• SonJnana
    243
    There is no claim that there is no mind, There is only assumption that a metaphysical mind hasn't been demonstrated. You have not demonstrated it.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Science doesn't use the word mind, they just use the word brain, disregarding the mind in the gut as well as everywhere else in the body (muscle memory) The metaphysical bias is no accident. It is a matter of who is in charge.
  • SonJnana
    243

    The only metaphysical bias of science is that the metaphysical mind has not been demonstrated. That is not the same thing as claiming there is no metaphysical mind. Science isn't making metaphysical claims, or saying determinism is true. People may use science to support their metaphysical belief of determinism, but science itself doesn't make metaphysical claims of determinism.

    Science uses the word brain to describe the brain. That is different than the autonomic nervous system. Now are you suggesting the autonomic nervous system requires a metaphysical mind? I find it ironic how you claim that science is like a religion making nonsensical assertions, yet it is in fact you rather than science who are making metaphysical assertions, and still have failed to demonstrate any of it.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    The only metaphysical bias of science is that the metaphysical mind has not been demonstrated.SonJnana

    Of course it has. It is what is peering out the eyes. Science just used substitution words like natural and Thermodynamic Imperative, as if each of these words have been demonstrated.

    The word brain is used as a substitute for Mind except where things happen outside of the brain in which case we have mind-gut, muscle memory, and if course the universal place holder "natural".
  • SonJnana
    243
    Of course it has. It is what is peering out the eyes.Rich

    How does the fact that I'm able to see demonstrate that there is some metaphysical mind beyond the brain? That's nonsense. Natural is not metaphysical, it is just a word to describe what happens without human manipulation. I even gave you the definition. And I'm pretty sure the thermodynamic imperative is a metaphysical claim philosophers have used. Never have I seen it in a science context. Science doesn't make metaphysical claims it can't prove. Scientists may, but they aren't doing science when they do.

    The word brain is used as a substitute for Mind except where things happen outside of the brain in which case we have mind-gut, muscle memory, and if course the universal place holder "natural".Rich

    The word brain refers to the organ in your head. Of course it doesn't refer the gut. That's because your gut is your gut. Your gut does what it does for it's own biochemical reasons. Maybe if you actually study some biology before making these outrageous claims it'd make more sense. And in fact the brain even does have influence on the gut by sending electrochemical signals and hormones. Muscle memory is a type of procedural learning that is not separate from the brain nor does anyone claim that it is.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Natural is not metaphysicalSonJnana

    It's as metaphysical as mind.

    The rest of your post is just substitution electrical chemical, biochemical, procedurally learning (by a muscle???), for mind. Sleight of hand. I am surprised that you didn't stuff it in a gene. Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science.

    http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5463/version/1

    The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined.
  • SonJnana
    243
    It's as metaphysical as mind.Rich

    Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation.

    nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

    It is the phenomena. Do you reject the phenomena? Do you reject that if you jump off a cliff you'd fall? No you wouldn't. So stop being a hypocrite and trying to reject the word natural. It's only a description of what happens, it is the phenomena, not a metaphysical explanation for why the phenomena is what it is.

    I actually think I misinterpreted what you meant by mind-gut earlier. I thought you were referring to the gut as in the stomach so I was talking about that as opposed to a "gut-feeling". I don't know which one you were talking about but it doesn't really matter.

    procedurally learning (by a muscle???),Rich

    I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memory that your muscle just does by itself as if it has a mind of it's own like you think. Your brain has learned to do something with repetition so is able to manipulate your muscles (which are also now better suited to doing the task for biochemical reasons) much easier. In a sense the signals are more efficient, similar to when you can remember something better when you've repeated it multiple times. Memory neural connections are observable.

    Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science.Rich

    I've never seen the word imperative seen next to thermodynamics in a science context, but anyway thermodynamics is itself demonstrable. The four laws of thermodynamics are well established model for a reason. And there hasn't been evidence that contradicts them.

    The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined.Rich

    You are the king of repeating the same thing over and over again and without demonstrating it. Stop making baseless claims. The only thing you've said is that science denies the mind. Just demonstrate this metaphysical mind already, stop being dishonest.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation.SonJnana

    Yes, as in Natural Selection
    I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memorySonJnana

    Muscle as some kind of memory? It's it natural?

    It's not that I don't understand biology. It is just I am amused by how well they indoctrinated you.

    thermodynamics is itself demonstrable.SonJnana

    Yeah, but it is the Imperative part that is so important to science, because the need a placeholder for Mind when the brain isn't there. No problem, they just make up a new word - and if course teach it as science. That's where the Thermodynamic thing becomes important. It makes the new placeholder seem so scientific.

    If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we?
  • SonJnana
    243
    Yes, as in Natural SelectionRich

    Natural selection is a term used to describe what is happening during evolution in the physical world. Science describes what is happening in the physical world. For me to say that an apple falls is not a metaphysical claim. Describing the physical world is not a metaphysical claim.

    Muscle as some kind of memory? It's it natural?

    It's not that I don't understand biology. It is just I am amused by how well they indoctrinated you.
    Rich

    You clearly don't understand biology, evidently by trying to mislead with that article that you thought somehow went against our modern understanding of biology when it doesn't. If you're gonna make bold claims about science, at least make sure you even understand the science.

    Science develops models that are based off of evidence, that describe the physical world rather than make metaphysical claims. Nothing in science is even set in stone. When we say this is what science says, we are saying this is the best model we have to best of our ability of understanding the universe. That is an assumption of honest scientists. While you accuse science of being a religion and yet believe in some metaphysical mind that you can't even demonstrate.

    Yeah, but it is the Imperative party that is so important to science, because the need a placeholder for Mind when the brain isn't there. So problem, they just make up a new word - and if course teach it as science.Rich

    It is a word to describe a phenomena. Really how do you not understand? If I say red apple to describe what I'm eating, is that a metaphysical claim? What nonsense.

    If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we?Rich

    I'm not trying to force science down your throat. I just think it's ridiculous that you will quote me while I'm replying to someone else, tell me science is nonsense, and then claim you know somehow know of this metaphysical mind that you can't even demonstrate.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    I guess bottom line, as a philosophy Determinism is useless and as science it is a myth.

    I hope this is a fine demonstration of Mind at its finest.
  • SonJnana
    243
    I don't know if you're trolling but I'm done with this conversation lol
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.1k
    DNA is made up of nucleotides.SonJnana

    Yes, and they perform directed actions. And it is not understood exactly why they perform directed actions. My point is that there is no living body without such directed actions, so the formula which directs is prior to the body.

    But just because we don't know doesn't mean we never will.SonJnana

    My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option.

    At some point we could ask why physics is the way it is. We may never know. But how do we go from asking that to assuming there is an immaterial soul inside of us? And then we would ask is there then a soul in other animals? In plants? In bacteria? In viruses? In atoms? Where do we draw the line, after assuming there even is an immaterial soul inside of us?SonJnana

    This is why the study of philosophy is important, it gives us direction toward understanding the immaterial soul, and this is necessary to properly understand reality.

    Just to clarify, is your argument that there has to be an immaterial formula for physics?SonJnana

    I don't quite understand your question. Aren't all formulae immaterial, and doesn't physics use formulae?

    It doesn't mean that we conclude there is some immaterial force that leads to why living organisms are the way they are that goes beyond our knowledge of how atoms work.SonJnana

    I think quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is an immaterial force behind the way atoms work. Do you understand Pauli exclusion? The concept of "force" is quite useful in physics, and despite assumptions that forces may be accounted for with material particles this approach, is enveloped in uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates flawed principles.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option.Metaphysician Undercover

    Causual, yet critical, observation of scientific theories reveal that science is full lot immaterial, including but not limited to, the Observer, force, quanta, gravity, energy, negative/positive, natural ..., etc. It has to be, and always will be, there, just hidden by different words.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    QM phenomena are all replicable. That makes them deterministic. It is no impediment to determinism if science has not got its model right.
    Determinism is not invalidated by ignorance.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    There is zero support or need for determinism in quantum physics.Rich

    Perhaps you'd like to explain that!! Oh can't ?? Never mind!
  • Rich
    3.2k
    QM phenomena are all replicable.charleton

    Nope. Each event is probabilistic. The Schrodinger equation is a probability wave.
  • charleton
    1.2k
    Ignorance of antecedent states do not invalidate determinism.
    All QM experiments are reliably replicable and so assert a deterministic universe.
    When science has worked its shit out on this matter this silliness will be silenced.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    Perhaps you'd like to explain that!! Oh can't ?? Never mind!charleton

    Zero support for determinism anywhere. The reason is that it is a completely fabricated story made up a few hundred years ago.

    Time to request refunds for Phys101. I'll take 10%.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    gnorance of antecedent states do not invalidate determinism.
    All QM experiments are reliably replicable and so assert a deterministic universe.
    When science has worked its shit out on this matter this silliness will be silenced.
    charleton

    My oh my oh my. Someone has to redo a class.
  • Rich
    3.2k
    http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/06/08/on-quantum-mechanics-stochasti/

    "QM is stochastic. Determinism is out the window, but that doesn’t mean that every damn thing you can think of is in the window."
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.