Go live in the woods and abandon all technology for 1 year. Then come back and enter your response on the computer how science serves no **PURPOSE** but an extsension of the proof that we exist.
Exactly. I don't see the point of all the intellectual contortions.
Yes, and what exactly do you base your meaning of tripe upon? Oh, and when the "I" becomes an "It," you've just hung "me" and everyone else up on the cross.
I will take this as a first refusal to answer. You have another chance. Will you explain your quotation marks around "I"? Or will you continue to evade?Yes, and what exactly do you base your meaning of tripe upon? Oh, and when the "I" becomes an "It," you've just hung "me" and everyone else up on the cross.
You "behave" very much like a materialist, especially with your exchanges with hammegk.
I believe in the Yin and Yang which, are subsets of a greater whole.
Monsters from the id!
Available evidence to whom? Consistent in the fact that if I were to change my tune, I would be lying to myself?
Oh, no no ... I am merely suggesting that science serves "our" purposes. The proofs of which are wholly extended through "the fact" that we exist.
Am merely suggesting there's a difference between that which is, and the observer of that which is. If you and/or others don't believe there's a difference, then there would really be nothing to discuss would there?
Oh really? If you chose to go back to sleep, what would you be sleeping on? An immaterial mattress?
Only a tiny part of the physical world is a part of your conscious experience. You could choose to make more of the physical world part of your conscious experience by studying and learning from others, but even if you do not, those parts that you are deliberately or unintentionally ignorant of will remain parts of the physical world/universe. Your conscious experience will not change that.Iacchus said:
If that is your definition of science then you are more ignorant than I ever imagined. Science is a method for determining truth. That is the purpose it serves. The answers that science provides do not necessarily conform to anyone's wishes or philosophy. Science is not the slave of mankind. Quite the opposite.Iacchus said:
Even if one accepts the axiom that "I" exist, that does not by itself prove anything else. Whether or not "I" accept evidence is not proof that the evidence is true or not. Only a hopelessly self-centered person would assume that HE was the thing that determined the accuracy of evidence.Iacchus said:
Oh, are you referring to my body or, that part of me (the observer) which is dreaming? ... which, could be off doing something entirely different.
It would still be a part of "my" conscious experience, however you look at it.
Never said it wasn't.
Never said it didn't.
Yes, it is, to the extent that it extends itself through "the fact" that mankind exists.
Science serves mankind, in whatever way he deems "useful."
If not, then there is no "use" for it.The evidence is accurate or not independent of whether or not you decide it to be so.
Yes, but all I'm asking is who is it that think's he's capable of determining it? This is the question that Tricky was asking.
So, why does it have to be defined as either/or? As it is with any system, it is defined by the two extremes. Of course I would be more inclined to agree with you, since structure belies intelligence, and matter cannot be maniplulated without the means of it.Agreed, but having examined to the best of my ability the implications of either choice I prefer my monism. If thought does not exist we would not be discussing things. Matter? Unknown.
