Saturday, August 13, 2011

John Cleese explains the materialistic theory of of the mind

Now I understand it!

23 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Youtube doesn't seem to allow it to loaded at the moment, but it did give me the opportunity to view my favorite sketch on beekeeping. The scientist sketch also probably is close to what you mean.

    Of course, it's only the truth that can be parodied. It's the distortion that makes it so funny.

    The religious view of how the brain functions, of course, can't be parodied, because it's rediculous already.

    ReplyDelete
  2. LMAO!
    @Mike,
    Nice for a Saturday morning laugh. 'Don't eat it!' I'll stick to the flapjacks and bacon. Thanks Dr Cleese! :P

    @Bach
    The Python crew and Cleese have parodied religion and creation many times, though not in the same way. There is no sacred cows to these guys, and that includes your monism.
    Further, to claim Thomist, Aristotlian, and metaphysical ideas are 'rediculous' is, in fact, a ridiculous position to hold/defend.
    It belies just how entrenched you are in your position, and that is not very scientific at all Bach. Are you sure you are not a Pantheist?

    ReplyDelete
  3. @crusadeREX

    There is no sacred cows to these guys...

    So true, here's the proof!

    Fundamentalist Religion vs Fundamentalist Materialism

    ReplyDelete
  4. I SEEEEE .... damn I was so dumb u_u!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pépé,
    Love it! Just got posted to my facebook wall and will be up on my blog momentarily :)
    Cheers, Pépé!

    ReplyDelete
  6. The brain video still doesn't load.

    Pepe,

    The one you link to is the one I referred to, the scientists one.

    Parody and distortion of the truth is what makes something funny.

    As I said before, religion, ID and Michael's distortion of science can't be parodied, they're funny enough already, being so ridiculous.

    Deductive reasoning fails when your initial premises are wrong. Immaterial souls and minds are fictions. Philosophy is fruitless unless it starts with some concrete facts.

    Reminds me of my favorite philosophy joke:

    Rene Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender asked 'Do you want a beer?' and Rene answered 'I don't think...' and 'poof' he disappeared.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bach,
    Loading fine here. Try a different browser? I am seeing it fine on Chrome. Here is the link to C&P
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=FQjgsQ5G8ug

    Both videos are hilarious satire.
    I am not sure who you think this is a parody of... It is the subject that cracks me up. Cleese is famous for his satire, and this is classic satire of scientism in the form of a skit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Deductive reasoning fails when your initial premises are wrong. Immaterial souls and minds are fictions. Philosophy is fruitless unless it starts with some concrete facts.

    ____________________________________

    Like scientific data that eventually is not explained by materialistic means???? would that be enough to leave materialism alone and go into a wider scope to fin the solution ??? orrrr is it a hint that the world HAS NO explanation ?

    ReplyDelete
  9. CrusadeRex,

    I use Safari on an iPad. All the other videos work fine. I'm not certain whether the problem might be due to my being in Australia and the YouTube server might be too far away. I don't feel the need to turn on the computer to look at it.

    It's parody of the general idea that science has to provide all the answers, in detail, right now, and if it can't then it's wrong. Undoubtedly genes provide a considerable part of what goes to make up a person's nature (about 50%) but environment makes up the other 50%. There's no single gene for belief in God, sexual orientation or any other trait you might consider. It's a triumph that science has identified the FOXP2 gene, mutations in which cause the gross impairment in the ability to acquire language.

    I reject the term 'scientism'. There's science and there's materialism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Edward,

    OK, give me some scientific data that's not explainable by materialism.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @bachfiend:

    [OK, give me some scientific data that's not explainable by materialism.]

    Laws of nature.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh hey Sorry Bach didn't noticed it was to me the question.

    Information, context, good and evil, Matter itself if it had an explanation it would have to be exterior to materialism, ( unless you expand it until you can prove anything XD including matter through matter ); If I am not mistaken, Time and it's characteristics are not connected to matter itself; Maybe Space itself would have the same problem. Reason, free will, aesthetics, purpose, maybe finity can be a problem in some context. MIND ??? hmmmm... Our evolution XD is a huge problem for just a unguided out of luck Model; Desire, maybe all forms of abstractions would have a fall short explanation model in materialism.

    Well matter and energy is all there is right ? is it really so ???

    Look man, Materialism isn't a wholy bad idea, but when something falls short we wide our scope, imagine if we were still reluctant to accept quantum mechanics or relativity because Classical Physics IS ALLL THERE ISSS!!!!

    Anyway, Materialism still hinges on the idea that it need to refute characteristics of things that exist or possibly exist, and do not have the properties or matter and energy. Putting simply... Materialism is truly part of metaphysics, and that is it. It has equal worth and could be right as much as any other metaphysical idea. That is all really.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Laws of nature = scientific data? Are you for real, Mike?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well Oleg, I think that even though the laws as we write are not necessarily scientific data, that fact that they are there is a scientific data. C'mon it wasn't so hard to see the ontological things going on there XD

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Not necessarily," Edward? How about "a category error?"

    ReplyDelete
  16. So the laws of our world are not scientific data???

    or rather, that data that has repetitive values or correlation is not scientific ???

    Unless fo course you mean by data as experimental data, but once again, the data show patterns and patterns will be added to the data.

    No I have no freaking idea what you mean Oleg. Clarify my category error huh...

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, Edward, the laws of nature are not scientific data.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Edward,

    Also there are no 'laws of nature'. 'Laws of nature' are just human descriptions of what is happening naturally. Descriptions can be incomplete or even wrong, but despite that can still be useful, such as 'the law of gravity'. Gravity exists, but we still don't know what it is. Is it due to the action of force particles, as with electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces. Or is it due to curving of space-time by matter (whatever that means). Laws of nature does mean that there's a lawgiver. Design doesn't mean there's a designer, particularly an intelligent designer, since a lot of the design seems just adequate rather than perfect, as with the brain.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Oleg

    So what would fall into scientific data ??? Because you see I think Dr Egnor is talking about the ontology of those laws. Do you mean as data only ... well the data from our experiments without any thinking applied to it ??? because if so, than we can say nothing really about then, just say that there is data there and that is it.

    @Bach

    Nah, Bach I know that the Laws are just descriptions. But if the description hold does that mean that there are no patterns to Nature ??? that we call Laws? Not the numbers and the equations, but these patterns do exist, wouldn't that be Data.

    Bach you are going to theology again man XD. Well I dunno, random design MIGHT have no designer, but if what the folks on ID movement say is correct than there is a INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. See the intelligent designer needs only to have an objective to it; and if we detecct that objective and the designer could be there somewhere. I think it is a matter of inference.

    Well not that I am saying that there is lawgiver, but like before.... there could be a lawgiver. See isn't a topnotch argument, but the fact it is a loose argument does not score points for the other side.

    See man, bad design is Design nonetheless. Look there is a car which the handle is nothing more but a metal wire. One look at it and bit of discussion, a person could just say that the METAL WIRE is PROVE that this car is badly designed. WHY? because a good design would make a real handle. But what makes us think that the objective was to make a handle in the first place.

    Bad and good design all depends on what objective you have in mind. The wire handle was actually made to make the car as light as it could. Was it a bad design ??? Good design ???

    Now perfect, what are the characteristics of something that is perfect ??? maybe adequate is perfect for the possible designer. Maybe the designer wanted a more lose relation between pieces or components because it was thinking in the long run. Anyway... see that we can't infer that there is no designer just because of bad design or a gut feeling that "this is wrong!".


    Intelligence is simply the ability to solve problems, like to be able to foresee the objecctive and act towards that objective.

    If you detect Objective to something, you might be dealing with something that was designed intelligently.

    For instance if you throw the dices multiply times and realized that they formed an image after you trhew them, that is a case of random design.

    That is why the Folks on ID movement try to find highly improbable arrangements.

    Let me put this way, I tell you that a threw 6 dices in a ditch, randomly. You look down there and you see the 6 dices on top of each other, perfectly aligned with the face with the number 6 facing up in all dices.

    Would ou seriously believe me... that it was by PURE FREAKING LUCK!!!! that those dices were that way.




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

    Sorry I dragged the conversation too much I suppose XD.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Bach,
    You wrote:
    "OK, give me some scientific data that's not explainable by materialism"

    What about the objective forces of nature. The Newtonian and physical 'laws'?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Yikes!
    I did not see about 5 posts before I posted the last one. I see BF has answered, even if not to my satisfaction.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @bachfiend:

    Edward,

    [Also there are no 'laws of nature'. 'Laws of nature' are just human descriptions of what is happening naturally.]

    Of course there are laws of nature, meaning mathematical descriptions of natural change. The correlation between mathematics and nature is astonishingly detailed and accurate. Where materialism fails utterly is its inability to account for the intelligibility of nature. Where does such intelligibility come from? Materialism is a child's philosophy. The deeper ways of understanding nature presume Intelligence at it's source.


    [Design doesn't mean there's a designer,}

    Of course it does, just as 'building' means a builder and 'painting' means a painter. Don't talk nonsense.

    [particularly an intelligent designer, since a lot of the design seems just adequate rather than perfect, as with the brain.]

    It's the intelligibility and teleology, not your simplistic notions of perfection, that are important.

    How do you explain the correspondence between mathematics and nature, in the materialist paradigm.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @bachfiend:

    [Reminds me of my favorite philosophy joke:

    Rene Descartes walked into a bar. The bartender asked 'Do you want a beer?' and Rene answered 'I don't think...' and 'poof' he disappeared.]

    Very funny.

    Here's my favorite philosophy joke:

    Two behaviorist philosophers had sex. After, the man rolls over to the woman and says:

    "That was good for you. How was it for me?"

    ReplyDelete