Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
So now you agree the 'magic' thing was a straw man? Good, although it would have been easier if you'd said so when I first mentioned it.
|
A straw man argument would require me to intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to elevate my own opinion. I did not do this. I'm sorry you felt I did, but if you read back, you will see that you repeatedly denied to accept that the brain (and the mind / consciousness) is an abstract construction built around neural pathways which, when the neurons making these pathways cease to function, then dies.
if we take into account that I go into this discussion with a belief that you are an intelligent person (a fair believe I think), what other conclusions beyond the four I have stated, could I possibly have drawn from that? I certainly do not expect you to be sat on the fence about everything, ever, in case at some stage in the future someone might find out that observable evidence was either wrong or our understanding was not in it's entirety.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
You seem to be of the opinion that just because science states 'a' is 'a' that it will forever be only 'a'. This is a well-worn example but it's valid nonetheless - we did used to think the Earth was flat. Why do we no longer think that? Because new evidence came to light to prove science wrong. We used to think the Sun was at the centre of the universe until new proof showed that's not the case.
|
hmmm - composition argumentation and historic anecdotal evidence, this bit - because these 'facts' were proven wrong, all facts are therefore wrong. nah.
the examples you have given here (the Earth is flat and the Sun is the centre of the universe) were conclusions drawn without any viable, repeatable or observable studies being done. they were belief systems not based on any facts - they were just beliefs, because they had nothing else, no way to prove or disprove, but still questioned their surroundings and purpose. The fact (if I may use that word) that the brain ceases to function (and as such, so does the consciousness it harbours) under certain, repeatable and observable conditions holds far more weight.
Might I also add that it is well documented that the belief the Earth was flat is in fact a myth. there is little to not evidence people ever thought this to be true. the myth is thought to have come about in the 19th century in an attempt to belittle the church, saying that people of religious beliefs in the middle ages were taught that the world was flat because they were so backward thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
With that in mind I view all science facts to have the potential to be disproved. Having a closed-off opinion of "Science says this so it must always be true" could not be more narrow-minded and arrogant.
|
I absolutely agree, when there is room for change. 'potential' is the key here. there is a difference between science saying "we believe that..." or "evidence points towards..." as opposed to "we now know that....".
there is absolutely no denying that if the brain is damaged or the neurons cease to fire at all, the brain's functionality changes or stops completely. something you seem reluctant to agree to in this thread for some reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
Just to ensure you don't bring any more straw men in to this, I don't believe in ghosts but I'm not going to say they don't exist just as it's unwise for someone to suggest that science says they don't exist. I keep an open mind to the possibility that current scientific thinking is not yet at a level where it can conclusively state there are no ghosts.
|
Indeed, an open mind is good. to a point. there comes a stage however when keeping an 'open mind' can be used as a way of disguising the absurd. we
know that people die when the brain ceases to function. more accurately, when the brain ceases to function, people die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ
I'm trying to get you to open your mind to the fact that although science strongly suggests ghosts are not real, you need to bear in mind science has a history of proving itself wrong, I tried to open your mind a little more (unsuccessfully it seems) but mentioning the half-life of knowledge.
Keeping your mind open will benefit you in the long run.
|
I'm happy to have an open mind, but I'm not going to dismiss my belief in evidence in order to place a belief in something that has no evidence. Thank you for trying to 'teach' me, but it's un-necessary. I am already aware of the half-life of facts. I'm also aware that not all rules apply to all situations. some things, like death, are just what they appear to be - the end of a consciousness. as much as it's hard to swallow, and as much as people may not want to believe it, when your brain stops, all those memories, those moments, those thoughts, loves, fears and traits stop too. as Roy Batty once said:
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain"
And yes, science is all about proving itself right and/or wrong. it refuses to lay down and blindly accept things without going out of it's way to prove or dis-prove it's theories. but just because it can or has also built on past knowledge to better understand something, does not always mean it was initially wrong. sometimes science simply improves on it's current understanding without actually being wrong in the first place. sometimes there is nothing more to prove because all the facts are there.
---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------
right - I'm off to bed. I look forward to continuing this one tomorrow!
