The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 186696 times)

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?

The ...future  .
Well, it has much more explanatory power than the materialist fundamentally false one :  a bit  like how the probabilistic non-local dualistic quantum world view has proven to have more explanatory power than the classical determinist mechanical Newtonian world view .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd :
This will rock your false  materialist world view : Why Science Must Become Non-Materialist  ? : 


Excerpt from "Brain Wars ..." By Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard :



Conclusion :

A Great Shift in Consciousness:

"The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine."
—PHYSICIST AND ASTRONOMER JAMES JEANS

In the quantum universe—in which we increasingly live—there is no mind-brain problem because there is no radical separation between the mental world and the physical world. The new paradigm is here; we just need to open our eyes. It is my fervent hope that Brain Wars will be an important part of that process.
The wealth of scientific studies you have read about in the chapters of this book indicate that our thoughts, beliefs, and emotions can greatly influence what is happening in our brains and bodies and play a key role in our health and well-being:
Norman Cousins was one of a number of people who have demonstrated that our beliefs and expectations about medical treatments can stimulate our self-healing capacity, even in diseases as severe as cancer and Parkinson’s disease. And recent research suggests that our thoughts and emotions can even affect how our bodies can turn certain genes on or off.
Jake’s success in controlling his seizures and behaviors is one of many examples of how we can use neurofeedback to deliberately change brain processes that are normally not under voluntary control and improve our mental functions. As you have seen, other studies show that we can intentionally train our minds—through meditative practices—to enhance the activity of brain areas implicated in emotional well-being, compassion, and attention. Meditative practices can even alter the physical structure of the brain.
Our minds can be extremely powerful—far more powerful than we thought only a few decades ago.
The effects of the mind and mental abilities are not limited to the confines of the body. For instance, psi studies show that we can sometimes receive meaningful information without the use of ordinary senses and in ways that transcend the habitual space and time constraints. Still other psi research demonstrates that we can intentionally influence—at a distance—not only random number generators but living organisms, including human beings.
NDE studies show that people like Pam Reynolds can have veridical perceptions—corroborated by independent witnesses—during OBEs triggered by a cardiac arrest. These perceptions concern events that occur while the heart is not functioning. We know that the activity of the brain ceases within a few seconds following a cardiac arrest. Given this, the findings of NDE research strongly challenge the idea that mind is “only” a product of brain activity, giving rather more credence to the view that mind may be dependent on the brain “much as a radio transmission is dependent upon a receiver and broadcast unit.”
 Additionally, the mystical (or transcendental) component of NDEs occurring during a cardiac arrest supports the idea that the brain usually acts as a filter that prevents the perception of what could be dubbed other realms of reality. This aspect of NDEs also corroborates the idea that we are more than our physical bodies.
Mental activity is not the same as brain activity, and we are not “meat puppets,” totally controlled by our brains, our genes, and our environments.
 Indeed, our minds and our consciousness can significantly affect events occurring in the brain and body, and outside the body.
We do have these immensely important capacities, and it is time for science to begin taking them seriously. But for this to happen, science—and all of us—must change the lens through which we view reality.
Fortunately, the scientific enterprise (as a method, not as materialist ideology) allows for all of these
possibilities, and infinitely more.
Materialist science, based on the classical Newtonian physics, took science out of the Dark Ages, showing us a world no one had ever seen before. Now there is another heretofore invisible world for us to see, one that the dogmas of materialist science obscure but that is brought into focus by the discoveries of quantum physics.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, it became obvious that classical physics was limited; it was just not able to explain certain phenomena at the atomic level.
The acknowledgment of these limitations led to the development of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum mechanics (QM), which smashed the scientific materialist worldview. In the words of theoretical physicist Amit Goswami, QM is “a new paradigm of science based on the primacy of consciousness. .
. . The new paradigm resolves many paradoxes of the old paradigm and explains much anomalous data.”
The work of QM has effectively dematerialized the classical universe by showing that it is not made of minuscule billiard balls, as drawings of atoms and molecules would lead us to believe.
QM has shown that atoms and subatomic particles are not really objects—they do not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times. Rather, they show “tendencies to exist,” forming a world of potentialities within the quantum domain.
Werner Heisenberg, winner of the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics, explained, “The atoms or elementary particles themselves are not real, they form a world of potentialities or possibilities rather than one of things or facts.”
The quantum world appears different from the physical world, but some elements may sound familiar. For example, a central feature of QM is called the observer effect: particles being observed and the observer—the physicist and the method used for observation—are linked, and the results of the observation are influenced by the observer’s conscious intent. This effect implies that the consciousness of the observer is vital to the existence of the physical events being observed.
 In otherwords, QM acknowledges that the physical world cannot be fully understood without making reference to mind and consciousness.7
In QM, the physical world is thus no longer viewed as the primary or sole component of reality.
Most contemporary physicists agree with Wolfgang Pauli—one of the founders of QM—that the physical and the psychological, physis and psyche, should be recognized and embraced as distinct but complementary aspects of one reality.
 Regarding this issue, the mathematician and physicist John von Neumann raised the possibility that mind and consciousness constitute not an emergent property but rather a fundamental component of the universe. Regardless of whether it is the case, QM teaches us that we must consider mind and consciousness if we are to reach a more adequate conception of nature and reality.
Nonlocality (or nonseparability)—which Albert Einstein memorably referred to as “spooky actions at a distance”—is another remarkable discovery of QM. This concept is based on entanglement, the instantaneous connections that persist between particles (such as photons, electrons) that interacted physically and then become separated. These connections remain even if the particles are separated by enormous distances (for instance, billions of light-years). This counterintuitive aspect of nature has been demonstrated experimentally in a number of labs since the beginning of the 1970s. Nonlocality and entanglement suggest that the universe constitutes an undivided whole.
Naturally, contemporary materialists strongly disagree with the conclusion that scientific materialism has failed and is currently breaking down. They argue that sooner or later, neuroscience will be able to completely explain mind and consciousness. These materialists do not seem to realize that future technological development will only allow neuroscientists to measure more refined correlates of mental activity.
Belief in the materialist worldview compels certain scientists and philosophers to neglect the subjective dimension of human experience and downplay the importance of mind and consciousness.
In so doing, they create a severely distorted and impoverished understanding of human beings and reality.
Materialist scientists and philosophers are also led to consider certain phenomena such as psi, NDE, and mystical experiences (MEs) as anomalous. These phenomena are anomalous only to the extent
that we cling to the false assumptions of scientific materialism. Seen and understood through the lens of QM, most of these phenomena do not appear anomalous at all. So-called paranormal events are, in effect, perfectly normal.
Physicists were forced to abandon the assumptions of classical physics and the scientific materialist worldview nearly a century ago, but the battles of the brain wars are still being fought by many neuroscientists. The time has come for my colleagues to embrace the many possibilities of the universe opened by the new physics and free their minds from the shackles and blinders of the scientific materialist credo.
The expanded model of reality you have read about in this book offers infinite and exciting concepts for science—and you—to freely explore:
• This model acknowledges all the empirical evidences related to mind and consciousness, not only those that appear at first sight to be compatible with materialist theories.
• It includes the mental and the physical, the subjective and the objective, the first-person perspective, and the third-person perspective.
• It assumes that mind and consciousness are a prerequisite for reality because they allow us to perceive and experience the world. Stated otherwise, they represent an aspect of reality as fundamental as the physical world.
• It assumes that mind and the physical world are continually interacting because they are not really separated—they only appear to be separated. This means that there is a deep interconnectedness between the mental world and the physical world, which both arise out of the same source. This basic interconnectedness renders the mind capable of influencing various phenomena and events belonging to the physical world. Information may act as a bridge between these complementary aspects of reality. Some physicists go as far as to suggest that the whole of reality can be seen as a pattern of information.
• It assumes that mind and consciousness are not produced by the brain. This idea suggests that mental functions and personality can survive physical death.
In other respects, MEs indicate that we are not encapsulated within our brains and bodies but, rather, connected—within the deepest levels of the psyche—with everything in the universe, as well as with the underlying source giving birth to both mind and matter. In this way, MEs represent a direct, intuitive apprehension of the undivided wholeness.
The scientific evidence you have read about in this book makes two things clear: scientific materialism is just plain false, and we humans are not powerless, biochemical machines. Together with exciting possibilities of the quantum universe, this evidence tells us that it is time to enlarge our concept of the natural world to reintegrate mind and consciousness.
This emerging scientific model of reality—this new paradigm of what is possible—has far-reaching implications. Perhaps most important, it fundamentally alters the vision we have of ourselves, giving us back our dignity and power, as humans and as scientists.
We are no longer at the mercy of Big Pharma: in many instances we can willfully choose to positively influence our health and mental functioning by being aware of our thoughts and emotions, and by training our brains.
Scientists, free of the materialist box, are now invited to embark on research into the whole gamut of psi phenomena, expanded and altered consciousness, and spiritual experiences.
Last but not least, the new paradigm fosters positive values such as compassion, respect, and peace.
By emphasizing a deep connection between ourselves and nature at large, it also promotes environmental awareness and the preservation of our biosphere.
When mind and consciousness are recognized as one, we are again connected to ourselves, to each other, to our planet, and to the universe.
A great shift in consciousness has begun, bringing with it a profound transformation of our world.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2014 18:27:40 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
David Cooper :

