Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 27062" data-attributes="member: 443"><p><strong>Re: Treeees!!!</strong></p><p></p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div></p><p> </p><p>The fact is, we don't know. The statement that there exists a thing about which we know very little (or nothing) is where all scientific inquiry begins. I don't understand your statement that this somehow implies that there is "...little 'science'...to the science...of this area." Many areas have "little science" to them by this definition. We know almost nothing about black holes except for what we can predict mathematically, and such analyses must by their very nature be predicated on assumptions that could turn out to be wrong.</p><p>If we don't know about a thing, and we say we don't know about that thing, and we decide to research that thing to find out more about it, possibly solve the riddle, how is that not science? </p><p> </p><p>Compare this to the assertion that life was created here by Big Juju or aliens. How much science is there to the "science in/of this area..."? </p><p> </p><p><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div></p><p> </p><p>I suppose that you would prefer the scientist not link conciousness to biology? If they did not, what would be their basis for thinking they could study it?</p><p> </p><p>You say this is "assuming what needs to be proved." I say this is assuming that there is a physical event taking place associated with conciousness, and this assumption must be made before any decision can be made to research conciousness in a scientific manner (as opposed to a philosophical manner).</p><p> </p><p>These scientists are attempting to describe what conciousness is in a physical way, they are not attempting to prove that conciousness is linked to biology. There is enough evidence that it is to justify their researching it with the assumption there that they will find some answers in the physical realm. It's not as if they said "Let's assume conciousness has a biologigal link. Then we can prove conciousness has a biological link."</p><p> </p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 27062, member: 443"] [b]Re: Treeees!!![/b] <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div> The fact is, we don't know. The statement that there exists a thing about which we know very little (or nothing) is where all scientific inquiry begins. I don't understand your statement that this somehow implies that there is "...little 'science'...to the science...of this area." Many areas have "little science" to them by this definition. We know almost nothing about black holes except for what we can predict mathematically, and such analyses must by their very nature be predicated on assumptions that could turn out to be wrong. If we don't know about a thing, and we say we don't know about that thing, and we decide to research that thing to find out more about it, possibly solve the riddle, how is that not science? Compare this to the assertion that life was created here by Big Juju or aliens. How much science is there to the "science in/of this area..."? <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(\"fanavans\")</div> I suppose that you would prefer the scientist not link conciousness to biology? If they did not, what would be their basis for thinking they could study it? You say this is "assuming what needs to be proved." I say this is assuming that there is a physical event taking place associated with conciousness, and this assumption must be made before any decision can be made to research conciousness in a scientific manner (as opposed to a philosophical manner). These scientists are attempting to describe what conciousness is in a physical way, they are not attempting to prove that conciousness is linked to biology. There is enough evidence that it is to justify their researching it with the assumption there that they will find some answers in the physical realm. It's not as if they said "Let's assume conciousness has a biologigal link. Then we can prove conciousness has a biological link." Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
Treeees!!!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top