15 replies to this topic

[shedon666]

post deleted by shedon666

Edited by shedon666, 24 September 2003 - 06:31 PM.

[DJS]

My apologies, if I happened to offend you Shedon. First, the excerpt you have selected was from a thread where I had misunderstood the point being made. That's my first point.

My second point is that I wasn't implying that philosophy is defecient. I am currently trying to make myself more learned in the philosophical tradition. I think philosophy gives one a solid foundation to erect a world view on. And I have found over the past few months that my lack of knowledge in the area of philosophy is glaring.

However -however- I do believe that science is better than philosophy at handling (supporting arguments pro or con) regarding future trends. I am not a scientists, not by a long shot. But if my rudimentary knowledge serves me correctly you can support your "hypothesis" with existing data, as well as data derived through experimentation. How can you experiment with philosophy, other than by creating hypothetical situations that are by their very nature, relative (a matter of opinion)?

Does using the word superior make me a bigot? Should I never use the word superior? If I say I think ice cream is superior to cupcakes am I a cupcake bigot? No, it just means that I prefer one over the other.

Jeez, you guys are so sensitive sometimes.

Edited by Kissinger, 15 July 2003 - 12:18 AM.

[Discarnate]

-snip-
I am aware that Breatharianism is majoritively Philosophical.

IMO, Breatharianism is extremely flawed. Many of the major proponents of it have been caught 'cheating' - see a good article on cults back about 6 mos in US News & World Reports, either in a library or if you wish to spend the money at their site online. When you have such a radical claim - and living without eating is a SERIOUSLY radical claim - you need extreme proof.

Here are some pro philosophy facts from my mind.
Two elements of the mind -Love and Honour- will never be put under a microscope.

Well, sorry, I suspect that both shall be put under if not a microscope at least an EEG or a SQuID. As we (scientists, that is) get to understand how mind is generated from brain, or if there is even any difference between the two, or, if you prefer, how mind interacts with brain, sooner or later they'll come across how brain handles both love and honor. Otherwise, what's the point of uploading? If we can't be loving, honorable people (or at least as loving and honourable as we are in the flesh) then we'd loose a LOT of ourselves when uploaded.

And frankly, I rather doubt that science would be unable to generate uploading. May take a while, perhaps longer than some proponents currently feel or less than others. *shrug* I dunno - but I'd bet we have an 'honor' eeg long before we have a full upload. And I don't think it'll take too long (less'n half a century) before we have an upload.

Could be wrong, but hey - IMO.

-snip good stuff on honor-

-Discarnate

[Lazarus Long]

I have more than a little sympathy for the devil; I am always respectful toward that which can kill me. So let me say at the outset that it must be pure hell to be the fall guy for gods all the time and always have to take the heat.

I suspect, although I have yet to confirm what happened, that you will find your post in the "catcher," a lower level our little patch of perdition here on earth in our virtual surreality. IMO your point is well taken, and doesn't deserve to be file thirteened anymore than yoga or any other basic meditative principle. It is a simple fact that getting beyond resource need is a step that must be addressed for a concept like "immortality" to be considered rationally. It is just extremely difficult for oxygen based humans that eat to be very rational about t.

I read your original post and while I consider there is too much speculation treated as fact there is a "logic" that would be foolish to ignore. There are a number of aspects that I had planned to come back to with you but I felt you had ignored me when I had approached you for discussion and so I didn't think you were interested in my thoughts on this, or any matter.

Nevertheless dear ancient one you deserve the utmost courtesy regardless and as a director here I must apologize to you if you have been inadvertently offended by someone's inconsiderate rudeness, irrespective of whom that may have been. We are after all a bit anarchistic about authority among our thinking tank though my own policy and one I encourage others to apply is that when things get moved to at least inform the poster as to where and why it is being moved.

Would that be considered more, or less adversarial?

If this had been done in your case prior to moving the post would you have understood teh gesture considerate? or more insulting?

Well to change the subject, as to becoming anaerobic, or at least non breathe dependent, I suspect there is a lot of precedent in nature, from the Achaean bacteria that evolved from the pits of hell in the ancient ocean depths to the methods of gills, but you intend a more complete transcendence of dependence and this requires changing the dependent organic substrate which sustains our consciousness. The model proposed by uploading for example, will effectively accomplish this if it is attained.