One of the main gateways to consciousness has been ...quantum physics : See the excerpt above .
You should study QM thus  . Cheers .
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd  ...  :

I am in fact no full  fan of US ID or of any other theory of nature or beyond .....I never stick to any theory of nature , knowledge , models ...or beyond, a full  100 % , so to speak , since all knowledge is hypothetical , including the scientific one,and can thus never proven to be "true ", ever   .


Back peddling.


Quote

That said :

Neither of you did address the above key mentioned  issues or objections  raised by either my earlier posts ,or  by that  excerpt of Meyer here above , concerning Darwinism , the origin of life , life information ...,


Yes, we did. Go back and read it.

Quote
Nobody is denying that there is some form of natural selection at work through mutations ....

Well, I'm glad you concede that much at least.

Quote
It's just that natural selection ( Analogous to the mysterious  " invisible hand " of the market lol ) cannot account for the rich diversity and complexity of life , let alone for the added biological or life information that's necessary to account for novel forms and novel body plans ....to mention just that .

You keep saying "it can't account for" but are unable to explain specifically why or what can't be accounted for. We've already given you examples of macroevolution.

Quote

Not to mention the Cambrian explosion where whole complex species appeared suddenly without preexisting simpler forms or simpler ancestors ,and where the fossil record or evidence contradicted Darwinism .
Darwin himself was puzzled by that and admitted that he could find no explanation to that , and that his theory might turn out to be false  ,if future scientists wouldn't be able to solve that Cambrian dilemma ,for example .
Many attempts have been conducted so far to solve the Cambrian dilemma ,since Darwin, up to this date , in vain still ,as far as i can tell at least .


Here is some information to update you since the 1800s about the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108082914.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083521.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130912131753.htm




 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


P.S.: Cheryl :

How about the surgery you seem to have been gone through ? It did go well, i see . I am glad for you .Nice to have you back .


