No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Tue Sep 09, 2014 7:30 pm

Uccisore wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I think what phyllo meant was that even to know that you have such evidence requires reasoning. Even the most direct observations require a degree reasoning. All sensing uses a degree of reasoning.


I haven't been followng the conversation, but I disagree with this and I think it's a pretty important point. The notion that sensing requires reasoning is a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism as a consequence of people trying to figure out what it is to reason from a sense perception to the conclusion that there is a thing being perceieved.

So for example. Suppose I walk into a room that is decorated just so, and form the conclusion that a birthday party was recently held there. One could take the view that my brain is forming beliefs and reasonings of the following forms:
"I see a plastic cup- therefore there is a plastic cup."
"I see another plastic cup- therefore there is another plastic cup."
"I see a scattering of plastic cups- therefore there are probably many plastic cups before me, signifying that many people drank many things here."

"I see a chocolate cake- therefore there is probably a chocolate cake before me."
"I see that the chocolate cake has pieces missing- therefore there are probably pieces missing.
"Therefore somebody probably ate portions of the cake."
"I see a banner strung from the ceiling saying 'Happy 45th, Steve', therefore..."
....
....
....
...
...
"Given the truth of the majority of these presumptions, the most likely conclusion is that a birthday party happened here."

And so on, about say, the 150 or so things present in our immediate field of vision, and combinations thereof. I would submit that this is a highly unrealistic presentation of how we percieve reality, unless we are a child or perhaps a mildly retarded person. I think a fully-functioning human being would walk into the room, and accept that the room as a whole is presenting in a birthday party sort of way, and conclude immediately that a birthday party happened- the "I see it, therefore it is there" premises about individual objects would be totaly absent; in this case seeing simply is believing. We need seeing to be believing to react quickly to things we see- catching a ball, avoiding danger.
I would go on to say that somebody who sees a LOT of birthday parties- like say a cleaning lady at a hotel that rents out convention rooms or whatever- would even skip that last premise. A room in which a birthday party had occured would appear as immediately to her as a cup sitting on table appears to us.


Hume's mistake was to presume that everything required reasoning- if I see a thing, in order to believe a thing is there, there must be some good rational argument from the presentations of vision to conclusions about the outside world. This is false. A conclusion about the outside world is a part of the act of seeing, and need not be justified in terms of reasoning any more than a logical argument needs to be justified in terms of sense perception. They are simply two different faculties which can be used in tandem, but with neither relying on the other.

Seriously?
Anyone who doesn't realize his reasoning is a sucker for deceit; magic, skewed statistics, pseudo-science, attention deficit disorder, thievery, false flags,....

You walk into a room and you DON'T see a picture on the wall.

Using no reasoning whatsoever, answer this question: "How do you know if there is a picture on the wall?"
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Lev Muishkin » Tue Sep 09, 2014 10:22 pm

zinnat13 wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:Your uncollected and vague thinking exemplifies the difference between science and religion.
It is in the nature of the beast that those who promote faith are blind to reason; but those who promote reason can see the faults in faith.
You are of the former category and whilst you persist in relying on faith you will remain blind to the truth.

Although, as I said above, there are some practitioners in science who poorly appreciate the differences and bring faith to bear where it ought not to belong, history has proven that the results so gathered have not stood the test of time. Science cannot and does not progress on faith.


Besides your nimbo-jumbo, you did not address my points.


with love,
sanjay


The phrase is mumbo-jumbo.
You did not make any points. Reasonable thinking leads to points. All you did was to display your innards across the Forum in the guise of a diatribe based on faith, and not reason. Therefore no other response was required.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby LaughingMan » Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:19 am

The state or government is nothing more than a fictional secular version of God via social organization.

Government like all religions claim a monopoly on objectivity.

With government ruling all aspects of people's lives it has assumed godhood.

Politics and economics is the religion of the state.

Science of course is just another form of alchemy.

All religions need their practicing alchemists.
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Uccisore » Wed Sep 10, 2014 4:48 am

James S Saint wrote:
Using no reasoning whatsoever, answer this question: "How do you know if there is a picture on the wall?"


Knowledge requires reasoning. The point I was responding to was the assertion that direct observation (which I am taking to mean sense perception resulting in belief formation) requires reasoning. It does not. When a person has a tree-seeing experience (is appeared to treely), and forms the belief that there is a tree in front of them, the belief is an immediate consequence of being so appeared to, not a product of the appearance plus some conscious reasoning about what appearences mean.

You walk into a room and don't see a picture on the wall. You don't form a belief that there is a picture on the wall- this isn't a reasoning process, it's an absence of a process. Somebody asks you "How do you know if there is a picture on the wall?"; you have to think about it then and give an answer. But then we're talking about a reasoning process brought about by the question, not by sense perception.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 10, 2014 5:58 am

Uccisore wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Using no reasoning whatsoever, answer this question: "How do you know if there is a picture on the wall?"


Knowledge requires reasoning. The point I was responding to was the assertion that direct observation (which I am taking to mean sense perception resulting in belief formation) requires reasoning. It does not. When a person has a tree-seeing experience (is appeared to treely), and forms the belief that there is a tree in front of them, the belief is an immediate consequence of being so appeared to, not a product of the appearance plus some conscious reasoning about what appearences mean.

You walk into a room and don't see a picture on the wall. You don't form a belief that there is a picture on the wall- this isn't a reasoning process, it's an absence of a process. Somebody asks you "How do you know if there is a picture on the wall?"; you have to think about it then and give an answer. But then we're talking about a reasoning process brought about by the question, not by sense perception.

I have to accept that you are speaking of merely cognitive reasoning. Beliefs are often formed by unconscious reasoning. Not much of the population exercises cognitive reasoning, "thinking". But then we are actually talking about the evidence involved in science and the associated reasoning. Without cognitive reasoning, it can't be science at all. Cognitive reasoning is what allows for communication and verification of speculations (aka "science").

So it is really an issue of credible evidence, not presumed beliefs. Evidence accepted yet not questioned is not credible evidence. One cannot be certain that his evidence is credible until he reasons that it is credible.

But even on the subconscious level, what you sense as "belief" is actually the result of subconscious reasoning. If the subconscious cannot use its reasoning to form a belief, there will not be any belief presented to the conscious. To the subconscious, there was no evidence with which to form a belief. And even on the unconscious level, all sensing (the source of evidence) is the result of actual reasoning, such as "because this particular nerve was triggered, something touched my arm" or "because light appeared at this point on my retina, light is being emitted from that point in space".

There is reasoning on every level of "evidence" else that level of mind does not accept even a belief.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby zinnat » Wed Sep 10, 2014 6:21 am

Lev Muishkin wrote:The phrase is mumbo-jumbo.


I know that and it was not a typing mistake this time. I did that intentionally to check how you react to that.

Lev Muishkin wrote:You did not make any points. Reasonable thinking leads to points. All you did was to display your innards across the Forum in the guise of a diatribe based on faith, and not reason. Therefore no other response was required.


LM,

This is called escapism. You are just unable to counter anything, that i argued so far. So, you are saying this to save your face.

Let me put that question again to you-

zinnat13 wrote:I never claimed that science progressed on faith. I was saying that it was faithful people who helped the science all along the history. Their faith in the religions did not forbid them to study and making further inroads in the science.


zinnat13 wrote:i was enlightening you about the fact that how much religions and religious people contributed to the science. If there was no religion, there would be no science either. Though, people like you tend to think that religions were the worst enemy of the science. Science was a part of parcel of the religions from the word go.

Delete the contributions of religions and religious persons from the modern science and it would fall to its face within a moment.

And, tell me if i am wrong!


zinnat13 wrote:His religiousity was the guiding force behind his scientific exploration. If he was not a religious person, he would not be a scientist either and science would have to miss all that what he contributed.


LM, try to address the arguments, if you can.

Mere rhetoric is not sufficient. It can be handy and adds to the beauty of the argument but only if there is some reasoning behind that. Rhetoric is like the icing of the cake but you cannot make full cake with it. Nobody is going to eat that.

with love,
sanjay
User avatar
zinnat
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3638
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:27 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed Sep 10, 2014 11:40 am

zinnat13 wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:The phrase is mumbo-jumbo.


