|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 16:19:29 GMT
Yesterday's metaphysics is today's science. Today's metaphysics is tomorrow's science.
Scientists in general agree with whoever funds them.
|
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 3, 2023 16:59:58 GMT
Yesterday's metaphysics is today's science. Only in a very loose and mostly meaningless sense is this true. Science is a very new development in the history of human thought, and part of its emergence was the act of teasing apart the activities of so-called "natural philosophers" into the purely metaphysical or philosophical parts and the parts with physical utility, the latter of which became what we now call "science". Before that, it was all grouped together, so you had Newton giving us his laws of motion, but wasting most of his time on metaphysics, i.e., alchemy and astrology. Extremely unlikely to be the case, now that it has been pretty much established that most talk of metaphysics has no basis in the methods of science. Rich corporations hire scientists to help them make money and scientists who do not advance that specific agenda lose their jobs. Universities don't have an agenda to "agree with" and that's where most of the exciting science comes from. If you have quibbles with the fact that most scientists would disagree with you on just about every position you have, instead of crying about who pays them, you should focus on the ideas themselves and the evidence for them. But that would mean you'd have to learn something, and I think we all know this is probably never going to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jan 3, 2023 17:18:26 GMT
faustus5That was uncalled for. Very good well-written post, and then with the last sentence you shat yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 17:35:42 GMT
Yesterday's metaphysics is today's science. Only in a very loose and mostly meaningless sense is this true. Science is a very new development in the history of human thought, and part of its emergence was the act of teasing apart the activities of so-called "natural philosophers" into the purely metaphysical or philosophical parts and the parts with physical utility, the latter of which became what we now call "science". Before that, it was all grouped together, so you had Newton giving us his laws of motion, but wasting most of his time on metaphysics, i.e., alchemy and astrology. Extremely unlikely to be the case, now that it has been pretty much established that most talk of metaphysics has no basis in the methods of science. Rich corporations hire scientists to help them make money and scientists who do not advance that specific agenda lose their jobs. Universities don't have an agenda to "agree with" and that's where most of the exciting science comes from. If you have quibbles with the fact that most scientists would disagree with you on just about every position you have, instead of crying about who pays them, you should focus on the ideas themselves and the evidence for them. But that would mean you'd have to learn something, and I think we all know this is probably never going to happen. You are wrong. Universities also depend on funding and grants. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 3, 2023 18:32:46 GMT
You are wrong. Universities also depend on funding and grants. An utterly meaningless observation that has none of the implications you think it does. It doesn't even contradict anything I wrote. When you do this crap it is nothing more than an excuse to avoid any discussion involving actual science or actual philosophy. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 18:49:47 GMT
You are wrong. Universities also depend on funding and grants. An utterly meaningless observation that has none of the implications you think it does. It doesn't even contradict anything I wrote. When you do this crap it is nothing more than an excuse to avoid any discussion involving actual science or actual philosophy. Now you're implying that 'philosophy' is fact? You can't even see that science is chasing the spiritual, trying to make it (spirituality) something physically tangible. You are also someone who still believes that consciousness resides in the brain, which it does not. Even scientists have to admit that the non-physical mind is powerful, and they admit to placebo studies where people are given a placebo, and their own mind fixes them due to their belief. Is belief physical? Is it in the brain? |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 3, 2023 19:43:18 GMT
Now you're implying that 'philosophy' is fact? I said nothing of the sort. Almost no professional scientist would ever describe their work in this way, and those who do are either speaking in broad metaphors or are crackpots. We've know for a long, long time that consciousness is a product of the nervous system, though saying it "resides in the brain" might be too simplistic. If you don't agree with the scientific community about this, then explain why citing confirmed and reliable evidence. They don't have to admit anything of the sort since the community is in agreement that there is no such thing as a "non-physical" mind. It sure is. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 19:51:21 GMT
Now you're implying that 'philosophy' is fact? I said nothing of the sort. Almost no professional scientist would ever describe their work in this way, and those who do are either speaking in broad metaphors or are crackpots. We've know for a long, long time that consciousness is a product of the nervous system, though saying it "resides in the brain" might be too simplistic. If you don't agree with the scientific community about this, then explain why citing confirmed and reliable evidence. They don't have to admit anything of the sort since the community is in agreement that there is no such thing as a "non-physical" mind. It sure is. Yeah, no "professional scientist" would ever admit anything that would threaten their funding and grants. The rest of your post is just more of you being 100% wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 3, 2023 20:11:17 GMT
Yeah, no "professional scientist" would ever admit anything that would threaten their funding and grants. The only thing that actually threatens funding and grants is doing bad science and continually getting things wrong. There is no conspiracy forcing the entire scientific community to promote materialism. In fact, since suckers are born every minute, there's financial incentive to make crap up that the ignorant masses will support. See Deepak Chopra. You just can't do it in the confines of being a serious scientist. Yet you couldn't explain why, citing specific evidence and making logical arguments, if your life depended on it. |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,707
Likes: 1,343
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 3, 2023 21:04:36 GMT
Even scientists have to admit that the non-physical mind is powerful, and they admit to placebo studies where people are given a placebo, and their own mind fixes them due to their belief. Is belief physical? Is it in the brain? In a materialist conception of the mind, belief is just the stimulation of a part of the brain which relays messages to other parts of the body, affecting recovery. There's no need for anything non-physical. Now, if you want to speculate that there's more to it than that, go ahead. But you're not going to get a scientist to back you up. And that's not because they're 'bought off', it's because science can only consider physical evidence, leaving any supposed non-physical entities beyond the purview of science. Such speculation is therefore the home of metaphysical philosophy, not science. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 21:13:58 GMT
