• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Materialism - Devastator of Scientific Method! / Observer Delusion

LarryS said:
Materialism is also changing - it's no longer trying to explain everything with discreet particles bouncing around, but now (the current rage) is information being implemented in various squirrelly material substrates - ie a "baseball bat" is implemented in wood, and wood implemented in molecules, and etc. Information is not exactly matter and matter is not exactly information. Materialism has its share of fairy dust as well.
Click to expand...

Frankly, I consider panpsychism worse than homeopathy!

Integrated Information Theory, the latest theoretical pandemic to overwhelm scientific minds, makes "water memory" look positively reasonable in comparison.

I mean, scientists seem to be losing it big-time. They're turning more woo than the worst new-agers! What is the world coming to?!

BTW - I don't consider panpsychism materialism, personally.
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
Moving the goals posts again?
Click to expand...

How so?

Not is doesn't, everything is just behavior. behavior of energy...
Click to expand...

Yes. But when you ascribe extra validity to a position because it has been objectively evaluated you are crossing a line. You're using an illusory social construct for a task where it has no authority.



A selfless universe doesn't mean that the 'validity' of the 'statement' 'homeopathy is effective' can't be 'evaluated'
Click to expand...

Did I say otherwise? It can be evaluated, but the evaluation is just a behaviour.
 
Last edited:
MRC_Hans said:
Anytime you wanna discuss homeopathy, start a thread for it. I'm game.
:D:whistling

Hans
Click to expand...

Well, I'm thinking of starting one along the lines - "Integrated Information Theory - have scientists gone ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy or what?" IIT makes homeopathy, channelling, the Second Coming, and Reiki look thoroughly reasonable by comparison.

I mean how these loony Ph.Ds have the temerity to criticize homeopathy whilst believing in IIT is beyond me.

Whaddya think? Any mileage in it?
 
Last edited:
Oh my god! Scientific Method! What has he done to you! You're utterly devastated!

No... no wait he's fine. Just choked on a Hamdinger for a second.
 
LarryS said:
Materialism is also changing - it's no longer trying to explain everything with discreet particles bouncing around, but now (the current rage) is information being implemented in various squirrelly material substrates - ie a "baseball bat" is implemented in wood, and wood implemented in molecules, and etc. Information is not exactly matter and matter is not exactly information. Materialism has its share of fairy dust as well.
Click to expand...

Materialism is what? Your sources are lacking

That is just more straw it seems
 
Nick227 said:
How so?



Yes. But when you ascribe extra validity to a position because it has been objectively evaluated you are crossing a line. You're using an illusory social construct for a task where it has no authority.
Click to expand...
please unpack this for me, especially regards the scientific method.

1. Model predicts behavior of apparent reality.
2. Model is tested to see if the predictions it makes are accurate
3. validity of model is in accuracy of predictions


I really do not follow what you are trying to say.

Measuring the scatter angle of alpha particles is a 'illusory social construct' how exactly?
Did I say otherwise? It can be evaluated, but the evaluation is just a behaviour.
Click to expand...
I already said it is a behavior, did I stutter?
:D
 
Nick227 said:
Could you point me to that? Thanks
Click to expand...

No problem.


The Man said:
Well, let's just consider two metal bars of the same material in a vacuum, not in direct physical contact with each (not touching each other) and at different temperatures. Each emits infrared radiation and each receives infrared radiation. If the system is closed so the total energy of the system doesn't change. Then the hotter bar tends to emit more energy than the cooler. As a result the cooler bar tends to gain energy and heat up as the hot bar tends lose energy and cool off. Eventually equilibrium is reached somewhere between the two temperatures of the bars at the start. In a physical sense this is because the bars can observe or interact with each other through infrared radiation. In the simplest physical sense that is all observation means, interaction. As a result of interaction changes in physical properties (in this case average energy and thus temperature) can occur. Naturally more complex systems can interact in, well, more complex ways but at its simplest basic physical form observation is just interaction.
Click to expand...

The Man said:
I expect not as well. However, that is the material or materialistic basis of observation, changes in physical properties due to interaction. If whatever approach Nick227 wants to use to arrive at "observation" doesn't, at the very least, include that then it just isn't a material or materialistic approach.
Click to expand...
 
Nick227 said:
Well, I'm thinking of starting one along the lines - "Integrated Information Theory - have scientists gone ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy or what?" IIT makes homeopathy, channelling, the Second Coming, and Reiki look thoroughly reasonable by comparison.

I mean how these loony Ph.Ds have the temerity to criticize homeopathy whilst believing in IIT is beyond me.

Whaddya think? Any mileage in it?
Click to expand...

Lol!

You're using the Wookie Defence to support homeopathy?
 
Nick227 said:
Marplots,

You have to understand the importance of the situation here, usage basically. The observer is utterly valid in a host of social and related situations. Trouble comes when you think it's real at an ontological level. It's not. Good for communication, not good for making assertions about the relative efficacy of treatments.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You're going to decry self reporting in an attempt to support homeopathy? Self reporting of beneficial effects is all homeopathy ever had.

Nick227 said:
If someone says "I feel bad and I want to feel better" - they're using language in a way that is absolutely compatible with what it was created for.

If someone else says "You should take this medication, and not that remedy, because it has been objectively validated and therefore better" - they're crossing a line.
Click to expand...

How about "You should take this medication, and not that remedy, because that remedy makes your spleen fall out". Still "crossing a line"?
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
Marplots,

You have to understand the importance of the situation here, usage basically. The observer is utterly valid in a host of social and related situations. Trouble comes when you think it's real at an ontological level. It's not. Good for communication, not good for making assertions about the relative efficacy of treatments.

If someone says "I feel bad and I want to feel better" - they're using language in a way that is absolutely compatible with what it was created for.

If someone else says "You should take this medication, and not that remedy, because it has been objectively validated and therefore better" - they're crossing a line.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. I think one could make a case for the scientific method being a specific type of communication, without any additional burden placed upon it that "ordinary" communication lacks. Yearning for clarity and specificity in communication doesn't (at least to me) necessarily mean an appeal to Truth (tm).
 
P: "I was thinking of trying Homeopathy to fix my problem, but I heard its all bunk"

Nick227: "Actually I proved that Homeopathy could be just as valid as any other type of medicine, ontologically speaking"

P: "er ,what?"

Nick227: "Well I discovered, through pure reasoning and thought, there is a flaw in the scientific method. Actually a flaw in its own significance. Science actually disproves it's own significance and therefore has nothing to say about Homeopathy"

P: "wow, I never heard that. So you think it would do me good, I mean Homeopathy, to fix my problem?"

Nick227: "That's entirely up to you to decide"

"But will it work?"

Nick227: "I really have no idea. Probably not, but that is not the point I was trying to make"

P: "oh good grief..."
 
When I was much younger, I used to wonder if I could talk my way out of court for a speeding fine by arguing that they couldn't prove how fast I was actually moving at any specific point in place and time.

This thread feels a bit like that.
 
Last edited:
Nick227 said:
......they're using language in a way that is absolutely compatible with what it was created for.
Click to expand...
I just quibble here with the use of the passive voice. Language evolved, it was not 'created', was it, unless you are referring to vocabulary here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom