Why Science Fails

[bluedragon]

I just realized. What if all of you don't actually exist and it's only me imagining you? It's so interesting when you actually feel something like that.
I found a lot of essays on the subject of consciousness on this interesting site.

[Arboretor]

Anyone interested science and consciousness should read

Amazon.com: The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind Series): David J. Chalmers: Books

and the author's website
David Chalmers

I have recommended it before, but I don't think anyone looked into it. It discusses the problems of consciousness from the viewpoint of traditional logic and arrives at interesting conclusions. I believe it is an important book. Unfortunately it is not easy to read (it requires very clear and precise logical thinking), and it is impossible to go into the details on a forum like this. But it is worth reading if you are really interested in the theory of consciousness.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

I've recently delved into the research of a man named Jordan Peterson, a professor at University of Toronto. You can find recordings of his lecutres here:
Jordan B Peterson on blip.tv

This guy is amazing He talks almost like Seinfeld - I like how he mixed humor into a scientific presentation, I watched the first, whole 1 hour video, and it put me in such a positive state, especially since I am struggling with the problem of the existence of consciousness. He doesn't offer much of an answer (at least in this video) but at least helps me get my mind of it

[RT Wolf]

^ I'm really glad more people are finding him amazing. I've been saying for a long time that he's a genius and I really wanna promote the hell out of him.

Here's an interesting bit from his world view:

He talks about two different views of what's "real". One is the notion that physical things are "real". Objects and processes and observable phenomenon that can be "objectively" verified. However, phenomenologists claim that "reality" is the totality of experience. So, to a phenomenlogist, the emotions and dreams of a single person are as "real" as a chair (well, really, the experience of the chair cause no one's actually interacted directly with a chair, always through senses).

What's "real" becomes important cause we tend to implicitly devalue what's "not real" as somehow less important or good than what's "real". Like when a mother tells a frightened child who's just had a nightmare that monsters aren't real so you don't need to worry about them. To that child the monster's quite real, in this way, and it should be treated as such rather than simply dismissed. Anyone's who's had to deal with a kid and tried to just tell them "it isn't real" will often find out quickly that this doesn't work. Much in the same way that tell adults that there's "nothing to fear" doesn't work. You have to learn to deal with the fear and other emotions are if they were "real" and not just bury them or dismiss them.

[RT Wolf]

One of the excellent things he does is talk about a lot of "personal development" issues. For example, in the first and second lectures, he talks about courage and facing down issues while they're still small instead of pretending they don't exist. He also talks about expanding your "personality" and how that's a good thing. Doing what expands your personality, taking risks, growing, facing fears, being courageous, etc makes you fundamentally in some sense better.

Later on he talks about Dostoevsky and taking responsibility not just for yourself and your actions but for everyone and everythign around you. Remind you of anyone?

[Capstan]

Why would Descartes, or anyone else, think of the universe as a purely mechanical place, when there's so much evidence to the contrary? Science, based in logic, is certainly a valid portion of our consciousness, but it's hardly its sum-total. Beauty is not scientific. Nor is politics. Nor faith, nor love, nor seeing into the future. Perhaps the majority of our experiences are of a non-physical nature. The physical universe is merely a setting, a place for our experiences to unfold, and a portion of them, at the same time. Expecting science, with its instruments of measurement, to understand all things is like asking a 4-year old to make all its family's important decisions; it really isn't qualified, but neither is it a failure.

[Michael Chui]

I think I am most impressed by the fact that this entire thread happened without a single person actually defining either "science" or "consciousness". It's like mental masturbation, except you didn't even take off your pants.

[sk8joyful]

Originally Posted by Plato

The answer: substance dualism. There is matter which exists in space and time, and mind which is outside those realms.
Dualism fails on so many levels, but the biggest problem is that there is no way mind could act upon matter to control the body.

If mind cannot be explained in terms of science,
then there is a phenomenon in the universe that contradicts the very foundations of science.

This realisation is why I am now officially free from the limitations of science for the first time.
Now I have logical proof that science fails. Back to the drawing board and this time it's my own.

Scientific discovery, & Science contextually does succeed quite well.

The challenge, re MIND: with current foundations & technology, Public-understanding of it continues limited.
Many of us are working to change this, by empowering... people with more of their own choices...

MIND, as you correctly said, "exists outside Space/Time limitations", what a Blessing! do you realize this?