Even scientists have to admit that the non-physical mind is powerful, and they admit to placebo studies where people are given a placebo, and their own mind fixes them due to their belief. Is belief physical? Is it in the brain? In a materialist conception of the mind, belief is just the stimulation of a part of the brain which relays messages to other parts of the body, affecting recovery. There's no need for anything non-physical. Now, if you want to speculate that there's more to it than that, go ahead. But you're not going to get a scientist to back you up. And that's not because they're 'bought off', it's because science can only consider physical evidence, leaving any supposed non-physical entities beyond the purview of science. Such speculation is therefore the home of metaphysical philosophy, not science. Uh-huh, and what is it about belief that stimulates the brain? What is behind it? The fact is, energy powers the nervous system, and even your god scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 3, 2023 21:56:50 GMT
In a materialist conception of the mind, belief is just the stimulation of a part of the brain which relays messages to other parts of the body, affecting recovery. There's no need for anything non-physical. Now, if you want to speculate that there's more to it than that, go ahead. But you're not going to get a scientist to back you up. And that's not because they're 'bought off', it's because science can only consider physical evidence, leaving any supposed non-physical entities beyond the purview of science. Such speculation is therefore the home of metaphysical philosophy, not science. Uh-huh, and what is it about belief that stimulates the brain? What is behind it? The fact is, energy powers the nervous system, and even your god scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed. Energy also powers your car, but it would be silly to think that we need to invoke spirits or ghosts to explain automobile mechanics. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 22:03:27 GMT
Uh-huh, and what is it about belief that stimulates the brain? What is behind it? The fact is, energy powers the nervous system, and even your god scientists say that energy cannot be destroyed. Energy also powers your car, but it would be silly to think that we need to invoke spirits or ghosts to explain automobile mechanics. The car isn't the source of the energy. Plus, there are different kinds of energy. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another." Einstein. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 3, 2023 22:12:22 GMT
Energy also powers your car, but it would be silly to think that we need to invoke spirits or ghosts to explain automobile mechanics. The car isn't the source of the energy. Plus, there are different kinds of energy. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another." Einstein. No, that would be the gasoline that you put in the gas tank. If you don't go to a gas station, you run out of gas and your car will stop moving. Similarly, if you stop eating, your body and mind will cease functioning, due to insufficient energy to operate. Again, no need to invoke ghosts and spirits in either case. If you're going to keep talking about energy, you might want to read up on it to get a better understanding of what it is. Energy |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 22:17:30 GMT
The car isn't the source of the energy. Plus, there are different kinds of energy. "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another." Einstein. No, that would be the gasoline that you put in the gas tank. If you don't go to a gas station, you run out of gas and your car will stop moving. Similarly, if you stop eating, your body and mind will cease functioning, due to insufficient energy to operate. Again, no need to invoke ghosts and spirits in either case. If you're going to keep talking about energy, you might want to read up on it to get a better understanding of what it is. EnergyThe energy in the body leaves the body. And consciousness doesn't need the body. it exists outside of the five senses. Some people even have a sixth sense, or ESP. That isn't in the brain either. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Jan 3, 2023 22:58:10 GMT
No, that would be the gasoline that you put in the gas tank. If you don't go to a gas station, you run out of gas and your car will stop moving. Similarly, if you stop eating, your body and mind will cease functioning, due to insufficient energy to operate. Again, no need to invoke ghosts and spirits in either case. If you're going to keep talking about energy, you might want to read up on it to get a better understanding of what it is. EnergyThe energy in the body leaves the body. And consciousness doesn't need the body. it exists outside of the five senses. Some people even have a sixth sense, or ESP. That isn't in the brain either. Again, I suggest doing some reading about energy to have some understanding of what you're talking about when you refer to energy. It is a concept belonging to the field of physics, one of the physical sciences. |
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on Jan 3, 2023 23:05:45 GMT
The energy in the body leaves the body. And consciousness doesn't need the body. it exists outside of the five senses. Some people even have a sixth sense, or ESP. That isn't in the brain either. Again, I suggest doing some reading about energy to have some understanding of what you're talking about when you refer to energy. It is a concept belonging to the field of physics, one of the physical sciences. I know it does, and there's more to it than what you seem to know. |
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Jan 3, 2023 23:21:49 GMT
Again, I suggest doing some reading about energy to have some understanding of what you're talking about when you refer to energy. It is a concept belonging to the field of physics, one of the physical sciences. I know it does, and there's more to it than what you seem to know. Can you please explain how you know this, citing evidence from a respectable source? |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 4, 2023 7:50:38 GMT
faustus5 That was uncalled for. Very good well-written post, and then with the last sentence you shat yourself. This is arrogant slander: Scientists in general agree with whoever funds them. 1. How does she know? 2. To say scientists whore themselves out, pander and lie is a gross mischaracterization and bigotry. |
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Jan 4, 2023 7:51:54 GMT
Only in a very loose and mostly meaningless sense is this true. Science is a very new development in the history of human thought, and part of its emergence was the act of teasing apart the activities of so-called "natural philosophers" into the purely metaphysical or philosophical parts and the parts with physical utility, the latter of which became what we now call "science". Before that, it was all grouped together, so you had Newton giving us his laws of motion, but wasting most of his time on metaphysics, i.e., alchemy and astrology. Extremely unlikely to be the case, now that it has been pretty much established that most talk of metaphysics has no basis in the methods of science. Rich corporations hire scientists to help them make money and scientists who do not advance that specific agenda lose their jobs. Universities don't have an agenda to "agree with" and that's where most of the exciting science comes from. If you have quibbles with the fact that most scientists would disagree with you on just about every position you have, instead of crying about who pays them, you should focus on the ideas themselves and the evidence for them. But that would mean you'd have to learn something, and I think we all know this is probably never going to happen. You are wrong. Universities also depend on funding and grants. Have you read all the contracts? |
|
