|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Right, but love, preference, ideals are not physical. Where did you demonstrate this? Why can't these be physical things? For example, why can't a preference be a specific physical network of neurons in a specific chemical state? Why is it that chemicals can alter our preferences? Have you ever had the munchies? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
quote: What it means is a subjective interpretation that can once again be defined by a set of neural pathways in a specific chemical state.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
The firing neurons are not love, or beauty, or joy, or sorrow . . . Yes, they are. All of those are human emotions defined by the firing of neurons.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Which says nothing about why I think the sky is blue today or what I am feeling when I look at De La Tour's St. Joseph.
Sure it does. Those emotions are the product of the very physical neurons in your brain. It is no different than asking why iron is hard, or water is wet, just more complex.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I'm saying that we feel those emotions and hold those beliefs and experience love and joy and sorrow and happiness regardless of the cause and dealing with neuron firings misses the whole point of the experience. Yes, we feel them because they are real, physical things.
Science deals with the mechanical why, philosophy and theology deal with ideal why.
Philosophy and theology invent the why's. Why are paintings and sunsets pleasing to you? Because that is how your physical brain reacts to the stimuli. That is it. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
To be extremely reductivist...but if I studied the placement of every drop of pigment that makes up the picture...or every brush stroke that went into it, I could determine the process by which the painting was made. That would make me appreciate it more, and would do nothing to reduce my ability to simply sit back, ignore the technical and enjoy it viscerally. If we were also able to measure the activity of each the painter's neurons and understand how those neurons interact to produce a specific emotion we could answer questions as to the meaning of the painting, why the painter did this or that, etc. IMHO, the "mystery of the soul" is just a synonym for our ignorance of the brain works. I don't know who said it, and I am probably not quoting it exactly, but I remember watching a show on the brain and one of the experts said, "The good news is that we found the soul . . . the bad news is that it is just a bunch of robots".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
It was the title of a piece about Dan Dennett. I believe it was by Giulio Giorello.
That sounds right. Two cookies for Modulous. ABE: Dennett's reaction to hearing the "tiny robots" description of his ideas is also quite good: "It’s this expandable capacity to represent reasons that we have that gives us a soul. But what’s it made of? It’s made of neurons. It’s made of lots of tiny robots. And we can actually explain the structure and operation of that kind of soul, whereas an eternal, immortal, immaterial soul is just a metaphysical rug under which you sweep your embarrassment for not having any explanation.Daniel C. Dennett Page not found Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I don't think the ideals have causes.
Your first task would be to demonstrate that ideals are actually real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I believe they are real. Is that not sufficient?
Am I missing the sarcasm here? Of course it is not sufficient. Belief is never sufficient as an indicator of what is real or not. This gets back to my earlier contention that philosophy and theology invent entities and purposes. This is why science can not approach these "why" questions, because no one can demonstrate that they are real. Science does not attempt to explain fantasies, and for good reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Perhaps that is true for you. You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. That is the rub for this topic. Science can ask the why questions, but only the why's for things that are real. Does science need to ask why leprechauns are green? No, because no one can show that leprechauns are real. This is not a matter of science being incapable of answering these why questions. It is a matter of the why questions being based on things that are not a part of reality.
If so I am sorry.
While I appreciate the sentiment, your pity is not needed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Sorry but knowing the process and mechanics does not explain the question which is "why I think something".
Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how precipitation forms and falls to the Earth does not explain the question of why it rains. Then knowing the processes and mechanics of how oxygen and hydrogen combine to produce water does not explain the question of why water molecules exist. I could go on and on, but I think you get the drift.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Rain falling is purely mechanics; So is brain activity. You want to selectively exclude brain activity from other natural and physical processes for no other reason than it pleasing your beliefs.
Science can help me understand the mechanics of how I make that decision, but it will not explain which one I will actually stick in my pocket and take along. Why can't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Because I myself have no idea which one I will pick or why I picked one over another. Argument from ignorance.
And of course, no I did not exclude brain activity. Sure you do. You claim that there is more going on than just the phsycial interactions because . . . well, you just believe it so it is true. So I will also say that there is more going on in weather than just the physical and mechanical interactions because I say so, therefore science can not explain why it rains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Theology and Philosophy are tools to ask questions such as purpose or ideals My contention is that Theology and Philosophy invent purpose and ideals. They are not real. No evidence has been put forward that they are real. It is one of the strengths of science that it is able to ignore things that are not real.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Okay, you are free to hold that opinion.
It's not an opinion. It is a fact that you can not support the existence of these ideals, souls, etc. with evidence. They are irrelevant to reality. If you want to discuss why you have certain fantasies we could perhaps start a new discussion about that if you wish.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024