Scientific jargon would probably seem like word salad to a child, which is likely one of the many reasons that children are not often found in those discussions. An uncultivated mind would be one that cannot construct sentences properly, and rely on smoke-screens of verbosity to veil a lack of information, and or give an impression of intelligence. That is what I all too often see in any long winded internet debate on philosophy. The only reason I said scientists have that issue is because writing skills seem to be inherent in most of them, which allows for effective communication of complex ideas - even to the layperson. In contrast, it seems like those who follow the 'discipline of philosophy', for want of a better term, desperately lack writing skills. For conveying such complex ideas, you'd think that honing in writing skills would be a priority for any budding philosopher. Rather it seems like some pride is taken in the ability to scrawl lengthy posts of waffle. And when you boil down these rants, they often don't amount to a lot.. I think the original post would probably be a good place to start for any inferences made in my remark. Not much use in systematically naming each person I feel has violated our understanding of physiology, attracting the ire of each. I'd rather invite anyone willing to reflect on how much they should be talking about a hugely complex organ with such conviction, especially whilst proposing unfounded concepts shaped to redefine that same concept they failed to understand.
So, basically you're saying that if anyone disagrees with your naive scientifism.. they're wrong, and full of it. Good to know.
The misunderstood philosopher... The reality to which his words point, is at times, distorted by semantic limitations. The way in which he uses his words can very easily be mistaken to be the ramblings of an insufficiently learned man. The reality to which his words point may be such that the words themselves are not adequate, he is left then to use words unconventionally at times in an attempt to remedy this, and in such a way that he can only allude to the understanding that he wishes to express. The smoke screens of verbosity of which you speak, could be just that.
An uncultivated mind would be one that cannot construct sentences properly, and rely on smoke-screens of verbosity to veil a lack of information, and or give an impression of intelligence. I really don't think that you should be confusing poor sentence structure with your own failure to understand a sentence, it is ignorant, and it does speak for itself. Besides, philosophy is much less about information as it is about the methodology wherewith information is gained, hence you cannot have a functioning science were there not a functioning philosophical framework to maintain it. The only reason I said scientists have that issue is because writing skills seem to be inherent in most of them, which allows for effective communication of complex ideas - even to the layperson. I'm going to just ignore the opening remark that scientists have competent skills in writing, this very thread contains evidence enough to confute that ill-conceived opinion. The complex ideas of science that are translated to a layperson, are only translatable after all the technical terminology of an idea has been reduced into the form of common language, complex philosophy however cannot have this benefit, for it's operations inhere only within the technical methodologies themselves, thus one cannot communicate a complex philosophical idea without direct reference to philosophical terminology - I do hope that you understand this, and do no resort to petty cavils of ''Woo-bashing'' - it's nonsense. I think the original post would probably be a good place to start for any inferences made in my remark. Your ''remark'', by which I take it you mean your paragraph, was trash - so no, we would do better not to look for proof of your inferences in the OP.
I really cannot see any suggestion of that made in my post, nor did I begin to try and suggest it. So I'd have to say no.. I don't see how the failure to include punctuation in your prose helps bring forward a point. And just for the record that sounds like an extremely weak excuse.. That's like me saying I'm a genius but I cannot possibly explain how. So you're just going to have to take my word for it.
Getting caught up on SD, came across this from a couple days ago.. gave me a chuckle. Maltreatment affects the way children's genes are activated
I was addressing the use of the words themselves rather than punctuation. Yes, improper punctuation can be unpleasant, but one can still get what the person is saying in most cases. I have seen punctuation used in an improper way many times in threads, this has never stopped me from understanding what has been said. I'm pretty sure my punctuation is by no means perfect but I try my best. I could, for example, call you on the way in which you have used an ellipsis when you say [an extremely weak excuse..] as opposed to [an extremely weak excuse...] but that would be rather petty of me, hell for all I know you just wanted to put a full-stop there and didn't realize that you put two in there accidentally. I understand what you are saying there nonetheless. I don't think that its like saying that one is a genius, but could not possibly explain how. It more a case of just asking for clarification on certain points if you feel they have been presented in an unclear way. For a man to speak of the immaterial, as has been done in this thread, is quite a challenge. It almost goes without saying that words will fail him at some point (namely at the point of interpretation). This is simply because of the nature of the immaterial, it is inherently difficult to explain because it has no tangible form. It is certainly a lot easier to explain tangible things as opposed to intangible things, is it not? This may account for this "unnecessary use of a thesaurus". Scientist assume that theirs is a discipline that is all encompassing. "Can I perform I experiment on it? Is it tangible? No? Well I guess it can't be real then..." Out of interest, why is it that something needs to be scientifically proven for it to be real? Do you ever consider that there could be realities that are beyond what science can grasp? How do you know that science is truly all encompassing?
