Interconnection

[Shaker]

Shaker there are plenty of online games.

There is a suitable on for you. I think it's called Angry Turds or birds or something.

I've tried loads of them and none of them are anywhere near as much fun as collecting points every time you crowbar another one of your pet obsessions into something utterly irrelevant.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I want to clarify that what I am referring to in this thread is NOT about the inner consciousness or Self or the Universal Consciousness or such 'spiritual' matters. That is at a very deep level.

I am here referring to something much more mundane and surficial. I am not  talking about inner realization but of a natural and perhaps biological/magnetic connection between all living beings including animals, plants and other stuff. I am referring to something that can actually be felt around us if we train ourselves sufficiently. 

Its mental and perhaps quasi physical in some way. It influences our minds and our bodies, affects out health and well being, coordinates between different objects, enables direct communication and so on.

It is something that is very much a part of this natural world.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Free Willy]

Well thank you for letting me know. Does that mean anything?

You know it does Len

[Free Willy]

I've tried loads of them and none of them are anywhere near as much fun as collecting points every time you crowbar

You ought to get out more.

The point I am making is that when Len says he is loving or caring or feeling sympathy he is not using the methodology you are suggesting is the be all and end all.

[Shaker]

You ought to get out more.

You first - you seem to need it more.

The point I am making is that when Len says he is loving or caring or feeling sympathy he is not using the methodology you are suggesting is the be all and end all.

Why is he not?

[Free Willy]

You first - you seem to need it more.
Why is he not?

Because there are limits to what the methodology can be applied to without the reductionism kicking in.

[Udayana]

Whether it works or not as an accurate depiction of reality isn't a subjective understanding. You can be comfortable with something else, that's fine.

That something might be right, even though (because, say, of our limited current understanding) it's not something that's useful to us as a model.

It doesn't currently work as an accurate depiction of reality, though, because of that objective inconsistency.

O.

Unfortunately coming up with an accurate description of reality isn't very high in most people's priorities.

[Udayana]

Hi everyone,

I want to clarify that what I am referring to in this thread is NOT about the inner consciousness or Self or the Universal Consciousness or such 'spiritual' matters. That is at a very deep level.

I am here referring to something much more mundane and surficial. I am not  talking about inner realization but of a natural and perhaps biological/magnetic connection between all living beings including animals, plants and other stuff. I am referring to something that can actually be felt around us if we train ourselves sufficiently. 

Its mental and perhaps quasi physical in some way. It influences our minds and our bodies, affects out health and well being, coordinates between different objects, enables direct communication and so on.

It is something that is very much a part of this natural world.

Cheers.

Sriram

So ... do you, speaking personally for yourself, feel it around yourself or others?

[Leonard James]

All emotions are the result of biochemical actions, and exist only in the brain. They are totally relative, and our reaction to them depends entirely on our nature/nurture.

[Sriram]

So ... do you, speaking personally for yourself, feel it around yourself or others?

Oh yes.....I can.....anytime I want to.

[Outrider]

There is science and then there are other things that make life enjoyable that cannot be easily measured.

Like Art

Drama

Beauty

Music

If the point is to enjoy them, which measuring doesn't help, why measure them?

Science only tells us their physical composition. There are some " perceptions" it can't measure.

I'd qualify that with a possible 'yet', but yes.

You can't measure a beautiful sunset or a rainbow, science  just explains the physical side of it.

Perhaps for now - would understanding why it's beautiful make it any less so?

Science can explore and play notes in music etc but it takes a human mind to create a beautiful piece of music. Science cannot grasp and measure, imagination. You can't put that under a microscope.

Again, I'd say 'yet'. Appreciation of beauty is a neurological process, we have only a limited understanding of neurology at the moment, who is to say whether or not we will unravel these complexities in the future.

Not yet anyway 

Ah, the perils of answering in sequence - you beat me to it

O.

[Outrider]

Your post is spin Rider.

You assert, once more.

There is no need for any application of philosophical materialism in order for science/methodolical materialism to operate.

Philosophical materialism is implicit in the application of scientific reasoning, it's the foundation of the presumption that duplicate cause inevitably and consistently leads to duplicated effect.

In fact science in the development of the human race does not derive from an environment of philosophical materialism. But from an intellectual belief in God being the lawgiver of a created universe.

