Author Topic: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?  (Read 18629 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #667 on: January 16, 2012, 08:19:16 PM »
It's not word games, it's a logical paradox created by believing in strict materialism.

You're claiming that everything you write, know, think, must be the product of matter and energy,  since you believe that's all there is.

So then how do you know the products of energy and matter produced a true statement here, that all is matter and energy?   

The materialistic paradigm is not logically coherent concerning the mind.

« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 08:20:51 PM by Gill »

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #668 on: January 16, 2012, 08:43:48 PM »
You're claiming that everything you write, know, think, must be the product of matter and energy,  since you believe that's all there is.

Yes.

Quote
So then how do you know the products of energy and matter produced a true statement here, that all is matter and energy?

Because substance dualism says that an immaterial mind can send "signals", somehow, to a physical brain and cause it to control the body.  However:

Quote from: Daniel C. Dennett
[The signals coming from the mind], ex hypothesi, are not physical; they are not light waves or sound waves or cosmic rays or streams of subatomic particles.  No physical energy or mass is associated with them.  How, then, do they get to make a difference to what happens in the brain cells they must affect, if the mind is to have any influence over the body?  A fundamental principle of physics is that any change in the trajectory of any physical entity is an acceleration requiring the expenditure of energy, and where is this energy to come from?  It is this principle of the conservation of energy that accounts for the physical impossibility of "perpetual motion machines," and the same principle is apparently violated by dualism.  This confrontation between quite standard physics and dualism has been endlessly discussed since Descartes's own day, and is widely regarded as the inescapable and fatal flaw of dualism.
  {Daniel C. Dennett, "Consciousness Explained"}

Or, to put it more briefly, and for about the fifth or sixth time...

Substance dualism violates the laws of physics, which means that nothing else you say regarding this matter is the least bit pertinent to the discussion.  It's all just word games that don't make any difference because substance dualism rests on a claim about the nature of existence that we know for a fact to be false.

By way of comparison: Descartes' attempt to demonstrate that the mind was an immaterial thing, separate from the body, is quite lengthy and detailed, but that doesn't matter.  As soon as you realize that substance dualism violates the laws of physics, you don't really even need to read Descartes' attempted proofs to know that he's wrong.  (I did anyway in my thesis, since that's expected in academia, but it isn't necessary here.)

Please note: if you make any further posts attempting to defend substance dualism with the word games you've been engaging in, I'm going to respond by saying nothing more than, "But how do you account for the violation of the conservation laws?"
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #669 on: January 16, 2012, 08:48:10 PM »
There is no violation in the conservation of energy.    Something does not have to create or destroy energy to effect it.   Gravity for instance, can bend light waves,  therefore effecting energy, without a creation or destruction of it.   

Would you consider gravity to be a material substance?

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #670 on: January 16, 2012, 08:49:41 PM »
There is no violation in the conservation of energy.    Something does not have to create or destroy energy to effect it.   Gravity for instance, can bend light waves,  therefore effecting energy, without a creation or destruction of it.   

Would you consider gravity to be a material substance?

But how do you account for the violation of the conservation laws?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #671 on: January 16, 2012, 08:54:51 PM »
I don't know what that author is talking about, since energy doesn't need any energy added to it to accelerate.   As pointed out before,  electromagnetic waves can slow down traveling through a substance,  but they don't need anything to accelerate them back to the speed of light after coming out of the substance.

Therefore, an if an immaterial substance, like gravity, can direct energy without effecting the total energy, I don't see why an immaterial substance such as 'mind' could not do the same.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #672 on: January 16, 2012, 08:56:29 PM »
I don't know what that author is talking about, since energy doesn't need any energy added to it to accelerate.   As pointed out before,  electromagnetic waves can slow down traveling through a substance,  but they don't need anything to accelerate them back to the speed of light after coming out of the substance.

Therefore, an if an immaterial substance, like gravity, can direct energy without effecting the total energy, I don't see why an immaterial substance such as 'mind' could not do the same.

But how do you account for the violation of the conservation laws?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #673 on: January 16, 2012, 08:59:09 PM »
  The author claims that in order to effect the system in the brain, energy must be added, therefore there's a violation of conservation.  But,  no energy necessarily has to be added to the system in order to effect the motion of energy in the brain, so there's no violation.

As pointed out, an immaterial substance like gravity, can effect the motion of energy without adding energy to the system. 

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #674 on: January 16, 2012, 08:59:59 PM »
  The author claims that in order to effect the system in the brain, energy must be added, therefore there's a violation of conservation.  But,  no energy has to be added to the system in order to effect the motion of energy in the brain.

As pointed out, an immaterial substance like gravity, can effect the motion of energy without adding energy to the system.

But how do you account for the violation of the conservation laws?
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #675 on: January 16, 2012, 09:00:50 PM »
Clearly you don't understand, there is no violation.    There's only a violation if you start from a false premise.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #676 on: January 16, 2012, 09:03:52 PM »
Clearly you don't understand, there is no violation.    There's only a violation if you start from a false premise.

But how do you account for the violation of the conservation laws?

(I can keep this up as long as you like.  Substance dualism does violate the laws of physics; this has been explained to you repeatedly.  I'm not going to let you try to claim that it doesn't.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #677 on: January 16, 2012, 09:08:50 PM »
Clearly you don't understand, there is no violation.    There's only a violation if you start from a false premise.

But how do you account for the violation of the conservation laws?

(I can keep this up as long as you like.  Substance dualism does violate the laws of physics; this has been explained to you repeatedly.  I'm not going to let you try to claim that it doesn't.)

Keep what up?  Ignoring that I just said your supposed violation is based on a premise that I don't agree with.   Wow, that's not hard to do you know, argue against someone on a premise they don't even support.


Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #678 on: January 16, 2012, 09:14:10 PM »
Ignoring that I just said your supposed violation is based on a premise that I don't agree with.

That's because whether you agree with it doesn't matter -- it's still true.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #679 on: January 16, 2012, 09:15:47 PM »
Ignoring that I just said your supposed violation is based on a premise that I don't agree with.

That's because whether you agree with it doesn't matter -- it's still true.

Oh really, why?  Cuz you like the author who said it?  Or can you actually explain why yourself?  I think it's false.  And I can dispute it, easy, since I don't go by what that author purposes as a premise.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #680 on: January 16, 2012, 09:22:04 PM »
Quote
That's because whether you agree with it doesn't matter -- it's still true.

Oh really, why?

Because the Law of Conservation of Energy was codified centuries ago and no one has ever observed a violation of it, that's why.

Quote
Cuz you like the author who said it?

Truth is true regardless of who is saying it.

Quote
Or can you actually explain why yourself?

Sure I can.  Here you go: "Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

Quote
I think it's false.

And you're wrong.

Quote
And I can dispute it, easy, since I don't go by what that author purposes as a premise.

Well, if you ignore reality, you can dispute pretty much anything, can't you?   &)

(And by the way, it's not just one or two people.  It's hundreds, if not thousands, of people for a period of almost four hundred years.)
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #681 on: January 16, 2012, 09:25:04 PM »
Because the Law of Conservation of Energy was codified centuries ago and no one has ever observed a violation of it, that's why.

Right.   And the concept of mind doesn't violate such laws.   So back to square one.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #682 on: January 16, 2012, 09:28:23 PM »
Because the Law of Conservation of Energy was codified centuries ago and no one has ever observed a violation of it, that's why.

Right.   And the concept of mind doesn't violate such laws.

Yes, it does.  I don't know how many different ways there are to explain this to you: for a brain cell to fire, it has to receive an input of energy -- that's standard, basic neuroscience -- and substance dualism says that the mind has no energy to give.  That's it.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #683 on: January 16, 2012, 09:29:49 PM »
It does violate that law, Gill.  The reason for this has been explained to you:  Because manipulating matter requires energy, and a substance-dualistic mind necessarily has no energy to transfer.  If it did, then it would be materialistic.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #684 on: January 16, 2012, 09:31:43 PM »
No, the mind doesn't give energy to the system, it directs energy.  And energy doesn't necessarily have to be added to a system for it to be directed.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #685 on: January 16, 2012, 09:33:08 PM »
Yes it does.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #686 on: January 16, 2012, 09:33:40 PM »
No, the mind doesn't give energy to the system, it directs energy.  And energy doesn't necessarily have to be added to a system for it to be directed.

Directing energy also requires an expenditure of energy...

Ah, the hell with it.  You're just trolling.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #687 on: January 16, 2012, 09:33:54 PM »
Gravity bending lightwaves.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #688 on: January 16, 2012, 09:40:27 PM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure

If light which impacts an object applies a force, then light which is redirected by that object is applying a force as well.

EDIT:  To explain why that is, consider the case of a photon whose path is bent enough that it wraps around the object and continues in the opposite direction.  That is the same, in terms of momentum, as a full reflection - like if a perfect mirror had just reflected it off the surface of the object.  That means that ratiation pressure has been applied.  Less bending means less energy-transfer, but the transfer is still there.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2012, 09:44:12 PM by Azdgari »
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #689 on: January 16, 2012, 09:43:28 PM »
I'm talking relativity, as how starlight can be bent around another star, in other words direction effected.


"[The signals coming from the mind], ex hypothesi, are not physical; they are not light waves or sound waves or cosmic rays or streams of subatomic particles.  No physical energy or mass is associated with them.  How, then, do they get to make a difference to what happens in the brain cells they must affect, if the mind is to have any influence over the body? "

Gravity, no energy, no mass;  yet can direct energy.   

Mind, no energy, no mass;  can't?   Why.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #690 on: January 16, 2012, 09:44:59 PM »
See above.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #691 on: January 16, 2012, 09:46:37 PM »
the gravity force itself has no energy or mass associated with it though.   Why not then, a force , such as mind with no energy or mass associated with it?

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #692 on: January 16, 2012, 09:48:03 PM »
Ser...seriously?  Gravity has no energy or mass associated with it?  You're seriously claiming this?   :o

I'm gonna go with Pianodwarf.  You're just trolling us.  Nobody is this ignorant.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #693 on: January 16, 2012, 09:49:23 PM »
Ser...seriously?  Gravity has no energy or mass associated with it?  You're seriously claiming this?   :o

I'm gonna go with Pianodwarf.  You're just trolling us.  Nobody is this ignorant.

Gravity is a property of mass.   But the gravity itself, is just space-time curving.   Therefore, the actual curve in space-time has no energy/mass association.  It's just space-time.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12410
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #694 on: January 16, 2012, 09:51:36 PM »
Right, it'll stay all curvy and attract shit and such without the mass being there.  Sure.   :-*
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline Gill

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 732
  • Darwins +5/-58
  • Gender: Male
Re: Evolutionists, arguing for their own imprisonment?
« Reply #695 on: January 16, 2012, 09:53:54 PM »
Right, it'll stay all curvy and attract shit and such without the mass being there.  Sure.   :-*

Never said the mass wasn't there.  But the curve is not the mass.  It's a response to the presence of the mass.  So then,  you have a curve in space-time which can change the direction of energy, lighwaves traveling around that curve.    The curve itself is then directing the energy.  Therefore, an immaterial curve in space-time can direct energy.

Hence, an example of an immaterial thing directing energy.