Sunday, August 14, 2011

'Marshal' regrets that I exist

Debating materialists/atheists is amusing. A commentor on Steven Novella's blog is quite exasperated with my persistent resistance to the (waning) tide of materialism in the mind-body debate.

Marshall:

Dr. Novella, this sounds unbelievably frustrating. It’s a shame that people like this exist–
Well, Marshall, there is eternal life, so you're stuck with my existence for quite a long time.
...people who are so tied to their beliefs that they will resort to nearly ANYTHING to make their case–even if it requires ignoring evidence and logic to such an extent that it makes them appear to have the cognitive capacity of a first grader.
If we ignore evidence and logic, why do you guys always seem to lose the debates?
I go through cycles of “giving up” on these people, to “trying to make a difference.”
Do keep trying.
Convincing individuals that they’re wrong rarely works, especially through argumentation, and it really only ends up making my blood broil.
Materialists are so modern that their blood doesn't boil. It broils.
Do you really think that, if you presented an unbelievably clear, evidence-supported, logical argument that left absolutely no trace of uncertainty to you conclusion, that Egnor would say, “Hi Dr. Novella–you’re absolutely right, and I’ve been wrong this whole time. I’ll change my stance on dualism because I’m obviously wrong.”? Not in a million years!
Try the argument, and see. I'm an open-minded guy.
I understand that these people serve as good examples for the general public of how the mind can be so easily deluded by belief, and the truth shrouded.
Actually, Marshall, the public agrees with me. They're not educated enough to believe something as stupid as materialism.
Examples serve to make good educational points, and I’m glad you continue to do what you do. But it’s SO HARD to not to just get angry with these people for being so goddamn STUPID,
Marshall gets so mad he keeps accidently hitting the 'caps lock' key.
and it’s difficult not to resort to their level of ad homine and baseless insults–that’s what our emotional brains are driving us to do.
So I'm debating Marshall's brain. I've never debated a brain before. How does it type?
It takes strength to rise above this tendency.
Materialists have to stay strong, for all of us.
But still, it’s so FRUSTRATING.
That's right, Marshall. Some of us won't roll over. Peddling materialism ain't easy, especially when the customers keep asking questions. If only Christians would just shut up and applaud...

56 comments:

  1. Michael,

    Admit it. Your blog is irrelevant. Your threads barely get to 30 comments each. Steve Novella regularly gets over a hundred comments per thread. The one you linked to currently has 163 comments.

    Science isn't a general popularity quest. The public's understanding of what is true or not is not the determinate of what is actually true.

    If you don't like materialism, put up some evidence for something that isn't non-material. Opinions of long dead philosophers and theologians or glib living apologetics don't count.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bach do you know what 'blog' means? It is a 'web log', like a diary or notebook online. It does not need an audience to be 'relevant' to the author. You insults are childish, as is your dogmatic monism.
    Also, the Doctor did not bring up the popularity contest, the materialist did - just as they always seem to.
    "If you don't like materialism, put up some evidence for something that isn't non-material."
    Good idea, let's show it to the blind man too!

    "Opinions of long dead philosophers and theologians or glib living apologetics don't count."
    But they exist, and are material!
    Okay...So no philosophy, physics, biology, math, theology, epistemology, chemistry, or existentialist works.
    So what shall we discuss then, Bach?
    Do you prefer a banal echo chamber of people ranting on about terms they just learned to look smart? There are plenty of those. I, for one, am glad that Dr Egnor's blog is not one of those boring, materialist rain-man sessions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @Mike,
    Some funny stuff. It takes a broad mind to see humour in such vitriol. Water into wine (the strong stuff). My thanks to you for the chuckles, and wishes for Blessed Sabbath to you and your family. Same goes out to ALL the readers.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Crus,

    I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing Michael. I think that I'll wait until he responds, even if he only agrees with you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @crusadeRex

    Thank you, and best wishes for the Blessed Sabbath to you and your family as well.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  6. ahahaha. Bach even though I see that Dr Egnor's blog is small stuff close to other bloggers and people like Dr Novella that participate on big materialist publications.

    But I don't get. you say that you reject scientism, but sicentism is pretty much all most materialists have.

    I mean I am not even trying to go fringe on you, and discuss those other "pseudoscientific" claims and stuff like that. I mean seriously, how could we possibly know if Materialism is true or not huh ??? We would have to be omniscient, but since that doesn't exist in Materialism, we as human beings will never know if materialism is right.