Philosophical materialism derives from faith in and an ontological punt from the methodology and of course by the confusion either deliberate or through ignorance of the methodology and philosophy.

Actually, it can either be presumed and then provisionally confirmed by science, or it can be deduced from scientific findings, or a combination of both.

What you are suggesting........your bit of woo if you will.........is that everyone has an inner philosophical materialist from whom any scientific work progresses. Any inner PM has nothing to contribute to the methodology which is in fact a tool we can and do all use.

No, what I'm explaining is that the conduct of (good) science presumes philosophical materialism - it presumes a physical universe with consistent, repetitious patterns of activity and no supernatural or spontaneous acts. You can, from the consistency of science and the absence of anything else reliable deduce a broader philosophical materialism or you can proceed to science from a presumption of philosophical materialism: it's not required that you do either in your life as a whole in order to conduct science, though the science itself requires the suspension of other systems.

O.

[Free Willy]

You assert, once more.

Philosophical materialism is implicit in the application of scientific reasoning, it's the foundation of the presumption that duplicate cause inevitably and consistently leads to duplicated effect.

Actually, it can either be presumed and then provisionally confirmed by science, or it can be deduced from scientific findings, or a combination of both.

No, what I'm explaining is that the conduct of (good) science presumes philosophical materialism - it presumes a physical universe with consistent, repetitious patterns of activity and no supernatural or spontaneous acts. You can, from the consistency of science and the absence of anything else reliable deduce a broader philosophical materialism or you can proceed to science from a presumption of philosophical materialism: it's not required that you do either in your life as a whole in order to conduct science, though the science itself requires the suspension of other systems.

O.

The above is a distorted definition of science....have you not heard of Popper. Science presumes the physical but has nothing to say on anything else. Science is not an ontological punt. Philosophical materialism is.

Philosophical materialism is not implicit in science at all.

[Outrider]

The above is a distorted definition of science....have you not heard of Popper.

It's not a definition of science at all, it's a description of how science fits into a philosophical framework.

Science presumes the physical but has nothing to say on anything else.

Philosophical materialism is the presumption that the physical is all there is - how that makes science something other than the practical application of it makes even less sense than most of what you post.

Science is not an ontological punt.

Nobody except you suggested that it was.

Philosophical materialism is.

Perhaps, but at least it's a validated one - more than can be said for any of the others.

Philosophical materialism is not implicit in science at all.

Yet your own definition shows that it is.

O.

[Free Willy]

It's not a definition of science at all, it's a description of how science fits into a philosophical framework.

Philosophical materialism is the presumption that the physical is all there is - how that makes science something other than the practical application of it makes even less sense than most of what you post.

Now outrider you know that the above is not true. Science is just one of many intellectual discipline.

The presumptions of PM are in no ways necessary for science. Science is a thing not a person or even collection of people and cannot presume.

You quoted some preconditions of science. A reasonable universe rather than a completely chaotic one and a universe whose susceptibility to science works at all material levels.

This is perfectly consistent with the Christian view of God for example and indeed the first western scientists were theists.

[Outrider]

Now outrider you know that the above is not true. Science is just one of many intellectual discipline.

Did anyone suggest anything different?

The presumptions of PM are in no ways necessary for science.

Not necessary, but consistent.

Science is a thing not a person or even collection of people and cannot presume.

Pedantry at this point? You can selectively reinterpret 'Philosophical Materialism' at will, but can't read 'presumptions of science' as 'presumptions of the individuals practicing science whilst practising science'?

You quoted some preconditions of science. A reasonable universe rather than a completely chaotic one and a universe whose susceptibility to science works at all material levels.

Which are also the presumptions of philosophical materialism! Wonder of wonders, it's like they're consistent concepts!

This is perfectly consistent with the Christian view of God for example and indeed the first western scientists were theists.

It's entirely consistent with a deist view of God, but not with the majority of Christians who believe in an interventionist deity. Science, of course, doesn't inherently discount the possibility of gods, it just presumes their absence whilst it conducts its work.

Nobody claimed science disproved gods, just that it demonstrates the continued viability of a system that doesn't need them. Where's any sort of demonstration of the viability of the claim that they do?

O.