Unconscious

 
LOL! That isn't vindicating metaphysics in the slightest. As you don't understand the processes involved in vision you are making the same errors. Whether anyone has 'empirically' experienced another's thoughts or not has no bearing at all on whetehr metaphysics is real. Why should it?
 
Still no proof, just another question?
 
 
But, differentiation doesn't exist to u, as a blind dogmatist, because u deny the law of non-contradiction... which is mind-blowing!!!
 
  So, you didn't bother to read the rest of the sentence about QM and the fact that it jumps all over it? QM, modern physics? Superposition, etc? No? Science certainly beleives in the laws of differentation, but not in the sense you mean. Please take a look at the law of differentation in action in math in the following link:
 
http://cs.gmu.edu/cne/modules/dau/calculus/derivatives/deriv_laws_bdy.html
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiation_rules
 
 
Now please explain how the same Law applies to quantum mechanics? Once done, please explain how science's use and understanding of the law is wrong in math and in QM? If you ever manage to do any of that, then you might also want to say how any of this applies to metaphysics? Do you actually know what the law means? Please give a short appraisal here, I would be interested to hear what you think it means...
 
What you originally claimed was this: <span style="font-family:'comic sans ms';"><span style="font-size:18px;">It's funny that you don't know that modern physics denies the law of non-contradiction... meaning they deny the foundation of logic and reason. So, maybe u should go get ur facts straight...</span></span>
 
 
If you can manage to read the links you will see that science doesn't deny the law of differentation, it denies non-contradiction in physics. You also seem to be unaware of the problems non-contradiction?
 
"According to both Plato and Aristotle, Heraclitus was said to have denied the law of noncontradiction. This is quite likely if, as Plato pointed out, the law of noncontradiction does not hold for changing things in the world."
 
Now, can you explain why you thnk that Plato was wrong? You quoted him earlier as a brilliant thinker on the matter, and here he is say that it does not apply to changing things in the world. So as a support for metaphysics it's not that successful, is it?
 
YOu continually suggest that there is some kind of reasoning in mechanical and chemical responses which does not exist.
 
Exactly the opposite of what I'm saying. There is no reasoning, just reaction. You have been following the thread?
 
MelT

 

I would now like to show how Boats and his ilk play with words to try and give their argument wieght. It's no more than semantics.
 
Cells and atoms: learning and understanding?
\nDo atoms and cells learn and know what they learn in any conscious way? Are they also conscious or unconsciously aware of purpose and have an actual drive to survive?
\nFirstly we need a definition of both 'learn' and 'know'. These words are purposely chosen by metaphysics to be emotive and skew the reader's perception about what is being asked. 'Learn' instantly implies that there is a consciousness in the act of learning – taking in information it understands. 'Knowing' too requires conscious consideration of information. This is stating that that cells and inanimate systems do have the capacity to think, even before the information about them is considered. It also makes the reader think about them in the context of consciousness without giving any reason to do so.
\nSo, as you can see, metaphysics tends to be a little disingenuous using this kind of language. It uses a number of tried and tested woo-woo methods for proving that there is a need to consider it real:
\n

• It never provides evidence of itself. Instead it tries to say that it must exist in gaps in scientific knowledge. Yet at no time has it ever proven that this is the case.
  \n
• It says that of itself that it is beyond being perceived and that they do not have to prove it exists, simply because they say so. Science proves, metaphysics hides. Yet strangely, metaphysics accuses sciecne of being dogmatic.
  \n
• "Science is dogmatic and purposely avoids seeing anything new. i.e. I have only seen white swans, therefore only white swans exist."
  \n

To the last, science changes, accepts, and tries its damnedest to find errors in its ways. Science always wants more. It has no overall aim, certainly not to know everything. If it's wrong it HAS to be honest in the end, because things in science that are based on false evidence simply wont work and people will tend to notice. Science sees only white swans and it will seek a grant for a fifty year study looking for other colours that they know must exist somewhere. Science is greedy for truth.
\n\nCells and Learning
\nI talked in a previous post about charge and how many things which might appear to be aware are simply reacting to chemical and electrical changes, attraction and repulsion.
\nBring two chemicals together and, because of charge, etc.,they will react to each other and exchange electrons. It's not an accurate analogy, but if you imagine each chemical is made up of a small solar system of planet-magnets and you bring them together, sometimes the solar-systems will merge, swap planets, or repel each other, or even make new planets. Sometimes they become caught in a shared system, where planet-magnets go from one solar system to another, holding the two together.
\nWhat happens depends upon how many planets each has, how close they are, the size of each, etc. The number of planets in each solar system is not governed by anyone. There are no 'rules' only magnetism in one form or another.
\nThe atomic solar system has not learned. It is a set of magnets held in equilibrium. Bump it with another solar system and it will change – or not – but the changes are down to pure attraction and repulsion.
\nAnd cells?
\nThis is obviously fine for chemicals, but how about cells? Everything a cell does, in a plant or animal, it does in response to changes in charge and mechanics, whether that be in themselves or the medium they rest in. They don't need to be conscious, charge takes care of everything.
\n"Viruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the bio-synthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell... They are undeniably the most efficient entities on this planet at propagating their genetic information. ".
\nBetter than humans at passing on their DNA, and yet not alive. What can seem to be life can emerge from chemical compounds and be self-replicating, and incredibly successful, yet not be alive. Purely chemical systems that replicate can be made in lab's.
\nHow does the inanimate chemical 'know' where to go once it's in side the body? Some molecules and viruses interlink and react because of purely mechanical reasons. Think of them as different sizes of lego bricks; some will lock together if they're floating in a medium, some wont. In other cases its back to chemical reactions and charge/potential.
\nA will to survive
If viruses are the most successful thing on the planet they must have an incredible urge to replicate and survive? Prod a virus outside the body with a stick and it wont run away, cringe or even react unless you dab it with a bit of bleach and then the fats that hold it together dissolve. It has never been known to fight back. I would like to see it do so one day, but the virus does nada, despite my hopes.
\nInside the body, charge and mechanical action take over. The body and the virus meet and become more than the sum of their parts. The DNA strand that makes up the Virus is a self-replicating machine that makes itself for as long as the chemicals are available and the conditions right. If they disappear, it does. We can't even say that it dies, because it has never lived. The machine has simply wound down.
\nIt never knows or understands – unless you change the definitions of what those terms mean. Any system that takes on a new action or composition due to interaction with another system does not mean that the system has learned anything. It has had its chemical properties changed.
\nHow do these machines appear in the first place? All are simple chemical reactions ordered by charge, and are the result of smaller systems meeting, with no knowing, learning or understanding required.
\nMelT

 

 
It's ridiculous, and just disgusting, how badly u mis-represent my points (it seens quite intentional), and then u proceed to address things I never asserted, i.e., ur addressing strawmen.
 
1.) This is easily solved... Is there a difference between objectified atomic processes and subjective experience of the processes? This is the last time u'll dodge my questions... u dodge the questions u cant answer, and then answer questions and points I never raised or maid .
 
2.) U do realise that all those equations which supposedly undermind the law of non-contradction are equations based on subjective/relative experience, right? U do know that these equations ARE JUST equations and that they don't prove anything... they just prove that equation is valid in relation to itself, i.e., its axioms. Axioms which science cannot vindicate, because they're rooted in a relatively partial perspective and NOT OBJECTIVE! We know that there are separate and subjective experiences of reality, but are how are we asserting the set of all experiences, i.e., objective reality??? Empirically or mentally/conceptually...?
 
3.) Ur lost... the law of non-contradiction is wrong? Okay, again, is being beaten and burned the same thing as not being beaten and burned? (The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot both be and not be that something at the same exact time) -- It's not hard to get... Ur brining up all these equations so that u can dodge very simple questions (up until this point, that's all u've been doing) that will one-by-one show how absurd ur claims are.
 
4.) I never said Plato was anything and I certainly didn't "quote" him anywhere... I just referred to him once in this thread, pertaining to his idea of forms (and I admitted to never reading any of his work); and now u bring him up, and Heraclitus' notions of perpetual change, and impute his whole philosophy to me, really? Are u really this inept and incoherent?
 
4A.) PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE... quote me, and show where I assert that cells and atoms "reason" and "choose". If u can't, then shutup, and stop commiting this straw-man (u've been commiting it for five pages now).

 

 
Oh, so things are unified systems and not just the summation of separate parts, as I've been asserting that this whole thread, and u've been denying... so now they're systems that interact with other, i.e., different, systems?... You have been following the thread?

 

 
U really are just blurting shit out of ur rear-end; and now ur trying to teach me something about western philosophy, after reading two sentences off of wikipedia? . Plato and Aristotle, in their analysis of Heraclitus, do not deny the law of non-contradiction, but they are stating that Heraclitus denies the law (due to his, i.e., Heraclitus', notion of eternal change)... .

 

 I'm sorry, the more I read your posts the less I can take you seriously.   I don't know whetehr it's your ranty style or lack of knowledge, but I feel that most of that is down to you trolling. I think that you and metaphysics need to update our views and take in modern science, then get back to me
 
 I had hope hoped that Boats would happen to mention this, but apparently he didn't want to bring it up.
 
Metaphysics says of itself that it does not provide any empirical evidence for anything it believes in, which was the reason it stopped being science.
 
The other problem he has is that meatphysics is not one thing, it is many, and does not have a set of common beliefs. It's a philosophical enquiry, where there are many conflicting views concerning what reality is and isn't. 
 
Basically, all he can do what he's doing now, rather than prove meatphysics he instead tries to rubbish science - a science it sounds like he barely understands. This means that he's not in the position to question science, as he has no counter evidence at all, just the hope that it is wrong and he is right. I will now leave the reader to decide which 
 
Boats, I've had a lot of fun, but my aim was to find your agenda, which I've done. Please do have a little rant now about the unfairness of the world, the devious and strangely aggressive methods of your branch of metaphysics doesn't sound like anything I'd want to join.
 
I'll pop in from time to time to see how you're doing.
 
MelT

 

 
Wow... the arrogance is just... I'm speechless (u really are just a delusional victim of dogma). My agenda? U've found nothing... and understand nothing. All that u have proved in this thread was just how close-minded u are! Metaphysics says of itself... smh. So, metaphysics speaks? Thanks for arbitrarily defining a whole branch of inquiry and then dismissing it, as if u understand at all what ur dismissing, i.e., ur dismissing ur own retarded definition. Metaphysics is the study of what is "real" and "reality"... now, are u still following? From here, understanding what metaphysics really is (pun intended), we can go into how one inquires into the question of what is "real", i.e., their method of inquiring. Empiricism is a method, and so, a metaphyscian can empirically inquire and assert things, i.e., empiricism can be the method in which a metaphysician investigates (great job at restricting metaphysics to ur personal definition).
 
In this thread, u did nothing to add to the discussion, u just blurted some scientific assertions which suffer from the induction fallacy; and, on top of that, u did nothing to try to understand my point, u didnt even try to answer any of my questions (and this was done for a reason, i.e., ur clueless). Ur stuck in ur dogmatic box of incoherency, and while ur confined to its restricted perspective ("does freedom have a meaning if ur trapped in ur ways?"), u will never come to understand the true mechanics of this vast and magical universe...

 

"Metaphysics says of itself that it does not provide any empirical evidence for anything it believes in" -- Yea, only bad a metaphysician would assert such a thing... i.e., the random website u got that ridiculous defintion from.

 

 
Can u know what the perceptual content of my dream looks like just by knowing the chemical makeup of the neurons which enabled it???
 
Objectified atomic processes ARE DIFFERENT than the subjective experience of them!

 

 
The parakeet speaks... but says nothing.

 

 
It's mind-boggling how delusional he is.. but not the fact that he sees delusions everywhere he looks

 

I think everything that could ever exist in every timeline already has and the info is kept in the akashic records that we all access through our subconscous..I think our consciousness actually hinders us and animals have greater access to other planes since they dont have an ego blocking them

 

Animals are more driven by ego than anything else really. The Ego is the set of parameters that arise from the physical aspects of an individual or animal that one is born with, and these parameters cause the organism to strive for survival, and differentiate itself from the environment around it.
 
One can theorize that the Ego is a force which binds systems together to create a larger system that is itself separate from the even larger system it inhabits. The Ego is what causes the One thing to be divided infinitely, and it is quiet hard to explain exactly what the Ego is, but you must have gotten the gist from my explanation. It is a very abstract concept and must be looked at objectively, otherwise one will fall into the subjective perceptive fallacies that plague human understanding.

 

 
 

 
Yea, Democritues was also considered a delusional metaphysician by those who didn't try to understand him... Democritues being the one who begun atomic theory over 2000 years ago. It's funny, u 3-quarter scientist try to deny metaphysics not knowing that the atoms and chemicals u speak of are META-physical (in the truest sense of the originally greek word) themselves! Again, "all will have opinions, but few people think."
 
It's unfortunate...

 

my bad guess I meant super ego

 

 
I never did such a thing (but, it's okay, continue to mis-represent my points)... I'm simply stating that ur calling me what Democritues was once labled, i.e., a delusional metaphysician.
 
If u would of lived during Democrtitus' time, u would have been, undoubtedly, just as dismissive, oblivious, and clueless as u are right now (because, after all, u deny metaphysics now, so what would of stopped u from denying metaphysics then?)... Polly wanna cracker?