Re: Challenge to Curt

On Mar 26, 6:45 am, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<forbisga...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:30bc417c-459e-44b4-80f0-cbc14b40840c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 25, 7:05 pm, Vend <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 25 Mar, 15:39, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Vend" <ven...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1a15e7fd-7fa2-453d-ad21-3b6910916374@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 22 Mar, 20:23, "Alpha" <OmegaZero2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Show that the APs of a neuron(s) (or any other property of a neuron
or
group/net of neurons, or whatever other property of brain you want to
identify with experience) are *identical * with the experience of
red.
Do
so without bringing in your delusional conditioning/religious beliefs
in
swirling atoms and such. Use the real scientific method. Posit an
hypothesis and provide experimental data that shows such identity.

I think you have it backwards.

Nope;

Curt is making the claim that it *is* identical* , not me.

If you claim that they aren't, the burden of proof is on you.

Claiming that they are not known to be idential isn't the same
as claiming they are not identical.  I don't know if Alpha
stepped over this line or not.

Hi Gary,

I recently replied to Vend so see that post please.

I claim that by Leibniz's Law operating on properties of each class of
artifact, that the neuron/properties_thereof and phenomenal
experience/properties_thereof are not identical and therefore neither are
the artifacts.

So I not only claim that they are not known to be identical, I claim that
they are not such, and to claim that they are is to make a category mistake.

Further, I claim that Curt's position that they are needs some evidence and
he has none (oh, one can provide some correlational evidence and perhaps
causal evidence, but such are not the fodder for claims of identity.)  I
think Curt's claim is extraordinary and requires extraordinary evidence,
especially considering the philosophical issues extant in this context.

OK, I think I agree with you on this. It's like saying a ball isn't
identical
to a bounce.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: You are cataloguers,not astronomers
    ... misguided (without good evidence). ... 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a ... 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. ... 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... misguided (without good evidence). ... 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a ... 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. ... 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... misguided (without good evidence). ... 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a ... 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. ... 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Rampant Pseudoscience in Astrophysics Brings Death
    ... misguided (without good evidence). ... 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a ... 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. ... 20 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to Newton or claim ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • crackpot index, a special for the tin-foil brigade
    ... fundamentally misguided (without good evidence). ... 10 points for each favorable comparison of yourself to ... 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize. ... 30 points for claiming that your theories were developed by ...
    (sci.military.naval)