Christophe Finipolscie

General philosophy discussions. If you are not sure where to place your thread, please post it here. Share favorite quotes, discuss philosophers, and other topics.

Christophe Finipolscie

Postby hyksos on July 17th, 2020, 2:13 am 

Alright so we will have to proceed with this sans lateralsuz, who is likely to disappear soon as a result of TOS violations.

First in our agenda is to locate this guy. Here is what I have found ... inipolscie
Finipolscie wrote:Hi Justin

Thank you for your question.

I am not aware that there are any on-line profiles based on my pseudonym. It was important to me, my publishers, and my reviewers that I should not be seen to have any bias when presenting the evidence, and to empower readers with the opportunity to make their own honest and impartial assessments of the facts.

What I can tell you is that I studied different aspects of science, and from this, I have a number of highly specialised senior scientists, (across very diverse fields), amongst my group of friends, colleagues, and contacts. I have been sharing knowledge, findings, and ideas with them for over 30 years.

My research has also extended to the history and philosophy that surrounds debates about the nature of existence, and its evolution over the centuries.

It is hard to conceive how anybody could be a ‘driving force’ or ‘front-line expert’ across all aspects of this very broad subject area. Normally it would be one or two fields of research out of hundreds. We all have our strengths, but we have to draw on the expertise of others when we venture beyond our specialist areas. I have been fortunate that my contacts have allowed me to do this.

While science has served to narrow the debate on the nature of existence by focussing on proven facts, it was interesting to see that in recent decades, debates on old principles have been re-opened due to many new scientific findings which have directly challenged old principles. It should be an honest position for any scientist to consider all alternative explanations, where old ones start to become impossible due to the new evidence - not out of any religious fervour.

When the amount of ‘awkward evidence’ began to mount across many disciplines, that ‘deterministic principles’ could have their limits, it seemed strange that people were not publicly debating the issues – and for the most part I felt that this was due to a general lack of awareness – not because the facts are disputed. Hence the books.

You asked specifically about Quantum Mechanics, which of course is based on manipulating probabilities rather than the single outcomes expected from determinism. In broad terms, it is interesting to see how younger generations seem more willing to consider the possible 'reality of true randomness' when older generations have tried to hold the line on strict determinism. I feel it is a debate worth having.

I hope this helps, and that the books will spur you and others to enter the debate.

(I added some emphasis above that wasn't in the original)

I have added boldface emphasis to the book review below.

What is Life?

In the second book of this intriguing series, the author continues his insights into recent scientific findings; this time concerning the major step-change for existence - the development of life.

While delving into the science behind our bodies and minds, he explores the range of philosophies about the nature of life and the possible existence of the soul. He also considers why some of our basic abilities, from simple decision-making, to creativity and emotion, are so challenging for science to explain and re-create.

In this ongoing journey of discovery we find that at the core of life, within the inner workings of cells, there are remarkable components which challenge our perceptions, such as programmable assembly line machines; astonishing walking molecules; and complex repair mechanisms.

Some would have been essential to the first simple form of living cell, but they have no known evolutionary path.

The book therefore looks at the challenges facing the fascinating new field of Abiogenesis: the scientific search for the origin of life – which acknowledges that the only evolutionary mechanism we have, cannot explain how the first cell emerged. It marks the hunt for a new mechanism and an exploration of unresolved factors at the heart of every living thing – control, awareness, survival, and purpose.

Finally the author considers the scientific evidence which might support the notion of a soul; some of which is now gaining general acceptance, leading to serious studies into ‘Out of Body’ experiences... and even reincarnation.

Another book review where I have added red flags.

What is existence?

Recent scientific findings have shaken traditional theories to their core; undermining long-held beliefs, from the nature of the Big Bang to the very fabric of reality. In terms of physical science, things that were deemed impossible are now shown to be possible.

The search for answers has re-opened the debate into philosophical ideas long denied by traditional science. Remarkably, experiments intended to disprove these notions have only added fuel to the fire.

It’s time to take a fresh look at what we know.

Using diagrams plus flowing, easy to read language, this well referenced and unbiased book makes the full range of thinking accessible to all, from the casual reader to the academic.

Some of the facts and ideas may well surprise you.

This is part of a short series which presents the strengths and weaknesses of the different viewpoints side by side, allowing the reader to judge where their beliefs lie, but with the knowledge of what science can verify at this time. Others in this mini-series deal with Life and the Mind.

It is then down to you to decide what our reality may actually be.

I chose the color red for a reason.

My initial reactions.

Chance of Big Bang denial 9/10
Chance of claiming that the soul is gaining "wide acceptance" when it's not. 9/10
Chance the books deny that evolution happened 6/10

The book description mentions, "philosophical ideas long denied by traditional science" , but does not specify what those are.

(The word "consciousness" is conspicuously absent from any book or website related to Finipolscie. Interesting...! )

Finipolscie's books clearly contains the phrase "deterministic principles", a neologism that he concocted himself. laterlsuz then coopted that phrase, and blasted it all over this forum , sometimes in incoherent ways.

Your thoughts?
User avatar
Active Member
Posts: 1839
Joined: 28 Nov 2014

Return to Anything Philosophy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests