Science only functions when you make the inane assumption that there is some kind of ultimate truth that exists regardless of if you know it or not.

My belief or disbelief does not change the laws of physics. At the basement level of a worldview structure there must be an axiomatic assumption or two for everything to make sense. One such foundational belief is simple faith in the uniformity of nature, at least within our local causal domain.

Without that, nothing makes sense. We can simply have magic. In such a world, not a single point you're trying to make here matters at all, because everything cockamamie idea is equally valid. Perhaps it's Satan who dictated the writings of the bible to trick people into dismissing the majestic works of god - namely that god crafted the way evolution would unfold some billion years ago. He pre-planned all the branching paths, extinctions, and the eventual evolution of homo sapiens. No point you make against it matters, because I can make it true if I believe it strongly enough. Right?

For those of you that like to harp about science take into consideration that using our limited senses we are only experiencing less than 1% of what actually exists. Science is then taking this minute observation we call reality and attempting to explain how everything works.

And even with our limited senses, we understand the mechanisms of the universe well enough to land men on the moon and store entire libraries of information on a piece of plastic the size of a thumbnail. The proof is in the pudding that, at the very least, we aren't as wrong as you're suggesting. And many fields of science snap together into the vast web of knowledge in such a way that it's all mutually reinforcing.

Regarding the idea that we experience less than 1% of what actually exists... how did you manage to quantify the other 99%, if you've never experienced it? It's obviously a shallow assumption, and you really have no clue. If there is uniformity to nature, and our experience of the universe around us is fungible, then we might possibly have experience nearly half of what actually exists. I'm not saying we have, but at the same time, you can't say we haven't. You can only appeal to emotion.

Tell me this, which evolved first, the heart, the veins, or the blood? Seems like the cardiovascular system wouldn't work unless all the components of the system were functioning. What good is a heart that randomly accidentally evolves when there is no blood for it to pump? Your talking about many vast systems that are extremely complex that could not possibly have happened by random chance. I like the old creationist quote that believing these things happened at random is akin to believing that a tornado moving through a junk yard could assemble a 747 airliner. Science has gotten you to believe so many bizarre things that getting scientists to admit their wrong is out of the question scientists would rather make up more nonsense to support their claims than to admit they have been lying to people for decades and losing all their precious funding.

What alternative do you suggest in discovering how our world works? Science is literally the only system we have that limits the sort of bias you suggest has corrupted it. It doesn't eliminate it, because humanity will always find a way to make shit up. But it limits it better than any other system. Apples to apples, knowledge gained from science is more trustworthy than from any other source. Believe it or not, the entire intent of the scientific process is to minimize the impact of human bias and stupidity. Double blind procedures, placebo controls, variable controls, peer reviews, etc. The structure is all about removing as much human error as possible from how we discover the workings of the universe. It ain't perfect, but no other system even comes close.

Your DNA does not have the DNA of any other animals so you won't be evolving into another animal, ever, because there is no evolution.

And what's going to stop DNA from changing between generations, from radiation or chemical exposure or faulty replication? DNA changes. Given enough time, it changes a great deal. Not within a single organism, but between generations. Most changes are simply variations within species. But if there is a stranded population with differing selective pressures from the original population pool, those variations stick and amplify, until the population pool has changed enough from the original that we're no longer simply talking about variation within species. If there's an animal perfectly fit to survive, the only selective pressure would be to not change.

I know you really truly believe evolution is some fabricated nonsense from scientists who want to keep their funding. But you're utterly wrong. There is a mountain of evidence more vast than you could ever absorb, from nearly every scientific discipline, all converging on the truth of evolution. That so much evidence from so many different fields could all converge on the same conclusion might be false isn't just improbable, it's nearly impossible. It's like having a thousand independent witnesses having seen the same event, all testifying the same details, corresponding to CCTV footage from hundreds of cameras, corresponding to a post-event forensic analysis. Yet the arrogance of creationists is that it's a massive worldwide conspiracy and everyone and everything is wrong and the cameras were all simultaneously hacked and the forensics team is bought, and if I just believe something different, that makes it true....

Interbane wrote:My belief or disbelief does not change the laws of physics.

There are no definite laws of physics. What your doing when you create these laws is making an observance about what you believe the universe is doing. Your then assuming that the universe must continue to behave this way in the future, but it is under no obligation to do so. Mysterious forces that are beyond our comprehension that created the universe in the first place could act upon our universe once again and flip all your laws on their head in the blink of an eye at any moment. That is why it's so important to appreciate every moment and make the most of it because it could all be gone in an instant taking with it all that you thought you knew.

Interbane wrote: At the basement level of a worldview structure there must be an axiomatic assumption or two for everything to make sense. One such foundational belief is simple faith in the uniformity of nature, at least within our local causal domain.

That is peoples second biggest mistake, they always make assumptions while trying to make sense of everything. Existence itself is paradoxical in nature and beyond human comprehension, magic is real, but you would rather be told a million lies that make you feel safe than hear one truth that exposes how vulnerable you really are hurling uncontrollably through space not knowing where you are or where you're going.

The first biggest mistake people make is caring too much what others think of them and allowing others to dictate their reality for them giving away their creative power to those that seek to control and manipulate them. This is how the world has gotten into the horrendous state that it's in, but it's not too late to take back your power.

Interbane wrote:No point you make against it matters, because I can make it true if I believe it strongly enough. Right?

Yes, for you in your subjective reality you can make it true because you are the center of your own universe. Right now, you believe in science so your internal dialogue inside of your head talks to you about scientific things to explain what your experiencing and when you look at your reality it reflects back to you those things that you believe to be true.

Interbane wrote:Regarding the idea that we experience less than 1% of what actually exists... how did you manage to quantify the other 99%, if you've never experienced it? It's obviously a shallow assumption, and you really have no clue. If there is uniformity to nature, and our experience of the universe around us is fungible, then we might possibly have experience nearly half of what actually exists. I'm not saying we have, but at the same time, you can't say we haven't. You can only appeal to emotion.

You're right, I have no way to know exactly what percentage we have experienced. I'm probably way off it's probably more like 0.001% based off of my intuition.

Interbane wrote:What alternative do you suggest in discovering how our world works? Science is literally the only system we have that limits the sort of bias you suggest has corrupted it. It doesn't eliminate it, because humanity will always find a way to make shit up. But it limits it better than any other system. Apples to apples, knowledge gained from science is more trustworthy than from any other source. Believe it or not, the entire intent of the scientific process is to minimize the impact of human bias and stupidity. Double blind procedures, placebo controls, variable controls, peer reviews, etc. The structure is all about removing as much human error as possible from how we discover the workings of the universe. It ain't perfect, but no other system even comes close.

If you want to discover how the world truly works then you must look within yourself, because the universe exists within you. Everything you see on the outside is merely a reflection of your beliefs.

Interbane wrote:And what's going to stop DNA from changing between generations, from radiation or chemical exposure or faulty replication? DNA changes. Given enough time, it changes a great deal. Not within a single organism, but between generations. Most changes are simply variations within species. But if there is a stranded population with differing selective pressures from the original population pool, those variations stick and amplify, until the population pool has changed enough from the original that we're no longer simply talking about variation within species. If there's an animal perfectly fit to survive, the only selective pressure would be to not change.

My guess is that since dna is the blueprint for how to build an organism, if too much dna is changed then most likely at some point the organism would no longer be viable.

Interbane wrote:I know you really truly believe evolution is some fabricated nonsense from scientists who want to keep their funding. But you're utterly wrong. There is a mountain of evidence more vast than you could ever absorb, from nearly every scientific discipline, all converging on the truth of evolution. That so much evidence from so many different fields could all converge on the same conclusion might be false isn't just improbable, it's nearly impossible. It's like having a thousand independent witnesses having seen the same event, all testifying the same details, corresponding to CCTV footage from hundreds of cameras, corresponding to a post-event forensic analysis. Yet the arrogance of creationists is that it's a massive worldwide conspiracy and everyone and everything is wrong and the cameras were all simultaneously hacked and the forensics team is bought, and if I just believe something different, that makes it true....

In the past everybody believed the world was flat and if you disagreed you could be killed. Mass consensus is not proof of anything except that the masses are easily controlled by the cabals that run the world and have been doing so for generations why do you think there is a royal blood line? In the video I posted about irreducible complexity were some real scientists that believed the evolutionary model was flawed so perhaps not so many people believe in evolution as you think, but perhaps many are afraid to speak out about it and challenge the status because they fear the consequences?

Magus wrote:There are no definite laws of physics. What your doing when you create these laws is making an observance about what you believe the universe is doing.

First, saying “there are no definite laws of physics” is every bit as much as an assumption, but it provides no utility(in other words, it's useless). Uniformitarianism is indeed based on an assumption, axiomatic, and useful. The alternative assumption which you adhere to cannot be used to build an understanding of the world. As I said, if your worldview assumes magic, it’s every bit as likely that Satan wrote the bible, and you have no valid argument otherwise. There’s no epistemic structure, no logic, no rules. Anything goes. We regress as a species.

The world could have been created yesterday, with all our memories implanted magically. Or we’re all part of an alien dream. Or we’re part of a video game created by humanity in the far future, and they log in to the 20th century out of boredom. Or aliens planted us here transpermetically two thousand years ago, and manipulate our writings to show a completely different ancient history.

There is no mistake in assuming natural law operates now as it always has, and will continue to do so, as any scholar of epistemology would tell you. Because the purpose of this assumption is the utility it provides, and there’s nothing you have to offer that can compare. Your assumptions would have us still mired in the dark ages, assuming nothing is knowable.

Magus wrote:That is peoples second biggest mistake, they always make assumptions while trying to make sense of everything.

Mostly correct. What serves as the foundation of your worldview that isn’t an assumption? Don’t be hypocritical, it’s a universal problem to every worldview, including yours. Take my question seriously. What axiom is at the foundation of your worldview? The foundational assumptions you make are not a mistake, they're a necessity. This applies to all of us, yourself included.

Magus wrote:Yes, for you in your subjective reality you can make it true because you are the center of your own universe.

You’re dancing between concepts. Sure, I can have illusions all day long if I wish(altering my subjective reality inside my head), but I’m talking about my belief altering the world around me. Not some fantasy in my head. My beliefs themselves are not what alters the world. The results of my beliefs(actions, words, etc) are what alters the world. And they do not alter the laws upon which the world operates. If that were the case, we’d see the results, capture the results as evidence, and have a documented record of every such event. But that’s not what we see when we test our world. The same tests on electromagnetic K band from a century ago give the same results now as then, and every instance in between. If our universe does not follow uniform laws, how do you explain the uniformity of experimental results? Your arguments go contrary to all evidence and observation.

Magus wrote:Right now, you believe in science so your internal dialogue inside of your head talks to you about scientific things to explain what your experiencing and when you look at your reality it reflects back to you those things that you believe to be true.

You don’t know how my inner dialogue operates, but the attempt is cute. I don’t believe in science, so much as I trust the process to give us better results than any other process, including my own imaginings. Any additional baggage you narrate on top of that is just an argumentative device.

Magus wrote:You're right, I have no way to know exactly what percentage we have experienced. I'm probably way off it's probably more like 0.001% based off of my intuition.

Your intuition gives you probabilities? Is this part of the magic you mentioned? If you believe it, it probably has to be true? You have no clue what percentage we’ve experienced. An appeal to intuition is just another argumentative device, coupled with a number fabricated to support your beliefs.

If you want to discover how the world truly works then you must look within yourself, because the universe exists within you. Everything you see on the outside is merely a reflection of your beliefs.

Anyone else reading this needs to disregard this silly advice. There is great power to introspection and knowing thyself, to empowering your destiny by self-examination. I encourage everyone to meditate, and look inward to explore the city of their mind. But inflating this wisdom to the point where you think there’s some magic that manipulates the laws of physics is laughable and harmful. I’m not on board with telling people that they can jump off the top of a skyscraper if they simply believe strong enough that the universe will change how it operates and ensure their safety. Sorry Magus, you’re wrong. The universe doesn’t give a damn about your beliefs.

Magus wrote:My guess is that since dna is the blueprint for how to build an organism, if too much dna is changed then most likely at some point the organism would no longer be viable.

Most likely? You don’t need to throw out guesses. We already know that DNA changes, and enough change over time is what has given rise to the diversity of life on earth. Not that randomly swapping out entire chromosomes would result in a viable organism. Of all changes to DNA, a small subset is inevitably beneficial. Those remain, and others don’t. If you think it through, you see the algorithmic elegance of the mechanism.

Magus wrote:In the past everybody believed the world was flat and if you disagreed you could be killed.

When was this? I’ve seen this myth many times, but the truth is that since around 300 B.C., people believed the Earth was round. Not that it matters, because the comparison is apples to oranges. It is not mere consensus I’m referring to regarding our knowledge of evolution. If it were, I’d agree with you. Instead, it’s evidence, more than you could possibly absorb in a lifetime. Raw data from experimental results using methods that minimize human interference. Across nearly every field of science from every corner of the world over centuries. You’re welcome to dismiss it or argue against it, but don’t expect to be taken seriously.

Interbane wrote:First, saying “there are no definite laws of physics” is every bit as much as an assumption, but it provides no utility(in other words, it's useless). Uniformitarianism is indeed based on an assumption, axiomatic, and useful.

I don't think I'm making an assumption the same way you are when you assume there are laws. I'm just acknowledging that the universe has unlimited powers to change and is under no obligation to adhere to your laws. The basis for this claim is that the universe was created and if it can be created than it can be changed. Now the fact that I think the universe is sentient is a whole different matter that I'm sure you would have a field day with lol.

I'm very glad that your able to admit that uniformitarianism is based off an assumption because I think to assume that natural laws and processes that appear to operate here in present day have always operated and operate everywhere the same as here is a spurious presumption made with no supporting evidence.

Interbane wrote:The world could have been created yesterday, with all our memories implanted magically. Or we’re all part of an alien dream. Or we’re part of a video game created by humanity in the far future, and they log in to the 20th century out of boredom. Or aliens planted us here transpermetically two thousand years ago, and manipulate our writings to show a completely different ancient history.

Yes, absolutely, now your getting it!

Every one of those things could be true because we don't know. There are many old teaching that reveal this to be the dream while what you consider the dream world is actually the "real" world and you are spiritually asleep lulled into a deep slumber by insidious forces.

All science is doing is stacking assumptions on top of assumptions passing them off as undeniable fact justifying doing so by saying look at what clever devices we were able to conceive. If we were able to make computers and I Phones then you should believe our assumptions about the universe because look how smart we are. I'm sorry, I like your clever gadgets, but your in no position to tell me how the universe functions it's vastly incomprehensible to you.

Interbane wrote:As I said, if your worldview assumes magic, it’s every bit as likely that Satan wrote the bible, and you have no valid argument otherwise. There’s no epistemic structure, no logic, no rules. Anything goes. We regress as a species.

Perhaps Satan did write the bible and create this world, after all it seems that we are living in a predatory parasitic world where to sustain life, life must be stolen from other living sentient beings.

Interbane wrote:There is no mistake in assuming natural law operates now as it always has, and will continue to do so, as any scholar of epistemology would tell you. Because the purpose of this assumption is the utility it provides, and there’s nothing you have to offer that can compare. Your assumptions would have us still mired in the dark ages, assuming nothing is knowable.

Your right, I have nothing to offer you except the reminder that the world and life itself is a great paradoxical mystery full of unlimited potential capable of manifesting itself in unfathomable ways far beyond the scopes of what science deems plausible or possible. Science even denies your true nature as an energetic spiritual powerful creative being yet you cling to it.

If you wish to hold scientific assumptions to be true for the usefulness, convenience, and false sense of security they provide you I wish to take nothing from you. Only know that I have no need for such assumptions.

Interbane wrote: What serves as the foundation of your worldview that isn’t an assumption?

My world view is that life is a miracle and a great mystery where the limits of what is possible is completely unknown.

Interbane wrote:You’re dancing between concepts. Sure, I can have illusions all day long if I wish(altering my subjective reality inside my head), but I’m talking about my belief altering the world around me. Not some fantasy in my head. My beliefs themselves are not what alters the world. The results of my beliefs(actions, words, etc) are what alters the world. And they do not alter the laws upon which the world operates. If that were the case, we’d see the results, capture the results as evidence, and have a documented record of every such event. But that’s not what we see when we test our world. The same tests on electromagnetic K band from a century ago give the same results now as then, and every instance in between. If our universe does not follow uniform laws, how do you explain the uniformity of experimental results? Your arguments go contrary to all evidence and observation.

I'm not talking about a subjective reality inside your head. I'm talking about the reality that exists all around you. You believe it is the objective reality, but there is no such thing because everything is subjective. Your own science tells you this when you consider that all your sensory data is turned into electrical signals to be interpreted by your brain. So the entire world you are experiencing is merely a creation of your mind and this creation before it is projected onto your walls of perception must pass through the filters of your beliefs altering it, shaping it, molding it.

The reality we experience on a daily basis is nothing like the absolute core reality that fundamentally exists. Science is like a holographic man trapped inside a projection trying desperately to study the projector, but its impossible. For a metaphor imagine computer code and how what pops up onto the screen for you to view is vastly different than the code itself. You are the computer that is interpreting the code and the reality that you are experiencing is the projection of that interpretation onto your walls of perception. The code itself is being emanated from source consciousness.

Interbane wrote:Your intuition gives you probabilities? Is this part of the magic you mentioned? If you believe it, it probably has to be true? You have no clue what percentage we’ve experienced. An appeal to intuition is just another argumentative device, coupled with a number fabricated to support your beliefs.

I'm not trying to pass it off as a fact it is my humble opinion.

Interbane wrote:Anyone else reading this needs to disregard this silly advice. There is great power to introspection and knowing thyself, to empowering your destiny by self-examination. I encourage everyone to meditate, and look inward to explore the city of their mind. But inflating this wisdom to the point where you think there’s some magic that manipulates the laws of physics is laughable and harmful. I’m not on board with telling people that they can jump off the top of a skyscraper if they simply believe strong enough that the universe will change how it operates and ensure their safety. Sorry Magus, you’re wrong. The universe doesn’t give a damn about your beliefs.

Thought is the creative force in the universe. Science has gotten it purposely backwards when they assume that matter gives rise to consciousness. As all the ancients knew it is consciousness that creates matter. There is not a single scientist on the planet that could ever explain how something solid and physical like the brain could ever give rise to something unsolid and unphysical like the conscious experience that you are currently having. That is the biggest lie that science has tried to purpurate onto the people.

Interbane wrote:Most likely? You don’t need to throw out guesses. We already know that DNA changes, and enough change over time is what has given rise to the diversity of life on earth. Not that randomly swapping out entire chromosomes would result in a viable organism. Of all changes to DNA, a small subset is inevitably beneficial. Those remain, and others don’t. If you think it through, you see the algorithmic elegance of the mechanism.

Yet we have never actually observed an animal sustaining enough dna mutations to morph into a new animal so we should just take it on faith that it is possible because that is convenient for the utility of your beliefs.

The truth is that you don't know what the full capabilities of dna are that allow new traits to activate in an organism. Your scientists believe that something like 95% of DNA is junk DNA. That is a scientific term for they refuse to admit that they don't understand what it does, but they want to sound smart like they have it all figured out. There may be something in your dna that allows you to be a ten foot tall blue giant. If it was for some reason activated you would not be a new species even though you would appear to be.

Magus wrote:I don't think I'm making an assumption the same way you are when you assume there are laws. I'm just acknowledging [assuming] that the universe has unlimited powers to change and is under no obligation to adhere to your laws. The basis for this claim is [the assumption] that the universe was created and if it can be created than it [assumedly] can be changed.

Your writings are littered with assumptions that you state with confidence. I’ve bracketed some above.

Magus wrote:I'm very glad that your able to admit that uniformitarianism is based off an assumption because I think to assume that natural laws and processes that appear to operate here in present day have always operated and operate everywhere the same as here is a spurious presumption made with no supporting evidence.

There is plenty of supporting evidence that this assumption is on the right path. What makes you think there is none? From the standardization methods of cosmology to the converging conclusions of historical forensics here on Earth, we have evidence of uniformity over vast distances and long timelines.

Magus wrote:All science is doing is stacking assumptions on top of assumptions passing them off as undeniable fact justifying doing so by saying look at what clever devices we were able to conceive. If we were able to make computers and I Phones then you should believe our assumptions about the universe because look how smart we are. I'm sorry, I like your clever gadgets, but your in no position to tell me how the universe functions it's vastly incomprehensible to you.

It's not just about the gadgets. It’s about the instances where hard sciences are applied(in the applied sciences, of course) in ways that would be impossible if we didn’t have correct scientific conclusions underpinning them. In spite of your emotional dismissal, there is truth to this reasoning. Perhaps that’s why your dismissal is so emotional, you don’t have a reasonable counter argument.

And it isn’t the case that science is stacking assumptions on top of assumptions. Sure, there are axiomatic assumptions at the philosophical foundations, within any of the variants of naturalism. There is no worldview without them. You have them, everyone has them, sort of like buttholes. The fact that science stacks evidence on top of an initial assumption is only a weakness in the sense that every worldview has the same weakness. By pursuing this argument, you undermine your own worldview also.

