Science can't answer these questions

[Cypress]

I am a troll , a half-wit, a scientific illiterate. As proven in the posts below

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

​

The United States no longer exists.

​

FOX is owned and operated by DEMOCRATS.

​

(J6 rioters) are violent Democrats, dressed up as 'Trump supporters'.

​

There was no Civil Rights Act in 1964.

​

Harvard doesn't teach programming or computers.

​

 

[Obtenebrator]

These questions are universally shared by all human beings.

1. Is existence meaningful, absurd, or both?

One comes to realize you don't really know what science is per se.

2. How should I live my life? Does it matter?

Science can and does tell you how to live your life.

3. Do I need other people? Why? How?

Another thing science explains quite nicely. It's called BIOLOGY.

4. What does death mean, if anything?

What does death mean? Does this feel like something an intelligent person would ask? Sounds like gobbledygook from a pseudo intellectual trying to sound DEEEEEEEP. Death just means the hardware breaks down.

Francis Ambrosio, Georgetown University

I keep forgetting you don't have any thoughts of your own. You just parrot those you think will make you look smarter.

 

[Into the Night]

​

Argument of the Stone fallacy, Sock. You can't laugh your way out of your illiteracy.

 

[Into the Night]

One comes to realize you don't really know what science is per se.

You are describing yourself again, Sock. You cannot project YOUR problem on anybody else.

Science can and does tell you how to live your life.

Science is not religion.

Another thing science explains quite nicely. It's called BIOLOGY.

Biology is a branch of science, not an explanation.

What does death mean?
Does this feel like something an intelligent person would ask? Sounds like gobbledygook from a pseudo intellectual trying to sound DEEEEEEEP. Death just means the hardware breaks down.

Since you can't seem to define 'death', that's YOUR problem. Not part of science.

I keep forgetting you don't have any thoughts of your own. You just parrot those you think will make you look smarter.

You are describing yourself again, Sock.

 

[gfm7175]

'Health' in a video game is iterable by a value stored in memory. Usually denoted in the number of hearts or a 'health' bar (like a progress bar) value. It is not a measured value, but a calculated one.

There is, of course, no such bar or value in real life. Maybe ZenMode plays too many video games and thinks it's real.

Yes, I believe that ZenMode plays too many video games and thinks it's real life. That's all I could get out of him speaking about "levels of health".

 

[gfm7175]

I spoke about health as though there is a range and that health can change. That's it. I've assigned no numerical value.

Even by hereby mentioning "a range", you are assigning numerical values to health because in order for there to be a range, there must be numerical values present (even though you're refusing to provide any specific values ... because no specific "health" values exist). You really DO seem to believe that video games are real life.

While "health" in video games is a calculated value (say, 100 "health", or "hit points", (with a range from 0 to 100), with those "health" points being calculated from you having 20 points attributed to the "body" stat which increases your "health" or "hit points" by 5 per point... (20 body points x 5 health points per body point = 100 health points)

Real life is not a video game. In real life, there are no "hit points". There is no calculation that can be performed to come up with a "hit point" result. A "seemingly healthy" marathon runner can drop dead at a rather young age while running a marathon. A veteran who smokes a dozen cigars a day can still be alive at 112 years old.

 

[Cypress]

One comes to realize you don't really know what science is per se.




Science can and does tell you how to live your life.



Another thing science explains quite nicely. It's called BIOLOGY.



What does death mean? Does this feel like something an intelligent person would ask? Sounds like gobbledygook from a pseudo intellectual trying to sound DEEEEEEEP. Death just means the hardware breaks down.





I keep forgetting you don't have any thoughts of your own. You just parrot those you think will make you look smarter.

^^ Obsession and festering resentment. All you do is visit my threads and read my posts.

I took biology, physics, chemistry, sociology in college and none of them taught me the meaning of life, what kind of relationships I should have, what values to prioritize, what kind of art music and aesthetics to appreciate.

There was no scientific law printed in any text book that gave the definitive answers to the questions in the OP.

Science is materialistic and seeks physical explanations for observable phenomena. The questions in the OP are existential, not physical. You can't point to any widely accepted scientific answers to the ethical and existential questions in the OP. This thread is already almost 300 posts long, and somebody would have already posted the widely accepted scientific answers to the questions posed in the OP if they existed.

