Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The whole of science depends on your subjective experience of the external world. When you observe and measure anything external, it is being filtered through your senses and presented to your consciousness in the same way that other internal features are presented. The same conscious "you" that can attend to external things can also attend to internal things. In other words you can introspect.
So, if your observations of your own internal subjective experiences aren't valid, then neither should your observations of external events be valid, since in both cases it is still you that is making the observation.
Breezy: "The whole of science depends on your subjective experience of the external world."
No it does not.
rmfr
Well, when robots start doing science instead of people, I'll come back and agree with your comment.
But then again.. we'll have a philosophical debate on our hands as to whether or not such robots are subjects with subjective experiences.
Robots/Machines already do. Taking the subjectivity of humans out of the equation. You just ain't studied enough. Quit skipping classes.
rmfr
I'm pretty sure they don't do science, they just compute the information we give them, without gaining knowledge of what they are computing. They are nothing but tools for our mind.
I see someone has had an Agiel shoved into his ear...
rmfr
You are assuming that pain can not be measured by an external observer. That is an incorrect assumption.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUudAVD7epw
If you couldn't measure the behavioral correlates of consciousness and the neural correlates of consciousness, psychology and neuroscience wouldn't exist as a science. However, your mistake is in treating the measurements themselves as if they were the pain itself, rather than as a correlate of pain.
Brain scans are inherently void of information; the activity in the amygdala looks like the activity in the thalamus, which looks like the activity in the cortex. The only way to assume what activity in any specific region means is to correlate it with behavior and reportability. In other words, for the brain scans in this video to have any meaning, the doctors probably gave a bunch of patients a survey to fill out, as they scanned their brain, creating the correlation and allowing them to make predictions.
@ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy
"the doctors probably gave a bunch of patients a survey to fill out"
Probably? So you are guessing.
Not very scientific if you ask me. Breezy, just more proof you should give up now. You will never be the scientist you fantasize your self being.
rmfr
Yeah I'm guessing. You gave me a YouTube link after all, not a published paper outlining the methodology.
Lol I think I found it: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1204471
If this is the study in question then it proves my point. They're running correlations and regressions: "Participants in study 1 underwent 12 trials at each of four intensities, which were calibrated for each person: innocuous warmth (defined with the use of self-report by the participant as level 1 on a 9-point visual-analogue scale
"In study 1, we used a machine-learning–based regression technique, LASSO-PCR, to predict pain reports from the fMRI activity.
P.S.
One of my professors uses the term "seducing the public" to describe the tendency of people to view the colorful images of fMRI as hard science, blinding them to all the problems underlying the research. I attached a good introduction to the issue below.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5d32/c77777aee73240b4409a35888693ee6aed...
It makes me smile when you cite scientific studies John, after all, how many peer reviewed studies over the last 160 years that validate species evolution are you happy to arbitrarily reject?
Maybe we can all cherry pick which studies we will accept in the same fashion?
"One of my professors uses the term "seducing the public" to describe the tendency of people to view the colorful images of fMRI as hard science,"
Wow. a whole one, how many experts globally decry creationism as unevidenced unscientific pseudoscience?
Now are you are you a young earth creationist John? You never did say...
It's funny how subjects overlap, when we look at objective standards for validating claims and beliefs.
I'm afraid I don't see how subjects overlap.
Why not? Recent revelations indicate that the extinction of the Megaladon was due to a supernova.
The fabled argument of "all measurements being subjective" to discredit Science while using their own "grand" personal experience, albeit subjective, to prove god, krishna, woo-woo, nirvana...
Exactly. That is theists for you. No objectivity whatsoever. And Breezy is perfect proof.
William Lane Craig: “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter.”
And how this should have been said:
Arakish's Edit: I’ll say that again, but also include the words that should have been included, “Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence then it is the former (Christian faith) which must take precedence over the latter (true truth and hard empirical evidence).”
This statement is 100% proof Religious Absolutists can never be objective. NEVER. Additionally, it is 100% proof Religious Absolutists are the most subjectively bigoted persons ever in existence. They wholeheartedly admit they are already subjectively presupposed with confirmation bias. Just with that statement alone, I would state that they are only capable of perhaps 10% objectivity (probably closer to 1%), at maximum. They shall never, ever, be capable of possessing any kind of objectivity. They shall always be subjective in everything. All of you Religious Absolutists like to call yourselves morally objective and moral overlords. And now I know why. It does sound slightly better than calling themselves charlatans, flimflams, con-men, mountebanks, liars. And they definitely cannot call themselves what they truly are: megalomaniacal psychotic sociopaths.
rmfr
The implication is frigthening, how many of the Human population is composed of religious absolutists?
I can list a few of the major ones.
William Lane Craig, Pat Robertson, Ken Ham, anyone with the ICR, DI, AiG, Ben Shapiro, Sy Burgenncate, Kent Hovind, Eric Hovind, amongst many, many, many more...
rmfr
I mean, I definitely view objectivity as more of a statistical inference into a philosophical concept. If enough people can perceive a mountain, then we can just assume it continues to exist while no one is observing it, and call it objective. Its also worth noting that I don't view subjectivity as opinion-based but rather as subject-dependent.
No you don't. Every post you make shows you are just as subjectively presupposed with confirmation bias. Every post you make shows you believe wholeheartedly in William Lane Craig's Ultimate Divine Command:
You do not have even a nanogram of subjectivity or enough integrity to admit it.
rmfr
Whatever that means
It means you accept what science that fits your cult dogma, and reject what science that proves your cult dogma as woo woo.
And when in doubt, you turn on the manure spreader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDU4-2vVNjY
Breezy: "Whatever that means"
Not so intelligent either. Gosh you make me dread your generation. So screwed in the head and stupid too.
rmfr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
"If enough people can perceive a mountain, then we can just assume it continues to exist while no one is observing it, "
Are you really claiming that is representative of scientific knowledge?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Its also worth noting that I don't view subjectivity as opinion-based..."
subjectivity
noun
the quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or *****opinions****...
Oh dear John...dear oh dear...scientific endeavour may not be for you, unless you make sure your career is conducted within and under the protection of the creationist institute. They share your contempt for objective truth.
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy,
"If enough people can perceive a mountain, then we can just assume it continues to exist while no one is observing it, and call it objective."
Did the world exist before people?
It would appear that it did.
ʝօɦn 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐy,
"It would appear that it did."
If that is the case then isn't your statement =
"If enough people can perceive a mountain, then we can just assume it continues to exist while no one is observing it, and call it objective."...
rather silly? Physical things exist independent of animal or human observers.
No, because I have no issue with things existing independently of human observation; but how can we know what those things are without observing them?
Pages