thought acceptance, true acceptance, was just a pipe dream. 

 

It came at a high cost, finding a place where I can be myself and be accepted, but it was so worth it. 

[Joshpantera]

People tend to get addicted to the forums at times. Trying to win an argument. Trying to prove a point. Loving the platform to speak and the active and lurking audience observing it all. Especially because you can say whatever the hell you want to say, whereas out in the world most people have to refrain from really expressing themselves in these ways. 

 

This goes for some of the christians, too. The community here is a unique one. 

 

 

[WalterP]

One, I'm going to attempt an answer but really searching for your definitions of bubble and overlap.  So I will make my own for an example.

 

Within our commonalities there are variables, parameters, and possibilities that I haven't chosen to exclude because they are a real part of the equation.  The infinite and immeasurable lie within our bubble of overlap.  We are on Earth (within the bubble),  subjected to billions of atomic collisions instantaneously (within the bubble yet immeasurable).

 

Let's stop right there for a minute.  We know this is true.  How do you scientifically decide that it's good science to exclude this data?  A constant perhaps??

 

I don't see how science may exclude this subjectivity to yield meaningful data.  You?  Seriously.  Not calling you an ass at the moment.  Please, from a scientific standpoint, how may Edgarcito, the analytical instrument, and Walter, another analytical instrument, find agreement if we are NOT to use what affects/effect our persons.  And the kicker is, the ability to standardize humanity is beyond measure.  So again, how do we standardize humanity when science falls short.  Science demands  that we do really....

 

Let's see.....let's implant a microchip  Yay, issue solved.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No.  Not a microchip.  A common international standard of evidence gathering and evidence sharing that's used in all science.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

 

You work in a science lab?  Then you use these units.  You have no choice.

 

Issue solved.

 

 

In science ALL evidence gathering (measurement, observation & experiment) and ALL evidence-sharing is done using IS units.

 

ALL scientists use them by common agreement.

 

They outline the common overlap in which ALL scientists work.

 

Evidence that which doesn't fall within the common overlap outlined by SI units is excluded from evidence-sharing.

 

Personal choice is entirely excluded from the processes of evidence gathering and evidence sharing by common agreement.

 

 

This is how science works.

 

Not by personal choice, but by agreed, common standards.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

I would like to add that, while it may not be very precise, we do have real time acces to the affective experience of one another.  I mean we have empathy.  There have been experiments showing this. Similar body reactions while having your finger pricked and watching someone getting their finger pricked. It is not, unfortunately a very precise instrument so very hard to use in scientific measurements. I can FEEL when someone is sad. I can evel feel when my dog is happy. It also depenfs on a person's training and sensitivity. A priest who had done many confessions said that after some years he could gurss the main problem a person had just by looking at his demeanor. Same rings true for therapists probably. 

      However clear acces to someone's memory of an experience especially from a long time ago seems improbable. Based on experience and sensitivity I may feel and guess you were orphaned at a young age, that seems plausible, describing the exact events and subjective experience concerning the respective deaths lesd so.

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I would like to add that, while it may not be very precise, we do have real time acces to the affective experience of one another.  I mean we have empathy.  There have been experiments showing this. Similar body reactions while having your finger pricked and watching someone getting their finger pricked. It is not, unfortunately a very precise instrument so very hard to use in scientific measurements. I can FEEL when someone is sad. I can evel feel when my dog is happy. It also depenfs on a person's training and sensitivity. A priest who had done many confessions said that after some years he could gurss the main problem a person had just by looking at his demeanor. Same rings true for therapists probably. 

      However clear acces to someone's memory of an experience especially from a long time ago seems improbable. Based on experience and sensitivity I may feel and guess you were orphaned at a young age, that seems plausible, describing the exact events and subjective experience concerning the respective deaths lesd so.

 

You raise an excellent point, Myrkhoos. 

 

What about the 'soft' sciences of archaeology, anthropology, psychology, economics and sociology? 

 

What they attempt to describe cannot be readily measured in SI units. 

 

Nor can empathy.  

