Simon Blackburn - Why Philosophy of Science?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ส.ค. 2024
- Science is humankind's magnificent achievement, the way of thinking to discern facts and truths and to reject errors and myths. But how to understand the scientific method itself and what is it really that science is learning? That's the role of philosophy. For example, when science discerns 'regularities' in nature, are these 'laws' of nature?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on philosophy of science: www.closertotr...
Simon Blackburn is a British academic philosopher known for his work in quasi-realism and his efforts to popularize philosophy. He obtained his doctorate in 1970 from Churchill College, Cambridge.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Blackburn seems to really know his stuff. Very impressive interviewee.
Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤
Science without philosophy is like trying to understand the world in a dark room.
philosophy without science is like pretending to know there is a room in the dark
@@mikebrigandi_ Learn what philosophy is first. What you described is religion.
@@HeavenlyWarrior nope, philosphy cannot know thing about reality. philosophy is imagination based
@@mikebrigandi_ This debate is pointless, you don't know what you're saying. Learn first, talk about it after.
Philosophy is purely based in reason and logic, exactly the same as mathematics. It has nothing to do with imagination. Imagination may be used to try to reach further but imagination is used in science as well.
@@HeavenlyWarrior yes and reasons in philosophy are intuition based
Great interview. I like the idea of specific philosophies of Sciences. I guess most difficulties arise in biology and the living, and less for inert matter as physics. Lots to be be achieved ✔️
I believe that philosophy of science, in one way or another, is the tool that helps the scientist in evaluating what he has reached and what will reach in terms of results, and reconsidering all that science previously reached in the absence of philosophy!
If we think that the areas of science are related together, then the explanation will apply to mention the relationship between the scientific subjects, and here’s philosophy comes to the existence to help us to understand and explain them!
philosophy pretends to explain things, science actually does explain things
@@mikebrigandi_ The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century (with notable practitioners in previous centuries.) It involves careful observation, applying RIGOUREUS SKEPTICISM about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; the testability of hypotheses, experimental and the measurement-based statistical testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.
You sure about that bro? What does rigorous skepticism mean? I’ll answer for you: more questions.
Blackburn is the king
Omg, the sounds around 8:20 scared the shite out of me. I listen to this to help me to sleep…
Science has always been a measuring tape in the waist belt of the philosopher/metaphysician, only since the 19th century did science become it's own seperate discipline, and I will argue that it was the materialists whom hijacked the means of science making it their own crutch as a way to refute their oppositions and possibly to control.
Nikola Tesla greatly criticized the 19th century or modern science and for a reason.
This is a fact.
That is rather PRESUMPTUOUS of you, wouldn’t you agree, Slave?
Presumption is evil, because when one is PRESUMPTUOUS, one makes a judgement about a matter, despite having insufficient facts to support one’s position.
Incidentally, it’s called “Spell-Check”. ✅
Look into it, SILLY Sinful Slave. 👨🏻🎓
Simon Blackburn must be quite elderly these days, I remember him as my moral tutor at college in the 70s. Even then he was known for his admiration of Hume. My interest is the perspective that all our understanding, including philosophy, is a function of science in that understanding is a function of cerebral activity and that any limits to understanding are perceptual/neurological limits.
Of course this is a realist perspective; if realism is denied, science is denied too making possible free will, consciousness, solipsism and supernatural entities. Science then becomes just an odds defying miracle! Naturally, few find this kind of line plausible.
As a teacher myself, my central point in philosophy is to insist on a strong division between the subjective and the objective and that a lot of the difficulties in philosophy stem from blurring the distinction.
Time, in our universe flows and only in one direction. Laws, as some say, are mostly suggestions, some, however, cannot be broken. This guest is just outstanding, absolutely outstanding.
Just claiming this does not make it so. It appears to flow in one direction, to us in modern culture, but that is not necessarily the truth of experience...or time...& certainly not the only way to understand experience.
If time as you say 😮 flows in one direction what flows in the opposite direction?
@@gwilwilliams5831 nothing.
@@joeycarter8846 everything material that you experience in this plane should be considered more of an event than an object.
El tiempo ni siquiera existe. De donde saca que fluye?
The philosophy of science should be applied to help us understand the nature of consciousness through which we become aware of our ever changing experiences.
It should not be difficult for us to understand that in order to be able to accurately be aware of these ever changing experiences, our awareness itself can not be changing.
This would mean that our awareness can also not be a product of the body/brain which itself is ever changing.
🐟 06. CONSCIOUSNESS/AWARENESS:
Consciousness means “that which knows” or “the state of being aware”, from the Latin prefix “con” (with), the stem “scire” (to know) and the suffix “osus” (characterized by). There is BOTH a localized knowing and a Universal Awareness, as explicated in the following paragraphs.
Higher species of animal life have sufficient cognitive ability to KNOW themselves and their environment, at least to a measurable degree. Just where consciousness objectively begins in the animal kingdom is a matter of contention but, judging purely by ethological means, it probably starts with vertebrates (at least the higher-order birds and fishes). Those metazoans which are evolutionarily lower than vertebrates do not possess much, if any, semblance of intellect, necessary for true knowledge, but operate purely by reflexive instincts. For instance, an insect or amphibian does not consciously decide to seek food but does so according to its base instincts, directed by its idiosyncratic genetic code. Even when a cockroach flees from danger, it is not experiencing the same kind of thoughts or feelings a human or other mammal would experience.
The brain is merely a conduit or TRANSDUCER of Universal Consciousness (i.e. Brahman), explaining why the more intelligent the animal, the more it can understand its own existence (or at least be aware of more of its environment - just see how amazingly-complex dolphin and whale behaviour can be, compared with other aquatic species), and the reason why it is asserted that a truly enlightened human must possess a far higher level of intelligence than the average person. The processing unit of a supercomputer must be far larger, more complex and more powerful than the processor in a pocket calculator. Therefore, it seems logical to conclude that the scale of discrete (localized) consciousness is dependent on the animal's brain capacity.
See Chapter 17 to understand the distinction between enlightenment and mere awakening.
Three STATES of awareness are experienced by humans and possibly all other species of mammals:
the waking state (“jāgrata”, in Sanskrit), dreaming (“svapna”, in Sanskrit), and deep-sleep (“suṣupti”, in Sanskrit). Beyond these three temporal states is the fourth “state” (“turīya” or “caturīya”, in Sanskrit). That is the unconditioned, eternal “state”, which underlies the other three.
The waking state is the LEAST real (that is to say the least permanent, or to put it another way, the farthest from the Necessary Ground of Existence, as explained towards the end of this chapter). The dream state is closer to our eternal nature, whilst dreamless deep-sleep is much more analogous to The Universal Self (“brahman”), as it is imbued with peace. Rather than being an absence of awareness, deep-sleep is an awareness of absence (that is, the absence of phenomenal, sensual experiences). So, in actual fact, the fourth state is not a state, but the Unconditioned Ground of Being, or to put it simply, YOU, the real self/Self, or Existence-Awareness-Peace (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit).
Perhaps the main purpose of dreams is so that we can understand that the waking-state is practically indistinguishable to the dream-state, and thereby come to see the ILLUSION of this ephemeral world. Both our waking-state experiences and our dream-state experiences occur solely within the mental faculties (refer to Chapter 04 for an elucidation of this phenomenon). If somebody in one of your dreams were to ask your dream-state character if the dream was real, you (playing the part of that character) would most likely say, “yes, of course this is real!” Similarly, if someone were to ask your waking-state character if this world is real, you would almost undoubtedly respond in kind.
An apt analogy for Universal Consciousness is the manner in which electricity powers a variety of appliances and gadgets, according to the use and COMPLEXITY of the said device. Electricity powers a washing machine in a very simple manner, to drive a large spindle for laundering clothes. However, the very same electrical power may be used to operate a computer to manifest an astonishing range of outputs, such as playing audiovisual tracks, communication tasks, and performing extremely advanced mathematical computations, depending on the computer's software and hardware. The more advanced/complex the device, the more complex its manifestation of the same electricity.
Using the aforementioned computer analogy: the brain is COMPARATIVELY equivalent to the computer hardware, deoxyribonucleic acid akin to the operating system working in conjunction with the memory, the intellect is equivalent to the processing unit, individuated consciousness is analogous to the software programme, whilst Universal Awareness is likened to the electricity which enlivens the entire computer system.
A person who is comatosed has lost any semblance of local consciousness, yet is being kept alive by the presence of Universal Consciousness.
The fact that many persons report out-of-body experiences, where consciousness departs from the gross body, may be evidence for the above.
