Oh no not another free will thread.

[Edwardo Piet]

No......... you keep confusing philosophy and science.

So it's fully like theism.  Just coming to whatever conclusions you feel like coming to, without having to tie it to anything tangible.  That's not really my bag.

Nope. What on earth do you think I said that implied that?

I'm just pointing out your own apparent inability to distinguish between science and philosophy.

Do you believe all reality exists in the heads of humans? Or do you believe there is actually an objective world outside of science?

Sure, we can't know that there's an objective world outside of science/experience... but you think it's "like theism" to suppose that there might be?

[henryp]

So it's fully like theism.  Just coming to whatever conclusions you feel like coming to, without having to tie it to anything tangible.  That's not really my bag.

Nope. What on earth do you think I said that implied that?

I'm just pointing out your own apparent inability to distinguish between science and philosophy.

Do you believe all reality exists in the heads of humans? Or do you believe there is actually an objective world outside of science?

Sure, we can't know that there's an objective world outside of science/experience... but you think it's "like theism" to suppose that there might be?

You seem to side with (at a minimum present as a viable alternative) your 'intuition' over science.  That's theism 1o1.  

Might as well be talking about intelligent design.  It's the same "Yeah, but what about my poorly formed baseless opinion!  Did you take that into consideration!" fundamentals.

[Edwardo Piet]

You seem to side with (at a minimum present as a viable alternative) your 'intuition' over science.  That's theism 1o1.  

How many times do I have to say I 100% accept all the science?

I'm not contradicting any science. I'm talking on two levels and you keep conflating them.

Might as well be talking about intelligent design.  It's the same "Yeah, but what about my poorly formed baseless opinion!  Did you take that into consideration!" fundamentals.

Such a strawman. You don't understand my position. How underwhelming.

Why do you think I put a quote form Grandizer about me at the top of my signature? Because it was such a breath of fresh air for someone to actually understand what I was talking about for once.

Now, I asked you:

Do you believe all reality exists in the heads of humans? Or do you believe there is actually an objective world outside of science?

[henryp]

Your second level is nonsense. Which is fine. There's nothing wrong with pondering things. But it carries 0 weight. So you using it as an escape hatch to get out of a position you don't like is theistic.

Objective world outside of science? Can you word the question more clearly. What constitutes 'inside of science.'

[Edwardo Piet]

Your second level is nonsense.  Which is fine.

That's just what people say to me when they've repeatedly made it clear to me they have no idea what the fuck I'm talking about.

 There's nothing wrong with pondering things.  But it carries 0 weight.  So you using it as an escape hatch to get out of a position you don't like is theistic.

Do you not know the distinction between epistemology and metaphysics? "What we're capable of knowing" and "what actually exists" don't mean the same thing, you know.

I'm not being theistic at all... you keep completely misrepresenting what I am actually saying and ignoring my arguments, failing to notice a distinction and thinking more follows from science than it actually does. Why the fuck am I even wasting my time on your underwhelming self when I know you are both categorically and absolutely 100% wrong about what you're saying and you're clearly not open to or capable of understanding my point? Oh yeah... I'm bored. And I have no one better to talk to. Literally LadyForCamus is the only person nowadays who I seem to be able to actually have a proper discussion about this sort of stuff with (so far). Even when we disagree she at least listens to my point of view and doesn't mischaracterize it. When she doens't understand it she asks me to clarify. None of this stuff where you're basically saying stuff like "I don't understand what you're saying so rather than ask for clarification I'll just double down on my own simplistic viewpoint and assume it's nonsense and as bad as theism when really I'm just unable to distinguish between the world and the world as it is known".

Objective world outside of science?  Can you word the question more clearly.  What constitutes 'inside of science.'

I've already spoke of it repeatedly. Science deals with phenomena, not noumena. Science is empirical: It deals with reality as we experience it. It doesn't deal with objective reality outside of our experience of it.

---

Might as well be talking about intelligent design.  It's the same "Yeah, but what about my poorly formed baseless opinion!  Did you take that into consideration!"

Er... no.

Characterize my view for me in your own words. Let's see if you actually understand what I'm saying. Maybe that will stop you strawmanning me. I'm not asserting anything that contradicts science... you just keep misunderstanding what I'm actually saying.

[henryp]

So the shortcoming of your non-science position, is that your 'intuition' is science.  It's shitty science, but science none the less.  

It's the observation of one's own mind.  And our minds are very solidly in our reality.  Your intuition and ideas have no ties to 'the objective world beyond the reality we experience.'  It's just your physical brain looking at your observed reality, and coming up with some guesses based on those things.

---

Isn't that exactly what happens after a quantum event occurs?  We know the result with absolute certainty, without knowing why or how the result happened?

Isn't it known mathematically though? That works in the same way as logic.

As far as I'm concerned there is no "why"... only how. And the how is shown with the math.

I think the problem is that it seems acausal because the math appears to turn out differently each time, or something like that?

Then I go back to my point that ultimately in objective reality I think there are causes. They're just beyond our reach. The math is based on our experience. We're not testing reality we're testing our experience of reality. Our experience of reality is, of course, all we can ever experience, hehe.

Here is an example of using the 'objective reality' escape hatch.  You 'think' there are causes.  I made, I think, a really strong point about prior knowledge not making acausal events causal.  And then you went off all over the place with the philosophy nonsense (more followed this post) to get away from it.  

That's something you do.

[Edwardo Piet]

So the shortcoming of your non-science position, is that your 'intuition' is science.  It's shitty science, but science none the less.  

