- #71
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
Some of the results appear to be self-consistent.
We then use this reasoning until it fails us or
we find a better one. We can't prove that our solution
is correct or incorrect absolutely, we just see
that it applies for now and consider it likely,
or not see it apply and thus consider it unlikely.
To consider science incorrect is a denial of its
consistency when it comes to explaining observation.
To consider it fully correct is a denial of the
lack of proof for such a claim - a proof neccessetated
by the reasoning systems science itself uses (today
at least) as well as a denial of the history of science
which experienced a number of such changes in reasoning
systems.
If you wish to form an optimal opinion on
something then you should clear everything
that's unclear to you and argue against the things
you disagree with, then decide. A true
"devil's advocate" is a person who doesn't form personal
opinions at all - a cynic, who just critisizes others.
Can't see anything good or usefull about that.
The most basic notion of existence is everything.
You're implying things that require
assumptions - like people who are "vegtables" or
something if I got your meaning.
But again, existence (as I meant it here) as a whole is
just everything. So, everything is also the input
according to this seemingly most basic perspective.
I do not see how that implies an assumption on their part ?
reasoning systems so far had been axiomatic and
ussualy absolute.
Modern science accepts the abstract reasoning system
of mathematics as the seemingly most basic
system avalible because it seemingly has the most
basic axioms which correspond to the most basic
reasoning that science strives for, and also can include
all other reasoning systems that we're so far aware of.
As such science is fomalised through the use of mathematics
while the rest is regarded as interpretations of this
formalism.
Unfortunetly, science is unable (so far at least) to
mathematicly formalise ideas like thought, consciousness
and so on. Further more, it doesn't seem to require
these ideas and appears to be capable of fully formalising
their source as a direct consequence of physical laws,
thus seemingly abandoning the need for them at all.
So, what I'm basicly saying is that if you want to
scientificly prove consciousness or thought you have
to formalise it scientificly just like the theories
of BHs, oranges, planets and normal grey walking ellephants.
Live long and prosper.
Isn't that what I said ?Originally posted by Mentat
Philosophy deals with applying some type of reasoning to anything. Science limits itself to observable phenomena.
We apply various types of reasoning to observation.Originally posted by Mentat
Why do you think it's probable?
Some of the results appear to be self-consistent.
We then use this reasoning until it fails us or
we find a better one. We can't prove that our solution
is correct or incorrect absolutely, we just see
that it applies for now and consider it likely,
or not see it apply and thus consider it unlikely.
To consider science incorrect is a denial of its
consistency when it comes to explaining observation.
To consider it fully correct is a denial of the
lack of proof for such a claim - a proof neccessetated
by the reasoning systems science itself uses (today
at least) as well as a denial of the history of science
which experienced a number of such changes in reasoning
systems.
I'm not quite certain what you're saying.Originally posted by Mentat
That's the point. The true devil's advocate (who has a truly open mind) doesn't have a "side of his/her own", and can thus take whichever "side" they wish, whenever they wish.
If you wish to form an optimal opinion on
something then you should clear everything
that's unclear to you and argue against the things
you disagree with, then decide. A true
"devil's advocate" is a person who doesn't form personal
opinions at all - a cynic, who just critisizes others.
Can't see anything good or usefull about that.
What do you mean ?Originally posted by Mentat
Not really so. In one direction, yes - as, in order to take in input, one must exist. But in the other direction, no - as one can exist without taking in input.
The most basic notion of existence is everything.
You're implying things that require
assumptions - like people who are "vegtables" or
something if I got your meaning.
But again, existence (as I meant it here) as a whole is
just everything. So, everything is also the input
according to this seemingly most basic perspective.
So ?Originally posted by Mentat
Don't you realize that Scientists all fall into the category of "people who try to pursue those that appear useful"?
I do not see how that implies an assumption on their part ?
I don't think so. As far as I'm aware all of ourOriginally posted by Mentat
I don't think I misunderstood. ...
And I say that that's an assumption. Well, isn't it?
reasoning systems so far had been axiomatic and
ussualy absolute.
Excuse me, I'll correct myself.Originally posted by Mentat
Bull. Scientific truth is only verified by mathematical descriptions/predictions.
Modern science accepts the abstract reasoning system
of mathematics as the seemingly most basic
system avalible because it seemingly has the most
basic axioms which correspond to the most basic
reasoning that science strives for, and also can include
all other reasoning systems that we're so far aware of.
As such science is fomalised through the use of mathematics
while the rest is regarded as interpretations of this
formalism.
Unfortunetly, science is unable (so far at least) to
mathematicly formalise ideas like thought, consciousness
and so on. Further more, it doesn't seem to require
these ideas and appears to be capable of fully formalising
their source as a direct consequence of physical laws,
thus seemingly abandoning the need for them at all.
So, what I'm basicly saying is that if you want to
scientificly prove consciousness or thought you have
to formalise it scientificly just like the theories
of BHs, oranges, planets and normal grey walking ellephants.
Nicely formalised response !Originally posted by Mentat
I don't either, I regard Scientists as Philosophers.
Yes.Originally posted by Mentat
Besides, you do agree that neurology, cognitive science, and psychology are all Sciences, right?
O.K.Originally posted by Mentat
You should post it, as it is your idea.
Live long and prosper.