Timeline for Does science prove that the self does not exist, and if so what would that mean for human society?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
Post Revisions
28 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 hour ago | comment | added | Double Knot | @BoltStorm there's no conflict here with our propositions composed of words, and the key perhaps is "until"... | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | BoltStorm | @Him That's my thoughts too, people thinking that just because we are made of cells that that's all we are and everything else is just an "illusion" but if we are talking about stories then stories is what we are doing now to explain things, even the story of "no self". | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | BoltStorm | @DoubleKnot No it's not. Also in Buddhism there is still a "self" this is rather someone saying there isn't one. | |
| 5 hours ago | comment | added | Double Knot | Indeed this is the ancient thesis of Anatta and Samsara of production and destruction where egoic Manus self is an illusion, until reaching the yonda prehension... | |
| 12 hours ago | comment | added | Dennis Kozevnikoff | science neither proves nor disproves the self, it does not deal with this topic at all | |
| 12 hours ago | comment | added | Him | Your phone is made up of molecules and electrons. Does that make it "not real"? Does it make the crossword puzzle you are playing on it "not real"? Does it make StackExchange "not real"? Just because something has constituent parts doesn't make it less real, it's merely a means to deeper understanding of the phenomenon. One cannot truly understand StackExchange without an understanding of software languages and machine code and processors and RAM and transistors and electrons and the molecular properties of doped silicon. Shit is complicated, but that doesn't make it fake. | |
| 14 hours ago | comment | added | Scott Rowe | "The ‘self’ is a concept we impose" - we... who? I think this is related to question-begging, like, making use of the assumption you are disproving. (who, exactly?) If you're going to argue this, just say "It's all quarks!". And you won't mind me taking all those useful bundles of quarks you have there. | |
| 16 hours ago | comment | added | SonOfThought | If 'the Self' is the only existence and science non existence, what would that mean for human society? | |
| 19 hours ago | comment | added | Alexander Woo | As a nominalist, I think all concepts are concepts that we impose, and all science can do is tell us how useful our concepts are and how they relate to each other. | |
| 19 hours ago | answer | added | guillermo saenz | timeline score: 2 | |
| 19 hours ago | answer | added | keshlam | timeline score: 3 | |
| 20 hours ago | answer | added | Marina Torres | timeline score: 3 | |
| 20 hours ago | comment | added | J D | @DarkMalthorp I see. You're advocating an argumentation strategy. :D Your comment makes more sense. Sorry about that. | |
| 21 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | (if it's not clear, I don't think that science is false or incapable of demonstrating anything. But such notions are emergent abstractions just like the "self" so the argument presented by the OP's friend is self-defeating if applied consistently) | |
| 21 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | @JD it's reductio as absurdam - if the human being is just made out of cells and the cells function on their own without needing to reference the "self" the same can be applied to human behaviors such as doing science and proving things. "Science" is also not present in the cells which make up human scientists nor in the moleculars of their equipment | |
| 21 hours ago | comment | added | J D | @DarkMalthorp Science has no value in proof? Can you provide a single instance of a scientist who claims science doesn't prove anything? It doesn't sound like a reasonable claim. | |
| 21 hours ago | answer | added | J D | timeline score: 4 | |
| 21 hours ago | history | became hot network question | |||
| 21 hours ago | answer | added | RodolfoAP | timeline score: 0 | |
| 22 hours ago | answer | added | Dark Malthorp | timeline score: 3 | |
| 22 hours ago | comment | added | Dark Malthorp | One can always use self-reference as a cheeky way to defeat this sort of argument. "Science" is also not a thing, nor is a "proof", those are just a bunch of cells and particles moving around. So "science" cannot "prove" anything. | |
| 22 hours ago | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited tags
|
| yesterday | comment | added | David Gudeman | That first quote is utter nonsense. The conclusions he draws from the evidence he lays out do not remotely follow from the evidence. | |
| yesterday | answer | added | Jo Wehler | timeline score: 6 | |
| yesterday | comment | added | BoltStorm | @keshlam Well one sorta ties into the other that's why I asked them both. If science has proven the self does not exist then what does that mean for society and humanity. | |
| yesterday | comment | added | keshlam | It would help if you could settle on one specific question for us to respond to, rather than a general area of inquiry. One question per Question, please. | |
| yesterday | history | edited | keshlam |
edited tags
|
|
| yesterday | history | asked | BoltStorm | CC BY-SA 4.0 |