[David Cooper]

More bananas for the troll.

[These banana comments aren't aimed at the troll.]

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why  I like science:

Materialists may be like the guy searching for his keys under the lamp post because the light is better there, but at least he will know whether or not they are there. He can rule out that part of the lawn. The materialist hopes to build a better light to extend the search to more distant areas. At any rate, it seems preferable to groping around the dark, hoping to get lucky.

Rhythmic Brain Waves: Fluctuations in Electrical Activity May Allow Brain to Form Thoughts and Memories
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121121130815.htm

The above link discusses research about one small aspect of brain activity linking cells to thoughts: "A new study from researchers at MIT and Boston University (BU) sheds light on how neural ensembles form thoughts and support the flexibility to change one's mind. The research team, led by Earl Miller, the Picower Professor of Neuroscience at MIT, identified groups of neurons that encode specific behavioral rules by oscillating in synchrony with each other."

To the philosopher looking for big answers to big questions, it would not seem terribly impressive, but it is to me. Perhaps I have a small mind, but I  would rather know one small detail about the world with some degree of certainty than have a vague, fuzzy concept about life, the universe, and everything. I would rather understand the workings of a cricket.

Although there have been revolutionary shifts in thinking in  science, I think the bulk of scientific knowledge advances in these small increments, chipping away slowly at the nature of reality, one chemical reaction or oscillating neuron or particle experiment at time.

Is this some sort of desperate pleading and stubborn denial ?
Anyway :
You forgot to mention that materialism itself is just a world view, a philosophy , a life style, a paradigm ...you do continue to confuse with science proper , with the apparent material side of reality , with the material nature of science , with scientific approaches, with scientific results and facts ...

Not to mention that materialistic interpretations of science or of science results facts has nothing to do with the latter also .

It is also a fact that we all change reality , scientific experiments ,scientific results , ...whenever we look at them  , in the sense that we get a modified version of them via our human interpretations and perceptions of them  , or we just get a representation of reality, not reality proper  .

Second : that certain neurons can generate thoughts is just a materialistic magical assumption interpretation that can be compared to that magical materialistic "emergence " trick regarding consciousness : I provided you earlier with some analogies or metaphors regarding just that , in the sense that a tv set ,for example , cannot create tv signals or images , otherwise , all the images we see on tv ,regarding people , landscapes ...."might be living inside the tv haha " : i was once once on tv myself : my family recorded that , and while we were watching it afterwards at home , my little kids told me : dad, were you living inside the tv? : how come you are here and not there where you live inside the tv haha : Get the pic or rather metaphor ?

Sweet dreams , darling ,or rather dear Alice in your own materialistic mechanical magical wonderland :

I will sum up the true reality and nature of materialism as follows :

The materialist is the guy who looks at the world universe through a key hole tunnel vision ,thanks to his / her materialism as just an exclusive narrow-minded reductionist mechanical world view .and therefore pretends that all he / she can see through that key hole is all what there is out there ,while trying to make science fit into that materialistic key hole , via some magical performance, in order to be able to "validate " itself in the process ,via magic thus .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ dlorde :

If you have something intelligent to say , be my guest , go ahead , knock yourself out ,make my day and just say it .
I do not have time for silly games , or silly remarks ,rhetorics ...

Davide Cooper : Get a life , grow up ,stop trolling , or just continue doing just that , if that would make you happy and give you some sense of purpose or meaning ...: It's gonna be extrenmely difficult for you to climb that whole mountain all the way from its  very bottom  you have already reached : if you need any help in that regard , just say so , deal ?
Good luck .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why  I like science:
<wise words>

Well put.

Sweet dreams in your magical materialistic wonderland, Alice II

[dlorde]

... did you have some particular question in mind that hasn't yet been asked or answered?

@ dlorde :If you have something intelligent to say , be my guest , go ahead , knock yourself out ,make my day and just say it .
I do not have time for silly games , or silly remarks ,rhetorics ...

OK. I'll take that as a 'no'.

[alancalverd]

To the philosopher looking for big answers to big questions, it would not seem terribly impressive, but it is to me.

Come off it, girl! Have you ever met a philosopher who was looking for an answer, or was prepared to accept one? AFAIK the job of philosophers is to try to convince you that you don't understand the question, or if it is plain that you do (because you asked the question), that you couldn't possibly understand the answer.

"How does a cricket work?" is a big question because if we knew, we could explain pretty much everything from the origin of life to its probable destiny. "Why does the universe exist?" looks like a big question to a philosopher, but it is illogical nonsense based on human vanity, and therefore inconsequential.

The reason I like science is because what we do is VERY IMPORTANT and VERY INTERESTING. And I'm pretty sure you feel the same.

[cheryl j]

Is this some sort of desperate pleading and stubborn denial ?
Anyway :
You forgot to mention that materialism itself is just a world view, a philosophy , a life style, a paradigm ...you do continue to confuse with science proper , with the apparent material side of reality , with the material nature of science , with scientific approaches, with scientific results and facts ..

You keep accusing me and other posters of confusing materialism as a tool of science with materialism as “a world view or life style”, but I can’t help but conclude that it is actually you who is doing this. I am in fact specifically and only referring to a belief that the world consists of matter and energy, and the use of physical processes involving matter and energy in order to learn more  about the world. You are the only person here ranting about Soulless White Eurocentric Apes holding Science Proper captive. Materialsim as a “lifestyle” I assume refers to valuing material goods and money above knowledge, ideas, helping people, experiences, etc, and I do not know how I or anyone else has displayed or advocated that. I really think it is you who is confusing the two terms which are only superficially related in the English language anyway. Incidentally, “material” in English also refers to fabric, and although I am a materialist, I am not a seamstress, in case you might be confused on this point.

PS Why do you not call David Cooper or dlorde "darling"? They are probably younger and cuter than I am, and I hear alancalverd is totally hot.

[cheryl j]

interpretation [/b]that can be compared to that magical materialistic "emergence " trick regarding consciousness : I provided you earlier with some analogies or metaphors regarding just that , in the sense that a tv set ,for example , cannot create tv signals or images , otherwise , all the images we see on tv ,regarding people , landscapes ...."might be living inside the tv haha " : i was once once on tv myself : my family recorded that , and while we were watching it afterwards at home , my little kids told me : dad, were you living inside the tv? : how come you are here and not there where you live inside the tv haha : Get the pic or rather metaphor ?

Sweet dreams , darling ,or rather dear Alice in your own materialistic mechanical magical wonderland :

I will sum up the true reality and nature of materialism as follows :

The materialist is the guy who looks at the world universe through a key hole tunnel vision ,thanks to his / her materialism as just an exclusive narrow-minded reductionist mechanical world view .and therefore pretends that all he / she can see through that key hole is all what there is out there ,while trying to make science fit into that materialistic key hole , via some magical performance, in order to be able to "validate " itself in the process ,via magic thus .

I have friends who believe in the supernatural, paranormal, and of course, religion. I do not ridicule their beliefs or try to convert them to my way of thinking, and we have some interesting and pleasant discussions.

I do sometimes feel, though, that people who look for supernatural and "immaterial" explanations are like spoiled children at Christmas who see an entire room strewn with presents and packages and say "Is that all there is?" before opening a single one and looking inside.

Excuse me for psycho-analyzing you, but you seem to attribute a positive value, or "sacredness" to the immaterial and see everything material, from simple atoms to the flesh on the the bone, as profane. But I see something sacred or magical in the nuts and bolts of reality and every chemical reaction. The physical world needs no supernatural embellishment - it's awe inspiring enough to me on it's own. 

I sometimes wonder if someone could prove the existence  of angels, whether after I got over my initial surprise, they would be any more interesting than beavers or octopi. Certainly no imaginary description of angels has held my interest as much.

DonQuixote: when you ridicule me for not believing in something more beyond what I can see, I pity you for not seeing all that is there, right in your grasp.

[dlorde]

PS Why do you not call David Cooper or dlorde "darling"? They are probably younger and cuter than I am, and I hear alancalverd is totally hot.

He used to call me 'dear', but he's obviously switched his affections - good luck with that!

@ dlorde :... When you will acknowledge ,recognize and realise the obvious  limits of science , reason, logic ....when you will stop confusing materialism as an exclusive world view with science ....

Otherwise , just keep on cherishing your own materialistic illusions ,delusions and fairytales in your own materialistic wonderland , dear Alice .

As you can see, his patronising is as Cut'n'Paste as his 'arguments', and all the really cool stuff is conveniently beyond science, reason, & logic.

[alancalverd]

PS Why do you not call David Cooper or dlorde "darling"? They are probably younger and cuter than I am, and I hear alancalverd is totally hot.

and very modest about it.

[David Cooper]

Of course, comments about feeding trolls are really just to make trolls think they're winning whenever they're fed. The opposite is true.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

PS Why do you not call David Cooper or dlorde "darling"? They are probably younger and cuter than I am, and I hear alancalverd is totally hot.

and very modest about it.

So what ? I might be hotter than you could ever be as well haha,whatever that might mean .

We were born that way : there is no reason to pretend to be modest about something you have no merit in , or something you had no say in , something you had no input in whatsoever............

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

PS Why do you not call David Cooper or dlorde "darling"? They are probably younger and cuter than I am, and I hear alancalverd is totally hot.

He used to call me 'dear', but he's obviously switched his affections - good luck with that!

@ dlorde :... When you will acknowledge ,recognize and realise the obvious  limits of science , reason, logic ....when you will stop confusing materialism as an exclusive world view with science ....

Otherwise , just keep on cherishing your own materialistic illusions ,delusions and fairytales in your own materialistic wonderland , dear Alice .

As you can see, his patronising is as Cut'n'Paste as his 'arguments', and all the really cool stuff is conveniently beyond science, reason, & logic.

I do use  the words darling , dear ....just as a form of courtesy , politeness ..that's all .

As for the rest of your "input " , instead of discussing people, try to discuss what they have to say , deal ? Otherwise , just have the decency to shut up .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

interpretation [/b]that can be compared to that magical materialistic "emergence " trick regarding consciousness : I provided you earlier with some analogies or metaphors regarding just that , in the sense that a tv set ,for example , cannot create tv signals or images , otherwise , all the images we see on tv ,regarding people , landscapes ...."might be living inside the tv haha " : i was once once on tv myself : my family recorded that , and while we were watching it afterwards at home , my little kids told me : dad, were you living inside the tv? : how come you are here and not there where you live inside the tv haha : Get the pic or rather metaphor ?

Sweet dreams , darling ,or rather dear Alice in your own materialistic mechanical magical wonderland :

I will sum up the true reality and nature of materialism as follows :

The materialist is the guy who looks at the world universe through a key hole tunnel vision ,thanks to his / her materialism as just an exclusive narrow-minded reductionist mechanical world view .and therefore pretends that all he / she can see through that key hole is all what there is out there ,while trying to make science fit into that materialistic key hole , via some magical performance, in order to be able to "validate " itself in the process ,via magic thus .

I have friends who believe in the supernatural, paranormal, and of course, religion. I do not ridicule their beliefs or try to convert them to my way of thinking, and we have some interesting and pleasant discussions.

It takes 2 to tango,sweetie,  i just try to adapt my behaviour to that of the audience at hand .

Facts about something are not synonymous of ridiculing it .Respect is somethingelse .I can respect your views as long as you do not try to impose them on me as scientific facts or as scientific approaches , but the fact of the matter is : you do present materialistic views and approaches as scientific facts , or at least as scientific approaches : that way , either one who would object to that would be branded as unscientific ,irrational or worse , as that lunatic mechanical jesuit Cooper did in relation to the fact that i refused to share his mechanical views with him ...
Who was trying to convert anyone here ? Cooper as a mechanical jesuit was , for example, and when it became obvious that i would not embrace his mechanical faith , see what  his reaction was ...not to mention the fact that he still continues to play the fool in that regard as well .

I do have no problem with any world view, religion, current of thought , culture , people ...whatsoever , as long as they do not try to impose their own beliefs on others , in the name of science or in the name of any ...Jupiter ,Zeus or whatever for that matter ...

Materialists ,for example , are not only dishonest  enough as to present their own materialistic world views and approaches as scientific facts or as scientific  approaches , but they are in fact worse than that : they deliberately deceive people in the name of science as well = an understatement .

I do sometimes feel, though, that people who look for supernatural and "immaterial" explanations are like spoiled children at Christmas who see an entire room strewn with presents and packages and say "Is that all there is?" before opening a single one and looking inside.

I do see the materialistic approaches regarding our immaterial side , for example , as the childish belief of some little kids who believe that Obama lives inside the tv .

The suprnatural does exist out there you gotta try to differentiate from ordinary fairy tales, kids' imagination, illusions ....Even that Russell's tea pot argument cannot cover the real supernatural out there ...

Excuse me for psycho-analyzing you, but you seem to attribute a positive value, or "sacredness" to the immaterial and see everything material, from simple atoms to the flesh on the the bone, as profane. But I see something sacred or magical in the nuts and bolts of reality and every chemical reaction. The physical world needs no supernatural embellishment - it's awe inspiring enough to me on it's own. 

Everything in the universe is , per definition , sacred in my own belief,including chemical reactions, atoms ,sex ....(I am a happily married perfectly hetero guy to an angel of a woman i do "worship " : legetimate sex in my belief is even a kindda spiritual prayer , not just a biological process  ..... My artist side , that artist sensitive side brings me in trouble sometimes with people ,and does cause some misunderstanding as well in and by people : Get the pic ?  ): it's just that the implications of that  universal sacredness of everything in the universe in that  belief of mine regarding this or that on earth or elsewhere are a matter of degree ...-= a dog's life is not as sacred as the  human life ,but at the same time , saving a dog's life is a nobel thing to do as well = a matter of priority , balance , humanity , relativity,degree of sacredness  ....

Furthermore , i might even risk my own life and eventually even lose it by trying to save a dog's life ........there are many blanks like that that need to be filled ...

That awe of this world you get inspired by originates from your consciousness as a reaction to that you see ..., from your self or soul mainly , a soul you are trying to reduce to living organic matter = have you ever seen any non-human species being delighted or marvelled by the sunset , by nature ,by music, art,poetry  ... by the aesthetics of anything for that matter ? They might experience some lesser degrees of that , compared to humans ( no comparison in fact , just an analogy ) , but they would never be able to reach the level of humans or of rather some humans  in that regard  , not even remotely close .

I sometimes wonder if someone could prove the existence  of angels, whether after I got over my initial surprise, they would be any more interesting than beavers or octopi. Certainly no imaginary description of angels has held my interest as much.

Ever occured to you that that might be beyond your or beyond any human imagination for that matter ?

You seem to have been overestimating the and your  human capacity of judgement or intellect as well  (dlorde said once that human intellect is no big deal though haha ) : you gotta use your heart as the highest form of intellect to just acknowledge the foolishness of your statements above : heart as no emotions, fee lings , or biological organ ...

When you will be grown-up and mature enough , you will be able to acknowledge the fact that science , for example , covers only a tiny apparent side of reality , and that human reason, logic ....have also limits + there might be other levels of reality out there we have absolutely no "idea " about = can you a-priori exclude any possibility or probability like that ?

So, do not act like a bee on the back of an elephant ( no comparison, just an analogy ) trying to "figure out " what that elephant might be , just via covering the area  or part of that elephant where it happens to stand .

DonQuixote: when you ridicule me for not believing in something more beyond what I can see, I pity you for not seeing all that is there, right in your grasp.

Pleading again , sweetie ? :

 I am gonna only sweetie you from now on....simply because i think that women are the most beautiful creatures on earth ...women are far more sensitive intuitive than we could ever be ,if they happen not to be mechanical haha at least , no offense ,  women are more intelligent in some areas we could never reach ....women are the ones in charge in this world and in our private lives as well, even though they even succeed in making us , men , believe otherwise haha ...
Guys might have some perverse ideas if i would call them that they do not even deserve haha

Well, i see this apparent material side of reality science tries to cover ,every single day of my life i do interact with all the time : I just do not interpret it   the way you do by pretending that's all what there is out there : this apparent reality of ours is just an illusion in fact :

who's really to be pitied here , if pity can ever mean anything for that matter or seve any purpose , is a matter of opinion indeed , a matter of wishful thinking as well ...sometimes ..

Take care , sweetie .

Try to read that unique book of Linda Jean Shepherd that might turn your own life upside down , by , for example , showing you why and how you were / are attracted by the materialistic mechanical world view , and why you do the things you do, among manny other things as well ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Expressions of courtesy , politeness .....and affection are 2 entirely different things .
There can be no affection involved , do not worry , folks haha ,simply because i do know neither of you, personally ...

In short : Grow up ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Of course, comments about feeding trolls are really just to make trolls think they're winning whenever they're fed. The opposite is true.

Ever heard of projections ?

This would sound like feeding you , as the real silly fool troll here who seems to need some therapy of some sort  :
.............
It's not about winning ,silly : this is no competition .
It's all about trying to find out about the "truth " ,whatever the latter might mean or be  ...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Is this some sort of desperate pleading and stubborn denial ?
Anyway :
You forgot to mention that materialism itself is just a world view, a philosophy , a life style, a paradigm ...you do continue to confuse with science proper , with the apparent material side of reality , with the material nature of science , with scientific approaches, with scientific results and facts ..

You keep accusing me and other posters of confusing materialism as a tool of science with materialism as “a world view or life style”, but I can’t help but conclude that it is actually you who is doing this. I am in fact specifically and only referring to a belief that the world consists of matter and energy, and the use of physical processes involving matter and energy in order to learn more  about the world. You are the only person here ranting about Soulless White Eurocentric Apes holding Science Proper captive. Materialsim as a “lifestyle” I assume refers to valuing material goods and money above knowledge, ideas, helping people, experiences, etc, and I do not know how I or anyone else has displayed or advocated that. I really think it is you who is confusing the two terms which are only superficially related in the English language anyway. Incidentally, “material” in English also refers to fabric, and although I am a materialist, I am not a seamstress, in case you might be confused on this point.

I was  referring only to materialism as , once again, a philosophy , paradigm or meta-pardigm in science , as a world view , as a life style ...though : do not confuse it with the rest .
Do not confuse science with materialism in that sense , once again .
Materialism in that sense you can trace back to the medieval time as an Eurocentric historic cultural  ...rebellion against the bullshit , excuse my French, of the medieval church.

You happened to provide that link concerning the "fact " that ensemble of neurons can somehow generate thoughts, via some "rythmic harmonious "  dances of theirs , metaphorically speaking then = oscillations, synchronisations,vibrations  ... ...

I said : that's just the materialistic interpretation of those scientific experiments , in the same sense that the "fact " that human consciousness is an "emergent " property from the evolved complexity of the human brain ....is : magical : Got that ,sweetie ?

If not , try to re-read what i used to say in that regard at least in my earlier posts = I see no point in repeating myself over and over again , in that regard at least .

PS Why do you not call David Cooper or dlorde "darling"? They are probably younger and cuter than I am, and I hear alancalverd is totally hot.

haha

See above , sweetie : sweet dreams in that regard as well then , Alice

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

I have the weird feeling i have been talking to ..."grown-up " kids ...not only to machines ...on a presumed science forum, ironically enough .
I have enough kids of my own i have to take care of , deal with , ...

I do love them so much though  : my affection goes thus only to them and to my other beloved ones as well .

I am against adoption though haha : i have no room ,patience or intention of adopting you , guys : there are plenty of foster homes and institutions  ...out there .

Good luck indeed .

[cheryl j]

When you will be grown-up and mature enough , you will be able to acknowledge the fact that science , for example , covers only a tiny apparent side of reality , and that human reason, logic ....have also limits + there might be other levels of reality out there we have absolutely no "idea " about = can you a-priori exclude any possibility or probability like that ?

No, I cannot exclude that possibility, but without some means to detect those alternate realities, I have no way of distinguishing between something related to them which is true, and something that isn't true. But you're welcome to imagine any alternate reality you like.

I don't think anyone has really tried to make you change your views. Some, myself included, tried to force you to define or expound on terms you use constantly in your arguments, to no avail. And I at times I did not see how your conclusions followed your premises, regardless of whether I agreed with either. It's the process in your reasoning that drives me nuts, not the outcome.

If "science proper" refers to science that includes or takes into account supernatural objects or supernatural forces that cannot be studied by any materialist, physical process, you are the only one I know advocating for it.

I do know of controversial figures in science who challenge traditional explanations and suggest other models. Sheldrake comes to mind. He studied ESP and  his "morphic resonance" theory claims that some kind of energy field directs the growth and development of living things. He does not, apparently, think differential gene expression can do the job.  I think his theory is unlikely, as there doesn't seem to be any evidence for it.  But even he does not describe it as an immaterial or supernatural process, he just says we haven't figured out a way yet to detect this field. Although he hasn't abandoned materialism, he is, never the less, faced with the same problem as yours - without anyway to detect, to measure, to obtain any information about his morphic field, it remains just an imaginary speculation as far as science is concerned.

[alancalverd]

We were born that way : there is no reason to pretend to be modest about something you have no merit in , or something you had no say in , something you had no input in whatsoever............

Nah! Nobody was ever born this hot. It takes gallons of beer and years of patient selfabuse to cultivate a mind and a physique like mine. To say nothing of the moustache