0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
No, I haven't been blinded by anything, or taken anything for granted. After all, I am a scientist: I make my living through unbelief and questioning all assumptions. Just because young Rupert says something doesn't make it true or obvious. He's a nice enough guy, but a bit too full of his own assertions to be taken seriously outside of his professional field - and quite possbly within it.
Quote from: SimpleEngineer on 31/10/2013 15:02:42I just want to adress this list.. I dont know what materialism is and have no opinion.. but I believe the attack against science must be addressed.The scientific creed:Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.Not true, we know there are electrical impulses going on.. I have no idea how this could have been overlooked.. 2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.I dont think as a ascientist we make decisions based on concious or unconciousness.. we just observe, record and try to makes sense out of WHAT happens and then try to find out WHY. IF theres an illusion.. we try to break it.. not just accpet its there.3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the BigBang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).Until proven otherwise, why can this not be believed? give a nice frame of reference for all our calculations.. if it is proven to be false, I am sure no scientist would be too stressed by it.4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever. That is why we call them LAWS.. if they change then they are not LAWS, (in fact I dont really get what this means, as LAWS cant really change as they are description of what things happen whether we like it or not, if they change... again I dont think too many scientist would worry..)5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.Only idiots believe this, even dawkins doesnt believe this.. (some think nature is pointless but that another point) evolution is for survival this is pretty much agreed.6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.There's an inheritance tax.. do i have to declare my genes? whats the value of this gene that gives me a debilitating illness? OR do you mean that the belief is that memories aren't passed down? Well if they were we would be laughing!.. they are not.. otherwise there would be no need for teachers. 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree,the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.umm.. forgive me if i am wrong but the point at which the tree is 'seen' is at the retina which is inside my eye.. until the light gets there, I cant see anything and then if the trees inside my head then i can just run through it... *OUCH* a very easily disproved belief, dont know why any scientist would believe that, most lifeforms seem to grasp this fact.8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.I dont think science does have an explaination for memory that holds up to experiment.. but this isnt a dreadfulbeleif until proven incorrect. 9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.Not unexplained.. t here are many explanations and even so called telepaths coming out and saying, its all in the body language. Its not even illusory its fraudulent almost as fraudulent as 'mediums' (see derek akorah)10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.I think you will find a large majority of doctors who advocate counselling and psychiatry as part of treatment for a wide range of conditions. But lets face it, I dont think you can convince someone to regrow a leg.. So yeah I faced those beliefs.. maybe 1 or two are roughly a belief.. but the rest are quite amusing to think someone out there thinks like that.. brings back the days when i first found out about the mormon faith.. (someone 'read' the sacred text out of a hat! seriously..!!)
I just want to adress this list.. I dont know what materialism is and have no opinion.. but I believe the attack against science must be addressed.The scientific creed:Here are the ten core beliefs that most scientists take for granted.1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots,” in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.Not true, we know there are electrical impulses going on.. I have no idea how this could have been overlooked.. 2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activities of brains.I dont think as a ascientist we make decisions based on concious or unconciousness.. we just observe, record and try to makes sense out of WHAT happens and then try to find out WHY. IF theres an illusion.. we try to break it.. not just accpet its there.3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the BigBang, when all the matter and energy of the universe suddenly appeared).Until proven otherwise, why can this not be believed? give a nice frame of reference for all our calculations.. if it is proven to be false, I am sure no scientist would be too stressed by it.4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever. That is why we call them LAWS.. if they change then they are not LAWS, (in fact I dont really get what this means, as LAWS cant really change as they are description of what things happen whether we like it or not, if they change... again I dont think too many scientist would worry..)5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.Only idiots believe this, even dawkins doesnt believe this.. (some think nature is pointless but that another point) evolution is for survival this is pretty much agreed.6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.There's an inheritance tax.. do i have to declare my genes? whats the value of this gene that gives me a debilitating illness? OR do you mean that the belief is that memories aren't passed down? Well if they were we would be laughing!.. they are not.. otherwise there would be no need for teachers. 7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree,the image of the tree you are seeing is not “out there,” where it seems to be, but inside your brain.umm.. forgive me if i am wrong but the point at which the tree is 'seen' is at the retina which is inside my eye.. until the light gets there, I cant see anything and then if the trees inside my head then i can just run through it... *OUCH* a very easily disproved belief, dont know why any scientist would believe that, most lifeforms seem to grasp this fact.8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.I dont think science does have an explaination for memory that holds up to experiment.. but this isnt a dreadfulbeleif until proven incorrect. 9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.Not unexplained.. t here are many explanations and even so called telepaths coming out and saying, its all in the body language. Its not even illusory its fraudulent almost as fraudulent as 'mediums' (see derek akorah)10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.I think you will find a large majority of doctors who advocate counselling and psychiatry as part of treatment for a wide range of conditions. But lets face it, I dont think you can convince someone to regrow a leg.. So yeah I faced those beliefs.. maybe 1 or two are roughly a belief.. but the rest are quite amusing to think someone out there thinks like that.. brings back the days when i first found out about the mormon faith.. (someone 'read' the sacred text out of a hat! seriously..!!)
Why Materialism is False ? :Source : http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?15753-Why-Materialism-is-FalsePrior Note : Materialism is just a false conception of nature : a belief assumption = unscientific , per definition .Science has been dominated and hijacked by materialism , materialism as a false and unscientific world view or philosophy , since the 19th century at least . Materialism goes beyond science and its unparalleled effective scientific method that's unlike any other for that matter , by assuming that the universe or reality nature are exclusively material .The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject :The critique of materialism goes way beyond what the following article tries to approach ,summarize or tackle :-I-I do not agree with the author's allegations that materialism has succeeded in "solving " the challenge or hard problem of life , design, thought , morality ...0_Materialism is just a dogmatic belief system or rather a false secular religion ideology in science , a misconsception of nature in science , that has absolutely nothing to do with science thus , and that just tries to "validate " itself through science , in vain of course , logically and per-definition .I_Those so-called neurocomputation mechanisms cannot account for such non-physical non-biological processes such as thought either .II-Darwin's theory of evolution is only and exclusively biological physical , so, it tackles only the physical biological side of evolution, but materialists , per definition, just try to extend it to non-physical non-biological processes ,for obvious materialist ideological "reasons " that have ,obviously , nothing to do with science .III- That life can be approached via physics and chemistry does not mean that life is just that .IV_ Materialism cannot , per definition, succeed in "refuting " the existence of God, design ................behind all those laws of physics ............V-Neither the materialist version or rather the materialist misinterpretation of Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution , nor Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution can account for human morality, cognition, life or of consciousness "fully" ........let alone their evolution .VI-Materialism can, per definition , not account for consciousness, life ,feelings , emotions, human cognition , human conscience , human morality , ...."fully" , let alone their origins evolution or emergence ._VII-The brain does not cause consciousness : that alleged causality that's ,obviously , just a materialist misinterpretation of that mutual actual factual correlation or interaction between the brain and consciousness thus , was never proven to be true, ever , that's just a materialist belief assumption : causation is no explanation either .VIII-There is a lot more to say on the subject , so, i will just leave it at that ,for the time being at least .Quote :" Why Materialism is False: In short, I think materialism is false. Below is why, with a detour through the reasons why Materialism isn't false. I don't mind if you read this or not, just thought I'd share for anyone remotely interested. No, it's not particularly well written or well structured, and there is so much more that could be said on this topic, but ... meh. _______________________________________________________________ Materalism, I define as follows: 'The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.' - Answers.com First, there is an important distinction to be made. Materialism and Science are not the same thing. Science is the study of the natural world, so Science has no jurisdiction over any theory regarding that which cannot be empirically tested. For example, suppose a Theist were to conjecture that God is the law enforcer of the universe, ensuring that at every moment, at every place, all physical occurrences obeyed the laws that God has decreed. This conjecture is impossible to test scientifically, since all possible experimental observations are consistent with its predictions. However, the unscientific character of our Theist's conjecture does not mean that it is false; the answer to the question is simply outside of the jurisdiction of the Scientific method. The philosophy of Materialism goes beyond the Scientific Method, postulating that only the material exists. This would place the Materialist in disagreement with our Theist. If it is true that only the material exists, then the Theist's law enforcer God does not exist, since that God would qualify as immaterial. The above constitutes the important distinction between Materialism and Science, whilst also explaining why Materialists are always Scientists. However the philosophy of Materialism should not be conflated with that of Science, as it is possible to both be a Scientist and not be a Materialist. _______________________________________________________________ Materialism has always been an unpopular philosophy, with critics branding it as cold, uncaring and fundamentally amoral. The philosophy has had its most bitter rivals in that of Theism, as Materialism denies the truth of religious scripture, denying the existence of God, the afterlife and the immortal soul. Despite this, Materialism has stumbled on, with proponents offering Materialistic solutions to many of the long standing problems in philosophy. The problems listed below have stood as criticisms to the Materialistic philosophy now and in the past. The list is not comprehensive, but does reflect what I believe to have been the key problems that Materialism has overcome. 