 

Please give me a little time to find what I need and I'll get back to you on this.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

9 hours ago, WalterP said:

One, I'm going to attempt an answer but really searching for your definitions of bubble and overlap.  So I will make my own for an example.

 

Within our commonalities there are variables, parameters, and possibilities that I haven't chosen to exclude because they are a real part of the equation.  The infinite and immeasurable lie within our bubble of overlap.  We are on Earth (within the bubble),  subjected to billions of atomic collisions instantaneously (within the bubble yet immeasurable).

 

Let's stop right there for a minute.  We know this is true.  How do you scientifically decide that it's good science to exclude this data?  A constant perhaps??

 

I don't see how science may exclude this subjectivity to yield meaningful data.  You?  Seriously.  Not calling you an ass at the moment.  Please, from a scientific standpoint, how may Edgarcito, the analytical instrument, and Walter, another analytical instrument, find agreement if we are NOT to use what affects/effect our persons.  And the kicker is, the ability to standardize humanity is beyond measure.  So again, how do we standardize humanity when science falls short.  Science demands  that we do really....

 

Let's see.....let's implant a microchip  Yay, issue solved.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No.  Not a microchip.  A common international standard of evidence gathering and evidence sharing that's used in all science.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

 

You work in a science lab?  Then you use these units.  You have no choice.

 

Issue solved.

 

 

In science ALL evidence gathering (measurement, observation & experiment) and ALL evidence-sharing is done using IS units.

 

ALL scientists use them by common agreement.

 

They outline the common overlap in which ALL scientists work.

 

Evidence that which doesn't fall within the common overlap outlined by IS units is excluded from evidence-sharing.

 

Personal choice is entirely excluded from the processes of evidence gathering and evidence sharing by common agreement.

 

 

This is how science works.

 

Not by personal choice, but by agreed, common standards.

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Don't have time to respond right now. but you largely missed my inquiry...

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Don't have time to respond right now. but you largely missed my inquiry...

 

No, Edgarcito.  The answer to your inquiry is there, if you think it through and don't get hung up on subjectivity and on what is immeasurable.

 

Science doesn't seek to totally eliminate subjectivity because its recognized that this goal is impossible.

 

Science seeks to keep subjectivity to an acceptable level and go with that.

 

 

 

Your usual response to this goes something along the lines of... 'But subjectivity cannot be managed at all!  Everything is subjective. So we just have to give up!'

 

If this were true then NOTHING measured, observed or experimented on by scientists would ever be valid, meaningful or ever work.

 

If everything were uncontrollably and unmanageable subjective, in the way you assert it is, then NOTHING in science or technology would ever work.

 

 

 

But history and our own experiences tell us that science and technology DO work.  

 

They work, they produce consistent and reliable results and we all (including you) rely upon their reliability.

 

Therefore, your everything-is-subjective conclusion MUST be false.

 

 

Your beliefs about subjectivity are false, Edgarcito.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

No, Edgarcito.  The answer to your inquiry is there, if you think it through and don't get hung up on subjectivity and on what is immeasurable.

 

Science doesn't seek to totally eliminate subjectivity because its recognized that this goal is impossible.

 

Science seeks to keep subjectivity to an acceptable level and go with that.

 

 

 

Your usual response to this goes something along the lines of... 'But subjectivity cannot be managed at all!  Everything is subjective. So we just have to give up!'

 

If this were true then NOTHING measured, observed or experimented on by scientists would ever be valid, meaningful or ever work.

 

If everything were uncontrollably and unmanageable subjective, in the way you assert it is, then NOTHING in science or technology would ever work.

 

 

 

But history and our own experiences tell us that science and technology DO work.  

 

They work, they produce consistent and reliable results and we all (including you) rely upon their reliability.

 

Therefore, your everything-is-subjective conclusion MUST be false.

 

 

Your beliefs about subjectivity are false, Edgarcito.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

The problem is you are saying that my (hard science) body should behave as Florduh's (more hard science) body.  That if we agree on data produced by analytical instruments/measurements that our bodies should match those answers....after all, it's hard science.  You have failed to demonstrate even remotely how you will achieve this.  Myrkhoos alluded to something similar, but you dismissed that as soft science....a crock response......natural biology is not a soft science to my understanding.  It's THAT subjectivity I am discussing.  And the added insult is that you use science to demean people, when they have YOUR type evidence, well, hell, we can agree....you're one of us. 

