From: MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka Ktf92)
Subject: Re: Science Worship was Re: Science and significance
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 09:35:33 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

(More heavy-handed editing taken place)

In <1992Oct28.221512.24872@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.111538.26598@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi  
>writes:
>> In <1992Oct28.221512.24872@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu writes:

>	You are correct!  Physics is not conscious.  But if physics  
> gives rise to consciousness, then consciousness must follow the laws of  
> physics. Another way of saying it is that consciousness is physics  
> operating under a particular set of conditions.

      True. The problem we seem to have here is, is free will also
physics? Do these conditions under which our neurons operate allow us to
construct any kind of thought, regardless of whether it has anything to
do with the "real" world - such as, "two plus two makes five"? I think
so, because I can't see physical laws as conscious enough to weed out
some thoughts and not others.

>	The same physical laws that allow the addition of apples must  
> also allow thought.  (If the two are really separate, perhaps we  
> should not be using thought to come up with mathematical ideas.)  So  
> let's say I am an abstract observer from the pi'th dimension ( or  
> square-root-of-two'th dimension, if you prefer), and I observe that  
> two humans have contradictory thoughts.  Obviously, the physical  
> circumstances between the two are not the same, or physics would have  
> given rise to the same thought in both.  Probably some protein is  
> screwed up in one of their brains due to genetic mutation, and has  
> caused this untrue thought that 2+2= 5, or that God exists, or  
> whatever.

      Yet again, our brains are physical entities operating under
physical laws (to some extent Quantum Mechanics and its Uncertainty, but
never mind that for a while); but why should these laws restrict us to
constructing only logically correct thoughts? How are the laws of
physics to see the difference?

>	I know which thought is true, and therefore whose brain is  
> messed up.  However, they don't!

      Well, *I* know what 2+2 *really* makes. Doesn't stop me from
*thinking* otherwise, if that pleases me, though.

>  The only ways they have to discover
   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  
>who is right are all based on their thought.
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

      How so? Can not theories be tested, can we not put apples together
and count the result? I don't think we are locked inside the realms of
our braincases; maybe we have to stay inside their limits when making
our theories, but we have plenty of peepholes through which to compare
our ideas with what really is. Or are you also doubting the accuracy of
your senses? Then this might get _really_ interesting...

>  Some primitive ancestor  
>of theirs beleived that scientific methods were the ultimate  
>truth-solving tool and had arrived at this conclusion based on  
>thought.

      Based on thought, and practical testing. I haven't heard of any
method so _provenly_ effective; that's why I think it works, regardless
of our thoughts.

>>>      What if I say that science does not give an accurate view of
>>> reality? You may answer that "science works, and so it must be
>>> awfully close to correct" but you would be basing your answer  
>>> on scientific thinking, which is the premise I'm challenging.

>>       No; you are challenging conscious thinking per se, not  
>> strictly the scientific method of gathering data, inferring theories,
>> and testing said theories. This doesn't attack science, it attacks  
>> consciousness, and, to some extent, free will.

>	If I attack conscious thinking, I am attacking scientific  
>thinking, because scientific thinking is a subset of conscious  
>thinking.

(that's more or less what I was trying to say...) 
      Still, as far as I can see, you merely attack THINKING; at most,
the process by which we evaluate the gathered data. And this process is
demonstrably not wholly logical, or we couldn't think the thought,
"2+2=5". But you haven't SHOWN that such logicity would HAVE to follow
from the physical laws that our thought processes obey - but I see why
one might think so would be the case. I don't think so, though. What you
HAVEN'T attacked is the GATHERING of the data, the reliability of our
sensory organs; unless that falls, at least our input will be correct.


>>> IN OTHER WORDS, to get around to my long-winded point, if no  
>>> outside interference occurs (a basic premise of science) then you cannot  
>>> tell which of two statements is more correct.  

>>       More correct *than what*, assuming there is no absolute truth?

>	Here's a question for you, Sherlock! :-) :-)  Is it  
> ABSOLUTELY true that there is NO absolute truth?  

      Absolutely not... Absolutely maybe? :-)
"It can be practically shown, as many times over as you bother to look,
that 2+2 equals four." Now, chew on THAT!

>> Don't forget relativity here, my good Watson! One statement may be
>> better at describing the phenomenon we are observing than is the  
>> other statement; but in and of themselves, they are both merely  
>> statements.

>	I'm sorry, I lost you here.  Science assumes that one  
> statement will be closer to the (yes, absolute) truth than the other,  
> if they are not both completely wrong.  I'm not sure what you mean by  
> "they are both merely statements."  Do you mean they are ultimately  
> valueless?

      What I was trying to do was to separate the truth from the
statement, so to speak. As you've noticed, I'm going down the premise
that I can make any statement I wish to make, regardless of its
correctness - a rather easily provable premise, so I find it good.
Therefore, a statement on its own is worthless, and doesn't necessarily
say anything about the external world whatsoever. 
      They CAN be of value, though - in some situations, if they have
some correlation to the "real" world. One can hold that "E=mc2" is
fairly "true" without being too far off the mark - but you can thank
Einstein for that amount of "truth", not the statement itself.

>>> One premise of science
>>> invalidates the other.  And if science is self-contradictory at  
>>> its core, who can you trust?

      Isn't one premise of science that things should be empirically
verified whenever possible? This, I still don't see invalidated.

>>       Everybody, I would say -- up to some point or other. 

>	I would agree.  I have yet to see any belief system so far  
> out that it does not contain at least one truth.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
 These aren't really my opinions, but those of my split personality - he's the
       only one of me who's learned how to use the computers properly.
"Don't damn me when I speak a piece of mind, 'cos silence isn't golden when ..."
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21291 sci.skeptic:19617