• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science: Wonders, causality and the indeterminable

HansMustermann said:
Actually, what science actually says is that the "mind" is a product or emergent property of matter, rather than something distinct. Sort of like the ticking or timekeeping of a cuckoo clock is a property resulting from the way those cogs and levers and springs work together. It's not the ticking that moves matter (e.g., the weights and arms of the clock and the cuckoo), it's simply matter moving matter AND creating the ticking.

So basically asking "Are you saying that mind can move matter?" is as stupid as asking "Are you saying that The Ticking can move matter?"

IOW, please, if you want to criticize science, then please have the basic decency to first learn what it says. Mistaking your own ignorance and unfounded mis-conceptions for reality don't make science mythological, but it does make you delusional.
Click to expand...

The cuckoo clock analogy doesn't work as its entirely physically causal. The ticking is a physical resistance to moving cogs and springs, and can be measured physically.
 
Jonesboy said:
It's a physical event, caused physically. Causes can be traced back and back. But at no point will you find mind.
Click to expand...
Okay, now you need to define 'mind'. Are you suggesting Cartesian duality? This is disproved by countless case studies of physical damage to the brain causing distinct and measurable changes to personality (Phineas Gage). If physically damaging the brain can change a person's 'mind', how then is 'mind' not physical?
 
Halfcentaur said:
What is your motive here, Jones? You never discuss any of these topics that I've seen, you merely make proclamations and announcements and wait for people to disagree with you so you can then tell them they are wrong.
Click to expand...

It appears that his assertion is that a functioning brain is not essential for existence. In his case that seems to be correct.
 
Jonesboy said:
Science has four types of causality: Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form. All but the Newtonian causality are employed in two creation myths - mind, and the physical universe.

The creation of the Universe according to Science
Quantum and relatavistic theories, patched around the ultimately topological ideas of string theory, today pose as one pole of Science's creation myth. The other pole is emptiness from which the former are presumed to be in a causal relationship.

Science's universe creation myth assumes form and non-form. Science expresses the relationship of form and non-form as the relationship between quantum/relativistic events and emptiness.
Click to expand...

Um, you are wrong string theory is as yet undemonstrated, nothing is patched around it. Strin theory is self consistent and may produce a verifiable prediction, yet once again you are building strawmen.

And as stated before We Don't Know what the BBE came from.

You seem to have a real problem with that

When it comes to the cause or origin of the BBE

We Don't Know

Not form or non-form, it is WE DON'T KNOW
 
Jonesboy said:
Science has four types of causality: Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form.
Click to expand...
I think that whoever told you this was severely misinformed.

There are four fundamental forces known to us: Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak Nuclear Force, and Strong Nuclear Force.

Gravity, I suspect, is what you would call "Newtonion". The other three are "quantum/relativistic". (We do not, yet, have a reliable theory for unifying the two.)

But: Mind/brain is NOT any different from any of the above forces, as neurology shows us. It is NOT, at all, a separate form of causality. The mind is an emergent property of the brain's functions. And, therefore, falls strictly into the realm of known forces.

Form/Non-form has never been shown to be a causality in science. Only philosophers of Plato's era would take it seriously, or those who simply don't know any better, today.

Jonesboy said:
The creation of the Universe according to Science
Quantum and relatavistic theories, patched around the ultimately topological ideas of string theory, today pose as one pole of Science's creation myth. The other pole is emptiness from which the former are presumed to be in a causal relationship.
Click to expand...
String theory is not, yet, accepted as a reliable "pole" of science's "creation" theories.

Science does not dabble in myths. It generates emprical knowledge.

Jonesboy said:
Science's universe creation myth assumes form and non-form. Science expresses the relationship of form and non-form as the relationship between quantum/relativistic events and emptiness.
Click to expand...
I suspect this is merely word salad. At the very least, what you wrote there has no bearing on science.
 
Paul2 said:
No, 4 corner days actually exist, and Cube 4x4 voids 1 & God. Imaginary Cubed Earth has 4 Days within simultaneous rotation. I CREATED 4
DAYS IN ON EARTH ROTATION.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Greenwich Time is a Lie.
Click to expand...

Jonesboy said:
Science shows us four types of causality. Newtonian, mind/brain, quantum/relativistic, and form/non-form. All but the Newtonian causality are employed in two creation myths - mind, and the physical universe.

For more on this see my original post at the top of this thread.
Click to expand...

I rest my case.

Thank you very much, GOODNIGHT!
 
Jonesboy said:
The Science creation myth of consciousness is non-Newtonian, and is that certain materials and material shapes cause consciousness.

These are myths because they feed our intuition. It isn't my intuition though, that cause is involved.
Click to expand...

No, there are behaviors we define as the behaviors of consciousness.
 
Dancing David said:
Exactly, the mind is a fiction, a rubric placed upon discrete brain events.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be fair to call the mind "fiction". It is an emergent property of lots of brain functions.

It would be like calling a school of fish "fiction" because, when you look close, all you see are individual fish. There is no "school" to be found floating around in there with them.
 
Basically "mind" is the placeholder to identify the many summated actions within the brain? I ask because I have never considered what "mind" means because there is no mind/brain duality; the mind is just emergent of the brain, or so I was led to believe.
 
Lowpro said:
Basically "mind" is the placeholder to identify the many summated actions within the brain?
Click to expand...
I would use the phrase "description we use" instead of "placeholder". But, otherwise, that is pretty much what science seems to be indicating.

Most people think of the mind as that portion (or, perhaps more accurately: portions) of the brain responsible for conscious awareness.

But, there is a mind there, to be empricially discovered. It is not a fiction, nor some separate realm of reality.
 
Wowbagger said:
I don't think it would be fair to call the mind "fiction". It is an emergent property of lots of brain functions.

It would be like calling a school of fish "fiction" because, when you look close, all you see are individual fish. There is no "school" to be found floating around in there with them.
Click to expand...

Fair enough
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom