5 ms·

> And on the materialist side we have similar quackery with phrenology, bogus medicines... Yes, but the key distinction here is that phrenology or bogus medici

> And on the materialist side we have similar quackery with phrenology, bogus medicines... Yes, but the key distinction here is that phrenology or bogus medicine are testable. If you claim phrenology predicts something but then statistics show that this isn't the case, phrenology is proven wrong. It's more difficult with medicine, but it's at least possible. Furthermore, we know that many of our "materialist" theories in physics are wrong. We know it because they disagree with experiment. However, they still have enough predictive power to be very useful. > ...Darwinian evolution, and the like. I'm not sure what you mean here. The principles behind Darwinian evolution are easily reproduced. Re-creating billions of years of evolution in a lab would be difficult, of course. > The important question is whether one paradigm allows us to explain reality better than the other, and dualism does this very well. I don't think it does it well at all. An explanation that you can not test isn't useful. In fact, a wrong explanation that you can test is more useful. There's an infinite number of "dualist" explanations, all of which we cannot test. So which one to choose? Why stop at dualism, why not make it trialism? Why not infinitism? Why not just say that there's an infinite number of intangible interactions, that every mind in the universe is connected with every other mind through a mesh spanning an infinite-dimensional hyperplane? You can't prove that this isn't the case, why not believe that one instead? > There is no materialistic explanation for consciousness, free will, abstract thought or mathematics. Well, so what? All of the "dualist" explanations are equally useless, so I might as well do without any explanation whatsoever. > Instead, those who follow materialism strictly end up denying such things, and we end up with incoherent and inaccurate theories about the world. Inaccurate and incoherent theories that are testable can nevertheless be very useful. Coherent theories that are untestable are useless, unless maybe you can turn them into a religious cult.

yters 7y ago
Why do you assume dualism is not testable? Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. Just read any modern bioinformatics book. There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. Koonin even promotes a form of neo-Lamarkianism. Darwin's unique contributions to the theory of evolution have been experimentally discredited. You can easily disprove Darwin yourself with all the genomic data that is online these days.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Why do you assume dualism is not testable? I assume that your conception of dualism is not testable because, in your own words, it is "beyond anything in this physical universe". If it's beyond the physical universe, it cannot be observed and therefore it can not be tested. Otherwise, it would be part of physics and the physical universe just like gravity, if only hitherto unknown. > Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. So is the general theory of relativity. Yet, it's "right enough" to allow us to make sufficiently accurate predictions about the physical world. Furthermore, one theory being wrong doesn't make other theories "more right". > There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As you say yourself, that's besides random mutation and natural selection, not instead. It would be a miracle if somehow Darwin could have gotten all of the details right with the tools available to him. Also, in science everything is an approximation to some degree, there are always factors you disregard so that you can actually perform a prediction in a finite amount of time. There's variance and uncertainty in every measurement. > As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. There's no "ultimate explanation" for anything. It's turtles all the way down.
  - yters 7y ago
    It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. If the physical universe is a medium, like our computers, they can transmit information from other entities without the entities themselves being embedded in the computers. It sounds like your argument begs the question by first assuming everything that interacts with us must be physical. Darwin's mechanisms do not explain anything in evolution. All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. Darwinian evolution is dead and died a long time ago. Modern evolution is very much non-Darwinian.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. It's the other way around. If it can be observed, it interacts with matter. If it interacts with matter, it is within the domain of physics, by definition. I don't understand why you have a problem with this. Physicists are well aware that we do not understand all the interactions and we do keep discovering more and more interesting phenomena, such as quantum entanglement. > All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. I don't know where this criticism comes from, but it sounds like a straw man. Natural selection may select against "complexity and diversity", but random mutation puts "complexity and diversity" back in the game.

yters 7y ago

Why do you assume dualism is not testable? Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. Just read any modern bioinformatics book. There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. Koonin even promotes a form of neo-Lamarkianism. Darwin's unique contributions to the theory of evolution have been experimentally discredited. You can easily disprove Darwin yourself with all the genomic data that is online these days.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Why do you assume dualism is not testable? I assume that your conception of dualism is not testable because, in your own words, it is "beyond anything in this physical universe". If it's beyond the physical universe, it cannot be observed and therefore it can not be tested. Otherwise, it would be part of physics and the physical universe just like gravity, if only hitherto unknown. > Also, Darwinian evolution is well known to be false. So is the general theory of relativity. Yet, it's "right enough" to allow us to make sufficiently accurate predictions about the physical world. Furthermore, one theory being wrong doesn't make other theories "more right". > There are a whole host of other mechanisms besides Malthusian pressure, random mutation and natural selection that are used to explain evolution nowadays. As you say yourself, that's besides random mutation and natural selection, not instead. It would be a miracle if somehow Darwin could have gotten all of the details right with the tools available to him. Also, in science everything is an approximation to some degree, there are always factors you disregard so that you can actually perform a prediction in a finite amount of time. There's variance and uncertainty in every measurement. > As Eugene Koonin says, the modern synthesis is really a sort of postmodern evolution, where there is no ultimate explanation for how it works. There's no "ultimate explanation" for anything. It's turtles all the way down.
- yters 7y ago
  It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. If the physical universe is a medium, like our computers, they can transmit information from other entities without the entities themselves being embedded in the computers. It sounds like your argument begs the question by first assuming everything that interacts with us must be physical. Darwin's mechanisms do not explain anything in evolution. All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. Darwinian evolution is dead and died a long time ago. Modern evolution is very much non-Darwinian.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > It doesn't follow that for something to be observed it must be part of physics. It's the other way around. If it can be observed, it interacts with matter. If it interacts with matter, it is within the domain of physics, by definition. I don't understand why you have a problem with this. Physicists are well aware that we do not understand all the interactions and we do keep discovering more and more interesting phenomena, such as quantum entanglement. > All of his mechanisms select against increased complexity and diversity, so are useless to explain the origin of species as he originally claimed. I don't know where this criticism comes from, but it sounds like a straw man. Natural selection may select against "complexity and diversity", but random mutation puts "complexity and diversity" back in the game.