Science/Environment Gary Ablett disputes evolution

[Malifice]

Malifice, two points.

OK:

1) There is a reason that I suggested that believing in a shared reality is a prerequisite for discussion. Without this there is nothing meaningful to say, almost by definition. I would also point out that your everyday actions suggest that you do believe in a shared reality. But it's probably best to leave this, as there is no way to prove anything either way, ever.

The problem word here is 'shared reality.' You are accepting (on faith) that other people exist. Again there is no way for you to know for sure. They could be 'programs' in the 'Matrix' and not even 'real' people like Agent Smith for example. You have no way of ever knowing for 100% sure.

And I'm really sorry for the constant Matrix analogies. They're the best ones I have the make explaining this easy!

2) I think that you are pushing the definition of 'faith' too far. If you are using the word to mean anything less than 100% certainty, then yes, all knowledge about the world relies on 'faith'. This does not correspond with how the word is used in, normal discourse. I think that it is misleading to use the word 'faith' in a way that is very different from how it is commonly understood. It's like saying that "god is exists, and by the way I define god as energy". Saying that both religion and science are based on 'faith' is similarly misleading.

Yes and no.

Whats the point of studying a universe when you cant even be sure it exists at all? And how far does studying and classifying a fake universe really get us? Particualarly when the methods used are (and must be) prone to falsification at all times?

Not an ideal method for obtaining 'truth' in my books. Adequate for now however. Plus, Science does produce some neat gadgets. Although Religion was useful for keeping the peasants in line for a few millennial as well, so its six of one half a dozen of the other i guess.

I'm preferential to Science by the way. I just understand its failings.

What I am saying is that the starting point in any Science vs Religion debate is faith. Religion never leaves faith (and in fact looks foolish when it attempts to 'prove' things... christian science for example).

Science attempts to conveniently ignore its origins in faith by making some big leap of faith assumptions about the Universe that bother me.

Blindness to the failings of science are (for some reason) more irksome to me than blindness to the absurdity of some Religions.

I guess that because Religions are the easy targets!

 

[Malifice]

Ok now this is just getting downright silly.......

Why?

Because you cant prove the universe exists?

It just... kinda does?

I know you accept it does. But you certainly cant prove it does. Ergo, Faith.

Theres nothing wrong with using faith by the way. You use it every time you get on an Aircraft.

 

[Malifice]

Ugh, philosophy for dummies?

Science is philosophy. One of many.

Whether what I observe exists in my consciousness, or, whether the Universe really exists outside and that's what I'm observing (or whether it's something in between or something else entirely) scientific theory still applies to my observations.

In a Universe that might not even exist. One that you accept on faith.

I have never observed any evidence for God, or for the theory of Creationism. I have observed evidence for Evolution.

If God did exist (and BTW, I don't think he does) and he didn't want to be found or discovered, wouldn't he have the power to fool you?

This doesn't 'disprove' God. Actually you are trying to use reason to disprove god. Its not going to work. Its never going to work. You cant Falsify god. He exists only on faith. Reason aint gonna cut it.

Simply say "I dont believe in God" That works a lot better.

Go ahead and scream, what would be the point? No one can hear you, you're not really screaming, we're all just projected by your consciousness

You may very well be, but I have no way of knowing for sure.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Why?

Because you cant prove the universe exists?

It just... kinda does?

I know you accept it does. But you certainly cant prove it does. Ergo, Faith.

Theres nothing wrong with using faith by the way. You use it every time you get on an Aircraft.

No because I asked for a genuine explanation and got only blather.

You did not answer my question or challenge at all, just like you have failed to directly address many of my points (some quite cheeky).

 

[Malifice]

No because I asked for a genuine explanation and got only blather.

You did not answer my question or challenge at all, just like you have failed to directly address many of my points (some quite cheeky).

No I did. Maybe you missed the post:

Biocentrism being both falsifiable and scientific:

Its empirical, falsifiable and testable. Its scientific.

The 'Grand unified theory' is just connecting the dots and filling in gaps.

As a matter of fact, Einstein, Copernicus, Galileo and Hawking just connected dots and filled in gaps as well.

Examples of no point of reference required for self awareness:

OK. For a crude example imagine you are born in a coma. Completely cut off from the outside world. Yet (according to science anyway) you still think and dream.

More importantly, and correctly why do we need even to relate to something to exist? Why couldn't we exist in a vacuum? Isn't that the whole beauty (and terror) of being self aware.

What else did you want me to elaborate on (that I haven't already)?

 

[Play by Numbers]

No that is opinion not proof. A baby who has never been conscious dreams of what exactly, also some citations for your claim.

Certain levels of neural activity can be indicative of dreams or they can occur in that state, but this does not mean they are dreaming in the sense you are describing.

Anyway a fetus's brain reaches a certain level of development before exiting the whomb, but if it has never actually awakened can it ever be said that it has been conscious thus achieving self awareness, so yeah moot point by you.

Again, the self is purely relative, without something to be relative to it cannot exist.

 

[Zarrix]

This thread provided a few good laughs. Kudos Gary Ablett snr -_-

 

[Play by Numbers]

This thread provided a few good laughs. Kudos Gary Ablett snr -_-

Lol I shouldn't have got involved in the discussion, can't tell whether hes a troll.

Claiming biocentrism as a thoery is currently falsifiable and testable can't be a serious claim.

Even if it was (which it isn't), it has never undergone rigorous scrutiny based on a readily replicable experiment, ergo
it's still in the realms of opinion.

The irony of using "proof" such as this to argue that science is faith based also seems lost on him.

 

[Malifice]

Lol I shouldn't have got involved, can't tell whether hes a troll.

Keep the name calling out of it. It belittles your argument.

Claiming biocentrism being empirical, falsifiable and testable can't be a serious claim.

It is.

How is it not any of these things? Disprove (falsify) the accepted quantum theory it is based on (do-able) and it (Biocentrism) falls down as well like a deck of cards... wouldn't you agree?

No that is opinion not proof. A baby who has never been conscious dreams of what exactly

Is a baby 'aware?' And if so doesn't it suffer from the same problems as an adult?

also some citations for your claim.

Which one? My 'claim' is based on the works of Descartes. You can read enough about Cogito Ergo Sum online to save me having to do more work than Ive done in the past.

Also research 'theory of mind' and 'P Zombies' while you're at it.

Certain levels of neural activity can be indicative of dreams or they can occur in that state, but this does not mean they are dreaming in the sense you are describing.

You're measuring again.

Anyway a fetus's brain reaches a certain level of development before exiting the whomb, but if it has never actually awakened can it ever be said that it has been conscious thus achieving self awareness, so yeah moot point by you.

And again.

Again, the self is purely relative, without something to be relative to it cannot exist.

Why cant the self exist in a vacuum? I know it doesn't (as i experience this 'universe' whatever it is), but logically why cant it?

 

[Malifice]

Ill post you a few questions to think about as well.

Prove (or disprove) any of these models of the universe (from your perspective):

a) The universe exists outside of human creation. You were born into it, it is independent of your will and will exist after you die.
b) The universe is a matrix like computer program that we exist in enslaved in the real world by killer robots.
c) You dont exist within the univese, it exists simply as an framework for your perceptions to function and for you to make sense of 'things'.
d) God made the universe. He is all powerful.
e) You are currently in a coma and are dreaming this whole universe.
f) Plato was right. We all live in a metaphysical cave with 'ideals' projected into our consiousness.

Please prove (or disprove) any of the models of the universe above. Dont use faith. It must be proveable using 100% logic and reason.

 

[Play by Numbers]

How is it not any of these things? Disprove (falsify) the accepted quantum theory it is based on (do-able) and it (Biocentrism) falls down as well like a deck of cards... wouldn't you agree?

Mmmmm the man himself states it is not currently falsifiable, but believes it will be in the future.

He bases his ideas on principles which are part of Quantum mechanics, yet again his is not a purely scientific theory by any means.

If the baby has never been conscious then how can it be self aware? If as you say it is, then I would also suggest a human body even in a coma is not a closed system. For example sound can effect coma patients (in certain specific cases).

You are without a genuine response for my challenge and so I would suggest you have no intention of actually thinking about your position and are now just blindly regurgitating ideas half cocked.

 

[Malifice]

Mmmmm the man himself states it is not currently falsifiable, but believes it will be in the future.

He bases his ideas on principles which are part of Quantum mechanics, yet again his is not a purely scientific theory by any means.

Yeah, but surely if the Quantum theory it is based on is falsified, then so too goes Biocentrism?

If the baby has never been conscious then how can it be self aware?

Theory of mind. We cant know for sure if a baby is ever self aware. Same with animals.

Although I would suggest you would think it is. If we need a universe to exist in order for a mind to exist, surely the reverse is also true?

Technically we cant tell if anyone is self aware (aside from ourselves of course) so its possibly a moot point.

You are without a genuine response for my challenge and so I would suggest you have no intention of actually thinking about your position and are now just blindly regurgitating ideas half cocked.

I could argue the same thing about you.

I am thinking about your position.

I just don't see how you can persuade me to believe in an independent self regulating universe that exists outside of my self awareness, without me having to rely on faith in the process to accept this point of view.

If you stopped and thought about it, i would argue its in fact impossible to 'prove' this to anyone without them using faith.

Even yourself.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ill post you a few questions to think about as well.

Prove (or disprove) any of these models of the universe (from your perspective):

a) The universe exists outside of human creation. You were born into it, it is independent of your will and will exist after you die.
b) The universe is a matrix like computer program that we exist in enslaved in the real world by killer robots.
c) You dont exist within the univese, it exists simply as an framework for your perceptions to function and for you to make sense of 'things'.
d) God made the universe. He is all powerful.
e) You are currently in a coma and are dreaming this whole universe.
f) Plato was right. We all live in a metaphysical cave with 'ideals' projected into our consiousness.

Please prove (or disprove) any of the models of the universe above. Dont use faith. It must be proveable using 100% logic and reason.

Heh. This is why I'm agnostic, coz ANYTHING is possible in this wacky multiverse of ours.

 

[JavaBlue]

Biocentrism isn't hypothetical, nor is it a philosophy. Its a Scientific theory.

Here's Lanza, the father of biocentrism:

Physical reality begins and ends with the animal observer. All other times and places, all other objects and events are products of the imagination

The trees and snow evaporate when we’re sleeping. The kitchen disappears when we’re in the bathroom. When you turn from one room to the next, when your animal senses no longer perceive the sounds of the dishwasher, the ticking clock, the smell of a chicken roasting—the kitchen and all its seemingly discrete bits dissolve into nothingness

Basically, he's saying that:"Nothing exists without being observed."

Could you show me how that can be falisified, please?

Could you also list the testable predictions generated by your theory?

Any peer reviewed literature you could link us to?

Could you outline Lanza's explanation/proofs of consciousness since it's central to the theory?

Just as I thought - more new old age rubbish.

You don't seem to have a clue about quantam except that you read somewhere about the (absolutely unbelievably overstated) role of the observer in quantam experiments and, in what is a truly amazing leap of faith, extrapolated that into your dodgy observer-contingent universe (with a lot of help from Descartes' unproveable philosophical position).

I know that logically, once we measure something, we expect it to perform like that whether we are later observing it or not, but Schrodingers cat disproved this assumption years ago.

You have no idea. Schrodinger's Cat was a thought experiment - it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Not only that, it was meant as a criticism of quantum.

Mate, as a philosophy this is pure crap and as science its non-existent - even when being observed. But it's not far off being a great comedy routine. Chin up.

 

[Sloth]

How do you know this? You cant. Faith.

Faith is belief without evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the universe existing. Even if it is imaginary evidence that is all in my head, it is still evidence that is good enough to base a conclusion on.

 

[Sloth]

Heh. This is why I'm agnostic, coz ANYTHING is possible in this wacky multiverse of ours.

Agnostic is still an atheist position.

 

[dumb]

i don't know about faith required to believe in the very existence of the universe, but i think atheists in their daily lives do take some kind of leap in regards to the creation of it. clearly we're not privy to all the facts, there's still conjecture at the highest level so what hope do us plebs have of knowing the truth...

anyway, as for 'evolution', it's just a giant teddy bear rolling a dice. you can't disprove this, etc etc etc

 

[Sloth]

anyway, as for 'evolution', it's just a giant teddy bear rolling a dice. you can't disprove this, etc etc etc

If that's what you're asserting, it's up to you to prove it. It's not up to those who think you're talking crap to disprove it.

 

[spacecat]

Agnostic is still an atheist position.

It's Agnostic, you ****. You're mistaking anyone who doesn't take a mainstream Theist position as being Athiest

 

[Sloth]

It's Agnostic, you ****. You're mistaking anyone who doesn't take a mainstream Theist position as being Athiest

Yup, that's what a-theist means, you ****. Anyone who is not a theist, is an atheist.

 

[Pie eyed]

It's Agnostic, you ****. You're mistaking anyone who doesn't take a mainstream Theist position as being Athiest

Actually Agnosticism can take any stance, both theist, atheist or even both.

Fence sitter would be a better word.

 

[Malifice]

Could you show me how that can be falisified, please?

Falsify the quatnum theory upon which its based. That would do it.

Could you also list the testable predictions generated by your theory?

Its not my theory.

Could you outline Lanza's explanation/proofs of consciousness since it's central to the theory?

Descartes.

You don't seem to have a clue about quantam except that you read somewhere about the (absolutely unbelievably overstated) role of the observer in quantam experiments and, in what is a truly amazing leap of faith, extrapolated that into your dodgy observer-contingent universe (with a lot of help from Descartes' unproveable philosophical position).

You're making assumptions about what I know.

And youre wrong.

You have no idea. Schrodinger's Cat was a thought experiment - it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Not only that, it was meant as a criticism of quantum.

OK. Ill raise you quantum entanglement.

Mate, as a philosophy this is pure crap and as science its non-existent - even when being observed. But it's not far off being a great comedy routine. Chin up.

You can be as belittling as you want. Just weakens your arguement.

 

[Malifice]

Faith is belief without evidence. There is plenty of evidence for the universe existing.

In what? The imaginary universe?

 

[Malifice]

Actually Agnosticism can take any stance, both theist, atheist or even both.

Fence sitter would be a better word.

You cant be an Atheistic Agnostic. Its an oxymoron.

 

[Nasma]

You cant be an Atheistic Agnostic. Its an oxymoron.

It's not. There are two parts to these labels. The first is whether you believe that a god exists, that is theist/ atheist. The second part is whether you believe that the evidence shows it. So an atheist agnostic believes that there is no god, but that it can't be proved. A strong atheist believes that there is no god and that it can be shown.

That said, there are so many differing definitions of these words that none is truly authoratitive.