0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
DQ, I would appreciate it if you would address my dismemberment of your assertions about the nature of science as posted on 1 November.
What "mainstream world view"? You asked if something had been taken for granted, and I said no. By the definition of science, nothing is taken for granted in the world of science. That is the mainstream world view, with which I have agreed.
Do not tell me what I think.
You make yourself look foolish.
What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"
Human intelect and memory can be accounted for by what we already know about mechanistic computation systems. Life can be accounted for as complex chemistry. I see no point in imagining magical solutions for those to use in place of perfectly good mechanistic models which already work perfectly. The only difficulty left is consciousness.
1) You won't or can't address the glaring contradiction in your argument: that science must be "liberated" from materialism so it can be free to investigate or obtain information about the immaterial, which you've already said it cannot do. So what is the benefit of this "liberation?"
2) There is no materialist conspiracy
. First off, your history of the relationship between the Catholic church and scientists is factually inaccurate
They were generally in opposition
. Secondly, the fact that scientific discoveries were about material processes is not proof that people were prevented by some social force from attempting any other kind of investigation.
Chemists doing chemistry experiments will probably derive theories involving chemistry (ideas about molecules and atoms.) Physicists doing physics experiments will also come to conclusions having to do with physics. They are unlikely to spontaneously generate theories or conclusions about the immaterial things which have nothing to do with their own research. Science is not dominated by materialism, in the sense that it is being coerced by some authority to be that way. Scientific knowledge simply contains more information about the material world because that is what individual scientists chose to observe and measure, because that is what they can observe and measure, not because somebody forced them to or censored them.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/11/2013 17:14:25QuoteQuote from: dlorde on 04/11/2013 22:33:21Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.Just be serious , come on :Just answer the question, come on.
QuoteQuote from: dlorde on 04/11/2013 22:33:21Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.Just be serious , come on :
Quote from: dlorde on 04/11/2013 22:33:21Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
Don, if science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or has been dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then please explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
... see how even telepathy is studied scientifically by Sheldrake, for example Quote.Yeah, right. Whatever happened to the telepathy revolution...?Maybe he's still looking for a way to distinguish between telepathy, clairvoyance, and remote viewing (etc.), or maybe the communication companies have bought him off, or are suppressing his work; but on the other hand, with no credible replications, maybe he's just chasing the magic butterfly of his imagination down the corridors of pseudoscience with a butterfly net of leaky protocols and flaky analysis
.
A quick heads-up: Cheryl's prescient prediction of post #15 is already being realised. As Yogi Berra said, "It's déjà-vu all over again". We've been over this ground for weeks on the Human Consciousness thread, and Don has been unable or unwilling to support any of his assertions with reasoned argument, let alone examples or evidence. He can't say what science could do differently, or how it would be better without the 'reductionist materialist ideology' he complains of. He just repeats the mantra. If pushed, he will resort to invective or will post pages of Nagel or Sheldrake, or whichever pseudoscientific screed he's currently enthusing about. He will tell you what you believe and what you don't believe whether it contradicts what you've said or not.Personally, I think he's afraid that science is encroaching on his precious immaterial beliefs.And now, back to the fun...
The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows : I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect theory , and modern physics had already kissed that outdated , superseded , largely discredited and largely refuted Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability nowadays , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .
Quote from: cheryl j on 05/11/2013 00:37:00What was the question again? Oh yeah, it was "how did life begin on Earth?"It's now been discovered that organic synthesis, including simple amino acids, can occur in gas clouds in space, which was a surprise, given the low temperatures and diffuse nature of the clouds. It's also worth remembering that the first life appears to have begun almost as soon as the Earth had cooled enough for the chemistry to hold together, and that conditions were very different to those today - lots of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen sulphide, and practically no free oxygen, which was extremely toxic to early anaerobic life. Quite a few naturally occurring organic polymers can self-organize to form bi-layer membranes and proto-organelles, with phospholipid chains being the likely starting point. In oceanic vents & flumes, there are often pockets and chambers where currents are minimal and thermal and chemical gradients are reasonably stable. These do seem good candidate environments, with chemically rich, porous surfaces where redox reactions can take place. As I understand it, there's quite a bit of support for RNA providing the initial replication machinery, with more complex DNA making its appearance a fair bit later, after the rudimentary transcription machinery and other RNA gubbins had evolved. But there are almost as many ideas as there are research groups, it's a very active field.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/11/2013 18:58:28The mechanistic deterministic materialist 'scientific world view " has been shattered and demolished by the maths of chaos :If everything can be explained just in terms of mechanical cause and effect , just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics , as the Newtonian science has been assuming reality as a whole to be just some sort of mechanic clock work mechanisms , then, we should , logically , empirically , expect to be able to predict everything as a result: the maths of chaos have been destroying that materialist determinist mechanical belief assumption ,as follows : I thought that the maths of chaos , or the butterfly effect theory , and modern physics had already kissed that outdated , superseded , largely discredited and largely refuted Newtonian-Cartesian presumed absolute predictability goodbye , a long time ago , that physicists and mathematicians can only talk in terms of ...probability nowadays , as a result , not to mention that uncertainty principle .As I told you elsewhere, you have misunderstood chaos theory. The maths of chaos is explicitly deterministic, yet unpredictable; that's it's USP and the whole point of the 'Butterfly Effect' - it's known as 'sensitive dependence on initial conditions'.
Physics has lived comfortably with probabilities at least since statistical mechanics (Bernouli, etc., 18th century), 200 years before chaos theory. The development that has shaken the tree of determinism is not chaos theory (determinstic but unpredictable), but quantum mechanics, which appears to be inherently probabilistic (yet statistically predictable).
Oh , yeah indeed , you are so right : you are a unique genius like no other , i did misunderstand the maths of chaos together with all those great mathematicians in the video in question and elsewhere .pfff...
Chaos theory studies the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, an effect which is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for such dynamical systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future behavior is fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
Just try to face the music or harsh truths , instead of this non-sense of yours , in the sense that ( I did really predict that you would say so ) unpredictability can be predicted (why then it could not be predicted before then ) , so, the system remains determinist , well, just try to predict then how the unpredictable bahaves in the system then : unpredictable behaviour that's thus not predictable = the system is non-determinist , obviously .
If in fact everything can be explained just by the laws of physics , by mechanical cause and effect thus only , then, you can say that the system is predictable = determinist , in the sense that even the potential unpredictability is predictable : unpredictability can be predicted sometimes indeed , but one cannot predict its inherently unpredictable behaviour .
To try to explain the whole behaviour and existence development history future ...of the whole universe just via the laws of physics is really an insane counter-intuitive bullshit , simply because the laws of physics underly only the material physical side of reality, and the laws of physics might , in their turn , turn out to be underlied by somethingelse more fundamental than themselves and so on, and so on idefinitely = a kind of limitless Pandora's box .What exactly are the laws of physics in their ultimate core then ? How did they come to exist , in the first place to begin with ?Are they unchangeable for ever as well ? What drives them exactly ?
Or , are you gonna just say , like Hawking said , that the universe just spontaneously came to exist on its own from nothing ? I thought that we have already put that silly "spontaneous generation " assumption " all behind us already .
To say that the whole universe is determinist , is simply magical wichcraft at the heart of science that makes no sense whatsoever : just tell me about the future then , Mr.magical witch .
If everything is pre-determined , if there is no free will , who or what made man "capture " the universe via science ?
If everything is determined ,then, there is no responsibility , no ethics ....as such = just elaborate meaningless utilitarianist pragmatic without any intrinsic value survival strategies= just in-built in us software .Then, we should not even try to behave like decent humans might do= whatever we would do, we cannot do otherwise , simply because we are just hardware driven by built-in software = materialist mechanistic zeitgeist of the moment .If there is no free will, there is no freedom , no nothing meaningful , no purpose , no nothing = we are just machines or comupters programmed by the mighty mother nature goddess ...blindly = bullshit ....
... his atheist belief assumptions determined the outcome of his "search for the truth " , not the other way around ,as one should expect from an honest objective thinker,or just from any honest average decent human being for that matter : that's exactly what you have been doing all along= intellectual dishonesty at best = pathetic ... you are no truth seeker , you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .I hope i am a true truth seeker , no matter what the the truth might turn out to be , and i hope to encounter no less than the true truth seekers : dishonest false hypocrit believers , either secular or religious , won't do .
What were the earliest photosynthesizing organisms and are there different ways to do photosynthesis? I think when I took zoology in university, they weren't even sure whether animal or plant like microorganisms came first. That's how old I am.
Try to explain to the people here how life , or just how the so-called original cell from whom all life on earth had presumably evolved , or rather just how the alleged first amino-acids as the so-called 'building blocks of life " , how those amino-acids did come to exist or emerge from dead matter ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/11/2013 19:13:45you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...
you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....
...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other .Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science as science , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion .Unbelievable .