For the context of the following comments and to reply, please click on the DATE/TIME above them.
(Responding to MNb)
Science is limited to what can be measured.
An amusing and useful spectrum but not much more.
What can be measured is infinite and will keep us amused a long time.
But not nearly long enough if that is the only line of inquiry.
Understanding the pieces does not reveal the whole.
Paul B. Lot – “Please provide evidence of “things” which cannot be measured.“
Open your eyes!
Anything subjective, for starts. It’s close enough to home that even one such as yourself must have some experienced with it.
Let me jump-start the thing for you.
awareness and attention.
MNb – “In addition to PBL underneath: provide a method that enables us to separate correct claims about what cannot be measured from incorrect ones. You don’t have any, let alone anything better. And that’s what I was asking. Thanks for not answering; it confirms that I’m right.
Plus you misrepresent science. It is all about understanding the whole. Why else do you think physicists are looking for a Grand Unified Theory? Yup – your comment is just totally irrelevant.“
Just look at you run away from a little old can of worms!
Ignorant Amos – “You are conflating the definition of things for context.
Abstract nouns are not things per se.
Abstracta vis a vis concreta.
That said, these abstract nouns can be measured.
Take the first on your list, honesty, leaving lie detector tests aside, there are other ways that science uses to measure honesty.
Google is your friend.“
You probably don’t realise it, or actually care, but that is not even close to resolving the question.
Bob Seidensticker – “A list of personality traits that come from evolution?”
No doubt, but what about the reason I assembled the list.
This deflection of yours isn’t a good substitute for reason.
[Note: Bob Seidensticker later claims that he wasn’t deflecting but had come late to the conversation. (presumably just jumped in without worrying about the context)]
MR responding to Bob Seidensticker – “That’s what it looks like to me.“
Looks like it to me too, but why the mousy evasion?
The phenomena that the words refer to exist. How are they measurable?
Who measures them?
What are they made of?
Why did I present the list for Paul B. Lot to consider in the first place?
MR – “They’re just traits of man. We’ve been trained to imagine they are something separate, distinct, like gifts. But they are us. Social behaviors. Just a part of us. Without man they don’t exist.”
Same as without gravity a lot would not exist.
MR – “I don’t see a but. If you posit the need for a creator, that’s just another thing you need to explain. You just add extra layers. All the things you listed are explainable without adding a god.“
I was not “adding” a god.
Explaining things is something we all do.
We exist, and therefore have been created..
What that means is for each of us to explore for ourselves.
Gravity exists and therefore has been created.
Beyond that, there is no need for me to convince you of what your relationship to either (gravity or yourself) must be.
Ron – “We exist, and therefore have been created..
By that logic…
Your “creator” exists, and has therefore been created.
Your creator’s creator exists, and has therefore been created.
Lather, Rinse, Repeat.“
Trace it to infinitude. All these intermediaries are meaningless.
MR – “We exist, therefore created is a huge non sequitur.“
Not for me. I think the word “created” just carries a lot of baggage for you.
Some series of processes is responsible for my existence. Tracing it back to it’s origin, there is a root cause. I have no problem considering my resulting existence as being created by that root cause.
It can be as simple as that.
MR – “Were we the intent?“
I can’t imagine why. But yet, here we are, so it has been inevitable.
MR – “Is that an answer? Yes or no. Were we the intent?“
I said it exactly as I thought it should be said.
Not going to be able to continue this now, but can pick it up in the morning. If need be.
MR – “That’s about as evasive as one can be. I can see you’re a game player like the rest.“
Just not going to be backed into a false position to suit your needs.
Kevin Osborne – “MR has as much good intent as an invading ant colony. Why bother?“
I’m done now. Thanks for this exquisite summation. I’ll be chuckling all day.
[Turns out to not be quite over, but close.]
(Responding to Paul B. Lot)
You don’t seem to have “honored” the roll that timestamps play in sorting out context.
But despite that, and the fact that I and my ilk have been shooed from the premises, I’ll ask: (and perhaps this may help you understand what “unmeasurable” means to me.)
What exactly would Ignorant Amos be measuring when he wants to quantify the qualia of Paul B. Lot’s boredom?
Is what gets measured, the qualia itself, or some easily extracted subset of it’s characteristics? i.e. is the phenomena being studied as a whole and undivided phenomena, or as an abstraction? (as in a lie detector test)
Since your boredom strikes me as more a state of “agitation”; How will Ignorant Amos determine if that is true? And will he then need to isolate any actual boredom from the agitation and measure that?
Is boredom mixed with agitation something else altogether?
And, has the question been answered yet; “just who is it, that is bored”?
Is the self that interprets itself as bored (i.e. you), a separate phenomena from the boredom or do “you” have to be measured along with the boredom for the most useful results?
What would we be measuring if we measured “you”, bored or not?
(Responding to Paul B. Lot)
You prefer we “happend” instead?
I am a theist at heart, and therefore the “intimacy” implied by “creation suits me better. I do not consider “intention” to be the nature of what has “happend” but rather that the nature of the root cause has “expressed” (via a seamless series of processes) as “me”.
How much of the above did you factor in, before you went on record calling me a intentionally disingenuous?
(Responding to MR)
Since I clearly wanted to communicate something why would I be “hiding behind a smokescreen”?
I have been giving you and the others too much credit. Expecting an ability to fill in what is implied and to exhibit enough good will to make the effort. (despite a history of disappointment in both regards)
C’est la vie
(Responding to Paul B. Lot)
Nah….not buying any of it.
You’re just another clown.
Obsessively addicted to precision, and thereby assured that he’s the smart one in the room.
Anyone with some common sense can see the clear meaning and simple truth in my original post.
You’re on your own with the rest of it.
(Responding to Ignorant Amos)
My improvisations are obviously no match for your skills with Google.
Now the responsibility to salvage the situation resides with you.
Is, or is not, the spectrum that science can address, a finite subset of the Entirety?
Good luck to you. It’s a hard crowd.
chopin aka louismoreaugottschalk aka charlesburchfield –
“with respect, the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over again expecting different results.“
I hear you.
However, the trail of breadcrumbs is mostly for my sake.
Let’s not talk about it here though. I’m feeling satisfied that this is wrapped up.