(2017-12-08, 12:57 AM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Edited to add: The ID folks now agree that to evaluate the CSI of a biological mechanism, you also need to calculate the probability of it coming about by evolution. This is, unfortunately, impossible.
So it's also impossible to calculate the probability of a biological mechanism not coming about by neo-Darwinian evolution. So, neo-Darwinian evolution is unfalsifiable and unscientific. For every just-so story that is falsified another one can be devised, and so on ad infinitum. It's neo-Darwinian evolution that isn't really science, not ID.
(2017-12-08, 01:17 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]How would you suggest science approach the nonphysical?
~~ Paul
It would be a long, long job, because science has painted itself into a corner for a very long time.
Perhaps the first thing may be to recognise that there are areas of reality that science can't explain materialistically, but it can keep up a show of doing further research so as to never admit defeat.
I think perhaps it might help to pretend you are a materialist SF writer. Such authors have to invent some science, and the best do so very plausibly, and one test is whether it is possible to invent a plausible story - whether it is right or wrong.
Based on the above discussion, I'd say there is no plausible way to explain the origin of life, based on other discussions we have had, I'd also say there is no plausible way to explain how the brain can experience anything, given that it is just a bag of chemicals interacting chemically and electrically. Equally, I'd say there is no plausible way to explain the reincarnation data, or the remote viewing data, etc.
Science could grow a lot if it recognised some of those problems. To me, institutionalised science has become scared of the genuinely new, because the comfortable bureaucrats that run the system don't want the hassle that such ideas tend to provoke. We need to remember that in former times science was far more receptive to really new ideas - it didn't just try to get rid of them.
David
(2017-12-08, 06:19 PM)stephenw Wrote: [ -> ]the ascii code, logic gates, storage architecture, quantum computation, etc.......
Logic gates and quantum computation are physical.
Whether an idea (ASCII, architecture) is a physical thing is something we could debate until we pass out in exhaustion. But if you can find a free-floating idea that isn't embodied in a brain, then we might get somewhere.
~~ Paul
(2017-12-08, 06:52 PM)nbtruthman Wrote: [ -> ]So it's also impossible to calculate the probability of a biological mechanism not coming about by neo-Darwinian evolution. So, neo-Darwinian evolution is unfalsifiable and unscientific. For every just-so story that is falsified another one can be devised, and so on ad infinitum. It's neo-Darwinian evolution that isn't really science, not ID.
I'm sorry, I can't figure out what you're trying to say here.
You could falsify evolution, for example, by finding an irreducibly complex mechanism. That was one of the primary goals of the CSI program.
The whole probability thing is a distraction. You can't calculate the probability of anything complicated, either from a physical or ID point of view.
~~ Paul
(2017-12-08, 09:49 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Logic gates and quantum computation are physical.
Whether an idea (ASCII, architecture) is a physical thing is something we could debate until we pass out in exhaustion. But if you can find a free-floating idea that isn't embodied in a brain, then we might get somewhere.
~~ Paul
The hardware might be physical but the software isn't. Logic gates are only logical to minds.
I'm not attempting to answer for stephenw because I probably disagree with both of you to some extent. I believe that mind is required to decode information so the free-floating idea you talk about is meaningless without mind. You clearly believe that mind=brain but I'm still not clear on stephenw's position on mind and whether the information that he maintains is fundamental can be accessible without mind. Whether information exists without mind is another version of the existentially-challenged trees in your yard.
DaveB Wrote:It would be a long, long job, because science has painted itself into a corner for a very long time.
Perhaps the first thing may be to recognise that there are areas of reality that science can't explain materialistically, but it can keep up a show of doing further research so as to never admit defeat.
What would those areas be and why aren't then amenable to scientific study?
Quote:Based on the above discussion, I'd say there is no plausible way to explain the origin of life, based on other discussions we have had, I'd also say there is no plausible way to explain how the brain can experience anything, given that it is just a bag of chemicals interacting chemically and electrically. Equally, I'd say there is no plausible way to explain the reincarnation data, or the remote viewing data, etc.
I think your conclusion is a "we don't know how it works yet, so it must involve something immaterial" conclusion. But anyway, how can science change to study these things?
Quote:Science could grow a lot if it recognised some of those problems. To me, institutionalised science has become scared of the genuinely new, because the comfortable bureaucrats that run the system don't want the hassle that such ideas tend to provoke. We need to remember that in former times science was far more receptive to really new ideas - it didn't just try to get rid of them.
