On January 18 2012 10:54 SfydjkLm wrote:
do you guys notice how the only posts that are getting attention are the most outrageous and baseless ones? and then you ask why we have all these religious nutjobs?
Well, that's cause the righteous anti-religious crusaders like you prefer to create a spectacle out of the subject rather than have an intelligent discussion. Debate bumhunting is waht that is.
so ignore or try and have an intelligent discussion with d smart s ? because both situations are impossible lol
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
I like Chalmers more than Searle. His Type-F monism is very similar to Schopenhauer's transcendental idealism.
As for the rainbow question, none of you have provided an answer based in modern science. I'm gonna use some wiki to save me some time. If you want to argue that rainbows - which are an observer-dependent reality - exist objectively, you all deny the fundamental mind-body problem; that is, your worldview is still based in an old physicalism that assumes that qualia is reducible to physical reality. Erwin Schrödinger, the famous physicist, had this counter-materialist take: "The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so."
There is a popular argument to demonstrate why you are wrong in your assumption. It is called the knowledge argument. It says:
Mary the colour scientist knows all the physical facts about colour, including every physical fact about the experience of colour in other people, from the behavior a particular colour is likely to elicit to the specific sequence of neurological firings that register that a colour has been seen. However, she has been confined from birth to a room that is black and white, and is only allowed to observe the outside world through a black and white monitor. When she is allowed to leave the room, it must be admitted that she learns something about the colour red the first time she sees it — specifically, she learns what it is like to see that colour.
This thought experiment has two purposes. First, it is intended to show that qualia exist. If we agree with the thought experiment, we believe that Mary gains something after she leaves the room—that she acquires knowledge of a particular thing that she did not possess before. That knowledge is knowledge of the quale that corresponds to the experience of seeing red, and it must thus be conceded that qualia are real properties, since there is a difference between a person who has access to a particular quale and one who does not.
The second purpose of this argument is to refute the physicalist account of the mind. Specifically, the knowledge argument is an attack on the physicalist claim about the completeness of physical truths. The challenge posed to physicalism by the knowledge argument runs as follows:
1.Before her release, Mary was in possession of all the physical information about color experiences of other people.
2. After her release, Mary learns something about the color experiences of other people.
Therefore,
3. Before her release, Mary was not in possession of all the information about other people's color experiences, even though she was in possession of all the physical information.
Therefore,
4. There are truths about other people's color experience that are not physical.
Therefore,
5. Physicalism is false.
Professor Corey Anton talks about the rainbow in a video I saw a couple months ago here:
Start at about 1:40
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Last edit: 18/01/2012 12:49
1
terrybunny19240 United States. Jan 18 2012 12:45. Posts 13829
: nice posts even tho I don't agree with all of it, learned some stuff
I read that chapter 7 essay, the argument appears to me as, 'since (typically) everything which recognizes its existence wants to continue to exist, none of us is an individual/unique.' Why does acknowledging that everyone else has the same desire to exist strip us of our individuality rather than simply enhance our respect for one another? I also don't understand how it implies a universal soul/being, which I think is what you're describing in your above post, to me it seems enough to acknowledge that there were, are, and will be eternal, unending processes occurring in the "universe" -- but nothing more.
(there is a bit more to the essay but lemme know if/how I'm totally missing the point)
You start way too late. To understand the argument you need to understand the earlier point made for Schopenhauer's Will as being 'our true being' early on (I'll quote it at the end). But in the place you are quoting, he's saying that every manifestation of the will wants to exist, so it is the will itself that seeks to exist, and therefore it strips us of our individuality, since it's all temporary phenomenon manifesting from one eternal unity (the will). "I— I— I want to exist you alone do not say this, but everything, absolutely everything, that has only a vestige of consciousness. Consequently this desire of yours is just that which is not individual but which is common to all without distinction. It does not proceed from individuality, but from existence in general[...]"
A bit unrelated but it makes me think of this one popular quote that you've probably heard which says: "you are absolutely unique... just like everyone else!" Impossible to deny that you are indeed unique in every way possible, and occupy a unique place in space and time... and yet other people are the same.
Phil. Transcendental knowledge is that which, going beyond the boundary of possible experience, endeavours to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves; while immanent knowledge keeps itself within the boundary of possible experience, therefore it can only apply to phenomena. As an individual, with your death there will be an end of you. But your individuality is not your true and final being, indeed it is rather the mere expression of it; it is not the thing-in-itself but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time, and accordingly has both a beginning and an end. Your being in itself, on the contrary, knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor the limits of a given individuality; hence no individuality can be without it, but it is there in each and all. So that, in the first sense, after death you become nothing; in the second, you are and remain everything. That is why I said that after death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to give you a more exact answer to your question than this and to be brief at the same time; but here we have undoubtedly another contradiction; this is because your life is in time and your immortality in eternity. Hence your immortality may be said to be something that is indestructible and yet has no endurance — which is again contradictory, you see. This is what happens when transcendental knowledge is brought within the boundary of immanent knowledge; in doing this some sort of violence is done to the latter, since it is used for things for which it was not intended.
He's being playful with the fictional socratic dialogue, which is at the end of the actual essay that would help you understand it more clearly, but I can't find it online.
Schopenhauer's Will is like a stepping stone to understanding much of 20th century Euoprean philosophy. Contrasting Schopenhauer's conception of man with what Europeans believed in before will do a lot to change a person's perspective.
Loco, cool thanks for the reply. I'll concede that I am not aware of his full argument here. What is the Schopenhauer 101 book, I'll try to scope it out.
: nice posts even tho I don't agree with all of it, learned some stuff
I read that chapter 7 essay, the argument appears to me as, 'since (typically) everything which recognizes its existence wants to continue to exist, none of us is an individual/unique.' Why does acknowledging that everyone else has the same desire to exist strip us of our individuality rather than simply enhance our respect for one another? I also don't understand how it implies a universal soul/being, which I think is what you're describing in your above post, to me it seems enough to acknowledge that there were, are, and will be eternal, unending processes occurring in the "universe" -- but nothing more.
(there is a bit more to the essay but lemme know if/how I'm totally missing the point)
You start way too late. To understand the argument you need to understand the earlier point made for Schopenhauer's Will as being 'our true being' early on (I'll quote it at the end). But in the place you are quoting, he's saying that every manifestation of the will wants to exist, so it is the will itself that seeks to exist, and therefore it strips us of our individuality, since it's all temporary phenomenon manifesting from one eternal unity (the will). "I— I— I want to exist you alone do not say this, but everything, absolutely everything, that has only a vestige of consciousness. Consequently this desire of yours is just that which is not individual but which is common to all without distinction. It does not proceed from individuality, but from existence in general[...]"
A bit unrelated but it makes me think of this one popular quote that you've probably heard which says: "you are absolutely unique... just like everyone else!" Impossible to deny that you are indeed unique in every way possible, and occupy a unique place in space and time... and yet other people are the same.
Phil. Transcendental knowledge is that which, going beyond the boundary of possible experience, endeavours to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves; while immanent knowledge keeps itself within the boundary of possible experience, therefore it can only apply to phenomena. As an individual, with your death there will be an end of you. But your individuality is not your true and final being, indeed it is rather the mere expression of it; it is not the thing-in-itself but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time, and accordingly has both a beginning and an end. Your being in itself, on the contrary, knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor the limits of a given individuality; hence no individuality can be without it, but it is there in each and all. So that, in the first sense, after death you become nothing; in the second, you are and remain everything. That is why I said that after death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to give you a more exact answer to your question than this and to be brief at the same time; but here we have undoubtedly another contradiction; this is because your life is in time and your immortality in eternity. Hence your immortality may be said to be something that is indestructible and yet has no endurance — which is again contradictory, you see. This is what happens when transcendental knowledge is brought within the boundary of immanent knowledge; in doing this some sort of violence is done to the latter, since it is used for things for which it was not intended.
He's being playful with the fictional socratic dialogue, which is at the end of the actual essay that would help you understand it more clearly, but I can't find it online.
Schopenhauer's Will is like a stepping stone to understanding much of 20th century Euoprean philosophy. Contrasting Schopenhauer's conception of man with what Europeans believed in before will do a lot to change a person's perspective.
Loco, cool thanks for the reply. I'll concede that I am not aware of his full argument here. What is the Schopenhauer 101 book, I'll try to scope it out.
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On January 18 2012 13:18 uiCk wrote:
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
The claim is not that the rainbow "isn't real" but rather that if you believe a rainbow exists by itself without the need of an observer, you are assuming that color and other qualia exist physically, which is a faith-based position. In reality, there is no qualia if there is no mind: what "makes" the rainbow is as much dependent on you and your placement for perceiving it as it is dependent of the other elements needed for its formation. If you say that it is real independent of an observer, it is only real in your imagination, not in the world. There is no evidence to demonstrate that qualia have a physical property and exist by themselves, and indeed, they can't. The above video should help you understand why.
Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics remarked that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. Qualia is outside of the material world, therefore materialism is false.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On January 18 2012 13:18 uiCk wrote:
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
The claim is not that the rainbow "isn't real" but rather that if you believe a rainbow exists by itself without the need of an observer, you are assuming that color and other qualia exist physically, which is a faith-based position. In reality, there is no qualia if there is no mind: what "makes" the rainbow is as much dependent on you and your placement for perceiving it as it is dependent of the other elements needed for its formation. If you say that it is real independent of an observer, it is only real in your imagination, not in the world. There is no evidence to demonstrate that qualia have a physical property and exist by themselves, and indeed, they can't. The above video should help you understand why.
Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics remarked that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. Qualia is outside of the material world, therefore materialism is false.
In conclusion
D_Smart wins
1
zulu_nation8 United States. Jan 18 2012 17:27. Posts 1929
: nice posts even tho I don't agree with all of it, learned some stuff
I read that chapter 7 essay, the argument appears to me as, 'since (typically) everything which recognizes its existence wants to continue to exist, none of us is an individual/unique.' Why does acknowledging that everyone else has the same desire to exist strip us of our individuality rather than simply enhance our respect for one another? I also don't understand how it implies a universal soul/being, which I think is what you're describing in your above post, to me it seems enough to acknowledge that there were, are, and will be eternal, unending processes occurring in the "universe" -- but nothing more.
(there is a bit more to the essay but lemme know if/how I'm totally missing the point)
You start way too late. To understand the argument you need to understand the earlier point made for Schopenhauer's Will as being 'our true being' early on (I'll quote it at the end). But in the place you are quoting, he's saying that every manifestation of the will wants to exist, so it is the will itself that seeks to exist, and therefore it strips us of our individuality, since it's all temporary phenomenon manifesting from one eternal unity (the will). "I— I— I want to exist you alone do not say this, but everything, absolutely everything, that has only a vestige of consciousness. Consequently this desire of yours is just that which is not individual but which is common to all without distinction. It does not proceed from individuality, but from existence in general[...]"
A bit unrelated but it makes me think of this one popular quote that you've probably heard which says: "you are absolutely unique... just like everyone else!" Impossible to deny that you are indeed unique in every way possible, and occupy a unique place in space and time... and yet other people are the same.
Phil. Transcendental knowledge is that which, going beyond the boundary of possible experience, endeavours to determine the nature of things as they are in themselves; while immanent knowledge keeps itself within the boundary of possible experience, therefore it can only apply to phenomena. As an individual, with your death there will be an end of you. But your individuality is not your true and final being, indeed it is rather the mere expression of it; it is not the thing-in-itself but only the phenomenon presented in the form of time, and accordingly has both a beginning and an end. Your being in itself, on the contrary, knows neither time, nor beginning, nor end, nor the limits of a given individuality; hence no individuality can be without it, but it is there in each and all. So that, in the first sense, after death you become nothing; in the second, you are and remain everything. That is why I said that after death you would be all and nothing. It is difficult to give you a more exact answer to your question than this and to be brief at the same time; but here we have undoubtedly another contradiction; this is because your life is in time and your immortality in eternity. Hence your immortality may be said to be something that is indestructible and yet has no endurance — which is again contradictory, you see. This is what happens when transcendental knowledge is brought within the boundary of immanent knowledge; in doing this some sort of violence is done to the latter, since it is used for things for which it was not intended.
He's being playful with the fictional socratic dialogue, which is at the end of the actual essay that would help you understand it more clearly, but I can't find it online.
Schopenhauer's Will is like a stepping stone to understanding much of 20th century Euoprean philosophy. Contrasting Schopenhauer's conception of man with what Europeans believed in before will do a lot to change a person's perspective.
Loco, cool thanks for the reply. I'll concede that I am not aware of his full argument here. What is the Schopenhauer 101 book, I'll try to scope it out.
solid
I would at least go to SIP(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or better yet Routledge if you have some kind of college library electronic source access, and read about all that has happened prior to Schopenhauer(S), or in brief, about rationalism/empiricism, and kant. Philosophy is a history, everything has to be read in context. I wouldn't really recommend S as a first philosopher to anyone, but then again I can't think of a "first" philosopher I would recommend, each one has his genius but also... neurosis. Loco i'm loaning out A Short History of Decay, looking forward to reading something interesting. This thread also made me go back to Feyerabend, if anyone is interested in a brilliant but scathing analysis of the scientific method, take a look at Feyerabend's Against Method.
1
hoylemj United States. Jan 18 2012 23:41. Posts 840
Maybe we will see a Schopenhaurer vs. Philosophy spoken word video surface on youtube in the coming weeks
On January 17 2012 18:25 Baalim wrote: Shut the fuck up and post evidence of the Soul
You claimed the soul existed and said you would post evidence, you dont get to drop the subjects and discuss other things, post evidence or concede that there is no evidence that the soul exist and that you believe things there are no evidence of
You want proof of the Soul yet you don't want to comprehend simple things. Read this post very carefully, I will make it as simple as it can get.
In order for me to prove that the Soul exists I have to prove that there can be an alternative reality in which spirits can exist. Right now you believe that the physical reality is the only reality in the Universe. The double slit experiment proves that ELECTRONS EXIST ON INFINITE PLACES SIMULTANEOUSLY. Mainstream physics tell you that your body, for example, is made up of electrons and that they exist in only one place. That is so because mainstream science OBSERVES the electrons and locks them in one of their possible positions. This is proved by the last segment of the double slit experiment in which either a measuring device or a scientist is put to follow the exact movement of the electron (rather than just verifying the results AFTER the test is done). So, right at this moment - look at your hand. It is made up of certain number of electrons in certain locations. BUT those electrons exist simultaneously on different places that you cannot observe due to you existing in only one reality!!! This is fundamental! If you don't understand this, you cannot understand the soul!
Now, the physical reality is that which you can see with your eyes and interact with.
This is the tiny portion of light that we, humans, can see. Everything existing in the other ranges we cannot see or interact with. If you stand near a microwave, the microwaves go through you because they are so 'thin', so to speak, that they go between the electrons and the other particles you are made of. You cannot see them, you cannot interact with them, and yet they are REAL. If you are in a car, you can tune into many different frequencies through your radio. They all exist in the same space of your car at the same time. That's the way it is with different light/sound frequencies. They don't exclude each other if they are at the same place because they have different frequencies and don't interact with each other.
So far, with the double slit experiment and the light spectrum explanation I have proved that THERE CAN BE ALTERNATIVE REALITIES THAT YOU CANNOT SEE/INTERACT WITH.
Now, let's prove the existence of the soul in one of those alternative realities.
15 to 20 % of the people that go brain-dead after some accident or operation experience a Near Death Experience or Out Of Body Experience. I now you will use the DMT-card which in some respect is true - your body does release DMT before death. So, let's exclude that in a way that it doesn't matter whether it releases anything and prove that either way the soul exists.
Some of the % of those NDE/OBE happen during an operation after an anesthesia shot. The patients cannot see or hear. But let's exclude the hearing. Let's say they can hear somehow and narrow the range to only being unable to see. There are DOCUMENTED cases in which the patient after being awakened from the operation reports going out of their bodies and seeing details that couldn't be seen/known in any way possible. They report the exact course of the operation, the exact tools being used for different parts of their body and the way they were used. During an operation the doctor DOES NOT OPEN their tool boxes until they need them in order to prevent contamination from the air. That's why the patient cannot know what they look like or what they were used for. Moreover, the patient reports the position of all doctors, who goes out of the room at which point, who does what and different dialogues (if you think they can hear, you can exclude the dialogue part). The patient's reports cannot be proven in any other way except for them being there, watching the operation!!! That is why the number of striking details from the reports of patients who undergo operations with anesthesia is ASTOUNDINGLY ACCURATE. The statistical signifance is beyond any explanation through mere chance or prior knowledge. There are scientific experts who have compiled thousands of such cases throughout the last few decades and this is as much of a prove as you can get. Thinking otherwise is the equivalent of thinking that nanonoko is just a lucky donk who would be losing tons of money if it wasn't for his incredible luck in 2-3 million hands. We all know this is bullshit because of the mathematical deviation and statistical significance.
If anyone thinks this post makes sense, please say so. If not, please point out which part you don't agree with and why. Thank you.
Wrong on many things ill try to list them:
1.- The double slit experiment does not imply that electrons exist in every part of the universe and only our observation puts them in place, that is not only inaccurate, simply wrong it was explained why early you just refused to acknowledge it or probably even read it.
2.- The visible frequency spectrum it about ray wavelength, not about matter, its not like there could be a couch in a X-ray wavelength, also of fucking course we can interact with ray in other wavelengths, for example, stick your head in a microwave oven (plz do it) and see how the rays interact with you LOL.
3.- You dont get to ignore DMT, its the strongest allucinogen known to man, the human brain releases it when ppl are about to die and you dont attribute near death experiences to allucionations? LOL.
4.- Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, there has never been proved nor been a clinical trial of your claims, ive had a near death experience, guess what, no astral projection, my dad had one even closer than me and hard to get closer to that, guess what, astral projection either.
So you havent proved shit you just said "oh, some guys who nearly die, can see things that they shouldnt be able to see... so the soul must exist", you realize how stupid you look to everyone, that is no proof, you have provided literally zero evidence, and yeah ur an idiot.
On January 18 2012 06:21 julep wrote:
at what stage of gestation does the soul come about? or is it created post birth? and does it die with the person? does a pigeon have a soul too?
The first law of thermodynamics states that no energy is ever destroyed, but is simply transformed from one state to another. For example, if you burn a newspaper, it simply goes into gaseous form. So, yeah, the soul states intact because it is made up of the most basic layer in the Universe - consciousness. So you can't downgrade it into something more basic and therefore the soul is infinite.
I cannot say at what point the soul is "put" into a certain embryo but I remember reading some argumentation on it being between conception and birth. I cannot remember what arguments were used so I really cannot say anything on this matter. So please don't attack me, I don't have an idea .
All conscious things have souls, because the soul is simply consciousness. So, yeah, animals have souls but not as evolved as ours.
You stupid fuck stop quoting physcis as if you knew what you were talking about, you wouldnt pass a highschool test no physics.
A newspaper doesnt go into gaseous form when combusted you dumbfuck, you are not boiling water, its combustion, also consciousness is something inside a biological mind, not a "layer" (WTF is a universe layer in the first place moron).
You said one thing right tho... "I dont have an idea". good
On January 18 2012 13:18 uiCk wrote:
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
The claim is not that the rainbow "isn't real" but rather that if you believe a rainbow exists by itself without the need of an observer, you are assuming that color and other qualia exist physically, which is a faith-based position. In reality, there is no qualia if there is no mind: what "makes" the rainbow is as much dependent on you and your placement for perceiving it as it is dependent of the other elements needed for its formation. If you say that it is real independent of an observer, it is only real in your imagination, not in the world. There is no evidence to demonstrate that qualia have a physical property and exist by themselves, and indeed, they can't. The above video should help you understand why.
Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics remarked that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. Qualia is outside of the material world, therefore materialism is false.
different perceptions and observation and interpretation in the consciousness doesnt really refute materialism, but im lost why are you refuting materialism in the first place?
On January 18 2012 13:18 uiCk wrote:
Personally i don't see the relevance between observing and event and that event happening. I don't see how all those hybrid plato cave theories disproves that light goes through a deflector which the result is viewed as a rainbow to the human body. Which makes the "rainbow" real, we there the observer is blind or does not have to capacity to "see color".
I might be way off track, that's because i don't have much knowledge in personalities you listed Loco.
Interesting nonetheless.
The claim is not that the rainbow "isn't real" but rather that if you believe a rainbow exists by itself without the need of an observer, you are assuming that color and other qualia exist physically, which is a faith-based position. In reality, there is no qualia if there is no mind: what "makes" the rainbow is as much dependent on you and your placement for perceiving it as it is dependent of the other elements needed for its formation. If you say that it is real independent of an observer, it is only real in your imagination, not in the world. There is no evidence to demonstrate that qualia have a physical property and exist by themselves, and indeed, they can't. The above video should help you understand why.
Erwin Schrödinger, the theoretical physicist and one of the leading pioneers of quantum mechanics remarked that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. Qualia is outside of the material world, therefore materialism is false.
different perceptions and observation and interpretation in the consciousness doesnt really refute materialism, but im lost why are you refuting materialism in the first place?
Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less 'substance' than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton's image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.
— Paul Davies and John Gribbin, 'The Matter Myth', Chapter 1
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
Agreed, Quantum Physics does refutes materialism, i just thought the rainbow example is ridiculously less effective than just a quick glimpse at strange particles, neutrinos, dark energy etc.
But again what im aking is why loco was refuting it, i may have missed a post.
I wish one of your guys had children if I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you can feel my pain because thats the pain I have waking up everyday -- Mike Tyson
On January 19 2012 00:27 D_smart_S wrote:
totally clueless
lol you failed to post any evidence at all, you got schooled on your ignorance about physics and every sentence that you have typed has got refuted hardcore and this is all you have left haha fail.
On January 19 2012 01:31 Baalim wrote:
Agreed, Quantum Physics does refutes materialism, i just thought the rainbow example is ridiculously less effective than just a quick glimpse at strange particles, neutrinos, dark energy etc.
But again what im aking is why loco was refuting it, i may have missed a post.
Did you take your PhD in Physics or the Quantum Physics suddenly became understandable? :D:D:D
Zep: When I said I feel obligated to troll, it was a figure of speech
Contact Users: 679 Active, 1 Logged in - Time: 19:51
.
,
,
,
,
,
,
