the rules in science

Whatever, I suggest for you all to acknowledge the spiritual realm, so you don't make problems for science. It isn't clear that you are not blending ought with is, use words that in common knowledge are not subjective, don't annoy scientists by going anywhere near the border of what's not allowed.

Just to add that the word blind can be easily interpreted objectively as explained previously, however the evolutionists use the word blind in a sense that a thing is not connected to it's future, which is false. So things do have their own future, but not all things have a model of their future.

As before, to make the distinction clear between ought and is, we have 2 categories, the material and the spiritual. Reasonable judgement is spiritual, all judgement is spiritual, it is not objective. And that is great because having that clear distinction, now I can make science about decisions, unhindered by judgementalism of any kind. While Straggler for instance, he is stuck in this thought that the whole inanimate universe is bpi. He's not going to get anywhere distinguishing between different decision processes in the universe with such a finding which meaning is unclear to everybody.

You already asked that question, and the answer was, we should acknowledge the spiritual realm, so we can apply the ought and ought nots to the spiritual, and leave science free to cover the material. As before, that there is no evidence for the spiritual realm is consistent with that in science there can be no evidence for ought and ought not. Your protest against acknowleding the spiritual realm, implies that you protest against accepting ought and ought not's without evidence as well.

The point was to keep the oughts and ought nots outside of science. The categorization into a spiritual and material realm does that successfully, and you don't show any other way. Perhaps you want the oughts and oughts not within science.

You aren't making a very clear categorical distinction when you don't acknowledge the spiritual. Then you have the material and.. some vague unnamed category besides.

So then the material get's it's acknowledgement and there are these things in an unnamed category which are tied to the material. That's not easily practicable to distinghuish, and seems prejudicial towards material.Fun is a thing in the spiritual domain. That's how I use the word spiritual, for anything which is subjective.

I already explained many times about how the spiritual applies for when there are alternatives, then you get a "why" one or the other, and this is spiritual.You do objectify pity and indifference, why you would then not objectify love is beyond me.You can't talk about making any choices without referencing something spiritual. The thing that is deciding must be spiritual, because material things predetermine, and then there would be no alternative. You simply fail to have any knowledge about freedom on an intellectual level.

Right, there is me, Syamsu, and then there is the rest which is not Syamsu. That is selfcentered, and what you do is material centered, you can't reasonably hope to avoid blending ought with is that way.You see you do wrong, like 1+1=2, you break the rule, yet you continue doing it. We can well see that your way 99 percent of goodness is going to be attributed to people, because they are scientifically good, because they have brains, and yet close to 100 percent of the universe was not made by human beings.

As before,- the entire universe works by decisions, and a few universal constants. Cause and effect is false, or a soft-science view of things- objects of large size are in a decided state, leading to believe they decide themselves. And besides it can be calculated if and how a system generates a decider (also called "observer" in the literature, but the function of an observer in this context is to make the system realize one of several possible states)- the common use of words such as love is not in respect to brains, which are generally not mentioned, but always in relation to freedom. And since there is freedom shown througout the universe, the same logic applies.- one can use reasonable judgement, an art, to avoid talking about toothbrushes loving, but you can't prove or disprove love scientifically for any decision. What you want is to say that "treehugging" for instance is a scientifically invalid pastime. You are misusing science for what is basicly religious bigotry, as is well shown by that your only argument against it seems to be that it is ridiculous and therefore unscientific.- and lastly, hands up who trust Straggler to distinghuish ought from is in science when subject comes to things like emotions, and evolution of morality, not me

Reasonable judgement is an art that keeps nations, and also science together. Your absolutized scientific method is an unwieldy formalism. The practice to provide evidence for claims is a common courtesy established for as long as there were people. How much more powerful is a reference to a common practice close to a spiritual value, than a reference to the mechanical formalism of an absolute, brutal, unwieldy scientific method.You know it is WRONG to objectify love and such, you know it is WRONG to speak in terms of oughts as science. So then when you know it is wrong you categorize into the material and the spiritual, and by that organization you will be doing less wrong, it is practical. I do not trust you because you don't have a separate category for the oughts. That means you are going to end up putting them in the material category, no matter what you say about subjectivity now, because material is the only category for you. I've seen the supersmart types argue the materiality of oughts, that's where you will be going. Adding sophisticated confusion upon vagueness and nobody knows anymore whether or not it is a fact or an ought. But the context is all facts, so the implication is ought=is, it is unnecessary pseudoscience.

It is simply so, if you do not categorize, if you do not acknowledge, if you spend all your serious intellectual thought on the side of objectivity and material, then subjectivity will be just one material process among many material processes, the process of oughts, as like gravity, one among many.You will simply redefine the meaning of subjectivity along the lines of a predefined goal, where the alternatives are in the present, and computation of the alternatives with the predefined goal is noted as a decision.So then love becomes a function of the goal survival, and any choice between love or hate is a computation of them, according to which gives the better survival result. This then results in oughts and ought nots, on the basis of objectified calculable love and hate, which morality is not neccessarily in line with the goal of survival, but they are objectified within the framework of survival.So you will develop zero knowledge in terms of freedom, you will simply make it all forced, and leave a lot of vagueness at the center of your argument to substitute for acknowledging freedom.And since a very large percentage of scientists fall into this trap of defining decisions without freedom, with a predefined goal, I see no reason why you wouldn't as well.

You tell me the structure and the laws by which you think, so I can predict what you think. You can very well predict that I will keep oughts outside of science, because I've built the structure for doing that. A promise that you won't do it is meaningless, an intention without substantial practical organization to enforce it.

It seems that you seek to control society by the science of love, so that they don't engage in fundamentalist conflict. There are many functional materialists within religion too, they simply regard the spiritual in the same way as they do the material. So you are just pushing up one side of religion, and pushing down another side. And ofcourse afterwards you will complain that the religionized natural selection has nothing to do with scientific natural selection. Another bad thing what your ENORMOUSLY ARROGANT science of love leads too, is that it knocks down reasonable judgement, which is quite fragile, because all things that must be freely sustained are fragile.So this is quite complex, and I suggest not to put your foot in it, and just obey the rule. So at least within science acknowledge the spiritual so you can attribute the oughts somewhere. A simple practical solution, that may also enhance your ability to cogently think about the new science about decisions, which is destined to dominate all of science.

You should just take a look at the structure of your practical knowledge that is in terms of choosing. For instance according to practical knowledge alternatives are in the future. So what that scientist was saying in the video, that some things are in 2 places at the same time, and you can take a photo of it, is simply false. You can never take a photo of the 2, because the act of taking a photo would decide the alternatives. The alternatives can never ever be in any present, they are always in the future. So to say time is defined by the sequence of decisions, which is the common historical understanding of time.And every time they talk about observing, you should understand that to mean deciding. Observing is normally understood in terms of transferring information, without changing it. That they use the word observing for an act that changes a result shows they are in a conceptual mess.There are some things that are not in practical knowledge, but you can get a handle of the basics of it, and be smarter than most scientists, if you just raise your awareness of your common knowledge about freedom a bit. Abstract it a bit, formalize it, derive some general principles, and you have a better understanding of quantum physics and information theory than most scientists have.