Philosophy Now Forum

Ansiktsburk wrote:Kuznetsova, the problematic one of your the "cornerstones" is the last:

The primary purpose of the brain is ....

To talk about purposes is not fruitful. It's too much Platon and Aristoteles, to try to find purposes. I don't say that I do not believe in natural selection, but to take it as far as "purposes", well, that's kind of too much. Science is more concerned with "function", and further on, is very careful talking about things as "truths" (Kuhn, paradigms and so on).

To say anything about purpose of the brain, and keeping that totally separate from statements about "how you should live your life" seems kind of naive.

And that' also why philosophy makes as much point now as ever. Science tells you just what it does, nothing more. Since I started take a more active interest in philosophy, I have always liked the notion of "First Science". Take Platon. You can sneer at his "ideal horses", and his purposes(!), but I find them highly intelligent and fruitful in the context he was living in. With the knowledge he had. It is curiosity that leads us to new fields of knowledge, where Science later will give us better answers.

Actually, the third of your commandments sounds a lot Nietzsche...

Well said, I wanted to pick on that third point too. Purpose ... purpose from Kuznetzova is highly likely just another illusion.

Kuznetzova wrote:

I will say this once again.. and what I am about to say to you has not been challenged or detracted by anyone on this forum, academic or non. It has not found any challenges outside this forum or anywhere else.

When it comes to the daily life of a human being on planet earth, molecular dynamics and chemistry is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon . DAILY LIFE. We don't live on the surface of stars and we don't live near black holes and we don't dwell near bose-einstein condensates and we don't interact with plasmas. We live in humid air that is near room temperature. Molecular dynamics is a sufficient and exhaustive account of what is going on in the room and on your drive to work and elsewhere.

I would suggest that the reason no one has challenged this statement is because it is true. However, this does nothing to prove the micro world and the macro world don't interact. I could be wrong but I get the impression that you saying they don't interact.

If this is the case then I would seriously question that assumption. Provided of course this is your assumption. Looking forward to your clarification of this point.

Ginkgo wrote:

Kuznetzova wrote:

I will say this once again.. and what I am about to say to you has not been challenged or detracted by anyone on this forum, academic or non. It has not found any challenges outside this forum or anywhere else.

When it comes to the daily life of a human being on planet earth, molecular dynamics and chemistry is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon . DAILY LIFE. We don't live on the surface of stars and we don't live near black holes and we don't dwell near bose-einstein condensates and we don't interact with plasmas. We live in humid air that is near room temperature. Molecular dynamics is a sufficient and exhaustive account of what is going on in the room and on your drive to work and elsewhere.

I would suggest that the reason no one has challenged this statement is because it is true. However, this does nothing to prove the micro world and the macro world don't interact. I could be wrong but I get the impression that you saying they don't interact.

If this is the case then I would seriously question that assumption. Provided of course this is your assumption. Looking forward to your clarification of this point.

Gingko, I am surprised, you already forgot that I refuted this argument of yours?

As a refresher, please see my append (it's towards the bottom) here,

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=11825

and here, where I claim that miracles are indeed supernatural events, by definition, and have scientifically been verified as such, and you defining them as (paraphrasing) "physics therefore having to be false", which is a far stretch of the mind and of course unprovable and therefore a spurious argument having zero plausibility. Especially, since quite clearly, a physical event did occur during the miracle, which was identified as not being false by competent scientists and experts!

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10204&start=90&hil ... ent+design

QMan wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:

Kuznetzova wrote:

I will say this once again.. and what I am about to say to you has not been challenged or detracted by anyone on this forum, academic or non. It has not found any challenges outside this forum or anywhere else.

When it comes to the daily life of a human being on planet earth, molecular dynamics and chemistry is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon . DAILY LIFE. We don't live on the surface of stars and we don't live near black holes and we don't dwell near bose-einstein condensates and we don't interact with plasmas. We live in humid air that is near room temperature. Molecular dynamics is a sufficient and exhaustive account of what is going on in the room and on your drive to work and elsewhere.

I would suggest that the reason no one has challenged this statement is because it is true. However, this does nothing to prove the micro world and the macro world don't interact. I could be wrong but I get the impression that you saying they don't interact.

If this is the case then I would seriously question that assumption. Provided of course this is your assumption. Looking forward to your clarification of this point.

Gingko, I am surprised, you already forgot that I refuted this argument of yours?

As a refresher, please see my append (it's towards the bottom) here,

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=11825

and here, where I claim that miracles are indeed supernatural events, by definition, and have scientifically been verified as such, and you defining them as (paraphrasing) "physics therefore having to be false", which is a far stretch of the mind and of course unprovable and therefore a spurious argument having zero plausibility. Especially, since quite clearly, a physical event did occur during the miracle, which was identified as not being false by competent scientists and experts!

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10204&start=90&hil ... ent+design

Hi QMan


I am a little puzzled. I think I said in other thread that I agree and accept the idea of miracles. I think I also said that I was happy with the scientific verification of such events.

I remember saying that I am all for science investigating the non-physical. I think I also said that quantum mechanics may be useful in this regard. I think you are wrongly assuming I am a physicalist.

What I am against is methodologies that try to pass themselves off as part of the scientific method. In other words, metaphysics that purports to be able to make SCIENTIFIC predictions about beings that have a different ontological status

I am guessing that the misunderstand is the result of us talking about different kinds of ontology.

But Ginkgo, now I am confused because you state that you think this below to be true, that's what I was referring to.

"When it comes to the daily life of a human being on planet earth, molecular dynamics and chemistry is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon . DAILY LIFE. We don't live on the surface of stars and we don't live near black holes and we don't dwell near bose-einstein condensates and we don't interact with plasmas. We live in humid air that is near room temperature. Molecular dynamics is a sufficient and exhaustive account of what is going on in the room and on your drive to work and elsewhere."

"...is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon."

No, it is not. Surely, it is not able to explain miracles on a probabilistic basis. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Let me repeat therefore, miracles are outside our common experience of natural law, although, as I mentioned the Catholic church beliefs that only one out of 6 types of miracles actually violates natural law, but all are thought to be caused by a supernatural agent because that probability is higher than that of a random arrangement of atoms at each specific point in time and space when a miracle happens to occur. That is especially the case for an enclosed system as the human body where entropy cannot decrease (be violated) by natural probability as it does in a miraculous healing.

Also, there are forms of miracles which do not involve atoms and molecules but esoteric spiritual effects. E.g., the six seers at Medjugorje are being given 10 secrets each by the Blessed Mother to be revealed later. When they complained they could not remember them, the Virgin gave them each a parchment on which they were written (but they can not see the secrets until the appointed time). Turns out that scientific investigation showed these parchments to be of an unknown material. In addition, if different people examine a parchment, each person will perceive different writing on the same parchment. One may see a business letter, another poetry, another a musical composition, etc..

Also, for 30 years now with daily apparitions of the Virgin, each time she appears, three flashes of light are visible to the people around the seers , by the thousands if outdoors. The flashes announce that the Virgin has arrived. This was of course investigated by the scientific teams and had no natural explanation. There is no physical agent that can produce such a thing, again especially with regard the specific timing and random locations. It would have to be a supernatural agent, especially if the agent is visible to preselected persons and provides the reason for such a phenomenon. The scientific teams (and, wouldn't you know, many of those were agnostics and atheists) eliminated all chances that deception was involved and came to the final conclusion that supernatural events were taking place.

If you have no argument with that, then I don't understand your above statement.

QMan

That's not my quote. By the look of it I would say it belongs to Kuznetzova.

1) what the heck is your point that you are trying to make in OP?

2) what has the one to do with the other?

3) you are too busy to slander people.

4) there are no arguments, only unrelating statements.

Ginkgo wrote:QMan

That's not my quote. By the look of it I would say it belongs to Kuznetzova.

You are correct. But I was addressing that you agreed with it.

Please don't avoid but address the issue that the vast majority of humanity thinks there is more to life than just ...

Argumentum ad populum.

Kuznetzova wrote:...
How can the traditional discipline of philosophy continue to thrive in an age of Evolutionary Biology, Molecular Biochemistry, and neuroscience? Does it just become permanently relegated to a kind of "consciousness studies"?

What do you understand by the "traditional discipline of philosophy"?

What it was becoming the last time I looked was Phenomenology, i.e. an attempt to describe subjectivity in terms that make sense to a subjective being. Not sure where it's at now tho'.

I guess some areas are still going despite science's discoveries, i.e. Ethics and Morals, Logic and Politics.

Kuznetzova wrote:

Please don't avoid but address the issue that the vast majority of humanity thinks there is more to life than just ...

Argumentum ad populum.

It's nice to see that you have access to a Dictionary of philosophical and logical terms?

QMan wrote:But Ginkgo, now I am confused because you state that you think this below to be true, that's what I was referring to.

"When it comes to the daily life of a human being on planet earth, molecular dynamics and chemistry is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon . DAILY LIFE. We don't live on the surface of stars and we don't live near black holes and we don't dwell near bose-einstein condensates and we don't interact with plasmas. We live in humid air that is near room temperature. Molecular dynamics is a sufficient and exhaustive account of what is going on in the room and on your drive to work and elsewhere."

"...is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon."

No, it is not. Surely, it is not able to explain miracles on a probabilistic basis. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Let me repeat therefore, miracles are outside our common experience of natural law, although, as I mentioned the Catholic church beliefs that only one out of 6 types of miracles actually violates natural law, but all are thought to be caused by a supernatural agent because that probability is higher than that of a random arrangement of atoms at each specific point in time and space when a miracle happens to occur. That is especially the case for an enclosed system as the human body where entropy cannot decrease (be violated) by natural probability as it does in a miraculous healing.

Also, there are forms of miracles which do not involve atoms and molecules but esoteric spiritual effects. E.g., the six seers at Medjugorje are being given 10 secrets each by the Blessed Mother to be revealed later. When they complained they could not remember them, the Virgin gave them each a parchment on which they were written (but they can not see the secrets until the appointed time). Turns out that scientific investigation showed these parchments to be of an unknown material. In addition, if different people examine a parchment, each person will perceive different writing on the same parchment. One may see a business letter, another poetry, another a musical composition, etc..

Also, for 30 years now with daily apparitions of the Virgin, each time she appears, three flashes of light are visible to the people around the seers , by the thousands if outdoors. The flashes announce that the Virgin has arrived. This was of course investigated by the scientific teams and had no natural explanation. There is no physical agent that can produce such a thing, again especially with regard the specific timing and random locations. It would have to be a supernatural agent, especially if the agent is visible to preselected persons and provides the reason for such a phenomenon. The scientific teams (and, wouldn't you know, many of those were agnostics and atheists) eliminated all chances that deception was involved and came to the final conclusion that supernatural events were taking place.

If you have no argument with that, then I don't understand your above statement.

Now I see what you are getting at. What I am actually doing (though not very well) is pointing out the distinction that exists between something being scientifically verified and something being scientifically explained. They are not necessarily one and the same.

Ginkgo wrote:

QMan wrote:But Ginkgo, now I am confused because you state that you think this below to be true, that's what I was referring to.

"When it comes to the daily life of a human being on planet earth, molecular dynamics and chemistry is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon . DAILY LIFE. We don't live on the surface of stars and we don't live near black holes and we don't dwell near bose-einstein condensates and we don't interact with plasmas. We live in humid air that is near room temperature. Molecular dynamics is a sufficient and exhaustive account of what is going on in the room and on your drive to work and elsewhere."

"...is sufficient physical explanation of all the phenomenon."

No, it is not. Surely, it is not able to explain miracles on a probabilistic basis. Or am I misunderstanding something here?

Let me repeat therefore, miracles are outside our common experience of natural law, although, as I mentioned the Catholic church beliefs that only one out of 6 types of miracles actually violates natural law, but all are thought to be caused by a supernatural agent because that probability is higher than that of a random arrangement of atoms at each specific point in time and space when a miracle happens to occur. That is especially the case for an enclosed system as the human body where entropy cannot decrease (be violated) by natural probability as it does in a miraculous healing.

Also, there are forms of miracles which do not involve atoms and molecules but esoteric spiritual effects. E.g., the six seers at Medjugorje are being given 10 secrets each by the Blessed Mother to be revealed later. When they complained they could not remember them, the Virgin gave them each a parchment on which they were written (but they can not see the secrets until the appointed time). Turns out that scientific investigation showed these parchments to be of an unknown material. In addition, if different people examine a parchment, each person will perceive different writing on the same parchment. One may see a business letter, another poetry, another a musical composition, etc..

Also, for 30 years now with daily apparitions of the Virgin, each time she appears, three flashes of light are visible to the people around the seers , by the thousands if outdoors. The flashes announce that the Virgin has arrived. This was of course investigated by the scientific teams and had no natural explanation. There is no physical agent that can produce such a thing, again especially with regard the specific timing and random locations. It would have to be a supernatural agent, especially if the agent is visible to preselected persons and provides the reason for such a phenomenon. The scientific teams (and, wouldn't you know, many of those were agnostics and atheists) eliminated all chances that deception was involved and came to the final conclusion that supernatural events were taking place.

If you have no argument with that, then I don't understand your above statement.

Now I see what you are getting at. What I am actually doing (though not very well) is pointing out the distinction that exists between something being scientifically verified and something being scientifically explained. They are not necessarily one and the same.

Hmm, your answer still begs the question. What I am driving at, of course, is that we have to come to realize that there are things that science cannot explain because it is not within our reach. I disagree with the viewpoint that, given enough time, science will be able to explain everything so that it is no longer useful to invoke supernatural agency. To me that is poor science since it unjustifiably uses apriory assumptions to exclude a necessary and useful hypothesis, results and conclusion. I stated that the parchments were identified by scientists to be an unknown material and had writing on them that depended on who was reading it. That alone is scientifically more significant then all the experiments together ever conducted at CERN. And it is being brushed off and ignored out of personal prejudice? This points out exactly the problem with flawed human nature that will forever continue to divide this world.
All anyone on this forum or anywhere has to do is to pack their bags, travel to Medjugorje and personally witness miracles in action, or simply trust in the competence of others to do it for them. Sorry to use you as my sounding board but this does have to be pointed out.