If we are forced to pick an axiomatic assumption or set of assumptions(we are), then by what process do you compare the various possible assumptions? Some assumptions will necessarily be closer to the truth than others, but how do you figure that out? There’s a correlation found in sudoku, where an assumption is required to solve the puzzle. In some of the more difficult puzzles, you can’t simply solve them without having a set of assumptions in some of the earlier squares. As the puzzle is worked and things begin to fall into place, it’s obvious which previous assumptions were correct, and the incorrect ones can be crossed out.

Dismissing the products of science as a litmus test of the efficacy of the underlying assumptions is foolish. What do you have as an alternate? Show me how your understanding of the world is so vastly superior that I should accept your axiomatic assumptions rather than those of naturalism. Any pragmatic person would dismiss your ideas.

Magus wrote:If you wish to hold scientific assumptions to be true for the usefulness, convenience, and false sense of security they provide you I wish to take nothing from you. Only know that I have no need for such assumptions.

It's a philosophical assumption I’m referring to, rather than a scientific one. You have an entirely different set of assumptions. Or perhaps you share some. But don’t fool yourself into thinking you have none. You simply haven’t explored your beliefs enough to see that your assumptions are every bit as spurious you claim others’ to be.

Magus wrote:My world view is that life is a miracle and a great mystery where the limits of what is possible is completely unknown.

Do you mean, life is a miracle in the sense of a naturalist miracle, or a supernaturalist miracle? Either way you go, there’s an underlying assumption. And why do you assume the limits of what is possible are completely unknown? How would you know if we’ve stumbled across parameters that are fundamental universal limits?

Magus wrote:Your own science tells you this when you consider that all your sensory data is turned into electrical signals to be interpreted by your brain. So the entire world you are experiencing is merely a creation of your mind and this creation before it is projected onto your walls of perception must pass through the filters of your beliefs altering it, shaping it, molding it.

That we cannot directly experience objective reality, because we can only do so as part of the causal web, is not an argument against the existence of an objective reality. It’s merely a limitation of how we experience it. And contrary to the idea that our experience is nothing like the “absolute core reality”(whatever that means), there are very good reasons to believe our experiences are in tune with objective reality. If we did not see at least partial truth of the world around us, we could not survive. We could not function by any means other than accidental success. Accidentally avoiding poisons and accidentally not shooting ourselves. Accidentally taking the right medicines at the right times. Accidentally not cooking our own forearms and eating them.

But, you’re right that it is only partial truth, because our sensory faculties are limited, and the sensory datum must pass through filters of belief. Yet the scope of what sensory datum is tainted by our beliefs is primarily limited to complex experiences. For example, our beliefs don’t taint the sensory experience of feeling wind in your face and seeing swelling storm clouds in the distance so much that we believe there’s no chance a storm will hit. This is a relatively simple experience, without much room for the taint of belief to lead you to a false conclusion. Believing there’s an imminent chance of rain isn’t an accidental arrival at a truthful conclusion, it’s a perception of reality shared by everyone and interpreted the same.

Now, if that same stormcloud formed a pattern that resembled the head of Jesus Christ, then we have a good example of a complex sensory experience, highly prone to being tainted by belief. In this case, your wisdom is spot on.

And yet, this is still all an argument in favor of the methods of science. Why would we rely on our faulty and varying senses to understand the world, or rely on our beliefs as the only filters? The scientific method outsources much of the sensory input to standardized devices, and outsources the filtering of data through methodological restrictions like reproducibility, double-blind tests, control variables, etc.

Magus wrote:Thought is the creative force in the universe. Science has gotten it purposely backwards when they assume that matter gives rise to consciousness. As all the ancients knew it is consciousness that creates matter. There is not a single scientist on the planet that could ever explain how something solid and physical like the brain could ever give rise to something unsolid and unphysical like the conscious experience that you are currently having. That is the biggest lie that science has tried to purpurate onto the people.

I wouldn’t look to science for this explanation, although it does a good job meeting philosophy halfway. The primary source would be philosophy, and there are quite a few philosophers who give an excellent explanation of the emergent phenomenon of consciousness. Dennett, Kahneman, Harris.

Magus wrote:Yet we have never actually observed an animal sustaining enough dna mutations to morph into a new animal so we should just take it on faith that it is possible because that is convenient for the utility of your beliefs.

Yet we have never actually observed erosion as vast as that behind the formation of the grand canyon, so we should just take it on faith that it is possible.

Sorry Magus, that’s not how it works. We are able to know a great deal of how something operates or came to be, without actually living alongside it or watching all the mechanisms in action. How many murders are solved because the jury has firsthand video evidence of the murderer pulling the trigger?

Magus wrote:The truth is that you don't know what the full capabilities of dna are that allow new traits to activate in an organism. Your scientists believe that something like 95% of DNA is junk DNA. That is a scientific term for they refuse to admit that they don't understand what it does, but they want to sound smart like they have it all figured out.

I like how you think you know better than the experts, even in the sense that you pretend to have more humility than they do regarding the unknown. Evolutionary biologists know what some of the junk or non-coding DNA is. Whether it’s interpolated viral DNA, pseudogenes, noncoding RNA components, or duplication errors. But I can tell you that they don’t pretend to have it all figured out. Every journal paper I’ve read on the topic admits ignorance.

