[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

And that makes it impossible to answer?

You don't know the difference between a serious question and a ...quiz ?

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Popper's epistemological writings regarding science as falsification,science  as an evolutionary process of try and error  , do also explain "everything " =nothing in that regard ,ironically metaphorically speaking then , that they cannot but be "not -entirely" ..."true" or "not-entirely" ....rational (See Hume's true logical rejection of induction in the sense that it can also be applied to Popper  also ,in the above mentioned sense at least . )   .
Some other genius might enlighten us  thus  ,in the future , regarding the still-unknown-to-us-all other  kinds of evolutionary human epistemological processes not yet discovered as such yet ,with more explanatory power , that might replace those of Popper as well, and so on ...
Who knows ?
Note that the epistemology of Popper does not go only for science , but also for religion, politics , economics and the rest , ironically paradoxically enough, in the inductive sense ,wao, induction that was logically rejected by Hume   .

Popper can be relatively refuted via his own epistemological and other thought that were based on his relatively brilliant solution regarding Hume's logical rejection of induction , Popper's relatively brilliant solution that could not make the fact go away that Hume's rejection of incdution was logically true , just by assuming that induction does not exist as such ,or just by saying that humans ' thought or science cannot be inductive,simply because i do think that induction does exist as such , humans can only try to approach though ,but can never reach ,since human knowledge is only ....temporary and evolutionary , not definite or complete .

In short :

I cannot be but a-priori be inclined to relatively reject or be suspicious of any theories that can intrinsically explain "everything " = nothing , metaphorically speaking .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

In short :

We , as human beings , do need some relative degrees of regularity ,conformity,  stability ,security ,systems  of reference and continuity to be able to conduct our lives through a sense of comfort and ease security ,as to develop habits we take for true ,including our scientific temporary knowledge ,including the laws of physics : even the notion of laws is a human ...projection .

Laws imply that they are fixed and unchanged or eternal  ,static ,(even though social and other laws do get changed from time to time ), while everything is evolutionary in this universe in fact .

We should thus never be too comfortable and certain as to take our habits and knowledge as ...true : Hume's rejection of induction does tell us they are not .

Nothing is in fact absolutely certain in life but ...death .

You tell me ...

[cheryl j]

Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

And that makes it impossible to answer?

You don't know the difference between a serious question and a ...quiz ?

The reason he won't answer a simple question like the one you asked is that he doesn't want to clarify his position.
As Popper says, keeping your theory vague, makes it harder to refute.
But as he also says, making it unfalsifiable makes it pseudoscience. 

I don't see anything "quiz like" about what you asked. It's a simple dodge on his part.

Here is your question again, along with mine:

    Which of these three statements best describes your stance?

    (1) All aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.
    (2) Some aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically, but others cannot.
    (3) No aspects of the immaterial can be verified scientifically.


Which of these approximates your view of chemistry and physics?

1)Some things can, but others can’t be explained by chemistry or physics  or

 2)Everything always involves an immaterial explanation, even if there is sometimes chemistry and physics involved in the process,    or

3)Chemistry and physics do not explain anything that happens. They do not matter at all, they are irrelevant. They explain nothing. They explain nothing by themselves or even when combined with a immaterial explanation.

[cheryl j]

Can someone here try to tell me why physicists have been trying to come up with some sort of a  "theory of everything " = theory of nothing ?, since science is not about definite holistic knowledge , just about approximate conjectures,just about temporary knowledge ... .

If you go back to the beginning of this thread, that was your big criticism of science, that it wasn't holistic enough, and the holistic approach, as well as ancient teachings, was the key to understanding consciousness.

Use your imagination then haha , since "Imagination is more important than knowledge " ...

Human imagination and creativity that have been behind many ...scientific discoveries,behind many great works of world literature  , music , philosophy ...................

For someone who's so keen on imagination, you can't explain those "whole new vistas" that you imagine that science will explore once it is free of materialism, and still can't imagine an example of an experiment to test the immaterial.

[/quote]

[dlorde]

...Nothing is in fact absolutely certain in life but ...death .

Close; it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes."

[alancalverd]

Popper's epistemological writings regarding science as falsification,

Wrong. Please read Popper before misquoting him. His ideas weren't original or even particularly profound, but you do him a disservice by not understanding them.

And if materialism really has been devastated, why didn't I feel the shockwave? 

[Kryptid]

Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

And that makes it impossible to answer?

You don't know the difference between a serious question and a ...quiz ?

The fact that you keep twisting words to dodge the question is rather revealing. If quizzes are impossible to answer, then you'd better go correct the school system about their wrong ways. My options were "all", "some" and "none". That covers all the bases. What fourth option could exist?

[Ethos_]

  social, cognitive , mathematical, psychological, emotional  , existential, spiritual ,and other forms of human intelligence ) ,and hence neither human intelligence , nor human consciousness, the mind  or imagination are "in the brain " .

So please tell us, pray tell; Where would you suggest we find these attributes? Would you dare to suggest another location for their habitation? You've made the statement, yes? Now support it with evidence...........and if you can't.................you're nothing more than a Hoax!

[dlorde]

Feynman said science involves:
1. Making a guess (hypothesis) about the explanation for some real world observation.
2. Calculating the implications of that guess.
3. Testing to see whether those implications are borne out in the real world.

Clearly the guess must have calculable implications that can be tested.

Don has made a guess about consciousness. Unfortunately, by invoking the absence of material causation and the unknown, there are no known implications, and nothing testable.

By framing it in terms of what it is not (i.e. consciousness is not of material origin) one might assume that it could be falsified by demonstrating the converse (i.e. that it is of material origin). However, the lack of positive definition of 'immaterial'  means that no matter how much detailed evidence we collect that points to consciousness having a material origin, no matter how detailed the neural correlates of conscious behaviour, he can claim some non-material controlling influence, whether at the sub-atomic level, the biochemical level, the neural level, or the whole brain level, without fear of disproof. By reductio-ad-absurdum, it becomes clear that, in general, the immaterial hypothesis is no explanation at all, it is valueless as it adds nothing to our existing understanding and predicts nothing. It is the argument from ignorance combined with the argument from incredulity and follows the same logical progression as the god-of-the-gaps argument.

It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits. What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

Consciousness, of course, is a subtler problem, because no matter how detailed our elucidation and understanding of the neural construction of consciousness, we still have the existential problem of subjective experience, the sense of self, the experience of qualia, and it would seem that no amount of objective explanation can explain the subjective.

Looking at creatures like the octopus, which despite having a completely different nervous system from any vertebrate, shows strong evidence of a limited consciousness and self-awareness, my hunch is that we'll find that subjective experience is a feature of sufficiently complex flexible and adaptive goal-driven learning systems; i.e. if you are one, you will have some level of awareness and subjective experience.

I may be wrong, there may be a different explanation, or the explanation may remain unknown, but what seems clear for now, is that the negatively defined 'immaterial' hypothesis asserted here by Don (without supporting argument or evidence), explains nothing and can explain nothing. It is a redundant distraction.

[Ethos_]

Feynman said science involves:
1. Making a guess (hypothesis) about the explanation for some real world observation.
2. Calculating the implications of that guess.
3. Testing to see whether those implications are borne out in the real world.

Clearly the guess must have calculable implications that can be tested.

Don has made a guess about consciousness. Unfortunately, by invoking the absence of material causation and the unknown, there are no known implications, and nothing testable.

By framing it in terms of what it is not (i.e. consciousness is not of material origin) one might assume that it could be falsified by demonstrating the converse (i.e. that it is of material origin). However, the lack of positive definition of 'immaterial'  means that no matter how much detailed evidence we collect that points to consciousness having a material origin, no matter how detailed the neural correlates of conscious behaviour, he can claim some non-material controlling influence, whether at the sub-atomic level, the biochemical level, the neural level, or the whole brain level, without fear of disproof. By reductio-ad-absurdum, it becomes clear that, in general, the immaterial hypothesis is no explanation at all, it is valueless as it adds nothing to our existing understanding and predicts nothing. It is the argument from ignorance combined with the argument from incredulity and follows the same logical progression as the god-of-the-gaps argument.

It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits. What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

Consciousness, of course, is a subtler problem, because no matter how detailed our elucidation and understanding of the neural construction of consciousness, we still have the existential problem of subjective experience, the sense of self, the experience of qualia, and it would seem that no amount of objective explanation can explain the subjective.

Looking at creatures like the octopus, which despite having a completely different nervous system from any vertebrate, shows strong evidence of a limited consciousness and self-awareness, my hunch is that we'll find that subjective experience is a feature of sufficiently complex flexible and adaptive goal-driven learning systems; i.e. if you are one, you will have some level of awareness and subjective experience.

I may be wrong, there may be a different explanation, or the explanation may remain unknown, but what seems clear for now, is that the negatively defined 'immaterial' hypothesis asserted here by Don (without supporting argument or evidence), explains nothing and can explain nothing. It is a redundant distraction.

Excellent summation dlorde..............

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Feynman said science involves:
1. Making a guess (hypothesis) about the explanation for some real world observation.
2. Calculating the implications of that guess.
3. Testing to see whether those implications are borne out in the real world.

Clearly the guess must have calculable implications that can be tested.

Don has made a guess about consciousness. Unfortunately, by invoking the absence of material causation and the unknown, there are no known implications, and nothing testable.

By framing it in terms of what it is not (i.e. consciousness is not of material origin) one might assume that it could be falsified by demonstrating the converse (i.e. that it is of material origin). However, the lack of positive definition of 'immaterial'  means that no matter how much detailed evidence we collect that points to consciousness having a material origin, no matter how detailed the neural correlates of conscious behaviour, he can claim some non-material controlling influence, whether at the sub-atomic level, the biochemical level, the neural level, or the whole brain level, without fear of disproof. By reductio-ad-absurdum, it becomes clear that, in general, the immaterial hypothesis is no explanation at all, it is valueless as it adds nothing to our existing understanding and predicts nothing. It is the argument from ignorance combined with the argument from incredulity and follows the same logical progression as the god-of-the-gaps argument.

It's reminiscent of a shaman who claims that a motor car is motivated by spirits; when told it is the internal combustion engine, he says that spirits make that work; when the mechanism is explained, he says spirits make the spark and ignite the fuel; when electricity and fuel combustion are explained, he says they're controlled by spirits; and so-on. Ultimately, a fully detailed explanation of the car is made, down to the quantum mechanical level, which the shaman insists is the work of spirits. What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

Consciousness, of course, is a subtler problem, because no matter how detailed our elucidation and understanding of the neural construction of consciousness, we still have the existential problem of subjective experience, the sense of self, the experience of qualia, and it would seem that no amount of objective explanation can explain the subjective.

Looking at creatures like the octopus, which despite having a completely different nervous system from any vertebrate, shows strong evidence of a limited consciousness and self-awareness, my hunch is that we'll find that subjective experience is a feature of sufficiently complex flexible and adaptive goal-driven learning systems; i.e. if you are one, you will have some level of awareness and subjective experience.

I may be wrong, there may be a different explanation, or the explanation may remain unknown, but what seems clear for now, is that the negatively defined 'immaterial' hypothesis asserted here by Don (without supporting argument or evidence), explains nothing and can explain nothing. It is a redundant distraction.

I argue that reductive explanation of consciousness is impossible, and I even argue for a form of dualism.
 But this is just part of the scientific process.
Certain sorts of explanation turn out not to work, so we need to embrace other sorts of explanation instead.
 Everything I say here is compatible with the results of contemporary science; our picture of the natural world is broadened, not overturned.
 And this broadening allows the possibility of a naturalistic theory of consciousness that might have been impossible without it.
It seems to me that to ignore the problems of consciousness would be antiscientific; it is in the scientific spirit to face up to them directly.
To those who
suspect that science requires materialism, I ask that you wait and see.
I should note that the conclusions of this work are conclusions, in the strongest sense.

Temperamentally, I am
strongly inclined toward materialist reductive explanation, and I have no strong spiritual or religious inclinations.
For a number of years, I hoped for a materialist theory; when I gave up on this hope, it was quite reluctantly.
 It eventually seemed plain to me that these conclusions were forced on anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.
 Materialism is a beautiful and compelling view of the world, but to account for consciousness, we have to go beyond the resources it provides.

Source : "The conscious mind " by David J.Chalmers , Introduction .

[alancalverd]

dlorde:

But Feynman wasn't a philosopher, so what he said is considered to be a statement of the obvious (which is indeed the basis of physics) rather than a profound insight, which is the term assigned to Popper's garbled restatement.  How, I wonder, does one become a philosopher? Seems to be the ultimate profession, with massive respect and no liability. 

What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

It can inculcate fear and hatred among the stupid, and thus keep the shaman in business and support the killing industry.

[alancalverd]

anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.

I'd love to. But first, tell me what it is. I don't buy goods without a meaningful description.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Why have you still not answered my question?

That was not a question , just a quiz

And that makes it impossible to answer?

You don't know the difference between a serious question and a ...quiz ?

The fact that you keep twisting words to dodge the question is rather revealing. If quizzes are impossible to answer, then you'd better go correct the school system about their wrong ways. My options were "all", "some" and "none". That covers all the bases. What fourth option could exist?

We're not playing quiz -like games here , be serious, please .

[alancalverd]

If you answered any of the questions put to you, Don, you might be taken seriously. As of now, your postings are merely a waste of space between those involved in a serious discussion.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

anyone who wants to take consciousness seriously.

I'd love to. But first, tell me what it is. I don't buy goods without a meaningful description.

So, according to you, we should just ignore such a highly   vital and  important process such as consciousness , simply because there is no clear definition of it ?
Consciousness, is , per definition, so elusive deceptive and mysterious that it still does escape any unanymous clear definition ,but that does not prevent scientists , philosophers ...from trying to approach it ,their own ways .

[dlorde]

But Feynman wasn't a philosopher, so what he said is considered to be a statement of the obvious (which is indeed the basis of physics) rather than a profound insight, which is the term assigned to Popper's garbled restatement.  How, I wonder, does one become a philosopher? Seems to be the ultimate profession, with massive respect and no liability.

How true; but on the other hand, what constructive contribution has philosophy made to our lives?

What difference does the shaman's explanation make? what use is it?

It can inculcate fear and hatred among the stupid, and thus keep the shaman in business and support the killing industry.

'Nuff said...

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

dlorde :

http://www.amazon.com/The-Theory-Everything-Stephen-Hawking/dp/8179925919

I have read , yesterday , some parts of Stephen Hawking's "The theory of everything " , and it did confirm my earlier statement that physicists do try to come up with that elusive "inductive " ( Forgeting that Hume had logically rejected induction )  unified theory of everything ,by trying to unify Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum mechanics , in vain .

Was Hawking just kidding then haha by calling that the theory of everything , or by calling the big bang the big bang ?

Materialists scientists physicists can logically only try to come up with a "theory of everything = nothing ", since "all is matter , including the mind " .

Poor Popper might be spinning in his grave , like crazy , together with B.Russell .haha

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Poor Chalmers can also not realise the fact that no naturalist theory of consciousness, either the reductive or the non-reductive one , can account for consciousness , the poor lad .
He's just moving the hard problem of consciousness to another realm, within nature still  : to the naturalist non-reductionist one , as atheist T.Nagel had done ,for obvious metaphysical purposes thus .
Religious dualists can also not come up with a faslifiable theory of consciousness .
Maybe , just maybe , i don't know for sure of course , who does in fact ?, maybe , just maybe , consciousness will remain beyond ...science .
Any better suggestions, folks ?