2
   

The creations myths of Science

 
 
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 02:07 pm
I will describe three of the most important creation myths of science concerning the creation of 'mind'. The concept of matter as 'bladder', with an inside and a material outside is common to them all. Inside these material bladders, according to claims, are found the important things in life, like 'I' and 'mind'.

1. One creation myth of science says that 'I' and 'mind' and similar things are created by these bladders and reside inside the bladder, but that anything found inside these bladders has no effect on the bladders themselves. The people who say this claim that anything found inside the bladder 'emerges' from, or is an emergent property of, actions and disturbances created by the 'material' (the technical term) bladder.

2. Another creation myth is known as 'eliminativim'. This claims that there is nothing inside these bladders, but that what we claim is inside the bladders, like mind and emotions, are terms of reference for the bladders themselves. Indeed, by claiming that nothing can be 'inside' the bladders, eliminatavists seem to be saying that matter is not bladders. Technically, this is at odds with materialism, for we are then led to conclude that matter is not composed of external points: we might say that eliminatavism defeats itself, for it presents no objects at all as both extension and mind are absent.

3. Another creation myth claims that the bladders create things inside themselves, like mind and emotions, but that these emotions can also affect the bladders themselves. For example, they might say 'emotions help the evolution of the brain'.

I Conclude that there are at least three creation myths of science and that none of them is compatible. In this regard, the creation myth provided by any particular religion has the advantage.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 1,103 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 02:42 pm
You're way out there, ain't ya, Bubba ?

What's it like, livin' on the edge like that ? What's it like bein' the extreme vanguard of the lunatic fringe ?
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jul, 2005 10:19 pm
There is no "creation," just as there is no "time." The concepts are mind farts that result from trying to speak the unspeakable.
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 10:33 am
All - We do experience time - we move from the past (our memory) to the present (our current experience) - I don't think they are merely farts.

TTF
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 11:01 am
recognition turns to memory in a nanosecond. Just add time and stir. JJ is just a bit different . He loves to "speak for" and then he gets that all wrong. I think, one day, he will be correct on something.
I think that English is not JJ's native language.
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 12:50 pm
thethinkfactory wrote:
All - We do experience time - we move from the past (our memory) to the present (our current experience) - I don't think they are merely farts.
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 Aug, 2005 09:45 pm
Well isn't that what time is? The rate of change?

V=d/t
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 09:45 am
No. The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 12:04 pm
AllThisBeauty wrote:
No. The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in.

How do you know that?
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 03:37 pm
AllThisBeauty wrote:
No. The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in.


So what's this 'you' that 'your' chemistry talks to? ... it all sounds a bit Harry Potter to me, bedknobs and broomsticks, sorcerer's apprentice...
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 04:00 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
How do you know that?


I have very good teachers, my friend.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 04:00 pm
That was an evasion, not an answer.
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Aug, 2005 04:10 pm
Not an evasion. I know this because I have seen it and others have seen it, and having seen it, it is seared into you.

Religionists will say this applies to their belief systems as well. I accept that, and I proceed.
0 Replies
 
John Jones
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 11:06 am
AllThisBeauty wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
How do you know that?


I have very good teachers, my friend.


It sounds odd to say 'my chemistry talked to me'. Funny thing though, scientists believe this sort of thing.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 11:10 am
ATB, you wrote: "The concept of time is a trap. Your chemistry telling you there is a 'now' and a 'then' in order to keep you moving. There is only 'now.' Never-changing lake that the fish swim in." Joe reasonably asked you how it is that you know this. You responded with an evasion. When i pointed out your evasion, you responded: "I have very good teachers, my friend." In addition to pointing out that you and i are not friends, i will also point out that you continue to evade the quite reasonable question which Joe posed. How have you "seen" this? How do you know this? So far, you have provided no reason for those statements.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 11:44 am
AllThisBeauty wrote:
I have very good teachers, my friend.

How do you know they're right?

AllThisBeauty wrote:
Not an evasion. I know this because I have seen it and others have seen it, and having seen it, it is seared into you.

How exactly can you "see" that there is only "now?"

AllThisBeauty wrote:
Religionists will say this applies to their belief systems as well. I accept that, and I proceed.

What if the "religionists" are wrong?
0 Replies
 
AllThisBeauty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:11 pm
To those above who are trying to bait me: I will not be baited, and you are still my friends.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 02:45 pm
AllThisBeauty wrote:
To those above who are trying to bait me: I will not be baited, and you are still my friends.

Does your mom know that you're using her computer?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 06:24 pm
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

Good one Joe . . .


ATB, that's a pathetic response, and once again, it's an evasion. No one is trying to "bait" you, you are being reasonably asked to provide plausible evidence for your statements, which otherwise constitute statements from authority, an authority which we have no reason to assume you possess.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Aug, 2005 06:24 pm
Oh, and we are still not friends.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The creations myths of Science
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/20/2024 at 03:35:13