    To discuss the principles of materialism is rather simple actually. We get the characteristics that Matter and Energy has and we postulate that THAT IS ALL THERE IS. If we find stuff that denies our postulate/premise/axiom then surely materialism is not correct. Is not the TRUE metaphysics of Reality or is not true Ontology of Reality or something like that.

    Is pretty straight forward the idea.

    Now since materialism has it's ever changing trait like in all phylosophies * yeah Materialism is a philosophy XD *; You could say that every characteristic of the world is somehow related to matter. Okay, but does that mean that natter produced it all ??? I mean the causation relation problem.


    Bach I have no idea why you run away from phylosophical talks, Materialism had it's infancy with the Greeks, Epicurus and Democritus were hardcore materialists. Philosophy and Science are stuck together, because.... well Science came from Philosophy, and Epystemology and Science are pretty much siamese brothers.

    ________________________________

    Just as a END NOTE. I would like to say that there is no argument or idea that can't be objected. Seriously, if people can claim that the universe is NOT ( Peter Atkins is one of them XD ) than arguments will always face the pain to have counter arguments. It is like a law in philosophy I suppose.

    So to people that might read this, and are wavering because their metaphysical ideas seem to be not going all that well, DO NOT WORRY XD! all metaphysical ideas will at some point not look so well.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Your blog is irrelevant. Your threads barely get to 30 comments each. Steve Novella regularly gets over a hundred comments per thread. The one you linked to currently has 163 comments."

    "Science isn't a general popularity quest."


    Apparently, Bachfiend thinks that "...[C]onsistency is the hobgoblin of little minds..."

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here's one materialists should enjoy:

    A very successful Darwinian evolution loving scientist parked his brand new Porsche Carrera GT in front of the office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck came along too close to the curb and completely tore off the driver's door.

    Fortunately, a cop in a police car was close enough to see the accident and pulled up behind the Porsche, his lights flashing. But, before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the scientist started screaming hysterically about how his Porsche, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how hard the body shop tries to make it new again.

    After the scientist finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief. "I can't believe how materialistic you scientists are," he said. "You are so focused on your possessions that you neglect the most important things in life."

    "How can you say such a thing?" asked the scientist.

    The cop replied, "Don't you even realize that your left arm is missing? It got ripped off when the truck hit you!!!"

    "OH, MY GOD!" screamed the scientist. "MY ROLEX!!"


    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pépé
    Here is my own bit of 'funny'.
    It is a little more adult, and so I will just link it so as not to offend.
    It is on my own 'utterly irrellevant' blog :P

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bach wrote:
    "Crus,
    I wasn't addressing you. I was addressing Michael. I think that I'll wait until he responds, even if he only agrees with you."

    Sure. No worries. Thanks for reading my comment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @bachfiend:

    [Admit it. Your blog is irrelevant. Your threads barely get to 30 comments each. Steve Novella regularly gets over a hundred comments per thread. The one you linked to currently has 163 comments.]

    I'm crushed. I've resolved to try harder!

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I look forward to more breathtaking inanity."

    Whether or not biological ID is breathtakingly inane (at the very least, it appears to me that the most famous purported example, that of the bacterial flagellum, has been refuted), I would characterize Judge Jones' comments at the end of the Nova special as breathtakingly inane. As I recall, he said something like "We shouldn't be messing around with evolution. We are trying to cure cancer!" In saying that, Judge Jones revealed his ignorance, since chimpanzees, with whom we are suppose to share a common ancestor in the recent past (i.e., recent on the geological time scale) have a very different immunobiology than humans and only very rarely develop tumors, which are different from tumors in humans. How does common ancestry (which is the real bone of contention in evolutionary theory) help with cancer research? Perhaps that little weenie Orac can pop in and enlighten us.

    (To be clear, I don't think Orac is a weenie for opposing the anti-vaccination crowd but for his unwarranted attacks on Dr. Egnor and others who "doubt Darwin.")

    ReplyDelete
  13. @crusadeREX

    Atheism: You bat-shit crazy, bipolar, passive aggressive, faggot...

    I wonder why atheists always express themselves that way when they're hit over the head by an argument they can't counter?

    Must be a faulty algorithm in their computer-brain!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Marshal is the classic example of the delusional fool who does not really believe in free will, but still finds himself morally outraged against those who only mistakenly believe they have it. I suppose he scolds rocks, ocean waves, and raindrops that don't agree with him, as well. And probably the moon when it's full.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Robert O'Brien: How does common ancestry (which is the real bone of contention in evolutionary theory) help with cancer research? Perhaps that little weenie Orac can pop in and enlighten us.

    Robert, where do you stand on common descent? Here are a few questions that I posed to the participants of this blog. Would you care to provide your answers?

    Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that a lack of practical applications does not invalidate a scientific theory. Twenty years ago, general relativity had no practical applications. So what? It was one of the greatest theories in physics on solid empirical ground. And now, twenty years later, it has practical significance: GPS navigation takes effects of general relativity into account.

    And of course you can't deny that animal research plays an important role in oncology.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @oleg:

    [And of course you can't deny that animal research [based on common ancestry] plays an important role in oncology.]

    Animal research is critical to oncology, and the theory of common ancestry has nothing to do with the application of animal research to humans. NOTHING.

    The theory of common ancestry is based on the massive data associated with comparative biology. It's a reasonable theory. But the theory of common ancestry is BASED on similarities between organisms. Therefore it cannot be used to INFER similarity between organisms. To do so is to reason in a circle.

    Consider the assertion:

    'Similarity between species A and B suggests that they share a common ancestor.'

    It is then a logical fallacy to assert 'Common ancestry is necessary to infer similarities'.

    We use animal research to aid human medicine because we know through centuries of science that certain animals are biologically similar to humans, and the similarities enable inferences to be made. The inference to common ancestry and the inference that if a drug works in a rat it's likely to work in a human are both based on comparative biology.

    The idiotic Darwinist assertion that common ancestry is a precondition for cancer research is prime evidence that these people are fools. Of course, they're Darwinists, so no surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Michael,

    It isn't just the similarity between species that indicates common ancestry. It's the convergence of evidence, which includes geographical distribution, the fossil record, genetic similarities.

    Linnaeus, who was a creationist, devised his taxonomic classification based on outward similarities (and put humans amongst the primates too), but it is only with multiple approaches that it was realized that outward appearances actually reflect real connections.

    The 4 tenets of evolutionary biology are common ancestry, descent with modification, natural variation within populations and mechanisms for changing the frequency of the natural variations.

    Scientists don't doubt the first two tenets and argue about the last two (about the importance of neutral drift versus natural selection for example).
    The evolution deniers doubt the first two but generally accept the last two, insisting that natural selection explains adaptation but not speciation.

    Oleg's comment about oncology was apparently in response to Robert O'Brien's comment that tumors are rare in chimpanzees and completely different to humans. I'll have to think about that. I googled it, and the sites noting that tumors are rare in chimps are chimp liberation and rights sites (not that I think that they're wrong in campaigning against using a threatened species for medical research, either because they're either intelligent or that they're also God's creatures, depending on your viewpoint). One way that humans differ from chimps is that we have grandmothers. It's extremely unusual for any species to have non breeding females living for up to 60 years after a menopause. Female chimps are fertile till the day they die. Humans also have a much longer lifespan, and much of humans' tumors are age related, increasing with age. Humans also have a lot of nasty habits, such as smoking, drinking, eating cured meats. Chimps have a healthier diet being predominantly vegetarian, with an occasional monkey thrown in for variety.

    I'm still waiting for Michael to provide evidence that there's something other than matter and energy. We know that there's matter and energy. Asserting that there is something nonmaterial is an extraordinary claim which needs extraordinary evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @bachfiend:

    [Asserting that there is something nonmaterial is an extraordinary claim which needs extraordinary evidence.]

    Non-material: reason, will, justice, love, music, laws of nature, goodness, mercy, every universal, human soul, God. Matter itself cannot be described without intelligible principles (form), which are inherently immaterial.

    It's difficult to conceive of a more stupid assertion than the one you just made.


    [I'm still waiting for Michael to provide evidence that there's something other than matter and energy. We know that there's matter and energy.]

    Your knowledge that there is matter and energy isn't matter or energy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @bachfiend:

    [it isn't just the similarity between species that indicates common ancestry. It's the convergence of evidence, which includes geographical distribution, the fossil record, genetic similarities.]

    You haven't made any worthwhile point. I said that common ancestry is an inference from comparative biology, therefore it can not be evidence for similarities of organisms (comparative biology). Circular reasoning.

    The Darwinists' assertion that their trivial/tautological theory is essential for medical research because it demonstrates common ancestry is crap, and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Egnor: The theory of common ancestry is based on the massive data associated with comparative biology. It's a reasonable theory. But the theory of common ancestry is BASED on similarities between organisms. Therefore it cannot be used to INFER similarity between organisms. To do so is to reason in a circle.

    Mike, no offense, but you don't seem to understand how the theory works. Theory of evolution begins with the assumption that animals share common ancestry and that new species form by branching out from ancestral species. Closely related species should share more genetic material than more distant species. This is a testable hypothesis. One can the tree of life based on anatomical features and check whether genetic overlap is consistent with this tree structure.

    That, in fact, has been done. Humans share more genes with chimps than they do with gorillas, and the overlap with gorillas is higher than that with orangutans [1]. One can make this quantitative and estimate, on the basis of the overlaps, when a given pair of species diverged from their last common ancestor! Far from being an example of circular reasoning, genetic comparisons are windows into the past.

    [1] I. Ebersberger et al., "Mapping human genetic ancestry," Mol. Biol. Evol. 24, 2266 (2007). doi:10.1093/molbev/msm156

    ReplyDelete
  21. @oleg:

    [Mike, no offense, but you don't seem to understand how the theory works.]

    I do understand how it works. That's the problem.

    [Theory of evolution begins with the assumption that animals share common ancestry and that new species form by branching out from ancestral species.]

    'The theory of evolution' has as many meanings as there are situations in which Darwinists need to defend atheism/materialism. It's highly adaptable because it's a tool to sell atheism.

    [Closely related species should share more genetic material than more distant species. This is a testable hypothesis. One can the tree of life based on anatomical features and check whether genetic overlap is consistent with this tree structure.]

    You can do the same thing with automobiles:

    "Closely related automobile models should share more of their blueprints in common than distant models. This is a testable hypothesis. One can [construct] a tree of automobile evolution based on automobile structure and check whether blueprint overlap is consistent with this tree structure"

    Your method "proves" that cars descended by evolution from a common ancestor.

    In fact, cars are designed artifacts made by intelligent agents descended via a common idea.

    Your theory is crap, and you don't even understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. MIke,

    I'm going to call your bluff.

    Unlike the history of animals, the history of cars is known to the tiniest detail. If you are so sure that you can construct a tree of automobile evolution, why don't you tell us which car was the ancestor of the 1973 Honda Civic? Which car was the predecessor of the first-generation (XW10) Prius?

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Robert, where do you stand on common descent? Here are a few questions that I posed to the participants of this blog. Would you care to provide your answers?"

    Dr. T,

    In answer to your questions:

    1 and 2 are certainly true. It is quite possible that 3 is also true, but it is not on the same epistemological footing, as I see it.

    "Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that a lack of practical applications does not invalidate a scientific theory. Twenty years ago, general relativity had no practical applications. So what? It was one of the greatest theories in physics on solid empirical ground. And now, twenty years later, it has practical significance: GPS navigation takes effects of general relativity into account."

    You are absolutely correct that the validity of a scientific theory does not depend on whether or not it has any applications. My point was that, contra Judge Jones' hand-wringing and dire warning, the concept of common ancestry is not needed for cancer research. In fact, contrary to what common ancestry would suggest in this setting, our closest kin according to modern evolutionary theory, the chimpanzee, is not suitable for cancer research.


    "And of course you can't deny that animal research plays an important role in oncology."

    Of course I can't deny its importance, nor would I. It is also important in other areas of medicine apart from oncology, as I am sure you are aware. (I am currently associated with one such study as a statistician.) As Dr. Egnor points out, however, animal testing long predates Darwin and does not require common ancestry as a justification.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @oleg:

    [Unlike the history of animals, the history of cars is known to the tiniest detail.]

    That's my point. We can apply 'common descent' to things that we know are designed and the theory works fine.

    My point is obvious. Similarity of blueprint and structure in a tree pattern is not evidence for unguided evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Michael,

    Your list of immaterial items either CANNOT exist without material objects (brains) or are NON-EXISTENT (such as souls and God) and you are either unwilling or unable or both to provide the slightest skerrick of evidence for their existence, beyond wishing it so. Love, for example, does exist with bodies, with brains and hormones.