Magus, you are arguing epistemology of the monistic idealism branch and the hard problem of consciousness. That's all well and good but it doesn't really have anything to do with evolution or science. Science deals with the world as we empirically encounter it not why we encounter that way and not some other way. Monistic idealism does NOT answer all the questions or even most of them and those philosophers who adhere to it will be the first to admit it. Science deals with what we can know and how it alters our view of the universe. If you want to argue the hard problem of consciousness and how it squares with science, a deep study of quantum theory may be of help. But you're just spinning your wheels on this thread.

Interbane wrote:There is plenty of supporting evidence that this assumption is on the right path. What makes you think there is none? From the standardization methods of cosmology to the converging conclusions of historical forensics here on Earth, we have evidence of uniformity over vast distances and long timelines.

I'm not saying that any of the laws are wrong, I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to believe these laws are fixed indefinitely. What you call vast distances and long time lines is only a speck in a infinite universe. What it boils down to is that people desperately want to feel like they are in control of something. People think if they could just figure out all the laws of the universe and understand them then they could conquer, control, and rule over the universe. This is not likely going to happen. In actuality people have very little control over their lives that's why they constantly seek to control others to make up for the lack of control they have in their own life.

Interbane wrote:Dismissing the products of science as a litmus test of the efficacy of the underlying assumptions is foolish. What do you have as an alternate? Show me how your understanding of the world is so vastly superior that I should accept your axiomatic assumptions rather than those of naturalism. Any pragmatic person would dismiss your ideas.

You shouldn't accept any assumptions from anybody. You should form your own conclusions based off of your personal experiences. Teaching theories to children as fact at a young age when they are too young to question what your telling them is morally wrong even damaging and I'm talking about religions to.

Interbane wrote:Do you mean, life is a miracle in the sense of a naturalist miracle, or a supernaturalist miracle? Either way you go, there’s an underlying assumption. And why do you assume the limits of what is possible are completely unknown? How would you know if we’ve stumbled across parameters that are fundamental universal limits?

I mean its a miracle in the sense that it shouldn't have logically happened to begin with yet here we are having this conversation. If everything can magically pop into existence than that should tell you there are no limits to what is possible because life itself defies all logic. The only real limitations are the limitations of the imagination of the creative mind and I still assert that those limitations are unknown to us.

Now your question is, is that an assumption on my part? You want me to admit that I have made assumptions also so that you can then compare my assumptions to scientific assumptions and show that neither is more valid than the other. The difference is that I don't make assumptions about things I don't know about I willingly accept the unknown where as science refuses to accept the unknown and instead makes up theories to explain everything even admitting that some of the theories may be wrong, but assuming that if they are wrong they will be fixed later when more evidence is accumulated like what Darwin did when he assumed transitional fossils would be found in the future to support Alfred Russel Wallace's theory.

DB Roy wrote:Magus, you are arguing epistemology of the monistic idealism branch and the hard problem of consciousness. That's all well and good but it doesn't really have anything to do with evolution or science. Science deals with the world as we empirically encounter it not why we encounter that way and not some other way. Monistic idealism does NOT answer all the questions or even most of them and those philosophers who adhere to it will be the first to admit it. Science deals with what we can know and how it alters our view of the universe. If you want to argue the hard problem of consciousness and how it squares with science, a deep study of quantum theory may be of help. But you're just spinning your wheels on this thread.

I disagree that it doesn't have anything to do with evolution. Evolution is under the premise that life and consciousness is emerging from organisms that are mysteriously and unexplainably developing from a simple form to a more complex one. If it was shown that actually it's consciousness that is creating the organisms and not the other way around wouldn't that disprove evolution?

Magus wrote:I'm not saying that any of the laws are wrong, I'm just pointing out that there's no reason to believe these laws are fixed indefinitely. What you call vast distances and long time lines is only a speck in a infinite universe. What it boils down to is that people desperately want to feel like they are in control of something. People think if they could just figure out all the laws of the universe and understand them then they could conquer, control, and rule over the universe.

You must meet some interesting people! Sounds like Pinky and the Brain. I think if you skip the general public who aren’t experts on the philosophy of science, and asked a philosopher of science at random, they’d all tell you there is no certainty of the laws remaining indefinitely fixed.

I’m all about educating the masses and correcting misunderstandings, but I think it should be done in the direction of a better understanding of the topic. Instead, your agenda isn’t to advance an understanding of the topic, but to use it as a wedge to push them away from science into esoteric beliefs. It’s a weak defense to claim you’re merely pointing out weaknesses, because you give no context of how those weaknesses are well known in academia, and how they do not detract from the confidence of scientific conclusions.

Magus wrote:You shouldn't accept any assumptions from anybody. You should form your own conclusions based off of your personal experiences. Teaching theories to children as fact at a young age when they are too young to question what your telling them is morally wrong even damaging and I'm talking about religions to.

If we’re individually left to form our own conclusions based on our own experiences, we would have no language, no math, and not even primitive tools. There’s no other way for civilization to advance to learn from others. As long as we have good teachers, they will guide us to recognize what are assumptions, what is evidence, and what methods are best for filtering information. They would guide us to challenge those assumptions and find better ones. Challenge the methods and find better ones. Challenge the information without bias.

The theory of evolution is indeed a fact, don’t let your layman’s misunderstanding of the term “theory” throw you off. There is no higher rung on the ladder of certainty. Speculation>Hypothesis>Theory. That’s as good as it gets, and when supported by overwhelming evidence over long periods of time from dozens of disciplines, a theory can most certainly be called factual.

