ethical suppression of speech

[surreptitious57]

Saying everything within the Universe HAS TO BE physical because the Universe is ALL THERE IS does NOT logically follow
Non physical things cannot exist therefore everything that exists must be physical does NOT logically belong together EITHER
I will rephrase these statements then : everything within the Universe exists and non existent things cannot exist [ obviously ]

By the way what you are proposing here is that the Universe Itself is just One physical thing correct ?
If yes then WHY the apparent separate different physical things ?
The Universe can be classed as one physical thing but it is also made up of smaller physical things
In exactly the same way that there are other physical things composed of smaller physical things

So the phenomena of thoughts and emotions are physical to you because they cannot be anything else correct ?
Thoughts and emotions are physical to me because they exist and I equate physicality with existence
Regardless of whether or not they are classed as physical [ they are generally classed as mental ]

Also exactly HOW does the brain actually function which you sum up in and by the one word mind ?
Mind is merely one word for a very complicated process which I do not fully understand beyond the basics

Are you aware that science itself is NOT the only thing in relation to KNOWING and knowledge ?
Yes I am but I do not think that those other things are as reliable
That is because they are not as capable of potential falsification

Is there some actual illustrated irrefutable evidence which suggests that this firing of neurons or that these
electrochemical signals is what thoughts themselves ARE exactly ?
There is certainly evidence but I would not say it is irrefutable because that is not the nature of evidence

What does the word evidence actually mean to you ?
That which at the time it is conducted supports a testable hypothesis
So one that has been subjected to the rigour of the scientific method

[Advocate]

[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=470998 time=1599997120 user_id=9490]
[quote=Age]

Saying everything within the Universe HAS TO BE physical because the Universe is ALL THERE IS does NOT logically follow
Non physical things cannot exist therefore everything that exists must be physical does NOT logically belong together EITHER
[color=#0000FF]I will rephrase these statements then : everything within the Universe exists and non existent things cannot exist [ obviously ][/color]

By the way what you are proposing here is that the Universe Itself is just One physical thing correct [b]?[/b]
If yes then WHY the apparent separate different physical things [b]?[/b]
[color=#0000FF]The Universe can be classed as one physical thing but it is also made up of smaller physical things
In exactly the same way that there are other physical things composed of smaller physical things[/color]

So the phenomena of thoughts and emotions are physical to you because they cannot be anything else correct [b]?[/b]
[color=#0000FF]Thoughts and emotions are physical to me because they exist and I equate physicality with existence
Regardless of whether or not they are classed as physical [ they are generally classed as mental ]
[/color]
Also exactly HOW does the brain actually function which you sum up in and by the one word mind [b]?[/b]
[color=#0000FF]Mind is merely one word for a very complicated process which I do not fully understand beyond the basics[/color]

Are you aware that science itself is NOT the only thing in relation to KNOWING and knowledge [b]?[/b]
[color=#0000FF]Yes I am but I do not think that those other things are as reliable
That is because they are not as capable of potential falsification
[/color]
Is there some actual illustrated irrefutable evidence which suggests that this firing of neurons or that these
electrochemical signals is what thoughts themselves ARE exactly [b]?[/b]
[color=#0000FF]There is certainly evidence but I would not say it is irrefutable because that is not the nature of evidence[/color]

What does the word evidence actually mean to you [b]?[/b]
[color=#0000FF]That which at the time it is conducted supports a testable hypothesis
So one that has been subjected to the rigour of the scientific method
[/color]
[/quote]

Every "thing" is a pattern (set of attributes and boundary conditions) with a purpose. The same physical stuff only makes up the same "thing" to the extent we agree on those boundary conditions according to an agreed purpose. Our overall shared understanding of those things is called Reality. The same material stuff that makes up an apple is a low-resolution thing to us but a high-resolution thing to an apple vendor.

Science is rigorous emperical measurement. Logic and math are semantic but absolute in that they describe absolutely the relationships between other things. These aren't proscriptive statements. I'm saying using these definitions/understandings will clear up all philosophical questions. Take it or leave it.

The semantic glue that holds all of philosophy together can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... gq2BmR8qs/ and here: tiny.cc/TheWholeStory

[surreptitious57]

What about things that can not be explained by science or math or logic
Science is an inductive discipline and so there be one obvious limitation
Math and logic are deductive but can they actually explain all of reality
What about the reality that exists that is unobservable and unknowable

[Advocate]

[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=471016 time=1600004731 user_id=9490]
What about things that can not be explained by science or math or logic
Science is an inductive discipline and so there be one obvious limitation
Math and logic are deductive but can they actually explain all of reality
What about the reality that exists that is unobservable and unknowable
[/quote]

Knowledge is justified belief. The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is to produce actionable certainty. There are two methods of doing so, empirical measurement and logical necessity.

universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
10 experience qua experience
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math
semantic/empirical
8 science (rigor)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
5 ground truth (consensus reality)
4 experience of (possible delusion)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
0 ignorance

Both method rest on a foundation of replication - things keep working the same way, that's the common understanding of the words, the same input produces the same product, the sun keeps rising, and so forth. Math and logic are languages. All languages are descriptive. Math describes relationships of quantity and logic describes relationships between reasoning concepts. Both were derived from observation. Pre-established lower levels of logical necessity filled in the gaps and thought experiment, especially taking ideas to their logical extreme, helps find problems and make logic practical.

The unknowable reality of undifferentiated stuff, i call Actuality. My overall contention isn't that these are the best understandings of the words but also that taken together they can solve any philosophical problem by logical extension.

[surreptitious57]

I like that ten point list as it is similar to the Hierarchy Of Certainty
I Observational Idea - 2 Hypothesis - 3 Prediction - 4 Law - 5 Theory

[surreptitious57]

But what exactly is Spiritual Math ?
And is qua a reference to qualia ?

Why does it occupy a higher place than either Science or Math ?
How can it be verified if it is first person subjective experience ?

[Advocate]

[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=471042 time=1600018029 user_id=9490]
I like that ten point list as it is similar to the Hierarchy Of Certainty
I Observational Idea - 2 Hypothesis - 3 Prediction - 4 Law - 5 Theory
[/quote]

The ten points is somewhere arbitrary since a few can obviously be clumped but there's still a qualitative difference at each level. I hadn't heard of that particular formula. I'll be looking it up now.

[surreptitious57]

HOC is essentially the Scientific Method
The latter of which more specifically is :

I Observation
2 Testable Hypothesis [ Potentially Falsifiable ]
3 Intersubjective Consensus [ On Evidence ]
4 Peer Review In Reputable Publications
5 Hypothesis Confirmed Or Falsified Or Undetermined
6 Replication [ To Eliminate Any Potential Bias / Flaws ]

[Advocate]

[quote=surreptitious57 post_id=471103 time=1600054335 user_id=9490]
HOC is essentially the Scientific Method
The latter of which more specifically is [b]:[/b]

I Observation
2 Testable Hypothesis [ Potentially Falsifiable ]
3 Intersubjective Consensus [ On Evidence ]
4 Peer Review In Reputable Publications
5 Hypothesis Confirmed Or Falsified Or Undetermined
6 Replication [ To Eliminate Any Potential Bias / Flaws ]
[/quote]

Yeah, i went looking that up but the results were all over. There are some problems there, particularly in suggesting that only people who have access to an academic support system can produce true science. That may be "best practice" in some idealistic sense but it eliminates most of the turpenes of scientific thought. Science is rigor, basically.

[surreptitious57]

Scientists are usually more aware of their own conscious or unconscious bias than the general population
For good ones will try to falsify their own hypotheses in order to keep their bias to an absolute minimum
So were science done by anyone with no specific understanding of this it would not be as rigorous as it is

[surreptitious57]

But what exactly is Spiritual Math ?
And is qua a reference to qualia ?

Why does it occupy a higher place than either Science or Math ?
How can it be verified if it is first person subjective experience ?

[Age]

Saying everything within the Universe HAS TO BE physical because the Universe is ALL THERE IS does NOT logically follow
Non physical things cannot exist therefore everything that exists must be physical does NOT logically belong together EITHER

I will rephrase these statements then : everything within the Universe exists and non existent things cannot exist [ obviously ]

Usually when a statement is rephrased, the rephrased statement aligns, somewhat, with the previous statement.

Your original statement was stating, directly, that EVERY thing that exists MUST BE 'physical'. Your, now, rephrased statement is just stating that EVERY thing within the Universe exists and what does NOT exist (or the non existent 'things)' can NOT exist.

Besides this being illogical, what can be clearly seen, also, is that your rephrased statement is NOT stating at all what your original statement was.

Your first statement concludes EVERY thing that exists MUST BE physical.
Your second statement concludes EVERY thing, within the Universe, exists.

Your second statement is NOT a rephrased version of the first statement as they each conclude two completely different things.

By the way what you are proposing here is that the Universe Itself is just One physical thing correct ?
If yes then WHY the apparent separate different physical things ?

The Universe can be classed as one physical thing but it is also made up of smaller physical things

NOT when LOOKED AT thoroughly, and NOT when DELVED DOWN into deep enough.

