Originally posted by Bardock42
I'd say that God's existence and actions within this universe are a question of science. The one outside is not, but it is also futile as we have no tools for such knowledge. All we can say is "if this and that is true outside of the realm of science and logic still applies then this and that would logically follow" but we can never know if logic applies, and we can never know if our initial statements (axioms) apply and therefore we can never know if our conclusion applies. It's unfalsifiable and futile.
Outside the realm of science? What is the realm of science? I didn't mean to imply that Philosophy and science are completely separate. Much of philosophy is based around science. At least the philosophical arguments I have been exposed to are rooted heavily in what we know of science and how the universe works. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is a scientific argument.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But then you made in unfalsifiable again, and nothing we can talk about with any sense of ever finding out. If everything that made us think there is a separate mind is gone and we explained why we thought it, why should we even talk about it anymore, it's nothing but a pointless exercise. What would the definition of said "mind" even be, it can't be the one we had before, which has already been scientifically explained.
I never said we should. But you made the claim, as did inimalist earlier, that we can actively prove that a soul does not exist, which isn't true. Denying any reason to believe in something and claiming something factually doesn't exist are two different things completely. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
You need axioms for logic to work, in science they are derived from the natural world and what we perceive. In philosophy they are not (or they would be science).
Philosophy uses scientific findings and what we know of the universe. But that doesn't mean it is a scientific argument. It uses science, is rooted in science, but it isn't science. At least I don't think so.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Much of what god does in the Bible has a physical effect on the world. By tautology if God does not have a physical effect in the world he does not have a physical effect on the world.
Then perhaps an argument claiming to use the physical evidence God left behind when performing said actions would be more of a scientific argument. I wasn't talking about that argument, though.
Originally posted by inimalist
"I have a pizza""no you don't, you merely think you do because you have been tricked into seeing a piece of styrofoam as a pizza"
"no look, it has toppings and smells good"
"yes, but here are a series of empirical studies that show that what you really think are toppings and smell are part of an indescribably complex system of styrofoam"
"well, that doesn't mean that there isn't some definition of pizza that we don't know, and that we can't possibly know, that still makes me right"
"but everything we know about styrofoam and pizza show that what you have is styrofoam"
"I'm not debating that, I'm just saying, you can't prove its not pizza"
"yes, but I can show what it is, rather than what it isn't"
and so forth
The difference here is that there is either an A or B. If it's Styrofoam, it cannot be Pizza. If it's Pizza, it cannot be Styrofoam. Therefore, proving it's Styrofoam demands that it not be pizza.
That isn't true of a soul. Especially considering we know so little about what a soul is an how it works.
Originally posted by Existere
As a Cognitive Science major, this vaguely offends me. mmm
Really? I take it your are studying the brain, and how it works, right? When I say "mind" I mean more of the idea that we have something more to us than just a brain. If I offended, then I apologize. I would think the "mind" issue is more philosophical, but I could be wrong.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Outside the realm of science? What is the realm of science? I didn't mean to imply that Philosophy and science are completely separate. Much of philosophy is based around science. At least the philosophical arguments I have been exposed to are rooted heavily in what we know of science and how the universe works. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is a scientific argument.
When I say "realm of science" I mean everything that science and its approaches can prove. How do you feel that philosophical arguments are different from other scioence, if they use scientific finding and derive from logic?
Originally posted by TacDavey
I never said we should. But you made the claim, as did inimalist earlier, that we can actively [B]prove that a soul does not exist, which isn't true. Denying any reason to believe in something and claiming something factually doesn't exist are two different things completely. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. [/B]
I did claim no such thing. I think that a "soul" is an unfalsifiable statement. There is nothing in the real world hinting at it, no findings substantiate it and there's no basis for logical derivation to it. It could exist though, but that's trivial. Once you accepted the limitations of your perception an endless amount of things could exist that you can make up (invisible unicorns, souls, gods, etc), that doesn't mean we should give any credence to it or that it is worthwhile to spend time and energy on thinking about them rather than things with real world applications. Personally I find it a great tragedy that so many great minds in the last 500+ years have spend their time doing abstract and useless thinking, when they could instead have done something worthwhile but similar like Mathematics...or another science. Though I suppose their thinking has shaped our society to a degree and it may have the same justification one might give to art, but that's not really the topic.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Philosophy uses scientific findings and what we know of the universe. But that doesn't mean it is a scientific argument. It uses science, is rooted in science, but it isn't science. At least I don't think so.
