Metaphysics is a self delusional anadyne

[untermensche]

Which in turn is based upon?

Any experience, not necessarily this narrow part of experience we label evidence.

Hunger is not empirical evidence.

Sensations are not empirical evidence.

You are beating a dead horse.

You are just wrong.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Look guys, it's not hard. Your imagination is a metaphysical realm. You can use your imagination to affect the world. That's why we can talk about unicorns even if they don't really exist. Money is metaphysical... yet influences this world a lot. Beliefs are metaphysical. The news article or film clip isn't metaphysical, but the story that you create in your mind to make sense of the news piece = metaphysical. Whatever Trump believes about the world = 100% metaphysics. Yet has an impact. Nobody can argue that religion hasn't had a massive impact on the real world, yet all their dieties are 100% imaginary. The idea that God doesn't exist, is also a metaphysical belief.

The imaginary world has a lot of influence on the real world. Metaphysics matters.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Beliefs are metaphysical.

So you agree that science is metaphysical?
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

Beliefs are metaphysical.

So you agree that science is metaphysical?
EB

The concept of science, sure. But not the results.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Empirical evidence is something we call a subset of experience.

You really have a problem with categories.

Please note the "we". He can't have it all wrong, you know.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Beliefs are metaphysical.

So you agree that science is metaphysical?
EB

The concept of science, sure. But not the results.

The concept? No, I'm talking science itself, results and all. Why not? After all, like money it influences the world events.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

The concept of science, sure. But not the results.

The concept? No, I'm talking science itself, results and all. Why not? After all, like money it influences the world events.
EB

So what's your argument for that?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which in turn is based upon?

Any experience, not necessarily this narrow part of experience we label evidence.

It's like you're on the spectrum and can't comprehend context or categorization. This is the proper format: Empirical evidence is any experience.

Simple.

Hunger is not empirical evidence.

It is empirical evidence of a human body needing fuel.

Sensations are not empirical evidence.

They are empirical evidence of a nervous system.

You are beating a dead horse.

Irony.

You are just wrong.

Demonstrably false.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The concept of science, sure. But not the results.

The concept? No, I'm talking science itself, results and all. Why not? After all, like money it influences the world events.
EB

So what's your argument for that?

You said beliefs are metaphysical and science is a belief. At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity. Scientists are looking for a new theory to replace both General Relativity and Quantum physics. It's all beliefs. Therefore, metaphysical, at least according to your premise that "beliefs are metaphysical".
EB

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity.

That is a grossly inaccurate description of what happened.

Scientists are looking for a new theory to replace both General Relativity and Quantum physics. It's all beliefs.

BASED UPON the evidence.

Making vague, unqualified assertions like, "It's all beliefs" just triggers these endless semantics problems. A belief can either be held in spite of evidence that contradicts it or based upon the evidence that supports it. Those are two fundamentally different categories of beliefs that your shorthand unnecessarily obfuscates, which in turn gives rise to equivocation, much like untermensche.

It is just sloppy and unnecessary.

 

[Speakpigeon]

At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity.

That is a grossly inaccurate description of what happened.

Scientists are looking for a new theory to replace both General Relativity and Quantum physics. It's all beliefs.

BASED UPON the evidence.

It really is tiresome to have to constantly remind people itt that context matters. Making vague, unqualified assertions like, "It's all beliefs" just unnecessarily triggers these endless semantics problems. A belief can either be held in spite of evidence that contradicts it or based upon the evidence that supports it. Those are two fundamentally different categories of beliefs that your shorthand unnecessarily obfuscates, which in turn gives rise to equivocation.

It is just sloppy and unnecessary.

Please come down. I can't possibly write every words that's true just because you'll be peeved if I don't. So, sure, most beliefs are based on evidence. But people believe all sorts of false things based on evidence and that's because all the evidence you have is entirely a part of your mind. You should be addressing my point about Newton and Einstein and explain how the evidence led Newton to one theory and Einstein to another. So, where is your evidence? I can't see it because all I have is my evidence. Still, I will guess you think evidence is something outside your head, for all to see. If so, how come your brain knows this sort of evidence since it's inside your head. Simple answer is it doesn't. What it knows is indeed something inside your head, which may and may not be a correct representation of the world outside. But you prefer to ignore the fact that different people will have different beliefs about what the evidence is. I will guess you think all people who disagree with you about what the evidence is are most likely idiots or mad people. No, they're not. Some are, of course, but not all (not all Trump supporters are idiots or mad people). They just have a different evidence than you do. So, prove to me that evidence is something that exists outside our heads.
EB

 

[DrZoidberg]

So what's your argument for that?

You said beliefs are metaphysical and science is a belief. At the time of Newton, people believed Newton's theory described gravitation and then Einstein published his General Relativity and scientists just switched their belief from Newton's theory of gravitation to Einstein's General Relativity. Scientists are looking for a new theory to replace both General Relativity and Quantum physics. It's all beliefs. Therefore, metaphysical, at least according to your premise that "beliefs are metaphysical".
EB

Anything measurable isn't metaphysical. Anything you can calculate also isn't metaphysical. Metaphysics start once you venture into the unknown. It's the stuff you can't really know but take for granted because otherwise your idea of the world won't hang together.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But people believe all sorts of false things based on evidence and that's because all the evidence you have is entirely a part of your mind.

Inaccurate. There are fundamental beliefs--such as our senses are not lying to us--that in turn allow us to infer that there is in fact a consistent objective reality that we all subjectively experience.

