jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (67 posts)

Unity in Duality Part 2

  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
    A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago

    "I am a deeply religious man..... That which is impenetrable to us really exist. Behind the secrets of nature remains something subtle, intangible, and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion."
                           ---Albert Einstein

    "Science and religion will meet and shake hands....When the scientific teacher asserts that all things are the manifestation of one force, does it not remind you of the God of whom you hear so much about. Do you not see whither science is tending?"
                           ----Swami Vivekananda (Advaita philosophy)

    From the above quotes, could we then ask:  Is their unity in the Duality that is science and religion?  Einstein seemed to think so, although his religiosity is not in any way manner or form related to belief in the Christian God or any other god for that matter. But it would seem from the above quote that he did  believe in a supernatural force that was responsible for the creation of the universe.

    Advaita philosophy, although denying the unity in the duality of  body and soul, still advances the idea that  God and science are not mutually exclusive. Einstein and Advaita philosophy agree on one point -- that there is no life after death....a subject that has recently  garnered a lot of attention from all quarters, and  not surprisingly from  empiricists. Empirical data is slowly gathering that could potentially put Einstein and Advaita philosophy on the short end of the stick on this debate.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      To me, "duality" indicates at least some similarity, some partial unity, and religion and science have none at all.

      But the underlying assumptions of religion - a god, life after death, etc. - could absolutely be a part of science one day.  Although modern religion denies any connection with reality in our universe, it is no more than an assumption and may be found to be completely false one day.  Science may find a soul that exists after death, another universe with gods that made this one, etc.  It might even find Hell in the form of an inverted cone with different layers of punishment!

      1. A.Villarasa profile image80
        A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Really, science is going to do all that? Amazing. But then again, knowing you and your ideological bent  I will not be too surprised if while typing those  sentences  in your post, you are doing your tongue-in-cheek routine.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Efforts to change what I said, or grossly exaggerate it, will get you nothing.

          Nowhere did I say science WILL find gods - personally I seriously doubt they will as there are no gods to find.  But they might, if gods exist, and that's exactly what I said.

          1. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Your last paragraph is a straightforward attempt at hedging your bet,  encapsulated in the statement:  "there is no God to find, but if God exist..." .   I believe there is a God but I personally don't think science will find any material or physical evidence of His spiritual existence. 

            Neither will science find a place called "hell". If you  do not know it yet "hell" is not a place but a state of mind, just like heaven is a state of mind. The mind as I have already opined in other forums is non-physical. You and other  physicalists insist that the mind is solely the result of the mechanistically/chemically  attuned function of the brain. But no matter how much empiricists prove that theory, they have not found any evidence to support it.

            Your idea of what dualism is does not jive with the accepted and classical definition of the term. You might want to research it further to be elucidated.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Of course I hedge the bet, although the language was sloppy as I don't know if there are gods or not - the "seriously doubt" didn't extend as it was intended to.

              But it's interesting that you say that hell is only a state of mind, when you haven't a clue as to whether it is true or not.  Aren't you doing exactly what you are berating me for?  And then again with the statement that the mind is non-physical, while at the same time pretending that the reams of evidence supporting a physical mind aren't there?  After all, I put the mind as physical because of those reams of data while you put it as supernatural because...I guess I don't know why you have decided that.  Maybe because you want eternal life and an immaterial mind is the only way to get it?

              I stand corrected on dualism: religion and science are most definitely opposed and contrasting, and that is the definition.  Of course astrology is too, and so was alchemy, flat earth and the centrist assumption of the sun orbiting the earth.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                A very imaginative empiricist  recently proposed  re-examining and perhaps extending the thought experiment involving brain transplant scenario that was discussed by empiricists way back in the late 60's and early 70's.

                Quoting: "Let us return to the thought experiment (by Wiggins and Parfit) , flesh it out a little, and consider an extension to it. Imagine that, after years of successful brain transplants and of thorough research into the physiology of the brain, medical science is ready to try an actual split-brain transplant ie a brain is divided and each hemisphere placed in its new body; the shocking result is not two surviving persons, but one person and the other ,a vegetable on a life-support machine. The second hemisphere to be transplanted always produces a new person (the survivor), while the first always produces a vegetable. Extensive investigation reveals no significant physical difference between the two hemispheres, and no physical difference between the two parts of the operation. The experiment is tried and tried again-- and the result is always the same: one person, one vegetable. What's the explanation? How could a double (physical) success result in such a (mental) mixed bag? There is one and clear obvious answer: each person has one indivisible mind, whose connections with that person's brain are intimate and strong. We can divide the brain, but not the mind, which therefore attaches itself to just one hemisphere."

                "Such an experiment becomes, then, (allowing for the problems indicated by the simplifying assumptions) an empirical test of dualism."

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  I'm unsure of what you're trying to say here.  Are you proposing that one half the brain is the mind?  That an imagined experiment, that never happened, shows the mind is different than the brain?

                  Or is this an example of dualism?  One that never happened, but if it did would be dualism?  I'd have to disagree here, as the experiment plainly shows that one half the brain is the mind, rather than the whole thing as previously thought.

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    It is entirely reasonable to assume that medical science would one day be able to offer brain transplantation as an accepted treatment modality for whatever doctors decide it is indicate for.

                    When that day arrives (maybe decades or  centuries from now), one can then also reasonably assume  that  an experimentally indicated split brain transplant could also be done to specifically answer the question of  brain-mind duality and in the process potentially help patients who might benefit from such a procedure.

                    The above quoted empiricist further stated: "The split brain transplant is based on several reasonable assumptions: (1) a brain can be transplanted from one human being to another, the 'owner' of the brain surviving the operation; (2) given the possibility of survival with only one brain hemisphere, and given the first assumption, it seems reasonable to assume that a semi-encephalic patient (call her Renee) could survive if her remaining hemisphere were transplanted. Given all of this, there seems to be no obstacle to  Renee's  survival if her brain were extracted and only one hemisphere transplanted, the other being  destroyed. So then there is surely no obstacle to such a patient surviving the split-brain transplant, in which the two hemispheres are transplanted into different skulls."

              2. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                The factuality of the  immaterial  mind  is what drives the concept that there is  life after death.  Death only means the termination of all bodily functions, but the mind moves back to where it originated  from. If one considers the mind as the energy that animates life...then that energy can not be destroyed ----.it goes back to the eternal source of energy....creative  and sentient.

      2. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Wilderness
        do we see a light at the end of the tunnel re your understanding of how science is even now slowly proving God exists? I feel my job is done here.

    2. Don W profile image84
      Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Only inasmuch as science keeps getting better at explaining things that were previously thought to be supernatural. Or the possibility that human beings might become sufficiently advanced as to be able to do things that were once deemed only possible by god. How many times in the future will scientists be accused of "playing god" before theists realize that if we can do all the things god was supposed to have done, then we have replaced god?

  2. Oztinato profile image82
    Oztinatoposted 2 months ago
    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Fascinating!  Most fascinating.  I do note, however, that there are differing data being offered - wikipedia says no untoward effects are found.  A troubling one (for our purposes, not those of patient that will undergo anything to stop seizures) is http://www.webmd.com/epilepsy/guide/fun … omy?page=2
      where it is indicated that in a "functional hemispherectomy)" the surgeon "removes portions of the affected hemisphere, often taking all of the temporal lobe but leaving the frontal and parietal lobes."  This is not what we were discussing at all.  The article also lists, as a side effect, that "Difficulty speaking, remembering, or finding words." can happen.  In addition, it says that very nearly all the patients are very young children (4 years seems to be rather old for this procedure) that can rebuild the brain functions lost.

      Another article, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23623848, studied adult cases and says "Impaired movement function was present in 9 (36%) adults' upper limbs and 5 (20%) patients' lower limbs.", "Impaired speech was seen in 7 patients with left hemispherectomies" and although full IQ, verbal IQ and performance IQ improved compared with pretreatment scores (because of a lack of severe and almost constant seizures?) "significant difference was found in change of verbal IQ between patients with right hemispherectomies and those with left hemispherectomies."

      So what have we got?  Taking out a part of one hemisphere leaves a person with at least most of a small memory bank, but affects motor skills, communication and word based problem solving.  Particularly the last one is right/left based.  And it is very seldom done on any but very young children as only they can reclaim lost brain function when the brain grows and develops.

      I'd say the scales tips here to brain being mind, but not by a huge amount.  Not as open and shut as such things as brain damage from stroke, accident or lack of oxygen, for example, though those will mostly affect older people that cannot "reprogram" a brain that is no longer growing and developing.

      Question: would you say the mind is limited to those people with a little more maturity?  Perhaps 6 or 8 years and older?  Until then it is just the brain controlling it all?

      1. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I haven't commented on the exact implications of hemispherectomies.
        The accounts I've read say the person's identity remains intact even with close to half the brain gone. This contrasts to Alzheimers where only small parts of the brain shrinks (including with rare cases of the younger patients).
        The point is there are huge anomalies about the brain.
        For example, a tiny blood clot that can be seen under a microscope can kill a person but a bullet or metal spike through the brain in others often doesn't kill and the victim often goes on to have a normal life.
        Stephen Hawkin's brain is up to scratch but his entire body is incapacitated and without tech only appears to be a hopeless vegetable.
        Other poor souls have been seen as totally retarded vegetables until computer tech has allowed them to communicate they are actually intelligent and fully conscious but can't communicate by speech or actions (even worse cases than Helen Keller).
        The Hindus and now scientific theorists are saying that the universe doesn't in fact properly exist without sentience (see holographic universe). These theories are also related to our old friend M Theory. These new math based theories depict human consciousness in an entirely different way.
        Lastly highly qualified researchers claim that consciousness still remains a mystery.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Be careful - you are putting the ability to control our physical body as a part of mind, and it is not.  Or at least, it isn't the most important part - that remains the cogitative ability, perhaps coupled with sensory abilities.  Hawking, for instance, cannot consciously control his body, but the mind remains quite active.  So did Helen Keller's and so did those souls that could not communicate without tech.  A partially disabled mind (if motor control is considered a part of it) does not mean the entire thing is shot.

          Hindu thinkers and scientific theorists - I think you have a tendency to confuse science and knowledge with philosophy, with an example being Godel.  While his math was impeccable, he diverted into philosophy as well, where answers are created, not found, and can not be considered knowledge at all.  Just as with M theory showing a god, the "theories" being proposed on consciousness and the part intelligence plays in the universe have nothing to support them outside of faulty premises - the primary one being that if we don't know an answer it is reasonable to decide "goddunnit".

          But can we divert a little?  Into the question of what the mind is - in terms of function as well as contents, what is the mind?

          Personally, I think of the mind as what makes us, us.  Our memories. Our feelings.  Our reasoning, both ability and use of it.  Our instincts.  Our experiences, which forms both memories and hard wired responses.  Our interpretation of what our senses tell us.  A difficult definition to come up with - can you give your own?

          1. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I am assuming in your view the mind and the brain are identical. This makes speculation about "what is mind" and the interaction between brain injury and mind highly relevant. Hawkings brain can't communicate with his body hence his mind can't communicate properly with his body etc.
            In my view sentience and mind are different and I agree with the current advanced studies that say this area is largely still a mystery.
            It isn't just me saying there are strong similarities with new scientific/ mathematical concepts to ancient philosophy. The new theories relating to quantum physics are closer to philosophy than scientists would like simply because they can't be tested. M theory in particular. In astrophysics the same trend is seen with theories becoming more philosophical such as holographic flat universes dependent on advanced sentience/mind to "make it real ". These ideas very closely resemble ancient religious ideas from Eastern and Indian thought.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              I wish science had used a different term than "theory", or two differing terms.  What the non-scientist calls a theory is, to a scientist, a hypothesis that requires verification to become "theory".  And some of quantum mechanics has become theory rather than hypothesis because it has been verified.  Even some string theory has been verified.  And some, as you say, borders on philosophy; it is not known to be true or not.

              So we work together, each struggling to understand the other's viewpoint.  I see your "mind" view somewhat as a computer.  The brain is the hardware, while the mind is either software or the person at the keyboard.  Either one runs the hardware, telling it what to do.

              But the mind, then, doesn't seem to do much at all.  If we take out the factors known to be integral to the brain there isn't anything left to be mind.  Memory resides in the brain, just as it does in the hard drive.  Even short term memory is there in RAM.  Cogitation is a brain function - it is the CPU gathering information from memory and processing it.  The brain is the IO board, receiving input and creating output signals, controlling the mechanics like limbs, heartbeat and speech.  Input signals from senses equate to those from a keyboard or other device and become instructions.  Chemicals are a part of this, are part of the controlling instructions (Adrenaline production, hardwired into the mother board and giving the fight or flight reflex, for example).  And the pattern of neural connections is very much a part of the software.  And of course the electron flow is equivalent between brain and computer.

              And at that point I'm back to an empty mind - it has no content and no function.  It does nothing and is nothing.  It's a conduit, a (very) temporary repository for brain signals passing through but does not actually do anything with them.  The brain controls all it's own functions, being "programmed" by a combination of sensory inputs, chemical controls, memory and, likely, the built in automatic responses like fight or flight.  Nothing for the mind to do, no input from it, no programming...nothing.  All that we are, all that we do, all that we feel, is contained in the brain.

              But that isn't, I'm positive, how you view the mind.  So what does it do?  What function, what instructions to the brain, etc.?

              1. Oztinato profile image82
                Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                No I see mind as more mysterious.
                There is sentience, awareness, consciousness, mind, subconsciousness, super consciousness, enlightenment, non mind meditative states, partial sentience, numerous dream states, brief precognition states of mind etc etc. Looking at animals and insects we can see sentience and a certain amount of consciousness. Mind is a part of the picture.
                So once again it is the way the "mind" crosses into mysterious spiritual states that we reach the same cross road of understanding.
                I agree with the pinnacle of research that these subjects remain largely a mystery.
                The computer aspect of the brain is just one aspect of a very large unexplained area.
                These new math proofs have become a new philosophy that amazingly meets up with ancient Eastern philosophy.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Which of those, then, cannot be affected by changing the brain?  Certainly sentience and awareness can.  Not sure of dream states, and precognition has never been shown to actually happen (I disbelieve in precognition because it requires a fixed time line with no free will).  Others, like enlightenment and super consciousness are so poorly defined as to not even be worth considering.

                  I still object to the term "math proofs" as they prove nothing.  New philosophical ideas (whether actually new or re-worked old ones) are proof of nothing, but are only hypothesis and questions that still require answers.  Godel's "proof" is a prime example: prove his axioms correct and you will have proven god, but until then it remains nothing but an exercise in logic without any known connection to reality.

                  1. Oztinato profile image82
                    Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    The New Maths Proofs are light years ahead of science as it was only a generation ago.
                    Maths is the purest most quantifiable logic we have that can now be subject to rigorous testing by supercomputers. If Godel's logic did not stand up to rigorous math testing then we could say in all honesty his reasoning is faulty, however as it does stand the test we can only say DIShonestly that his reasoning is faulty. This is clear and unequivocal.
                    As for mind states once again we need to look at the pinnacle of modern science which is now telling us by pure logical math that sentience is intimately connected to the perception of reality itself (Holographic Universe theory).
                    Disembodied mind may not exist but apparently according to science disembodied sentience does (see current M Theory) where this alien sentience has been described as, you guessed it, God.
                    As the New Math evidence mounts the New Atheism begins to crumble under it's own criteria of logic. What only a year ago seemed unlikely is now being proved and tested by pure logical math (Boolean algebra?)

