Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2016, 09:17 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
My original reply was a bit harsh (like usual Blush ) but only in response to the condescending remarks about scientits by the OP. People being dismissive about scientists often dont have a clue what these science dudes are doing.

So i will explain a bit further. From what i have read Biocentrism is rather a philosophy than a science, and if someone like Krauss states that under Biocentrism our complete set of sciences wont be affected at all, then i tend to believe him. He is a smart man, and i can see that f.e. gravity or germ theory wont/cant be affected by Biocentrism. At least i dont see why and how. Philosophy and science ar two different things, and philosophy is usually working with the results science presents (scientist invent the nuke, philosophers consider the effect on society, morals, etc).

Now being a proponent of a philosophy and attacking science points towards two possible scenarios to me

1) he doesnt know the difference (like an orange trying to attack apples Laugh out load )
2) he is unaware that a philosopher attacking science in general is like a man sitting in a tree sawing off the branch he is sitting on

Both propositions are not favourable for the OP. So i think he may want to reconsider his position and statements.

My strongest point against biocentrism is however:
If it doesnt make falsifiable predictions its a hypothesis at best (if we consider it to be in competition with science and scientific theories) to me. I am very sceptical about such things, because it took lots of scientists centuries of work to give man such a comprehensive view on all of reality, and as i said: it.fucking.works.so.far, and its the only thing that worked so far in terms of gaining knowledge and making all our lives worth living (more or less at at times Undecided ).

So, if anyone comes along trying to overthrow all of this with just a few arguments, just because we dont know everything yet, sorry, but my threshold for buying into completely new views on reality is rather high. This is not the fault of the new theory/philosophy proposed but due to the verifyable success of science in history.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
04-09-2016, 04:41 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  "...many of the distant object we can currently see.... are pretty sure not to exist 'currently'."

Exactly right. In those cases we are seeing things that don't exist any longer. This demonstrates our subjective experience is the greater reality and what comes [came] first.

Um, wait, what?

How can 'Our' subjectivism (I hope I am doing your thoughts justice) come first when both 'Others' have demonstrably come and gone before us and the physics of the reality around us dictate that things which are further away are (In the manner of their detection) also farther back in time?

To the point that their existence is so far back in time that None of 'Us' existed?

Consider

Please correct any errors I've made in the above statement.

(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Consider

That's...... interesting. So.. if life created everything.. why are there places with no life?

(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Here's the problem and the reason biocentrism will never be accepted: when it is accepted, at that point all the physics research grants for exploring the origins of the Universe dry up, funding ends and those exploring such questions have to go out and get real jobs.

You cannot make someone believe something when his livelihood depends on his not believing it. For this reason biocentrism will always be dismissed at the scholarly levels as crackpot.

Consider

No.. I don't think science/research works that way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Peebothuhul's post
04-09-2016, 05:44 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 04:41 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  How can 'Our' subjectivism (I hope I am doing your thoughts justice) come first when both 'Others' have demonstrably come and gone before us and the physics of the reality around us dictate that things which are further away are (In the manner of their detection) also farther back in time?


It's The Force Luke.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 05:52 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 07:24 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(04-09-2016 05:36 AM)xear Wrote:  Materialism says life evolved out of inanimate matter, space, time.
Biocentrism says matter, space, time evolved out of life.

Please provide a single example of life that does not require space, time, and matter.

Please elaborate on how you can investigate the conjecture that life could exist without those attributes.

Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.




noun: solipsism
the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.

Self:
1. a person's essential being that distinguishes them from others.

What I am describing is not solipsism because although it is true that my consciousness is all that I can with certainty know to exist... that consciousness may not be distinguishable from others. In other words we all participate in a single consciousness. So while there are many separate individuals living separate lives, they are all rooted in a single aliveness. Just as a tree may have several branches and leaves, so too the one aliveness may have separate humans and animals and other creatures.

This also explains the dream idea. In my night time dream I am a character that encounters cars, trains, strange people and these were all made up by my mind. But in the dream I don't think they were made up by my dream character's mind.

Similarly, I see you, my friends, other people as being made up by the one consciousness' mind, not my individual xear mind.

This also explains afterdeath, by the way. For example if my toe gets cut off I don't wonder if my toe ceased to exist, or if it will reincarnate, or have an afterlife. My life simply withdrew from my toe. Similarly, when a human or animal dies perhaps the one life simply withdraws from that form.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 05:59 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:52 PM)xear Wrote:  This also explains afterdeath, by the way.

Wasn't that the sequel to Murder by death?




NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 06:27 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:52 PM)xear Wrote:  ....... In other words we all participate in a single consciousness. So while there are many separate individuals living separate lives, they are all rooted in a single aliveness.

Okay... if we're all sharing the same, single consciousness...

.... Do you know how many fingers am I holding up from my hand behind my back since we're all sharing the same consciousness?

Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 06:51 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 06:27 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  
(04-09-2016 05:52 PM)xear Wrote:  ....... In other words we all participate in a single consciousness. So while there are many separate individuals living separate lives, they are all rooted in a single aliveness.

Okay... if we're all sharing the same, single consciousness...

.... Do you know how many fingers am I holding up from my hand behind my back since we're all sharing the same consciousness?

Consider

I don't think it's a collective consciousness so much as a collective memory and collective processing. Technological advances have often occurred simultaneously. Newton and Leibniz simultaneously discovered the calculus independently. We credit Newton for it but use Leibniz's notation. In a kind of fuck you and your monads sorta way Gottfried.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 07:49 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:52 PM)xear Wrote:  So while there are many separate individuals living separate lives, they are all rooted in a single aliveness.

So you are basically saying the human species is similar to the clonal colony of an Aspen.

Sounds full of truthiness.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2016, 08:06 PM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(03-09-2016 01:19 PM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:Persistence, cause and effect, and consistency together are sufficient evidence of reality.

Persistence, cause and effect, and consistency judged by yourself alone or by others?

If you say by yourself alone then if you get alzheimers or some brain disease things may appear to you inconsistent, without cause and effect, and possibly even without persistence. You would be seeing strange new faces visit you with no idea who they are or where they came from, or why, and you would have to conclude you are in a dream and not in reality.

If you say persistence, cause and effect, and consistency as noted by others, that would mean if you have a dream and all the characters in the dream tell you persistence, cause and effect, and consistency are what is happening here, then you would have to conclude the dream is reality and not a dream.




.

Consistency of observation among people demonstrates an objective reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
05-09-2016, 04:05 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Free clue: if you have a belief that can't be proven wrong then you have a useless belief.

I guess we could say my belief in biocentrism is useless and also your belief in materialism is useless. I thought we had already established they are both simply beliefs.

Thanks for bringing up the proof argument again though. As we've discussed science has not "proven" that matter, space, time and energy creates life. It is something accepted on faith.

Similarly, biocentrism has not proven life creates matter, space, time and energy. Again it is a belief or faith.

The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove, but then arguably nothing in life that is important is provable. Can you prove love exists? Can you prove happiness exists? Can you prove fun exists? No, these things belong to a native dimension beyond the five senses. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

One thing about a theory of everything is that we would like it to be consistent with all of the great discoveries in all fields, such as psychology, theology, psychedelic explorations, near death experiences and others.

Let's just take a few of these.
1. Psychology: In psychology all of the great theoreticians have agreed the one over arching healing modality is love. This is consistent with biocentrism because if there is a single life then all of its forms are unified and unity is another name for love.

2. Psychedelics: Albert Hoffman, Alexander Shulgin, Stan Grof and many brilliant men have explored these substances and said their direct experience is of a realm of Unified Pure Being. Again consistent with biocentrism.

3. Near death experiences: Don't even have to go into it, now in the thousands of experiences and again consistent with biocentrism.



This website answers some common questions about biocentrism.
http://www.biocentricity.net/



.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: