Why the bias against materialism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zero
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bias
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the tension between materialism and idealism, emphasizing that materialistic views are often dismissed despite their empirical support. Participants argue that while science is a valuable tool for understanding the physical universe, it has limitations and cannot fully explain consciousness or the meaning of life. There is a critique of anti-materialist sentiments, likening them to historical resistance against scientific progress, and highlighting the psychological need for beliefs beyond materialism. The conversation also touches on the role of community in belief systems and the subjective nature of human experience. Ultimately, the debate reflects a struggle to reconcile scientific understanding with deeper existential questions.
  • #251
Originally posted by Zero
None of this makes any sense...
Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Screw science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #252
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Maybe because you're not conscious? Consciousness is the standard to existence. It's the only thing that determines anything. First and foremost you have to be conscious.

What does that mean? Screw science! For without our ability to be conscious which, science by itself is not capable of -- because it has "no soul" -- then how would we be able to determine that we were even here?

If it weren't for the fact that we were conscious we wouldn't exist, neither would science.
Or, maybe you JUST DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE!

*pant pant* Whew, I had to get that out!

We aren't talking about 'souls' or feelings, and those things have NOTHING to do with the physical world that we live in. So, in other words, your anti-science ramblings have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, except to show your senseless bias against any sort of logic.
 
  • #253
Originally posted by Zero
Or, maybe you JUST DON"T MAKE ANY SENSE!

*pant pant* Whew, I had to get that out!

We aren't talking about 'souls' or feelings, and those things have NOTHING to do with the physical world that we live in. So, in other words, your anti-science ramblings have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, except to show your senseless bias against any sort of logic.
The only reason why I say screw science is because everything begins with, and ends with, consciousness. Science is "only" an endeavor which has come about by means of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is it!
 
  • #254
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The only reason why I say screw science is because everything begins with, and ends with, consciousness. Science is "only" an endeavor which has come about by means of consciousness. Therefore, consciousness is it!

So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.
 
  • #255
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.
 
  • #256
Originally posted by Another God
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.

And if he does it, it proves you can have a brain and not be conscious!
 
  • #257
Originally posted by Zero
So? There is no evidence that there is anything magical or non-physical about consciousness. Therefore, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand.
It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what I'm saying here as evidence if you like, but it is evidence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.
 
Last edited:
  • #258
Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.
Of course not, because experience is a conscious phenomenon. Der.

Now you don't have to construe what saying here as evidence if you like, but it is eviedence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.
But where does your consciousnes come from?
 
  • #259
Originally posted by Another God
It's hard to be conscious without a brain.

If you doubt this, go stick your head on some train tracks during peak hour and then come back and tell me I am wrong.
A brain don't mean sh*t either if you ain't conscious. Sorry, overruled! :wink:
 
  • #260
Originally posted by Iacchus32
It also suggests that we shouldn't forsake those things which happen on a personal level, for indeed, the fact they we're conscious overrides everything -- even science. In which case it puts God on the same "plausibility" level of science.

If you can't even conceive of it, "consciously," then there's no way you can possibly ever experience it.

Now you don't have to construe what saying here as evidence if you like, but it is eviedence nonetheless, and it only goes to show how biased and narrow-minded people can really be.

Your problem is, you make these huge leaps from A to Z without demonstrating the intermediate steps...maybe that is why I don't understand a single thing you post?!?

I'm biased against ideas that have no logical basis, besides making you feel like you are smarter than you really are. And you should skip the 'narrow-minded' comments, they are very nearly proof that you have no foundation for your arguments.
 
  • #261
Originally posted by Zero
Your problem is, you make these huge leaps from A to Z without demonstrating the intermediate steps...maybe that is why I don't understand a single thing you post?!?

I'm biased against ideas that have no logical basis, besides making you feel like you are smarter than you really are. And you should skip the 'narrow-minded' comments, they are very nearly proof that you have no foundation for your arguments.
The evidence is the fact I am here, and conscious. Which is more than you can say for science.

And, when you break it down to the least common denominator, do you know what you get? Consciousness.

You can even construe this as evidence too if you like, but please don't accuse me of not having presented anything. :wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #262
Originally posted by Iacchus32
A brain don't mean sh*t either if you ain't conscious. Sorry, overruled! :wink:
Depends from who's perspective. If i became unconscious, but my brain maintained every single function that i carry out now in such a way that everyone around me couldn't notice the difference, then everyone around me would be forced to disagree with you.

The thing here, is that you are taking things from 'My perspective' and then proclaiming that 'My perspective' is all that matters. (ie: Without my consciousness, i can't experience anything, therefore nothing else matter)

The problem with that stance though, is that you are ignoring everything else outside of your experience, including all of the other billions of perspectives outside your own.

The only way to actually acknowledge the Conscious experience of other people, is to acknowledge the objective nature of reality, and the manifestation of the mind as a consequence of the objective brain.
 
  • #263
Originally posted by Iacchus32
The evidence is the fact I am here, and conscious. Which is more than you can say for science.

And, when you break it down to the least common denominator, do you know what you get? Consciousness.

You can construe this as evidence too if you like, but please don't accuse me of not having presented anything. :wink:
Existing isn't evidence for anything except existence. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!"
 
  • #264
Originally posted by Another God
Depends from who's perspective. If i became unconscious, but my brain maintained every single function that i carry out now in such a way that everyone around me couldn't notice the difference, then everyone around me would be forced to disagree with you.
Sorry, you wouldn't even have a perspective if you weren't conscious. Overruled! :wink:
 
  • #265
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Sorry, you wouldn't even have a perspective if you weren't conscious. Overruled! :wink:

You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start!
 
  • #266
Originally posted by Zero
Existing isn't evidence for anything except existence. Existance and consciousness are not evidence for any half-baked idea that someone decides to come up with after a few too many beers, or a rough childhood, or any source of mental instability. Your posts are the same as me saying "I exist and am conscious, therefore there are aliens from Altair IV, who created teh universe and are pumping my thoughts into my body by invizible Z-waves that cannot be detected by rational, narrow-minded science!"
No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth.
 
  • #267
Originally posted by Zero
You are a judge now? Stop hijacking my thread, it is bad enough you can't stay on topic in the ones you start!
I am the judge of my own situation. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
  • #268
Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you? If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words. Am afraid that's the truth.
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existence is on;y proof of your existence, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?
 
  • #269
Originally posted by Zero
Again, you jump from "I'm saying I base everything by the fact that I exist. Don't you?" all the way to "If not, then you're not your own person and are speaking someone else's words" without any rhyme or reason!

By teh way, in case you didn't read the last time I said it, your existence is on;y proof of your existence, nothing else. Can you address that statement, or is it too concrete for you to deal with?
Why do you wish to argue about it? Without consciousness, and "knowing" that we exist, we would have no means by which to experience this "objective reality" you speak of. And by not realizing this, and accepting what we know "objectively" -- in other words, "consciously" -- the most we can expect to do is repeat what somebody else has told us.
 
  • #270
Originally posted by Another God
But where does your consciousnes come from?
Am afraid only our consciousness will tell. You can consider that evidence too if you like. :wink:

The source of our "knowing" is consciousness, not some test tube in a laboratory.
 
  • #271
STOP HIJACKING MY THREAD WITH YOUR NONSENSE!
 
  • #272
Originally posted by Zero
It does seem to be a semantic problem. Physical laws aren't things...they are descriptions of the behaviors of things. I don't see how a law has anything that would be considered 'existance', if you see what I mean?

Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"
 
Last edited:
  • #273
Originally posted by Fliption
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"

I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.
 
  • #274
Originally posted by Fliption
Let's think of the laws of math for instance. The fact that the diameter of a circle multiplied by Pi equals it's circumference is an algorythm that is true. The laws of nature are full of many other algorythms that do exists to allow the universe to operate the way it does. These things are no different from the software code behind Windows. I'm not talking about a material paper printout of the code. I'm talking about the holistic information content built into the code itself. It is a real existing thing. And it is not physical.

Heh maybe my new motto will be "If god exists then he is an algorythm!"
Or, at the very least it "testifies" to the intelligence behind the design. :wink:

By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.
 
  • #275
Originally posted by Iacchus32


By the way Zero, the only nonsense that exists is inside your head. I'm just an observer man, reporting to you what I've seen.

What? You haven't actually reported seeing anything, except things you imagined. I've read lots of your posts, and most of the time you imagine stuff, then come to unfounded conclusions based on your imaginings.
 
  • #276
Originally posted by Zero
I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction. I don't see physical laws as being 'programed into' matter, and therefore a real thing, but as a basic property that is as much a description of an object as weight. We don't say that 'weight' exists, we say 'an object has weight'...do you see what I am trying to get across? We don't say that 'red' exists as a thing unto itself, it is a way of describing something that exists.

But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?

Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.

Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.
 
  • #277
Originally posted by Fliption
But what about Microsoft Windows itself? Does it exists? My point isn't isolated to the laws of physics. I'm arguing that "information" does exists and it is not physical. Whether the laws of nature or math are in this category may be debatable but I know we can agree on a program written by humans. So does Windows exists?

Also, to your point on the laws of nature,I do see what you're saying, but I do see a distinction. I agree that color and things like that are simply ways of describing and distinguishing one object from another. But these laws that I am referring to are not subject to subjective interpretation from the observer. They are constant. The program running inside of DNA has a holistic existence. Yet it is not material. It doesn't matter whether someone programmed it or whether it was programmed blindly over the course of millions of years. The code is information.

Zero, I'm not sure if you've glanced at it yet but if you haven't you might want to check out the post and link that Wuli provided called "the holographic Universe" I believe. It is an article in scientific american. This idea is not entirely new but it is making the point (and we are slowing realizing this) that "information" is as much a component of the universe as matter and energy. And in my mind information is not a material thing.

Information doesn't have a separate existence from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...
 
  • #278
Originally posted by Zero
Information doesn't have a separate existence from the physical medium which carries it, is the point I am trying to get across...

So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?

I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.
 
  • #279
Originally posted by Fliption
So you're saying that Windows is no different than PC hardware?

I strongly disagree with this. Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

You know, it makes perfect sense in my head, and I am just not explaining it right...let me think some more on it, ok? Your criticism would be spot-on, if I meant what you think I mean, which I don't.
 
  • #280
In the interest of coherency, I have decided to write my reply a second time, and make it a little more succinct

Originally posted by Fliption
Software is not a physical thing. The paper, cd, or harddrive it is printed on is a totally different thing.

This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing. You cannot deny that we are subjective...but how does subjectivity come about? I mean, we have the objective brain things (collection of cells transmitting electro-chemical signals etc) and from those things, somehow, our subjective point of view arises.

I think our subjectivity can be simply explained (although we don't know how to) as a direct consequence of the physical make up of our brain.

Now, the Software not being a physical thing: I think the substratum of the software is the only actual existence of the information. It exists as a CD, and nothing else. Our perception of 'Information' as if it was something else, is just a consequence of our subjectivity: just as we experience lightning, although lightning is nothing more than static electricity. To look at paint and see paint, but then get magic atom glasses and look at the atoms that make up the paint, and see atoms, is to miss the point that the atoms actually are the paint.

For instance, the red example: Where we experience red, there is actually only light of a particular wavelength. Just because we experience Red, does not mean that 'Light carries the information for Red', but rather that something in the subjectivity creating factory in our brains is triggered by light hitting it, which makes us experience red. Cause and effect. 'Information' above and beyond the existence of the light wave is not required. Just as information above and beyond the existence of the particle (which has mass be definition) is not required, and just as the structure of the 'bits' on the CD require no extra information above and beyond the physical structure of those bits. Although the consequence of the structure ends up being quite meaningful to our subjectivity, that is simply a causal relationship that flows through the CD, to the CD player, into the Processor, through the RAM, into the monitor/speakers etc, into our eyes ears etc, into our subjectivity factory in the brain.

Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.

Hope I could help...?
 
  • #281
AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.

As I am a frugel man I would obviously but the blank CD but try as I might to load the program into my computer I get nothing.

