Science/Environment Gary Ablett disputes evolution

[Malifice]

Not really.

It's observable.

So are dreams.

It's like saying that you need faith to accept that the sky is blue or that water is wet.

You do need faith. How can you know that what you see as Blue, I don't see as Red?

Would there ever be any way of knowing?

Also, you need faith to accept the sky is even there at all.

i reckon you're making a disingenuously reductivist argument to create a false parallel. To argue that science is just as dependent on faith – i.e. a belief in something despite a lack of evidence – as religion is too wave away the fundamental differences between the two approaches.

Science relies on Faith before it gets off the ground. Thus it is prone to exactly the same criticisms that one directs towards faith.

I call it a tie between the two. Both equally useful and useless in the discovery of any final 'truth'.

Riiiiiiggggggghhhhhttt.

Like I said, the ultimate redundancy.

I know things exist because I exist.

I don't think you understand the significance of 'I think therefore I am' (Cogito Ergo Sum).

In a nutshell the statement translates into the following statement:

"I am the only thing that I can ever logically know to exist. Everything else can only ever be accepted on faith"

Descartes specifically and intentionally excludes the Universe from what one can know 'exists'.

I think therefore I am. Everything else = ?

Its not "I think therefore the Universe is."

Think about it. How can you ever know (logically and without the application of Faith) that you aren't in the 'Matrix' or something resembling it right now?

Or that what you perceive to be matter... well isnt?

You know 100% that YOU exist. Everything else - including the Universe around you is accepted on FAITH.

As long as things are observable, grand illusion or otherwise, all science is concerned with is the there and then (what is quantifiable).

But if its an illusion... is it there and then? What if space and time are the illusions? You can NEVER know (logically) for sure.

It does not matter if this was the matrix, because then they would just be bytes (which are still matter).

But you dont know if it is the Matrix do you. And you cant ever know? Or even if this Matrix uses bytes. Or even if the 'real' world outside the matrix - should one actually even exist - has totally different dimensions or rules to this universe.

You can speculate all you like. Its just blind faith.

TBH there is not a great deal of difference between the matrix and what we know about the universe (on a fundamental level).

How could you possibly know this?

What if the real world was considerably different. Like cause and effect didn't happen?

 

[Malifice]

He is implying that accepting the existence of things requires faith, yet I believe the necessity of input to develop cognition is a solid argument against that.

Input? Thats just the way you percieve it. You cant know if that's whats really happening.

Also physiological response, does not require conscious thought, yet can be observed consciously.

So you're accepting that your body exists now?

I don't need to be sure of a flames existence for it to effect me.

Next thing you'll be kicking a rock and saying "I refute you thus"

Still using faith. Matrix flames burn you too. Nothing you can do to get away from this.

If it's all just in my head then I make the rules and I say you're wrong. If the universe really does exist then you are wrong. You are wrong either way.

Exactly my point actually.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Well then I can think, therefore I exist.

Worded differently so you don't need to attach another's meaning to the saying.

See your whole argument resides around the idea that I need to have faith to make observations, yet instinct and reaction contradict this.

The fact I can react to something before consciously realising it, or in a way that I cannot control, yet still observe (and hey it is part of what I define as self), I believe is a solid argument against your position.

Indeed our surroundings force us into the act of observation. Your mind can only think in the way it does because of input.

Yet you say you can never really be sure of this. Well it does not really matter then does it? You can never really be sure, that you can never really be sure.

The self is relative and the very act of self awareness, requires that act to be at least relative to one other thing.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Polly Farmer is a Satanist

Jezza is the Grand Poobah of Wikka

Simon Maddern worships Pokemon characters

Bob Rose belonged to a religion that involved making graven idols of Ewoks

Who gives a **** what Gary Snr thinks of anything!!!!!

 

[Play by Numbers]

Input? Thats just the way you percieve it. You cant know if that's whats really happening.



So you're accepting that your body exists now?



Next thing you'll be kicking a rock and saying "I refute you thus"

Still using faith. Matrix flames burn you too. Nothing you can do to get away from this.



Exactly my point actually.

