[alancalverd]

Congratulations to you and your people for inventing science. I've never been tempted to brag about my racial heritage; it just seems to get Germans into all sorts of trouble when they start doing that, and then no one wants to sit next to them at a dinner parties.

Oy vey! You think you have troubles, already? Shalom.

But give DonQ credit for the joke - I like it. And it also tells us that DonQ is a sinistral.

[dlorde]

But give DonQ credit for the joke - I like it. And it also tells us that DonQ is a sinistral.

Also give him credit that despite the usual ill-mannered insults to me for pointing out his blunder, he did go back and edit his post to remove the offensive 'nazi' reference...

[alancalverd]

Offending nazis is not a crime, surely?

[dlorde]

Offending nazis is not a crime, surely?

It was once; different time, different place

[cheryl j]

My Sheldrake's posted quotes do not necessarily reflect my own opinions  or views  on the subject,as they do not reflect those of this great site either  :
I just wanted to give you, people, his opinions views approaches ...on the subject : you're perfectly free to make of that what you wish to do ...
Despite Sheldrake's flaws , i would prefer him way above the whole majority of the scientific mainstream establishment or community put together ,on the subject , simply because he's honest enough , a man with integrity and courage enough , to condemn and to try to refute that outdated false deceptive materialist dogmatic belief system in science ...to try to liberate science from materialism that way .
He is also brave enough to dare enter a territory that's highly deceptive elusive indeed , by trying to tackle it : i think that , despite his pretty logical   human flaws ,taking into consideration the fact that all sciences and the rest are still under that materialist backward false and outdated dominance , and taking into consideration the temporary scientific data and knowledge of this time and age of ours , he should be , and he might be in the near or far future  , considered by the next generations as  1 of the greatest pioneers scientists  who dared/dare to open up whole new vistas for science away from that materialist dominance prison, science has been confined to for so long now : his work might still seem at the childish or at the embryonary stage maybe , but that's how new eras of science begin ...........others might take it from there ,and might come up with visions approaches views that might revolutionize science , our understanding of science and the universe thus , in still unimaginable -to-us -all ways ...

If you are going to post long passages from books without any accompanying comments, I can only assume you are using them to support your arguments, and that is why I respond to them the way I do. If you are just posting them to edify or entertain me, thank you. I did give me greater insight into his strange lack of factual knowledge underlying his conclusions.

[cheryl j]

Ho, ho , ho : stop your  wild horses , cowgirl :
That was no bragging : how can i brag about something done by others , i cannot even brag about the things i did / do = makes no sense .
Why brag about anything for that matter ...
I said the early muslims   " invented " science : muslims are  no race =   1 of Islam's core messages is to abolish eradicate and refute any kindda discrimination on the basis of belief , race , skin color  , ethnic background, sex , ....in the Islamic sense .

Islam that's against any kindda racism, sectarianism , fascism ...........
Islam was even the first ever to proclaim the equality of all people ,as human beings  regardless of their race , sex , belief , ethnicity ,skin color  ........
I was just trying to respond to that post of yours , in order to correct your obvious   Eurocentric ignorance ,stereotypes, brainwash , prejudice ...on the subject ...that's all .

Sorry if I'm a bit touchy on this subject. But whether it's "race" or "ethnicity" or "people whose ancestors came from a certain geographical area sharing certain familiar connections and cultural traditions," it always raises a red flag. When ever I hear certain accomplishments attributed to a race, religion or nation of people, I wonder - really? Were they all sitting in the room together when this was done? I suspect some nerdy scientist, recently or hundreds of years ago, who may have been ignored or even misunderstood by his neighbors or closest blood relatives, would have given anything to talk to any other human interested in the same idea, no matter what his color or religion or gender,  in some foreign land. We take for granted this opportunity. So yes, when I hear some one boasting that this group invented this, or that group discovered that, it irks me a bit and makes me questions their motives in doing so.

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that Canada (my adopted homeland) invented not only the dental mirror, but the paint roller as well. So there! And they invented Kevlar, so we can safely visit the United States. Those arrogant Americans like to take credit for the invention of the telephone, but Alexander Graham Bell was actually a Canadian, and his first words into it were not  "Watson, come here, I want to see you."  It was "Watson, we're out of beer. I want to see you." Necessity is the mother of invention, and after 200 stitches to his face, four broken noses, a fractured cheek and jawbone, and several concussions, hockey player Jaques Plante invented the goalie mask. (sheer brilliance!) Canadians also invented the snow mobile, snow plow and snow blower, after getting stranded in drifts for about 300 years. (Okay, they're not quick, but they do eventually come up with something.)