Yes, doing better, thanks. Not moving around too much, but home from the hospital, and reading, sketching, and a lot of sleeping, with my cats to keep me company.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd :
This will rock your false  materialist world view : Why Science Must Become Non-Materialist  ? : 


Excerpt from "Brain Wars ..." By Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard :



All of this seems based on a false dichotomy. That the "mental" affects the physiological processes of the body is only evidence of some non-material mechanism if you believe that mental processes do not arise from the physical.

Sensory information, whether it's a physical threat, bad news, a stressful environment - is transmitted through the nervous system, processed in the brain, and undoubtedly has physiological effects on the rest of the body via nervous system, hormones, etc. This is well understood and not magical. Likewise the positive effects of meditation can also be explained without resorting to anything immaterial or mystical.

The idea that our internal thoughts, imagery, emotions have physiological effects is also not a violation of materialism. There is no contradiction in the idea of "top down control" or the whole constraining the parts. The brain contains a wealth of two way tracts, up and down communication. (I am not referring to sensory/motor systems, but processing in brain itself)
The flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas plays a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways.  In this respect, there is no starting point for information flow - that is - you cannot point to a part of the loop and say the beginning or stimulus is here, and the effect is there.

There is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain how our conscious thoughts affect other aspects of brain function or physiology. On the other hand, suggesting that people can cure their cancer with a positive attitude is cruel and reckless and no different than believing that I can fix the transmission in my car by thinking happy thoughts about it.

Here is a critique of Beauregard's work.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience

 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4704
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?

The ...future  .


Full marks for a statement worthy of  Sam Goldwyn at his best. I won't even mutter "tautology" if you can give me one actual example.

I can't waste time reading the rest of the stuff because it talks about "consciousness" which is undefined.
« Last Edit: 15/10/2014 23:59:34 by alancalverd »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
So what does the "nonmaterialist theory of reality" predict?

The ...future  .


Full marks for a statement worthy of  Sam Goldwyn at his best. I won't even mutter "tautology" if you can give me one actual example.

I can't waste time reading the rest of the stuff because it talks about "consciousness" which is undefined.

"Predict the future " was just a metaphor (Science is full of metaphors like the natural selection, the machine or computer metaphors regarding the nature of life  ...)  , in the sense that the future non-materialist science will be having more explanatory power than the current materialist science : the already born and prospering non-materialist science has already been proving that : see the excerpt above on the subject .

Consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of this universe ,and a primary one at that , that is , so, science has no choice but to integrate it in any scientific theory of reality or nature , so .

That consciousness cannot be defined clearly is no argument against approaching it scientifically ( We can't define what electricity is , for example, but we know what it does and how it works , how it can be stored , generated ...) : see how quantum physics has been opening a gateway to consciousness .

Science will not stop trying to explain phenomena or processes it cannot define clearly , otherwise , science would have 'shut its doors " a long time ago ....

« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 18:16:43 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd :
This will rock your false  materialist world view : Why Science Must Become Non-Materialist  ? : 


Excerpt from "Brain Wars ..." By Canadian neuroscientist Mario Beauregard :



All of this seems based on a false dichotomy. That the "mental" affects the physiological processes of the body is only evidence of some non-material mechanism if you believe that mental processes do not arise from the physical.

Sensory information, whether it's a physical threat, bad news, a stressful environment - is transmitted through the nervous system, processed in the brain, and undoubtedly has physiological effects on the rest of the body via nervous system, hormones, etc. This is well understood and not magical. Likewise the positive effects of meditation can also be explained without resorting to anything immaterial or mystical.

The idea that our internal thoughts, imagery, emotions have physiological effects is also not a violation of materialism. There is no contradiction in the idea of "top down control" or the whole constraining the parts. The brain contains a wealth of two way tracts, up and down communication. (I am not referring to sensory/motor systems, but processing in brain itself)
The flow of information from higher- to lower-order cortical areas plays a role equal in importance to the feedforward pathways.  In this respect, there is no starting point for information flow - that is - you cannot point to a part of the loop and say the beginning or stimulus is here, and the effect is there.

There is no need to invoke the supernatural to explain how our conscious thoughts affect other aspects of brain function or physiology. On the other hand, suggesting that people can cure their cancer with a positive attitude is cruel and reckless and no different than believing that I can fix the transmission in my car by thinking happy thoughts about it.

Here is a critique of Beauregard's work.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience

First of all :

 There was not even a hint or  any  implicit allusion whatsoever to any 'supernatural " intervention in the above displayed excerpt, regarding the mind-body interaction  : the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness is perfectly normal , not "super or paranormal " .

Quantum physics has been opening revolutionary gateways that can account for  psi and other phenomena like the placebo/nocebo effects and more , in total contrast with what the materialist false theory of reality  wanna make people believe reality is .

Quantum physics has been proving that consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of this universe , and a primary one at that , that is ,so, consciousness must be integrated in any serious scientific theory of reality .Science has no choice but to do that , if science wanna try to deliver some relatively accurate reflection or representation of reality , instead of that materialist false and distorted version of reality .

Materialists just resort to branding non-materialist world views as some forms of "supernatural " , just because they reject the materialist false world view in science .

When you would consider all those "paranormal " phenomena like psi phenomena from the non-materialist perspective , they would appear to you as they are in reality : perfectly normal .

Only from the materialist perspective do they seem to be 'supernatural " , simply because they cannot be explained materialistically via material processes . The latter are  just one part or one level of reality , not the whole part .

In fact , there is no separate matter and separate consciousness : they are inseparable = our "reality " is psycho-physical ,as one of the founders of quantum physics , Pauli , used to say, for example .

