Science vs. Atheism

[Divine Insight]

[youtube][/youtube]

I agree with this view in general. I personally don't see science as supporting atheism actually.

Now it's true that I am extremely atheistic toward the Abrahamic religions. But not for scientific reasons. I reject those religions based on their own self-contradictions and absurdities. When it comes to spirituality in general I'm definitely open-minded and agnostic. I even intuitively lean toward the spiritual. Albeit confessing that I can't know it to be true.

I just thought I'd post this here to see how others view this topic.

So please share your views.

[Goat]

What bothers me is that I really do not understand how you can take 2 mystical 'things' and use the second the explain the the first. Using teleportation to explain consciousness. Not only that, but using thought experiments for evidence.

This is not only faulty reasoning, it is wishful thinking.

Albert Einstein make great contributions to science using thought experiments. In fact, he was so confident in his theories before they had been experimentally proven that he said, "If God did not create the universe in this way then God is an idiot". That's how much FAITH he had in his thought experiments. And I shouldn't need to point out that they did indeed turn out to be CORRECT.

So call it faulty reasoning to your heart's content, it still constitutes valid reasoning.

Moreover, as I had stated in my post, we don't even need the concept of sci-fi teleportation systems. All we need to do is black out, or go unconscious and return to consciousness again, and we've done the same thing. We can then ask whether it's the same YOU?

If it is, then what if you have amnesia? Are you still the same YOU having this new experience? If yes, why? If no, why not?

The teleportation thought experiment actually shows us something profound. Whether the experiment can actually be done in principle is irrelevant.

If you can be copied identical and that copy would still be you. Then there would now exist TWO you's that are having totally separate experiences.

But how is that any different from the fact that complete strangers have totally separate experiences from YOU?

The mystics have the ANSWER to this riddle.

You just don't understand their answer. Because if you did you would see why they are right.

Except, of course, while his experiments in GR was shown be correct, his thought experiment, which he was trying to show QM to be wrong, actually showed QM to be right. You should know that one.

[Divine Insight]

Except, of course, while his experiments in GR was shown be correct, his thought experiment, which he was trying to show QM to be wrong, actually showed QM to be right. You should know that one.

This is very true Goat. Very nice observation, except for one thing,...

In this case his thought experiments were still meaningful and productive. They simply produced useful results that Einstein was not in favor of.

John A. was suggesting that thought experiments are faulty reasoning.

Actually there was nothing wrong with any of Einstein's reasoning. He simply neglected to take into account additional information that Neil's Bohr had to continually point out. And when it was pointed out, Einstein quickly accepted it and moved on for yet another attempt. He failed miserably in every one of his attempts, but never for "faulty" reasoning. His reasoning was always simply 'incomplete'.

That's extremely ironic since Einstein's main goal was to demonstrate that QM itself was 'incomplete'. Yet every attempt he made failed because of incompleteness on the part of Einstein.