[cheryl j]

Congratulations to you and your people for inventing science. I've never been tempted to brag about my racial heritage; it just seems to get Germans into all sorts of trouble when they start doing that, and then no one wants to sit next to them at a dinner parties.

Oy vey! You think you have troubles, already? Shalom.

Yes, I'm sorry about that. Although I don't know why since my German ancestors wandered over to North America in 1700/ 1800s, mixed it up with the English and Scots, and one native American. Still, I'm sure I share the arm of one  chromosome or another with somebody who did something awful to somebody else, either in Europe or over in America. Genetic guilt is probably as irrational as genetic pride, but it does, as I was trying explain to Don, have a tempering effect on the desire to base ones identity on affiliation with various groups, genetic or cultural.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Ho, ho , ho : stop your  wild horses , cowgirl :
That was no bragging : how can i brag about something done by others , i cannot even brag about the things i did / do = makes no sense .
Why brag about anything for that matter ...
I said the early muslims   " invented " science : muslims are  no race =   1 of Islam's core messages is to abolish eradicate and refute any kindda discrimination on the basis of belief , race , skin color  , ethnic background, sex , ....in the Islamic sense .

Islam that's against any kindda racism, sectarianism , fascism ...........
Islam was even the first ever to proclaim the equality of all people ,as human beings  regardless of their race , sex , belief , ethnicity ,skin color  ........
I was just trying to respond to that post of yours , in order to correct your obvious   Eurocentric ignorance ,stereotypes, brainwash , prejudice ...on the subject ...that's all .

Sorry if I'm a bit touchy on this subject. But whether it's "race" or "ethnicity" or "people whose ancestors came from a certain geographical area sharing certain familiar connections and cultural traditions," it always raises a red flag. When ever I hear certain accomplishments attributed to a race, religion or nation of people, I wonder - really? Were they all sitting in the room together when this was done? I suspect some nerdy scientist, recently or hundreds of years ago, who may have been ignored or even misunderstood by his neighbors or closest blood relatives, would have given anything to talk to any other human interested in the same idea, no matter what his color or religion or gender,  in some foreign land. We take for granted this opportunity. So yes, when I hear some one boasting that this group invented this, or that group discovered that, it irks me a bit and makes me questions their motives in doing so.

I told you i was just responding to that post of yours earlier , didn't i?
I see no point in repeating myself .
I do even reject such  notions or  rather  illusions such as  nationality, nationalism , patriotism ....not to mention all those illusionary ridiculous "identities " based on race (White supremacists ....ku kulx klan haha , neo-nazis, skin heads ....Arab nationalism ....the mainstream global dominance of  white Eurocentrism and white Eurocentric materialism ...Chinese nationalism , Turkish nationalism ...Russian nationalism ...), ethnicity , geography, belief .............

P.S.: There are actually muslims from all nationalities, races, ethnic groups , skin color , sex, from different cultures, nations,geographies  ..............

Once again, universal Islam happened/ happens and will continue to happen proclaiming the obvious God-given equality of all peoples , regardless of their race , skin color, sex , belief , ethnicity .............

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that Canada (my adopted homeland) invented not only the dental mirror, but the paint roller as well. So there! And they invented Kevlar, so we can safely visit the United States. Those arrogant Americans like to take credit for the invention of the telephone, but Alexander Graham Bell was actually a Canadian, and his first words into it were not  "Watson, come here, I want to see you."  It was "Watson, we're out of beer. I want to see you." Necessity is the mother of invention, and after 200 stitches to his face, four broken noses, a fractured cheek and jawbone, and several concussions, hockey player Jaques Plante invented the goalie mask. (sheer brilliance!) Canadians also invented the snow mobile, snow plow and snow blower, after getting stranded in drifts for about 300 years. (Okay, they're not quick, but they do eventually come up with something.)

In the above first part of this post of yours , you expressed  your legetimate suspicion skepticism and aversion regarding any race ,nationality ,geography . culture...based ideologies or manufactured illusionary "identities " based on race , ethnicity , sectarianism, geography , cultures , nationalities ...and rightly so, but ,then again, you immediatly went on boosting about the Canadian achievements ...= how paradoxical can you be ?

