0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
QuoteI am , in fact , very skeptical about your allegation that you are a pro scientist : how can that be ?Fortunately you are not my client, patient, bank manager or professional registrar, all of whom seem convinced that I do know what I am talking about (though my students are encouraged to disagree). Quote: you might be one , but a very ignorant one regarding the nature of science , its alleged objectivity,alleged by whom? Only a fantasist. It's a process, so it can't have human characteristics like objectivity.
I am , in fact , very skeptical about your allegation that you are a pro scientist : how can that be ?
: you might be one , but a very ignorant one regarding the nature of science , its alleged objectivity,
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/10/2013 20:54:16That's 1 of the reasons why materialism is false .As of the damaged areas of the human brain that seem to cause the loss of their corresponding parts of consciousness ....I just see that as being the case of the damaged receiver or brain that stops to receive those corresponding "signals " from those corresponding parts of consciousness ...Besides, the hard problem of consciousness can be only approached by a potentially non-reductionist approach,obviously , in the sense that we can study the physical brain , while trying to figure out how it interacts with consciousness as such .....Later then .P.S.: No one yet , if ever , including Nagel, Sheldrake and the rest , were /are able to come up with a cristal-clear vision concerning how the potentially non-reductionist approach of consciousness , memory ,cognition, feelings , emotions ...can be done on the reality ground , or what that non-reductionist approach exactly is , how it might work ...Yes, that would seem to be a bit of a problem, wouldn't it?It's also ironic, that by relocating consciousness, and removing consciousness from the physical being whenever its receiver is malfunctioning, you have managed to reduce human beings to biological robots in a way no materialist has ever dared to do. You've out done Dawkins, my boy!
That's 1 of the reasons why materialism is false .As of the damaged areas of the human brain that seem to cause the loss of their corresponding parts of consciousness ....I just see that as being the case of the damaged receiver or brain that stops to receive those corresponding "signals " from those corresponding parts of consciousness ...Besides, the hard problem of consciousness can be only approached by a potentially non-reductionist approach,obviously , in the sense that we can study the physical brain , while trying to figure out how it interacts with consciousness as such .....Later then .P.S.: No one yet , if ever , including Nagel, Sheldrake and the rest , were /are able to come up with a cristal-clear vision concerning how the potentially non-reductionist approach of consciousness , memory ,cognition, feelings , emotions ...can be done on the reality ground , or what that non-reductionist approach exactly is , how it might work ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/10/2013 20:54:16... As of the damaged areas of the human brain that seem to cause the loss of their corresponding parts of consciousness ....I just see that as being the case of the damaged receiver or brain that stops to receive those corresponding "signals " from those corresponding parts of consciousness ..Oh dear. Did you miss the parts where Chery described brain injuries that affect the subject's knowledge and judgement without affecting movement or communication? If your external consciousness hypothesis was correct, the external consciousness's knowledge & judgement would not be affected, and it would be able to communicate that, as it would still have control of the brain's communication facilities.How do you account for this?
... As of the damaged areas of the human brain that seem to cause the loss of their corresponding parts of consciousness ....I just see that as being the case of the damaged receiver or brain that stops to receive those corresponding "signals " from those corresponding parts of consciousness ..
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/10/2013 19:03:15Quote from: dlorde on 05/10/2013 18:28:51...perhaps you could explain how science will be done when it is free of 'materialist bullshit'?Well, materialism will be history : inevitable = just a matter of time indeed , materialism that has been superseded even by the physical sciences, especially by quantum physics ...How come you still do not get it yet , after all these lengthy kilometers of pages on this thread ?Science will continue using its effective and unparalleled method that's like no other , but will be free from that materialist prison...Science will then be able to approach the universe or reality as not exclusively physical biological processes ......the mental side of nature will not be reduced to just physics and chemistry ....What part of these statements can't you understand ? I understand what you just said, but it didn't answer the question. Perhaps it was too general for you...Let's be more specific; science involves observation, making hypotheses, and testing hypotheses; how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?
Quote from: dlorde on 05/10/2013 18:28:51...perhaps you could explain how science will be done when it is free of 'materialist bullshit'?Well, materialism will be history : inevitable = just a matter of time indeed , materialism that has been superseded even by the physical sciences, especially by quantum physics ...How come you still do not get it yet , after all these lengthy kilometers of pages on this thread ?Science will continue using its effective and unparalleled method that's like no other , but will be free from that materialist prison...Science will then be able to approach the universe or reality as not exclusively physical biological processes ......the mental side of nature will not be reduced to just physics and chemistry ....What part of these statements can't you understand ?
...perhaps you could explain how science will be done when it is free of 'materialist bullshit'?
For someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example; as that someone said recently, "when one pretends to know this or that about something , one gotta prove that to be true".
If you are a scientist , i am Elvis :
Quote from: dlorde on 05/10/2013 21:41:12how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?One can apply some sort of phenomenological approaches in that regard
how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?
QuoteFor someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example..See what i said to Cheryl here above on the subject .
For someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example..
QuoteIf you are a scientist , i am Elvis :Feel free to check my qualifications and professional registrations. Or contact Rupert Sheldrake - we've not been in touch for years!Can you do a gig next Saturday? The hall is already hired for a big band show (they know most of your Las Vegas numbers), no problem raising backing singers, and I have a quartet of contemporary rockers who will be delighted to work through your early stuff from memory. Name your price, big fella - I'm sure it will be a sellout. And as many burgers as you want.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 06/10/2013 19:13:15Quote from: dlorde on 05/10/2013 21:41:12how do you propose that science observes the non-material, or tests a hypothesis about the non-material?One can apply some sort of phenomenological approaches in that regardSuch as?
QuoteQuoteFor someone who knows what they're talking about, it should be easy enough to give a realistic example..See what i said to Cheryl here above on the subject .I'll take that as, "I haven't a clue..."
Incidentally Don, you might find this SciAm article on the materialism and science interesting: Is Scientific Materialism “Almost Certainly False”?. The author, John Horgan, approves of Nagel's book, but it's the comments to the article that tell the story