@[member="Neurosis"] Having the ability to break it down (the task that was really your job), I was eventually able to understand it, it was just jarring and unpleasant to read your post. It saddens me to think that reading my post caused you so much suffering, however, now that you've been able to understand it, do you actually have a plausible rebuttal, or are you happy with criticizing the grammar merely for effect? You are telling me philosophy is not about information but more about methodology, and it would not function without having a philosophical framework.. alright fair enough.. but that is not an excuse for an inability to write properly. I am saying that without a functioning philosophical framework there wouldn't and couldn't be a science.. it will also be difficult to persuade me that I cannot write properly, merely by saying that I cannot, indeed I could cite many well-written texts that you would have great trouble with, but nevertheless would not lose their coherency/quality because of it. Sorry but a few people doing that in this thread does not mean scientists are incompetent writers. A piece of poor writing will follow from a poor understanding, scientists rarely fathom the philosophical dimension of their own practice and/or discoveries, and thus any notions they propose are usually largely incomplete and unsatisfying, and if we are to push it to extremes, are also untrue. I did not think that the claim of scientists being competent writers was one I should of treated seriously, so I responded with gaudy hyperbole, nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that you don't even come close to knowing the majority of scientists, nor is your opinion of what makes a good writer certain to be satisfactory by everybody else's standards, so your opinion isn't much more valid than mine. Sure, you could argue the same in terms of philosophers in this thread, but you've already made the mistake of excusing their/your poor writing skills with the idea that information isn't the important thing, their ideas cannot be expressed without extensive use of "philosophical terminology" (even though most of the time it's just unnecessary use of a thesaurus), and then there's the whole mistaken philosopher theory. Please remember that it was you who first mentioned how ''complex'' scientific ideas were translatable to a common layperson, not me; I have not come close to implying or suggesting that anything said here has been a ''complex'' philosophical idea, nor have I ascribed your failure to understand my posts with a failure to understand philosophical terminology - this is an assumption made by you. The reasons you have difficulty with understanding my posts, I assume, is not because of any ''terminology'', but because those who are striving to represent any kind of uncommon philosophical truth, will have to speak more intricately to represent something that is itself very intricate.. a scientist will usually speak only in general terms, and will unwittingly infer false ideas, unaware that such a coarse manner of speech will mislead people into an inexact understanding of things. If philosophy cannot be discussed outside of its own limiting complexities, it cannot be communicated effectively through English writing in general, and really it's not about the information it's about the methodology to gain information... They way you are describing philosophy, it doesn't sound like a very worthwhile pursuit. Note the word ''complex'', I think that by this logic, we could also say that complex mathematics is also not worthwhile, for it cannot be communicated in any way other than by direct reference to mathematical symbols and formulas, and it is by itself, like complex philosophy, only concerned with methodology, however the employment of this methodology will do everything to enable a furtherance of our understanding, and a higher attainment of truth - consider this useless if you will, I certainly won't. That was directed at Boats and Hoes who specifically asked me to point out the infractions, and accused me of throwing a stone and hiding my hand. So no need to get too sassy there.. it wasn't for you. What infractions have I made? I think that if there are any, I'm assuming they will be only semantic ones, nothing else. I wish it could give me a chuckle to think that after all the time I've wasted you genuinely consider a difference of semantic terms to have any significant meaning in regards to the OP.. I'm tired of baby-feeding you, next time you can raise the spoon for yourself.
Cool thing is, the brain/mind is researchable and testable.. not my fault you guys are science deniers due to the facts not adhering to you personal beliefs. If anything exists that's outside the grasp of this almighty science you guys demonize, then it's outside the grasp of knowledge as you'd never be able to confirm what you consider knowledge, all you have is faith in a belief.. and when that belief is contradicted by facts, you poorly attempt to discredit science as a whole. You do know philosophy translated means "love of wisdom" right? You get wisdom by questioning everything, only difference with science is that it doesn't settle on an answer just because it sounds good to them.. it attempts to settle on the actual answer by requestioning. It's funny, the only people who actually pit science against religious belief are those with the religious belief..
I do not deny science nor do I demonize science. I acknowledge that are many ways in which mankind has benefitted from science and its methods. I am simply questioning if is all encompassing. Through my own experiential reasoning I would posit that it is not, simply because science itself is a "language" so to speak, of understanding and manipulating nature, it is not nature itself. It means nothing outside of the meaning that we have assigned to it through its symbols and methods. Much like the word apple is not the apple itself, we have assigned meaning to this word for practical purposes. Think about this for example, we can know that it is a scientific fact that water boils at 100 degrees C. This is because we have invented numbers, and instruments that use these the symbols of numbers in a uniform way. Like for example the rate at which mercury rises inside a thermometer is constant relative to a given temperature. Also since the equidistant increments upon which the various degrees are written rely on our invention of numbers. To say that water boils at 100 deg.C is true, but it is not the essence of the heat itself since it is a truth that is reliant on the application of the abstract concept of numbers. Based on this reasoning I would say that science is not all encompassing. Scientist, at times, equate their symbols and methods with the very essence of truth, which it is not. The facts of science are based on fundamental principles that are themselves not empirically verifiable, i.e numbers.
Science isn't a language.. Watch this video to get an idea of what science is, which is searching for answers. Your own reasoning through personal observation.. falls under science. You asked questions and made observations, only thing is.. if a concept is outside the grasp of tangibility, then how the hell are you going to experience it anywhere but inside your head to gain your experiential reasoning? All you people do is assign an emotional value to a personal belief and ignore the facts that negate your belief, cause you 'feel' like it's right.. which is more so holding you back than anything else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWi8T4Gqyy4 No, you and your kind are science deniers.. and it's fucking pathetic.
That's exactly the issue, friend... a given scientist has already determined for himself, prior to investigation, what is "reasonably" ascertainable and what is not (the quotations around the term 'reasonable' should indicate that the term is substantiated by means of a relative understanding). That is, a scientist, prior to investigation, draws a definitive bound for their epistemological querie; bounds which cannot be encroached upon, if they are to be, as they risibly deem themselves, "seekers of truth" (first, they should, if I do say so myself, understand what the appropriate implications of that phrase are, before seeking to answer it). So, in a peculiar way, it's quite entertaining, and paradoxically flabbergasting, to see when an empirical scientist jumps from one sphere of knowledge to another, and all about every other sphere of knowledge, when trying to convey the dubious fact, rather when trying impress the dubious fact that their bounded methodology is a sufficent instrument for elucidating the mysteries of the universe (in all spheres). Now, if a given philosopher, or any man of rational knoweldge, were to say to you, Mantikore, that I have a knowledge of a reality that's not accessible to your eyes or to your hands, i.e., that's not discernable by means of your vision or your sense of touch, would you then turn around, in the same vein, and ask that same person to "prove" that to you, that is, to provide with you visible and tangible evidence for such a claim? I bet you would, and you would probably, on top of that, add, quite derisively, that if this man were to be considered as a "rational person" at all, let alone were he to be an acutal man of "common sense", he would not, even to begin with, insist on a reality that's concelead from my vision or my sense of touch; consequentially, this guy must be full of sh*t. This is literally the reasoning process of every obstinate scientist who intentionally curtails and contains his personal philosophical principles, in order that they may confrom to some sort preconceived epistemological prejudice or paradigm. Sadly enough, such reasoning, i.e., that which conforms to and is bounded by a rigidly empirical paradigm, is inherently fallacious. Think of it like this, one cannot prove or actually demonstrate that the scientific method is the only valid method for procuring truth about reality by using the scientific method itself... you see, that would be circular logic, i.e., you'd be already assuming and presupposing what you've supposedly set out to prove. "Science should leave off making pronouncements: the river of knowledge has too often turned back on itself." - Sir James Jean “Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.†- Max Planck "Pure empiricism is related to thinking as eating is to digestion and assimilation. So, when empiricism boasts that it alone has, through its discoveries, advanced human knowledge, it is as if the mouth should boast that it alone keeps the body alive." "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." - It's a lot harder to express the ineffable than to deny it, flat out, and deride it, because you cannot designate an expression for it.