QMan wrote: Hmm, your answer still begs the question. What I am driving at, of course, is that we have to come to realize that there are things that science cannot explain because it is not within our reach. I disagree with the viewpoint that, given enough time, science will be able to explain everything so that it is no longer useful to invoke supernatural agency. To me that is poor science since it unjustifiably uses apriory assumptions to exclude a necessary and useful hypothesis, results and conclusion. I stated that the parchments were identified by scientists to be an unknown material and had writing on them that depended on who was reading it. That alone is scientifically more significant then all the experiments together ever conducted at CERN. And it is being brushed off and ignored out of personal prejudice? This points out exactly the problem with flawed human nature that will forever continue to divide this world.
All anyone on this forum or anywhere has to do is to pack their bags, travel to Medjugorje and personally witness miracles in action, or simply trust in the competence of others to do it for them. Sorry to use you as my sounding board but this does have to be pointed out.

Yes, I can see what you are saying, but the more important point is that a supernatural hypothesis is of no value to science. This is a point I was making to Professor Moody. Such a hypothesis cannot make any predictions in scientific terms.

I am not saying that such a hypothesis is of no value at all. It is of no scientific value. Miracles do occur in places and some can be scientifically verified if the opportunity arises to set up the experiment. But in the end science will always attempt to come up with a naturalistic explanation for the phenomenon. If no naturalistic explanation can be found then it goes down as unexplainable in naturalistic terms.

The reason for this is because science only investigates the natural world in order to come up with physical explanations. All other phenomenon does not exist in scientific terms. This is not saying that it doesn't exist at all.

QMan wrote:Let me repeat therefore, miracles are outside our common experience of natural law, although, as I mentioned the Catholic church beliefs that only one out of 6 types of miracles actually violates natural law,

Why are 5 types of events, that do not violate law, classified as miracles?

QMan wrote:but all are thought to be caused by a supernatural agent because that probability is higher than that of a random arrangement of atoms at each specific point in time and space when a miracle happens to occur.

How do you work out the probability of a supernatural agent?

QMan wrote:That is especially the case for an enclosed system as the human body where entropy cannot decrease (be violated) by natural probability as it does in a miraculous healing.

What happens in a miraculous healing, that breaks the laws of thermodynamics?

QMan wrote:Also, there are forms of miracles which do not involve atoms and molecules but esoteric spiritual effects. E.g., the six seers at Medjugorje are being given 10 secrets each by the Blessed Mother to be revealed later. When they complained they could not remember them, the Virgin gave them each a parchment on which they were written (but they can not see the secrets until the appointed time).

Let me get this right. The Blessed Mother, presumably working on behalf of an omniscient god, chooses 6 people to tell some secrets to, only to discover that the people she has chosen have all got crummy memories. To help them remember the 'Virgin' gives them parchments, but the writing is invisible to the people it's supposed to remind. Other people can see the writing, but it says different things for for different people. All will be revealed at some future point, when the blessed virgin mother could simply tell the 6 forgetful seers what she told them in the first place, thereby circumventing their forgetfulness.
Do you really wonder that some people question this fable?

QMan wrote:Turns out that scientific investigation showed these parchments to be of an unknown material.

Really? So presumably, somewhere, there is a peer reviewed paper that we can all read.

QMan wrote:In addition, if different people examine a parchment, each person will perceive different writing on the same parchment. One may see a business letter, another poetry, another a musical composition, etc..

Hume was right, religion is proof of miracles! (The joke being that it is miraculous that anyone believes it.)

QMan wrote:Also, for 30 years now with daily apparitions of the Virgin, each time she appears, three flashes of light are visible to the people around the seers , by the thousands if outdoors.

With 30 years of data, it should be easily verified .

QMan wrote:The flashes announce that the Virgin has arrived. This was of course investigated by the scientific teams and had no natural explanation.

Did they manage to at least record these flashes?

QMan wrote:There is no physical agent that can produce such a thing,

A flash? I think you'll find there is.

QMan wrote:again especially with regard the specific timing and random locations. It would have to be a supernatural agent, especially if the agent is visible to preselected persons and provides the reason for such a phenomenon. The scientific teams (and, wouldn't you know, many of those were agnostics and atheists) eliminated all chances that deception was involved and came to the final conclusion that supernatural events were taking place.

Can you name any of these atheist and agnostic scientists, or, as above, show us where the results were published?