Psience Quest

(2018-02-05, 03:43 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]How would you describe your belief that consciousness will ultimately be explained in materialist/reductionist terms?

Trust.

(2018-02-05, 03:44 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Answer these two questions. Do you or anyone know the nature of the things you except to be true?  Do you or anyone know that these things you except as proof are what you believe them to be?

Yes, to both.

Why? My personal spiritual experiences that don't go away, no matter if I occasionally doubt them and believe that they might possibly be delusion, because why am I so special as to receive the beautiful experiences that I do, even though the experiences tell me that my personal experiences point to a reality I cannot deny, no matter what my state of mind may say. My intuition, when I bother to trust it, also confirms the reality of my experiences.

(2018-02-05, 03:45 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Trust.

Trust in the currently unknown.  Sounds like a pretty good definition of faith.

Its staggering that you simply can not be gracious enough to acknowledge the obvious similarity.  It weakens your stance Steve, whether that is something you care about or not.  It weakens it because it is disingenuous. Its the same behavior I've watched in Dawkins and Krauss.

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say something like, "Yes, I guess it is faith after a sort.  I don't see it as the same type of faith folks have in religion because science has been so valuable and effective in providing insight into the world around us.  However, in terms of things science can't yet explain or prove, to the degree I think science ultimately will explain something.... that is faith, yes."

(2018-02-05, 03:45 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Trust.

It does indeed take trust to blindly believe in something that your ideology has no solid proof for.

(2018-02-05, 03:55 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Trust in the currently unknown.  Sounds like a pretty good definition of faith.

Its staggering that you simply can not be gracious enough to acknowledge the obvious similarity.  It weakens your stance Steve, whether that is something you care about or not.  It weakens it because it is disingenuous. Its the same behavior I've watched in Dawkins and Krauss.

Wouldn't it be more intellectually honest to say something like, "Yes, I guess it is faith after a sort.  I don't see it as the same type of faith folks have in religion because science has been so valuable and effective in providing insight into the world around us.  However, in terms of things science can't yet explain or prove, to the degree I think science ultimately will explain something.... that is faith, yes."

No trust. By that, I'm expressing scientists will discover whether something is true or not true.
The separation I do see expressed by religious persons is pure faith where all evidence is based upon religious authority compared to the type I see from members is science based sometimes. Here's a question. Whom do you think will find the answers, persons such as Radin, Ben, Sheldrake... Or people that Look into crystal balls?

(2018-02-05, 03:58 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]It does indeed take trust to blindly believe in something that your ideology has no solid proof for.

I'll take your non answers as clear evidence you can't answer the questions.

(2018-02-05, 04:28 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I'll take your non answers as clear evidence you can't answer the questions.

All I can do is laugh at you.

(2018-02-05, 04:26 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]No trust. By that, I'm expressing scientists will discover whether something is true or not true.

That's still faith Steve.  After all, scientists may not ever fit consciousness neatly into the binary options you presented.  Right?

(2018-02-05, 04:26 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]The separation I do see expressed by religious persons is pure faith where all evidence is based upon religious authority compared to the type I see from members is science based sometimes. Here's a question. Whom do you think will find the answers, persons such as Radin, Ben, Sheldrake... Or people that Look into crystal balls?

What about faith based on a religious person's experiences?  (Addressing the bold here.)  If they don't fit neatly, again, into a scientific worldview are they relegated to some negative, dimwitted categorical?

I don't know if science will ultimately answer the proverbial big questions.  I applaud the efforts for sure.  Perhaps time will tell?

(2018-02-05, 05:04 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]That's still faith Steve.  After all, scientists may not ever fit consciousness neatly into the binary options you presented.  Right?


What about faith based on a religious person's experiences?  (Addressing the bold here.)  If they don't fit neatly, again, into a scientific worldview are they relegated to some negative, dimwitted categorical?

I don't know if science will ultimately answer the proverbial big questions.  I applaud the efforts for sure.  Perhaps time will tell?

What I'm saying is immaterialists are certain they are right.  That certainly is a faith based position. Time may, but I'm not holding my breath.

(2018-02-05, 04:48 PM)Valmar Wrote: [ -> ]All I can do is laugh at you.

But can you answer the question?