Thee actual 'thing', which you are MISSING, is being MISSED partly, and maybe mostly, because of what you already think and assume, or see, as already being true and correct.

In exactly the same way that there are other physical things composed of smaller physical things

So, if there are smaller physical 'things' (with an 's'), then what you are proposing, which separates these, "separated", 'things' is some 'thing' physical correct?

If one classifies the Universe as One physical thing, then a 'Yes' to my clarifying question would have to be logically, and empirically, correct, correct?

So the phenomena of thoughts and emotions are physical to you because they cannot be anything else correct ?

Thoughts and emotions are physical to me because they exist and I equate physicality with existence

You also equate 'existence' with 'physicality', as well, correct?

Regardless of whether or not they are classed as physical [ they are generally classed as mental ]

i, for one, certainly do NOT class 'emotions' as 'mental'.

Also exactly HOW does the brain actually function which you sum up in and by the one word mind ?

Mind is merely one word for a very complicated process which I do not fully understand beyond the basics

Okay. What are the 'basics', which you say you do 'understand'?

Yes I am but I do not think that those other things are as reliable
That is because they are not as capable of potential falsification

But, if through the other things Truth, Itself, is found, determined, and/or able to be expressed, then 'potential falsification' is NOT even a necessary factor.

Please do NOT forget that 'science' does NOT deal with Truth at all.

There is certainly evidence but I would not say it is irrefutable because that is not the nature of evidence

This is a great point, which you have just clearly stated and made known here.

That which at the time it is conducted supports a testable hypothesis
So one that has been subjected to the rigour of the scientific method

Based on this definition, 'evidence', itself, could actually support an array of completely other different, and even opposing, things or hypothesizes from the testable hypothesis, correct?

You have also highlighted a great point here, that is; 'evidence' is actually being sought, to test A hypothesis.

[Age]

What about things that can not be explained by science or math or logic

What, supposed, 'things', do you propose can NOT be, supposedly, explained by science, math, nor logic?

Science is an inductive discipline and so there be one obvious limitation
Math and logic are deductive but can they actually explain all of reality

Yes. Well logic can anyway.

What about the reality that exists that is unobservable and unknowable

How do you KNOW that there is a 'reality' that exists, which is "unknowable"?

[Age]

What about things that can not be explained by science or math or logic
Science is an inductive discipline and so there be one obvious limitation
Math and logic are deductive but can they actually explain all of reality
What about the reality that exists that is unobservable and unknowable

Knowledge is justified belief.

Could 'knowledge' be ANY thing else? Or, is what you say here irrefutable true, to you?

The purpose of all knowledge, wisdom, and understanding is to produce actionable certainty. There are two methods of doing so, empirical measurement and logical necessity.

universal taxonomy - evidence by certainty
10 experience qua experience
9 math, logic, Spiritual Math
semantic/empirical
8 science (rigor)
7 professional consensus (context specific expertise)
6 occupational reality (verified pragmatism)
5 ground truth (consensus reality)
4 experience of (possible delusion)
3 collaborative anecdote (presumes accurate communication motive)
2 adversarial anecdote (presumes inaccurate communication motive)
1 found anecdote (assumed motive)
0 ignorance

Both method rest on a foundation of replication - things keep working the same way, that's the common understanding of the words, the same input produces the same product, the sun keeps rising, and so forth. Math and logic are languages. All languages are descriptive. Math describes relationships of quantity and logic describes relationships between reasoning concepts. Both were derived from observation. Pre-established lower levels of logical necessity filled in the gaps and thought experiment, especially taking ideas to their logical extreme, helps find problems and make logic practical.

The unknowable reality of undifferentiated stuff, i call Actuality. My overall contention isn't that these are the best understandings of the words but also that taken together they can solve any philosophical problem by logical extension.

But your actual examples do NOT actually logically follow on from this.

[Age]

Scientists are usually more aware of their own conscious or unconscious bias than the general population

I would actually say that the human beings known as, or who call themselves, "scientists" are just as susceptible to their own biases as "other" human beings are.

The ones that are called "scientist" just pretend or believe they are not, and some "others" actually believe this.

For good ones will try to falsify their own hypotheses in order to keep their bias to an absolute minimum

I will ask this again, Why do 'you', adult human beings, continually make up 'hypotheses", when the actual Truth is HERE, for ALL to SEE?

So were science done by anyone with no specific understanding of this it would not be as rigorous as it is

If, and WHEN, science is done by those who are Truly OPEN, and NOT by those who PRETEND they ARE, then thee actual Truth would be, and is, ALREADY KNOWN.