Karma

[Jack Knave]

Spoof,

I can't - they're unfalsifiable. Just like "God".

That's not an argument that anyone has made.

And nor is that.

Yet again, here's what's actually been said: "If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns, than it's probably a bad argument."

Thus if you want to try, say, "You can't falsify God, therefore God" you have no choice but to accept the same construction with "leprechauns" substituted for "God".

It really is that simple.

You're a little two faced. A few posts up I used an analogy and you just dismissed it as, well, just an analogy but when you use one, i.e. the leprechaun thing that's valid....? 

[Jack Knave]

Spoof,


No-one has said that something "non-physical" is generated - that's something you've just made up.

So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Suggesting that putting a collection of material elements together in increasingly more complex ways and then hey presto the subjective being is no argument Hillside it's a lot of noise, fluff and guff and it's an intellectually slack way of statin' the bleedin' obvious.......particularly thin stuff on your part.

A bit of bob's your uncle and hand waving.

Desperate stuff Spoof, desperate stuff. If you seriously think there's such a thing a the non-material then - finally - why not at least try to demonstrate it rather than just rely on your ignorance of the reason and evidence for what is known, and acting as if the huge challenges of establishing the non-material don't exist - the only "hand waving" on show here?

For good measure it would not make one iota of difference if a human was completely measureable since the Bible acknowledges we are all creations anyway. That the subjective being is physical is vital for you though but here's the rub.......until we can transfer and share the personal experience we aren't going to be sure.

Oh now I get it - all this time using reason and evidence and stuff when what I should have done was just to take your word for it because it's written in a book. Why didn't you just say so in the first place?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sppof,

Actually I've always said Leprechauns are falsifiable....

Saying something doesn't make it so. Knock yourself out trying though.

....sorry to piss on your bonfire.

Not even close.

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

Once again your types are missing my point.

'From incredulity' -   It is an argument not some ideological position.

I’m not sure who you think “your types” to be, but the arguments from personal incredulity is a basic logical fallacy. It’s a bad argument.

You're a little two faced. A few posts up I used an analogy and you just dismissed it as, well, just an analogy but when you use one, i.e. the leprechaun thing that's valid....?   

You’re not getting it. There’s nothing wrong with using analogies, but to be analogous there have to features in common that make the comparisons meaningful. Your problem was that your analogy wasn’t, well, analogous.

So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.

Seriously? Of course it’s “held by the brain”. Where else would it be held? Consciousness is an emergent property of the material stuff and forces of which the brain consists. You can’t just conjure up a separate “something” because it stretches too far your credulity that the brain is complex enough to do all these things and more.

[torridon]

So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.

Whether your eyes are open or closed makes little difference, seeing/imagining is still an internal neurological phenomenon happening in the occipital lobe; the eyes are merely outfacing sensors supplying novel information into that mix, but that 'mix' is mainly internally sourced from memory anyway. 

There cannot be a master neuron, for the same base reason that there cannot be a god - they both fail in information theory terms, they are but naive attempts to head off an infinite regress.

[Sriram]

There cannot be a master neuron, for the same base reason that there cannot be a god - they both fail in information theory terms, they are but naive attempts to head off an infinite regress.

You cannot fit facts to suit a theory. Change the theory please! 

The idea of a master neuron is nonsense...but the Subject...the Self is a reality. All of us can experience it.

The brain is a piece of flesh that rots after a person dies. It cannot by itself be the 'God' in the system. The brain forms because of  stem cells.  The stem cells are driven by genes/DNA. What drives the DNA and  why and how, is the question. The possible answer is Consciousness.

[torridon]

You cannot fit facts to suit a theory. Change the theory please! 

The idea of a master neuron is nonsense...but the Subject...the Self is a reality. All of us can experience it.

The brain is a piece of flesh that rots after a person dies. It cannot by itself be the 'God' in the system. The brain forms because of  stem cells.  The stem cells are driven by genes/DNA. What drives the DNA and  why and how, is the question. The possible answer is Consciousness.

Theory is born out of the marriage of observation and applied logic - it is an explanation of observed facts and we cannot change theory willy nilly just to appease cultural biases or to indulge flaky pseudoscience.  Consciousness is an exotic and rare product of this cosmos not the cause of it.  Not unless you are indulging some or other misdefinition of the word as happens in frequently New Age thinking and in panpsychicism

[Sriram]

Theory is born out of the marriage of observation and applied logic - it is an explanation of observed facts and we cannot change theory willy nilly just to appease cultural biases or to indulge flaky pseudoscience.  Consciousness is an exotic and rare product of this cosmos not the cause of it.  Not unless you are indulging some or other misdefinition of the word as happens in frequently New Age thinking and in panpsychicism

You can't just stick labels, give names and categorize ideas to suit current scientific snobbery and then dismiss them all as irrelevant to reality. Some scientists are beginning to think laterally and many 'mainstream scientists' don't seem to like it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

If you insist on lying here, why do it about statements you've made that are so easily checked?

Feel free to demonstrate that anyone has said seriously ''God is unfalsifiable therefore God''........apart from yourself.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You never have understood the burden of proof problem have you.

Enough to know that when you say ''there IS no cogent reason for'' something you make a positive assertion that needs to be demonstrated.

Can you also please back up your assertion (positive) that an argument for leprechauns which works for God is a bad one?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sppof,

Saying something doesn't make it so. Knock yourself out trying though.

Not even close.

Alright then what is unfalsifiable about tiny irish people, ends of rainbows, and pots of gold and a combination of the three?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spoof,

Feel free to demonstrate that anyone has said seriously ''God is unfalsifiable therefore God''........apart from yourself.

It’s called the negative proof fallacy, and we see it here regularly. Hope in particular is a big fan.

The point that you’ve just ducked again though is not the fact of the NPF, but rather that your attempt to critique it of, “but leprechauns are just made up” entirely misses the point. You can substitute any unfalsifiable conjecture you like for “God” or for “leprechauns” and end up with the same result.

If you want to shift ground now and rely on the notion that no-one does try the NPF you’d be wrong about that too, but it doesn’t get you off the hook of misunderstanding it too.

Oh, and I see that you've just walked away from your earlier claim that you could falsify leprechauns. Why is that?

Enough to know that when you say ''there IS no cogent reason for'' something you make a positive assertion that needs to be demonstrated.

You’ve tried that stunt before and failed with it then too. It is demonstrated, for the same reason that “there’s no cogent reason to think that storks fly babies through windows” is demonstrated. 

Can you also please back up your assertion (positive) that an argument for leprechauns which works for God is a bad one?

Seriously? It’s a bad one because an argument that produces with equal facility an outcome we agree to be made up with one that only one of us thinks to be made up cannot be a bad argument for the former and a good one for the former when it's the same argument. Perhaps you might try Amazon for a basic primer on logic before you try posting again?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

It’s called the negative proof fallacy, and we see it here regularly. Hope in particular is a big fan.

Yes.....but did he actually say it....or is it your inference?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

It’s called the negative proof fallacy, and we see it here regularly. Hope in particular is a big fan.

The point that you’ve just ducked again though is not the fact of the NPF, but rather that your attempt to critique it of, “but leprechauns are just made up” entirely misses the point. You can substitute any unfalsifiable conjecture you like for “God” or for “leprechauns” and end up with the same result.

If you want to shift ground now and rely on the notion that no-one does try the NPF you’d be wrong about that too, but it doesn’t get you off the hook of misunderstanding it too.

Oh, and I see that you've just walked away from your earlier claim that you could falsify leprechauns. Why is that?

You’ve tried that stunt before and failed with it then too. It is demonstrated, for the same reason that “there’s no cogent reason to think that storks fly babies through windows” is demonstrated. 

Seriously? It’s a bad one because an argument that produces with equal facility an outcome we agree to be made up with one that only one of us thinks to be made up cannot be a bad argument for the former and a good one for the former when it's the same argument. Perhaps you might try Amazon for a basic primer on logic before you try posting again?

Yep. Tiny Irishmen, upside down pipes being smoked, ends of rainbows and pots of gold and any combination are eminently testable Hillside.

Don't you have a better argument than to evoke ''The great NPF scare of 2016''?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spoof,

Desperate stuff Spoof, desperate stuff. If you seriously think there's such a thing a the non-material then - finally - why not at least try to demonstrate it

Hillside since when have you got to demonstrate something to THINK something. You can't demonstrate that the subjective self will ultimately be measurable and yet it's ok for you to think it and propose it's potential to be the case.

ii) You are mistaking reason for physicalism.

[jeremyp]

Yep. Tiny Irishmen, upside down pipes being smoked, ends of rainbows and pots of gold and any combination are eminently testable Hillside.

How do you falsify a leprechaun? Give me a test that I can perform to show they are not real.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sppof,

Yes.....but did he actually say it....or is it your inference?

He said it – often in fact, as have various others who come here. It’s an old trope too – which is why back in the day Russell came up with his celestial teapot as a counter to it.

Anyways, have you now formally abandoned your "the NPF is fine so long as it applies to my unfalsifiable conjecture, but not fine for any other non-falsifiable conjecture" effort in favour of, "no-one uses the NPF anyway"?

Yep. Tiny Irishmen, upside down pipes being smoked, ends of rainbows and pots of gold and any combination are eminently testable Hillside.

Don't you have a better argument than to evoke ''The great NPF scare of 2016''?

Yup, they’re my faith beliefs about them. Of course others of the more traditional wing think that they actually wear purple on Sundays and commit the mortal sin of hanging the loo rolls the wrong way around, but my faith is of the more liberal type.

Anyways, you were saying that you could falsify my faith belief in leprechauns. When exactly do you propose to do that, and how? 
 

Hillside since when have you got to demonstrate something to THINK something. You can't demonstrate that the subjective self will ultimately be measurable and yet it's ok for you to think it and propose it's potential to be the case.

Since you’ve claimed it to be a fact. You can think anything you like, but if you want to assert into existence the non-material then you have all your work ahead of you still if you expect anyone else to think you’re right about that.

ii) You are mistaking reason for physicalism.

A statement you make presumably because you use almost none of the former and you don’t understand the meaning of the latter. 

[wigginhall]

How do you falsify a leprechaun? Give me a test that I can perform to show they are not real.

Yes, I was just thinking that.  You will hit the problem of induction.   You could search Ireland for leprechauns, but if you don't find any, would that confirm their non-existence?  Not really. 

[wigginhall]

So when I see in my minds eye, with my eyes closed, some scene or person I know etc. where is that picture, and who is looking at it? It can't be held by the brain as it has no cinema screen and there is no 'who' or singularity in the brain or mass of neurons. Unless you are postulating a master neuron.

The way to approach this is to find a brain-dead person (rather tricky these days), and ask them what's in their mind's eye.  If they reply tonight's dinner, or a pretty girl, you're in luck.   Generally, when I've talked to corpses, they've been very reticent, but maybe I've had bad luck. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

The way to approach this is to find a brain-dead person (rather tricky these days)...

Have you read some of the posts here? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Yes, I was just thinking that.  You will hit the problem of induction.   You could search Ireland for leprechauns, but if you don't find any, would that confirm their non-existence?  Not really.

Yup - just as someone might have said, "I've looked at every swan I can find and they're all white. Therefore..."

Not to worry though. Vlad/Spoof tells us that he can falsify leprechauns so I've got in a case of Iron Bru and a jumbo pack of twiglets and I'm all settled in to watch him do it...

...should be any minute now I reckon...

...really, hang on - he'll be here soon I promise...

...er, Spoofy ol' son?

[wigginhall]

This fantasy that consciousness exists outside brains baffles me.  Where does it come from?   Is it some kind of protest against the physical world?  I don't know.   It can never point to anything concrete, just waffle. 

[torridon]

This fantasy that consciousness exists outside brains baffles me.  Where does it come from?   Is it some kind of protest against the physical world?  I don't know.   It can never point to anything concrete, just waffle.

And near death experiences demonstrate that dead people can see and hear also.  Not much point in being alive really, then.  Who needs neurons anyway.

[Sriram]

And near death experiences demonstrate that dead people can see and hear also.  Not much point in being alive really, then.  Who needs neurons anyway.

A robot might wonder how intelligence could exist outside the microprocessor!  But it does exist. Similarly....intelligence and Consciousness could be fundamental properties of the life form that we  call spirit.