Let us test Darwin, teacher says

Status
Not open for further replies.
That is because you have an agenda and did not use your calculator.

Enter the equation in a calculator - see what happens - then get back to me.
Java calculator:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
at calc.main(java.lang.String[]) (Unknown Source)
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.call_main() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)

Linux GUI calculator:
Error

Handheld $2 calculator:
ERROR

Casio CFX calculator:
Ma Error

Is this going to be a discussion of groups, rings, identity and zero elements? I don't get it. You're trying to divide by the zero element. This does not work. No surprise.
 
Try applying biology to evolution, and not abstract equations with zero relevance to anything at all. Actually your agenda is very clear...

Try thinking in terms of alternatives - I was offered a job in the states as in theoretical physics in a lab.

Hmmm - they understood my ideas but the geniuses here are so inculcated they can`t make heads or tales out of what I mean.

Let me think; experts understood most of my concepts but I need to pass your muster - riiight - whatever.

You can put a frog in a box with a lid and he will try to jump out. After so many attempts the frog will give up. You can then remove the lid and the frog will never try to jump out of the box again.

So endeth the lesson of what you think is mumbo jumbo.

If you cannot make heads or tails out of what I am saying - have a nice life cause you really are not trying to.
 
Java calculator:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.ArithmeticException: / by zero
at calc.main(java.lang.String[]) (Unknown Source)
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.call_main() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)
at gnu.java.lang.MainThread.run() (/usr/lib/libgcj.so.6.0.0)

Linux GUI calculator:
Error

Handheld $2 calculator:
ERROR

Casio CFX calculator:
Ma Error

Is this going to be a discussion of groups, rings, identity and zero elements? I don't get it. You're trying to divide by the zero element. This does not work. No surprise.


You have to first and foremost make an attempt to understand what is being said before you can disagree.

Does that make sense?

Forget the math - scratch THE MATH.

Forget I brought it up - I was using it as an example - not trying to define the divisiblity of zero - it was a symbol and you guys are stuck more on the example than the thing in and of itself.
 
Try thinking in terms of alternatives - I was offered a job in the states as in theoretical physics in a lab.

Michael Behe has a science degree from Harvard, doesn't make him an expert on evolution, even though he may think so. What do we like to call that? Oh yeah, a legend in his own mind.

Hmmm - they understood my ideas but the geniuses here are so inculcated they can`t make heads or tales out of what I mean.

How about nearly every biology genius with any credibility and respect in the science community disagrees with you? How about anyone who has actually taken a biology class and comprehends what is going on disagrees with you?

Let me think; experts understood most of my concepts but I need to pass your muster - riiight - whatever.

The calculator didn't seem to understand your nonsense. Nor does it have any relevance to evolution. Evolution is the descent with modification of species over time, not plugging numbers into a TI-83+ calculator. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

You can put a frog in a box with a lid and he will try to jump out. After so many attempts the frog will give up. You can then remove the lid and the frog will never try to jump out of the box again.

Wow, you have asserted animal behavior. Want to tie this into something related to evolution?

So endeth the lesson of what you think is mumbo jumbo.

I will never cease.

If you cannot make heads or tails out of what I am saying - have a nice life cause you really are trying to

I suggest you read a biology textbook and open your mind to science. Evolution is an elementary concept, if you cannot comprehend it, then oh well for you.
 
BeingofOne, you say a lot of things and draw a lot of conclusions.

You tell warpus to plan to take a walk tomorrow, and when he does he will see his own intelligence in action which somehow leads to evidence of god.
You tell the rest of us 1/0 = infinity which somehow leads to evidence of god.

This just isn't true.

Some of your arguments against evolution may have substance but it is hard to tell when its mixed in with talk of 'infinite flux' and 'the universal constant of relativity'.

So, if you want to put forth God as a scientific theory then frame it as one. Set up a hypothesis and make predictions that actually stem from the hypothesis.
 
