0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The mental is the one that's more fundamental than the physiological ,not the other way around .The mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material
What makes you rather think that the mental can be inherited only physiologically just via genetics or via epigenetics ? How can that happen then ,since the mental is irreducible to the physical ?Are you aware of this paradox ?
What makes you think that inheritance can only be material , that it can only either be genetic or epigenetic ? What makes you exclude any non-physical form of inheritance then ?What makes you exclude the non-physical ,non -genetical ,non-epigenetical form of inheritance ?
What makes you think that science proper will not be able to discover those non-physical forms of inheritance , after rejecting materialism thus ?[/i]
Repeated* LSD use isn't necessary for a long-term effect : one use can be sufficient for permanent psychological injury ...
The extreme hyper-real / traumatic ("bad trip") LSD experience , like an extreme exogenous experience , can permanently reshape the person's psyche thereafter...
You have to try to reconsider your own views regarding what science might be :
The inheritance of certain mental illnesses ,for example, cannot be just the work, so to speak, of genes or epigenetics ,simply because the mental is irreducible to the physical or to the material : there might be some extra form of inheritance of the mental out there thus .I dunno : it just does not make sense to reduce everything,including the mental and psychological thus , to just the material or physical , to just genes physics and chemistry ,as the false mainstream "scientific world view " has been doing ...
... I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's idea were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets.
Medically speaking, this forum has been infected with the DonQuicho-virus. I think it's time for some serious treatment!!!!!
Quote from: Ethos_ on 26/11/2013 00:57:50Medically speaking, this forum has been infected with the DonQuicho-virus. I think it's time for some serious treatment!!!!!
Quote from: cheryl j on 25/11/2013 22:03:24... I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's idea were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets.Indeed - and consider Einstein's response to quantum mechanics; he could never accept the underlying ideas, yet they turned out to be behind the most precise theory we ever constructed.Don's intuitions are understandable, but as Gladwell explains in 'Blink' and 'Outliers', intuition without expertise in complex situations is asking for fail. Apparently Don has it in spades.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/11/2013 19:35:27The inheritance of certain mental illnesses ,for example, cannot be just the work, so to speak, of genes or epigenetics ,simply because the mental is irreducible to the physical or to the material : there might be some extra form of inheritance of the mental out there thus .I dunno : it just does not make sense to reduce everything,including the mental and psychological thus , to just the material or physical , to just genes physics and chemistry ,as the false mainstream "scientific world view " has been doing ...My bolding. You're right; you don't know, and your incredulity is irrelevant. The genes involved in many heritable diseases have been identified, including some mental illnesses. Only a small minority of genetic diseases or disabilities are easily identifiable by a single dominant or recessive allele; the majority involve the interactions of many genes, and may require particular environmental contexts to be expressed. But when the pattern of inheritance of a mental disability matches the pattern of inheritance of a known genetic disease, a reasonable person suspects a similar genetic mechanism at work. In some cases, particular genes will predispose to certain behavioural tendencies, depending on the environment; for example the expression of a certain gene will predispose an individual to violent behaviour, but only if they have an abusive childhood. We should also expect random mutation to cause mental disabilities just as it causes physical disabilities; in this case, we would not expect to find a family history of it, but the incidence should be fairly consistent within the population.We know that those abused as children often go on to abuse their own children, and without a detailed genetic analysis of many such instances, it's not possible to know how much genetics is directly involved, if any. So here is a potential non-genetic inheritance of undesirable behaviour. But there is also a reasonable and adequate well-established material explanation, i.e., conditioning. How you are treated as a child affects how you treat your children. These ideas are easy enough to test by looking at siblings raised by foster parents, identical twins raised by different parents, etc. Much work has been, and is being done, in these areas.If you can provide an example of a mental disability that has no apparent genetic component and clearly does not originate from developmental influences, let me know, and we can... assess how likely it is to be of 'immaterial inheritance'? how would we do that? Surely the only reasonable path is to look for material causes because we can't look for immaterial causes. If we find no material cause, science will say, "unexplained", and you can say "see? it's immaterial!" (but only until science finds the material cause) []Of course it's possible that we will discover new mechanisms that can account for inheritance of traits and characteristics otherwise unaccounted for, science doesn't rule novelty out, but for serious consideration, you either need evidence of a new mechanism, or some data that isn't explained by the current model.Go for it - let us know when you've got something interesting.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/11/2013 18:47:11You have to try to reconsider your own views regarding what science might be :I've reconsidered my views about it many times, and continue to do so. If you could provide some coherent argument I'd take that into consideration too, but I'm still waiting to hear it.
