MiguelBladesman

I realize what you show me, which isn't much. For that matter, I don't see you showing anybody much of anything. Good luck to you though.

Daisy, No good deed goes unpunished; nor any point of view, either! (((grin)))

Jakiri, are you kidding me? You're criticizing my insistence upon empiricism?

Ah.....I see this more clearly now; you want me to accept "on faith" your rhetorical generalizations. Hmm....and "twit" I suppose, is a reflection of a deeply studied consideration of the facts: a specificied reality, articulated by Richard Feynman. Gee, that's okay; I was just hoping to read it chapter and verse is all. I'm suspicious when the disciplined adherence to empirical principle erodes.

I cannot accept your ..."clarification" because your logic is hazy, especially because we are not discussing minutiae or particulars, but sweeping generalizations, offered wholesale, like "physical reality". I do find it regrettable that you are bored with this. I'm fascinated with the clear and obvious boundaries and it's a disappointment to me that you are so satisfied with articulating glittering generalities . Now if you sourced something specific from Richard Feynman, that would be interesting. Feynman is straightforward and honest.

You are correct RE...

Good then Giles. Source those properties of reality in Feynman for us will you? The last thing we want is for people to be obscure on what reality is, eh?

Daisy, That's stuff we have little control over. Hope you work through it okay.

Giles, with the exception of your claim that it's tautological that "reality must be everything that exists"... ...because you are arguing (like me ) simultaneously philosophically AND scientifically; but since you are arguing, like Tom, "reality" can you source this in science? For example, did Richard Feynman, in his field of work, develop a theory of REALITY? I'm not denying that the physical exists. I'm just stopping short of attributing to the physical [which we all share ] the qualification, REALITY. It's a critical distinction.

Radical Edward: "The majority of experimentation does not rely on the human optical or for that matter, sensory system." -Radical Edward EXACTLY! That is what I want to point out when I suggest that terms like "Reality" or "physical reality" are bereft of scientific meaning. Particularly, RE, is your statement that "sensory" perception is not relied upon. Visual proof is the least reliable. Moreover, and far deeper in its implications for science, is the simple fact that observed results are never accepted as "proofs". They are probabililites.

Time is ___________?

Tom: Pardon me, but you neatly sidestepped the necessary definition of REALITY. Equating reality with externals that are perceived by sense, falls categorically under the notion of proof by appearance. Any study of optical illusion will demonstrate that senses are unreliable. You introduced REALITY into the dialogue here Tom. Just define it will you, so that we aren't perennially committed to fallacy by 'glittering generality' or 'slippery slope' argumentation?

Mr. L. Jakiri: But if I'm using the same avatar as someone else, it's the counterfeit that's causing the confusion. Surely you're not suggesting that "I" am causing confusion, I, am a ....uhmmmm...[how do you spell, "weilder"?]....of the secret fire of Anor?....um....or was it Anor....oh heck... Why is everyone so confused....Must have been the ride around the cyclotron!

Radical Edward: Don't misunderstand me; there's not much Intelligent Design to me. I'm different; but I daresay there's other parts of humanity that suggest elements of ID. I draw my inference for ID from the beauty, both the Light and the Dark beauty. Then there's the entire notion of Intelligences, that seem to indicate design. Nearly everything experienced has one designation or other.

Radical Edward, I agree with you completely concerning the discipline of science. But I believe the original question here, was posted not with a requirement that we answer within the strict confines of science. It's rather a philosophical question also as I see it. Anyway, I've got 4 hats. One is my "science" hat. One is my "philosophy" hat. One is my "religion" hat. Last, but not least is my FILSON bowhunting hat.

Tom: Your statement is massively flawed and irrational. "All we know of reality is through our observations...etc" -TOM Pardon Tom, but, please provide a single scientific source where the observation AND measurement involved quantification of either matter or energy that was termed, REALITY? In that regard, I seem to recall the REALITY I encountered, was the precise size of some big bully's fist, but all kidding aside, please your argument around to the pragmatic and empirical. The above stated plainly, your second statement: "...and a brainless, disembodied super intelligence is not compatible with any of them..." [observations] -Tom By logic Tom, if, as you state plainly, if there is no "brainless, ... etc...." entity, then why are you arguing against the same? What I see you doing is suggesting that only science is necessary to mankind, and religious and philosophical thought ought to be treated with hostility. Is that correct? Where'd that come from? It certainly is not the position of most of the fundamental science that I have learned about. I'm curious about that REALITY thing.

Blike, The definition of time is a long time puzzler, is it not?