Saying, "all the evidence you have is entirely a part of your mind" in no way contradicts this. All sentient beings must first hold one, primary, fundamental belief (senses are not lying). After that, ALL OTHER BELIEFS, can be (and are) conditionally held beliefs, which are of a different category of beliefs.

You should be addressing my point about Newton and Einstein and explain how the evidence led Newton to one theory and Einstein to another.

It didn't. Einstein had Newton's theories to analyze and build upon and deconstruct and new evidence that Newton did not have to inform his own theory. It wasn't like Einstein came up with his own theory on a different planet.

Still, I will guess you think evidence is something outside your head, for all to see.

Don't guess, ask. Guessing almost always leads to tiresome strawmen.

If so, how come your brain knows this sort of evidence since it's inside your head.

Oh ffs.

All we will ever have is inference derived from our experiences (experiences that only "exist" inside our brains). This is a completely trivial fact of no real importance in light of utility and the 108 billion case studies that have walked this planet and literally every single one of the countless quadrillions of things that bombard us every nano-second that make up this universe.

Can we "prove" they exist to a 100% certainty? No, due exclusively to the fact that we are biologically limited to inference derived from our experiences (experiences that only "exist" inside our brains). So the fuck what? We evidently don't need to prove anything exists externally to a 100% certainty to nevertheless act as if it does.

This condition is unchanging and cannot ever be overcome, except through inference. This fact has been well established for thousands of years now.

Put down the bong and move beyond freshman year.

 

[untermensche]

Sensations are not empirical evidence.

They are empirical evidence of a nervous system.

Where exactly in this nervous system would we find sensations?

Please be specific.

All that is known about sensation is known through experience and the mind's ability to report experience.

There is no empirical evidence to examine.

When I unravel your misunderstandings again I suspect you will just say it all so trivial.

 

[untermensche]

Inaccurate. There are fundamental beliefs--such as our senses are not lying to us....

Senses are not something that lie or tell the truth.

And something like color is not something in the world.

There is no color except in minds.

This is not lying but it is a total fabrication.

Our experience of color is not evidence of color in the world.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Inaccurate. There are fundamental beliefs--such as our senses are not lying to us....

Senses are not something that lie or tell the truth.

There are fundamental beliefs, such as the belief that our senses are not inaccurately mirroring the external world.

And something like color is not something in the world.

You can't possibly know that. You are inferring that.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Sensations are not empirical evidence.

They are empirical evidence of a nervous system.

Where exactly in this nervous system would we find sensations?

Different question.

There is no empirical evidence to examine.

The sensations are the empirical evidence. I feel pain in my left leg. This sensation in turn leads us to examine our left leg first and foremost to see if there is any damage. From there we may wonder how did we sense such damage, which leads us to...every fucking thing else.

When I unravel your misunderstandings

Grow up.

 

[4321lynx]

Ko----si said

The sensations are the empirical evidence. I feel pain in my left leg. This sensation in turn leads us to examine our left leg first and foremost to see if there is any damage. From there we may wonder how did we sense such damage, which leads us to...every fucking thing else.

It leads us to every fucking thing else even if when we look we see there is no fucking left leg and remember it was amputated by a fucking surgeon (we hope) some time ago.

 

[untermensche]

The sensations are the empirical evidence. I feel pain in my left leg. This sensation in turn leads us to examine our left leg first and foremost to see if there is any damage. From there we may wonder how did we sense such damage, which leads us to...every fucking thing else.

Pain is not evidence.

Pain is a subjective response to sensation.

The sensation does not even tell of location.

Sciatica is pain in the back of the leg, the back of the calf.

But nothing is wrong with the leg. Nothing wrong with the calf.

The sensation does not help understand what is happening.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The sensations are the empirical evidence. I feel pain in my left leg. This sensation in turn leads us to examine our left leg first and foremost to see if there is any damage. From there we may wonder how did we sense such damage, which leads us to...every fucking thing else.

Pain is not evidence.

Pain is evidence of (among other things) damage/trauma to the body.

Pain is a subjective response to sensation.

And is thus empirical evidence of something causing that sensation.

The sensation does not even tell of location.

That's right. It's a "trick" the brain plays on the generated self. It animates the self and imbues it with the gestalt of "sensation comes from location X." Why? Because it's a process, not a slice of a cell on a plate in a microscope.

Sciatica is pain in the back of the leg, the back of the calf.

But nothing is wrong with the leg. Nothing wrong with the calf.

CATEGORY ERROR FFS.

What is "wrong with the leg" is that there is a crimped nerve being triggered repeatedly to send damage signals to the brain, which in turn processes those signals into an alert to imbue the animated self to investigate why the leg has a crimped nerve being triggered repeatedly to send damage signals to the brain.

So, yes, there is nothing wrong with the leg (if you separate out the crimped nerve inside the leg); or likewise the calf and likewise the italicized parenthetical, but why do that other than to score worthless semantics points?

The sensation does not help understand what is happening.

Of course it helps. It triggers investigation. It triggers additional inferences.

 

[4321lynx]

The sensations are the empirical evidence. I feel pain in my left leg. This sensation in turn leads us to examine our left leg first and foremost to see if there is any damage. From there we may wonder how did we sense such damage, which leads us to...every fucking thing else.

Pain is not evidence.

Pain is a subjective response to sensation.

The sensation does not even tell of location.

Sciatica is pain in the back of the leg, the back of the calf.

But nothing is wrong with the leg. Nothing wrong with the calf.

The sensation does not help understand what is happening.

Does not help you understand. Helps me and millions of others. Even if the leg isn't there. (See above)