0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
(I have been rejecting just materialism in science that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view" ,it goes without saying that I am extremely pro-science proper , that's why i would love to see the latter getting liberated from materialism that's just a false world view in science , once again )
You know what :I think you were just trying to derail this discussion
you , obviously , cannot handle by talking about God and religions , instead of daring to address the obvious falsehood of the materialist "scientific world view " = you are just "reasoning " from a false materialist point of view = from the materialist belief assumptions ' point of view thus regarding the nature of reality as a whole , that's all : neither reason , logic nor science have anything whatsoever to do with all that you were saying .
So, i am not gonna lower myself to your level by being dragged by you into an ungly exchange of insults .I am not gonna talk about God and religion on a science forum either .
Just try to address the core issue here at hand concerning the obvious falsehood of the materialist "scientific world view " , instead of these silly childish scary bed stories for kids you have been telling us : Grow up .
You are just delivering materialist belief assumptions that are , per definition, false and can easily be refuted : in fact, materialism is so absurd , so childish , so implausible ,so false , so inconsistent incoherent ...you name it , that it is extremely puzzling how relatively intelligent people (cognititive intelligence is , obviously , not the highest form of intellect , not even remotely close thus ) , extremely puzzling how relatively intelligent folks can suscribe to that ridiculous materialism , the more when they take it for granted as the "scientific world view " without question , amazing :
In short :Materialism is so irrelevant and so unworthy of any criticism even , simply because it is self-defeating and self-refuting = an understatement , materialism is so childish that i would have never bothered to mention it even , if it has not been taken for granted as the "scientific world view " ,really ...amazing .Pathetic ...
In short :Just cut the crap then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids , then and only then , i will answer yours :Deal ? [/b]
Bullshit : God's existence can neither be proved nor disproved
I'm sorry, am I repeating myself? Am I being redundant? Am I saying things over and over?
Quote from: cheryl j on 08/11/2013 06:05:39I'm sorry, am I repeating myself? Am I being redundant? Am I saying things over and over?No, that would be Don. After months of intemperate repetition, he still seems quite unable to articulate the reasons for his odd beliefs about science and the 'immaterial realm', or to describe what difference his ...eccentric... suggestions would make. Which raises the question of whether he actually has any reasons, or is instead just regurgitating the results of indoctrination. Either way, it makes for a poor discussion when one party is stuck on ignore and repeat. It was entertaining for a while, but it's become boring.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 07/11/2013 17:05:10In short :Just cut the crap then , and answer my questions first , instead of sending the ball back to me over and over again , instead of telling me silly bed stories for kids , then and only then , i will answer yours :Deal ? [/b]Don, people have answered your questions, but you reject the answer. Fine, that's your prerogative. But when they throw the ball back in your court, and say "okay, what's your theory? How does the immaterial work? Explain some immaterial processes in detail" you just respond, once again, with only and the same complaints about materialism. You also equate scientists choosing to investigate anything material with with rejection of the immaterial, denial of it, an attack on it, and yes, even a conspiracy to suppress information or investigation of it. That is just an assumption on your part. Finally, your condescension is irritating, when you constantly imply that anyone who disagrees with you is confused, "not reading carefully", "cannot grasp," and is silly, childish, etc."Got that? Deal?"
QuoteAre you calling me stupid , just because i am a religious believer , that's no question, obviously :You are the one who should be called , and rightly so, the most stupid irrational sheep in all mankind's history ever (Cognitive intelligence is obviously a lower form of intellect , not the highest ) , together with the followers of that materialist dogmatic orthodox exclusive irrational secular false religion that has been taken for granted as "the scientific world view ", ironically enough : that false "scientific world view " that's been THE biggest elaborate and absurd implausible scam and ultimate con in all mankind's history for that matter .I'm calling almost everyone stupid. The world is run by idiots who do all the wrong things. It is the nature of man to be stupid. We will be saved by machines though, machines which do nothing but apply correct reasoning and which do not reject correct proofs on the basis of silly beliefs.
Are you calling me stupid , just because i am a religious believer , that's no question, obviously :You are the one who should be called , and rightly so, the most stupid irrational sheep in all mankind's history ever (Cognitive intelligence is obviously a lower form of intellect , not the highest ) , together with the followers of that materialist dogmatic orthodox exclusive irrational secular false religion that has been taken for granted as "the scientific world view ", ironically enough : that false "scientific world view " that's been THE biggest elaborate and absurd implausible scam and ultimate con in all mankind's history for that matter .
... any attempts thus to try to describe or explain reality and therefore to try to understand it must include the mental side of life that's ,obviously , not reducible to the physical , then naturalist redctionism must be false and therefore naturalist materialism must be false also as a result , naturalist materialism that does require reductionism thus .Even biology itself, and all the other physical sciences , cannot therefore remain just physical ways of approaching reality,since they must thus try to include the mental side of life that's not reducible to the physical .
The exact same goes for you also and much more ,ironically enough , in relation to your silly mechanistic materialist belief , the more when you do take the latter for granted as the 'scientific world view ", the more when we do take into consideration the obvious simple and undeniable fact that materialism is ...false , and hence "the scientific world view " is therefore also false= you are therefore way worse than any given ignorant irrational religious fanatic : you do not only take your materialist belief for granted as being "true ", but , you also take it for granted as the 'scientific world view " .
P.S.: To say that man-made machines can solve the problem of certain stubborn beliefs people hold in the face of counter-evidence is ludicrous and tragic -hilarious , it is like saying that science is not a human activity, or that objectivity even in science is not a ...myth.
Well, try to solve your own obvious problem first then , regarding the simple fact that you do take your materialist mechanistic core belief assumptions for granted not only as being "true ", but also as "the scientific world view " .
Quote from: dlorde on 08/11/2013 18:18:10Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 17:24:34... any attempts thus to try to describe or explain reality and therefore to try to understand it must include the mental side of life that's ,obviously , not reducible to the physical , then naturalist redctionism must be false and therefore naturalist materialism must be false also as a result , naturalist materialism that does require reductionism thus .Even biology itself, and all the other physical sciences , cannot therefore remain just physical ways of approaching reality,since they must thus try to include the mental side of life that's not reducible to the physical .I suggest you reconsider your assumption that the mental side of life cannot be explained as a product of material processes.Alternatively, you could try explaining why you think it can't be.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 17:24:34... any attempts thus to try to describe or explain reality and therefore to try to understand it must include the mental side of life that's ,obviously , not reducible to the physical , then naturalist redctionism must be false and therefore naturalist materialism must be false also as a result , naturalist materialism that does require reductionism thus .Even biology itself, and all the other physical sciences , cannot therefore remain just physical ways of approaching reality,since they must thus try to include the mental side of life that's not reducible to the physical .I suggest you reconsider your assumption that the mental side of life cannot be explained as a product of material processes.Alternatively, you could try explaining why you think it can't be.
So now you have said where it is, perhaps you will enlighten us as to what consciousness does and whether, since is pervades every atom, it is pre-existent to any organism rather than an emergent property of an ensemble.
... Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them "
Conway's Game of Life has attracted much interest, because of the surprising ways in which the patterns can evolve. Life provides an example of emergence and self-organization. It is interesting for computer scientists, physicists, biologists, biochemists, economists, mathematicians, philosophers, generative scientists and others to observe the way that complex patterns can emerge from the implementation of very simple rules.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 17:00:29The exact same goes for you also and much more ,ironically enough , in relation to your silly mechanistic materialist belief , the more when you do take the latter for granted as the 'scientific world view ", the more when we do take into consideration the obvious simple and undeniable fact that materialism is ...false , and hence "the scientific world view " is therefore also false= you are therefore way worse than any given ignorant irrational religious fanatic : you do not only take your materialist belief for granted as being "true ", but , you also take it for granted as the 'scientific world view " .I've told you what science should be. It doesn't matter how many/few scientists do science correctly, just as it doesn't matter that religions don't do science correctly - real science is real science and it is governed by reason (without which you can't think usefully at all). Any break from reason is a break from science. You are now revealing more about your irrationality by rejecting not just materialism, but the whole idea of understanding cause-and-effect mechanism. You are anti-science.
QuoteP.S.: To say that man-made machines can solve the problem of certain stubborn beliefs people hold in the face of counter-evidence is ludicrous and tragic -hilarious , it is like saying that science is not a human activity, or that objectivity even in science is not a ...myth.Intelligent machines will bring up future generations to be able to think properly without being shackled by religious propaganda. Religious books like to bombard the reader with reasoned arguments to try to prove that God exists, but they don't hold water. An AGI system will provide objections for the reader at every turn, pointing out all the tricks being used by the human creator of the religion which are being used to try to con them. They are all written by well-meaning philosophers who wanted to make a better world but who tried to do so by telling lies, and the result is books which are riddled with faults which show them up as false. Brainwashed people don't tend to pick up on the faults, and they are further bombarded by water-muddying commentaries by other people around them which serve to make them give up thinking for themselves, but AGI systems will turn all of that upside-down and give everyone a proper commentary which blows the whole thing out of the water. The same will happen with bad science, AGI systems having the patience to argue everything through to the utter end over and over again with every individual on the planet - it's impossible for humans to do this because there are so few that can see where science has gone wrong and they're up against armies of people who are trained to believe what they're taught and not to question it, just like with religions.
QuoteWell, try to solve your own obvious problem first then , regarding the simple fact that you do take your materialist mechanistic core belief assumptions for granted not only as being "true ", but also as "the scientific world view " .I don't take them as the scientific world view. I'm only telling you what science should be if it was always done properly. For the most part though, it is done properly - there are just a few little areas here and there where reason is not being applied correctly and where claims are being made out of ignorance which don't add up (as with consciousness where magical emergence is the mainstream).
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 18:53:48... Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them "Have you not played with "Conway's Game of Life", where space-invader type patterns emerge whose appearance and behaviour are more complex than the rules which created them. [ similar patterns appear in real life ]Quote from: wikipedia.org/Conway's Game of LifeConway's Game of Life has attracted much interest, because of the surprising ways in which the patterns can evolve. Life provides an example of emergence and self-organization. It is interesting for computer scientists, physicists, biologists, biochemists, economists, mathematicians, philosophers, generative scientists and others to observe the way that complex patterns can emerge from the implementation of very simple rules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Origins
The material, physical or biological processes cannot "give rise " to totally different "emergent phenomena " processes whose non-physical non-biological non-material "components " are totally different , qua nature , not only qua genre thus , from their alleged original physical material or biological "components " .
… you should read what i said regarding emergent phenomena here above
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 19:44:25… you should read what i said regarding emergent phenomena here above I did , you said Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 18:53:48... Biological or any physical or material 'systems " for that matter cannot give rise to totally different phenomena qua their nature whose components are totally different from those that allegedly "gave rise to them "i.e. you appear to be saying that emergent properties "cannot" occur , when in reality they do : cellular automata are an example , ( which can be used to simulate neurons , the hardware on which the software of consciousness runs ).
" I am anti-science ? " , so is Nagel, Sheldrake and many other philosophers scientists and other anti-reductionists as well, logically,paradoxically enough .
I am way more pro-science thus than you could ever be , my friend , sorry, simply because you have been turning science into just a materialist secular exclusive dogmatic mechanistic religion you have been taking for granted as the 'scientific world view " ,without question so far .
It is reasonable enough to assume that the non-physical mental is non -reducible to the physical , and therefore all physical sciences for that matter ,including biology and modern physics thus , must include the non-physical mental in their approach of reality as a result :they have no choice but to do that ,if they want to fully deserve being called sciences at least : they cannot keep on reducing the non-physical to just the physical it cannot be reduced to , you cannot just decide to reduce the irreducible mental to the physical via some false materialist mechanistic belief of yours on the subject , just in order to make it fit into your owm materialist reductionist mechanistic conception of nature ,or world view , while assuming that that's the 'scientific world view "
Will those machines of the future be able to tell the people that the materialist 'scientific world view " is ,obviously , false ? = just a false materialist conception of nature : Don't think so , if they would happen to be made by materialists such as yourself .
I do not buy that whole idea of yours , simply because any machines for that matter are man-made , and can thus never surpass man as a whole package , even though they can be faster in calculations , can be better at making and designing models , prediction models ....= man will always have the upper hand over or above man's own created machines .
Ironically paradoxically enough , you do take the materialist mechanistic core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality for granted as being "true " , and hence you do take the materialist mechanistic world view for granted as the " scientific world view " , without question .
That's precisely what the mainstream scientific establishment or community has been doing for so long now = that's exactly what's wrong with science today = that's a way deeper malaise than just what you were mentioning thus .
Science will be certainly better off without materialism, no doubt about that : how ?,i wish i knew how , i dunno exactly yet , if ever thus .Only time will tell then .Let's hope we will all witness that ,during our short lifetimes.
Quote from: dlorde on 08/11/2013 20:19:11Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 18:53:48The material, physical or biological processes cannot "give rise " to totally different "emergent phenomena " processes whose non-physical non-biological non-material "components " are totally different , qua nature , not only qua genre thus , from their alleged original physical material or biological "components " .Emergence is all about the surprising generation of seemingly unrelated 'meta phenomena' of a higher level of abstraction, and that's what makes it such a fascinating subject. Sadly, you seem to have the same grasp of emergence as you do of chaos theory. If you spent some time to understand emergence, you might see how it could be relevant. Unfortunately, your baseless insistence that consciousness cannot have a material origin will prevent you from ever recognising that.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 18:53:48The material, physical or biological processes cannot "give rise " to totally different "emergent phenomena " processes whose non-physical non-biological non-material "components " are totally different , qua nature , not only qua genre thus , from their alleged original physical material or biological "components " .Emergence is all about the surprising generation of seemingly unrelated 'meta phenomena' of a higher level of abstraction, and that's what makes it such a fascinating subject. Sadly, you seem to have the same grasp of emergence as you do of chaos theory. If you spent some time to understand emergence, you might see how it could be relevant. Unfortunately, your baseless insistence that consciousness cannot have a material origin will prevent you from ever recognising that.