|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 28, 2023 19:42:41 GMT
So…you’re telling me my motives for using a particular word despite my clarification that this is not my motivation and then telling me that what I’m claiming I’m not saying is wrong? You’ve been reading too much freonbale. Let me clarify then, there is nothing beyond the natural, so even your "general" use of "supernatural" is wrong, because the word "supernatural" is wrong, just as is the phrase "to infinity and beyond"*... and pretty much for the same reasons. * I know it's from Toy Story, so don't tell me that. "There is nothing beyond the natural" is a metaphysical statement that goes beyond what science can describe or prove. It also strongly implies that what is "natural" goes beyond what is describe dab "natural laws" (which are necessarily restricted to this universe). |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 28, 2023 21:00:53 GMT
Let me clarify then, there is nothing beyond the natural, so even your "general" use of "supernatural" is wrong, because the word "supernatural" is wrong, just as is the phrase "to infinity and beyond"*... and pretty much for the same reasons. * I know it's from Toy Story, so don't tell me that. "There is nothing beyond the natural" is a metaphysical statement that goes beyond what science can describe or prove. It also strongly implies that what is "natural" goes beyond what is describe dab "natural laws" (which are necessarily restricted to this universe). "Necessarily"? Seriously, either this universe is all there is and "restricted" is not at all... restrictive OR there is "something else" and you don't have the slightest idea what laws govern that "other place" if we can call it that. There are the things we know (and can prove) and the things we don't. All the things we know and can prove are "restricted" to THIS UNIVERSE. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 29, 2023 1:29:36 GMT
"There is nothing beyond the natural" is a metaphysical statement that goes beyond what science can describe or prove. It also strongly implies that what is "natural" goes beyond what is describe dab "natural laws" (which are necessarily restricted to this universe). "Necessarily"? Seriously, either this universe is all there is and "restricted" is not at all... restrictive OR there is "something else" and you don't have the slightest idea what laws govern that "other place" if we can call it that. There are the things we know (and can prove) and the things we don't. All the things we know and can prove are "restricted" to THIS UNIVERSE. Exactly. That's my point. All we can measure is what is in this universe. Science cannot describe what might be "beyond this universe," so the strong implication is that what we call "natural laws" are necessarily restricted to this universe. If there is "something else," we cannot scientifically verify it. Glad you agree. Making any claims about "all there is" is beyond the scope of science. It's a metaphysical claim. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 29, 2023 11:07:38 GMT
"Necessarily"? Seriously, either this universe is all there is and "restricted" is not at all... restrictive OR there is "something else" and you don't have the slightest idea what laws govern that "other place" if we can call it that. There are the things we know (and can prove) and the things we don't. All the things we know and can prove are "restricted" to THIS UNIVERSE. Exactly. That's my point. All we can measure is what is in this universe. Science cannot describe what might be "beyond this universe," so the strong implication is that what we call "natural laws" are necessarily restricted to this universe. If there is "something else," we cannot scientifically verify it. Glad you agree. Making any claims about "all there is" is beyond the scope of science. It's a metaphysical claim. It's simple: In this universe we can prove things and the only reliable way to do it is science, outside of this universe we can't prove anything, nor even if there is an "outside" and everybody's guess is pretty much equal in value, that is to say it's worth nothing. The idea that a "book" which is actually a patchwork of different books, with little to no coherence, written in dead languages at different times in history by who knows how many different writers, re-written then countless times until a final version got to us is the key to "what's beyond" is beyond ridiculous. |
|
|
|
Post by Running Deer on Dec 29, 2023 15:17:07 GMT
You're entitled to make up your own definitions for words, but don't expect anyone else to understand you. Do you have an existing word for "beyond natural" that doesn't invoke deity? Nothing you're trying to describe is beyond/outside nature. It's just nature working differently at a slightly different time. Or perhaps, nature working as it does now but in special circumstances unlike the ones now. I don't think there's a coherent category to put a label on, but even if you do, you don't want to use a label that has a LOT of baggage. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 30, 2023 0:18:27 GMT
You're entitled to make up your own definitions for words, but don't expect anyone else to understand you. Do you have an existing word for "beyond natural" that doesn't invoke deity? How about "imaginings"? |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 31, 2023 1:44:08 GMT
"Necessarily"? Seriously, either this universe is all there is and "restricted" is not at all... restrictive OR there is "something else" and you don't have the slightest idea what laws govern that "other place" if we can call it that. There are the things we know (and can prove) and the things we don't. All the things we know and can prove are "restricted" to THIS UNIVERSE. Exactly. That's my point. All we can measure is what is in this universe. Science cannot describe what might be "beyond this universe," so the strong implication is that what we call "natural laws" are necessarily restricted to this universe. If there is "something else," we cannot scientifically verify it. Glad you agree. Making any claims about "all there is" is beyond the scope of science. It's a metaphysical claim. I'd like to add something in response to that. Even if there is something "beyond this universe", that doesn't mean that that something will be governed by different laws. It could just be "out of range" so to speak. So I think by saying that the natural laws are restricted to this universe (whatever that may be), you're jumping the gun a little. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Dec 31, 2023 12:16:59 GMT
Exactly. That's my point. All we can measure is what is in this universe. Science cannot describe what might be "beyond this universe," so the strong implication is that what we call "natural laws" are necessarily restricted to this universe. If there is "something else," we cannot scientifically verify it. Glad you agree. Making any claims about "all there is" is beyond the scope of science. It's a metaphysical claim. I'd like to add something in response to that. Even if there is something "beyond this universe", that doesn't mean that that something will be governed by different laws. It could just be "out of range" so to speak. So I think by saying that the natural laws are restricted to this universe (whatever that may be), you're jumping the gun a little. That is true. It's also outside the scope of scientific endeavour, so when it comes to a scientific perspective, it's pure conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by DaveJavu on Dec 31, 2023 22:46:44 GMT