Uni - verse Alternate....verses.....a horrific violation of grammatical context; therefore impossible

Radical Edward: Firstly, it isn't, de facto, necessary to "debate" everything. Debate clarifies possibilities. Agreement on necessary assumptions suited for specific purpose is far more effective. What I "think" falls within the paramaters of PRIVATE experience, rather than PUBLIC, which is the realm of science. Can you disentitle the individual from private experience? That would conflict with Constitutional guarantees in law. The latter point serves well, for it establishes that there are specific boundaries in human endeavour, where scope and purpose are key considerations. ["...because you don't believe in empiricism." -Radical Edward ] Empiricism is something I do believe in. However, all human experience is not empirical. For anyone to say so, is unwise. Empiricism has its scope, but one perennial is that science does not reveal "truth", and private experience does.

Radical Edward, that is true. The one perrennial in all of philosophy is that we do not know WHY. We can know what. and I apologize for trespassing beyond the bounds of What-We-know-scientifically, because I'm writing philosophically, because Science has no teleological framework.

Yes Glider, we start with operating assumptions, presumed to be "true" possibly, but the point is, they are operating assumptions. That they are operating assumptions is a truth, but.....(((groan)))... [and that's why I'm investing in suppositories!]

"...no basis in reality" Tom, that's a wrongful inference on your part. The implication you present is a bit of a double blind, with an inference that REALITY is a known factor, and has been defined and proscribed with specificity. Science, for example, has never made a determination as to what REALITY is. Religion, at best, only operates with a primary assumption based on "mythos". OR......would you have me to accept that Religion and Science both operate with the identical fundamental assumption? Obviously, they don't. If you wish that I make it obvious, I'll serve that up. However, your skepticism is appreciated and warranted generally, as a necessary part of human endeavour.

Blike: I'd be guilty of entirely defaulting your question if I didn't answer that DNA clearly suggests "design". The pattern is four-square. BUT!!!...I hardly consider any pattern in nature as "proof" of Intelligent design. ID can be derived best, only from an inner, revelatory, and intuitional experience . The distinction best drawn in the fields of human knowledge is that between the philosophical Public, and the philosophical Private. These manifest as the Objective and the Subjective. There's isn't much common between the two. The frames of reference and scope are different, which, if I am not mistaken Blike, you already have determined.

BUCK: I realize you were addressing someone particular, so I wish to couch my remarks in a general sense, because I take issue with the contrasts you draw, which basically involves the Religion vs Science debate, and I want to point out that Religion does not necessarily imply contradiction or conflict with Science. Obviously, there's lots of politicking going on, from the "Creationists" etc, but from the purely philosophical side, there is not really an antithesis between the two approaches to knowledge (relgion/science). If we rigidly draw continual contrasts between what we call "religious dogma" and Science, we create an oversimplification and also a reductionist interpretation of religion, which ill serves science. The point here is, religion and dogma are not necessarily synonymous. If you do not commit the ideological error of painting religionists into a dogmatic corner, then religion becomes the ally of science.

Daisy: I do subscribe to the Intelligent Design idea; but I want to clarify that; but though I clarify it somewhat, I would like for you and others to go ahead and challenge me, because my best guess is that I have a mix of scientific (empirical) and religion/mythos thinking in place. Okay, here goes. My general approach, being a man who believes in what we call "God" is that the complex and beautiful phenomenology such as DNA, the systems of Galaxies, and all of that, don't serve as good 'evidence' for an underlying "Intelligence". (I usually toss in that this Intelligence is also "benevolent" in IT's intelligent purpose for us, and therefore seperates itself from Science, because Science, de facto, has no Teleolgical determinations.) The issue is very complex, owing to people on both sides of the Evolutionary Theory issue, confusing the notion of Divinity with its various religious writings, forming some type of antithetical dichotomy. I want to dray your attention to that issue specifically. The two notions are not specifically, antithetical systems of thought. In fact, the notion of Evolution of man, contrasted with the Genesis account of "creation" can even be seen as tangential; but even speculating that, I still wish to return to my original idea with a strong emphasis upon the idea that the clear patterns in evolution do not serve as 'evidence' for intelligence. I root my belief in the Intelligent Designer in Faith itself, in "mythos"; therefore, I do not require "proof" in any context at all. This may be very confusing, but I do not require "evidence" for a "faith". In fact, my faith is determined not by what I observe outwardly in the world of phenomenology, but rather what I observe within myself. What is within myself is private, revelatory, and you cannot alter my private and freely chosen assumption. [There's probably a lot to sort out here, but if you would offer any kind of critique at all, I would appreciate that. Thanks].