Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

On Jan 26, 6:14 pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:49:47 -0800 (PST), Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
raven1 wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:36:09 -0800 (PST), Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
raven1 wrote:

Angels as the cause of gravity is also sufficient, hence the added
criterion of reproducibility.

Which means what in this context?

Angles are sufficient for gravity in the same way the brain (whatever
that is, since you don't have an adequate description of it in this
context) is sufficient for the mind: either one could cause the
effects attributed to it.

I was asking what "reproducibility" meant in this context. I don't
know what you mean by it, and I'm not clear that you do either.

Basic scientific method. It means someone else can take your
measurable causes and produce the same results.

You mean like measuring what parts of the brain are active in
controlled situations and reproducing those results in another place
with different subjects? They've done that.

Anyone can reconstruct the inverse square law at will with found
masses.

Which has what to do with "reproducibility"? (And which does not rule
out the involvement of angels, one might note).
That's what the word means. Can you reproduce in the lab the phenomena
of the mind from measurable causes attributed to the brain?

We can observe the phenomena of mind from measurable causes attributed
to any brain you'd care to examine, and we find that the same areas in
each brain are responsible for the same phenomena.

Some, not all, phenomena of mind. Not even close to all that would be
necessary to construct a mind from your purported properties of the
brain.

One is no more required to create a mind to study it than one is
required to create gravity to study it.
There is plenty of pre-existing stuff around to study, we don't need
artificial ones.

Of course
not. If you could replicate the action of gravity with angels, then
yes, angels would be, in that situation, a sufficient and replicable
explanation of gravity.

That's so bizarre as to defy response.

How telling that basic scientific reasoning would cause that reaction.

Wait, you think that statement wasn't bizarre?

On what grounds do you conclude that a further agent needs to be
postulated?

The absence of a sufficient and replicable explanation means a further
agent _could_ be involved because the brain cannot, given the current
evidence and omitting all fairytales and wishful thinking, be assumed
to be adequate to produce the mind.

Again, WHY NOT? What reason do you have to suggest that anything
further is required.

How may times do I have to say it? You don't have a sufficient and
replicable basis upon which to derive the mind from the brain. All you
have is an imaginary scenario. No experiment has produced a mind from
your measurable conditions. Maybe you had a dream once that it
happened. Maybe you saw it on an episode of Star Trek. But never, in
the real world of actual empirical data, has it actually happened. You
cannot explain all or even most phenomena of the mind using only
measurable properties of the brain in a manner that any other person
could duplicate. All you have are a few marginal dependencies between
the mind and the brain. You do not, except in your materialistic myth,
have actual, observed, real world causal sufficiency.

You are incorrect, there is plenty of data on what parts of the brain
relate to what kinds of thought processes, and how.
People have been studying the brain for a very long time, in various
ways, and they keep getting better at it.
You still haven't said what property a mind has that isn't "contained"
in the brain.
Perhaps you think someone will correct you, if you say something that
can be checked.
Just because we don't know the exact details, doesn't mean we don't
know that something is going on, and certainly doesn't mean it has to
be coming from someplace else.


.

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: 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: Hacking v. Damasio
    ... A human being is body, brain, and mind, all of which ... The mind monitors the brain and the way it monitors the ... Complex part of the brain - Damasio calls ... A continuing thesis of Damasio's is that emotions are biologically ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: A request for information please.
    ... Since our brain is not limited to thinking in only computational ... program simulation. ... depends on what you think a "mind" is. ... If you don't believe in IFH, ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Qualia Question
    ... >> working on the reverse engineering problem. ... In the "everything is physical" model, the mind and the brain are the same ... And that's a simple PC designed by humans. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)