Consciousness, Materialism and Idealism

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This is why neither science nor philosophy will ever displace the other.  The two too often inform each other.  Both set about to answer the same questions, but from different angles.  And each answer raises more questions.  Moreover, the answers provided by science inform the questions posed by philosophy.   And vice-versa.  Science says, "We can now manipulate genetic sequences and ensure your baby will be a blue-eyed boy with blonde hair and a finely cut jib."

 

Philosophy asks, "Should we?"

 

Some answers, on the surface, seem easier than others.  Can we manipulate the DNA to eradicate trisomy-21?  Can we identify and eliminate birth defects en utero?  Science can answer with data; but, just as science is agnostic concerning the spiritual, science is generally amoral concerning the effects of the discoveries it makes.  There are exceptions, of course.  Tesla's death ray comes to mind.  As such, science needs philosophy to inform the morality and ethics.  Science has awesome potential--both for destructive ability and creative.  Philosophy, hopefully, keeps science guided more towards the creative and away from the destructive.  Until profit margins are introduced, anyway.  Unfortunately. 

 

I agree again Red entity.      But on Tuesday the Josh entity finished off one of his posts with this.

 

It's all interwoven: The mystical insight, the philosophy, the science, the natural spirituality, the potential economic and socio-political aspirations. 

 

It seems that he wanted only to look at things as a holistic whole, rather than treat the science as something separate from the philosophy or the spirituality.  And so we couldn't agree.  Nor could Josh seem to see that if he could weave science and spirituality together as he saw fit, then everyone else had the right to do the same.  He didn't seem to realize that he was going to set a precedent that others would follow.

 

As I've tried to explain to the midniterider, Dark Bishop and Weezer entities, visiting Christian apologists entities would also like to weave together science and spirituality on their own terms and some have tried to do just that.  If they saw that one of this forum's Moderators weaved science and spirituality together on his own terms then they could justifiably say that a double standard was operating in Ex-C.  The Moderators were allowed to do it but Christian apologists weren't allowed to do it. 

 

A clear case of anti-Christian bias!

 

I'm really sorry that Josh couldn't seem to see the repercussions and consequences of his actions in terms of the good of this forum.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walt entity.

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Philosophy, hopefully, keeps science guided more towards the creative and away from the destructive.  Until profit margins are introduced, anyway.  Unfortunately. 

 

Very true!

[pantheory]

@Walter,

 

your quote:

"I don't limit myself to that, midniterider.  Science does not proceed by consensus of opinion.   So perhaps it would be more accurate would be to ask why I limit myself to the scientific methodology."

 

I think science has a strong basis in consensus opinions, or more precisely, often, the "follow-the-leader" decision making and mentality.

 

To me this is particularly evident in the last hundred years. Of course it has always existed in science, but was less evident to me on my historical readings of it. Modern physics  over the past hundred years, has added a lot of BS to science which has been accepted by most.

 

Look at the trailing quotes  on all of Jash's postings.

 

"One of the most influential theories in the behavioral sciences in recent decades is “groupthink.” :https://evolutionnews.org/2011/08/when_a_consensus_-_on_science/

 

-- which I totally agree with, Groupthink consensus BS in science.  This is a huge problem in science today IMO which promotes religion-like doctrine. Groupthink is only bad IMO when pressure is put on those that don't agree, that they must conform to the consensus -- which is almost always required. A Perfect examples of it is Quantum Theory, The standard model of particle physics, cosmology -- much of the gamut of modern physics is filled with illogical doctrine. Not just in my opinion, but in the opinion of many other scientists in the same field.

 

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-illogical-thing-in-all-of-science

https://sites.psu.edu/astrowright/2020/05/12/science-is-not-logical/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/

etc. etc. etc.

 

To proceed without logic is a valid science approach. It is called the Engineering Method. This is how Quantum Mechanics was developed. If science had to be logical there would not be the great field of quantum Mechanics -- which for the most part is a science of probability and statistics. The problem comes when one tries to bring in logical perspectives of it, called quantum theory. The mathematics of science and the math of theoretical physics are not the same. Math has its own logic and for the most part cannot be contradicted. The math of theoretical physics is not gospel and can be changed or discarded over time.

 

Einstein was also great with words. Although his first language was German, the translations from German as well as his writings in English made a lot of sense to me. He thought that QM was incomplete and had a lot of BS within it, as I do.  Whether he was right or wrong is not the point. The point is that a lot of science today is full of BS, a prime example is quantum theory IMO. Eventually science has to reconciled with logic, and its perspectives and much of its verbiage realized as being philosophy, which many scientists don't understand, and are not willing to do IMO.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Your personal opinions about science are duly noted Pantheory.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Your personal opinions about science are duly noted Pantheory.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

OK, as long as you realize that my opinion in the same as many others in science that see Groupthink as a big problem, as well as many lay folk like Josh. In cosmology this opinion was well-stated by Michael Disney.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

OK, as long as you realize that my opinion in the same as many others in science that see Groupthink as a big problem, as well as many lay folk like Josh. In cosmology this opinion was well-stated by Michael Disney.

 

 

 

 

Pantheory, 

 

 

These many others form a group that all thinks the same way about something.

 

But isn't that exactly what Groupthink is?

 

Pot, Kettle & Black.

 

And that is my opinion.

 

 

But please don't waste your time or mine with any further opinion-airing here.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

15 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Pantheory, 

 

 

These many others form a group that all thinks the same way about something.

 

But isn't that exactly what Groupthink is?

 

Pot, Kettle & Black.

 

And that is my opinion.

 

 

But please don't waste your time or mine with any further opinion-airing here.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

All those that follow Graoupthink ideas believe that contrarians, like myself and the many others that I have mentioned, have got it wrong. Contrarians rarely think the same or agree with other contrarians. You are aware of all the problems in cosmology today, right? This is all due to Graoupthink and the pressure put on those that don't conform IMO. The meaning of contrarians in this sense are those, in the field being discussed, that believe the mainstream has go it wrong.This was explained very well by Michel Disney in the link I provided.  I could explain further but it would be off topic. So ask further questions if you are interested, and I'll start a new thread about it, if you are occasionally interested in non-mainstream answers.

[walterpthefirst]

You don't take a hint very well, Pantheory.

 

That, or you are stubbornly determined to get the last word in, no matter what.

 

So let me spell this out for you and leave you in no doubt as to where I stand.

 

 

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS IN SCIENCE.

 

I DO NOT WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION ANY FURTHER IN THIS THREAD.

 

DO NOT START UP ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT THIS FOR MY BENEFIT.

 

 

Do you read me loud and clear? 

 

(Rhetorical question, btw.  I don't want you to answer it.)

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You don't take a hint very well, Pantheory.

 

That, or you are stubbornly determined to get the last word in, no matter what.

 

So let me spell this out for you and leave you in no doubt as to where I stand.

 

 

I'M NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROBLEMS IN SCIENCE.

 

I DO NOT WANT TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION ANY FURTHER IN THIS THREAD.

 

DO NOT START UP ANOTHER THREAD ABOUT THIS FOR MY BENEFIT.

 

 

Do you read me loud and clear? 

 

(Rhetorical question, btw.  I don't want you to answer it.)

 

 

 

Your writing is a litlle large -- but OK