Ironically enough , i have read yesterday a part of this interesting book written by Chris Carter " Science and psychic phenomena : the fal of the house of skeptics " ,concerning the nature of science where Karl Popper was quoted by saying that he was fascinated by what Einstein said in a conference ,concerning his relativity theory ,that it took him years to come up with a solution to Hume's logical paradox concerning induction :Einstein said something like the following :No amount of verification or falsification of my theory ,now or in the future , can ever prove it to be true .Karl Popper then went on talking about Hume's rejection of induction ,and about Bertrand Russell' s attempts to address the latter while failing to do so .Karl Popper's solution for Hume's logical rejection of induction was marvellous,induction without which science cannot exist or function ,and therefore there would be no way to differentiate science from insanity or from pseudo-science :Karl Popper proposed that universal induction can only exist logically ,if we would take into consideration that it can only be temporary , in a form of a conjecture , not in a form of absolute truth :A certain scientific theory ,or scientific knowledge as a whole , can thus only be conjectural ,not definite truths .
Scientific theories must be falsifiable and can thus be proven to be false , but can never be proven to be true definitely : scientific theories and paradigms can compete with each other , and the ones which do happen to have more explanatory power take the upperhand, temporarily ,thinks like that .
Only when science will reject materialism...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 25/11/2013 19:35:27The mental is the one that's more fundamental than the physiological ,not the other way around .The mental that's irreducible to the physical or to the material Your statement that the mental is irreducible to the physical is an assertion, not a fact. It's based on your impression that they "seem" different or "feel" different to you, and therefore cannot be the same things, or causally related. It would be equally difficult to convince someone who didn't know anything about physics that different forms of energy (radiant energy, chemical energy, electrical energy etc.) were in any way related, or could be converted from one form to another because they "seem" so different. It would be difficult to convince someone with no understanding of photosynthesis how a plant pulls off "the materialist magic trick" of converting radiant energy from the sun to chemical energy in a tomato.
Water, ice, and steam all have very experientially different properties but are the same thing. Even a non-scientist accepts this because as children, we all watched this transformation take place, and verified that no one substituted a cup of water for an ice cube while our back was turned. But if one were never actually able to observe the process, it might be difficult to believe water could be changed in something that looks, feels, and behaves so qualitatively different.
I often wonder what the average person's response to Einstein's ideas were in the early 1900s. The idea that time is not constant is about as counter-intuitive as it gets. I doubt even physicists who understand relativity can actually personally "experience" time in any other way than all humans do. It's only the theories, the math, and reproducible, empirical evidence that tells them that their perception of it is wrong, or at least limited.
It's just my opinion, which you are free to reject, but I think your reliance on your own experience of "thoughts" "ideas" "emotions" as being intangible, ethereal, somehow substance-less, is a major reason why you reject any explanations involving neurons and biochemistry.
QuoteWhat makes you rather think that the mental can be inherited only physiologically just via genetics or via epigenetics ? How can that happen then ,since the mental is irreducible to the physical ?Are you aware of this paradox ? It's not a paradox to me because I don't agree that the mental and physical are two completely separate things. I'm not a dualist.
QuoteWhat makes you think that inheritance can only be material , that it can only either be genetic or epigenetic ? What makes you exclude any non-physical form of inheritance then ?What makes you exclude the non-physical ,non -genetical ,non-epigenetical form of inheritance ? I don't exclude it. Science doesn't exclude it. But you'd have to have some kind of direct evidence to show that can be. Just saying "what if" or "how do you know it doesn't happen" isn't enough. It's not enough to make an idea like immaterial inheritance a scientific theory. It's stuck at being just a fanciful idea, without some kind of evidence for it
QuoteWhat makes you think that science proper will not be able to discover those non-physical forms of inheritance , after rejecting materialism thus ?[/i]Who knows, maybe it will. Science doesn't exclude the possibility. There's just no evidence for it so far. I don't understand your need to reject everything that has been explained so far by chemistry and physics, because of that possibility. A discovery like that wouldn't necessarily invalidate every other scientific finding, any more than epigenetics destroyed Natural Selection - it simply added more knowledge and better understanding.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/11/2013 18:14:49Ironically enough , i have read yesterday a part of this interesting book written by Chris Carter " Science and psychic phenomena : the fal of the house of skeptics " ,concerning the nature of science where Karl Popper was quoted by saying that he was fascinated by what Einstein said in a conference ,concerning his relativity theory ,that it took him years to come up with a solution to Hume's logical paradox concerning induction :Einstein said something like the following :No amount of verification or falsification of my theory ,now or in the future , can ever prove it to be true .Karl Popper then went on talking about Hume's rejection of induction ,and about Bertrand Russell' s attempts to address the latter while failing to do so .Karl Popper's solution for Hume's logical rejection of induction was marvellous,induction without which science cannot exist or function ,and therefore there would be no way to differentiate science from insanity or from pseudo-science :Karl Popper proposed that universal induction can only exist logically ,if we would take into consideration that it can only be temporary , in a form of a conjecture , not in a form of absolute truth :A certain scientific theory ,or scientific knowledge as a whole , can thus only be conjectural ,not definite truths .I absolutely agree and am happy (stunned, actually) that you realize this as well. As dlorde aptly said earlier, "This is how science works; knowledge is provisional. There is no dogmatic materialist mechanistic orthodox neo-Darwinian "scientific world view ", just the determination to stay with the best current model until new evidence gives good reason to replace or extend it."
QuoteScientific theories must be falsifiable and can thus be proven to be false , but can never be proven to be true definitely : scientific theories and paradigms can compete with each other , and the ones which do happen to have more explanatory power take the upperhand, temporarily ,thinks like that .Again, I absolutely agree. Couldn't have said it better. And it illustrates the problem with your position. You haven't provided anything with more explanatory power to compete, because you lack evidence to support your ideas.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 26/11/2013 18:24:28Only when science will reject materialism...How, precisely, do you propose it does that?
... only fools ,idiots ,materialists or some other dogmatic or ignorant people would deny the fact that the mental is irreducible to the physical
Sorry , lady : only fools ,idiots ,materialists or some other dogmatic or ignorant people would deny the fact that the mental is irreducible to the physical ,which also means that some heritable mental illnesses ,for example ,get passed on to the next generations both physiologically and mentally non-physically , i guess .
To try to reduce everything , including the mental, to just physics and chemistry is so absurd and surreal false an attempt , that it should not be dignified as to answer it .
QuoteWater, ice, and steam all have very experientially different properties but are the same thing. Even a non-scientist accepts this because as children, we all watched this transformation take place, and verified that no one substituted a cup of water for an ice cube while our back was turned. But if one were never actually able to observe the process, it might be difficult to believe water could be changed in something that looks, feels, and behaves so qualitatively different.
You're just talking about material physical processes here : what has that to do with what i was saying then ?
Who said i do reject biochemistry , neuro-chemistry or physics and chemistry , biology ...?
Who said they are 2 completely separate things then ? they are in fact 2 totally different processes interacting with each other mutually : how ? That remains to be discovered :
No, you do not listen to what your opponents such as myself might say to you , you just prefer to continue listening to your own materialist bizarre one sided music :