Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.11 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2016, 06:21 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2016 06:38 AM by unfogged.)
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(04-09-2016 05:52 PM)xear Wrote:  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...

Yes, I understand that biocentrism isn't exactly the same as solipsism but there is considerable overlap in the way they refer to reality and perception of it.

Quote: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.

Do you have a single shred of evidence that your consciousness is connected in any way to the consciousness of another? When you do, please present it. Until then you are just talking out of your ass.

Quote: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.

Dreams are at least well explained as the brain sorting and organizing memories and considering alternatives.

Quote: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.

Wishful thinking at best. The evidence is that "life" is a label we place on an emergent phenomenon and when the organism dies the organization is lost and the attributes that make up "life" cease. You would need to find a way to test your conjecture that there is some ephemeral life force that exists apart from organisms that exhibit it. With no evidence for that you are, again, talking out of your ass.


(05-09-2016 04:05 AM)xear Wrote:  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.

My acceptance of materialism is based on the evidence of how things work. It is far from useless as it provides a reliable guide to living my life. Belief in an unevidenced life force of some kind that pervades some things but not others and can't be demonstrated or tested in any way is wat I would call useless.

Quote: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.

You do not understand the scientific view at all. Faith plays no part in it. Evidence is the key and every shred of evidence we have shows that life is an emergent property of some things. When you have evidence that there is something else that is animating things it will be considered. When you can explain why animals are alive but rocks are not because of the way this force operates and can offers ways to test the conjecture or make predictions about where we will find life that is contrary to accepted opinion then it will be considered. Until then you are just a nutjob promoting new-age woo.

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

The problem with faith is that you can use it to believe literally anything. Faith is not a path to truth. In this case it appears to have lead you to accept a lot of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Quote:The idea that life cannot exist in its own native dimension without physical bodies is not possible to prove or disprove,

You don't need to prove it. You need to provide evidence that supports the conjecture and runs contrary to other explanations. You need to demonstrate that it is possible and that it explains things that we can investigate.

Quote: 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.

You can demonstrate brain activity patterns that indicate various emotional states. You can measure the neurochemical levels, heart rate, adrenaline, etc associated with various emotional states. You can see the facial expressions, vocal tones, and action of people experiencing various emotional states. We have considerable evidence that love, happiness, and fun exist. We have no evidence for any "native dimension" where emotions originate; what we have is evidence that they are brain states that can be measured as well as experienced.

I think you have a serious problem conflating the label for the experience. "Love" is a label for a physical condition. It isn't some kind of force that invades the body.

Quote: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.

If there was a single unified life force that explains love then it does not explain hate. There is nothing about emotions being the product of the brain in relation to its environment that makes love, hate, or any other emotion surprising. Your biocentrism conjecture falls short in explaining this.

Quote: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.

It can be demonstrated how they interfere with receptors in the brain which alters the perceptions. If "life" was an external force manipulating or invading the body I wouldn't expect it to be so seriously affected by physical changes to the brain. If it was I'd question why the effect was limited to individual and didn't affect others nearby as it rippled through this field. The idea that consciousness and perception are products of the brain is wholly consistent with the effects of drugs and physical injury to the brain. Your biocentrism conjecture falls short in explaining this.

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

NDEs, like drugs, are explainable as the product of a dying brain. That explains why people tend to see the images that they expect to see. With biocentrism I'd expect consistent reports and not individual, often contradictory, religious experiences. Your biocentrism conjecture falls short in explaining this.

(05-09-2016 04:22 AM)xear Wrote:  This is probably the most common immediate objection to the theory. However, several things to keep in mind: First, let's not be sloppy with our language.

Yes, please. This is not a theory. A theory is a well-tested hypothesis that explains all observed phenomena and makes predictions about what results we should expect from new tests. Biocentrism makes no testable claims and barely qualifies as a conjecture.

Quote:Life, in fact, isn't made of matter; life is a quality that matter may or may not be seen to possess — similar to other qualities that matter may display, such as nuclear instability, incandescence, or mass. (The distinction between living matter and life is like the difference between a massive object and mass itself.) Just as we wouldn't say that mass or charge or velocity is made of matter, neither should we say the same about life.

Mass is a measure of matter. I have no idea what distinction you are making.

Quote:Second, parallel "chicken-and-egg" questions can be asked of the conventional cosmology as well, such as: Where was mass before the Big Bang? What was matter doing before space gave it somewhere to exist? What was the cosmic singularity made of, if not energy or matter or space or time? But these sound silly to us, because we accept that they don't really have answers.

They don't sound silly; they are just questions to which we do not yet have answers. They are avenues of exploration, not license to make up whatever crap you think sounds good.

Quote:The difficulty or paradox in the original question arises when we assume that the first organism had to be in one particular, fully defined molecular state, like cells we look at under a microscope today, with all of the atoms and complex interacting systems of our modern, human-observed world.

Cells are fairly advanced in the evolutionary process. I'm not a scientist but it is painfully obvious that you have only a cartoon understanding of what you are arguing against.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
05-09-2016, 06:33 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 05:44 AM)xear Wrote:  If that is true maybe you could make your argument for materialism concisely without name calling and highlight the exact points you have proven for materialism and I have failed to prove for biocentrism.

There are points that you have proven for biocentrism? Making unsubstantiated claims is not evidence, let alone proof, especially when you can't point to anything that is better explained under biocentrism than it is under accepted science.

(05-09-2016 06:03 AM)xear Wrote:  Without proof you just have another belief.

Proof is a red herring. Without evidence you have just another useless belief. With overwhelming evidence you have a reasonable belief. There is a difference.

And I'm still waiting to find out in what way plants are aware.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
05-09-2016, 06:38 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
"So far it hasnt been disproven that matter, space, time and energy creates life..."

So let's be clear... your criteria for materialism is that it hasn't been disproven. And that critieria is unacceptable for biocentrism?

So we have two beliefs that have not been proven. The materialist belief will be proven as soon as science creates its first life form out of only matter, space, time and energy... i.e. not coming from another life form.
So far that has not happened.

So, in the meantime we just have a discussion of which belief makes more sense... isn't that correct?

We are now just discussing which unproven and possibly unprovable belief makes more sense.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 06:51 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:Proof is a red herring. Without evidence you have just another useless belief. With overwhelming evidence you have a reasonable belief. There is a difference.

And I'm still waiting to find out in what way plants are aware.

Yes proof is a red herring, so we are discussing who has more reasonable beliefs. Exactly.

How are plants aware?

aware: having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

alive: (of a person, animal, or plant) living, not dead.

Life: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.
"the origins of life"
synonyms: existence, being, living, animation, aliveness, animateness; entity, sentience, creation, survival, viability.



I think you are making a good point on this. Something can be alive without being aware. Plants may be alive without being aware, however it would seem they perceive water and sunlight in which case they would be aware as defined above.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 06:58 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 06:38 AM)xear Wrote:   "So far it hasnt been disproven that matter, space, time and energy creates life..."

So let's be clear... your criteria for materialism is that it hasn't been disproven. And that critieria is unacceptable for biocentrism?

So we have two beliefs that have not been proven. The materialist belief will be proven as soon as science creates its first life form out of only matter, space, time and energy... i.e. not coming from another life form.
So far that has not happened.

So, in the meantime we just have a discussion of which belief makes more sense... isn't that correct?

We are now just discussing which unproven and possibly unprovable belief makes more sense.

.

So did you even notice the following statement after that quote?

Quote:...all availiable evidence points towards matter, space, time and energy creating life
Have we anything observed, verifiably, that is evidence for biocentrism? Consistent with biocentrism only!

That means the burden of proof is upon you, but there is evidence that life comes from matter.

Look in the mirror, you are made of matter, you are alive.

If you have evidence of something not made of matter, but still alive, provide that evidence. Drinking Beverage

We already know that this isn't possible and you have no evidence, the evidence for materialism is axiomatic.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-09-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
If we are agreed that we are just discussing who has more reasonable unproven beliefs, then what is the criteria for reasonable?

It can only be something subjective to each person and therefore likely annoying to the next person as we've already seen in some of the exchanges on this thread.




.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:04 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 05:44 AM)xear Wrote:  If that is true maybe you could make your argument for materialism concisely without name calling and highlight the exact points you have proven for materialism and I have failed to prove for biocentrism.


All observable life is made of matter and energy, and exists within time; no exceptions.


Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' without these properties? Has anyone ever observed anything that could be defined as 'life' creating matter, energy, or time ex nihilo?




Well fuck, you sure did show me homeboy... Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:06 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
Quote:That means the burden of proof is upon you, but there is evidence that life comes from matter.

What is that evidence again?





.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2016, 07:06 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:01 AM)xear Wrote:  If we are agreed that we are just discussing who has more reasonable unproven beliefs, then what is the criteria for reasonable?

It can only be something subjective to each person and therefore likely annoying to the next person as we've already seen in some of the exchanges on this thread.

False equivocation.

Your belief is unfalsifiable, you stupid wanker. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
05-09-2016, 07:09 AM
RE: Commonly Used Debate Arguments for Dummies
(05-09-2016 07:06 AM)xear Wrote:  
Quote:That means the burden of proof is upon you, but there is evidence that life comes from matter.

What is that evidence again?





.


All life ever observed is composed of matter. Life is, at it's most basic form, just very complex chemistry. Life is matter and energy and chemical reactions.

But nothing has been observed that can create matter, energy, or time ex nihilo; let alone anything that would fit the definition of 'life' as we currently understand it. Kinda hard to be alive without the chemicals reactions that compose life, such as before the existence of matter itself (if such an existence was even possible or ever existed).



How do chemical reactions create matter, energy, and time out of nothing? Your move fucknut.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: