The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Major Bombshell : Manifesto For A Post-Materialistic Science :  (Read 188117 times)

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=dlorde link=topic=52526.msg442477#msg442477 date=1413627978]
Regarding the OP - there's no bombshell there, it's just the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper. 

(Hiiii, dlorde : nice to "talk " to you again this way .I am delighted to see you landing on this thread,so to speak   . Welcome .
My sincere apologies for being so rude to you the last times when we interacted with each other on this forum  .I am not the same man i used to be, so.How are you , man ? Fine, i hope .)

Would you care to elaborate on that , please ? What's so pseudo-scientific about non-materialist science then ? Is it just because it refutes materialism and its "scientific world view " ,and hence proposes a new , unprecedented and radical meta-paradigm shift in science ?

Who says  that  science has to be materialist , or that science does require materialism then ?

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

That's an argument from ignorance : check out the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site at least then to figure that out for yourself .

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

Popperian falsifiability is certainly NOT the last word indeed, but it does offer  the best criterion so far for distinguishing between science and psuedo-science .

P.S.: ID does not necessarily reflect my own views regarding evolution, the origin of life ....I just brought it up to raise the issues regarding the many flaws and false claims of Darwinism .The latter that's more of an ideology or a secular atheist religion than a scientific theory .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442441#msg442441 date=1413579095]


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.

Well, i could only conclude from what you were saying about Beauregard ' s conclusion   that i posted  from  his "Brain wars ..." book that you did not understand it , while resorting to materialist 'authority "  for help,  in the form of that rationalwiki link as an "counter-argument",so  .

All your 'explanations " came from that materialist link thus ,so .

Quote
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.

Actually , Meyer's excerpt should have given you enough clues about that book of his to start from , not to mention that i have provided you with a lecture by James A.Shapiro on the subject .Shapiro who agrees with some arguments against Darwinism that were raised by ID proponents ,while offering third way alternatives to both darwinism and ID thus .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • 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."

You're just projecting , Cheryl :

The materialist dogmatic belief system in science is the one that's only an act of faith that's not supported by any empirical evidence whatsoever , not the other way around .

Well, this  is yet another argument from ignorance from your part + misunderstanding of what those excerpts said and of what i said .

New scientific theories or models , scientific knowledge ...in general, including the new scientific theories of the nature of reality , theories of consciousness ....must be both falsifiable and must also have more explanatory power than the previous ones (the materialist ones in this case ) ,and thus account for all the 'anomalies " which were not accounted for by the materialist ones thus .

The non-materialist theory of the nature of reality ,together with its extension in the form of the non-materialist theory of consciousness have been accounting for all those 'anomalies " that were/are not accounted for by materialism , have been relatively falsifiable , and to some extent reproducible via thousands of cases and experiments ,and they do clearly have more explanatory power than the materialist false ones .

Not to mention that those non-materialist theories or models have been backed by quantum physics or just by one particular interpretation of quantum theory that's more plausible than the other interpretations of quantum  theory thus ....and also by the only  plausible interpretations of neuroscience , biology , chemistry, by the fine tuning of the universe ,  and by the only plausible interpretations of all sciences in fact .

It all comes down thus to the interpretation -dilemma in science in the face of an overwhelming body of evidence : Occam's razor is NOT on the side of materialist science thus , so to speak .

I can only add that you seem to be reading both my words and those of my excerpts in a selective manner through the filter or lens of materialism only , so .
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 17:21:22 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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


 "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."


I'm fine with that. The "influence" that is "detectable" is whats known as evidence.

Quote

 Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.

This statement would seem to be more problematic for you than helpful. If some mechanism or new force was found to be responsible for psi, and could be "detectable" - verifiable - it would no longer be considered supernatural, but another aspect of the natural world, no different than say, the discovery of electromagnetism.

The sticking point, though, is that all of our means for "detecting" and verifying tend to be material in nature - observation by people or instruments, the effects of the phenomena on other physical things, or the effects of different physical variables on the phenomena being studied.

Secondly, "detectable", does not mean proof by process of elimination, which is generally what psi experiments at their most convincing rely on, and never get beyond.  "There is no way we can think of that this person could have access to that information, so it must be.....esp, or out of body consciousness, or remote viewing."
Process of elimination is not the same as detection or demonstrating a mechanism.
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 17:31:13 by cheryl j »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :

Quote : "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." End quote .

There is also what can be called theistic naturalism thus , after all,  , not just atheistic naturalistic materialism ....

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?

In short :

Who says that science has to be exclusively naturalistic then ? ,if scientists would discover someday that nature is not the whole reality thus .

I thought that science was / is an ever -changing process , and that scientists should follow the evidence wherever it might take them , not confine science within their preferred world view of the moment or within the zeitgeist of the moment then ...
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 17:42:18 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :

"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."

I didn't skip or ignore that passage. The author simply says there is no bias for or against these things, providing there is evidence, a detectable influence, not just a theory or an idea about it,  which is exactly what I've been saying.

Quote
There is also what can be called theistic naturalism , not just atheistic materialism ....

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?

I assumed the excerpt about naturalism was the one you wanted to discuss and put forth for a reason, so those were the remarks I addressed. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "beyond nature" what exactly that refers to, so unless you can be a little clearer or specific about what that even is, there is not much I can say about it.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442504#msg442504 date=1413649246]


 "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."


I'm fine with that. The "influence" that is "detectable" is whats known as evidence.

Agree indeed . Detectable can also mean indirectly detectable , not just directly detetctable thus .

Quote

Quote
Naturalists simply assert that nature is reality, the whole of it. There is nothing beyond, nothing “other than,” no “other world” of being.

This statement would seem to be more problematic for you than helpful. If some mechanism or new force was found to be responsible for psi, and could be "detectable" - verifiable - it would no longer be considered supernatural, but another ashttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Themes/naksci3/images/bbc/bold.gifpect of the natural world, no different than say, the discovery of electromagnetism.

First of all : clearly : no material process can ever account for psi phenomena , the placebo/nocebo effect , for the fact that beliefs and expectations that shape consciousness can heal the body , turn genes on or off, change the structure and physiology of the brain through self- directed neuroplasticity , neurofeedback and much more ...let alone for the origin of life , .......

Second : Why would it seem to be problematic for me ?

Non-materialist science has been proving the fact that psi-phenomena and the rest of those 'anomalies " for which materialism can never account are perfectly natural , normal , NOT "supernatural or paranormal " .The latter labels are just hollow semantics used by materialists to explain away what materialism cannot account for or deal with in fact .

Quote
The sticking point, though, is that all of our means for "detecting" and verifying tend to be material in nature - observation by people or instruments, the effects of the phenomena on other physical things, or the effects of different physical variables on the phenomena being studied.

One can deduce from all those thousands of cases and experiments relating to psi phenomena that can all come down to the mind -body relationship that the influence of consciousness is detectable indirectly , and that consciousness cannot but be non-physical , non -material and non-local .See also the entanglement phenomena in quantum physics : explain that instantaneous action from huge distances between particles through some material process of yours then ? I thought nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light .

Explain what Einstein called instantaneous "spooky action at a distance " throught some faster than the speed of light material process of yours then . Entanglement that has been proved  to occur via a lots of duplicated experiments .

Why can't consciousness work through entanglement also , via instantaneous action on  "matter" or via minds-minds interactions from a distance then ? ,to mention just that .

Quote
Secondly, "detectable", does not mean proof by process of elimination, which is generally what psi experiments at their most convincing rely on, and never get beyond.  "There is no way we can think of that this person could have access to that information, so it must be.....esp, or out of body consciousness, or remote viewing."
Process of elimination is not the same as detection or demonstrating a mechanism.

So, materialism can afford to be eliminative , and the rest not ???

Regardless of that :

Do you think that the great physicist and mathematician Von Neumann did detect the role of consciousness in physics through any form of elimination, or direct detection  ?

He concluded through rigorous maths that the measurement problem in quantum physics could not be solved but by concluding that there must be a process of some sort that collapses the wave function , a process outside of the laws of physics . He could not think of anythingelse than the consciousness of the observer , albeit reluctantly .That's how real scientists should work : follow the evidence wherever it might take them , not make it fit into their a-priori held beliefs or theories , deny it as such or ignore it as such , as materialists do whenever  the data or evidence contradicts their materialist dogmatic belief .

P.S.: Physicists have been talking about the eixtence of THE field ,field of information or otherwise , where everything  seem to come from .

They can't prove the existence of that field indirectly . let alone directly , through empirical evidence , just ...mathematically . Should we discard that ?
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 18:15:19 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442507#msg442507 date=1413650734]
Cheryl :

Why did you skip this quote from "Naturalism " through Encyclopedia Britannica ? :

"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."

I didn't skip or ignore that passage. The author simply says there is no bias for or against these things, providing there is evidence, a detectable influence, not just a theory or an idea about it,  which is exactly what I've been saying.

Well, you seem to have some sort of argument from ignorance thought pattern of some sort , Cheryl : I am tired of repeating that fact :

Non-materialist science is in fact all about an overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting  its claims and theories, models .... and all about detecting , albeit indireclty, the influence of consciousness as a key component of reality on matter brain and body , and much more , through psi-phenomena , through the impact of beliefs and expactations on body brain and biology genes ... via thousands of experiments and documented cases ...

Quote
Quote
There is also what can be called theistic naturalism , not just atheistic materialism ....

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?

I assumed the excerpt about naturalism was the one you wanted to discuss and put forth for a reason, so those were the remarks I addressed. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "beyond nature" what exactly that refers to, so unless you can be a little clearer or specific about what that even is, there is not much I can say about it.

Well, you said that that particular quote which you posted from my post about " naturalism" was a problem for me, so, i replied why should science be confined to that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century, that's all, while providing you with another quote from that same post of mine regardin naturalism , to show you that there is also what can be called theistic naturalism ,so....., that's all  .

Who says then thus that science has to be materialist  all this time and counting , or that science has to require materialism , like that rationalwiki link of yours said , the more when we see that materialism has been challenged and refuted by an overwhelming body of evidence ?

In short :

Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only   material processes then ?

Think about that then .
« Last Edit: 18/10/2014 18:40:45 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Well, you seem to have some sort of argument from ignorance thought pattern of some sort , Cheryl : I am tired of repeating that fact :

Non-materialist science is in fact all about an overwhelming body of evidence that has been supporting  its claims and theories, models .... and all about detecting , albeit indireclty, the influence of consciousness as a key component of reality on matter brain and body , and much more , through psi-phenomena , through the impact of beliefs and expactations on body brain and biology genes ... via thousands of experiments and documented cases ...

First, I'm not sure you understand what the phrase "argument from ignorance" means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance 

It does not mean that some one simply disagrees with the veracity of your facts or your line of reasoning. Your premises seem much worthy of the label of 'argument from ignorance', since you are the one saying that if materialism cannot disprove the immaterial, the immaterial must be accepted as true.
I never have said the the immaterial does not exist, I just (repeatedly) asked for evidence and demonstrations of a mechanism.

Quote

And who says that that naturalist philosophy that was developed in the last century is the final world on naturalistic science ?

Who says that if scientists would discover that the nature of reality goes beyond nature itself , science should not go beyond nature or discard that ?



Who says then thus that science has to be materialist  all this time and counting , or that science has to require materialism , like that rationalwiki link of yours said , the more when we see that materialism has been challenged and refuted by an overwhelming body of evidence ?

In short :

Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only   material processes then ?

Think about that then .

No one says it.

But it's interesting that some how in 80 something pages and claims of "overwhelming evidence," we have never taken the time to look closely at anyone of these studies or examples. And it seems, that when we talk specifically about a particular area, like macroevolution, and you are provided with facts or examples that contradict your claims, you ignore them or change the subject to physics. When physics is discussed (as with the lengthy Stapp debate or discussions about wave function collapse) and you are again backed into into a corner,  you switch topics yet again, without any attempt to address the other person's comments or support what you've said earlier.

Then many posts later, you repeat the same claims over as if they were never addressed.

You began this thread with the announcement that important scientists were rejecting materialism in great numbers. If true, they seem a bit slow out of the gate in engaging in any research along those lines or producing any new findings. But if they do, I'm willing to take a look at it.
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
At any rate, thanks for providing me with an activity to pass the time during my convalescence.

I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make? It would just become another aspect of the natural world and no longer mysterious or magical, like  electromagnetism,  and no more amazing than my cell phone (which actually, still amazes me.)

If it were proven that fairies or angels existed, why should I find them more interesting or awe inspiring than birds or octopi?

I can't help but think in the end, all this fervent pursuit and debate about a post material paradigm shift isn't about science at all. It's a desperate search for a God who will protect, and the possibility of an afterlife. That is the motive that drives the whole anti-materialist quest. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother, since they don't seem all that interested in any kind of science in the first place.

 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442605#msg442605 date=1413748089]
At any rate, thanks for providing me with an activity to pass the time during my convalescence.

You're welcome . It would be more entertainning and educative to listen to the "Spiritual Brain " By Beauregrad . Did you get it yet ? For much more solid scientific non-materialist stuff , i would provide you with relevant books on the subject that would rock your false materialist sand castles , if you want to at least  . 

"Spiritual brain ..." is  a funny derision of materialism , and shows how it is false , ridiculous , dogmatic , contradictoty  paradoxical incoherent , unscientific and much more , while offering some alternate scientific explanations to the false materialist ones .

It deals with Darwinism, consciousness , neuroscience and much more .

Quote
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make? It would just become another aspect of the natural world and no longer mysterious or magical, like  electromagnetism,  and no more amazing than my cell phone (which actually, still amazes me.)

You see ? You can't get out of your materialist key hole box . I hate to tell you : " I told you so ", didn't i ?

What makes you think that materialistic "explanations " , through material processes or causes are the only explanations of natural phenomena then ?

The natural world or naturalism are no synonymous of materialism : material causes or material processes are not the only ways through which science can explain the universe : they are just a part of the picture , not the whole picture .

Quote
If it were proven that fairies or angels existed, why should I find them more interesting or awe inspiring than birds or octopi?

Very funny .
Your materialism cannot account for such things , remember , even if they would exist .
Materialism that denies everything that's beyond the illusory physical world or reality .In fact , materialism assumes that the latter is all what there is "out there "  .

Quote
I can't help but think in the end, all this fervent pursuit and debate about a post material paradigm shift isn't about science at all. It's a desperate search for a God who will protect, and the possibility of an afterlife. That is the motive that drives the whole anti-materialist quest

About a post materialistic ....you mean : there is a difference between material and materialist . The former is all about the physical or material universe , the latter is all about reducing   the whole universe to just material processes .

Non-materialist science embraces both the material and the immaterial mental in nature , so : it even says that our "reality " is psycho-physical .

How do you know that's the motive ? Science is not about motives ,and is not concerned by them either , even though materialist science reduces even motives to just physics and chemistry , ironically enough , to just survival strategies or illusions .

The manifesto for a post-materialistic science is all about the fact that materialist science has been delivering a false , dogmatic and distorted version of nature or reality, a false  version  of the nature of reality that pretend to be scientific ,thanks to materialism.

Science is all about trying to explain the universe or the nature of reality or nature ,so, science must abandon materialism , if science wanna be able to deliver some relatively accurate reflections of representations of reality .

"Scientific materialism " is false , so, science has no choice but to become non-materialst , if science doesn't wanna loose its ceredibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge , otherwise science under materialism would remain just a dogmatic ideology or atheist religion that would remain confined within the false materialist version of reality  , despite all  scientific advances, discoveries ...that were achieved only through the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

The non-materialist scientists thus are more scientific than the materialist ones could ever be , simply because the former  follow what emiprical evidence show to them , and the latter  just try to make empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialist world view ,or just deny it , ignore it as such ,or just call it pseudo-science or worse whenever that empirical evidence would contradict their a-priori held materialist belief or world view .

Science has become a servant or a slave of materialists and materialism , in the sense that science gets misused for the service of the materialist ideology , in order to vindicate it , in vain ,while science should be used to explore the universe through free inquiry .


Quote
Otherwise, they wouldn't bother, since they don't seem all that interested in any kind of science in the first place.

What are you talking about in Zeus' name , Cheryl ?

There is a whole pseudo-scientific materialist dogmatic belief syetem at the very heart of materialist science that has been proven to be not only as such ,but also as false .

So, non-materialist scientists wanna liberate science from materialism ,while offering alternatives to the latter .
« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 19:14:15 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442560#msg442560 date=1413679307]



In short :

Who says that real science or real scientists have to be materialists ,as that rationalwiki link of yours also said , in the sense that science or scientists have to seek only material or physical biological explanations of the universe and life in it , via only   material processes then ?

Think about that then .

No one says it.

Prior note : Fact is : you have made many arguments from ignorance (I am well aware of what that means ) , not because you disagreed with me ....., but , simply because you implied that since you were  not familiar with or not informed regarding the evidence provided by non-materialist and other  scientists , then , there were none , and because of similar replies of yours ....Check that out in your own posts to me .

That said : 

No one says it ? Are you sure about that ? Think twice .
Your take on this is too naive and uninformed to be taken seriously .
Even that rationlawiki link of yours not only implied it , but also said it explicitly , in the sense that real scientists or real science are the ones who stick to the materialist methodological naturalism, come on .

Any given scientist who would even imply that some natural phenomena can be explained by non-material processes , or that they are non-material like in the case of the nature of consciousness, would be immediately or automatically considered as a heretic or worse who tries to introduce the "supernatural " into science : see what naturalism , naturalistic science or methodlogical naturalism are  all about , once again , through Encyclopedia Britannica 's quote here above : materialists reduce them to just the materialist ones , in the sense that the whole universe can be explained by or reduced only to material causes or processes .

Quote
But it's interesting that some how in 80 something pages and claims of "overwhelming evidence," we have never taken the time to look closely at anyone of these studies or examples. And it seems, that when we talk specifically about a particular area, like macroevolution, and you are provided with facts or examples that contradict your claims, you ignore them or change the subject to physics. When physics is discussed (as with the lengthy Stapp debate or discussions about wave function collapse) and you are again backed into into a corner,  you switch topics yet again, without any attempt to address the other person's comments or support what you've said earlier.

See below .

It's not possible to cover all those fields this way , let alone in detail ,so, that's why i was just referring you all to them through the work of some non-materialist scientists ...

I cannot do the whole work for you thus : the evidence is there to take a loot at , some of the evidence that's provided even by some mainstream scientists like Shapiro , Jay Gould and others .

It's up to you thus to check out my links and excerpts.

Quote
Then many posts later, you repeat the same claims over as if they were never addressed.

You did not provide any conclusive evidence against  my earlier claims , or against those of non-materialist scientists , so, except that link regarding the discovered fossils in relation to pre-cambrian period , and even that is no conclusive evidence for  macro-evolution ,or for the so-called creative power of the gradulal , step by step, natural selection that can never  account for macro-evolution , let alone for its added novel biological information ...

Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .I can provide you with mind-blowing books on the subject also, if you want to, It even helped me get rid of many old habits , of  some form of light depression, mood swings, anger  ....It can also help people get rid of anxiety , depression, erroneous thinking , catastrophizing, wrong mind reading of others  , ....and much more , without any side effects whatsoever thus , without use of any medicine.Only severely mentally ill patients must  combine  the steps , excercises and techniques of cognitive psychology or therapy with ...their medication ... .Long story thus.)

Regarding Stapp's work thus : he relied on one particular interpretation of quantum theory that's supported by Von Neumann school + by many others and by most founders of quantum physics thus : it is more plausible then the rest of those interpretations of quantum theory . The latter is evidence enough , once again , for the fact that our "reality " is observer -dependent , otherwise we wouldn't have the interpretation dilemma in science in general, or elsewhere  .

Quote
You began this thread with the announcement that important scientists were rejecting materialism in great numbers. If true, they seem a bit slow out of the gate in engaging in any research along those lines or producing any new findings. But if they do, I'm willing to take a look at it.

Check out the main link of this thread, don't be lazy  :

I cannot do the whole work for you , once again :

I am only a messenger who can only refer you to their work via general ideas , insights ....Otherwise , it would be too much time and energy consuming to do that for you this way . I cannot afford to do that either .

Maybe , i will write a book that will be talking about all those books, work, experiments , data and much more that were written and delivered by some mainstream scientists as well as by non-materialist scientists alike : that book would be hundreds of miles long lol . 

http://opensciences.org/about/manifesto-for-a-post-materialist-science

The scientists who signed that manifesto, from Beauregard to Larry Dossey through Gary Schwartz , are just the top of the iceberg of those non-materialist scientists out there who have been delivering some important data and evidence on the subject .

If you want to , i can make it even easier for you by displaying the work of some of them through their own words .


« Last Edit: 20/10/2014 19:07:20 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
My sincere apologies for being so rude to you the last times when we interacted with each other on this forum  .I am not the same man i used to be, so.How are you , man ? Fine, i hope .)
I'm fine thank you.

Quote
Would you care to elaborate on that , please ? What's so pseudo-scientific about non-materialist science then ? Is it just because it refutes materialism and its "scientific world view " ,and hence proposes a new , unprecedented and radical meta-paradigm shift in science ?
Ah -  straight in with the straw man argument, just like the old days ;)

When I say "the same old pseudoscientific nonsense in a new paper", I mean the paper contains pseudo-scientific nonsense that is unoriginal. I don't really care how it's labelled.

Quote
Quote
Let me know when 'Post-Materialistic Science' has produced something useful.
That's an argument from ignorance : check out the manifesto for a post-materialistic science site at least then to figure that out for yourself .
Keep your fallacy powder dry - it's not an argument at all, it's simply a request.

But you're right; I see now that the manifesto is a useful example of attention-seeking drivel. How could I have missed that.

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
... See also the entanglement phenomena in quantum physics : explain that instantaneous action from huge distances between particles through some material process of yours then ? I thought nothing in the universe can travel faster than the speed of light .
Not quite. The rule is that nothing can accelerate to or past the speed of light (in vacuo), and that no information can travel faster than light (in vacuo).

Quote
Why can't consciousness work through entanglement also , via instantaneous action on  "matter" or via minds-minds interactions from a distance then ?
Decoherence.

Quote
Do you think that the great physicist and mathematician Von Neumann did detect the role of consciousness in physics through any form of elimination, or direct detection  ?

He concluded through rigorous maths that the measurement problem in quantum physics could not be solved but by concluding that there must be a process of some sort that collapses the wave function , a process outside of the laws of physics . He could not think of anythingelse than the consciousness of the observer , albeit reluctantly .
In the 82(!) years since von Neumann's publication, physics has moved on. Wave function collapse is just one of a number of interpretations of QM, and the idea of conscious collapse is now a historical footnote (except for a few fringe woosters, like Stapp).

 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make?
If quantum field theory (the Standard Model) is even a reasonable approximation to the way the world works (and the evidence suggests it is far more than that - particularly now the long-predicted Higgs particle has been found), then such a force doesn't exist, and any 'stuff' would have to be made of familiar material. No unknown forces or particles relevant to everyday human-scale interactions remain to be discovered - there are probably plenty at other scales and strengths, but the fundamentals of our everyday environment are all accounted for (gravity, electromagnetism, electrons, protons, and neutrons).

It's a strong claim, but QFT is a strong theory. For the full, exciting, entertaining details, see Sean Carroll's talk The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality. Skip to 33 minutes for the specific claim (although the whole thing is well worth watching). Please pay close attention to the caveats and limits that Carroll describes.
 

Offline cheryl j

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

"Spiritual brain ..." is  a funny derision of materialism , and shows how it is false , ridiculous , dogmatic , contradictoty  paradoxical incoherent , unscientific and much more ,

See, that is exactly why I think it will likely be a waste of time. I’m less interested in page after page of  their litany of criticisms about evolution or neuroscience. I want to see what alternative explanations and mechanisms they have, and the evidence that backs it, and I suspect that will be once again sorely  lacking and a waste of my time. 
Quote
while offering some alternate scientific explanations to the false materialist ones .

