undefined With reason , one can move the mountains of ignorance;with faith, one cannot instantiate any supernatural or paranormal. Keith Ward, a top rate theologian, argues that if we have to produce evidence, we could never enjoy life. Nay, one use the appropriated kind and strength of evidence.
That my parents treated me well over all, is evidence of their love for me. I don't require evidence that most people don't lie to me as experience has taught me that. Not all evidence is with the microscope, the telescope or the Bunt sen burner. It is not all or nothing.
Faith is the we just say so of credulity. It begs the question of its subjects. Science is acquired knowledge whereas faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook notes.
This presumption of rationalism presupposes empiricism and opposes Continental Rationalism.
One commits the fallacy of equivocating in equaling trust in reason with the use of faith.
Yea, it is again my six months of depression, bad dish and posting elsewhere world wide. Just as philosophers continue thee old arguments, so do I.
Thanks to those who rate my post positively.
While science does not cover everything and while evidence can have more than one interpretation, it is good to have a solid reason for believing in something. People feel very strongly about their religion but if you probe and question them, they don't have any evidence, other than the bible (or other holy book) which can be shown to be wrong in many ways, and personal experiences. While the latter may be very real to the person concerned, they cannot prove them even to another believer. They are strictly personal experiences.
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, where does it stop? It can then be said that what you believe to be true is what you want to be true, and visa versa.
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, where does it stop? It can then be said that what you believe to be true is what you want to be true, and visa versa.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Feb 13 2009, 02:43 PM)
While science does not cover everything and while evidence can have more than one interpretation, it is good to have a solid reason for believing in something. People feel very strongly about their religion but if you probe and question them, they don't have any evidence, other than the bible (or other holy book) which can be shown to be wrong in many ways, and personal experiences. While the latter may be very real to the person concerned, they cannot prove them even to another believer. They are strictly personal experiences.
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, where does it stop? It can then be said that what you believe to be true is what you want to be true, and visa versa.
This seems to be the way with humanity, that they have varying degrees of reason mixed together with a little faith, subjective interpretation etc.
Religion is like a soccer team hovering around the relegation zone. With a new manager and a few new players they may avoid relegation. But the trouble is, they have had the same players who are now very old, and the manager still plays the same tactics over and over, and as for the team's owner, he doesn't even go to the matches! However, since the beginning of the 20th century people began to break free and ask for a transfer. And they took it on themselves to delve into the mysteries of life.
One thing is for sure, it isn't very fulfilling just standing somewhere waiting for something to come to you. So some form of motivic force is required. A step into the unknown can bring rewards and meaning, or it can bring about false comfort.
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, where does it stop? It can then be said that what you believe to be true is what you want to be true, and visa versa.
This seems to be the way with humanity, that they have varying degrees of reason mixed together with a little faith, subjective interpretation etc.
Religion is like a soccer team hovering around the relegation zone. With a new manager and a few new players they may avoid relegation. But the trouble is, they have had the same players who are now very old, and the manager still plays the same tactics over and over, and as for the team's owner, he doesn't even go to the matches! However, since the beginning of the 20th century people began to break free and ask for a transfer. And they took it on themselves to delve into the mysteries of life.
One thing is for sure, it isn't very fulfilling just standing somewhere waiting for something to come to you. So some form of motivic force is required. A step into the unknown can bring rewards and meaning, or it can bring about false comfort.
Quartermass and Mick, thanks.
Yea, the interpretation counts alright as John W.Loftus! Debunking Christianity so notes. Read his new book on his deconversion and what is wrong with natural theology and the Buy-bull.
William Alston, John Hick and Alvin Platinga plead for fideism.
Platinga pleads that God is a basic belief like in other minds and the external whorl. Were that so, no one would have had to teach me about God and I would not be a new atheist, anti-theist.
Hick pleads that one can see the world through the eyes of faith to see God or not - aspect notion ,because God did not want to overwhelm our free will so that we can freely worship Him- epistemic distance. John L. Schellenberg notes all that as the suddenness problem that He hides Himself so effectively that He is not.
And Alston pleads that we do have this innate sense.
They thus aver without reason. They thus plead for the irrational ism and superstition of faith.
Now notice how some apologists are so quick to say that they were former atheists1 Then by their words, they reveal that their atheism was shallow. Hear them say how they so sinned.And now they live abundant lives.
That is a slur on us. And other religions and philosophies can transform lives.
This is part of the argument from religious experience: their own mental states are at work. They say that God helps them that help themselves, but actually they do it without Him as anyone does who helps herself.
I now present the new thread the presumption of naturalism that natural causes and explanations are the sufficient cause.
Yea, the interpretation counts alright as John W.Loftus! Debunking Christianity so notes. Read his new book on his deconversion and what is wrong with natural theology and the Buy-bull.
William Alston, John Hick and Alvin Platinga plead for fideism.
Platinga pleads that God is a basic belief like in other minds and the external whorl. Were that so, no one would have had to teach me about God and I would not be a new atheist, anti-theist.
Hick pleads that one can see the world through the eyes of faith to see God or not - aspect notion ,because God did not want to overwhelm our free will so that we can freely worship Him- epistemic distance. John L. Schellenberg notes all that as the suddenness problem that He hides Himself so effectively that He is not.
And Alston pleads that we do have this innate sense.
They thus aver without reason. They thus plead for the irrational ism and superstition of faith.
Now notice how some apologists are so quick to say that they were former atheists1 Then by their words, they reveal that their atheism was shallow. Hear them say how they so sinned.And now they live abundant lives.
That is a slur on us. And other religions and philosophies can transform lives.
This is part of the argument from religious experience: their own mental states are at work. They say that God helps them that help themselves, but actually they do it without Him as anyone does who helps herself.
I now present the new thread the presumption of naturalism that natural causes and explanations are the sufficient cause.
>>> they don't have any evidence, other than the bible (or other holy book) which can be shown to be wrong in many ways, <<<
No, the presumption of innocence applies with due provenance.
Judge Belfry half believes
.
MrB.
Heck, if I don't make it... I will probably copy from this site anyway:
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/index_files/image032.gif
Figure 15 illustrates these various arguments that evolutionists have used in their process of elimination. Example thinkers are given who promoted the different arguments, in their chronological order.
No, the presumption of innocence applies with due provenance.
Judge Belfry half believes
.QUOTE
I now present the new thread the presumption of naturalism that natural causes and explanations are the sufficient cause.
Yeah, I am going there next.MrB.
Heck, if I don't make it... I will probably copy from this site anyway:
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/
http://www.darwinspredictions.com/index_files/image032.gif
Figure 15 illustrates these various arguments that evolutionists have used in their process of elimination. Example thinkers are given who promoted the different arguments, in their chronological order.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+Feb 15 2009, 12:20 PM)
>>> they don't have any evidence, other than the bible (or other holy book) which can be shown to be wrong in many ways, <<<
No, the presumption of innocence applies with due provenance.
Judge Belfry half believes .
Yeah, I am going there next.
MrB.
6229
The same applies to the Koran and other holy books.
No, the presumption of innocence applies with due provenance.
Judge Belfry half believes
.Yeah, I am going there next.
MrB.
6229
The same applies to the Koran and other holy books.
It is more than reasonable to assume the God created the universe to make life by evolution.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 15 2009, 08:42 PM)
It is more than reasonable to assume the God created the universe to make life by evolution.
Mitch Raemsch
What is unreasonable is to assume God in the first place.
The universe does not need God to exist.
Mitch Raemsch
What is unreasonable is to assume God in the first place.
The universe does not need God to exist.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 01:42 AM)
It is more than reasonable to assume the God created the universe to make life by evolution.
Mitch Raemsch
Sure... once you ASSUME there is a God, and then ASSUME that God is YOUR God... then it's an absolutely reasonable ASSUMPTION to make.
Mitch Raemsch
Sure... once you ASSUME there is a God, and then ASSUME that God is YOUR God... then it's an absolutely reasonable ASSUMPTION to make.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 16 2009, 02:23 AM)
What is unreasonable is to assume God in the first place.
The universe does not need God to exist.
You don't believe in absolute truth?
Mitch Raemsch
The universe does not need God to exist.
You don't believe in absolute truth?
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 02:33 AM)
You don't believe in absolute truth?
Mitch Raemsch
What does that have to do with anything? It may or may not be absolutely true that there is a God, that it is your God, and that that God created the universe in order for life to evolve...
But there is NO EVIDENCE that there is, or that it is, or that it did! There is no known absolute truth here, or there'd be nothing to argue about!
Mitch Raemsch
What does that have to do with anything? It may or may not be absolutely true that there is a God, that it is your God, and that that God created the universe in order for life to evolve...
But there is NO EVIDENCE that there is, or that it is, or that it did! There is no known absolute truth here, or there'd be nothing to argue about!
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 02:33 AM)
You don't believe in absolute truth?
Mitch Raemsch
This question is directed at alex only.
Mitch Raemsch
This question is directed at alex only.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 03:29 AM)
This question is directed at alex only.
This is an argument foul. Telling people what the "rules" forbid behavior which one does oneself.
Moreover, the actual rules are set by management and enforced by moderators. Please don't claim to be either one.
Context restored for Argyll's benefit. In Cusa's immediately previous post he replied to a post that was explicitly addressed to another, so he doesn't get to complain that his post which was not explicitly addressed was replied to.
Moreover, the actual rules are set by management and enforced by moderators. Please don't claim to be either one.
Context restored for Argyll's benefit. In Cusa's immediately previous post he replied to a post that was explicitly addressed to another, so he doesn't get to complain that his post which was not explicitly addressed was replied to.
QUOTE (rpenner+Feb 16 2009, 03:52 AM)
This is an argument foul. Telling people what the "rules" forbid behavior which one does oneself.
Moreover, the actual rules are set by management and enforced by moderators. Please don't claim to be either one.
Um... did you delete the post you were referring to, or am I missing something? Who are you talking to?
Edit: ok, thanks
Moreover, the actual rules are set by management and enforced by moderators. Please don't claim to be either one.
Um... did you delete the post you were referring to, or am I missing something? Who are you talking to?
Edit: ok, thanks
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 15 2009, 09:33 PM)
You don't believe in absolute truth?
Mitch Raemsch
Absolute in relation to what?
Mitch Raemsch
Absolute in relation to what?
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 16 2009, 04:08 AM)
Absolute in relation to what?
Absolute truth in relationship to an understanding of reality.
Absolute truth in relationship to an understanding of reality.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 04:25 AM)
Absolute truth in relationship to an understanding of reality.
I'm still hung up on the incredible ARROGANCE of your jump from him doubting the existence of your God to him not "believing in" absolute truth...
Faith is belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary. Your faith is interfering with your ability to be rational.
I'm still hung up on the incredible ARROGANCE of your jump from him doubting the existence of your God to him not "believing in" absolute truth...
Faith is belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary. Your faith is interfering with your ability to be rational.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 04:57 AM)
I'm still hung up on the incredible ARROGANCE of your jump from him doubting the existence of your God to him not "believing in" absolute truth...
Faith is belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary. Your faith is interfering with your ability to be rational.
The fact that I am creative leads me to believe in My Creator. Where else could creativity come from?
Mitch Raemsch
Faith is belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary. Your faith is interfering with your ability to be rational.
The fact that I am creative leads me to believe in My Creator. Where else could creativity come from?
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 05:09 AM)
The fact that I am creative leads me to believe in My Creator. Where else could creativity come from?
Mitch Raemsch
uh... NATURE? Your answer is a CLASSIC "Goddidit" and simply shows your inability to think about the problem.
The ability of the brain to "be creative" (however one wants to define that) would have CLEARLY been an evolutionary advantage... so it's no doubt that it would have been selected for, and passed from your ancestors to you.
No God necessary.
Mitch Raemsch
uh... NATURE? Your answer is a CLASSIC "Goddidit" and simply shows your inability to think about the problem.
The ability of the brain to "be creative" (however one wants to define that) would have CLEARLY been an evolutionary advantage... so it's no doubt that it would have been selected for, and passed from your ancestors to you.
No God necessary.
Where does nature get its creativity?
And don't tell me procreation!
Mitch Raemsch
And don't tell me procreation!
Mitch Raemsch
Where does god get "his" creativity? Same question.
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 05:09 AM)
The fact that I am creative leads me to believe in My Creator. Where else could creativity come from?
Mitch Raemsch
Where do child molesters get there inspiration from? Where do cold blooded killers get their prompts? Where do I get my skepticism from?
etc, etc.
Why is that theists often attribute only 'positive' behaviors to their perceived creator?
Mitch Raemsch
Where do child molesters get there inspiration from? Where do cold blooded killers get their prompts? Where do I get my skepticism from?
etc, etc.
Why is that theists often attribute only 'positive' behaviors to their perceived creator?
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 05:22 AM)
Where does nature get its creativity?
And don't tell me procreation!
Mitch Raemsch
"Nature" is not an entity, and thus has no creativity. Variation occurs due to random mutations and DNA copying errors (over-simplification, but the point stands).
On the other hand, I can't dismiss the notion that there is some kind of "awareness" of the process involved here. ...Without an intrinsic creativity, where would nature maintain the balance it has for so many millions of years?
How would you define this "awareness" and "intrinsic creativity"? Is that the same as your concept of a "living breathing Merkaba at the heart of nature"? How is your idea any different than what someone who believes in creationism would say?
The same way one is defining non awareness, non entity and non creativity in Nature, by rationale and reason. Don't you appreciate doubt as a means to grow?
The same way one is defining non awareness, non entity and non creativity in Nature, by rationale and reason. Don't you appreciate doubt as a means to grow?
Is that the same as your concept of a "living breathing Merkaba at the heart of nature"? How is your idea any different than what someone who believes in creationism would say?
Define creationism, then I'll tell you if I am one of them. Every idea accompanied by an explanation and a model is due consideration to some degree, in light of no conclusive definition for reality existing at present.
As I consider evolution to being a fact, how does that make me a creationist Occidental? I want to understand evolution in respect to it nullifying the need for inbuilt intrinsic creativity. In other words I reject this "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original from by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam)", and if you'd read my posts correctly you'd already know that.
Do we really understand evolution? I personally think it will be a fair while before we really do. We only know that it exists and is a fact, and that it doesn't require a God to produce a ready made universe and life.
And don't tell me procreation!
Mitch Raemsch
"Nature" is not an entity, and thus has no creativity. Variation occurs due to random mutations and DNA copying errors (over-simplification, but the point stands).
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+)
Why is that theists often attribute only 'positive' behaviors to their perceived creator?
A-freakin-MEN!
A-freakin-MEN!
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 11:56 AM)
"Nature" is not an entity, and thus has no creativity. Variation occurs due to random mutations and DNA copying errors (over-simplification, but the point stands).
Did a giraffe grow a longer neck randomly? Or a bird with a tougher beak just so happened to be around harder nuts. The right tool for the job seems to emerge rather consistently. To not see any creativity in nature would need more explaining than you have gone into, and would need to provide an alternative explanation to how evolution "acts" in the way it does. These random mutations and dna copying errors led to the giraffe growing a longer neck in order to reach the leaves, and a bird to gain a tougher beak in order to crack the nuts?
What examples of random mutations of a giraffe able to keep surviving whilst a variety of necks are produced are available? If there is a rational explanation I honestly would like to be made aware of it.
On the other hand, I can't dismiss the notion that there is some kind of "awareness" of the process involved here. The days that this was given some kind of personification are over. But that's all that is over. Without an intrinsic creativity, where would nature maintain the balance it has for so many millions of years? It can seem rather "ugly" at times, but what does that have to do with it?
Did a giraffe grow a longer neck randomly? Or a bird with a tougher beak just so happened to be around harder nuts. The right tool for the job seems to emerge rather consistently. To not see any creativity in nature would need more explaining than you have gone into, and would need to provide an alternative explanation to how evolution "acts" in the way it does. These random mutations and dna copying errors led to the giraffe growing a longer neck in order to reach the leaves, and a bird to gain a tougher beak in order to crack the nuts?
What examples of random mutations of a giraffe able to keep surviving whilst a variety of necks are produced are available? If there is a rational explanation I honestly would like to be made aware of it.
On the other hand, I can't dismiss the notion that there is some kind of "awareness" of the process involved here. The days that this was given some kind of personification are over. But that's all that is over. Without an intrinsic creativity, where would nature maintain the balance it has for so many millions of years? It can seem rather "ugly" at times, but what does that have to do with it?
If Mother Nature wanted to be cooperative, she could've made shorter trees for the giraffes to eat from - or softer shells on the seeds for the birds to eat. (But of course that's a bad survival strategy for the plants the seeds come from.)
No, it makes more sense that the giraffes with the longer necks and the birds with the harder beaks lived to pass their traits on to their off-spring.
No, it makes more sense that the giraffes with the longer necks and the birds with the harder beaks lived to pass their traits on to their off-spring.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 01:32 PM)
Did a giraffe grow a longer neck randomly? Or a bird with a tougher beak just so happened to be around harder nuts. The right tool for the job seems to emerge rather consistently. To not see any creativity in nature would need more explaining than you have gone into, and would need to provide an alternative explanation to how evolution "acts" in the way it does. These random mutations and dna copying errors led to the giraffe growing a longer neck in order to reach the leaves, and a bird to gain a tougher beak in order to crack the nuts?
Random mutation and copying errors are only HALF of the evolutionary process - but they are the half that could be called "creative", as they are what introduces new traits - possibly bad, possibly good, possibly neutral until the environment changes, but still new traits.
Natural Selection is the other half of the process, and it is this half that leads to certain variations becoming dominant, and opening the door for further variation based on that theme. As gmilam already explained, in their specific ecological niche, a longer neck enabled giraffes to reach more food, allowing them to survive and reproduce. Over time, as plants grew taller (to avoid being eaten), the long neck trait was passed down and enhanced upon, until we see what we see today.
I understand that it is an evolutionary advantage for man to see intelligence (whether in the form of a threat or of a guiding hand) in non-living concepts (such as nature)... but that does not mean that there actually IS intelligence there.
Random mutation and copying errors are only HALF of the evolutionary process - but they are the half that could be called "creative", as they are what introduces new traits - possibly bad, possibly good, possibly neutral until the environment changes, but still new traits.
Natural Selection is the other half of the process, and it is this half that leads to certain variations becoming dominant, and opening the door for further variation based on that theme. As gmilam already explained, in their specific ecological niche, a longer neck enabled giraffes to reach more food, allowing them to survive and reproduce. Over time, as plants grew taller (to avoid being eaten), the long neck trait was passed down and enhanced upon, until we see what we see today.
I understand that it is an evolutionary advantage for man to see intelligence (whether in the form of a threat or of a guiding hand) in non-living concepts (such as nature)... but that does not mean that there actually IS intelligence there.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 01:32 PM)
On the other hand, I can't dismiss the notion that there is some kind of "awareness" of the process involved here. ...Without an intrinsic creativity, where would nature maintain the balance it has for so many millions of years?
How would you define this "awareness" and "intrinsic creativity"? Is that the same as your concept of a "living breathing Merkaba at the heart of nature"? How is your idea any different than what someone who believes in creationism would say?
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 04:25 AM)
Absolute truth in relationship to an understanding of reality.
You can't find the absolute truth if you make assumptions and stick with them.6229
You can't find the absolute truth if you make assumptions and stick with them.6229
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 01:38 PM)
If Mother Nature wanted to be cooperative, she could've made shorter trees for the giraffes to eat from - or softer shells on the seeds for the birds to eat. (But of course that's a bad survival strategy for the plants the seeds come from.)
No, it makes more sense that the giraffes with the longer necks and the birds with the harder beaks lived to pass their traits on to their off-spring.
What's a survival strategy?
My understand is that mother nature doesn't want anything. How is it "mother"?
No, it makes more sense that the giraffes with the longer necks and the birds with the harder beaks lived to pass their traits on to their off-spring.
What's a survival strategy?
My understand is that mother nature doesn't want anything. How is it "mother"?
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 01:58 PM)
Random mutation and copying errors are only HALF of the evolutionary process - but they are the half that could be called "creative", as they are what introduces new traits - possibly bad, possibly good, possibly neutral until the environment changes, but still new traits.
Natural Selection is the other half of the process, and it is this half that leads to certain variations becoming dominant, and opening the door for further variation based on that theme. As gmilam already explained, in their specific ecological niche, a longer neck enabled giraffes to reach more food, allowing them to survive and reproduce. Over time, as plants grew taller (to avoid being eaten), the long neck trait was passed down and enhanced upon, until we see what we see today.
I understand that it is an evolutionary advantage for man to see intelligence (whether in the form of a threat or of a guiding hand) in non-living concepts (such as nature)... but that does not mean that there actually IS intelligence there.
I also realize it doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an intelligence. To remain rational I am not willing to dismiss that notion either.
You are using words like "plants avoid being eaten". How do electrons and all the other particles go on to "create" this instinct? If reality is observer dependant, then a hungry giraffe with a long enough neck would instill the drive for a plant to grow taller, perhaps. This whole idea of observer has to be explained. The plant is somehow aware of the threat to its survival, and it triggers off a rational response, which is akin to a new "reality" being manifested for the plant, and its offspring will bear the traits.
Natural Selection is the other half of the process, and it is this half that leads to certain variations becoming dominant, and opening the door for further variation based on that theme. As gmilam already explained, in their specific ecological niche, a longer neck enabled giraffes to reach more food, allowing them to survive and reproduce. Over time, as plants grew taller (to avoid being eaten), the long neck trait was passed down and enhanced upon, until we see what we see today.
I understand that it is an evolutionary advantage for man to see intelligence (whether in the form of a threat or of a guiding hand) in non-living concepts (such as nature)... but that does not mean that there actually IS intelligence there.
I also realize it doesn't necessarily mean there has to be an intelligence. To remain rational I am not willing to dismiss that notion either.
You are using words like "plants avoid being eaten". How do electrons and all the other particles go on to "create" this instinct? If reality is observer dependant, then a hungry giraffe with a long enough neck would instill the drive for a plant to grow taller, perhaps. This whole idea of observer has to be explained. The plant is somehow aware of the threat to its survival, and it triggers off a rational response, which is akin to a new "reality" being manifested for the plant, and its offspring will bear the traits.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 02:20 PM)
My understand is that mother nature doesn't want anything. How is it "mother"?
What a hypocrite. You were the one advocating creativity and an "awareness" in nature...
What a hypocrite. You were the one advocating creativity and an "awareness" in nature...
QUOTE
How would you define this "awareness" and "intrinsic creativity"?
The same way one is defining non awareness, non entity and non creativity in Nature, by rationale and reason. Don't you appreciate doubt as a means to grow?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How would you define this "awareness" and "intrinsic creativity"? |
The same way one is defining non awareness, non entity and non creativity in Nature, by rationale and reason. Don't you appreciate doubt as a means to grow?
Is that the same as your concept of a "living breathing Merkaba at the heart of nature"? How is your idea any different than what someone who believes in creationism would say?
Define creationism, then I'll tell you if I am one of them. Every idea accompanied by an explanation and a model is due consideration to some degree, in light of no conclusive definition for reality existing at present.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 02:30 PM)
What a hypocrite. You were the one advocating creativity and an "awareness" in nature...
You misunderstood that line actually. I'll make it longer....my understanding is that some of you are saying that nature isn't an entity, so where does the concept of "want" come from, and how would it be logical to refer it to "mother"?
I am open to the notion, not advocatng. It was your original statement about nature not being an entity and therefore not creative that needs explaining just as much. If that were true I find it hard for nature to display certain wants.
So what is a survival strategy doing in a non creative process?
You misunderstood that line actually. I'll make it longer....my understanding is that some of you are saying that nature isn't an entity, so where does the concept of "want" come from, and how would it be logical to refer it to "mother"?
I am open to the notion, not advocatng. It was your original statement about nature not being an entity and therefore not creative that needs explaining just as much. If that were true I find it hard for nature to display certain wants.
So what is a survival strategy doing in a non creative process?
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 02:42 PM)
You misunderstood that line actually. I'll make it longer....my understanding is that some of you are saying that nature isn't an entity, so where does the concept of "want" come from, and how would it be logical to refer it to "mother"?
I am open to the notion, not advocatng. It was your original statement about nature not being an entity and therefore not creative that needs explaining just as much. If that were true I find it hard for nature to display certain wants.
So what is a survival strategy doing in a non creative process?
First off, I am not the one ascribing "wants", or discussing nature as an entity. I believe gmilam made the references you are talking about, and I believe he did so simply as a convenience, not as an actual defense of nature as an entity - referring to nature as "Mother" encapsulates the concepts of creativity and "awareness" that yes, you were advocating, into one simple term that we can all understand. It in no way means that he (gmilam, assuming it's a he) actually thinks of nature as an entity. In fact, it should have been clear that he was taking a Devil's Advocate position by using the terminology "IF mother nature wants..."
That being said, all organisms on this planet have a survival strategy, whether it is conscious or not - that strategy is to not get eaten by anything else. Some plants do it by developing tough skin, thorns, or poisons... some animals do it by way of speed and agility, camouflage, or aggression, or a myriad of other ways. This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.
I am open to the notion, not advocatng. It was your original statement about nature not being an entity and therefore not creative that needs explaining just as much. If that were true I find it hard for nature to display certain wants.
So what is a survival strategy doing in a non creative process?
First off, I am not the one ascribing "wants", or discussing nature as an entity. I believe gmilam made the references you are talking about, and I believe he did so simply as a convenience, not as an actual defense of nature as an entity - referring to nature as "Mother" encapsulates the concepts of creativity and "awareness" that yes, you were advocating, into one simple term that we can all understand. It in no way means that he (gmilam, assuming it's a he) actually thinks of nature as an entity. In fact, it should have been clear that he was taking a Devil's Advocate position by using the terminology "IF mother nature wants..."
That being said, all organisms on this planet have a survival strategy, whether it is conscious or not - that strategy is to not get eaten by anything else. Some plants do it by developing tough skin, thorns, or poisons... some animals do it by way of speed and agility, camouflage, or aggression, or a myriad of other ways. This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.
QUOTE
Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities.[1] In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
As I consider evolution to being a fact, how does that make me a creationist Occidental? I want to understand evolution in respect to it nullifying the need for inbuilt intrinsic creativity. In other words I reject this "Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original from by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam)", and if you'd read my posts correctly you'd already know that.
Do we really understand evolution? I personally think it will be a fair while before we really do. We only know that it exists and is a fact, and that it doesn't require a God to produce a ready made universe and life.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 02:56 PM)
We only know that it exists and is a fact, and that it doesn't require a God to produce a ready made universe and life.
Finally you say something I agree with.
Finally you say something I agree with.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 02:54 PM)
First off, I am not the one ascribing "wants", or discussing nature as an entity. I believe gmilam made the references you are talking about, and I believe he did so simply as a convenience, not as an actual defense of nature as an entity - referring to nature as "Mother" encapsulates the concepts of creativity and "awareness" that yes, you were advocating, into one simple term that we can all understand. It in no way means that he (gmilam, assuming it's a he) actually thinks of nature as an entity. In fact, it should have been clear that he was taking a Devil's Advocate position by using the terminology "IF mother nature wants..."
That being said, all organisms on this planet have a survival strategy, whether it is conscious or not - that strategy is to not get eaten by anything else. Some plants do it by developing tough skin, thorns, or poisons... some animals do it by way of speed and agility, camouflage, or aggression, or a myriad of other ways. This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.
I know it wasn't you making that statement. It was only a few posts ago! And I also cottoned on to gmilam's role in putting forth that view. So my answer was also a way of putting forth a response to it.
As for "This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.", you are being philosophical here no? Unless you can prove that?
I am well aware of the need for pretty big explanations from both sides of this debate.
That being said, all organisms on this planet have a survival strategy, whether it is conscious or not - that strategy is to not get eaten by anything else. Some plants do it by developing tough skin, thorns, or poisons... some animals do it by way of speed and agility, camouflage, or aggression, or a myriad of other ways. This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.
I know it wasn't you making that statement. It was only a few posts ago! And I also cottoned on to gmilam's role in putting forth that view. So my answer was also a way of putting forth a response to it.
As for "This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.", you are being philosophical here no? Unless you can prove that?
I am well aware of the need for pretty big explanations from both sides of this debate.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 02:59 PM)
Finally you say something I agree with.
You don't have to agree with anything I say. As long as we make philosphical statements, which is what your statements and mine amount to, we can still have a respectful discussion. So, as well as that sentence you have pasted, I also said we don't understand this evolution, which is why you and me , for example, are using philosophy as a way of coming to any real hopeful understanding.
You don't have to agree with anything I say. As long as we make philosphical statements, which is what your statements and mine amount to, we can still have a respectful discussion. So, as well as that sentence you have pasted, I also said we don't understand this evolution, which is why you and me , for example, are using philosophy as a way of coming to any real hopeful understanding.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 08:20 AM)
What's a survival strategy?
My understand is that mother nature doesn't want anything. How is it "mother"?
I use the phrase Mother Nature the same way Einstein used the term God - metaphorically.
My understand is that mother nature doesn't want anything. How is it "mother"?
I use the phrase Mother Nature the same way Einstein used the term God - metaphorically.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 03:01 PM)
As for "This strategy DOES NOT require intelligence or planning, it is simply a consequence of being alive.", you are being philosophical here no? Unless you can prove that?
When I speak of a "strategy", yes I am being philosophical. Obviously the genome has no consciousness with which to formulate this so-called strategy - it is only us, the observers, who can look at which organisms survived and which didn't and say "that strategy worked, and that one didn't".
The fact that survival (or not) is a consequence of being alive and of evolutionary process (what random changes occur and whether they are beneficial) is NOT philosophical, it is based squarely on the known facts of evolution.
When I speak of a "strategy", yes I am being philosophical. Obviously the genome has no consciousness with which to formulate this so-called strategy - it is only us, the observers, who can look at which organisms survived and which didn't and say "that strategy worked, and that one didn't".
The fact that survival (or not) is a consequence of being alive and of evolutionary process (what random changes occur and whether they are beneficial) is NOT philosophical, it is based squarely on the known facts of evolution.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 03:22 PM)
I use the phrase Mother Nature the same way Einstein used the term God - metaphorically.
A metaphor for what? Einstein used "God" metaphorically in order to acknowledge creativity didn't he?
He wanted to go beyond the desription of elements, beyond the facts that quantify them. I'd say he wanted to know about the creative aspect of the universe, hence his association with what he called a cosmic religion.
A metaphor for what? Einstein used "God" metaphorically in order to acknowledge creativity didn't he?
QUOTE
"I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts the rest are details."
He wanted to go beyond the desription of elements, beyond the facts that quantify them. I'd say he wanted to know about the creative aspect of the universe, hence his association with what he called a cosmic religion.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 03:44 PM)
When I speak of a "strategy", yes I am being philosophical. Obviously the genome has no consciousness with which to formulate this so-called strategy - it is only us, the observers, who can look at which organisms survived and which didn't and say "that strategy worked, and that one didn't".
The fact that survival (or not) is a consequence of being alive and of evolutionary process (what random changes occur and whether they are beneficial) is NOT philosophical, it is based squarely on the known facts of evolution.
I'd add to the the notion that the "game" wouldn't commence without the rules. Although I get the impression some would say that given enough random games without rules one would evolve to include the strategy for survival.
Stategy could have evolved from very simply components that are naturally geared to survival.
When you say "obviously the genome has no consciousness", can you prove that with some scientific model, and at which stage do you consider consciousness as a player?
The fact that survival (or not) is a consequence of being alive and of evolutionary process (what random changes occur and whether they are beneficial) is NOT philosophical, it is based squarely on the known facts of evolution.
I'd add to the the notion that the "game" wouldn't commence without the rules. Although I get the impression some would say that given enough random games without rules one would evolve to include the strategy for survival.
Stategy could have evolved from very simply components that are naturally geared to survival.
When you say "obviously the genome has no consciousness", can you prove that with some scientific model, and at which stage do you consider consciousness as a player?
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 09:46 AM)
A metaphor for what? Einstein used "God" metaphorically in order to acknowledge creativity didn't he?
Did he?
I've always understood it to represent the great unanswered questions. (The really big one being why does anything exist?)
Did he?
I've always understood it to represent the great unanswered questions. (The really big one being why does anything exist?)
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 03:55 PM)
When you say "obviously the genome has no consciousness", can you prove that with some scientific model, and at which stage do you consider consciousness as a player?
I do not believe (I speak of belief in the sense of "understanding the facts" not "faith with no evidence") that consciousness ever plays a role in evolution except when it comes to selection (i.e. if one organism makes a conscious choice of one mate over another, for whatever reason, that could affect the course of evolution in the very short term).
Changes to the genome happen randomly, and are selected for (or against) by the environment that the genome happens to occupy. The genome itself has no influence on this process - it is at the mercy of the environment, predation, etc.
I do not believe (I speak of belief in the sense of "understanding the facts" not "faith with no evidence") that consciousness ever plays a role in evolution except when it comes to selection (i.e. if one organism makes a conscious choice of one mate over another, for whatever reason, that could affect the course of evolution in the very short term).
Changes to the genome happen randomly, and are selected for (or against) by the environment that the genome happens to occupy. The genome itself has no influence on this process - it is at the mercy of the environment, predation, etc.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 04:11 PM)
Did he?
I've always understood it to represent the great unanswered questions. (The really big one being why does anything exist?)
Einstein was pretty meticulous in what he had to say. His statement to me reads that he didn't care that "it" was here and it could be quantified in some way, but how it got here, as you rightly say. But even to Einstein it seems he considered a creative process to being involved.
So is the new in thing now that nature isn't creative? Because it then dismisses any uncomfortable questions?
Argyll
I'm not aware of any scientific facts regarding what consciousness is, at present anyway. Is creativity introduced at the stage that an organism can make a conscious choice? In that they can create a preference?
If there is no observer at the stage where the wave function collapses, we only have probabilities and no definate matter like platform from which to commence evolution?
I'm not aware of any scientific facts regarding what consciousness is, at present anyway. Is creativity introduced at the stage that an organism can make a conscious choice? In that they can create a preference?
If there is no observer at the stage where the wave function collapses, we only have probabilities and no definate matter like platform from which to commence evolution?
Changes to the genome happen randomly, and are selected for (or against) by the environment that the genome happens to occupy. The genome itself has no influence on this process - it is at the mercy of the environment, predation, etc.
OK, so the environment rules in that respect. Trees grow taller, and there happend to already be giraffes with long necks, who ended up surviving in that environment?
Couldn't short necked giraffes have taken to eating grass like, say, the wilderbeast?
But what led to the wave function collapsing and manifesting this universe? And in that manifestation the components to cause evolution came into existence. As part of the make up of the potential components, the proclivity to survive also came with them, as well as to develop consciousness. The chances to not survive would have been 50/50, until this universe came as it is. And there isn't any data to prove that consciousness developed that late on in the game. In fact, unless mistaken, observation is the vital role in collapsing the wave function.
Once consciousness is understood more, maybe it will help one really understand the process of evolution. We've nailed the process, but now we need to go about understanding its intricities.
I've always understood it to represent the great unanswered questions. (The really big one being why does anything exist?)
Einstein was pretty meticulous in what he had to say. His statement to me reads that he didn't care that "it" was here and it could be quantified in some way, but how it got here, as you rightly say. But even to Einstein it seems he considered a creative process to being involved.
So is the new in thing now that nature isn't creative? Because it then dismisses any uncomfortable questions?
Argyll
QUOTE
I do not believe (I speak of belief in the sense of "understanding the facts" not "faith with no evidence") that consciousness ever plays a role in evolution except when it comes to selection (i.e. if one organism makes a conscious choice of one mate over another, for whatever reason, that could affect the course of evolution in the very short term).
I'm not aware of any scientific facts regarding what consciousness is, at present anyway. Is creativity introduced at the stage that an organism can make a conscious choice? In that they can create a preference?
If there is no observer at the stage where the wave function collapses, we only have probabilities and no definate matter like platform from which to commence evolution?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I do not believe (I speak of belief in the sense of "understanding the facts" not "faith with no evidence") that consciousness ever plays a role in evolution except when it comes to selection (i.e. if one organism makes a conscious choice of one mate over another, for whatever reason, that could affect the course of evolution in the very short term). |
I'm not aware of any scientific facts regarding what consciousness is, at present anyway. Is creativity introduced at the stage that an organism can make a conscious choice? In that they can create a preference?
If there is no observer at the stage where the wave function collapses, we only have probabilities and no definate matter like platform from which to commence evolution?
Changes to the genome happen randomly, and are selected for (or against) by the environment that the genome happens to occupy. The genome itself has no influence on this process - it is at the mercy of the environment, predation, etc.
OK, so the environment rules in that respect. Trees grow taller, and there happend to already be giraffes with long necks, who ended up surviving in that environment?
Couldn't short necked giraffes have taken to eating grass like, say, the wilderbeast?
But what led to the wave function collapsing and manifesting this universe? And in that manifestation the components to cause evolution came into existence. As part of the make up of the potential components, the proclivity to survive also came with them, as well as to develop consciousness. The chances to not survive would have been 50/50, until this universe came as it is. And there isn't any data to prove that consciousness developed that late on in the game. In fact, unless mistaken, observation is the vital role in collapsing the wave function.
Once consciousness is understood more, maybe it will help one really understand the process of evolution. We've nailed the process, but now we need to go about understanding its intricities.
Would the way water carves out valleys etc, qualify as creativity?
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 10:50 AM)
So is the new in thing now that nature isn't creative? Because it then dismisses any uncomfortable questions?
Does calling nature "creative" answer any questions?
Does calling nature "creative" answer any questions?
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 04:57 AM)
Faith is belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary.
I beg to differ, not that I'm defending Cusa's argument (I think it's ridiculous).
Dictionary.com - Faith
The second definition is the operative one here.
As I've said many times before in other places, a very wise man I know once told me "Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence. Delusion is believe despite the presence of evidence to the contrary."
The second definition is the operative one here.
As I've said many times before in other places, a very wise man I know once told me "Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence. Delusion is believe despite the presence of evidence to the contrary."
Your faith is interfering with your ability to be rational.
I would say that his faith has mutated into delusion, thanks to a pre-existing lack of rationality. It's not his beliefs themselves which are interfering with his ability to think rationally with regards to this discussion, it's his inability to let them go, an inability which is itself, irrational.
I beg to differ, not that I'm defending Cusa's argument (I think it's ridiculous).
Dictionary.com - Faith
QUOTE
faith [feyth]
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
–noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
The second definition is the operative one here.
As I've said many times before in other places, a very wise man I know once told me "Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence. Delusion is believe despite the presence of evidence to the contrary."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| faith [feyth] –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. |
The second definition is the operative one here.
As I've said many times before in other places, a very wise man I know once told me "Faith is belief despite the absence of evidence. Delusion is believe despite the presence of evidence to the contrary."
Your faith is interfering with your ability to be rational.
I would say that his faith has mutated into delusion, thanks to a pre-existing lack of rationality. It's not his beliefs themselves which are interfering with his ability to think rationally with regards to this discussion, it's his inability to let them go, an inability which is itself, irrational.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You can't find the absolute truth if you make assumptions and stick with them.
Damn skippy!
Damn skippy!
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 04:50 PM)
OK, so the environment rules in that respect. Trees grow taller, and there happend to already be giraffes with long necks, who ended up surviving in that environment?
Couldn't short necked giraffes have taken to eating grass like, say, the wilderbeast?
Do I really need to explain natural selection to you?
Couldn't short necked giraffes have taken to eating grass like, say, the wilderbeast?
Do I really need to explain natural selection to you?
QUOTE (MickDerry+)
But what led to the wave function collapsing and manifesting this universe?
Shove your "wave function" crap back up your *** where it came from. The universe is what it is, and the purpose of science is to learn everything we can about what that universe is and how it operates. Maybe some day science will be able to tell us what came before the Big Bang, maybe not... but relying upon some mystical wave function is just as bad as relying on a mythical entity to create it all.
Shove your "wave function" crap back up your *** where it came from. The universe is what it is, and the purpose of science is to learn everything we can about what that universe is and how it operates. Maybe some day science will be able to tell us what came before the Big Bang, maybe not... but relying upon some mystical wave function is just as bad as relying on a mythical entity to create it all.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Feb 16 2009, 05:01 PM)
I beg to differ, not that I'm defending Cusa's argument (I think it's ridiculous).
Fair enough. I was attempting to paraphrase a Dawkins quote, but I obviously got it slightly wrong:
"Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins
Fair enough. I was attempting to paraphrase a Dawkins quote, but I obviously got it slightly wrong:
"Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence." - Richard Dawkins
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I would say that his faith has mutated into delusion, thanks to a pre-existing lack of rationality.
Somewhat of a self-reinforcing feedback loop there, wouldn't you say? He can't be rational because he's deluded because he can't be rational...
Somewhat of a self-reinforcing feedback loop there, wouldn't you say? He can't be rational because he's deluded because he can't be rational...
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
It's not his beliefs themselves which are interfering with his ability to think rationally with regards to this discussion, it's his inability to let them go, an inability which is itself, irrational.
I guess I can agree with that.
Doesn't change the fact that he's a fu(%tard.
I guess I can agree with that.
Doesn't change the fact that he's a fu(%tard.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 05:11 PM)
Somewhat of a self-reinforcing feedback look there, wouldn't you say? He can't be rational because he's deluded because he can't be rational...
Yep. Pretty scary, isn't it? Especially considering that he can (theoretically at least) reproduce and pass his irrationality genes off on the next generation. Let's hope it has more to do with his upbringing than with genetics...
Not in the least.
Yep. Pretty scary, isn't it? Especially considering that he can (theoretically at least) reproduce and pass his irrationality genes off on the next generation. Let's hope it has more to do with his upbringing than with genetics...
QUOTE
I guess I can agree with that.
Doesn't change the fact that he's a fu(%tard.
Doesn't change the fact that he's a fu(%tard.
Not in the least.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 05:05 PM)
Do I really need to explain natural selection to you?
QUOTE (MickDerry+)
But what led to the wave function collapsing and manifesting this universe?
Shove your "wave function" crap back up your *** where it came from. The universe is what it is, and the purpose of science is to learn everything we can about what that universe is and how it operates. Maybe some day science will be able to tell us what came before the Big Bang, maybe not... but relying upon some mystical wave function is just as bad as relying on a mythical entity to create it all.
Keep your emotional angst to yourself.
Tell a few very respected scientists who ask the same questions to shove their wave function "crap" up their bottom hole.
I don't have to accept your philosophy, and I don't because it doesn't make sense to me.
But thanks for the five minutes of civil discussion.
Shove your "wave function" crap back up your *** where it came from. The universe is what it is, and the purpose of science is to learn everything we can about what that universe is and how it operates. Maybe some day science will be able to tell us what came before the Big Bang, maybe not... but relying upon some mystical wave function is just as bad as relying on a mythical entity to create it all.
Keep your emotional angst to yourself.
Tell a few very respected scientists who ask the same questions to shove their wave function "crap" up their bottom hole.
I don't have to accept your philosophy, and I don't because it doesn't make sense to me.
But thanks for the five minutes of civil discussion.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 04:58 PM)
Does calling nature "creative" answer any questions?
It does for me gmilam. It places things into the clearest picture for me at present. No doubt that can change in the future, or it can be further reinforced.
It does for me gmilam. It places things into the clearest picture for me at present. No doubt that can change in the future, or it can be further reinforced.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 05:51 PM)
Tell a few very respected scientists who ask the same questions to shove their wave function "crap" up their bottom hole.
I'm curious... Which "very respected scientists" have "asked the same questions"?
I'm curious... Which "very respected scientists" have "asked the same questions"?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Feb 16 2009, 06:03 PM)
I'm curious... Which "very respected scientists" have "asked the same questions"?
here's a couple:
Peruse the site of this person:
Peruse the site of this person:
Faculty University of Philosophical Research 2001-2003
Member of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Collegium of Scholars, 2000-.
Faculty Holmes Institute. 1998-2001
Consulting Physicist. 1977-
Published Author of several books explaining physics to nonscientists. 1975-
Popular Lecturer/Researcher on New Physics and Consciousness. 1977-
Member of the Editorial Board, Contemporary Jungian Psychology. 1993-
Assessing Editor, Journal of Mind and Behavior. 1993-
Associate, Internet Science Education Project 1998-
Editorial review Board of The Noetic Journal. 1998-
Recipient of The National Book Award for Best Science Paperback, 1982, for Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists.
Consultant to Several Corporations. 1981-
President, Seminar Leader; Youniverse Seminars, Inc., La Jolla, CA. 1977-1985.
Visiting Professor, University of Northern Iowa, 1987.
Professor, Department of Physics, San Diego State University, 1971-1977.
Associate Professor of Physics, San Diego State College, 1968-1971.
Assistant Professor of Physics, San Diego State College, 1964-1968.
Staff Physicist at Several Corporations and Government Institutions. 1964-1968.
Visiting Professor, UNICAMP, University of San Paulo, Campinas, Brazil, 1985.
Associate Professor of Physics, University of Paris, Orsay, France, 1973-1974.
Visiting Research Fellow, University of London, Birkbeck College, 1973-1975.
Visiting Professor, Hahn-Meitner-Institut fur Kernforschung, Berlin, Germany, 1971.
Visiting Professor, Department of Physical Chemistry, The Hebrew University. of Jerusalem, Israel, 1971.
Visiting Professor, Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie des Rayonnements, Faculte des Sciences, Orsay, France. 1971.
PhD. Theoretical Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1963.
MS. Applied Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1959.
BS. Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, 1957.
Howard Hughes Master of Science Fellow, Culver City, CA, 1957 1959.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/#AK
Well I had a look for Dr Wolf and Prof Goswami's name in that list, but not there. So waht is your point? Here's something I didn't bold in the Dr Wolf comment:
Well I had a look for Dr Wolf and Prof Goswami's name in that list, but not there. So waht is your point? Here's something I didn't bold in the Dr Wolf comment:
Schools around the world teach accepted and provable physics and they teach philosophical extensions regarding the meaning of physics in everyday life.
