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. — Rich
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
Natural is not metaphysical — SonJnana
It's as metaphysical as mind. — Rich
procedurally learning (by a muscle???), — Rich
Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science. — Rich
The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined. — Rich
Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation. — SonJnana
I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memory — SonJnana
thermodynamics is itself demonstrable. — SonJnana
Yes, as in Natural Selection — Rich
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
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
If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we? — Rich
DNA is made up of nucleotides. — SonJnana
But just because we don't know doesn't mean we never will. — SonJnana
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
Just to clarify, is your argument that there has to be an immaterial formula for physics? — SonJnana
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
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
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
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
immaterial soul, and this is necessary to properly understand reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
I don't quite understand your question. Aren't all formulae immaterial, and doesn't physics use formulae? — Metaphysician Undercover
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. — Metaphysician Undercover
The way biology is the way it is is because of complex biochemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because of the underlying physics. If you're gonna make this argument, you have to go further at a fundamental level and then ask why physics is the way it is, which is what I think you are essentially doing. — SonJnana
We create formulas to describe physics. Science creates models to describe the universe. Why is physics the way it is? We don't know. But to leap frog from we don't know to assert there is a metaphysical soul, you have a lot of demonstrating to do. — SonJnana
You are losing me with your terminology. Let's see if we can straighten some things out. These terms, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, all refer to fields of study. Do we agree on this? These fields of study, are the way that they are, because human beings developed them to be this way. Do we agree on that? So if we need to ask why physics is the way that it is, this question is very easily approached with the answer that physics developed in this way because it is the result of human intention. Human intention is the cause of the field of study called "physics" being the way that it is. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover
You seem to be using "physics" here in a way which I am not familiar with. Physicists create formulas to describe the activities of the physical world. If we want to create formulas to describe what the physicists are doing (physics), then shouldn't we turn to philosophy? — Metaphysician Undercover
You were talking about how DNA somehow gives direction. — SonJnana
So with all the terms, I'm referring to the phenomena itself. Why is the phenomena that we study in biology the way it is? Because the phenomena of physics is the way it is. Why is the phenomena of physics the way it is? We don't know. — SonJnana
Now it's up to you to demonstrate how we go from our lack of knowledge about why the physics is the way it is, to a metaphysical soul. — SonJnana
No I didn't say that DNA gives direction, I said that the physical parts of the living body are directed. DNA is a physical part, and therefore It follows direction. — Metaphysician Undercover
I described this already, maybe you should go back and reread, and ask me if you have any questions about what I said.. — Metaphysician Undercover
I came to learn this from my study of philosophy, many years of reading. It is a difficult subject requiring much study. Here's something to consider though. A living body consists of parts which are active, and the activity is directed. The activity must be in such and such a way or there would be no living body. The living body would not exist without these parts carrying out their specified activities. If this is the case, then a living body could not come into existence without these parts each carrying out their specific activities. Therefore the formula, or direction (and this is immaterial), as to which parts must carry out which activities, must be prior to the existence of the living body. So we can conclude that this immaterial formula must be prior to the living body. The living body is dependent on the immaterial formula, and follows from it, not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover
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.