I wonder if this fellow while thinking deeply realizes the irony of putting out this message while using electricity to send information through miles of cables across the internet using a device based upon quantum physics?
(2018-03-27, 01:28 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder if this fellow while thinking deeply realizes the irony of putting out this message while using electricity to send information through miles of cables across the internet using a device based upon quantum physics?
There isn't any irony at all, nothing he said is relevant to the facts you state.
It does reveal you likely didn't even listen to his arguments though.
(2018-03-27, 03:38 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]There isn't any irony at all, nothing he said is relevant to the facts you state.
It does reveal you likely didn't even listen to his arguments though.
No I did not. Does he present something that's not been said before?
P.S. Reading the comments tells me he's said nothing new.
Thanks for the Like.
(2018-03-27, 04:38 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]No I did not. Does he present something that's not been said before?
P.S. Reading the comments tells me he's said nothing new.
Thanks for the Like.
You have no refutations for his arguments, why does there need to be something new.
All these years and you still don't seem to understand what "materialism" or "immaterialism" mean...
And you're welcome. :-)
(2018-03-27, 06:25 PM)Sciborg_S_Patel Wrote: [ -> ]You have no refutations for his arguments, why does there need to be something new.
All these years and you still don't seem to understand what "materialism" or "immaterialism" mean...
And you're welcome. :-)
I care only in so far as to understand why some people do care. You tell me what you think I do not know.
Why should anyone care for his opinion? Presenting such videos is not going to change anyone's mind. Doing such is analogous to the debatevover which is better Star Wars or Star Trek. Some will think one is better than the other.
(2018-03-28, 11:50 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]But what you can’t do is chuck out current theories until we have something better to replace them with. That is the fundamental misunderstanding I see here, yes he may have some good points, but does he actually have anything better which can replace the current theories.
I don't think he's advocating "chuck[ing] out current [scientific] theories" - one can reject physicalism without rejecting scientific theories, although you would probably have to take the position that scientific theories are an
incomplete description of reality.
Whilst there the usual smattering of wordplay and pseudoprofundity, it is refreshing to hear the call for agnosticism. Other models of reality face perhaps even trickier counters than the ones presented above.
It’s also fun to back a horse though right? :LOL:
(2018-03-28, 06:55 PM)malf Wrote: [ -> ]Whilst there the usual smattering of wordplay and pseudoprofundity, it is refreshing to hear the call for agnosticism. Other models of reality face perhaps even trickier counters than the ones presented above.
It’s also fun to back a horse though right? 
"Pseudoprofundity" seems to be a particular niggle for you, Malf. Makes me wonder what you would consider as true profundity? Also what is its opposite: cynicism perhaps? I say that because it often seems to me that those who call themselves skeptics often don't know the line which separates skepticism from cynicism.
(2018-03-28, 08:11 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]"Pseudoprofundity" seems to be a particular niggle for you, Malf. Makes me wonder what you would consider as true profundity? Also what is its opposite: cynicism perhaps? I say that because it often seems to me that those who call themselves skeptics often don't know the line which separates skepticism from cynicism.
Heh. I think it's an efficient word. It neatly describes so much of the lingual gymnastics that pass for philosophy.