The Intrusion of Spiritualism in Modern Science

A phenotype is a non-phyical, non-energetic entity. It is difficult to see how materialistically defined behaviour can promote a non-material entity or cause.

John Jones wrote:

A phenotype is a non-phyical, non-energetic entity. It is difficult to see how materialistically defined behaviour can promote a non-material entity or cause.

Your vocabulary is running way ahead of your grasp of the subject matter.

Websters Third New International Dictionary

Phenotype N b: the visible characteristics of an organism.

It's amazing how what good be good philisophic threads are de-valued by someone's mis-understandings of scientific process (so there's alot of factual errors in JJ's otherwise potentially very interesting posts) then they creep in here rather than the Philosophy forum.

Trouble is in Philosophy sections some real heavy weights play, an a few really know there material - take Frank for instance. You can have a great argument with him, and many others. 90% of the joust is sometimes just getting defintions, not points of view, understood. Once you stop violently agreeing you can have a real debate. It's always enlightening.

Somehow JJ misses this level of intensity by:

1. Simple mis-understandings and mis-uses of scientific principles; leading to ludicrious mistakes

2. Failure to respond in any meaningful way to killer points against his personal POV or facts and ommissions

3. Flogging dead horses.

Makes me wonder why if his POV are well grounded he doesn't try pushing them in Philosophy - is it because there he'll get eaten alive?

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

John Jones wrote:

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

That may be true, but we can only judge by the content of your posts, and at them moment, they do not reflect your knowledge in a favorable light.

Quote:

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

John,

You have made countless mistakes on these threads that show a profound lack of understanding of "the sciences". Here is my list of your mistakes.

You will probably argue each mistake since you obviously are under the delusion that you contain mystical wisdom that is lacked by scientists and mathematicians.

To anyone with the slightest bit more than a high school edcuation, it is clear that these are glaring errors that stem from a profound misunderstanding of science.

1. You took the word "Selfish" literally in the term "selfish gene" since you obviously don't understand the real idea at all. This has nothing to do with the human trait of selfishness.

You should be aware we use these anthropomorphic terms quite often and most of us are smart enough to know that we shouldn't take them literally.

You should also be aware that:
... "Lazy Susans" do what they are supposed to quite well without complaining.

... "Weeping Willows" don't need to be comforted since they aren't feeling great sadness.

... "Male plugs" will not reproduce when left with "female" plugs.

2. You invent a "hidden mathematician" which you claim is necessary to explain an infinite supply of numbers. This is easily shown to be false by a first year math student.

First, if your claim is correct it doesn't even solve the logical problem you present. The hidden mathematician would still need a source of these "numbers", so you would need an infinite number of hidden matematicians. Carry this out to its conclusion and it is easy to see that it is ridiculous.

Second, Every first year math student learns about series. It is very easy to define all integers as a series.

You may have a problem understanding the concept of an infinite progression of numbers. The rest of us don't.

3. You appear to be completely ignorant of the scientific process which involves experiements and observations to "prove" claims before they are asserted as fact.

Furthermore you deny the obvios benefit of this process. The philosophers invented the four humors and treatments that included draining blood from anemic patients.

The scientists invented medicine-- the difference between medecine and philosophy is that the doctors actually test their conclusions. This is how we found out that bleeding anemic patients didn't work. This is how we know that germs cause disease.

The result of the scientific study of medicine is astounding. We have turned previously deadly diseases in things of little concern.

rosborne979 wrote:

John Jones wrote:

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

That may be true, but we can only judge by the content of your posts, and at them moment, they do not reflect your knowledge in a favorable light.

Here then, is an example of my prowess:
One added to 54622769736 is 54622769737, that, and all the numbers up to and including.
Vast, am I not?

Modern Science has many uses for the concept of a non-material soul or spirit.