    Are you really suggesting that matter would cease to exist if there aren't humans around to describe it? My knowledge that matter and energy exists is material because my knowledge that it exists only persists while I'm alive. It requires matter (a viable brain) and energy (adequate oxygen and glucose). When I die, my personal knowledge that matter and energy exists will disappear too, but both will continue despite my demise. There's no evidence for an immortal soul.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Egnor: That's my point. We can apply 'common descent' to things that we know are designed and the theory works fine.

    No, Mike, you can't. Car models simply do not form a nested hierarchy. If they did you would be able to point out an ancestor for every car. However, the first-generation Prius has no ancestor. Neither does the first-generation Honda Civic. Same goes for the Toyota Corolla.

    Admit that you are wrong on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Egnor: My point is obvious. Similarity of blueprint and structure in a tree pattern is not evidence for unguided evolution.

    The question of common ancestry is separate from the question of whether evolution is guided or unguided. Theistic evolutionists accept common ancestry and assume (rightly or wrongly) that evolution is guided. Don't mix the two.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Robert,

    Your comment about animal testing long predating Darwin brought the horror vision of Dene Descartes' assertion to me that nonhuman animals are just automatons without souls, minds or feelings, and their cries of agony with vivisection are just reflex actions and that they don't really feel any pain.

    That's what happens when people adopt the delusion that humans only possess an immaterial immortal soul.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @oleg:

    All cars share basic designs (internal combustion engine, steering wheel, 4 tires, etc) Automobiles were not invented de novo, even when new auto companies started. The ideas were developed in large part from existing cars.

    There is much more continuity in the 120 years of automobile manufacture than there is in the fossil record.

    'Common descent' is entirely consistent with descent of design through modifications. There's even a form of selection-- certain models sold better, making them better 'adapted' and more likely to be manufactured in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @oleg:

    [The question of common ancestry is separate from the question of whether evolution is guided or unguided. Theistic evolutionists accept common ancestry and assume (rightly or wrongly) that evolution is guided. Don't mix the two]

    I don't mix the two. Darwinists do. That's my point: common descent, even if true (it's far from proven), is just as consistent with common design as it is with unguided evolution.

    It's Darwinists who claim that common descent is proven, and is strong evidence for Darwinism.

    Both assertions are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Bach. I remember reading once that Descartes actually defended animal rights. He wasn't all that creepy man XD.

    I do agree that Animals have feelings, in a dynamic that possibly you and I disagree, but I believe they feel, choose, and live life, at the least the most basic parts of life, just like us.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Egnor: All cars share basic designs (internal combustion engine, steering wheel, 4 tires, etc) Automobiles were not invented de novo, even when new auto companies started. The ideas were developed in large part from existing cars.

    There is much more continuity in the 120 years of automobile manufacture than there is in the fossil record.

    'Common descent' is entirely consistent with descent of design through modifications. There's even a form of selection-- certain models sold better, making them better 'adapted' and more likely to be manufactured in the future.


    Mike,

    Cars do not form a nested hierarchy. Either admit it or point out the ancestor of the Prius.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @bachfiend:

    How do you define 'matter'?

    Here's my take: what exist in nature are substances, which are composites of matter and form. Matter is potency and the principle of individuation in a substance. Form is act and the intelligible principle in a substance.

    Define your terms.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The evolution deniers doubt the first two but generally accept the last two, insisting that natural selection explains adaptation but not speciation.

    _____________________________________

    I have been to a lot of creationist sites ever since I took interest in this whole evolution discussion. Never such behavior among creationists. They are very clear about their position.

    Evolution is not true, so all four tenets are denied. THey only accept small changes, or micro-evolution and that is it. They give no footing for any of macro evolution ideas by what I've read

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

    We know that there's matter and energy. Asserting that there is something nonmaterial is an extraordinary claim which needs extraordinary evidence.

    ______________________________________

    It is a claim that need sufficient evidence. Please man, don't go Carl Sagan here! Materialism being true can be considered a extraordinary claim!

    Why? Well because extraordinary in this context is just being used in subjective manner. What makes something extraordinary ??? not being material ??? Doesn't that begs the question why ???

    bach how long have you been reading Materialists stuff XD ??? I am starting to feel that you have been amazingly trained in materialism defense

    ReplyDelete
  35. Michael,

    Actually car models are more like bacteria. They show 'horizontal gene transfer'. Models from different manufacturers are more similar than the previous models. The Toyota Corolla was a very successful model (I had three of them over the years) and well adapted to its city environment. It's now extinct as a dodo.

    The car model analogy isn't particularly original. It was used in that dreadful video 'Darwin's Dilemma' about the supposed problem of the Cambrian radiation.

    Cars weren't invented de novo. Their predecessors have a history going back over thousands of years since the invention of the wheel, including barrows, carts, carriages. Cars only added a motor to replace an animal.

    Internal combustion engines? Have you forgotten that the earliest cars were steam powered, and also are no longer being made. Also, have you forgotten the 3 wheeled vehicles?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Unlike the history of animals, the history of cars is known to the tiniest detail. If you are so sure that you can construct a tree of automobile evolution, why don't you tell us which car was the ancestor of the 1973 Honda Civic? Which car was the predecessor of the first-generation (XW10) Prius?

    __________________________________________

    Oleg, remember that all he has to do is look the designers involved in the proccess and look where their ideas came from. He is gonna be able to easily create a tree because industrial design tend to be very low risk, so we copy stuff a heck loads of times.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Edward,

    Would you like to take a crack at constructing a tree of car evolution? How about simply naming the immediate ancestors of the Civic and the Prius?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Michael,

    My definition of matter, is that it consists of hadrons (protons and neutrons, both consisting of quarks, the elementary particle) and leptons (electrons), plus an almost bewildering number of other particles, including force particles, such as photons and gluons. There's also the enigmatic dark matter postulated to exist because galaxies are rotating too quickly for their apparent mass, but which no one has detected and some physicists are attempting to come up with alternate theories of gravity to do away with its necessity.

    'Matter is potency... Form is act ...' is just gobbledegook. You haven't said anything.

    Edward,

    No you're wrong. Creationists do accept the last two. They accept natural selection causing adaptation. That's what's they call microevolution. They just don't, in the main, accept what they call macroevolution, formation of new species. Although some creationists who believe in the literal truth of Noah's flood just 4,000 years ago insist on a form of hyperevolution to turn the limited number of 'kinds' on the ark into the millions of extant species.

    It's hardly an extraordinary claim to state that the only things demonstrated to exist are matter and energy, and that nothing else has been shown to exist, and that if there is anything nonmaterial then it is the responsibility of those who believe that it exists to provide the evidence, not vice versa. Wishing that it exists isn't an argument.

    Also, where's your reference to Rene Descartes believing in animal rights? I think that it's more a case of Descartes being a man of his times. People didn't give animals much consideration then. I think that you can't judge people in the past on contemporary standards. Abraham Lincoln made some statements that would make most of us cringe, but for his times he was very progressive. His exact contemporary also born on February 12, 1809 also gets a lot of criticism from creationists for some of his writings, but actually for his time they were very progressive thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Sure Oleg let me see IF I get the ancestor design of the cars in question...

    Searching...

    So if I am working on common design, and if my hypothesis is correct I should find vehicles the show similar design to these first generations. Am I right Oleg ??? or do you disagree with my premises ???

    Okay 1973 for Civic First Gen and 1997 for Prius first generation.

    * I need to find a similar car for the Civic that predates 1973. Actually looking at it's photo it is similar to the Volkswagen Brasília from 1973 as well.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Brasilia

    But this car is yet from 1973 it could have been produced after the Civic. But noticed how the cars form the same epoch have so many similar design features, and from companies that were not even mortal enemies in that time I suppose. Honda and Volkswagen.

    Look at the 1971 cars Ford Pinto and Chevrolet Vega. Very similar. My hypothesis seems to hold some ground so far.

    Now Oleg the predecessor of this car is the:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_N360

    Honda N360. It is in the damn Wikipedia page, there is goes the predecessor of your Civic first gen, just like the First gen chicken and first gen Ape had it's ancestor according to Universal Common Descent Model.

    Now on to your Prius.

    Now your prius is a whole new design because of it's electrical engine... but if the car was inspired in other designs I would be able to find out knowing it's "making of" History.

    Now the Hybrid systems is really old, so nothing really new under the hood. Common engeneering answers producing common design. So it's new technology isn't new for real. The Eletrical/Gasoline car was from 1900. That is right 110 years ago xP, so you can see the design "tree" growing from there.

    Well I am thinking here maybe there are cars from 2006 and before that are very similar to the prius.

    SO first I will look for cars within toyota, then eventually wide my scope.

    Well I don't see any design coming straight from Toyota itself, all lines in the prius seem brand new form their line. So I will take a look at other Extreme Asia manufacturers.

    * BTW side note. Judging by this car front size it must be a front engine front drive car. so I am betting that I will find a similar Front engine front drive car *

    * The Honda Civic TypeR that I think it is from 2006 has similar front lights as the Prius... And the small air entry seems to be about the same size... And even though I didn't think so, this car is a front wheel drive.

    ReplyDelete
  41. That's what's they call microevolution.

    ___________________________________________

    No you are wrong, I am certain that they call micro-evolution the differences that make you and I different and we different from Native Americans that are different from Native Australians that are different from Native Africans. You know differences within a species that doesn't necessarily create a NEW species.

    Although some creationists who believe in the literal truth of Noah's flood just 4,000 years ago insist on a form of hyperevolution to turn the limited number of 'kinds' on the ark into the millions of extant species.

    _______________________________________

    Well never thought about that "problem" XD but okay I see creation followed by evolution I remember reading a Text title kind of implying that in a creationist site.

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

    It's hardly an extraordinary claim to state that the only things demonstrated to exist are matter and energy,

    ___________________________________

    See extraordinary is subjective. if I am a anti-realist I would just say that you claiming that you know about the ontology of the world is of course Extra-ordinary. Extraordinary is subjective is can be molded anyway the person using the word wants it to be. Anyway, saying that Matter and Energy is all that is can only fall into two categories: 1_ you are just pressuposing and using the claim and an axiom, which I could always ask why; since materialism doesn't seem like something so simple that seems to exist on it's own or to be self evident. 2_ you are onmiscient... which would contradict your Materialistic claim. So one way or the other your claim is just like saying. Mind is Immaterial! Both claims are just ... well metaphysical, if they are simply put that way. Well the Immaterial mind could make predictions that can be tested, but materialism is a ontological idea. Maybe my previous Anti-Realism idea would be of the same league as your Materialistic claim.

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

    Wishing that it exists isn't an argument.

    _________________________________

    Pressuposing that you are right is not an argument as well. It is up to you to give reasons for your omniscience or that things that do not have the characteristics of matter and energy do not exist. Otherwise you and I and in the same sad boat.

    Also, where's your reference to Rene Descartes believing in animal rights?

    _______________________________________

    Forgive me I read it wrong, it was not DEFENSE of ANIMAL RIGHTS but rather CRITICS of ANIMAL RIGHTS. So pretty much ... I failed XD!

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

    I think that it's more a case of Descartes being a man of his times. People didn't give animals much consideration then. I think that you can't judge people in the past on contemporary standards. Abraham Lincoln made some statements that would make most of us cringe, but for his times he was very progressive. His exact contemporary also born on February 12, 1809 also gets a lot of criticism from creationists for some of his writings, but actually for his time they were very progressive thoughts.

    _________________________________________

    Yeah I do not blame men and women of the past for their ideas. For instance I do not Blame Nietszche for his Niihilism, as if it was his essence as a person to be Niihilistic or something like that.

    ReplyDelete
  42. actually bach... in the medieval age, a village atctually judged a PIG XD!

    you know because he killed a kid. Animals rights are something old and new at the same time

    ReplyDelete
  43. My definition of matter, is that it consists of hadrons (protons and neutrons, both consisting of quarks, the elementary particle) and leptons (electrons), plus an almost bewildering number of other particles, including force particles, such as photons and gluons. There's also the enigmatic dark matter postulated to exist because galaxies are rotating too quickly for their apparent mass, but which no one has detected and some physicists are attempting to come up with alternate theories of gravity to do away with its necessity.

    ___________________________________

    So why do we see something instead of nothing ???? I mean all those particles COULD be punctual, and even if they had dimensions, they would be so small we should see... well ... we should see nothing.

    Your hand is made of 99% of nothing maybe 99.9% of nothing. So why are your had continuous ?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bach, your particular universe sounds every modern and up to date. Very current.
    How do you account for entanglement, potentiality, and super-imposition?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Edward,

    Ordinary matter is mostly empty space, but it is the electrostatic repulsion of clouds of electrons that keep objects apart. Light photons are the force particle of electro(magnetism) so any photon interacting with an electron is absorbed increasing its energy and then usually emitted. I don't know what you mean by 'why are your had continuous?'

    Crus,

    You're asking a question?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yes, Bach.
    I do that frequently. It is how we learn what other people think about/like without any physical perception.
    What is your take on these physical (quantum) principles?

    ReplyDelete
  47. contact/perception*
    (sorry TINY screen today)

    ReplyDelete
  48. @bachfiend:

    [My definition of matter, is that it consists of hadrons (protons and neutrons, both consisting of quarks, the elementary particle) and leptons (electrons), plus an almost bewildering number of other particles, including force particles, such as photons and gluons.]

    I asked for definition of matter, not examples.

    What is matter? I gave you my answer.

    Try to stay focused...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ordinary matter is mostly empty space, but it is the electrostatic repulsion of clouds of electrons that keep objects apart. Light photons are the force particle of electro(magnetism) so any photon interacting with an electron is absorbed increasing its energy and then usually emitted. I don't know what you mean by 'why are your had continuous?'

    ___________________________________

    I mean, that we see things like they are continuous. but in truth things are nothing. There is a huge difference between the world we percieve and the world our model create.

    The question is why we see things like they were solid, or liquid, like they had consistency, while the scientific model says that there really is weelll 99% nothing in there.

    Is not why you don't go through matter, but rather why matter seems continuous.

    Imagine if we had a sheet of atoms, according to the atom model this sheet would be pretty made of nothing, so really what I should see is nothing. However I do see the sheet. Personal experience contradicts the model. The question is why?

    IS it a brain function that has a function to identify information coming from the outside and trick "us" to think that objects are solid, they they have consistency. Or is the information stored in particles, or the world we see is not real... you know something that could explain why such a difference between personal experience and Atom model.

    And ... does that explanation makes sense in materialism ??? Or does it escape the characteristics of matter and energy? Or does it add characteristics XD ?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Crus,

    I don't have a take on quantum physics principles. They just exist, and they'd be true regardless of what I think.

    Edward,

    The problem is that of scale. We have evolved to see in visible light. Were we to see atoms we'd need to be able to see with much shorter wavelength light, x-rays if not gamma-rays.

    Michael,

    You haven't defined what matter is, besides saying that it's some ineffable essence.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @bachfiend:

    I already defined matter (substance). It is Aristotle's, and it is the best definition ever offered. You don't understand it, but you feel threatened by it and attack it for reasons that are unclear to me.

    It's obvious that you can't even begin to define matter. How then can you be a materialist?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Egnor: I already defined matter (substance). It is Aristotle's, and it is the best definition ever offered. You don't understand it, but you feel threatened by it and attack it for reasons that are unclear to me.

    It's obvious that you can't even begin to define matter. How then can you be a materialist?


    Funny. Physicists have been studying matter, with smashing success, while philosophers are still trying to figure out what matter is.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Bach you responded
    "I don't have a take on quantum physics principles. They just exist, and they'd be true regardless of what I think."
    What a strange answer, Bach.

    Well there goes the materialist argument.
    Once more crashed against the rocks of the Quantum and scattered across the shores of logical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  54. The problem is that of scale. We have evolved to see in visible light. Were we to see atoms we'd need to be able to see with much shorter wavelength light, x-rays if not gamma-rays.


    ________________________________________

    The tricky thing, is that we actually see a wall. Is not even the atom itself. Is just that the whole dynamics of the thing apprently point for a non-reductionist world.

    but non-reductionism would betray materialism at a certain point.

    Because it matter is all there is, and matter is the elementary particle of our worlds... I should be able to perfectly describe simple objects by simply using the elementary particles, to the point where I show exactly what you saw at a given moment. But a string of atoms is closer to a string of nothing with our current model. Somwthing in the brain or in nature has to compesate for that. If the model is correct of course.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Funny. Physicists have been studying matter, with smashing success, while philosophers are still trying to figure out what matter is.

    ___________________________________

    Have you noticed that the two things are different XD.

    To study the properties of matter is one thing. To understand what matter is... is something else.

    ReplyDelete