0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
It's complicated too, somewhat, in that there often seems to be more than one way to skin a cat in nature. In the same way there are different engineering designs for flight in the wings of insects, birds, bats and gliding mammals, there may be different structures that accomplish learning, even consciousness or self awareness. Or perhaps the information will be useful in the opposite way, in showing what kinds of learned intelligent behavior are possible without consciousness. Below is an article about crows, and one about face recognition and learning in wasps. Crows Are No Bird-Brains: Neurobiologists Investigate Neuronal Basis of Crows' Intelligencehttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131128103835.htmInsects Recognize Faces Using Processing Mechanism Similar to That of Humanshttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=insects-recognize-faces-using-processing-mechanism-similar-to-that-of-humans
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 19:11:53Quote 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. There doesn't have to be a conflict between any religion and science. One question religion asks that science doesn't, is what is should we do? What's morally right? Some branches of ethical philosophy raise this question, but moral principles can't be derived from physical facts. Perhaps that is one reason Ethos does not see a conflict between his faith and science, although I don't wish to put words in his mouth.
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.
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.
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?
But the "conflict" only seems to arise when people try to prove religious beliefs scientifically, or derive moral beliefs from physical facts.
Your assertion that materialism is a degenerate form of Christianity has no basis logically or historically, and I don't see how any particular religion "gave birth to" any area of science, even if some early scientists were also theists, or had the time and literacy skills to pursue science because of their religious occupation
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 04/12/2013 18:29:31 the mental is more fundamental than matter How do you know this? Do you believe that before there were humans to think about the universe, nothing existed or could exist?
the mental is more fundamental than matter
You really haven't grasped the concept of 'discussion forum', have you?
Quote from: dlorde on 05/12/2013 18:45:23You really haven't grasped the concept of 'discussion forum', have you?It would take too much time to talk about those subjects , so .Don't be lazy , try to...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 18:58:41Quote from: dlorde on 05/12/2013 18:45:23You really haven't grasped the concept of 'discussion forum', have you?It would take too much time to talk about those subjects , so .Don't be lazy , try to...Do you ever listen yourself and hear what you are saying?
... especially regarding how quantum mechanics have been superseding materialism as to deliver some highly fascinating insights in relation to the fundamental causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter ...
Quote from: DonQuichotte on 05/12/2013 18:58:41... especially regarding how quantum mechanics have been superseding materialism as to deliver some highly fascinating insights in relation to the fundamental causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter ...Quantum mechanics says nothing about the causal effect of the mind or consciousness on matter. Some ill-informed people have mistaken the 'observer' that makes an 'observation' (or 'measurement') and so 'collapses the wave function', for a conscious entity. It is, however, just the anthropomorphised protagonist (in this context, a particle or wavicle) of a quantum interaction (the observation or measurement) that results in the decoherence (apparent collapse of wave function) of the system. In other words, any particle interaction that decoheres a quantum superposition can be seen as an observation or measurement, by an observer, that collapses the wave function (which is a mathematical description, not a physical one). A conscious entity may become aware of it, or not; it happens regardless.Here's a video expressing a quantum physicist's frustration with this widespread misunderstanding: Quantum Physics Woo. The newspaper article it refers to is QM & the Afterlife.This is an even worse misunderstanding than the one which conflates the Observer Effect (measuring a system disturbs it) and the Uncertainty Principle (the limit to the accuracy with which certain complementary properties can be simultaneously measured).
All Don Q has demonstrated so far is that philosophers don't understand science. Nothing new there. I've heard umpteen philosophers drone on for hours about how quantum mechanics or relativity was a body blow for the establishment, from which the world of science never recovered, etc.... and each time, a scientist in the audience said "no, it just explained stuff that we couldn't explain before, and as long as it (a) didn't have any discontinuity with the mesoscopic universe and (b) predicted something different from the previous model, which turned out to be true, it was accepted as a better model".So as far as quantum physics is concerned, we now use a probabilistic model which accords better with experiment than one based on billiard balls and waves. It's still utterly materialistic - no ghost in the machine, just rather more subtle mathematics than classical physics. Still, if anyone wants to read a modern philosopher's take on dualism, try Gilbert Ryle. Better still, get a life.
Oh, come on : should i believe you or Sheldrake, and many scientists quantum physicists and scientists nobel prize winners ?
You're not a quantum physicist and you are just displaying the materialist view on the subject that does exclude , per definition, a-priori and per -se any causal mental effect on matter .
Even Popper did reject the latter materialist assumption + he also rejected that causation can happen only between likes,together with David Hume : materialists do accept , per -definition, only physical causation = a materialist belief assumption , no empirical fact .
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter , when you do experience just that everyday yourselves :Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .
How can you deny the fundamental causal effect of the mental on matter ...
Your own minds do effect your own bodies and brain , every single day .