Knowledge is. Information is. Our physical brain is the hardware on which the information and knowledge reside and operate. The electrochemical processes supply the energy and electrons to allow the hardware to run the software.

I can buy the most expensive complicated and advanced computer in the world and set it up and plug it in and turn it on. Even it I buy all he CD's in the world written or un written and load them onto my computer, the computer is not going to do anything until I tell it to do something and the it is only go to do exactly what I tell it to do, not necessarily what I want it to do. It is the same with our brains and minds. Every living human being has a funtioning brain. Every living human being does not know how or use his brain with the same efficency or to do the same thing. Even if we spent 20 years loading information into a number of brains as in education people, the results will differ drastically from one individual to another.

All phd's are not the same. If it were just a matter of physical brains there would not be that much difference in final results.
 
  • #282
Originally posted by Another God
This all appears to me to be essentially the same as the Objective - Subjective thing.

Train of cause and effect, no 'information' above and beyond the mere existence of the intermediate particles, behaving in their characteristic ways is required.


I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. To go back to the laws of nature... the fact that circumference divided by diameter always equals Pi is NOT subjective. It is a universal rule that is not physical. (I understand that all these math labels are man made, but that doesn't change the fact that the ratio is constant in nature.)
 
  • #283
Originally posted by Royce
AG, From my understanding of what I'm reading yo are saying the there is no difference between a blank CD that I can buy for $2-3 and a CD with information on it that may cost me $200-300.
Wow...I explained it THAT bad?

What I am saying does not mean that at all. In fact, it says the very opposite. It says that the $200 CD is much more worth it, because the CD has a very important part of it altered so that the computer which interacts with it does something impressive. The $2 CD does not have this alteration, and so makes for a very boring interaction.

I am simply saying that you do not pay $200 for the CD with the funky alterations, and the information that comes with it. The information is only a consequence of the funky alterations.

Of course, I say the above with an attempt at Objectivity, and I only say it that way because of the context of the discussion. It is true that in daily usage I would say "The $200 CD is worth it, because of the information it contains"...but that is a euphemism, a way of talking, a convenient expression to get a point across. It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.
 
  • #284
Originally posted by Another God
Wow...I explained it THAT bad?
It is important not to confuse 'ways of talking' with how things are, which is precisely what I think Fliption has done in this instance.

What I say here I say because of many things I've read on the topic. So it isn't just me.
 
  • #285
Originally posted by Fliption
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not.
Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because that's what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.

In this way, we could call everything information. DNA holds information of the base pairs, the light waves holds the information of the the colour it will impart into the human consciousness, the atom holds the information of its mass and dimensions, the snooked ball holds the information of its momentum, and it even acts to impart some of this information into the snooker ball it collides with...not only that, but it instantaneously calculates a complicated trajectory equation, and the momentum is transformed in the passing.

But it becomes silly to talk about 'information' in this way. The fact is, these things are just acting in the way they act. Doing what they do. it is not that the ball carries the information of its momentum with it...it is that the ball is momentus (if that's not a word, then it is now) (the ball is in motion).

Now how you want to name that, how you want to say, how you want to think of it is your own deal, but don't confuse human simplification of the matter with how it is.


Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but that's just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.
 
  • #286
Originally posted by Fliption
I understand what you're saying, but I don't agree. The color red is a subjective interpretation of a light wave. But the function of a software program is distinct and can have real effects on the world whether a human being is around to see it or not. To go back to the laws of nature... the fact that circumference divided by diameter always equals Pi is NOT subjective. It is a universal rule that is not physical. (I understand that all these math labels are man made, but that doesn't change the fact that the ratio is constant in nature.)
No, you don't understand what I'm saying.*grins* But, I'm still having a hard time explaining. Software is physical. Sure, ok, software is physical! And 'pi' doesn't exist, roundness does. 'Red' doesn't exist, but the visible light spectrum does.
 
  • #287
Originally posted by Another God
Having said that, I do have a slight suspicion that the universe is simply the consequence of a neat little mathematical relationship, and that equation dictates everything...which i guess would mean that everything 'is only information'...but that's just the same, but looked at oppositely, and so I am not completely contradicted. I still claim that there is not 'A ball AND the information with it', the is not "The CD AND the Software on it" There is only one unified entity.