Your subconscious mind, in fact re-creates your own body routinely, & momentarily.
And
your own precious opportunities are in LEARNING to re-create your body as *you* want. question is: Do you know how...?
.

[Lil Chris]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It's like mental masturbation, except you didn't even take off your pants.

You just described life...

[Subscreet]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I think I am most impressed by the fact that this entire thread happened without a single person actually defining either "science" or "consciousness". It's like mental masturbation, except you didn't even take off your pants.

My thoughts exactly. I was actually just about to address this. That's one thing I've always disliked about the forums and the new-age community in general is that too often people go on about things without defining them. Usually it's some half-bakeded rambling about energies or star paths or something.

I'm entirely certain that most posters' disdain for science stems from a lack of knowledge about what science really is.

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

It's like mental masturbation, except you didn't even take off your pants.

1. Much like your own contribution, and...

2. How do you know I had my pants on?

[Capstan]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I think I am most impressed by the fact that this entire thread happened without a single person actually defining either "science" or "consciousness". It's like mental masturbation, except you didn't even take off your pants.

Wow! Brain-surgery performed with a shotgun! You bring new meaning to the term, Big Bang. Welcome to the orgy!

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Subscreet

I have my doubts about your philosophy degree because your "logical proof that science fails" isn't logically sound.

This is false. The gigantic body of knowledge gained via the scientific method is constantly growing. Your example with Descartes was a poor one because in four centuries since Descartes' time we have had significant technological advances that he probably couldn't have imagined.

Have you even attempted to read any scientific literature on the field of consciousness or was this just some sort of juvenile "**** you" to science based on one man who was more of a philosopher and a mathematician? I'm sure if you actually took the time to do some research you could learn a lot about consciousness and your life as a conscious observer of this universe. You haven't even come close to "disproving" the scientific method or anything equally inane.

Wow, touched a nerve huh?

I actually got 82 for the philsophy of mind module. In the British system that's an absurdly high mark.

I will admit that my post was highly provoactive, one sided and vague. I still agree with myself though. Our "advances" have not cleared up the problem of consciousness because the foundations of the scientific method are a flawed paradigm.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by Arboretor

Anyone interested science and consciousness should read

Amazon.com: The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory (Philosophy of Mind Series): David J. Chalmers: Books

and the author's website
David Chalmers

I have recommended it before, but I don't think anyone looked into it. It discusses the problems of consciousness from the viewpoint of traditional logic and arrives at interesting conclusions. I believe it is an important book. Unfortunately it is not easy to read (it requires very clear and precise logical thinking), and it is impossible to go into the details on a forum like this. But it is worth reading if you are really interested in the theory of consciousness.

My position is inspired by Chalmers. Without this dude I'd never had the courage to realise our modern conception of the universe is based on a mistake (materialism).

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

1. Much like your own contribution, and...

No, no. My contribution was the professor pointing out how off-track you undergrads are. You get to do the actual work. After all, I am also pointing out an "answer" to the debate.

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

2. How do you know I had my pants on?

Because you haven't been thrown in mental jail for mental public indecency.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Plato

Wow, touched a nerve huh?

I actually got 82 for the philsophy of mind module. In the British system that's an absurdly high mark.

I will admit that my post was highly provoactive, one sided and vague. I still agree with myself though. Our "advances" have not cleared up the problem of consciousness because the foundations of the scientific method are a flawed paradigm.

How does this make science a flawed paradigm?

Here is a definition of science from dictionary.com: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Now, you claim science is flawed because it can't explain consciousness. I claim that science is not flawed because you're asking it to explain something that is currently outside of what science actually explains.

Science deals with the physical and material world, and then only those things which we can reliably observe. Can we observe consciousness? Perhaps in some small way, but I don't think we can do so objectively. Can we experiment with consciousness? Not really. So, given that, science, at least for now, doesn't cover consciousness. If consciousness becomes something that we can experiment with, scientists will be jumping all over it trying to be first to come up with a breakthrough.

In the meantime, perhaps we should look for answers to consciousness elsewhere. That doesn't mean science is flawed, just that there's nothing to go on using the scientific method yet.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by floslib

How does this make science a flawed paradigm?

Here is a definition of science from dictionary.com: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Because the world is not material or physical, is my answer.

I believe that matter cannot cause consciousness, and yet consciousness exists. "Functionalism" holds that matter aranged in the right way (i.e. the brain) can. Obviously, I disagree.

Neither is the world dualistic - matter and "spirit" - because how could spirit interact with matter?

Reality is something else and I'm not sure what.

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Plato

Because the world is not material or physical, is my answer.

I believe that matter cannot cause consciousness, and yet consciousness exists. "Functionalism" holds that matter aranged in the right way (i.e. the brain) can. Obviously, I disagree.

Neither is the world dualistic - matter and "spirit" - because how could spirit interact with matter?

Reality is something else and I'm not sure what.

Do you believe that at least part of the world is material or physical, or that the material or physical is an aspect of our world? If so, then the next step would be to realize that this is the aspect of our world that science covers, as far as I can see.

If you don't believe either of these things, then how do you function in our world?

[RT Wolf]

Matter and spirit interact through the pineal gland, obviously.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I think I am most impressed by the fact that this entire thread happened without a single person actually defining either "science" or "consciousness". It's like mental masturbation, except you didn't even take off your pants.

The debate wasn't a serious debate about science or consciousness to begin with. Even if you had attempted to nail one or the other down and then got into the subsequent back and forth, Plato would just step in and say, "SEE! Science or even philosophy have thus far given no answer!" and his first assertion (it wasn't a question) would be validated for him.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by RT Wolf

The debate wasn't a serious debate about science or consciousness to begin with. Even if you had attempted to nail one or the other down and then got into the subsequent back and forth, Plato would just step in and say, "SEE! Science or even philosophy have thus far given no answer!" and his first assertion (it wasn't a question) would be validated for him.

Yeah. That's why I didn't bother giving a serious answer.

Note above: floslib defines science, but does not define consciousness, and then proceeds to talk about why science can't be expected to talk about consciousness. I mean, really? Replace the word consciousness with "quantum quality of quarks quantitated in quintuple quiescent qualia" and at least the conversation would be amusing.

Also, the little angel sitting on my shoulder thinks I should have tried to use a different letter for alliteration. Can Q even be used for alliteration?

[floslib]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Yeah. That's why I didn't bother giving a serious answer.

Note above: floslib defines science, but does not define consciousness, and then proceeds to talk about why science can't be expected to talk about consciousness. I mean, really? Replace the word consciousness with "quantum quality of quarks quantitated in quintuple quiescent qualia" and at least the conversation would be amusing.

Also, the little angel sitting on my shoulder thinks I should have tried to use a different letter for alliteration. Can Q even be used for alliteration?

That's because I have a very poor attention to detail when I'm writing, and tend to make poor assumptions when it comes to commonality of language. I'll try this again.

All definitions are coming from dictionary.com.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Intuition: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

I would modify this definition of intuition to say that sometimes this is a perceived truth or fact rather than a definite truth or fact, but I don't think the difference is too significant for this debate. I'm noting this just in case it is.

And now, I'm defining the way I've been using spirituality, because the dictionary.com definitions seemed to be much more focused directly on religion or spirits, and that isn't the way many people in the community use the term, nor the way I've been using it. So, it may be inaccurate, but hopefully it will convey what I've been trying to say. If there is a better term I could be using, I'll use that from now on.

Spirituality: the pursuit of knowledge outside the bounds of the physical or material world, which may be done through many different methods, including logic, religion, and intuition.

I think I've covered all the major terms I've been using in this thread now. At least, I hope so.

[magi13]

Originally Posted by floslib

That's because I have a very poor attention to detail when I'm writing, and tend to make poor assumptions when it comes to commonality of language. I'll try this again.

All definitions are coming from dictionary.com.

Science: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Consciousness: the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Intuition: direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

I would modify this definition of intuition to say that sometimes this is a perceived truth or fact rather than a definite truth or fact, but I don't think the difference is too significant for this debate. I'm noting this just in case it is.

And now, I'm defining the way I've been using spirituality, because the dictionary.com definitions seemed to be much more focused directly on religion or spirits, and that isn't the way many people in the community use the term, nor the way I've been using it. So, it may be inaccurate, but hopefully it will convey what I've been trying to say. If there is a better term I could be using, I'll use that from now on.

Spirituality: the pursuit of knowledge outside the bounds of the physical or material world, which may be done through many different methods, including logic, religion, and intuition.

I think I've covered all the major terms I've been using in this thread now. At least, I hope so.

^^ nice,

Science cannot be denied, it gives results.

P.s. do not be derailed with the questions of some of our forum members. They are purposely derailing you to make you forget your stand.

Keep to the topic guys. Thanks. :3.. Science wins this round though @ thread starter
-peace

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Lil Chris

Isn't it...? Isn't science just a concept, a concept of like minded people observing a certain form of reality (and trying to explain it)...?

It's based on facts and physical evidence, unlike religion which is a faith based belief system. I could say that I don't believe in you, but you are there and you do exist, at least in this reality, so I'd be wrong in that belief. Same applies to science.

I suppose that if you believe that our reality is fake then all of the science that goes with it could be fake as well. But there's no convincing evidence to suggest this, as of yet. I personally believe that science only applies to the 3rd dimension. Everything beyond that is a mystery.

Science means different things to different people, but generally it's commonality lies in a strong faith in materialism and the physical world being "all that exists". The scientific method itself may not be flawed, but the scientific paradigm, or way of thinking, is strongly linked to the belief in the physical being all that exists.

Since consciousness and 'life' exists, the above belief must be fundamentally flawed. The logical conclusion then is to call into question the validity of the scientific paradigm of reality, since it rests primarily on an extreme faith in the physical world.

It is not strong faith in materialism. It is logical conclusions based on experiments and concrete evidence. It uses NO ASSUMPTIONS, including that the physical world is all that exists. If there was evidence to suggest otherwise then science could experiment on it, but there's not any proven way to connect the physical realm with the spiritual realm at all. Science deals with the physical, at least for now. That doesn't mean it's flawed. It's just limited. It doesn't even attempt to explain things like consciousness and origin of life, because there's no way to experiment with them. Again, science does not assume anything. It goes by what is known and proven.

Why not?

Everything concerning science is based on everything in the physical world. Science can really add nothing to everything outside the physical world.

Science could just as easily be an illusion, like your own body, the planet and even the universe. Just because something is in the tangible reality, doesn't mean it truly exists.

Can science explain space other than to say it's a vaccuum? And yet everything exists inside space. Science has no logical explanation for space and yet it is the fundamental container of the universe.

Exactly. Science can only explain the physical universe, at least for now. If you think science is an illusion, then you'd have to think that our entire physical reality is an illusion as well, which, in itself, is a completely separate belief. In that case you believe birds, humans, cars, food and yes, even religion, doesn't exist either. But if you look at things from within where we are and what we know, science is accurate, and explains MUCH MORE about space than to say it's a vacuum. Perhaps you should do some reading about Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein. String theory is also a very interesting theory that attempts to delve into alternate realities, and the very essence of everything.

Originally Posted by Plato

Because the world is not material or physical, is my answer.

I believe that matter cannot cause consciousness, and yet consciousness exists. "Functionalism" holds that matter aranged in the right way (i.e. the brain) can. Obviously, I disagree.

Neither is the world dualistic - matter and "spirit" - because how could spirit interact with matter?

Reality is something else and I'm not sure what.

As I said to the others, if you believe the world is not physical, then every system fails, not just science.

It's easy to say science fails because the physical world doesn't exist... but then you basing that on what evidence? Do you think it's all an illusion and that I'm a figment of your imagination? If so that means that you believe in nothing essentially, so even your belief that the world doesn't physically exist is an illusion... my illusion. From within the physical realm, science succeeds, but like I said, it's limited to the physical realm and is based on facts and evidence. Your belief that everything is an illusion is not.

My question to you, Plato, is:

How do you know for a fact that spirit cannot interact with matter?

This seems to be your main argument against duality and physical matter. How do you even know that the spirit exists and that's not just an illusion as well?

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

No, no. My contribution was the professor pointing out how off-track you undergrads are. You get to do the actual work. After all, I am also pointing out an "answer" to the debate.



Because you haven't been thrown in mental jail for mental public indecency.

Uh-huh. Thanks..."professor".

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by fellowtraveler

Uh-huh. Thanks..."professor".

Anytime.

[Capstan]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Anytime.

Professor, if you were marooned on a desert isle, who would you most like to have with you, Ginger or Mary Ann?

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Barcs

It's based on facts and physical evidence, unlike religion which is a faith based belief system.

I have to point out that religion too also has factual evidence.

Originally Posted by Barcs

Science deals with the physical, at least for now. That doesn't mean it's flawed. It's just limited.

By definition science only concerns itself with physical phenomena. Only physical phenomena can be observed.

Originally Posted by Barcs

If you think science is an illusion, then you'd have to think that our entire physical reality is an illusion as well,

Why? Science attempts to investigate physical reality, physical reality doesn't hinge on the truth of science. Anti-realists don't claim science aims at the truth, instead they claim scientific theories aim to be empirically adequate, or can be thought of as instruments for making predictions - although the prediction may be right, the instrument used may not be true. For example, there are many competing scientific theories that yield accurate predictions, but they can't all be true.

Originally Posted by Barcs

As I said to the others, if you believe the world is not physical, then every system fails, not just science.

Of course the world is physical, if it wasn't there wouldn't be anything for science to observe.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Capstan

Professor, if you were marooned on a desert isle, who would you most like to have with you, Ginger or Mary Ann?

Neither.

Originally Posted by Riddle

By definition science only concerns itself with physical phenomena. Only physical phenomena can be observed.

This isn't entirely true, though it's not incorrect, either. It's true that only physical phenomena can be observed, but other phenomena can be inferred from observable, physical effects. The challenge then is tying the cause and the effect together, rather than simply coming up with a reliable model.

[Barcs]

Originally Posted by Riddle

I have to point out that religion too also has factual evidence.

Like?

Not one version of god in any scriptures can be proven, which is the main focus of most organized religions. The accuracy of the scriptures cannot be verified as well. Even the translations are faulty, inconsistent and most likely altered and not even based on the original texts. So what evidence are you talking about? References in the bible? I could easily write the gospel of the flying space gnome and reference real world events like George Bush and the war on terror, but that doesn't prove that my claims about the space gnome are correct. It's all about faith, not facts, just like most religion. The point was that you don't need faith to believe in something that has been conclusively proven by science, but with most religion, one of the requirements is blind faith. I'm not trying to say that all religion is false and can't coexist with science. I'm trying to say they are completely different concepts. One based on faith and one based on facts and experiments. You can't look at the 2 thing in the same light. It's like night and day.

Why? Science attempts to investigate physical reality, physical reality doesn't hinge on the truth of science. Anti-realists don't claim science aims at the truth, instead they claim scientific theories aim to be empirically adequate, or can be thought of as instruments for making predictions - although the prediction may be right, the instrument used may not be true. For example, there are many competing scientific theories that yield accurate predictions, but they can't all be true.

How could science be an illusion if the physical world is not? Science works, and it's been proven so with our genetic experiments, medicine and technology improvements. I'm fully aware that it's not perfect or complete. It is constantly expanding with new knowledge when it is acquired. That's how it works. There's no question in my mind that science is accurate for the most part when attempting to describe or explain the physical universe that we live in. If science is just an illusion, then you'd have to deny things like the earth rotating around the sun and the moon rotating around the earth, affecting it's tides and oceans, not to mention gravity itself. Cell replication, molecules, elements, etc.. Are you trying to say this is all made up, even though scientist can construct molecules and even study sub atomic particles now? If science is an illusion, then physical reality is, because science has been proven to accurately describe many many many things in the physical universe. That doesn't mean that that's all there is, though. For what it is and what it describes, science succeeds.

[Riddle]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Like?

It is a fact that the Bible was written a very long time ago, and there are historical documents backing its integrity. Hence, in order to ascertain what happened a very long time ago, we can look at testimonies in the Bible, which provide evidence for what happened. Is this good evidence? Probably not, but it's still evidence.

Originally Posted by Barcs

The point was that you don't need faith to believe in something that has been conclusively proven by science, but with most religion, one of the requirements is blind faith.

Religion is based on evidence, objective evidence in the form of scriptures and subjective evidence in the form of personal experience. How is this blind faith? Sure it requires some faith, but it certainly isn't devoid of reason.

Science too requires faith. Many scientific theories postulate the existence of unobservables, i.e. an atom, hence scientific theories also require faith. We can only observe atoms and subatomic particles through indirect means, such as observing their effects with particle detectors. However, whether the postulated particle actually causes the observed effect requires a little faith.

Also, only deduction can prove things conclusively. Science uses induction, which is logically invalid.

Originally Posted by Barcs

How could science be an illusion if the physical world is not?

I don't know what you mean. Science can be false however.