The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: What is ...Science ?  (Read 18267 times)

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #25 on: 06/11/2013 01:32:58 »
Why would memories, feelings and emotions not be possible to explain with materialism? Why is there any reason to believe that it is anything more than biology? Heck, I recall an experiment where different parts of the brain were stimulated with electricity in a subject which resulted in them having either very positive or very negative feelings (depending on the region of the brain stimulated). If emotions have no origin in material reality, why is it that they can be directly generated by such physical processes?
 

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #26 on: 06/11/2013 08:24:32 »

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

But shouldn't science be able to form its own boundary, and give you proof that there is more than physics and chemistry, In fact that is what science is all about anyway. Science does not look to prove or disprove the presence of metaphysical forces, it just tries to see if metaphysical forces are really involved and not some application of chemistry or physics that could then lead to us harnessing or manipulating things for the betterment of technology and mankind. If we all of a sudden found out.. "what is life" we would be able to take serious leaps and bounds in medicine (and technology) that would improve the lot of mankind. Is this such a bad thing to try for?
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #27 on: 06/11/2013 16:13:44 »
I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .

Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.
 

Offline Nizzle

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 964
  • Thanked: 1 times
  • Extropian by choice!
    • View Profile
    • Carnivorous Plants
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #28 on: 06/11/2013 17:04:27 »

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #29 on: 06/11/2013 17:11:46 »
I did specify what it was i was posting = just Arabic high poetry , there was no Chinese in it .

Your machine doubtless displays them correctly, but on mine two of the Arabic letters have been replaced with squares with hex values in them (E825 and E828) in the way that often happens with Chinese (until you ask your machine to load the kit that displays them properly) - I expect that's where the "Chinese" comes in.
[/quote]

Oh, so : thanks for the tip indeed : Mr.Dave the computer specialist at work , nice .
 

Offline grizelda

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 740
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #30 on: 06/11/2013 19:07:59 »
The drones' inquisitions will meet the same fate as  that of the medieval church haha

Great slogan: You should paint it on the side of your tank and come out to play.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #31 on: 06/11/2013 19:44:50 »

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?



Exactly.

I don't see the gain of inventing an additional system (the immaterial) that doesn't explain a phenomenon, to replace or supplement your other system that doesn't explain a phenomenon. Especially when the new system doesn't explain anything else, either!
« Last Edit: 06/11/2013 19:51:45 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #32 on: 06/11/2013 20:19:38 »

All i was saying is that reality as a whole is not just material physical , as modern science assumes it to be, thanks to materialism : not everything can be explained just in terms of physics and  chemistry , or just by the laws of physics ,or just by cause and effect .....: see the modern maths of chaos ,for example .

This is just semantics right?
If in the future, some aspect of our reality are to be explained outside of physics and chemistry, you would still have to give it a name right? For argument's sake, let's say reincarnation, afterlife, the soul, etc. will be explained outside the laws of physics and chemistry and this branch of science is henceforth known as "divinistry" or whatever you want to name it, and science identifies some kind of transmission vectors to travel in dimensions we don't even account for today. Would you not shift your definition of 'materialization' to include divinistry next to physics and chemistry and start your discussion all over again, stating that "Not everything can be explained by the laws of physics, chemistry and divinistry!" Or would you rest your case and accept that science does in fact explain everything?



Exactly.

I don't see the gain of inventing an entirely new system (the immaterial) that doesn't explain a phenomenon, to replace or supplement your system that doesn't explain a phenomenon. Especially when the new system doesn't explain anything else, either!

Well, we have no choice but to accept the fact that reality as a whole is not just material physical ,whether we do like it or not , regardless of what  science can or cannot explain (We cannot simply dismiss or ignore  what science cannot explain  as if that does not exist ,we should rather try to find some new ways of understanding this intelligible universe  as a whole , or just what we can understand of it , not dismiss and ignore what we cannot describe understand or explain a-priori   by reducing the whole universe to just what we can explain describe or understand .) , if we wanna try to describe explain or understand reality as a whole, or rather just the parts of reality science can deal with empirically :  science is not a matter of belief taste , like or dislike , or opinion, science is  a matter of facts , remember .
We cannot just pick the parts of reality we like ,via some belief of ours  on the subject  ,  if we want science to deal empirically with the parts of reality it can deal with , instead of confining science to just the part of reality we like or to what we believe it is reality as a whole,  while taking that specific part of reality  for granted as the whole real thing : otherwise , that would be an irrational illogical and even an unscientific assumption to hold or make or thing to do .
Science by the way is or rather  should be just an effective tool instrument tool to try to describe explain and make us understand the parts of reality it can deal with empirically ,which does mean that there are some other parts of reality science cannot deal with empirically , obviously , but that does not mean that all what science cannot deal with empirically does not exist as such : one cannot dismiss that just because science cannot , per definition deal with it empirically .

I do think , see what Nagel had to say on the subject here above while you are at it , i do think that when science will be liberated from its materialist dogmatic belief system, from its materialist "scientific world view ", science will be able to expand its scope reach realm and jurisdiction exponentially in yet-unimaginable ways to us all .
Only time will tell then .

P.S.: To pretend that science , as science has been assuming thanks to materialism,to pretend thus that science  already knows the nature of reality as a whole already (wao ), so only the details should be filled in ,  is simply ludicrous and unscientific thus, not to mention that to pretend that we can explain everything , as physicists and other scientists do, as science has been pretending thanks to materialism , is simply ludicrous and unscientific = science cannot , per definition, explain everything , not even remotely close thus = science's naturalist  realm and naturalist jurisdiction do not  and cannot  ,per definition, cover the whole reality as a whole as such , obviously   .
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #33 on: 06/11/2013 21:12:24 »
I really wish DonQuichotte would stick to addressing points one-by-one instead of posting TLDR-style slabs of text...
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #34 on: 07/11/2013 18:15:25 »
Why would memories, feelings and emotions not be possible to explain with materialism? Why is there any reason to believe that it is anything more than biology? Heck, I recall an experiment where different parts of the brain were stimulated with electricity in a subject which resulted in them having either very positive or very negative feelings (depending on the region of the brain stimulated). If emotions have no origin in material reality, why is it that they can be directly generated by such physical processes?
[/quote]

Physics and chemistry can explain just the biological hormonal ...or neuro-chemical side of feelings , emotions ,stress ... but they can absolutely not account for how we feel what we feel or rather for the very nature or origin of feeling emotion as such : our biological system alone  cannot account for the feeling of pain as such , for example , the feeling of sadness, joy , happiness , the feeling of marvel at things , the feeling of music , the feeling side of love, the feeling of the smell  of a flower ....the feeling of a color ...
When fire , for example, burns your finger , you feel the pain of burning which makes you try  instinctively  to remove your finger from the source of fire  : science can explain why and how you remove your finger from the source of fire that did cause that pain of burning , but science cannot account for how that feeling of pain per se arose , so to speak, from the biological system of yours : only sentient beings such as yourself do feel pain , so, if,say,  suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just  extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain  then  ,say, that are related  to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged  which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?
The readio and tv analogies are just that : analogies, but ,both the radio and the tv set + the signals they recieve are material , while human consciousness is immaterial + the physical brain and the immaterial consciousness are 1 in the same given body.

I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved  hard problem also and mainly thus .
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #35 on: 07/11/2013 22:28:44 »
Quote
if,say,  suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .

How exactly do you know that we will never be able to build machines that can feel pain or are conscious?

Quote
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just  extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .

If memories are not stored in the brain, then why are disorders and damage to the brain able to cause memory loss? If the mind is separate from the brain, then why are strokes and drugs able to mentally incapacitate people? The reason we haven't been able to locate specific memories in the brain is because the brain is an extremely complex organ which we have yet to fully understand. Also how in the world was someone 200 years ago supposed to find memories in the brain? The technology to observe and analyze the neurological functions and blood flow patterns in a living brain haven't been around nearly that long.

Quote
I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved  hard problem also and mainly thus .

Yes, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved. That, however, does not mean that it must be something external to the brain.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #36 on: 08/11/2013 18:22:08 »
Quote
if,say,  suppose physics and chemistry can account for that feeling of pain , then it should be easy to make sentient machines that can feel pain also : while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .

How exactly do you know that we will never be able to build machines that can feel pain or are conscious?

Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus  .

Quote
Quote
Memory is sotmething immaterial that cannot be 'stored " in the brain, as the mind is not in the brain : to say that memory is stored in the brain , or that the mind is in the brain are no empirical facts , just  extensions of the core materialist belief assumption regarding the nature of reality , the latter that's allegedly just material or physical .
If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .

If memories are not stored in the brain, then why are disorders and damage to the brain able to cause memory loss? If the mind is separate from the brain, then why are strokes and drugs able to mentally incapacitate people? The reason we haven't been able to locate specific memories in the brain is because the brain is an extremely complex organ which we have yet to fully understand. Also how in the world was someone 200 years ago supposed to find memories in the brain? The technology to observe and analyze the neurological functions and blood flow patterns in a living brain haven't been around nearly that long.

200 years of attempts to 'find " or "localise " memory "traces " up to this present date   in the physical brain failed to do just that , for obvious reasons , simply because memory cannot be reducible to the physical, simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot account for memory that cannot be reducible to the physical, memory that's not physical thus  .
That memory disappears when certain specific areas of the physical brain are damaged , that does not necessarily means that memory is "localised or stored " in the physical brain : that alleged causation is no explanation , even "factual" causation is no explanation either :  there is not even causation in fact , can't be , simply because there can be no causation between the physical and the non-physical , simply because there can be no causation between those 2 totally different processes qua their totally different respective natures (even the "factual " causation between physical processes  themselves  might be just an illusion even, as David Hume assumed , a long time ago thus  ) :  i think that we should rather try to approach that just in terms of some sort of correlation or  interaction between memory that's just a part of consciousness as well as a part of the sub-consciousness ,some sort of correlation or interaction between the non-physical memory thus and the physical brain : how ? : beat me , i dunno .
Or , there might be somethingelse going on between the non-physical memory and between the physical brain we do not know nothing of yet , if ever thus .

In short :

Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the non-physical memory thus :
(Science has been dominated by that mechanistic false materialism that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view ", since the 19th century at least  : that machine or computer analogy in science thus in relation to life as a whole , to reality as a whole ,in relation to the whole universe thus that allegedly does behave like a clock work machine , that Newtonian mechanistic materialism  is false thus = living organisms are ,obviously no machines or computers :
Have you ever seen any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of self-organization , self-maintenance , self-sustainance ,relatively speaking then, that are capable of self-reproduction or self-replication , reproduction or replication, that are capable of adaptation , flexibility , evolution , that do have those unique- to- living -organisms metabolisms ...?
Have you  ever encountered any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of growing from some of their most smallest components such as genes ,cells ... ?)
you are just reasoning via some sort of "materialist promissory messianism " ,in the sense that the materialist false 'scientific world view " will , some day , in the future be able to "localise " memory in the physical brain = that will not happen ,ever, obviously ,  simply because physics and chemistry cannot account for memory , simply because memory cannot be 'stored " in the physical brain, memory that's not reducible to the physical , as consciousness is not , obviously : i thought that my earlier provided analogies did succeed somehow in drawing you a certain pic regarding why memory and consciousness cannot be in the physical brain .

When science will be liberated from its false materialist reductionist naturalist "scientific world view " , via replacing it by a more or less valid non-reductionist conception of nature, then and only then ,can science expand its realm beyond the material or physical one it has been confined to , thanks to materialism thus , and therefore ,man will be able to find some new ways of understading through science that might lead to new unimaginable-to-us-all-yet  discoveries  on the subject and maybe beyond as well, who knows .
I do also think that there are some significant parts of reality that will remain beyond science's realm and beyond science's jurisdiction as well .
Science cannot , per definition, explain "everything " , not even remotely close thus , not even just at the physical or material level of reality , let alone beyond .


Quote
Quote
I do think that the physical brain is just some sort of both a generator via our senses , and a receiver of consciousness somehow , i dunno how, , while consciousness is a kind of transmitter : i dunno for sure thus = who does in fact ? = consciousness remains an unsolved  hard problem also and mainly thus .

Yes, the so-called Hard Problem of Consciousness has yet to be solved. That, however, does not mean that it must be something external to the brain.

"Promissory messianic materialism " : see above .
I think that consciousness is non-local : it does exist within and without , in every atom, organ and cell of ours and without : consciousness that's not reducible to the physical thus , consciousness that's not physical and non-local thus  .
« Last Edit: 08/11/2013 18:29:43 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #37 on: 08/11/2013 18:25:48 »
So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #38 on: 08/11/2013 18:44:32 »
So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.

Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus  .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process  = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts  .
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe  permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus  = who does ?
« Last Edit: 08/11/2013 18:48:23 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #39 on: 08/11/2013 21:48:02 »
Quote
Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus  .

And you know this how? Sounds like you're treading dangerously close to the "argument from incredulity" fallacy ("I don't understand how consciousness could arise from physical sources, therefore it cannot arise from physical sources).

Quote
Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus  .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process  = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts 

There aren't any empirical facts behind your arguments either. Your arguments are basically philosophical and untestable. How do you get empirical facts out of that? Even if it seems "obvious" or "common sense" to you that qualia (personal perception of consciousness and the senses) can't be tied to the physical world, that doesn't mean that it can't truly be. There are many things that were once considered obvious or common sense which are now known to be wrong (flat earth, geocentric universe, objects only being in one place at a time, universal standards for space and time).

Quote
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe  permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus  = who does ?

That's obviously not true, as injury and amputation/removal of limbs and non-vital internal organs have no affect on one's mind or perceptions.

Here's an interesting riddle for you: in order to treat seizures, some people have the corpus callosum of the brain cut. This is basically a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. However, when this is cut, the person's behavior changes in such a way as to suggest that there are two minds or consciousness now in control (as the two lobes of the brain are now unable to communicate with each other). Since each lobe controls a different side of the body, each side of the body can do different things, something in contradiction to each other. One hand may try to put pants on while the other tries to take them off. If you whisper a question into one ear, the person may give a different answer than if the same question is asked in the other ear. How exactly would this physical manipulation of the brain generate two minds if the mind does not arise physically?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #40 on: 08/11/2013 23:01:07 »
Quote
while machines  can just simulate the feeling of pain  or the conscious feeling of pain , but they cannot ,obviously , feel the pain as we do  consciously  , and as other living organisms do as well .

Correct, except for two words: "cannot" and "obviously"
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #41 on: 09/11/2013 18:06:07 »
Quote
Simply because physics and chemistry alone cannot , per definition, account for consciousness or for the nature of feelings: the latter cannot be , per definition, be reducible to the physical: they are not physical thus , even though science can explain the biological side of feelings thus  .

And you know this how? Sounds like you're treading dangerously close to the "argument from incredulity" fallacy ("I don't understand how consciousness could arise from physical sources, therefore it cannot arise from physical sources).

Quote
Emergent property phenomena does occur only at the physical , biological and material level, i guess = emergent phenomena are just different from their original components qua genre , not qua nature = physical ,material or biological "systems " do give rise only to material, physical or biological emergent phenomena thus  .
Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them " = consciousness as a non-physical non -material non-biological phenomena cannot thus have "emerged " from the physical material biological evolved complexity of the physical brain,no way thus = that's just materialist magic in science regarding the origins and nature of consciousness , the latter that's allegedly just a biological phenomena or process  = how convenient for materialists to try to reduce the non-reducible to the physical just to make it fit into their mechanistic materialist false "scientific world view " = materialist magic in science = materialist belief assumptions , no empirical facts 

There aren't any empirical facts behind your arguments either. Your arguments are basically philosophical and untestable. How do you get empirical facts out of that? Even if it seems "obvious" or "common sense" to you that qualia (personal perception of consciousness and the senses) can't be tied to the physical world, that doesn't mean that it can't truly be. There are many things that were once considered obvious or common sense which are now known to be wrong (flat earth, geocentric universe, objects only being in one place at a time, universal standards for space and time).

Quote
Consciousness is non-physical and non-local thus ,even though it maybe  permeates every atom , cell and organ of ours and beyond ...I dunno for sure, not even remotely close thus  = who does ?

That's obviously not true, as injury and amputation/removal of limbs and non-vital internal organs have no affect on one's mind or perceptions.

Here's an interesting riddle for you: in order to treat seizures, some people have the corpus callosum of the brain cut. This is basically a bridge between the two hemispheres of the brain. However, when this is cut, the person's behavior changes in such a way as to suggest that there are two minds or consciousness now in control (as the two lobes of the brain are now unable to communicate with each other). Since each lobe controls a different side of the body, each side of the body can do different things, something in contradiction to each other. One hand may try to put pants on while the other tries to take them off. If you whisper a question into one ear, the person may give a different answer than if the same question is asked in the other ear. How exactly would this physical manipulation of the brain generate two minds if the mind does not arise physically?
[/quote]


Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.

That is science's biggest mistake, pushing this non-explanation as an explanation. It's manifestly wrong when it comes to pain and suffering, and by extension it's wrong about every other kind of quale too.
[/quote]

Well said , Dave :

The biggest error ever made in science is that the image of the process gets confused with the cause of the process , and hence that silly materialist magical "emergence " trick performance regarding the origins or nature of consciousness is false :

The biggest error ever made in the name of science :


.............

Folks :

The core issue here is , once again , as follows :

We shouldn't try to ossify science as to hold it imprisonned within a certain false conception of nature , as it has been the case since the 19th century at least thus .
Science that's a kind of an effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that should be completly free in its inquiry in relation to reality whatever the nature of which   might turn out to be .
So, to keep science confined to just  a certain conception of nature is like pretending that we do already know what the nature of reality is , and it is more like dictating to an adeventurer such as science what specific part of reality it must explore , and no other .
Science that's still a relatively young effective and unparalleled adventurer like no other that  cannot pretend to know the nature of reality as a whole already , an adventurer that must be totally free in  exploring reality , or just the parts of reality it can dela with empirically , free in exploring reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be thus .
The mainstream materialist conception of nature , and hence the 'scientific world view " , just hold back science and restrict its scope ,realm ,reach and jurisdiction , by keeping science imprisonned within the materialist version of reality that's obviously false.
The materialist reductionist naturalist conception of nature , in the sense that reality is just material or physical , is false , and hence the materialist 'scientific world view " is false also .
Reality is thus not just physical or material ,which means that all physical sciences for that matter must undergo a revolutionary and radical change , in order to be able to deal with the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the materialist false "scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ,if all physical sciences want to fully deserve being called sciences at least : science thus has no choice but to include the missing part of reality in its attempts to try to describe , explain or understand reality as a whole .
Science must be totally free to explore reality , whatever the latter might turn out to be , instead of being held captive within a particular conception of nature, a false one at that  .
Science whose nature is to try to go beyond what it has already revealed , including beyond the laws of physics themselves .
There might be some more fundamental processes or whatever that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves thus , who knows ? and that might turn out to be totally different from any human notion of law that's just a human projection .
No wonder that modern physics do speak in terms of fields , for example : electro-magnetic and other fields thus : even the most basic particules are a matter of waves and mass ...
Do the maths then .

Cheers.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 18:08:54 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #42 on: 09/11/2013 21:35:11 »
Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...

Quote
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.

Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
« Last Edit: 09/11/2013 21:36:44 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #43 on: 10/11/2013 18:04:55 »
Once again, you fail to address my points one-by-one...

Quote
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.

Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.
[/quote]


It all comes down to the following  :
All the malaise at the very heart of science can be summarised by this lethal error that has been made in all sciences and elsewhere , thanks to materialism :
Reality as a whole is just material or physical .
As long as all sciences will continue looking at reality just through one eye , or rather through just the materialist key hole version of reality , as long as all sciences thus will continue to look at reality as a whole just via one eye , the materialist one , while assuming that the other eye is non-existent , then , all sciences will just give us a distortion of reality as a whole .
In short :
Reality as a whole is not just material or physical, as the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now .

So, when all sciences will start including the mental side of reality which they have been missing ,or which they have been reducing to just the physical or material , well, then and only then , all sciences might be able to reveal some more deeper and more fundamental forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , who knows ?

Then, all sciences will see reality as a whole , life in general , human language , consciousness ,evolution , and the rest from much wider angles, via science's both eyes , so to speak thus  :
Even evolution itself  cannot be just biological or physical material as a result , the same goes for the origins of life ,its evolution and emergence  ,the same goes for  the origins of human language....and the rest .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #44 on: 10/11/2013 19:54:15 »

If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain  then  ,say, that are related  to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged  which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?


Memories have been localized to even individual neurons in the brain, although researchers did not expect it. I can cite the articles in Nature, but I suspect you won't care.
200 years of science has definitely failed to show that brain is a receiver or has any structures in it that act as a receiver. If it were true, as you yourself say above,  "then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain." 200 years of science has also failed to show that consciousness is transmitted as a signal. As one critic of this argument pointed out,  "Considering the vast amount of information encoded in such a signal for all humans on Earth, it would have to be exceedingly energetic, VERY steady and not prone to interference, yet utterly elusive." Claiming this is just an "analogy" begs the question, analogy to what actual mechanism, and what is the evidence for for that mechanism? My argument is not even materialist - explain the mechanism, which should be easier for you to do now that Cooper has convinced you that mechanisms are required in science.
« Last Edit: 10/11/2013 20:06:52 by cheryl j »
 

Offline David Cooper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1505
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #45 on: 10/11/2013 22:08:28 »
Quote
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.

Assuming that the properties of a whole must be carried by one or more of the components of that whole is a fallacy. New properties can emerge by the correct combination of simpler components. Computers are one example. Plastic, silicon, copper and all of the other materials that make up a computer cannot do computations or run simulations by themselves. Put them together in the correct arrangement, however, and they can. Cars are another. Grind a car to powder and you still technically have all of the same atoms present, but you sure ain't gonna be riding it anywhere. Even if we don't know how consciousness arises, that doesn't mean that it must be something mystical and beyond explanation.

You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death? The thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer. A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured. Computation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #46 on: 10/11/2013 22:10:34 »

If , say , memory is stored in the brain (makes no sense whatsoever ) , memory thus as being just a biological process (makes no sense either ) , then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain : 2 hundred years of trying to find just traces of memory in the brain failed , obviously , so, if , say , memory is in the brain , it's like saying that , just an analogy thus , that the readio might have stored what it had broadcasted yesterday or earlier somewhere inside of it (well, try to find that in any given radio ) .
If,say , the mind is in the brain , so, when the brain is damaged or just some specific areas of the brain  then  ,say, that are related  to those corresponding aspects of consciousness , the latter 'disappear " , does that mean that the mind is in the brain ?
If yes, then that's like saying , just an analogy again, that a tv set used to create the images it used to receive , so, when some specific areas of the tv set in question are damaged  which cause the malfunction of the tv set , so the latter ceases to display those images : does that mean that the tv set used to create those images when it used to function properly ?


Memories have been localized to even individual neurons in the brain, although researchers did not expect it. I can cite the articles in Nature, but I suspect you won't care.
200 years of science has definitely failed to show that brain is a receiver or has any structures in it that act as a receiver. If it were true, as you yourself say above,  "then we should expect to find it somewhere in the brain." 200 years of science has also failed to show that consciousness is transmitted as a signal. As one critic of this argument pointed out,  "Considering the vast amount of information encoded in such a signal for all humans on Earth, it would have to be exceedingly energetic, VERY steady and not prone to interference, yet utterly elusive." Claiming this is just an "analogy" begs the question, analogy to what actual mechanism, and what is the evidence for for that mechanism? My argument is not even materialist - explain the mechanism, which should be easier for you to do now that Cooper has convinced you that mechanisms are required in science.
[/quote]

(Prior note :
You are just confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process , in relation to the old-new -eternal body-mind issue  memory is just a part of .
Second : the mind is in the brain, or that memory is stored in the brain ....are just surreal absurd false implausible ...extensions of the materialist version of reality as a whole , in the sense that reality is just physical or material .
Third : Cooper did convince me of nothing regarding causation , see my reply to you on the subject there on the consciousness thread : there might be some more fundamental ,deeper , and hence other unknown forms of causation that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves , maybe totally different forms of causation at that ,science might be able to find out about somehow , relatively speaking ,  if the missing part of reality would be included , as it will be in fact , by all sciences when they will reject materialism whose end is nearer than ever  .
Science will be able to do the latter and much more , science whose very nature is to try to dispell any dogmas , lies, deceit , self-deceit , half -truths , make -believe ...relatively speaking then .
Science whose very nature is to try to go beyond what it has been able to reveal so far .)



Dear lady :
Nice to have been knowing  you all , this way at least ,it's been an enormous  pleasure , you have no idea ,despite all my disappointments in you, guys :
But , as the author of "I am strange loop " (dlorde mentioned that in some of his posts , a book i did download and read some parts of : you would be delighted to read it , simply because he shares what you said here above with you and much more  , via his highly elaborate mathematical maze and complex abstractions , models ... through his materialist belief  ,he did take for granted as  the forest  or as the whole pic ,while that was just a tree in fact that did hide the forest from his blinded-by-materialism  sight  , a metaphor he used himself in that book of his , but he could not see it did apply perfectly to his core message and life ,as displayed in that book of his thus ) ,as the author thus of that book said :

"The gain is worth the loss " : it goes without saying thus that this same saying applies in totally different ways and contexts to he and i .

So, i am gonna just have to leave you with the following , while wishing you the very best from the very bottom of my heart , to all of you in fact , regarding your own lives , work, search , journeys ....on this temporary mortal world .

Here you go , i do hope that you would just absorb the core message of this  final message  of mine  , as follows , not via your cognitive human unparalled intelligence that's not the highest kind of human intelligence :

Folks :

Sorry, but  i do have to say the following : no insults , just facts, facts i cannot but deduce from your own stubborn attitudes here , in the very face of reality that stares at you via both of its eyes , via its  physical material and via its  mental eyes ,metaphorically speaking then  :
You're so dogmatic ,so narrow-minded ,so irrational ....and hopeless that science proper will be able to move on beyond your false materialist beliefs  and beyond you , guys , ,and leave you behind as a result , no doubt about that= inevitable = just a matter of ...time thus ,simply because materialism's end is nearer than ever  .
You cannot stop progress,seriously  .
You are just fighting against windmills ,as the fictitious  Don Quichot used to do .
That's 1 o the reasons why i did choose this nick of mine , in order to state the fact that we are all one or other relative forms of Don Quichot , in many ways , at some points of our own journeys,including myself thus  .
Don Quichot that applies to many situations ,false beliefs ,  states of mind , positions, attitudes ,dogmas , delusions, illusions,fairy tales  ...in many ways .
Don Quichot that's an endless and an ever-changing source of inspiration , and an endless source of irony , sarcasm, humor ......which can be applied to all peoples '  dogmas , false beliefs , delusions, states of mind , illusions , fairy tales ...

The dogmatic delusional illusory ...tragic-hilarious absurd implausible , inconsitent , incoherent ....pathetic ...you name it ....materialist mainstream false "scientific world view " is an unparalleled  major example of Don Quichotian Kafkaian pursuit and chasing of a mirage in the form of trying to explain "everything = nothing " just in terms of physics and chemistry , by assuming that reality is just material or physical , an absurd  surreal  false implausible dogmatic ideological  .....materialist version of reality ,that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " for so long now , at the expense of science , and hence at the expence of the truth, at the expense of humanity and humanity's progess -evolution ....= what a huge crime against humanity that has been , what an unparalleled ultimate con and scam , science will be able to reject and leave behind = science whose very nature is to dispell any dogmas , any untruths ,any half-truths even ,  any lies , any deceit , self-deceit , make-believe ....for that matter .

"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .

Nice week-end though , have fun , do not take yourselves too seriously as to ossify yourselves ,otherwise , we would be forced to put you in some sort of a museum haha , try to ridicule  yourselves if you wanna detect your intrinsic silly imperfect sides and your human, all too human , flaws .

Science is just a human activity , and hence just a reflection of all the highest and of all the lowest which are in all of us ,or as a great poet said :

"...But i say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each of you ,
So, the wicked and the weak cannot fall below the lowest which is in you also .."


Know thy self   then , i must add : science is nothing but ...you, as human beings , science is just a reflection of the highest and of the lowest which are in all of us thus .

Best wishes .





 

Offline Supercryptid

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 606
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/Trunko
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #47 on: 11/11/2013 08:36:22 »
Once again, DonQuichotte, you did not specifically address my point about Split-Brain Syndrome: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-brain

On a second note, you keep emphasizing that science must not exclude the immaterial. However, you have also said that science cannot be applied to the immaterial. So, at best, science should simply ignore it instead of making any assumptions about it. If that is the case, then why complain that "science is being misused" if it is not appropriate to studying the immaterial in the first place? Science is a process, not an intelligence which can reason. It makes no assumptions. Only scientists are able to do that.

I believe in the immaterial as well, but the fact that so many properties of the mind can be linked so closely with (and controlled/manipulated by) physical processes suggests to me that the human mind has a physical origin. Take note that I believe in the spiritual realm, so I'm not a materialist.

Quote
You've missed the point. What is it in a brain that suffers when a person is tortured which doesn't exist after death?

We don't yet know the answer to this, but to say that the fact that we don't understand it means that it can't be material is an argument from ignorance.

Quote
The thing that suffers cannot just emerge to experience pain and then disappear by magic. These things that emerge are not things of substance that could suffer.

If it cannot "just emerge", then must it exist before the creation of the brain? Where does it exist in the meantime and how does it come into being, then?

Quote
A ground-up car can motor along, but the act of motoring along is not a thing that could be tortured.

No, a ground-up car cannot motor along. That's the point.

Quote
Computation is an action which can be disrupted by destroying the parts which enable the action to take place, but an act of computation cannot experience pain. If pain is experienced by something, it isn't going to be experienced by something of no substance which merely emerges. You can't torture an action, or geometry, or plurality.

And you know this how? Some people are born without the ability to feel pain. This lack of an ability to feel pain can be linked to physical causes, such as excessive endorphins in the brain and sodium channel anomalies, which in turn are caused by mutations. If the experience of pain must be immaterial in origin, then why are purely physical processes able to eliminate it?
« Last Edit: 11/11/2013 08:43:05 by Supercryptid »
 

Offline SimpleEngineer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 117
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #48 on: 11/11/2013 08:53:52 »
Why do we not consider to resolve this discussion by burden of proof..

Scientists will continue to work their thing and see if things are materialistic..

DQ can work his magic to prove that things arent materialistic.

Give us 1 piece of proof and you win the argument.. Science provides plenty of proof disproving what was previously thought of as immaterial so far.. yet they will keep heading towards fully understanding the universe (with or wihtout materialistic explanations) and if they do find the immaterial, science will try to find the patterns or determinism of said immaterial. (although that would then turn the immaterial > material by your view)

Give 1 example of something which you have solid proof of being immaterial, if you cannot supply 1 unattested fact, then why do you even bother trying to argue your point?
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4721
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #49 on: 11/11/2013 09:04:30 »
Quote
"The human will to believe is inexhaustible " indeed : very puzzling .

but demonstrably untrue. The only puzzle is why you keep repeating nonsense llike this. Are you trying to convince yourself?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: What is ...Science ?
« Reply #49 on: 11/11/2013 09:04:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums