Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
I thought we’d already established that you cannot convey “experience”.
True............. not all experience BUT
you can convey some experiences.. as qualia experiences them..
Which is useful to record that some things actually happen..
useful to them to which they didn’t happen..
like “visions”, being born again, the taste of strawberries.. etc..
all described in “magical” terms.. usually inadequate to accurately describe.. any other way..
Truly, biological life is greater than the sum of its parts.
One example I recall our using years ago was breaking down a rabbit into a component parts. At some point the rabbit dies of course. And it is impossible to compile those very parts back into the once living rabbit.
Yes, because that will really encourage young men to fall on their swords for the burnt out slatterns. Face the truth, you have zero credibility when it comes to moral values. You're nothing but a fake that panders to American women who had one to many thugs and football players to ride on.
tacticalogic: 1. Reductionism eliminates information that cannot be conveyed.
betty: 2. But without the reductionist censorship, the information could be conveyed.
3. Why on earth would you say that, “In a perfect world we wouldn’t have the physical limitations we do?”
Spirited: These three issues interface one with the other. Men long for a perfect world, perfect body, perfect life, immortality. If possible they would rebuild the Garden, as ‘sinless’ utopians, socialists and communists tried to do and spilled the blood of 160,000,000-350,000,000 men, women and children in their devilish effort to eliminate evil.
Our world is not perfect due to the presence of evil: environmental (i.e., hurricanes, droughts, earthquakes), physical (disease, mortality), and human evils in their endless permutations.
In response to the question of evil, including his own, Buddha chose to deny ‘self,’ to shut himself down, to not see, hear or feel suffering. To not know what he really did know. To withdraw into inner stillness.
Buddha denied personal accountability and his way is ultimately selfish.
Methodological naturalism follows the way of Buddha in its’ denial of ‘free will’ (i.e., either it’s your fault or my genes made me do it) and negation of ‘self:’ “Reductionism eliminates information” (we don’t want to know because it makes us feel bad).
like “visions”, being born again, the taste of strawberries.. etc..
all described in “magical” terms.. usually inadequate to accurately describe.. any other way..
Fundamental principles of good science are that your work and results must be reproducible by anyone else, there should be a process of peer review where other researchers do exactly that to insure that you haven't made any mistakes.
They can reproduce an experience tasting strawberries. Having a "vision" or being born again, not so much.
Reductionism eliminates some information because it cannot be verified and reproduced. The attribution of emotional motivation appears to the process looks like an effort to inflate your own ego by demeaning everyone else, because you imagine yourself posessed of superior spiritual qualities that make you able to see what no one else can.
Reductionism eliminates some information because it cannot be verified and reproduced. The attribution of emotional motivation to the process appears looks like an effort to inflate your own ego by demeaning everyone else, because you imagine yourself posessed of superior spiritual qualities that make you able to see what no one else can.
Fundamental principles of good science are that your work and results must be reproducible by anyone else, there should be a process of peer review where other researchers do exactly that to insure that you haven’t made any mistakes.
I see...
Science fiction must be very logical else whats the point..
Reality need not be logical at all.... nothing to prove..
Logical to whom?...... ans; humans..
Love is real.... trying to explain it is merely BULL Sweat..
In a perfect world, you would be able to convey to another person an experience like being born again so that they would also have that experience, and there wouldn't be any need for this argument. Spiritual revelation is personal matter. It doesn't appear to happen to everyone, and may not even happen the same twice. We don't know because we don't have the means to adequately communicate it.
You cannot convey whatever spiritual experience you had to someone else so that they also have that experience. At the same time, you want to be able to present them with ideas that come from that experience and expect them to understand and accept them, and to reject any conflicting ideas that come from their own or someone else's spiritual experience.
Everything can be fixed with platitudes....
Everything can be fixed with platitudes....
What are you trying to fix?
The idea that we’re not “anti-science”, while we sit around talking about how everything about it is wrong.
The idea that we’re not “anti-science”, while we sit around talking about how everything about it is wrong.
Not everything.. just the hubris, conniving, corruption, religious cultishness, and blind faith of it..
OH!.. and the PC politicization of it..
Someone needs to ride herd on some of the evil bastards that control it..
WooF!..
Someone needs to ride herd on some of the evil bastards that control it..
When that includes declaring the scientific method fundamentally flawed, you're going after more than some few "evil bastards" that have taken up residence, and started tearing out the foundation.
tacticalogic: Reductionism eliminates some information because it cannot be verified and reproduced. The attribution of emotional motivation appears to the process looks like an effort to inflate your own ego by demeaning everyone else, because you imagine yourself posessed of superior spiritual qualities that make you able to see what no one else can.
Spirited: Your reasoning is exactly backwards.
Sanity is the ability to recognize right from wrong independently of personal feelings (i.e., pride, covetousness, jealousy), fears, impulses, desires, and compulsions. Rational thinking then, is reasoning disciplined to resist the corrupting influence of personal feelings, etc. thus allowing for the acceptance of Higher Truths and Moral constraints that contradict selfish feelings, desires, and fancies. In short, rational thinking is morally-informed reasoning. It is dispassionate, rightly-ordered, clear thinking and logical and is the fruit of impulse-control and unswerving commitment to enduring Higher Truths, Transcendent Moral Law, virtue and principle.
As reductionism eliminates Higher Truths, Moral Law, virtue and “self” it reduces man to an out-of-control psychochemical machine or ape helpless to resist selfish feelings, impulses, etc. hence it promotes and empowers selfishness, self-gratification, self-importance, self-pity, scapegoating, vengeance seeking, and a legion of other social evils and their corollary, rebelliousness, at the expense of society, other people, their children, their income and property, and general well-being.
Irrationality is the inability to recognize right from wrong independent of personal feelings, cravings, impulses, and compulsions. By the degree to which the moral sense (conscience)is corrupt, so too is reason. The greater the degree of corruption, the more depraved and downright evil is reason.
America is imploding under the destructive effects of depraved reasoning or sophistry. It has reached epidemic levels within the White House, Dem Party, GOP ‘elite,’ academia, Hollywood and a particular segment of the science community.
Wesley J. Smith reports a frightening ‘new’ low:
“The first case of a child being trafficked to Britain in order to have their organs harvested has been uncovered. The unnamed girl was brought to the UK from Somalia with the intention of removing her organs and selling them on to those desperate for a transplant.”
“Child protection charities warned that the case was unlikely to be an isolated incident as traffickers were likely to have smuggled a group of children into the country.”
“The buyers should be asked: Is your own death really worse than having a child killed or maimed that you might live?”
“Some would clearly say yes. If that isn’t evil, what is?”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3081345/posts
The benchmark of sanity is logical consistency, and I'm being told I'm wrong to demand it.
When that includes declaring the scientific method fundamentally flawed, you’re going after more than some few “evil bastards” that have taken up residence, and started tearing out the foundation.
You do me a service I do not require...
I m not after the term “scientific method” I’m after the very term “SCIENCE”..
It’s has become a “juju bag” term.. a term for “witch doctors” and “Guru’s”...
A bag full of bones and rattlers shaken to amaze the dumb and naive..
“Scientists” have feathers(coup) in their bonnets and letters beside their name..
With reputations to live up too like any RAP Artist.. (Street Cred)..
I am not amused or impressed with any of it...
and YES a bit militant.. but entertained...
I’m living my dream and having fun..
Then you are, by any objective measure "anti-science".
Then you are, by any objective measure “anti-science”.
No... I’m Anti-Poseur..
And that's supposed to fool who?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.