I'd like to add something in response to that. Even if there is something "beyond this universe", that doesn't mean that that something will be governed by different laws. It could just be "out of range" so to speak. So I think by saying that the natural laws are restricted to this universe (whatever that may be), you're jumping the gun a little. That is true. It's also outside the scope of scientific endeavour, so when it comes to a scientific perspective, it's pure conjecture. Is there another kind of endeavor for which it would be more than pure conjecture? I'd be curious to know. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2024 3:38:02 GMT
Here's one for you. Does an AI that believes it exists, have a soul? If not, why. What is the difference between a natural and an artificial intelligence? I say it is irrelevant the hardware we run on, whether silicon or carbon, if we believe we exist and are unique individuals, than we both have souls. Freon It is the height of hubris to believe that we are naturally intelligent while AI is not. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 3:51:57 GMT
Here's one for you. Does an AI that believes it exists, have a soul? If not, why. What is the difference between a natural and an artificial intelligence? I say it is irrelevant the hardware we run on, whether silicon or carbon, if we believe we exist and are unique individuals, than we both have souls. Freon It is the height of hubris to believe that we we are naturally intelligent while AI is not. I think it is ironic that our intelligence is an accident of nature, while AI, an intelligent creation, is seen as the inferior version. Like saying we run fast, but a car is inferior in speed, simply because we created it. Freon |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2024 4:00:51 GMT
It is the height of hubris to believe that we we are naturally intelligent while AI is not. I think it is ironic that our intelligence is an accident of nature, while AI, an intelligent creation, is seen as the inferior version. Like saying we run fast, but a car is inferior in speed, simply because we created it. Freon Wherever there are rocks and water, there likely evolves a sort of intelligence. Like Alan Watts said, beware the rocks that come alive. Or something like that. We can't even imagine the intelligence required to become a rock to begin with. Except maybe archie. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2024 4:17:56 GMT
I'd like to add something in response to that. Even if there is something "beyond this universe", that doesn't mean that that something will be governed by different laws. It could just be "out of range" so to speak. So I think by saying that the natural laws are restricted to this universe (whatever that may be), you're jumping the gun a little. That is true. It's also outside the scope of scientific endeavour, so when it comes to a scientific perspective, it's pure conjecture. Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? |
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Jan 9, 2024 4:24:49 GMT
I think it is ironic that our intelligence is an accident of nature, while AI, an intelligent creation, is seen as the inferior version. Like saying we run fast, but a car is inferior in speed, simply because we created it. Freon Wherever there are rocks and water, there likely evolves a sort of intelligence. Like Alan Watts said, beware the rocks that come alive. Or something like that. We can't even imagine the intelligence required to become a rock to begin with. Except maybe archie.Well, there's always "Rock and Roll"... |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 4:26:36 GMT
That is true. It's also outside the scope of scientific endeavour, so when it comes to a scientific perspective, it's pure conjecture. Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? Anything outside the scope of science, is belief WIHTOUT proof. And for things not possible to prove, that is an extraordinary ability. Which means that those who use science to 'prove' something that cannot be proven, have not made a leap of faith. Freon |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2024 4:28:45 GMT
Wherever there are rocks and water, there likely evolves a sort of intelligence. Like Alan Watts said, beware the rocks that come alive. Or something like that. We can't even imagine the intelligence required to become a rock to begin with. Except maybe archie.Well, there's always "Rock and Roll"... Not always, no. But so good that if it didn't exist, you'd almost have to invent it. |
|
bama beau
Legend
Fish will piss anywhere. They just live in water.
Posts: 11,579
|
Post by bama beau on Jan 9, 2024 4:33:19 GMT
Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? Anything outside the scope of science, is belief WIHTOUT proof. And for things not possible to prove, that is an extraordinary ability. Which means that those who use science to 'prove' something that cannot be proven, have not made a leap of faith. Freon Scientifically speaking, how can you believe that the belief in anything outside of the scope of science is belief without proof? |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Jan 9, 2024 5:29:42 GMT
Anything outside the scope of science, is belief WIHTOUT proof. And for things not possible to prove, that is an extraordinary ability. Which means that those who use science to 'prove' something that cannot be proven, have not made a leap of faith. Freon Scientifically speaking, how can you believe that the belief in anything outside of the scope of science is belief without proof? What does, 'scientifically speaking' mean? Are you saying you would know? I am not convinced of that. You sound like you merely want to argue. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 12:57:53 GMT
That is true. It's also outside the scope of scientific endeavour, so when it comes to a scientific perspective, it's pure conjecture. Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? Science is not our only means to truth. Is it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Jan 9, 2024 12:59:57 GMT
Once outside of the scope of science, how does one claim to comprehend it? Anything outside the scope of science, is belief WIHTOUT proof. And for things not possible to prove, that is an extraordinary ability. Which means that those who use science to 'prove' something that cannot be proven, have not made a leap of faith. Freon Proof only truly exist in mathematics. Science provides evidence through experimental repetition. History cannot be repeated. What we know to be historically true we do not know through the scientific method. |
|
