Thanks for drawing attention to two separate varieties of dualism. The issue with both is lack of objective motivation for a more complex hypothesis. Physics seems sufficient to explain in principle all observed phenomena..
Does True Randomness Actually Exist? ( ^&*#^%$&#% )
Sort:
elroch you're dodging a very valid question, and everyone can see that.
you know very well that your claim "science proved that True Randomness exist" is simply false. how about making a true statement for a change? one that represent physics instead of your own beliefs? one that is objective and is not intended to influence vulnerable minds.
Jul 19, 2020
0
#3004
As I have explained, defining "true randomness" exactly as I did (to correspond to the strongest definition of randomness possible in our Universe), this has been demonstrated to exist (barring the most extreme of "loopholes"). The strength of this conclusion has grown with each improvement to Bell's experiment implementations.
Sillver1 wrote:
opti:"The very fact that naturalism is at odds with dualism should indicate that naturalism is insufficient"
i like the sound of that, and assume you think body/mind dualism (personally am not into that). to me.. matter/life dualism seem much better, because it solve a lot of the problems and its consistent. although its too long of a story..
Hi, dualism is about thesis/antithesis. It's a method of thinking where on any subject that seems impenetrable, you try to form a thesis, that is, a proposition, based on the subject. It can actually be anything, and then you try to form the antithesis. Then you can wait and see if thesis and antithesis cancel out or combine into a new thesis and then try to find another antithesis. The point is that this procedure carries your thoughts where they might not normally go. So it doesn't automatically mean mind/body, chemical/biological or any specific pair of complementary opposites.
So thesis + antithesis > synthesis
synthesis + antisynthesis > synthesis
etc etc
Optimissed wrote:
So thesis + antithesis > synthesis
synthesis + antisynthesis > synthesis
etc etc
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s triad of thesis, antithesis and synthesis!
Well, I always thought that Hegel's initial ideas were sound but hardly new and that he didn't follow them through. Hegel didn't realise that each synthesis is a potentially new thesis and that the process is indefinite. For Hegel though, the synthesis was the nation state, because he was one of the people, along with Bismark, whose thinking gave rise to German militarism. Then along came Marx, turned it on its head and Behold! dialectical materialism or whatever it is.
So an incorrect understanding of synthesis in both Marx and Hegel brought about the dangerous confrontation between Communism and Imperialism. The correct (that is, most useful) way to think about it is as a potentially endless process of refinement of thinking.
After all, synthesis is essentially compromise. Creative compromise, maybe.
Physics seems sufficient to explain in principle all observed phenomena..
...and fully illuminating its limitations. thx ! u obviously didnt need me. u proved ur own point to urself 
.
Jul 19, 2020
0
#3012
Opti - the thing about being brainwashed -
the recipient never knows what hit him.
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3013
Optimissed wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Optimissed wrote:
...
My point is that in order to train their minds to think about these things more efficiently, it's necessary for people to drop the idea that dualism is unhelpful.
It's not really a matter of being helpful. For almost all purposes dealing with thinking while ignoring the physical mechanism behind it is appropriate. Pretty much to the same extent that when discussing the behaviour of software, it is normally without any reference to the hardware which implements it. This is a level of abstraction.
The same is true in the relationships between physics (mostly the smallest scale interactions and simple aspects of large scale interactions - such as biomechanics), chemistry (the interaction of molecules without too much concern about the interactions of their smaller parts) and biology (the behaviour of living organisms at scales above individual molecular interactions). It just doesn't help to think about the interactions of electrons and nuclei to understand monkeys. Or kelp.
However, the naturalistic hypothesis - at odds with dualism - has proved a good guide to neuroscientists, who are concerned with the physical basis of all phenomena to which dualism would be related.
Oh, I really thought neuroscoience is a pseudoscience
That really is a shockingly ill-informed sounding statement. Neuroscience applies the scientific method to a very demanding subject and has the advantage of relating high level phenomena to empirical physical data (which the semi-science of psychology and the (mostly) pseudoscience of psychoanalysis largely lack). It is a science which has made many fascinating discoveries in recent history, and these are hard scientific facts, not the sort of nonsense you suggest.
Just look at a snapshot of the news on the subject from one recent month and see if your claim makes sense or is pure nonsense.
https://www.scientifica.uk.com/neurowire/the-top-neuroscience-research-news-from-august-2019
.... especially the way it's being treated, in a very mechanistic way that seems to like the parts of the brain without reference to how they interact and which seems to depend on statistical behaviourism, which is a blunt instrument if ever there was one.
All science is fundamentally based on statistical data. The first part of what you say is clearly as misguided as condemning cellular biology on the grounds that it is about the separate parts without reference to how they interact.
Firstly it is very important to work out how smaller parts of a system work and secondly everyone in the field knows as well as us how important interaction is, and many of them are actively researching it. Have you never seen the fascinating observations of how different parts of the brain interact when specific tasks are undertaken?
The very fact that naturalism is at odds with dualism should indicate that naturalism is insufficient
Glib and not even an attempt at justification.
and will not lead to a discovery of how the brain gives rise to the mind. I'm completely sure of that. You see, I think I know something of how it works so I'm sure they're on the wrong track, by miles, European kilometers or even by leagues.
I bet you cannot communicate what you know in a way that will make the sort of sense that would justify your claim. And I don't mean just to me, I mean to anyone with an objective, rational, scientific attitude.
"Hi silver"
hi opti
Elroch wrote:
As I have explained, defining "true randomness" exactly as I did (to correspond to the strongest definition of randomness possible in our Universe), this has been demonstrated to exist (barring the most extreme of "loopholes"). The strength of this conclusion has grown with each improvement to Bell's experiment implementations.
yes elroch, but only according to your own definition. problem is that your definition exclude D to begin with, and as such.. it has no room in a discussion about D. its hard to believe that you dont see it for yourself. but wait..
do you even make the claim that physics (not interpretations) proved Determinism to be false? (according to the agreed definition of D from stanford)
"sometimes you out do even yourself🏄🏼♀️" +1
MustangMate wrote:
Opti - the thing about being brainwashed -
the recipient never knows what hit him.
most ppl never do find their subconscious. sad.
as a suggestion ?...start w/ honest inquiry of self. summa the most intelligent flora and fauna upon this earth, that which we share, are those who possess curiousity. and yes flowers can be.
(mostly) pseudoscience of psychoanalysis largely lack).
ok. wait a second ! so the psychiatrist who administers medication for patients is as such ?...maybe its you who should go for a button tuck laydown. do u actually believe, in all ur igorance, that prescribed medication is NOT SM-tested thru extensive trial ??
...knock it off !
Jul 20, 2020
0
#3019
Take a pill e and o
doubits solvd
da pill sets ya straight
opti:"The very fact that naturalism is at odds with dualism should indicate that naturalism is insufficient"
i like the sound of that, and assume you think body/mind dualism (personally am not into that). to me.. matter/life dualism seem much better, because it solve a lot of the problems and its consistent. although its too long of a story..