Higher knowledge needs not at all to be mysterious. But our problem is that we confuse knowledge with speculation. For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature; yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress. Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science. So it is certainly mysterious how these problems will be one day solved by Western science.

The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature. This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.

For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature; yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress.

No. Science aims to find out how nature works so as to best know how to work within its laws - not to "conquer" them.

Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science.

The average life expectancy in the developed world has almost tripled since then.

The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature. This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.

What a strange view of science. In fact, science is concerned only with the material world, and not with Cartesian dualism.

It is religions that seem to be fond of positing dualistic things like souls and ghosts and spirits and gods.

JamesR

Originally Posted by lightgigantic For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature; yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress.
”
No. Science aims to find out how nature works so as to best know how to work within its laws - not to "conquer" them.
A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace should make clear the agenda of the scientific knowledge


A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
by which nature is animated and the position of all
the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
enough to include all these data within his analysis,
could embrace in one single formula the movements of
the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
and the past would be equally before his eyes.

IOW its not clear why you think "knowledge" and "control" are somehow separate issues, since the later follows the former like a shadow


“
Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science.
”
The average life expectancy in the developed world has almost tripled since then.
regardless, these three things still have an unblemished track record of 100% success

“
The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature. This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.
”
What a strange view of science. In fact, science is concerned only with the material world, and not with Cartesian dualism.
correction - it is concerned in delineating the material world through the mind (something like threading an elephant through the eye of a needle) - and the foundation for laying such a wager is attributed to Rene Descartes



It is religions that seem to be fond of positing dualistic things like souls and ghosts and spirits and gods.
I don't know why you bring this up - but since you do, its not clear how any field of knowledge or inquiry can exist without dualistic notions ...

A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
by which nature is animated and the position of all
the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
enough to include all these data within his analysis,
could embrace in one single formula the movements of
the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
and the past would be equally before his eyes.

When I first read this I thought of a comparison to God or a God like force that knows everything that is happening in the Universe in the same instant that it happens, Would that then be our final destination after which we would have no other reason for our existence,unless we could travel beyond our universe to others that may exist.but as an energy force that have disregarded their human form.I find that an interesting prospect although somewhat far fetched :rolleyes:

When I first read this I thought of a comparison to God or a God like force that knows everything that is happening in the Universe in the same instant that it happens, Would that then be our final destination after which we would have no other reason for our existence,unless we could travel beyond our universe to others that may exist.but as an energy force that have disregarded their human form.I find that an interesting prospect although somewhat far fetched :rolleyes:
call it what you will, it is the foundation of scientific and technical thought
:D

Higher knowledge needs not at all to be mysterious. But our problem is that we confuse knowledge with speculation. For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature; yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress.

What do you mean by 'conquer the laws of nature'?


Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science. So it is certainly mysterious how these problems will be one day solved by Western science.

Disease is far less of a problem for humans now thanks to science so it is certainly not as problematic now as 2500 years ago. How are old age and death a problem? It's entropy.


The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature. This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.

Thats odd. Last time I checked, science doesn't consider 'mind' to be independent of the laws of nature... let alone some nebulous 'spirit'.

lightgigantic:

IOW its not clear why you think "knowledge" and "control" are somehow separate issues, since the later follows the former like a shadow

Not at all. I may understand how a star such as the Sun "works", but that doesn't mean I can control it to any extent. And there's no guarantee that human beings will ever gain that degree of control.

correction - it is concerned in delineating the material world through the mind (something like threading an elephant through the eye of a needle) - and the foundation for laying such a wager is attributed to Rene Descartes

But many disagree with Descartes that "mind" is anything other than the physical activity of the brain. If that is true, there's no need for dualism.

I don't know why you bring this up - but since you do, its not clear how any field of knowledge or inquiry can exist without dualistic notions ...

See previous paragraph.

Crunchy cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Higher knowledge needs not at all to be mysterious. But our problem is that we confuse knowledge with speculation. For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature; yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress.
”
What do you mean by 'conquer the laws of nature'?
A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace should make clear the agenda of the scientific knowledge


A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
by which nature is animated and the position of all
the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
enough to include all these data within his analysis,
could embrace in one single formula the movements of
the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
and the past would be equally before his eyes.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science. So it is certainly mysterious how these problems will be one day solved by Western science.
”
Disease is far less of a problem for humans now thanks to science so it is certainly not as problematic now as 2500 years ago. How are old age and death a problem? It's entropy.
disease is still a problem - just ask the WHO
old age and death is also still a problem - just visit a local nursing home

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature. This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.
”
Thats odd. Last time I checked, science doesn't consider 'mind' to be independent of the laws of nature... let alone some nebulous 'spirit'.
perhaps the terms are not used but the qualities are the same - the foundation is that the mind (aka logic/deduction/etc) is sufficient to demystify the workings of the universe - in other words the human mind on one side of the scales weighs more than the universe - or so we are led to believe .....

call it what you will
Evolution maybe?

Crunchy cat

A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace should make clear the agenda of the scientific knowledge


A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
by which nature is animated and the position of all
the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
enough to include all these data within his analysis,
could embrace in one single formula the movements of
the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
and the past would be equally before his eyes.

I don't get how an astronomer stating that uncertainty could be removed if all variables were known is stating that science has an agenda to conquer nature.


disease is still a problem - just ask the WHO

I never said it wasn't a problem. I said its less of a problem than 2500 years ago (you asserted its not).


old age and death is also still a problem - just visit a local nursing home

The local nursing homes in my area take excellent care of their occupants; however, some are abusive. Is the issue old age or is the issue the people taking care of them? Again, why are old age and death problems?


perhaps the terms are not used but the qualities are the same - the foundation is that the mind (aka logic/deduction/etc) is sufficient to demystify the workings of the universe - in other words the human mind on one side of the scales weighs more than the universe - or so we are led to believe .....

I see. In this assertion of "human mind" are you including tools that gain us visibility, analysis, computation, and pattern recognition? Are you including processes that gain us validation of hypothesis / prediction from reality?

JamesR

“
IOW its not clear why you think "knowledge" and "control" are somehow separate issues, since the later follows the former like a shadow
”
Not at all. I may understand how a star such as the Sun "works", but that doesn't mean I can control it to any extent.
obviously because you don't "know" enough about it

And there's no guarantee that human beings will ever gain that degree of control.
then that must mean the guarantee holds that human knowledge is constitutionally limited

“
correction - it is concerned in delineating the material world through the mind (something like threading an elephant through the eye of a needle) - and the foundation for laying such a wager is attributed to Rene Descartes
”
But many disagree with Descartes that "mind" is anything other than the physical activity of the brain. If that is true, there's no need for dualism.
its not clear how your proposal, even if its true, is somehow an alternative from Descartes wager that the brain/mind is capable of delineating the substance of reality (which BTW contradicts your earlier proposal about humans having no “guarantee of control”)

Crunchy cat

A statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace should make clear the agenda of the scientific knowledge


A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
by which nature is animated and the position of all
the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
enough to include all these data within his analysis,
could embrace in one single formula the movements of
the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
and the past would be equally before his eyes.
”
I don't get how an astronomer stating that uncertainty could be removed if all variables were known is stating that science has an agenda to conquer nature.

Is it possible to conquer without removing uncertainty?
Is it possible to remove all uncertainty without conquering?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
disease is still a problem - just ask the WHO
”
I never said it wasn't a problem. I said its less of a problem than 2500 years ago (you asserted its not).
I asserted that disease has, is and forever will remain a problem for the material world

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
old age and death is also still a problem - just visit a local nursing home
”
The local nursing homes in my area take excellent care of their occupants; however, some are abusive. Is the issue old age or is the issue the people taking care of them? Again, why are old age and death problems?
ethics of care aside, given your current state of health (which I assume to be quite vital), do you find the prospect of breaking 2 ribs after sneezing violently a progressive proposal for your future?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
perhaps the terms are not used but the qualities are the same - the foundation is that the mind (aka logic/deduction/etc) is sufficient to demystify the workings of the universe - in other words the human mind on one side of the scales weighs more than the universe - or so we are led to believe .....
”
I see. In this assertion of "human mind" are you including tools that gain us visibility, analysis, computation, and pattern recognition? Are you including processes that gain us validation of hypothesis / prediction from reality?
I am asserting that the mind (with the assistance of the senses) is wagered as sufficient to demystify the universe, independent of any other authority

Crunchy cat
Is it possible to conquer without removing uncertainty?
Is it possible to remove all uncertainty without conquering?

What definition of conquer are you using?


I asserted that disease has, is and forever will remain a problem for the material world

Incorrect. You asserted:


...disease... remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years

Either way, I have no idea if disease will always be a problem. We might get to a point where we can remove any disease from people.


ethics of care aside, given your current state of health (which I assume to be quite vital), do you find the prospect of breaking 2 ribs after sneezing violently a progressive proposal for your future?

I find entropy natural and necessary. It will impact the quality of my life as it will yours.


I am asserting that the mind (with the assistance of the senses) is wagered as sufficient to demystify the universe, independent of any other authority

If we're excluding products of the mind (ex. microsocopes, telescopes, the scientific process, etc.) and we're excluding reality being the authority then I would agree.

Gee. So much bs why don't you give it all a big clarification post!
I'm all for epistemology, maybe. Just, if this is so foundational, ... you see what I mean ? :/

For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of natureI'm not sure what you mean by "conquering" the laws of nature. Science studies the laws of nature so we understand how the universe works. Mankind learns to utilize the laws of nature to our advantage, starting with the discovery of how fire can be started so we could cook our food, stay warm and check for predators after dark. Then working up to the discovery of how plants grow from seeds so we could cultivate crops and live in permanent villages. Ultimately discovering how electrons are shunted through crystals with various voltages applied to them, so you and I can communicate via computer. We haven't conquered anything, we've simply learned how to use what we've found.Yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress.I don't know who told you that but no scientist I've ever met would speak with such hubris. The purpose of science is to accurately predict how the universe will behave in the future, based upon empirical observations of how it has behaved in the past, using theories derived by logical reasoning. The only thing scientists want to conquer is ignorance.Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science.Duh? Where did you learn your history? I don't have an accurate figure for the Greek empire, but in the Roman Empire, the life expectancy of an adult who had already survived childhood was only age 23. Today in the Western countries the life expectancy of a newborn baby is close to 80 years. So many diseases have been controlled that causes of death like murder, suicide and auto accidents are in the top five in many places--very rare deaths compared to the death rate from disease 1,000 years ago. We're even conquering old age. I'm 64 and I'm as strong and healthy as my father was at half that age.So it is certainly mysterious how these problems will be one day solved by Western science.Not much of a mystery if you'd just step away from your computer, walk outside, and count the number of healthy 70-year-old people walking around without help. Or visit a neonatal ICU and see the number of babies who are routinely saved from illnesses that were invariably fatal a mere hundred years ago.The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature.The notion that humans can overcome the laws of nature exists only in science fiction, where people routinely travel faster than the speed of light, read each other's minds, and have not only sexual intercourse but healthy hybrid children with beings from other solar systems. You are misrepresenting science in order to create a false premise and then denigrate science for being something that it is not.

This is a violation of SciForums' rule against "trolling": the posting of off-topic or inappropriate (e.g. anti-scientific) material. Even in the Philosophy Subforum we are obliged to respect the scientific method, or at the very least not flout it.

If you truly believe what you are saying and your intention is to stimulate a discussion rather than fool around and cause trouble, then please comport yourself like a scientist. You have made a claim that contradicts the fundamental principle of science: the claim that science and scientists intend and expect to "conquer" the laws of nature. Your claim has been peer-reviewed and its validity has been challenged. You are required to provide substantiation for your claim before moving forward with your argument. Since a claim that runs counter to the basis of science itself is extraordinary, you are bound by the principle that "extaordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation." So you will need to provide very strong evidence to support your theory that science is not what we have been calling it for about 500 years.

Your entire argument is weakened by your false example of disease. Contrary to what you say it has abated drastically. Furthermore this does not represent a conquest of nature, but rather an understanding of it. We have used chemistry and biology--the understanding of the natural behavior of atoms, molecules and lifeforms--to reduce the opportunities for disease-causing microorganisms to proliferate inside our bodies.This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.Descartes was a great mathematician, but he was not a great scientist. (Mathematics is not a science, which a learned person like yourself surely knows.) This assumption may be at the core of Cartesian philosophy but it is not the foundation for science. Since the very notion of the spirit is about the supernatural, by definition it is outside the bounds of science, which deals only with nature. Any statement using the concept of the spirit is likely to be unscientific, as is the case with your example.

Because something is not understood by science today does not in my opinion mean that it
is not part of the Natural Laws of the Universe or outside the bounds of science,Just outside our "Understanding" of such Laws
Many things in the past were perceived as Supernatural before they were understood

Fragglerocker
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
For example, it is sheer speculation that mankind is destined to conquer the laws of nature
”
I'm not sure what you mean by "conquering" the laws of nature.

con•quer / Ñ 'kQNkJ(r); NAmE Ñ 'kA;N-/ verb [vn] - to succeed in dealing with or controlling sth:

Science studies the laws of nature so we understand how the universe works. Mankind learns to utilize the laws of nature to our advantage, starting with the discovery of how fire can be started so we could cook our food, stay warm and check for predators after dark. Then working up to the discovery of how plants grow from seeds so we could cultivate crops and live in permanent villages. Ultimately discovering how electrons are shunted through crystals with various voltages applied to them, so you and I can communicate via computer. We haven't conquered anything, we've simply learned how to use what we've found.
What most commands the attention of a society seeking lordship?
Power or truth?

“
Yet this is a guiding tenet of scientific progress.
”
I don't know who told you that but no scientist I've ever met would speak with such hubris.
if you think that control is not a natural consequence of knowledge, it tends to indicate that you have never really thought about the implications of knowledge

The purpose of science is to accurately predict how the universe will behave in the future, based upon empirical observations of how it has behaved in the past, using theories derived by logical reasoning.
and would this or would this not result in control?
Actually your words are quite in line with a statement by astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace


A mind that in a given instance knew all the forces
by which nature is animated and the position of all
the bodies of which it is composed, if it were vast
enough to include all these data within his analysis,
could embrace in one single formula the movements of
the largest bodies of the universe and of the smallest
atoms; nothing would be uncertain for him; the future
and the past would be equally before his eyes.

The only thing scientists want to conquer is ignorance.
nothing will be uncertain for him; the future and the past would be equally before his eyes
;)

“
Old age, disease and death remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years ago when the Greeks began laying the foundations of Western science.
”
Duh? Where did you learn your history? I don't have an accurate figure for the Greek empire, but in the Roman Empire, the life expectancy of an adult who had already survived childhood was only age 23. Today in the Western countries the life expectancy of a newborn baby is close to 80 years.
disease still inhibits health, up to the point of death
same with old age
seems like they are still problematic

So many diseases have been controlled that causes of death like murder, suicide and auto accidents are in the top five in many places
lol - I'm impressed

--very rare deaths compared to the death rate from disease 1,000 years ago. We're even conquering old age. I'm 64 and I'm as strong and healthy as my father was at half that age.
bold words - still old age is headed your way (and my way too) and along the way expect a visit from disease before you arrive at death - practically the same scenario 2500 years ago
“
So it is certainly mysterious how these problems will be one day solved by Western science.
”
Not much of a mystery if you'd just step away from your computer, walk outside, and count the number of healthy 70-year-old people walking around without help.
I don't mean to be a downer - I mean its good that there are elderly active people and all that, and no doubt a positive outlook is a healthy companion to a healthy lifestyle - but the facts still stand - old age is there, disease is there and death is there - I have had a bit of experience with hospice care and no matter how you want to hedge your bets, death is a certainty, with a strong likelihood of encountering disease (more than likely, no less than a dozen, all of which will be fighting for supremacy as one progresses in age) on the way

Or visit a neonatal ICU and see the number of babies who are routinely saved from illnesses that were invariably fatal a mere hundred years ago.
people join all sorts of clubs - jazz club, vegetarian club etc - but the fact is that we are all members of the death club, either now or 2500 years ago - quite simply, death has an unblemished track record of 100%
as for disease, its no secret that new one's pop up all the time, so that also makes us members of the disease club, no matter how many vaccinations we develop
and time is a one way street - so provided our memberships in the other two clubs are not brought to the lime light prematurely, we can also sport our membership in the old age club with 100% confidence.

Once again, its not just you - its everyone - and its not just 2500 years ago - its now too - of course one of the downsides of contemporary western culture is that it downplays the reality of death, old age and disease (to be old or sick in the west is a "crime") , so they tend to hide it or pretend its not happening when ever it arises, but its the nature of these things to come hell or high water
“
The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature is founded upon a notion that the mind is independent of the laws of nature.
”
The notion that humans can overcome the laws of nature exists only in science fiction, where people routinely travel faster than the speed of light, read each other's minds, and have not only sexual intercourse but healthy hybrid children with beings from other solar systems. You are misrepresenting science in order to create a false premise and then denigrate science for being something that it is not.
its a premise behind the philosophy of science - of course science is very different now than what it used to be.
Professor Lewis Wolpert, biologist at London's University College, writes that most scientists today are ignorant of philosophical issues. Though at the beginning of the twentieth century a professional scientist normally had a background in philosophy,

Today things are quite different, and the stars of modern science are more likely to have been brought up on science fiction ... the physicist who is a quantum mechanic has no more knowledge of philosophy than the average car mechanic.

This is a violation of SciForums' rule against "trolling": the posting of off-topic or inappropriate (e.g. anti-scientific) material. Even in the Philosophy Subforum we are obliged to respect the scientific method, or at the very least not flout it.
If you think science is somehow so brilliant that it overrides the established norms of philosophy it tends to indicate that you are not familiar with the foundations of science - a common trend in the past 50 or 100 years of "professional" science

If you truly believe what you are saying and your intention is to stimulate a discussion rather than fool around and cause trouble, then please comport yourself like a scientist. You have made a claim that contradicts the fundamental principle of science: the claim that science and scientists intend and expect to "conquer" the laws of nature.
can you provide an example of attaining knowledge that does no result in the exhibition of control?
(NB - its not sufficient to indicate something that is partially known and thus not capable of being controlled because of insufficient knowledge)

Your claim has been peer-reviewed and its validity has been challenged.
control is the natural consequence of knowledge - even a child can understand that

You are required to provide substantiation for your claim before moving forward with your argument. Since a claim that runs counter to the basis of science itself is extraordinary, you are bound by the principle that "extaordinary assertions require extraordinary substantiation."
pardon?
control as a natural consequence of knowledge is the basis of science.
Why is so much time and money put into knowing about diseases unless the fruit of such labor is the control of them?

So you will need to provide very strong evidence to support your theory that science is not what we have been calling it for about 500 years.
Frankly I can't see the logic behind your call
First you suggest that philosophy doesn't or no longer has a role to play in the formulation of science (gee I guess we can throw out all questions of true/false, accurate/inaccurate then)
Next you suggest that control is not a natural consequence of knowledge (gee I guess there is no need for a person employed in cancer research to come up with a cure for cancer)

Obviously these are absurdities - I suggest you get off your cherry picking cart and desist from trying to derail the thread with such foolishness

Your entire argument is weakened by your false example of disease. Contrary to what you say it has abated drastically.
yes some diseases have abated - some have even been cured - and lo and behold some new ones have popped up - at the end of the day disease was a worry 2500 years ago and it remains a worry today

Furthermore this does not represent a conquest of nature, but rather an understanding of it.
so when an understanding of a disease is reached, do they control it?

We have used chemistry and biology--the understanding of the natural behavior of atoms, molecules and lifeforms--to reduce the opportunities for disease-causing microorganisms to proliferate inside our bodies.
divide and conquer, eh?
;)
“
This is the so-called Cartesian assumption (named after Rene Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," who believed the mind to be spirit, not matter; he argued that rational thought, when perfected, can make man master and possessor of material nature). This assumption is at the foundation of modern scientific and technical thought.
”
Descartes was a great mathematician, but he was not a great scientist.
(Mathematics is not a science, which a learned person like yourself surely knows.)
erm - I did mention that he made a contribution to the foundation (aka philosophy of science) - as already indicated, scientific learning these days doesn't necessary encompass such things

This assumption may be at the core of Cartesian philosophy but it is not the foundation for science.
if the foundation of science is empiricism with the odd adventure in rationalism when things get difficult, I am afraid you are wrong

Since the very notion of the spirit is about the supernatural, by definition it is outside the bounds of science, which deals only with nature. Any statement using the concept of the spirit is likely to be unscientific, as is the case with your example.
Descartes notion was the mind is spirit (aka the absolute medium of knowledge)
The notion of science is that the mind is sufficient to unravel the mysteries of the universe
Do you want me to join the dots or can you see the picture already?

Crunchy cat
Is it possible to conquer without removing uncertainty?
Is it possible to remove all uncertainty without conquering?
”
What definition of conquer are you using?
the standard one

con•quer / Ñ 'kQNkJ(r); NAmE Ñ 'kA;N-/ verb [vn] - to succeed in dealing with or controlling sth:

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I asserted that disease has, is and forever will remain a problem for the material world
”
Incorrect. You asserted:

“
Originally Posted by lg's actual assertion
...disease... remain as problematic now as they were 2500 years
and the difference is?

”
Either way, I have no idea if disease will always be a problem. We might get to a point where we can remove any disease from people.
given the track record for the past 2500 years, we would certainly have a lot work ahead of us

“
Originally Posted by lg's actual assertion
ethics of care aside, given your current state of health (which I assume to be quite vital), do you find the prospect of breaking 2 ribs after sneezing violently a progressive proposal for your future?
”
I find entropy natural and necessary. It will impact the quality of my life as it will yours.
:confused:
so treating disease and accommodating old age impacts the quality of life in a negative way?

“
Originally Posted by lg's actual assertion
I am asserting that the mind (with the assistance of the senses) is wagered as sufficient to demystify the universe, independent of any other authority
”
If we're excluding products of the mind (ex. microsocopes, telescopes, the scientific process, etc.) and we're excluding reality being the authority then I would agree.
microscopes, etc are all developments of the mind and while increasing the power of the senses, it still makes the senses limited.
If the mind and senses are inherently imperfect, anything that develops from them also carries the same traits

Store

Because something is not understood by science today does not in my opinion mean that it
is not part of the Natural Laws of the Universe or outside the bounds of science,Just outside our "Understanding" of such Laws
Many things in the past were perceived as Supernatural before they were understood
the question posed is whether because some things that were outside the purview of our mind which were later made knowable indicates that all things outside the purview of our mind can also become knowable.

In other words, the foundation of science, laid down by Descartes, is that the (human) mind is a sufficient entity to uncover anything that is knowable in the universe.

But knowable to one mind,may be doubted in another so who can say that one persons truths,are indeed universal.As one persons instant in time differs from another persons.

In other words, the foundation of science, laid down by Descartes, is that the (human) mind is a sufficient entity to uncover anything that is knowable in the universe
I do believe however that knowledge will in time uncover things that are at this moment unknown .
Even the creation of the universe will I believe in time be solved.:D

You should put a disclaimer on that quote, lightgigantic: Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (March 23, 1749 - March 5, 1827).

Scientists used to have grand ideas about what science could do. This quote is a statement of support for complete determinism and few scientists now hold the same opinion (it was 150 years ago).

Crunchy cat
the standard one

con•quer / Ñ 'kQNkJ(r); NAmE Ñ 'kA;N-/ verb [vn] - to succeed in dealing with or controlling sth:

Interesting. I wonder why the word 'conquer' was chosen when 'control' would have been so much more to the point. In that case you can control without removing uncertainty. Your computer is evidence of that.


and the difference is?


The severity and priority.


given the track record for the past 2500 years, we would certainly have a lot work ahead of us

Guess we better get crackin'.


:confused:
so treating disease and accommodating old age impacts the quality of life in a negative way?

Old age might impact quality of life.


microscopes, etc are all developments of the mind and while increasing the power of the senses, it still makes the senses limited.
If the mind and senses are inherently imperfect, anything that develops from them also carries the same traits

In that case I don't know the answer to the question. Maybe the mind is enough. Maybe it isn't.

spidergoat

You should put a disclaimer on that quote, lightgigantic: Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace (March 23, 1749 - March 5, 1827).

Scientists used to have grand ideas about what science could do. This quote is a statement of support for complete determinism and few scientists now hold the same opinion (it was 150 years ago).
and the advances we have made in microbiology and physics since then has made us more humble?
I doubt it .....
the posts of persons anticipating the results of scientific knowledge on this thread alone should indicate that the statements from persons like Laplace have become strengthened and not weakened over time (thus it falls into the fold of the “foundations of scientific and technical thought”)

store

But knowable to one mind,may be doubted in another so who can say that one persons truths,are indeed universal.As one persons instant in time differs from another persons.
such is the problem of knowledge that surrounds having the mind as a foundation – there is no possibility of approaching universal truths

“
In other words, the foundation of science, laid down by Descartes, is that the (human) mind is a sufficient entity to uncover anything that is knowable in the universe
”
I do believe however that knowledge will in time uncover things that are at this moment unknown .
Even the creation of the universe will I believe in time be solved.
given your opening admission of the problems of mind, this raises grave contradictions (assuming that the creation of the universe is based on universal truths)

Crunchy cat
the standard one

con•quer / Ñ 'kQNkJ(r); NAmE Ñ 'kA;N-/ verb [vn] - to succeed in dealing with or controlling sth:
”
Interesting. I wonder why the word 'conquer' was chosen when 'control' would have been so much more to the point. In that case you can control without removing uncertainty. Your computer is evidence of that.
my computer operates on uncertain principles?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and the difference is?
”
The severity and priority.
diseases are somehow less severe than what they used to be?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
given the track record for the past 2500 years, we would certainly have a lot work ahead of us
”
Guess we better get crackin'.
do you think our inability to jump over our knees is another issue that can addressed by dedicated endeavor also?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

so treating disease and accommodating old age impacts the quality of life in a negative way?
”
Old age might impact quality of life.
thus given your original statements about old age care, it appears you are in a paradox

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
microscopes, etc are all developments of the mind and while increasing the power of the senses, it still makes the senses limited.
If the mind and senses are inherently imperfect, anything that develops from them also carries the same traits
”
In that case I don't know the answer to the question. Maybe the mind is enough. Maybe it isn't.
lol - and that my friend is the only conclusive answer one can get from the mind

Crunchy cat
my computer operates on uncertain principles?

Yep. There are all sorts of uncertainties in the computing models used at the soft and hard levels of your system.


diseases are somehow less severe than what they used to be?

Someone whom gets the flu with a flu vaccination is going to have a much less severe0 experience for example.


do you think our inability to jump over our knees is another issue that can addressed by dedicated endeavor also?

Do you think there is any benefit to jumping over your knees? It can actually be done. Surgically remove your knees. Heal up. Re-learn how to jump with your modified biology and possibly prosthetics. Put your old knees on the ground. Hop over them.


thus given your original statements about old age care, it appears you are in a paradox

Which ones? That old age is natural and necessary? I still don't see old age as being a problem.


lol - and that my friend is the only conclusive answer one can get from the mind

Is that a problem?

Crunchy cat
my computer operates on uncertain principles? ”
Yep. There are all sorts of uncertainties in the computing models used
at the soft and hard levels of your system.
most of which are covered by warranty


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
diseases are somehow less severe than what they used to be? ”
Someone whom gets the flu with a flu vaccination is going to have a
much less severe0 experience for example.
unless of course they come in contact with a supervirus that has developed immunity to such a course of action ...


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
do you think our inability to jump over our knees is another issue that
can addressed by dedicated endeavor also? ”
Do you think there is any benefit to jumping over your knees?
not at all
mainly due to the prospect of succeeding in what is an inherently impossible task is not solved by endeavor

It can
actually be done. Surgically remove your knees. Heal up. Re-learn how
to jump with your modified biology and possibly prosthetics. Put your
old knees on the ground. Hop over them.
clever, but then that leaves you the dilemma of jumping over your new knees

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
thus given your original statements about old age care, it appears you
are in a paradox ”
Which ones? That old age is natural and necessary? I still don't see
old age as being a problem.
no

this one

The local nursing homes in my area take excellent care of their occupants; however, some are abusive. Is the issue old age or is the issue the people taking care of them? Again, why are old age and death problems?
screwed if you look after them
screwed if you don't
what is a gross materialist to do?
:shrug:


“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
lol - and that my friend is the only conclusive answer one can get from
the mind ”
Is that a problem?
if you were trying to determine whether you had a harmless python or a cobra in your bedroom and couldn't make much progress past "perhaps it is ... perhaps it isn't" it could have a few dire consequences ....

Crunchy cat
most of which are covered by warranty

Nevertheless a computer is evidence of controlling without certainty.


unless of course they come in contact with a supervirus that has developed immunity to such a course of action ...

Fortunate for us that doesn't seem to be a problem with the common flu. In fact with vaccination, lots of people never even get it. Thats some pretty good progress.


not at all
mainly due to the prospect of succeeding in what is an inherently impossible task is not solved by endeavor

Its a good thing then that I see value in furthering treatments and cures. Its also a good thing that I don't see it as inherently impossible. BTW, the jumping over your knees example doesn't work because I found a solution ;).



clever, but then that leaves you the dilemma of jumping over your new knees

Repeat the process.


no

this one

The local nursing homes in my area take excellent care of their occupants; however, some are abusive. Is the issue old age or is the issue the people taking care of them? Again, why are old age and death problems?
screwed if you look after them
screwed if you don't
what is a gross materialist to do?
:shrug:

I still don't see a problem with old age. Its entropy and a very necessary part of life.



if you were trying to determine whether you had a harmless python or a cobra in your bedroom and couldn't make much progress past "perhaps it is ... perhaps it isn't" it could have a few dire consequences ....

I'll just leave it there for a few weeks and let it die.

Crunchy cat
most of which are covered by warranty
”
Nevertheless a computer is evidence of controlling without certainty.
i think its more so evidence of the limits of empiricism and rationalism
(if knowledge is ultimately incomplete, everything appears uncertain)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
unless of course they come in contact with a supervirus that has developed immunity to such a course of action ...
”
Fortunate for us that doesn't seem to be a problem with the common flu. In fact with vaccination, lots of people never even get it. Thats some pretty good progress.
kind of two steps forward,two steps back


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
not at all
mainly due to the prospect of succeeding in what is an inherently impossible task is not solved by endeavor
”
Its a good thing then that I see value in furthering treatments and cures. Its also a good thing that I don't see it as inherently impossible. BTW, the jumping over your knees example doesn't work because I found a solution .

you found a solution by creating a new set of knees that you can't jump over, which is basically the same solution arrived at by those who are working under the impression that all disease can be eradicated

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
clever, but then that leaves you the dilemma of jumping over your new knees
”
Repeat the process.
by incorporating a new set of problems that you can't surmount? - how progressive .....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no

this one

The local nursing homes in my area take excellent care of their occupants; however, some are abusive. Is the issue old age or is the issue the people taking care of them? Again, why are old age and death problems?
screwed if you look after them
screwed if you don't
what is a gross materialist to do?

”
I still don't see a problem with old age. Its entropy and a very necessary part of life.
no doubt old age will change your mind on the topic


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you were trying to determine whether you had a harmless python or a cobra in your bedroom and couldn't make much progress past "perhaps it is ... perhaps it isn't" it could have a few dire consequences ....
”
I'll just leave it there for a few weeks and let it die.
I guess ignorance does make the prospect of living in a house with a possible cobra a tolerable alternative ....

Crunchy cat
i think its more so evidence of the limits of empiricism and rationalism
(if knowledge is ultimately incomplete, everything appears uncertain)


And at the same time we can have control. That was the point.


kind of two steps forward,two steps back

When little bobby gets a shot that effortlessly kills the scarlet fever that would have killed him otherwise, I would have to agree. Thats a huge step backwards. Man all those vaccinations protecting peoples lives... what utter de-progress... its almost like living in the dark ages :rolleyes:


you found a solution by creating a new set of knees that you can't jump over, which is basically the same solution arrived at by those who are working under the impression that all disease can be eradicated

Actually the solution was to lob off your knees and then jump over them. They are still your knees and you can jump over them as many times as you want. Regarding diease, whether or not its eradicatable or not seems moot because ultimately we've made an assload of progress and we're still making progress.


by incorporating a new set of problems that you can't surmount? - how progressive .....

Well again, whom would really want to jump over their knees vs. make disease a non-issue?


no doubt old age will change your mind on the topic

Doubt it.


I guess ignorance does make the prospect of living in a house with a possible cobra a tolerable alternative ....

Two weeks is a risk-free investment.

Crunchy cat

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Crunchy cat
i think its more so evidence of the limits of empiricism and rationalism
(if knowledge is ultimately incomplete, everything appears uncertain)
”
And at the same time we can have control. That was the point.
that control is inherently incomplete, hence "uncertainty" (aka -ignorance) plays a part in all our affairs

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
kind of two steps forward,two steps back
”
When little bobby gets a shot that effortlessly kills the scarlet fever that would have killed him otherwise, I would have to agree. Thats a huge step backwards. Man all those vaccinations protecting peoples lives... what utter de-progress... its almost like living in the dark ages
hence scarlet fever goes out the picture, and anything from cancer, to aids to mental illness comes forward to take the slack

my point is not that medical endeavor is futile
my point is that sincerely believing that such endeavors can eradicate the phenomena of disease is futile

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
you found a solution by creating a new set of knees that you can't jump over, which is basically the same solution arrived at by those who are working under the impression that all disease can be eradicated
”
Actually the solution was to lob off your knees and then jump over them. They are still your knees and you can jump over them as many times as you want.
ever tried jumping without knees?