I know that and it was not a typing mistake this time. I did that intentionally to check how you react to that.

Lev Muishkin wrote:You did not make any points. Reasonable thinking leads to points. All you did was to display your innards across the Forum in the guise of a diatribe based on faith, and not reason. Therefore no other response was required.


LM,

This is called escapism. You are just unable to counter anything, that i argued so far. So, you are saying this to save your face.

Let me put that question again to you-

zinnat13 wrote:I never claimed that science progressed on faith. I was saying that it was faithful people who helped the science all along the history. Their faith in the religions did not forbid them to study and making further inroads in the science.


zinnat13 wrote:i was enlightening you about the fact that how much religions and religious people contributed to the science. If there was no religion, there would be no science either. Though, people like you tend to think that religions were the worst enemy of the science. Science was a part of parcel of the religions from the word go.

Delete the contributions of religions and religious persons from the modern science and it would fall to its face within a moment.

And, tell me if i am wrong!


zinnat13 wrote:His religiousity was the guiding force behind his scientific exploration. If he was not a religious person, he would not be a scientist either and science would have to miss all that what he contributed.


LM, try to address the arguments, if you can.

Mere rhetoric is not sufficient. It can be handy and adds to the beauty of the argument but only if there is some reasoning behind that. Rhetoric is like the icing of the cake but you cannot make full cake with it. Nobody is going to eat that.

with love,
sanjay


Some scientist may have had faith along the way, but most people are luckily about to separate faith as fiction from fact from reason.
But I think you need a history lesson.
The Roman EMpire was home to the Greek philosophers and the site of the worlds repository of the greatest body of knowledge until Christianity. Until justinian shut down the Schools of philosophy: Epicureanism and Stoicism became heresy.
This plunged Europe and North Africa into a intellectual dark age.
The same thing happened in "Islam", and fundamentalist Islam grew the Arab nations that had ben the repository of all the lost knowledge was about to suffer the same fate. And by the end of the 12thC nearly all investigation into science was over.
Some of the texts of the ancient thinkers had been preserved, but had to wait until the schism of religious thought the Reformation which enabled the re-discovery of some of the old knowledge party through their preservation in Arab private libraries.
THis together with the invention of printing revolutionised the transmission of knowledge to a degree that the religious authorities were no longer able to control it, as they had done for over a thousand years.
It was never a guiding force for anything but suffering, and ignorance.

Knowledge does not come though faith.
I can have faith is X, but that means I cannot progress with it, To grow you must reject faith, and open your eyes to justifiable reality.
A person with red hair can ride a bike. But that does not mean that bike riding comes thought the possession of red hair. You need to think a bit more clearly about your notion.
Faith is an impediment to reason, by definition.
The enlightenment was that moment when faith was put aside and people dared to think for themselves. You are in a state of extreme delusion. All the great thinkers of the time were atheists and deist, who had rejected faith, despite that being illegal and putting themselves in danger of prosecution and prejudice. Diderot, D'Alembert, David Hume, John Smith, L'Mettrie, Rouseau, Montesquieu, Franklin, Jefferson, Thomas Paine, Pierrre Bayle, Baruch Spinoza, Giambatista, Schiller, Goetre, Beethoven.
THe list is endless.
Before you can learn you need to shuffle off Faith. Before you can think about something new, you need to give up something that is not true, if you have faith that a thing is true and you have arrived at a belief through faith rather than reason you are unable to do this, except by loosing your faith.

If we had had no religion science would have been a thousand years more progressed. Because it was religion that shut down the schools of philosophy and controlled knowledge dogmatically for a over a thousand years, making it a come of heresy to object to.
These are the facts.
And since Islam took control of North African and the Middle East it has produced NOT ONE significant contribution to science, until secular values were reintroduced.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby phyllo » Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:44 pm

If we had had no religion science would have been a thousand years more progressed. Because it was religion that shut down the schools of philosophy and controlled knowledge dogmatically for a over a thousand years, making it a come of heresy to object to.
These are the facts.
These are not facts. These are your speculations.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12113
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Sep 10, 2014 2:41 pm

Uccisore wrote:Hume's mistake was to presume that everything required reasoning- if I see a thing, in order to believe a thing is there, there must be some good rational argument from the presentations of vision to conclusions about the outside world. This is false. A conclusion about the outside world is a part of the act of seeing, and need not be justified in terms of reasoning any more than a logical argument needs to be justified in terms of sense perception. They are simply two different faculties which can be used in tandem, but with neither relying on the other.


