Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

Complex bioological activity reduced to laws of physics. Classic reductionism.

So, ehat other explanations are there, aside from the likes of physics and chemistry, for complex biological activity?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, ehat other explanations are there, aside from the likes of physics and chemistry, for complex biological activity?

The explanations found in the field of complex biological science of course. Are you denying the existence of complex biology?

[Stranger]

The explanations found in the field of complex biological science of course.

Such as? Can you give an example?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Such as? Can you give an example?

Jeremy's reductionism can be found in reply#
34518

Gordon's can be found in his last post.
Gordon doesnt eliminate complex biology as such but states that the laws of physics are adequate to explain.
Whether you agree or not that is reductionist.

From what he is saying he doubts there is a free will to be reduced. That is eliminative but based on the reductionist idea that the deterministic nature of the laws of physics guarantees there cannot be a complex biological process of freewill nor any phenomena which could emerge from a complex biological system.

[Gordon]

The explanations found in the field of complex biological science of course. Are you denying the existence of complex biology?

Not in the least: my impression is that you regard explanations based on physics/chemistry etc as being reductionism - I'm simply asking from what are these explanations a reduction from?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not in the least: my impression is that you regard explanations based on physics/chemistry etc as being reductionism - I'm simply asking from what are these explanations a reduction from?

Complex biology.

[Nearly Sane]

Complex biology.

And what in 'complex biology' isn't based on physics and chemistry?

[Stranger]

Jeremy's reductionism can be found in reply#
34518

Gordon's can be found in his last post.
...

You misunderstand. I was asking for an example of "explanations found in the field of complex biological science" that are not entirely due to chemistry.

That is eliminative but based on the reductionist idea that the deterministic nature of the laws of physics guarantees there cannot be a complex biological process of freewill nor any phenomena which could emerge from a complex biological system.

The argument about free will, in the sense of things being either deterministic or involving randomness, has nothing to do with physics. It's about those being the only logical ways in which any system can develop over time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And what in 'complex biology' isn't based on physics and chemistry?

based on or explained by and described completely in terms of?

[Gordon]

You misunderstand. I was asking for an example of "explanations found in the field of complex biological science" that are not entirely due to chemistry.

Vlad - stop and think: there are no 'explanations found in the field of complex biological science' that are wholly based on the relevant science. You seem confused.

The argument about free will, in the sense of things being either deterministic or involving randomness, has nothing to do with physics. It's about those being the only logical ways in which any system can develop over time.

Physics and logic are different fields - so if you are arguing on the basis of logic why are you bothered about 'explanations found in the field of complex biological science'?

[Nearly Sane]

based on or explained by and described completely in terms of?

I used the term based on, so please at least try and answer the question.

[Nearly Sane]

Vlad - stop and think: there are no 'explanations found in the field of complex biological science' that are wholly based on the relevant science. You seem confused.

Physics and logic are different fields - so if you are arguing on the basis of logic why are you bothered about 'explanations found in the field of complex biological science'?

That was Stranger's post you replied to and you seem to have misunderstood him.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You misunderstand. I was asking for an example of "explanations found in the field of complex biological science" that are not entirely due to chemistry.

But biology is not completely explained in chemical terms. If you are arguing that it is then what is the use of biology. Why was tax payers money wasted on educating Dawkins in his chosen field?

[Gordon]

That was Stranger's post you replied to and you seem to have misunderstood him.

Yikes - apologies to Stranger for confusing him with Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I used the term based on, so please at least try and answer the question.

Not even the most avid holist would deny stuff being based on other stuff so being based on has nothing to do with reductionism.

All yours and strangers and Gordons statements to date have been eliminative or reductionist. What puzzleds me is why you are either trying to justify or deny.

Be men and own up to either arse clenching eliminativism or stinking reductionism for goodness sake.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yikes - apologies to Stranger for confusing him with Vlad.

Yes ...what was that about being confused.

Do you agree with it now you know I didnt say it.

[Nearly Sane]

Not even the most avid holist would deny stuff being based on other stuff so being based on has nothing to do with reductionism.

All yours and strangers and Gordons statements to date have been eliminative or reductionist. What puzzleds me is why you are either trying to justify or deny.

Be men and own up to either arse clenching eliminativism or stinking reductionism for goodness sake.

So no answer to the question. Part of this problem is despite being asked by jeremyp you still haven't provided what you mean by reductionism. You need at least to try and engage with such questions, else you end up with irrelevant posts like your's above.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So no answer to the question. Part of this problem is despite being asked by jeremyp you still haven't provided what you mean by reductionism. You need at least to try and engage with such questions, else you end up with irrelevant posts like your's above.

I have directed everone to the wikipedia definition

These definitions adequately cover Jeremys attempt to reduce complex biological processes to electrochemistry and the further reduction to mere laws of physics.

If you are stating that that is not reductionist make a case as I have.

Namely Here is reductionism here is why appeal to lower organisational levels for the complete explanation is not reductionism.

[Nearly Sane]

I have directed everone to the wikipedia definition

These definitions adequately cover Jeremys attempt to reduce complex biological processes to electrochemistry and the further reduction to mere laws of physics.

If you are stating that that is not reductionist make a case as I have.

Namely Here is reductionism here is why appeal to lower organisational levels for the complete explanation is not reductionism.

Which as has already been pointed out multiple times has multiple definitions, and despite being asked which one you mean here, you haven't answered again, but have continued not to engage.

BTW' Namely Here is reductionism here is why appeal to lower organisational levels for the complete explanation is not reductionism' is not only not a 'case', it's incoherent.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which as has already been pointed out multiple times has multiple definitions, and despite being asked which one you mean here, you haven't answered again, but have continued not to engage.

BTW' Namely Here is reductionism here is why appeal to lower organisational levels for the complete explanation is not reductionism' is not only not a 'case', it's incoherent.

Your avoidance of being labelled reductionist or your friends being so is pathological and incomprehensible.

Do you deny that Jeremy's comments on how brain function is described ie in terms of electrochemistry and then more fundementally in terms of the laws of physics is reductionism.I certainly dont and think it classic reductionism because he is progressively appealing to layers getting nearer to some fundemental.

[Nearly Sane]

Your avoidance of being labelled reductionist or your friends being so is pathological and incomprehensible.

Do you deny that Jeremy's comments on how brain function is described ie in terms of electrochemistry and then more fundementally in terms of the laws of physics is reductionism.I certainly dont and think it classic reductionism because he is progressively appealing to layers getting nearer to some fundemental.

Why aren't you answering the questions? Until you actually engage and say which definition you mean your link is worthless and you are making the conversation pointless.

As ever, I have no idea why you are talking about 'friends' here. This is about what I think. You need to stop trying to make generalisations, and deal with what the person you are 'engaging' with is writing.

BTW What do you mean by 'pathological' here? Do you mean relating to a mental disease?

[Roses]

Your avoidance of being labelled reductionist or your friends being so is pathological and incomprehensible.

Do you deny that Jeremy's comments on how brain function is described ie in terms of electrochemistry and then more fundementally in terms of the laws of physics is reductionism.I certainly dont and think it classic reductionism because he is progressively appealing to layers getting nearer to some fundemental.

One could describe your posts as incomprehensible, if not pathological!

[Nearly Sane]

One could describe your posts as incomprehensible, if not pathological!

I'll repeat what I asked Vlad

What do you mean by 'pathological' here? Do you mean relating to a mental disease?

[Roses]

I'll repeat what I asked Vlad

What do you mean by 'pathological' here? Do you mean relating to a mental disease?

I haven't a clue what he is on about, and that is what I was asking him.

[Nearly Sane]

I haven't a clue what he is on about, and that is what I was asking him.

You didn't ask him anything - you made a statement.