There is no claim that there is no mind, There is only assumption that a metaphysical mind hasn't been demonstrated. You have not demonstrated it.

Science doesn't use the word mind, they just use the word brain, disregarding the mind in the gut as well as everywhere else in the body (muscle memory) The metaphysical bias is no accident. It is a matter of who is in charge.

The only metaphysical bias of science is that the metaphysical mind has not been demonstrated. That is not the same thing as claiming there is no metaphysical mind. Science isn't making metaphysical claims, or saying determinism is true. People may use science to support their metaphysical belief of determinism, but science itself doesn't make metaphysical claims of determinism.

Science uses the word brain to describe the brain. That is different than the autonomic nervous system. Now are you suggesting the autonomic nervous system requires a metaphysical mind? I find it ironic how you claim that science is like a religion making nonsensical assertions, yet it is in fact you rather than science who are making metaphysical assertions, and still have failed to demonstrate any of it.

The only metaphysical bias of science is that the metaphysical mind has not been demonstrated. — SonJnana

Of course it has. It is what is peering out the eyes. Science just used substitution words like natural and Thermodynamic Imperative, as if each of these words have been demonstrated.

The word brain is used as a substitute for Mind except where things happen outside of the brain in which case we have mind-gut, muscle memory, and if course the universal place holder "natural".

Of course it has. It is what is peering out the eyes. — Rich

How does the fact that I'm able to see demonstrate that there is some metaphysical mind beyond the brain? That's nonsense. Natural is not metaphysical, it is just a word to describe what happens without human manipulation. I even gave you the definition. And I'm pretty sure the thermodynamic imperative is a metaphysical claim philosophers have used. Never have I seen it in a science context. Science doesn't make metaphysical claims it can't prove. Scientists may, but they aren't doing science when they do.

The word brain is used as a substitute for Mind except where things happen outside of the brain in which case we have mind-gut, muscle memory, and if course the universal place holder "natural". — Rich

The word brain refers to the organ in your head. Of course it doesn't refer the gut. That's because your gut is your gut. Your gut does what it does for it's own biochemical reasons. Maybe if you actually study some biology before making these outrageous claims it'd make more sense. And in fact the brain even does have influence on the gut by sending electrochemical signals and hormones. Muscle memory is a type of procedural learning that is not separate from the brain nor does anyone claim that it is.

Natural is not metaphysical — SonJnana

It's as metaphysical as mind.

The rest of your post is just substitution electrical chemical, biochemical, procedurally learning (by a muscle???), for mind. Sleight of hand. I am surprised that you didn't stuff it in a gene. Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science.

http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5463/version/1

The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined.

It's as metaphysical as mind. — Rich

Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation.

nature - the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

It is the phenomena. Do you reject the phenomena? Do you reject that if you jump off a cliff you'd fall? No you wouldn't. So stop being a hypocrite and trying to reject the word natural. It's only a description of what happens, it is the phenomena, not a metaphysical explanation for why the phenomena is what it is.

I actually think I misinterpreted what you meant by mind-gut earlier. I thought you were referring to the gut as in the stomach so I was talking about that as opposed to a "gut-feeling". I don't know which one you were talking about but it doesn't really matter.

procedurally learning (by a muscle???), — Rich

I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memory that your muscle just does by itself as if it has a mind of it's own like you think. Your brain has learned to do something with repetition so is able to manipulate your muscles (which are also now better suited to doing the task for biochemical reasons) much easier. In a sense the signals are more efficient, similar to when you can remember something better when you've repeated it multiple times. Memory neural connections are observable.

Thermodynamic Impressive never used by science. — Rich

I've never seen the word imperative seen next to thermodynamics in a science context, but anyway thermodynamics is itself demonstrable. The four laws of thermodynamics are well established model for a reason. And there hasn't been evidence that contradicts them.

The reason scientists don't use the word mind is because the they choose not to. Nothing is determined. — Rich

You are the king of repeating the same thing over and over again and without demonstrating it. Stop making baseless claims. The only thing you've said is that science denies the mind. Just demonstrate this metaphysical mind already, stop being dishonest.

Natural is not metaphysical whatsoever, Natural is a word used to describe what happens without human manipulation. — SonJnana

Yes, as in Natural Selection

I think this shows how poorly you understand biology. Muscle memory isn't some type of memory — SonJnana

Muscle as some kind of memory? It's it natural?

It's not that I don't understand biology. It is just I am amused by how well they indoctrinated you.

thermodynamics is itself demonstrable. — SonJnana

Yeah, but it is the Imperative part that is so important to science, because the need a placeholder for Mind when the brain isn't there. No problem, they just make up a new word - and if course teach it as science. That's where the Thermodynamic thing becomes important. It makes the new placeholder seem so scientific.

If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we?

Yes, as in Natural Selection — Rich

Natural selection is a term used to describe what is happening during evolution in the physical world. Science describes what is happening in the physical world. For me to say that an apple falls is not a metaphysical claim. Describing the physical world is not a metaphysical claim.

Muscle as some kind of memory? It's it natural?

It's not that I don't understand biology. It is just I am amused by how well they indoctrinated you. — Rich

You clearly don't understand biology, evidently by trying to mislead with that article that you thought somehow went against our modern understanding of biology when it doesn't. If you're gonna make bold claims about science, at least make sure you even understand the science.

Science develops models that are based off of evidence, that describe the physical world rather than make metaphysical claims. Nothing in science is even set in stone. When we say this is what science says, we are saying this is the best model we have to best of our ability of understanding the universe. That is an assumption of honest scientists. While you accuse science of being a religion and yet believe in some metaphysical mind that you can't even demonstrate.

Yeah, but it is the Imperative party that is so important to science, because the need a placeholder for Mind when the brain isn't there. So problem, they just make up a new word - and if course teach it as science. — Rich

It is a word to describe a phenomena. Really how do you not understand? If I say red apple to describe what I'm eating, is that a metaphysical claim? What nonsense.

If you choose to avoid the word Mind, no skin off my teeth. We all make our choices in life, don't we? — Rich

I'm not trying to force science down your throat. I just think it's ridiculous that you will quote me while I'm replying to someone else, tell me science is nonsense, and then claim you know somehow know of this metaphysical mind that you can't even demonstrate.

I guess bottom line, as a philosophy Determinism is useless and as science it is a myth.

I hope this is a fine demonstration of Mind at its finest.

I don't know if you're trolling but I'm done with this conversation lol

DNA is made up of nucleotides. — SonJnana

Yes, and they perform directed actions. And it is not understood exactly why they perform directed actions. My point is that there is no living body without such directed actions, so the formula which directs is prior to the body.

But just because we don't know doesn't mean we never will. — SonJnana

My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option.

At some point we could ask why physics is the way it is. We may never know. But how do we go from asking that to assuming there is an immaterial soul inside of us? And then we would ask is there then a soul in other animals? In plants? In bacteria? In viruses? In atoms? Where do we draw the line, after assuming there even is an immaterial soul inside of us? — SonJnana

This is why the study of philosophy is important, it gives us direction toward understanding the immaterial soul, and this is necessary to properly understand reality.

Just to clarify, is your argument that there has to be an immaterial formula for physics? — SonJnana

I don't quite understand your question. Aren't all formulae immaterial, and doesn't physics use formulae?

It doesn't mean that we conclude there is some immaterial force that leads to why living organisms are the way they are that goes beyond our knowledge of how atoms work. — SonJnana

I think quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is an immaterial force behind the way atoms work. Do you understand Pauli exclusion? The concept of "force" is quite useful in physics, and despite assumptions that forces may be accounted for with material particles this approach, is enveloped in uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates flawed principles.

My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option. — Metaphysician Undercover

Causual, yet critical, observation of scientific theories reveal that science is full lot immaterial, including but not limited to, the Observer, force, quanta, gravity, energy, negative/positive, natural ..., etc. It has to be, and always will be, there, just hidden by different words.

QM phenomena are all replicable. That makes them deterministic. It is no impediment to determinism if science has not got its model right.
Determinism is not invalidated by ignorance.

There is zero support or need for determinism in quantum physics. — Rich

Perhaps you'd like to explain that!! Oh can't ?? Never mind!

QM phenomena are all replicable. — charleton

Nope. Each event is probabilistic. The Schrodinger equation is a probability wave.

Ignorance of antecedent states do not invalidate determinism.
All QM experiments are reliably replicable and so assert a deterministic universe.
When science has worked its shit out on this matter this silliness will be silenced.

Perhaps you'd like to explain that!! Oh can't ?? Never mind! — charleton

Zero support for determinism anywhere. The reason is that it is a completely fabricated story made up a few hundred years ago.

Time to request refunds for Phys101. I'll take 10%.

gnorance of antecedent states do not invalidate determinism.
All QM experiments are reliably replicable and so assert a deterministic universe.
When science has worked its shit out on this matter this silliness will be silenced. — charleton

My oh my oh my. Someone has to redo a class.

http://scienceblogs.com/interactions/2007/06/08/on-quantum-mechanics-stochasti/

"QM is stochastic. Determinism is out the window, but that doesn’t mean that every damn thing you can think of is in the window."

So in other words you've not got the first idea of what you are talking about, and have just repeated some shit you have heard.
Why not just answer the question?

"QM is stochastic — Rich

The landing of a single dice is stochastic too, yet utterly deterministic.

Yes, and they perform directed actions. And it is not understood exactly why they perform directed actions. My point is that there is no living body without such directed actions, so the formula which directs is prior to the body. — Metaphysician Undercover

The way biology is the way it is is because of complex biochemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because of the underlying physics. If you're gonna make this argument, you have to go further at a fundamental level and then ask why physics is the way it is, which is what I think you are essentially doing.

My claim is that the day of understanding comes around as soon as we consider the immaterial. Failure to consider the immaterial will likely produce the "never will" option. — Metaphysician Undercover

immaterial soul, and this is necessary to properly understand reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Very bold claims.

I don't quite understand your question. Aren't all formulae immaterial, and doesn't physics use formulae? — Metaphysician Undercover

We create formulas to describe physics. Science creates models to describe the universe. Why is physics the way it is? We don't know. But to leap frog from we don't know to assert there is a metaphysical soul, you have a lot of demonstrating to do.

I think quantum mechanics demonstrates that there is an immaterial force behind the way atoms work. Do you understand Pauli exclusion? The concept of "force" is quite useful in physics, and despite assumptions that forces may be accounted for with material particles this approach, is enveloped in uncertainty. Uncertainty indicates flawed principles. — Metaphysician Undercover

Quantum mechanics demonstrates that the universe doesn't act in a way that makes sense to humans as we understand the universe today. Why? Because as far as we know, we have no reason to think the universe has an obligation to make sense to us. And we didn't evolve where it was necessary to understand quantum mechanics.

The particle-waves are confusing and we don't understand them. Our model of uncertainty does not mean flawed. Flawed as opposed to what? You haven't demonstrated that it is possible for a universe to exist without uncertainty, maybe this is the only way and therefore unflawed. It just means that things seem to act differently at a fundamental level than at a more macroscopic level where it seems to us certain. Asserting that there has to be some metaphysical force to explain uncertainty just because it seems spooky and odd to humans is like saying I can't explain why A is the way it is, so it must be because of B.

I would recommend you write to the author of the article refuting his claims. I am sure he welcomes comments from religious zealots.

The way biology is the way it is is because of complex biochemistry. Chemistry is the way it is because of the underlying physics. If you're gonna make this argument, you have to go further at a fundamental level and then ask why physics is the way it is, which is what I think you are essentially doing. — SonJnana

You are losing me with your terminology. Let's see if we can straighten some things out. These terms, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, all refer to fields of study. Do we agree on this? These fields of study, are the way that they are, because human beings developed them to be this way. Do we agree on that? So if we need to ask why physics is the way that it is, this question is very easily approached with the answer that physics developed in this way because it is the result of human intention. Human intention is the cause of the field of study called "physics" being the way that it is. Do you agree?

We create formulas to describe physics. Science creates models to describe the universe. Why is physics the way it is? We don't know. But to leap frog from we don't know to assert there is a metaphysical soul, you have a lot of demonstrating to do. — SonJnana

You seem to be using "physics" here in a way which I am not familiar with. Physicists create formulas to describe the activities of the physical world. If we want to create formulas to describe what the physicists are doing (physics), then shouldn't we turn to philosophy?

You are losing me with your terminology. Let's see if we can straighten some things out. These terms, biology, biochemistry, chemistry, and physics, all refer to fields of study. Do we agree on this? These fields of study, are the way that they are, because human beings developed them to be this way. Do we agree on that? So if we need to ask why physics is the way that it is, this question is very easily approached with the answer that physics developed in this way because it is the result of human intention. Human intention is the cause of the field of study called "physics" being the way that it is. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

You were talking about how DNA somehow gives direction. So with all the terms, I'm referring to the phenomena itself. Why is the phenomena that we study in biology the way it is? Because the phenomena of physics is the way it is. Why is the phenomena of physics the way it is? We don't know.

You seem to be using "physics" here in a way which I am not familiar with. Physicists create formulas to describe the activities of the physical world. If we want to create formulas to describe what the physicists are doing (physics), then shouldn't we turn to philosophy? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes I agree physicists create formulas to describe phenomena. Now it's up to you to demonstrate how we go from our lack of knowledge about why the physics is the way it is, to a metaphysical soul.

You were talking about how DNA somehow gives direction. — SonJnana

No I didn't say that DNA gives direction, I said that the physical parts of the living body are directed. DNA is a physical part, and therefore It follows direction.

So with all the terms, I'm referring to the phenomena itself. Why is the phenomena that we study in biology the way it is? Because the phenomena of physics is the way it is. Why is the phenomena of physics the way it is? We don't know. — SonJnana

I agree, you don't know, because you deny the immaterial. I have studied in the field of philosophy, and I do know, the phenomena is the way it is because of the active cause which is immaterial. So you ought not say "we" don't know.

Now it's up to you to demonstrate how we go from our lack of knowledge about why the physics is the way it is, to a metaphysical soul. — SonJnana

I described this already, maybe you should go back and reread, and ask me if you have any questions about what I said..

No I didn't say that DNA gives direction, I said that the physical parts of the living body are directed. DNA is a physical part, and therefore It follows direction. — Metaphysician Undercover

My bad, I misunderstood.

I described this already, maybe you should go back and reread, and ask me if you have any questions about what I said.. — Metaphysician Undercover

Can you copy and paste the demonstration then? Because I don't see a demonstration anywhere.

This is what I said:

I came to learn this from my study of philosophy, many years of reading. It is a difficult subject requiring much study. Here's something to consider though. A living body consists of parts which are active, and the activity is directed. The activity must be in such and such a way or there would be no living body. The living body would not exist without these parts carrying out their specified activities. If this is the case, then a living body could not come into existence without these parts each carrying out their specific activities. Therefore the formula, or direction (and this is immaterial), as to which parts must carry out which activities, must be prior to the existence of the living body. So we can conclude that this immaterial formula must be prior to the living body. The living body is dependent on the immaterial formula, and follows from it, not vise versa. — Metaphysician Undercover

The living human body is a product of physics. The phenomena of physics is the reason the human body is the way it is. So you are essentially saying the phenomena of physics is the way it is because of a metaphysical direction that must have had to come prior, yes?

How could a formula/direction for the universe have existed prior to the universe? You have to assume that there was a time prior to the universe. That has to be demonstrated. How can spacetime exist before spacetime exists?