|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1594 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: NvC-1: What is the premise of Naturalism in Biology? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Matter and energy provide information/data that can be measured. How do they do that? What form does this communication of information take?Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
AZPaul3 writes: It is information/data that can be perceived, measured and interpreted. How do they do that? What form does this communication of information take?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
It is information/data that can be perceived, measured and interpreted. I contend the information/data does not exist in the object. I contend the information/data does not exist until the object is perceived and measured within the mind. I contend the information/data is created and exists only in the mind. Then the information can be analysed, interpreted and conclusions drawn. The object is not even an onion field until a mind concludes it is an onion field regardless of what the configuration of the matter/energy may be.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1648 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Science studies what it can observe. It makes no assumptions. The concept of naturalism in science is a conclusion not a premise - you have it all the wrong way round. Sorry, is this correct? If science did not assume that life consists only of matter, then wouldn't we have satisfactory answers to any and all data? With no constraints on theory, it's simple to overfit any finite set of data. I think science only works because we assume that all things are guided by natural laws, and aim to discover the laws. Edited by Ben!, : No reason given. Edited by Ben!, : gotta get the quoting right!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Sorry, is this correct? Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies. Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy. That conclusion is still only tentatively held pending any further observations to the contrary. However, our confidence in that conclusion is now so high that we can logically legitimately, tentatively consider it to be true in any further study until given a strong, a very strong, reason to question it. Science works because we assume nothing and follow the data, and only the data, wherever it goes. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1648 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined:
|
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything in matter/energy before its studies. Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this? As a scientist, I believe this is incorrect. Here's why:
quote: In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws. When we fail to do so, we never EVER jump to "it must be metaphysical". Instead, we keep iterating on empirical laws.
Science concluded that everything is matter/energy after observing a whole big bunch of things and never finding anything that is not matter/energy. Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry. Yet, we have not moved to assuming there's a "soul", nor accepted eastern explanations for consciousness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard L. Wang Member (Idle past 1594 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
What I wrote in RLW(215) is
quote: While what you quoted in AZPaul3(217) of what I wrote in RLW(215) is
quote: Have you found the difference?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Richard L. Wang Member (Idle past 1594 days) Posts: 104 From: Ottawa, ON, Canada Joined: |
When designing/making player piano, do only natural laws play a role?
The 1+1=2 is just for a question: do only natural laws play a role in our daily life? In fact, many issues will cause the same question.When you write your posts in English, do only the natural laws play a role? What about English vocabulary and grammar? When you decide to travel to A or B, do only the natural laws play a role? What do you think of these factors: schedule, transportation, weather, meal, These examples come from our daily life, everyone has experience. I use these issues just for asking questions. Human neural network of humans is so complex that we cannot obtain clear answers on these questions. Therefore, I’ll discuss genetic information in detail, because the processes of genetic information are essentially understood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17907 Joined: Member Rating: 7.3 |
quote: Now you are really getting into unanswered questions, and abandoning your claim that you were only going to talk about genetic information, too. I think that the question of consciousness is really going beyond the topic and too far into speculation. Nevertheless, the player piano, like the cell phone, like the calculator functions according to natural law - and relies on natural law to function.
quote: Certainly they are better understood. But again, that’s where your ideas run into trouble,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Science did not assume the conclusion that everything is matter/energy before its studies.
Hate to be pedantic, but could you provide some support for this? The early scientists/alchemists like Galileo and Newton made no such assumptions but only followed their data, right? After hundreds of years study we now accept naturalism as the default but not as a dogma. Scientific method:
quote: In science, we have to start with a hypothesis. I believe the underlying hypothesis of science is: we can explain the observable universe via empirical laws. We start with a hypothesis of the problem not any hypothesis of Science. There is no underlying hypothesis to science. I find nowhere in Popper, Hume, Feynman or any other philosopher were any "underlying hypothesis to science" is assumed. Yes, we are quite confident that naturalism is the default but science, by its very nature, eschews any such absolute dogma.
Easy counter-example: consciousness. No physical theories, sorry. You mean consciousness (mind) as an emergent property of the complex electro-chemical operations of a brain? That sounds pretty physical to me. See Gerald Edelman, Antonio Damasio and Daniel Dennett.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
Have you found the difference? Sorry. I'm being dense. Please explain.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ben! Member (Idle past 1648 days) Posts: 1161 From: Hayward, CA Joined: |
Thanks for the replies, I appreciate the time. At the same time, my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point.
I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here, and I have way too limited time to engage at the depth necessary to get what I wish out of this conversation. Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6223 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
AZPaul3 writes: This sounds something like the observer principle in QM, so now we are once again way beyond my pay grade. Maybe you can help me out here Ben. The object is not even an onion field until a mind concludes it is an onion field regardless of what the configuration of the matter/energy may be. Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
my general feeling is that you're not only getting my point, you don't want to get my point. Sorry you feel that way. If I don't get your point it is not for the lack of trying. And, on such subjects, I have my own points to make.
I find good conversations steel-man each other's arguments before finding counter-examples. It's not happening here ... Did you do this prior to your quick countering with "consciousness" to begin with? Besides, the discussions here are not all that complex where steel-manning is more useful. Unless you didn't express yourself properly. You did mean to say science assumes naturalism as dogma, right? The "underlying hypothesis", yes?
Again, appreciate the efforts, and will look elsewhere for more collaborative conversations. And I appreciate your candor. If you tire of collaborative and want more challenge then please come back and I'll see if I am up to it.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8654 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Are you saying then that we require a non-physical consciousness to create data/information? I'm saying data/information are human constructs and exist in the mind not in the object. And I very much doubt there is such a thing as a non-physical consciousness. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Factio Republicana delenda est.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024