ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/02/85)
(continued) >>> > [Rich Rosen] >>>> >> [me] >>>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >>>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? Science cannot help me decide, for instance, whether I like a musical composition, or whether love exists, for that matter. I do not consider this to be a failing of science, but if it were complete in the sense that it could describe the entire universe, then it would be able to do these things. Likewise, music is incomplete, in the sense that I would never expect to gain understanding of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle by listening to the Missa Solemnis -- though I suppose anything is possible. BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for? >> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >> discourse. > >Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >thinking) then what??? Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a hallucination. If so, I guess I do not exist, since there's absolutely no objective scientific evidence whatsoever for my awareness, and there never will be. By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, free will, or even God.. Rich, now look what you've done! >>... you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: >> The universe of science is All That Is. >> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. > >Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are the >things that are. That's my position. You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. I hope that my remarks about you are correct, and apologize if they have unfairly characterized your beliefs. I am trying to determine what you meant by the word `exist' so that we might be able to communicate with a deeper understanding of each others' words than the past. I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. We should try to avoid pointless semantic quibbling so that we will avoid flooding the net with so much silly verbal diarrhoea. So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon that could be verified by the scientific method? >What is a "universe of science"? I believe I said "THE universe of science", by which I mean all that is `real', from the scientific viewpoint. For example, God is not `real in the universe of science', whereas probably electrons are. Admittedly, all scientists would not come to an agreement on everything, but most could be persuaded of the existence of a phenomenon verified by the `scientific method'. To take another example, I suspect that in `the universe of QM physicists of the Copenhagen persuasion', there is no reality at all beyond the readings on their instruments, but I am probably presumptuous in making this statement. As a final example, Santa Claus is `real' in the universe of many young children. This is all quite sloppy, I know. But with so many different viewpoints and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me will likewise be true to others. khronos estai ouketi -michael
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
Even > = rlr, Odd > = Ellis >>>>Is it (science) "incomplete" in any sense other than that *you*, >>>>my friend, like so many others, wish for something more that that which is? > Science cannot help me decide, for instance, whether I like a musical > composition, or whether love exists, for that matter. I do not > consider this to be a failing of science, but if it were complete in the > sense that it could describe the entire universe, then it would be able > to do these things. No one is asking you to "decide" these things through science. And yet, the basis for your liking or not liking stems from your make-up, your history of experience, etc. Science is only the method for acquiring facts, it is not the facts themselves. > BTW, what is it you suppose that that I wish for? A non-causal world in which you can have your free will and eat it too. You've said this more than once. >>> Again and again, you offer the accusation `wishful thinking' when you >>> really ought to be demolishing the idea presented, by means of logical >>> argument. If you think a statement is false, please demonstrate its >>> fallacy -- you might even shut me up! If you cannot, your estimation of >>> my motives, witty as it may be, is a cheap substitute for real >>> discourse. >>Since the idea presented has no supporting evidence, one can assume that you >>must believe in it for a reason. If not factual evidence, and if not just >>because it fits notions of the world as you might like to see it (wishful >>thinking) then what??? > Then one's own subjective experience of awareness is not valid evidence > that `awareness' is a real entity. After all, it might have been a > hallucination. If you really believe it's all an illusion, then stab yourself in the arm with a fork. If not, don't bother positing such a position for argument's sake. Objectivity in science is designed to try to ensure within this system an avoidance of such subjectivity. > If so, I guess I do not exist, since there's absolutely no objective > scientific evidence whatsoever for my awareness, and there never will be. I agree. You don't exist. > By Occam! Conscious awareness is as no more real than Santa Claus, > free will, or even God.. As I said in the last article, Occam says to reduce assumptions to a minimum, not to ignore evidence. > Rich, now look what you've done! Does this mean we've heard the last of you now that you don't exist, or will your posting appear "acausally" from time to time? >>>... you are apparently dedicated to the beliefs below: >>> The universe of science is All That Is. >>> Science will somehow be able to describe everything. >>Here we go again with science-hating. The universe of things that are are the >>things that are. That's my position. > You are incorrect when you insist that I hate science. In fact, I like > science very much, and have devoted a great deal of time to the study, > although, admittedly, I am not a scientist. Since you have so many > misconceptions about me, I suggest that we attempt to correct a > language difficulty that has thwarted our communication somewhat. If you don't hate science, then explain what the term "universe of science" means, if not some debasing term that names a specific subset of the universe as being in the realm of science. Please. > I had hoped that you would say "Yes, those are my beliefs" or "No, they > are not". Unfortunately, you responded with a tautology. Because you made remarks about a "universe of science". > So I will ask you as a straightforward question: When you say something > exists, do you mean, loosely, that it must be an object or phenomenon > that could be verified by the scientific method? Ass backwards. The scientific method, by its nature, with viable tools, can determine whether or not an object or phenomenon exists in a physical sense. Other things that "exist", like "love", "music", etc. are human labels that are placed upon certain collections and ordering of physical phenomena with certain causes. > As a final example, Santa Claus is `real' in the universe of > many young children. I wasn't aware that young children lived in a different universe that the rest of us. (Though you might think so from the way some parents reat them.) > This is all quite sloppy, I know. Me too. > But with so many different viewpoints > and kinds of people, it is handy to have some way of fairly dealing > with them all. I certainly cannot assume that what seems true to me > will likewise be true to others. "Seems true"! Now you've got it. Seeming true doesn't make something true. -- Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts. Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr