0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But, there is indeed overwhelming empirical evidence indeed for the biological physical side of evolution ,it's just that evolution has also a non-physical non-biological side to it as well...QuoteBut that's the whole problem, you and Nagel haven't proven that, and your entire argument rests on that very assumption. Just because you keep saying there is a non biological, non-physical side of nature doesn't make it so. But your excuse is you can't prove it because it's immaterial, and physical science can't identify or measure something that's immaterial. Well, how convenient.
But that's the whole problem, you and Nagel haven't proven that, and your entire argument rests on that very assumption. Just because you keep saying there is a non biological, non-physical side of nature doesn't make it so. But your excuse is you can't prove it because it's immaterial, and physical science can't identify or measure something that's immaterial. Well, how convenient.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/09/2013 12:39:41But, there is indeed overwhelming empirical evidence indeed for the biological physical side of evolution ,it's just that evolution has also a non-physical non-biological side to it as well...QuoteBut that's the whole problem, you and Nagel haven't proven that, and your entire argument rests on that very assumption. Just because you keep saying there is a non biological, non-physical side of nature doesn't make it so. But your excuse is you can't prove it because it's immaterial, and physical science can't identify or measure something that's immaterial. Well, how convenient.
OK, done that. Some impressions.On page 1 of this thread, your third post actually, you bring God into the discussion, emphatically. On page 12 you ask me why I bring God into this discussion.On the second page the first reference to semantics is made. By this time you have mentioned the contributions and opinions of Islam and the Holy Koran several times. Your basic assertion, well defined by the end of the first few pages, is that evolution cannot, alone, explain the origin or subsequent development of human consciousness. As mentioned, you suggest God as the missing element in your third post. You make reference to the "soul" and the "self" and the subjective sense of self-awareness that we all possess. You assert that, in particular, the development of this subjective feature of human consciousness could not have arisen through evolution.As is to be expected on a forum your assertion is challenged by several people. Much of this is semantic clarification.There are several digressions into "what is science" and "what place does God have in science" (it was during one of these that you asked me why "I" was bringing Godinto the discussion(?)).There were also suggestions that Evolution is competent to account for human consciousness. My own was as arrogantly dismissed as any other.From page 2 onwards you were clearly promoting Islamic scientific philosophy, backed up by a complimentary approach from NagelI have not read every page of Nagel posted - my subjective sense of Dignity baulks at the imposition.No, I believe that I have understood what you have said in this thread perfectly well.I understand the contribution that Islam has made to science - you have mentioned it several times (I was, actually, very well aware, but thanks anyway).I understand that "human consciousness" may contain a "soul" or a "spirit" - your words, not mine.I understand that souls, spirits and religions have no place in science.I also understand your constant reference to these non-scientific items in defence of your opinion and I understand your resorting to insults and evasion when you have them thrown back at you, although you do actually use this technique a lot when I think about it.I understand your opinion of scientific method, tightly-based on Nagel; I don't agree with it and have given my arguments. I have received arrogance and rudeness rather than adult and logical challenge for my efforts on the majority of occasions.This is not a discussion, it is a pulpit for a preacher, despite all your pretence of some scientific basis in your opening arguments. What, on Earth, is the Human Consciousness? Well, you have your answer, always did, and you're obviously not interested in hearing anybody elses, in fact your replies show that you despise them. You are talking "Faith", not "Science"; I understand exactly what this "thread"is about.The worrying thing is that you, an intelligent young man, do not.
Well, honey : you are really impossible and ludicrous :Fact is : the reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature , or rather misconception of nature, is not only almost certainly false , it is also certainly ,obviously and absolutely false , a fact which does have....
The science delusion = the materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science, or scientism :
I don't believe that facts are the issue here Cheryl, and the more I read the more I am convinced by that. Your reference to "Satan", who neither myself nor anybody I know has ever met, are far more the issue.This seems all about immovable objects and irresistible forces - Faith Vs. Science. It has been dressed up a bit, rather clumsily and transparently, but when a "scientific discussion" starts referring to souls, spirits, God and now Satan (a reference I accept as perfectly valid given the context) it really is time to call it a day.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/09/2013 17:43:59Well, honey : you are really impossible and ludicrous :Fact is : the reductionist materialist naturalist neo-Darwinian conception of nature , or rather misconception of nature, is not only almost certainly false , it is also certainly ,obviously and absolutely false , a fact which does have....That is not a fact. There exist diseases that do not yet have a known cause. By your logic, I should be able to say that science, blinded by its materialistic paradigm, has failed miserably to find their true cause, which is obviously the work of Satan (or the supernatural force of my choice.) And offer no reason or proof because as we all know, immaterial things don't require that. They just require that you keep saying it over and over.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 27/09/2013 20:02:48The science delusion = the materialist dogmatic belief system dominating in science, or scientism :Piffle. Science is a process of systematic unbelief. Isms are anathema to science.