Not, faulty reasoning, just incomplete reasoning.

~~~~~

I'm glad you brought this up too because in the case of proclaiming that we understand just what it is that is having a conscious experience, it appears that we are also making the same mistakes that Einstein made. Our reasoning always seems to be incomplete.

Maybe we should do like Einstein did and just finally give up. Although, I think Einstein just died. I'll always wonder what Einstein would have to say today in light of Bell's Theorem and so forth. It would really be interesting to get his views. In fact, it might even be more interesting to hear what Niels Bohr would have to say.

Maybe Niels Bohr would point out an error in Bells Theorem that no one has caught yet? I tried for a couple decades and finally gave up. Bells Theorem seems pretty air-tight to me. But that doesn't mean diddly squat.

[JohnA]

What bothers me is that I really do not understand how you can take 2 mystical 'things' and use the second the explain the the first. Using teleportation to explain consciousness. Not only that, but using thought experiments for evidence.

This is not only faulty reasoning, it is wishful thinking.

Albert Einstein make great contributions to science using thought experiments. In fact, he was so confident in his theories before they had been experimentally proven that he said, "If God did not create the universe in this way then God is an idiot". That's how much FAITH he had in his thought experiments. And I shouldn't need to point out that they did indeed turn out to be CORRECT.

So call it faulty reasoning to your heart's content, it still constitutes valid reasoning.

Moreover, as I had stated in my post, we don't even need the concept of sci-fi teleportation systems. All we need to do is black out, or go unconscious and return to consciousness again, and we've done the same thing. We can then ask whether it's the same YOU?

If it is, then what if you have amnesia? Are you still the same YOU having this new experience? If yes, why? If no, why not?

The teleportation thought experiment actually shows us something profound. Whether the experiment can actually be done in principle is irrelevant.

If you can be copied identical and that copy would still be you. Then there would now exist TWO you's that are having totally separate experiences.

But how is that any different from the fact that complete strangers have totally separate experiences from YOU?

The mystics have the ANSWER to this riddle.

You just don't understand their answer. Because if you did you would see why they are right.

Errr, at least get the history on Einstein accurate.

GR
What thought experiment are you talking about? Can you name this? You are now trying to argue that when people come up with a hypothesis (answer to a questions because there is evidence) and the hypothesis turns out accurate (AFTER falsification/observation/tests), then it was based on a thought experiment. That is just ignorance of the scientific method.
You are also confusing though experiments with practical analogies. There were practical experiments that could be run to verify (falsification concept was not adhered to then) his theory. And these experiments were done, and is still being done today!!!!!!
Not to mention that Einstein's GR is INCOMPLETE. It does not have an answer for gravity, not a complete one.
You are comparing apples with pears when you try and compare your Einstein ignorance with your wishful thinking.

GR vs QM: Einstein lost. He said his god does not play dice and Bohr told Einstein to stop telling his god what to do. So Einsteins "glove" analogy / though experiment was wrong. And empirical testing showed it wrong, not philosophical antiquity based on the dark-ages.

Btw, if Einstein had FAITH, then no-one would even have been able to find evidence for his GR. Faith is an admittance that there is no evidence.

This is what this wishful thinking do to one, it covers your filter of reasoning resulting in irrational beliefs.

Moreover, as I had stated in my post, we don't even need the concept of sci-fi teleportation systems.

Am glad you admit that this wishful "though experiment" is just that, pointless. Especially when you trying to solve a completely unrelated problem.

And then you dig right back into this wishful thinking:

All we need to do is black out, or go unconscious and return to consciousness again, and we've done the same thing. We can then ask whether it's the same YOU?

You just don't understand their answer. Because if you did you would see why they are right.

You are right, I do not rely on wishful thinking. I do not explain a scientific "problem" (consciousness) by using another sci-fi "wish" (teleportation). This is faulty reasoning, moreover just wishful thinking. Some say that is how some of the modern religious were born: pseudo-con man selling to the sci-fi fool.

[Goat]

Except, of course, while his experiments in GR was shown be correct, his thought experiment, which he was trying to show QM to be wrong, actually showed QM to be right. You should know that one.

This is very true Goat. Very nice observation, except for one thing,...

In this case his thought experiments were still meaningful and productive. They simply produced useful results that Einstein was not in favor of.

John A. was suggesting that thought experiments are faulty reasoning.

Actually there was nothing wrong with any of Einstein's reasoning. He simply neglected to take into account additional information that Neil's Bohr had to continually point out. And when it was pointed out, Einstein quickly accepted it and moved on for yet another attempt. He failed miserably in every one of his attempts, but never for "faulty" reasoning. His reasoning was always simply 'incomplete'.

That's extremely ironic since Einstein's main goal was to demonstrate that QM itself was 'incomplete'. Yet every attempt he made failed because of incompleteness on the part of Einstein.

Not, faulty reasoning, just incomplete reasoning.

~~~~~

I'm glad you brought this up too because in the case of proclaiming that we understand just what it is that is having a conscious experience, it appears that we are also making the same mistakes that Einstein made. Our reasoning always seems to be incomplete.