In what way do you believe that philosophy uses scientific findings? For example I read Berkeley, who, like you, tries to prove God using "logic". The thing is all his points are at best flimsily rooted in the real world and use non-sequiturs (and other non-logic) to arrive at conclusions. That's obviously pointless, nothing convincing has been said in such a way.
I still would like to know what separates your idea of philosophy from science.
Originally posted by Digi
Can it, though? That was kinda his question. If it can, I'd love to hear about it. Either the soul itself, or its physical manifestations and/or influences.Also, if you think scientific studies, truths, etc. are being misrepresented, it's an open forum. I don't really get your gripes about in's posting style. Everyone on internet forums has a problem with at least one other person's style or arguments. But the nice thing is, you can reply and rebut.
I did try that once. I think I got personally attacked and called a piece of shit eventhough the guy didn't even know what I was arguing about (which was exactly my point). Not to mention the general elitist attitude and obnoxiousness you have from athiests but it's been toned down a bit. Why would there be a problem?
Originally posted by Digi
Oh, we don't pretend.😉
That is absolutely not true for starters.
Originally posted by Deadline
Here we go again.....we'll just wait for some other people of the team to join up.
You must see how that is childish behaviour. I wasn't even saying anything about you, I just asked you to elaborate your as of yet vague accusations. Perhaps you have a point, but how am I to know it if you don't say it? I am not looking down on you for having a different opinion, and I'm willing to hear you out. So again, could you please explain what it is that you take offense with in the debating style of inimalist, digi and me?
Ok I see I'm going to have to do something about this. This is getting out of hand. I'll see what I can do. Don't really have an issue with you anymore but last time I tried to explain you pretended not to know what I was talking about, so I think I've pretty much given up trying to reason with you.
Originally posted by Deadline
Ok I see I'm going to have to do something about this. This is getting out of hand. I'll see what I can do. Don't really have an issue with you anymore but last time I tried to explain you pretended not to know what I was talking about, so I think I've pretty much given up trying to reason with you.
I can't recall that time. I am sorry if I pretended I didn't understand or actually didn't understand what it was. Perhaps we just have different, subjective views of what is happening. But I'd be very happy to see what you are actually talking about.
Originally posted by TacDavey
The difference here is that there is either an A or B. If it's Styrofoam, it cannot be Pizza. If it's Pizza, it cannot be Styrofoam. Therefore, proving it's Styrofoam demands that it not be pizza.That isn't true of a soul. Especially considering we know so little about what a soul is an how it works.
you believe a soul can both exist and not exist at the same time?
Originally posted by ushomefree
Can you explain what "lower level, basic" biological processes are?
yes, which one would you like to know about?
Originally posted by Deadline
I think I got personally attacked and called a piece of shit
is that me you are referring to?
accusing me of "making stuff up" or whatever is one thing, unjustified, but an opinion you are free to hold. I've never made a personal attack against you, especially one like calling you a piece of shit...
Originally posted by TacDavey
Really? I take it your are studying the brain, and how it works, right? When I say "mind" I mean more of the idea that we have something more to us than just a brain. If I offended, then I apologize. I would think the "mind" issue is more philosophical, but I could be wrong.
hence the difference between the hard and soft problem
what evidence is there to suggest that there is anything beyond the brain, when its biological processes can be shown to directly affect everything from our basic perception to higher cognitions?
Originally posted by inimalistyes, which one would you like to know about?
Both.
What are "low level" biological processes, and...
what are "basic" biological processes?
And explain the relevance of such processes with your statement, that "all parts of the mind people associate with dualism are actually subservient to or produced from lower level, basic biological processes."
Originally posted by ushomefree
Both.What are "low level" biological processes, and...
what are "basic" biological processes?
?
it means cellular functions, action potentials, the basic functions of neurons. If you want to get complicated, it is distributed neuronal networks, ion channels and inhibitory/excititory neurotransmitters
like, I'm not sure what you are having problems with on this, I assume you understand what biological processes are...
