Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 13:48:14 -0800 (PST), Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
raven1 wrote:
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.


Oh, you mean in terms of actual evidence? Yeah, there also a
sufficient and reproducible phenomenology reducing the mind to the
brain is nowhere to be found.


This may be hard for you to accept, but we actually do know a good
deal about how the brain works, and there is nothing to suggest that
it is inadequate to account for the phenomena of mind. I suppose there
*could* be an immaterial force at work, just as gravity *could* be
supplemented by angels pulling objects downward, but there is no
particular reason to consider either possibility.

Since you seem very unclear on a concept essential to science, I'll
repeat this once again. In the case of gravity, we have a sufficient
and reproducible explanation to account for the phenomenon. Your
materialist fairytale is not supported by the data simply because you
think "there is nothing to suggest" it is wrong. Such a conclusion is
consistent with non-falsifiability, though I suppose that's apropos
for a myth.

.

Relevant Pages