0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/10/2013 19:10:19I am not a ghost to come back and haunt you :How can I miss you if you won't go away?
I am not a ghost to come back and haunt you :
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/10/2013 19:34:12Cheryl + dlorde :There is a big difference between the materialist misinterpretations of science ,of science results , science experiments , science approaches , and pure science .Major example ? = materialist reductionism in science+ its materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere .Example :There are some scientific experiments concerning the fact that handicaped people might be able , in the near or far future , to move their paralyzed , dysfunctional , amputated or other ...limbs, bodies ....via some implanted chips in the brain , or via some robots those handicaped people might get connected to via their brains' activity .There are also scientific facts that prove the fact to be true that people might be able , in the near or far future , to drive their own cars , move robots or machines ,just via their brain's activity or via their thoughts ...Does that mean that human thought or consciousness are just the products of the brain's neuronal activity ? No way .Yup - surprisingly, I agree with all of that (except that scientific 'facts' are provisional and don't strictly 'prove' anything).
Cheryl + dlorde :There is a big difference between the materialist misinterpretations of science ,of science results , science experiments , science approaches , and pure science .Major example ? = materialist reductionism in science+ its materialist meta-paradigm in all sciences and elsewhere .Example :There are some scientific experiments concerning the fact that handicaped people might be able , in the near or far future , to move their paralyzed , dysfunctional , amputated or other ...limbs, bodies ....via some implanted chips in the brain , or via some robots those handicaped people might get connected to via their brains' activity .There are also scientific facts that prove the fact to be true that people might be able , in the near or far future , to drive their own cars , move robots or machines ,just via their brain's activity or via their thoughts ...Does that mean that human thought or consciousness are just the products of the brain's neuronal activity ? No way .
What do you have to say regarding what Sheldrake stated...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 28/10/2013 18:49:02What do you have to say regarding what Sheldrake stated...Many of his 'ten core beliefs' of scientists are deliberately provocative straw men, misrepresentations, & red herrings (e.g. number 1 includes a blatant false dichotomy). The few that are close to the reality are features of working models, provisional, & hypotheses based on empirical evidence. The core beliefs axioms of science are that there exists an observable, testable, objective reality, and that it behaves consistently in some respects. Scientists are a diverse bunch, but if more than a small minority of them subscribe to the essence of all those 'core beliefs', some of Sheldrake's criticism may indeed be relevant to them.The rest of that article is a rehash of critiques of 'the problems with science' done better elsewhere, but with extra fallacies & vague handwaving. The most obvious fallacy is the common conflation of 'unexplained' with 'inexplicable' with regard to a particular methodology. In general, I refer you to my previous post on Sheldrake (#493).
.. how can you deny that materialism as a secular false belief has been dominating in all aciences and elsewhere ... ?How can you deny the fact that the mechanistic materialist world view ideology has been taken for granted without question but the mainstream scientific extablishment or community ?How can you deny all that and more ? all those mechanistic materialist belief assumptions that are still considered to be as ...science ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 17:23:40.. how can you deny that materialism as a secular false belief has been dominating in all aciences and elsewhere ... ?How can you deny the fact that the mechanistic materialist world view ideology has been taken for granted without question but the mainstream scientific extablishment or community ?How can you deny all that and more ? all those mechanistic materialist belief assumptions that are still considered to be as ...science ?I haven't yet denied any of it - although it's complete nonsense of course; I don't deny claims that ducks wear gas masks, either. My last post was the response to Sheldrake's quote you requested, all criticism, no denials.
If you'd like to respond to what I write rather than what you think I might believe, a discussion might be possible. History suggests this isn't going to happen, but I thought I'd mention it.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 17:23:40.. how can you deny that materialism as a secular false belief has been dominating in all aciences and elsewhere ... ?How can you deny the fact that the mechanistic materialist world view ideology has been taken for granted without question but the mainstream scientific extablishment or community ?How can you deny all that and more ? all those mechanistic materialist belief assumptions that are still considered to be as ...science ?If you really think science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" (yet, as you say, is restricted to the material world), by all means explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better.
You keep making the claim, but repetition alone doesn't make it convincing. You need to make your point, otherwise we just have a Monty Python situation.
... science as a result sees reality as a whole ... science sees consciousness, life as a whole, reality as a whole, ..., science sees them as exclusively material...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 18:56:29... science as a result sees reality as a whole ... science sees consciousness, life as a whole, reality as a whole, ..., science sees them as exclusively material...Science doesn't 'see', or have opinions or beliefs - it is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Scientists can see, and have a wide variety of opinions and beliefs. You seem to be confusing the two.
Why don't you address what i and Sheldrake said about the materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system dominating in all sciences for that matter , and elsewhere .Once again, the mainstream dominating conception of nature in all sciences and elsewhere has been ...the materialist one ,since the 19 th century and counting = materialist dominating belief assumptions that do have absolutely nothing to do with the empirical science as such, even though they have been taken for granted as such as ...science .
You have been so irritating and frustrating that i just did let, unintentionally ,my glass of coffee fall and break as a result ...........
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 19:58:00Why don't you address what i and Sheldrake said about the materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system dominating in all sciences for that matter , and elsewhere .Once again, the mainstream dominating conception of nature in all sciences and elsewhere has been ...the materialist one ,since the 19 th century and counting = materialist dominating belief assumptions that do have absolutely nothing to do with the empirical science as such, even though they have been taken for granted as such as ...science .I have already. Let me clarify: I think the claim is incoherent and unsubstantiated.If you really think science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then by all means explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result. QuoteYou have been so irritating and frustrating that i just did let, unintentionally ,my glass of coffee fall and break as a result ...........You are funny! but I accept no responsibility for your lack of control
God ...
Is reality as a whole just physical material ?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 22:01:17God ...QuoteIs reality as a whole just physical material ?That's what the evidence suggests (unless you count the imaginary). How could it do otherwise?If you really think science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then by all means explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
Quote from: dlorde on 26/10/2013 21:45:20How can I miss you if you won't go away?I do go away every single day that God makes : i do not live in here .so.
How can I miss you if you won't go away?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 22:01:17God ...Your imaginary friend?
QuoteIs reality as a whole just physical material ?That's what the evidence suggests (unless you count the imaginary). How could it do otherwise?
If you really think science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then by all means explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result.
Quote from: dlorde on 29/10/2013 23:22:32Quote from: DonQuichotte on 29/10/2013 22:01:17God ...QuoteIs reality as a whole just physical material ?That's what the evidence suggests (unless you count the imaginary). How could it do otherwise?If you really think science is suffering from a "mechanistic materialist world view ideology" or dominated by a "materialist mechanist dogmatic belief system" (yet, as you admit, is necessarily restricted to the material realm), then by all means explain how it has suffered, and how it would be different without it (e.g. how would it work?), and how it could be better as a result. That seems like a fair request. And it also illustrates the problem with Sheldrake and Nagel. They are big on criticism, and short on any detailed explanation of how to test hypotheses their way.
... science gives therefore a distorted reflection of reality as a whole ,thanks to materialism in science...