Maybe we should do like Einstein did and just finally give up. Although, I think Einstein just died. I'll always wonder what Einstein would have to say today in light of Bell's Theorem and so forth. It would really be interesting to get his views. In fact, it might even be more interesting to hear what Niels Bohr would have to say.

Maybe Niels Bohr would point out an error in Bells Theorem that no one has caught yet? I tried for a couple decades and finally gave up. Bells Theorem seems pretty air-tight to me. But that doesn't mean diddly squat.

Hum.. I disagree with it being true or false, or inaccurate. The point of the thought experiment is to come up iwth 'If this is true, then this also much be true'.. as a way to test the first idea. However, the thought experiment is not meaningful until you can get real hard data from phyiscal experiments. They are useful to try to see what else can be tested. The thought experiments were not yanked out of nothing, but rather extrapolating from what is claimed. The value of the thought experiment came after it could be tested in the real world, or at least open up a line of testing

[JohnA]

Except, of course, while his experiments in GR was shown be correct, his thought experiment, which he was trying to show QM to be wrong, actually showed QM to be right. You should know that one.

This is very true Goat. Very nice observation, except for one thing,...

In this case his thought experiments were still meaningful and productive. They simply produced useful results that Einstein was not in favor of.

John A. was suggesting that thought experiments are faulty reasoning.

Actually there was nothing wrong with any of Einstein's reasoning. He simply neglected to take into account additional information that Neil's Bohr had to continually point out. And when it was pointed out, Einstein quickly accepted it and moved on for yet another attempt. He failed miserably in every one of his attempts, but never for "faulty" reasoning. His reasoning was always simply 'incomplete'.

That's extremely ironic since Einstein's main goal was to demonstrate that QM itself was 'incomplete'. Yet every attempt he made failed because of incompleteness on the part of Einstein.

