0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Yeah , i appear to be saying , but i did not say that : reread what i said then .Appearances are deceptive indeed .
... 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 "
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 08/11/2013 19:37:50" I am anti-science ? " , so is Nagel, Sheldrake and many other philosophers scientists and other anti-reductionists as well, logically,paradoxically enough .They are giving up on science and replacing it with a quest to not understand.
" I am anti-science ? " , so is Nagel, Sheldrake and many other philosophers scientists and other anti-reductionists as well, logically,paradoxically enough .
QuoteI 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 .Your position is an abandonment of science. You can call that "science" all you like, but it is the opposite.
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 .
QuoteIt 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 "I'd take your argument seriously if you didn't keep telling me that things which can manifestly be explained mechanistically can't be understood mechanistically.
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 "
QuoteWill 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 .They will read the arguments on all sides without bias, yours included, and then they will judge them by means of reasoning and reject the ones which don't hold. When you tell these machines that they cannot do what they are doing (thinking and using language 100% mechanistically), they will reject your views on those points. In any place where your arguments do stack up though, they will recognise that
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 .
QuoteI 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 .No. People make mistakes in their thinking all over the shop, and although they can correct a lot of them, it's hard for them to remove them all. On many issues the thinking that needs to be done is just too deep and involves too much data, so the machines will always outthink them.
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 .
QuoteIronically 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 .The only thing I take for granted is that reason applies, because without it we cannot work out anything at all or argue about anything. Everything in my position is generated through applying reason to the data that comes in from the universe around me, and that is how AGI systems will work. There may be places where I'm failing to apply reason correctly which I haven't noticed, but AGI systems will pick up on those and set me on the right path. It will do the same for everyone else. Wherever anyone has a belief based on bad reasoning, it will show them the error of their ways.
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 .
QuoteThat'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 .There is no way to do science properly than to do science properly. If you chuck out all attempts to understand things and deny that there are mechanisms behind the things that happen in the universe, you're left with anti-science where any assertion is as valid as any other, so you can spout any garbage you like and call it science. I know which kind of science I prefer.
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 .
QuoteScience 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.What has materialism got to do with it? What exactly is materialism anyway? Is it just stuff like matter, energy and the fabric of the universe or does it also include things of no material substance such as actions which play upon the material? Is it any kind of cause-and-effect interaction? If you define the term materialism narrowly, it doesn't cover anyone's position. If you define it more broadly, it includes my position where mechanism is key to understanding. If it includes mechanism, there is nothing that can interact with anything which doesn't depend upon mechanism. I really can't see what you think you're left with when you reject this wider sense of materialism, because as soon as you deny the role of mechanism, all you're left with is magic and an assertion that magic doesn't need any mechanism to operate. You can't get more anti-science than that.
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.
Up to a point, it's easy to see how people can make the mistake of thinking that consciousness can emerge out of something complex, but when you move from woolly feelings of existence and feelings of understanding to somthing with more bite such as pain and suffering, it shows that the emergence explanation fails. You cannot have suffering without a sufferer, but a sufferer cannot emerge by magic out of a set of parts which are incapable of suffering. If a system of a number of parts contains a sufferer but none of the individual parts is or contains a sufferer, you have a contradiction rather than an explanation. Ten (you can substitute this number with any number of your choice) parts of something cannot suffer without at least one of those parts suffering. What is there in a system of ten parts that might exist to suffer which doesn't exist in any of the ten parts? A geometrical arrangement? Can geometry be tortured? A plurality? Can plurality be tortured? That is the problem with the idea of emergence as an explanation of consciousness, because it depends on magic to make something exist to suffer that can't exist as anything that could realistically suffer.That is science's biggest mistake, pushing this non-explanation as an explanation. It's manifestly wrong when it comes to pain and suffering, and by extension it's wrong about every other kind of quale too.
DonQ has omitted to reply to my request in my previous post to clarify how his view differs from " emergent properties 'cannot' occur ".He instead subjects us to another torrent of rambling verbal diarrhoea , where he tells us that he knows for a fact he is right, ( without providing any evidence to support his view ), instead implying that any person who disagrees with him is not "sane" nor "intelligent", ( he's already overused the word "stupid" in this forum, see attachment)You're more articulate (and obsessive) than the average troll DonQ , but you're simply trolling this forum.
Once again, emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological material or physical levels : consciousness is not a biological process = cannot have emerged from a biological one
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/11/2013 17:33:31Once again, emergent phenomena do occur only at the biological material or physical levels : consciousness is not a biological process = cannot have emerged from a biological one Emergent phenomena occur, e.g. in cellular automata. Neurones, the hardware on which the software that is consciousness runs , can be modelled using cellular automata. So emergent phenomena which appear in cellular automata are sufficient to create neuronal behaviour and consciousness.So consciousness can be created by emergent phenomena in physical / biological processes.
Why would they do just that ? Do they have some inexplicable grudge of some sort against science ? Come on, be serious : they just try to set science free from materialism as a false conception of nature : they are more pro-science thus than you could ever be , Dave , sorry to say that , but i have to .There must be some more fundamental phenomena , processes or whatever that might be ,that might be underlying the laws of physics themselves : even a notion of law is just a human projection .
No , Dave : science tries to describe explain and therefore make us understand reality , so , science must therefore include the missing part of reality which has been labeled as non-existent or as just physical by the materialist mechanistic "scientific world view " thus .
You cannot just decide to pick a certain level of reality via some sort of belief of yours , and impose it as the "scientific world view " , as materialism has been doing all along : science must include in its search all levels of reality thus , including the non-physical , the one it can deal with empirically somehow at least .
There might be some more fundamental phenomena out there underlying even the laws of physics themselves : who know ? I did not make reality the way it is , so, science has no choice but to deal with all parts of reality it can deal with empirically , including the non-physical thus .Science is not a matter of like , dislike , taste , or a matter of opinions ,beliefs, science is a matter of ...facts : fact is , reality is not just material or physical ,as the false materialist "scientific world view " has been assuming it to be for so long now ,thus .
So, what if it turns out to be that reality is not just a matter of laws of physics , mechanisms , cause and effect ,at its fundamental ultimate core ? What if reality is somehow "governed " by more fundamental processes or whatever ,deep down, we cannot explain just in terms of laws ? Sounds insane , but , that's a reasonable option to consider ,if we only would realise the fact that materialism is false , and hence the non-physical side of nature must be included in science .
We should't try to ossify science as to hold it imprisoned within some sort of particular exclusive orthodox dogmatic perceptions of reality of ours we might have .Science should be free to engage reality in any way it can , without getting restricted in its search by any beliefs, assumptions or whatever we might hold , regarding the nature of reality or whatever .
I do not need any machine for that matter , no matter how futuristic or sophisticated it might turn out to be , to tell me whether the materialist mechanistic mainstream "scientific world view " is false or not : i know for a fact that it is : every sane and intelligent person does or should do .There is more to reality , nature or the universe , there is more to life , man , consciousness ....than just the material or physical .
You're chasing an elusive and deceptive mirage , an utopia , Dave : you're too much of a naive mechanistic idealist : machines are made by people , scientists that have their own prejudices, stereotypes, bias , ....
Objectivity is a myth even at the level of science itself , even at the level of the very exact sciences themselves ...Proof ? : the mainstream false materialist mechanistic 'scientific world view " .
Scientists' conceptions of nature , or rather most scientists ' belief assumptions regarding the nature of reality do hold science back in its search for describing , explaining and understanding reality ,as if they already know what reality is
...they should leave the latter to science : science that cannot pretend to know the nature of reality as a whole already : science that's still a relatively young unparalleled and effective adventurer that must be free in its explorations of reality , whatever the latter might be .
If we would keep science imprisoned within a particular conception of nature , as it has been the case for so long now , then, it is like dictating to a particular adventurer what specific fields he/she should exlpore , and not the other potential ones out there .
Pure naive idealist mirage or utopia : science , reason, logic maths do not yet dare to go beyond the materialist version of reality , or beyond the false materialist mechanistic "scientific world view " .
Science without materialism will not abandon its search for trying to describe explain and hence make us understand reality ,by trying to reveal the hidden mechanisms behind phenomena , it will just extend its realm by including the non-physical ,the mental it can deal with empirically .
But , then again , there might be more fundamental phenomena underlying the laws of physics , causation or cause and effect thus : causation or the laws of physics , mechanisms , cause and effect might just be an elaborate illusion , as David Hume said once regarding causation thus .Who knows ?
Science must also pursue that option as well : that's the very nature of science to try to go beyond what it has been able to reveal so far , including beyond the laws of physics thus .
Materialism is just a false conception of nature in science that has been taken for granted as the 'scientific world view " , in the sense that reality as a whole is just material or physical : has science ever proved that materialist "fact " , or rather that materialist core belief assumption regarding the nature of reality ? Obviously not , never , ever thus : that's exactly what i have been asking you , folks , so far , for so long now by the way .
In short :There might be some more fundamental processes or whatever underlying even the laws of physics themselves , who knows ? , science can try to reveal , when science will include the mental and other non-physical part of reality it has been missing , thanks to materialism thus , once again .
Have you ever seen any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of adaptation, flexibility , replication reproduction, self-replication self-reproduction, that are capable of evolution , relative self-organization ,relative self-maintenance , relative self-sustainance , that are capable of growing from some of their most basic elements cells or genes ....
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 09/11/2013 19:09:59Have you ever seen any man-made machine or computer for that matter that are capable of adaptation, flexibility , replication reproduction, self-replication self-reproduction, that are capable of evolution , relative self-organization ,relative self-maintenance , relative self-sustainance , that are capable of growing from some of their most basic elements cells or genes ....See … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_computation[ You can see computer evolution too by playing with biomorphs … http://www.rennard.org/alife/english/biomgb.html ]See … https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life#Self-replication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizationThat less than a century of computer technology is not yet equivalent to what has taken billions of years to evolve does not prove the human brain is not mechanistic.[ BTW your verbosity has now descended into tautology : adaptation=flexibility, replication=reproduction, self-replication=self-reproduction ]
Why are you replying to someone you called a troll by the way ?
Materialism looks to me like a bit of a straw man. Things that exist are material. Interactions between things that exist are not material, but they are mechanistic interactions. Materialism without mechanism is not going to get anywhere as a kind of science because it cannot handle interaction, and for that reason I don't think there's anyone out there in science doing pure materialism. There are places in science where mechanism is being ignored though, so those places need to be identified and the people who are making errors through ignoring mechanism need to be helped to see where they're going wrong.
An example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.
Abstract - In the standard formulation of the twin paradox an accelerated twin considers himself as at rest and his brother as moving. Hence, when formulating the twin paradox, one uses the general principle of relativity, i.e. that accelerated and rotational motion is relative. The significance of perfect inertial dragging for the validity of the principle of relativity is made clear. Three new results are reviewed in the discussion. A cosmic time effect which cannot be reduced to the gravitational or the kinematical time dilation. Perfect dragging in an exact solution of Einsteins field equations describing flat spacetime inside a shell with Kerr spacetime outside it. An extended model of Minkowski spacetime in order to avoid introducing absolute acceleration and rotation through the asymptotic emptiness of the Kerr spacetime.
...anyone who tries to point out the errors gets shouted down by a parrot army of "experts" who have all the qualifications that prove that they have learned the "truth". An example of this is time dilation. When a rocket accelerates away from another rocket, it will either have its time slowed down or speeded up, but it can't do both of those things at the same time. Special Relativity studiously ignores this problem and bans anyone from addressing it, but it's actually a problem which invalidates the theory.