 

[ZenMode]

Even by hereby mentioning "a range", you are assigning numerical values to health because in order for there to be a range, there must be numerical values present (even though you're refusing to provide any specific values ... because no specific "health" values exist). You really DO seem to believe that video games are real life.

While "health" in video games is a calculated value (say, 100 "health", or "hit points", (with a range from 0 to 100), with those "health" points being calculated from you having 20 points attributed to the "body" stat which increases your "health" or "hit points" by 5 per point... (20 body points x 5 health points per body point = 100 health points)

Real life is not a video game. In real life, there are no "hit points". There is no calculation that can be performed to come up with a "hit point" result. A "seemingly healthy" marathon runner can drop dead at a rather young age while running a marathon. A veteran who smokes a dozen cigars a day can still be alive at 112 years old.

Nope. There doesn't have to be a numerical range to recognize difference. I've seen two family members in hospice. One could do literally nothing more than breathe. No speaking, moving, etc. Not once did I think "Her health is a 1", nor did I need a numerical comparison to know that I was more healthy than she was.

This is something that you, IBDaMann and Into the Night already know, but insist on pretending you don't and likely will continue to pretend you don't know to avoid answering my questions.

 

[Cypress]

Sure, humans generally seek out personal contact and social interaction and they've 'known' that probably as long as modern humans, or earlier, have existed.

The original claim was that science couldn't answer specific questions and I believe it could with a sufficient understanding of brain functionality. When someone feels a desire for social interaction, that feeling originates in the brain, right? We, as humans, can't want or desire without a brain and consciousness to experience a desire. There are different theories, as you mentioned, about the ideal form of community and some cultures, like Buddhists, actual seek isolation. But, if we had an absolute understanding of what it is in our brains that makes us seek community, we could absolutely scientifically answer the question of why.

That's fine, but I wasn't asking if science a thousand yesrs from from now could answer these questions. That's highly speculative -- and in your own words requires an absolute understanding of our brains, which we are nowhere close to achieving and implies a kind of omniscience we are unlikely to ever acquire.

I'm saying that science as we know it cannot give definitive answers to these questions.

Not all questions humans ask have a scientific answer. And not all questions humans ask even neccesarily have a definitive answer.

That doesn't diminish science. It's a recognition of the limits of science. Science is a tool to explain the natural world physical terms (chemical, biological, physics) without resorting to spiritual agency or existential speculation. That is a respectful and realistic definition of science.

But to believe science has the ability to achieve omniscience and answer every and all questions humans have, is turn science into a faith-based religion

 

[evince]

I agree with the sentiment in principle.

But it's just opinion, it's not science. There's nothing scientifically that neccesarily says a life devoted to pleasurable experience and personal fulfillment is better or worse than a life devoted to service and self sacrifice

There is only one way to measure that


One human by one human


And the vast majority of humans have a brain designed by our evolution to FEEL like I describe


It’s why mankind still exists

We would have otherwise killed each other off


That is science

 

[evince]

The choices Alexei Navalny made had nothing to do with survival, and in fact brought great personal risk to himself and his family.

To him it did


He was more worried about OTHERS survival and their lives


Exactly what I keep saying

 

[ZenMode]

That's fine, but I wasn't asking if science a thousand yesrs from from now could answer these questions. That's highly speculative -- and in your own words requires an absolute understanding of our brains, which we are nowhere close to achieving and implies a kind of omniscience we are unlikely to ever acquire.

I'm saying that science as we know it cannot give definitive answers to these questions.

Not all questions humans ask have a scientific answer. And not all questions humans ask even neccesarily have a definitive answer.

That doesn't diminish science. It's a recognition of the limits of science. Science is a tool to explain the natural world physical terms (chemical, biological, physics) without resorting to spiritual agency or existential speculation. That is a respectful and realistic definition of science.

But to believe science has the ability to achieve omniscience and answer every and all questions humans have, is turn science into a faith-based religion

I agree that science cannot answer the questions now, but I believe science can, in principle, answer the questions. If I asked you how many people were bitten by mosquitoes in the last 30 minutes and how many of them will get malaria, there's no functional way to answer that question, even though it would only require simple mathematics, in priciple, to do so.

 

[Cypress]

To him it did


He was more worried about OTHERS survival and their lives


Exactly what I keep saying

Navalny didn't go back to Russia to save lives.

His goals were political, he wanted to end corruption in Russia's government and support liberal alternatives to Putin.

Science identifies the physical reasons for observed phenomena.

Nobody knows what part of Navalny's brain caused him to have the principles he had -- and even if we knew that is not an explanation for his political, ethical, and existential values. Correlations are not explanations. Nobody knows why or how electrochemical impulses between neurons creates subjective mental experience. And we are not even remotely close to understanding it

The most disturbing part of any claim that scientific laws prove Alexie Navalny is compelled to make certain specific existential choices means we don't have free will, and are just robots responding to biochemical signals.

 

[Cypress]

There is only one way to measure that


One human by one human


And the vast majority of humans have a brain designed by our evolution to FEEL like I describe


It’s why mankind still exists

We would have otherwise killed each other off


That is science

I can completely understand the desire that science provide answers to any and all questions humans have.

It really doesn't, and cannot. For one thing, many questions don't really have correct answers, especially existential questions.

There is no scientific law that says the ascetic life of a Buddhist hermit is inferior or superior to the life of a materialistic Wall Street banker.

Science is not, and was never intended to give definitive answers on existential, ethical, or metaphysical questions.

 

[evince]

One on one answers means the answer differs human by human


What brings one person joy differs from the joy of others

 

[Cypress]

To him it did


He was more worried about OTHERS survival and their lives


Exactly what I keep saying

Then it was his opinion, his philosophy, not a scientific law.

The reason people are still studying philosophy, existentialism, ethics, Taoism, Transcendentalism, Buddhism, etc. is because science doesn't have answers for everything, and particularly not the questions in the OP.

That doesn't diminish science in the least. It just means it's not the appropriate tool to give definitive answers to existential questions.

 

[IBDaMann]

All you do is visit my threads and read my posts.

That's how sites like this work. Does all this come as a surprise to you?

I took biology, physics, chemistry, sociology in college

I'm not buying it. I'm guessing that you became indoctrinated into Global Warming, resulting in your regurgitation of how much you're a thienth geniuth.

I have news for you: You remain scientifically illiterate.

... and none of them taught me the meaning of life, what kind of relationships I should have, what values to prioritize, what kind of art music and aesthetics to appreciate.

I bet neither History, Algebra, English Comp, etc. taught you any of that either.

There was no scientific law printed in any text book that gave the definitive answers to the questions in the OP.

Why aren't you exclaiming the same thing about Calculus?

Science is materialistic

It can be, but science is generally about energy and time within one or more given inertial frames of reference.

... and seeks physical explanations for observable phenomena.

Science neither seeks nor offers explanations. Science simply predicts nature. Ask me how I know that you never took physics in college and remained awake through any of the lectures.

The questions in the OP are existential, not physical.

The questions in the OP are metaphysical/supernatural/religious.

You can't point to any widely accepted scientific answers

What do you believe "widely accepted" has to do with anything?

This thread is already almost 300 posts long, and somebody would have already posted the widely accepted scientific answers to the questions posed in the OP if they existed.

Thank you for putting in a plug for my thread Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming which is almost 2,400 posts long and still devoid of any Climate Change or Global Warming science.

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll , a stalker, a plagiarizer, a half-wit, a bad-faith poster, a scientific illiterate.

I love to masturbate to Cypress' posts!

An accurate self description.

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

I can completely understand the desire that science provide answers to any and all questions humans have.

What does science say about who swiped my son's cell phone?

It really doesn't, and cannot.

Beyond predicting nature, what answers does science provide?

For one thing, many questions don't really have correct answers, especially existential questions.

Is there no such thing as reality? Don't all questions have a correct answer, irrespective of whether one ever knows that correct answer?

There is no scientific law that says the ascetic life of a Buddhist hermit is inferior or superior to the life of a materialistic Wall Street banker.

There is no question in there either.

Science is not, and was never intended to give definitive answers on existential, ethical, or metaphysical questions.

... because science predicts nature, it doesn't wash your windows.

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll , a plagiarizer, a scientific illiterate.

I follow Cypress around and masturbate to his threads!

An accurate self description

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other posters have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​