If you are suggesting the two scientists I mention are not respected, can you point me to where that view is maintained?
My questions are fine. Speculation is speculation, and questions can bring about new ways of thinking. His position as a physicist is related to the nature of his speculations. I doubt if Dr Wolf's "god" is an actual person. Is your "god" an actual person to you?
Basically Dr Wolf has earned the right to speculate and have his speculations respected. It's provided him with a lot of interest, and it isn't gaining that much criticism from respected scientists is it?
So does the fact of evolution in some way discredit anything that Dr wolf is saying, or Goswami? Don't people also speculate about some of the implications regarding evolution?
here's a couple:
QUOTE
Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years. After a period of distress and frustration in his private and professional life starting at the age 38, his research interests shifted to quantum cosmology, quantum measurement theory, and applications of quantum mechanics to the mind-body problem. He became best known as one of the interviewed scientists featured in the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Goswami is also featured in the recent documentary about the Dalai Lama entitled Dalai Lama Renaissance,[1] and stars in the upcoming documentary "The Quantum Activist".
Originally from India, Goswami received his Ph.D. from the University of Calcutta in physics in 1964, from where he moved to the United States early in his career. Fully retired as a faculty member since 2003, he is now engaged in far–reaching national and international speaking engagements. He teaches fairly regularly at the Ernest Holmes Institute, the Philosophical Research University in L.A.; Pacifica in Santa Barbara, CA; and UNIPAZ in Portugal, and is a member of the advisory board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where he was a senior scholar in residence during 1998 to 2000.
In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[2]
As a pioneer of a self-styled multidisciplinary scientific paradigm, he refers to himself as a "quantum activist" engulfing in research on the "Science within consciousness", which comprises and explains the "downward causation" and the upwards drift in the fields of physics, biology, and psychology and more recently the healing arts, thus resulting in varied theories of integral medicine based on five interchanging levels of existence: the physical, the vital, the mental, the supra-mental intellect and the limitless bliss state.[3][4]
Goswami is in favor of lucid dreaming, which simultaneously allows adoption of the equipotency of the waking and the dreaming state and precipitates creativity. This skill, so he claims, has provided him instantaneous insights regarding superconductivity in regard to the structure of the atomic nuclei. Following this he discovered the self-owned illusion that mind and brain are identical.[5] Rather tabooed and rarefied topics like death, reincarnation and immortality drew Goswami's interest of research.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2205085164589294201
Originally from India, Goswami received his Ph.D. from the University of Calcutta in physics in 1964, from where he moved to the United States early in his career. Fully retired as a faculty member since 2003, he is now engaged in far–reaching national and international speaking engagements. He teaches fairly regularly at the Ernest Holmes Institute, the Philosophical Research University in L.A.; Pacifica in Santa Barbara, CA; and UNIPAZ in Portugal, and is a member of the advisory board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where he was a senior scholar in residence during 1998 to 2000.
In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[2]
As a pioneer of a self-styled multidisciplinary scientific paradigm, he refers to himself as a "quantum activist" engulfing in research on the "Science within consciousness", which comprises and explains the "downward causation" and the upwards drift in the fields of physics, biology, and psychology and more recently the healing arts, thus resulting in varied theories of integral medicine based on five interchanging levels of existence: the physical, the vital, the mental, the supra-mental intellect and the limitless bliss state.[3][4]
Goswami is in favor of lucid dreaming, which simultaneously allows adoption of the equipotency of the waking and the dreaming state and precipitates creativity. This skill, so he claims, has provided him instantaneous insights regarding superconductivity in regard to the structure of the atomic nuclei. Following this he discovered the self-owned illusion that mind and brain are identical.[5] Rather tabooed and rarefied topics like death, reincarnation and immortality drew Goswami's interest of research.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2205085164589294201
Peruse the site of this person:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Amit Goswami is a theoretical nuclear physicist and member of The University of Oregon Institute for Theoretical Physics since 1968, teaching physics for 32 years. After a period of distress and frustration in his private and professional life starting at the age 38, his research interests shifted to quantum cosmology, quantum measurement theory, and applications of quantum mechanics to the mind-body problem. He became best known as one of the interviewed scientists featured in the 2004 film What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Goswami is also featured in the recent documentary about the Dalai Lama entitled Dalai Lama Renaissance,[1] and stars in the upcoming documentary "The Quantum Activist". Originally from India, Goswami received his Ph.D. from the University of Calcutta in physics in 1964, from where he moved to the United States early in his career. Fully retired as a faculty member since 2003, he is now engaged in far–reaching national and international speaking engagements. He teaches fairly regularly at the Ernest Holmes Institute, the Philosophical Research University in L.A.; Pacifica in Santa Barbara, CA; and UNIPAZ in Portugal, and is a member of the advisory board of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, where he was a senior scholar in residence during 1998 to 2000. In the late 1980s Goswami developed an idealist interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired in part by philosophical ideas drawn from Advaita Vedanta and theosophy. Calling his theory "monistic idealism", he claims it is not only "the basis of all religions worldwide" but also the correct philosophy for modern science. In contrast to materialistic conventional science, he claims that universal consciousness, not matter, is the ground of all existence, in congruence with mystic sages. Consciousness, deemed as the precursor of physicality, arises from conscious observation through a process intimately connected to wavefunction collapse in a quantum measurement. Once the assumption that there is an objective reality independent of consciousness is put aside, the paradoxes of quantum physics are explainable, according to Goswami.[2] As a pioneer of a self-styled multidisciplinary scientific paradigm, he refers to himself as a "quantum activist" engulfing in research on the "Science within consciousness", which comprises and explains the "downward causation" and the upwards drift in the fields of physics, biology, and psychology and more recently the healing arts, thus resulting in varied theories of integral medicine based on five interchanging levels of existence: the physical, the vital, the mental, the supra-mental intellect and the limitless bliss state.[3][4] Goswami is in favor of lucid dreaming, which simultaneously allows adoption of the equipotency of the waking and the dreaming state and precipitates creativity. This skill, so he claims, has provided him instantaneous insights regarding superconductivity in regard to the structure of the atomic nuclei. Following this he discovered the self-owned illusion that mind and brain are identical.[5] Rather tabooed and rarefied topics like death, reincarnation and immortality drew Goswami's interest of research.[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amit_Goswami http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2205085164589294201 |
Peruse the site of this person:
Faculty University of Philosophical Research 2001-2003
Member of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Collegium of Scholars, 2000-.
Faculty Holmes Institute. 1998-2001
Consulting Physicist. 1977-
Published Author of several books explaining physics to nonscientists. 1975-
Popular Lecturer/Researcher on New Physics and Consciousness. 1977-
Member of the Editorial Board, Contemporary Jungian Psychology. 1993-
Assessing Editor, Journal of Mind and Behavior. 1993-
Associate, Internet Science Education Project 1998-
Editorial review Board of The Noetic Journal. 1998-
Recipient of The National Book Award for Best Science Paperback, 1982, for Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists.
Consultant to Several Corporations. 1981-
President, Seminar Leader; Youniverse Seminars, Inc., La Jolla, CA. 1977-1985.
Visiting Professor, University of Northern Iowa, 1987.
Professor, Department of Physics, San Diego State University, 1971-1977.
Associate Professor of Physics, San Diego State College, 1968-1971.
Assistant Professor of Physics, San Diego State College, 1964-1968.
Staff Physicist at Several Corporations and Government Institutions. 1964-1968.
Visiting Professor, UNICAMP, University of San Paulo, Campinas, Brazil, 1985.
Associate Professor of Physics, University of Paris, Orsay, France, 1973-1974.
Visiting Research Fellow, University of London, Birkbeck College, 1973-1975.
Visiting Professor, Hahn-Meitner-Institut fur Kernforschung, Berlin, Germany, 1971.
Visiting Professor, Department of Physical Chemistry, The Hebrew University. of Jerusalem, Israel, 1971.
Visiting Professor, Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie des Rayonnements, Faculte des Sciences, Orsay, France. 1971.
PhD. Theoretical Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1963.
MS. Applied Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, 1959.
BS. Engineering Physics, University of Illinois, 1957.
Howard Hughes Master of Science Fellow, Culver City, CA, 1957 1959.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/#AK
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 06:15 PM)
here's a couple:
Peruse the site of this person:
I guess I made a mistake. I thought you said "very respected scientists", not "very well known but not very well respected popularizers of fringe science".
Peruse the site of this person:
I guess I made a mistake. I thought you said "very respected scientists", not "very well known but not very well respected popularizers of fringe science".
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Feb 16 2009, 06:53 PM)
I thought you said "very respected scientists", not "very well known but not very well respected popularizers of fringe science".
I like what Dr Wolf says here:
One doesn't get into the "position" Dr Wolf has without being respected.
I've read some pdfs of his, and have his talk on Time Travel on my desktop to listen to. When I want an informed opinion on things I can't think of a better person at the moment than someone like him. If I want an uninformed reaction, I've found that coming here is very satisfying.
As far as I know, no one inviting him to talk has concluded that he should shove his wave function collapse ideas up his arse. He has used his qualifications and learning to present well grounded speculations. The same applies to Goswami. Well grounded in quantum mechanics and physics, and their speculations carry the respect they deserve because of that. I'd put it at the same level as someone like Dawkins, with his interpretations.
The only way is to read and study what they are saying.
And what is provable that it should lead to disrespect for two scientists like Goswami and Dr Wolf?
I like what Dr Wolf says here:
QUOTE
Here are some recent questions and my responses to them.
Question: I would love to know about the current education system in the world. It seems that even in the United States and Europe the books at school are still teaching old fashioned physics. I would love to know whether these things are officially proven as wrong, or if these things taught in physics in most of the schools are not wrong, but only another level of physics. My detailed question would be: are there school books currently in schools, which teach "officially proven as false" information or not?
Answer: Schools around the world teach accepted and provable physics and they teach philosophical extensions regarding the meaning of physics in everyday life. Both the old physics and the new physics consisting of quantum physics and all of the branches of quantum physics are taught. Speculations about the meaning of this such the ones I make and the ones that others may make, really are not provable using scientific methods. They are a mixture of quantum physics and spirituality and they really don't fit into current academic thinking. The following advice applies if you wish to study the kinds of things I did. Look to your local university to study physics. When you have received your PhD, then begin to study Eastern and Western Spiritual traditions, again at your local university. Oh, and live long enough. I am still studying. Enrolling in a course of study at any university is best. If you can't do that, then find out what text books are being used in the curriculum for that course of study, and begin to teach yourself by reading the text and solving all of the physics problems in the text. Start with basic physics and gradually move toward quantum physics and quantum field theory. Feynman's volumes on physics are good for self study. The only problem you will have is the lack of benefit of a real teacher who knows the subject. If you fear real classes then you will need to hire a tutor from time to time. As far as degrees are concerned you need a BA or BS degree and then a PhD degree to really show you are a physicist. These degrees should come from real schools not "diploma by mail" schools.
Question: I would love to know about the current education system in the world. It seems that even in the United States and Europe the books at school are still teaching old fashioned physics. I would love to know whether these things are officially proven as wrong, or if these things taught in physics in most of the schools are not wrong, but only another level of physics. My detailed question would be: are there school books currently in schools, which teach "officially proven as false" information or not?
Answer: Schools around the world teach accepted and provable physics and they teach philosophical extensions regarding the meaning of physics in everyday life. Both the old physics and the new physics consisting of quantum physics and all of the branches of quantum physics are taught. Speculations about the meaning of this such the ones I make and the ones that others may make, really are not provable using scientific methods. They are a mixture of quantum physics and spirituality and they really don't fit into current academic thinking. The following advice applies if you wish to study the kinds of things I did. Look to your local university to study physics. When you have received your PhD, then begin to study Eastern and Western Spiritual traditions, again at your local university. Oh, and live long enough. I am still studying. Enrolling in a course of study at any university is best. If you can't do that, then find out what text books are being used in the curriculum for that course of study, and begin to teach yourself by reading the text and solving all of the physics problems in the text. Start with basic physics and gradually move toward quantum physics and quantum field theory. Feynman's volumes on physics are good for self study. The only problem you will have is the lack of benefit of a real teacher who knows the subject. If you fear real classes then you will need to hire a tutor from time to time. As far as degrees are concerned you need a BA or BS degree and then a PhD degree to really show you are a physicist. These degrees should come from real schools not "diploma by mail" schools.
One doesn't get into the "position" Dr Wolf has without being respected.
I've read some pdfs of his, and have his talk on Time Travel on my desktop to listen to. When I want an informed opinion on things I can't think of a better person at the moment than someone like him. If I want an uninformed reaction, I've found that coming here is very satisfying.
As far as I know, no one inviting him to talk has concluded that he should shove his wave function collapse ideas up his arse. He has used his qualifications and learning to present well grounded speculations. The same applies to Goswami. Well grounded in quantum mechanics and physics, and their speculations carry the respect they deserve because of that. I'd put it at the same level as someone like Dawkins, with his interpretations.
The only way is to read and study what they are saying.
And what is provable that it should lead to disrespect for two scientists like Goswami and Dr Wolf?
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 11:54 AM)
It does for me gmilam. It places things into the clearest picture for me at present. No doubt that can change in the future, or it can be further reinforced.
Was the Colorado river being creative when it carved the Grand Canyon?
And was nature being creative when it "designed" the mother cat to bring the wounded mouse home so her kittens can play with it. (I wonder how the mouse feels about it...)
Was the Colorado river being creative when it carved the Grand Canyon?
And was nature being creative when it "designed" the mother cat to bring the wounded mouse home so her kittens can play with it. (I wonder how the mouse feels about it...)
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 07:17 PM)
One doesn't get into the "position" Dr Wolf has without being respected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_mi...lated_incidents
I suppose all of the individuals involved in this list are also "very respected"?
Thank you for bolding the portion of Wolf's statement which demonstrates that his position as a physicist has lttle to do with the questions to which you're referring, by the way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_mi...lated_incidents
I suppose all of the individuals involved in this list are also "very respected"?
Thank you for bolding the portion of Wolf's statement which demonstrates that his position as a physicist has lttle to do with the questions to which you're referring, by the way.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 06:21 AM)
Where does god get "his" creativity?
He's God.
He's God.
Solid argument. I'm convinced.
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_mi...lated_incidents
I suppose all of the individuals involved in this list are also "very respected"?
I suppose all of the individuals involved in this list are also "very respected"?
Well I had a look for Dr Wolf and Prof Goswami's name in that list, but not there. So waht is your point? Here's something I didn't bold in the Dr Wolf comment:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_mi...lated_incidents I suppose all of the individuals involved in this list are also "very respected"? |
Well I had a look for Dr Wolf and Prof Goswami's name in that list, but not there. So waht is your point? Here's something I didn't bold in the Dr Wolf comment:
Schools around the world teach accepted and provable physics and they teach philosophical extensions regarding the meaning of physics in everyday life.
If you are suggesting the two scientists I mention are not respected, can you point me to where that view is maintained?
QUOTE
Thank you for bolding the portion of Wolf's statement which demonstrates that his position as a physicist has lttle to do with the questions to which you're referring, by the way.
My questions are fine. Speculation is speculation, and questions can bring about new ways of thinking. His position as a physicist is related to the nature of his speculations. I doubt if Dr Wolf's "god" is an actual person. Is your "god" an actual person to you?
Basically Dr Wolf has earned the right to speculate and have his speculations respected. It's provided him with a lot of interest, and it isn't gaining that much criticism from respected scientists is it?
So does the fact of evolution in some way discredit anything that Dr wolf is saying, or Goswami? Don't people also speculate about some of the implications regarding evolution?
Everyone is allowed to speculate... as long as they make it clear that it is speculation.
Science has nothing to say about Dr Wolf's speculations (as he readily admits) so most scientists probaly won't bother (or even care enough) to comment.
Science has nothing to say about Dr Wolf's speculations (as he readily admits) so most scientists probaly won't bother (or even care enough) to comment.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 09:18 PM)
Everyone is allowed to speculate... as long as they make it clear that it is speculation.
Science has nothing to say about Dr Wolf's speculations (as he readily admits) so most scientists probaly won't bother (or even care enough) to comment.
So there's no science involved in the speculation that nature isn't an entity and therefore not creative? And if there is some science to back it up, I'd suggest Dr Wolf is also backing up his speculations based on his scientific knowledge.
Again, I think there is more respect for the views of people like him, and from other scientists, that one may be led to believe. The way I'm undertsanding his speculations is to listen and read to what is being said.
Science has nothing to say about Dr Wolf's speculations (as he readily admits) so most scientists probaly won't bother (or even care enough) to comment.
So there's no science involved in the speculation that nature isn't an entity and therefore not creative? And if there is some science to back it up, I'd suggest Dr Wolf is also backing up his speculations based on his scientific knowledge.
Again, I think there is more respect for the views of people like him, and from other scientists, that one may be led to believe. The way I'm undertsanding his speculations is to listen and read to what is being said.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 03:28 PM)
So there's no science involved in the speculation that nature isn't an entity and therefore not creative?
I'm having trouble following your triple negatives here.. what is the question?
I'm having trouble following your triple negatives here.. what is the question?
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 09:28 PM)
So there's no science involved in the speculation that nature isn't an entity and therefore not creative?
Science does not SPECULATE that nature is or is not an entity. There is no evidence to suggest that it is, therefore science operates as though it were not. Even this "wave function" garbage doesn't lead to the conclusion that nature is an entity, so why do you insist on bringing it in to the discussion?
Science does not SPECULATE that nature is or is not an entity. There is no evidence to suggest that it is, therefore science operates as though it were not. Even this "wave function" garbage doesn't lead to the conclusion that nature is an entity, so why do you insist on bringing it in to the discussion?
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 09:32 PM)
I'm having trouble following your triple negatives here.. what is the question?
Well, you said:
And I'm saying that someone speculating that nature is not an entity, and therefore not creative, is also not science. But if that speculation has some science to back it up, I'm also suggesting that Dr Wolf also has his scientific knowledge to back up what he is speculating. Which is indeed what he does very well in his talks, he backs up his theories with good knowledge of science.
So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion?
If there is no difference between animate and inanimate, then why isn't the inanimate creative?
Well, you said:
QUOTE
Everyone is allowed to speculate... as long as they make it clear that it is speculation.
Science has nothing to say about Dr Wolf's speculations (as he readily admits) so most scientists probaly won't bother (or even care enough) to comment.
Science has nothing to say about Dr Wolf's speculations (as he readily admits) so most scientists probaly won't bother (or even care enough) to comment.
And I'm saying that someone speculating that nature is not an entity, and therefore not creative, is also not science. But if that speculation has some science to back it up, I'm also suggesting that Dr Wolf also has his scientific knowledge to back up what he is speculating. Which is indeed what he does very well in his talks, he backs up his theories with good knowledge of science.
So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion?
If there is no difference between animate and inanimate, then why isn't the inanimate creative?
QUOTE (MickDerry+)
So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion?
In this conversation, Cusa raised the question, where did his creativity come from, if not God. The answer, nature, led to his followup, where did nature's creativity come from. My answer was that nature has no innate creativity, as it is not an entity. You have been the one insistent upon attributing nature with some form of creativity.
There's no insistence. I'm questioning. You could stop using such conclusive statement against someone. My question "So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion", simply asks when does science take creativity into account. Realms of speculation again?
There's no insistence. I'm questioning. You could stop using such conclusive statement against someone. My question "So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion", simply asks when does science take creativity into account. Realms of speculation again?
Who said there's no difference between animate and inanimate? There's obviously huge differences.
Ok, I may have understood what I'd been reading recently wrongly. I'll go re-read it.
In this conversation, Cusa raised the question, where did his creativity come from, if not God. The answer, nature, led to his followup, where did nature's creativity come from. My answer was that nature has no innate creativity, as it is not an entity. You have been the one insistent upon attributing nature with some form of creativity.
QUOTE (MickDerry+)
If there is no difference between animate and inanimate, then why isn't the inanimate creative?
Who said there's no difference between animate and inanimate? There's obviously huge differences.
Who said there's no difference between animate and inanimate? There's obviously huge differences.
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 16 2009, 09:41 PM)
Science does not SPECULATE that nature is or is not an entity. There is no evidence to suggest that it is, therefore science operates as though it were not. Even this "wave function" garbage doesn't lead to the conclusion that nature is an entity, so why do you insist on bringing it in to the discussion?
I didn't see the assume word from you which is why we got into a discussion:
You sound factual there. Let me put it to you that you need not make such an absolute comment and still get on with the job of science.
Your "garbage" comment is pointless subjective opinion.
I didn't see the assume word from you which is why we got into a discussion:
QUOTE
"Nature" is not an entity, and thus has no creativity.
You sound factual there. Let me put it to you that you need not make such an absolute comment and still get on with the job of science.
Your "garbage" comment is pointless subjective opinion.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Feb 13 2009, 02:43 PM)
While science does not cover everything and while evidence can have more than one interpretation, it is good to have a solid reason for believing in something. People feel very strongly about their religion but if you probe and question them, they don't have any evidence, other than the bible (or other holy book) which can be shown to be wrong in many ways, and personal experiences. While the latter may be very real to the person concerned, they cannot prove them even to another believer. They are strictly personal experiences.
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, where does it stop? It can then be said that what you believe to be true is what you want to be true, and visa versa.
Yes! rules of logic!
If you are willing to believe things without evidence, where does it stop? It can then be said that what you believe to be true is what you want to be true, and visa versa.
Yes! rules of logic!
QUOTE
In this conversation, Cusa raised the question, where did his creativity come from, if not God. The answer, nature, led to his followup, where did nature's creativity come from. My answer was that nature has no innate creativity, as it is not an entity. You have been the one insistent upon attributing nature with some form of creativity.
There's no insistence. I'm questioning. You could stop using such conclusive statement against someone. My question "So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion", simply asks when does science take creativity into account. Realms of speculation again?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| In this conversation, Cusa raised the question, where did his creativity come from, if not God. The answer, nature, led to his followup, where did nature's creativity come from. My answer was that nature has no innate creativity, as it is not an entity. You have been the one insistent upon attributing nature with some form of creativity. |
There's no insistence. I'm questioning. You could stop using such conclusive statement against someone. My question "So where did creativity get introduced into the picture, in your opinion", simply asks when does science take creativity into account. Realms of speculation again?
Who said there's no difference between animate and inanimate? There's obviously huge differences.
Ok, I may have understood what I'd been reading recently wrongly. I'll go re-read it.
Some people seem to need to be reminded of this. (emphasis is mine)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
The bolded lines are what differentiates the speculation from the scientific hypothesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
QUOTE
Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results
The bolded lines are what differentiates the speculation from the scientific hypothesis.
QUOTE (MickDerry+Feb 16 2009, 09:04 PM)
Well I had a look for Dr Wolf and Prof Goswami's name in that list, but not there. So waht is your point? Here's something I didn't bold in the Dr Wolf comment:
My point is that everyone in that list has reached the position that Wolf has, yet they lack the respect of their peers. This fact directly contradicts your assertion that Wolf could not have reached his position without a great deal of respect. In fact, one of his most visible appearances in popular culture was in the film What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?, a film which has been universally panned by academia, even by philosophical academia...
A review of the movie menitoned above written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry labels the interviewees (including both of the names you mentioned ) as "so-called experts", and going on to say "The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." "
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
In addition, there are a variety of other links pertaining to those two and their predilictions you should check out. Here's just a few:
http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-s...s-clothing.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/fringe.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_...ences#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysti...causes_collapse
I can find no mention of either of them ever contributing anything to the study of physics. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a single paper published by either of them in any journal, let alone a well respected one.
Let's take a look at Wolf, for instance.
There are several papers available through arxiv which were co-written by a Fred Wolf, but not the Fred Wolf you're referring to.
http://www.chaos.gwdg.de/staff/Wolf.html
This is the co-author of every single one of those pages. Obviously not the "Dr. Quantum" Fred Wolf.
In fact, if you look at (your) Wolf's website, you will see that most of his 'papers' were published in either non-scientific periodicals, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which is not at all well regarded by the scientific community.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm
He managed to get one paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, but as far as his own claims go: Not a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal of physics.
Finally, it was your initial assertion that they were "very respected" that I responded to. Do you have any evidence at all that they are well respected?
A review of the movie menitoned above written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry labels the interviewees (including both of the names you mentioned ) as "so-called experts", and going on to say "The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." "
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
In addition, there are a variety of other links pertaining to those two and their predilictions you should check out. Here's just a few:
http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-s...s-clothing.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/fringe.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_...ences#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysti...causes_collapse
I can find no mention of either of them ever contributing anything to the study of physics. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a single paper published by either of them in any journal, let alone a well respected one.
Let's take a look at Wolf, for instance.
There are several papers available through arxiv which were co-written by a Fred Wolf, but not the Fred Wolf you're referring to.
http://www.chaos.gwdg.de/staff/Wolf.html
This is the co-author of every single one of those pages. Obviously not the "Dr. Quantum" Fred Wolf.
In fact, if you look at (your) Wolf's website, you will see that most of his 'papers' were published in either non-scientific periodicals, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which is not at all well regarded by the scientific community.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm
He managed to get one paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, but as far as his own claims go: Not a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal of physics.
Finally, it was your initial assertion that they were "very respected" that I responded to. Do you have any evidence at all that they are well respected?
My questions are fine. Speculation is speculation, and questions can bring about new ways of thinking. His position as a physicist is related to the nature of his speculations. I doubt if Dr Wolf's "god" is an actual person.
I never mentioned his religious convictions. My only concern is his respectibility.
I never mentioned my own religions beliefs, either.
I never mentioned my own religions beliefs, either.
Basically Dr Wolf has earned the right to speculate and have his speculations respected.
I fail to see how, considering he hasn't yet seemed to have earned any respect as a physicst.
Respected scientists don't seem to have anything to say about either of the two men you mentioned, actually. Remember, you made the initial claim that they're respected.
Respected scientists don't seem to have anything to say about either of the two men you mentioned, actually. Remember, you made the initial claim that they're respected.
So does the fact of evolution in some way discredit anything that Dr wolf is saying, or Goswami?
I never mentioned evolution or suggested such a thing as you're implying I have.
Evolution is a scientifically valid theory. Consciousness Causes Collapse (upon which the vast majority of Wolf's and Goswami's writings are based) is not.
My point is that everyone in that list has reached the position that Wolf has, yet they lack the respect of their peers. This fact directly contradicts your assertion that Wolf could not have reached his position without a great deal of respect. In fact, one of his most visible appearances in popular culture was in the film What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?, a film which has been universally panned by academia, even by philosophical academia...
QUOTE
If you are suggesting the two scientists I mention are not respected, can you point me to where that view is maintained?
A review of the movie menitoned above written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry labels the interviewees (including both of the names you mentioned ) as "so-called experts", and going on to say "The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." "
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
In addition, there are a variety of other links pertaining to those two and their predilictions you should check out. Here's just a few:
http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-s...s-clothing.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/fringe.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_...ences#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysti...causes_collapse
I can find no mention of either of them ever contributing anything to the study of physics. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a single paper published by either of them in any journal, let alone a well respected one.
Let's take a look at Wolf, for instance.
There are several papers available through arxiv which were co-written by a Fred Wolf, but not the Fred Wolf you're referring to.
http://www.chaos.gwdg.de/staff/Wolf.html
This is the co-author of every single one of those pages. Obviously not the "Dr. Quantum" Fred Wolf.
In fact, if you look at (your) Wolf's website, you will see that most of his 'papers' were published in either non-scientific periodicals, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which is not at all well regarded by the scientific community.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm
He managed to get one paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, but as far as his own claims go: Not a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal of physics.
Finally, it was your initial assertion that they were "very respected" that I responded to. Do you have any evidence at all that they are well respected?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you are suggesting the two scientists I mention are not respected, can you point me to where that view is maintained? |
A review of the movie menitoned above written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry labels the interviewees (including both of the names you mentioned ) as "so-called experts", and going on to say "The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." "
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html
In addition, there are a variety of other links pertaining to those two and their predilictions you should check out. Here's just a few:
http://znfl.blogspot.com/2006/12/wolf-in-s...s-clothing.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9809/fringe.html
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/04-10-01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_...ences#Criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysti...causes_collapse
I can find no mention of either of them ever contributing anything to the study of physics. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a single paper published by either of them in any journal, let alone a well respected one.
Let's take a look at Wolf, for instance.
There are several papers available through arxiv which were co-written by a Fred Wolf, but not the Fred Wolf you're referring to.
http://www.chaos.gwdg.de/staff/Wolf.html
This is the co-author of every single one of those pages. Obviously not the "Dr. Quantum" Fred Wolf.
In fact, if you look at (your) Wolf's website, you will see that most of his 'papers' were published in either non-scientific periodicals, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which is not at all well regarded by the scientific community.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm
He managed to get one paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, but as far as his own claims go: Not a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal of physics.
Finally, it was your initial assertion that they were "very respected" that I responded to. Do you have any evidence at all that they are well respected?
My questions are fine. Speculation is speculation, and questions can bring about new ways of thinking. His position as a physicist is related to the nature of his speculations. I doubt if Dr Wolf's "god" is an actual person.
I never mentioned his religious convictions. My only concern is his respectibility.
QUOTE
Is your "god" an actual person to you?
I never mentioned my own religions beliefs, either.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is your "god" an actual person to you? |
I never mentioned my own religions beliefs, either.
Basically Dr Wolf has earned the right to speculate and have his speculations respected.
I fail to see how, considering he hasn't yet seemed to have earned any respect as a physicst.
QUOTE
It's provided him with a lot of interest, and it isn't gaining that much criticism from respected scientists is it?
Respected scientists don't seem to have anything to say about either of the two men you mentioned, actually. Remember, you made the initial claim that they're respected.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's provided him with a lot of interest, and it isn't gaining that much criticism from respected scientists is it? |
Respected scientists don't seem to have anything to say about either of the two men you mentioned, actually. Remember, you made the initial claim that they're respected.
So does the fact of evolution in some way discredit anything that Dr wolf is saying, or Goswami?
I never mentioned evolution or suggested such a thing as you're implying I have.
QUOTE
Don't people also speculate about some of the implications regarding evolution?
Evolution is a scientifically valid theory. Consciousness Causes Collapse (upon which the vast majority of Wolf's and Goswami's writings are based) is not.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 09:18 PM)
Everyone is allowed to speculate... as long as they make it clear that it is speculation.
You can't do anything but call it speculation. I believe in evolution through God's intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
You can't do anything but call it speculation. I believe in evolution through God's intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 04:31 PM)
You can't do anything but call it speculation. I believe in evolution through God's intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
No, some people can do science.
They design and conduct repeatable tests called experiments. It's a fascinating and radical concept. You may want to look into it.
Mitch Raemsch
No, some people can do science.
They design and conduct repeatable tests called experiments. It's a fascinating and radical concept. You may want to look into it.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 10:39 PM)
No, some people can do science.
They design and conduct repeatable tests called experiments.
And Who designed the designer?
Mitch Raemsch
They design and conduct repeatable tests called experiments.
And Who designed the designer?
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 10:43 PM)
And Who designed the designer?
Mitch Raemsch
Erm..the evolutionary process?
Mitch Raemsch
Erm..the evolutionary process?
No. That was intelligently created. Evolution doesn't design itself. It designes life.
Mitch Raemsch
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 04:55 PM)
No. That was intelligently created. Evolution doesn't design itself. It designes life.
Mitch Raemsch
I would ask what intelligence created the intelligent creator, but that stack of turtles is already rather unstable.
Mitch Raemsch
I would ask what intelligence created the intelligent creator, but that stack of turtles is already rather unstable.
QUOTE (gmilam+Feb 16 2009, 10:59 PM)
I would ask what intelligence created the intelligent creator, but that stack of turtles is already rather unstable.
Only the Creator isn't created. The universe is, by Him.
Mitch Raemsch
Only the Creator isn't created. The universe is, by Him.
Mitch Raemsch
[QUOTE]My point is that everyone in that list has reached the position that Wolf has, yet they lack the respect of their peers. This fact directly contradicts your assertion that Wolf could not have reached his position without a great deal of respect. [/QUOTE]
But it wasn't their position that led to their discredit was it? Whereas we should know that a person's position and achievements do lead to respect. He didn't achieve what he did and not get respect for it. So yes, he reached that position and was worthy of respect for it. Should he be discredited then that is a detriment to him and his psotion doesn't come into it.
[QUOTE]In fact, one of his most visible appearances in popular culture was in the film What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?, a film which has been universally panned by academia, even by philosophical academia...
A review of the movie menitoned above written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry labels the interviewees (including both of the names you mentioned ) as "so-called experts", and going on to say "The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." "
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html[/QUOTE]
Coming from the CSI that review doesn't surprise me. But thanks for pointing it out. I'll use it as a lead to gaining more insight into the attitude shown here, and how prevelent it is. and I will surely start with the links you've provided.
[QUOTE]I can find no mention of either of them ever contributing anything to the study of physics. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a single paper published by either of them in any journal, let alone a well respected one.
Let's take a look at Wolf, for instance.
There are several papers available through arxiv which were co-written by a Fred Wolf, but not the Fred Wolf you're referring to.
http://www.chaos.gwdg.de/staff/Wolf.html
This is the co-author of every single one of those pages. Obviously not the "Dr. Quantum" Fred Wolf.
In fact, if you look at (your) Wolf's website, you will see that most of his 'papers' were published in either non-scientific periodicals, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which is not at all well regarded by the scientific community.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm
He managed to get one paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, but as far as his own claims go: Not a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal of physics.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I did notice that his books were published outside academia, for example. The only thing I'd say to this is that you are getting your impression from other impressions, and not from the source for yourself. I'm not inclined to do that personally, but will read everything for what it is. And normally one finds more speculation than fact, that is true. As he readily admits speculating using QM as a basis, it would follow that he wouldn't apply for peer reviewing. Are specualtions peer reviewed?
[QUOTE]Finally, it was your initial assertion that they were "very respected" that I responded to. Do you have any evidence at all that they are well respected?
[/QUOTE]
I'll go further and say I was actually inferring that they had a lot of respect amongst scientists. But actually I'll concede that point for now, and say that it looks as if they don't. There's no doubt they know how to do physics and QM , amongst other things, but perhaps their brand of speculation doesn't agree with the Skeptical kind of view. Their being respected in other areas doesn't seem to be so in question however, given the books and interviews and other appearances in the media.
[QUOTE]I never mentioned his religious convictions. My only concern is his respectibility.
[/QUOTE]
If you have no concern for asides that's fine.
[QUOTE]I never mentioned my own religions beliefs, either.
[/QUOTE]
That was the extension of the aside, and that's fine too. I'd think that believing in a personified god would have to mean one believes nature is creative. That's why the aside was included, as part of the point made by Argyll that nature not being an entity isn't creative therefore.
[QUOTE]I fail to see how, considering he hasn't yet seemed to have earned any respect as a physicst.
[/QUOTE]
His respect as a physicist is without question. It's the respect for his speculations that are more in question amongst the "community" perhaps. I'll read his stuff in depth and decide for myself to either curtail the growing respect or to let it keep growing.
[QUOTE]Respected scientists don't seem to have anything to say about either of the two men you mentioned, actually. Remember, you made the initial claim that they're respected.
[/QUOTE]
You know, having accepted my forgetting about the prevailing skeptical athiest dominated science world, I am now not that surprised about this. Dunno what I was thinking. Not being able to attack these people for their physics ability, no doubt skeptics get their fill of scorning the speculations.
[QUOTE]I never mentioned evolution or suggested such a thing as you're implying I have.
[QUOTE]
I'm not saying you suggested that. But you have no doubt been reading the discussion so far. Evolution being a fact can't lead to the discredit of Dr Wolf's ideas, for example. Because speculation works both ways.
[QUOTE]Evolution is a scientifically valid theory.
[/QUOTE]
I recently accepted it as a fact.
[QUOTE]Consciousness Causes Collapse (upon which the vast majority of Wolf's and Goswami's writings are based) is not.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn't a fact, but it won't stop speculation. And as evolution can't produce a scientific reason to stop that speculation, it will no doubt be an avenue for further thinking. Now if atheism was science then the game would be over for the likes of Dr wolf..
But it wasn't their position that led to their discredit was it? Whereas we should know that a person's position and achievements do lead to respect. He didn't achieve what he did and not get respect for it. So yes, he reached that position and was worthy of respect for it. Should he be discredited then that is a detriment to him and his psotion doesn't come into it.
[QUOTE]In fact, one of his most visible appearances in popular culture was in the film What tнe #$*! Dө ωΣ (k)πow!?, a film which has been universally panned by academia, even by philosophical academia...
A review of the movie menitoned above written for the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry labels the interviewees (including both of the names you mentioned ) as "so-called experts", and going on to say "The breakdown of strict reductionism has become common knowledge among scientists, and yet Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, and Fred Alan Wolf, to mention just three from the film, have not caught up with this way of thinking about science. They prefer to remain within the old-fashioned paradigm that supposes that everything is indeed nothing but physics. This is not entirely surprising, given that each of them earns money writing books about popular physics laced with allusions to Eastern mysticism and the "really big questions in life." "
http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/review.html[/QUOTE]
Coming from the CSI that review doesn't surprise me. But thanks for pointing it out. I'll use it as a lead to gaining more insight into the attitude shown here, and how prevelent it is. and I will surely start with the links you've provided.
[QUOTE]I can find no mention of either of them ever contributing anything to the study of physics. In fact, it's almost impossible to find a single paper published by either of them in any journal, let alone a well respected one.
Let's take a look at Wolf, for instance.
There are several papers available through arxiv which were co-written by a Fred Wolf, but not the Fred Wolf you're referring to.
http://www.chaos.gwdg.de/staff/Wolf.html
This is the co-author of every single one of those pages. Obviously not the "Dr. Quantum" Fred Wolf.
In fact, if you look at (your) Wolf's website, you will see that most of his 'papers' were published in either non-scientific periodicals, or the Journal of Scientific Exploration, a journal which is not at all well regarded by the scientific community.
http://www.fredalanwolf.com/page2.htm
He managed to get one paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, but as far as his own claims go: Not a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal of physics.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I did notice that his books were published outside academia, for example. The only thing I'd say to this is that you are getting your impression from other impressions, and not from the source for yourself. I'm not inclined to do that personally, but will read everything for what it is. And normally one finds more speculation than fact, that is true. As he readily admits speculating using QM as a basis, it would follow that he wouldn't apply for peer reviewing. Are specualtions peer reviewed?
[QUOTE]Finally, it was your initial assertion that they were "very respected" that I responded to. Do you have any evidence at all that they are well respected?
[/QUOTE]
I'll go further and say I was actually inferring that they had a lot of respect amongst scientists. But actually I'll concede that point for now, and say that it looks as if they don't. There's no doubt they know how to do physics and QM , amongst other things, but perhaps their brand of speculation doesn't agree with the Skeptical kind of view. Their being respected in other areas doesn't seem to be so in question however, given the books and interviews and other appearances in the media.
[QUOTE]I never mentioned his religious convictions. My only concern is his respectibility.
[/QUOTE]
If you have no concern for asides that's fine.
[QUOTE]I never mentioned my own religions beliefs, either.
[/QUOTE]
That was the extension of the aside, and that's fine too. I'd think that believing in a personified god would have to mean one believes nature is creative. That's why the aside was included, as part of the point made by Argyll that nature not being an entity isn't creative therefore.
[QUOTE]I fail to see how, considering he hasn't yet seemed to have earned any respect as a physicst.
[/QUOTE]
His respect as a physicist is without question. It's the respect for his speculations that are more in question amongst the "community" perhaps. I'll read his stuff in depth and decide for myself to either curtail the growing respect or to let it keep growing.
[QUOTE]Respected scientists don't seem to have anything to say about either of the two men you mentioned, actually. Remember, you made the initial claim that they're respected.
[/QUOTE]
You know, having accepted my forgetting about the prevailing skeptical athiest dominated science world, I am now not that surprised about this. Dunno what I was thinking. Not being able to attack these people for their physics ability, no doubt skeptics get their fill of scorning the speculations.
[QUOTE]I never mentioned evolution or suggested such a thing as you're implying I have.
[QUOTE]
I'm not saying you suggested that. But you have no doubt been reading the discussion so far. Evolution being a fact can't lead to the discredit of Dr Wolf's ideas, for example. Because speculation works both ways.
[QUOTE]Evolution is a scientifically valid theory.
[/QUOTE]
I recently accepted it as a fact.
[QUOTE]Consciousness Causes Collapse (upon which the vast majority of Wolf's and Goswami's writings are based) is not.
[/QUOTE]
No it isn't a fact, but it won't stop speculation. And as evolution can't produce a scientific reason to stop that speculation, it will no doubt be an avenue for further thinking. Now if atheism was science then the game would be over for the likes of Dr wolf..
S'up, Lui?
Did you get so frothy at the mouthy that you forgot how to use
Did you get so frothy at the mouthy that you forgot how to use
QUOTE (Lui+)
quotes
? 
Actually I went back to the original point where I said "One doesn't get into the "position" Dr Wolf has without being respected". And conducting a search on him has shown that he does command plenty of respect. For example:
But further down on that link is this:
But further down on that link is this:
He is sometimes criticized for blending verifiable scientific evidence for quantum phenomena with unfalsifiable metaphysical connections, often without differentiating between the two
So now I can see where the problem is.
QUOTE
His book "Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists" won the National Book Award as science paperback for 1980 from the National Book Foundation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf
But further down on that link is this:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| His book "Taking the Quantum Leap: The New Physics for Nonscientists" won the National Book Award as science paperback for 1980 from the National Book Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Alan_Wolf |
But further down on that link is this:
He is sometimes criticized for blending verifiable scientific evidence for quantum phenomena with unfalsifiable metaphysical connections, often without differentiating between the two
So now I can see where the problem is.
So can we.
QUOTE (Granouille+Feb 17 2009, 12:30 AM)
So can we.
What do you mean by "we?"
Mitch Raemsch
What do you mean by "we?"
Mitch Raemsch
Of course, I meant "anyone who is rational".
Of course, you missed that...
Of course, you missed that...
QUOTE (Granouille+Feb 17 2009, 12:40 AM)
Of course, I meant "anyone who is rational".
Of course, you missed that...
Of course, you needed to clarify yourself.
MItch Raemsch
Of course, you missed that...
Of course, you needed to clarify yourself.
MItch Raemsch
QUOTE (Granouille+Feb 17 2009, 12:40 AM)
Of course, I meant "anyone who is rational".
Of course, you missed that...
Aaah the rational "we". I can see it, as clearly as the feedback scam around here. Rational, yes, we waited centuries for you, and now you're here.......how exciting!
Of course, you missed that...
Aaah the rational "we". I can see it, as clearly as the feedback scam around here. Rational, yes, we waited centuries for you, and now you're here.......how exciting!
If you are so farsighted, why are you here? 
Clever Lui. Insipid and boring Lui.
Tiresome.
Clever Lui. Insipid and boring Lui.
Tiresome.
QUOTE (Granouille+Feb 17 2009, 01:21 AM)
If you are so farsighted, why are you here?
Clever Lui. Insipid and boring Lui.
Tiresome.
What an interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Although I thought you were talking about your "we" and insightful rationality?
Clever Lui. Insipid and boring Lui.
Tiresome.
What an interesting post. Thanks for sharing. Although I thought you were talking about your "we" and insightful rationality?
QUOTE (Granouille+Feb 17 2009, 01:21 AM)
If you are so farsighted, why are you here?
Why are you here Grano?
Mitch Raemsch
Why are you here Grano?
Mitch Raemsch
Who is Grano?
Just another proof of your misapprehension of reality.
I know there are at least four people on this board that know who I am, and you aren't on that list.
If yours was a comedy act, it would still be very sad...
Just another proof of your misapprehension of reality.
I know there are at least four people on this board that know who I am, and you aren't on that list.
If yours was a comedy act, it would still be very sad...
QUOTE (Granouille+Feb 17 2009, 01:30 AM)
Who is Grano?
Just another proof of your misapprehension of reality.
I know there are at least four people on this board that know who I am, and you aren't on that list.
If yours was a comedy act, it would still be very sad...
Why are you here grano?
Just another proof of your misapprehension of reality.
I know there are at least four people on this board that know who I am, and you aren't on that list.
If yours was a comedy act, it would still be very sad...
Why are you here grano?
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 17 2009, 01:34 AM)
Why are you here grano?
I think the bigger question is, why are YOU still here, Cusa?
I think the bigger question is, why are YOU still here, Cusa?
QUOTE (Argyll+Feb 17 2009, 01:56 AM)
I think the bigger question is, why are YOU still here, Cusa?
To say that the universe has a Creator "I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His thoughts. All the rest are just detail." Albert Einstein
Mitch Raemsch
To say that the universe has a Creator "I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His thoughts. All the rest are just detail." Albert Einstein
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 17 2009, 02:22 AM)
To say that the universe has a Creator "I want to know how God created this world. I want to know His thoughts. All the rest are just detail." Albert Einstein
Mitch Raemsch
Wow, I never heard that before.
Mitch Raemsch
Wow, I never heard that before.
QUOTE (Derek1148+Feb 17 2009, 02:25 AM)
Wow, I never heard that before.
That's because I never stop repeating it.
Mitch
That's because I never stop repeating it.
Mitch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 09:29 PM)
That's because I never stop repeating it.
Mitch
If you actually knew any physics, you might have something else to post.
Mitch
If you actually knew any physics, you might have something else to post.
QUOTE (AlexG+Feb 17 2009, 02:33 AM)
If you actually knew any physics, you might have something else to post.
I believe in Aether.
I believe reason should back up the existence of intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
I believe in Aether.
I believe reason should back up the existence of intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (Cusa+Feb 16 2009, 09:40 PM)
I believe in Aether.
I believe reason should back up the existence of intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
You can believe whatever you want.
Knowing works better than belief. And you know very little.
I believe reason should back up the existence of intelligent design.
Mitch Raemsch
You can believe whatever you want.
Knowing works better than belief. And you know very little.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.