[tbeal]

surely science also studys the mind

[Lazarus Long]

Science is a branch of philosophy the last time I checked, not the other way around. Maybe this is too classical but it is accurate from an epistemological perspective.

[Lazarus Long]

I am not referring to "validity" when I suggest that science is a branch of philosophy, in this respect it is the standards and quality of the practitioner not the field which are most subject to review. I am referring to a historical fact that in an epistemological manner science developed OUT OF general philosophy and was considered a branch of philosophy well into the 19th century.

Science has since the formalization of the Industrial Revolution tried to distance itself somewhat from its less precise cousins and develop its own "philosophies" but the fact is that it is still organized in this way and to have any discussion on the "logic" of the scientific method, reductionism, empiricism etc, or to evaluate ethics is a return to science's philosophical roots.

I was basically stating that it is a false dichotomy that Kissinger applied, I also do not think they are equal, any more than my arm is equal to my whole body.

BTW, Shedon666 I took no offense either and suspect we are both simply the subject of a minor misunderstanding with respect to previous attempts at communication. I did check and your post is still present in the "catcher" as I suggested it might be and can be referenced if you like. I also happen to be sensitive about having my words callously discarded so I am interested in seeing that some decorum is met when our advisers and moderators make these decisions. I hope this is helpful.

[DJS]

Science as a branch of philosophy...ok, I can understand that. But why do you think science has tried to distance itself from philosophy? [huh]

What if philosophy was the key to immortality?

Philosophy may give one the ability to look at the world more accurately, or to better orient one's goals, but it will never grant you physical immortality. That is for science to provide.

There is no double exponential technological growth in philosophy. Hence, science is more important than "nonscience philosophies" in attaining our goal of immortality.

[DJS]

hhmmm....

This breatharianism seems rather extreme. Starving yourself and going blind at the same time, quite a package deal. No, but in all seriousness -- hey you never know. Have you tried this yourself? If so, what have the effects been?

[DJS]

Shedon,

I am a skeptic. When you make outrageous claims I want empirical data to back it up. What Discarnate said seems on the ball to me. Breatharianism seems rather cultish. I only hope that you do your own research into this movement and do not fall into a trap which seems all too common place among people searching for the answers to questions.

And my question was a valid and serious one, and is still out there waiting for you to answer it...

Have you actually tried this procedure (of staring into the sun and not eating) and, if so, what have the effects been on you personally?

Kissinger

[Lazarus Long]

Hey guys, what part of this is on topic?

If you would like to flame one another perhaps the place is in a PM rather than a public record of your disapproval for one another's rhetoric. I think this going too far afield to be germane to the thread, so how about toning down the personal stuff and focusing on the actual subject, while privately expressing your disdain for one another's overall operational systems in direct correspondance.

Factual criticism that is supportable is valid. Ad hominen attacks are discouraged and will eventually get deleted so you might all want to review a little of your various words and edit it out or rephrase it to carry your actual intention with regard to the specific subject. The issue of breatharianism (sp?) is still available in the catcher to argue that aspect as a separate thread as well.

[chubtoad]

The definition of Philosophy from dictionary.com that seems to match the way it is talked here is the following,

Philosophy- Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods

Now does Science meet all the requirements of this definition? Science makes assumptions based on experimental data, then uses these to prove theories. It is clear that Science recognizes the fact that these are just truths under assumptions because Science calls them laws and theories not theorems, lemmas ect. So all of Science lies under this definition, but there does exist things that follow this definition that arent science. For example I could assume the bible to be true and prove things based on this assumption. This lies in the realm of philosophy but not in that of science. So this leads us to the statement if science, then philosophy, but often not the converse. Visually science can be thought of as a subspace of philosophy. So by the definition of superior in logic,

Superior- Logic. Of wider or more comprehensive application; generic. Used of a term or proposition.

philosophy is superior to science. I think a better question than is science superior to philosophy would be - Is the region of philosophy that is science more useful than the region of philosophy that is not science? This is a tough question. This not-science region contains mathematics which may alone be enough to take down science. The problem is the definition of philosophy is so broad it might as well say all the things that humans have reasoned without logical fallacy.

Edited by chubtoad, 20 August 2003 - 11:11 PM.

[AgentNyder]

Now does Science meet all the requirements of this definition? Science makes assumptions based on experimental data, then uses these to prove theories.  It is clear that Science recognizes the fact that these are just truths under assumptions because Science calls them laws and theories not theorems, lemmas ect.

Yes but can they even be called truths if they must exist under a set of assumptions? Before Copernicus (and even during Copernicus' time), try convincing people that the the sun didn't travel around the earth - that it was the other way around. They would call you mad! Simply look at the empirical evidence; the sun rises over there, and sets over there - travelling in a complete arc over the earth. So the logical, empirical and observational conclusion is that the sun travels around the earth. Was this science?

Science should never be about proving theories. Otherwise you could follow a paradigm whilst the whole time it is false. You can use mountains of evidence to prove a theory yet it only takes a simple observation like disproving that all swans are black by finding a white swan. Of course, falsificationism is in itself a hypothesis, and depends on the instruments used, the quality of the data and the circumstances of the hypothesis can generate auxiliary hypotheses that can falsify the falsification.

Lazarus Long had a point when he said science is a philosophy. Because define the nature of truth? What is truth? For example, is it gravity that forces objects to fall to the ground or is it the powers of God? There is no way of knowing for sure and either way can be stringently tested and proved as anomalies do crop up. But should we be trying to prove theories? There can always be an alternate explanation so in science you can only prove theories wrong to evolve in science otherwise you may be stuck with outmoded research programmes.

Progressive scientific programmes will accomodate contradicting evidence and build upon that. Unfortunately I've heard that many prominent scientists (especially in the field of economics) ignores falsifying evidence in order to prove their theory because of some inner bias or incentive to do so.

Of course you have to be careful with Type 1 error (rejecting a true hypothesis), if you can find a way to minimise this type of error along with Type 2 error....

And yes, this is from Karl Popper and his progeny. [sfty]

[chubtoad]

"Yes but can they even be called truths if they must exist under a set of assumptions?"
Nothing, not even ideas of mathematics, can be proven without assumptions. For instance all of geometry is based on at least 4 assumptions(called axioms or postulates in math). Try proving the proving anything in geometry without any assumptions, it just won't work.
"Science should never be about proving theories."
Ill give you example of what I mean by this. Immagine you find with experiment that the force of a certain type of spring is given by F=kx. You could get this result a million times but you don't have mathematical certainty that the million and first won't come out different. So now you assume F=kx in this type of spring, you don't have to go out and perform more experiments to show that x=F/k it just follows using the assumptions of mathematics.

[AgentNyder]

"Yes but can they even be called truths if they must exist under a set of assumptions?"
Nothing, not even ideas of mathematics, can be proven without assumptions.  For instance all of geometry is based on at least 4 assumptions(called axioms or postulates in math).  Try proving the proving anything in geometry without any assumptions, it just won't work. 

Are these assumptions falsifiable?  My point is if you are working under false assumptions then anything you try to prove in geometry under these assumptions could be false.  Essentially you are inviting Type 2 error.

"Science should never be about proving theories."
Ill give you example of what I mean by this.  Immagine you find with experiment that the force of a certain type of spring is given by F=kx.  You could get this result a million times but you don't have mathematical certainty that the million and first won't come out different.  So now you assume F=kx in this type of spring,  you don't have to go out and perform more experiments to show that x=F/k it just follows using the assumptions of mathematics.

But what are you doing with the experiment with the spring? You are trying to PROVE your theory. Even though conflicting data will appear. This is scientific verificationism.

Think of my example - if I wanted to prove that all swans were black, would I look for black swans? The black swans are empirical evidence, and the theory holds true to the empirical evidence using the available scientific instruments that we have to measure. Then all of a sudden, I observe a white swan, and the theory is falls into question. So should I be looking for the black swan or the white swan?

Basically I'm saying we should keep theories open to be DISPROVED, in order for them to be scientific.

[tbeal]

you guys say that science is discovery by experimental means but surely so is philosophy to a degree since there could very little dsicussion without realtion to the universe - which is by it's nature emprical. it is accurate that science is part of philisophy