Try to read this interesting book on the subject , you can find on line, written by the Indian-British famous economist who won the nobel prize for economy : Amartya Sen : " Identity and Violence  , the illusion of destiny " , even though it's just a liberal view .
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Identity-Violence-Illusion-Amartya-Sen/dp/0141027800
Here is the book review , to give you a first taste or flavour of the book in question :  very actual book indeed , regarding the rise of nationalism, ethnicism, sectarianism , racism, xenophoby , muslim and other religious extremism ..............as a result of globalism , i guess :
http://www.gobookee.org/get_book.php?u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jb21tdW5pdHktcmVsYXRpb25zLm9yZy51ay9mcy9kb2MvYm9vay1yZXZpZXcucGRmCklkZW50aXR5IGFuZCBWaW9sZW5jZTogdGhlIGlsbHVzaW9uIG9mIGRlc3Rpbnk=

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Congratulations to you and your people for inventing science. I've never been tempted to brag about my racial heritage; it just seems to get Germans into all sorts of trouble when they start doing that, and then no one wants to sit next to them at a dinner parties.

Oy vey! You think you have troubles, already? Shalom.

But give DonQ credit for the joke - I like it. And it also tells us that DonQ is a sinistral.

Haha
If i am a sinistral. as you put it at least , and you like that joke , then , you are a sinistral as well , logically .
I did just post that  joke regarding another kind of materialism that should not be confused with the philosophical one i was talking about all along ...

I have been accused of many things during my relatively short life up untill now , but i was never accused of being a sinistral before haha ..............

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

My Sheldrake's posted quotes do not necessarily reflect my own opinions  or views  on the subject,as they do not reflect those of this great site either  :
I just wanted to give you, people, his opinions views approaches ...on the subject : you're perfectly free to make of that what you wish to do ...
Despite Sheldrake's flaws , i would prefer him way above the whole majority of the scientific mainstream establishment or community put together ,on the subject , simply because he's honest enough , a man with integrity and courage enough , to condemn and to try to refute that outdated false deceptive materialist dogmatic belief system in science ...to try to liberate science from materialism that way .
He is also brave enough to dare enter a territory that's highly deceptive elusive indeed , by trying to tackle it : i think that , despite his pretty logical   human flaws ,taking into consideration the fact that all sciences and the rest are still under that materialist backward false and outdated dominance , and taking into consideration the temporary scientific data and knowledge of this time and age of ours , he should be , and he might be in the near or far future  , considered by the next generations as  1 of the greatest pioneers scientists  who dared/dare to open up whole new vistas for science away from that materialist dominance prison, science has been confined to for so long now : his work might still seem at the childish or at the embryonary stage maybe , but that's how new eras of science begin ...........others might take it from there ,and might come up with visions approaches views that might revolutionize science , our understanding of science and the universe thus , in still unimaginable -to-us -all ways ...

If you are going to post long passages from books without any accompanying comments, I can only assume you are using them to support your arguments, and that is why I respond to them the way I do. If you are just posting them to edify or entertain me, thank you. I did give me greater insight into his strange lack of factual knowledge underlying his conclusions.

Well, since you were asking for non - materialist approaches and views  , i just provided you with Sheldrake's , Nagel's ...so.
Sheldrake's unorthodox approaches might be the genesis of the new era  of science ...who knows ...

P.S.: What do you think of that link i provided you with earlier , concerning "Why materialism is false ?" .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Offending nazis is not a crime, surely?

Sure : who did offend the nazis here anyway ?
Offending the zionazis neither : Shalom.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

But give DonQ credit for the joke - I like it. And it also tells us that DonQ is a sinistral.

Also give him credit that despite the usual ill-mannered insults to me for pointing out his blunder, he did go back and edit his post to remove the offensive 'nazi' reference...

Thanks for noticing : what a miracle .
What offensive nazi reference by the way ?
I just thought that Cheryl was alluding to the nazis when she talked about those bragging Germans about their racial heritage = my blunder and mistake  , so, i just said that that nazi "comparison or analogy " was disgusting , insulting ............
What, on earth, is wrong with your comprehension skills, friend ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ Cheryl :
Why Materialism is False ? :

Source : http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?15753-Why-Materialism-is-False

Prior Note :

The following article does not necessarily reflect my own opinions or views on the subject :

The critique of materialism goes way beyond what the following article tries to approach ,summarize or tackle  :
-I-I do not agree with the author's allegations that materialism has succeeded in "solving " the challenge or hard problem of life , design, thought , morality ...
0_Materialism is just a dogmatic belief system or rather a false secular religion ideology  in science , a misconsception of nature in science , that has absolutely nothing to do with science thus , and that just tries to "validate " itself through science , in vain of course , logically and per-definition .
I_Those so-called neurocomputation mechanisms cannot account for such  non-physical non-biological  processes such as thought either .
II-Darwin's theory of evolution is only and exclusively biological physical , so, it tackles only the physical biological side of evolution, but materialists , per definition, just try to extend it to non-physical non-biological processes ,for obvious materialist ideological "reasons " that have ,obviously , nothing to do with science  .
III- That life can be approached via physics and chemistry does not mean that life is just that .
IV_ Materialism cannot , per definition, succeed in "refuting " the existence of God, design ................behind all those laws of physics ............

V-Neither the materialist version or rather the materialist misinterpretation of Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution , nor Darwin's exclusively biological physical theory of evolution can account for human morality, cognition,  life or of consciousness "fully" ........let alone their  evolution .
VI-Materialism can, per definition , not account for consciousness, life ,feelings , emotions,  human cognition , human conscience , human morality , ...."fully" , let alone their origins evolution or emergence .
_VII-The brain does not cause consciousness : that alleged causality that's ,obviously , just a materialist misinterpretation of that   mutual actual factual correlation or interaction between the brain and consciousness thus  , was never proven to be true, ever , that's just a materialist belief assumption : causation is no explanation either .
VIII-There is a lot more to say on the subject , so, i will just leave it at that ,for the time being at least .

Quote :

" Why Materialism is False:

    In short, I think materialism is false. Below is why, with a detour through the reasons why Materialism isn't false.

    I don't mind if you read this or not, just thought I'd share for anyone remotely interested. No, it's not particularly well written or well structured, and there is so much more that could be said on this topic, but ... meh.

    _______________________________________________________________

    Materalism, I define as follows:
    'The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.' - Answers.com
    First, there is an important distinction to be made. Materialism and Science are not the same thing. Science is the study of the natural world, so Science has no jurisdiction over any theory regarding that which cannot be empirically tested.

    For example, suppose a Theist were to conjecture that God is the law enforcer of the universe, ensuring that at every moment, at every place, all physical occurrences obeyed the laws that God has decreed. This conjecture is impossible to test scientifically, since all possible experimental observations are consistent with its predictions. However, the unscientific character of our Theist's conjecture does not mean that it is false; the answer to the question is simply outside of the jurisdiction of the Scientific method.

    The philosophy of Materialism goes beyond the Scientific Method, postulating that only the material exists. This would place the Materialist in disagreement with our Theist. If it is true that only the material exists, then the Theist's law enforcer God does not exist, since that God would qualify as immaterial.

    The above constitutes the important distinction between Materialism and Science, whilst also explaining why Materialists are always Scientists. However the philosophy of Materialism should not be conflated with that of Science, as it is possible to both be a Scientist and not be a Materialist.

    _______________________________________________________________


    Materialism has always been an unpopular philosophy, with critics branding it as cold, uncaring and fundamentally amoral. The philosophy has had its most bitter rivals in that of Theism, as Materialism denies the truth of religious scripture, denying the existence of God, the afterlife and the immortal soul. Despite this, Materialism has stumbled on, with proponents offering Materialistic solutions to many of the long standing problems in philosophy. The problems listed below have stood as criticisms to the Materialistic philosophy now and in the past. The list is not comprehensive, but does reflect what I believe to have been the key problems that Materialism has overcome.

    1) The problem of life
    2) The problem of design
    3) The problem of thought
    4) The problem of morality
    Here I will sketch a brief overview of what each problem is and how I believe the Materialist can solve it.

    The first and easiest is the problem of life. The problem arises from the unique properties and capabilities of living organisms; it had seemed incomprehensible that the mechanical world of physics could explain the biological. Something else was needed, so it was postulated that a vital force animated living matter, imbuing it with lifelike qualities. The doctrine held that life was inexplicable in terms of physicochemical interactions. If the Materialist could not explain life, then Materialism must be false.

    The Materialist did not get his answer to this problem in one sweeping theory, but rather a cumulation of experimental findings, from William Harvey's discovery that the circularitory system was a cleverly engineered mechanism to pump blood around the body, to Fracis Crick and James Watson's discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. The march of scientific progress has unveiled the fine structure of cellular machinery, all working impeccably from physicochemical laws without the need for a vital animating force.

    Here the Materialist can explain how life works without appealing to any immaterial vital essence, but there still remains another problem to be solved. This is the problem of design. How is it that this incredible arrangement of organised matter came into being? The odds that such organisation would occur by chance are astronomically low, but life is bustling all around us in a multitude of forms. If the Materialist cannot explain this design, then Materialism must be false.

    In 1859, in a joint paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace that explanation was provided. The Materialist now had The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection i.e. The gradual accumulation of adaptive organisation by selective advantage. This elegant theory has provided the Materialist with an answer to the problem of design, which has in time been corroborated by a vast amount of evidence, from practically every field of scientific study.

    The problem of design had been solved, but an interesting disagreement between Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin persisted. The problem of thought presented itself. To Wallace, the human capacity for reasoned thought was beyond the reach of evolution, a feat which could simply not have been achieved by anything other than supernatural intervention, or in other words: God given. How could it be that a physical system could possibly think? If Materialism cannot explain how it is that we think, then Materialism must be false.

    The answer to the problem today is all around us, in front of anyone reading this at this very moment, i.e. computation. Alan Turing's Turing machine and the advent of modern electronics are a vivid illustration that complex computational architecture, obeying only the laws of physics can perform intelligent operations. The Materialist can now look to neurobiology, where cognition is explained as the consequent of neurocomputations occurring in parallel throughout the central nervous system. The Materialist now has his answer to Wallace's conjecture that the capacity for reason is unevolvable and must be God given.

    So the Materialist has provided powerful arguments to solve the problem of life, the problem of design and the problem thought. Unlike these three problems, the final problem on my list cannot refute Materialism. If Materialism is indeed amoral, it would be a nonsequitor to conclude from Materialism's amorality that it is false. For this reason, the problem of morality is a special case, but nonetheless very powerful. Briefly, the argument claims that if we are nothing but an unintentional consequence of natural selection, nothing but elaborate machines and built by selfish genes, then there is no reason to work for a higher purpose. For what reason should we treat our fellow man with compassion? What becomes of right and wrong with no God?

    The answer to this problem is the combined product of evolutionary biology, neurobiology and philosophy. The combined solutions to the previous three problems set the stage for solving the problem of morality. First, evolutionary biology, far from undermining the basis of morality, can explain why we have a moral sense in the first place. Second, neurobiology has provided scientists with evidence of how the human brain computes moral decisions. Finally, philosophers have raised objections to the accusation that Materialism is inherently amoral, refuting the accusations with powerful solutions and counterarguments.

    Note: I am sure many reading this may object to the solutions I have presented to the 'four problems,' such objections are welcome and I encourage further criticism.

    ________________________________________________________________

    I have taken this detour through the successes of Materialism to drive home that I have no political agenda against the philosophy, religiously motivated or otherwise. I now wish to draw attention to my fifth problem for Materialism:

    5) The problem of consciousness
    A single element of conscious experience is called a quale, a group of quale are known as qualia. A quale might be the subjective experience of red, cold or pain. All quale are symbolic representations of frequencies and angles. The problem for Materialism is explaining qualia, the subjective experience of life, the very subjective experience without which we cannot imagine life being worth living at all. How can a physical system such as the brain be responsible for consciousness?. This is no small problem, for if Materialism cannot explain consciousness, then Materialism is false.

    The problem of consciousness has puzzled philosophers for centuries. To clarify the problem, imagine opening up my brain whilst displaying a large red circle to my eyes. After some probing, you discover a cluster of neurons whose combined activity is responsible for my conscious experience of red. However, all you have is my word to go on, there is nothing special about that particular cluster of neurons, no telltale sign that these are responsible for my conscious experience. To the outside observer, the entire neurocomputational system would work exactly the same whether or not I was actually consciously experiencing the red circle. To make make matters more puzzling, even if I am consciously experiencing life, how do you know that what you call red is what I call red? So long as the frequencies and angles which these qualia represent maintain a constant relation to each other, then for all you know my conscious experience of red might be radically different to yours.

