Send a Message
to Freddy Quinn

Comments

54

Joined

Sep 4, 2013

Badges

Freddy Quinn Profile

Recent Posts

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

I see, I forgot about that. There is also that macro/micro evolution thing or so was it called once. Admittedly, such evolutive changes are observable, but I remember the scaleability thing to be still controversial, namely that micro and macro evolution rely on the same processes, and it's really just a matter of time. But I figure that this is enough to say evolution is observable, and I'm not so into the matter to argue with you about that. So anyway, thanks for elaborating on thatIf not for "philosophica l" reasons, they'd probably commit suicide because they wasted their career on a wrong theoryslip of the pen, is all. Of course the law of gravitation is just an idealized mathematical model to describe a physical phenomenon (Partly) agree on the cognitive ability part, however when it comes to conciousness, something inherently subjective doesn't become falsifiable in others just because you define it better. However, I have no desire to discuss this here further, at best via PM (why don't you have an account anywayI don't know. But of course if you wanted to examine a certain form of Creationism at all, I guess you'd have to assume that at some point the natural laws aren't arbitrary. But I'm not so into biblical creationism anyway, and the few sources I know on that matter aren't in english (mostly from a guy named Siegfried Scherer).  (Sep 16, 2013 | post #195)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

Of course valid points, but still it's kind of hard to find real naturalistic "proof" against something when a supernatural being is supposed to be involved. There are also people who believe that god set the fossils in the earth himself to test our belief. "Proof" them wrongWell yeah, I also wanted to discuss the differences between Creationism. Admittedly, I could also have titled it "Can the paradigm of evolution be falsified?". But I thought people might be more engaged if I use a clear statement instead. I didn't know that they would be THAT engaged thoughThere mustn't be a clear definition to everything in order to know what is meant. Even things like mathematics have no clear definition on which everyone agrees. And like I said, it can't be proven/falsified that other humans than yourself have a conciousnessIt doesn't matter if an event is hypethetical or not when it is only used to express something, namely, that some scientists are clingy to certain theories. And it wasn't the whole scientific community but just "some" scientiests. And no caricature either. Scientists are just humans. And if some atheistic scientist uses the hypothesis of abiogenesis to strenghten his belief, than it probably wouldn't be the best feeling for him if this hypothesis fails. Besides, you are certainly not shy to make baseless accusations and "caricatures " out of even whole groups of people, so it's not exactly your place to tell me what is justified and what not on that matterPhilosophy doesn't need to compete with science, as they are two different things with different areas. Think of philosophy as useless for all I care, but criticising philosophy because it doesn't lead to the development of technology like science does is kind of laughableI don't know about any direct obversation of evolution. Mendel's laws can be observed, yes. But evolutionI fail to see how this has anything to do with context. But whatever.  (Sep 15, 2013 | post #189)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

How nice. You still answered to my claim that it can't be proven/falsified "perhaps not", which shows me that you've understood what I meant by "conciousness ". Just like probably everyone above the age of the age of 12 can.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #179)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

You really want to know? Actually, I have stated nowhere in this thread that I'm a creationist. You know that rule, discuss the topic, not the person. But it doesn't matter, most people here made up their mind about it from the start. So am I really a creationist? Don't know, I'm just a guy who wanted to discuss and learn something new. But this really isn't the best place for that, that's for sure.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #178)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

That's just to much, I'm just going to address the first: In the bible, there isn't any number concerning the age of the earth. 6000 years is just an interpretation from some scholars, who have I belief added all the presumed lifespans of the prophets to determine the age of the earth. But you won't find these 6000 years anywhere noted in the bible.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #176)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

Well funny, because bluenose understood me right away. While with you I have to discuss 2 pages, while you're still using your own definition of counciousness, and argue semantics. try that: http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Conscio usness And if you still don't understand what conciousness is, you're probably a spam-bot, programmed to get on peoples nervesMy point was not that it's not falsifiable. However, there is a huge load space that most likely will never be tested, and for itself, isn't falsifiable. It still remains an assumption. This isn't meant as a critique(just mention it because you're kind of hyper-sensitive about it) it's just how it iswhatever you say.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #174)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

Have you any examples? Sorry for not addressing your first post, but I want to be done with this forum, I haven't much time at the moment. Maybe I start another discussion on this forum after a while. But it's just far too polemic here for my taste. Has this forum actually any moderation, I mean any at all? I can think of better places to discuss this topic, where you don't have to read through tons of "I'm wittier than you crap" and insults, before extracting the actual arguments.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #169)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

I'm not talking about ghosts. Define ghosts. If I could tap you on the shoulder, I would be something physical. We're talking about conciousness and thought. Can the thought of somebody else tap you on the shoulderThere is no scientific definition of conciousness, like e.g cognitive function. And even if there would be one (there isn't one) you're just argueing semantics here. I think everybody knows what kind of conciousness I was referring to the last posts. But We can agree on "the awareness of somethingIt's getting tiresome. That brains are a requirement for conciousness(like I used the term, not like you are making it up for youself) is just your opinion, nothing scientific. Conciousness is a requirement for thought, we can agree on thatIt's no use to talk about the whole matter when you're stoically using your own meaning of conciousness. You know what kind of conciousness I meant. Either address it or we can end this discussion. It's going far too long for my taste anywayblablablaYes , when you're removing your brain you would be dead, and then you could falsify your position, if you still had a conciousness. But you can't falsify it while you're aliveNo, I didn't made them up sorry. These concepts are probably almost as old as humanityI'm not even going to start that topic again. You were claiming that I wanted to falsify something in your last post. If you can't back that up by a quotation, just shut the fuck upIf you think it's scientific to say there's no afterlife, I'm afraid your understanding of science isn't the best.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #168)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

There is only one http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Cosmolo gical_principleBut a scientist can have a naturalistic worldview, and that was all I was saying on that part. Science might be naturalistic, but not all naturalistic views are scientificSo you knew what I meant after all, but you're setting how I used conciousness the last posts = awareness. Whatever. I was also talking about "awareness " if you will, in living beings and that we can't prove/falsify it. But fine, if we agree on that part, we can finally end this discussion. It could have been much shorter. And it is an scientific claim in that way that science can't falsify it, nor prove itYes I know what you were referring to, and my point was you still don't know if it has a conciousness if switched off.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #167)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

I'm not talking about ghosts. Define ghosts. If I could tap you on the shoulder, I would be something physical. We're talking about conciousness and thought. Can the thought of somebody else tap you on the shoulder? And if there were a ghost you couldn't prove that he has conciousness, if you aren't the ghost yourselfThere is no scientific definition of conciousness, like e.g cognitive function. And even if there would be one (there isn't one) you're just argueing semantics here. I think everybody knows what kind of conciousness I was referring to the last posts. But We can agree on "the awareness of somethingIt's getting tiresome. That brains are a requirement for conciousness(like I used the term, not like you are making it up for youself) is just your opinion, nothing scientific. Conciousness is a requirement for thought, we can agree on thatIt's no use to talk about the whole matter when you're stoically using your own meaning of conciousness. You know what kind of conciousness I meant. Either address it or we can end this discussion. It's going far too long for my taste anywayblablablaYes , when you're removing your brain you would be dead, and then you could falsify your position, if you still had a conciousness. But you can't falsify it while you're aliveNo, I didn't made them up sorry. These concepts are probably almost as old as humanityI'm not even going to start that topic again. You were claiming that I wanted to falsify something in your last post. If you can't back that up by a quotation, just shut the fuck upIf you think it's scientific to say there's no afterlife, I'm afraid your understanding of science isn't the best.  (Sep 13, 2013 | post #166)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

Test the cosmological principle thenI have accused some scientists with a naturalistic worldview to be clingy to their theories, thatís all, and Iím not denying that. Itís just that you invent some BS, that I havenít ever claimedNo, I mean exactly what I was writing. If you have a problem with that, address it directly instead of trying to ridicule it by bringing in ghoststoriesI know the current position of science myself, and I donít need to address it in any wayBecause you say so? Even if you switch off the power, there is still whole lot of activity in the matter and space, if you go by that.  (Sep 11, 2013 | post #160)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

