Religion

[Immanuel Can]

Because if "universe" is all that exists then your God doesn't...

Ah, I see I was insufficiently precise. I did not intend to say that "universe is all that exists", and let that stand as a generality. That would be obviously untrue, as I will explain shortly. I apologize for misspeaking.

Back to your point, first: the term "another universe" is self-contradictory. So you set a "test" that could not be met, not because it was too difficult but because you had self-contradicted in designing your "test."

In putting it better, I would point out that "universe" describes that which is merely material. But all Christians believe that the material is not all that exists.

In fact, to say, "God created the universe" would be a circular statement, if one assumed that God was part of the universe. The First Cause has to be prior to the universe, not a fixture of it.

[Univalence]

The First Cause has to be prior to the universe, not a fixture of it.

Well thanks for admitting that the "Super-powerful Alien" hypothesis is the only plausible hypothesis for Jesus then...

[Univalence]

But all Christians believe that the material is not all that exists.

Also, the material/non-material distinction is a red herring. The scientific epistemology rests on testability.

Does phenomenon X have measurable consequences? Yes? That's all that matters.

You are claiming that God has measurable consequences. The consequence is called 'Universe'.
To say that God is 'non-material' Is to say that God is inconsequential. Which is an own goal for your line of reasoning...

[Immanuel Can]

Well thanks for admitting that the "Super-powerful Alien" hypothesis is the only plausible hypothesis for Jesus then...

No such thing, of course.

[Immanuel Can]

But all Christians believe that the material is not all that exists.

Also, the material/non-material distinction is a red herring. The scientific epistemology rests on testability.

But science does not deal with all that exists. It can describe material phenomena, but not things like "mind," or "morals," or "meaning," all of which people not only recognize as existing, but also cannot possibly avoid relying on every day. Thus, not everything known to be real can be "tested" in scientific ways.

You've got to have a realistic view of both the greatness and the limitations of the scientific method. Science is a specific material methodology, not the totality of truth. (And the inventor of that methodology, Francis Bacon, was a devout Christian, by the way.)

[Univalence]

But science does not deal with all that exists. It can describe material phenomena, but not things like "mind," or "morals," or "meaning,"

Strange. I can empirically test for mind, morals and meaning, feelings and emotions. I experience those things every day. From where I am looking - they are all empirical phenomena.

Why would you say that science 'doesn't deal' with them?

[Immanuel Can]

Strange. I can empirically test for mind, morals and meaning, feelings and emotions. I experience those things every day. From where I am looking - they are all empirical phenomena.

Why would you say that science 'doesn't deal' with them?

What's the test for measuring the moral quality of something? How is an aesthetic-ometer calibrated? What meaning does science prove life has?

I agree that you have existential experience with all these things, and I agree that they are real; but there's no science that can quantify them, or even identify them as real. And the same is true of your mind: we can locate the brain -- we can map it, dissect it, poke it, prod it, weigh it and so on -- but can't find the "ghost" in that "machine," the human consciousness, even though we all know it's there. As a matter of fact, only a sentient being is even capable of doing science: but sentience itself has this same elusive quality.

So science requires the existence of these sorts of things, but cannot prove scientifically what they are, or how they exist.

[Univalence]

What's the test for measuring the moral quality of something? How is an aesthetic-ometer calibrated?

The test for quality is the same for everything. Instrumental usefulness.

What meaning does science prove life has?

Science doesn't prove anything. It tests hypotheses.

I agree that you have existential experience with all these things, and I agree that they are real; but there's no science that can quantify them, or even identify them as real.

That's because you have put 'science' on the same pedestal that you have put your God.
Science is not an ontological thing. It's a method. People (like you and I) DO science.

And I can tell you that my experiences are real. As real as gravity.

And the same is true of your mind: we can locate the brain -- we can map it, dissect it, poke it, prod it, weigh it and so on -- but can't find the "ghost" in that "machine,".

That's because you are using the wrong measurement instrument. A scientist's primary tool is their mind.

Looks to me you have no idea how to use it. Perhaps that's why you are still looking for it?

[Immanuel Can]

What's the test for measuring the moral quality of something? How is an aesthetic-ometer calibrated?

The test for quality is the same for everything. Instrumental usefulness.

Where is your instrument? Have you discovered a moral-meterstick or an aesthetic-ometer? Such things don't exist in science.

What meaning does science prove life has?

Science doesn't prove anything. It tests hypotheses.

What's the test procedure that yields us the answer to the meaning of our own lives? What's the test procedure for morality or aesthetics?

Science is not an ontological thing. It's a method.

I did call it "the scientific method." You must have missed that bit.

And the same is true of your mind: we can locate the brain -- we can map it, dissect it, poke it, prod it, weigh it and so on -- but can't find the "ghost" in that "machine,".

That's because you are using the wrong measurement instrument. A scientist's primary tool is their mind.

But "mind" itself has no scientific explanation. "Brain," you can tell me lots about...but the ghost in the machine is something science needs, but can't locate.

[Univalence]

Where is your instrument? Have you discovered a moral-meterstick or an aesthetic-ometer? Such things don't exist in science.

Of course they exist. The mind is the instrument.

What's the test procedure that yields us the answer to the meaning of our own lives?

The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be.

But "mind" itself has no scientific explanation. "Brain," you can tell me lots about...but the ghost in the machine is something science needs, but can't locate.

You seem to have a very pop-culture understanding of science. Perhaps because you've never done any actual science?

Science is not in the business of explaining anything. Science is the art of understanding how things work. It's fundamentally an instrumental and pragmatic discipline. The output of good science is a useful model. Science is about control - the ability to account for all the variables and predict outcomes.

Science is about being able to do things we previously couldn't.
Science is about Egotheism through know-how.

The scientific "explanation" for the mind is our ongoing attempts to invent artificial minds. In some aspects - we have already succeeded.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course they exist. The mind is the instrument.

But "mind" is neither material nor quantifiable. It's not subject to scientific method.

The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be.

That means it has no objective meaning. So there's no longer an empirical basis for distinguishing between a "meaning" and a delusion. So again, there's no applicability of the scientific method there.

But "mind" itself has no scientific explanation. "Brain," you can tell me lots about...but the ghost in the machine is something science needs, but can't locate.

You seem to have a very pop-culture understanding of science.

Au contraire: the mind-brain problem is one of the most interesting and generally-recognized philosophical problems. It's not peripheral or "pop-culture" at all: it's a mainstream problem. There were at least two good articles and one book review on the subject in the last PN alone.

And I'm pretty certain you didn't know that.

[Belinda]

But "mind" itself has no scientific explanation. "Brain," you can tell me lots about...but the ghost in the machine is something science needs, but can't locate.

Gosh Immanuel, I have explained to you how mind does have a scientific explanation ! Your brain-mind is within your skull. The variable states of your brain-mind are indeed quantifiable.

[Univalence]

But "mind" is neither material nor quantifiable. It's not subject to scientific method.

This claim requires evidence.

We sure have self-driving cars in 2019. It seems to me the algorithm that drives those cars is a "quantification" of the human mind...

That means it has no objective meaning. So there's no longer an empirical basis for distinguishing between a "meaning" and a delusion. So again, there's no applicability of the scientific method there.

You still haven't figured that the meaning of "objective" is subjective, have you?
You still haven't figured that empiricism is the PROCESS by which we distinguish things?

Demonstration: I give you two test subjects: A and А
Hypothesis 1: A is the same as А
Hypothesis 2: A is different to А

In order to draw one distinction - you require at least 1 difference. At least 1 bit of information! Find it!

Au contraire: the mind-brain problem is one of the most interesting and generally-recognized philosophical problems.

Yes. Philosophers are incredibly skilled at inventing problems, but have a rather poor track record for solving them.

Q.E.D you probably can't even solve the trivial problem of comparing A to А.

It's not peripheral or "pop-culture" at all: it's a mainstream problem. There were at least two good articles and one book review on the subject in the last PN alone.

And I'm pretty certain you didn't know that.

And I should care about books and articles on the matter why? I already understand HOW the process works. I can use my own mind to reach my own conclusions from first principles.

[Immanuel Can]

But "mind" is neither material nor quantifiable. It's not subject to scientific method.

This claim requires evidence.

The evidence is dead easy. There is no instrument that does this. Indeed, there's not even a proposal for how to design any instrument that could potentially do this. But given the amount of scientific attention the question has garnered, one would expect that if such an instrument could be forged, it would have been forged long ago...unless the scientists just weren't very bright.

Yes. Philosophers are incredibly skilled at inventing problems, but have a rather poor track record for solving them.

Perhaps. But unless you don't think Thomas Nagel, or Raymond Tallis, or David Chalmers, or Baruch Spinoza, or Ernst Mach, or Rene Descartes...or any of the other philosophers of mind are very bright, they might not be "inventing" problems, but rather indicating real ones that we should consider.

I can use my own mind to reach my own conclusions from first principles.

Now I'm really interested. What "first principles" do you base your conclusions upon?

[Univalence]

The evidence is dead easy. There is no instrument that does this.

So you can't tell that a self-driving car does the same thing as a human-driven car?

I can. You already have the instrument required! USE IT.

Perhaps. But unless you don't think Thomas Nagel, or Raymond Tallis, or David Chalmers, or Baruch Spinoza, or Ernst Mach, or Rene Descartes...or any of the other philosophers of mind are very bright, they might not be "inventing" problems, but rather indicating real ones that we should consider.

It doesn't seem to me like you practice what you preach. Hume claimed that we can't traverse the is-ought gap.
Yet... you make choices. You value one thing over another. Somehow.

All philosophical problems can be reduced down to the two problems of epistemology. Justification and criterion.

The easiest way to solve philosophical problems is to ignore them.

Now I'm really interested. What "first principles" do you base your conclusions upon?

Like every scientist: my experiences. A priori (expectations) and a posteriori (validations).

Protagoras had the answer 2500 years ago... Man is the measure of all things.