Originally posted by ushomefree
And explain the relevance of such processes with your statement, that "all parts of the mind people associate with dualism are actually subservient to or produced from lower level, basic biological processes."
things people associate with dualism, such as the feeling we are a ghost in a shell, can really be shown to be a product of basic neuronal function
you would have to specify which part of dualism you want me to explain, as the brain is enormously complex.
Originally posted by Bardock42
When I say "realm of science" I mean everything that science and its approaches can prove. How do you feel that philosophical arguments are different from other scioence, if they use scientific finding and derive from logic?
Because they focus on providing logical reasons for things that cannot be scientifically, physically tested.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I did claim no such thing. I think that a "soul" is an unfalsifiable statement. There is nothing in the real world hinting at it, no findings substantiate it and there's no basis for logical derivation to it. It could exist though, but that's trivial. Once you accepted the limitations of your perception an endless amount of things could exist that you can make up (invisible unicorns, souls, gods, etc), that doesn't mean we should give any credence to it or that it is worthwhile to spend time and energy on thinking about them rather than things with real world applications. Personally I find it a great tragedy that so many great minds in the last 500+ years have spend their time doing abstract and useless thinking, when they could instead have done something worthwhile but similar like Mathematics...or another science. Though I suppose their thinking has shaped our society to a degree and it may have the same justification one might give to art, but that's not really the topic.
If you didn't say that then I misunderstood. I apologize.
That being said, I don't see the question of the existence of the supernatural or God to be wasted time or effort. As i said, the question of the existence of God is probably the most important question we could ever answer.
Originally posted by Bardock42
In what way do you believe that philosophy uses scientific findings? For example I read Berkeley, who, like you, tries to prove God using "logic". The thing is all his points are at best flimsily rooted in the real world and use non-sequiturs (and other non-logic) to arrive at conclusions. That's obviously pointless, nothing convincing has been said in such a way.I still would like to know what separates your idea of philosophy from science.
I don't know the argument of which you speak. I brought up the kalam cosmological argument earlier in this thread. It bases it's reasoning off of what we scientifically know about the origins of the universe, as well as the beginning of matter, space, and time.
Originally posted by inimalist
you believe a soul can both exist and not exist at the same time?
Of course not. When did I say that?
Originally posted by inimalist
hence the difference between the hard and soft problemwhat evidence is there to suggest that there is anything beyond the brain, when its biological processes can be shown to directly affect everything from our basic perception to higher cognitions?
That isn't really the point. I was trying to differentiate between philosophy and cognitive science, I think it was.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Of course not. When did I say that?
your last post seemed to imply that the "it is or it isn't" logic of styrofoam v pizza doesn't apply to a soul.
you agree then, that a soul either does or does not exist?
Originally posted by TacDavey
That isn't really the point. I was trying to differentiate between philosophy and cognitive science, I think it was.
lol, well fine, but in this case, saying it is philosophy is simply a way of saying "I have to provide no good evidence for my beliefs"
all you are doing is saying there is a mind, and then refusing to provide anything to support that claim. for some reason, you seem to think that is philosophy
Originally posted by inimalist
you believe a soul can both exist and not exist at the same time?
Off topic I just took a logic class where the professor believed a statement could be true and false at the same time. I tried to show him the problem with that beyond the simple argument of, "Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?"
P
~P
PvQ (law of addition)
Q (disjunctive syllogism)
PvR (law of addition)
R (disjunctive syllogism)
. . . and so on, proving all possible statements to be true.
No one saw problem with this.
*sigh*
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Off topic I just took a logic class where the professor believed a statement could be true and false at the same time. I tried to show him the problem with that beyond the simple argument of, "Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you?"P
~P
PvQ (law of addition)
Q (disjunctive syllogism)
PvR (law of addition)
R (disjunctive syllogism)
. . . and so on, proving all possible statements to be true.No one saw problem with this.
*sigh*
I've only taken intro logic, so I'm not entirely sure what that means, but I'm with your initial sentiment. (I figure what that is saying is because P&Q, thus Q, given P, and anything can be subbed in for Q).
I look at that the same way I look at people who play with semantics to try and prove things, its interesting, but really only shows the fallibility of human cognitive processes, certainly not that every statement could possibly be true. LOL, if that were the case, that is a clear problem with logic... not some proof that anything we want to be true is...