See now you are just stringing together words and pretending that it has a meaning. Or is relevant to my points.

Make sense plox.

Also the matrix is a terrible analogy, this has been established.

 

[Malifice]

Well then I can think, therefore I exist.

Exactly correct.

What Descartes was getting at with this statement is its the ONLY thing you can know to exist without the application of faith.

I think - therefore I exist.

Not I think therefore the universe exists, not anything else existing. Not your physical body or whatever form the 'I' takes.

Just that your ability to question the universe means (from your own perspective) that you know %100 that you exist. Your 'mind' (whatever that is).

He intentionally excluded the rest of the universe. You cant ever be sure that its really 'out there' or not the 'matrix' or a dream or whatever short of blind faith.

Worded differently so you don't need to attach another's meaning to the saying.

I'm not wording anything differently dude. Thats the whole point of Descartes Philosophy.

The only thing you can ever know 100% to exist... is the 'self.'

Its pretty cool though hey?

See your whole argument resides around the idea that I need to have faith to make observations, yet instinct and reaction contradict this.

We're relying on instinct now?

FWIW, 'you' can make observations. This is where the empirical stuff and reason comes into it. Its just what exactly 'you' are observing you have to accept on faith.

The fact I can react to something before consciously realising it, or in a way that I cannot control, yet still observe (and hey it is part of what I define as self), I believe is a solid argument against your position.

Time is part of the universe just like space. You accept it on faith as well.

Indeed our surroundings force us into the act of observation. Your mind can only think in the way it does because of input.

You cant know this. Perhaps your mind creates the input in the first place. Quantum science certainly supports this hypothesis from a Scientific position.

But again, faith. After the 'I' everything else is simply faith.

Yet you say you can never really be sure of this. Well it does not really matter then does it? You can never really be sure, that you can never really be sure.

Not really. Its a critique of both science and religion. Both ultimately futile IMO.

Dont worry. A new Paradigm will come along that's better than both Science and Religion.

I hope.

 

[Play by Numbers]

No I disagree with Descartes.

Thinking requires differentiation.

If there is only the "I", then self awareness is not possible.

I see you skipped this before.

The self or sense of self is purely relative.

 

[Contra Mundum]

No I disagree with Descartes.

Thinking requires differentiation.

If there is only the "I", then self awareness is not possible.

I see you skipped this before.

The self or sense of self is purely relative.

That is a very very big call - Western Philosophy would have been entirely different if he had not written the "Meditations on First Philosophy". It is very readable here is a good summary on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

 

[Play by Numbers]

That is a very very big call - Western Philosophy would have been entirely different if he had not written the "Meditations on First Philosophy". It is very readable here is a good summary on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

Not really.

I disagree with Aristotle and have a better understanding of motion than Galileo, whose ideas were central to my education and modern science.

Influence, does not necessarily equate to being correct.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Not really.

I disagree with Aristotle and have a better understanding of motion than Galileo, whose ideas were central to my education and modern science.

Influence, does not necessarily equate to being correct.

Why does thinking require differentiation when your only access to the "world in itself" is itself an act of thought. How then am I differentiated from the world around me which I only know through my senses which are themselves a product of the mind

 

[Malifice]

No I disagree with Descartes.

Thinking requires differentiation.

By differentiation do you mean points of reference in the 'outside' world?

People in comas 'think' do they not? Same with dreams.

If there is only the "I", then self awareness is not possible.

Its the 'I' that makes self awareness possible. Its the I that is self aware. It indicates self doubt and the ability to question.

The self or sense of self is purely relative.

Relative to what?

Nothing else 100% exists remember.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Why does thinking require differentiation when your only access to the "world in itself" is itself an act of thought. How then am I differentiated from the world around me which I only know through my senses which are themselves a product of the mind

Because, the mind or thought could not exist if it was not relative to something.

There would be no thought, just an endless absoluteness.

Alternately if you are only your thoughts, then they have to exist within something, or else again they cannot produce more of themselves or you could not cognitively differentiate, if there was nothing to differentiate against.

 

[Play by Numbers]

By differentiation do you mean points of reference in the 'outside' world?