You know what’s truly morally wrong and damaging? Dismissing science as new age religion and merely a form of social control, without first understanding it. We’ve had enough back and forth in this thread for me to see that you only grasp a few basics, but have grasped onto quite a few misconceptions. You’re in no position to dismiss something you don’t understand, and to advise others to do the same.

Magus wrote:I mean its a miracle in the sense that it shouldn't have logically happened to begin with yet here we are having this conversation. If everything can magically pop into existence than that should tell you there are no limits to what is possible because life itself defies all logic. The only real limitations are the limitations of the imagination of the creative mind and I still assert that those limitations are unknown to us.

This is still littered with assumptions. What is the logical impossibility of life? Are you talking classical logic, Boolean logic? Street logic? Magus, explore yourself here, these are core assumptions. How do you know everything magically popped into existence, rather than having existed forever? I understand you can expand on these items, but if they can be broken into additional premises, they aren't the foundation.

Magus wrote:Now your question is, is that an assumption on my part? You want me to admit that I have made assumptions also so that you can then compare my assumptions to scientific assumptions and show that neither is more valid than the other.

This is more or less true, and I’m not hiding it. We all have assumptions, and build from there. But I wouldn’t say that neither assumption is more valid than the other. Some assumptions lead to worldviews that do not correspond to how things work. Those assumptions, by virtue of the beliefs they produce, are either faulty or flat out wrong.

Interbane wrote:I’m all about educating the masses and correcting misunderstandings, but I think it should be done in the direction of a better understanding of the topic. Instead, your agenda isn’t to advance an understanding of the topic, but to use it as a wedge to push them away from science into esoteric beliefs. It’s a weak defense to claim you’re merely pointing out weaknesses, because you give no context of how those weaknesses are well known in academia, and how they do not detract from the confidence of scientific conclusions.

In my opinion science has far less validity and credibility than the esoteric beliefs of the past. The flaw is that people that believe in evolution think people of the past were dumb and so all their beliefs must be dumb because we are getting smarter as we go, evolving. The opposite is true, we are being dumbed down, regressing. The knowledge of the ancient peoples is far greater than the knowledge of today which has been corrupted and served to the masses like slop in a pig pen. The ancients were here for thousands (most likely hundreds of thousands or millions) of years accumulating vast knowledge about the cosmos, the planets, and more importantly themselves, but the new age has only been around for a few hundred years yet it seeks to eliminate the ancient teachings while today's society destroys all indigenous cultures across the planet that live in harmony with nature preserving ancient wisdom are our true origins as powerful spiritual energetic creative beings.

In the same way that evolution doesn't account for animals arising into the fossil record in great spurts very quickly and not over a long slow period of time, evolution also doesn't account for how advanced ancient civilizations came into existence very quickly fully formed and then slowly degraded over time not the other way around how evolution would have predicted.

Interbane wrote: You know what’s truly morally wrong and damaging? Dismissing science as new age religion and merely a form of social control, without first understanding it. We’ve had enough back and forth in this thread for me to see that you only grasp a few basics, but have grasped onto quite a few misconceptions. You’re in no position to dismiss something you don’t understand, and to advise others to do the same.

In the same way that you don't need to fully read any particular holy scripture and fully understand it to know that it is a man made story, I don't need to read every piece of scientific literature and fully understand it to know that they are giving me a world view the same way any religion does.

Here is an undeniable fact for you, science provides a world view just like every religion offers a particular world view. You may justify this scientific world view of yours with all your scientific facts which you have faith in, but regardless your still a peddler of world views just the same as religion. The reason people always seek to spread their world view onto others no matter what it is, is because the more people that share your same world view will validate that world view for you and you will seek to be around those people.

If scientists would stick to making their clever gadgets and stop attempting to come up with theories to explain what is vastly incomprehensible to them I would respect them more and only then could I say that they are being objective. As it stands now scientists will fight tooth and nail to defend their claims even if that means having to throw away opposing evidence or silence the opposition. They are maintaining the status quo of the rulers that fund them and nothing more and I mean you no disrespect personally, but if you can't see that then you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and the wolves are circling.

Interbane wrote:This is still littered with assumptions. What is the logical impossibility of life? Are you talking classical logic, Boolean logic? Street logic? Magus, explore yourself here, these are core assumptions. How do you know everything magically popped into existence, rather than having existed forever? I understand you can expand on these items, but if they can be broken into additional premises, they aren't the foundation.

Don't you see, whether everything mysteriously popped into existence, or it has magically always existed with no beginning and no end, either option defies all logic, is a complete paradox, and an utter miracle.

Magus wrote:In my opinion science has far less validity and credibility than the esoteric beliefs of the past. The flaw is that people that believe in evolution think people of the past were dumb and so all their beliefs must be dumb because we are getting smarter as we go, evolving. The opposite is true, we are being dumbed down, regressing. The knowledge of the ancient peoples is far greater than the knowledge of today which has been corrupted and served to the masses like slop in a pig pen. The ancients were here for thousands (most likely hundreds of thousands or millions) of years accumulating vast knowledge about the cosmos, the planets, and more importantly themselves, but the new age has only been around for a few hundred years yet it seeks to eliminate the ancient teachings while today's society destroys all indigenous cultures across the planet that live in harmony with nature preserving ancient wisdom are our true origins as powerful spiritual energetic creative beings.

