...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Deshret
»
"Darwinists don't accept direction in evolution." -- Swenet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Swenet: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug M: You just want to put everything and everyone into "thought camps"[/QUOTE]You have been putting people in thought camps for less. You went on record claiming disagreeing on applying the word 'black' to Egyptians makes you racist. You tried to make me out to be a racist in 2016 for the same reason. Part of your whole posting presence on ES revolves around claiming Egyptology as a racist thought camp and that Nubia is a racist word. At least I'm describing mainstream science as it sees itself when I use terms like materialism and Newtonian worldview. You are putting people in thought camps based on your own delusions. And you are putting people in racial camps, too, talking about 'black Amazonians'. I have been around these people in the Amazon. Your thought camps have no currency there or most other places outside of Afrocentric America. How do you justify being such a flip flopping hypocrite? C'mon. Don't deflect now. I want to hear it. Explain to me how projecting the racism thought camp on a whole field is okay, but describing how mainstream science identifies itself, isn't. [QUOTE] In the world of ideas there is rarely anything new. So we are just going over (or at least I am pointing out) that a lot of these arguments are being held in many circles and are very old going back long before Darwin and Newton. These concepts go back to the fundamental root of human cognition and understanding..... The difference now between modern "thought camps" is they try and cloak meta physical theories (meaning theories that cannot be ultimately proven and hence cannot answer all questions about everything through tangible proof) with "scientific" baggage as if to say that they have "more proof" of some abstract principle because of so and so "currently trending" scientific theory. This is absurd to me. Especially when these "exotic theories of the day" come and go every so many years and none of them provide the answers to everything that everybody claims they are going to answer. In other words, it is all in your mind, there is no answer because it is all a hologram projected in your mind. Hence science is all invalid and we should just all walk through walls and fly through the sky like Neo in the matrix...... This is why folks harp on Darwinism so much as anti-science or anti-materialists because that is not "hip and cool" now. That is what most of these books and articles are pushing especially those jumping on the quantum bandwagon. It provides no more of an answer to the origin of life than anything else. Yet we don't need an answer because it is all in our minds. It is all just consciousness..... But the funny part is all these "anti-materialists" constantly use "material science" as the basis of their 'anti-material' theories.[/QUOTE]What are you talking about? Seriously :confused: [/qb][/QUOTE]Swenet you aren't teaching me about science or Darwinism, Newtonian and anything else. I understand disagreements with science but you like to overgeneralize and then when somebody calls you on the over-generalization you act like you don't understand. Then when I go out and point out the articles discussing the same topics from different points of view covering all the angles of the debate, you act like you are trying to present something "unique" to the discussion. Like I said, there is nothing NEW about this discussion. This isn't some obscure area of human thought nobody else has discussed before. In general, the only time I see folks claiming that "mainstream science" is "newtonian" or "darwinian" is when folks have an "alternative" agenda. And this takes place in all these books, forums and online magazines all the time. All I have been saying is these ideas are heavily discussed all over the place and most of science deals with these issues all the time. Hence why it makes no sense to try an over generalize and claim "mainstream science" = "newtonian". It is not. Quantum science is part of mainstream science. Quantum science came about as a result of the same "materialist" scientific methods put forward by Newton and many others before him. In other words, by observing nature and making predictions and theories. That is why I said it is funny to see "anti-materialists" using "material science" to prove their "anti-materialist" views. It makes no sense to me. That is the "meta argument" I am objecting to which is all about absurd reduction of everything into absolutes which don't hold any water. Thats all. No need to drag up irrelevant talking points about Nubia. Just stick to that. You can't defend yourself on it so you rant on about irrelevant nonsense which has nothing to do with what you said. Similarly most scientists studying evolution are not necessarily newtonian or Darwinian either. But to hear you tell it they are. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=161&v=FPXfY6siSRw You are so defensive that you say things that don't make sense and when somebody says that it doesn't make sense you act like you cant understand why they would say it.... You said. [QUOTE] I said mainstream science operates in the Newtonian worldview. That is not a statement about the nature of genetics. It's a statement about people operating in genetics and their misconceptions about how organisms work. Again, people from the science community have no problems with my description of them. So, you're basically just caping for the scientific community, like a dupe, when they don't even side with you. Is that what you're here to do? To be a self-appointed PR dupe going the extra mile trying to defend things they don't even object to? This is exactly what I mean when I say Doug is indoctrinated in European doctrines posing as science. He doesn't even know the extent of his brainwashing.[/QUOTE]So you claim that people operating in genetics are operating in a "newtonian" worldview, even though nothing about genetics is based on particle physics.... This is what I mean. Genetics is not about mass and atomic density or the nature of matter in its most fundamental sense. You are mixing apples and oranges. The only way genetics or any other branch of modern science is "newtonian" is based on the practice of the "scientific method" when it comes to observing the world and being able to create theories based on actual tangible "material" examples. (Which comes from alchemy and the observation of nature and the minds eye, meaning thought and contemplation). But genetics as a field of science is not the same as "mechanics". Of course science deals with tangible "material" in the real world. Would you fly a plane built by someone who hasn't done any 'material' experimentation to see if it would fly? Of course not. This is what I mean by apples and oranges. Science needs tangible material proof and evidence in order to advance the tools and calculations related to working in the "material world". This is what I have been saying to you since a few pages ago and you refuse to understand it for what it is. Science is not trying to prove or disprove the existence of "god". Trying to build a faster rocket is not about "finding god". It is about a material ship going through material space and time to get from point a to point b. Similarly studying genetics is about understanding the material structure within genetic molecules, how they came about and how they function as biological living "material". [QUOTE] The history of scientific method considers changes in the methodology of scientific inquiry, as distinct from the history of science itself. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of one or another approach to establishing scientific knowledge. Despite the disagreements about approaches, scientific method has advanced in definite steps. Rationalist explanations of nature, including atomism, appeared both in ancient Greece in the thought of Leucippus and Democritus, and in ancient India, in the Nyaya, Vaisesika and Buddhist schools, while Charvaka materialism rejected inference as a source of knowledge in favour of an empiricism that was always subject to doubt. Aristotle pioneered scientific method in ancient Greece alongside his empirical biology and his work on logic, rejecting a purely deductive framework in favour of generalisations made from observations of nature. Some of the most important debates in the history of scientific method center on: rationalism, especially as advocated by René Descartes; inductivism, which rose to particular prominence with Isaac Newton and his followers; and hypothetico-deductivism, which came to the fore in the early 19th century. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a debate over realism vs. antirealism was central to discussions of scientific method as powerful scientific theories extended beyond the realm of the observable, while in the mid-20th century some prominent philosophers argued against any universal rules of science at all.[1][/QUOTE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method [QUOTE] The first edition of Principia features proposals about the movements of celestial bodies which Newton initially calls "hypotheses"—however, by the second edition, the word "hypothesis" was replaced by the word "rule", and Newton had added to the footnotes the following statement: ... I frame no hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy.[5] Newton's work and the philosophy that enshrines it are based on mathematical empiricism, which is the idea that mathematical and physical laws may be revealed in the real world via experimentation and observation.[2] It is important to note, however, that Newton's empiricism is balanced against an adherence to an exact mathematical system, and that in many cases the "observed phenomena" upon which Newton built his theories were actually based on mathematical models, which were representative but not identical to the natural phenomena they described.[2] [/QUOTE] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtonianism If you really want to see how deep this goes, then take a gander at the following page: [QUOTE] The structure of scientific theories is a rich topic. Theorizing and modeling are core activities across the sciences, whether old (e.g., relativity theory, evolutionary theory) or new (e.g., climate modeling, cognitive science, and systems biology). Furthermore, theory remains essential to developing multipurpose tools such as statistical models and procedures (e.g., Bayesian models for data analysis, agent-based models for simulation, network theory for systems analysis). Given the strength and relevance of theory and theorizing to the natural sciences, and even to the social sciences (e.g., microeconomics, physical, if not cultural, anthropology), philosophical attention to the structure of scientific theories could and should increase. This piece has focused on a comparison of three major perspectives: Syntactic View, Semantic View, and Pragmatic View. In order to handle these complex debates effectively, we have sidestepped certain key philosophical questions, including questions about scientific realism; scientific explanation and prediction; theoretical and ontological reductionism; knowledge-production and epistemic inference; the distinction between science and technology; and the relationship between science and society. Each of these topics bears further philosophical investigation in light of the three perspectives here explored. [/QUOTE] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/structure-scientific-theories/#PopGen Saying that the ultimate nature of reality is based on a form of "intelligent design" or "emergent conscious" does not answer how one builds a better fly trap. And ultimately, those questions are META PHYSICAL in nature, meaning being ultimately not directly something that can be proven through the tools of material science. Which is why the ideas of "god" and "thought" and the "nature of the universe" have traditionally been separated from the study of modern "material" science. I said this a few pages back. Also, what I think you are harping on is that "quantum" phenomena somehow disproves the tangible real world. It does not. You even said it yourself. This is what I mean by reductionism and absolutism. Quantum aspects of the universe aren't absolute. I can't walk through walls because of whatever happens in the "quantum realm". It is not an "observable" or "tangible" reality to me and doesn't make my materialist existence any less real. This is why I disagree with the idea that "nature" and "material" science are bad in these various articles because observing nature and the 'material' world is what got us here in the first place. Like I said all this boils down to folks trying to come up with "theories of everything" which folks have been trying to do forever, including creating the concept of "gods". In the industrial capitalist world, society evolves by building a better mousetrap. It is inherently a materialist paradigm which needs science to come up with new methods and means for working with material substances and improving the processes for making more advanced material products. At the end of the day this is the true end goal of "materialist science" which is to be the engine of "progress" within a western "industrialist capitalist" society. In reality, in this kind of society, "god" is a belief system that reinforces the pursuit of a more advanced material standard of living. That is my view of what "materialism" boils down to in western philosophy. Calling out "material science" for not answering the riddles of the universe does not mean materialist science is less viable for what it does within the material world. It is supreme arrogance within the western tradition that even begins to suggest the answer to all things from a single model or equation. But that does not make "material science" less valid for what it is within the material world, regardless of the arrogance of some theorists within the scientific community. Most scientific endeavors to this day have an ultimate practical purpose within the industrialist capitalist system we live in. Understanding genetics is not just for the knowledge but also to make new "proprietary" genetically engineered items that can be sold for profit. These are not trying to find the meaning of life or answer metaphysical questions about the meaning of life. It is ultimately about profits. And as such even quantum science follows the same pattern. Therefore, knowing all of that, most of the people calling out "materialist" science or "newtonian" science are doing so to reinject some form of "god" or unproveable intangible "mystery" back into the meaning of life, which to me is back to "creationism" vs "evolution". [QUOTE] Teleological terms such as "function" and "design" appear frequently in the biological sciences. Examples of teleological claims include: A (biological) function of stotting by antelopes is to communicate to predators that they have been detected. Eagles' wings are (naturally) designed for soaring. [b]Teleological notions were commonly associated with the pre-Darwinian view that the biological realm provides evidence of conscious design by a supernatural creator. Even after creationist viewpoints were rejected by most biologists there remained various grounds for concern about the role of teleology in biology, including whether such terms are: vitalistic (positing some special "life-force"); requiring backwards causation (because future outcomes explain present traits); incompatible with mechanistic explanation (because of 1 and 2); mentalistic (attributing the action of mind where there is none); empirically untestable (for all the above reasons).[/b] [/QUOTE] https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200805/physicshistory.cfm [QUOTE] Skip to content Home About Thomas Nagel’s natural teleology Posted on August 19, 2014 by SamL I recently read Thomas Nagel’s mercifully short Mind and Cosmos — mostly just to see what all the fuss was about — and one of the weirder lines of enquiry he pursues concerns what he calls the ‘historical problem of consciousness’. This is the problem of how consciousness came to be, which Nagel wants to distinguish from the ‘constitutive problem of consciousness’, i.e. the problem of what consciousness is. He writes [1]: The historical account of how conscious organisms arose in the universe can take one of three forms: it will either be causal (appealing only to law-governed efficient causation), or teleological, or intentional. [b]A causal explanation is the sort of thing a Darwinian account of the evolution of consciousness might offer, while an intentional explanation would appeal to the plans of some agent who made things happen the way they have (guess who). Teleological explanation is murkier, and it is here that Nagel positions himself, attempting to stake out some sort of middle ground between theism and materialism.[/b] Teleological explanations of a sort do appear in science — particularly in biology — but usually with the proviso that they are to be understood as shorthands (or sometimes heuristics) for lower-level causal explanations. So we might explain the web-building behaviour of spiders in terms of its purpose (i.e. spiders build webs in order to catch flies), but on the understanding that the ‘purpose’ of an organism’s behaviour just refers to those of its causal effects which increase the organism’s inclusive fitness. Even intentions crop up: when a gene has effects which result in its spread through a population (altruistic behaviour in cases of kin selection is a favourite example) it can be helpful to think of the gene as an agent with goals. But this kind of agenthood is underpinned by the fact that genes have causal effects which can influence their own spread, and so can be regarded as beneficiaries of these effects. Genes are agents, then, only insofar as their interactions can be modelled using game theory, and this is a criterion which can be cashed out in purely causal terms. It can also be tempting to ascribe teleological features to systems which have intrinsic tendencies. So we might say that soap bubbles ‘want’ to become spheres, or (more generally) that dynamic systems ‘want’ to minimise their free energy. But here, as in the above cases, this can be understood in terms of patterns of efficient causality at lower levels which give rise to emergent features at higher ones. (Rather than the spread of traits through populations, in this case the causal explanation might mention singularities in a system’s phase space, for example.) [b]None of this is quite what Nagel is after. He wants some form of teleology which neither can be paraphrased away using efficient causes, nor which requires a real agent. This jams him into a rather narrow crease, and forces him to say things like “Each of our lives is a part of the lengthy process of the universe gradually waking up and becoming aware of itself” while unable to say anything substantial about what it means for the universe to be the sort of unity which can ‘wake up’. The faint whiff of woo that rises from such statements no doubt accounts for much of the scorn that has been poured on this book since it was published in 2012.[/b][/QUOTE] https://leplatopus.wordpress.com/2014/08/19/thomas-nagels-natural-teleology/ So in a sense this is more about the meta of why we shouldn't use "material science" to look into the origins of life as opposed to a true critique to the applications and products of materials science we see around us every day(the better mouse trap). [QUOTE] t was an idea long consigned to the dustbin of scientific history. ‘Like a virgin consecrated to God,’ Francis Bacon declared nearly 400 years ago, it ‘produces nothing’. It was anti-rational nonsense, the last resort of unfashionable idealists and religious agitators. And then, late last year, one of the world’s most renowned philosophers published a book arguing that we should take it seriously after all. Biologists and philosophers lined up to give the malefactor a kicking. His ideas were ‘outdated’, complained some. Another wrote: ‘I regret the appearance of this book.’ Steven Pinker sneered at ‘the shoddy reasoning of a once-great thinker’. The Guardian called it ‘the most despised science book of 2012’. So what made everyone so angry? The thinker was Thomas Nagel, the book was Mind and Cosmos, and the idea was teleology. In ancient science (or, as it used to be called, natural philosophy), teleology held that things — in particular, living things — had a natural end, or telos, at which they aimed. The acorn, Aristotle said, sprouted and grew into a seedling because its purpose was to become a mighty oak. Sometimes, teleology seemed to imply an intention to pursue such an end, if not in the organism then in the mind of a creator. It could also be taken to imply an uncomfortable idea of reverse causation, with the telos — or ‘final cause’ — acting backwards in time to affect earlier events. For such reasons, teleology was ceremonially disowned at the birth of modern experimental science.[/QUOTE] https://aeon.co/essays/what-s-it-all-for-is-a-question-that-belongs-in-the-past [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3