(2017-08-21, 05:53 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Then test your suggestion.
Meanwhile you're not doing anything to prove it's a chemical. But again, you don't really understand what you're saying when you say something is an "immaterial" or "material" explanation.
Looking back not even clear what Steve001's original post is referring to in terms of "metaphysical" explanations or that his insult to immaterialists is warranted?
Perhaps he can explain why his post isn't his usual desperation to shame people into thinking his blind materialist faith is the intellectual path?
(2017-08-21, 06:06 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Looking back not even clear what Steve001's original post is referring to in terms of "metaphysical" explanations or that his insult to immaterialists is warranted?
Perhaps he can explain why his post isn't his usual desperation to shame people into thinking his blind materialist faith is the intellectual path?
I'm guessing that Steve001 considers "immaterialist" to be some kind of plant awareness of their surrounding without a direct and detectable physical cause. In other words, the materialist would look for a chemical in the air or some kind of sensitivity to light (or lack of light) to explain the observed phenomenon.
However, the more we consider the chemical options, the less likely they seem to be able to explain the gap. Light sensitivity doesn't do it either because we are talking about a canopy where the gap is maintained so there is no overlapping. Also, how would a tree with light sensitivity know that it is another tree blocking its light and not its own leaves (as already pointed out, that would also need explaining in the chemical hypothesis).
So why not consider some kind of field effect? Is it because that strays into Sheldrake territory and we can't have that immaterialist nonsense can we? Yet we started with Steve001 saying that he was pointing out bias. Isn't the refusal to consider possible explanations because they don't meet some ideological assumptions the very essence of bias?
That's the point I was trying to make with my some biases are more robust than others comment,slash question.
(2017-08-21, 05:57 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile you're not doing anything to prove it's a chemical. But again, you don't really understand what you're saying when you say something is an "immaterial" or "material" explanation.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing is how idelogical belief bias leads many to prefer a certain view of reality to explain. Now, you will likely say I have a bias and you would be correct, but mine isn't based upon belief. It's knowledge based.
(2017-08-21, 08:16 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I'm guessing that Steve001 considers "immaterialist" to be some kind of plant awareness of their surrounding without a direct and detectable physical cause. In other words, the materialist would look for a chemical in the air or some kind of sensitivity to light (or lack of light) to explain the observed phenomenon.
However, the more we consider the chemical options, the less likely they seem to be able to explain the gap. Light sensitivity doesn't do it either because we are talking about a canopy where the gap is maintained so there is no overlapping. Also, how would a tree with light sensitivity know that it is another tree blocking its light and not its own leaves (as already pointed out, that would also need explaining in the chemical hypothesis).
So why not consider some kind of field effect? Is it because that strays into Sheldrake territory and we can't have that immaterialist nonsense can we? Yet we started with Steve001 saying that he was pointing out bias. Isn't the refusal to consider possible explanations because they don't meet some ideological assumptions the very essence of bias?
Plant biologists know plants communicate via chemicals. That's why one looks in that direction. How would you know chemicals are less likely? You don't know.
(2017-08-22, 01:06 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]Plant biologists know plants communicate via chemicals. That's why one looks in that direction. How would you know chemicals are less likely? You don't know.
Have you been reading this thread at all? You've just circled back to your first assertion.
You know, Steve, in conversations with you there comes a point where there is no point: no point in continuing. I think we are there.
(2017-08-22, 03:27 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Have you been reading this thread at all? You've just circled back to your first assertion.
You know, Steve, in conversations with you there comes a point where there is no point: no point in continuing. I think we are there.
Yes, exactly. Steve001 asks "How would you know chemcials are less likely?" when I explained exactly that to him in two posts:
#24 and
#29.
(2017-08-19, 12:56 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]It's always interesting that those that gravitate towards immaterialism assume the answers lie therein. This response between trees is a purely natural response likely chemical (allelopathic, (sp.)) in origin. Many plants secrete chemicals as protective defense. An example is the creosote plant which through the use of cresote creates a barren area around itself preventing competition from othe plant species. Many plants exhibit this defense mechanism.
Anything involving fields (as was first proposed here) would hardly count as "immaterialism".
(2017-08-22, 01:02 AM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing is how idelogical belief bias leads many to prefer a certain view of reality to explain. Now, you will likely say I have a bias and you would be correct, but mine isn't based upon belief. It's knowledge based.
Given your tantrums regarding your ignorance of philosophy and your admission of having no scientific accomplishments (not even a minor in college) I find this hard to believe.
But prove me wrong. Show me why your post shading immaterialism was warranted? Maybe explain to me what the Boundary Problem/Question of Experiencing Subjects is?
My guess is this is just a return to your insistence the neuroscientist Tallis was a fool but when asked to explain his actual argument you sputtered. Or when you ran to JREF forums and begged them to come argue with Maaneli only to be laughed at.
So...do you have anything of value to say?