Sigh. How much longer should I waste my time on telling you on what I'm NOT saying before I just give up because it's like you're not even trying to understand me?

What about my intuition do you think is a scientific claim? I'm literally talking about whatever is outside of science! How can that be a scientific claim?

It's the observation of one's own mind.  And our minds are very solidly in our reality.  Your intuition and ideas have no ties to 'the objective world beyond the reality we experience.'  It's just your physical brain looking at your observed reality, and coming up with some guesses based on those things.

You say our minds are very solidly in "our reality". Well yes, they are in the sense that we filter whatever real objective reality is through our senses... but my point is that we can't perceive things as they actually are, and science is filtered through all of that. "Our reality" is subjective, and science's objective understanding of reality is only epistemically objective, it's not ontologically objective. We are able to objectively assess the world as we experience it as subjects. Science is a epistemically objective study of ontological subjectivity. Ontological objectivity outside of subjectivity is ultimately unnkowable by defintion. Because knowledge requires minds and we can only know what our minds are able to perceive. As soon as we're testing something outside of the mind, it is filtered through our mind... so we're only seeing the universe from the point of view of ourselves, not from the universe's own point of view, obviously. We don't see things how they actually are. We see things as we see them, science just helps us get a more accurate picture of the world as we see it. Even when we learn about how bats experience the world through eccolation, even that understanding is an understanding of bats filtered through our own senses.

We can never know if objective reality is different outside of our minds or not.

My intuition doesn't touch science at all. I'm specifically talking about an intuition about what is outside of science. My intuition is that there is an objective world outside of ourselves.... do you think there isn't? Do you think that if you're alone in a room and you became 100% unconscious the room would disappear because they're nothing outside of experience? And then as soon as someone enters the room it appears? That would be unfalsifiable, we can't prove reality isn't like that.... but my intuition certainly doesn't believe that's how reality is. I believe that there is a room there whether any conscious beings are there or not. Do you disagree with that supposedly "unscientific" intuition?

We don't see things as they actually are. I'm merely saying that science represents our best attempts to understand the world around us as they actually are but all those attempts are entirely based on our experience. It is a highly accurate and solidly successful viewpoint about the world as we experience. To say that science tests the world outside our experience is absurd because literally the entirety of science is empirical and in case you didn't know (by this point you're starting to sound very, very dense so I wouldn't be surprised): "empirical" means:

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

I rest my case. A case you aren't even addressing because you don't understand what I'm actually saying. I'm not talking about science, you're talking about science... and I'm only bringing it up to explain to you why what I'm talking about doesn't contradict science. See my signature, some people understand me.

Science deals with phenomena.

And the more you talk about science the more it seems to me that I understand how science works as a whole far better than you do, even if you know more sciencey details because you find it less mindnumbingly boring than I do.

The most interesting aspect of science to me is how it works in general. The scientific method, the philosophy of science, falsifaiblity. I love how science works and I love empiricism. I love knowing what science is about and what it isn't about.

Random facts about quantum mechanics bore me to death. But that doesn't mean I can't see very clearly that you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. "Because science" isn't a response to something that isn't even talking about science.

I'm talking philosophy and logic. Not theism. You sound very ridiculous to me.

Lawrence Krauss is an example of a person who is an amazing scientist but absolutely terrible philosopher. Which is fine, because he's not a philosopher. But his lack of understanding of philosophy is extremely embarassing when he starts making philosophical claims. This is why both philosophers and more philosophically minded physicists criticized him highly, and rightly, for his insistence that a universe came from "nothing".

So perhaps you will understand that you can be wrong about this when fucking Lawrence Krauss can be wrong about philosophical stuff and yet when it comes to the scientific claims he makes he's very right and I don't disagree with him on that. What he calls nothing is indeed what the universe came from. But just because he wants to call that "nothing" doesn't make it nothing.

Scientists are able to make completely correct scientific discoveries but still draw completely baseless philosophical conclusions from it. I can accept all the science without blindly thinking that when scientists start drawing false conclusions that are nothing to do with science that they're right just because they're good at science.

This is why you're more like a theist than I am. You just blindly trust scientists even when they make claims that are outside their field and have nothing to do with science. Ironically, that's what a theist does. Blindly trusts people rather than thinking for themselves. I trust expert scientists insofar as they are talking about science. Once they start talking about other things I'm not going to blindly trust them.

[Angrboda]

[Edwardo Piet]

I always find it funny how people like henryp react when they don't understand something. It's that classic "I can't make sense of it so it must not make sense" retort. And it's like their ego is too large to ask for clarification even when I'm encouraging them to do so.

[henryp]

You think the objective reality is Causal. Why? You talk about logic. Let's see some. Give us some premises, and draw some conclusions that are more substantive than "Hammy has a gut feeling". You can understand being dismissive of ideas who's bedrock is "Hammy's intuition says..." right?

Because that's what you've presented.

Science at the moment says the world appears to have some a-causal events. Some scientists are skeptical because of everything else we've observed, and are attempting to reconcile the premise of causal existence with the observation of a seemingly acausal event. But YOU are saying "Nah, I think the objective reality is causal, because of a feeling."

Do you see how foolish your opinion looks in that context? You lack substance. And that's why you have to ramble on about the definitions of types of thought rather than make an intelligent case for your stance. Because there is no intelligent case to be made.

As I said, it's fine if you want to make conclusions on stuff like presentism and causal existence. But it's nonsense. It's just meaningless words. That is true regardless of whether Science is the end all or not. Because your thinking is based on no ideas of any value.