Nope. Entropy is one concept that is universally carved in stone...ASSUMING we accept a linear space time viewpoint.
*laughing* Damn, we're about to start another epistemological wrangle, aren't we? On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Pat <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On 29 Jan, 14:50, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > *laughing* > > > > I love the idea of a realization of Russell. That's fantastic, Pat. > > > > Well, thank God! I've finally come off someone's 'peed off' list for > a moment. That has TRULY made my week. > > > The idea of empirical science is that we operate on a knowledge set which > is > > the result of measurable and reproducible observations. Its > falsifiability > > is both a more and an expectation. That refinement is how the data > > progresses and becomes better; it's rare we see a major precept regress > to a > > previously held precept. In fact, I can't think of an instance, although > I'm > > sure some on here could provide examples. > > > > That or many of those examples may also have been lost as well. Over > time, things change. Is that a falsifiable statement? > > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On 29 Jan, 11:40, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Is this correct Chris? There is no faith required in an emprical > > > > stance? > > > > > > I don't think it is you know. We all belive that the Earth revolves > > > > around the sun despite not having personaly conducted any experiments > > > > ourselves. We belive instead the data from those who have perfomed > > > > such experiments. > > > > > Besides, there was a time when most people were sure that the Sun > > > revolved around the Earth. But their belief/faith was wrong. Science > > > has a strength in its falsifiability but it can also be a weakness, in > > > that, just because something is not falsifiable CURRENTLY does not > > > imply that it is not falsifiable. Many things currently viewed as not > > > falsifiable and, therefore, not scientific, may become so later; thus > > > proving that they were, in fact, always. I still say we should launch > > > a teapot named 'Russell' in orbit around Mars and end that little > > > argument forever. ;-) > > > > > > So then I personly have no experiance of the above yet it is > > > > certianly what I belive to be true. I must belive it because I trust > > > > the works of others, there is a little faith in that surley? > > > > > > To love also, yes we can see and test emotions, but as every teenager > > > > will know some times when a person say 'I love you' they may not be > > > > telling the truth. I am loved, my wife oves me, of this I am > certian. > > > > By her words, by her actions, know all of this, empricaly I know it. > > > > She could though be living a lie, there is really no way for me know > > > > that for sure, other than her telling me. So I belive that all of > her > > > > words and all of her actions that have lead me to the conclusion that > > > > she loves me are true. There is certianly an element of faith in > that > > > > too. > > > > > > Ultimatly though, we will all belive as we will, for good or for ill, > > > > logic, empricalism, faith, can you really tell me which methoed of > > > > though is best? Can you then show me the evidance why you belive > > > > this? Can you show me certian objective evidance? > > > > > > Myself, I 'belive' that all three are important for all of us, I deny > > > > that anybody can live by logic, empircalism, or faith alone, and > > > > further I 'belive' that to even try to do so does a person no good. > > > > Hah but that is just a belief of mine, based on some faith, some > > > > logical deductive reasoning and some empircal experiance. > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 14:39, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On each of those topics, no faith is required in an empirical > stance. > > > > > Emotions exist, are measurable, have an underlying physiological > > > mechanism, > > > > > which can be fine tuned or adjusted via externalities. Intuition is > > > > > subconscious analysis. We do it, it's observable, and as would be > > > expected, > > > > > is certainly nothing like "ESP". Vitality, attention? I don't > > > understand > > > > > their inclusion. By vitality, do you mean how energetic someone is, > or > > > how > > > > > healthy? Why would that be a matter of faith? Same with > attention...how > > > is > > > > > focus a faith issue? Charm? Do you mean an accelerated > understanding > > > and > > > > > capability within interpersonal ritualistic behaviour? Love is easy > as > > > > > well...assuming you're willing to define it first. > > > > > > > Those who think that science doesn't cover all the tenets and > facets of > > > > > human behaviour, aren't viewing those things from a scientific > > > perspective, > > > > > which makes sense...once you begin to analyze them from a > scientific > > > > > perspective, they lose their mystery, and there is an appeal to the > > > mystery, > > > > > for those who need faith. > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:31 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > I wonder about “having faith in” things like: emotions, > intuition, > > > > > > vitality, attention, charm etc. How does that work? Does one > require > > > > > > having ‘empirical’ proof of such things? Note that I’ve left > ‘love’ > > > > > > off of the list too. > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:57 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Yes, Pat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We > know. > > > > > > > > > However, you're mistaking the empiricist stance, as so many > theists > > > do. > > > > > > > > > I will believe something when I am presented with empirical > > > evidence for > > > > > > its > > > > > > > existence. Until such time, I do not expend belief. There is no > > > empirical > > > > > > > evidence for a soul, therefore I do not believe in such a > thing. > > > You have > > > > > > > faith that souls are comprised of fields of energy. I do not. > You > > > have > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > that humans possess souls to begin with. I do not. This is not > a > > > faith > > > > > > based > > > > > > > stance; it's a faithless stance. I'm not sure why that concept > is > > > so > > > > > > > difficult for those with faith to understand. Did you start out > > > with > > > > > > faith, > > > > > > > and simply can't conceive of not believing in something not > > > implicitly > > > > > > > proven? Neither Ian nor I have implicitly stated "There is no > soul, > > > there > > > > > > is > > > > > > > no God". We simply note that lacking evidence for such, we > can't > > > have > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > in it. > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pat < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat < > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that > there > > > is no > > > > > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone > > > claims > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim > > > must be > > > > > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that > ther > > > eis no > > > > > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. > > > There > > > > > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is > a > > > 'field > > > > > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, > I > > > know > > > > > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but > > > that > > > > > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means > it > > > hasn't > > > > > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when > Uranus > > > and > > > > > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into > existence > > > when > > > > > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot > thing > > > is > > > > > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've > said > > > > > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected > something > > > is not > > > > > > > > evidence that it does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > Google > > > > > > Groups > > > > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > Google > > > Groups > > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > . > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > . > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
