"Long before post-Darwinian “scientific racism” begins to develop, then, one can find blacks being depicted as closer to apes on the Great Chain of Being. Take mid-19th century America in circles in which polygenesis (separate origins for the races) was taken seriously. Leading scientists of the day Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon, in their 1854 Types of Mankind, documented what they saw as objective racial hierarchies with illustrations comparing blacks to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans." — Andrew4Handel

This is the genesis of Darwinianism. It was embraced by Europeans (and funded) because it justified the occupation of Africa and Asia. There is no science here, just an economic invasion justified by Natural (what else?) Selection.

I had wanted to discuss some philosophy, but if you are only willing to trade insults, let's leave it there. — Banno

Sorry. I thought you wanted to talk about pseudo-science. My bad.

That you insist on filling in "unknown" with your choice of word is the pseudo-science. It is what the article graciously to referred to as swampy. But, heck, it's your philosophy not mine.

Whether or not I am in agreement with Penrose is of no mind to me. What I am glad to see is that at least he is moving philosophical thought forward and is not stuck in the 16th century.

You still don't get it. You don't have Jupiter until there is a subject claiming so. This is the basic philosophical issue. You want there to be a Jupiter without someone saying so. You can't. Without someone(s) it is just unknown. Unknown means unknown. It's not a blank space for someone to fill in what they like. It is in some quantum state. Your viewpoint is swampy. The billard ball view of reality vanished 100 years ago.

How about addressing the philosophical critique I made above? my 749. — Banno

I have no idea what your critique was about. It's already been concluded that materialism is swampy. No observation then it is an unknown. There is no teacup. With observation, voila, teacup.

Anyway, nice that Penrose gets it.

You should read about the history of the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation. Pretty interesting. At this point in time, science doesn't care. They only want to keep making money by promising to end all diseases with some magic drugs. That is what keeps the money flowing big time. Materialism will conquer all.

No. It's a realization that if you don't do what the department head tells you to do (funding is everything), you are out on your behind. Such is the nature of science. Science is self-selecting. Either play along or find a new profession.

Penrose received rather a lot of flack for his proposal. — Banno

Of course. Science defends materialism because it butters their bread. One has to be totally shielded to suggest what Penrose says. Otherwise, you are summarily marginalized, ostracized and run out of the profession. Penrose probably doesn't care anymore.

I just want to know if in the future if I refer to materialist views of consciousness as swampy, will I need to reference this article? If so, I'll bookmark it.

I mean, do you agree that materialism is swampy? That, is a great characterization wouldn't you agree? And how about quantum being the root of consciousness? Nice idea, yes? Coming from the world famous Roger Penrose with that fantastic education!

I also like the way the article described the materialistic view as swampy.

Oh, I'm with Roger Penrose on this one. Famous enough for you?

Simply put:

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/26/521478684/mind-matter-and-materialism

"Also, the logical link I draw between theories of mind and theories of matter does not rely on quantum physics as an explanation for consciousness.Some folks like Rodger Penrose have argued that quantum phenomena occurring in the brain are the root of conscious experience. I am not particularly taken by these arguments (but see this for new ideas along these lines). Instead, I point out that the irreducible democracy of quantum interpretations leaves the role of agency (i.e. the observing subject) as an open issue of contention.

Any explanation of mind is an account of "being a subject." That means quantum interpretations where the epistemological aspect of quantum physics comes to the fore make simple materialist views of consciousness a whole lot less simple. Why? Well, it's simple.If your theory of being-a-subject (i.e. consciousness) relies solely on matter, but your theory of matter can't get rid of the subject's being, then you're walking on swampy ground."

There are a myriad of forces at work. It is all experimentation constrained by memory.

For example, some scientists in the pharmaceutical industry came up with the idea to sell opiouds to people who take them because they trust them, and as a result 183,000 people have been killed. So we have here an interesting case of how people experiment with other people's lives and how people experiment with their own lives. Intelligence does not infer positive health outcomes. The incredible increase in autism births is increasing at a rate that is commitment with the amount of drugs that humans are choosing to consume. Likewise there is an enormous amount of junk in our foods, water, and air, thanks to technology, which is having some affect on our bodies.

If this creative intelligence exists within us, it must be at an inaccessible subconscious level. Otherwise people would have eight arms and gigantic penises by now — CasKev

There are a myriad of ways to evolve and creative intelligence is not only accessible, it is us. There is nothing mysterious going on. Some life forms so have a multitude of extremities and others have evolved in a totally different way. The big creative intelligence is just evolving in many, many forms. With the ocean there are waves and within waves there are endless more waves (there are 10x more bacteria and viruses in a human body than there are human cells).

I think would be easier to believe that the creative intelligence is separate from living things, and either has a sick sense of humor, or just isn't that smart. — CasKev

The good news is that your reading and comprehension abilities are still evolving so maybe sometime in the future, you might want re-read what I wrote.

every living thing has a genetic program that is periodically altered by this intelligent force. — CasKev

Nothing is being altered. It is all just evolving in response to what it is experiencing. It is a continuity of life (memory and creative intelligence) through duration.

There is an creative intelligence within all of us (to be more precise, is us) and it i it's manifesting and interacting in many, many different forms and ways. The result is always unpredictable because everything is constantly learning and changing.

It's astonishing and impressive beyond words what evolution produced when it produced the animals, including us! — Michael Ossipoff

Life is definitely changing all the time. What is disparaging is that this disgusting idea that Natural Selection is creating the change based upon who is fittest? As if the Nazis who survived deserved to survive while those that they killed weren't "fit" to survive. And it is this grotesque story of evolution that is being taught in schools?

What is evolving (or changing) is creative intelligence that is experimenting and learning and all life forms are doing this and they may (or may not) find different ways of survival among the multitude of other things they are experimenting with in life. This is why we have so many different life forms all acting together in some way.

I think it is a fact that you bade me farewell. Oh, well, such is the fluid universe we live in.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/141226/is-there-an-objective-external-reality-according-to-quantum-physics

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by immobility. — TheMadFool

Attempting to create a constant state of truth in a universe that is constantly changing in all manner and views.

For example, in one case something is good and in another case it is bad. Ok. That is the nature of human experience as it shifts its attention.

I want proof for every one of your statements in everyone if your posts.

There’s nothing in our experience to suggest that we’re anything other than animals.
— Michael Ossipoff

This is categorically false, assuming "our" refers to the entirety of humanity throughout all of history. — Noble Dust

We all believe what we believe and these beliefs change over time. Some beliefs are more harmful to certain groups or populations of life than other beliefs.

Where things go awry, is when certain mystical beliefs, such as Natural Selection (which is a code for Natural Supremacy), is taught as some sort of objective fact in educational environments. This little idea should be taught in philosophy classes and subject to the same sort of scrutiny as determinism and other elite seeking philosophies. Instead, it is taught as "settled science" in grade school in order to present a scientific religion to children that stands in opposition to what is being taught in religious institutions.

I've said on other threads, paradoxes always arise when one tries to create an objective (immobile) Truth. So if you want to eliminate paradoxes just ceases trying to find the immobile in a mobile universe. But if you want to keep hunting for the Immobility, then what you will find are paradoxes.

All if the sudden everyone wants proof of what is out there when for 100 years physics had been saying it is impossible to know. Until it is viewed, it can only be said it is in a quantum state. What's more, it is all entangled and there are no boundaries. The universe is not a bunch is solid, distinct things. Wheeler theorized the universe as a quantum foam.

But Hitler is a bad man compared to Jesus. — TheMadFool

Anyone is free to make any comparisons s/he wishes to. I'm sure there are always lots of opinions on all issues?

What is wrong with this is that you see the car as nothing but a quantum thingy. Why not see it as a cup and a quantum thingy? — Banno

I can definitely see a cup, but I have to see it.

This is absolutely key to understanding the philosophical issue. Until I see it, it is .....??????

Thanks at least for getting too the crux of the issue whether or not you agree with me.

I don't care about the quantum definition of a teacup. Quanta is your nonsensical fixation. — Thanatos Sand

I know you don't.

Oh, those good old days of Aristotle and Newton. We do miss them don't we? Life was so much simpler.

Evidence?? Of what?? There is nothing there except quanta. You find me the quantum definition of a teacup. It doesn't exist. You are making it up with your mind and then want to insert it into the .... where? Your own textbook on physics?

Sorry. Absolutely nothing but quanta. Everything else is wishful thinking of your own mind.

There are only quantum states. Whatever you and the neurologists wish to make up does not change that physicists can only find quanta. There is no glass nor is there shape. Just the probability equation and what is observed by humans. It has to be observed.

Objectivists can't stand this and are praying for the day for quantum theory to be overturned as Einstein did until his death. Sorry. No wiggle room on this one.

Nope. Philosophers have to learn that there is nothing out there except systems in a a quantum state. Forget about this stuff about atoms. Plus there are no boundaries. None.

Right. There is teacup floating out there.

Let's be totally clear here. Science only recognizes systems in quantum states. How it is morphed into a thing is totally a subject of metaphysical speculation.

As with Natural Laws, science once again invents out of thin air, a supernatural force called Natural Selection (everything in scientific Genesis is Natural) that guides and controls life, and then elevates this new force to some weird ontology. Atheists accept these stories because they have their own religion called Scientism for which there is zero evidence other than faith.

So it is not like the religious right just invented potential harmful effects of the theory . — Andrew4Handel

I would like to be very clear on this point. Natural Selection does not simply produce the extremely harmful and murderous effects. On the contrary, it's whole invention was to justify what was happening at the time and all times afterwards. Money and power invented and nurtured Natural Selection as a justification in lieu of God which was and is continued to be used as justification for similar activities. It removes responsibility from individuals and places it in some supernatural force, whatever the name. If course, the Greeks did the same thing, so such efforts have a very long history.

I agree

Can I praise and love Hitler because, well, he's good(!!!) compared to the Devil? — TheMadFool

Of course. Millions of people share this view.

Logic parlor games do not and cannot replace or describe life experiences. That it might is an artifact of academia.

To create, explore, learn, and evolve (and this goes on for multiple physical lives).

Well, I can't really say much about what the hypothetical joe blow thinks about this. A brain absent a mind is a non-functional brain, I imagine. — Wosret

A brain? But this is the rub, isn't it? Now watch the physicalists come out of hiding. Here comes the non-mind mind in the non-third-person person to create the brain.

It is a video not a photo. It is worth a look. Science is not just about facts but it can impose and support pernicious brutal theories about human status. That video highlights how theory was imposed on the world to justify abuses and hierarchies and inaction and genocide. — Andrew4Handel

I think it is reasonable to look at the historical genesis of "theories". Natural selection it's a direct result of nations and populations seeking "scientific" justification for their social superiority and the imposition of imperialism during the 1800s. This is strictly a European view of life and the war machine it was building to control large swatches of the world.

I would like to repeat there is as much evidence of Natural Selection as there is it God's Chosen. It is simply a reformulation of an old story. How do we know they are selected? Well they survived didn't they?

There are a multitude number of reasons people live the lives they do, and Natural Selection addresses none of them. It is a story created for a purpose. Money and power molds science.