0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:00:56Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .You seem to have an almost primitive view that anything that does not have mass requires a mystical, dualist explanation
Only religious idealism is true = reality is both matter and mind , the latter that's irreducible to the physical or to the material ,once again = that's the only conception of nature out there that does make sense in fact .
That design, as in the arrangement of things, is not a physical reality, that states do not matter, that interactions between things do not matter, that energetic processes do not matter, that changes over time do not matter or are not part of physical reality, every bit as much as mass.
the mental is more fundamental than matter
Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:29:31Religious dualism has its own metaphysical explanations of consciousness that are unfalsifiable = unscientific , but not necessarily false So much for Popper. And "not necessarily false" is not the same as "true," so your statement "Only religious idealism is true" isn't proven and can't be proven according to you.
Religious dualism has its own metaphysical explanations of consciousness that are unfalsifiable = unscientific , but not necessarily false
Popper hismelf did realise the falsehood of materialism .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:50:14 Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.
What is not unfalsifiable , is not necessarily false , as materialism is .Which does mean that science cannot be the ultimate authority or the ultimate source of knowledge : that's beyond both science's realm and jurisdiction .Materialism has been going in fact beyond the scientific method and beyond science thus = beyond science's realm and jurisdiction ,by stating that "all is matter " .Worse : materialism has been imposing that false unfalsifiable metaphysical theory of nature of his ,for so long now , as "the scientific world view " = how about that ?
Folks :Try to be civil : and i promise that it will be easy , a piece of cake , to demolish , so easy in fact that i cannot take any credit or glory for , to demolish your materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " sand castle ,in front of your very eyes : a false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , the latter i do love so much , you have no idea thus .I see that some people here who have been conditioned ,brainwashed and indoctrinated by materialism for centuries now , to the point whare they have been taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted and without question, as "the scientific world view " , i see that they will become hysteric in no time .So, just get grip ,and i will deliver .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:05:04What is not unfalsifiable , is not necessarily false , as materialism is .Which does mean that science cannot be the ultimate authority or the ultimate source of knowledge : that's beyond both science's realm and jurisdiction .Materialism has been going in fact beyond the scientific method and beyond science thus = beyond science's realm and jurisdiction ,by stating that "all is matter " .Worse : materialism has been imposing that false unfalsifiable metaphysical theory of nature of his ,for so long now , as "the scientific world view " = how about that ? What "materialism " are you talking about
there is no such a thing.
There is only the scientific method.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:19:08Folks :Try to be civil : and i promise that it will be easy , a piece of cake , to demolish , so easy in fact that i cannot take any credit or glory for , to demolish your materialist mainstream false 'scientific world view " sand castle ,in front of your very eyes : a false materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " that has absolutely nothing to do with science proper , the latter i do love so much , you have no idea thus .I see that some people here who have been conditioned ,brainwashed and indoctrinated by materialism for centuries now , to the point whare they have been taking the false materialist conception of nature for granted and without question, as "the scientific world view " , i see that they will become hysteric in no time .So, just get grip ,and i will deliver .Great. I can hardly wait! I shall go make some popcorn.
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:05:04Popper hismelf did realise the falsehood of materialism .Funny, I don't recall him saying that in the articles you posted.
Quote from: cheryl j on 04/12/2013 19:21:03What "materialism " are you talking about Oh, no : amazing : what is the meta-paradigm or the conception of nature that has been dominating in all sciences for that matter , since the 19th century at least , as to become the false mainstream "scientific world view " ? and hence , a lot of what you have been taking for granted as science , was no science = just materialist belief assumptions which have been just extensions of the materialist false conception of nature , materialist belief assumptions such as "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, life or nature are mechanical ...." ...
What "materialism " are you talking about
There is: what do you think i have been talking about all along ? .Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:38:18Quote from: cheryl j on 04/12/2013 19:21:03What "materialism " are you talking about Oh, no : amazing : what is the meta-paradigm or the conception of nature that has been dominating in all sciences for that matter , since the 19th century at least , as to become the false mainstream "scientific world view " ? and hence , a lot of what you have been taking for granted as science , was no science = just materialist belief assumptions which have been just extensions of the materialist false conception of nature , materialist belief assumptions such as "the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain, life or nature are mechanical ...." ...Oh, that materialism - you mean your conspiracy theory involving scientists who chose to study some aspect of chemistry and physics instead of, say, elves.
QuoteThere is: what do you think i have been talking about all along ? .Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious . Uh, yes actually I do deny it. Hope that clarifies things.
Quote from: cheryl j on 04/12/2013 20:16:01Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:38:18Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious . Uh, yes actually I do deny it. Hope that clarifies things.How can you deny that ? Be serious .
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:38:18Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious . Uh, yes actually I do deny it. Hope that clarifies things.
Are you gonna deny the fact that materialism has been imposed to all sciences ,as the 'scientific world view ",for so long now ,without question ? Be serious .
How can you deny that ? Be serious .
Someone seriously needs some new material.
I think, perhaps, it would help to explore some examples to clarify what we're talking about. I would expect mammals to have some sense of self, and insects little or none (they can detect others and act accordingly, but this appears reflexive or 'hard-coded'). But what about, say, a frog? does a frog need to conceptualize? It shows little adaptability, problem-solving, or forward planning, so I would think not...
Quote from: cheryl j on 04/12/2013 19:01:19Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:50:14 Why do you think science itself did come from the very womb of a particluar religion, in order to study nature and the universe , empirically?I think both religion and science are attempts by an intelligent brain to answer "Why do things happen? Why are things the way they are?" But I don't believe religion was or is necessary for science, nor do I agree that any religion can take credit for scientific knowledge. I'm not sure what this has to do with the discussion.That's just a materialistic belief assumption extension of the materialist "all is matter , including the mind " mainstream false "scientific world view " : irrelevant .The conflict between science and religion has been just an Eurocentric problem , not universal ,not in the absolute sense at least .There is no conflict between my faith and proper science without materialism, and there can be none :They complete each other , they are necessary to each other , they are the both sides of the same coin.