Regarding diease, whether or not its eradicatable or not seems moot because ultimately we've made an assload of progress and we're still making progress.
actually the point is that disease is not able to be eradicated

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
by incorporating a new set of problems that you can't surmount? - how progressive .....
”
Well again, whom would really want to jump over their knees vs. make disease a non-issue?
both are in the same category - inherently impossible
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
no doubt old age will change your mind on the topic
”
Doubt it.
an old person who has just cracked two ribs from sneezing violently is not likely to be comforted by discussions of entropy (particularly by young whippersnappers like yourself)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I guess ignorance does make the prospect of living in a house with a possible cobra a tolerable alternative ....
”
Two weeks is a risk-free investment.
considering that a cobra bite can be lethal in minutes, only to the ignorant

Crunchy cat

that control is inherently incomplete, hence "uncertainty" (aka -ignorance) plays a part in all our affairs

And yet control still exists; hence, the point that you can control without eliminating uncertainty.


hence scarlet fever goes out the picture, and anything from cancer, to aids to mental illness comes forward to take the slack

actually the point is that disease is not able to be eradicated


Maybe we're operating on different definitions. I am thinking in terms of infection and you might be including any number of genetic defects and entropy effects. I think if we can figure out ways to reactively eliminate or proactively prevent any infection then we're in great shape.


my point is not that medical endeavor is futile
my point is that sincerely believing that such endeavors can eradicate the phenomena of disease is futile

both are in the same category - inherently impossible


We might be working off of different definitions, but if yours includes entropy then I agree because you can't beat entropy (you probably would not want to).



ever tried jumping without knees?

Just tried jumping without bending my knees. Hard to do but it can still be done.


an old person who has just cracked two ribs from sneezing violently is not likely to be comforted by discussions of entropy (particularly by young whippersnappers like yourself)

Regardless of his psychological 'comefort', it is still very necessary that entropy take its course.


considering that a cobra bite can be lethal in minutes, only to the ignorant

It can't bite anyone if its locked in a room and dies.

Crunchy cat

that control is inherently incomplete, hence "uncertainty" (aka -ignorance) plays a part in all our affairs
”
And yet control still exists; hence, the point that you can control without eliminating uncertainty.
so the control exists within limits
limits indicate relativity
relativity indicates subjectivity

- hence the inability of empiricism and rationalism to eradicate uncertainty indicates they are inherently subjective modes of knowledge

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
hence scarlet fever goes out the picture, and anything from cancer, to aids to mental illness comes forward to take the slack

actually the point is that disease is not able to be eradicated
”
Maybe we're operating on different definitions. I am thinking in terms of infection and you might be including any number of genetic defects and entropy effects. I think if we can figure out ways to reactively eliminate or proactively prevent any infection then we're in great shape.
such proactive endeavors eradicates only certain varieties of disease as opposed to the experience of disease

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
my point is not that medical endeavor is futile
my point is that sincerely believing that such endeavors can eradicate the phenomena of disease is futile

both are in the same category - inherently impossible
”
We might be working off of different definitions, but if yours includes entropy then I agree because you can't beat entropy (you probably would not want to).
then where does the desire to beat entropy arise from? (since nobody is happy just to succumb to it - in fact a lot of life is spent engaged in activities just to help us forget about it, even though it is looming over all our affairs)


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
ever tried jumping without knees?
”
Just tried jumping without bending my knees. Hard to do but it can still be done.
still find it difficult to leap over that part of your legs that are about two feet higher than your feet?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
an old person who has just cracked two ribs from sneezing violently is not likely to be comforted by discussions of entropy (particularly by young whippersnappers like yourself)
”
Regardless of his psychological 'comefort', it is still very necessary that entropy take its course.
so when you are elderly an in such a state it will be interesting to see how you handle such a psychological atmosphere - its offered more as food for thought than a challenge for further discussion since brave words before an event are cheap
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
considering that a cobra bite can be lethal in minutes, only to the ignorant
”
It can't bite anyone if its locked in a room and dies.
meanwhile an intelligent person solves the problem in 2 hours by contacting a person in knowledge

so the control exists within limits

It would be more correct to say that control can exists with uncertainty.


limits indicate relativity

They do? How so?


relativity indicates subjectivity

- hence the inability of empiricism and rationalism to eradicate uncertainty indicates they are inherently subjective modes of knowledge


Huh?


such proactive endeavors eradicates only certain varieties of disease as opposed to the experience of disease


Thats fine by me.


then where does the desire to beat entropy arise from? (since nobody is happy just to succumb to it - in fact a lot of life is spent engaged in activities just to help us forget about it, even though it is looming over all our affairs)

Genetics. Wanting to be attractive and wanting to persist for example.


still find it difficult to leap over that part of your legs that are about two feet higher than your feet?

Put your arms and body into it.


so when you are elderly an in such a state it will be interesting to see how you handle such a psychological atmosphere - its offered more as food for thought than a challenge for further discussion since brave words before an event are cheap

I'll send you a postcard.


“
meanwhile an intelligent person solves the problem in 2 hours by contacting a person in knowledge

An even more intelligent person knows what problems are actually problems.

Crunchy cat
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so the control exists within limits
”
It would be more correct to say that control can exists with uncertainty.
and if the boundaries of uncertainty get pushed back some distance due to advances in science, would that make it less limiting?
;)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
limits indicate relativity
”
They do? How so?
reality is not limited - our understanding of it is

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
relativity indicates subjectivity

- hence the inability of empiricism and rationalism to eradicate uncertainty indicates they are inherently subjective modes of knowledge
”
Huh?
see above

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
such proactive endeavors eradicates only certain varieties of disease as opposed to the experience of disease
”
Thats fine by me.
then it appears you have shifted poles from your earlier statement
Either way, I have no idea if disease will always be a problem. We might get to a point where we can remove any disease from people.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then where does the desire to beat entropy arise from? (since nobody is happy just to succumb to it - in fact a lot of life is spent engaged in activities just to help us forget about it, even though it is looming over all our affairs)
”
Genetics. Wanting to be attractive and wanting to persist for example.
then since your intelligence is dictated by genetics, its not clear how your statements of being satisfied with entropy are anything more than bluffs

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
still find it difficult to leap over that part of your legs that are about two feet higher than your feet?
”
Put your arms and body into it.
the tireless endeavors of empiricists -lol

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so when you are elderly an in such a state it will be interesting to see how you handle such a psychological atmosphere - its offered more as food for thought than a challenge for further discussion since brave words before an event are cheap
”
I'll send you a postcard.

provided entropy still enables you to perform such a task
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
“
meanwhile an intelligent person solves the problem in 2 hours by contacting a person in knowledge
”
An even more intelligent person knows what problems are actually problems.
so there's a snake in you bedroom and you don't know whether it is poisonous or not - Is this a problem?

given your opening admission of the problems of mind, this raises grave contradictions (assuming that the creation of the universe is based on universal truths
Yes it is contradictory at the present time but in the future it may be found that
there are no such Universal truths
I was thinking with with designer crops and soon babies in a few thousand years from now however we turn out will we "Humans" still be clung to the evolution theory, even though it may be more near the truth that we "Humans" were manufactured and did not naturally evolve into what we might become.
and could that have happened a few thousand years ago ,could we be the product of such manipulation that we some how are not governed by any such Universal laws" if they indeed exist.""

Yes it is contradictory at the present time but in the future it may be found that
there are no such Universal truths
given the opening about the nature of the mind and the senses, its as probable as threading an elephant through the eye of a needle

I was thinking with with designer crops and soon babies in a few thousand years from now however we turn out will we "Humans" still be clung to the evolution theory, even though it may be more near the truth that we "Humans" were manufactured and did not naturally evolve into what we might become.
and could that have happened a few thousand years ago ,could we be the product of such manipulation that we some how are not governed by any such Universal laws" if they indeed exist.""
the universal laws that we are most ambitious to over come are those of entopy - namely disease, old age and death - or in the wider picture , the repeated cyclic periods of creation and annihilation
given that genetics can only work with the chemical systems of communication that life utilizes, it should be obvious that it can't cut the mustard
(if the universe is prone to periods of dissolution, how do you propose to solve that problem with genetics)

oops

The notion that the human mind can figure out a way to overcome the laws of nature...
Let's see.

Learn and use them to our benefit? Yes. "overcome" them? No. No one today (or ever, as far as I know) has ever stated that, in effect, we could for example, nullify or modify the laws of gravitation or electromagnetism. We have demonstrated however that we can use those laws to our benefit. There's nothing new about radios or computers that nature dosen't demonstrate. We can guide electrons and atoms into different patterns with the skillful application of force, just as we can divert or dam up a river.

We've "invented" no new forces or changed the constants of nature. No one "overcomes" gravity by flying. You apply known forces cleverly.

Therefore, the limits of what humans can do to manipulate and control nature are dictated solely by the extant laws of nature, and how cleverly we can maneuver them to our own ends.

I thought this would be obvious?

Learn and use them to our benefit? Yes. "overcome" them? No. No one today (or ever, as far as I know) has ever stated that, in effect, we could for example, nullify or modify the laws of gravitation or electromagnetism.
how about other laws like death and disease (entropy)?



Therefore, the limits of what humans can do to manipulate and control nature are dictated solely by the extant laws of nature, and how cleverly we can maneuver them to our own ends.
the question is whether one is of the belief that this maneuverability has an unlimited scope to make anything possible

the universal laws that we are most ambitious to over come are those of entopy - namely disease, old age and death - or in the wider picture , the repeated cyclic periods of creation and annihilation
given that genetics can only work with the chemical systems of communication that life utilizes, it should be obvious that it can't cut the mustard
(if the universe is prone to periods of dissolution, how do you propose to solve that problem with genetics)



Given that were only interested in our own immortality I would say controlling
entopy to our advantage would be all that's required,Genetic modification does that by changing the codes to stop decay,that may be possible sometime in the future if not already possible. It may be just the practicality of it thats holding us back.

(if the universe is prone to periods of dissolution, how do you propose to solve that problem with genetics
The Universe seems to be an ordered system not prone to disorder and there is no proof that it is heading for it's own destruction

Crunchy cat
and if the boundaries of uncertainty get pushed back some distance due to advances in science, would that make it less limiting?
;)


Heh, you can tap dance around it all you like and control can still exist with uncertainty.


reality is not limited - our understanding of it is

see above


Do you mean there are no boundaries in reality? No asymptotes? No impossibilities?


then it appears you have shifted poles from your earlier statement
Either way, I have no idea if disease will always be a problem. We might get to a point where we can remove any disease from people.

One was a statement of being satisfied. The other was a statement of possibility. Are you inventing poles again?


then since your intelligence is dictated by genetics, its not clear how your statements of being satisfied with entropy are anything more than bluffs

I understand its necessity and see it as quite natural.


the tireless endeavors of empiricists -lol

Remember that when you get your next tetinus shot.



provided entropy still enables you to perform such a task


I'll make sure to get the postcard out before that moment.


so there's a snake in you bedroom and you don't know whether it is poisonous or not - Is this a problem?

For the snake.

how about other laws like death and disease (entropy)?
"death" and "disease" are not a fundamental physical laws. Entropy is. They are a result of entropy. And as long as there is an external energy source and we use it cleverly enough, there's no reason that death and disease can't be eradicated within the thermodynamic system called a "Human Being".



the question is whether one is of the belief that this maneuverability has an unlimited scope to make anything possible
Of course it dosen't! I said that within the laws of the cosmos, one can theoretically maneuver them to ones hearts content. But you can't (as far as we know) change the law it self. Thus you are always limited in scope to what the laws will ultimately allow.

This brings up an interesting idea. Could it one day be possible to actually affect the fundamental laws of physics themselves, thereby opening up an entirely new realm of the possible?

Hmmm...

Given that were only interested in our own immortality I would say controlling
entopy to our advantage would be all that's required,Genetic modification does that by changing the codes to stop decay,that may be possible sometime in the future if not already possible. It may be just the practicality of it thats holding us back.
hence the humble suggestion that on a cosmic level, there are some things which constitutionally always remain impractical for the living entity

Crunchy cat

and if the boundaries of uncertainty get pushed back some distance due to advances in science, would that make it less limiting?

”
Heh, you can tap dance around it all you like and control can still exist with uncertainty.
hence control can exist with limitations

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
reality is not limited - our understanding of it is

see above

”
Do you mean there are no boundaries in reality? No asymptotes? No impossibilities?
I mean there is no force that can prevent reality from manifesting - whether its such smooth sailing in our understanding of that is a different issue

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then it appears you have shifted poles from your earlier statement
Either way, I have no idea if disease will always be a problem. We might get to a point where we can remove any disease from people.
”
One was a statement of being satisfied. The other was a statement of possibility. Are you inventing poles again?
if you are satisfied, why consider a different possibility?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
then since your intelligence is dictated by genetics, its not clear how your statements of being satisfied with entropy are anything more than bluffs
”
I understand its necessity and see it as quite natural.
so if you had to suffer entropy somewhat prematurely (due to reasons that were necessary and quite natural) that would be perfectly fine with you?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the tireless endeavors of empiricists -lol
”
Remember that when you get your next tetinus shot.
remember that when you break two ribs after sneezing violently on your 89th birthday in an old persons home


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
provided entropy still enables you to perform such a task
”
I'll make sure to get the postcard out before that moment.
given that your control is limited by uncertainty, thats a hollow promise

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so there's a snake in you bedroom and you don't know whether it is poisonous or not - Is this a problem?
”
For the snake.
the snake may be momentarily angered when it bites you, but apart from that he's a happy chappy

Supe

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how about other laws like death and disease (entropy)?
”
"death" and "disease" are not a fundamental physical laws. Entropy is.They are a result of entropy.
:bravo:

And as long as there is an external energy source and we use it cleverly enough, there's no reason that death and disease can't be eradicated within the thermodynamic system called a "Human Being".
if a person thinks all pigs can fly and all horses are pigs, there is also no reason why horses can't fly


“
the question is whether one is of the belief that this maneuverability has an unlimited scope to make anything possible
”
Of course it dosen't! I said that within the laws of the cosmos, one can theoretically maneuver them to ones hearts content. But you can't (as far as we know) change the law it self. Thus you are always limited in scope to what the laws will ultimately allow.

This brings up an interesting idea. Could it one day be possible to actually affect the fundamental laws of physics themselves, thereby opening up an entirely new realm of the possible?
if the laws of nature were under our control it wouldn't be a problem - in the meantime our molars rot while we are cajoling about immortality in the material world
;)

Hmmm...

Supe

:bravo:

if a person thinks all pigs can fly and all horses are pigs, there is also no reason why horses can't fly


if the laws of nature were under our control it wouldn't be a problem - in the meantime our molars rot while we are cajoling about immortality in the material world
;)

Hmmm...
Don't take this the wrong way my friend, but you really are an ass. What else can one say?

Did I really post something so fucking stupid that would make anyone equate it to horses and pigs flying?

You must really think I'm an idiot. Well, good night.

Crunchy cat
hence control can exist with limitations

And you still wont admit you made an false statement... interesting.


I mean there is no force that can prevent reality from manifesting - whether its such smooth sailing in our understanding of that is a different issue

I'll buy that for a dollar.


if you are satisfied, why consider a different possibility?

Because it might be true.


so if you had to suffer entropy somewhat prematurely (due to reasons that were necessary and quite natural) that would be perfectly fine with you?

You bet.


remember that when you break two ribs after sneezing violently on your 89th birthday in an old persons home

It might be hard for you to deal with reality.


given that your control is limited by uncertainty, thats a hollow promise

I'm writing the message now... just in case.


the snake may be momentarily angered when it bites you, but apart from that he's a happy chappy

How is he going to be happy locked in a room without food or water?

Don't take this the wrong way my friend, but you really are an ass. What else can one say?
there certainly is a mine of possibilities to say the least ....

Did I really post something so fucking stupid that would make anyone equate it to horses and pigs flying?
that logic is sufficient to postulate about truth?
certainly

And as long as there is an external energy source and we use it cleverly enough, there's no reason that death and disease can't be eradicated within the thermodynamic system called a "Human Being".
similarly, as long as pigs can fly and horses are pigs, there's no reason why horses can't fly

You must really think I'm an idiot.
More along the lines of a bad poet actually - namely having a vast reservoir of misplaced confidence ....



Well, good night.
;)

Crunchy cat
hence control can exist with limitations
”
And you still wont admit you made an false statement... interesting.
limited control means just that - limited


“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you are satisfied, why consider a different possibility?
”
Because it might be true.
only for one who is not satisfied that what exists within one's grasp is true

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so if you had to suffer entropy somewhat prematurely (due to reasons that were necessary and quite natural) that would be perfectly fine with you?
”
You bet.
:rolleyes:
atheists and foxholes .....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
remember that when you break two ribs after sneezing violently on your 89th birthday in an old persons home
”
It might be hard for you to deal with reality.
being comfortable with the notion of suffering is not a trademark of sanity

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
given that your control is limited by uncertainty, thats a hollow promise
”
I'm writing the message now... just in case.
more hollow promises

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the snake may be momentarily angered when it bites you, but apart from that he's a happy chappy
”
How is he going to be happy locked in a room without food or water?
if you think it will be dead in 2 weeks, probably not as distressed as you when you open the door

Crunchy cat
limited control means just that - limited

And any resulting uncertainty means just that... uncertainty... and that brings us back to control with uncertainty.


only for one who is not satisfied that what exists within one's grasp is true

Its scary to think that if you are satisfied then truth wont move you.


:rolleyes:
atheists and foxholes .....

Theists and deathbeds.


being comfortable with the notion of suffering is not a trademark of sanity

You put so much emphasis on suffering rather than living. Its really odd. Maybe its hard for you when envisioning a life form that make people suffer for eternity... now that's insane.


more hollow promises

Settle down there beavis.


if you think it will be dead in 2 weeks, probably not as distressed as you when you open the door

Get a snake of equal size and lock it up for two weeks without food and water. If it survives I'll give you $1000. I'll even front the cash to purchase the snake and optionally a container.

Crunchy cat
limited control means just that - limited
”
And any resulting uncertainty means just that... uncertainty... and that brings us back to control with uncertainty.
which brings us back to the issue that rationalism and empiricism have contingent aspects of uncertainty because they are limited (ie subjective)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
only for one who is not satisfied that what exists within one's grasp is true
”
Its scary to think that if you are satisfied then truth wont move you.
Its strange to think how one could be satisfied with something they were aware is not true
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic

atheists and foxholes .....
”
Theists and deathbeds.
erm - a foxhole is a deathbed of sorts

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
being comfortable with the notion of suffering is not a trademark of sanity
”
You put so much emphasis on suffering rather than living.

Its really odd.
its odd that you can talk of suffering as if it was a mere "option" of material life

Maybe its hard for you when envisioning a life form that make people suffer for eternity... now that's insane.
since I generally advocate the possibility of getting out of material existence, its not clear how it is I that is all form an eternal life of suffering and not you

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
more hollow promises
”
Settle down there beavis.
there are very good reasons why autobiographies written by a person in their twenties or thirties are considered somewhat shallow if they go on to live to be sixty or seventy

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you think it will be dead in 2 weeks, probably not as distressed as you when you open the door
”
Get a snake of equal size and lock it up for two weeks without food and water. If it survives I'll give you $1000. I'll even front the cash to purchase the snake and optionally a container.
provided that the snake didn't enter your room on the verge of starvation and your room wasn't a solarium chamber, you would have just lost $1000

needless to say, you seem to be illustrating the original issue (the follies of less intelligent solutions to problems) quite nicely