          2. A.Villarasa profile image80
            A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Patients who have undergone hemi-spherectomies (ie resection of one cerebral hemisphere, and leaving behind the corpus callosum, midbrain)   for various medical conditions for which the procedure was indicated and therefore performed did  retain their memories, and did  did not have any disabling loss of cognition, personality and intelligence.  Aren't  all of these-- memories, cognition, personality, intellect---your definition of what the mind is, as mentioned in your post?

            If according to your formulation,  the brain is the mind and vice versa, why didn't these patients lose any of those parameters of the mind that you mentioned. Well you might say , he still has half a brain, but then again, shouldn't have these patients also lose half of their memories, cognitive abilities, personality traits, and intellectual capacities?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              You are neglecting to consider that some patients DID lose some of what makes them, them.  And that not half the brain is removed - only portions of the half.  And that older patients are either not indicated for the surgery or, if it is performed anyway, that they lost far more than very young patients.

              All of which indicates again the physicality of the brain - younger patients can re-grow the connections necessary while older ones can't.  How do we know a 4 month old hasn't had their personality changed?  Or their cognitive abilities or memory?  Memory is not contained in a specific location, but in many along with the pattern of interconnections.  Same with the rest of it.

              1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Of course patients will loss some but most if not all of those are related to loss of  physical functions and abilities. When it  comes to hemi-spherectomies, doctors have very strict criteria  or guidelines in terms of what  patients to select and what their  medical conditions are that could be appropriate for the procedure.

                It is true that kid's brain are more "plastic" than adult's, thus hemispherectomies are considered more frequently in children, whose  expected longer  life spans are also  a significant consideration in the decision making process.

                The fact is,  patients  do not lose  half  the  totality of  their  mind even if  they  have  lost half of  their brains.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  No.  They don't lose the totality, or even half, their mind.  The question is "why", though, without automatically producing the desired answer that the mind is not the brain.  I've offered several possibilities, but you seem unwilling to consider them, sticking to an answer that can never be proven to be true. 

                  And there is another problem as well: if the mind is discorporeal, where is the connection to the brain that allows the use of that "computer"?  In the half removed?  Or are there millions (billions?, trillions?) of connections?

                  1. A.Villarasa profile image80
                    A.Villarasaposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Can you clarify what those "other options"  are that you referred to  in the above post.

                    There is absolutely no reason in the world to think that the brain is just like a computer ( even though most of its functions are physically and chemically mechanistic),  the simple reason being  that its supremely integrative anatomy and physiology  allows it to be the conduit for the energy that then elevates its  merely physical/chemical  attributes to the purely mental/transcendental. The transition from the material to the immaterial is what is  truly mystifying, and scientific empiricism we hope could unlock that mystery.

  3. Oztinato profile image82
    Oztinatoposted 2 months ago

    Wilderness
    For a person who claims to be doing a maths course there is no excuse to mix up "maths proof" with "proved" as they have two different meanings.
    OK I'll do some homework for you.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof

    Mathematical proof
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "In mathematics, a proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement. In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used. In principle, a proof can be traced back to self-evident or assumed statements, known as axioms,[2][3][4] along with accepted rules of inference. Axioms may be treated as conditions that must be met before the statement applies. Proofs are examples of deductive reasoning and are distinguished from inductive or empirical arguments; a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true (occasionally by listing all possible cases and showing that it holds in each), rather than enumerate many confirmatory cases. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture.

    Proofs employ logic but usually include some amount of natural language which usually admits some ambiguity. In fact, the vast majority of proofs in written mathematics can be considered as applications of rigorous informal logic. Purely formal proofs, written in symbolic language instead of natural language, are considered in proof theory. The distinction between formal and informal proofs has led to much examination of current and historical mathematical practice, quasi-empiricism in mathematics, and so-called folk mathematics (in both senses of that term). The philosophy of mathematics is concerned with the role of language and logic in proofs, and mathematics as a language".

    Get it?

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Now I can't find the statement you're replying to.  That's OK, though, as I think I did make some statement as to the fact that math can't prove anything.  It was a sloppy statement and, as you correctly point out, untrue.  Allow me to expand the meaning a little more as to what I was trying to say.

