On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: > Non-materialism is not the denial of matter, it just places it as an > epiphenomenon.
it's irrelevant if mater is fundamental or not, either way it wouldn't change the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable. > Darwinism is a computer science theory. It works on DNA but it also works > on solutions to the travelling salesman problem. I don't recall that Darwin solved the travelling salesman problem, but never mind, are you trying to make the case that arithmetic is a non materialistic theory? > If we are living in the dream of a giant turtle, then general relativity > is a valid theory about the rules inside this dream. And the theory that we are living in the dream of a giant turtle is a example of a non materialistic theory that is not falsifiable, and so is the theory that only biology can generate consciousness, and so is the theory that God exists and created the universe but uses all His infinite power to make sure we can never prove it. > the hypothesis that consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter. That is a > materialist theory, That is incorrect. No consciousness theory is a materialist theory because I can't measure consciousness in my lab nor can I prove what is and what is not consciousness from logic or mathematics. > and it's also peepee (not falsifiability, no explanatory power, no > ability to predict anything). That is correct. > You yourself said that you suspect that consciousness is fundamental Yes that is my hunch, but I'll never be able to prove it's true and you'll never be able to prove it's false, so it's not a scientific idea, it's just a philosophical guess. > > and you yourself proclaimed to be a great admirer of evolutionary theory. I am indeed a great admirer of evolutionary theory; what educated person wouldn't be? >So you must believe that Darwinism does not depend on mater being > fundamental. I do believe Darwinism does not depend on mater being fundamental, but what has that to do with the fact that a non-materialistic theory is not falsifiable? >> A language is useless if you're the only one who knows it, and > Bruno's terms are used nowhere except on this list. > > The same is true of all technical acronyms. At some point they were only > known inside a restrict group of people. Most technical acronyms and all unnecessary ones come from 2 groups: 1) Government bureaucrats. 2) People who want to make their dull old shallow ideas sound exciting new and deep, the sort of people who write FPI instead of "I don't know" or "beats me". John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
