nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Economics isn't materialism?: So what if it's not physical? And other answers.
::::::::As to your next point, I counter: what evidence? I have no wish to shoot you down, I wish simply to objectively examine this evidence.
::::::::As to your next point, I counter: what evidence? I have no wish to shoot you down, I wish simply to objectively examine this evidence.
::::::::Probability holds that matches scattered randomly on a table *can* provide a perceived message. Can we decipher the following if we find it in nature? हाँ हम कर सकते है! But could you do it without me to interpret it?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 12:09, 11 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::Probability holds that matches scattered randomly on a table *can* provide a perceived message. Can we decipher the following if we find it in nature? हाँ हम कर सकते है! But could you do it without me to interpret it?--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 12:09, 11 November 2008 (EST)
(unindent) No need to apologise for taking your time to respond; the longer everyone takes, the more time I have for other things!
My comment about the "independent source" was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but because you seemed to think that another source agreeing was somehow a bad thing. However, it ''is'' a source, and has apparently been researched. True, it's not peer-reviewed, but that's not a requirement for something to be a source.
If you are talking about the CP [[information]] page, I can't see how agreement implies that it was influenced by the web-site at all. Simply because it agrees? That's nonsense. And for the record, as the main author of the [[information]] page, I can state categorically that it was ''not'' influenced by that web-site at all.
"''You say that you read the website. Yet you also said you remember nothing of hard drives. I suggest, therefore, that you read it again, as I derived my hard drive argument from that website's expressions.''": We ''are'' talking about the web-site which was the source of the quote in this (Materialism) article, aren't we? [http://cosmicfingerprints.com/iidb.htm This site]? Or more specifically, that ''page'' (as opposed to other pages on the site)? I read it ages ago, but I've also done searches of the page for "hard", "drive" and "disk" and found nothing there relating to hard disks.
What do you mean, "how is this ''not'' biased"? Rather, how ''is'' it biased? You've not demonstrated any bias at all. Bias is someone believing something because of a particular view that they have that influences their beliefs in a non-objective way. You've not shown that the author of that comment had a particular view that influenced that statement in a non-objective way.
Your comment about sanity was not that you believe that you are saner than the population average, but that you are "too sane for society", which implies that you are saner than everyone else. In any case, I do not agree with your definition of insanity.
Why is "add[ing] another necessary dimension to our sphere of perception" a problem? Actually, it wouldn't be doing that anyway. Even if it's not physical, we do already ''perceive'' it, so it wouldn't be adding to our perceptions. What it would be adding to is our understanding, if this is what we believe, that everything that we perceive is physical.
Who says that all that we can perceive is physical? No, I would not claim that information is spiritual. Rather, I guess it could be classified as ''mental''. Yes, the complexity of the science of information ''does'' increase. But since when is ''that'' a problem? The complexity of most areas of science is increasing all the time.
Do you think feelings are physical? I wouldn't. Nobody's suggesting "conjur[ing] new entities willy-nilly". Rather, we are talking about deductions based on observations. Science doesn't (or shouldn't) say, "this is not true because it requires us to add something new to our understanding".
For evidence, see the bibliography section of the [[information]] article.
"''Probability holds that matches scattered randomly on a table *can* provide a perceived message.''": Please explain that, including explaining what you mean by a "perceived" message. And explain who left the message.
"''Can we decipher the following if we find it in nature? हाँ हम कर सकते है!''": First, you would not find that in nature. I can tell that that is something that is the product of an intelligent being. Second, we ''do'' find unknown writing at times, and if there's enough to go on, we ''can'' decipher it. That's if it ''is'' writing or some other code of course. If it's not, then there is nothing to decipher.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 11 November 2008 (EST)