Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote:Oh, and I can guarantee you consciousness has not always existed, as it requires a semblance of a brain, and that did not exist in the earliest times of this universe, as the elements hadn't been formed past the first 25, and required much more time to form. Unless you're going to tell me I'm wrong, without telling me why I'd be wrong in saying this?

No. You cannot guarantee that at all. Perhaps it is you who is not reading My posts?

JSS wrote:Everything that exists today has always existed somewhere in the universe

There is nothing, nothing, nothing that exists today that has not always existed .. somewhere in the universe. And that includes brains. It merely takes a little mathematics to prove it.

Dalek Prime wrote:Anyways, I'll ask again. Are you a consciousness, and an existent? That's all I'm trying to get across, but you're being deliberately slippery and argumentative for god knows what reason,...

..discussion terminated.

JSS wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Oh, and I can guarantee you consciousness has not always existed, as it requires a semblance of a brain, and that did not exist in the earliest times of this universe, as the elements hadn't been formed past the first 25, and required much more time to form. Unless you're going to tell me I'm wrong, without telling me why I'd be wrong in saying this?

No. You cannot guarantee that at all. Perhaps it is you who is not reading My posts? Granted, I tried not to lol.

JSS wrote:Everything that exists today has always existed somewhere in the universe

There is nothing, nothing, nothing that exists today that has not always existed .. Wow. Even my subaceous cysts? somewhere in the universe. And that includes brains. It merely takes a little mathematics to prove it.

Dalek Prime wrote:Anyways, I'll ask again. Are you a consciousness, and an existent? That's all I'm trying to get across, but you're being deliberately slippery and argumentative for god knows what reason,...

..discussion terminated.

Boo hoo. And here I was, enjoying the heck out of talking to, improbably, a real life donkey.

JSS wrote:The social promotion of scientists keeps the religiousity and dogmatic propaganda going.

I haven't noticed any of this propagandizing of scientists going on. I hear much more of the media in their constant advertising of sports, politicians, pop and film stars, etc. Science is occasionally mentioned in the news but only if some super breakthrough event happened then it gets the last five minutes of a one hour broadcast.

JSS wrote:Learn what logic is really all about and all of that gets straightened out.

I don't think logic is the tool to combine the two great separations of science and philosophy. To accomplish that they must first have something in common.

JSS wrote:As you should know by now, I know of Affectance Ontology wherein ALL of the issues in physics are completely, and simply in most cases, resolved, including Young's Double-Slit and the Mach-Zehner phenomenon.

It sounds facetious but it's a fair question. When will the science world receive these revelations which resolve every enigma still pestering physicists. After all the years of explaining it on philosophy forums, someone should have picked up on it by now

JSS wrote:And gravitational waves prove very little of anything. Why Einstein would think that couldn't exist, I don't know.

That's not how physicists see it. After all, it proves the last great prediction of GR and not least, it's total success within its field of predictions...meaning that the universe and Einstein's theories definitely have something in common. Furthermore, the discovery of GW is expected to yield further discoveries down the road. Give it time, it's only been 120 years ago that we were still in the horse and buggy era.

Einstein was clearly aware of gravitational waves as a consequence of his theory. When I wrote, Einstein thought could never be proven, it referred to its detection since obviously the instrumentation required would have seemed impossible at the time.

Obvious Leo wrote:... having models of physics which make sense would be a significant improvement over continuing to get by with those that don't.

I think scientists are concerned to provide the means for predictable and reliable practical solutions to material problems. The philosopher's project, on the other hand, is to reduce and avoid cognitive dissonance. I can see how the latter will be improved by models which "make sense", but the former requires only that models "work" . This is why many scientists want to claim that philosophy is dead.

Dubious wrote:

JSS wrote:The social promotion of scientists keeps the religiousity and dogmatic propaganda going.

I haven't noticed any of this propagandizing of scientists going on. I hear much more of the media in their constant advertising of sports, politicians, pop and film stars, etc. Science is occasionally mentioned in the news but only if some super breakthrough event happened then it gets the last five minutes of a one hour broadcast.

Have you bothered to examine the content of TV shows and films, not merely the noticeable commercials or "news" events? People do not gain their beliefs through rational explanations, but through subtle affectance on their desires.

Certainly you have heard of "product placement" and "subliminal advertising"? That was old technology merely for selling products to a formerly capitalist population. Why stop with selling products? Why not sell policy and mindset ("feminism, socialism, racism, atheism, scientism,...")? If you examine the content, you will see NOTHING BUT propaganda with which to program the masses into PCness, conformity.

Dubious wrote:

JSS wrote:Learn what logic is really all about and all of that gets straightened out.

I don't think logic is the tool to combine the two great separations of science and philosophy. To accomplish that they must first have something in common.

Emm.. well yeah...

Dubious wrote:When will the science world receive these revelations which resolve every enigma still pestering physicists. After all the years of explaining it on philosophy forums, someone should have picked up on it by now

That would be a very, very long time from now. Just look at how any new theory is received even on this level where none of these members here really have anything to lose by opening up to something new. Then think about how much gets lost by the science promoters who depend entirely upon the following of the faithful.

Society is nothing but an ego game. And it takes a very long time for egos to fade away. Certainly Christians have heard of science by now. So you must believe that they have all converted, right? How many hundreds of years has it been? How many hundreds of years was Christianity in the make? How about Judaism? Islam? Science is no different in being dogmatic once it acquired its own social ego and pride. There is nothing humble about science. They make progress only through being attacked, defeated, and forgotten. And that takes a whole lot of time. There are still people arguing about whether the Earth is the center of the solar system.

Dubious wrote:

JSS wrote:And gravitational waves prove very little of anything. Why Einstein would think that couldn't exist, I don't know.

