Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:33pm PT
|
"Not sure"
Now you're thinkin'!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
|
What's the difference between...
a) an evolution denier and b) a mechanistics denier?
Mark Force, are you an evolution denier?
You proud of this?
My opinion: a) you shouldn't be so "agnostic" that you're indecisive. b) turning to the ancients is fine to a point - but this is the 21st century now.
I thought "disingenuous" was one of your word of the day entries.
It's hard to be a mechanistics denier (1) when you've had years and years of physics, chemistry, biology and systems engineering (to name just four categories); (2) when you're determined to "live up to" your science edu and training.
Things aren't nearly so easy or black n white as your posts imply. Sorry.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:48pm PT
|
^^^^
Trolling for the gullible.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:51pm PT
|
In what way, my favorite ST post-modernist? lol
Actually both Mark Force and Dr. F remind of that cartoon... I wonder if I can find it... poking fun at the "free will" arguments - or fantasies - based on something somewhere being "free" of physics, chemistry, biology, causation.
Till I find it... "Show me the evidence."
Without evidence, just who here is (a) trolling, (b) mocking or downplaying science, (c) being disingenous, (d) showing lack of due diligence in the subject matter, (e) all the above.
Food for thought at this dinner hour. :)
Hear hear! for google...
"But it's part of the brain that's out there... just being kinda free."
How are these "mechanistic deniers" any different? lol!
You guys take ten years plus in physical sciences (engineering physics to control engineering) AND life sciences (incl mol bio, bio chem, neuroscience) perhaps working all that time in a univ research environ and get back to me. Nickels to navy beans you won't be such a denier at that point. Nor such an "agnostic" if that's your preferred term.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:06pm PT
|
A will (volition) "free" of demonic possession is one thing. A will (volition) "free" of physics, chem and biol (or systems) is another. You should get your concepts and definitions and contexts staight if you hope to work through this issue instead of forever floundering in it. My two cents.
...
Trolling for the gullible. -MikeL
Per usual, not much there.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:17pm PT
|
Mark Force, are you an evolution denier?
HFCS, That's pathetic as is your post above insulting MikeL. It makes you look small.
You have a recurrent tendency to reduce others' contributions to simplistic absurdities rather than show discipline and engage in an actual conversation. It's disrespectful, uncivil and discourages productive discourse.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:25pm PT
|
Mark F,
(1) Why don't you answer the questions for a change instead of sidestepping them (shirking them?) with your cliches or feigned (moral) outrage . (2) Look at my posts again, they are quite concise, to the point, aphoristic. (3) Re MikeL, Sorry I don't suffer post-modernists or post-modernism as many others do here (perhaps by not even recognizing its manifestation).
This was fun.
..
But the question remains... Where the rubber meets the road, what's really the difference between an evolution denier and a mechanistics denier?
Why not answer the question?
For extra credit... What's really the difference between (a) belief in God Zeus or God Quetzalcoatl and (b) belief in God Jehovah/God Jesus as personal intervening gods? Don't shirk these questions. Answer them for a change.
There's no disingenuousness here. Only relevant issues and questions that Epictetus and other ancients obviously cannot answer. So why keep alluding to them.
Are you seriously going to contend that 40% in America do not "believe in" a personal intervening God? incl several right here on this site; or that 80% plus in the Islamic world (the conservatives and fundamentalists) do not?
It's time to get real man.
I am a free speech fundamentalist. Are you? There's been no name-calling, ad hominem or bigotry, etc here on my part. Only honest forthright mention of the relevant issues that many can't seem to get past, only to go round and round on. If the truth hurts, sorry but not sorry.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:31pm PT
|
Edit: Craig once again deleted his post. So the running dialog at this point is discontinuous.
Really he (Edit: Mark Force, that is) doesn't get back on anything. He sidesteps. To employ a favorite term here, he rather shuck and jives.
A couple weeks ago, I asked him in all candor and seriousness... If the world were entirely 100% mechanistics, what would he think of that?
Crickets.
So who for starters is disingenuous? Talk about "flipping the script."
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:34pm PT
|
If you believe I am an evolution denier, I believe you have never digested anything you've ever read that I've written previously or there's an organic issue of some kind in your "CPU." Are you OK?
You're that guy that doesn't actually listen to what other people are saying because you're too busy coming up with the cool and smart thing you're going to "say" next.
Afterlife? You got the wrong guy, you must be thinking of someone else.
Do you guys actually read what I write?
Side step?
Craig and HFCS, Hmm, let me clear this up since you guys seem dense.
Evolution is the real deal.
There is no proof of an after life.
And mechanism is a useful model and incomplete. An anology would be that Newtonian physics is incredibly useful and incomplete.
I love hanging out with folks into science, especially natural sciences and particularly neurology and biochemistry. People practicing the science mindset and in it with both feet. These guys and gals are fun! Their practice makes them humble and immersed in wonder.
You guys don't come off that way. You come off as worshippers of scientism rather than practitioners of science. You come off as completely proud and completely sure. Those who I know practice science are quite sure about certain things, not sure about certain things and inspired by the wonder about what is suggested and yet to be known.
And, I could be completely mistaken, because people sometimes come off differently online than they are in real life, but the impression that you both make is that you like being dicks and you're pretty good at it.
You guys also come across as boorish. That's not the general tone around here.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:40pm PT
|
If you believe I am an evolution denier... -Mark F
Where's YOUR comprehension? Of course you're not an evolution denier. That was rhetoric on my part to make the point that - in this 21st century day and age and after decades long interdisciplinary science edu and training - it's no more sensible to be an mechanistics denier than an evolution denier. Read my posts "more better" please.
Do you guys actually read what I write?
lol
...or there's an organic issue of some kind in your "CPU." Are you OK?"
Oh now I'm hurt!! Where can I report this?!! You triggered me!! Damn you, that's "pathetic"!!!
lol
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:48pm PT
|
You're game is old and shallow.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:50pm PT
|
oh boy
...
One final chance: Rephrasing: If you think denying evolution is retro, baseless, without merit, etc then why not same for denying mechanistics?
Did you ever take a physics, chemistry, biology or control engineering course where in ANY chapter of ANY text or lecture a part of ANY system (eg, molecule, cell membrane protein switch, Kreb cycle step, transistor gate, etc) is described as "free" of causation?
I never did. If you did, name it? And if you can't, then you've got zero evidence pointing to incausal indeterminism in a nonmechanistic context - against a backdrop of tons and tons and tons of compelling convergent evidence FOR mechanistics.
I cannot really ask it any more simply than that. Plain as day to anyone trained in the corresponding subject matter.
So instead of getting angry or defensive or texting ad hominems why not just respond candidly and forthrightly to these questions? They are right pertinent and "avant garde" to the age we find ourselves living in.
Ad ideam, doc.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:04pm PT
|
One final chance? To become simple? I have too much love for science and wonder for everything I experience and have yet to know. I'll stick with that tribe that loves looking at the edge of the known. That's the juice and I certainly won't give that up to join the cult of scientism - it's a shadow of science.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:05pm PT
|
Crickets. Per usual.
I perceive you as a mechanistics denier (cf: "evolution denier" for a parallelism).
And insofar as you deny "mechanism" (the philosophical ism term), in other words, our complete worldly and biologic mechanistic nature, as you've indicated in several of your past posts directly or indirectly...
why not own it?
Show courage and own it.
Admit you are a mechanistics denier (aka mechanism denier).
Not an evolution denier (of course not) but a mechanistics denier.
OWN IT.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:06pm PT
|
Science is what is out beyond the next unknown.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:15pm PT
|
The question for Mark Force remains unanswered...
Did you ever take a physics, chemistry, biology or control engineering course where in ANY chapter of ANY text or lecture a part of ANY system (eg, molecule, cell membrane protein switch, Kreb cycle step, transistor gate, etc) is described as "free" of causation?
My fellow lover of science, step up the plate and take the swing!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:21pm PT
|
HFCS, You seem to want the argument to be a very reductionistic one. You are welcome to call me a mechanistic denier if you'd like.
Does that feel better?
I still consider myself agnostic because my work makes me humble about what I know.
"We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that."
~ Marcus Aurelius
Right now I'm really into curating genetics in patients to help them solve chronic systemic illnesses. It's really fascinating work. You go through the various genes that control specific genes and attempt to summate the influence of the polymorphic SNPs that comprise that gene and all the other genes that can influence it and the outcome in terms of gene expression on enzyme activity and the resultant cellular metabolism and organ and systems functions.
My interest is determining the genes resulting in the patient presentation and using biochemical/nutritional and neurological interventions for their cumulative epigenetic effects.
You see some really cool stuff from that approach on follow up exams. You see people heal in amazing ways.**
It's really exciting and it's at an edge of known and makes it very tangible about how much is not known and how much more complex systems are than our knowledge. Exciting and humbling.
**curation of my wife's genetic testing resulted in finding variants limiting expression of molybdenum oxotransferases and after 3 months of targeted nutritional support, the epigenetic effect allows here to eat potatoes and pork for the first time in decades. We get to have BLTs together once more. Ahh, the wonders of science!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:27pm PT
|
You have a recurrent tendency to reduce others' contributions to simplistic absurdities rather than show discipline and engage in an actual conversation.
That's because he's learned from my sorry experience.
To whit:
You CANNOT address these questions in rigorous fashion in a forum thread without being accused of "walls of text! Walls of test! Gagggg... ackkkk... pukkkkkeeeee."
So, he enjoys the benefits of appearing "wise" without having to subject himself to genuine scrutiny, because people like me that have attempted to take him on just get browbeaten to death.
So, if you're not gonna take the time and space to write rigorously on such subjects (and be prepared to then try to juggle responses to 10 different (superficial) counter-arguments simultaneously, while trying to ignore the bleats of pain from people that have a reading comprehension that really can't span as many as five sentences, well, then it's better to treat these threads as "for entertainment purposes only" and pretty much leave them alone.
Ooops, I just violated my above principle!
Physical laws made "me" do it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:31pm PT
|
Oh MB1,
if there's no ghost in the machine, what remains?
No WOT here. :)
...
"HFCS, You seem to want the argument to be a very reductionistic one."
Actually, I'd probably prefer the ghost in the machine in the traditional sense. That might be fun. It's certainly easier to conceive. But the evidence just doesn't support it.
The evidence - and it is richly compelling evidence across the sweep of science - supports (a) evolution (which btw is mechanistic, physical) and (b) mechanistics (aka mechanism).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:32pm PT
|
^^^ LOL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!