0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Supercryptid on 20/11/2013 04:00:05Okay, okay, let's say that everyone around the world, scientists included, accept the existence of the immaterial. What happens next, DonQuichotte?
Okay, okay, let's say that everyone around the world, scientists included, accept the existence of the immaterial. What happens next, DonQuichotte?
Use your imagination
http://www.amazon.com/Morphic-Resonance-Nature-Formative-Causation/dp/1594773173
[Rupert Sheldrake] put forward the hypothesis of formative causation (the theory of morphic resonance), which proposes that phenomena — particularly biological ones — become more probable the more often they occur, and therefore that biological growth and behaviour become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 20/11/2013 20:30:24http://www.amazon.com/Morphic-Resonance-Nature-Formative-Causation/dp/1594773173Quote from: psychology.wikia.com[Rupert Sheldrake] put forward the hypothesis of formative causation (the theory of morphic resonance), which proposes that phenomena — particularly biological ones — become more probable the more often they occur, and therefore that biological growth and behaviour become guided into patterns laid down by previous similar events. http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Rupert_SheldrakeThe existence of minority groups like left-handers shows Rupert’s positive-feedback “morphic resonance” hypothesis does not correspond with reality : the momentum of all the right-handed “morphic resonance” should make everyone right-handed . With positive-feedback once more than half the population had become right or left handed it would just a matter of time before everyone was born with the same handedness.Similarly if Rupert was correct he , a white person , should not exist, as dark-skinned “morphic resonance” should make everyone on the planet dark-skinned.
Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life ,let alone for its origins emergence or evolution that cannot be just material or physical , the same goes for human language , morphogenesis ...
In recent times, reaction–diffusion systems have attracted much interest as a prototype model for pattern formation. The above-mentioned patterns (fronts, spirals, targets, hexagons, stripes and dissipative solitons) can be found in various types of reaction-diffusion systems in spite of large discrepancies e.g. in the local reaction terms. It has also been argued that reaction-diffusion processes are an essential basis for processes connected to morphogenesis in biology and may even be related to animal coats and skin pigmentation.
Physics and chemistry alone cannot account for life ,let alone for its origins emergence or evolution that cannot be just material or physical ,
the same goes for human language , morphogenesis,and the rest ....+consciousness ,
including matter itself that cannot be just material or physical (see quantum physics ,regarding the latter ) ,
including evolution itself that cannot be just ...biological ...
Use your imagination then : Cheryl seems to find this latter so hilarious ,that's why i repeat it, just to please her : use your imagination then : i am serious haha.
If society as a whole accepted the existence of the immaterial, that would seem problematic. By your own admission, science cannot test for the immaterial and therefore can make no discovery in regards to it. That means our conclusions about the nature of the immaterial would have to be philosophical and based soley upon our own reasoning and/or personal experience. The question then becomes, how can we ever know anything definitive about the immaterial if we cannot come to any agreement upon its nature? Surely different people will have different opinions about it. You can't even use science to figure out who is right. I have a hard time figuring out how society could be benefited by this. If it can't help us, should we even bother trying to prove it?
the benefits will be huge : more huge than we can ever imagine .
Personally, I must take the position that, until I find a self-consistent definition of "free will" I'll have to doubt its existence.
I do agree that we need to consolidate this whole immaterial argument into one thread. Having it spread out over several different ones is just sloppy. Heck, I'm considering giving up on the whole thing because nobody is making any real progress in any direction despite the massive number of responses that we've thrown at each other.
The difference between less conscious animals and more conscious animals, is that humans or chimps go back and evaluate the outcome of their responses ..... A lizard has a lot less flexibility in that respect and probably just runs the exact same program over and over.
I think the underlying suggestion that cold-blooded animals are less able to reflect, learn or solve problems, lacks evidence, though you may have some. There is considerable evidence of the ability of octopi to solve problems and to learn from the actions of humans, and ants on the march seem at least as intelligent as human crowds. You need to map the idea of learning, reflection, or whatever, into the space of the physical capability of the animal you are studying. Hence you can't dismiss dogs as "intellectually unable to use tools" because they simply don't have the anatomical ability to manipulate a prosthetic device, nor any need to count beyond about six - though their understanding of differential calculus is way beyond that of most humans. So I guess your lizard is a bit restricted in its range of potential responses and prior life experiences from which to draw analogies that you might recognise. But he might consider growing a new tail or walking on the ceiling as experiences and responses which are way beyond your ken or ability!
Quote from: AndroidNeox on 25/11/2013 19:30:43Personally, I must take the position that, until I find a self-consistent definition of "free will" I'll have to doubt its existence. I'm not exactly sure I know what you mean by self consistent, but its a puzzling concept, regardless. I like Patricia Churchlands description of it: "A rigid philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused;that is, unless the"will" is exercised independently of all causal influences - in a causal vacuum."