|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
tomato
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: I get so little foreign language experience, I must be in Koreatown, Los Angeles.
|
 Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 2:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
In summation, what we're really talking about when we argue about evolution is "no evil out" - or possibly "out no evil", "oo evil nut"...
- "UN too evil", "too unevil", "u evil toon", "to live on u", etc...
OK, I got my insight: "to live on u" indicates that evolution is a parasitic theory - and "u" folks into pushing it are "onto evil"... |
이해하지 않다. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
BreakfastInBed
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Location: Gyeonggi do
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| You keep claiming people in science believe it is the only method to achieve knowledge, to know. I keep asking you "well, who exactly?" |
Is this a challenge for the sake of a challenge? Do you sincerely believe a majority of people in science have zero qualms about admitting there may be other methods to achieve knowledge? If this is your sincere belief, well, that explains this sticking point between bovinerebel and yourself. To me, it seems more as if you're interested in arguing against the letter, which may be imperfect, rather than the spirit, which is clear, of the argument. This is after all just an informal discussion.
I may be alone in this, but I'd personally much rather hear from you, as you're a thoughtful fellow, about what you think about the issue rather than why bovinerebel is wrong over and over again. Is the evolutionary debate really only about the details of the theory, or is it about something more? If it's about something more, what do you think it's about? If you would like to see science education preserved and not undermined by pseudoscience, what do you think needs to happen, realistically, to settle the debate?
Last edited by BreakfastInBed on Thu May 08, 2008 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Pastis doesn't need nor want your appreciation, South African fellow. Nobody, on this planet, needs the appreciation of a South African. Have you any idea how vile your accent is? Have you any idea what sub-human feces you are considered?
South Africa - White AND black - should be totally sterilized with thermonuclear annihilation. It simply doesn't matter what you say. You are South African. That is the ultimate punishment.
If I was South African, I would kill myself. South Africa is interesting solely because of its animals. Yes, Bovinerebel....South Africa's animals are more interesting than its people. |
Firstly you're confusing the South African English accent with the Afrikaans accent....I think you will find nobody rips on the afrikaans accent as much as English South Africans...so we agree there .
point in case= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNJVMJH5OhI
Secondly name your nationality and I assure you I've written far funnier hate speech about it...(unless it's canadian in which case you've never appeared on the radar to be considered interesting enough to write about) ... As a white south african I'm going to cry myself to sleep now regarding the fact that i live a far better quality of life than any other group allowed to teach in Korea...can you feel my tears on your leg? Oh wait....that's not tears !!
You sir , are a *beep* of the highest order. (But only if you can remove any positive connotations of "highest order".) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I should just have a macro that spits this out. But I'll repeat it again from my previous post:
Boy. You really miss simple stuff. You keep claiming people in science believe it is the only method to achieve knowledge, to know. I keep asking you "well, who exactly?" I've stated, rather clearly MANY times, I don't think science is the best tool to determining things like how to lead a moral or ethical life, how to love your family, etc.
|
And I should just get copy and paste the following : So what are you arguing against then ? My main gripe all along has been with people who won't allow of other ways of understanding the world beyond physics .
| Quote: |
If people have cherished beliefs they can't defend on logical or scientific grounds and they cry like school girls if they advocate their ideas and their ideas get challenged, then they simply should either get thicker skins or not try to advocate their beliefs. I advocate a wide range of beliefs on Dave's and I'm not exactly hoisted by the users of Dave's above everyone's head and paraded down Daehan-ro.
Who said life was fair? Many people want to base laws and public policy on matters of faith. If they're advocating a law or policy or a social norm based on metaphysical principles, then, like any idea, it can and should be debated and challenged.
|
But of course if they are advocated or pushing their views on others they have the right to be challenged. Then they are as guilty of doing what I am proposing the materialists are doing. What's good for the gander and all that...
| Quote: |
I'll give you $5 if you show me where I said that. The mind is either a product of the biochemical substrate OR the biochemical substrate is a receiver for the mind (there is some part of the mind that is not accounted for by the physical properties of the mind). Now what I've said, I'm sure many times, is I've seen no evidence that requires the additions required by the latter. Maybe one day. You'll recall from your extensive research that the dualist position was the default assumption but has been largely abandoned with advances in neuroscience which has found evidence consistent with the brain being the originator of consciousness. Following Occam's Razor, until I see evidence that can't be explained by the simplest model, I'll go with the simplest model. And here, let me give you but one example that would convince me that we need to switch to a dualist model. This would convince me I'm wrong (I hope you can articulate what would convince you the dualist model is the more unlikely):
If we regularly had people dying on the table and they were regularly able to float above their body, see a simple code word atop a cabinet that they couldn't see any other way, and then they're revived, and they report the code word, well, I would be forced to conclude that the mind is more than just the brain. |
Oh that's easy. Firstly I wouldn't be proven wrong because I haven't invested and sided with either argument. But what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level (or other metaphysical area).
