Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Porpoise of Life]

I see this thread has gotten bogged down in the inescapable mire of epistemological navelgazing.
Every term has to be defined again and again until it is completely meaningless, because, according to some posters, only when we can't tell the difference between anything anymore, we can call ourselves true skeptics.

Start a thread on epistemology or ontology, but don't drag every remotely philosophical thread down to the level of trying to define what the definition of the word 'define' is before we can use the word.
Not every thread needs to be turned into a more-philosophical-than-thou doubt fest.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

I see this thread has gotten bogged down in the inescapable mire of epistemological navelgazing.
Every term has to be defined again and again until it is completely meaningless, because, according to some posters, only when we can't tell the difference between anything anymore, we can call ourselves true skeptics.
Start a thread on epistemology or ontology, but don't drag every remotely philosophical thread down to the level of trying to define what the definition of the word 'define' is before we can use the word.
Not every thread needs to be turned into a more-philosophical-than-thou doubt fest.

Thank you. Then I am not a true skeptic, because I can tell the difference between you and me and I find that meaningful.

 

[surreptitious57]

explain the methodology of establishing the truth of reality

That is in part philosophy and not just science and logic

Science deals with all the observable physical stuff while philosophy deals with our entirely pointless existence in the grand scheme of things as does
religion although it has nothing useful to say as it is predicated upon the existence of a metaphysical being for which there is precisely zero evidence

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Science deals with all the observable physical stuff while philosophy deals with our entirely pointless existence in the grand scheme of things as does
religion although it has nothing useful to say as it is predicated upon the existence of a metaphysical being for which there is precisely zero evidence

Yes, again we agree.

 

[Myriad]

What if you're happy but you don't know it?

Will you still clap your hands?

 

[ynot]

What if you're happy but you don't know it?

Will you still clap your hands?

What if you only think you're happy?

Will one hand clapping make a sound?

 

[ynot]

Thank you. Then I am not a true skeptic, because I can tell the difference between you and me and I find that meaningful.

What do you mean by "meaningful"?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What if you're happy but you don't know it?

Will you still clap your hands?

If knowledge requires the sensation of something, but there is no sensation, then there is no knowledge.
So if I am happy and sense it, I know it.

Whether that is the truth of reality, I will leave to ynot. Truth is not my thing. I like false and wrong better, since that is a part of methodological skepticism in a sense.

 

[surreptitious57]

That you find science meaningful is in your mind and I can only replicate it if I think / feel like you
You cant observe that science is meaningful and it is only meaningful to you if it is so

Without science you would not have : electricity / medicine / computers / mobile phones / television / radio / cameras / rockets
planes / cars / satellites / x rays / lasers / radar to name just some and so you can most definitely observe that it is meaningful

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

What do you mean by "meaningful"?

I find it meaningful that I am different from Porpoise of Life, because if there was no difference I wouldn't be me. I like being me. I accept that you properly like better being you than me.

As to happy, it is not certain and follow with logic, reason and science that you could be happy as me or in reverse for that matter.

Happy is not a strong logic either or, it is a continuum of similarities and differences when it comes to humans.

Now please answer the question about emotionality in the human condition. Please.

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Without science you would not have : electricity / medicine / computers / mobile phones / television / radio / cameras / rockets
planes / cars / satellites / x rays / lasers / radar to name just some and so you can most definitely observe that it is meaningful

Yes, and without science I would be dead now. But that still doesn't make it science, that I like science.

 

[ynot]

When, how and why did this thread become all about emotions?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

When, how and why did this thread become all about emotions?

Are you not happy about that? Then you shouldn't have brought happiness into it.

I believe I understand where you are coming from. Science is important for happiness, but that doesn't make it a scientific fact. That makes it a part of the human condition and the link you posted included emotionality.

Hell, even in objective you find it; i.e. objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

So is it false or not true that humans have emotions?

 

[ynot]

Are you not happy about that? Then you shouldn't have brought happiness into it.

I believe I understand where you are coming from. Science is important for happiness, but that doesn't make it a scientific fact. That makes it a part of the human condition and the link you posted included emotionality.

Hell, even in objective you find it; i.e. objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

So is it false or not true that humans have emotions?

I’m not aware or agree I was the one that “brought happiness into it “. That seems to have been yourself. Feel free to site my post(s) where I did. Not posts that were responses to your "emotion" posts of course.

This thread isn’t about your personal preference for emotion over intellect. Your continued derail might require the Mods to perform yet another derail-lobotomy, and perhaps another thread split, thread split.

So is it false or not true that this thread isn't all about whether humans have emotions (other than emotions as they relate to the subject of human consciousness)?

 

[acbytesla]

What is the scientific method?

The scientific method consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiments, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

 

[ynot]

The scientific method consists of systematic observation, measurement, experiments, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

But you knew Tommy already knew that, right?

 

[acbytesla]

But you knew Tommy already knew that, right?

Did he?

 

[caveman1917]

It is strange. A fad that last more than two thousand years!

So has Christianity. Doesn't mean that big magic man in the sky isn't a fad.

 

[David Mo]

So has Christianity. Doesn't mean that big magic man in the sky isn't a fad.

(1) An intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived; a craze.

(2) An arbitrary like or dislike.

"Fad" in sense (1) or sense (2)?

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

When, how and why did this thread become all about emotions?

Post 282:

Evidence, please.

What credible religious evidence is there to be rated?

Evidence you're on the 20th floor of a building isn't "Objective Authoritative Evidence" so you would be happy to leave the building via a 20th floor window? Yeah right!

You brought happy into it.

I entered here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12133411&postcount=272
I can't find that I brought emotions into it since solipsism is a problem of epistemology and not ethics nor aesthetics.