What is ' consciousness ' ?

[Thomas123]

This word appears to be at the centre of many discussions on this forum. It also appears to mean different things to different people and, therein lies the root of our miscommunication. What range and definement do you attribute to, ' consciousness ' ?

Is there an external consciousness in the world?. Can I tune into a shared consciousness. I am listening to Prime Minister's Question Time, ....is Boris tuned into a universal human consciousness as he delivers his address. Is his brain working ,simultaneously and in tandem with my own consciousness and with that of others?

[William]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #209]

a better question would be - how do we gain knowledge in situations where science is inapplicable?

Name such situations, and together we will explore possible answers to your question.

Folly, one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method, which is exactly what you are now arguing here.

Search "scientific method";

{SOURCE}

Statement: "one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method"

Q: How - other than the scientific method - can we find out if the statement is true or false?

[Clownboat]

You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason.

Something of an oxymoron there. The scientific method is the means by which we eliminate or reduce the incidence of conclusions based on faith or belief. If we have confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method it must surely be as a consequence of its track record. That's not a criticism. What other reason should we have?

The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

Why use any method? why assume that all knowledge is methodologically derived? Science rests on assumptions and beliefs so we can hardly use it in situations where we can't make those assumptions, a better question would be - how do we gain knowledge in situations where science is inapplicable?

Assuming so, (otherwise why complain about the scientific method?) it would be nice if this method you suggest doesn't have limitations nor that it rests on any assumptions and belief. If it does, you will have people complaining over such things. Then you will be stuck here wondering if they have a better method or if they are just are here to complain about the best we humans have come up with so far.

Folly, one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method, which is exactly what you are now arguing here.

Also where did I "complain"? I have stated simple facts about epistemology and the limitations of scientific inquiry. Pointing out the rather obvious fact that science is based on assumptions is not a complaint, why do you regard it as a complaint? do you think my claim is untrue? Do you believe that science assumes nothing whatsoever?

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

[Inquirer]

You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason.

Something of an oxymoron there. The scientific method is the means by which we eliminate or reduce the incidence of conclusions based on faith or belief. If we have confidence in the effectiveness of the scientific method it must surely be as a consequence of its track record. That's not a criticism. What other reason should we have?

The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs, that's not a criticism its a fact.

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

Why use any method? why assume that all knowledge is methodologically derived? Science rests on assumptions and beliefs so we can hardly use it in situations where we can't make those assumptions, a better question would be - how do we gain knowledge in situations where science is inapplicable?

Assuming so, (otherwise why complain about the scientific method?) it would be nice if this method you suggest doesn't have limitations nor that it rests on any assumptions and belief. If it does, you will have people complaining over such things. Then you will be stuck here wondering if they have a better method or if they are just are here to complain about the best we humans have come up with so far.

Folly, one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method, which is exactly what you are now arguing here.

Also where did I "complain"? I have stated simple facts about epistemology and the limitations of scientific inquiry. Pointing out the rather obvious fact that science is based on assumptions is not a complaint, why do you regard it as a complaint? do you think my claim is untrue? Do you believe that science assumes nothing whatsoever?

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #209]

a better question would be - how do we gain knowledge in situations where science is inapplicable?

Name such situations, and together we will explore possible answers to your question.

There are many questions that cannot be answered using science, for example how can we discover whether the universe is ancient or was actually created a few thousand years ago with an appearance of great age? or why does the universe adhere to mathematical rules? or is solipsism true? and so on, read any introduction to elementary philosophy.

Folly, one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method, which is exactly what you are now arguing here.

Search "scientific method";

{SOURCE}

You left out some essential steps, "Assume that nature always adheres to laws" and "Assume these laws do not change" and "Assume that a future experiment performed under identical conditions to a prior experiment will yield the same results as that prior experiment" and on and on, lots of assumptions are needed to do science.

So, folly again! You cannot use a system of reasoning based on certain assumptions and then prove that the assumptions are true using that system of reasoning. This is understood by mathematicians but sadly not by today's pop-science devotees. Developing a consistent body of knowledge based on some assumptions does not prove the assumptions are true, it proves only that there is consistency.

Take Euclid's geometry, we can prove theorems by using his axioms but we can never prove the axioms. In fact we can select some different axioms and reach different conclusions, like Euclid's "parallel lines never meet" well we can change that to "parallel lines always meet" without issues and get a different yet self consistent body of knowledge, you could ask "but which is true" but could you answer that question?

Statement: "one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method"

Q: How - other than the scientific method - can we find out if the statement is true or false?

Good question, now your getting somewhere!

[William]

__one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method_Q_ How - other than the scientific method - can we find out if the statement is true or false[Replying to Inquirer in post #214]

Good question, now your getting somewhere!

Where is this "somewhere" I am "getting" to?

[Inquirer]

__one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method_Q_ How - other than the scientific method - can we find out if the statement is true or false[Replying to Inquirer in post #214]

Good question, now your getting somewhere!

Where is this "somewhere" I am "getting" to?

The realization that a narrow minded devotion to scientism can never answer certain questions, perhaps even the realization that philosophy is an essential subject to study for those who are truly interested in these kinds of problems.

[William]

__one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method_Q_ How - other than the scientific method - can we find out if the statement is true or false[Replying to Inquirer in post #214]

Good question, now your getting somewhere!

Where is this "somewhere" I am "getting" to?

The realization that a narrow minded devotion to scientism can never answer certain questions, perhaps even the realization that philosophy is an essential subject to study for those who are truly interested in these kinds of problems.

This Just In...

GM: The Purpose
The Next World
The Shaping Of Reality
Quantifying Information
Eventually one can cease doing the tests and accept the results.
[Whatever you do
Like an interface representation]
Trying to change the world fails for one simple and unavoidable reason...“everyone else.”
The Limitations

William: Yes. It isn't about changing the world - it is about working with and in the realm of The Self...because it is this thing which is invented in this physical universe - and it is this thing which moves into the next...
My understanding of The Self, is that it is an aspect of the vaster Cosmic Mind - and if the micro Self can connect with the macro Self - the fact of the connection in terms of personal experience carries that personality on a different trajectory that it would have undertaken without the knowledge of and integration with the overall Mind.

GM: The Generated Messages
Speak
Living
Rainbow
The Ghost Agenda
viewtopic.php?p=1075874#p1075874

William: From the link;

William: The Book tells us exactly who is YHWH and what we are in relation to that.

The mystery is in how each personality responds to that - as to whether they serve the Dark side of YHWH or the Light side of YHWH or relinquish the right to either side of YHWH by accepting the whole of YHWH.

William: "The Ghost = "GOD" re invisible and not able to be imaged [even by placing a sheet/veil over it]. Consciousness does not know what it looks like, but can be observed through how it acts...
...Religious beliefs are a many-barbed growth wishing to own the rights on the mind behind creation...by placing imagery on to The Ghost-Mind

GM: Necessity is The Mother of Invention
It is what it is
The Fine-Tuning argument
viewtopic.php?p=1084775#p1084775

William: From the link;

Re: What is ' consciousness ' ?
Statement: "one cannot use the scientific method as the justification for the scientific method"

Q: How - other than the scientific method - can we find out if the statement is true or false?


GM: Acknowledge The Agreeable
The Realities Merge
{SOURCE}

[Clownboat]

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

No silly, for replacing what we currently use the scientific method for of course.

The scientific method: Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What method do you suggest we should use if not this one (when we use this one which is probably not one you use when deciding attraction levels)?

[Inquirer]

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

No silly, for replacing what we currently use the scientific method for of course.

The scientific method: Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What method do you suggest we should use if not this one (when we use this one which is probably not one you use when deciding attraction levels)?

What do you currently use the scientific method for ? For example have you tried to use it to explain things? have your tried to use it explain the scientific method itself? By which I mean have you tried to use science to explain the presence of a universe that is rationally intelligible? have you tried to use science to explain why there are laws of science? that kind of stuff.

[Clownboat]

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

No silly, for replacing what we currently use the scientific method for of course.

The scientific method: Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What method do you suggest we should use if not this one (when we use this one which is probably not one you use when deciding attraction levels)?

What do you currently use the scientific method for ? For example have you tried to use it to explain things? have your tried to use it explain the scientific method itself? By which I mean have you tried to use science to explain the presence of a universe that is rationally intelligible? have you tried to use science to explain why there are laws of science? that kind of stuff.

You said: "You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason." "The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs"
In response to what you said, I asked if there is a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method.

It sounded to me like you were complaining about it by saying it has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs and you even hinted at having 'faith' in it. You have since clarified that you were not complaining, but you never answered the question about if there is a better method to use compared to the one it sounded like you were complaining about, but weren't.

What you have then done is ask me what I use the scientific method for in place of answering the question posed to you in response to your not complaining about the scientific method.

I don't have much respect for lamenting about a process or mechanism when no alternative is being offered. Comes across as wining and complaining, to me anyway. So, when you criticized the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of.