Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?

Timberwoof wrote:
In article
<0871e8e3-062f-4447-b708-ae1b6ab655ed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Treus <treusdrie@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
hersheyh wrote:


Give a counter-example of something that has been observed to be a
consequence of 'mind' that has not been due to the action of a
physical 'brain'.


The formation of the phrase "colorless green ideas sleep furiously"
has not been show to be expressible in terms of the observed physical
properties of the brain.


Actually, it has. The physical processes of neurons firing are well
understood, as are the actions of neural networks. The physical
causality is sufficiently understood that no magic needs to be invoked
to account for "mind" or "consciousness".

What is insufficient is not the description of the neurons themselves,
it's your causality to go from those neurons firing to the
phenomenology of the mind.


I don't mean the type of just-so handwaving that's
palmed-off on the materialist faithful, of course, I'm referring to a
scientifically rigorous description that is, as usual, both
*sufficient* (as in whatever causes you attribute to language are, in
themselves, enough to bring about the effect in question) and
*replicable* (meaning every causal phenomenon your explanation
requires is measurable and can be recreated by someone in the real
world), in order to prevent unseemly fantasizing.


It is always possible to claim that whatever explanation one has is
not 'sufficient'.


Wrong. If you can replicate the causality (e.g. the inverse square law
of gravitation), then you have causal sufficiency.


This is an error akin to mistaking the concept that "The law of gravity
is falsifiable" to the concept that "The law of gravity is wrong and can
be disproved".

In fact, the inverse square law is *not* sufficient to explain gravity.
It merely describes it. It describes it very well, but it does not
explain how it works. (The "it works because electrons make the filament
hot" kind, not the "it works in that you flip the switch" kind.)

I suggest you do a some studying on the subject before embarrassing
yourself further. Either that or you're just being dishonest.


That is because one can always posit superfluous
'explanations' that are unnecessary and untestable.
There really are angels moving the planets and they just do it in
accordance with Newton's ideas. The razor carves away such
unnecessary ideas and leaves science with the simplest natural
explanation, until and if one has evidence to point out that that
explanation is insufficient. You have presented no evidence that the
simple explanation that 'mind' is solely and completely due to the
activity of a physical brain is insufficient. We *know* that the
physical brain is *necessary* for 'mind'. We have no evidence that
'something else' is needed.


Once again, your inability to reconcile all, or even most, of the
properties characteristic of the two phenomena in common physical
terms, not to mention your lack of _sufficient_ empirical observation
in supporting such an equivalency thesis (which you have yet to
operationally formulate), makes it a distinct possibility that
"something else" is involved.


You can philosophize all kinds of angels into existence, but until you
show evidence for them, there's no need to modify the law of gravity�or
the physical brain hypothesis�to include them.

The difference of course is that with gravity we actually (i.e. in the
real world, not just in Candyland) have a description, _exclusively in
terms of observables_ (i.e. without just-so magic), of effects being
produced from causes.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... evidence that the brain is _necessary_ for the mind. ... provide a sufficient explanation for the mind. ... the phenomena for gravity. ... phenomena, and yet we're supposed to assume one is sufficient to cause ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... consequence of 'mind', the 'mind' has been due to the action of a ... I know that if I destroy certain parts of a physical brain (or it can ... It is always possible to claim that whatever explanation one has is ... the inverse square law is *not* sufficient to explain gravity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Does violating the laws of physics require intelligence?
    ... phenomenology of the mind. ... It is always possible to claim that whatever explanation one has is ... This is an error akin to mistaking the concept that "The law of gravity ... without providing the slightest evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: empty feeling
    ... that I have that freedom. ... understanding of the human mind, by a person with respect to another. ... reason psychology can never be "objective" enough to be a science ... that the theoretical explanation of the effect we call gravity is badly ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Comparing Creationism against Darwinism
    ... devised and implemented by Divine Mind and power. ... That's an unsupported claim. ... Two round earth facts followed by an explanation. ... willing to give it a try: unguided material processes do indeed exist ...
    (talk.origins)