At post 814, betty boop explains:
The scientific method likewise can only measure the physical effects of the mind. Dreams, minds, souls and indeed qualia (love/hate, pain/pleasure, etc.) cannot be subjected to empirical tests.
To the metaphysical naturalist, such things are not "real" because they are not physical. But that conclusion is absurd because physical laws themselves are not physical, neither is logic, nor information nor physical causation nor space/time - without which the metaphysical naturalist would have nothing to say in the first place.
And ironically the Higgs field/boson which the Standard Model suggests must exist to account for mass has neither yet been created nor observed though CERN is still trying. And so the metaphysical naturalist has faith in something which is yet unproven and may in fact be the shadow of extra-dimensional momentum components we cannot detect!
In sum, the metaphysical naturalist does not even approach reality with the albeit reduced framework of science which bases it work on methodological naturalism because science admits to such things as massless particles which have no direct or indirect measureable affects, i.e. they cannot be said to not exist.
Wow. That says it all, dearest sister in Christ! Brilliantly put.
WELL PUT.
THX.
That's not correct. Scientific method also involves human inquiry which deals with verbal descriptions and definitions of mental phenomena in "real" terms. It is the so-called "spiritual" terminology that departs from the reality of this world.
Dreams, minds, souls and indeed qualia (love/hate, pain/pleasure, etc.) cannot be subjected to empirical tests. To the metaphysical naturalist, such things are not "real" because they are not physical.
You are mixing apples and oranges, dear AG. Dreams, feelings of hate or feelings of pleasure are not the same as 'mind,' or 'soul.' Dreams and emotions are observable and definable mental experiences. We can detect their occurrence and we can describe their contect. They are also every bit physical/chemical in nature.
'Mind' is a collective concept that represents an observed characteristic way a person appears to operate in the world to given situations, how he or she answers questions, reacts, etc. It falls in the same category as 'experience,' which is another general conceptual term. We can observe how someone does things and we can conclude that he or she has 'experience.'
'Soul' is none of that. In the Platonic sense, the 'spirit' or life force plus 'nous' or mind in a physical body = human being. The ancients believed that the 'breath' was the spirit, or life force (a "battery" of sorts) that moved or quickened the body. When the body 'gives up' the breath, it dies, becomes motionless, stops breathing. The ancients also used to believe that the heart contained emotions, that you think and feel with the heart (probably because the heart gets a little "busy" when we get emotional or otherwise exerted).
But the soul or spirit cannot be described in real terms, cannot be detected (it ain't the breath!), so we really don't know what the 'spirit' is; it's neither mental nor subjective, nor is there a consensus about it in terms of real life experience. Rather, it appears that the spirit is a human invention to explain some things ancients couldn't explain.
science admits to such things as massless particles which have no direct or indirect measureable affects, i.e. they cannot be said to not exist.
Sure they do. They balance out the formula. Remember that everything science does is a working model. For example, 19th century scientists postulated aether as an invisible 'medium' of space to explain propagation of light because they couldn't explain how light could move through vacuum. It was a convenient theoretical concept that balanced out the formula.
Modern science does the same thing. That's why we have new theories every several years to keep up with newly observed phenomena that cannot be explained by conventional models. Theoretical science is theory.
Practical science is a working model. It doesn't aim to reveal how the world really is, but to be of practical value for us here on earth. What do I care if Newotnian physics become meaningless in outer space?!
Save for cosmology, science deals with practical matters that make our lives more comfortable, safer, etc. by providing working models and inventions that makes use of the world as we see it, and the world we live in. That's a heck of a lot more that what the 'spiritualists' or cosmological prima donna physicists have to offer.
But that conclusion is absurd because physical laws themselves are not physical, neither is logic, nor information nor physical causation nor space/time - without which the metaphysical naturalist would have nothing to say in the first place.
LOL! Physical 'laws' are just concepts how the real world works based on our observations. Does that mean they are generally/universally true? Of course not. They are limited by the observer. Their aim is not to uncover the universal or then 'ultimate truth,' but to work. And they do work! I mentioned the Ptolemaic navigational system based on geocentric universe. It still works even thought the universe is not geocentric, and the planets do not 'dance' around in epicycles! :)