Quantum physics has even proved that there is no matter as such : has revolutionized our classical or conventional Newtonian conception of what matter might be .

What are you talking about then ? Go re-read that excerpt  once more , because you clearly did not understand what Beauregard  was talking about .

For example, some forms of materialism assume that consciousness is just a product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain , just an epiphenomena , a side effect of evolution without (absurd )   any causal effects on matter brain or body :  How can then consciousness trigger or have influence on the physical reality, on the self-directed neuro-plasticity ...How can meditation through consciousness have influence on the brain , body ...How can consciousness work through neurofeedback ...?
How can the placebo or nocebo effects be explained in materialistic terms ?
How can belief that shapes consciousness have influence on our biology , brain and even genes ?, heal our bodies ? ... if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body . as those materialist lunatics wanna make us believe it is ? , or if the mind is in the brain or just brain activity ...

Just re-read that above displayed excerpt more carefully then .




« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 19:26:12 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile


P.S.: Cheryl :

How about the surgery you seem to have been gone through ? It did go well, i see . I am glad for you .Nice to have you back .


Yes, doing better, thanks. Not moving around too much, but home from the hospital, and reading, sketching, and a lot of sleeping, with my cats to keep me company.

I am happy for you , Cheryl . Nice recovery .Best wishes .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl, alancalverd  ...  :

I am in fact no full  fan of US ID or of any other theory of nature or beyond .....I never stick to any theory of nature , knowledge , models ...or beyond, a full  100 % , so to speak , since all knowledge is hypothetical , including the scientific one,and can thus never proven to be "true ", ever   .


Back peddling.


Quote

That said :

Neither of you did address the above key mentioned  issues or objections  raised by either my earlier posts ,or  by that  excerpt of Meyer here above , concerning Darwinism , the origin of life , life information ...,


Yes, we did. Go back and read it.

Quote
Nobody is denying that there is some form of natural selection at work through mutations ....

Well, I'm glad you concede that much at least.

Quote
It's just that natural selection ( Analogous to the mysterious  " invisible hand " of the market lol ) cannot account for the rich diversity and complexity of life , let alone for the added biological or life information that's necessary to account for novel forms and novel body plans ....to mention just that .

You keep saying "it can't account for" but are unable to explain specifically why or what can't be accounted for. We've already given you examples of macroevolution.

Quote

Not to mention the Cambrian explosion where whole complex species appeared suddenly without preexisting simpler forms or simpler ancestors ,and where the fossil record or evidence contradicted Darwinism .
Darwin himself was puzzled by that and admitted that he could find no explanation to that , and that his theory might turn out to be false  ,if future scientists wouldn't be able to solve that Cambrian dilemma ,for example .
Many attempts have been conducted so far to solve the Cambrian dilemma ,since Darwin, up to this date , in vain still ,as far as i can tell at least .


Here is some information to update you since the 1800s about the Cambrian explosion.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090108082914.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061209083521.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/09/130912131753.htm

First of all :

Thanks for your above displayed links regarding the Cambrian explosion ,appreciate indeed .I did not have time enough to study them more closely , and research about them .

Second : macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolution , simply because the natural selection cannot account for the  added biological information that's necessary for "building " novel forms and novel body plans, not to mention that the highly unlikely blind unguided random lottery of the natural selection can never account for all that complexity and diversity of life on earth , via gradual, step by step , trial and error attempts , so to speak ( Not in trillions of years or more thus, so to speak  ) : that's mathematically impossible , not to mention that even computer science has proved that  gradual  simple or small random variations cannot account for or ever lead to large scale variations : random variations can work only in a limited small way  .

Many biologists have been doubting the creative power of the natural selection , as that excerpt of Meyer showed ,and much more : Go back and re-read it more carefully , please .

I will even supply you with more relevant excerpts on the subject as well, if you want to .

That's all i have time for right now , sorry .
I am in the middle of something , so, please forgive me for not having time to elaborate on this or on the rest here above .

P.S.: All my posted comments of today were written very quickly ,due to my tight time -framework right now , so, my apologies for the inevitable errors you might encounter while reading them .

Thanks for your time, efforts , and replies , appreciate indeed .

Take care .
« Last Edit: 16/10/2014 19:51:32 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile

 There was not even a hint or  any  implicit allusion whatsoever to any 'supernatural " intervention in the above displayed excerpt, regarding the mind-body interaction  : the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness is perfectly normal , not "super or paranormal " .

"Normal" or not, as long as you repeatedly fail to explain how it works, as long as you cant demonstrate the mechanism,supernatural is as good as any other descriptive term.

Quote

When you would consider all those "paranormal " phenomena like psi phenomena from the non-materialist perspective , they would appear to you as they are in reality : perfectly normal .

Again, call it whatever name you care to make up. Just explain how it works.

Quote
Go re-read that excerpt  once more , because you clearly did not understand what Beauregard  was talking about .
What's to understand? They are just statements of various claims, not explanations.  What particular claim of his do you want me to address. Did you read the Rationalwiki link?

Quote

For example, some forms of materialism assume that consciousness is just a product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain , just an epiphenomena , a side effect of evolution without (absurd )   any causal effects on matter brain or body.

I haven't said that, and I don't think it's an epiphenomena.

Quote


 :  How can then consciousness trigger or have influence on the physical reality, on the self-directed neuro-plasticity ...How can meditation through consciousness have influence on the brain , body ...How can consciousness work through neurofeedback ...?
How can the placebo or nocebo effects be explained in materialistic terms ?
How can belief that shapes consciousness have influence on our biology , brain and even genes ?, heal our bodies ? ... if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body . as those materialist lunatics wanna make us believe it is ? , or if the mind is in the brain or just brain activity ...