So, then, following-on from the assertion made in the third paragraph, one could complain: “That's not fair - why can only a genius be enlightened?” (as defined in Chapter 17). The answer is: first of all, as stated above, every species of animal has its own level of intelligence on a wide-ranging scale. Therefore, a pig or a dog could (if possible) ask: “That's unfair - why can only a human being be enlightened?”
Secondly, it is INDEED a fact that life is unfair, because there is no “tit for tat” law of action and reaction, even if many supposedly-great religious preceptors have stated so. They said so because they were preaching to wicked miscreants who refused to quit their evil ways, and needed to be chastized in a forceful manner. It is not possible to speak gentle words to a rabid dog to prevent it from biting you.
There is evidence of Consciousness being a universal field, in SAVANT SYNDROME, a condition in which someone with significant mental disabilities demonstrate certain abilities far in excess of the norm, such as superhuman rapid mathematical calculation, mind-reading, blind-seeing, or astounding musical aptitude. Such behaviour suggests that there is a universal field (possibly in holographic form) from which one can access information. Even simple artistic inspiration could be attributed to this phenomenon. The great British singer-songwriter, Sir James Paul McCartney, one day woke with the complete tune of the song, “Yesterday”, in his mind, after hearing it in a dream. American composer, Paul Simon, had a similar experience when the chorus of his sublime masterpiece, “Bridge Over Troubled Water”, simply popped into his head.
Cont...
All things that you encounter and experience as material substrate in this plane of existence should be considered more of a "event"as opposed to a "object".
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices 👆
@@xenphoton5833, in your own words, define "OBJECT".
Philosophy can help in clarifying our concepts. But it seems that science does the "heavy lifting", in actually making progress on many issues. This is because of its empirical bent. And oftentimes, the actual reality is much stranger than we would've imagined. Take the example of quantum physics.
Then there's the issue of "time", arguments about "Eternalism", or the "river of time". In General Relativity "time" is an intimately related to "space", and even the masses in the spacetime framework. Strange as this may seem, it has been demonstrated experimentally. (There are also definitional issues, such as the physicalist meaning of time, vs. the human subjective experience of time.)
Essentially, materialists believe that human consciousness and its emanations - the ability to travel outside our planet, the compositions of Bach and Beethoven, the great Sanskrit epics of ancient India, superhuman mathematical aptitude, sacrificial love, and ingenious technological inventions - are ultimately the consequences of some kind a physical particle of tangible matter, or possibly some kind of physical field (or strings).
In other words, materialists/physicalists are abject fools.
All things that you encounter and experience amidst this plane that are of Mass consisting of a material substrate should be considered more like events than objects
@@xenphoton5833 Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
The fairly obvious human anthropomorphic abstraction, "law of nature" should be replaced with the phrase "regularity of nature". Fully agree.
Why is it that I find the videography is distracting to the content of the video?
Because the camera is moving all over the place and it gives me vertigo😜😅
i just minimize the video and listen to it like a podcast.
@@thekolobsociety
Thank you, I'm just having fun with it
Ugh, I wouldn't have noticed, now it's making me sick lol...
Yeah, like a snail crawling across a table leaving a trail of slime (vertigo).
To view discussion from all angles
I think we can find out what the intricate mechanism and bootstrapping relations is a priori
1:47 Is 'what it was', 'what it did'? 'What it did', was highly specific. 'What it was', was how you characterized what it did. So, you have the name, gravity, you have this or that characterizing statement, and you have what it does, say, in a mathematical formula. Three levels of reference.
Cosmos has a start and a stop, as does time within our universe/sphere. The human need to wrestle answers is both a blessing and a curse... we are meant to get as near to the answers as possible while accepting that because of who and what we are we are, as a species, forever limited in knowing what is beyond and before. We have not earned the right to such knowledge, not even come close to earning it. What a brilliant conversation to listen to, just outstanding. PS- the root of so many demands to believe everything here can be mathed out is fear. Regardless of what any genius mind claims, beneath the need to master everything is fear.
You and nobody knows if the "Cosmos" had any beginning let alone end and time isn't part of reality, it's an abstract idea that we (humans) created.
@@HeavenlyWarrior so the word eternal is also created 😏
@@BrunoCardoso-dp3bd Everything is eternal until proven otherwise. Eternity apparently exists although that is part of philosophy because it cannot ever be proven.
@@HeavenlyWarrior but you cannot conceive what the word "eternal" really, means.
@@BrunoCardoso-dp3bd That's beyond human reach.
How about the s turn that's fast approaching???
The philosopher says, Know thy premises.
The philosopher and the efficient landlord.
@@dionlindsay2 Polysemy. Lee's Elucidation: A finite number of words must be made to represent an infinite number of things and possibilities. Language Habits in Human Affairs, Irving J. Lee, 1941.
@@arthurwieczorek4894 I'm grateful it's true.
It helps to realise that real comes from the Latin 'reor' which means 'I reckon, calculate. I think, consider, deem, judge, believe, suppose, imagine'. We invent our own reality.
Las bases de la ciencia es la filosofia. La plataforma donde se lanza el proyecto cientifico, es la filosofia. Tambien de la religion. Sin la filosofia racionalista la ciencia no existiria.
All things that are encountered or experienced being of material structure should be considered more as events as opposed to objects. 😁
nothing is impossible
Science is a product of our natural instrument we call our brain.
Guys put down Philosophy are cinism and corrosive arogance. Newton still mechanic show still Picture reality . Philosophy are important but guys keep out that experience change phich than philosophy. Hings pertticles are experience than philosophy so far. Guys discussions philosophy in Science are only lack philosophy Standard.
Learn English
Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason.
There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
.
Cause you're a poser
There is a logical problem saying that using logic against philosophy is philosophy. Many of the “great” philosophers in history did not use logic indeed continental philosophy is just a secular mysticism and irrationalism. So to logically and experimentally showing that philosophy is mostly just bunk does not necessarily mean you used philosophy.
I always got the feeling that most philosophers and humanists are just plainly scared of losing what little respect or power they left in society and try to undermine science in a desperate bid to maintain some self worth. I say that with no great joy.
Blackburn wasn't talking about "using logic" against philosophy. He was talking about scientists taking an evaluative stance towards what they and philosophers are doing: this doesn't necessarily require using logic.
Even if he we're talking about "using logic", there wouldn't be a logical problem since in that case you could always argue that "philosophers" who don't use (even informal) logic aren't doing philosophy: it would just be a problem with naming.
Maybe you could've realized your own failures in thinking if you had studied philosophy. But seeing as how your view of "continental philosophers" is just a talking point parroted by people who haven't even tried engaging meaningfully with what they're criticizing, I'm guessing critical thinking isn't your forte.
@@iMJBNi both philosophers and scientists taking a stance on a subject sans data is by definition a philosophical position or a belief position. If you had the data and experimental model you would need to give it much more thought. But since non of these stances by philosophers actually help in the formation of experiments and data collection I question the point beyond the aesthetics.
And if you say that which is not logical is not philosophy I would agree. I would also add that without reference to experimental results it too would not be philosophy. But that would undercut many traditions of philosophy such as idealists, dualists, theology, indeed most of the continental traditions.
Likewise if a philosopher should have a stance sans logic what philosophical expertise is he bringing. If he is bringing a logical stance it is unlikely he’s bringing anything new to the table.
You see the problem with philosophers still thinking they have any value to progress of knowledge. Being a fairly pious Muslim I say this with no joy.
I sometimes pray for the omnipresent creator to somehow physically return to us in this timeline to save us from ourselves
Yea me to but then I realize that's why weapons exist
@@itsgoingdown803
Yes, if the Omniscient Creator returned, we would likely attack him with nuclear weapons rather than submit.
@@browngreen933 sure would
@@itsgoingdown803 can you elaborate on what you mean?
If this entity is omniscient, then we would have no hope of destroying it, with any sort of weapon
how does philosophy love of wisdom relate to science knowledge?
Wisdom is understanding, and understanding comes from knowledge.
Scientific facts are dependent on the scientific method. The scientific method is dependent on the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science is dependent on philosophy. Philosophy is dependent on its premises.
@@ninaruss8149 Faith is at the very core of science. The original meaning of science was philosophy of nature. They were used interchangeably during the Islamic Golden Age. Religion is just a philosophy of whoever the founder is. Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddha. Christianity is the philosophy of Jesus Christ. So forth and so on. And philosophy is considered a science because it uses logic.
Science and Religion are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science.
philosophy:
the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. “The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas.”
Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside India, it tacitly or implicitly refers to ideas and ideologies that are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the ANTITHESIS of genuine wisdom. Many Western academic (so-called) “philosophers” are notorious for using laborious sophistry, abstruse semantics, gobbledygook, and pseudo-intellectual word-play, in an attempt to justify their blatantly-immoral ideologies and practices, and in many cases, fooling the ignorant layman into accepting the most horrendous crimes as not only normal and natural, but holy and righteous!
An ideal philosopher, on the other hand, is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand that morality is, of necessity, based on the law of non-violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently wise to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.
One of the greatest misconceptions of modern times is the belief that philosophers (and psychologists, especially) are, effectively, the substitutes for the priesthood of old. It is perhaps understandable that this misconception has taken place, because the typical priest/monk/rabbi/mullah seems to be an uneducated buffoon compared with those highly-educated gentlemen who have attained doctorates in philosophy, psychology and psychiatry. However, as mentioned in more than a few places in this book, it is imperative to understand that only an infinitesimal percentage of all those who claim to be spiritual teachers are ACTUAL “brāhmaṇa” (as defined in Chapter 20). Therefore, the wisest philosophers of the present age are still those exceptionally rare members of the Holy Priesthood!
At the very moment these words of mine are being typed on my laptop computer, there are probably hundreds of essay papers, as well as books and articles, being composed by professional philosophers and theologians, both within and without academia. None of these papers, and almost none of the papers written in the past, will have any noticeable impact on human society, at least not in the realm of morals and ethics, which is obviously the most vital component of civilization. And, as mentioned in a previous paragraph, since such “lovers-of-wisdom” are almost exclusively adharmic (irreligious and corrupt) it is indeed FORTUITOUS that this is the case. The only (so-called) philosophers who seem to have any perceptible influence in the public arena are “pop” or “armchair” philosophers, such as Mrs. Alisa “Alice” O’Connor (known more popularly by her pen name, Ayn Rand), almost definitely due to the fact that they have published well-liked books and/or promulgate their ideas in the mass media, especially on the World Wide Web.
@@dongshengdi773
🐟 04. SCIENCE Vs RELIGION:
The English word “SCIENCE” originates from the Latin noun “scientia”, meaning “knowledge”, from the stem “scire”, meaning “to know”.
The English word “RELIGION” originates from the Latin verb “religare”, meaning “to join or unite”. It is the equivalent of the Sanskrit noun “yoga”, meaning “union (of the individual self with the Supreme Self)”. Therefore, “yoga” and “religion” are used synonymously in this chapter.
The PHYSICAL sciences are an empirical approach to knowledge. They rely on experimentation, based on observation of the natural world. Observation is dependent on the senses, the senses are dependent on mind, and the mind is, in turn, observable by the intellectual faculty.
The mind and intellect are phenomena arising in the perceived sense of self, or pseudo-ego (even if one considers that the mind and the intellect are functions of the brain), and therefore, all empirical evidence is gathered and recorded in consciousness. Similarly, the SOCIAL sciences explore facets of human society such as economics, anthropology, politics, and psychology in accordance with scientific principles.
See Chapter 06 for a complete description of consciousness/Consciousness, and to understand the hierarchy of episteme mentioned above.
It is patently impossible to establish the existence of anything outside of consciousness. How will one observe particles and their mechanics without the existence of consciousness? Clearly, consciousness is axiomatic for any statement of knowledge. The only fact one can know for sure is the certainty of existence, that is, the impersonal sense of an unqualified “I am” which precedes any cognitive process whatsoever. For example, if someone were to ask you "Do you exist?", you could never, in all honesty, respond in the negative, for that would be absurd!
All that can be said or known about the world is a phenomenal appearance in consciousness. Anything else is speculation that can NEVER be definitively proven or demonstrated. However, this apparent subject/object duality is illusory, since Ultimate Reality is essentially monistic.
So, for example, when a person looks at a tree, he or she is not actually seeing the tree in any direct sense, but interpreting an inverse image projected onto the retina of the eyes. Therefore, there is no real evidence (or at least, no conclusive proof) for the external world, APART from consciousness. Likewise, there are no sounds in the external world but solely within the mind, since vibrations do not produce an audible sound until they strike one’s eardrums, and the signal is conveyed to the brain. If the corresponding parts of the brain were to be artificially stimulated in the same manner, the experience of sight/sound would seem identical. That explains the Zen koan: “If a tree falls in a forest, and there is nobody present, does the falling tree produce a sound?” Refer, also, to the thought experiment known as “Schrödinger's cat”.
Apart from the fact that we are unable to DIRECTLY perceive external phenomena, our sensory and cognitive facilities are far from perfect. Even if every human on earth experienced sounds and images in precisely the same manner, that does not prove that those perceptions accurately represent the world as it is, since other animals perceive the world quite differently than do humans. Some cognitive psychologists have demonstrated that all animals, including humans, have evolved not to perceive the external world completely objectively, but rather, have evolved to see the world in a way which promotes survival of their species. This is one explanation for the widespread belief in a Personal Creator God, since religious organizations (ideally) promote social cohesion (at least those which are not ultra-fundamentalist in nature). So, if most all the individuals in any particular nation follow the same religious tradition, the chances are that such a society will endure indefinitely.
As alluded to above, it is imperative to mention that there are TWO main definitions of, or forms of, consciousness: the discrete consciousness associated with the brain of many species of animals (see Chapter 05), and Universal Consciousness (explained in Chapter 06). Perhaps a good analogy for the interplay between Universal Consciousness and the discrete consciousness found within the mammalian brain is that of a radio receiver (being the tangible hardware, akin to the physical brain) and radio waves (being intangible, akin to consciousness/Consciousness). So long as the radio receiver is in good working-order, it tunes-into the electromagnetic radiation spectrum. However, if the radio set breaks down, the radio waves themselves continue to modulate in space. So too, when the human brain dies, Universal Consciousness (“brahman”, in Sanskrit) continues indefinitely. Note, however, that this analogy is imperfect, since in reality, both the brain and the radio waves are contained within Infinite Awareness (“brahman”). This confusion of terminology is due to the fact that the English language does not include a single word for the concept of Universal Consciousness, due to monism/idealism being a rather esoteric philosophy in the Western World.
As Lord Śri Krishna so rightly states in “Bhagavad-gītā”, the King of All Knowledge (“rāja vidyā”, in Sanskrit) is the Science of the Self. At the time of writing, material scientists are beginning to explore the “hard problem” of consciousness. Assuming homo sapiens society will survive for at least a few more centuries, there will come a time when the majority of professional scientists will acknowledge the primacy of CONSCIOUSNESS. Indeed, if humanity is to continue indefinitely, it is necessary for not only this concept to be imprinted on the human race but for it to be acted upon; that is to say, we humans must imbibe the principal tenets presented in teachings such as this Holy Scripture, “A Final Instruction Sheet for Humanity”, and actively follow them to a very large extent. The alternative is the extinction of not only humanity, but of most (if not all) biological life forms on Earth, due to environmental degradation, and immorality as a consequence of nihilism.
Cont...
Logic is physical law. Philosophy is science.
@Closer To Truth
I wish you had said, I love God instead.
Philosophy is a real trouble-maker. Not just for science, but also in law, ethics, politics, culture and other areas of life. Before WW2 a lot of scientists were also studied philosophers and especially mathematicians were versed in philosophy. I never understand why precisely this trend vanished after war and now because of great specialisation of scientists they really don't have time and space for philosophy and science is further away from it.
I think your philosophy goes off the rails once you define "nothing" as "something".
"Something" has the necessary condition of existence. "Nothing" has the necessary condition of non-existence and can only be conceptual.
So, why is there something rather than nothing? There is no state in which something can exist as nothing and therefore something necessarily exists.
The first step of science is philosophy ic veiw 😂😂then comes practical way 😂😂😂
It should be said first that science makes no truth claims. All conclusions are provisional, and so no certain knowledge comes from science.
Thanks be to God you guy helpful talking.
BTS pp: There's a real nothing, Hegel ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing ) knows it, Sixth Ancestor of Chan ( traditional Chinese: 禪宗六祖, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huineng ) knows it, and in particular, Judaism rabbis also know it, saying Nothing (He Does Not Exist) The Real is caused by Self Contraction of One (He Exists) The Infinite (Deut 6:4).
5:30 ... because nothing gives you no purchase it gives you nothing to hold on to it. It is a real nothing. it is a real nothing exactly. ...
Note: BTS pp, Abbreviation of Best Theological pulpit.