Psience Quest

Can the materialism/physicalism stuff be taken to a new thread, please. There seems to be a thread called "Materialism as a Religion" which sounds more appropriate.

Thank you.

Linda

(2017-11-03, 08:08 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Why didn't you search out the answer yourself ?

I wasn't asking you for the answers, I was asking you what you meant by forces !

Steve said > "Thought" has no substance. It's an activity."

Well if it's an activity, it must have some force making it exist or bringing it into existence (the mind ? ) So the mind must be something ? But you materialists with your heads stuck in the sand, cannot explain what it is made of or how it comes into existence, except that it somehow does...through neural complexity. But you cannot predict or tell us the number of neural connections between neurons that brings the mind into existence.

So absolutely the most crucial element of man, without which there is no man, you lot have no idea. Because you don't acknowledge that there's something else.

You have many misunderstandings assumptions Tim. 
What I think is you immaterialists haven't come close to proving the mind does not cannot come from brain activity.

(2017-11-03, 08:03 PM)Iyace Wrote: [ -> ]So it’s non physical?

I'm often perplexed why people read into a different meaning then what someone writes. Taken all that you ever read why would ever ask such a silly question of me?

(2017-11-03, 08:28 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You have many misunderstandings assumptions Tim. 
What I think is you immaterialists haven't come close to proving the mind does not cannot come from brain activity.

Talk about misunderstandings: if you are looking for proof, don't look to science.

I think Linda’s objection is fair. There is a thread for this sort of conversation that I think people should contribute to.

(2017-11-03, 08:28 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]You have many misunderstandings assumptions Tim. 
What I think is you immaterialists haven't come close to proving the mind does not cannot come from brain activity.

You've unwittingly reduced yourselves to mere zombies and yet you pretend your 'zombie lives' have some meaning > (Steve said...Read and become knowledgeable. Know that pure scientists only goal is to discover how things work." )..what for ? What's the point ?? It's an absurdity ! 

Anyway. Madam is correct, it is off topic so let's leave it.

You don't have to be a scientist to tell when someone replaces a dictionary definition with his own, claims it's better, and then asserts his definition is what someone else meant when she used the word.

(2017-11-03, 04:43 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]My apologies if I misinterpreted this:


-------------------------------------------------------------


Let's start here: What method do you advise a layman, such as myself, employ?

As I believe I've made clear by now, I think the question of proper authority is a very difficult issue and made even more difficult when authorities opine on topics outside their expertise.  As a layman, I really have no idea whom to believe and tend to default to the consensus.

Hi Silence,

I started a new thread here:
http://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-562.html

Linda

Bumped for Dante.

Courtesy of the Daily Grail, here's an example not of a lay person contradicting the expert consensus, but of someone from a different discipline making progress with a problem that the experts were stuck on. It's a mathematical problem, and the "outsider" is a biologist (though his first degree was in computer science):
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018...by-amateur