 

Huh, thinking out loud, a standard for humanity???  One that we can understand, an internal standard even......thought let's say........communion.  I'll be damn Walter, it's starting to sound like science....

[WalterP]

  13 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I would like to add that, while it may not be very precise, we do have real time acces to the affective experience of one another.  I mean we have empathy.  There have been experiments showing this. Similar body reactions while having your finger pricked and watching someone getting their finger pricked. It is not, unfortunately a very precise instrument so very hard to use in scientific measurements. I can FEEL when someone is sad. I can evel feel when my dog is happy. It also depenfs on a person's training and sensitivity. A priest who had done many confessions said that after some years he could gurss the main problem a person had just by looking at his demeanor. Same rings true for therapists probably. 

      However clear acces to someone's memory of an experience especially from a long time ago seems improbable. Based on experience and sensitivity I may feel and guess you were orphaned at a young age, that seems plausible, describing the exact events and subjective experience concerning the respective deaths lesd so.

 

You raise an excellent point, Myrkhoos.  

What about the 'soft' sciences of archaeology, anthropology, psychology, economics and sociology? 

What they attempt to describe cannot be readily measured in SI units. 

Nor can empathy.  

Please give me a little time to find what I need and I'll get back to you on this.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hello again Mykhoos.

 

The June edition of Scientific American features an article on Near Death Experiences by Christof Koch.  

 

https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/about/team/staff-profiles/christof-koch/

 

I won't go into the meat of the article, but instead draw your attention to how Koch approaches NDE's, which are, of course, things that can't be measured by SI units.

 

I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences.  They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception.  As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones. 

 

That premise has served science and its hand-maiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption. The challenge, then, is to explain NDEs within a natural framework.

 

His approach would probably be very similar if he were investigating the human capacity for empathy.  Koch would proceed on the scientific assumption that empathy is real to those feeling it, but empathy itself originates in the entirely natural processes within the human brain.

 

His approach would probably be the same for anthropologists, sociologists and other practitioners of the 'soft' sciences.  They would probably acknowledge the personal and subjective reality of what was being related to them.  They would not dismiss these things as false, because they couldn't be measured by a machine.

 

Does that help, Myrkoos?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[WalterP]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The problem is you are saying that my (hard science) body should behave as Florduh's (more hard science) body.  That if we agree on data produced by analytical instruments/measurements that our bodies should match those answers....after all, it's hard science.  You have failed to demonstrate even remotely how you will achieve this.  Myrkhoos alluded to something similar, but you dismissed that as soft science....a crock response......natural biology is not a soft science to my understanding.  It's THAT subjectivity I am discussing.  And the added insult is that you use science to demean people, when they have YOUR type evidence, well, hell, we can agree....you're one of us. 

 

Huh, thinking out loud, a standard for humanity???  One that we can understand, an internal standard even......thought let's say........communion.  I'll be damn Walter, it's starting to sound like science....

 

I've just answered Mykhoos and there was nothing dismissive in my reply. 

 

The term 'soft' is not a disparagement but a way of differentiating between those sciences that can measure reality using SI units and those that can't.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[WalterP]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The problem is you are saying that my (hard science) body should behave as Florduh's (more hard science) body.  That if we agree on data produced by analytical instruments/measurements that our bodies should match those answers....after all, it's hard science.  You have failed to demonstrate even remotely how you will achieve this.  Myrkhoos alluded to something similar, but you dismissed that as soft science....a crock response......natural biology is not a soft science to my understanding.  It's THAT subjectivity I am discussing.  And the added insult is that you use science to demean people, when they have YOUR type evidence, well, hell, we can agree....you're one of us. 

 

Huh, thinking out loud, a standard for humanity???  One that we can understand, an internal standard even......thought let's say........communion.  I'll be damn Walter, it's starting to sound like science....

 

Edgarcito,

 

Despite your accusation, in fact, I HAVE demonstrated how science controls and manages subjectivity.

 

It does so by common agreement among scientists.

 

I've also demonstrated that this method works by alluding to the history of science and the ongoing successes of it in our lives.

 

The methodology of common agreement clearly works - it's just that you can't accept that it does.

 

Your inability (or unwillingness) to accept what is plainly obvious to us all is very sad.

 

But if you can argue that science doesn't or can't successfully deal with subjectivity, good luck with that.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

14 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Edgarcito,

 

Despite your accusation, in fact, I HAVE demonstrated how science controls and manages subjectivity.

 

It does so by common agreement among scientists.

 

I've also demonstrated that this method works by alluding to the history of science and the ongoing successes of it in our lives.

 

The methodology of common agreement clearly works - it's just that you can't accept that it does.

 

Your inability (or unwillingness) to accept what is plainly obvious to us all is very sad.

 

But if you can argue that science doesn't or can't successfully deal with subjectivity, good luck with that.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

There you go with your condescension.  My body will not come to the same repeatability/reproducibility that anyone else's will and you don't have an answer.  (We build instruments to remove that subjectivity).  It's as plain as that. Yet you demean and hold people in contempt for their not accepting the instrumental results as the complete truth.  Are  you challenged or slow or can you elaborate on how you miss this concept? 

[Edgarcito]

Again, how are you going to standardize human response, with what standard, with what methodology, with what instrument, with what science, with high confidence. 

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

There you go with your condescension.  My body will not come to the same repeatability/reproducibility that anyone else's will and you don't have an answer.  (We build instruments to remove that subjectivity).  It's as plain as that. Yet you demean and hold people in contempt for their not accepting the instrumental results.  Are  you challenged or slow or can you elaborate on how you miss this concept? 

 

You are not following the argument, Edgarcito.

 

I'm sorry, but this is not a condescending comment on my part, it's a realistic description of what's happening in this thread.

 

I do have an answer and I have answered ALL of your points and questions so far.

 

Subjectivity is not removed in science - that would be impossible.

 

Instead, science manages and controls subjectivity by the use of common agreement.

 

I am sorry that you just can't seem to see that.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[WalterP]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Again, how are you going to standardize human response, with what standard, with what methodology, with what instrument, with what science, with high confidence. 

 

Science standardizes evidence-gathering by the use of SI units and by every scientist agreeing to use common standards and common methodologies.

 

It also standardizes evidence-sharing by using SI units, peer review and agreement among scientists to all use common standards and common methodologies.

 

Because all scientists are (metaphorically) singing off the same hymn sheet in evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing, subjectivity is not eliminated, but managed and controlled.

 

I shouldn't have to keep making this point over and over again, Edgarcito.

 

Just look at the history of science and look at how science influences your life every day.

 

It's clearly successful, clearly gets results and is clearly reliable.

 

So, I'll ask you this.

 

Would you like to argue against these historically proven facts?

 

Well?

[midniterider]

"I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences.  They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception.  As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones.

 

How sad that he constrains his thinking to a physical reality. Not all scientists are materialists. 

 

That premise has served science and its hand-maiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption. The challenge, then, is to explain NDEs within a natural framework."

 

Extraordinary and compelling are personal opinion. Someone can present evidence of the paranormal and someone else can just say "Nope, that's not compelling." I guess I could also say that explaining NDEs within a natural framework just isnt compelling to me therefore I will reject it. 

 

........

 

 

[WalterP]

18 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

There you go with your condescension.  My body will not come to the same repeatability/reproducibility that anyone else's will and you don't have an answer.  (We build instruments to remove that subjectivity).  It's as plain as that. Yet you demean and hold people in contempt for their not accepting the instrumental results.  Are  you challenged or slow or can you elaborate on how you miss this concept? 

 

Your body will come to the same repeatability/reproducibility as mine will in the following scenario.

 

If I try to fly by jumping off the Empire State Building I will die.

 

If you try and do the same, you will die in the same way.

 

We both performed the same experiment and the same result was reproduced.

 

There are many, many examples where you and I, doing the same things, will achieve the same results.

 

Your claim is therefore false.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

10 minutes ago, midniterider said:

"I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences.  They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception.  As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones.

 

How sad that he constrains his thinking to a physical reality. Not all scientists are materialists. 

 

That premise has served science and its hand-maiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption. The challenge, then, is to explain NDEs within a natural framework."

 

Extraordinary and compelling are personal opinion. Someone can present evidence of the paranormal and someone else can just say "Nope, that's not compelling." I guess I could also say that explaining NDEs within a natural framework just isnt compelling to me therefore I will reject it. 

 

........

 

 

 

That is, more or less, Edgarcito's approach, midniterider.  

 

He won't accept the framework that science successfully uses to get reliable results.

 

So he rejects it.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

33 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Science standardizes evidence-gathering by the use of SI units and by every scientist agreeing to use common standards and common methodologies.

 

It also standardizes evidence-sharing by using SI units, peer review and agreement among scientists to all use common standards and common methodologies.

 

Because all scientists are (metaphorically) singing off the same hymn sheet in evidence-gathering and evidence-sharing, subjectivity is not eliminated, but managed and controlled.

 

I shouldn't have to keep making this point over and over again, Edgarcito.

 

Just look at the history of science and look at how science influences your life every day.

 

It's clearly successful, clearly gets results and is clearly reliable.

 

So, I'll ask you this.

 

Would you like to argue against these historically proven facts?

 

Well?

I understand that you are saying science is used to remove the subjectivity.  I do this about 10 hours a day, six days a week......got that part.   What I am asking in light of your last response, is how does science account for the subjectivity of humans...i.e, how may we measure human bodies, with science, and explain the "output".    Don't really try to answer that because we know we can't at this point.  My disdain for your type is that you take what we do "know" and apply this to a person, a soul, a collection of experiences, for lack of better words, and expect that they should come to the same conclusion that you do, but have no conclusive data to support why they should or shouldn't. 

 

What is love scientifically, what is faith, hatred, longing, sadness, joy.  Until science comes up with these type answers, biochemical reactions, mechanisms, what have you, I don't buy your bullshit Walter.  And you can go to hell for holding this over people.  Use science to figure it out or shut the fuck up.

 

Edit:  you limey bastard  lol.  Thanks. 

 

 

[Myrkhoos]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

  13 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

I would like to add that, while it may not be very precise, we do have real time acces to the affective experience of one another.  I mean we have empathy.  There have been experiments showing this. Similar body reactions while having your finger pricked and watching someone getting their finger pricked. It is not, unfortunately a very precise instrument so very hard to use in scientific measurements. I can FEEL when someone is sad. I can evel feel when my dog is happy. It also depenfs on a person's training and sensitivity. A priest who had done many confessions said that after some years he could gurss the main problem a person had just by looking at his demeanor. Same rings true for therapists probably. 

      However clear acces to someone's memory of an experience especially from a long time ago seems improbable. Based on experience and sensitivity I may feel and guess you were orphaned at a young age, that seems plausible, describing the exact events and subjective experience concerning the respective deaths lesd so.

 

You raise an excellent point, Myrkhoos.  

What about the 'soft' sciences of archaeology, anthropology, psychology, economics and sociology? 

What they attempt to describe cannot be readily measured in SI units. 

Nor can empathy.  

Please give me a little time to find what I need and I'll get back to you on this.

Thank you.

Walter.

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hello again Mykhoos.

 

The June edition of Scientific American features an article on Near Death Experiences by Christof Koch.  

 

https://alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/brain-science/about/team/staff-profiles/christof-koch/

 

I won't go into the meat of the article, but instead draw your attention to how Koch approaches NDE's, which are, of course, things that can't be measured by SI units.

 

I accept the reality of these intensely felt experiences.  They are as authentic as any other subjective feeling or perception.  As a scientist, however, I operate under the hypothesis that all our thoughts, memories, percepts and experiences are an ineluctable consequence of the natural causal powers of our brain rather than of any supernatural ones. 

 

That premise has served science and its hand-maiden, technology, extremely well over the past few centuries. Unless there is extraordinary, compelling objective evidence to the contrary, I see no reason to abandon this assumption. The challenge, then, is to explain NDEs within a natural framework.

 

His approach would probably be very similar if he were investigating the human capacity for empathy.  Koch would proceed on the scientific assumption that empathy is real to those feeling it, but empathy itself originates in the entirely natural processes within the human brain.

 

His approach would probably be the same for anthropologists, sociologists and other practitioners of the 'soft' sciences.  They would probably acknowledge the personal and subjective reality of what was being related to them.  They would not dismiss these things as false, because they couldn't be measured by a machine.

 

Does that help, Myrkoos?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Well, yes.  But my original point is that we, as a living human being can asses in some way the state of another human without the need for major exterior tests. And that ability can be honed. I was making a fairly unremarkable point. Our senses are limited and biased and flawed but they are by and large useful and productive in everyday life.

      

         

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Edgarcito said:

I understand that you are saying science is used to remove the subjectivity.  I do this about 10 hours a day, six days a week......got that part.   What I am asking in light of your last response, is how does science account for the subjectivity of humans...i.e, how may we measure human bodies, with science, and explain the "output".    Don't really try to answer that because we know we can't at this point.  My disdain for your type is that you take what we do "know" and apply this to a person, a soul, a collection of experiences, for lack of better words, and expect that they should come to the same conclusion that you do, but have no conclusive data to support why they should or shouldn't. 

 

What is love scientifically, what is faith, hatred, longing, sadness, joy.  Until science comes up with these type answers, biochemical reactions, mechanisms, what have you, I don't buy your bullshit Walter.  And you can go to hell for holding this over people.  Use science to figure it out or shut the fuck up. 

 

 

 

Science accounts for (but does not eliminate) the subjectivity of humans by the process I've already explained, Edgarcito.

 

By collective and common agreement.

 

Science can only address and investigate the natural universe. 

 

Therefore it is agnostic regarding to the existence of a human soul.

 

Science acknowledges the existence of faith, hatred, longing, sadness and joy, but as Koch eloquently described, it works under the assumption that all these things are natural products of the workings of the human brain.

 

I'm not asking you to buy anything, btw.

 

You've made it abundantly clear that you will not accept my reasoned and reasonable arguments as a matter of personal choice, not because my arguments are flawed.

 

But aren't you going to try and argue that science isn't historically successful and reliable in your life and in your work?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[WalterP]

1 minute ago, Myrkhoos said:

Well, yes.  But my original point is that we, as a living human being can asses in some way the state of another human without the need for major exterior tests. And that ability can be honed. I was making a fairly unremarkable point. Our senses are limited and biased and flawed but they are by and large useful and productive in everyday life.

      

         

 

Ok Myrkhoos.

 

I see that now and I have no quibble with your point.  If anything, we agree. 

 

Since humans share a great deal in common and occupy the same 'bubble' as each other, it's hardly surprising that two different people can relate to one another empathically.

 

Even with our limited, biased and flawed senses one person can readily empathize with another.

 

Our evolution has supplied us with this latent ability and some people can express it better than others.

 

Our natural capacity for empathy is a powerful argument for the unity and commonality of all humans.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

19 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

Science accounts for (but does not eliminate) the subjectivity of humans by the process I've already explained, Edgarcito.

 

You've made it abundantly clear that you will not accept my reasoned and reasonable arguments as a matter of personal choice, not because my arguments are flawed.

 

But aren't you going to try and argue that science isn't historically successful and reliable in your life and in your work?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

I was just looking for the first sentence...thanks.

And regarding sentences 2 & 3, the difference is sentence one. 

Yes my lab is successful because the science is more complete.  I don't argue with my clients and tell them to believe one way or the other, or insinuate they should with less complete science.

 

For the record, I don't dislike you nor wish you in hell.  I dislike the attitude.  Perhaps I am misunderstanding yours.  I discuss with "ardent fervor".   I think I'm part limey bastard myself....my  family that I can tell originated in Devon?

 

Thank you sir.