Euthanasia and the Right to Die.

[worm]

The physical universe *was* guessed at; now it is observed and measured.

[worm]

Ditto matey, ditto.

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

Wrong!

The physical universe is guessed at. It can't be observed because we have no idea what it is. Even the word universe is comprised of two concepts. A verse, which is a metrical dimension, and uni, which means many.

the universe was once a concept in theory only. It is now defined by what we have come to know of the reality.

Meanwhile, the psyche remains a concept in theory only. It cannot be observed, it cannot be measured, and it cannot even be firmly defined. It acts in every reality as the ultimate in tautologies, whereby something which cannot be identified or defined is used to bat off what cannot be answered within a lower concept (as 'universe' once was).

The whole of psychology is one huge tautology, and is why it's clearly dark age stuff.

[eFestivals]

Well, I do at least attempt to discuss according to the tenets of reason rather than contradiction and meaningless assertion. Mainly because I know what I'm on about and what the words mean. And I tend not to state rhetoric instead of concise language. Mainly because it's useless.

And yet you never answer the questions. I'm still waiting for you to address a whole heap of them within here, but you constantly move the ground as an avoidance method.

'Guessed at' rather than 'hypothesised' is a good example of the rhetorical way in which you speak. A rather funny irony given your insistence on science.

Guessed at is what a house of sand is. A house of sand is what you have.

Come back when you've thought about things enough to know that we can only think that we think.

[worm]

the universe was once a concept in theory only. It is now defined by what we have come to know of the reality.

[worm]

And yet you never answer the questions. I'm still waiting for you to address a whole heap of them within here, but you constantly move the ground as an avoidance method.

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

It's exactly the same as the psyche Neil. We know, through science, certain things about the psyche.

except whether it actually exists at all in the first place, of course.

You think it exists. I think you have a house of sand. I can show you the house of sand, you can't show me the psyche.

You think it exists. If I say I think it doesn't, then we've reached stalemate. You can no more prove the existence of a psyche beyond it being only a concept than you can a god.

[worm]

except whether it actually exists at all in the first place, of course.

[eFestivals]

Same with the universe!!! Jesus fucking christ man, how dense are you?

Not dense enough to go along with the false idea that the universe is a concept of science.

[worm]

Not dense enough to go along with the false idea that the universe is a concept of science.

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

Thinking: that's not a concept of science either.

Thought is a concept of thought only; it's something with zero external verification. Just self-verification, devoid of definition.

We share a physical world. We do not share thoughts or our feeling of thought.

What we do share is a difference of thought. A difference that manifests itself in an infinite number of ways, to the extent that we cannot agree what thought is. We can't even start to express what thought is to try to start to agree.

And yet a bunch of crazies believe they can tell us what thought is and how its expressed, despite them having nothing greater to their toolset than any individual; they can only think about what thought is.

But what they really think about is power.

Edited August 29, 2012 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Of course it is! It's a hypothesis!

Fuck me, you have absolutely no idea of what science is or how it works.

Scientific knowledge is never, ever considered correct. Ever. It's considered uncountered.

Someone once told me that a thing comes into existence at the first utterance of a word. I wonder who that was?

And they call it science, the jumping around from one idea to another, just so that they can give the illusion of science.

[worm]

Thinking: that's not a concept of science either.

Thought is a concept of thought only; it's something with zero external verification. Just self-verification.

We share a physical world. We do not share thoughts or our feeling of thought.

What we do share is a difference of thought. A difference that manifests itself in an infinite number of ways, to the extent that we cannot agree what thought is. We can't even start to express what thought is to try to start to agree.

And yet a bunch of crazies believe they can tell us what thought is and how its expressed, despite them having nothing greater to their toolset than any individual; they can only think about what thought is.

But what they really think about is power.

[worm]

And what the fuck isn't about power? I'd rather an institution based itself and its laws on knowledge and science than on ignorance and prejudice.

[eFestivals]

The greatest asset of science is accepting when a former belief has been nulled. You aren't scientific.

So show that to me. Show me what has been nulled of what I've said there?

We have no idea whether either are true or not, nor do we need to know, we only use them as models and they frequently change in light of new evidence.

At last, a bit of sense from you.

Now, there is 'evidence' for both. Is the evidence of the same quality, and tested to the same extent, and shows the same consistency with both towards respective theories? How well tested (all these same questions asked) are the supporting ideas for each concept? Etc?

And we get to see that while a similar idea of science is applied, a similar quality of data, process and conclusion is not shared. One remains in the dark ages.

[worm]

So show that to me. Show me what has been nulled of what I've said there?

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

That psychology is a logos. That all psychological theory and models are equal to physical theory and models i.e. they are based entirely upon evidence and are open to verification and contestation.

that addresses not a single part of what I challenged you on.

Read back on that particular post, and I say nothing of the relative status' of either. So try again.

-----

Meanwhile, two computer programs can have a structure that is said to be equal. The worth of the output of each is relative to the quality of the data put in, and how relevant the methods are that used to model that data. So while they're the same, they're also different.

Shouting 'science' from the rooftops as you do means very little, without also digging under the surface.

And when you do, what you find is NOT equal.

[eFestivals]

... are open to verification and contestation.

Is the spaghetti monster a god?

Just because something cannot be disproven beyond all doubt does not stop it being stupid beyond belief.

[worm]

that addresses not a single part of what I challenged you on.

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[worm]

Is the spaghetti monster a god?

Just because something cannot be disproven beyond all doubt does not stop it being stupid beyond belief.

[eFestivals]

I have nulled your diatribe.

Yet you keep coming back with illogical bullshit time and time again. What the fuck are you babbling about with irrelevant analogies regarding quality and unquality data? Seriously, what the fuck is your point? How does this obvious difference relate in anyway whatsoever? I've proven that psychology is equal in terms of data to physics, yet here you are assuming a difference. What difference?

PMSL.

Are all weather forecasts the same, or do different forecasters use different models onto the same dataset?

They can all be said to be operating science, but one is getting a far better accuracy with their answers than another. Why would that be?

And in every case, the answer that is got out is dependent on the data fed in. If data is taken from a slightly different place (and so is different data), will the model give the same result?

The physical and natural sciences got nowhere until they learnt to recognise what is good data - both for what is included and what must be excluded - and then the model (method) to use on a set of good data to be able to draw a reliable conclusion.

Sciences of the mind have yet to be able to recognise what is good data, and are a huge way from having any working method for any data, as proven by the unreliability of any drawn conclusion and how quickly that has to be abandoned in favour of another.

And all that aside, everything about it is lacking all external verification. There is only the mind with which to investigate the mind.

[worm]

A 'thought process' is based upon logic, not thinking. And logic is seen through observed behaviour independent of physical forces, such as wind or gravity. There is no need to seek thinking. Psychology doesn't give two fucks about thinking. It gives a fuck about the logic of a sentient entity as its behaviour is observed. It looks at the patterns of behaviour and the outcome of such behaviour.

[worm]

Are all weather forecasts the same, or do different forecasters use different models onto the same dataset?

They can all be said to be operating science, but one is getting a far better accuracy with their answers than another. Why would that be?

Edited August 29, 2012 by worm

[eFestivals]

What? You are completely beyond reason, nevermind belief!

Really?

You have an idea that makes it impossible to deny the possibility of the spaghetti monster being a god, despite the fact that we know it isn't. And you reckon it's me that's lost it?

Sometimes the application of science as we know it is a worthless joke.

The only thing going on here is that you've yet to realise some of the places that applies.

[worm]

Sciences of the mind have yet to be able to recognise what is good data