The Grand Assumption of Science

[lucaspa]

isn't "we're living in a non-illusionary world" an axiom of science? i.e., our sences might be innacurate and fallilbe, but, if we see something, it's probably there?

 

If by "axiom" you mean "assumption" or "faith", then yes.

 

The classic examples of this is "Last Tuesdayism" or the movie The Matrix. Last Tuesdayism says that the universe with everything in it, including us and our memories of past times, was all created de novo last Tuesday. Since it was created with the appearance of age, including our memories, we won't be able, by science, to detect this.

 

And that is correct. We can't, by science, refute Last Tuesdayism.

 

If the knowledge of my perceptions are wrong, or if my knowledge of perceptions are correct but the information entering them are wrong, then in both cases there is a state of non-objectivity in that information. That's my position.

 

It wouldn't be "non-objectivity". Objectivity says there is a real world out there that is independent of you. In this case we still have an objective universe, but you are not getting an accurate picture of it.

 

If you were wondering why, in response to your post, I mentioned the Matrix conspiracy, that's what you would have to accept (or something very similar, like a government cover-up) to explain how information could be entering directly into our memory/knowledge without any perception involved. I don't think either of us believe that.

The key here is "believe" it. The Matrix is another classic way to get around intersubjectivity (identical experience in similar situations). EVERYONE is fed the same hallucination.

 

What you need to do is recognize that we all share these certain basic assumptions and work within them. Unless and until we have reason to challenge them, we continue to work within them.

 

Science also has 5 basic assumptions about the nature of the physical universe: rationality, accessibility, unity, contingency, and objectivity. These assumptions are necessary for us to do science. The rub here is that other forms of knowing -- such as religion and philosophy -- also share the same assumptions.

 

Sometimes, when people feel threatened by particular findings of science, they attempt to discredit the scientific findings by challenging the assumptions. This ultimately fails because the people are accepting the same assumptions as true. Discarding them only for science becomes the fallacy of Special Pleading.

 

Why must one take that leap of faith? Why must one make that assumption?

 

Why not simply regard science as the discipline which seeks to determine the laws that describe what we observe, rather than what is "really there"?

 

Tom, even if science is what we observe, we have to have faith that we are sane in order for our observations to be accurate and reliable.

 

However, science is not concerned with describing a known shared illusion, is it? No. Underneath it all we have the assumption (faith) that there is really a real universe to be observed.

[Luminal]

Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt.

 

Luminal, EVERY search for truth: science, religion, philosophy, etc. share 2 basic assumptions:

 

1. I exist.

2. I am sane. This is the assumption you are referring to when you say that information comes from our senses. We must assume we are sane in order to trust our senses.

 

We don't necessarily need to be insane to have wrong information entering our heads through the senses. Although I don't personally believe it, our universe being a sub-reality in another reality (such as someone else's dream, or a simulation, or some advanced form of entertainment for future generations, etc.) is one such example.

 

But I do not think you would debate this point, and it is just a matter of semantics about "sanity" being inclusive of "ignorance".

 

1. Our senses are generally reliable.

2. We do NOT always believe the unreliable information. For instance, I have questioned several times what is happening while I am dreaming. Even to the point I wake myself up. And I certainly question it after I wake up!

 

Yet, neither do you always question it. And even if you did always question every perception, the act of questioning does not validify the answer you arrive at.

 

Perhaps we mistakenly take our dreams for an internally created reality, when those could be brief glimpses into our waking, "sober" life, except that we "awaken" into this world, what we would otherwise perceive as perfect clarity is shattered into unorganized and chaotic memories. So, we assume dreams are imagined.

 

Science minimizes the possible unreliability of personal experience (our senses) by only accepting those experiences that are the same for everyone under approximately the same conditions.

 

Does it confer certainty? NO! Which is one reason why science is tentative. You have heard that, haven't you?

 

However, it does give greater reliability. It becomes progressively unlikely that EVERYONE will be under the same hallucination, dream, pschoactive drug, etc. Not conceptually impossible, but unlikely.

 

What do you think is the "final answer" science should have doubt over? What "faith" do you think scientists should remember might be misplaced?

 

I will remind you right now: science is NOT atheism! Science is NOT a worldview! From the paragraph above, it appears that you mistakenly think so.

 

For instance, I am a scientist and a theist. No problem or conflict.

 

I did not say as much. Many people simply hold to the view that science is inherently superior to religion because science is empirical and rational whereas religion is based on assumptions, faith, and traditions. I was just stating that science has those inescapable requirements of faith and assumptions as well, albeit far fewer.

 

It wouldn't be "non-objectivity". Objectivity says there is a real world out there that is independent of you. In this case we still have an objective universe, but you are not getting an accurate picture of it.

 

As I said, I wasn't aware what society's common usage of the term "non-objective" was, but I was using it for that purpose. If you know a better term, I'll glady use it.

[lucaspa]

We don't necessarily need to be insane to have wrong information entering our heads through the senses. ... our universe being a sub-reality in another reality (such as someone else's dream, or a simulation, or some advanced form of entertainment for future generations, etc.) is one such example.>>

 

This isn't addressed by sanity, but by the first assumption: I exist. If we are someone else's dream or a simulation, then we don't really exist, do we?

 

Yet, neither do you always question it.

 

Oh, I always question a dream after I wake up. Just as I always question what has happened when I've been imbibing mind altering chemicals or when the events are outside the ordinary.

 

And even if you did always question every perception, the act of questioning does not validify the answer you arrive at.

 

LOL! This gets us back to the 2 basic assumptions! I don't know a way to prove I exist or that I am sane. BUT, assuming those are true, the answers to the questions validate the accuracy of the experience.

 

So, we assume dreams are imagined.

 

We conclude dreams are imagined. And we reach that conclusion based on data.

 

I did not say as much. Many people simply hold to the view that science is inherently superior to religion because science is empirical and rational whereas religion is based on assumptions, faith, and traditions. I was just stating that science has those inescapable requirements of faith and assumptions as well, albeit far fewer.

 

You didn't answer my questions: "What do you think is the "final answer" science should have doubt over? What "faith" do you think scientists should remember might be misplaced?" It was the use of those words that led me to conclude that you were "saying as much". That you ducked the questions doesn't lead me to change the conclusion.

 

When you say "science is inherently superior to religion", what does that mean? Does it mean that science reaches different conclusions about the nature of the universe than religion?

 

Religion can also based on empiricism and rationality. In fact, the surviving religions are so based because they have survived the empirical and rational scrutiny of people over the generations. (I exempt the new religion of Fundamentalism since its members have avoided self-criticism so far.) I suggest Ian Barbour's Religion and Science; it is considered a classic in discussing the relationship of religion and science.

 

The basic difference between religion and science is not rationality, skepticism, or empiricism, but in the evidence that is acceptable. Science accepts only a small subset of personal experience.

 

As I said, I wasn't aware what society's common usage of the term "non-objective" was, but I was using it for that purpose. If you know a better term, I'll glady use it.

 

"inaccuracy". This is how I would re-phrase your statement: "if my knowledge of perceptions are correct but the information entering them are wrong, then in both cases there is inaccuracy in that information."

[Luminal]

This isn't addressed by sanity, but by the first assumption: I exist. If we are someone else's dream or a simulation, then we don't really exist, do we?

 

Yes, we would in fact 'exist' during the dream or simulation. Why not, after all? Because it is temporary and ends as soon as the person wakes up or the simulation is turned off? This life on earth is temporary as well.

 

Oh, I always question a dream after I wake up. Just as I always question what has happened when I've been imbibing mind altering chemicals or when the events are outside the ordinary.

 

I said all perceptions, not just dreams or experiences that are inherently questionable to begin with.

 

LOL! This gets us back to the 2 basic assumptions! I don't know a way to prove I exist or that I am sane. BUT, assuming those are true, the answers to the questions validate the accuracy of the experience.

 

We conclude dreams are imagined. And we reach that conclusion based on data.

 

Not on data, on experiences. You experience far more waking, sober moments than dream or drug-induced experiences (unless something is seriously wrong). Thus, those uncommon experiences are vastly outnumbered, and you take the more common experience to be the truthful one.

 

If you were in the hospital, sleeping and dreaming 23 hours a day and awake 1 hour day, you might well assume the dreams to be reality and the reality to be a nightmare with all the pain and what not.

 

You didn't answer my questions: "What do you think is the "final answer" science should have doubt over? What "faith" do you think scientists should remember might be misplaced?" It was the use of those words that led me to conclude that you were "saying as much". That you ducked the questions doesn't lead me to change the conclusion.

 

The "final answer"? An answer that is unquestionable; a truth that cannot be doubted or disputed. And I don't believe humans will ever find such an answer, unless we become omniscient through science or through whatever lay beyond death. Our current level of intelligence and knowledge certainly doesn't suffice to find such an answer, though, and may never.

 

When you say "science is inherently superior to religion", what does that mean? Does it mean that science reaches different conclusions about the nature of the universe than religion?

 

I would figure, yeh. Science attempts to explain reality without a grand cosmic intelligence in the driver's seat (or passenger's if your a deist ). Nor does science doesn't get involved in morals or life beyond death. Now, I would need to have a more specific knowledge of what branch of theism you are to go any further.

 

Religion can also based on empiricism and rationality. In fact, the surviving religions are so based because they have survived the empirical and rational scrutiny of people over the generations. (I exempt the new religion of Fundamentalism since its members have avoided self-criticism so far.) I suggest Ian Barbour's Religion and Science; it is considered a classic in discussing the relationship of religion and science.

 

The basic difference between religion and science is not rationality, skepticism, or empiricism, but in the evidence that is acceptable. Science accepts only a small subset of personal experience.

 

Science accepts "a small subset of personal experience"? As in, say, all? Psychologists, which I hope you consider scientists, have ventured into every aspect of the human experience, from lucid dreams to the unconscious mind.

 

Would the larger "set" of personal experience include out-of-body experiences or telepathy? What are you referring to by that statement?

[lucaspa]

Many people simply hold to the view that science is inherently superior to religion because science is empirical and rational whereas religion is based on assumptions, faith, and traditions. I was just stating that science has those inescapable requirements of faith and assumptions as well, albeit far fewer.

 

If this is your argument, then you are overlooking that the assumptions you ascribe to science also apply to religion. So you don't have science with different assumptions than religion.

 

Now, if a person claimed that science has no assumptions, then perhaps your argument would be appropriate.

 

But, if you are faced with the situation where the claim is that science and religion are on equal footing because they each have (different) assumptions, then the argument falls apart.

 

Of course, to say "far fewer" gets you into a contest of adding assumptions and then arguments over whether a statement is an "assumption", "observation", or "conclusion". That seems, to me, to be unprofitable.

[Royston]

What I thought might be appropriate to the discussion is the principle 'nothing can exist outside the universe' but when I googled the topic, because I was interested in the logic leading to the principle...I got reams of metaphysics websites, and hokey geocities guff...annoying.

[lucaspa]

Yes, we would in fact 'exist' during the dream or simulation. Why not, after all?

 

Because the existence does not happen in objective reality. "Existence" in this sense is defined as having an objective, material existence within the physical universe.

 

I said all perceptions, not just dreams or experiences that are inherently questionable to begin with.... you take the more common experience to be the truthful one.

Yes. The questioning usually comes at a very low level of consciousness. It doesn't trigger until you encounter something that is contradictory with other perceptions. The common experiences are considered accurate because of the continual testing. They pass the testing.

 

If you were in the hospital, sleeping and dreaming 23 hours a day and awake 1 hour day, you might well assume the dreams to be reality and the reality to be a nightmare with all the pain and what not.

Like a lot of people, you misuse the word "assume".

"5 : to take as granted or true "

 

But, when you test something, you conclude:

"3 a : to reach as a logically necessary end by reasoning : infer on the basis of evidence "

 

So, I might conclude the dreams were reality. Then again, I may not. Of course, if I did make the conclusion that the dreams were reality, I would be mistaken, wouldn't I?

 

And that brings us back to objective reality: reality has a hard edge to it. There is something "real" out there. The reality in your examples at the beginning of the post is the entity playing the simulation. For instance, take the video game "God of War". Kratos doesn't really exist. The reality is my daughter playing the video game where the simulation of Kratos is.

 

The "final answer"? An answer that is unquestionable; a truth that cannot be doubted or disputed.

Are you sure you want to go there? You say "a truth .." You didn't specify a category, thus "a truth" is ANY statement that cannot be doubted or disputed.

 

1. The earth is not flat. Do you care to dispute or doubt that?

2. Proteins are not the hereditary material.

3. The earth is not the center of the solar system.

 

So, three statements that I would like to see you (seriously) doubt and dispute. There are hundreds of thousands/millions of statements like these.

 

Does that mean that science has "THE final answer"? I submit that you have confused knowledge of ANY subject with complete knowledge of every subject.

 

And I don't believe humans will ever find such an answer, unless we become omniscient through science or through whatever lay beyond death. Our current level of intelligence and knowledge certainly doesn't suffice to find such an answer, though, and may never.

 

I would figure, yeh. Science attempts to explain reality without a grand cosmic intelligence in the driver's seat (or passenger's if your a deist ). Nor does science doesn't get involved in morals or life beyond death.

And what relevance does this have to my question: "Does it mean that science reaches different conclusions about the nature of the universe than religion?" What different conclusions do you think science has reached here?

 

Science looks for the material causes. That says nothing about whether or not there is a "grand cosmic intelligence in the driver's seat", does it?

 

And, if science doesn't even "get involved" in morals or life beyond death, then science can't very well reach different conclusions from religion, can it?

 

So, NO!

 

Science accepts "a small subset of personal experience"? ... Would the larger "set" of personal experience include out-of-body experiences or telepathy? What are you referring to by that statement?

You should have asked the last question BEFORE you made all your other statements. It doesn't make you look good to have you refute a statement and THEN ask what I mean by it.

 

Let's take the taste of Brussels sprouts. How do they taste to you? Many people tell me that the taste is pleasant, ranging from slightly sweet to salty to bland. To me, Brussels sprouts taste very bitter with a taste I can't describe but causes me to involuntarily throw up.

 

So, put a plate of Brussels sprouts in front of you and me and we won't have the same experience. It won't be "intersubjective". Does that mean I'm wrong? Does it mean that you are wrong? Nope. It just means that the taste of Brussels sprouts is not part of science.

 

Not all people either have "out-of-body" experiences or telepathy. The issue is whether we can find SOMETHING that is a result of those experiences that everyone can experience. Can we all sit across from a telepath and have them tell the idenitity of cards accurately? Can the person with an out of body experience identify an item hidden from the body of both the out-of-bodier and I and then I go find the item?

 

In psychology, the experiences of the patient often is not science because no one else experiences them. What makes psychology part of science is that ANYONE can talk to the patient and 1) get the same responses by the patient and 2) observe the same behavior of the patient. IOW, the experiences of the psychologist are intersubjective.

 

What I thought might be appropriate to the discussion is the principle 'nothing can exist outside the universe' ...annoying.

 

This is what got Sagan in trouble about the nature of science. Sagan defined "Cosmos" as "everything" and then subdefined "everything" as only material objects. This, of course, ruled out deity. And thus made science "atheistic" by artificially setting up the rules so as to rule out an entity (deity) that was not ruled out by the data.

 

If you are doing science, you can't state "nothing can exist outside the univers" as a principle. You must state it as a hypothesis and then do your best to falsify it. If your attempts to falsify fail, then you have supported the hypothesis.

