Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

On Jan 28, 2:08 pm, Treus <treusd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

You don't pay attention to what you write, do you? Right up there ^^^
you said "Your model does not explain the data (in a replicable
manner, as required in scientific investigation)."

And I was explaining that it is not the model which needs to be
replicable but the observations. "Replicable observations" are another
way of saying "verifiable facts".

Why do you keep asking for replicable *models? What would a non-
replicable model be like?

So you agree that the data I offered is replicable. Models always are
- just repeat what the man says, and you've replicated it.

They are not *sufficient* to
explain how even the most rudimentary mind can be manifested
exclusively in terms of a physical brain.

Correct. As all scientific models are. We cannot be certain that we
are not overlooking something important.

So: what reason do you offer to think that we are overlooking
something?

You suppose it can be done.

No, I've said several times that it can never be done will absolute
certainty. What I *have said is that you have offered no reason to
think otherwise.

It sounds entirely reasonable that it should be so. You like to
pretend about the day it will happen. None of this is science.

I really don't know if you are pathological or simply simple.
The mainstream model fits the data. It makes testable predictions.

You have no data suggesting the mind is ever independent of the brain.
You have suggested no way to test this,

Your myth may be true, but it is not science. Come back when you have
data, and a testable model.




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.

Bwahahaha!

Crossing your arms and holding your breath until you turn blue may be
*your prediction, but it is not a necessary consequence of ... well,
what ever it is you're claiming.

What do you mean, in English, when you babble "replicably described"?
Waht kind of description would *not be replicable?

And what on Earth are "terms of observables"? You mean a description?
You are the one offering no description of what a mind independent of
a brain would be, or what could be observed, or how it would behave.
Several here have offered very specific behaviors, observable, and
identified as brain behavior.




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.

Imagining your religious beliefs are absolutely correct does not make
them so, you know. Scientific models, as are all synthetic statements,
contingent on further evidence. When you offer evidence that minds are
sometimes independent of the brain, we'll see if we can come up with a
testable model.




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)

Feel free to offer a description (note the use of that word) for mind
which we can talk about.

from "brains" (which you don't understand well
enough to construct a working copy of even a simple living instance).

Since when must a scientist be able to build something in order to
study it? If this were true, then we couldn't learn *anything about
the world. Which is part of your goal, I suppose.

Phbztbztt!




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.

<snort>

Yes, we all know of the wonderful accomplishments in brain science to
come out of the Christian church. Nonetheless, I like to think that
science has made some small contribution.
Kermit

.

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?
    ... explain how even the most rudimentary mind can be manifested ... exclusively in terms of a physical brain. ... None of this is science. ... religious beliefs, and they do perfectly good science. ...
    (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