So there just aren't any Young Turks willing to go out on a limb? I think you're painting a much bleaker picture than is warranted.
~~ Paul
Kamarling Wrote:The hardware might be physical but the software isn't. Logic gates are only logical to minds.
And if minds are physical, it's still all physical. I agree that ideas are somewhat different from rocks, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence that there are free-floating ideas.
Quote:I'm not attempting to answer for stephenw because I probably disagree with both of you to some extent. I believe that mind is required to decode information so the free-floating idea you talk about is meaningless without mind. You clearly believe that mind=brain but I'm still not clear on stephenw's position on mind and whether the information that he maintains is fundamental can be accessible without mind. Whether information exists without mind is another version of the existentially-challenged trees in your yard.
The point of the trees-in-my-backyard story is to show that personal consciousness is not the only thing there is. You need to invent something "objective." That might be some kind of universal mind, but it could also be something else.
~~ Paul
(2017-12-08, 10:50 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]What would those areas be and why aren't then amenable to scientific study?
Well, many of them are. Why aren't more people involved in reincarnation studies for example? Also, part of the study is to explore the concept that consciousness logically can't be explained in terms of physical science.
Quote:I think your conclusion is a "we don't know how it works yet, so it must involve something immaterial" conclusion. But anyway, how can science change to study these things?
Well you don't need to call it immaterial, just so long as you acknowledge the impasse in certain areas. Gödel did something similar in maths, and Roger Penrose made an effort to extend that to physical theories of consciousness. Even if people think there are loopholes, there is obvious scope to try to close those loopholes.
Another avenue would be to take Dean Radin's presentiment experiment and research it to the bottom - if it isn't valid get a crisp answer as to why, and if it is valid, acclaim it as an experiment on a par with Michelson–Morley experiment.
Then start work on its implications!
Quote:So there just aren't any Young Turks willing to go out on a limb? I think you're painting a much bleaker picture than is warranted.
They get a very rough treatment when they stray into 'forbidden' topics!
David
DaveB Wrote:Well, many of them are. Why aren't more people involved in reincarnation studies for example?
Because it's a giant pile of probability, again. I've read some of the cases and wasn't particularly impressed.
Quote:Also, part of the study is to explore the concept that consciousness logically can't be explained in terms of physical science.
If someone could come up with a logical proof that consciousness is immaterial, that would do the trick. Been a lot of centuries people been trying to do that. If you are annoyed at evolution because it's not solved yet, you should be more annoyed at philosophers.
Quote:Well you don't need to call it immaterial, just so long as you acknowledge the impasse in certain areas. Gödel did something similar in maths, and Roger Penrose made an effort to extend that to physical theories of consciousness. Even if people think there are loopholes, there is obvious scope to try to close those loopholes.
Plenty of scientists are working on consciousness. It's a hot topic again, after being on the backburner for awhile.
Quote:Another avenue would be to take Dean Radin's presentiment experiment and research it to the bottom - if it isn't valid get a crisp answer as to why, and if it is valid, acclaim it as an experiment on a par with Michelson–Morley experiment.
Bem's experiments would be good, too. Lots of people of have lots of time on these. It just doesn't seem to be making progress. But, by all means, keep at it.
~~ Paul
(2017-12-09, 03:07 PM)Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Wrote: [ -> ]Because it's a giant pile of probability, again. I've read some of the cases and wasn't particularly impressed.
If someone could come up with a logical proof that consciousness is immaterial, that would do the trick. Been a lot of centuries people been trying to do that. If you are annoyed at evolution because it's not solved yet, you should be more annoyed at philosophers.
Well there is one really - it is called the Hard Problem!
Quote:Plenty of scientists are working on consciousness. It's a hot topic again, after being on the backburner for awhile.
Bem's experiments would be good, too. Lots of people of have lots of time on these. It just doesn't seem to be making progress. But, by all means, keep at it.
~~ Paul
The point I was making that big science should be doing these experiments - so that we end up with a definite conclusion.
As it is, people do these studies and then others just throw mud at them.
Dean Radin (or maybe Biermann) even did a study where they obtained data from other experiments in which the recorder was started prior to the event in question. They found the presentiment effect even in that data - collected by others for totally different reasons!
We have the means to explore this question, but we just ignore the answers.
David