Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:58:02 -0800 (PST), Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:36:06 -0800 (PST), Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
leland.mcin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


I think I can. Treus assertion that he's stiking to is that it has not
been *demonstrated* that the mind is reducible to the brain. This is
entirely true. Of course it hasn't been demonstrated that the pen I
just dropped was moving in that manner due to gravity, and so it has
not been demonstrated that things falling to the ground when you drop
them is entirely reducible to the effets of gravity. And you can
construct similar "it hasn't been demonstrated..." statements about
pretty much everything. Thus the statement is trivial. It carries n
real information.

My guess is thatTreus would like to *imply* (but not state) that the
mind and brain may well have differences (why else would make such a
statement? Sans such implications it is content free), and do so with
a statement that is iron-clad defensible. Of course any implications
are just nonsense. We don't go around thinking things falling aren't
due to gravity, even though it hasn't been demonstrated that things
falling to the ground when you drop them is entirely reducible to the
effects of gravity.


Obvious difference. In the case of gravity, we have a sufficient and
reproducible explanation to account for the phenomena in question.


Why is the brain an inadequate explanation for the phenomena of mind?

Because it does not (_sufficiently_ and _reproducibly_) explain them.

I meant other than your personal incredulity.

Not even close. This happens to be a requirement of science. If you
are not claiming your equivalence of brain and mind is scientific, but
rather is based on your favorite myth or bedtime story, then have fun.


In
the case of the mind, you do not (though some like to pretend
otherwise based on an unscientific fairytale about this magical
substance called "matter" which they are the masters of; truly
ridiculous).


Again, why is the brain an inadequate explanation for the phenomena of
mind?

Ditto.
---

"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers..."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... By removing the gap between mind and brain - in all the words that are ... Just because I can't explain some aspect of the universe doesn't mean the ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... been *demonstrated* that the mind is reducible to the brain. ... them is entirely reducible to the effets of gravity. ... sufficient and reproducible phenomenology reducing the mind to the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: artificial intelligence
    ... the chemicals ARE the mind state. ... say that the mind is what the brain does. ... implied errors in the language without changing how we use the language. ... behavior doesn't mean it's not the brain you are sensing - but yet that is ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... been *demonstrated* that the mind is reducible to the brain. ... them is entirely reducible to the effets of gravity. ... Why is the brain an inadequate explanation for the phenomena of mind? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... Angels as the cause of gravity is also sufficient, ... Angles are sufficient for gravity in the same way the brain (whatever ... context) is sufficient for the mind: ...
    (talk.origins)
Quantcast