My argument against materialism

[PixyMisa]

It's interesting that of that list of 25 major unanswered questions, 15 are in biology, 2 in applied science, 2 in earth sciences, one in chemistry, and just 3 in physics. One is just a general knowledge question ("Are we alone in the Universe? I don't know, I'll go look.") And the last might be physics or mathematics or engineering, but you can't tell because they never phrase the question clearly.

 

[dlorde]

Yes - the priority topics tend to reflect the concerns of the time and the individuals involved, but it's a useful reminder, and there are some decent links to more recent follow-up or related research.

 

[Belz...]

The opposite is the case, unless one is stating that we can know nothing.

How else can we determine that science does not know of what reality is.

To the casual observer it might appear that it does.

Magnificent. So you think we should ignore what we know ?

 

[punshhh]

Magnificent. So you think we should ignore what we know ?

Amazing you conclude the opposite of what i said.

Which was;

That in order to realise what we don't know, we need first to know what we do know.

 

[punshhh]

It's interesting that of that list of 25 major unanswered questions, 15 are in biology, 2 in applied science, 2 in earth sciences, one in chemistry, and just 3 in physics. One is just a general knowledge question ("Are we alone in the Universe? I don't know, I'll go look.") And the last might be physics or mathematics or engineering, but you can't tell because they never phrase the question clearly.

Pixy, how many times do I need to remind you of the unknown unknowns.

Oh and the actual universe which it appears materialism doesn't concern itself with. As materialism consists of theories in the mind of man, it is presumably viewed through rose tinted glasses.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Welcome to the JREF, 75% of the discussions are always about clarifications and defnitions.

You have now equated , resistance to deformation as holding together, which is going to declarify.

the point is to reach common grounds for discussion not insistence on personal idioms as meaningful to others.

That's a bunch of poppy-cock! I think, if all you predominately do is criticize, then you have left creativity and real challenge out of your contribution. Good criticism is vital, but without creativity/contributions the critics are out of work. In the end ... I appreciate good criticism ... but it takes more courage to create and contribute than it takes to tear down. Why don't the critics put more of their own thoughts on table? Let me guess ... they fear criticism, especially of their own brand! Yes ... it take courage to express an idea! I suggest the critics give it more time.

 

[kenkoskinen]

As an aside that is a lot of straw and you should really take it to the SMT

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=5

You have mis-stated positions, you have overgeneralized and made conclusions from inference that were not posted by the others, therefore it is a straw argument and your projection rather than an actual critique. You have constructed a false dichotomy as well.

Welcome to the JREF!

You refer to SMT as if were god or at least the principal of a school. I don't think so. Fairly recently you threatened to take us there. I replied ... lead the way! Why didn't you follow up? In this instance, I am merely requesting those who believe in GEMFR come forward with references from the mainstream physics community. I don't think there is any experimental evidence for it or even a majority consensus. I will explain why in short order but am going to wait for the references to come in. I'm fairly certain I won't get any.

Asking for references is common practice on the forum. You've been around for much longer than I. Why haven't you noticed?

 

[kenkoskinen]

Every other English speaker understands the difference. If you want to say that they're the same thing, go ahead, but understand that no one else agrees with you, and your position will only lead to more meaningless semantic quibbles.



What are you banging on about now? I never talked about the physics because I don't care about the physics. The physics are irrelevant. This entire argument stems from your weird English usage, not me - or Pixy - coming up with a new physics theory.

Pure Agent, your response was predicable. Now ... you want to discussion English and language where I'm interested in the physics. Physics, after all, was supposedly the reason why you posted. Now, I know you don't have any references on GEMFR. I further suspect, there aren't any. It's clear you merely read a few posts and jumped in over your head making it look as if you knew or were interested in some physics. Bye the way ... I like English too, but sometimes words can be used to deceive and lie!

 

[kenkoskinen]

And you would, of course, be entirely wrong.

You can't crush water. It is, however, trivially easy to pull it apart. And all of that depends on the electromagnetic force.

If there is any support for GEMFR then cite the references from the mainstream physics community. Your arguments are bunk!

 

[dafydd]

Pixy, how many times do I need to remind you of the unknown unknowns.

Oh and the actual universe which it appears materialism doesn't concern itself with. As materialism consists of theories in the mind of man, it is presumably viewed through rose tinted glasses.

Unknown unknowns. A punshhh classic. If the unknown unknowns are unknown how do you do that there are unkown unknowns. If you can remind us of them them you must know about them. Give us an example of an unknown unknown.

 

[tsig]

That's a bunch of poppy-cock! I think, if all you predominately do is criticize, then you have left creativity and real challenge out of your contribution. Good criticism is vital, but without creativity/contributions the critics are out of work. In the end ... I appreciate good criticism ... but it takes more courage to create and contribute than it takes to tear down. Why don't the critics put more of their own thoughts on table? Let me guess ... they fear criticism, especially of their own brand! Yes ... it take courage to express an idea! I suggest the critics give it more time.

So unless we blow up lots of words it doesn't matter?

 

[Nonpareil]

That's a bunch of poppy-cock! I think, if all you predominately do is criticize, then you have left creativity and real challenge out of your contribution. Good criticism is vital, but without creativity/contributions the critics are out of work.