No, your position is falsified when you are dead and you can think. Or to say it in a different way: You canít falsify your position while youíre aliveThere is no scientific definition for consciousness. Cognitive function is cognitive function, no need to invent another term for that. As I said, consciousness (as I used the term the last few posts) is not a concept (and not a term) of science, or a concept science can deal with. If I set ďcognitive functionĒ = ďcontents of consciousnessĒ for a moment, saying cognitive function = consciousness for me is similar to saying matter = space. Can (empty) space exist without matter, for itself? I donít know. But I would say matter canít exist without spaceYou donít know that. It canít be proven nor can it be falsified that all my contents of consciousness depend on physical manifestations like matter (or even a particular piece of matter) Science isnít a way to make wild guesses based on pseudo-evidence, and then label it scientific. Itís there to explain the observations at hand. In order to construct a scientific hypothesis, it must predict things (other than ďnothing will happenĒ) that are in some way testable. Nothing is gained from constructing a scientific hypothesis like ďthere is no parallel universe where Donald Duck lifesĒ even though that could perhaps even be falsified. Likewise, nothing is gained from constructing a scientific hypothesis that states ďspace without matter can't thinkĒ, or ďthere isn't anything transcendentĒ, transcendence being another concept that can't be addressed by since, just like conciousness. The whole thing has just out of the reach of scienceWhat exactly do I want to falsify hereConsciousness has no scientific definition. So itís rather you who is using his own definition.  (Sep 11, 2013 | post #159)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

BTW: You also can't prove/falsify scientifically that living people other than you think. Just as you can't prove/falsify scientifically that living people other than you have a conciousness. Just like you can't prove/falsify that a computer has a conciousness.  (Sep 10, 2013 | post #154)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

LOL, well, not my problem either. But I still assume that my fellow human beings have a consciousness, even though it canít be proven scientifically, and canít be falsified either. Call me crazyAll this philosopher bashing is just ridiculous. But since you have to bash something, and the only alternative would be bashing me, go on I guessI can only assume a reading comprehension fail on your part, because I canít see anything in your link that claims itís the scientific view that consciousness arises from the brain1. As I assume that weíre both under the assumption that historic persons have existed, I didnít thought it necessary to emphasise the underlying philosophical assumptions and uncertainties. But when it comes to the very foundations of reality, you might understand that Iím more skeptical in my formulations, especially if Iím facing a hardcore materialist and reductionist (who is under the illusion that his view is scientific). 2. I havenít even claimed that Rene existed. Actually I just asked you: ďEver heard about Rene?Ē. It was more about what he said (or what he not said for sure, if you will) than himself anywayAs youíre clearly THE expert in philosophy, you must knowIt all depends on your assumptions. Even science, relies on assumption, but we got that alreadyDude, I was talking about the ďaccusation thingĒ, not the thread. And the next time you quote something, quote the passage that you mean (assuming there is one), because you quoted me saying something about scientists, and now you're talking about science, and accusing me of some bullshit because of, well, the whole threadWhere have I claimed this? Quotation please? No wait, why do I even bother..  (Sep 10, 2013 | post #153)

Evolution Debate

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

Guess what, your position being the opposite of mine isn't falsifiable either. And I donít have scientific problems either, because as you donít seem to understand, the whole affair has nothing to do with science. You said it for yourself, itís UNTESTABLE by scientific means. You claim it to be that way, I claim it to be another way. Science doesnít care either way, because itís, I reapeat UNTESTABLE. So your claim, that dead people canít think, is by no means scientific, your example with a food blender in my cranium that you interpret philosophically (reductionism?) doesnít change that. Seriously, have you ever heard a scientist worth itís salt (which you obviously arenít) claiming itís scientific to say that thereís no afterlife (never even mind the whole scientific communityIndeedTwo different things bro. One was the thing that dead people canít think, the other being that we are nothing more than the matter we're made of (philosophical stance would be materialism I guess) But hereís my interpretation relating to your example above: If the proclaimed food bender were introduced to my cranium, so to speak, I might indeed suffer a severe deficit in my cognitive functions. But most likely, I will still have a consciousness. If my brain is reduced to a size of a hamster, I dare say my cognitive functions would also be affected. But I take a guess and say I still would have a consciousness. Even if I lie in coma, I could still have a consciousness, even though I couldnít remember it, just like I often canít remember if I were dreaming in my sleep. If all the molecules in my brain would vanish, who is to say what remains, and what will happen to it. After all, if weíre really living in a materialistic world, what is consciousness good for? What about hate, love, color.. everything just a coincidence? Itís just the molecules I'm made of, even though nobody understands how they relate to my conciousness. The only thing that can be claimed is that both are there. But somehow, my consciousness for me seems more essential to my existence than the matter in this universe that Iím made ofWelcome to the club then, cause I canít falsify your pseudo-science that you call science eitherMy position is also falsifiable, as later evidence might present itself, and therefore itís scientific (LOL)  (Sep 10, 2013 | post #152)