Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

Kermit wrote:
On Jan 27, 5:45 pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:


More than an "indication" from the Wonderful World of Foregone
Conclusions. It would take (one more time) a _sufficient_ and
_replicable_ causality expressed exclusively in terms of observables.


What is not replicable about:
Cat scans,
MRI scans,
encephalograms;
correlating mental changes with:
drugs, injuries, surgical alterations;
correlating different mental behaviors with:
degenerative diseases, congenital genetic differences,
and animals studies showing simple behavioral cognates with the same
subsystems of their brains as in humans?

The problem with that list is not with replicability, but sufficiency.
That is, it does not constitute a description of the mind being
derived from the brain alone.


What model on *any subject can conclusively rule out other causal
factors that we don't know about?

None. What is required is to establish causality that is (once again)
both _sufficient_ and _replicable_ to produce the effect in question.


Correct, for some values of "explained". But we can demonstrate
clearly that the mind is brain activity, which I believe is the point.
Some of the data include:
Cat Scan.
MRI scans.
Electroencephalograms.
Brain surgery.
Association of genetic anomalies with brain development and mental
differences. (Recent discoveries include schizophrenia and autism).
Drugs.
Concussions.
Normal hormones (testosterone, adrenaline, etc.)
Strokes.
Degenerative diseases of aging.


Do I have to provide links explaining in detail how these indicate the
mind is an activity of the brain?


No, you have to provide evidence the mind is _exclusively_ an activity
of the brain. For instance, through actual cause-and effect
observations.


Sigh. See the list above.

I did and you didn't.


We can see the correlations pretty clearly. Not being able to explain
the whole process yet is typical of all sciences.

Claiming a causality without a basis in sufficient and replicable
observation is bad science.


Your model is not testable.
It has no evidence suggesting the mind is ever independent of the
brain.
It is not science, it is religion.

Sure it's testable. My "no one has shown the mind to be reducible to
the brain" model can be falsified easily with an appropriate
description from you. Nothing so far, however. Still waiting.


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.

As has been said by others, you are making a trivially true claim the
science does not explain everything in entirely satisfactory detail.


No, my claim is that science (as opposed to just-so mythology) does
not explain _enough_ to justify your conclusion. What conclusion? The
conclusion that the physical brain is (not _necessary to_, but rather)
_sufficient for_ the mind.


<shrug>

It is clear you do not understand science. Why should we think the
brain is not enough?

Because your "brain" has insufficient explanatory power to account for
observed phenomena of the mind.


This might be a good time to remind the lurkers that there are at
profound differences between Creationists and scientists. Creationists
cannot stand having something unexplained, but do not care if the data
fits their explanation. Scientists do not like having no explanation
for a puzzle, but prefer saying "we don't know" to claiming something
unsupported by, or contrary to facts.

Then say you don't know rather than making up a reductionist
fairytales.


Treus, when you have evidence that the mind can exist independently of
the brain, come back. You will raise a stir on the world scene that
will put you on the front page of newspapers and science magazines.
But not having something explained to your satisfaction is not
evidence.

You haven't explained anything, period. Just typed a lot of puff you
read on the back of a cereal box about science while trying your best
to avoid the practice of it.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Kurt Godel: Unpublished Philosophical Essays, by F. A. Rodriquez-Consuegra and Kurt Godel
    ... non-contributor to science like you. ... > mind, David. ... > identified dopamine as at brain neurotransmitter. ... > philosophers, ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: AI versus Human Consciousness
    ... science, that FW conclusively exists. ... > many analyses make of the brain a passive receptor even ... responses are the result of a very complex dynamic process, ... pertains to causality. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The Emptiness of Theology
    ... Brain science today ... > Modern neurophysiologoy is a science and astrology is not. ... > As to how the mind works, one must first say what a mind is. ... Machines do this sort of thing well. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The Emptiness of Theology
    ... Brain science today ... > Modern neurophysiologoy is a science and astrology is not. ... > As to how the mind works, one must first say what a mind is. ... Machines do this sort of thing well. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... exclusively in terms of observables. ... talisman to pretend that the "mind" has some aspect that cannot, ... be explained by reference to the necessity of a brain. ... Then why do you claim for the brain a _sufficient_ causality which has ...
    (talk.origins)