1) The problem of life 2) The problem of design 3) The problem of thought 4) The problem of morality Here I will sketch a brief overview of what each problem is and how I believe the Materialist can solve it. The first and easiest is the problem of life. The problem arises from the unique properties and capabilities of living organisms; it had seemed incomprehensible that the mechanical world of physics could explain the biological. Something else was needed, so it was postulated that a vital force animated living matter, imbuing it with lifelike qualities. The doctrine held that life was inexplicable in terms of physicochemical interactions. If the Materialist could not explain life, then Materialism must be false. The Materialist did not get his answer to this problem in one sweeping theory, but rather a cumulation of experimental findings, from William Harvey's discovery that the circularitory system was a cleverly engineered mechanism to pump blood around the body, to Fracis Crick and James Watson's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The march of scientific progress has unveiled the fine structure of cellular machinery, all working impeccably from physicochemical laws without the need for a vital animating force. Here the Materialist can explain how life works without appealing to any immaterial vital essence, but there still remains another problem to be solved. This is the problem of design. How is it that this incredible arrangement of organised matter came into being? The odds that such organisation would occur by chance are astronomically low, but life is bustling all around us in a multitude of forms. If the Materialist cannot explain this design, then Materialism must be false. In 1859, in a joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace that explanation was provided. The Materialist now had The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection i.e. The gradual accumulation of adaptive organisation by selective advantage. This elegant theory has provided the Materialist with an answer to the problem of design, which has in time been corroborated by a vast amount of evidence, from practically every field of scientific study. The problem of design had been solved, but an interesting disagreement between Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin persisted. The problem of thought presented itself. To Wallace, the human capacity for reasoned thought was beyond the reach of evolution, a feat which could simply not have been achieved by anything other than supernatural intervention, or in other words: God given. How could it be that a physical system could possibly think? If Materialism cannot explain how it is that we think, then Materialism must be false. The answer to the problem today is all around us, in front of anyone reading this at this very moment, i.e. computation. Alan Turing's Turing machine and the advent of modern electronics are a vivid illustration that complex computational architecture, obeying only the laws of physics can perform intelligent operations. The Materialist can now look to neurobiology, where cognition is explained as the consequent of neurocomputations occurring in parallel throughout the central nervous system. The Materialist now has his answer to Wallace's conjecture that the capacity for reason is unevolvable and must be God given. So the Materialist has provided powerful arguments to solve the problem of life, the problem of design and the problem thought. Unlike these three problems, the final problem on my list cannot refute Materialism. If Materialism is indeed amoral, it would be a nonsequitor to conclude from Materialism's amorality that it is false. For this reason, the problem of morality is a special case, but nonetheless very powerful. Briefly, the argument claims that if we are nothing but an unintentional consequence of natural selection, nothing but elaborate machines and built by selfish genes, then there is no reason to work for a higher purpose. For what reason should we treat our fellow man with compassion? What becomes of right and wrong with no God? The answer to this problem is the combined product of evolutionary biology, neurobiology and philosophy. The combined solutions to the previous three problems set the stage for solving the problem of morality. First, evolutionary biology, far from undermining the basis of morality, can explain why we have a moral sense in the first place. Second, neurobiology has provided scientists with evidence of how the human brain computes moral decisions. Finally, philosophers have raised objections to the accusation that Materialism is inherently amoral, refuting the accusations with powerful solutions and counterarguments. Note: I am sure many reading this may object to the solutions I have presented to the 'four problems,' such objections are welcome and I encourage further criticism. ________________________________________________________________ I have taken this detour through the successes of Materialism to drive home that I have no political agenda against the philosophy, religiously motivated or otherwise. I now wish to draw attention to my fifth problem for Materialism: 5) The problem of consciousness A single element of conscious experience is called a quale, a group of quale are known as qualia. A quale might be the subjective experience of red, cold or pain. All quale are symbolic representations of frequencies and angles. The problem for Materialism is explaining qualia, the subjective experience of life, the very subjective experience without which we cannot imagine life being worth living at all. How can a physical system such as the brain be responsible for consciousness?. This is no small problem, for if Materialism cannot explain consciousness, then Materialism is false. The problem of consciousness has puzzled philosophers for centuries. To clarify the problem, imagine opening up my brain whilst displaying a large red circle to my eyes. After some probing, you discover a cluster of neurons whose combined activity is responsible for my conscious experience of red. However, all you have is my word to go on, there is nothing special about that particular cluster of neurons, no telltale sign that these are responsible for my conscious experience. To the outside observer, the entire neurocomputational system would work exactly the same whether or not I was actually consciously experiencing the red circle. To make make matters more puzzling, even if I am consciously experiencing life, how do you know that what you call red is what I call red? So long as the frequencies and angles which these qualia represent maintain a constant relation to each other, then for all you know my conscious experience of red might be radically different to yours. No matter where you look in my brain, even if you are looking at that particular cluster of neurons responsible for my conscious experience of red, you cannot sensibly say that you are looking at the quale redness. The redness I see is qualitively independent of the neural substrate that is responsible for that quale. To put this another way, I would argue that qualia are ontologically irreducible to the neural substrate, that is, qualia have independent qualities which cannot be explained at the physical level. However, I also would argue that consciousness is entirely caused by the neural substrate, that consciousness has no informational content or cognitive ability above that which occurs on the neurocomputational level i.e. consciousness is causally reducible to the neural substrate. To clarify, we can play a thought experiment involving two billiard balls. Billiard ball 1 and billiard ball 2. First take these two examples: 1) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity. 2) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity. Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1. Now, take a third example: 3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line. In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way. The problem for the Materialist is that consciousness itself is immaterial, the frequencies and angles that make up subjective experience may be caused by, but are not part of the Material world. Thus, I conclude that Materialism is false. ________________________________________________________________ A possible criticism of my theory is that consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. This is a tempting view to take, analogous to the quality of wetness. A body of water is wet, even though no particular element of that body of water is wet. To clarify, a single molecule of H2O cannot be wet, because the quality of wetness is dependent upon the interactions of the constituent parts, without belong to any of those particular constituent parts. Wetness is an emergent property. A critic might conjecture that consciousness is also an emergent property of brain activity. I do not think that consciousness is an emergent product of brain activity. The difference between wetness and consciousness is that the quality of wetness follows from the physical laws governing the behavior of H2O, that is, given only the laws of physics I could predict that particular chemical substances would have the emergent property of wetness. The same cannot be said of consciousness. Given only the laws of physics, I could not predict the emergence of consciousness, it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be." End Quote.
But , science proper does in fact deal only with the observable , empirical ...science can therefore not consider the whole reality as just a matter of physics and chemistry = materialism has been making science go beyond its own scientific method ,and beyond science's realm and jurisdiction .Get that ?If you want to read that whole book of Sheldrake on the subject , just give me a sign , and i will provide you with a free and safe download link ...Deal ?All those materialist dogmatic belief assumptions dominating in all sciences ,as Sheldrake talked about and more , are in fact just extensions of materialism in science : materialist extensions such as the materialist belief assumption that "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain ...." .
Quote from: cheryl j on 01/11/2013 01:44:14Don says "The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject", so there's no point in refuting it, but Don will keep posting and posting it again to support his hysterical aversion to Science which can "say nothing" about the other side of reality.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 31/10/2013 19:02:25But , science proper does in fact deal only with the observable , empirical ...science can therefore not consider the whole reality as just a matter of physics and chemistry = materialism has been making science go beyond its own scientific method ,and beyond science's realm and jurisdiction .Get that ?If you want to read that whole book of Sheldrake on the subject , just give me a sign , and i will provide you with a free and safe download link ...Deal ?All those materialist dogmatic belief assumptions dominating in all sciences ,as Sheldrake talked about and more , are in fact just extensions of materialism in science : materialist extensions such as the materialist belief assumption that "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain ...." .Ah, so what you are saying is, that you and others believe that there is more to the universe than what science can observe?I probably would agree with you, but its not fair to stop scientist keep trying to observe everything they can.. are we not just following the laws of sherlock holmes? "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"Scientists in general just try to eliminate the impossible.. if it is possible.. then it becomes true science..(But in general I do agree with you, I really do believe there are things science will never understand, such as Sods Law.. )
[ Invalid Attachment ] The man is brilliant ...
Originally published in the United Kingdom by Blond and Briggs in 1981 under the title A New Science of Life: The Hypothesis of Formative Causation ...All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.