Science can't answer these questions

[BidenPresident]

Which part do you see as "magic"?

You think science is the voice of god. Sorry, I just find your fascination with science to be boring.

 

[ZenMode]

Knowing about the neurochemistry and physiological response to strict isolation is interesting, but Paleolithic hunters didn't need modern science to be aware they are social animals.

I didn't read question 2 as neccesarily being just about strict and permanent isolation. The question to me is about how and why humans should relate to each other.

The Greeks thought the polis was an ideal form of community.

The Taoists and Buddhists sometimes advocated a type of social withdrawal from political and social life.

Thoreau's On Walden Pond advocated a quiet contemplation away from the bustle of the civilization.

Confucians thought a well ordered society should be based on the concepts of filial piety.

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.

 

[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.

You're right that psychology and evolutionary biology has insights into why we are social animals.

That is a very limited interpretation of what I think question 3 is asking. I think it is asking about how we are supposed to relate to each other: what, if any, political association we should have, should we be citizens of a polis, rural nomadic pastoralists, and how do we relate to other groups of humans, as pacifists, imperialists cooperative good Samaritans?

Are we supposed to be Taoists withdrawn and in tune with nature, or Stoics actively engaged in political life and community?

Should our economic associations and natural resources be based on competition, or cooperation?

 

[ZenMode]

You're right that psychology and evolutionary biology has insights into why we are social animals.

Psychology is really just trying to explain the inner neurological workings of the brain, which we aren't really close to understanding yet, but anything and everything we "are" is the result of genetics or the external influences that structure our brains at a neurological level. [/QUOTE]

That is a very limited interpretation of what I think question 3 is asking. I think it is asking about how we are supposed to relate to each other: what, if any, political association we should have, should we be citizens of a polis, rural nomadic pastoralists, and how do we relate to other groups of humans, as pacifists, imperialists cooperative good Samaritans?

Are we supposed to be Taoists withdrawn and in tune with nature, or Stoics actively engaged in political life and community?

Should our economic associations and natural resources be based on competition, or cooperation?

I don't think we are necessarily "supposed" to be anything, right? I think there are more or less beneficial ways of being in any situation, but ultimately that's based on human tendencies. We know, for example, that socialism doesn't work. It's not because there's something inherently wrong with socialism, but it doesn't leverage human nature in the best way to create a sustainable economic system.

 

[IBDaMann]

Big Bang is supported by empirical--physical--evidence. It is not idle speculation.

The Big Bang is certainly supported by evidence ... but it is speculation nonetheless.

Speculation is speculation, i.e. a guess. Informed, supported speculation is just as unverified as idle speculation.

 

[BidenPresident]

The Big Bang is certainly supported by evidence ... but it is speculation nonetheless.

Speculation is speculation, i.e. a guess. Informed, supported speculation is just as unverified as idle speculation.

Not speculation.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't deny there are legitimate scientific questions about NDEs.

Could you share one or more of these "scientific" questions with the board? Not ordinary questions, mind you, but scientific ones.

But even if we learned more about NDEs, wouldn't it just be interesting information, rather than a real answer to whether there is meaning to life, and the question of how to choose to live life?

Are you now finally getting around to acknowledging that no amount of knowledge will tell us the "why" of a life of arbitrary choices in a random universe?

 

[IBDaMann]

Not speculation.

You are claiming that someone snagged a time machine and travelled back in time to verify the event? ... or are you saying that you spoke with an eye witness who observed the event personally?

How are you claiming that the event was somehow verified?

 

[BidenPresident]

You are claiming that someone snagged a time machine and travelled back in time to verify the event? ... or are you saying that you spoke with an eye witness who observed the event personally?

How are you claiming that the event was somehow verified?

Amazing how fucking stupid you are.

 

[IBDaMann]

Psychology is really just trying to explain the inner neurological workings of the brain,

... as opposed to the external workings of the brain? Psychology is like cooking. The objective is to develop "recipes" for treating maladies; no explaining is required, i.e. if it works, that's all that matters. Nobody demands any explanation for why my wife's bacon-wrapped honey-bourbon barbecue wings are so amazing, and no one demands an explanation for therapy/treatment that works. Both cooking and psychology include much research and experimentation.

... which we aren't really close to understanding yet,

How do you know this? You're omniscient, right?

... but anything and everything we "are" is the result of genetics or the external influences that structure our brains at a neurological level.

Aren't we also the result of everything that happens to us? If you lose your leg in an accident, doesn't that affect "everything that you 'are'"?

Do drugs influence the structure of your brain or just synapses therein?

I don't think we are necessarily "supposed" to be anything, right?

Cypress assumes there is such a supposition. He assumes there is a "why" which he insists exists in even random events. He probably imagines himself as being the judge of who you are supposed to be.

We know, for example, that socialism doesn't work.

We know that Marxism doesn't work and we know exactly why, i.e. it denies human nature and it runs counter to all economics.

It's not because there's something inherently wrong with socialism,

... except that it denies human nature and runs counter to all economics.

... but it doesn't leverage human nature in the best way to create a sustainable economic system.

Marxism can't leverage human nature that it denies, and it can't create a sustainable economic system because it can't create a working economic system.

 

[IBDaMann]

Amazing how fucking stupid you are.

Just what I thought, you are a shit-for-brains who thinks he's a genius. Have you ever tried learning something? Did something about it go terribly wrong and traumatize you forever?

 

[BidenPresident]

Just what I thought, you are a shit-for-brains who thinks he's a genius. Have you ever tried learning something? Did something about it go terribly wrong and traumatize you forever?

go fuck yourself you stupid troll

 

[IBDaMann]

Not speculation.

Oh, I get it, Mr. Shit-for-brains used his omniscience to verify the Big Bang personally. You're the quintessential moron, and that's not mere speculation.

 

[IBDaMann]

go fuck yourself you stupid troll

I'll drop my pants right now so you can blow me.

 

[IBDaMann]

You think science is the voice of god.

Right, and you think Cypress is trying to speak for you.

Sorry, I just find your fascination with science to be boring.

Guess who JPP's most boring idiot is? Go on, take a wild guess.

 

[ZenMode]

... as opposed to the external workings of the brain? Psychology is like cooking. The objective is to develop "recipes" for treating maladies; no explaining is required, i.e. if it works, that's all that matters. Nobody demands any explanation for why my wife's bacon-wrapped honey-bourbon barbecue wings are so amazing, and no one demands an explanation for therapy/treatment that works. Both cooking and psychology include much research and experimentation.

This paragraph shows me that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

 

[IBDaMann]

This paragraph shows me that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Odds are that you don't understand what I wrote.

 

[Cypress]

I am a troll , a plagiarizer, a bad-faith poster, and a scientific illiterate

Yes you are, as the links below prove.

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!!

​

 

[Cypress]

Psychology is really just trying to explain the inner neurological workings of the brain, which we aren't really close to understanding yet, but anything and everything we "are" is the result of genetics or the g influences that structure our brains at a neurological level.

I don't think we are necessarily "supposed" to be anything, right? I think there are more or less beneficial ways of being in any situation, but ultimately that's based on human tendencies. We know, for example, that socialism doesn't work. It's not because there's something inherently wrong with socialism, but it doesn't leverage human nature in the best way to create a sustainable economic system.

So you are an adherent of Scientism, the belief that all knowledge and truth claims
comes from science

My two cents: If it can't be quantified and measured, it's not science.
.
It's fine to say we are biological animals with emotions that may have some underlying physicochemical stimulus

But just a general feeling or vague sense that science explains everything isn't sufficient to claim everything is known through science.

There is no laboratory experiment, no mathmatical equation, no gene we can point to that explains why you picked somebody to be your spouse, why you picked your college majors, or whether you believe life and the universe is meaningful or meaningless.

Maybe in ten thousand years there will be an equation that explains your marriage and relationships. Or maybe not. But it doesn't exist now, and we aren't even remotely close to calling it is explained by science.

 

[ZenMode]

So you are an adherent of Scientism, the belief that all knowledge and truth claims
comes from science

My two cents: If it can't be quantified and measured, it's not science.
.
It's fine to say we are biological animals with emotions that may have some underlying physicochemical stimulus

But just a general feeling or vague sense that science explains everything isn't sufficient to claim everything is known through science.

There is no laboratory experiment, no mathmatical equation, no gene we can point to that explains why you picked somebody to be your spouse, why you picked your college majors, or whether you believe life and the universe is meaningful or meaningless.

Maybe in ten thousand years there will be an equation that explains your marriage and relationships. Or maybe not. But it doesn't exist now, and we aren't even remotely close to calling it is explained by science.

If you're talking about human behavior, wants, needs, tendencies, inclinations, etc, which is based on some combination of biology, genetics and neurology, then, yes, I do believe there is a science of human behavior and with the correct understanding of biology, neurology and genetics (all of which I'd say are "science") we can answer questions about how we should live, what gives meaning to our lives and why, etc.

In fact, there is a genetic component to divorce, even.