Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

[Fudbucker]

Am I the only one that thinks this . . .


is a contradiction of this . . .?


ETA - I've removed the inappropriate and annoying line breaks to from the original post to make it easier to read (you're welcome).

Yes, I was going to reply along those same lines.

 

[Cheetah]

There is no mind independent testable hypothesis which can be conducted to show that reality is mind independent.

What about if a computer could "look" at reality and, for example, identify flowers. Would that be an independent test?

 

[Cheetah]

Yes, I was going to reply along those same lines.

The first quote says that it is generally accepted that reality is independent of the mind, but it is not really testable.

The second that the two best arguments for the former are "that everyone experiences the same objective reality" and "that the observable Universe existed for over 99.99 per cent of its existence before humans evolved.



Reading comprehension?

 

[ynot]

The first quote says that it is generally accepted that reality is independent of the mind, but it is not really testable.

The second that the two best arguments for the former are "that everyone experiences the same objective reality" and "that the observable Universe existed for over 99.99 per cent of its existence before humans evolved.



Reading comprehension?

“Not really testable” means we have no evidence with which to test “The first”. Then you immediately contradict that by providing “The second” which can be used as evidence to test “The first”.

Is reality independent of the mind? Let’s test that against the evidence that reality existed long before any mind did. Test complete . . . conclusion obvious.

Testing comprehension?

 

[Cheetah]

IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.

 

[David Mo]

I can’t imagine any other kind of explanations of consciousness that are worthy of any serious consideration. You and some others imply (at the very least) that there are other kinds of non-scientific methods that offer other kinds of explanations of consciousness, and imply (at the very least) that they are worthy of serious consideration. You and those others NEVER define what those methods or explanations are however.

So yes, I’m definitely giving you and some others “the ball back” to explain what those methods and explanations are. A fair and appropriate request.

Your turn . . .

My comment in other thread:

You have not answered my questions just by adding new circumstances that justify or not the punishment of a behaviour and changing some words for others that mean the same thing: forced/coerced, unfair/undeserved. You don't turn the description into a scientific one with those changes. The problem I raised remains the same. Concepts that are not scientific appear in the description I made that you retouched: will, coercion/force, unjust/undeserved. Photons do not pass through an orifice because they want to and water does not deserve to boil at 100º Celsius.

My question continues : How can we make accurate descriptions and explanations including concepts that are not scientific?

It's not easy. But we must include objects that are not observational. Will is a non-observational concept, but one that is unavoidable in describing psychological facts and behaviours. Unjust is a non-observatory concept, but it is inescapable in moral evaluation.

These are the limits of science and the territories where it does not reach... by itself.

 

[Darat]

IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.

Ask them to explain how they know they are the solipsist? They could simply be a creation of the solipsist.

 

[Darat]

My comment in other thread:

It's not easy. But we must include objects that are not observational. Will is a non-observational concept, but one that is unavoidable in describing psychological facts and behaviours. Unjust is a non-observatory concept, but it is inescapable in moral evaluation.

These are the limits of science and the territories where it does not reach... by itself.

How is will a non-observational concept? I can see it in my dog's behaviour so it isn't just confined to humans.

 

[Cheetah]

Ha, if it was that easy there would not be any solipsists.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Ask them to explain how they know they are the solipsist? They could simply be a creation of the solipsist.

I remember, back in the days of the alt.destroy.the.earth Usenet newsgroup, that one of the most practical suggestions on offer was to identify the one true solipsist and kill him, thus destroying the entirety of reality.

Dave

 

[Darat]

Ha, if it was that easy there would not be any solipsists.

There can only be one!

 

[ynot]

My comment in other thread:

Don't see how that waffle has anything at all to do with answering my question.

It's not easy. But we must include objects that are not observational.

Give an example of an object that isn't observational.

Will is a non-observational concept but one that is unavoidable in describing psychological facts and behaviours. Unjust is a non-observatory concept, but it is inescapable in moral evaluation.

Concepts aren't objects. Give an example of an object that isn't observational.

These are the limits of science and the territories where it does not reach... by itself.

Concepts are abstract human constructs and science can "reach their territories" as such. Seems you want abstract human constructs to be more than what they actually are.

Even if your poor (being kind) attempt at an explanation did make sense, you still haven't explained what non-scientific method can reach the "territories" that science can't (and how it does it, and what explanations it provides)

 

[The Norseman]

It can exist independently of rest mass at least, a spacetime with just a bunch of photons flying in different directions will have a gravitational field.

A cite was requested. Did you perhaps accidentally forget to provide a link?

IOW yes, comprehension problems.

How do you prove to a solipsist that he is wrong? He just claims everything is happening in his mind.

Please demonstrate.

Sure as soon as you prove to a raging paranoiac that no one is really out to get him.

Please demonstrate.

Ha, if it was that easy there would not be any solipsists.

Just like there aren't any theists?

 

[IanS]

Ian, what you are describing is one interpretation of the evidence

Well, it's hardly a surprise that people (you in the present example) like to believe simplistic things from philosophers. That's nothing new, and it's certainly far easier than putting in real work to study & learn from science.

You are certainly not alone in preferring to believe simple and mysterious seeming things from ancient philosophy and religion. Even in educated western democracies probably 99% of the population are relatively ignorant of science and prefer to believe in all sorts of mystical & supernatural ideas. They think that's more interesting and far easier than putting in many years of hard work to understand how science has shown that all such ancient beliefs from philosophy and religion are untrue, and shown by the actual evidence to be little more fanciful mystical un-educated nonsense (scientifically “un-educated”).

Could science be significantly wrong in the way it currently describes the universe? Of course … science, scientists, and people here are not claiming that every description from science is always absolutely perfect to 100% certainty. But that is not a “gap” which can ever be honestly filled either with “God did it” or with a philosopher rushing in to say “quick, fill the gap with our claim that science cannot detect reality!”.

 

[Cheetah]

Sure as soon as you prove to a raging paranoiac that no one is really out to get him.

Please demonstrate.

Just like there aren't any theists?

But there are.

 

[David Mo]

How is will a non-observational concept? I can see it in my dog's behaviour so it isn't just confined to humans.

A non-observational concept have not any evidence in experience, neither direct nor indirect.
“Will” and “fair” are classical non-observational concepts. Any experience you have of what is fair or unfair is decided by a previous concept of fairness.

Don't see how that waffle has anything at all to do with answering my question.


Give an example of an object that isn't observational.


Concepts aren't objects. Give an example of an object that isn't observational.


Concepts are abstract human constructs and science can "reach their territories" as such. Seems you want abstract human constructs to be more than what they actually are.

Even if your poor (being kind) attempt at an explanation did make sense, you still haven't explained what non-scientific method can reach the "territories" that science can't (and how it does it, and what explanations it provides)

On the concept of observational, see above.

It does not matter to our discussion what type of object is designated by a concept.
Concepts such as "will" or "deserve" are not observational and therefore not scientific. And you have used them in your descriptions that are not more complex of what I proposed, but add unnecessary things to our debate. For example, it is irrelevant to know whether the judged person had a child or not and what kind of object he stole; what matters is that the judge states he did it "because he wanted to" and "not forced" and he deserves -or not- a punishment.

 

[baron]

Well, his sarcastic comment was a bit off, but so was the absurd physics in the analogy you made that he was being sarcastic about.

"A bit off"? You mean, like, wrong? Either the speed of propagation of gravity is known or it is not. He said it is not, and then added sarcastically that I should be given a Nobel prize for discovering it. Sarcasm is fine, but not when you've just shown yourself up to be wrong.

"A gravitational field exists independently of mass." Cite please?

"As soon as you remove the mass..." How do you do that, exactly? You can move the mass, which alters the gravitational field. (Current theory holds that those changes propagate at the speed of light, as gravity waves; perhaps you've heard of those.)

You have a mass. You vapourise or otherwise destroy that mass; its gravitational field attenuates at the speed of light. If you vapourise a mass that has been in existance for a million years then it will take a million years for that mass's gravitational field to disappear. So the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass.

You can also change some of the mass to energy. That in and of itself (until the energy moves, in which case see previous paragraph) has no effect at all on the gravitational field. General Relativity says energy has the same gravitation as the equivalent amount (E/C²) of mass.

The question is, if you deleted that paragraph, would its field of pedantry disappear or simply change to a different form? It's ridiculous. If you measure the gravitational field generated by the Earth, vapourise the Earth with a big laser, then come back in four billion year's time would you say, "Oh, there has been no effect on the gravitational field of the Earth" or "The gravitational field of the Earth has well and truly disappeared"? I think we know the answer. g=GM/r2 is kind of tricky to calculate without M or r.

If you know a way to make mass-energy vanish, or generate a gravitational field independent of mass, you should indeed receive a Nobel prize.

Stop talking soft.

 

[Cheetah]

If you vapourise a mass that has been in existance for a million years then it will take a million years for that mass's gravitational field to disappear. So the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass.

That is not true.

As for "the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass" only in the sense that when you switch off a light bulb, the light still exists, it is just far away and getting further and will continue to do so until it hits something.

 

[baron]

That is not true.

It is true.

As for "the gravitational field clearly exists in the absence of the mass" only in the sense that when you switch off a light bulb, the light still exists, it is just far away and getting further and will continue to do so until it hits something.

Exactly right. Light exists independently of light bulbs.

 

[Belz...]

It is true.

How so?