Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does science ask and answer "why" questions?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 118 of 353 (647527)
01-10-2012 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Panda
01-10-2012 4:39 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
jar writes:
No, the neurons do not cause love, honor, faith, beauty, God ...
Panda writes:
But since we can stimulate those sensations by altering the brain chemistry - clearly they do.
Indeed. Furthermore - Try experiencing those things without a physical brain or any neurons!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Panda, posted 01-10-2012 4:39 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 8:32 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 122 of 353 (647546)
01-10-2012 9:24 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by jar
01-10-2012 8:31 AM


Re: Dualism.......?
jar writes:
But I am a dualist.
Obviously. Which is why your position suffers from all the problems with dualism.
If something is causeless then it is just random isn't it? Do you think your preferences just occur randomly? Or are you suggesting that your preferences and ideals are uncaused but somehow non-random?
How exactly do you see this dualism of yours occurring and why is there the demonstrable link between the physical and the things that you claim are non-physical? (e.g. firing neurons and feelings of love)
This seems to be the key to understanding your approach to 'why' questions that you think are best answered by religion rather than science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 8:31 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 9:48 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 123 of 353 (647548)
01-10-2012 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by jar
01-10-2012 8:32 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
jar writes:
but the ideal, love, beauty, honor exists even if there is no one to experience it.
Well that is debatable. But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it?
jar writes:
And the cause is of course irrelevant to the preference.
The physical cause of your preferences is very relevant to them. If we were to selectively lobotomise you or ply you with various mind altering drugs your preferences would doubtless be significantly effected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 8:32 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 9:49 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 127 of 353 (647557)
01-10-2012 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by jar
01-10-2012 9:49 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold?
Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 9:49 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 10:02 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 135 of 353 (647589)
01-10-2012 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jar
01-10-2012 9:48 AM


Re: Dualism.......?
jar writes:
but the ideal, love, beauty, honor exists even if there is no one to experience it.
jar writes:
The ideals seem to be causeless but not random.
Beauty (for example) is in the eye of the beholder is it not?
How can there be an "ideal" beauty when what you think is beautiful I may well not?
It seems inarguable that what one considers beautiful is the brain's reaction to physical stimuli of one sort or another.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 9:48 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 2:17 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 136 of 353 (647591)
01-10-2012 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by jar
01-10-2012 10:02 AM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Straggler writes:
But your preference for a blue sky (which is what we were talking about) requires your brain to physically exist doesn't it?
jar writes:
And as I said, I am not at all sure and in fact believe that such things do not require my brain to exist.
Straggler writes:
Do you accept that changes to your physical brain (e.g. selective lobotomisation or mind altering drugs) will change the preferences that you hold?
jar writes:
Sure. But I also find that totally irrelevant and unimportant to the issue.
Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains.
How do you reconcile this?
Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 10:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:52 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 144 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 2:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 137 of 353 (647596)
01-10-2012 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by New Cat's Eye
01-10-2012 10:34 AM


Context
From the OP:
quote:
(1) Science doesn't ask/answer "why" questions
(2) The proper use of "why" is to answer questions of purpose.
(3) Science answers the "how" questions and religion answers the "why" questions."
CS writes:
It does answer some why questions, just not the ones referred to in statement 3.
Which ones are they? How do we identify them?
CS writes:
There are other proper uses of that word, just not in the context of statement 3.
The "context of statement 3" being.......? What exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-10-2012 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-11-2012 4:34 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 139 of 353 (647601)
01-10-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
01-07-2012 10:42 PM


Re: who what when where why how ... purpose and science
I see you have been cheering jar in this thread and I wondered if you too are a dualist?
It would explain a lot.......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2012 10:42 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 145 of 353 (647652)
01-10-2012 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by jar
01-10-2012 2:18 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Straggler writes:
Well I am baffled as to how one can reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains.
How do you reconcile this?
jar writes:
A counterfeit, no matter how closely it copies the real thing, is still a counterfeit.
Firstly - How does that answer the above question? How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains.
Secondly - Is that true? If two things are literally physically identical (down to the quark or whatever) how do you tell which is the "real" one?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 2:18 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 4:40 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 146 of 353 (647653)
01-10-2012 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Perdition
01-10-2012 1:52 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Perdition writes:
Then, if you mess with the brain, you mess with the filter, making things seem to be different, when the source, the "soul" is still unchanged.
So if you suffer some brain damage that changes your personality radically you think there is a non-physical "real you" with your original personality floating around somewhere?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 1:52 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 4:32 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 353 (647654)
01-10-2012 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by jar
01-10-2012 2:17 PM


Re: Dualism.......?
jar writes:
I did not say there was an ideal beauty but rather there was the ideal beauty.
I'm afraid I have no idea what this means. Can you clarify? Maybe give an example of what you mean?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 2:17 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 4:41 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 149 of 353 (647656)
01-10-2012 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Perdition
01-10-2012 4:32 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Perdition writes:
Do Dualists think so? From what I've heard from them, yes they do.
Is there any reason whatsoever to think this even might be true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 4:32 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 4:47 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 152 of 353 (647664)
01-10-2012 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
01-10-2012 4:41 PM


Re: Dualism.......?
Given that I am not alone in finding your answers evasive and vague I am unconvinced that you really know what you mean yourself.
Your thinking seems confused to say the least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 4:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 4:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 154 of 353 (647666)
01-10-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by jar
01-10-2012 4:40 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Firstly - How do you reconcile the fact that changes to ones physical brain can shape ones preferences with the belief that ones preferences are independent of physical brains.
Secondly - Why does it matter which one is original?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 4:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by jar, posted 01-10-2012 4:54 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 157 of 353 (647671)
01-10-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Perdition
01-10-2012 4:47 PM


Re: Observations in the realm of thoughts
Perdition writes:
Viscerally, it feels like my mind isn't physical.
True. Some sense of dualism is the intuitive conclusion. But it seems to fly in the face of the evidence now available to us.
Perdition writes:
And for many, the thought of your consciousness existing eternally is very comforting...
Indeed. But this idea of an ethereal "real you" just doesn't make any sense. I mean our behaviour and personalities are demonstrably shaped by variable things like hormone levels. Is the "real me" the way I would be if I were hormoneless? Is the "real" me as I am with average levels of things like seratonin and testosterone?
I don't know what a non-physical "real me" would possibly be like. I'm not even sure it could recognisably be "me" at all. The whole idea just hasn't been thought through.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 4:47 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Perdition, posted 01-10-2012 5:09 PM Straggler has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024