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?

[brunumb]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

You misunderstand, science most emphatically does not help us determine truth. Now, care to try again?

I'll save you some time, science primarily proves its worth as a means of enabling us to predict the future state of material systems. So with that in mind, care to try again?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

If you do not know what the scientific method entails, it is easy to find online.

[Inquirer]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

You misunderstand, science most emphatically does not help us determine truth. Now, care to try again?

I'll save you some time, science primarily proves its worth as a means of enabling us to predict the future state of material systems. So with that in mind, care to try again?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

If you do not know what the scientific method entails, it is easy to find online.

The premise inherent in your question is false, I just told you that, science has nothing to do with truth, this is a science sub-forum, I tend to assume that people understand this.

[JoeyKnothead]

The premise inherent in your question is false, I just told you that, science has nothing to do with truth, this is a science sub-forum, I tend to assume that people understand this.

I submit science'll get us closer to truth than the Bible ever will.

[Inquirer]

The premise inherent in your question is false, I just told you that, science has nothing to do with truth, this is a science sub-forum, I tend to assume that people understand this.

Science has nothing to do with truth in the same way the Bible has something to do with it.

At last, you must have finally found the definition of "truth" will you share it with us?

[brunumb]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

You misunderstand, science most emphatically does not help us determine truth. Now, care to try again?

I'll save you some time, science primarily proves its worth as a means of enabling us to predict the future state of material systems. So with that in mind, care to try again?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

If you do not know what the scientific method entails, it is easy to find online.

The premise inherent in your question is false, I just told you that, science has nothing to do with truth, this is a science sub-forum, I tend to assume that people understand this.

Please enlighten us on what you understand the purpose of the scientific method to be if it is not to find truth.

[Inquirer]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

You misunderstand, science most emphatically does not help us determine truth. Now, care to try again?

I'll save you some time, science primarily proves its worth as a means of enabling us to predict the future state of material systems. So with that in mind, care to try again?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

If you do not know what the scientific method entails, it is easy to find online.

The premise inherent in your question is false, I just told you that, science has nothing to do with truth, this is a science sub-forum, I tend to assume that people understand this.

Please enlighten us on what you understand the purpose of the scientific method to be if it is not to find truth.

To give us the power to predict outcomes. The very term "understand" in science could literally be replaced with "able to predict". If you can predict the effects of certain configurations of matter then you are in a position to design configurations of matter that provide some material utility.

If I can predict the shape and phase of a current through some circuit component then I understand it, when one does not understand one has little or no ability to predict.

Now, did you see the word "truth" in any of that?

I learned all of this in the 1970s when I was still an atheist and a bookworm for all things scientific, many of the books I read are classics, foundational to much of what we discuss here. I was reading and studying and discussing and debating these things long before any internet or web.

[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.

Once again, stating a fact is not a complaint or a criticism.

The efficacy of any process or "method" is constrained to the circumstances under which it is applicable, those circumstances inevitably involve assumptions.

In order to argue if method A is "better" than method B then we need some basis for comparing said methods.

Is frying a better method of frying than baking? do you see what I'm getting at here?

Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"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."

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Copy/paste with a minor change to save time and sanity:
"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 spoke about the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of."

I didn't use the word 'truth'. Can't wait to see which word will prohibit getting an answer out of you.

[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.

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.

Once again, stating a fact is not a complaint or a criticism.

The efficacy of any process or "method" is constrained to the circumstances under which it is applicable, those circumstances inevitably involve assumptions.

In order to argue if method A is "better" than method B then we need some basis for comparing said methods.

Is frying a better method of frying than baking? do you see what I'm getting at here?

Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"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."

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Copy/paste with a minor change to save time and sanity:
"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 spoke about the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of."

I didn't use the word 'truth'. Can't wait to see which word will prohibit getting an answer out of you.

How do you measure the utility of the scientific method? Would you say that a practice that is leading to the gradual destruction of the planet, creating weapons of mass destruction, polluting our water and air, would you argue that this is somehow "better" than simply taking care of what was given to us?

[brunumb]

How do you measure the utility of the scientific method? Would you say that a practice that is leading to the gradual destruction of the planet, creating weapons of mass destruction, polluting our water and air, would you argue that this is somehow "better" than simply taking care of what was given to us?

Those are not outcomes of practicing the scientific method. Get a grip Inquirer.

[JoeyKnothead]

How do you measure the utility of the scientific method? Would you say that a practice that is leading to the gradual destruction of the planet, creating weapons of mass destruction, polluting our water and air, would you argue that this is somehow "better" than simply taking care of what was given to us?

Those are not outcomes of practicing the scientific method. Get a grip Inquirer.

I don't know, with global warming, and the seas a-rising, we might catch up to God on the planet flooding.

But yeah, the scientific methods just a tool. How humans use the results of it is on them.