Just re-read that above displayed excerpt more carefully then .


Go read re-read the answers I just gave you to all of those questions!




[/quote]
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Second : macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolution , simply because the natural selection cannot account for the  added biological information that's necessary for "building " novel forms and novel body plans, not to mention that the highly unlikely blind unguided random lottery of the natural selection can never account for all that complexity and diversity of life on earth , via gradual, step by step , trial and error attempts , so to speak ( Not in trillions of years or more thus, so to speak  ) : that's mathematically impossible , not to mention that even computer science has proved that  gradual  simple or small random variations cannot account for or ever lead to large scale variations : random variations can work only in a limited small way  .


Yet, macroevolution does happen - it's an observable event. Species do split into other species that are morphologically different and no longer genetically compatible with the original, parent stock.
I don't understand why you feel recombination of genetic material in sexual reproduction, mutation and natural selection cannot account for "added information." When a base pair is added, that's new information, when it's deleted, the shift can result in new information, when genes are accidentally duplicated, that's new information. When some of those duplicated genes mutate and become different genes, that's new information. Surprisingly small and simple mutations can have big affects, such as relocating entire appendages or wings.  What confuses you about this?
Quote
Many biologists have been doubting the creative power of the natural selection , as that excerpt of Meyer showed ,and much more : Go back and re-read it more carefully , please .

I'm not sure who these "many biologists" are, but they're not the ones publishing research in thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals.

Quote

I will even supply you with more relevant excerpts on the subject as well, if you want to .


knock yourself out.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?
« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 03:21:03 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442393#msg442393 date=1413504533]

 There was not even a hint or  any  implicit allusion whatsoever to any 'supernatural " intervention in the above displayed excerpt, regarding the mind-body interaction  : the non-physical non-local nature of consciousness is perfectly normal , not "super or paranormal " .

"Normal" or not, as long as you repeatedly fail to explain how it works, as long as you cant demonstrate the mechanism,supernatural is as good as any other descriptive term.

Look :

First of all :

You're making a false premise from the very start on which you have been building all your materialist sand castles , like all materialist are :

 Is there any empirical evidence supporting the materialist theory of consciousness , for example ? , in the sense that consciousness is in the brain or just brain activity ,without any causal effects on matter brain and body .
 If consciousness is just that , then, it can have no causal effects on the brain that "produces " it ,let alone on the physical reality in general , or on the body or its biology , genes ....How then can this false materialist theory of consciousness account for psi-phenomena , the placebo /Nocebo effects , for self -directed neuroplasticity, ...., neurofeedback and the rest of those "anomalies " ? or just for your daily decisions and actions ? It cannot , despite those  reductionist materialist "explanations " you have been providing ,that reduce the whole universe to just material processes (That's what materialists call "methodological naturalism " by the way = reducing the universe to just material processes ,"methodological naturalism " which is in fact just a consequence of materialism ) ... unless you think of yourself as being just some sort of a mindless machine , a hardware programmed by software : how can the consciousness software that's allegedly produced by the "hardware" of the physical brain  ( neuroplasticity is an evidence for the fact that the brain is NOT hardwired , and that  its anatomy , physiology or structure are NOT fixed )   have any effects on the latter then ? See the inherent materialist contradictions , incoherence and inconsistency here ?    .

The answer is a big absolutely certain NO : there is absolutely no empirical evidence for that materialist claim : correlations between mind and brain are NO causations ( IT has been proven by NDE , by psi phenomena ...that the brain is just a physical medium for consciousness .The brain that  can filter , reduce or limit the scope of consciousness .The brain as some sort of a valva , so to speak , through which consciousness has to express itself .that's why some drugs can expand consciousness , for example , to mention just that .That's why when certain areas of the brain are damaged , some correlating or 'corresponding " aspects of consciousness  seem to be reduced , limited or gone )  , not to mention that the quantitative neurophysiology cannot account for conscious subjective qualitative experiences or states , despite all that materialist non-sense in the form of computation ,and despite that materialist machine -like , computer-like metaphor regarding the nature of life ...

Look, once again : The non-materialist model of consciousness has more explanatory power than the materialist false one .The former can account for all the 'anomalies " for which the latter cannot account  and more, almost in the same fashion quantum physics has more explanatory power than the fundamentally false and approximately correct determinist mechanical classical Newtonian world view upon which materialism was built  .

That quantum physics is NOT yet complete , if ever , or that it cannot explain that quantum weird world completely is NO evidence against it .The same goes for the non-materialist theory of reality or consciousness .
And there is no war on science , as that wiki link of yours wanna make people believe there is .There is only a rejection of the false materialist theory of reality that's been underlying the current materialist science .

Furthermore , correlation between mind and brain is no causation .

See this simple summary on the subject  here below  , regarding the fact that neuroscience will never be able to explain consciousness , not to mention the materialist neuroscience , simply because neuroscientists will only keep on finding correlations between neural networks and the mind , and simply because the mind is not in the brain or brain activity , not a product of the brain : that much we know for sure , despite all those silly and unscientific materialist gymnastics on the subject in the form of computation and the rest :

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/human-consciousness-and-the-end-of-2jszrulazj6wq-58/

Quote
Quote
When you would consider all those "paranormal " phenomena like psi phenomena from the non-materialist perspective , they would appear to you as they are in reality : perfectly normal .

Again, call it whatever name you care to make up. Just explain how it works.
[/quote]

See above .

Quote
Quote
Quote
Go re-read that excerpt  once more , because you clearly did not understand what Beauregard  was talking about .
What's to understand? They are just statements of various claims, not explanations.  What particular claim of his do you want me to address. Did you read the Rationalwiki link?

Well, once again : the materialist theory of nature or reality has been proven to be false , together with all its extensions, including the materialist theory of consciousness , so, that wiki link of yours is just a desperate materialist attempt to equate materialism with science , by explaining away the non-materialist refutations of materialism as a 'war on science ", while it is in fact just a rejection of the materialist false theory of reality in science through an overwhelming body of evidence .

There are are only , once again, just correlations between mind and brain, no causation : the mind is NOT in the brain or  brain activity ....

You assume that the materialist theory of consciousness is supported by empirical evidence , it is not , not even remotely close thus .There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that neurons' firings "produce " thought " : that's just materialist bullshit that has been proven to be false .

Hebb's law and other physical laws to which the physical brain obeys  is no evidence for the "material of physical " nature of the mind : we can't extrapolate the latter from the former ,as we can't assume that correlations between brain and mind are "evidence " for the materialist "fact ", or rather for the materialist belief assumption that the mind is caused or produced by the brain's activity .... .

Quote
Quote
For example, some forms of materialism assume that consciousness is just a product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain , just an epiphenomena , a side effect of evolution without (absurd )   any causal effects on matter brain or body.

I haven't said that, and I don't think it's an epiphenomena.
[/quote]

Then, you're NOT well informed regarding the materialist theory of consciousness you seem to be  so eager and so passionate to "defend " :You're trying to defend the indefensible .

One form of materialism assumes that consciousness is identical with the brain : identity theory .

Another one assumes that the mind is in the brain or just brain activity =  consciousness as a so-called product of the evolutionary complexity of the brain (emergent property theory , that's rejected by even our friend here David Cooper   , and rightly so . ), and so consciousness is regarded as just an epiphenomena , a useless side effect of evolution , without any causal effects on matter brain or body .

An extreme form of materialism that's represented by lunatics such as Dennett even denies the existence of consciousness as such, period ....

All forms of materialism and physicalism , realism , positivism ,...assume that consciousness is material or physical without any causal effects on matter brain or body , without any empirical evidence supporting those claims : they are just materialist dogmatic acts of faith , no science .



Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
:  How can then consciousness trigger or have influence on the physical reality, on the self-directed neuro-plasticity ...How can meditation through consciousness have influence on the brain , body ...How can consciousness work through neurofeedback ...?
How can the placebo or nocebo effects be explained in materialistic terms ?
How can belief that shapes consciousness have influence on our biology , brain and even genes ?, heal our bodies ? ... if the mind has no causal effects on matter brain or body . as those materialist lunatics wanna make us believe it is ? , or if the mind is in the brain or just brain activity ...

Just re-read that above displayed excerpt more carefully then
.




Go read re-read the answers I just gave you to all of those questions!
[/quote]

All those "answers " you assume to have given me , together with that materialist wiki link of yours , do assume that the materialist theory of consciousness and reality have been supported by empirical evidence ,and that materialist science  and materialist scientists are  the only real forms of science and real scientists .

Both claims or premises are false , and have been proven to be so by an overwhelming body of evidence for which Beauregard had just delivered a small summary in his above displayed excerpt .

Science does neither require materialism nor is it condemned to be materialist or condemned to be confined within the materialist false theory of reality and all its false extensions thus .

Materialism or "methodological naturalism " are not synonymous of science .Only the scientific method is .

Materialism assumes , for example , that the universe can be explained only by material processes (That's the definition of the materialist reductionist "methodological naturalism " by the way )  , since materialism assumes that everything is matter , including the mind : that's no empirical claim , just a materialist dogmatic act of faith .

It now has been proven that consciousness and what we call matter are inseparable : through one particular interpretation of quantum theory that's supported by Von Neumann school and by most founders of quantum physics . In fact : the very fact that quantum theory has many interpretations , and the very fact that science itself is just a human social activity , and to some extent a cultural one also ( See how the Eurocentric materialism has been taken for granted as science , or as the scientific world view , without question, since the 19th century and counting ) , then , our "reality " cannot but be observer-dependent , and therefore consciousness is a key component or a key "building block " of this universe ,and a primary one at that , that is , once again ,so, any serious scientific theory of reality has no choice but to integrate consciousness in it , if science wanna deliver some relatively accurate reflection or representation of reality , instead of that materialist distorted and false version of reality .


« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 19:44:45 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?

See above :

You're falsely assuming that materialism is scientific , in the sense that everything is matter , including the mind , and hence the whole universe can be basically and actually explained only by material processes = that's what reductionist materialists call "methodological naturalism " = that's just a consequence of the false reductionist materialist theory of reality in science , no science ( Methodological naturalism is reductionist materialist thus , and reductionism has also been proven to be false , so ) .

Furthermore , science  is no synonymous of the reductionist materialist so-called methodological naturalism .

Science is  just a synonymous of the scientific method that should incite scientists to follow the evidence wherever it might take them .

Reductionist materialism or its "methodological naturalism " consequence just confine science within the materialist false theory of reality in fact , by preventing science from going beyond that false materialist theory of reality : it's a bit like dictating to an adventurer NOT to go beyond a certain territory that's assumed to be the whole territory , and if that given adventurer would stumble upon evidence that would prove to him/her that that particular territory is NOT the whole territory , then , that adventurer would be branded as a heretic or worse .

Reminds me of 'The Village " movie , ironically enough , in a religious context : Nice movie : Replace religion in it by "scientific materialism " ,and see what happens :


Materialists have been confining science to a certain "village " of reality ,while assuming that that is the whole reality thus , assuming that their materialist reductionist key hole theory of reality is the real and whole reality thus .

...........

What name do you want to have for the non-material non-physical mental which is a key component or a key "building block " of the universe then ?

Call it what you want , but , that does not make the fact go away that the immaterial consciousness is a key part of reality , and a primary one at that , that is , so , any serious scientific theory of reality must integrate it , in accordance with the overwhelming evidence on the subject to which you seem to have been closing your mind and doors by believing so dogmatically ,  blindly and irrationally , not to mention, unscientifically , in the false materialist theory of reality .

Have fun with the latter then, if that would happen to make you happy at least, just don't equate it with or call it ....science  .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442394#msg442394 date=1413507594]


Second : macro-evolution cannot be extrapolated from micro-evolution , simply because the natural selection cannot account for the  added biological information that's necessary for "building " novel forms and novel body plans, not to mention that the highly unlikely blind unguided random lottery of the natural selection can never account for all that complexity and diversity of life on earth , via gradual, step by step , trial and error attempts , so to speak ( Not in trillions of years or more thus, so to speak  ) : that's mathematically impossible , not to mention that even computer science has proved that  gradual  simple or small random variations cannot account for or ever lead to large scale variations : random variations can work only in a limited small way  .


Yet, macroevolution does happen - it's an observable event. Species do split into other species that are morphologically different and no longer genetically compatible with the original, parent stock.
I don't understand why you feel recombination of genetic material in sexual reproduction, mutation and natural selection cannot account for "added information." When a base pair is added, that's new information, when it's deleted, the shift can result in new information, when genes are accidentally duplicated, that's new information. When some of those duplicated genes mutate and become different genes, that's new information. Surprisingly small and simple mutations can have big affects, such as relocating entire appendages or wings.  What confuses you about this?

That's a very broad subject , so, i recommend reading Meyer's excerpt more carefully .

Watch this great lecture by James A.Shapiro on the subject : Don't pay attention to the title that must have been added by some ID proponents : Just watch its content :


I have learned to adopt no scientific theory or model of reality in particular permanently , by assuming it to be "true " .No scientific theory or model of reality can ever be proved to be "true ", ever thus (See Karl Popper on the subject )  .I just follow the scientific evidence , as much as possible, wherever it might take me ,and hence i keep my beliefs to myself and do not pretend that they are 'scientific " ,unlike materialists such as  yourself  .

All beliefs or world views , including materialism thus , are , once again, per definition, unscientific = unfalsifiable , but , they are NOT all false , as materialism most certainly IS .

Quote
Quote
Many biologists have been doubting the creative power of the natural selection , as that excerpt of Meyer showed ,and much more : Go back and re-read it more carefully , please .

I'm not sure who these "many biologists" are, but they're not the ones publishing research in thousands of peer reviewed scientific journals.

That's an argument from ignorance : those dissident scientists are prominent ones, la creme de la creme ,  with a lots of peer-reviewed works and more : see Meyer's excerpt on the subject , don't be lazy .

Quote
Quote

I will even supply you with more relevant excerpts on the subject as well, if you want to .


knock yourself out.
[/quote]

Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them  in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least .

What for then ?

Instead of trying to read them and understand them well , you just try to find materialist sources that try to "debunk " them ,so .

Well, of course materialists would try to defend their indefensible dogmatic belief system in science .

I would be extremely surprised ,if they wouldn't .

Maybe , you just don't have time enough for that , i don't know .

In any case , you have to try to be open -minded regarding science that's an ever changing evolving process , instead of sub-consciously or consciously assuming that materialism is "true " (No scientific theory or model of reality can ever be  proved to be  "true ",ever,  including the non-materialist one thus ) , while science is not even about the "truth",  whatever the latter might be indeed .

There is also an overwhelming body of evidence proving materialism and all its extensions , including the materialist theory of consciousness thus , to be ...false , so .

If you wanna keep on believing in that materialist dogmatic belief system in science , that's up to you to do so thus .Just don't call it ...science .

Thanks, take care .

By the way : don't take the following the wrong way , please :

It's thanks to the  wonderful  discoveries and advances of science that've been achieved by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike  through the unparalleled scientific method only that your surgery was possible and successful  , NOT thanks to ...materialism that's just a false theory of reality that pretends to be ..."scientific " .

Best wishes , and nice weekend .



« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 20:59:39 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?

See above :

You're falsely assuming that materialism is scientific , in the sense that everything is matter , including the mind , and hence the whole universe can be basically and actually explained only by material processes = that's what reductionist materialists call "methodological naturalism " = that's just a consequence of the false reductionist materialist theory of reality in science , no science ( Methodological naturalism is reductionist materialist thus , and reductionism has also been proven to be false , so ) .

Furthermore , science  is no synonymous of the reductionist materialist so-called methodological naturalism .

Science is  just a synonymous of the scientific method that should incite scientists to follow the evidence wherever it might take them .



I'm not assuming anything, and have been perfectly willing to consider your evidence - you just haven't provided any. After months (years?)of investigation, all you seem to have for your work is the same list of phenomena you feel have not yet been adequately explained to your satisfaction, but not a single alternative explanation backed by evidence for that explanation. And again, this thing or concept of yours, for lack of a better word, doesn't even have it's own name, a definition, or a descriptive list of qualities, other than being "non-material."
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Don, isn't it rather telling that after a year or more, and all the investigation that you yourself have done, we are still referring to the non-material, as the "non-material," that it doesn't even have its own name, other than what it is not?

Why is that?

See above :

You're falsely assuming that materialism is scientific , in the sense that everything is matter , including the mind , and hence the whole universe can be basically and actually explained only by material processes = that's what reductionist materialists call "methodological naturalism " = that's just a consequence of the false reductionist materialist theory of reality in science , no science ( Methodological naturalism is reductionist materialist thus , and reductionism has also been proven to be false , so ) .