I disagree when you say science has less validity and credibility. It is the best method of producing knowledge in human history. Maybe some Roman philosophy was greater, but I see those works as the greatness of select individuals, rather than products of a system.
Don’t conflate science with mass stupidity. Just because science is the best tool we have to minimize human interference on producing knowledge doesn’t mean we’re equipped to handle the results with moral integrity. It doesn’t mean the majority of us will comprehend the results. It doesn’t mean everyone will follow the best methods and keep their biases in check. It doesn’t mean we aren’t dumb in other ways. Science tells us we’re causing global warming, but our politics denies it. We’re dumb in spite of science, not because of it. If anything, we have information overload.

What the ancients knew about the cosmos is a drop in the ocean of what we know today. They may have had exceedingly keen insights that have been lost to time, but those would be exceptions, not the rule.

In the same way that evolution doesn't account for animals arising into the fossil record in great spurts very quickly and not over a long slow period of time, evolution also doesn't account for how advanced ancient civilizations came into existence very quickly fully formed and then slowly degraded over time not the other way around how evolution would have predicted.

Evolution doesn’t predict the rise and fall of civilizations. Where did you read this? Evolution does account for massive speciation events,however, even if you’re in the phyletic gradualism camp instead of the punctuated equilibrium camp.

In the same way that you don't need to fully read any particular holy scripture and fully understand it to know that it is a man made story, I don't need to read every piece of scientific literature and fully understand it to know that they are giving me a world view the same way any religion does.

It’s a worldview, but not the same as one fabricated from myths and legends. If you want a name for it, it’s Methodological Naturalism. I think it can be improved with philosophy, however, into Metaphysical Naturalism.

Here is an undeniable fact for you, science provides a world view just like every religion offers a particular world view. You may justify this scientific world view of yours with all your scientific facts which you have faith in, but regardless your still a peddler of world views just the same as religion. The reason people always seek to spread their world view onto others no matter what it is, is because the more people that share your same world view will validate that world view for you and you will seek to be around those people.

Just like assumptions, everyone has a worldview. Why do you mention this like it’s some secret? And what makes you think some worldviews aren’t vastly more truthful than others? We can keep going on this thread, and I can make a strong case that metaphysical naturalism far more verisimilitude than any other worldview.

If scientists would stick to making their clever gadgets and stop attempting to come up with theories to explain what is vastly incomprehensible to them I would respect them more and only then could I say that they are being objective.

You missed my previous point that many of these gadgets would simply not work unless we had an understanding of the cosmos. GPS from Satellites and the theory of relativity, for example. Nearly any electronic gadget and electromagnetism. Everything from fluid dynamics to evolutionary biology to geology, we create stuff by virtue of understanding how the world works.

As it stands now scientists will fight tooth and nail to defend their claims even if that means having to throw away opposing evidence or silence the opposition. They are maintaining the status quo of the rulers that fund them and nothing more and I mean you no disrespect personally, but if you can't see that then you have had the wool pulled over your eyes and the wolves are circling.

Right, science is a vast conspiracy funded by private interests. I mean no disrespect personally, but if you think this is true you’re delusional. I’m fully aware there is pressure from money in science, as there is in any human enterprise. But there is a great deal of the structure of science dedicated to fighting against this exact thing.

The commercialization of research is troubling. But that doesn’t mean the findings are worthless or completely wrong. If a pharmaceutical company funds a study, the fact that they’re a stakeholder in the results should make the results questionable, and it does. But those results, if reproducible and supported by other experiments from third parties or universities, aren't far off the mark. If these companies didn’t show honest results, the efficacy of drugs sent to market would simply be random, or worse. Our modern ability to keep people alive is almost magic, except that it’s based on science. Not that I don’t have a great disdain for the way medicine is for-profit, and how so many drugs are pushed through the system with harmful side effects. Yet even then, science doesn’t play favorites. Knowledge accumulates and advances, and given enough time studies emerge that show trends over longer timetables.

Any graduate student who performs a reproducible experiment that goes against existing knowledge has the opportunity to make history. Obviously, the paradigm won’t shift overnight, but if the person has stumbled across something previously unknown that changes our collective understanding, the paradigm will inevitably shift. Such a scenario is a lifelong goal and dream of many aspiring scientists, and if you think these people’s findings are somehow silenced by money or politics, you aren’t watching. Just in the last week, I’ve read journal articles challenging Einstein’s theory of relativity. Nobody mocks the results or calls them stupid or says the people need to fall in line. Instead, they look at the methods used in the experiment, see if it can be reproduced, see if it makes sense, then applaud the person or group.

I’m guessing your idea of science as a conspiracy only applies to evolution? I mean, do you doubt existing knowledge of how aurora borealis works? Or photosynthesis? Or Volcanos? Sweeping dismissals may be emotionally appealing for you in pushing your esoteric worldview, but why not give some details? Is there some mistake in the periodic table we don’t know about? Is visible light not actually between 400 and 700 nanometers on the EM spectrum? Were the gravity waves sensed last year actually something else?
I enjoy discussing the philosophy of science, and will continue in this thread. But unless you have some specific examples of where you find issue, I’m going to ignore it as emotional language with no substance.

Don't you see, whether everything mysteriously popped into existence, or it has magically always existed with no beginning and no end, either option defies all logic, is a complete paradox, and an utter miracle.

It’s amazing to think about, sure. But I don’t see what logic is defied, or what’s paradoxical about it. I don’t think we understand how things came to be well enough to make these assumptions.