|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does science ask and answer "why" questions? | |||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
No, after long effort, I don't think you are capable of understanding what I mean.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
Viscerally, it feels like my mind isn't physical. And for many, the thought of your consciousness existing eternally is very comforting...but no, I don't think either of those reasons are valid for actually thinking this is actually true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
That's fine. There are several audiences, the person you actually respond to and the wider audience that reads the thread.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
One is the original. The other is not.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
jar writes: One is the original. The other is not. Why do you think that matters?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: There are several audiences, the person you actually respond to and the wider audience that reads the thread. Well with the wider audience in mind perhaps you can consider this much evaded 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi bluegenes, still struggling?
I notice we still do not have your answer for why the sky appears blue.
As I pointed out on the other thread, you're assuming your incorrectly restricted definition of why in order to come to your conclusions, although I don't think you're doing this intentionally. "Why", in those questions can be technical. It doesn't have to mean "for what objective purpose", or "for what ultimate reason". In which case, context is of utmost importance. In the context of providing a complete answer or explanation you end up at the "Big Why" unavoidably. In the absence of context you should default to the "Big Why" question or ask for context.
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly. I dunno why she swallowed that fly, Perhaps she'll die. There was an old lady who swallowed a spider,That wiggled and wiggled and tickled inside her. She swallowed the spider to catch the fly. But I dunno why she swallowed that fly - Perhaps she'll die. If you are satisfied with an incomplete, tentative and partial answer then wail away.
Take the birds singing. A why question might initially be answered by an immediate reason, like "because they are communicating". Then "why do they communicate" could be answered by giving specific functions, like marking territory, mating, warning, etc. Then, if a questioner asks why they do those things, you could give a reasonable general answer like "it's advantageous for them to do so, and aids their survival." Indeed. Those are the purposes that singing has been used for, it is how they accomplish those tasks, but it doesn't answer why birds sing. We also have some species of birds that don't (or very rarely) sing, and yet they are not handicapped in either survival or breeding compared to ones that do. There appears to be no relationship between song verbosity and survival. There are also some birds that sing and don't attract mates. There appears to be no real 1 to 1 correlation between any singing behavior and the assigned purpose, as each of these purposes are also achieved without song in many species. If your answer were correct then the non-singing species would not survive. It is a bit like the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, the complex cause logical fallacy, and the part for the whole logical fallacy all mixed together. Just because you know a (small) part of the answer does not mean that you know (all) the answer. Science may be able to discuss partial answers, based on observations, assumptions, and inference, but that does not mean that science provides the full answer, or that it ever can. There are certain details in a complete answer that science is not equipped to determine.
These are essentially untestable\unfalsifiable aspects of the "why" issue, and thus cannot be determined through science. They are part of the "Big Why" question. By contrast, science can do very well at answering the how questions, and while those answers may be incomplete, there is no significant reason that would suggest that more details can be developed through science.
These can be answered through science. Is there a "Big How" question that theoretically cannot be answered through science? Have fun. Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It matters to me because it is a fact.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I do not try to reconcile those things.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
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. Especially when you add in temporal considerations. Is the real me when I'm 20? 50? 90? Maybe it's when I'm 5? And wouldn't it be less comforting to think that either your real you degrades as you reach advanced age...or the real you is less and less able to communicate with the real world, essentially stuck in a box until the release of sweet death?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jar writes: It matters to me because it is a fact. Too funny.
Straggler writes: 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? jar writes: I do not try to reconcile those things. It is also a fact that physical changes can demonstrably effect the things you are claiming lack any physical cause. But I guess some facts are less convenient, less in line with your chosen beliefs and thus don't matter so much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Perdition writes: And wouldn't it be less comforting to think that either your real you degrades as you reach advanced age...or the real you is less and less able to communicate with the real world, essentially stuck in a box until the release of sweet death? Shit yeah!! When you think of it like that it's downright spooky. I think some sort of creepy psychological horror movie could be made along these lines.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024