Fool’s Gold: Teleology in Science

<< < (7/12) > >>

Mefiante (July 25, 2009, 12:19:24 PM):
So Mechanist, it looks like your past of dispensing vapour and inanity is catching up with you and that it consisted of much the same kind of nonsense that we have witnessed here.

Tell me, how do you defend your ID and creationist notions? I mean, besides weaving together a threadbare tapestry of “Oh, look at all the coincidences! I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”, and hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings, especially those concerning biological evolution, before shoehorning them, mostly by innuendo, into these preconceptions?

How old is Earth, do you think? Do you think abiogenesis is possible? Can you give a straight answer?

'Luthon64
Teleological (July 27, 2009, 17:58:28 PM):
Seeing that you are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist, one has to wonder why you have a point of view with regards to consciousness in relation to quantum mechanics...
Hmm, let’s see now. Could it be that I have expertise directly relevant to the topic and ready access to more of the same?

You are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist.... so there goes expertise directly relevant to consciousness.
Now.... you said:
There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations. But, as said, it’s just my POV.

Does your great convictions with regards to quantum physics and consciousness come from your expertise in quantum mechanics, and are your opinions about it unassailable and should it be received with glowing admiration?
Why not just have a civil conversation and don't resort to a veritable armoury of ruses?




[ S]eeing that it is a testable hypothesis.
Clueless, mindless, obstinate repetition doesn’t magically produce true statements, although it may raise a chuckle or two.

Ditto ;).

@ cyghost? Do you forget that I have actually answered...
Me:
1) Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say.... maybe 6 billion years?
2) A few billion years if you believe the current radiometric dating methods. Whats wrong with that? I cant give you an exact number... can you?

Now, imagine person X writes this, do you think person Y would be a bit stupid in asking person X what the age of the earth is in trying to make person X look like he does not know or does not want to give an answer? I think any sane person would just ignore person Y's.... nonsense.

Anyway, reason for asking questions back to you is just to show that your incapable of being constructive in actually giving any answers... mind you, i think we all will be interested to hear your answers to the following:

You assert that:
You are not a materialist, not a naturalist and bear no metaphysical biases.

The questions remain:
Lay out what exactly you agree and disagree with naturalism and materialism.
Lay out these "metaphysical biases" you disagree/agree with?
Name them and explain them!

Waiting....


Yo! Mechano_TelePhrone old chap! I've found a little box you can put me in:

G) Defecatory Fatalist. We believe that "Sh1t happens"!

:P :P


That is cute. How about a manifesto?
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes so strongly that he is the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes he is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn... well more sh1t.
Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the Defecatory Fatalist as you will be hit with a barrage of.... more sh1t.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just... well... more sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
There shall be no churches for he Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by sh1t that happens for no reason at all can not and shall not be tolerated even by the members.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is not sh1t that happens for no reason at all.

So Mechanist, it looks like your past of dispensing vapour and inanity is catching up with you and that it consisted of much the same kind of nonsense that we have witnessed here.
Prepping up that armoury of ruses?

Tell me, how do you defend your ID and creationist notions? I mean, besides weaving together a threadbare tapestry of “Oh, look at all the coincidences! I can’t explain them therefore a greater intelligence must be at work!”, and hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings, especially those concerning biological evolution, before shoehorning them, mostly by innuendo, into these preconceptions?

Phew...hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings? Prepping up that armoury of ruses...again?

How do I defend ID and creationist notions?
Intentionality for one....
Fine-tuned argument is a reasonable argument unless you posit a multiverse.
The repeated emergence of biological structures of eyes, brains, minds (convergence) etc... ie. the biased nature of evolution.

To mention a few.

How old is Earth, do you think? Do you think abiogenesis is possible? Can you give a straight answer?

'Luthon64

Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%. Abiogenisis...possible? Yes. Heck, one might even argue....inevitable.

Please be so kind and at least give a point of view of the following:
Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature. What is the origin of information? Only chance, only necessity, only intentionality, or a combination of some of these? Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something? If not, do you agree with the following statement?
Consciousness can be reduced to material particles and fields interacting between inputs, internal states, and outputs without any intrinsic meaning or intention because only matter and matter-mediated properties such as energy exist.

Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
rwenzori (July 27, 2009, 18:22:48 PM):
That is cute. How about a manifesto?
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes so strongly that he is the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes he is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn... well more sh1t.
Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the Defecatory Fatalist as you will be hit with a barrage of.... more sh1t.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just... well... more sh1t that happens for no reason at all.
There shall be no churches for he Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by sh1t that happens for no reason at all can not and shall not be tolerated even by the members.
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is not sh1t that happens for no reason at all.


Thanks for the "cute" compliment. Fairly close old chap, but don't get too carried away there LOL! :P You're a bit off base here and there, and REMEMBER! - we believe it of YOU too. Allow me to correct you:

Quote
The Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist:
The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes that we are all the result of never ending sh1t that happens for no purpose at all. Maybe it does have an end, but we'll be long gone so weh!

The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes everyone, including and especially TelePhrone, is just another one of the sh1ts that just so happened to spawn... well more sh1t.

Do not dare to question the logic and rationality of the IDiot as you will be hit with a barrage of.... unbelievable sh1t.

The Defecatory Fatalist believer knows his beliefs are just... well... more sh1t that happens for no purpose at all.

There shall be no churches for the Defecatory Fatalist believers as the stench left by the sh1t that happens in christian churches, especially those run by IDiots, sets a sufficiently distasteful example for the DF that he gets put off this whole sh1tty church idea completely.

The Defecatory Fatalist believer believes the Manifesto of the Defecatory Fatalist is just more sh1t that happens for no reason at all, other than by our choice, to amuse and entertain us while our brief candles flicker and burn.

Careful of all this "for no reason" stuff - rather say "with no conscious purpose" or such like, as causality can be construed as a "reason". Lots of causality and stuffs around: lots of basic chemistry too.

:o :P


EDIT. PS, Mechano-chappy, where you been? Or do you have to post via your work's computers? Doesn't your boss mind? Lollers!
Mefiante (July 27, 2009, 20:01:46 PM):
You are neither a neuroscientist nor a cognitive specialist.... so there goes expertise directly relevant to consciousness.
Ya thinks? Well, like I said, “I have to admit that you’ve got me totally stumped.” Or do you?



Now.... you said:
There are far too many people eagerly hopping over one another to dispense with great conviction opinions on subjects that they know next to nothing about, who expect that those opinions should on the whole be received with glowing admiration, that they should automatically be regarded as unassailable, and who resort to a veritable armoury of ruses to avoid rigorous substantiation of those declarations. But, as said, it’s just my POV.
Why, yes, so I did. Except for making some of the bits bold, that is.



Does your great convictions with regards to quantum physics and consciousness come from your expertise in quantum mechanics, and are your opinions about it unassailable and should it be received with glowing admiration?
It would appear so, wouldn’t it? It would also appear that I am not the one making unsupported positive claims for the reality and existence of something, wouldn’t it?



Why not just have a civil conversation and don't resort to a veritable armoury of ruses?
But you’re not interested in civil conversation, only in deploying that armoury. You keep making that much perfectly clear. Your hypocritical approach to civility needs quite a bit of work, I’d say.



Prepping up that armoury of ruses?
There, you see? Back to tu quoque.



Phew...hijacking cherry-picked scientific findings?
Yes. Very tidily phrased, BTW.



Prepping up that armoury of ruses...again?
There, you see? Back to tu quoque … again.



Intentionality for one....
What “intentionality”? Whose?



Fine-tuned argument is a reasonable argument unless you posit a multiverse.
A reasonable argument for what exactly?



The repeated emergence of biological structures of eyes, brains, minds (convergence) etc... ie. the biased nature of evolution.
So the fact that a die comes up with a six about once in six throws means that it is purposely willed and guided to be thus. Sharp. Razor sharp. Positively xyresic.



Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%.
Good answer.



Does Philosophical materialism allow for information to be viewed as a fundamental category of Nature.
Define “information” as a “category of Nature.”



Also, could you perhaps clear up whether you believe matter and matter-mediated properties have any intentionality and intentions or propositions towards something?
Define “intentionality,” “intentions” and “propositions” as relevant to matter and matter-mediated properties having them.



Can one really differentiate between Philosophical materialism and Eliminative materialism without discarding certain elements from one or the other?
Read again the definitions I gave. The answer is in them. Here’s a hint: What part, exactly, of “On defending any particular philosophy of mind, I must remain agnostic” is giving you trouble?

'Luthon64
Rigil Kent (July 28, 2009, 07:43:29 AM):
Hi Mechanist,

I've been following this race of stamina with interest. When asked your opinion on the age of the earth you replied:

Quote
Certainly looks as if it might be a few billion years old, say.... maybe 6 billion years?

and then

Quote
Round about 4.5 billion years, perhaps a little more, perhaps a little less, give or take an error of 10%.

which is around the same order of magnitude, so thats all good.

Now, given an earth old enough for evolution to take place, I was hoping you could clear two things up for me re the ID dogma:

1) Do you believe that God's ultimate goal from the start was to create humans?

2) If so, and assuming God is all-powerful, why did God chose such a massively elaborate process spanning 4-6 billion years (or perhaps 13-15, depending on your point of view of when it all started) to come up with us? Surely God could have made us in, say, six days flat?

Mintaka

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page