From: epowers@mccoy.NMSU.Edu (POWERS)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Science Worship was Re: Science and significance
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:40:32 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Oct29.111538.26598@abo.fi> MANDTBACKA@finabo.abo.fi (Mats  
Andtbacka Ktf92) writes:
> In <1992Oct28.221512.24872@nmsu.edu> epowers@kirk.NMSU.Edu writes:
> 
>       (Brutal, bloodstained deletion)

	The humor is appreciated!  Who says such discussions must be technical  
and boring!
> 
> >      This results easily in both scientific methodology and
> > evolutionary   theory.  However, the big catch is human thought itself. 
> > If nothing outside   the system can interfere, human thought must be the
> > result of processes within   the system.
>       With you so far.
> 
> > So what do we do with
> > contradictory thoughts?  If I say that two   apples and two apples make
> > five apples and you say they make four, how do we   figure out who is
> > right?  The same physics that have given rise to your thought   have
> > given rise to mine, since there is no outside interference. 
> 
>       Yes, but why should the physics that make up your thougths have
> anything to do with the physics that add the apples? Your conscious
> thougths may be physics, but physics are not conscious.

	You are correct!  Physics is not concious.  But if physics gives rise  
to conciousness, then conciousness must follow the laws of physics.  Another  
way of saying it is that consciousness is physics operating under a particular  
set of conditions.  Imaginary numbers do not follow the mathematical laws of  
real numbers precisely because imaginary numbers are not a subset of real  
numbers.  Real numbers are a subset of imaginary numbers ( real numbers are  
imaginary numbers ( a + bi ) where b=0.)  Real numbers follow the rules of  
imaginary numbers.  Newtonian physics are a subset of general  
relativity-derived physics, and both follow the rules of the second.
	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.
	I know which thought is true, and therefore whose brain is messed up.   
However, they don't!  The only ways they have to discover who is right are all  
based on their thought.  Some primitive ancestor of theirs beleived that  
scientific methods were the ultimate truth-solving tool and had arrived at this  
conclusion based on thought.  But might not this ancestor have had the same  
genetic malfunction that is now causing disagreement?  They have contradictory  
thoughts and no way of determining who is right except by thought.  But  
someone's thoughts are screwed up- whose?  Or both?  The only solution is for  
the abstract observer to come in and say "Hey, guys, I'm not bound by thought  
processes or the potential screwups in your genetic code.  Trust me on this  
one: 2+2=4."  But this is outside interference, and no scientist will accept  
it.  They would say to us "Okay, you were argueing on the nets and an abstract  
observer from WHAT dimension broke in and told you the answer?"

> 
> >      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.
> 
> > 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?  
 
> 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?
> 
> > One premise of science  
> > invalidates the other.  And if science is self-contradictory at its
> > core, who can you trust?
> 
>       Everybody, I would say -- up to some point or other.
> 
> If you (or I) don't get flamed out of a.a, I would really like to see
> you elaborate on this - the subject is fascinating.
 

	I would agree.  I have yet to see any belief system so far out that it  
does not contain at least one truth.  Thank you for a very interesting and  
polite post!

							Erik Powers
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:21075 talk.religion.misc:20911