If I check it out at all, that is what I'd be most interested in seeing if only out of curiosity as to how they think they can pull that off.  But I'm not hopeful.



Quote
The manifesto for a post-materialistic science is all about the fact that materialist science has been delivering a false , dogmatic and distorted version of nature or reality, a false  version  of the nature of reality that pretend to be scientific ,thanks to materialism.

Science is all about trying to explain the universe or the nature of reality or nature ,so, science must abandon materialism , if science wanna be able to deliver some relatively accurate reflections of representations of reality .

"Scientific materialism " is false , so, science has no choice but to become non-materialst , if science doesn't wanna loose its ceredibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge , otherwise science under materialism would remain just a dogmatic ideology or atheist religion that would remain confined within the false materialist version of reality  , despite all  scientific advances, discoveries ...that were achieved only through the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

The non-materialist scientists thus are more scientific than the materialist ones could ever be , simply because the former  follow what emiprical evidence show to them , and the latter  just try to make empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialist world view ,or just deny it , ignore it as such ,or just call it pseudo-science or worse whenever that empirical evidence would contradict their a-priori held materialist belief or world view .

Science has become a servant or a slave of materialists and materialism , in the sense that science gets misused for the service of the materialist ideology , in order to vindicate it , in vain ,while science should be used to explore the universe through free inquiry .

For the life of me I’ll never understand the benefit you see in attacking all of conventional science based on physical processes, and characterizing it as “false” when clearly it has elucidated the mechanisms behind a vast number of phenomena, in physics, chemistry, biology, botany, medicine, etc and has completely altered the human experience and potential. And although you keep saying this progress in knowledge has nothing to do with materialism, it has had everything to do with it, and the belief that nature was intelligible and could be explained through physical processes without resorting to mystical elements or God. 

But fine, if you feel there is "more", or "something else" out there, what’s stopping you or anyone else from discovering it and using the scientific method to explain its workings? A mass conspiracy against such investigations is not tenable.



« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 01:17:07 by cheryl j »
 

Offline cheryl j

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

Prior note : Fact is : you have made many arguments from ignorance (I am well aware of what that means ) , not because you disagreed with me ....., but , simply because you implied that since you were  not familiar with or not informed regarding the evidence provided by non-materialist and other  scientists , then , there were none , and because of similar replies of yours ....Check that out in your own posts to me .
...It's not possible to cover all those fields this way , let alone in detail ,so, that's why i was just referring you all to them through the work of some non-materialist scientists ...

....I cannot do the whole work for you thus : the evidence is there to take a loot at , some of the evidence that's provided even by some mainstream scientists like Shapiro , Jay Gould and others .

It's up to you thus to check out my links and excerpts.
Check out the main link of this thread, don't be lazy  :

I cannot do the whole work for you , once again :



I am not asking you to  “do the work for” me. I am simply suggesting that you provide a link to particular study or two that you feel is most illustrative of the “overwhelming evidence” you keep referring to, and is an example of the kind of  non-material influences your theory proposes. You can’t expect in a discussion forum that people have the time or the motivation to read a dozen books and view countless videos   It is not “lazy” to request that you reference the most important studies that your ideas are based on. (In fact on another science forum, it’s mandatory after repeated requests, or the thread can be closed.)   I do not direct your attention to entire anatomy or neuroscience text books and complain that you are being lazy, narrow minded, or “arguing from ignorance” for not having read them.
If nothing else it would give us something new to do beside rehash the same philosophical disagreement, the general trueness and falseness of methodologies, over and over.
 

Offline cheryl j

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


Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .


You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?  Not even metaphorically.

Quote
The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .

Why do you think cognitive therapy is non materialist?
 

Offline cheryl j

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1460
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
I can't help but wonder, what if some new type of force involving consciousness , or some new form of  "stuff" was discovered? What difference would it make?
If quantum field theory (the Standard Model) is even a reasonable approximation to the way the world works (and the evidence suggests it is far more than that - particularly now the long-predicted Higgs particle has been found), then such a force doesn't exist, and any 'stuff' would have to be made of familiar material. No unknown forces or particles relevant to everyday human-scale interactions remain to be discovered - there are probably plenty at other scales and strengths, but the fundamentals of our everyday environment are all accounted for (gravity, electromagnetism, electrons, protons, and neutrons).

It's a strong claim, but QFT is a strong theory. For the full, exciting, entertaining details, see Sean Carroll's talk The Higgs Boson and the Fundamental Nature of Reality. Skip to 33 minutes for the specific claim (although the whole thing is well worth watching). Please pay close attention to the caveats and limits that Carroll describes.

Thanks. Tomorrow is library night and I plan to catch up on some viewing with their wifi.
I really wish I had a better understanding of physics.
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4728
  • Thanked: 155 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile

I am only a messenger


But unlike the Post Office or the internet, you have the last word over which messages you transmit, and like BBC television, you do yourself no credit by broadcasting rubbish.
 

Offline dlorde

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Thanked: 9 times
  • ex human-biologist & software developer
    • View Profile
Thanks. Tomorrow is library night and I plan to catch up on some viewing with their wifi.
I really wish I had a better understanding of physics.
I hope you enjoy the video - Carroll is that rare combination of high-level expertise, broad general knowledge, and a Feynman-like clarity of exposition - with a sense of humour.
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
 
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442699#msg442699 date=1413852051]


Regarding Stapp's work  where he connected Hebb's law ( neurons that fire together connect together ) to what he called the Zeno-effect ( a kindda "glue " that holds the created neural pathways or brain wiring  in place  through the power of conscious focus .


You realize that makes absolutely no sense, right?  Not even metaphorically.

That's a bit how neuroplasticity or self-directed neuroplasticity , grosso-modo , work, from the non-materialist neuroscience's perspective that relies on one particular interpretation of quantum theory , in total contrast with the materialist neuroscience that's still stuck within the classical determinist mechanical Newtonian world view . Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy rely on the above , and it works .I tried it myself, once again .I can tell . Many other people did try it also with success...


Why  does  it make no sense to you then ? You have admitted to dlorde that you weren't that into physics, for example  ? Haven't you ? How can you tell then ?

Quote
Quote
The latter explains why habits are so difficult to break ,since focussing on them only strengthens their old neural pathways , and explains that focussing away from old habits regularily through excercises , meditation , discipline ... methodologically , away from them on healthier thoughts can create new neural pathways or brain wiring that would override the old neural pathways created by negative habits  ....  Non-materialist cognitive psychology or therapy  is built up on that: i tried it myself , and it does work .

Why do you think cognitive therapy is non materialist?

You should try to read me well, Cheryl :  Be serious, please :

I said : the non-materialist cognitive therapy .....

There is  materialist and non-materialist cognitive therapy or spychology  ,as there is materialist and non-materialist neuroscience , as there is materialist science and non-materialist science ...

Comprende ?
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 18:21:04 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Prior note : Fact is : you have made many arguments from ignorance (I am well aware of what that means ) , not because you disagreed with me ....., but , simply because you implied that since you were  not familiar with or not informed regarding the evidence provided by non-materialist and other  scientists , then , there were none , and because of similar replies of yours ....Check that out in your own posts to me .
...It's not possible to cover all those fields this way , let alone in detail ,so, that's why i was just referring you all to them through the work of some non-materialist scientists ...

....I cannot do the whole work for you thus : the evidence is there to take a loot at , some of the evidence that's provided even by some mainstream scientists like Shapiro , Jay Gould and others .

It's up to you thus to check out my links and excerpts.
Check out the main link of this thread, don't be lazy  :

I cannot do the whole work for you , once again :



I am not asking you to  “do the work for” me. I am simply suggesting that you provide a link to particular study or two that you feel is most illustrative of the “overwhelming evidence” you keep referring to, and is an example of the kind of  non-material influences your theory proposes. You can’t expect in a discussion forum that people have the time or the motivation to read a dozen books and view countless videos   It is not “lazy” to request that you reference the most important studies that your ideas are based on. (In fact on another science forum, it’s mandatory after repeated requests, or the thread can be closed.)   I do not direct your attention to entire anatomy or neuroscience text books and complain that you are being lazy, narrow minded, or “arguing from ignorance” for not having read them.
If nothing else it would give us something new to do beside rehash the same philosophical disagreement, the general trueness and falseness of methodologies, over and over.

Once again , i am just a messenger and i referred you all to that main particular site regarding the manifesto for a post-materialistic science at least ,as i talked about all that in general terms in my earlier posts via my own words , and also via posting links , excerpts from books, video links ...

That's all i can do for you , since i cannot afford to be spending too much time and energy here which i cannot afford anyway .

You keep repeating the same remarks i have responded to earlier , on many occasions .

That's not serious .
 

Offline DonQuichotte

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1763
    • View Profile
Quote
author=cheryl j link=topic=52526.msg442693#msg442693 date=1413848542]

"Spiritual brain ..." is  a funny derision of materialism , and shows how it is false , ridiculous , dogmatic , contradictoty  paradoxical incoherent , unscientific and much more ,

See, that is exactly why I think it will likely be a waste of time. I’m less interested in page after paghttp://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/Themes/naksci3/images/bbc/bold.gife of  their litany of criticisms about evolution or neuroscience. I want to see what alternative explanations and mechanisms they have, and the evidence that backs it, and I suspect that will be once again sorely  lacking and a waste of my time. 
Quote

See ? That's exactly what i mean : you don't read me well : I said that that particular work showed how ridiculous , false ...materialism was / is , while offering alternate explanations to the materialist false ones , through evidence .