      First, I view logic and math as two different fields of study: WIKI is rather lumping them together as one.  That's OK, too, as logic is very often used in math, but it does take us a little further away from "pure" math, which concerns itself only with numbers and manipulation of numbers.  Even the WIKI link says that; it is titled "Mathematical proof", not "logical proof" or even "proof".  It deals with logic in the world of number manipulation and everything in the long article continues that discussion.

      Now logic can be used (often in conjunction with math) to prove a statement.  An example might to be predict the time it takes for a cannon ball dropped from the Tower of Pisa to reach the ground: math can correctly predict the outcome...when combined with previous observations and proven theories.  It can manipulate the numbers provided in those theories to produce a correct answer and that answer can be verified by experimentation as a check that the math or logic was correct.

      Logic, however, is more versatile and can be used to find new truths in addition to expanding old ones.  Logic has it's own problems and limitations though, just as math alone does. 

      "In the argument, other previously established statements, such as theorems, can be used."
      "...a proof has to meet communal statements of rigor; an argument considered vague or incomplete may be rejected."

      These two statements (both from the same article in WIKI) are of extreme importance.  That "other previously established statements" is not being met.  You've chosen to present your arguments as scientific, and must therefore meet the rigorous standards of science, but are failing to do so in favor of using opinions and unproven hypothesis both as axioms and in the proof itself.  Godel's work, with it's utter failure in it's axioms, is completely unacceptable in the science world.  You appear to be going from the math of M theory to a god without ever having the theory go there at all...because a few big names present pure, unadulterated opinions that a god exists.  Not because the math leads to a god, not because of any proof anyone at all has presented, but because they've formed an opinion.  That isn't proof, and it isn't science.  The rigor necessary just is not there.

      1. Oztinato profile image82
        Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I'm presenting ideas in a HP forum as philosophy. I'm referring to maths and science indirectly in the same way a journalist or even a scientist might when they are drawing philosophical conclusions from such things as "maths proofs".
        M Theory, entanglement, holographic universe ideas, Godel etc are beginning to paint a very solid picture of the "God of Einstein". This is the very real philosophical implication of more and more bizarre maths proofs.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I'm sorry, but you most definitely are NOT presenting maths and science in the same way a scientist might, or even a journalist. 

          While a scientist might depart from his science training and speak of his personal philosophy, it most certainly does not represent how a scientist would ever present "maths proofs". 

          You are attempting to follow others that use scientific lingo as scientific evidence or proof of philosophical ideas without also using the methodology and requirements.  It doesn't work, and claiming that scientific concepts apply to philosophical arguments doesn't either.

          1. Oztinato profile image82
            Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            I refer you to Gödel again: he came up with more than one theorem that directly challenged the prevailing atheist philosophy that science briefly took. His Incompleteness Theorem for example proves (to even Hawking) that philosophically speaking science can never answer all questions.
            Gödel was always challenging atheist assumptions implicit in their approach which he saw as affecting the actual truth.
            Do you accept any of Gödel's work or is it all garbage to you?

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Philosophically speaking.  As in "I don't know anything about how much we can learn, but will declare there are things that are impossible to know.".  It's a nice philosophy, but without connection to reality as philosophy cannot know anything of the sort.

              1. Oztinato profile image82
                Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                The connection to reality is scientific research and hard math.
                I take it you therefore don't think all of Gödel's math is just garbage?

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  What research do you think Godel did to support his axioms?

                  Oz, why is it that you continue to disregard that Godels axioms were never found to be true?

  4. Oztinato profile image82
    Oztinatoposted 2 months ago

    The axioms themselves are supported by his math which is faultless. It is a symbiosis. There is no fault in the axioms unless we take an atheists emotive view. Both the axioms and math are flawless. We can't simply support every illogical thing with complex proveable maths. It doesn't work that way.
    Atheists are in denial about the perfect axioms. Godel's "perfect" means perfect not unicorn or perfect unicorn etc. It's quite easy to understand once you remove the atheist emotive bias or "rationalization".

 
working