I agree entirely with your post; reasoning is a conscious/semi-conscious process that can be linguistically followed, which much of manifest existence clearly isn't. But this last paragraph confuses me - Hume explicitly and forcefully argued against the rationalist view of reason's primacy. That's what he did; that's most of what he did, and is famous for, philosophically. That you don't deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow, but accept it as a regularity of sensation. Why do you choose him as the standard bearer?

Also: "a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism". Berkeley wrote before Hume was born, so even if your criticism holds, definitely others before him :)
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:28 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Hume's mistake was to presume that everything required reasoning- if I see a thing, in order to believe a thing is there, there must be some good rational argument from the presentations of vision to conclusions about the outside world. This is false. A conclusion about the outside world is a part of the act of seeing, and need not be justified in terms of reasoning any more than a logical argument needs to be justified in terms of sense perception. They are simply two different faculties which can be used in tandem, but with neither relying on the other.


I agree entirely with your post; reasoning is a conscious/semi-conscious process that can be linguistically followed, which much of manifest existence clearly isn't. But this last paragraph confuses me - Hume explicitly and forcefully argued against the rationalist view of reason's primacy. That's what he did; that's most of what he did, and is famous for, philosophically. That you don't deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow, but accept it as a regularity of sensation. Why do you choose him as the standard bearer?

Also: "a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism". Berkeley wrote before Hume was born, so even if your criticism holds, definitely others before him :)


It is a totally false understanding of Hume.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Only_Humean » Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:10 pm

Lev Muishkin wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:
Uccisore wrote:Hume's mistake was to presume that everything required reasoning- if I see a thing, in order to believe a thing is there, there must be some good rational argument from the presentations of vision to conclusions about the outside world. This is false. A conclusion about the outside world is a part of the act of seeing, and need not be justified in terms of reasoning any more than a logical argument needs to be justified in terms of sense perception. They are simply two different faculties which can be used in tandem, but with neither relying on the other.


I agree entirely with your post; reasoning is a conscious/semi-conscious process that can be linguistically followed, which much of manifest existence clearly isn't. But this last paragraph confuses me - Hume explicitly and forcefully argued against the rationalist view of reason's primacy. That's what he did; that's most of what he did, and is famous for, philosophically. That you don't deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow, but accept it as a regularity of sensation. Why do you choose him as the standard bearer?

Also: "a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism". Berkeley wrote before Hume was born, so even if your criticism holds, definitely others before him :)


It is a totally false understanding of Hume.


Mine or his? Do you have an argument, or just a declaration?
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6198
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Lev Muishkin » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:34 pm

Only_Humean wrote:
Lev Muishkin wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:
I agree entirely with your post; reasoning is a conscious/semi-conscious process that can be linguistically followed, which much of manifest existence clearly isn't. But this last paragraph confuses me - Hume explicitly and forcefully argued against the rationalist view of reason's primacy. That's what he did; that's most of what he did, and is famous for, philosophically. That you don't deduce that the sun will rise tomorrow, but accept it as a regularity of sensation. Why do you choose him as the standard bearer?

Also: "a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism". Berkeley wrote before Hume was born, so even if your criticism holds, definitely others before him :)


It is a totally false understanding of Hume.


Mine or his? Do you have an argument, or just a declaration?


That depends whether or not your agreement extends to his caricature of Hume, or you were just agreeing with the rest of the statement. Hume did not make that presumption. Sensible qualities are impressed on our thought, reason is a process we choose to apply to our impressions.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Uccisore » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:48 pm

James S Saint wrote:I have to accept that you are speaking of merely cognitive reasoning. Beliefs are often formed by unconscious reasoning.


I believe 'unconscious reasoning' to be an oxymoron. Certainly beliefs are formed from time to time by unconscious processes, but to call those processes reasoning makes no sense to me.
So for example, I throw a ball, and a dog catches it. The ball is moving at a certain speed, describing a certain arc, to end up in a certain place at a certain time, and the dog puts his mouth precisely where it needs to be, when it needs to be there. Would you say that dog performed unconscious trigonometry? I would not. Dogs don't know trig. For that matter, neither did the person throwing the ball in this example. The dog certainly had some sort of unconscious process that put his mouth where it needs to be, but I don't see why it has to be parallel to the process a person would go through if they were consciously working it out as a math problem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 12, 2014 12:56 pm

Uccisore wrote:
James S Saint wrote:I have to accept that you are speaking of merely cognitive reasoning. Beliefs are often formed by unconscious reasoning.


I believe 'unconscious reasoning' to be an oxymoron. Certainly beliefs are formed from time to time by unconscious processes, but to call those processes reasoning makes no sense to me.
So for example, I throw a ball, and a dog catches it. The ball is moving at a certain speed, describing a certain arc, to end up in a certain place at a certain time, and the dog puts his mouth precisely where it needs to be, when it needs to be there. Would you say that dog performed unconscious trigonometry? I would not. Dogs don't know trig. For that matter, neither did the person throwing the ball in this example. The dog certainly had some sort of unconscious process that put his mouth where it needs to be, but I don't see why it has to be parallel to the process a person would go through if they were consciously working it out as a math problem.

If I were in the 16th century, I might agree with you. But these days, we know far, far more about how a brain and mind function in order to accomplish what they do. And yes, I really would say that the subconscious performs that "trigonometry", but in its own terms.

Mathematics is a cognitive language for the conscious mind. The sub- and unconscious mind doesn't use that language except in extraordinary cases. The unconscious mind uses inherent logic applied to its limited perception and the subconscious mind uses comparative rationality to aim toward a goal. Both can be reduced to probability and statistics, but not using the language of mathematics, merely the effects of assessing a perceived situation from one step to the predicted next step, which is all mathematics does. Both are cases of reasoning. They both perform the function of intelligence to accomplish a life supporting goal, merely using different languages and methods.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:05 pm

Relating to the process of awareness / consciousness there are two „ways“: (1) the way from semiotical, linguistical operations to logical (philosophical), mathematical operations, (2) the way from mathematical operations to logical (philosophical), linguistical, semiotical operations.

Some of the non-human living beings have consciousness, but they have a very much smaller brain and less consciousness than the human beings have. Only human beings have such very, very complex conscious systems, especially the linguistical, the logical (philosophical), and the mathematical system. Let's say that some of the non-human living beings have a pre-consciousness because the diffrence betwenn their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is too large.

An example:

A lioness „instinctively »knows«“ how much cubs she has. When one or more of them are lost, she realises it, but she can't count like humans can. At first the lioness „goes“ the conscious „way 1“ without any linguistical and logical operations (see above), thus from the semiotical operations (sign: „lost cubs“) to the mathematical operation („all cubs – missing cubs“), and then she „goes“ the conscious „way 2“ without logical and linguistical operations (see above), thus from the mathematical operations (for example: 7 – 2 = 5) to the semiotical operation (sign: „less cubs“). The mathematics in the brain of the lioness works but she doesn't „consciously »know«“ that it works.

Another example:

A predator must be able to calculate the „worth“ of attacking a prey If it is not profitable or even too dangerous, it is better to protect oneself and to gather forces. A predator with a broken leg can hardly catch a prey; a predator with a broken lower jaw can hardly eat a prey: a predator without a tongue can hardly drink. Predators must „instinctively »know«“ much about their environment and their skills, their risks, what is possible and what is too dangerous.

In order to survive the non-human living beings don't need such a complex brain, such a complex awareness / consciousness, especially such complex systems of language (linguistics) and logic (philosophy), as the human beings have. Human beings are luxury beings.
- viewtopic.php?f=1&t=186170&p=2490903#p2490903
- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186493&p=2492127#p2492127
- viewtopic.php?f=3&t=186493&p=2492127#p2492331

Human beings can say: „I don't want to eat today because tomorrow or later I am going to eat a Sacher torte“. The evolution of the luxury beings means the process of winning more and more luxury at the cost of losing more and more instincts, means becoming less and less beings of adaptation to the environment but more and more beings of alienation, of insulation. Nevertheless, human beings are also predators, but they are luxury predators because they are luxury beings.

Image
Last edited by Arminius on Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:33 am, edited 4 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:31 pm

To me it is all about like arguing if a calculator or computer "uses logical deduction", "thinks", and/or "knows the answer". It is all just how you want to define the words and concepts. As far as I am concerned, the method for deduction and intelligence is pretty irrelevant to the concern of whether something is actually deducing, reasoning, or responding intelligently. They all get the task of reasoning done, by whatever means they do it else none of them would survive at all. Without any type of reasoning, an animal wouldn't even be able to see, breath, eat, or walk.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby LaughingMan » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:54 pm

Science like government is a purely political and economic affair.
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sat Sep 13, 2014 2:51 am

LaughingMan wrote:Science like government is a purely political and economic affair.

... and now involving indoctrination, propaganda, and coercion.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby LaughingMan » Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:12 pm

James S Saint wrote:
LaughingMan wrote:Science like government is a purely political and economic affair.

... and now involving indoctrination, propaganda, and coercion.


Same as it has always been.
Coming Out Live Streaming Online From The Global Gulag, Asylum, Police State, And Oligarchical Plantation Near You.

Image
User avatar
LaughingMan
Cynical Asshole
 
Posts: 2712
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:47 pm
Location: FEMA Region V, U.S.S.A.

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Uccisore » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:39 pm

Only_Humean wrote:[
I agree entirely with your post; reasoning is a conscious/semi-conscious process that can be linguistically followed, which much of manifest existence clearly isn't.


I can't much credit, I'm aping Thomas Reid as usual.

But this last paragraph confuses me - Hume explicitly and forcefully argued against the rationalist view of reason's primacy.


My take on Hume is that he argued against it because he saw the rationalist view as flawed and the only alternative to skepticsm and thus he embraced skepticism. That's the part of Hume I'm disagreeing with. In other words, he thought that in order for a belief "there is a tree" to be justified given the premise "I see a tree", it had to be grounded in some additional, rational argument, axiom, or observation. He could find no such thing (the closest he got to was 'the future will be like the past'), and especially no evidence that people do any argumentation when percieving, and so he argued for a skepticism of the world beyond perception that Reid and ultimately Kant had to respond to. Same thing with belief in causation; causation isn't immediately delivered by the senses, no axiom or argument gets us to causation from what we do percieve, so therefore we must be skeptical that there is such a thing as causation. I (thanks to Reid) say the act of 'seeing a tree' includes both the belief formation and it's justification, the belief formation is not a thing that happens after the seeing as a result of some bridging rational process in ordinary circumstances. Looking for such a process is a mistake, and not finding it is no cause for skepticism.

So briefly:

Hume thought: Sense perception + Reasoning = belief about external world = skeptism about external world, because the reasoning is bad/non-existent.

I think: Sense perception = belief about external world + accompanying experience = Belief in the external world because a bridge between perception and belief isn't needed.


And to bring it back to the point I was responding to, to say that sense perception involves reasoning is to invite general skeptism as any formulation of that alleged reasoning is bound to be found lacking. And now I'm aping Ernest Sosa...or this other guy I read at the same time as him who's last name begins with a G. I think.

Also: "a mistake that Hume made (and maybe others before him) that created a lot of problems- you end up with skepticism and Berkeleyian idealism". Berkeley wrote before Hume was born, so even if your criticism holds, definitely others before him :)


Ha, you're right about Berkeley. Sorry, Early Modern was a long time ago. Yes, it was a combination Hume and Berkeley's skepticism of knowledge of the real world that Reid and Kant wrote in response to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Uccisore » Tue Sep 16, 2014 10:46 pm

James S Saint wrote:[
If I were in the 16th century, I might agree with you. But these days, we know far, far more about how a brain and mind function in order to accomplish what they do. And yes, I really would say that the subconscious performs that "trigonometry", but in its own terms.

Mathematics is a cognitive language for the conscious mind. The sub- and unconscious mind doesn't use that language except in extraordinary cases. The unconscious mind uses inherent logic applied to its limited perception and the subconscious mind uses comparative rationality to aim toward a goal. Both can be reduced to probability and statistics, but not using the language of mathematics, merely the effects of assessing a perceived situation from one step to the predicted next step, which is all mathematics does. Both are cases of reasoning. They both perform the function of intelligence to accomplish a life supporting goal, merely using different languages and methods.


If you want to call what the brain does to get from "I see a tree" to "There is a tree" 'reasoning', it's just a word and I've not real problem with your vocbulary. My point would be that what the brain is unconsciously doing doesn't resemble the premise-> premise-> ...... conclusion pattern that we think of as conscious reasoning. You aren't going to find the 'good argument' for why seeing a tree justifies thinking there is a tree hidden in the human sub- or unconscious. I think you'd have to define 'reasoning' as "Any old thing a mind happens to do, conscious or otherwise" in order to successfully say that sense perception involves reasoning.

EDIT And then I saw this from you:

James S Saint wrote:To me it is all about like arguing if a calculator or computer "uses logical deduction", "thinks", and/or "knows the answer". It is all just how you want to define the words and concepts. As far as I am concerned, the method for deduction and intelligence is pretty irrelevant to the concern of whether something is actually deducing, reasoning, or responding intelligently. They all get the task of reasoning done, by whatever means they do it else none of them would survive at all. Without any type of reasoning, an animal wouldn't even be able to see, breath, eat, or walk.


So it sounds like we're basically on the same page. To me, 'reason' describes a very specific faculty that involves examining the logical interaction of propositions. From my point of view, the mind does a whole bunch of things that aren't reasoning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:15 am

Well as I said before, you are obviously talking about "cognitive reasoning" only wherein one is aware of each step in reasoning. To me, that is a bit like saying, "there is arithmetic, algebra, and trigonometry that all make sense, then a bunch of other math that doesn't make any sense." Just because you are not conscious of the reasoning, doesn't mean that it isn't there.

Surely you can agree that when you look at a tree, the light from that tree is scattered in an array across your retina stimulating neurons in a pattern. And some part of you brain has to be deducing that because the color changes to green from this neuron all the way over to that neuron and then changes again to whatever and then whatever and the final pattern resembles that of a tree, "I am seeing a tree". You are not cognizant of the photons striking your retina, the neurons being triggered, the synaptic decisions being made, nor the waves of sensations that form that visual map of the terrain, but certainly that have to happening, else you could never become conscious of the tree image merely from scattered light.

The more instinctive mind does not watch itself try to reason, it merely does it. Much like riding a bicycle or playing a musical instrument, one might at first have to consciously attend to each tiny effort but after some practice he becomes unconscious of the very many automatic feedback control actions he is making. Do you say that he didn't decide on each effort he made just because he wasn't cognizant of them, or do you say that he just wasn't conscious of each decision that he was in fact making?

The entire function and purpose of a brain is to sense, analyze, and adjust its environment. It does nothing else. It doesn't have to watch itself doing it and is often better off not doing so (although it would be good if it would be inspired to verify its conclusions much more often - especially when posting online 8-[ ).
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby James S Saint » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:34 am

One need merely have faith [-o<
... in your Lord :evilfun:
... we scientists. 8-[

#-o
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Orbie » Wed Sep 17, 2014 1:46 am

Faith is the power by which the will can propel recognition out of the dark cave of the indiscernible.

Berekely was a a sort of ironist for Hume, to deal with reactionary , secondary views. I don't really think that he purposefully set himself up to his student's retort , to test the immateriality of material.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: No Fundamental Distinction Between Science and Religion

Postby Orbie » Wed Sep 17, 2014 2:06 am

[quote="obe"]Faith is the power by which the will can propel recognition out of the dark cave of the indiscernible.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]