Quote:
Originally Posted by psyang
However, science has to define the system it operates in, and the scientific method, by definition, relies solely on empirical evidence. If there is anything beyond the physical, the scientific method will by definition exclude it.
|
that conclusion doesn't follow - the definition of physical (and/or the definition of what is being excluded) should be challenged in that case.
Quote:
|
I don't disagree, but the question wasn't whether animals feel emotions, it's whether they consider existential questions like we do, and can we ever know?
|
no one disputes that humans have greater cognitive capacity. That doesn't necessarily make us fundamentally different (in the sense being argued)
Quote:
|
I guess the question is what you consider free thought. If a neuron can generate free thought, and so Bob at 1:53 today chose chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla, could a parallel universe that mimics ours in every way allow Bob to choose vanilla instead? If so, why? What is the difference? If there is no difference, then the scientific method can't hold.
|
This hypothetical argument is non-sensical because it can't exist. If the possibility existed for a parallel universe to differ in that way, then it would have already differed in countless ways, and therefore wouldn't pose identical conditions (at which point there is no argument to be made).
Proving your assertion that the scientific method didn't hold would require the demonstration of a parallel universe, where
everything were in fact identical, then experiencing a single different decision. Obviously, this can't happen (which favours the scientific method).
Quote:
|
To be fair, I think religions that believe in an omniscient God have to wrestle with the same question. If God knows everything that will happen, are not all of our lives already mapped out and so we do not really have free will?
|
Agreed. It seems a ridiculous notion to me.