    No matter where you look in my brain, even if you are looking at that particular cluster of neurons responsible for my conscious experience of red, you cannot sensibly say that you are looking at the quale redness. The redness I see is qualitively independent of the neural substrate that is responsible for that quale. To put this another way, I would argue that qualia are ontologically irreducible to the neural substrate, that is, qualia have independent qualities which cannot be explained at the physical level. However, I also would argue that consciousness is entirely caused by the neural substrate, that consciousness has no informational content or cognitive ability above that which occurs on the neurocomputational level i.e. consciousness is causally reducible to the neural substrate.

    To clarify, we can play a thought experiment involving two billiard balls. Billiard ball 1 and billiard ball 2. First take these two examples:

    1) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity.
    2) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, both have a change of velocity.
    Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1. Now, take a third example:

    3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.
    In this thought experiment, ball 2 exists and it's change in velocity is caused by ball 1, but to any observer unable to register ball 2, it remains completely invisible and undetectable. My conjecture is that qualia are like ball 2, which is why the conscious experience of other human beings is impossible to detect, the causal interaction is one way.

    The problem for the Materialist is that consciousness itself is immaterial, the frequencies and angles that make up subjective experience may be caused by, but are not part of the Material world. Thus, I conclude that Materialism is false.

    ________________________________________________________________

    A possible criticism of my theory is that consciousness is an emergent consequence of brain activity. This is a tempting view to take, analogous to the quality of wetness. A body of water is wet, even though no particular element of that body of water is wet. To clarify, a single molecule of H2O cannot be wet, because the quality of wetness is dependent upon the interactions of the constituent parts, without belong to any of those particular constituent parts. Wetness is an emergent property. A critic might conjecture that consciousness is also an emergent property of brain activity.

    I do not think that consciousness is an emergent product of brain activity. The difference between wetness and consciousness is that the quality of wetness follows from the physical laws governing the behavior of H2O, that is, given only the laws of physics I could predict that particular chemical substances would have the emergent property of wetness. The same cannot be said of consciousness. Given only the laws of physics, I could not predict the emergence of consciousness, it simply does not follow that from any complex neurocomputational system that consciousness should be." End Quote.

[alancalverd]

Haha
If i am a sinistral. as you put it at least , and you like that joke , then , you are a sinistral as well , logically .
I did just post that  joke regarding another kind of materialism that should not be confused with the philosophical one i was talking about all along ...

I have been accused of many things during my relatively short life up untill now , but i was never accused of being a sinistral before haha ..............

In that case you definitely have an oddly biased view of the world! Most people wear their watch on the left wrist, and the buttons are normally placed that way, but a few "hard lefties" prefer the right.

Materialism and Science are not the same thing.

except, apparently, in your own ravings.

Beware of selfcontradiction. Remember the fate of the Oozlum bird: not knowing whether it was coming or going, it changed direction so many times that it flew up its own arse and disappeared. Incidentally this is the basis of Continuum String Theory.

Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1.

What do you mean by "directly experience"? We infer the existence of 2 because of its observed effect on 1. But we inferred the existence of 1 from its interaction with photons that then interacted with our eyes. So what?  It's an everyday observation: many people have heard cuckoos, few have seen them, and only other cuckoos have "directly experienced" a cuckoo, probably during the mating season (they are mostly solitary).

3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.

It is difficult, and certainly pointless,  to conduct a thought experiment that defies the laws of nature. If momentum is not conserved in your universe, you are clearly not of this world, nor of any other with which we can interact.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Haha
If i am a sinistral. as you put it at least , and you like that joke , then , you are a sinistral as well , logically .
I did just post that  joke regarding another kind of materialism that should not be confused with the philosophical one i was talking about all along ...

I have been accused of many things during my relatively short life up untill now , but i was never accused of being a sinistral before haha ..............

In that case you definitely have an oddly biased view of the world! Most people wear their watch on the left wrist, and the buttons are normally placed that way, but a few "hard lefties" prefer the right.

Materialism and Science are not the same thing.

except, apparently, in your own ravings.

Beware of selfcontradiction. Remember the fate of the Oozlum bird: not knowing whether it was coming or going, it changed direction so many times that it flew up its own arse and disappeared. Incidentally this is the basis of Continuum String Theory.

Notice that in example number 2 we infer the existence of ball 2 because of the change in velocity of ball 1. We cannot directly experience ball 2, so our knowledge of ball 2 is limited by it's relationship to ball 1.

What do you mean by "directly experience"? We infer the existence of 2 because of its observed effect on 1. But we inferred the existence of 1 from its interaction with photons that then interacted with our eyes. So what?  It's an everyday observation: many people have heard cuckoos, few have seen them, and only other cuckoos have "directly experienced" a cuckoo, probably during the mating season (they are mostly solitary).

3) Imagine ball 1 moving on a trajectory toward ball 2. This time, imagine that ball 2 is invisible and has a one way causal relationship to ball 1. As ball 1 strikes ball 2, only ball 2 changes its velocity and ball 1 carries on at a constant speed, in a straight line.

It is difficult, and certainly pointless,  to conduct a thought experiment that defies the laws of nature. If momentum is not conserved in your universe, you are clearly not of this world, nor of any other with which we can interact.

First of all, stop using your grudges , rancune ...."revenge "   feelings or emotions  ,as "arguments " = they are not .

Second : only those dishonest self-deluded die-hard core materialist fanatics , idiots or fools would deny the obvious fact that materialism and science are 2 totally different "things " .

Third : science can only approach the material side of reality , directly empirically , so to speak : the non-material processes or the non-material side of reality can be approached by science , indirectly , via a multitude of ways , especially via approaching their  material basis .

Fourth :what kindda ''answers "  are these then ?
Try to elaborate on that  wilst avoiding judgements of value , dude : those judgements of value of yours you must have been confusing with arguments ....
Insults or toilet language are no arguments either .

P,S.: The fact that offending zionazism is not a crime either (Actually , offending zionazism is the least one can do = an understatement thus )  , a fact you might deny as such , is no "reason " to utter such garbage language on a science forum , as a result .
Shalom ............Amen haha

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

@ Cheryl :
Science jokes :


http://www.buzzfeed.com/babymantis/20-more-spectacularly-nerdy-science-jokes-1opu

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencejokes.html


http://chemistry.about.com/u/ua/chemistryfunhumor/Science-Jokes.htm

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Are You Smart Enough To Get These Nerdy Jokes?

Big Bang Theory best science joke

The Big Bang Theory - Please don't touch my breasts

[cheryl j]

I told you i was just responding to that post of yours earlier , didn't i?
I see no point in repeating myself .
I do even reject such  notions or  rather  illusions such as  nationality, nationalism , patriotism ....not to mention all those illusionary ridiculous "identities " based on race (White supremacists ....ku kulx klan haha , neo-nazis, skin heads ....Arab nationalism ....the mainstream global dominance of  white Eurocentrism and white Eurocentric materialism ...Chinese nationalism , Turkish nationalism ...Russian nationalism ...), ethnicity , geography, belief .............

P.S.: There are actually muslims from all nationalities, races, ethnic groups , skin color , sex, from different cultures, nations,geographies  ..............

Once again, universal Islam happened/ happens and will continue to happen proclaiming the obvious God-given equality of all peoples , regardless of their race , skin color, sex , belief , ethnicity .............

Belief? well, as I understand it, you aren't really equal unless you share their religious beliefs and adhere to their practices, so I would say it is a bit a little exclusionary in that sense. Which is fine, their club, their rules.

[cheryl j]

But give DonQ credit for the joke - I like it. And it also tells us that DonQ is a sinistral.

Also give him credit that despite the usual ill-mannered insults to me for pointing out his blunder, he did go back and edit his post to remove the offensive 'nazi' reference...

Thanks for noticing : what a miracle .
What offensive nazi reference by the way ?
I just thought that Cheryl was alluding to the nazis when she talked about those bragging Germans about their racial heritage = my blunder and mistake  , so, i just said that that nazi "comparison or analogy " was disgusting , insulting ............
What, on earth, is wrong with your comprehension skills, friend ?

Well, actually I was alluding to Nazis, and I was  comparing your boasts to that sort of thing. So no need to apologize, Don.

[cheryl j]

In the above first part of this post of yours , you expressed  your legetimate suspicion skepticism and aversion regarding any race ,nationality ,geography . culture...based ideologies or manufactured illusionary "identities " based on race , ethnicity , sectarianism, geography , cultures , nationalities ...and rightly so, but ,then again, you immediatly went on boosting about the Canadian achievements ...= how paradoxical can you be ?

Um, no,  I was just  kidding around. I was not sincerely bragging about the invention of the paint roller, although, it is quite nifty when you need one.