Scientific Materialism Is Falsified - Dr. Werner Gitt - 1/2

[vlogger4567]

"Gitt" is such an appropriate name for this equivocating idiot.

[sgentlemanjack112]

@vlogger4567 brilliant retort. jackass.

Are you intelligent enough to articulate a case against Mr. Gitt? Or does your self-esteem require that you pretend to be smarter than everyone else?

[Ackers555]

This lying bastard is separating life from normal rules of nature. He's also lying about information. How do we stop all this fucking lying?

[squallion777]

@Ackers555 how do we stop your ignorance, kindly tell me where information originated? if information is not apart of matter then where did it come from? and if information IS apart of matter how also did it originate IN matter? AND why does it not have a weight value, if it is apart of matter? Also how would you know if he's lying? you would have to know the answer to make this statement. Just because he has refuted Scientific Materialism does NOT mean he lying, where do you go now?

[Corbs4u]

"Life can only come from life". Doesn't 'There is life' completely debunk that notion?

[JesusPaid4You]

@Corbs4u No, because there IS life.

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

@sgentlemanjack112 lol good luck trying to give a balanced argument as to why you feel my point is outdated, irrational and makes no sense...

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

He asserts that information is not a part of matter... He clearly has no understanding of what constitutes information. Information is conveyed by the arrangement of matter, such as ink on a page or the components in the circuit described. Thus information IS matter in different arrangements.

[prk30]

@hmspinaforethisisspa Claiming that information is conveyed by the arrangement of matter does not make information a material entity,because arrangement itself is immaterial. One can change arrangement ad infinitum, whitout create or supress matter. Arrangement is about order, not about matter. Infomartion is meaning over matter. Ink on a page will NEVER be information, unless it is arranged in a certain way to express something intelligible.

[prk30]

@prk30 Thus information is NOT matter in different arrangements, because the arrangement of matter depends of previous information. Information is ultimately a guidance and a command to put data or matter in such a way it can fullfil an objective. Under no circustances information can be a certain arrangement of matter, because this very arrangement is dependable of information.

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

@prk30 See my response to your previous idiotic statement...

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

@prk30 "arrangement itself is immaterial" That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard. It's axiomatically absurd - if matter is arranged such that an axe is on the desk in front of you, then there's no problem. However, if matter is arranged such that the axe occupies a space in your brain, it makes a big difference. Information is conveyed by the arrangement of matter, therefore information is utterly dependant upon matter. You even proved this in your final sentence about ink on a page...

[hmspinaforethisisspa]

Within the first 10 SECONDS he makes a bold and unsubstantiated claim (not to mention self-evidently untrue). Does he explain why he feels that we should categorise reality into these 3 arbitrary types? No. Does he provide any testable reasons for doing so? No.

[ex0gen]

The problem with that this guy is saying is that just as he pointed out that the something we use as language could be also meaningless so could be said for any other object. So the definition domain is purely arbitrary based on how language users use objects to represent meaning. But anything could be used to represent anything. The definition domain is arbitrary.

[DonswatchingtheTube]

@augustofretes Which part is pseudoscience? Science was something that could be tested and repeated? Made made constructions have demonstrated this. Aren't there laws for all languages? Don't information need a writer, the language itself, the receiver, the response to the language, don't both parties need to know the language for it to be useful? All languages seems to follow this principle, this includes DNA and living things. The process needs to be understood by all parties at the beginning.

[augustofretes]

Ha, I forgot I was talking in English XD

[augustofretes]

@sgentlemanjack112 Oh, please, in less than a minute he's already saying crap: "Life is only coming from Life, that's the only law we know about life".

[sgentlemanjack112]

@augustofretes uhhh it's called the Law of Bio genesis.

google Louis Pasteur and then get back to me.

[augustofretes]

@sgentlemanjack112 Read contemporary biology and call me back. For a nice introductory high-quality foundations of biology I recommend you reading: "Foundations of Biophilosophy" by Mario Bunge and Martin Mahner.

[augustofretes]

«El materialismo no es para los débiles de carácter (tampoco lo es el idealismo). Éstos prefieren versiones diluidas de la sustancia más fuerte. Tales doctrinas rebajadas son una mezcla de ingredientes materialistas e idealistas: sostienen que mientras que algunos objetos reales son materiales, otros son inmateriales (..)

[augustofretes]

@augustofretes (..) (Aunque popular, éste no es un compromiso viable. Si no se supone que los reinos material e inmaterial están completamente separados, semejante ontología debería explicar cómo los objetos materiales e inmateriales pueden interactuar concebiblemente. No hace falta decirlo, nadie ha producido una teoría semejante.)»

[augustofretes]

Materialism is not the faint-hearted (neither is idealism). The latter prefer diluted versions of the stronger stuff. These watered-down doctrines are a mixture of materialism and idealist ingredients: They hold that whereas some real objects are materials, *others* are immaterial. (Though popular, this is not a viable compromise. If the material and immaterial reals are not supposed to be entirely separated, such ontology must explain how material and immaterial objects may conceivably (...)

[augustofretes]

@augustofretes (...) interact. Needless to say, nobody has ever produced any such theory)

[Endza50]

thank you.