That's not how physicists see it. After all, it proves the last great prediction of GR and not least, it's total success within its field of predictions...meaning that the universe and Einstein's theories definitely have something in common.

I proved the same thing myself with merely one additional post to this one: Measuring Existence.

Dubious wrote:Einstein was clearly aware of gravitational waves as a consequence of his theory. When I wrote, Einstein thought could never be proven, it referred to its detection since obviously the instrumentation required would have seemed impossible at the time.

Oh, I see. But then I imagine that perhaps he proposed that it couldn't be proven because he tied time, space, and gravity together too much preventing the notion that a propagation of a gravity field through space was detectable as any different than normal spacetime.

So Dubious thinks logic is irrelevant to science and mick thinks that making a distinction between what's real and what isn't real is irrelevant to science.

Neither of you guys would probably be well suited to a career in the philosophy of science.

Obvious Leo wrote:So Dubious thinks logic is irrelevant to science and mick thinks that making a distinction between what's real and what isn't real is irrelevant to science.

That does seem to kind of sum it up, doesn't it.

JSS wrote:There is nothing, nothing, nothing that exists today that has not always existed .. somewhere in the universe. And that includes brains. It merely takes a little mathematics to prove it. ...

Then why do we need Physics?

Obvious Leo wrote:... and mick thinks that making a distinction between what's real and what isn't real is irrelevant to science.

Not quite. I believe the distinction between real and unreal is central to science, but science is no more able to distinguish between real and apparent than you or I. Accordingly what counts as scientific fact is repeatable experimental observation as interpreted in accordance with current scientific models.

Obvious Leo wrote:So Dubious thinks logic is irrelevant to science and mick thinks that making a distinction between what's real and what isn't real is irrelevant to science.

Neither of you guys would probably be well suited to a career in the philosophy of science.

Aside from the fact that so much of what you write is a distortion, if I really did believe that "logic is irrelevant to science" (a stupid and small-minded at best), I would be far more accepting of the theories you and James have been flogging for years on the internet.

Dubious wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:So Dubious thinks logic is irrelevant to science and mick thinks that making a distinction between what's real and what isn't real is irrelevant to science.

Neither of you guys would probably be well suited to a career in the philosophy of science.

Aside from the fact that so much of what you write is a distortion, if I really did believe that "logic is irrelevant to science" (a stupid and small-minded at best), I would be far more accepting of the theories you and James have been flogging for years on the internet.

The convention in physics is that an idea can always be refuted if it contradicts current theory. However the convention in philosophy is that an idea can only be refuted by a logical counter-argument. Thus far you have shown no inclination to put such an argument.

Obvious Leo wrote:The convention in physics is that an idea can always be refuted if it contradicts current theory.

False, since it would be impossible to "proceed" on any theory or idea if this were true. For any current theory there had to be at least some reason for that theory to be acknowledged. As in any "theory" a better or more refined one can always contradict it's previous version or contain it. If the "idea" as you call it, incorporates all the reasons why the current theory worked - which logically it must - then it is far more likely an idea to be further examined rather than simply refuted. "Ideas" are the initial thought viruses which create the idea-complex called theory.

Obvious Leo wrote:However the convention in philosophy is that an idea can only be refuted by a logical counter-argument.

You've just given one of the most viable reasons as to why physics and philosophy are so counter to each other and why physicts prefer that philosophers mind their own back yard. Gaining insight into how the universe works is not a negotiation between adversaries attempting to foil each other through logic. One can be brilliantly logical and still be thoroughly wrong compared to the slob who's made to look like a fool with his stuttering logic but later acknowledged to have been correct.

His true adversary is the problem awaiting resolution not someone with greater logical fencing skills which is the main methodology of philosophy as you unintentionally pointed out. Science faces only one obstruction...the knowledge eclipsed from our understanding which we attempt to discover. Of course there are "ego battles" in the process. If you were introduced to two people without ever having met them before would you be able to tell who the philosopher and who the physicist?

Dubious wrote:physicts prefer that philosophers mind their own back yard

Philosophers of science are inclined to hold a similar opinion of physicists, as indeed are some physicists themselves, to their credit. They have no authority to make metaphysical statements and should therefore refrain from doing so unless they're willing to allow them to be subjected to metaphysical scrutiny. In other words if they make claim which don't make fucking sense then it means that their claims are FALSE, not that we need to redefine what making sense means.

Dubious wrote: If you were introduced to two people without ever having met them before would you be able to tell who the philosopher and who the physicist?

In a heartbeat.

Dubious wrote: For any current theory there had to be at least some reason for that theory to be acknowledged.

For a theory to be held as true in physics all it has to to is yield predictions which can be confirmed. This means the Ptolemy's geocentric cosmology is just as true today as it's ever been.

In fact no theory can be proven true but any dodgy theory can always be falsified. Spacetime physics has been falsified by quantum entanglement.

Open question... Which is more important in your view. The observer, or the observed? Can you explain why? (I don't think this is off topic, as it relates directly to existence, but am willing to move it to its own thread, should it be an issue.)

I'm asking this as I'm beginning to see this as the wedge issue not only on this thread, but on the forum, with the increase in discussion regarding continental and analytic philosophy. Analytic philosophy, though I appreciate it, seems to subjugate to a seconday role the conscious observer to that of physical 'reality', whereas continental cries foul, saying the observation and experience of 'reality' is what it's really all about. And in my view, one can't progress without making a decision either way. For myself, I can accept existence outside myself, both conscious and otherwise. But I don't think it matters much, if any, if I don't observe it, even if that observation is indirect eg. through a book. As well, placing the conscious observer in a secondary role to the physical can lead to a philosophy of tyranny, where the individual and his needs and desires become a minor issue compared to his externalities, in fields such as ethics, economics and politics.