No one said that no one was making contributions. Stop strawmanning.

Pure Agent, your response was predicable.

Ah, so you understood that your post was a straw man, then? Why did you post it?

Also, the name is Pure Argent. "Argent" is an archaic word for "silver". Pure silver.

Now ... you want to discussion English and language where I'm interested in the physics.

No. I am not interested in discussing either physics or English with you. I am simply pointing out that you failed to understand what was being said to you, and that the entire discussion since then has been you continually failing to understand and making false claims about what has been said.

Physics, after all, was supposedly the reason why you posted.

No. Read my post again.

Now, I know you don't have any references on GEMFR. I further suspect, there aren't any. It's clear you merely read a few posts and jumped in over your head making it look as if you knew or were interested in some physics.

I don't care about the physics. I have said this before. The only post I have made in this thread was pointing out your language issues. It had nothing to do with the physics.

Go back and read my post again.

Bye the way ... I like English too, but sometimes words can be used to deceive and lie!

Congratulations.

If there is any support for GEMFR then cite the references from the mainstream physics community. Your arguments are bunk!

No one is arguing for GEMFR. Stop strawmanning and read what has been said to you.

 

[dlorde]

Amazing you conclude the opposite of what i said.

Which was;

That in order to realise what we don't know, we need first to know what we do know.

No, it was tsig who actually said that:

Originally Posted by tsig

Originally Posted by punshhh
...I am interested in what we don't know.

Then first you should acquaint yourself with what we do know.

 

[SusanB-M1]

I cant see how we can, all we can do is remain open minded and consider all possible avenues of understanding.

Do you think that maybe some of your ideas are, in fact, impossible? (i.e. fictional)

 

[Dancing David]

That's a bunch of poppy-cock! I think, if all you predominately do is criticize, then you have left creativity and real challenge out of your contribution.

I can't help it you confuse deformation and cohesion, if you want peopel to understand you, you will learn to express your self beyond your personal idiom, if you want to monologue by yourself, then you will not.

One can not critique if one is using personal idiom, that is self reference.

Good criticism is vital, but without creativity/contributions the critics are out of work. In the end ... I appreciate good criticism ... but it takes more courage to create and contribute than it takes to tear down.

And you are making more assertions without evidence about all the posters here, way to go champ.

Why don't the critics put more of their own thoughts on table?

Why don't you chill out and read the whole thread?

Let me guess ... they fear criticism, especially of their own brand! Yes ... it take courage to express an idea! I suggest the critics give it more time.

If you care to you will see that I have offered many posts on many topics, critical thinking is no excuse for insisting on the dominance of your personal idiom. Discussion of defintions is about 75% of the conversation here.

making crap up in no defense, I write fiction too, and guess what the editors do to it?

Pip pip cheerio, have a nice weekned.

 

[Dancing David]

You refer to SMT as if were god or at least the principal of a school. I don't think so. Fairly recently you threatened to take us there. I replied ... lead the way!

Gosh are you bossy or what? I posted a link to the forum, you can check it if you wish or not. You can exercise the illusion of free will as you wish. There is even a thread there asking for clarification.

It is up to you if you wish to go there.

But here you are discussing science in teh vague and fuzzy forum.

Why didn't you follow up? In this instance, I am merely requesting those who believe in GEMFR come forward with references from the mainstream physics community.

Yeah in teh Philosophy and religion forum.

I don't think there is any experimental evidence for it or even a majority consensus. I will explain why in short order but am going to wait for the references to come in. I'm fairly certain I won't get any.

Rhetoric anyone?

Asking for references is common practice on the forum. You've been around for much longer than I. Why haven't you noticed?

You did not follow the link, I am not the boss of you.

 

[Dancing David]

If there is any support for GEMFR then cite the references from the mainstream physics community. Your arguments are bunk!

Dear sir,

Strawman

Sincerely yours
David

PS This would get better answers in SMT

 

[dafydd]

Pixy, how many times do I need to remind you of the unknown unknowns.

Oh and the actual universe which it appears materialism doesn't concern itself with. As materialism consists of theories in the mind of man, it is presumably viewed through rose tinted glasses.

Punshhh,the Buddha Who Does Not Answer Questions. If the unknowns are unknown,how do you know about them? If quarks are just not another particle (your words) what are they?

 

[dafydd]

Do you think that maybe some of your ideas are, in fact, impossible? (i.e. fictional)

The event horizon of the formless is pure fiction,unless punshhh would care to explain it.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Dear sir,

Strawman

Sincerely yours
David

PS This would get better answers in SMT

David, I don't hide. If someone at SMT wants to reach me ... they can find me. I'm asking for evidence for and references from the mainstream physicists on the topic in question. If anyone has it, post it. I don't care if someone belongs to SMT or MIT. Your writing at times is incomprehensible, and often rude. Oh well; at times it's good for a laugh but it does get boring. However, I can understand this post. I await your SMT heroes ... send them in, tiger! Meanwhile I'm waiting for the references, oh did I say that again? I really don't think you care how my weekend goes!