[cheryl j]

Has nothing to do with that, not really  .

I am happy for you that it is not actually a language problem, but disappointed that it has been a matter of deliberate obscurification on your part all along. Avoiding questions or making ambiguous statements does not prevent others from seeing logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your position - they are still glaringly obvious.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

So this'll be my final post in this thread.

That's what everyone else ought to do too, so this will be my final post in any of these silly threads.

[/quote]

Well , that's your own free choice : that does not mean you're right .
That will not keep me awake at night either , do not worry about just that .
 But, that won't make the fact go away that the 'scientific world view " is false , and hence reality is not just material or physical,including life , its emergence origins and evolution, including even matter itself (see modern physics regarding the latter ), including evolution itself that cannot be logically just biological = that physical "theory of everything " = theory of nothing .
In short :

The most fundamental form of causation of them all might turn out to be ...non-physical at its ultimate core , in the form of some sort of non-physical fields of some sort ,or otherwise , who knows ? I don't know .
All i know is that reality as a whole cannot be explained just via its physical side , no way , its physical side that's way less fundamental than its mental non-physical one that's irreducible to the physical .

In other words :
Trying to explain the whole pic just via its physical side, is not only an extremely idiotic absurd surreal attempt at that , and a false one at that , but it is also ...unscientific = mixing up science with materialist ...magic = mixing oil with water, so to speak .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Has nothing to do with that, not really  .

I am happy for you that it is not actually a language problem, but disappointed that it has been a matter of deliberate obscurification on your part all along. Avoiding questions or making ambiguous statements does not prevent others from seeing logical inconsistencies and lack of evidence for your position - they are still glaringly obvious.

See above : i cannot be any clearer :
I have even been trying to use just simple language ,anybody for that matter , can understand :
You just keep on being blinded by your false materialist beliefs ,you do confuse with science .
And i am not responsible for your centuries-long materialist indoctrinations and brainwash you have been taking for granted as the "scientific world view " ,without question .
Try to sort that our for yourself then .
I am afraid , i cannot help you in that regard any further .

Good luck with your own search or journey .

[Kryptid]

Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

[cheryl j]

Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

I agree with you. But  Don has never explained or defined his concept of the immaterial. From the all of his posts, it appears to be a mystical catch-all concept and nothing definite, or nothing he is willing to define, because someone might disprove it, or worse, decide it is just inconsequential.   I doubt Don's immaterial has very much in common with an isosceles triangle or Pi, which are also immaterial, but can be described in very specific ways.

Don has gotten a lot of attention on this forum. I can't help but notice that the conversation dies down on these particular threads when he disappears. At the same time, he doesn't understand that you don't change people's thinking or create a "paradigm shift" by beating people with a stick and saying "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" You convince them by offering them alternative theories, with in depth explanation of those ideas and evidence for them,  that are more convincing than the theories they had.

[grizelda]

On the other hand, shouting incoherent rantings into the ether is symptomatic of syphilis, so there may be a madness to his method.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

On the other hand, shouting incoherent rantings into the ether is symptomatic of syphilis,

Is that a scientific fact , sis ? Weird  doc you are haha .
What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?

so there may be a madness to his method.

There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

What are you afraid of ? only dogmatic , ignorant people , idiots ,fools or materialists haha are afraid of the truth .

You're part of that list = you are such a dogmatic guy ,that you cannot  but run away by not  facing  the music .
Congratulations .

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense.

(Prior note :
For your info : the mainstream "scientific world view " excludes, per definition, any existence of the immaterial as such , in any form or shape, including even thoughts ,  qualia ..., .)

Well, the mainstream "scientific world view " does think that consciousness is just a biological process = consciousness allegedly originated from the evolved complexity of the physical brain = consciousness was just an "emergent " phenomena or  property from the evolved complexity of the brain = materialist magic in science = no science = no empirical fact .

What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

Who said otherwise ? How brain and mind are linked ? : that's just a matter of belief or world view , not a scientific matter .

I do believe that consciousness the self or soul do permeate every atom , cell and organ of ours within and without .

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

Numbers and logic are no "things ", no entities , just concepts , symbols ,abstract "language" ...numbers do not exist as such : just abstractions, symbols ...

Do you know , by the way , any non-human species , on earth at least , except those purely immaterial beings then, that can think abstractly , via logic , reason ...the latter that seem to be independent of the subject using them ?

Can you explain the higher form of human intellect just in mechanistic materialist computation terms ? as products of the neurons' interactions ? via patterns ...

Should i remind you of the fact that the "scientific world view " just assumes that human intellect is also a biological process thus ? absurd .

Where did maths come from, for example ? super maths that seem to be underlying the physical laws ?

How did we get to have maths ?

Are they just biological , as mainstream science assumes them to be ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Well, let me say one last thing. This is just to clarify my stance, not to continue the debate.

I can accept the idea that consciousness (that is, the experience of qualia itself), is an immaterial thing. You can't put consciousness in a box or a test tube. The idea that consciousness itself is a physical object or substance wouldn't make much sense. What I do believe is that human consciousness is inextricably linked to the human brain.

I would also like to point out that there are immaterial things that are generally accepted. Numbers and logic itself are two such examples.

I agree with you. But  Don has never explained or defined his concept of the immaterial. From the all of his posts, it appears to be a mystical catch-all concept and nothing definite, or nothing he is willing to define, because someone might disprove it, or worse, decide it is just inconsequential.

The immaterial can  , per definition, not be defined as such ,sis , come on , be serious: that's the main trouble with it , whatever that might be  .
The main trouble with western thought is that almost all its knowledge is conceptual : that's no serious way to apprehend reality as a whole .
We can try to define the immaterial consciousness ,for example , by saying that it is the self, the soul or whatever , but then again : that's no definition : what is the self then ? what is the soul ? = that escapes any definition , simply because the self or soul are immaterial+ subjective  and  non-local , and hence cannot be "captured " as to confine them to  a certain time or space, or to a certain  definition  .
I am not inventing the immaterial , such as consciousness , the immaterial is the other side of the same coin of reality as a whole , the other side being the physical or material, so nothing is just material or physical, including matter itself as modern physics have been showing concerning the latter at least  .

In short :

To try to explain reality as a whole just via its physical or material side ,is not only an idiotic absurd surreal ...you name it ...attempt , but it is mainly unscientific   to try to do so , so, all sciences must try to include the mental or non -physical non-material that's irreducible to the physical or to the material , if all all sciences wanna deserve fully to be called sciences at least ,if all sciences wanna be able to try to approach reality as a whole somehow , or just some of it ,including at least some of  its mental side thus, in order to make us try to understand reality as a whole package ,relatively speaking then  .

Life  , human language , and the rest , their evolution origins nature or emergence ,  for example , cannot therefore be just physical or material .
Evolution itself cannot be just biological .
Matter itself cannot be just material or physical .

  I doubt Don's immaterial has very much in common with an isosceles triangle or Pi, which are also immaterial, but can be described in very specific ways.

Do not confuse the abstract with  the  immaterial .
Those triangles ,Pi....do not exist as such : they are just abstract symbols : abstract  mathematical  "language " .

Don has gotten a lot of attention on this forum. I can't help but notice that the conversation dies down on these particular threads when he disappears. At the same time, he doesn't understand that you don't change people's thinking or create a "paradigm shift" by beating people with a stick and saying "Wrong, wrong, wrong!" You convince them by offering them alternative theories, with in depth explanation of those ideas and evidence for them,  that are more convincing than the theories they had.

I did provide you, guys , with a lots of material on the subject , including significant excerpts from Sheldrake's "science set free ..." , from Nagel's " Mind and cosmos : why the materialist ....conception of nature is.... false" ....not to mention my extensive posts on the subject ....

I did say also , on many occasions , that i am here just to state the problem , to tell what science is not , not to propose a solution : defining the problem is half a solution .