 

Lucaspa: We conclude dreams are imagined. And we reach that conclusion based on data.

 

Not on data, on experiences.

 

Data = experiences. Data:

"1 : factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation

2 : information output by a sensing device or organ"

 

Your senses qualify as a "sensing device or organ" and what you get from them -- experiences -- is information or data.

 

Remember, Luminal, ALL "evidence", "data", "information", "facts" are personal experience: what we see, hear, touch, taste, smell, or feel emotionally. This is what you started the thread about: "Every piece of information you have ever received, from artwork to mathematical laws, has come from one source: your senses. How reliable are our senses?"

 

Well, we use our senses and the information they bring in to test the hypothesis of whether we were dreaming and thus, whether what we experienced in our dreams was 'real'. And, as you acknowledge, it works!

[Luminal]

I can't respond to your whole post at the moment, but I'll cover what I disagree with; conclude that I agree with everything else .

 

Because the existence does not happen in objective reality. "Existence" in this sense is defined as having an objective, material existence within the physical universe.

 

We don't exist in the physical, material Universe. Our bodies do, possibly. Our consciousness, perceptions, personality, memories and everything that defines us exists in a model of reality created by a network of neurons. Or, whatever the individual believes houses his consciousness, if not material neuons, such as a soul.

 

When I reach out and touch the keys on my keyboard, I'm "touching" the model of reality created moment by moment by consciousness. Do you disagree with this?

 

Are you sure you want to go there? You say "a truth .." You didn't specify a category, thus "a truth" is ANY statement that cannot be doubted or disputed.

 

1. The earth is not flat. Do you care to dispute or doubt that?

2. Proteins are not the hereditary material.

3. The earth is not the center of the solar system.

 

So, three statements that I would like to see you (seriously) doubt and dispute. There are hundreds of thousands/millions of statements like these.

 

Does that mean that science has "THE final answer"? I submit that you have confused knowledge of ANY subject with complete knowledge of every subject.

 

There is no answer that is undisputable by humans. The last part is the most important. If I had left off "by humans" then it would be a total contradiction. After all, if that statement itself was universally true, it would be its own primary exception.

 

The Earth isn't flat? It is not flat in the model of reality created within your brain (or soul, consciousness, etc.).

 

If scientists came out tomorrow with a ground-breaking discovery that we existed in 6 spacial dimensions (each current one has an opposite, remotely analagous to matter/anti-matter pairs) and that Earth was indeed flat under the new definition of space, your model would change to relfect that.

 

Even such fundamental statements as "I think therefore I am" are up to question. That statement assumes rationality (one of your five assumptions you listed earlier). If the human mechanism of logic was polarly opposite to 'actual' logic, then the statement would be "I think therefore I'm not".

 

Science looks for the material causes. That says nothing about whether or not there is a "grand cosmic intelligence in the driver's seat", does it?

 

And, if science doesn't even "get involved" in morals or life beyond death, then science can't very well reach different conclusions from religion, can it?

 

So, NO!

 

You should have asked the last question BEFORE you made all your other statements. It doesn't make you look good to have you refute a statement and THEN ask what I mean by it.

 

Let's take the taste of Brussels sprouts. How do they taste to you? Many people tell me that the taste is pleasant, ranging from slightly sweet to salty to bland. To me, Brussels sprouts taste very bitter with a taste I can't describe but causes me to involuntarily throw up.

 

So, put a plate of Brussels sprouts in front of you and me and we won't have the same experience. It won't be "intersubjective". Does that mean I'm wrong? Does it mean that you are wrong? Nope. It just means that the taste of Brussels sprouts is not part of science.

 

It fits in perfectly with science. Our neurons create a model of reality, like a computer makes a model of, say, atmospheric patterns or a game 200 years in the future.

 

Only, our models are much more intricate and vary from individual to individual. This startling level of complexity mixed different perceptions of the same sensations along with neurochemicals that give rise to a wide variety of unusual behaviors and emotions, and much more, creates the notion of "subjectivity".

 

I strictly do not believe in subjectivity (within my own model of the Universe, of course *wink*). Subjectivity is nothing but a term people use until they understand the reasoning or mechanics behind a particular concept. Weather patterns would have been considered anything but objective until the last few hundred years.

 

One day I believe humans will understand every event within the human brain down to all X quintillion atoms. Not surprisingly, "subjectivity" will no longer be applied to the human experience, but to other activities at the edge of scientific understanding. Picotechnology, maybe?

[Tom Mattson]

One day I believe humans will understand every event within the human brain down to all X quintillion atoms. Not surprisingly, "subjectivity" will no longer be applied to the human experience,

 

Why not? Say a man who is born deaf is the one who comes up with the stroke of genius that maps out all brain functions in terms of atomic states. What makes you believe that he could ever possibly know what it is like to hear the sound of his own voice?

[Luminal]

Why not? Say a man who is born deaf is the one who comes up with the stroke of genius that maps out all brain functions in terms of atomic states. What makes you believe that he could ever possibly know what it is like to hear the sound of his own voice?

 

I was referring to nanotechnology, in which presumably the technology and knowledge will be closely intertwined, and likely most conditions involving the nervous system will be repaired with the same technology.

 

But I understand the point you were making. However, that does not give credence to subjectivity. Does the fact that you will never know what it is like to be a cat make the cat's existence subjective? Or a rock's existence, for that matter?

[someguy]

I was referring to nanotechnology, in which presumably the technology and knowledge will be closely intertwined, and likely most conditions involving the nervous system will be repaired with the same technology.

 

But I understand the point you were making. However, that does not give credence to subjectivity. Does the fact that you will never know what it is like to be a cat make the cat's existence subjective? Or a rock's existence, for that matter?

 

not the cat's existence but the existence of its senses. though technically the cat i don't believe is aware of itself and therefore the cat doesn't know what it's like to be a cat but if you pick another self aware animal or a human being with some extra senses than to fully understand that sense you need to experience it. simply knowing how the brain functions is not enough.

[lucaspa]

We don't exist in the physical, material Universe. Our bodies do, possibly. Our consciousness, perceptions, personality, memories and everything that defines us exists in a model of reality created by a network of neurons. When I reach out and touch the keys on my keyboard, I'm "touching" the model of reality created moment by moment by consciousness. Do you disagree with this?

 

Yes. I understand what you are saying: since all the sense impressions come thru neurons, then what the neurons present is a "model" of reality. In other words, what we perceive as "touching" is the signals of our neurons.

 

BUT, the neurons themselves and their signals are in the physical universe. And, as you admit, it is the physical, material interactions of neurons that "defines us". The perception of the keyboard is not directly the cells coming in contact with the keyboard, but the end result of physical, material signals sent by the keyboard. But ALL of that exists in the physical, material universe. There is no disconnect.

 

There is no answer that is undisputable by humans. The last part is the most important. If I had left off "by humans" then it would be a total contradiction.

 

You did leave off "by humans". Go look. Your statement is "An answer that is unquestionable; a truth that cannot be doubted or disputed." So don't blame me for the "total contradiction" or try to wiggle out of my refutations of your original statement

 

The Earth isn't flat? It is not flat in the model of reality created within your brain (or soul, consciousness, etc.).

 

If scientists came out tomorrow with a ground-breaking discovery that we existed in 6 spacial dimensions (each current one has an opposite, remotely analagous to matter/anti-matter pairs) and that Earth was indeed flat under the new definition of space, your model would change to relfect that.

 

Sorry, but that isn't possible. Flat is in 2 dimenstions. No matter what dimensions are added, the earth still isn't 2 dimensional. The earth isn't flat in any theory or in anyone's consciousness.

 

Even such fundamental statements as "I think therefore I am" are up to question. That statement assumes rationality (one of your five assumptions you listed earlier).

 

I've already stated, several times, that any search for truth starts with 2 statements that are taken on faith:

1. I exist.

2. I am sane.

 

I have never used "I think therefore I am", have I? You are making a strawman. Have fun knocking it down, because it isn't my argument. You need to address what I say, not make strawmen.

 

What you are missing is that, once those statements are taken as true, then there are undisputable facts or truths. You have to go back and deny one of those statements. You don't do that. You say "within my consciousness" referring to the idea that the earth is not flat. That means that you accept both statements. You exist because you say "my" and you say the earth isn't flat in your consciousness. Why not? Because you accept you are sane and can trust your sense impressions on the shape of the earth.

 

It fits in perfectly with science. Our neurons create a model of reality, like a computer makes a model of, say, atmospheric patterns or a game 200 years in the future.

 

Irrelevant. You are going off on a tangent here. This doesn't address at all that science limits itself to intersubjective experience. The taste is not intersubjective. You and I have different experiences.

 

This startling level of complexity mixed different perceptions of the same sensations along with neurochemicals that give rise to a wide variety of unusual behaviors and emotions, and much more, creates the notion of "subjectivity".

 

I strictly do not believe in subjectivity (within my own model of the Universe, of course *wink*). Subjectivity is nothing but a term people use until they understand the reasoning or mechanics behind a particular concept.

 

Another strawman. I never used the word "subjectivity". I've used "intersubjectivity" and personal experience. So I hope you had fun knocking apart your strawman, because you never got close to my argument.

 

You still haven't dealt with the fact that our 2 material, physical sensing systems give different experiences. Science won't accept those as part of science. Science only accepts personal experiences that are the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

 

Weather patterns would have been considered anything but objective until the last few hundred years.

 

Nonsense. Everyone felt what the weather was on that particular day. Everyone saw and felt the sunshine or saw and felt the rain. You are confusing theory with "objective". People had different theories for the cause of weather -- usually involving some deity or other directly making the weather. That doesn't change that weather is objective or that weather patterns are objective. You are talking instead about theory evaluation.

 

You've completely gone off the subject and are on an irrelevant tangent. Get back and discuss the topic.

 

Science is a limited form of knowing. One of its limitations is that it accepts only a subset of personal experience. This is done deliberately because it makes science more reliable. However, the basic statements of faith of science are also ones that YOU accept as true. You accept your own existence, your own sanity, and that your sense perceptions give you an accurate picture of an objective universe outside yourself: the keyboard, for instance. Therefore, there is no "grand assumption of science" that religion or any other form of human knowing does not also have.

[Luminal]

You may think that I am vehemently disputing every syllable of your posts. Trust me, I'm not. When I said "by humans" I was quite aware that was the first time I had said it; I wasn't justifying anything I had said in my previous posts. When I mentioned "I think therefore I am" I'm fully aware you never said that; I was using it to simply state a new point.

 

I'm not even sure what we disagree on here, exactly. You have already stated that any search for truth must begin with those two statements (sanity and existence) taken on faith, which I agree, and was the original intent of the thread.

 

I would possibly add something to those two statement: that I am not in a state of deception or ignorance. I can 1) Exist, and 2) Be sane yet still be unaware of objective nature of the the Universe, whether intentionally by a rational being deceiving me or unintentionally by my own ignorance.

 

But that's more or less stating the obvious. I do not think there is any major point of contention between our views.

[lucaspa]

I would possibly add something to those two statement: that I am not in a state of deception or ignorance. I can 1) Exist, and 2) Be sane yet still be unaware of objective nature of the the Universe, whether intentionally by a rational being deceiving me or unintentionally by my own ignorance.

 

The issue is whether "not in a state of deception or ignorance" is subsumed under the first 2, since we both agree that there is no way, within science, to disprove either Last Tuesdayism or The Matrix.

 

Sanity: "the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind"

 

I would say that deception violates sanity. You are not of "soundness of mind". In Last Tuesday your mind is telling you that the earth is old and the events you remembered really happened, but that is not "sound". In The Matrix your mind is telling you that you are walking around on the earth when you are really plugged into machines under the surface and not moving.

 

Basically, being sane means perceiving reality. If you perceive that you are Napoleon Bonaparte, that is insanity. Perceiving a history that never happened or a "reallity" that is not the case (The Matrix), then you are not sane. In fact, since we need to be sane to trust our senses, since senses are not to be trusted in The Matrix, then the people there are insane by that criteria, also.

 

OTOH, if you think "sanity" is limited to reasoning correctly, then you need the 3rd statement.

[someguy]

The issue is whether "not in a state of deception or ignorance" is subsumed under the first 2, since we both agree that there is no way, within science, to disprove either Last Tuesdayism or The Matrix.

 

Sanity: "the quality or state of being sane; especially : soundness or health of mind"

 

I would say that deception violates sanity. You are not of "soundness of mind". In Last Tuesday your mind is telling you that the earth is old and the events you remembered really happened, but that is not "sound". In The Matrix your mind is telling you that you are walking around on the earth when you are really plugged into machines under the surface and not moving.

 

Basically, being sane means perceiving reality. If you perceive that you are Napoleon Bonaparte, that is insanity. Perceiving a history that never happened or a "reality" that is not the case (The Matrix), then you are not sane. In fact, since we need to be sane to trust our senses, since senses are not to be trusted in The Matrix, then the people there are insane by that criteria, also.

OTOH, if you think "sanity" is limited to reasoning correctly, then you need the 3rd statement.

 

by that logic we must all be insane since all of our senses are creations caused by our mind rather than realities of the world around us. the universe has no color heat is nothing more than motion of molecules sound nothing more than vibrations and smell is a fabrication, or mistranslation also.

 

it would also mean that if you make a mistake and think you are somewhere you aren't then you are insane, and when you watch tv and you think it looks like the people on the screen are moving you're insane. insanity is a dubious concept it doesn't really mean anything except like mental disorder but these things are still not yet completely understood since psychology is still in its infancy. but at any rate if we are going to use a word like insanity i think you must make a distinction between insanity and illusion. We are all subject to illusions and so if illusion and insanity is the same we are all insane and so then insane means nothing.

 

believing you are napoleon bonaparte would be an indication of insanity but the cause matters. If we lived in a universe where it was possible to spontaneously change who you are then this would not be insanity right? because your mind is still functioning as intended in that case and is simply realizing that you are now somebody else. if you thought you were napoleon in the reality we exist in then you would be considered insane not because you are subject to illusion at that moment but because in order to suffer such an illusion something would need to be wrong with your brain. So though i hate the word insane if i had to use it i would define it as a physical abnormality of the human brain.

[lucaspa]

by that logic we must all be insane since all of our senses are creations caused by our mind rather than realities of the world around us. the universe has no color heat is nothing more than motion of molecules sound nothing more than vibrations and smell is a fabrication, or mistranslation also.

 

You've just shown that our senses are realities of the world around us. "Colors" are specific wavelengths of light, heat is motion of molecules, and sound is vibrations of material. All those are realities.

 

In this context, sane means, like the definition above "soundness of mind". To be sound of mind means that you can trust your senses to correspond to the realities of the physical universe. If you can't, then you have what you call "an abnormality of the brain" and are, by your own definition, "insane".

 

All I'm saying is that illusion can be forced on us from the outside such that what we perceive with our senses is not, in fact, reality. We are then also "insane", "not sane", or "unsane", but the cause is not an abnormality in our brain, but an external cause.

 

it would also mean that if you make a mistake and think you are somewhere you aren't then you are insane,

 

No. Your senses are telling you accurately what you are seeing. It is your hypothesis about the relation of senses and location that is mistaken.

 

and when you watch tv and you think it looks like the people on the screen are moving you're insane.

 

Why? The picture on the TV really does look like the people are moving, doesn't it?

 

insanity is a dubious concept it doesn't really mean anything except like mental disorder but these things are still not yet completely understood since psychology is still in its infancy. but at any rate if we are going to use a word like insanity i think you must make a distinction between insanity and illusion. We are all subject to illusions and so if illusion and insanity is the same we are all insane and so then insane means nothing.

 

You seem to be objecting to the use of the word "insane". Would you like the terms "unsane" or "not sane" better? The difference is whether we know the illusion is an illusion. When we watch a magic show we know we are dealing with illusion, therefore our perception of reality is OK. Now, there are some visual illusions that you find in science museums, BUT, those illusions can be tested in other ways by our senses and shown not to be the way they look to our eyes.

 

And yes, if we lived in the world of Last Tuesdayism or The Matrix, we would all be insane. We can't prove we're not. We take it on faith that we are not.

 

believing you are napoleon bonaparte would be an indication of insanity but the cause matters. If we lived in a universe where it was possible to spontaneously change who you are then this would not be insanity right?

 

Excuse me, we are living in this universe. So the hypothetical universe is irrelevant.

[Royston]

This is what got Sagan in trouble about the nature of science. Sagan defined "Cosmos" as "everything" and then subdefined "everything" as only material objects. This, of course, ruled out deity. And thus made science "atheistic" by artificially setting up the rules so as to rule out an entity (deity) that was not ruled out by the data.

 

If you are doing science, you can't state "nothing can exist outside the univers" as a principle. You must state it as a hypothesis and then do your best to falsify it. If your attempts to falsify fail, then you have supported the hypothesis.

 

My bad, this was just from memory (a book I read some time ago) and 'nothing can exist outside the universe' is just an assumption to concentrate on hypotheses that can be experimentally tested, it's a matter of convenience. As Bascule pointed out the other night, the statment as it stands alone is a tautology anyway, if we're to take the universe as 'everything', which by definition the universe is.

[lucaspa]

As Bascule pointed out the other night, the statment as it stands alone is a tautology anyway, if we're to take the universe as 'everything', which by definition the universe is.

 

1. If you say "the universe is everything", then you are in a position that "universe" includes deity (if deity exists). Sagan got in trouble because he made a separate definition that 'everything' was limited to material entities.

 

2. You are going to have problems with the "take the universe as everything, which by definition the universe is." Many scientists are discarding that definition and defining "universe" as "what we can observe or see in terms of looking out from earth". Both Multiverse and Bubble Universe say there are many "universes"; we just can't see them. I'm not here to argue the merits or demerits of those theories, only to note that "universe" is not universally ( ) used as "everything", but is also used as something less than that.

[JHAQ]

A good point but one must realise perceptiveness of the brain was an evolutionary product which for survival purposes would have to deal with reality as it is .

[lucaspa]

A good point but one must realise perceptiveness of the brain was an evolutionary product which for survival purposes would have to deal with reality as it is .

 

Yes, but part of that perception and reality may be deity. What is often overlooked is that the ability to communicate with deity (if it exists) would be an advantage in terms of natural selection.

 

If you can communicate with a very wise, powerful, and knowing entity, then you can get advice such as "there is a lion hiding in the tall grass" or "you need to get away from the river because it is going to flood" or providing comfort in grief such that you can get over it and get back to the problem of finding food, etc. Individuals with this communication are going survive and have more kids.

 

So, there is going to be selective pressure for evolving a brain module that is able to communicate with deity. A "deity detecting module" roughly similar to the brain module we have for detecting cheating.

 

Perhaps atheism persists because the deity detecting module did not become fixed in the population. It spread to about 90% of the population but never went that extra 10% to become fixed; atheists lack the module and therefore cannot experience that part of reality.

 

Now, before you blow a fuse, that is a plausible hypothesis. It does not say deity exists. It only says, if deity exists, then 1) ability to communicate with deity offers evolutionary advantages and 2) evolution by natural selection could design a material part of our brain to detect and communicate with deity.

[galaxyblur]

Now, before you blow a fuse, that is a plausible hypothesis. It does not say deity exists. It only says, if deity exists, then 1) ability to communicate with deity offers evolutionary advantages and 2) evolution by natural selection could design a material part of our brain to detect and communicate with deity.

 

and you also assume that our deity would chose to communicate with us, or would even have the ability him/herself.

 

Perhaps we all can communicate with a deity, should there be one. Maybe he just choses not to do so. Or maybe there are physical limitations that he encounters as well that would make his communication sparse.

[lucaspa]

and you also assume that our deity would chose to communicate with us, or would even have the ability him/herself.

 

Not quite an "assumption". Once we entertain the hypothesis that deity exists, then we have available all the instances of humans experiencing what they have concluded is communication with deity. I don't refer to the people who hear voices or the ones preaching from the streetcorner.

 

So now we have 2 groups: those who report communication with deity and those who don't. Now come hypotheses as to why there are 2 groups. I gave one. You have proposed 2 more:

 

1. "Maybe he [deity] just choses not to do so." So deity chooses some and not others.

2. "Or maybe there are physical limitations that he encounters as well that would make his communication sparse." I'm guessing you mean "physical limitations" on the side of deity. After all, the lack of a deity detecting module would be a physical limitation but on the side of humans.

 

You can also make hypotheses that the experiences of deity are due to something else other than deity. The most common one is "delusion" or "hallucination", altho no commonality of causal agent is given.

 

You have made your own assumption here: communication is "sparse". That doesn't seem to be the case. Cases in the scripture of various religions would indicate that deity does not intervene often in human history on a grand scale and then does so only thru a limited number of individuals: Moses, Mohammed, Smith, Buddha, etc.

 

However, millions of people over the centuries have reported a much quieter, much more personal experience of communication with deity. This isn't "sparse", it just doesn't have the publicity or gaudiness of the other cases.

[galaxyblur]

Not quite an "assumption". Once we entertain the hypothesis that deity exists, then we have available all the instances of humans experiencing what they have concluded is communication with deity. I don't refer to the people who hear voices or the ones preaching from the streetcorner.

 

it is an assumption, unless you consider human experience to be an accurate way to observe said phenomenon. Which I don't.

 

So now we have 2 groups: those who report communication with deity and those who don't. Now come hypotheses as to why there are 2 groups. I gave one. You have proposed 2 more:

 

1. "Maybe he [deity] just choses not to do so." So deity chooses some and not others.

And also, maybe he can and choses not to, and he never has done so.

 

2. "Or maybe there are physical limitations that he encounters as well that would make his communication sparse." I'm guessing you mean "physical limitations" on the side of deity. After all, the lack of a deity detecting module would be a physical limitation but on the side of humans.

right.

 

You have made your own assumption here: communication is "sparse". That doesn't seem to be the case. Cases in the scripture of various religions would indicate that deity does not intervene often in human history on a grand scale and then does so only thru a limited number of individuals: Moses, Mohammed, Smith, Buddha, etc.

 

However, millions of people over the centuries have reported a much quieter, much more personal experience of communication with deity. This isn't "sparse", it just doesn't have the publicity or gaudiness of the other cases.

What percentage of people would claim to have a divine experience? And, what percentage of those would be lying or delusional? We may never have a way of knowing that. I was simply referring to those people who appear to be prophetic because of their divine experience... sparse. You're right, if we consider everyone to be telling the truth and/or not delusional, then sparse is inaccurate.

[Royston]

I think you've skewed my point Lucaspa...

 

My bad, this was just from memory (a book I read some time ago) and 'nothing can exist outside the universe' is just an assumption to concentrate on hypotheses that can be experimentally tested, it's a matter of convenience. As Bascule pointed out the other night, the statment as it stands alone[/b'] is a tautology anyway, if we're to take the universe as 'everything', which by definition the universe is.

 

1. If you say "the universe is everything", then you are in a position that "universe" includes deity (if[/b'] deity exists). Sagan got in trouble because he made a separate definition that 'everything' was limited to material entities.

 

I didn't state the universe is 'everything', I was arguing the basis of that statement assumed the universe is everything, hence 'stands alone'. I believe certain areas are undefined until they can be tested. I think 'deity' is undefined, and open to interpretation...interpretation can't be tested. I also don't think 'deity' is appropriate for the discussion.

 

2. You are going to have problems with the "take the universe as everything, which by definition the universe is." Many scientists are discarding that definition and defining "universe" as "what we can observe or see in terms of looking out from earth".

 

I would also argue that the universe includes what we're yet to discover, so 'what we can observe' will change over time. However, 'what we can observe' is another matter of convenience, and I completely agree with that definition as far as science is concerned.

[someguy]

You've just shown that our senses are realities of the world around us. "Colors" are specific wavelengths of light, heat is motion of molecules, and sound is vibrations of material. All those are realities.

 

In this context, sane means, like the definition above "soundness of mind". To be sound of mind means that you can trust your senses to correspond to the realities of the physical universe. If you can't, then you have what you call "an abnormality of the brain" and are, by your own definition, "insane".

 

All I'm saying is that illusion can be forced on us from the outside such that what we perceive with our senses is not, in fact, reality. We are then also "insane", "not sane", or "unsane", but the cause is not an abnormality in our brain, but an external cause.

 

 

 

 

nope color is not wavelengths of light sound is not vibration of material and heat is not motion of molecules. wavelengths of light are wavelengths of light there is nothing color about them. vibration of material is vibration of material there is nothing audible about it. motion of molecules is motion of molecules nothing more. color and sound and heat are sensations ascribe to these things created by our minds.

 

if we all lived in a world of heat sensitive eyeballs all creatures to our knowledge saw heat like a heat sensitive camera does, the i would ask you what color was and you would tell me that color is heat. you see, you would have changed your definition of what color is but without having changed a single thing about the universe around you. the only thing that changed in scenario compared to how things are in our universe is how your eyes perceive the world around you. color is an illusion, and exists only by virtue of self aware beings with light sensitive eyes and how the brain translates those wavelengths.

 

that's what the question, "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?" is meant to show. if no animals were ever born with ears that could hear, sound would never exist there would only be vibrations, nothing more. In fact i would even take it a step further and say if no animals with ears were self aware there be no sound.

 

sorry to be the one to break the news but going from your previous definition of insanity i think today must be a bad day for you because you just found out you were insane.

 

the universe is everything, energy. nothing more nothing less.