Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I keep my 'truths' (or really values) to myself. I understand that they'll mostly be relevant to me, not others. And I imagine most will keep their truths to themselves. I don't relate to this expectation of everyone being on the same wavelength...
Which is why your status is "Expose MAGA evils / lies daily" and you spend large portions of your time on the Politics & Other Controversies forum ranting against those who hold differing views? Just breaking down the barriers, folks, just doing that Taoist flow thing, doncha know ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
Way too much to read. Time is precious.
I don't disagree. I would not expect many to wade through the dialogue between prolix LearnMe and prolix (not to mention sesqupedalian) O'Darby - but if time is precious, why waste yours and others with a post saying there is too much to read?
Why are you here if not to read and respond to well-reasoned and thoughtful posts? There is not as much value in short sniping or carping posts, IMO. O'Darby provides a great deal of substantive thought in his posts though we do not agree about the primitive and barbaric Christian dogma he seems to find acceptable somehow.
I will ignore most of your substantial non-substantive speculations and bald assertions and focus on just a few of your usual misrepresentations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
All scientists admit that science operates on the basis of methodological materialism – the premise that all scientific questions have materialistic answers.
No they do not. They come to naturalism as a conclusion because that is where the evidence points compared to the other alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Occasionally, as in quantum physics, consciousness studies and PSI research, scientists encounter evidence that seems to point away from the materialistic paradigm. Those wedded to philosophical materialism attempt to force-fit the evidence into the materialistic paradigm rather than allowing a non-materialistic inference even to be considered.
As usual you provide ZERO evidence that those wedded to philosophical materialism attempt to force-fit the evidence into the materialistic paradigm. The irony is it is the religious who try to force fit their beliefs on to naturalism, such as Mystic, or the pseudo religious ideas of the ORCH theory.
NDEs are a classical example of this. One theory is that they are created after the event, including remembering machines and the noises they make (either in the hospital of from watching TV). This is not an attempt to force fit anything, it is a plausible alternative based on what we know, and requires no extra agents such as a disembodied soul. It also explains why NDEs have a cultural bias, matching the beliefs of the person having the NDE.
It is the disembodied idea that suffers from problems, such as how could it see or hear machines; what is this disembodied soul made of; how does it function; if consciousness is quantum, why would it even be aware of any machines; what keeps it stable? And if the evidence is so strong, why do people keep faking evidence?
And these are questions that need to be answered. What is your response? To put people on ignore so you do not need to address these arguments, and put them in the peanut gallery. But you are forgetting, we are in the peanut gallery watching the clowns make a fool of themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
This is exactly what Thomas Kuhn described: the keepers of a crumbling paradigm will defend it past the point where this is reasonable.
Correct, such as creationism and PSI research. Kuhn was talking about people like you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Even scientists have pointed out that the scientific version of faith is to be found in raw speculation about multiverses, inflationary bubbles and whatnot. This sort of faith is acceptable because the raw speculation is intended to keep the discussion within the context of the materialistic paradigm (as though the existence of multiverses would not be just as mysterious and just as demanding of an explanation as one universe!).
Ha, the "faith" game, the tired attempt to try and pretend your speculation and bald assertions are equally as valid as scientific evidence. That you need to play this game is even more evidence that you have no substantive arguments.
Try this logical (and indirect mathematical) argument. There is either only one universe or there is more than one. That is not faith, that is logic. And as more than one is the norm in reality, we have no reason to believe there is only one, finely tuned universe. THAT would be mysterious, unexpected, and even more demanding of an explanation as a multiverse. A multiverse is what we would expect based on the prior knowledge we have about reality, that things exist in multiples.
And the multiverse is not raw speculation, they are natural outcomes predicted by many of the different cosmological arguments based on real science. And they do not require extra entities to explain fine tuning, the logical outcomes of what a multiverse entails is elegant in it's simplicity.
That you need to pretend there is an ulterior motive by people (include religious people) is the game creationists play, to imply there is some ground other than that is where the evidence leads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O'Darby
Done and moving on. Please, somebody, anybody – add something new, will ya?
You first, start with providing evidence for your claims instead of repeating the usual goofy speculation and bald assertions lacking in substance.
I keep my 'truths' (or really values) to myself. I understand that they'll mostly be relevant to me, not others. And I imagine most will keep their truths to themselves. I don't relate to this expectation of everyone being on the same wavelength...
I typically do the same, but when I am with others who suggest, propose or claim something is true or real in a public forum that I find difficult to accept as such, I typically scrutinize such claims either to better understand what I might be missing or to determine the claims are without merit. For myself if for no one else.
I resonate with your pragmatism as more than adequately described here. It was not a waste of time, IMO. However the bold at the top is the central issue in why pragmatism is your mainstay. You simply take our consciousness for granted as some unique capability that somehow "emerged" from all this "non-conscious" reality. You have no concern whatsoever about it except as it affects your ability to live, survive, and cope with the reality you find yourself in. Some of us have had experiences that completely destroyed a similar pragmatism and have sought to explain it.
I appreciate what you appreciate in my comment, but you also tend to misrepresent my perspective a bit...
For example, I don't take anything "for granted." I can't be sure how everything including our consciousness or anything else has come to pass, and I'm not sure I'd dismiss all I'm explaining as just pragmatism. I prefer to describe it as critical thinking that takes everything into account as best we are able. Best as I am able anyway.
As for those like you who claim to have experiences beyond anything I can account for, I have no comment, because that's a place you have carved out all for yourself regardless all other considerations. No need to keep explaining this about yourself.
I would appreciate your explanation as to how I didn't waste my time or how I am not still wasting more time here...
I’ll devote exactly one more hour to parsing my way through your latest two posts, then I must really move on to real life.
The disconnect here isn’t between theism and atheism or science and religion. It’s between LearnMe’s epistemology and O’Darby’s epistemology. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of knowledge, what it means to say we know something, and what it means to have justified beliefs.
I did my best to read through your response to all I previously explained, but as soon as I read the above part of your lengthy effort, I recognized as you do this really is quite pointless. Your assessment as to the disconnect here is quite different from mine. Your continuous want if not need to blur the lines between "raw speculation" and what lines I've been trying to clearly distinguish is also a "bridge too far," but it isn't that I don't recognize all manner of speculation. You are also very long on generalities, not so good with specifics. In all cases you note, I have always been more than willing to consider whatever justification there is to adopt a belief something exists that may or may not exist.
Before giving up, I did take you up on your suggestion to look up "narrow epistemology." A cute little way to suggest "narrow epistemology" describes my entire perspective about all this, but I looked it up anyway. With all those descriptions as well, specifics please! If there is a good case to suggest something is real or exists that science cannot confirm as a universal truth we all share, then fine! I'm game! No less than you! However, it takes more than simply suggesting there are people who pursue the truth about such things far as I'm concerned. Good for them and all "raw speculation," but to take something from "raw speculation" to something more substantive requires something more substantive for people like me. That's all. That simple.
The disconnect here is ultimately a very different form of logic, reason and general understanding about all these possibilities that makes any progress apparently impossible. To sum up your entire point of view as you have attempted to sum up mine, look up the word "credulity."
Why are you here if not to read and respond to well-reasoned and thoughtful posts? There is not as much value in short sniping or carping posts, IMO. O'Darby provides a great deal of substantive thought in his posts though we do not agree about the primitive and barbaric Christian dogma he seems to find acceptable somehow.
Again I appreciate your feeling that any of us are not wasting our time here, but I have to recognize the truth about what Thoreau424 complains about here. I've always appreciated the greater effort to explain any position, or in short if that might work as well, but ultimately, I've never really had any illusion about accomplishing much of anything here. If not for the entertainment value for me personally, I would have probably stopped visiting this forum a good long time ago. Additionally, it's the wide variety of perspectives, opinions and appreciation that different people express here that is interesting to consider as well. Thoreaus424 provides a good reminder that we probably should limit the number of key strokes, because more often than not it doesn't seem that "more is better" when it comes to explaining anything in this forum. I'm not sure why I am forever forgetting that basic rule of thumb here, but I appreciate the reminder. Duly noted.
Why are you here if not to read and respond to well-reasoned and thoughtful posts?
There is much to be gained here if people will say what they need to say within a reasonable amount of space. That makes posts more likely to be read and responded to. Longwinded posts will get skipped over, so why not offer the best chance to be read? A short, to-the-point post reflects an efficient and organized mind. People who take twenty paragraphs to say would could be done in one, probably also need twenty minutes spoken instead of one.
Last edited by Thoreau424; 10-31-2023 at 10:34 AM..
^^^^Yes, I'm an avid reader and even I could not get through these lengthy posts. I just skimmed them. And, much of the content just went right over my head. It's too bad because I know a great deal of thought went into them.
Not criticizing but just saying that many will do the TL/DR.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