Hey - I am trying. You are the one that wanted to discuss infinite calculations :)
Well, no actually since I do not see the point of bringing infinity into the picture ;)

But I apreciate the effort, so I'll take a stab

Imagine a perpetual motion machine - it never stops cycling, an INFINITE SET algorithym. A turing machine of infinite calculations.

We then discern a pattern of numbers that is positive infinity but remains a constant. Take a calculator and divide any number by zero - you get "positive infinity", yes?
Nope. You get i I think, an imaginairy number. Very apropriate name I think. (Correct me if I'm wrong, this was all long ago. More at home in statistics.
The constant that remains is the position compared to velocity.
Huh? Of the machine? The machine that spins at a constant velocity? But the position changes, so position compared to velocity is not constant. I'm confusing the hell outa me :confused:

The discernable pattern is the constant observation of the infinite algorithym. We could not do any calculations in the universe if there was not constant position/velocity. The base number that always divides is zero to gain the constant pattern of predictible outcomes from the infinite set.
Well, I didn't agree with both statements just now. But I'm still learning, so what do I know? :D

0/1 = 0 or pattern discernable of the position of the universe through observation/perception.
1/0 = positive infinity or infinite flux/momentum of the universe.

The empty set is a universal constant.

There are two components to the universe:
1) infinite flux/change
2) constant observation or perception
1) infinite flux/change. Flux/change is hard to quantify. Something moves an inch but it moved an infite amount of times to mave an inch. Is that what you mean?
2) constant observation or perception. By whom? Us? Then it's subjective and thus not constant.

Imagine an infinite source of electricity. Unbounded and perpetual. Without resistance would there be any pattern?
I wouldn't know how to imagine an infinite source of electricity unbound and perpetual. :(

Cause and effect is like:
Blowing into a balloon. You keep blowing air into the balloon until it pops. There would be no pattern if cause and effect were not bounded to design as there could be no resistance in what is contained in infinite causual flow.

I did my best - remember - we are attempting to discuss what is at the brink of pushing the envelope; meaning the infinite.
Well I enjoyed the effort, but I'm afraid we haven't got much further, since I still have the opinion you don't have to go into infinity for this.

What er the chances the exact same planet as Earth is created. This is indeed enourmously small. And this could scratch on the surface of 1 in almost infinity (but mind you, it doesn't since it has to be smaller than infinity). But what are the chances and Earthlike planet was created has a substancial larger chance to it. This is allready moving away from the infinty sphere. Considering there are also a lot of planets who have had a huge amount of lifetime to achieve earthlike conditions, (it isn't nessecary for that other hypothetical planet to exist with the right circumstances right now, but anytime the last couple of billion years to the next couple of billion years. We might be looking at planets and seeing some that are barren and unable to support life, but hey, that might well be Earth in 2 billion years.) it all adds up. If an event is possible, given enough time, it will happen, however small the chance.

Again, I feel I missed your point entirely and you missed mine by the same margin, but hey, at least we both tried :)


Let me know if you still need clarity. If it still sounds like jibber jabber, try this:
Without internal combustion, a car could not function as the explosion would be subject to scatter.
And the universe is exploding as we speak. So the universe has no internal combustion.

I bet it doesn't even have ABS. ;)
 
No; you asked for tests, plural. I gave you one that demonstrates properties of the universe.

Does the universe have the properties of intelligence and design?

No, it doesn't look like it was created by an intelligent agent to me, if that's what you're asking.

And I still don't see what my particular intelligence has to do with this. Please explain.

beingofone said:
That is not all it shows - open up your mind and think beyond the box.

What else could it possibly, by the means of what is self evident, lead us to conclude?

That I'm intelligent and that I can as a result make plans and carry them out? Please tell me what else this implies, and why.

beingofone said:
Does the experiment clearly demonstrate intelligence/design by the manipulation of the field, AKA universe?

It demonstrates that I am intelligent, yes. So?

beingofone said:
If the universe has the properties of intelligence/design, it therefore, is fundamental to the fabric of the structure of the universe, yes?