 
Quote
while offering some alternate scientific explanations to the false materialist ones .

If I check it out at all, that is what I'd be most interested in seeing if only out of curiosity as to how they think they can pull that off.  But I'm not hopeful.

How can you tell without listening to the evidence presented by "The spiritual brain ..." , for example .I have even offered you a link to download the audio version of the book for free ,remember, so .

Try to download it via the library 's wifi then .

Quote
Quote
The manifesto for a post-materialistic science is all about the fact that materialist science has been delivering a false , dogmatic and distorted version of nature or reality, a false  version  of the nature of reality that pretend to be scientific ,thanks to materialism.

Science is all about trying to explain the universe or the nature of reality or nature ,so, science must abandon materialism , if science wanna be able to deliver some relatively accurate reflections of representations of reality .

"Scientific materialism " is false , so, science has no choice but to become non-materialst , if science doesn't wanna loose its ceredibility and reliability as a valid source of knowledge , otherwise science under materialism would remain just a dogmatic ideology or atheist religion that would remain confined within the false materialist version of reality  , despite all  scientific advances, discoveries ...that were achieved only through the scientific method by materialist and non-materialist scientists alike .

The non-materialist scientists thus are more scientific than the materialist ones could ever be , simply because the former  follow what emiprical evidence show to them , and the latter  just try to make empirical evidence fit into their a-priori held materialist world view ,or just deny it , ignore it as such ,or just call it pseudo-science or worse whenever that empirical evidence would contradict their a-priori held materialist belief or world view .

Science has become a servant or a slave of materialists and materialism , in the sense that science gets misused for the service of the materialist ideology , in order to vindicate it , in vain ,while science should be used to explore the universe through free inquiry .

For the life of me I’ll never understand the benefit you see in attacking all of conventional science based on physical processes, and characterizing it as “false” when clearly it has elucidated the mechanisms behind a vast number of phenomena, in physics, chemistry, biology, botany, medicine, etc and has completely altered the human experience and potential. And although you keep saying this progress in knowledge has nothing to do with materialism, it has had everything to do with it, and the belief that nature was intelligible and could be explained through physical processes without resorting to mystical elements or God.


Material causes or material processes are one part of the picture , not the whole picture , that's why science has been successful , even within the boundaries of the materialist false theory of the nature of reality , since the physical or material world is also a part of the whole picture .

But, when materialist science tries to approach certain natural phenomena whose nature has been proven to be non-material or non-physical and non-local as well such as consciousness, for example, to mention just that one and its related psi phenomena , placebo/nocebo effects and much more , then materialist science cannot but break its materialist neck on those 'anomalies " it cannot account for .that's why the urgent need of a post -materialistic science that embraces both the material and the immaterial in nature through one particular interpretation of quantum theory .

So, only through the scientific method were /are and will scientists (materialist and non-materialist scientists alike thus ) advance science , make discoveries , acquire scientific knowledge , propose theories, models  .....
Materialism has been having absolutely nothing to do with all that amazing and wonderful success of science .Materialism has just been confining science within its materialist false theory of the nature of reality= within the material or physical level of reality that's not the whole reality thus  .That's why science was only successful at the physical or material level of reality only : there is more to reality than just that thus .And even at the level of the material or physical world ,materialist science has been breaking its materialist head on what  quantum theory tells us about the "nature of matter or the nature of reality " , or just one particular interpretation of quantum theory  that  has shown that there is no separate material or physical world as such , no separate matter as such thus , no separate mind as such : they are inseparable : Our "reality " is psycho-physical .

Quote
But fine, if you feel there is "more", or "something else" out there, what’s stopping you or anyone else from discovering it and using the scientific method to explain its workings? A mass conspiracy against such investigations is not tenable.

Non-materialist scientists were /are and will be doing just that : you're just not aware of their work ,theories, models , data or evidence .

Who talked about any form of conspiracy then ?

To claim that materialism is false is no 'conspiracy theory " lol : that's a claim that has been backed by a lots of evidence .
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 18:58:19 by DonQuichotte »
 

Offline DonQuichotte

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

Just responding to most of the posts here does cost me quite some time and energy (not to mention money as well lol ) , so, how do you expect me to tell you about all the work, models, theories, evidence , data of non-materialist scientists .? You gotta be kidding me .

I talked about all that in general terms in my own words , and via links , video links , excerpts of books ....That's all i can do for you , guys ...

It's up to you all to check all that out , or otherwise ,so : I can only take you to the fountain .I cannot make you drink from it , not that i necessarily care that you would  .

Got other things and duties to attend to as well like everybodyelse , so .

P.S .: dlorde, alancalverd...  :

No time left , sorry .Thanks .Cheers.
« Last Edit: 21/10/2014 19:14:03 by DonQuichotte »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length