Nothing you are saying is refuting the fact that in order to have the universe, you have to have the things in the universe and then the rules which govern how those things interact. I don't care what you call it; information or not information. These rules are not material yet they do exists.
 
  • #288
Originally posted by Zero
No, you don't understand what I'm saying.*grins* But, I'm still having a hard time explaining. Software is physical. Sure, ok, software is physical! And 'pi' doesn't exist, roundness does. 'Red' doesn't exist, but the visible light spectrum does.

I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.

But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists.
 
  • #289
Originally posted by Fliption
I was referring to AG. I'll concede that I may not understand what you're trying to say if you say I don't.

But the ratio of Pi DOES exists. If humans were not present it wouldn't be known as Pi but this has no bearing on the fact that the universe is contructed in a certain way according to certain rules and constants. These rules are not physical in and of themselves but they DO exists.
Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!
 
  • #290
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Yeah, let's get metaphysical baby!
Nothing metaphysical about it. As I said, roundness exists, as a property of matter, described by pi.
 
  • #291
This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it?
 
  • #292
Originally posted by Zero
This is starting to sound like the return of Alexander's 'math created the universe' threads, isn't it?
Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?, and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay? :wink:

Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!
 
  • #293
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Are you referring to me here? Just give me a chance to finish the post on my other thread, A Flaw in the Theory of Natural Selection?, and we'll see if we can't get you to eat some of your own words, Okay? :wink:

Give me about ten or fifteen minutes. I can assure you you won't be dissapointed!
LOL
 
  • #294
Originally posted by Another God
Absolutely in agreeance there, my point is that it only appears as 'information' because that's what us humans subjectively call it...it has a predictable causal relationship, a complex one at that, and so we call this particular example information.


"Ask anybody what the physical world is made of, and you are likely to be told "matter and energy."
Yet if we have learned anything from engineering, biology and physics, information is just as crucial an ingredient. The robot at the automobile factory is supplied with metal and plastic but can make nothing useful without copious instructions telling it which part to weld to what and so on. A ribosome in a cell in your body is supplied with amino acid building blocks and is powered by energy released by the conversion of ATP to ADP, but it can synthesize no proteins without the information brought to it from the DNA in the cell's nucleus. Likewise, a century of developments in physics has taught us that information is a crucial player in physical systems and processes. Indeed, a current trend, initiated by John A. Wheeler of Princeton University, is to regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals."


This is the first paragraph of the cover story of the most recent Scientific American. I'm not posting it because it necessarily contradicts anything you have said. I am posting it because by using the same language as this article, you claimed I was confused in terminology. I recommend you read the entire article.

But it does appear to contradict what Zero is saying. This article at least makes the distinction between information and it's media.
 
  • #295
I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.
 
  • #296
Originally posted by Zero
I don't think that this is anything for me to worry about, really. It is a new way of looking at the same stuff, and I don't think it violates anyt of the main points I make.

That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.
 
  • #297
Originally posted by Fliption
That would depend on the definition of "information" that is being used by these scientists. While they don't mention materialism directly, it certainly sounds like they are describing "information" as a non-physical concept. Nonetheless, they are clearly distinguishing information from it's media. This alone contradicts what you've said.

Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.
 
  • #298
Originally posted by Zero
Well, it contradicts one aspect of what I have said...patience, Flip, I'm sure when THEY figure out what they are talking about, it will fit perfectly fine in my outlook.

Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol :smile:
 
  • #299
Originally posted by Fliption
Lol. I agree. I am confident that whatever they discover the truth to be that you will perceive it to be consistent with your worldview. How can it not be with this openminded attitude? lol :smile:
I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.
 
  • #300
Originally posted by Zero
I know you are being sarcastic, but it is true. I AM open-minded, to the results of properly done scientific inquiry.

I meant to say at the bottom that I assume you were kidding. But who knows? Maybe you weren't.

The question is "will you actively pursue looking into progress in this area or will it be forgotten until someone brings it up in another "bash everyone who disagrees with me thread"?
 
Back
Top