Perhaps if you start by learning what a metaphor is. Then perhaps one day you’ll discover who was scrambling and who was straightening … and the use and limits of metaphor.
… none of which has to do with the point that odor is not a molecule (over-materialization).
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
There are better arguments for your position than the ones you’re giving. Do you want to swap and you be the one reducing mind to matter and I’ll take the opposite stance?
So you’ve resorted to telling me that I need to understand a metaphor? James, don’t let your ego ruin this conversation.
[/quote]
Your ego had already beat me to it.
No there are not. You are simply not following.
What do you think the “opposite stance” is? And what makes you are in opposition to me?
… like I said … just not following.
James, your ego. Please.
If you think that one side or the other in the mind/body debate can defeat the other, then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem or the means by which it must be addressed.
To play this game, you can’t actually believe that the problem can be resolved. It’s an exercise in critical thinking and constructing arguments. Ad homs are evidence of poor arguments.
And if you think that an ingrained drugged up perspective gives you an edge, “then you’re not understanding the nature of the problem”.
I’ll tell you once more, You are not following the conversation.
So you’re sticking with your attack the man strategy here? Very disappointed James. If you’re better than that, then act like it.
I mean, just how much ego does it take to presume that you’ve solved the mind/body problem? Really.
You’re typing in your sleep.
I see. Your argument is very persuasive. You’ve just officially solved the mind/body problem. Good work buddy. I’m proud of you.
surreptitious57 wrote:
For example, there is no proven explanation for a living cell to form from nonliving molecules, it is impossible and the Big Bang concept is an evolutionary idea, that has never been proven and should be left empty. Science is supposed to be knowledge, that is demonstrated, observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proven, or even tested, only believed. As in religion, christians believe it to be true and acknowledge the fact that they believe it. In science, however, it is not supposed to be something one 'believes", science is essentially knowledge and evolution is something not proven or tested, yet there are scientists who accept this unproven concept and believe it, so this essentially creates a religious element out of evolution. Amazing.
new science … new to humans that is … usually follows imagination … or by accident … without imagination how much new science would we have?
one could argue that imagination is the “mother” of science.
For example … take Einstein’s theory of relativity … he imagined it … others proved it.
maas.museum/inside-the-collecti … alia-1922/
We all have a faculty for imagination … though some argue that the world’s education systems … at least some … those school systems reserved for the privileged class may be an exception … are designed to suppress imagination/creativity
While nothing before the Cosmic Microwave Background can be observed as it is too opaque to light it does not mean there is no evidence for the Big Bang. For
it is not an event that only happened in the past but one that is happening now. The Big Bang will only become a past event when the expansion of space stops
It is true that evolution cannot be proven. But that is because proof is a formal procedure applicable to axiomatically complete systems of deductive logic. Such
as mathematics and syllogisms. It does not apply to science as that is primarily an inductive discipline. Science only references disproof not proof. But this aside evolution has probably the largest body of evidence to support any scientific theory. As not only does it occur but it can do so within a human lifetime. Between
1988 - 2014 experiments conducted at Michigan University by Richard Lenski from only an initial dozen populations of E coli produced 60 000 generations. Which resulted in variation within speciation and the evolutionary development of new traits not present in the original samples. And this is merely one example of the absolutely overwhelming evidence for evolution which has been observed at both macro and micro levels. Indeed it has so much evidence for it it needs no more
Einstein famously said that imagination was more important than knowledge and by that he meant it should be used to discover new [ scientific ]
knowledge. Pre existing knowledge by virtue of already being known requires zero imagination. So in that scenario one could say that knowledge
and imagination were two sides of the same coin : one pertaining to what was already known and the other pertaining to what was still unknown
What are you smoking these days?
As I said, I think of it as being both, matter and non-matter, but that’s just me. It is both a sensation (smell) but at the same time that sensation IS derived from chemicals (matter).
Read the full explanation.
Is this some newly-found phase that you’re going through? Calling people who you know to be women dudes?
Nice that someone got it.
Thank you, James. 
I so enjoy being a woman.
Someone says “I smell a rat”
Both utterances flow from the same fountain … the mind.
I see no distinction. 
