Submitted by BasketCase0024 t3_y8sp94 in philosophy
iiioiia t1_itbzuqi wrote
Reply to comment by Bodywithoutorgans18 in [Peter Harrison] Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it by BasketCase0024
> Can you name something that exists outside of the physical material world
Causality.
Human delusion and hubris.
> and also tell me how you know it exists.
People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).
> > > > Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.
I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.
This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.
ConsciousLiterature t1_itcq70u wrote
>Causality.
>Human delusion and hubris.
Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.
>People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources)
Causes of what?
>I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.
What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?
>This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.
I am just trying to understand where you are coming from. You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material. I want to know what that is. Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists. Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.
You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit.
iiioiia t1_itcv2p8 wrote
> Sorry but both of these are material and physical and in this universe.
What device is used to measure them?
What is the unit of measure?
Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).
> Causes of what?
The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).
>>> Also would you agree that religion should have no role in medicine because medicine is in the material physical world.
>> I would not, because the situation is not yet understood well enough to move to a conclusion forming stage.
> What part of medicine are you claiming is supernatural?
Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)
For clarity (to avoid people accidentally using a colloquial meaning of the term):
supernatural: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond [current] scientific understanding or the laws of nature"
>> This seems like a half decent example of the cartoonish conceptualization of the world I mention above.
> I am just trying to understand where you are coming from.
I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).
> You are convinced there exists some thing that is not physical and material.
Correct. Perhaps you can release me from this potential delusion by answering my questions.
> I want to know what that is.
a) Causality.
b) Human delusion and hubris.
> Furthermore I want to know how you got convinced such a thing exists.
For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).
For "Human delusion and hubris": People complain about the consequences of it [causality], passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).
> Also now that we are on medicine what kinds of treatments this supernatural thing is good for and what diseases or ailments we should take away from doctors and hospitals because they can only treat the physical and the material.
For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled.
For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.
I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material. I believe they could do much more, but to their credit they at least try, if only somewhat (bureaucracy and delusion makes innovation and progress difficult - recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).
> You made a series of claims. I just want to examine them in this philosphy subreddit..
Great, then let's proceed.
ConsciousLiterature t1_itdmr9q wrote
>What device is used to measure them?
I'll tackle human delusion and hubris.
They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.
>What is the unit of measure?
There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?
>Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).
in the brain.
>The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).
I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>Primarily, the portions that contribute to causality (primarily: the mind)
So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?
>I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).
it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.
>For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).
What do you mean by the cause of causality?
>For causality: treatments are a subset of causality, and are intimately entangled
Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
>For "Human delusion and hubris": the placebo effect is well known and sometimes still used (I believe) in medicine.
OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.
>I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.
But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?
>recall how controversial ideas like washing hands or having checklists was when they were first suggested).
Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?
>Great, then let's proceed.
We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.
iiioiia t1_itgmbhv wrote
> They are measured mostly by listening to the subject who exists physically and communicates using things in this universe. They can also be measured using various methods such as MRI.
measure: ascertain the size, amount, or degree of (something) by using an instrument or device marked in standard units or by comparing it with an object of known size.
> There is none. Is this a requirement somehow?
See above.
>> Where are they located, precisely (not approximately).
> in the brain.
See bolding.
>>> Causes of what?
>> The end state of reality as it is, as opposed to some other end state (one that people would find more appealing, and perhaps complain about less).
> I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
Causality isn't really covered in Western curriculum/ideology.
> So you are claiming nobody should seek medical treatment for anything related to the mind? That medicine itself should have no role in the treatment of any kind of mental illness?
No, that's your interpretation.
>> I suspect that is not the only thing that is going on (here I am referencing the "just" in your sentence).
> it doesn't surprise me that you suspect things.
Nicely played! ;)
>> For "causality": People complain about the consequences of it, passionately and endlessly, but never the causes themselves (beyond cartoonishly simplistic misrepresentations, the contents of which are largely seeded into our minds from largely unknown sources).
> What do you mean by the cause of causality?
If I steal your bike and you punch me, my stealing your bike is plausibly the cause of you punching me.
> Again I have no idea what you are trying to say here.
> OK. But I fail to see the relevance in this discussion.
See Western curriculum above.
>> I do not agree that we should be taking things away from doctors and hospitals, and I also do not believe that they can (or do) only treat the physical and the material.
> But you claim all diseases of the mind are supernatural and therefore should not be treated by medicine (i.e science should stay in it's lane) right?
Please quote the specific text from which you have extracted this specific assertion.
> Again I don't fail to see the relevance. Are you saying that because some ideas were controversial at some stage and are accepted today that means any or all controversial claims are actually true?
No, it demonstrates how relatively smart people can be dumb on an absolute scale. That this is not easy for you to discern may demonstrate how people have difficulty cognitively navigating between the two scales while considering a single idea.
> We are trying. It's been difficult so far though.
It would be interesting to do a crowd-sourced causal analysis of the problem!!!
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments