Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website

On 19 Apr, 14:45, b...@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Grumbine) wrote:
In article <1176979065.273859.197...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

someone2 <glenn.spig...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. If it is
not suggesting such a thing, then for clarities sake, should you not
make it clear, as otherwise it might give the wrong impression.

Some history (all of it 'iirc'):

The usenet group which is now called talk.origins (originally net.origins)
has been around for a very long time as these things are measured in
Internet time (Spring, 1984). Over that fairly lengthy expanse of time,
quite a few people have passed through the group providing posts of substance.

The web sitewww.talkorigins.orgdescends from early-mid 1990s efforts
by, iirc, Brett Vickers, then at UCSD, to collect articles and make them
web-accessible. Many of the authors of those early articles no longer
participate in this group, and at least one of our honored posters
(Tero Sand) is deceased.

The site has continued to evolve and move over the decade+ that it
has existed, the people involved have changed, and the content has
changed. One of the changes in content is a migration towards more
substance-oriented vs. flamewar fodder. It's a natural evolution as
the earliest articles were essentially regular newsgroup posts and
the group's purpose is the flamewar. The web site has moved more
towards the science side, a result of which is it being cited as a
source by Science, Nature, educational institutions, and the occasional
conservative columnist (John Derbyshire, in National Review).

So, if you insist that only 'the people responsible' are good enough
for you to talk to, you're out of luck. The people responsible have
never been all together in the newsgroup at the same time. Of those
who have written something which is currently on the site, some are
still here, though not as frequently as when they wrote whatever it
was. Chances are good that if you insist on debating one of
those people, they're not interested.

On the other hand, the way things get onto the site, and new stuff
does make it there regularly, is largely by field-testing here. If
you'll present something of sbustance for debate, there's a chance
of it making it to the web site.

But be clear: You haven't presented anything of substance above
(requoted here for convenience):

If the site is anyway suggesting that we are simply a biological
mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics,
then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject.

What is 'biological mechanism'?
What do you mean by 'simply a biological mechanism'?
Who's 'we'? (the human species, mammals, you and the person you
debate)
'follows the known laws of physics' -- herring so far. Our bodies
work how they work. As best we've seen, they follow the laws of physics
as we already know them. But we haven't explained every detail of
everything using only what is known today about physics. Debator
game, not science. It's science we're after around here. Present
some violation of known physics if you want to debate about it.

If you want to elicit debate around here, you'll have to present
some statement that is a) clear about what is to be debated and
b) someone finds interesting enough to spend time on.

So far, you're neither clear nor interesting.


Well on "The Last Conformists" advice I have written to the site
administrator, and invited those currently responsible for the site to
enter into open debate.

Which word in 'biological mechanism' is giving you a problem?

With regards to 'us', for the purposes of debate, I am referring to
humans.

With regards to your comment on the known laws of physics, firstly I
could cover the possibility that we strictly follow the known laws of
physics, and when this is shown to be implausible, cover the
possibility of that we are following laws of physics as yet
undiscovered.

If it isn't of interest to you whether we are or aren't simply
biological mechanisms that follow the known laws of physics, then why
bother responding?



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it ... In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it ... In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... agree that the evidence indicates that evolution happens and that it ... In regard to the phrase "known laws of physics", those are tentative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics, ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... Many of the authors of those early articles no longer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: To the writers of the Talk.Origins website
    ... mechanism that has evolved, and follows the known laws of physics, ... then I would challenge you to an open debate on the subject. ... and use this to support you argument that consciousness is some kind ...
    (talk.origins)