Here are some modern scientific uses for these concepts:

1. In Evolutionary Biology, the gene is regarded as the replicating unit. Behaviour is designed to maximize survival of the gene. However, it is never a particular gene that survives, but the pattern of a gene. The pattern is a not a physical or energetic entity and can usefully be regarded as a spirit.

2. In neurobiology the brain is credited with causing experience and behaviour. To accomodate this view, it is essential that a non-material spirit be constructed that is the recipient of experience and behaviour manufactured by the brain.

3. In medicine, brain matter is sometimes said to be disordered, causing mental illnesses. As matter itself cannot be said to be disordered, it is suggested that the disorder is a spirit or non-material energy that resides in the brain.

4. In quantum physics, the observer is credited with affecting physical outcomes. The observer is not defined physically, so here we have an example of a non-material energy affecting quantum physical outcomes.

5. In the theory of mathematics, numbers are said to continue indefinitely. As numbers occur only as contingent constructions, we must suppose that the mathematician places a "hidden mathematician" beside each number who can secretely construct succeeding numbers. It would not be useful here to claim that the "hidden mathematician" is not physical, as mathematics itself is not physical. We may, however, use the example of the hidden mathematician as a representative of mathematics and its contingent nature. Contingency, as appearance and disappearance, is not a property of a purely physical universe.

John Jones wrote:

Modern Science has many uses for the concept of a non-material soul or spirit.

No, it doesn't. Modern science has no need to invent ghosts to explain the workings of the universe. See Occam's Razor.

Quote:

Here are some modern scientific uses for these concepts:

1. In Evolutionary Biology, the gene is regarded as the replicating unit. Behaviour is designed to maximize survival of the gene. However, it is never a particular gene that survives, but the pattern of a gene. The pattern is a not a physical or energetic entity and can usefully be regarded as a spirit.

No. Genes are sequences of DNA that contain the code for building a specific protein (among other things). A genome that builds an organism whose behavior is conducive to survival and reproduction in a particular environment is more likely to be replicated, along with all of the genes it contains. Individual genes that give an organism an edge over the competition will be replicated more often, and in the long run, will tend to predominate.

Quote:

2. In neurobiology the brain is credited with causing experience and behaviour. To accomodate this view, it is essential that a non-material spirit be constructed that is the recipient of experience and behaviour manufactured by the brain.

Why must awareness/consciousness be non-material? Do you think that all lower animals have spirits as well?

Quote:

3. In medicine, brain matter is sometimes said to be disordered, causing mental illnesses. As matter itself cannot be said to be disordered, it is suggested that the disorder is a spirit or non-material energy that resides in the brain.

The physical arrangement of neurons can be disordered by genetic flaws or trauma. Chemical production and balances can be disordered by genes, disease or drugs. Prions, viruses, strokes and tumors can disorder the brain.

Psychiatry recognizes many behavioral disorders, some of which have a physical cause and respond to drugs or other treatment.

Quote:

4. In quantum physics, the observer is credited with affecting physical outcomes. The observer is not defined physically, so here we have an example of a non-material energy affecting quantum physical outcomes.

What is "non-material" energy? Magic?

Quote:

5. In the theory of mathematics, numbers are said to continue indefinitely. As numbers occur only as contingent constructions, we must suppose that the mathematician places a "hidden mathematician" beside each number who can secretely construct succeeding numbers. It would not be useful here to claim that the "hidden mathematician" is not physical, as mathematics itself is not physical. We may, however, use the example of the hidden mathematician as a representative of mathematics and its contingent nature. Contingency, as appearance and disappearance, is not a property of a purely physical universe.

Nobody, hidden or otherwise, has to "construct" numbers. Numbers are just a way of keeping track of things. I can multiply two numbers together to get a product without "constructing" all of the intervening numbers.

g__day wrote:

It's amazing how what good be good philisophic threads are de-valued by someone's mis-understandings of scientific process (so there's alot of factual errors in JJ's otherwise potentially very interesting posts) then they creep in here rather than the Philosophy forum.

Trouble is in Philosophy sections some real heavy weights play, an a few really know there material - take Frank for instance. You can have a great argument with him, and many others. 90% of the joust is sometimes just getting defintions, not points of view, understood. Once you stop violently agreeing you can have a real debate. It's always enlightening.

Somehow JJ misses this level of intensity by:

1. Simple mis-understandings and mis-uses of scientific principles; leading to ludicrious mistakes

2. Failure to respond in any meaningful way to killer points against his personal POV or facts and ommissions

3. Flogging dead horses.

Makes me wonder why if his POV are well grounded he doesn't try pushing them in Philosophy - is it because there he'll get eaten alive?

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

John Jones wrote:

g__day wrote:

It's amazing how what good be good philisophic threads are de-valued by someone's mis-understandings of scientific process (so there's alot of factual errors in JJ's otherwise potentially very interesting posts) then they creep in here rather than the Philosophy forum.

Trouble is in Philosophy sections some real heavy weights play, an a few really know there material - take Frank for instance. You can have a great argument with him, and many others. 90% of the joust is sometimes just getting defintions, not points of view, understood. Once you stop violently agreeing you can have a real debate. It's always enlightening.

Somehow JJ misses this level of intensity by:

1. Simple mis-understandings and mis-uses of scientific principles; leading to ludicrious mistakes

2. Failure to respond in any meaningful way to killer points against his personal POV or facts and ommissions

3. Flogging dead horses.

Makes me wonder why if his POV are well grounded he doesn't try pushing them in Philosophy - is it because there he'll get eaten alive?

I have a very strong grounding in the sciences. I rarely make mistakes. I am no johnny upstart.

Sorry - I haven't been on the net for the last few hours to notice this new you. What a refreshing change! We look forward to great things then with bateless anticipation, that would re-balance your karma quite nicely then!

PS

Your point 4. on quantum physics... do you mean refer to quantum mechanics? Because if you do you have just done a major whoopsie - you need to be clearer on the scale of the frame of reference you are drawing analogies on!

Quantum mechanics is used to analyse very, very small things - so yes it does start where Heisenberg's Uncertainity principle involving wave mechanics with photons in relativistic frameworks (like spacetime) plays. But it goes alot lower than this into existence at or below a Planck scale - something Relativity can't begin to cope with. As a Planck or quantum mechanical frameworks (e.g. Loop QUantum Gravity) wierdness is the order of the day. Even going back up the scale back to the level of Relativistic frameworks, events can happen with no cause - such as electron or photon tunnelling or entanglement!

So you're mixing frameworks in your observations very carelessly.

Quantum tunneling

This is one of the most interesting phenomena to arise from quantum mechanics; without it computer chips would not exist, and a 'personal' computer would probably take up an entire room. As stated above, a wave determines the probability of where a particle will be. When that probability wave encounters an energy barrier most of the wave will be reflected back, but a small portion of it will 'leak' into the barrier. If the barrier is small enough, the wave that leaked through will continue on the other side of it. Even though the particle doesn't have enough energy to get over the barrier, there is still a small probability that it can 'tunnel' through it!

Let's say you are throwing a rubber ball against a wall. You know you don't have enough energy to throw it through the wall, so you always expect it to bounce back. Quantum mechanics, however, says that there is a small probability that the ball could go right through the wall (without damaging the wall) and continue its flight on the other side! With something as large as a rubber ball, though, that probability is so small that you could throw the ball for billions of years and never see it go through the wall. But with something as tiny as an electron, tunneling is an everyday occurrence.

On the flip side of tunneling, when a particle encounters a drop in energy there is a small probability that it will be reflected. In other words, if you were rolling a marble off a flat level table, there is a small chance that when the marble reached the edge it would bounce back instead of dropping to the floor! Again, for something as large as a marble you'll probably never see something like that happen, but for photons (the massless particles of light) it is a very real occurrence.