0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Face it , dude , you are just a vulgar liar : if you are a scientist , then i am Lady Gaga or Madonna also,not just Elvis .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/10/2013 17:18:45Face it , dude , you are just a vulgar liar : if you are a scientist , then i am Lady Gaga or Madonna also,not just Elvis .Should be quite a gig, then.Alan M Calverd MA(Cantab), PhD(Warwick), CPhys, MInstP, MIPEM, CertRPA State Registered Clinical Physicist...and part-time musician
Quote from: dlorde on 07/10/2013 22:57:14... In my case, it was many years ago, but, as the man said, it was what they paid me for; even had my name on some cited papers. What's your name then ? I would be interested in following your work .
... In my case, it was many years ago, but, as the man said, it was what they paid me for; even had my name on some cited papers.
i was mainly talking about the fact that you do still confuse science with materialism in science , a fact you cannot deny as such , a fact you should have acknowledged and recognized as such a long time ago , as a scientist, don't you think ?
But , you do act think and behave in a worse manner than just the above : you continue "defending " the obviously undeniably indefensible materialism in science , by continuing to see materialism as being "scientific " ...
If you cannot or do not want to accept obvious undeniable facts as such , regarding the fact that materialism is an ideology that has been dominating and hijacking science since the 19 century at least , what kindda scientist are you then ?
if you cannot accept such obvious undeniable facts ?Materialism that has absolutely nothing to do with science , once again .
I saw nothing but empty remarks, insults , silly egocentric behaviour,empty rhetorics, irrelevant silly sarcasm ...from you so far on this thread .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2013 19:02:25I saw nothing but empty remarks, insults , silly egocentric behaviour,empty rhetorics, irrelevant silly sarcasm ...from you so far on this thread .Dang! there goes another irony meter. I'm going to have to use disposables for this thread
The Detection of Stares:The detection of stares:Most people have felt someone looking at them from behind, turned around and met the person’s eyes ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2013 18:11:12Quote from: dlorde on 07/10/2013 22:57:14... In my case, it was many years ago, but, as the man said, it was what they paid me for; even had my name on some cited papers. What's your name then ? I would be interested in following your work .Can you not even follow a link? (hint: compare my user name with the authors) As it happens, that's the only paper of mine I can find online - it was a long time ago, in my first career. We did a bunch of stuff under Joe Weiner (of Piltdown Man fame), from creating a heat-stroke treatment bed for the Hajj (for Sudan & Saudi Arabia), to hypothermia in the elderly (one colleague was asked onto BBC TV each winter to give his advice to the elderly: "wrap up well, & keep warm"!), to studying recovery from leg fractures & knee surgery.
Quotei was mainly talking about the fact that you do still confuse science with materialism in science , a fact you cannot deny as such , a fact you should have acknowledged and recognized as such a long time ago , as a scientist, don't you think ?Until you can suggest some way of observing and measuring the non-material, science will continue productively discovering and learning more about the observable and measurable world. [Incidentally, if, as you appeared to suggest earlier, you feel that quantum mechanics somehow involves the non-material, then science is already involved in the non-material. Most physicists would disagree with that attribution, but you seem to have your own definitions for these things].
QuoteBut , you do act think and behave in a worse manner than just the above : you continue "defending " the obviously undeniably indefensible materialism in science , by continuing to see materialism as being "scientific " ...Science involves learning about, describing, and explaining the observable world. Currently it can only observe material things. If you know how the scientific method can be applied to observing and measuring the non-material, science will happily include it, and you'll probably be up for a Nobel prize. Nobody's 'defending' anything, we're just telling you what the current situation is. Sadly, you don't listen or can't understand, so you keep on your hobby horse, tilting at windmills and attacking straw men, with your bonnet full of bees...
QuoteIf you cannot or do not want to accept obvious undeniable facts as such , regarding the fact that materialism is an ideology that has been dominating and hijacking science since the 19 century at least , what kindda scientist are you then ?I was a human physiologist & environmental biologist. What kindda scientist are you?
Quoteif you cannot accept such obvious undeniable facts ?Materialism that has absolutely nothing to do with science , once again .While you whine and whinge about ideologies and 'undeniable facts', the undeniable fact is, scientists around the world are making discoveries in a multitude of fields, increasing the sum total of human knowledge, and generating the technologies that can feed you, make you comfortable, keep you alive, and allow you to communicate with almost anyone on the planet.
It's a human enterprise, so of course it's imperfect; if you have anything practical to contribute why not get off your backside and get your hands dirty making a contribution, instead of sitting around bleating that you don't like how it's being done?
Let me guess - you don't have a clue how science is actually done, or what drives scientists to do it. Just like you post up whole chapters of other people's books in place of presenting arguments of your own.
You remind me of those fat couch potatoes watching the TV with a beer in one hand and a pizza in the other, telling the world's elite athletes what they're doing wrong... It's quite sad really - but also quite funny!
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/10/2013 18:46:58The Detection of Stares:The detection of stares:Most people have felt someone looking at them from behind, turned around and met the person’s eyes ...But proper scientific experiments show this power doesn't actually exist ... http://www.csicop.org/si/show/psychic_staring_effect_an_artifact_of_pseudo_randomization/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopaesthesia
Science will be free from materialism ...
I will try to find those relevant Sheldrake's quotes regarding that and therefore regarding also quantum physics ,the latter that has been superseding materialism as well .
... materialism is just a false outdated ideology secular religion in science , that has been crippling science , the latter can perfectly function and deliver results without materialism...
As of my field of study , i will keep it as a secret , untill i see we are getting somewhere on this thread : just be patient with me : i will reveal the purpose of just why i keep that as a secret , for the time being at least , in due time .
I have ben talking only about materialism in science as a false deceptiive outdated orthodox primitive backward secular religion and false conception of nature in science , that has been hijacking an imprisoning science within its ideological walls , materialism that has been deliberately deceiving humanity in the name of science , by pretending to be "scientific " , by selling its materialist false conception of nature in all sciences for that matter and elsewhere ,and elsewhere including in art , literature ..........(.i deliberately repeat " and elsewhere " for you ,so , in order to avoid being accused by yourself potentially eventually of labelling art and literature as ..."sciences " , since you seem to be the champion of distorting twisting people's words .), by selling thus its materialist false and outdated ideological misconception of nature in science , as science proper , as scientific facts , as scientific results or as scientific approaches.
Quote.. if you have anything practical to contribute why not get off your backside and get your hands dirty making a contribution, instead of sitting around bleating that you don't like how it's being done?What do you think i have been doing here and elsewhere?
.. if you have anything practical to contribute why not get off your backside and get your hands dirty making a contribution, instead of sitting around bleating that you don't like how it's being done?
Besides, helping science get rid of that materialist magical ideological bullshit prison is a noble great thing to do also ...that would help science florish blossom prosper progress evolve in unimaginable ways yet , you have no idea , by breaking free from that materialist prison ...= whole new unparalleled unimaginable-yet vistas would open for science as a result , you have no idea...
I am speechless .
Whatever :
the illusion of objectivity in science
"Science Set Free , 10 Paths to New Discovery " by R.Sheldrake , Chapter 8 : "Are Minds Confined To Brains ?":Are Minds Confined to Brains?Materialism is the doctrine that only matter is real. Hence minds are in brains, and mental activity isnothing but brain activity. This assumption conflicts with our own experience. When we look at ablackbird, we see a blackbird; we do not experience complex electrical changes in our brains. Butmost of us accepted the mind-within-the-brain theory before we ever had a chance to question it. Wetook it for granted as children because it seemed to be supported by all the authority of science and theeducational system.In his study of children’s intellectual development, the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget found thatbefore about the age of ten or eleven, European children were like “primitive” people. They did notknow that the mind was confined to the head; they thought it extended into the world around them. Butby about the age of eleven, most had assimilated what Piaget called the “correct” view: “Images andthoughts are situated in the head.”1Educated people rarely question this “scientifically correct” view in public, perhaps because they donot want to be thought stupid, childish or primitive. Yet the “correct” view conflicts with our mostimmediate experience every time we look around us. We see things outside our bodies; we do notexperience images inside our heads. The materialist theory dominated academic psychology for mostof the twentieth century. The long-dominant behavioralist school explicitly denied the reality ofconsciousness. The leading American behavioralist, B. F. Skinner, proclaimed in 1953 that mind andconsciousness were non-existent entities “invented for the sole purpose of providing spuriousexplanations … Since mental or psychic events are asserted to lack the dimensions of physicalscience, we have an additional reason for rejecting them.”2 As discussed in Chapter 4, a similar denialof conscious experience is still advocated by contemporary philosophers of the school known as“eliminative materialism.” Paul Churchland, for example, argues that subjectively experienced mentalstates should be regarded as non-existent because descriptions of such states cannot be reduced to thelanguage of neuroscience.3Likewise, many leading scientists regard conscious experience as nothing but the subjectiveexperience of brain activity (see Chapter 4). Francis Crick called this the Astonishing Hypothesis:“You,” your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personalidentity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells andtheir associated molecules … This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people alive todaythat it can truly be called astonishing.4This is, indeed, an astonishing claim. But within institutional science it is commonplace. Crick was norevolutionary: he spoke for the mainstream. Susan Greenfield, an influential neuroscientist, looked atan exposed brain in an operating theater and reflected, “This was all there was to Sarah, or indeed toany of us … We are but sludgy brains, and … somehow a character and a mind are generated in thissoupy mess.”5The traditional alternative to materialism is dualism, the doctrine that minds and brains areradically different: minds are immaterial and brains are material; minds are outside time and space,matter is inside time and space. Dualism makes better sense of our experience but makes no sense interms of mechanistic science, which is why materialists reject it so vehemently (see Chapter 4).We need not stay stuck in this materialist-dualist contradiction. There is a way out: a field theory ofminds. We are used to the fact that fields exist both within and outside material objects. The field of amagnet is inside it and also extends beyond its surface. The gravitational field of the earth is inside theearth and also stretches out far beyond it, keeping the moon in its orbit. The electromagnetic field of amobile phone is both inside it and extends all around it. In this chapter I suggest that the fields ofminds are within brains and extend beyond them.