Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

He may be clueless. His first or so statement as I recall is QM is immaterial. Note QM ( Quantum Mechanics) also known as quantum physics is a branch of physics, it is not call quantum metaphysics nor does it categorically by definition deal with immaterialism. It relates to us there is a counter intuitive form of physical which some have bastardized to suit there philosophical persuasions. But true to form he as a philosopher attempts to argue persuasively without formal education in this discipline a philosophical  theoretical foundation which cannot be subject to falsification. Why would someone without formal science education in physics turn to someone whom also according to the *information supplied by you has no formal physics education rely upon such a person to validate their position?

Each night when I retire to bed I experience not a shred of angst that upon waking materialism will have been replace by the immaterial world. I wonder if you sleep as restfully as me?

* I did an independent look see at his academic qualitifications, to find physics let alone quantum physics are not listed. As a matter of fact he listed no training in any branch of science.

What utter crap you write. You must practice thinking up non sequiturs.

His bio doesn't list him as a physicist because he's a philosopher. That doesn't disqualify him or any other philosopher from tackling the philosophical - or metaphysical, for that matter - questions arising out of QM and he certainly isn't the only one doing so. Likewise, lots of scientists write and speak about philosophy (usually about what they think is wrong with it) but they don't have academic qualifications in philosophy. 

It seems like my friend Neil deGrasse Tyson has done it again: he has dismissed philosophy as a useless enterprise, and actually advised bright students to stay away from it. It is not the first time Neil has done this sort of thing, and he is far from being the only scientist to do so. But in his case the offense is particularly egregious, for two reasons: first, because he is a highly visible science communicator; second, because I told him not to, several times.

Now, if you have a problem with something he said about QM, please remind us of the actual words you disagree with and why you think he's wrong. Then, perhaps someone will respond.

As for your peaceful sleep: ignorance is bliss, as they say.

The more I dig into this Koons character the more unsavoury he looks. He appears to be one of those philosophers who feels he needs to pontificate on what we do with our genitals:

http://robkoons.net/media/fca3f155856019...af2815.pdf

I did point out when I posted the video that he is new to me. I posted it purely because I thought he presented a concise summary of the definition of and problems with materialism. I do not follow his religious beliefs nor do I, from his critique on materialism, reach the same conclusion he does. My preference is monist idealism which he rejects. That he also has ideas about human sexuality was unknown and therefore not considered by me when I posted it. Nor do I think it has any bearing on his presentation of the issues with materialism. Again, you seem to be looking to attack the man rather than what he said in that particular video.

You might be right and he might be a total twat but I'd rather you address what he said in the piece I posted. Or do we want to go down the road of pointing out how prominent skeptics are accused of misogyny?

He may be clueless. His first or so statement as I recall is QM is immaterial. Note QM ( Quantum Mechanics) also known as quantum physics is a branch of physics, it is not call quantum metaphysics nor does it categorically by definition deal with immaterialism. It relates to us there is a counter intuitive form of physical which some have bastardized to suit there philosophical persuasions. But true to form he as a philosopher attempts to argue persuasively without formal education in this discipline a philosophical  theoretical foundation which cannot be subject to falsification. Why would someone without formal science education in physics turn to someone whom also according to the *information supplied by you has no formal physics education rely upon such a person to validate their position?

Each night when I retire to bed I experience not a shred of angst that upon waking materialism will have been replace by the immaterial world. I wonder if you sleep as restfully as me?

* I did an independent look see at his academic qualitifications, to find physics let alone quantum physics are not listed. As a matter of fact he listed no training in any branch of science.

Out of curiosity, what sort of happening or event would you consider nonphysical? Where would you draw the line between physical and nonphysical ? 

Also, why are your arguments always so fear based? It could lead one to believe you’ve reached your conclusions not via evidence, but via culture war or emotion.

You might be right and he might be a total twat but I'd rather you address what he said in the piece I posted. Or do we want to go down the road of pointing out how prominent skeptics are accused of misogyny?

To be fair to malf, I think there's a difference between making an ad hominem attack and drawing attention to evidence of the poor quality of someone's logic and reasoning.

The more I dig into this Koons character the more unsavoury he looks. He appears to be one of those philosophers who feels he needs to pontificate on what we do with our genitals:

http://robkoons.net/media/fca3f155856019...af2815.pdf

My, my, that is execrable.

Linda

Out of curiosity, what sort of happening or event would you consider nonphysical? Where would you draw the line between physical and nonphysical ? 

Also, why are your arguments always so fear based? It could lead one to believe you’ve reached your conclusions not via evidence, but via culture war or emotion.

All events are physical. I'll define what I mean. Any event that can be measured, experienced in the broadest sense is physical. Ghosts, spirits, non-local consciousness and consciousness, qualia.... and anything that interacts with the quantum and classical realities. 

You are projecting you're own misgivings perhaps? It's not fear. Here's why. If everything Karmarling, Tim, DavidB, Koons... turns out to be true then I've gained so much. If it's not I've lost nothing. Fear ain't part of the calculation I assure you.

All events are physical. I'll define what I mean. Any event that can be measured, experienced in the broadest sense is physical. Ghosts, spirits, non-local consciousness and consciousness, qualia.... and anything that interacts with the quantum and classical realities. 

You are projecting you're own misgivings perhaps? It's not fear. Here's why. If everything Karmarling, Tim, DavidB, Koons... turns out to be true then I've gained so much. If it's not I've lost nothing. Fear ain't part of the calculation I assure you.

Kind of similar reasoning I try to apply to myself when it comes to death. If I am right then there is an afterlife and I have nothing to fear. If you are right, then I will never know, so I have nothing to fear. Yet I still have this fear of death. Sometimes reason doesn't hack it and fear has a nasty habit of creeping in.

Anyhow, all this is veering away from the discussion on Darwinism, etc.

All events are physical. I'll define what I mean. Any event that can be measured, experienced in the broadest sense is physical. Ghosts, spirits, non-local consciousness and consciousness, qualia.... and anything that interacts with the quantum and classical realities. 

You are projecting you're own misgivings perhaps? It's not fear. Here's why. If everything Karmarling, Tim, DavidB, Koons... turns out to be true then I've gained so much. If it's not I've lost nothing. Fear ain't part of the calculation I assure you.

What you have expressed is perfectly sensible, at a general level.  However, if we use the terms of science it quickly falls apart.  First - physicalness is not a measurable variable in science.  And Physicalism is a Metaphysical worldview.

Measurable items in Materials Science and Physics are called empirical.  In physics: mass and force lead the list of empirical variables.  SI units are the list of empirical values that describe measurements in Physics and the Material Sciences.

Science addresses non-physical variables, and pretending that they are not real, is pretty weird in the modern day.  If you want to measure channel capacity and its derivative measurement: bandwidth - you need to address the logical coding of the information.

There are logical events and structures in science.  QM addresses probability, context and detected/not detected as fundamental states beyond SI units of measure.  Logic is non-physical, as is coding, information, virtual photons and future probability for things that have not happened materially.  There is nothing empirical to measure in the past or in the future.  Science's reach has gone beyond where it was in 1899.  Be open to it.

Kind of similar reasoning I try to apply to myself when it comes to death. If I am right then there is an afterlife and I have nothing to fear. If you are right, then I will never know, so I have nothing to fear. Yet I still have this fear of death. Sometimes reason doesn't hack it and fear has a nasty habit of creeping in.

Anyhow, all this is veering away from the discussion on Darwinism, etc.

It's possible the answer could be known before you died that all you hold true isnt. If that should happen you've lost everything.

How a 'flipped' gene helped butterflies evolve mimicry
Female swallowtail butterflies do something a lot of butterflies do to survive: they mimic wing patterns, shapes and colors of other species that are toxic to predators. Some - but not all - swallowtail species have evolved several different forms of this trait. But what kind of genetic changes led to these various disguises, and why would some species maintain an undisguised form when mimicry provides an obvious evolutionary advantage?
https://m.phys.org/news/2017-11-flipped-...micry.html

It's possible the answer could be known before you died that all you hold true isnt.

I doubt that. Just repeating that you know something doesn't mean that you do know that thing. Even mundane knowledge changes over time with the introduction of new evidence. Isn't that how science measures progress? You can continue to deny the non-physical but that, in the end, is a metaphysical position, not an empirical one. 

Once you get drawn into an ideology you are in the grip of its dogma. In that sense, it is no different for atheists/materialists than it is for the religious. The only way to keep an open mind is to abandon certainty and forego dogma. Religion and Atheism: a curse on both their houses.