I have the properties of intelligence, .. not design.. How do you go from "Warpus is intelligent" to "The Universe is designed" ????


beingofone said:
Does the experiment clearly demonstrate intelligence/design by the manipulation of the field, AKA universe?

It demonstrates that I am intelligent and nothing more.

Leifmk said:
It appears I wasted all those years getting my math degree, because I still can't make any sense of this.

Oh, don't worry, you're not the only one. I can only decipher about 10% of what beingofone is saying.

It almost appears as though he is attempting to confuse the hell out of everyone via the Matrix method - lots of words, but no substance.. no meaning.

beingofone said:
Or... it could just possibly be because you're trying to talk about subjects which you really don't know anything about.

Could be it. hard to tell if he's trolling, ignorant, or just really young or something :confused:
 
Argumentum ad forum:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=119060

beingofone, can you not understand that the foogle wurpy engfeh?!? Gematria shows it very clearly.

AD HOM - if you continue to post like a frog we will treat you like a frog. God's intelligence will not be mocked like this.

Incidentally, as for your theoretical physics job, I entered university when I was 15. Enough with the e-penis length contest already.
 
If you cannot make heads or tails out of what I am saying - have a nice life cause you really are not trying to.

Find me one person who understand what the hell you're trying to say. The problem is on your end - either you have a very basic understanding of the concepts you are attempting to discuss, or you're just not very good at communicating ideas.
 
Smart guys should never be challenged? Does that sound very scientific?

Their theories can be challenged of course. But throwing a challenge to a dead man is intellectually laughable.

When anyone from the creationists produces proof beyond agenda-laden rhetoric, then we should take notice.

Until then...It is all just speculation and wishful thinking.

.
 
Michael Behe has a science degree from Harvard, doesn't make him an expert on evolution, even though he may think so. What do we like to call that? Oh yeah, a legend in his own mind.

That was ten seconds of my life I can never get back.

How about nearly every biology genius with any credibility and respect in the science community disagrees with you? How about anyone who has actually taken a biology class and comprehends what is going on disagrees with you?

That is because other than a BA of Arts, biology has the most grads, about 100,000 a year 'earning' a MA or PHD degree. Guess how many in advanced physics?

10 or so

I think the cream rises to the top - so Darwin said - and you would not question his magnificence, would ya?

I could say nice things about you, but I would rather tell the truth.

The calculator didn't seem to understand your nonsense. Nor does it have any relevance to evolution. Evolution is the descent with modification of species over time, not plugging numbers into a TI-83+ calculator. It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.

Could you explain what you mean? It sounds like you cannot link math with biology. Why not?

Could you explain how a calculator does not understand?

Therapy is expensive. Popping bubble wrap is cheap. You choose.

Sarcasm is just one more service I offer.

Wow, you have asserted animal behavior. Want to tie this into something related to evolution?

Yup; a frog in a box doesn`t understand who put him there - just like most humans.

Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

I will never cease.

I was hoping to do something meaningful with my life.

I suggest you read a biology textbook and open your mind to science. Evolution is an elementary concept, if you cannot comprehend it, then oh well for you.

If a word in the dictionary were misspelled, how would we know?
 
That was ten seconds of my life I can never get back.

Good, less time blabbering about your less than impressive resume, more time staying focused on the topic.

That is because other than a BA of Arts, biology has the most grads, about 100,000 a year 'earning' a MA or PHD degree. Guess how many in advanced physics?

So your expertise of physics carries over to biology? Because you claim to be
brilliant at physics, you are by default a Biology expert? Why don't you actually try to point out flaws in the theory as opposed to blabbering about your wonderful degree that hold little importance considering we are discussing evolution. Oh, and btw, I do not deny physics/math/chemistry all are very pertinent to evolution, however what you were blabbering on about was not.
I would say nice try, but it really wasn't at all.

I think the cream rises to the top - so Darwin said - and you would not question his magnificence, would ya?

So Michael Behe is our best authority on this subject? Have you ever read his
books or any other book that discusses his nonsense?

I could say nice things about you, but I would rather tell the truth.

Good. I might rather prefer having you believe in pseudo-philosophical stories that lamely attempt to manipulate science. If you are as confident as you sound, go tell all the biology professors at all the colleges. They'd need a laugh after all the hard work they have been doing.

Could you explain what you mean? It sounds like you cannot link math with biology. Why not?

I have a rough idea how they connect. You however have not even brushed the surface of any relevant math.

Yup; a frog in a box doesn`t understand who put him there - just like most humans.

Men occasionally stumble on the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.

It sound like you have beef with the origin of the universe, not evolution.

I was hoping to do something meaningful with my life.

Like believe in religious propaganda?

If a word in the dictionary were misspelled, how would we know?

Easy, grab another dictionary and double check. If it is printed wrong in the first dictionary ever and nobody picks out the mistake, then the word has evolved in spelling. Would you care to talk science/evolution, or is it your weak spot as everyone here has already suspected?
 
BeingOfOne, by expressing yourself in undefined and poorly-defined terms, and by constantly darting about without following one line of thinking, you actually do a disservice to your cause, which as near as I can tell, is to help people see the incredible beauty, intelligence, and order in the universe. I personally get great joy in reading the mystics and trying to expand my view of the universe to include the Divine, but attacking evolution doesn't help this cause.

Other posters have tried to help you sort out the difference between abiogenesis and evolution. If you wish to challenge one or the other, please try to be clear which one you are referring to, and what your argument is. It would be most helpful if you would present a post with a single argument against one of these, and we can use that as a basis for discussion. Something phrased as an argument would be best, not "...but look at this?" or "...but what about this?"

Even better would be if you would form a counter-proposal of your own. It is always easier to ridicule another's idea than to postulate one of your own. As near as I can tell from your earlier posts, you do not believe in abiogenesis from random elements, so I must assume that you believe that a creator entered into the equation. If so, where/when do you think this creator intervened?

If you wish to challenge an extremely-substantiated theory such as evolution, you must tell us which parts of it you disagree with, and at least some thinking (preferably evidence) as to why you disagree. Again, from your previous posts, you seem to believe that species do evolve, but not to the point where they create new species. Other posters have presented evidence from the insect world where speciation has been shown to have happened. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

To me, it makes perfect sense that we can observe evolution most easily in species that reproduce the fastest (recombine DNA most often). Now that we can watch evolution at the gene level, it becomes a simple experiment to prove that genetic shift occurs, and not much more of an experiment to prove that enough genetic shift can result in speciation. In the past, we had to rely on physical characteristics to try to identify speciation, which was less precise to be sure.

You might want to examine your previous posts, and notice that your presenting style is to present a variety of points in single sentences which do not follow one another. The topics we are examining here are quite complex, and usually cannot be adequately presented in single sentences, which are equivalent to sound bites. The topics can be ridiculed in sound bites, but then, everything can be so ridiculed.

I anxiously await your reasoned arguments.
 
BeingofOne, you say a lot of things and draw a lot of conclusions.

You tell warpus to plan to take a walk tomorrow, and when he does he will see his own intelligence in action which somehow leads to evidence of god.
You tell the rest of us 1/0 = infinity which somehow leads to evidence of god.

This just isn't true.

No; that is not even close to what I said, you are reinterpreting what I say into mumbo jumbo instead of attempting to understand.

My thought is cogent and cohesive - just difficult to communicate.

Stop trying to spin it into something it is not - understand it first - then attack it for all its worth.

I expect it to be attacked - ruthlessly. This is a good thing. If it can be proven false it needs to be. You are making the mistake that so many do.

Look - you must first comprehend - then attack. Not attack - then try to understand, it does not work that way and you will constantly be butting heads with a strawman.

It is not the details of an argument that matter - it is the concept itself, follow?

Some of your arguments against evolution may have substance but it is hard to tell when its mixed in with talk of 'infinite flux' and 'the universal constant of relativity'.

That is because I am dealing with many different minds and opinions - you are only seeing my limited responses to specifics. I will post a paper I wrote, understand it first - then attack it ruthlessly - but understand the concept first, fair?

So, if you want to put forth God as a scientific theory then frame it as one. Set up a hypothesis and make predictions that actually stem from the hypothesis.

I will post the papaer - comprehend it first though - then I will respect what you have to say, even if you are vehemntly opposed, we can only learn that way.


BTW - I intentionally put a designed flaw in my own argument, if you catch this flaw, I will know for sure you understand the hypothesis.


Warpus, please read the paper.
 
ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS

Einstein shocked the world with the paradigm of E = Mc2. This equation allowed us to see behind the curtain of the universe. None would doubt the veracity of this claim today but at the time this axiom was extraordinary. Atomic energy harnessed this equation and utilized its power to the point of effecting every person in the world as we know it today. Strike a single match and it becomes self evident.

It demonstrated that energy is mass with tremendous velocity. If you reverse the equation another paradigm can be seen. Mass is energy with its velocity reduced. The physical and non-physical universe is all energy moving or vibrating at different states of velocity. An omnipresent energetic substructure interpenetrating everything and in fact is everything. The universe is an oceanic field of energy, vast beyond imagination.

For years the duality break between what appeared to be a distinct difference of mass and energy stifles the realization of what we are perceiving. Everything that we experience, taste, smell, or touch is all energy.

To give a simple analogy; it is like a fish swimming in the ocean and bumps into a block of ice. It appears to be something other than water but that is a mere perception. The fact is that no one thing, event, or being of this universe is separable from the whole. It is a continuum of essential energy with no gaps. Leibniz's famous apothegm "natura non facit saltus" - nature makes no jump.

One cannot limit this universe of ours to a mere 18th century continuity of a function or Zeno`s paradox in reverse. This continuum was taken to mean that infinitesimal changes in the value of the argument induced infinitesimal changes in the value of the function.
If cause and effect is true then the totality is continuum of infinitesimal quantity and magnitude. The number of the chain of events is so minute and multiplied that it evaporates into nothingness. That is division without limit one might say. This exceeds duality in its infinite division and separation.

With the abandonment of infinitesimals in the 19th century this definition came to be replaced by one employing the more precise concept of limit or finite sum.

This universe that you experience is much to vibrant to be limited to cause and effect as if it were mechanical. It is alive with energy that permeates all things and the very experience you are having. It is a continuum of unboken energy like the sky, atmosphere, or space.

This begs the question - what is observing cause and effect?
I am not that which is not conscious; I know which knows not. I am aware of cause and effect and naught exists for me unless I know it.
I have the will to be and so do you; desire manifested. The cause must be at least equal to or greater than the effect. The idea that oblivious momentum could effect existence and create conscious awareness without a previous desire or experience of awareness is a priori conjecture and a leap of faith nor does it have any correlate in any modern physical theory.

It is clarified with one simple question; Has anyone ever recalled the moment they became conscious or has anyone ever witnessed the event?

Another Paradigm.
You are the working model or better said, the reality of the universe in and of itself. You are no different in any way than the ultimate reality and therefore; the exact duplicate/image as a fractal of the whole. The reason I say this; Is your consciousness made of the same energy of the universe?

How could Enstein sit at his desk and examine the structure and function of the universe? What the universe is and what it does is the same thing. It is this energy that animates your consciousness and we know it as life.

Everything can, in principle, be explained, or that everything that is, has a sufficient reason for being and being as it is, and not otherwise according to the Principle of Sufficient Reason. Theories have been formed to create separation from this principle only because the cause could not be found.

To examine the universe all one must do is investigate their very own consciousness. We have a number of good reasons for sticking to the formulations of determinism that arise most naturally out of physics as our consciousness is part of physics.

The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances. One of the logical outcomes of this law all matter and energy in the universe is conserved.