People in comas 'think' do they not? Same with dreams.



Its the 'I' that makes self awareness possible. Its the I that is self aware. It indicates self doubt and the ability to question.



Relative to what?

Nothing else 100% exists remember.

Yep and they still exist within the outside world.

They also were not always in a coma.

As for the highlighted, even the ability to question indicates that the I is not the only thing that exists.

Poor use of a platitude.

 

[Malifice]

Because, the mind or though could not exist if it was not relative to something.

There would be no thought, just an endless absoluteness.

Or the mind could be 'projecting' the universe around itself:

What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness. An "external" reality, if it existed, would by definition have to exist in space. But this is meaningless, because space and time are not absolute realities but rather tools of the human and animal mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)

In the Biocentric model of the universe.

 

[Malifice]

Yep and they still exist within the outside world.

How do you know this? You cant. Faith.

They also were not always in a coma.

Would it matter if they were born in one? No point of reference then right?

As for the highlighted, even the ability to question indicates that the I is not the only thing that exists.

No, its the 'I' that is questioning the existence of the 'I'.

Self doubt proves self existence.

If the universe could doubt itself then that would be interesting. But, to the best of our knowledge it cant.

And even if it could, we would have no way of ever knowing it was.

 

[Suspense]

Simon Maddern worships Pokemon characters

 

[Play by Numbers]

FFS you offer that like its proof.

And whose mind is doing the projecting?

Yep interesting but note there seems to be no great consensus.

I also find the act of providing "proof" for ideas which cannot be disproven rather ironic.

In USA Today Online, astrophysicist and science writer David Lindley asserted that Lanza’s concept was a "vague, inarticulate metaphor" and stated that "I certainly don't see how thinking his way would lead you into any new sort of scientific or philosophical insight. That's all very nice, I would say to Lanza, but now what? I [also] take issue with his views about physics."[15] Daniel Dennett, a Tufts University philosopher, said he did not think the concept meets the standard of a philosophical theory. "It looks like an opposite of a theory, because he doesn't explain how it [consciousness] happens at all. [...] He's stopping where the fun begins."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(c)#cite_note-15

I would have to read it, but some of the ideas that the wiki article mentions he raises whilst being generally accepted as scientific fact or credible within the framework of certain prevailing theories, do not necessarily have to support his linking of conclusions.

Why are you bothering to cite sources or similar opinions anyway.

 

[Malifice]

FFS you offer that like its proof.

No. Just an alternative proposition that doesnt require an external universe to exist.

And that is supported by science. And is falsifiable.

And whose mind is doing the projecting?

Yours.

Yep interesting but note there seems to be no great consensus.

Copernicus and Galileo didn't have a great consensus early on either.

I also find the act of providing "proof" for ideas which cannot be disproven rather ironic.

Read it closely. It can be falsified.

Why are you bothering to cite sources or similar opinions anyway.

I only put it out there as:

a) Its a cool theory. Faith optional.
b) To show you a Scientific theory that doesn't rely on the outside universe existing at all.
c) To highlight the problems with your insistence that the universe must exist 'out there' and independent of the self. It very well might do so, but we can never know for sure. Mostly we just accept it on faith.

 

[Malifice]

For the record, the Universe could very well exist 'out there' and independent of the self.

I personally don't think it does. That's my subjective view. Objectively however, the universe's existence certainly cant be rationally proved or accepted without the application of faith (to get off the starting line at least).

 

[Play by Numbers]

No. Just an alternative proposition that doesnt require an external universe to exist.

And that is supported by science. And is falsifiable.



Yours.



Copernicus and Galileo didn't have a great consensus early on either.



Read it closely. It can be falsified.



I only put it out there as:

a) Its a cool theory. Faith optional.
b) To show you a Scientific theory that doesn't rely on the outside universe existing at all.
c) To highlight the problems with your insistence that the universe must exist 'out there' and independent of the self. It very well might do so, but we can never know for sure. Mostly we just accept it on faith.

Well it isn't according to you.

And it is not scientific theory, it is a theory. He is connecting dots and filling in gaps, from ideas that are part of scientific theories.

There is a huge difference.