Quote from: Skyli on 28/09/2013 04:22:36I don't believe that facts are the issue here Cheryl, and the more I read the more I am convinced by that. Your reference to "Satan", who neither myself nor anybody I know has ever met, are far more the issue.This seems all about immovable objects and irresistible forces - Faith Vs. Science. It has been dressed up a bit, rather clumsily and transparently, but when a "scientific discussion" starts referring to souls, spirits, God and now Satan (a reference I accept as perfectly valid given the context) it really is time to call it a day.Well, it also seems to be a problem with logic. I did watch one of the Sheldrake videos. The experiment he mentioned, in which a blind child seemed to be receiving information from his sighted mother was, if validly controlled, interesting. But claiming that any unexplained phenomena, whether it is the appearance of ESP or UFOs, is more likely to have one explanation than another, if you have no evidence for either, only a lack of evidence, is not logical.
The other problem with his reasoning is asserting that his subjective impression of the qualitative nature of things as a kind of fact. He calls things non-biological which he has not proven to be non biological, and are certainly not immaterial or unobservable or unmeasurable scientifically, such as human behavior, social interactions, or economics. That is the basis of this claim that "Besides, the exclusively biological physical materialist conception of nature is seriously debunked by the challenging anomalies represented by life itself ..."
For his next debate, I suggest he move to the physics forum and tell them that there can't possibly be so much empty space inside atoms because it fails to explain why the brick wall he's been banging his head against feels so solid.
My dear young sir, once again you have given a non-answer – I “don't understand”. Of course, you don't say what I don't understand. You can't. You do not have any argument, just a “feeling” that I am wrong. Therefore you resort to dismissal. You will, indeed, dismiss this assertion in the same way; you have no choice.Don't worry, it is a time-honoured tactic of preachers, be they skinheads preaching the virtues of racial purity or murderers preaching the “sinfulness” of western education. I don't mind – I know where it comes from.This thread deals with “human consciousness”. Let us assume you did some research into the subject before you started writing. Research is, after all, what any sensible adult would do.Your research into psychology no doubt made you aware of Transactional Analysis. Broadly speaking, it occupies the place in psychology that “materialist reductionism” occupies in other branches of science. You are, therefore, familiar with the parent/child/adult aspects of “character”, a fundamental feature of human consciousness. (If these assumptions regarding your validity as a commentator are incorrect my apologies. However, an appreciation of psychiatric principles and methods is usual, nay, essential, in discussions on “human consciousness”, particularly if you add God to the mix - your third post.)It is not hard to discern from your posts that your parent sits like a solemn giant on all the wisdom and truth that Creation possesses; it is the guardian of your value system. Your child believes implicitly in this body of “truth” and cannot comprehend how anybody could disagree with the certain “truth” that was fixed in your value system before you were ten years old. It behaves as a child behaves; yeah but, no but, yeah but “why bring God into the discussion” circular arguments and “It's not fair!” dismissals. Your adult, the would-be modifier of your value system, lies battered and bleeding in the corner where it has crawled to die. This is because it gets a good kick from your child every time it dares to think that there might be some other truth. Externally this manifests itself in your frequent recourse to “What are you talking about?” and “you don't understand”.You have now added another name to Nagels to “prove” that everything you learned at your parents knee was the one and only solemn truth of Creation (including, but certainly not limited to human consciousness). In fact, Nagel and Sheldrake are the only ideas you can accept; anything else would mean that your parent was wrong and your adult is nowhere near strong enough to stand up to your implicitly-believing child.A child can only preach that his daddy is the strongest – what else does he know that he can rely on? It is only with adulthood, after time and experience have modified its Weltanschauen, that a child realises that daddy was not always right.Of course, you have no choice but to dismiss this as well; how can you, a grown man, be thinking childishly on such an important topic? You know the difference between preaching and discussing, right?Wrong. You don't. You need to a) grow up and b) develop some humility – you have at least one good book on the subject; the best.I won't quote any of the many evasive, rude and dismissive answers that you have given to back up my assertion but I will quote something you said recently (reply 357):“ these people do not seem to be able to get it yet , so, they just distort my views ,or do not understand them properly “It's not fair! Is it.Now, I think it's reasonable to bring a little of the “science” of human consciousness into a discussion on the subject. You do not like it; you can't – you don't not have the ability to give credence to criticism of your beliefs or your style of argument; your adult is simply not strong enough.Which means you have no choice but to dismiss this again. However, may I suggest that, this time, you bottle your child-like arrogance and try something a bit more adult than “you don't understand”. Your lack of common courtesy is most telling and very irritating.Finally, there is a phrase in your last post: “Dispelling Dogmas and Opening New Frontiers”.It's a good idea; you should try it when you're ready.