Regarding what I'd need to side with the dualists would be for them to demonstrate that physics alone can not acount for the human consciousness. I wouldn't bring death into it as I don't actually see any good evidence for "life" after death. I see potential perhaps for some dream like state after death...but certainly none for our senses/physical memories and personalities to survive. But I'm open to alternatives.
Again....I don't need your 5$ ... I like your definition and fully agree that it's at the heart of the problem : The mind is either a product of the biochemical substrate OR the biochemical substrate is a receiver for the mind (there is some part of the mind that is not accounted for by the physical properties of the mind) .....whether you see reason or not to believe the latter is irrelevant ...and I agree about Occam's razor in principle except I'm not sure you can conclude that it's the simplest model.
| Quote: |
I think I've already stated whatever keeps you hard is fine with me. But if you're trying to get a law passed on it, then I think it's subject to debate.
|
Oh I see. You're confused. I would totally oppose allowing scientific creationism to be allowed to be taught in school. It postures as science and is frankly terribly science. I don't want religion infringing on the territory of science as much as the other way around.
| Quote: |
From wiki
Determinism (also called antiserendipity) is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.
The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism.
They seem different to me. (And let me state "proven to exist" is not the same as rejecting things that can't be proven. That would mean a lot of scientists need to reject math.) |
That's dishonest of you . Go back and read my post and see the conditions and context I said that in. I said "in the sense that if you believe in materialism and can't believe in free will). You know fully well that I understand the difference. This is a cheap semantics trick you play to pander to the idiots while knowing fully well what the intended meaning is . I suggest you spend more time on the content of the arguments rather than the form.
Another fesh point I'd like to make is that most materialist people here seem to feel that a good definition of the metaphysical is "that which has yet to be proven is physical". In fact that's a terrible definition even by scientific terms where we have hypothesis of all kinds of phenomena and potential phenomena that exist beyond the realm of what is understood as the physical without controversy.
Last edited by bovinerebel on Fri May 09, 2008 3:25 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
...what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level.
...
|
Let's get things clear: all particles are quantum in nature. Your excrement even contains neutrons, protons and electrons and all the confusing little bits they're made from whose behavior can be described using quantum mechanics.
Your final statement: "...necessary input from the quantum level." makes no sense. Maybe you mean: "...necessary input from <insertrandomdeityhere>."? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
...what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level.
...
|
Let's get things clear: all particles are quantum in nature. Your excrement even contains neutrons, protons and electrons and all the confusing little bits they're made from whose behavior can be described using quantum mechanics.
Your final statement: "...necessary input from the quantum level." makes no sense. Maybe you mean: "...necessary input from <insertrandomdeityhere>."? |
Hasty , hasty. I had already altered that before you posted it to include (or other metaphysical area)...it was not clear enough.
I'm clearly and obviously using the term quantum to talk about the quirky aspects of quantum mechanics...super position/entanglement etc ..we simply don't understand the behaviour of particles at the quantum level yet , but there are aspects of behaviour on the quantum level that fully conform to the materialists view of the world and are this obviously not related to the debate. You should have a clear idea of the area of phsyics we are talking about by now , or you're never going to get it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Underwaterbob
Joined: 08 Jan 2005
Location: In Cognito
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
...what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level.
...
|
Let's get things clear: all particles are quantum in nature. Your excrement even contains neutrons, protons and electrons and all the confusing little bits they're made from whose behavior can be described using quantum mechanics.
Your final statement: "...necessary input from the quantum level." makes no sense. Maybe you mean: "...necessary input from <insertrandomdeityhere>."? |
Hasty , hasty. I had already altered that before you posted it to include (or other metaphysical area)...it was not clear enough.
I'm clearly and obviously using the term quantum to talk about the quirky aspects of quantum mechanics...super position/entanglement etc ..we simply don't understand the behaviour of particles at the quantum level yet , but there are aspects of behaviour on the quantum level that fully conform to the materialists view of the world and are this obviously not related to the debate. You should have a clear idea of the area of phsyics we are talking about by now , or you're never going to get it. |
I think the problem here is you have no idea what area of physics you are wildly speculating about. This is your first mention of superposition (yes all one word), entanglement (which is a tricky one, and fun to romanticize) and most baffling of all: "etc."
What exactly does this quirky aspect of quantum mechanics called "etc." entail? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
| |
=  you crybaby, stop pretending. Everyone here thinks you are a f-cking tool. So go on, "LOL" some at what a tool you are, afrikaaner fellow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
| Underwaterbob wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
...what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level.
...
|
Let's get things clear: all particles are quantum in nature. Your excrement even contains neutrons, protons and electrons and all the confusing little bits they're made from whose behavior can be described using quantum mechanics.
Your final statement: "...necessary input from the quantum level." makes no sense. Maybe you mean: "...necessary input from <insertrandomdeityhere>."? |
Hasty , hasty. I had already altered that before you posted it to include (or other metaphysical area)...it was not clear enough.
I'm clearly and obviously using the term quantum to talk about the quirky aspects of quantum mechanics...super position/entanglement etc ..we simply don't understand the behaviour of particles at the quantum level yet , but there are aspects of behaviour on the quantum level that fully conform to the materialists view of the world and are this obviously not related to the debate. You should have a clear idea of the area of phsyics we are talking about by now , or you're never going to get it. |
I think the problem here is you have no idea what area of physics you are wildly speculating about. This is your first mention of superposition (yes all one word), entanglement (which is a tricky one, and fun to romanticize) and most baffling of all: "etc."
What exactly does this quirky aspect of quantum mechanics called "etc." entail? |
Almost witty....but certainly not quite....keep it up...avoid the content and focus on the form. That's a good tactic when you sweet f-all to say about the actual argument. I've not said anything controversial ...I've stayed within the lines of what is widely accepted in physics , so frankly you lot look like a bunch of tools arguing against it.
The universe is not as we percieve it to be in the lumpy parts of the universe (the 3 dimensional world we "see" and the 4th which we sense) ...rather in reality space and time are a contruct which we build in our minds. The universe (or indeed multiverse) is more complicated that we can understand , as indeed our our consciousness and qualia etc (if you are not familiar with the very common usuage of "etc" to indicate "and so on" then that's once again your intellectual short coming) ... if you don't like this fact take it up with PHYSICS ...these strange and quirky phenomena such as that everything in the universe is in fact touching (entanglement) , that the position of a thing can be in more places than one and is simply potential until you are oberving it or not (superposition) etc are all notions brought about through the obervations of quantum physics......frankly either you know nothing about quantum physics or you are being pedantic....either way your arguments are worthless...you may be able to fool the stupid and the ignorant (if indeed you even have a clue what you are talking about )but between us (and I'm giving you some sort of credit here of a brain) you must know perfectly well that you are offering nothing of substance.....so either say something interesting to validate what issues you have with physics or shut up ...
Last edited by bovinerebel on Thu May 08, 2008 10:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Thu May 08, 2008 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pastis wrote: |
| bovinerebel wrote: |
| |
= you crybaby, stop pretending. Everyone here thinks you are a f-cking tool. So go on, "LOL" some at what a tool you are, afrikaaner fellow. |
I don't try and speak for everyone as you do. But certainly if I may indulge you in my personal opinion in the form of similes and metaphors , I'd like to offer the following :
You've said nothing interesting or insightful this entire topic. You've yapped for scraps of attention from the side like the little intellectual runt that you are. You've hurled digested peanuts from you're zoo gallery in the intellectual equivalent of feces. You've carried on and on adding nothing , misunderstanding the simplest of concepts and basically getting in the way. You're not wanted in this debate and certainly not needed. You're a cretin....and I say that with deepest apologies to the people of Crete. If you and your family , loved ones and friends (on the slight chance you have any) are Jewish I applaud the holocaust with great enthusiasm. If I were a member of green peace and you were a baby seal ...I'd club the hell out of you. Now run along and bore someone else. You fail at life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pastis
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ You p-ssy. I've just been toying with you, and you make it so easy, being the witless plank crybaby you are. Honestly, I know so much more about this topic than you do it hurts, but you are just not worth indulging. I wouldn't waste my time on an uneducated piece of kak like your poor self, unless it were to point out what an uneducated piece of moffie kak you are. So I'll just keep toying with you as long as I feel like it, and the let the others continue to rape you in argument, as they've done this whole thread (seems you like it).
To sum up, you have accomplished nothing in this thread except to prove that you have no friends and never will (please don't forget it). You should re-register under a different name and try again, or better yet, just give up on your nugatory little Boer life altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
My guess is that "pastis" is functioning as a sock of one of the other "new atheist" participants on this thread.
One way to counter someone who presents effective arguments challenging your materialistic/intellectually imperialistic world view based on scientific naturalism is to throw them off their game by constant flaming and baiting... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| pastis wrote: |
^ You p-ssy. I've just been toying with you, and you make it so easy, being the witless plank crybaby you are. Honestly, I know so much more about this topic than you do it hurts, but you are just not worth indulging. I wouldn't waste my time on an uneducated piece of kak like your poor self, unless it were to point out what an uneducated piece of moffie kak you are. So I'll just keep toying with you as long as I feel like it, and the let the others continue to rape you in argument, as they've done this whole thread (seems you like it).
To sum up, you have accomplished nothing in this thread except to prove that you have no friends and never will (please don't forget it). You should re-register under a different name and try again, or better yet, just give up on your nugatory little Boer life altogether. |
Toying ? Do you always get so angry with your toys and spit the dummy ?
Nice racist little rant. You're not english are you ? Despite the terrible crime and such there must be some reason we have more English applications to live in south african each year than the other way around , including some of your favourite sons (geoff boycott , bob wooler ?)... Oh that's right..england is a total sh!t hole. Every South African I know has spent the worst year of their life working in england after university. It gives the access to Europe but they generally hate the entire experience.Crap weather , rude people , norrible lifestyle with low salaries and everything being expensive , yobos everywhere...a once proud nation turned grown into a big blackpool....what a hole!
Right...so let's try and keep that dummy in this time ok big boy ? And best you stop while you have some dignity left ....oh wait...too late....carry on.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bovinerebel
Joined: 27 Feb 2008
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 3:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
My guess is that "pastis" is functioning as a sock of one of the other "new atheist" participants on this thread.
One way to counter someone who presents effective arguments challenging your materialistic/intellectually imperialistic world view based on scientific naturalism is to throw them off their game by constant flaming and baiting... |
Or he really is just a gigantic *beep*.
Don't worry...it hasn't escaped the attention of anyone that he's adding nothing of worth. I't should also be noted that last few pages of counter arguments for my extemely moderate arguments have all been semantic in nature....nit picking about the form , rather than delaing with the content. Surely the blatant signs that the opposition doesn't really have a leg to stand on? What do we all something that adds nothing of worth ? Oh yes ....worthless! Yes , that sounds about right.
Let him keep yapping for scraps of attention like the intellectual runt he is....everyone needs some affirmation of their existance. When need be I'll just swat him away like the parasite he is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 09, 2008 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bovinerebel wrote: |
| Quote: |
I should just have a macro that spits this out. But I'll repeat it again from my previous post:
Boy. You really miss simple stuff. You keep claiming people in science believe it is the only method to achieve knowledge, to know. I keep asking you "well, who exactly?" I've stated, rather clearly MANY times, I don't think science is the best tool to determining things like how to lead a moral or ethical life, how to love your family, etc.
|
And I should just get copy and paste the following : So what are you arguing against then ? My main gripe all along has been with people who won't allow of other ways of understanding the world beyond physics . |
Really. I'll highlight. A simple simple question. Not sure why you've never answered it but keep returning to your original claim that some people are doing X. If the guy raging before city council that it needs to do something about human sacrifice, the first logical question posed to the petitioner would be "who exactly is conducing human sacrifices within the borders of our city?" I'd hope after 12 pages you could take the first logical step in demonstrating this is indeed a problem.
| Quote: |
| But what it would take me to take sides would be for the materialists to isolate the phenomena known as qualia and consciousness into a physical quantity and demonstrate that it operates without necessary input from the quantum level (or other metaphysical area). |
But if the brain operates via QM then we're still in a material paradigm. Where is this QM level anyway? Can you define that term? I understand it to mean, when we get down to very very small scales we can only use probability to describe the behavior of subatomic particles.
Wiki's definition however doesn't seem to mean what I'm trying to grasp you're implying:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_level
Anyway, to my definition, I still don't see anything particularly non-materialist about that.
| Quote: |
| This is a cheap semantics trick you play to pander to the idiots while knowing fully well what the intended meaning is . I suggest you spend more time on the content of the arguments rather than the form. |
Then why don't you state clearly why the two amount to the same. As far as I see, QM is part of materialism. We can measure. We can test. But QM is also probability. There is no determined chain. If we rolled back the universe to the point of the big bang, we most probably wouldn't get this planet earth. If we rolled back evolution to the first cell, we might not get humans or zebras again. Would not a materialist argue that? But even the most hardcore materialist I know, Dawkins, doesn't believe we'd get the same universe or the same path of evolution if we rolled back and started again.
So yes, I can rather comfortably believe materialism (ie, there are some things that can be shown to exist for sure and some things we'll never be able to satisfactorily demonstrate but have to take largely on faith) and believe in free will.
| Quote: |
| Another fesh point I'd like to make is that most materialist people here seem to feel that a good definition of the metaphysical is "that which has yet to be proven is physical". |
And who is using that definition? Can you be specific?
Last edited by mindmetoo on Fri May 09, 2008 5:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
