Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Geoff332 · Oct 21, 2003, 07:55 pm

So science is ok, but other forms of social construction are not. The difference between science and other forms of social construction are because science is based on direct observation. Science can only directly address issues that are entirely material (ie can be directly observed).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the methodology is only important in observing and understanding directly the material world.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>Explain to me what direct observations you have that prove this statement to be true.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 21, 2003, 08:23 pm

Well, that's a tall order, but to answer that I'm going to compare it to the discipline of philosophy which - near as I can figure it - depends more on logical reasoning than direct observation, logical reasoning being another sociological construct. You can admit as well as I can prove that while neither school of thought is perfect, there are a hell of a lot more paradoxes in philosophy than in science. Much as the church wants to, it can't logically explain away the dinosaur bone.

Nevertheless, this is about the methodology of the scientific discipline. Well, what observations don't I? Newtonian physics, for one, - Einstein sought to explain discrepancies through logical means - evolutionary biology, for lack of observable evidence - that doesn't disprove the methodology, it just fails to come up with an answer. As such, if I were to be dogmatic in the scientific method, I'd have to be agnostic.

Regardless, there are still solid fields of chemistry, molecular physics, and related fields of biology and mechanical engineering...

Geoff332 · Oct 21, 2003, 08:46 pm

I'm afraid you haven't even come close to answering the question. Your claim is that, "all scientific knowledge is based on direct observation." The question is, what direct observations exist that can prove that all scientific knowledge is based on direct observation?

Giving examples of where direct observation has produced scientific knowledge is not an answer to that question.

white rice · Nov 17, 2003, 06:07 am

Science uses both direct and indirect observations with some that are later crunched into math and statistics in order to to find a correlation or disproof for theories made.

For the topic, my studies rely heavily on the monist theory of the brain. You do drugs, you get hit sharply in the head, you get a lobotomy, or you were born mentally retarded, they're all examples of changing the "normal" processes of the mind. Diciplinary actions like a martial artist suppressing pain are still neurotrasmitter dependent even if they are impressive feats of the mind.

For all we know, the brain could be some complicated machine that opens a dimension between the here and now and to the mind, but for the personal interests of education, I'll stick to the one mind theory.

Aeolus · Nov 22, 2003, 07:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Liquideye,)

The brain is a material thing, and the mind is a spiritual thing. There have been several schools of philosophy who have tried to deal with this problem. Behaviourists, Materialists, Eliminativists...etc. Which do you feel has the stronger argument?

This topic also leads into artificial intelligence, and how do we distinguish ourselves from a computer programmed to react like a human (Turing Test - on the AI website i believe)
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Labeling the mind as spiritual is a bit presumptuous. I do believe that the enigma, that is consciousness, is to blame. We tend to label this as such because it hard to fathom that the mind is just comprised of electrical impulses.

Though, I would be hard-pressed to say that an artificially intelligent being is no different from you and I. Because of our other traits, talked about in Ethica Thomisca; St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle recognize that we have will and desire; Which no AI being could ever hope to achieve or acquire.

We're always trying to quench our insatiable thirst; and the "mind" drives us to people/material objects. So wouldn't there have to be something to quench that insatiable thirst? Wouldn't that give some insight that there is more then JUST the brain, BUT the brain is -- without a doubt -- material; however, it is driven by something immaterial? Now, I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate, because the argument is moot: no one knows. But I do believe that what makes us human is that which drives us -- and cannot be labeled as instinct, or an eletrical impulse; in my opinion.

white rice · Nov 22, 2003, 11:10 pm

If you say that sex drives us to live, what if you're chemically castrated?
If you're hungry, pop some few diet pills.
Want to escape reality? Try some hallucinagetic drugs.

Im curious as to how much it is that seperates man from animals. And whether it's not a big a division as we think.

Aeolus · Nov 22, 2003, 11:33 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
If you say that sex drives us to live, what if you're chemically castrated?
If you're hungry, pop some few diet pills.
Want to escape reality? Try some hallucinagetic drugs.

Im curious as to how much it is that seperates man from animals. And whether it's not a big a division as we think.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

It's not that I disagree. It's just that we can only rationalize our reality as we perceive it. But what if we looked beyond that fixed perception? Would it be so hard to imagine an immaterial substance such as a soul?

white rice · Nov 23, 2003, 08:30 am

I'm always interested about discussions of the soul. My idea of it changes from time to time.

I think a soul is something to be earned. Each significant memory of your life grows your soul. I feel that the soul is the inner struggle each person deals with in life. Whether its a hard decision or a great one. We sometimes try to silence or stifle our souls when it conflicts with reality and sometimes we feel like we've lost it when we're at our lowest. It might sound corny, but I think the soul is the reflection of the universe inside us. You could carry that to religion if you want. I think so because every action we take is a direct consequence of the world around us. And the world around us is reacting to our actions simulataneously. That's the idea I've reached that would link us to "uncivilized peoples" of the past or to animals. That idea could also make a person more compassionate and giving to all people and things.

So how would this be related to the brain... I personally doubt that science will unlock all the answers to the mind let alone the physical brain. Whether the brain is concieved theologically or scientifically, my idea of the soul carries on. In that respect, I think a computer with as much sophistication as our brain could have the potential to earn a soul over time.

Off topic...Would there be robots in heaven? I think it's our own hubris to believe that only we are entitled to such a destiny. I think all sentient life has that chance. If a living AI has as much potential as we do to make some significance over our short lifetimes, then how much different is that from us? The robot could be an outer shell to the programming that we all share inside.

Just my two cents.

Scribbler1 · Jan 5, 2004, 03:35 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
mind? prove you aren't a brain in a vat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat

knowledge is an impossibility, there is no necessary connection...<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I've said that same thing somewhere else on the forum I think, but without the supercomputer angle. Anyone who has ever awakened from an extremely realistic dream (the kind you wake up from and have to sit there for a minute to figure out where you are) should know what's real shouldn't be overthought.

Using the assumption that we all ARE real, science alone should prove the tenuous quality of what's REAL, as there are constant "discoveries" which seem to prove that what was once real, ain't real any more.

I think I'll go to bed now, and maybe change the channel and conjure up a really nice reality.

Jim (if indeed that IS my real name)

Oct 21, 2003, 07:55 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	So science is ok, but other forms of social construction are not. The difference between science and other forms of social construction are because science is based on direct observation. Science can only directly address issues that are entirely material (ie can be directly observed). </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by the methodology is only important in observing and understanding directly the material world.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>Explain to me what direct observations you have that prove this statement to be true.

Oct 21, 2003, 08:23 pm	#22 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Well, that's a tall order, but to answer that I'm going to compare it to the discipline of philosophy which - near as I can figure it - depends more on logical reasoning than direct observation, logical reasoning being another sociological construct. You can admit as well as I can prove that while neither school of thought is perfect, there are a hell of a lot more paradoxes in philosophy than in science. Much as the church wants to, it can't logically explain away the dinosaur bone. Nevertheless, this is about the methodology of the scientific discipline. Well, what observations don't I? Newtonian physics, for one, - Einstein sought to explain discrepancies through logical means - evolutionary biology, for lack of observable evidence - that doesn't disprove the methodology, it just fails to come up with an answer. As such, if I were to be dogmatic in the scientific method, I'd have to be agnostic. Regardless, there are still solid fields of chemistry, molecular physics, and related fields of biology and mechanical engineering... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 17, 2003, 06:07 am	#24 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	Science uses both direct and indirect observations with some that are later crunched into math and statistics in order to to find a correlation or disproof for theories made. For the topic, my studies rely heavily on the monist theory of the brain. You do drugs, you get hit sharply in the head, you get a lobotomy, or you were born mentally retarded, they're all examples of changing the "normal" processes of the mind. Diciplinary actions like a martial artist suppressing pain are still neurotrasmitter dependent even if they are impressive feats of the mind. For all we know, the brain could be some complicated machine that opens a dimension between the here and now and to the mind, but for the personal interests of education, I'll stick to the one mind theory. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Nov 22, 2003, 07:11 pm	#25 (permalink) (top)
Aeolus Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Liquideye,) The brain is a material thing, and the mind is a spiritual thing. There have been several schools of philosophy who have tried to deal with this problem. Behaviourists, Materialists, Eliminativists...etc. Which do you feel has the stronger argument? This topic also leads into artificial intelligence, and how do we distinguish ourselves from a computer programmed to react like a human (Turing Test - on the AI website i believe) <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Labeling the mind as spiritual is a bit presumptuous. I do believe that the enigma, that is consciousness, is to blame. We tend to label this as such because it hard to fathom that the mind is just comprised of electrical impulses. Though, I would be hard-pressed to say that an artificially intelligent being is no different from you and I. Because of our other traits, talked about in Ethica Thomisca; St Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle recognize that we have will and desire; Which no AI being could ever hope to achieve or acquire. We're always trying to quench our insatiable thirst; and the "mind" drives us to people/material objects. So wouldn't there have to be something to quench that insatiable thirst? Wouldn't that give some insight that there is more then JUST the brain, BUT the brain is -- without a doubt -- material; however, it is driven by something immaterial? Now, I'm not trying to turn this into a religious debate, because the argument is moot: no one knows. But I do believe that what makes us human is that which drives us -- and cannot be labeled as instinct, or an eletrical impulse; in my opinion.

Nov 22, 2003, 11:10 pm	#26 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	If you say that sex drives us to live, what if you're chemically castrated? If you're hungry, pop some few diet pills. Want to escape reality? Try some hallucinagetic drugs. Im curious as to how much it is that seperates man from animals. And whether it's not a big a division as we think. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Oct 21, 2003, 08:46 pm	#23 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	I'm afraid you haven't even come close to answering the question. Your claim is that, "all scientific knowledge is based on direct observation." The question is, what direct observations exist that can prove that all scientific knowledge is based on direct observation? Giving examples of where direct observation has produced scientific knowledge is not an answer to that question.

Nov 22, 2003, 11:33 pm	#27 (permalink) (top)
Aeolus Sedimentary Rock Posts: 8	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,) If you say that sex drives us to live, what if you're chemically castrated? If you're hungry, pop some few diet pills. Want to escape reality? Try some hallucinagetic drugs. Im curious as to how much it is that seperates man from animals. And whether it's not a big a division as we think.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It's not that I disagree. It's just that we can only rationalize our reality as we perceive it. But what if we looked beyond that fixed perception? Would it be so hard to imagine an immaterial substance such as a soul?

Nov 23, 2003, 08:30 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
white rice Igneous Magma Posts: 372	I'm always interested about discussions of the soul. My idea of it changes from time to time. I think a soul is something to be earned. Each significant memory of your life grows your soul. I feel that the soul is the inner struggle each person deals with in life. Whether its a hard decision or a great one. We sometimes try to silence or stifle our souls when it conflicts with reality and sometimes we feel like we've lost it when we're at our lowest. It might sound corny, but I think the soul is the reflection of the universe inside us. You could carry that to religion if you want. I think so because every action we take is a direct consequence of the world around us. And the world around us is reacting to our actions simulataneously. That's the idea I've reached that would link us to "uncivilized peoples" of the past or to animals. That idea could also make a person more compassionate and giving to all people and things. So how would this be related to the brain... I personally doubt that science will unlock all the answers to the mind let alone the physical brain. Whether the brain is concieved theologically or scientifically, my idea of the soul carries on. In that respect, I think a computer with as much sophistication as our brain could have the potential to earn a soul over time. Off topic...Would there be robots in heaven? I think it's our own hubris to believe that only we are entitled to such a destiny. I think all sentient life has that chance. If a living AI has as much potential as we do to make some significance over our short lifetimes, then how much different is that from us? The robot could be an outer shell to the programming that we all share inside. Just my two cents. Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups

Jan 5, 2004, 03:35 am	#29 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) mind? prove you aren't a brain in a vat... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain-in-a-vat knowledge is an impossibility, there is no necessary connection...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I've said that same thing somewhere else on the forum I think, but without the supercomputer angle. Anyone who has ever awakened from an extremely realistic dream (the kind you wake up from and have to sit there for a minute to figure out where you are) should know what's real shouldn't be overthought. Using the assumption that we all ARE real, science alone should prove the tenuous quality of what's REAL, as there are constant "discoveries" which seem to prove that what was once real, ain't real any more. I think I'll go to bed now, and maybe change the channel and conjure up a really nice reality. Jim (if indeed that IS my real name)