Also explain to me now, how it is possible for somebody to be self aware or have a conception of self without it being relative to something else.

Go on, I dare you.

 

[Nasma]

Firstly, I haven't read the last couple of pages as I've got to get to bed.

Malifice, two points.

1) There is a reason that I suggested that believing in a shared reality is a prerequisite for discussion. Without this there is nothing meaningful to say, almost by definition. I would also point out that your everyday actions suggest that you do believe in a shared reality. But it's probably best to leave this, as there is no way to prove anything either way, ever.

2) I think that you are pushing the definition of 'faith' too far. If you are using the word to mean anything less than 100% certainty, then yes, all knowledge about the world relies on 'faith'. This does not correspond with how the word is used in, normal discourse. I think that it is misleading to use the word 'faith' in a way that is very different from how it is commonly understood. It's like saying that "god is exists, and by the way I define god as energy". Saying that both religion and science are based on 'faith' is similarly misleading.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Firstly, I haven't read the last couple of pages as I've got to get to bed.

Malifice, two points.

1) There is a reason that I suggested that believing in a shared reality is a prerequisite for discussion. Without this there is nothing meaningful to say, almost by definition. I would also point out that your everyday actions suggest that you do believe in a shared reality. But it's probably best to leave this, as there is no way to prove anything either way, ever.

2) I think that you are pushing the definition of 'faith' too far. If you are using the word to mean anything less than 100% certainty, then yes, all knowledge about the world relies on 'faith'. This does not correspond with how the word is used in, normal discourse. I think that it is misleading to use the word 'faith' in a way that is very different from how it is commonly understood. It's like saying that "god is exists, and by the way I define god as energy". Saying that both religion and science are based on 'faith' is similarly misleading.

You stole my next point.

Indeed why argue, if he does not acknowledge the existence of another self(or plural).

They in turn must exist somewhere, or at least outside of the self.

 

[Rockford]

So? Youre assuming the universe exists as you percieve it in the first place.

This is an act of Faith before you've even gotten off the ground with your scientific theory (which is of course again a self defeating again anyway due to falsifiability).

Also, religion doesnt need Reason to refute its theories. Its actually quite impossible to do so actually. Youre fighting a losing battle even trying.

Ugh, philosophy for dummies?

I think, therefore I am. I observe, therefore I am. Nothing else really matters to me. Whether what I observe exists in my consciousness, or, whether the Universe really exists outside and that's what I'm observing (or whether it's something in between or something else entirely) scientific theory still applies to my observations. I have never observed any evidence for God, or for the theory of Creationism. I have observed evidence for Evolution.

And can I scream now?

Go ahead and scream, what would be the point? No one can hear you, you're not really screaming, we're all just projected by your consciousness

 

[Malifice]

Well it isn't according to you.

What isnt?

And it is not scientific theory, it is a theory. He is connecting dots and filling in gaps, from ideas that are part of scientific theories.

Its empirical, falsifiable and testable. Its scientific.

The 'Grand unified theory' is just connecting the dots and filling in gaps.

As a matter of fact, Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo and Hawking just connected dots and filled in gaps as well.

Also explain to me now, how it is possible for somebody to be self aware or have a conception of self without it being relative to something else.

Go on, I dare you.

OK. For a crude example imagine you are born in a coma. Completely cut off from the outside world. Yet (according to science anyway) you still think and dream.

More importantly, and correctly why do we need even to relate to something to exist? Why couldn't we exist in a vacuum? Isn't that the whole beauty (and terror) of being self aware.

Our awareness is generated from the self. It is not in doubt. Individually. You cant be sure I exist for example. Only yourself.

There probably is something 'out there.' Or more accurately, we clearly perceive there is something out there anyway. But what exactly it is is impossible to know for sure. And you can only accept its rules, its form, and indeed even its existence... on faith.

You exist (from your perspective) as you are self aware. The only doubt is what (or even if)we are actually observing, measuring and interacting with 'out there'.

You can accept 'out there' as existing independently of the 'you' but you can only do so on faith. After this step, you can measure, observe and interact all you like.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Ok now this is just getting downright silly.......