Maybe I should have been more exacting with my words, science employs a particular "language" that is to say a system of symbols and rules in order to come to, and communicate its conclusions. There is nothing in that video that I didn't know in as far as the definition of science is concerned. My point is that science as you would have it ( yes technically one could, as you put it, consider my reasoning through personal observation as falling under science), does not seem address the empirical validity of its own methods. Yet when the philosopher speaks of that which is intangible he is often berated by the scientist, the scientist is doing the same thing by using conceptual inventions such as numbers in order to come to statistically conclusive proofs. "if a concept is outside the grasp of tangibility, then how the hell are you going to experience it anywhere but inside your head to gain your experiential reasoning?" In my mind of course, but I know you already believe that that mind is part of and was created by the brain, as is inherently physical, whereas I beg to differ. Could you please demonstrate how the some of the symbols that science employs in its verification of facts, like numbers, have an empirical reality?
What I was addressing was not a misplaced comma or a common typo, but objectively poor writing. Men speaking of the immaterial is definitely not the take home I got from this thread. Before I go on further, let's bring it out that post again. I bolded the 'concrete statements' that were made, i.e, not the passive aggressive slipshod conjecture that made up 90% . Now lets take an even closer look once it's sewn together (punctuation mine): "[A]Your most substantial argument is that the changes to the brain cause changes to the mind. Physical causes have no means of direct contact over non-physical things, [C] therefore [have] no causal powers over them." And so here Effy B attempts to disprove A with B, to make C true. Note that B and C are identical statements, and are simply his opinion and not proven fact. Text book circular reasoning, stuffed into a post of waffle. It reminds me of how I used to trick my dog into taking his pills by hiding them in cubes of bologna. After this if you refer to the quoted section he preempts a retort, doing his best to poison that line of thinking by becoming increasingly nasty, and then counters it by claiming it will lack backing by empirical evidence. Despite his own arguments having no empirical evidence to back them, and the glaring issue that he is imagining the person will not present empirical evidence. Just before we leave that, let's hear from the author in his own defense: "those who are striving to represent any kind of uncommon philosophical truth, will have to speak more intricately to represent something that is itself very intricate". Sadly, there was no uncommon philosophical truth, it wasn't intricate, nor was it spoken intricately by any stretch of the imagination. And true that my opinion isn't necessarily more valid than yours, Effy B, but here we are discussing an entirely objective issue. While you may not think you've ascribed anything as being complex, you sure did imply they were intricate.. which means the same thing and possibly highlights a fundamental lack of understanding you have in the English language. You then go on to align yourself with mathematicians, due to your apparent attainment of higher truth through your methodology. Wow. Moving back to your last point imageone, I would not say that explaining something intangible deems lengthy and excessive prose. The subject matter of this thread is in the realm of neuroscience, which is widely discussed in journals that have stringent page counts. To put it another way, men speaking of the immaterial concisely. To be unable to explain a concept generally implies a lack of understanding, and should not be applauded like it has been here. "Scientist assume that theirs is a discipline that is all encompassing. "Can I perform I experiment on it? Is it tangible? No? Well I guess it can't be real then..." That is a rather loathsome portrayal of how a scientist thinks. You fail to recognize the significant amount of science that is done on the intangible, and also the very basis of how a theory is formed. I never said something needs to be scientifically proven for it to be real, or that science is all encompassing either. And just for the record, this couldn't be more irrelevant to the topic at hand. Well if you're still reading, by now you will surely know. And I will raise my spoon as a toast to how much of a pretentious wanker you clearly are. Yeah and we've clearly seen that here today, haven't we (insert sarcastic wink)
Mindless drivel... if I do say so. You and all your dogmatic peers seem to have an innate tendency to abuse that word "cause".
The scientist insists on "objectivitiy", but can't even demonstrate or prove, objectively, that his metodology is in fact objective. You're the one subjecting yourself to circular logic.
Material bodies don't cause anything, or have the capacity for agency... ever heard of the law of inertia? Rather, matter itself is "caused", that is to say, SUBJECT TO a "force" beyond or external to its own being.