0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/11/2013 19:13:45Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/11/2013 19:13:45you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...Ha! last time you told me it was 'tough love'. I'm happy to let the forum members decide which of us is the dishonest, false, hypocrite. QuoteYou assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics suggests it may not be, but that depends, in part, on which interpretation you prefer. However, if it is deterministic, it isn't necessarily predictable.QuoteI am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....Clearly; you appear not to be even reading my posts (either that or you don't understand plain English).Quote...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>Also as I predicted - after the insults comes the cut & paste of Nagel, in lieu of your own arguments. Sadly, you can't even get that right, and duplicate the whole thing.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/11/2013 19:13:45you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .I was not insulting you : i was just deducing what i said in relation to you from your own words on the subject = you are ,obviously , an intellectually dishonest person at best= no real true thruth seeker unconditionally = an understatement : might sound like a cliche , but it is true...
you are just a dishonest false hypocrit secular priest who's driven by his own deliberate conscious belief assumptions , even in the face of the counter-evidence , even in the face of the truth that stares you in the face = you have been just wasting my time for nothing .
You assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .
I am not interested anymore , i never was in fact , in your own projections, circular 'arguments ", beliefs , ....
...so : just try to read what Nagel said about the extremely implausible and false materialist "scientific world view " , as follows :<Nagel screed snipped>
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/11/2013 19:26:48Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other .Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science as science , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion .Unbelievable .Now that's a better rant; you're getting back to your old form.
Amazing and extremely puzzling = an understatement , how that materialist implausible absurd counter-intuitive silly , childish , intrinsically incoherent - inconsistent-absurd-implausible-false ....world view has been taken seriously for so long now , the more when we see how it has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , by making science proper assume that the material or physical side of reality is all what there is to reality, while materialism as just a reductionist false conception of nature has absolutely nothing to do with science as such , the latter that has been so extremely succesfull ,thanks only to its effective and unparalleled method like no other .Materialism that has just been taking a free ride on the unwilling back of science , just in order to "validate " itself as the 'scientific world view ", in vain of course .How, on earth, can physics and chemistry "generate " minds , life , consciousness, feelings , emotions , human intellect , human love , human conscience ....is an inexplicable magical materialist core belief assumption that has been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " , amazing: backward outdated superseded irrational illogical unscientific materialist core belief assumptions at the heart of science as science , turning science into a belief , into a secular dogmatic orthodox religion .Unbelievable .
Quote from: dlorde on 06/11/2013 20:21:57QuoteYou assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic.Did it ever occur to you that you might have been over-estimating your own capacity of judgement ? Guess not : i am not interested in your own wild speculations and projections, once again, let alone in your materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " ,not to mention in its extensions at the macroscopic levels .
QuoteYou assume that the universe is determinist , not because it is , but just because you believe it is , thanks to your reductionist world view in science .Nope; I don't know whether the universe is deterministic.
Only fools idiots, ignorant folks or materialists can say absurd stuff like that physics and chemistry can explain everything= just a materialist core belief assumption , or that the universe is deterministic= just a materialist core belief assumption , even in the face of counter-evidence , intuitive or not .
If you don't agree with the research or experiments described above, Don, what is the non-material explanation for the origin of cells? How do you think it might have happened?
life is not just a matter of physics and chemistry alone
... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .
To try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything " .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/11/2013 17:39:57... whatever quantum physics or the maths of chaos would come up regarding reality must be taken as an incomplete view of reality or rather as a distortion of reality , simply because science has been assuming that reality is exclusively material or physical, thanks to materialism .Reality as a whole thus is not deterministic , let alone predictable as a whole .Supposing, for the sake of argument, there is an 'immaterial realm', what makes you so sure it's not deterministic?QuoteTo try to explain 'everyhting " just via physics and chemistry , just via the laws of physics .............is a distorted view of reality , simply because reality as a whole is not just physical or material, the latter that's obviously not "everything " .It may be obvious to you, but it's not obvious to me. So please enlighten me by explaining why you think it's the case.Imagine we're lying on the beach, looking up at the clouds, and you point to a cloud and say, "Look! that one is like an elephant bathing".I look where you're pointing and say, "I don't see it, please explain..."You say, "It's obvious!"I say, "I still don't see it - how is it like an elephant?" You explain, "The trunk is at the bottom right, but folded back to spray over its back; you can see the tail sticking up on the left there, about half way up, and the ears are flapping at the top, near that con trail..."I say, "Oh yes... I see what you mean; although it looks more like a squirrel to me - the bit you said was the trunk looks more like the tail of a squirrel facing the other way..."You say, "Hmmm, I see what you mean, but it's clearly an elephant"That way, we both learn something about how other people think, which broadens our horizons, but we don't have to compromise on our individual views of the world.There's room for further discussion in this scenario. But at present, the needle is stuck; I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"And you're saying, "It's obviously an elephant! your silly belief that clouds are just water droplets is stopping you seeing the elephant!"I'm saying, "Please explain how it's an elephant - I still don't see it"Rinse & repeat.Do you see what I'm trying to say? I know clouds can resemble the shapes of things - I see them myself, and I can usually see the shapes other people point out; but you're just jabbing your finger at the sky, telling me it's not just water droplets, it also looks like an elephant...I almost certainly won't agree with your reasons for your assertions about science and materialism, but I'd like to hear what those reason are - so I can understand why you believe what you assert.
... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 17:29:53... how physics and chemistry alone can "generate " life , consciousness, human intellect .........?biology is an "emergent property" of physics & chemistry ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Organization_of_lifeA proof of concept are the space invader type patterns which appear in cellular automata which are emergent properties : the appearance and behaviour of these emergent patterns are more complex than the simple rules which created them.If you were about to say cellular automata don’t resemble real life see "Rule 30" ... [ Invalid Attachment ] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30
See what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 20:25:16See what i said earlier regarding the emergent property phenomena on the consciousness thread .In my previous post above I provided evidence that emergent properties do occur. If I am incorrect could you not provide a concise refutation* of emergence here ?,rather than refer readers to your (currently) 32 page consciousness thread.[ * refutation requires evidence, not handwaving or ad hominem attacks ]
Once again , you are confusing the image of the process with the cause of the process ,in relation to the old-new mind-body issue + emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological, material physical levels , and they cannot give rise to the mental or to the non-physical that's entirely different in its kind , not just in its genre , from its alleged biological original processes that did allegedly gave rise to it .
Will you now provide evidence to support your assertion, or concede that what you are talking about is not science?