Trees with “Crown Shyness” Mysteriously Avoid Touching Each Other

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".

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?

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?

Of what value is your post? It reads like a man whose had his feelings hurt and now wants to take petty cheaps shots.
 If I remember correctly his stance, he doesn't believe the brain creates consciousness. That in my book, makes him a grand fool.

Anything involving fields (as was first proposed here) would hardly count as "immaterialism".

Perhaps I presumed too much. What do you mean and what do you think others mean when they use the word "fields"?

Of what value is your post? It reads like a man whose had his feelings hurt and now wants to take petty cheaps shots.
 If I remember correctly his stance, he doesn't believe the brain creates consciousness. That in my book, makes him a grand fool.

Heh, classic childish Steve001. Why I still think you're just an immature teenager who posts to amuse himself rather than an old man.

My post is an inquiry as to the validity of your criticism, citing your history of being a troll. You're a fanatic that even the people on JREF laughed off when you begged for aid against Maaneli who you, behind his back, accused of being a - what was it? - "woo-monger of the highest order"? 

And I note that rather than offer any actual argument you're back to your usual insults and projections of hurt feelings. And all these years later you still can't explain what Tallis' argument is just that it violates your materialsit/physicalist faith.

Anything involving fields (as was first proposed here) would hardly count as "immaterialism".

Yup, I was taken aback at the childish silliness of the accusation b/c of this.

Yup, I was taken aback at the childish silliness of the accusation b/c of this.

So you have no definition of what that word means. That's progress.

Heh, classic childish Steve001. Why I still think you're just an immature teenager who posts to amuse himself rather than an old man.

My post is an inquiry as to the validity of your criticism, citing your history of being a troll. You're a fanatic that even the people on JREF laughed off when you begged for aid against Maaneli who you, behind his back, accused of being a - what was it? - "woo-monger of the highest order"? 

And I note that rather than offer any actual argument you're back to your usual insults and projections of hurt feelings. And all these years later you still can't explain what Tallis' argument is just that it violates 

Ho hum. 
Where is Maaneli? He's been awfully quiet these last few years.

Ho hum. 
Where is Maaneli? He's been awfully quiet these last few years.

He probably thought his time was more valuable spent doing research (which is what he does - what was it that you do again?) rather than arguing with small minded ideologues. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maa...blications

He probably thought his time was more valuable spent doing research (which is what he does - what was it that you do again?) rather than arguing with small minded ideologues. 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Maa...blications

Maaneli. What a freaking slouch. Show 'em your pubs, Steve001. Dazzle 'em!!!!!