Furthermore , science  is no synonymous of the reductionist materialist so-called methodological naturalism .

Science is  just a synonymous of the scientific method that should incite scientists to follow the evidence wherever it might take them .



I'm not assuming anything, and have been perfectly willing to consider your evidence - you just haven't provided any. After months (years?)of investigation, all you seem to have for your work is the same list of phenomena you feel have not yet been adequately explained to your satisfaction, but not a single alternative explanation backed by evidence for that explanation. And again, this thing or concept of yours, for lack of a better word, doesn't even have it's own name, a definition, or a descriptive list of qualities, other than being "non-material."

I have to go , sorry .before i do, the following then, very quickly :

Let's be honest .Let's not be kidding ourselves , please :
You are a self-declared materialist , that's your choice : you have been assuming that the materialist theory of reality and all its extensions , including the materialist theory of consciousness , have been scientific ,and hence have been supported by empirical evidence : that's a false premise of yours .

You're thus a materialist first , and a scientific person only second , instead of following the scientific evidence wherever it might take you as you should have been doing .

For the rest : that's yet another argument from ignorance of yours :

How do you expect to have a glimpse of the extended non-materialist theory or model of reality , let alone of the extended non-materialist theory or model of consciousness , if you a -priori confine yourself within  the materialist ones ,by assuming the latter not only to be "true " (There is no such thing in science ) , but that it has been also supported by empirical evidence , and so in doing so , you cannot but close your non-material mind to any given non-materialist scientific evidence   ...a -priori thus .


In short :

You need to go through a major meta-paradigm shift to change your mind in the face of evidence  , otherwise , you would continue confining yourself within the false materialist key hole version of reality , while assuming it is the whole real reality .

You have to broaden your horizon thus by following the evidence wherever it might take you, not the other way around  .

The  overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting the non-materialist theory or model of reality is there for everyone to take a closer look at : it's not some sort of a state  secret : it's public .

Start by checking out the main link of this thread that would open the public gates of the non-materialist science to you through the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site .

Gotta go, bye , thanks .

 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile


Well, since you seem not to have really read those above displayed excerpts fully and carefully, while misunderstanding them  in the process , i will not post any more excerpts , for the time being at least .


Well, that's too bad.
But, you can't assume that because someone does not agree with you or the author you have excerpted, they have not read it, or do not understand it, particularly if they take the time to explain why they do not agree.

The format of the argument in the Meyer excerpt is essentially the same as yours - you don't believe materialist mechanisms can account for everything, but offer nothing of substance as an alternative. Since you've read his book, perhaps you can tell me, how many chapters are devoted to what conventional evolutionary theory does not explain, and how many chapters are actually about intelligent design itself, who or what this designer is, how it interacts with physical matter, DNA, cells, etc., what experiments might provide more insight into the process, how or why certain organisms come into existence but not others, or take the morphological forms that they do, and so on. Those are the excerpts I'd really be interested in looking at.
« Last Edit: 17/10/2014 21:53:11 by cheryl j »
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
ps. Does it not bother you in the least that none of the phenomena you have mentioned, psi, NDE, psychosomatic illness, consciousness, etc has ever been explained in any detail, "cannot be accounted for" by a non-material mechanism, either? How long do you intend to cling to your belief without evidence?

I believe that is called "faith."
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Regarding the OP - there's no bombshell there, it's just the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper. 

Let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.

Oh, and while not everyone agrees that Popperian falsifiability is the last word, it certainly makes ID pseudoscience too.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile

In short :

You need to go through a major meta-paradigm shift to change your mind in the face of evidence 


No "meta-paradigm shift" is appropriate in the "face of NO evidence".

This is the reason I do not participate in this thread. And even though I've taken the time to post this short reply, it will not inspire someone with no evidence to provide any. The reason: He has no evidence,....... period.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Cheryl :

This is the definition of naturalism or methodological naturalism from Encyclopædia Britannica : methodological naturalism goes beyond materialism thus :

I have made a slight mistake about it earlier :

Quote : " Naturalism :

 in philosophy, a theory that relates scientific method to philosophy by affirming that all beings and events in the universe (whatever their inherent character may be) are natural. Consequently, all knowledge of the universe falls within the pale of scientific investigation. Although naturalism denies the existence of truly supernatural realities, it makes allowance for the supernatural, provided that knowledge of it can be had indirectly—that is, that natural objects be influenced by the so-called supernatural entities in a detectable way.

Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd. Man's endless search for concrete proofs of his beliefs is seen as a confirmation of naturalistic methodology. Naturalists point out that even when one scientific theory is abandoned in favour of another, man does not despair of knowing nature, nor does he repudiate the “natural method” in his search for truth. Theories change; methodology does not.

While naturalism has often been equated with materialism, it is much broader in scope. Materialism is indeed naturalistic, but the converse is not necessarily true. Strictly speaking, naturalism has no ontological preference; i.e., no bias toward any particular set of categories of reality: dualism and monism, atheism and theism, idealism and materialism are all per se compatible with it. So long as all of reality is natural, no other limitations are imposed. Naturalists have in fact expressed a wide variety of views, even to the point of developing a theistic naturalism.

Only rarely do naturalists give attention to metaphysics (which they deride), and they make no philosophical attempts to establish their position. Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.

Naturalism's greatest vogue occurred during the 1930s and '40s, chiefly in the United States among philosophers such as F.J.E. Woodbridge, Morris R. Cohen, John Dewey, Ernest Nagel, and Sidney Hook." End quote .
 

    * MLA Style:   "naturalism." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 2013.
    * APA Style:   naturalism. (2013). Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Ultimate Reference Suite.  Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

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