Thermodynamics is the only physical theory of universal content which, within the framework of the applicability of its basic concepts, I am convinced will never be overthrown.
-- Albert Einstein

This reality that you experience is it a partial reality or a whole or complete reality?
Can you recall an experience you had before you existed?
Can you remember when you began to be aware?

Your consciousness is the energy of the universe and therefore can never be destroyed and has existed as long as the universe.

As Schäfer has said,
The openness of the quantum world conveys a feeling of liberation. One might see the promise of messages -- perhaps a benign guidance -- from the depths of the universe, which affect our fate even though we do not understand them. And there is excitement in being part of a universe that is creative and where the unexpected and even the inexplicable constantly come into being.

This is the paradox of Alladin`s lamp. The Container could be said to be your body and the Genie your consciousness. It is full linkage with reality rather than mere truncated association.

Your consciousness carries with it all of the dynamics of the 'ultimate or total' of the world including time as already mentioned. The more aware of our consciousness we become the more we are aware of our choices and thought and what they are founded upon and through. We begin to see that what we contemplate is universal and is inherent.

Some characteristics of infinite.
1 - Having no limits or boundaries in time or space or extent or magnitude.
2 - Being singular or nondualistic.
3 - Total and all-embracing.
4 - The unlimited expanse in which everything is located.
5 - In geophysical terms, an "infinite' dimension is one much greater than the footprint of the system, so that the system does not detect changes at the edges of the object.

What kind of existence is possible in "All Possible Worlds"?
Your consciousness, as it is an infinite fractal loop that is the universe.

There is only one life, one consciousness, and one awareness that you know, that is yours and yours alone. There is no other comparison you can make. You can say that another person has conscious life; that is still just you experiencing your own perception through comparison, it is your awareness and none other.

Consciousness relates everything without exception including light and mass. You can experience light and matter and be aware of the singular experience. There is no example, comparison, or duplication of your consciousness, it is one of a kind and the singularity that is the universe.

Many have attempted to use consciousness as a subset of the universe. This is logically impossible as it is a singular consciousness perceiving the total and making comparisons. Nothing that exists is outside of your consciousness. The best you can do is compare your perception.

There is only one consciousness, how many do you experience?
How many realities do you experience?
Can you have more than one consciousness?

The questions will arise.
Other people have existed before I existed and didn`t they have their own experiences?
And you cannot recall these experiences that any one of them had. So when did you begin to experience to be able to compare yourself to these "other people"? This is you comparing your own experience with others. These other people still exist by means of you conceptualizing their experiences. Ergo; they exist in your single consciousness.
It is still just your very own consciousness making comparisons.

Before the human race came into existence, before consciousness on earth evolved, what do you think existed?
This is an assumption because it can be conceived of a time before consciousness that this concept is more than just a thought that exists within the mind. It is easy to confuse reality with concepts because of our immense power of reason and predictive abstract thought. It is like believing in national boundries between countries. They only exist within the mind.

When the human race dies out, who remains to be conscious?
That is like asking - when I am no longer existing, what will I be? You are experiencing reality in a nonlinear consciousness. You defy all linear thought, though it can be thought about and confused with actual existence. You will never know anything but your own consciousness.

When you say your single consciousness, are you refering to my individual consciousness as a person, or are you refering to some kind of larger universal consciousness?
There is no difference as you experience only one consciousness. There is only one property of the universe - energy.

What about other people do they have consciousness?
While you sleep do you always recall your thoughts while you were dreaming? Does this mean you were not conscious?
Could it be while you are sleeping you are still experiencing your very own consciousness just in another or expanded awareness? I am not a figment of your imagination. I am being experienced by you in your very own "single consciousness".


The Three Thought Experiments.

1-Throw a ball at the edge of your conscious awareness. If it bounces back it is finite. If it keeps going it is infinite. This thought experiment has been done by physicists for the universe.

2-You are performing an infinite number of actions of awareness and all done in a finite amount of time. This present moment is infinite in its experience ergo your consciousness is infinite.
Look around in the room you are in and start counting the objects. You will quickly find you will never stop counting and yet aware of the 'total'.

3-Your consciousness is carrying out at this moment the hypertask of transcendance. It can never exaust itself in experience, thought, or expansion. You have never had the same conversation, day, experience, or meal. They are all one of a kind and singular in their uniqueness. This tells us that change is a constant and therefore infinite.
You are experiencing the infinite flux or change right now.


You are experiencing ground zero or the critical mass of the total of all reality right now as you are reading these musings. There is no more of the universe that you can possibly experience in this present moment. Yet at the same time the Ultimate Reality is not confined nor restrained by having your experience.
If not; what are you not aware of and what you are not experiencing?
If you cannot; that by definition as well as experience makes it irreducible as it is a singularity and carries with it 'ultimate or total' characteristics.

My hypothesis is your consciousness is an infinite fractal loop that is the universe. It is all we have ever known or shall know in all possible worlds.
 
BeingofOne, would asking you to actually discuss biology/theory of evolution be too much? You are not even making an attempt to link your seemingly irrelevant
posts to evolution.
 
My thought is cogent and cohesive - just difficult to communicate.

same for me, and dare I say - everybody.

Stop trying to spin it into something it is not - understand it first - then attack it for all its worth.

I'm really not trying to spin it which was why I focussed on the mathematical aspect of your argument. Math is hard to spin.

You are making the mistake that so many do.

likely. you and me both.

Look - you must first comprehend - then attack. Not attack - then try to understand, it does not work that way and you will constantly be butting heads with a strawman.

You misunderstand my intentions. I would love to see how warpus's walk leads to god but I don't. I have not attacked, only tried to understand.

It is not the details of an argument that matter - it is the concept itself, follow?

What you call details I call evidence and for me evidence does matter.

I will post the papaer - comprehend it first though - then I will respect what you have to say, even if you are vehemntly opposed, we can only learn that way.

No, don't post the paper, post your hypothesis otherwise you are just trying to lecture us. Let us evolve your argument through discussion.


BTW - I intentionally put a designed flaw in my own argument, if you catch this flaw, I will know for sure you understand the hypothesis.

oh, your playing games with us. screw it then.
 
Here is something to sink your teeth into.

David Chalmers has written a piece entitled "Consciousness and Its Place in Nature." In it, he outlines three basic arguments against physicalism:

I. The Explanatory Argument

1. Physical accounts explain at most structure and function.

2. Explaining structure and function does not suffice to explain consciousness.

3. Therefore, no physical account can explain consciousness.



II. The Conceivability Argument

1. We can conceive of a world in which all the physical facts of our world were true, but not all of the phenomenal facts of our world were true.

2. If such a world is conceivable, then such a world is metaphysically possible.

3. If such a world is metaphysically possible, then physicalism is false.

4. Physicalism is false.

[The "p-zombie" argument is a version of this.]



III. The Knowledge Argument

1. There are truths about consciousness (e.g. "how things seem to us") that one cannot deduce from physical truths.

2. If there are truths about consciousness that one cannot deduce from physical truths, then physicalism is false.

3. Physicalism is false.

[Nagel's bat argument is a version of this.]



After giving these arguments, he then sets out their "general form":

1. Knowledge of all physical truths does not entail knowledge of all phenomenal truths (there is an "epistemic gap").

2. If knowledge of all physical truths does not entail knowledge of all phenomenal truths, then there must be truths that are not about physical things (there is an "ontological gap"), and physicalism is false.

3. Physicalism is false.


Chalmers believes that physicalists have not refuted these arguments. What do you think?
 
Chalmers believes that physicalists have not refuted these arguments. What do you think?

I think it is not doing anything as far as disproving evolution.

Seriously, I do not know how many times I must repeat this. I bet you are an awesome physicist and all, very brilliant, but if you are not going to discuss the topic at hand, or even relate your posts to evolution/biology, then you should probably simply stop posting things that merely interest you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom