Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

Kermit wrote:
On Jan 27, 6:58 pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Your model does not explain the data (in a replicable manner, as
required in scientific investigation).


What does this mean? Explanations do not have to be replicable (all
models can be described ad infinitum, and often are). *Observations
have to be.

What is not replicable about the many classes of observations that I
have listed?

I didn't say they are not replicable. They are not *sufficient* to
explain how even the most rudimentary mind can be manifested
exclusively in terms of a physical brain. You suppose it can be done.
It sounds entirely reasonable that it should be so. You like to
pretend about the day it will happen. None of this is science.


You have not answered the question.

*Models have to be *testable.

How would we test your model? What does it predict; how can it be
falsified?

My model predicts that no one has sufficiently and replicably
described even the most rudimentary mind exclusively in terms of
observables. It would be falsified by you doing so. Thus far, you have
not.


The mind consists of phenomena that no one has reduced to properties
of the brain. That's prima facie evidence of the distinct possibility
of it being to some extent "independent" of the brain. At least it's
enough to challenge the faith in magic "matter" (whatever that is).


Neither is gravity completely explained. Just because it has a formula
that fits the observations doesn't mean it's been explained.

Which is why the key world is "sufficiently" and not "completely".
Your fictitious reduction of the mind to the brain fits neither.


Perhaps you have an idea for how we could go about investigating this
soul of yours. If so, now would be a good time to propose it. In the
meanwhile, I'll just file it away with the invisible dragon in my
garage, the orbiting teapot, leprechauns, and guardian angels.

And "minds" (though you can't really describe what you mean by that in
terms of observables) from "brains" (which you don't understand well
enough to construct a working copy of even a simple living instance).


You know, there are folks in the science community that have various
religious beliefs, and they do perfectly good science. But they don't
try to pass off their religious beliefs as science.

Which is why I suggest you stop doing so by trying to pass off your
metaphysical fantasies as science.

.

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: 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?
    ... You have no data suggesting the mind is ever independent of the brain. ... but it is not science. ... Imagining your religious beliefs are absolutely correct does not make ...
    (talk.origins)
  • 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)
Loading