Not, faulty reasoning, just incomplete reasoning.

~~~~~

I'm glad you brought this up too because in the case of proclaiming that we understand just what it is that is having a conscious experience, it appears that we are also making the same mistakes that Einstein made. Our reasoning always seems to be incomplete.

Maybe we should do like Einstein did and just finally give up. Although, I think Einstein just died. I'll always wonder what Einstein would have to say today in light of Bell's Theorem and so forth. It would really be interesting to get his views. In fact, it might even be more interesting to hear what Niels Bohr would have to say.

Maybe Niels Bohr would point out an error in Bells Theorem that no one has caught yet? I tried for a couple decades and finally gave up. Bells Theorem seems pretty air-tight to me. But that doesn't mean diddly squat.

Hum.. I disagree with it being true or false, or inaccurate. The point of the thought experiment is to come up iwth 'If this is true, then this also much be true'.. as a way to test the first idea. However, the thought experiment is not meaningful until you can get real hard data from phyiscal experiments. They are useful to try to see what else can be tested. The thought experiments were not yanked out of nothing, but rather extrapolating from what is claimed. The value of the thought experiment came after it could be tested in the real world, or at least open up a line of testing

Nicely worded and accurate.

Am glad at least someones reasoning filter is working.

[Divine Insight]

Errr, at least get the history on Einstein accurate.

I'd be glad to if you would kindly point out an error that I've made thus far.

GR
What thought experiment are you talking about? Can you name this?

There were many, but probably the most historically famous is the thought experiment of being in an elevator in outer space far away from any gravitational field versus standing on the surface of earth.

This was an experiment that could not be done in Einstein's days. Yet he performed this experiment in his mind and realized the principle of equivalency which is at the heart of GR. It states that there is no measurable difference between accelerating though a totally uniform field of space devoid of any gravity at all, versus standing in a gravitational field on Earth.

Note: There actually is an experimentally verifiable difference between these two situations. However this difference turned out to be unimportant. Moreover, Einstein himself could have recognized even this difference without an actual experiment if he had simply given more complete thought to his thought experiment. In fact, this measurable difference would have actually been even further insight to support Einsteins epiphany.

So there you go. You asked for a thought experiment I gave you one. There were actually many others. Einstein was very BIG on thought experiments. In fact, the entire debate between Einstein and Bohr consisted entirely of thought experiments. Einstein offered the thought experiment, and Bohr offered a thought solution. No actual physical experiment ever needed to be done to settle their debates. At least not until the EPR proposal. But even then John Stewart Bell solved that with pure mathematics (i.e. pure thought) before it was confirmed in the lab physically.

So most of science is done as thought experiments.

You are now trying to argue that when people come up with a hypothesis (answer to a questions because there is evidence) and the hypothesis turns out accurate (AFTER falsification/observation/tests), then it was based on a thought experiment. That is just ignorance of the scientific method.

That is indeed historically true all through science. Galileo hypothesized that all objects would fall at the same rate of acceleration if air resistance could be ignored. It turned out that he was right. So Galileo arrived at his conclusion via a pure thought experiment.

You are also confusing though experiments with practical analogies. There were practical experiments that could be run to verify (falsification concept was not adhered to then) his theory. And these experiments were done, and is still being done today!!!!!!

They weren't done right away. It took quite a while before Einsteins hypotheses could be experimentally verified. Yet that didn't stop Einstein from moving forward with confidence that his thought experiments alone were producing USEFUL results. Not necessarily verified FACTS. I never claimed that they would be verified facts.

Not to mention that Einstein's GR is INCOMPLETE. It does not have an answer for gravity, not a complete one.

That's totally irrelevant. It's clearly true within a very large range of conditions. A far larger range than Newtons Gravity works. Yet Newton was considered to be doing "science" too. In fact, Newton was guessing that gravity could reach out to the planets. That had to be a "Thought Experiment" for Newton because he had no physical way of testing that hypothesis.

So Newton also did science by thought experiment. And Newton's science has been the PILLAR of science for centuries now. We even still use it today and simply recognize that it too is incomplete and only holds in restricted situations.

You are comparing apples with pears when you try and compare your Einstein ignorance with your wishful thinking.

I'm not ignorant of Einstein. You have no justification for that groundless accusation.

GR vs QM: Einstein lost. He said his god does not play dice and Bohr told Einstein to stop telling his god what to do. So Einsteins "glove" analogy / though experiment was wrong. And empirical testing showed it wrong, not philosophical antiquity based on the dark-ages.

So? Where did I ever say that ALL thought experiments must be true?

I never made any such claim.

Btw, if Einstein had FAITH, then no-one would even have been able to find evidence for his GR. Faith is an admittance that there is no evidence.

He clearly had FAITH in his own ability to reason through thought experiments. Possible more faith than warranted, but he clearly had faith.

You just pointed out a thought experiment where Einstein was wrong. But obviously he had some level of faith in his reasoning to suggest his glove analogy.

Or do you think that Einstein was just guessing at everything? If that were true he would be the LUCKIEST guesser in history to have guess at Special Relativity and again at General Relativity.

This is what this wishful thinking do to one, it covers your filter of reasoning resulting in irrational beliefs.

You are going way off a totally unwarranted deep end John. Where have I ever claimed to "believe" in anything?

I conclude that the Eastern Mystics have the best rational explanation for human experience. And I make that conclusion based entirely on reason. A present there is no experiment that can be done to prove them wrong. And all the evidence that science has discovered thus far supports their claims.

Moreover, as I had stated in my post, we don't even need the concept of sci-fi teleportation systems.

Am glad you admit that this wishful "though experiment" is just that, pointless. Especially when you trying to solve a completely unrelated problem.

I never did need the sci-fi aspect of it. And I pointed that out in my first post on this particular issue.

And then you dig right back into this wishful thinking:

All we need to do is black out, or go unconscious and return to consciousness again, and we've done the same thing. We can then ask whether it's the same YOU?

And your answer is?

I don't see you offering a scientific answer here.

You just don't understand their answer. Because if you did you would see why they are right.

You are right, I do not rely on wishful thinking. I do not explain a scientific "problem" (consciousness) by using another sci-fi "wish" (teleportation). This is faulty reasoning, moreover just wishful thinking. Some say that is how some of the modern religious were born: pseudo-con man selling to the sci-fi fool.

And now you are creating totally false strawman claims.

There is nothing "Wishful" in anything I propose. I couldn't care less whether reality is secular or mystical. I'm totally open to whatever reality has to offer. If I die when I die that's fine with me. I'll never even know that I had died. Neither will I ever know that I had ever lived at that point. At that point in time I may as well have never existed.

It's certainly not that I don't want secularism to be true, but surely even you can see how utterly uninteresting such a reality would be. If that's the truth of reality then what's to discuss? May as well just wait until you die and it will all be over. And at that point there would have never been any reason to have ever lived.

That may very well be reality John. But we certainly don't know this to be the case, so why would anyone waste their time pushing for that conclusion?

Where is your scientific evidence that this conclusion has any validity?

And be careful because after our conversation thus far I can easily point out that your theory is indeed "Incomplete".

The mystics have a very sound philosophy which may very well be true. And every bit of scientific knowledge to date is in total agreement with their philosophy. So I have no idea why you are even complaining about it. They may be onto something truly wonderful.

Why are you so anxious to knock it?

[keithprosser3]

I just went through this thread - I think DI posts a lot but doesn't make many actual statements. I doubt if any other poster uses so many question marks though. I am not sure what DI's position is so I don't know if I agree or disagree with it.

Anyway, back to business.

If, then, you are watching yourself being reassembled from another set of atoms, would you be both of those persons? If not, then the new assemblage of atoms at place B is not you in either thought experiment.

The problem as I see it is the word 'you' and related words like 'I', yourself, myself and so on. Such words were invented for situations where the self and body were singular and inseparable. Teleport scenarios can violate that simple picture so it is no longer always obvious or intuitive what such words should apply.

If we don't worry about pronouns, the situation where I get duplicated is straightforward enough. We start with one person in one place and end up with two people in two places - people who are (for the sake of argument)identical right down to the quark level. As we are assuming I was conscious during the whole process, I would know I was and still am kp3 and the copy would know he is the newly produced kp3.1 (assuming we don't want to play any nasty tricks, that is).
The resulting situation is fraught with practical and perhaps ethical problems, but it has no logical or physical paradoxes about it.

That makes it look like teleporting doesn't work - it produces entirely different people, not transported originals. But all is not lost. This part depends on the detailed nature of the self. I take an abstract view of my self (note not myself, my self, two words!). The essence of kp3 is not the atoms I am made of (I exchange those with the environment all the time), nor my physical features, or I'd be a different person when I cut my hair or cut my toe-nails. I view the essential features of me as being my mental aspects - my memories, my hopes, my likes and dislikes so on. It is those mental aspects of me that are the important ones. My body is the vehicle for my self, but it is not essential to what I makes me 'me'. I could lose a leg or get a heart transplant and I would still be me.

Now when I teleport the result is as before, with the original now gone. There is no kp3, there is only kp3.1. But because the process has preserved what is significant about kp3 in kp3.1 that is - for me - sufficient. I (as kp3,1) would know the relationship my new body has to the old one. If I had a sentimental attachment to my original atoms then I would have a problem, but I don't actually give a hoot about them - why should I? As long as my mental processes are the same, I am the same in all the ways that really matter. Plus I get to avoid airport queues and 5 hour stop-overs in Addis Ababa.

I know not everyone agrees with me about teleporting on that basis! But I think a lot of 'telephobia' may stem from the natural (but illogical and irrational) attachment to one's current material body. Teleporting doesn't transport everything - it can't. But it can transfer everything that makes a person be that person - if you believe that the self is a product of the brain functioning, rather than the self being the flesh (or atoms) of the brain or body per se.

[JohnA]

Errr, at least get the history on Einstein accurate.

I'd be glad to if you would kindly point out an error that I've made thus far.

GR
What thought experiment are you talking about? Can you name this?

There were many, but probably the most historically famous is the thought experiment of being in an elevator in outer space far away from any gravitational field versus standing on the surface of earth.

This was an experiment that could not be done in Einstein's days. Yet he performed this experiment in his mind and realized the principle of equivalency which is at the heart of GR. It states that there is no measurable difference between accelerating though a totally uniform field of space devoid of any gravity at all, versus standing in a gravitational field on Earth.

Note: There actually is an experimentally verifiable difference between these two situations. However this difference turned out to be unimportant. Moreover, Einstein himself could have recognized even this difference without an actual experiment if he had simply given more complete thought to his thought experiment. In fact, this measurable difference would have actually been even further insight to support Einsteins epiphany.

So there you go. You asked for a thought experiment I gave you one. There were actually many others. Einstein was very BIG on thought experiments. In fact, the entire debate between Einstein and Bohr consisted entirely of thought experiments. Einstein offered the thought experiment, and Bohr offered a thought solution. No actual physical experiment ever needed to be done to settle their debates. At least not until the EPR proposal. But even then John Stewart Bell solved that with pure mathematics (i.e. pure thought) before it was confirmed in the lab physically.

So most of science is done as thought experiments.

You are now trying to argue that when people come up with a hypothesis (answer to a questions because there is evidence) and the hypothesis turns out accurate (AFTER falsification/observation/tests), then it was based on a thought experiment. That is just ignorance of the scientific method.

That is indeed historically true all through science. Galileo hypothesized that all objects would fall at the same rate of acceleration if air resistance could be ignored. It turned out that he was right. So Galileo arrived at his conclusion via a pure thought experiment.

You are also confusing though experiments with practical analogies. There were practical experiments that could be run to verify (falsification concept was not adhered to then) his theory. And these experiments were done, and is still being done today!!!!!!

They weren't done right away. It took quite a while before Einsteins hypotheses could be experimentally verified. Yet that didn't stop Einstein from moving forward with confidence that his thought experiments alone were producing USEFUL results. Not necessarily verified FACTS. I never claimed that they would be verified facts.

Not to mention that Einstein's GR is INCOMPLETE. It does not have an answer for gravity, not a complete one.

That's totally irrelevant. It's clearly true within a very large range of conditions. A far larger range than Newtons Gravity works. Yet Newton was considered to be doing "science" too. In fact, Newton was guessing that gravity could reach out to the planets. That had to be a "Thought Experiment" for Newton because he had no physical way of testing that hypothesis.

So Newton also did science by thought experiment. And Newton's science has been the PILLAR of science for centuries now. We even still use it today and simply recognize that it too is incomplete and only holds in restricted situations.

You are comparing apples with pears when you try and compare your Einstein ignorance with your wishful thinking.

I'm not ignorant of Einstein. You have no justification for that groundless accusation.

GR vs QM: Einstein lost. He said his god does not play dice and Bohr told Einstein to stop telling his god what to do. So Einsteins "glove" analogy / though experiment was wrong. And empirical testing showed it wrong, not philosophical antiquity based on the dark-ages.

So? Where did I ever say that ALL thought experiments must be true?

I never made any such claim.

Btw, if Einstein had FAITH, then no-one would even have been able to find evidence for his GR. Faith is an admittance that there is no evidence.

He clearly had FAITH in his own ability to reason through thought experiments. Possible more faith than warranted, but he clearly had faith.

You just pointed out a thought experiment where Einstein was wrong. But obviously he had some level of faith in his reasoning to suggest his glove analogy.

Or do you think that Einstein was just guessing at everything? If that were true he would be the LUCKIEST guesser in history to have guess at Special Relativity and again at General Relativity.

This is what this wishful thinking do to one, it covers your filter of reasoning resulting in irrational beliefs.

You are going way off a totally unwarranted deep end John. Where have I ever claimed to "believe" in anything?

I conclude that the Eastern Mystics have the best rational explanation for human experience. And I make that conclusion based entirely on reason. A present there is no experiment that can be done to prove them wrong. And all the evidence that science has discovered thus far supports their claims.

Moreover, as I had stated in my post, we don't even need the concept of sci-fi teleportation systems.

Am glad you admit that this wishful "though experiment" is just that, pointless. Especially when you trying to solve a completely unrelated problem.

I never did need the sci-fi aspect of it. And I pointed that out in my first post on this particular issue.

And then you dig right back into this wishful thinking:

All we need to do is black out, or go unconscious and return to consciousness again, and we've done the same thing. We can then ask whether it's the same YOU?

And your answer is?

I don't see you offering a scientific answer here.

You just don't understand their answer. Because if you did you would see why they are right.

You are right, I do not rely on wishful thinking. I do not explain a scientific "problem" (consciousness) by using another sci-fi "wish" (teleportation). This is faulty reasoning, moreover just wishful thinking. Some say that is how some of the modern religious were born: pseudo-con man selling to the sci-fi fool.

And now you are creating totally false strawman claims.

There is nothing "Wishful" in anything I propose. I couldn't care less whether reality is secular or mystical. I'm totally open to whatever reality has to offer. If I die when I die that's fine with me. I'll never even know that I had died. Neither will I ever know that I had ever lived at that point. At that point in time I may as well have never existed.

It's certainly not that I don't want secularism to be true, but surely even you can see how utterly uninteresting such a reality would be. If that's the truth of reality then what's to discuss? May as well just wait until you die and it will all be over. And at that point there would have never been any reason to have ever lived.

That may very well be reality John. But we certainly don't know this to be the case, so why would anyone waste their time pushing for that conclusion?

Where is your scientific evidence that this conclusion has any validity?

And be careful because after our conversation thus far I can easily point out that your theory is indeed "Incomplete".

The mystics have a very sound philosophy which may very well be true. And every bit of scientific knowledge to date is in total agreement with their philosophy. So I have no idea why you are even complaining about it. They may be onto something truly wonderful.

Why are you so anxious to knock it?

So? Where did I ever say that ALL thought experiments must be true?

I rest my case.

Am glad you confirmed that it is just that: rubbish = thought experiments.
(btw, trying to show your historicity knowledge after exposing your ignorance is just affirming your historicity ignorance)

NEXT.

[Your ignorance of science shined. We have not solved it all, I admit, but to offer antiquity, thought experiments based on Aristotelian crap, to solve the remaining unanswered questions is an insult to current science. Current scientists are standing on the heads of giants in science, not religion/ignorance/philosophy/politics].

[scourge99]

[Replying to post 35 by keithprosser3]

I agree with keith's conclusion. These observations would clearly suggest some form of link between the brain and consciousness, but anything further than that is speculation.

Its not simply that the brain is just some substrate or lens for consciousness. Consciousness is a manifestation of a working brain and we know that. If it wasn't then if the brain was damaged or altered we wouldn't expect to observe cognitive deficiencies. For example, we wouldn't expect that brain damage could cause people to no longer recognize faces, or fail to formulate sentences and understand language, or to lack the ability to think logically. Mental retardation is a great example. Its not as though there is a perfectly non-retarded person hiding behind the person's broken brain.

The only way these things make sense is if the brain facilitates cognitive capabilities. And if every facet of our cognitive abilities is dependent on the brain then what exactly is left for consciousness to exist "outside" the brain? Nothing.

All detractors can do is repeat that "you don't know exactly how neurons produce consciousness". That is true. but it doesn't change the evidence. Any explanation about consciousness will have to make sense of the evidence we have about the link between brain damage and cognitive deficiencies . And that link has been established as complete. The mind IS a manifestation of a working brain.

[olavisjo]

.

Albert Einstein make great contributions to science using thought experiments. In fact, he was so confident in his theories before they had been experimentally proven that he said, "If God did not create the universe in this way then God is an idiot".

This does not sound like something that Einstein would say, can you tell me when he said it?