The core problem or deep malaise at the very heart of science is ,once again :

that all sciences at least  have been wrongly assuming  that reality as a whole is just material or physical , and hence the "scientific world view " has been doing the same all along , since the 19th century at least , thanks to materialism thus , the latter's false conception of nature  that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " : that has serious  and far reaching  implications for all our presumed scientific knowledge under materialism, we have been taking for granted at all levels and in any scientific given field : there is thus a lots of materialist crap out there we have been all taking for granted as science ; a lots of materialist crap we have to kiss goodbye :

All sciences must abandon or reject their false materialist meta-paradigm thus , must undergo a major ,revolutionary , radical change and shift of meta-paradigm ,as to include the missing part of reality which has been labeled by the false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " as being non-existent , or as being just physical or material ....

You will all have to throw most of your presumed "scientific " knowledge out of the window at some point of history thus . 


What do you want more form me ?

Just try to conduct your own research on the subject via all those  sources and material i have been displaying on this forum thus.

[cheryl j]

The immaterial can  , per definition, not be defined as such ,sis , come on , be serious: that's the main trouble with it ,

Yeah, that would seem to be a bit of a problem, wouldn't it?

The main trouble with western thought is that almost all its knowledge is conceptual : that's no serious way to apprehend reality as a whole .

It's worked pretty well so far, that concepty thing.

[RD]

I do believe that consciousness the self or soul do permeate every atom , cell and organ of ours within and without

That's the LSD "oneness" talking.


https://www.google.com/search?q=LSD+oneness+universe+hallucination

"Rupert Sheldrake | Materialism & LSD" ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnXdyF_cSdgAbe55b2fcb5c$Qn

[cheryl j]

If anyone is throwing their presumed scientific knowledge out of their window, please let  me know. I may have a use for it. Thank you.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

If anyone is throwing their presumed scientific knowledge out of their window, please let  me know. I may have a use for it. Thank you.

[/quote]

Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said ( I said most   of one's presumed "scientific"  knowledge.)  : you might turn out to be not interested in the latter, after all .

[grizelda]

What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?


There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .

[cheryl j]

Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said ( I said most   of one's presumed "scientific"  knowledge.)  : you might turn out to be not interested in the latter, after all .

Well, you never know, I might be interested.  Just tell me specifically what I'd be getting without all that silly chemistry and physics and biology stuff, and I'll let you know.

[Ethos_]

To try to explain reality as a whole just via its physical or material side ,is not only an idiotic absurd surreal ...you name it ...attempt

Then I challenge you to explain reality "as a whole" using any method you choose without reference to testable and repeatable measurement of the physical universe. I dare you to try.............................

[Ethos_]

Not all of it , of course , just the materialist crap in it though,as i said

You say "crap" do you? We've all been exposed to a great deal of that "crap" lately, and I think you know who I'm talking about, don't you??

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

What incoherent rantings then ?
Can you be more specific , genius ?


There is in fact nothing more absurd insane surreal ...you name it , sis ...than the false mainstream materialist 'scientific world view " .

So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus ,  thanks to materialism .

Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?

When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by  branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try   to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....

Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .

[cheryl j]

So ? There is nothing more insane surreal absurd ,nothing more stupid and idiotic ...you name it ...than the current mainstream false "scientific world view " that has been assuming that reality is just material or physical ,including the mental thus ,  thanks to materialism .

Is reality just that then , genius ? just material or physical ?
When has science ever proved that core materialist "fact ", or rather that materialist core belief assumption to be "true " that reality is just material or physical then ?

When , how ? absurd .
Materialism that does go beyond science , beyond science's realm, beyond the scientific method , beyond science's jurisdiction ,by assuming reality to be just material or physical , by pretending to know the nature of reality as a whole ...already ...by confining science to just that materialist prison , by holding back science from progressing ,by  branding as a scientific heresy any scientific attempts to try   to reveal the mental or non-physical side of reality ....

Outdated and superseded materialism that dates back to the 19th century , materialism that's just a false conception of nature , just a world view, a philsophy ...no science .

Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.

[Ethos_]

Then take Ethos up on his challenge. Should be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel for someone who has been freed from the materialist world view and false conception of nature.

Thanks Cheryl j for reminding him. But I doubt it will get any creditable response. In fact, I've become so bored with his useless rhetoric, I've been thinking about just ignoring him. He really has nothing to add and listening to his rants is a waste of time. He's only seeking attention and I, for one, have heard enough.