Posts Tagged ‘debates’

Um método para a Matrix/DNA desafiar materialistas para debates: as diferentes logicas construindo as diferentes teorias.

segunda-feira, junho 17th, 2019


Um método para debater teorias com cientistas.

Os acadêmicos tem teorias muito influentes, como a de que a vida veio da não-vida, que o Universo começou com um Big Bang apenas fisico e não biologico, que a evolução começou na Terra e tem apenas 3 variáveis, etc. Eu tenho outra viso do mundo cujas teorias são diferentes nos tres tópicos: a vida é mero produto da evolução dos sistemas naturais que vieram da era cosmologica, que o Universo é apenas uma placenta e começou por um ato de fecundação biológico, que a evolução é universal e tem sete variáveis, etc.

Como eu poderia desafia-los obrigando-os a um debate?

Bem, eles vão exigir que eu apresente modelos teóricos perfeitamente testáveis. Ou mais, que eu apresente como provas os modelos já testados. Mas eles tambem não podem testar e nem tem testados estas três teorias. Então quando pedem isso, eu poderia rebater pedindo-lhes o mesmo. Mas isso interromperia o debate. Então existe outro método:

Já que nenhum dos dois podem testar suas teorias, só nos resta debater a logica de cada teoria. De onde eles tiraram a logica em que um minusculo átomo ao explodir contenha toda a massa e energia do Universo? Onde eles viram algo semelhante? Onde eles viram uma sopa de ingredientes inorgânicos produzirem algo vivo? Porque existem tantas falhas ainda na teoria da evolução? Não seria porque apenas 3 variaveis não podem mover a evolução? Porque dividem a Historia da Evolução Universal em dois blocos separados entre si sem nenhum elo evolutivo entre os dois, os blocos da Evolução Cosmologica e da Evolução Biologica? Quem os autorizou a isso, se a natureza universal é uma só? Porque dividem os sistemas naturais em vivos e não-vivos?

Atraindo-os para este terreno eu posso ter vantagens porque todos os passos da minha teoria são embasados em fatos conhecidos e provados aqui e agora. E as teorias deles são baseadas em exercícios matemáticos não em fatos reais.

Então, vem a calhar este artigo, onde posso extrair argumentos para esse debate e tentar conhecer melhor a psique deles, como ela funciona. Assim como o autor do artigo esta buscando como funciona a psique dos que acreditam na Terra plana.

Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America

trechos importantes no artigo:

If we can understand science denial in its most elemental form, might we not be able to make progress against all of it at once? For those of us who care about science, it is important to fight back against science denial in whatever form it arises.

But we must do it in the right way.

As I argue in The Scientific Attitude, we need to stop merely pointing to the successes of science and reclaim the notion of uncertainty as a strength rather than a weakness of scientific reasoning. No matter how good the evidence, science cannot “prove” that climate change is real. Or that vaccines are safe. Or even that the Earth is round. That is just not how inductive reasoning works.

What scientists can do, however, is say much more than they do about the importance of likelihood and probability, to puncture the myth that until we have proof, any theory is just as good as any other. Scientific beliefs are not based on certainty but on “warrant”—on justification given the evidence. To say that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming has hit the “five-sigma” level, which means that there is only a one in a million chance of a false positive, is something less than certainty. But who could deny that this is enough for rational belief? When certainty is the standard, science deniers may feel justified in holding out for proof. So let’s explain to them that this is not how science works. That certainty is an irrational standard for empirical belief.

When a scientist looks for evidence, and it shows that his or her theory is wrong, this cannot just be ignored. If the problem gets bad enough, the theory must be changed or perhaps even abandoned, else one is no longer really a scientist. Yet I do not believe that this is a matter of method or logic (as Karl Popper and other philosophers have long argued,) but of values. One of the reasons that science works as well as it does is that—as opposed to ideology—it does NOT pretend that it has all the answers. It is open to new ideas, but also insists that these must be rigorously tested. In science there is a community standard to enforce this, based on data sharing, peer review, and replication. The scientific attitude exists not just in the hearts of individual scientists, but as a group ethos that guides empirical inquiry in a rational way. But how many of the lay public know this?

I therefore think that the best way to defend science is to go out and have more conversations with science deniers. I am not talking here about those desultory TV debates of yore, where they used to put James Hansen (a NASA scientist and leading voice on climate change) on a split screen with some conspiracy theorist, and then give them equal time. There are obviously legitimate concerns about giving a platform for falsehood. I’m talking about getting more scientists in front of the media, to talk not just about their findings, but about the rigorous process by which scientific results are produced. And yes, I think it is reasonable to expect more interactions between scientists and science deniers, as is now happening with the measles outbreak in Washington state, where public health officials are holding workshops to talk with anti-vaxxers.

In scientific reasoning there’s always a chance that your theory is wrong. What separates science deniers from actual scientists is how rigorously they pursue that possibility.


Ensaio para meu post


Sir McIntyre,

I will say that the Science’s representatives, those writing about Sciencies are the first prejudice to Science and who feeds the Science deniers. Theoretical scientists are producing bad, not rational, theories, and the writers try to sell these theories as final proved facts. Theoretical scientists usually loose the rational thinking, but normal people does not, they see the absurdity in such theories, and this is the first cause that normal people disbelief Science.

I agree with you the absurdity of Flat Earthers, climate and vaccine denials, but these are not the meaning scientific theories that affects people against Science. It is the most existential that affects deep beliefs, like the origins of life and this world, evolution by chance, etc. I am a theoretical naturalist philosopher doing my private investigation in Amazon jungle and nature here is suggesting a totally different world view, and that all these academic official theories are very wrong.

If you are serious in this issue and want to advocate in behalf of these current scientific theories ( I am not talking about scientific and empirical proved facts, it is about theories), I’m challenging you to a debate. We will begin fighting with evidences. I will show thousands of real facts as evidences to my theories, and lots of previsions already confirmed by the last scientific data, as you will do it.  But it will not solve the debate. Then, you will ask me rigorous tests about each theory, I don’t have it, but I will ask you to and I know you don’t have it. We don’t have it because we do not have the appropriate technology yet. So, the unique thing we can do is to debate the logical reasoning implied in each theory. And I think I will earn here because each steps of my theories are supported by known and proved facts existing here and now, while most of the steps of these academic theories does not have such support. This debate is useful because it will show to me and you the faults in our rational reasoning that are presents in those scientific deniers, and finally we will understand it.

What do you have to say?


Criticas substanciais `a Matrix/DNA Theory para serem analisadas

terça-feira, março 19th, 2019


( Analise não feita, porem  critica e muito construtiva, voltar aqui)

By pharyngula on March 19, 2016

To Louis Charles Morelli from G  on 25 Mar 2016

What’s your native language? I get the distinct impression it’s not English, so knowing what it is may help me figure out some of what you’re trying to say.

From what I can figure out, you’re postulating some kind of cosmic “substance dualism.” At present that does not comport with the findings of modern neuroscience, and some of the specifics sound like “new religion.”

For example: “A spherical layer of mind-stuff around a planet,” and the stuff about “spinning to the left / right” are all indications that what you have there is not a scientifically testable theory, but a religious philosophy based on some kind of subjective experience.

The Gaia hypothesis, as far as ecological science is concerned, is legitimately about the existence of interacting feedback mechanisms among organisms, and between organisms and their environment. Margulis and Lovelock chose the name “Gaia” as a metaphor, not as a way of saying that the Earth was a deity or even a conscious being or anything like that. The latter interpretations are also not-science, though you can have them as religion if you like.

if your ideas are based on anything coming from current science, by all means provide a couple of names of scientists who are involved, and whose publications or at least whose ideas, can be found online (somewhere other than Google, which is blocked on my system for security reasons).

But frankly I’m highly skeptical, because much of what you say sounds like “revealed truth” rather than scientific theory. I’ve had plenty of mystical experiences too, but I treat them with appropriate caution, and treat their content as metaphor and symbolism rather than as literally true. Two of those experiences that I can think of, involved insights that turned out to be consistent with modern science; many others did not; and in building one’s worldview, that distinction is highly useful in sorting the insightful wheat (trigo) from the erroneous chaff (palha).

E meu post que gerou  resposta acima:

From Louis Charles

Please, do not read my four itens below for not calling me names…

1 – It’s not uploading the mind, but recycling the body. This people ate talking uploading when, unconsciously, they are merely being used in a reproductive mechanical process of the biological life’s creator. The creator, about 10 billion years ago, was self-recycling its physical system/body after death, but the system identity was the same. The method for doing that was separating half of its energy while it young ( the energy is in state of growth) – which was a kind of stem cell – while the another half goes with the body attacked by entropy degenerating till dying. After death and fragmentation, the dusty was mixed with that “stem energy” and the whole body was born again (see the MatrixLight/DNA formula for all natural systems and you will understand it).

But, who was the ” creator”? Of course, not this planet alone, life is dependable of sun’s energy. But the solar system does not have pulsars, quasars, black holes, which are necessary parts for a biological copy of that system to work. Who have them is the galaxy. That’s the necessary and enough creator, anything else. And original galaxies were self-recycling.

Biological life is the tentative to reproduce the creator – this galactic system – in a biological fashion, because here we have the liquid state of matter and from it, organic chemistry.

2) The biological tendency to die is a consequence of the first force in this universe that brought dynamics upon a inertial space substance: waves of light, and waves of light are born, they grow, they reaches the maturity and they degenerates, dying, being fragmented into photons. Since that biological systems are the light formula plus inertial matter substance… the phenomena of death was encrypted in it before its origins.

3) But… the fragmented photons has the tendency to group and making the reverse way that its original wave did, going back to rebuild the wave till reaching the source again. It is the dark light or negative energy. So, I should remember here that since the first PZ Myers’ article about this imortality issue, all comments have described all variant hypothesis but they forgot one: Teilhard du Chardin and the super-conscious organism. As in quantum entanglement, each bubble of consciousness inside the head of each human has its counterpart in a spherical layer around the planet, the collective unconscious mind, that is being nurtured as a fetus. And as in quantum split experiment, yours mind exists in two places at sometime, just now, the difference is that in the other place it is still a fetus. Now, the part inside a living human head is spinning to left, its counterpart in the ” nebula” is inactive spinning to right ( because we are using the serial processor of left hemisphere and not the parallel processor of the right). When the human bubble die, the other part is still alive, and will be part of the Gaia’s super-organism. Impossible hypothesis? Maybe, but at MatrixLight/DNA Theory we are testing it.

4) The brain does not produce the mind. Yours brain did not produced yours mind because the mind was existing before the origins of yours brain, in yours parents’ heads. So like yours physical body, yours mind was genetically encrypted before the formation of yours brain.

-“Ahhh…, but, it was the ancestors brains, coming since the monkeys that produced the mind.”

– ” This is not a scientific proved fact, it is yours theory. You need go back to that time for proving it. This problem would be solved if you knew about the Universe composed by dark matter and light. The expansion of light waves causes friction in space substance creating particles and the energy. So, all known bodies are made off dark matter and light, anything else; meat and the photons of sun’s light. The problem is that a light wave have a sequence of different states of frequencies/vibrations performed by the life’s cycle process. In another words, a light wave has the code for life. So, since the atoms to galaxies to human beings, all systems are made off hardware ( substance or matter of space) plus software ( light wave). As we see above, every light wave rebuild itself and goes back to its source, which must be a natural system but, ex-machine and conscious, since that consciousness is manifested here. So, yours hardware part dies… but yours software/conscious part is going to be re-build in the big wave of the super-organism. Ok this is merely other theory, that we are testing it because it makes rational sense facing our knowledge and thousands of evidences”

Debates Youtube – Educação – CMI: Evolutionism is not appropriate for anyone

segunda-feira, janeiro 28th, 2013

CMI: Evolutionism is not appropriate for anyone


0myjoe = Jan – 25 – 2013

Science deals with the natural world and what we can measure. Creation/intelligent design is not scince

Louis Charles Morelli – Jan – 28 – 2013

You have a interesting issue here. The topic of this issue is “education of children”. Any children is body+mind. Our Science deals with touchable bodies, mind is not. Neurology does not know yet which and how are the connections between neurons and thoughts. Our Science stops at brains and electrical/chemical synapses. So, Science is part of education, but education is not part of Science, it goes beyond Science. The interpretation of natural world should be another class: Philosophy

·  in reply to 0myjoe (Show the comment)

Lucas Procee – 12 hours ago – Jan – 28

Observe evolution? I believe you are the ignorant one here. Even prominent evolutionists, such as Dawkins and Eugenie Scott, have retreated from using this argument. The following link is relevant; don’t forget to look at the references.­ists-retreating-from-empiricis­m-to-arguments-from-analogy

·  in reply to westwarrior95 (Show the comment)
Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli 6 hours ago – Jan – 28

Are you saying that natural evolution is not observable?!

I have a question for you sir. The process that all of us can watch here and now, called human embryogenese, in 9 months. The proved scenes are: 1) Single cell;2) Morula;3) Blastula;4)Fetus;5)Embryo…an­d so on. Which name do you call the mechanisms working from a shape to its following shape?

·  in reply to Lucas Procee

tinylilmatt 2 hours ago

Haha I love how this man stole Bill Nye’s speech but just swapped the words evolution & creation around to fit his ideas!

Louis Charles Morelli

Louis Charles Morelli – Jan – 28

If a unique given natural phenomena can be interpreted by two opposite world views, it means that these world views are the two sides of the same coin.But, things turns more interesting if you change “coin” by “collective human mind”. It is the Humanity’s thought that are divided into two, not individuals. Each individual embraces one or other side. I think we are watching an internal conflict of Humanity due competition for dominance between HE and HD. Bill is HE and CMI is HD. Do you agree?

·  in reply to tinylilmatt (Show the comment)