It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Greggers
originally posted by: payt69
Other principles come into play as well, such as replicability and it should be unfalsifiable, for instance.
I think you mean "falsifiable," not "unfalsifiable." Falsifiability is a basic tenet of all scientific theories. In other words, if it were false, there has to be some test result that would prove it.
For example, Evolution is falsifiable because a pre-cambrian hippo fossil would falsify it. Relativity is falsifiable because measuring a speed of light other than c in a vacuum would falsify it.
Multi-verse theory, string theory, brane theory, holographic universe theory, etc. are all unfalsifiable, and therefore can at best be referred to as highly theoretical science. I personally think this is where science most resembles religion (although even here there are KEY differences, to be clear), but most of the complaints in this thread are focused on other things that tend to be common to all human institutions and which in no way undermine the importance of the differences between religion and science.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey
- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
Can you prove it doesn't work?
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey
- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
Can you prove it doesn't work?
originally posted by: payt69
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey
- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
Can you prove it doesn't work?
Reductionism always reminds me of the nightmare before christmas, in which Jack Skellington (the protagonist) tries to analize the meaning of Christmas by conducting experiments in a lab on Christmas ornaments, treats, gifts and a Christmas tree. Needless to say he's unable to work it out that way.
Reductionists still seem to be struggling though
originally posted by: birdxofxprey
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey
- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
Can you prove it doesn't work?
Science offers no "proof" that these claims are true, they are left unquestioned.
Unquestioned and nonetheless required foundational beliefs constitute orthodoxy.
Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Whether or not this is so depends on what one wants to learn. -
Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- It is worth asking whether or not the most useful observations are those made under artificially imposed (experimental) conditions like isolation and control. Nothing actually exists under such conditions, so the claim that observations made under such conditions are the most useful is not self-evidently true. -
Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
- Observation is always made from one perspective rather than another. It is not possible to observe something from no point of view, and it is impossible to observe something from all perspectives. Insofar as objective observation purports to be unbiased towards any specific point of view and valid from any perspective, objective observation is a fiction.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: payt69
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: birdxofxprey
- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
Can you prove it doesn't work?
Reductionism always reminds me of the nightmare before christmas, in which Jack Skellington (the protagonist) tries to analize the meaning of Christmas by conducting experiments in a lab on Christmas ornaments, treats, gifts and a Christmas tree. Needless to say he's unable to work it out that way.
Reductionists still seem to be struggling though
Reductionism first requires a sufficient understanding of the initial phenomenon before it can be successfully portrayed through other phenomena. This explains the difficulties you mentioned.
originally posted by: payt69
When we relate this to consciousness, it presupposes that this bottom up approach is the only valid way to come to an answer.
It's kindof like examining the functionality of a radio by looking at it's individual parts, and then coming to the conclusion that 'music' is an emergent phenomenon of radio circuitry. In that case you remain unaware of radio waves, people who make radio programs and/or music, radio stations etc. To the reductionist, the radio is IT, and the electronics inside it expain the functionality of the radio.
originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Whether or not this is so depends on what one wants to learn. -
Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- It is worth asking whether or not the most useful observations are those made under artificially imposed (experimental) conditions like isolation and control. Nothing actually exists under such conditions, so the claim that observations made under such conditions are the most useful is not self-evidently true. -
Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
- Observation is always made from one perspective rather than another. It is not possible to observe something from no point of view, and it is impossible to observe something from all perspectives. Insofar as objective observation purports to be unbiased towards any specific point of view and valid from any perspective, objective observation is a fiction.
originally posted by: birdxofxprey
Science certainly is a belief system, its foundation is a commitment to the beliefs that:
- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."
Thus, science has little concern for (and sometimes denies the importance of) topics such as:
- The existence of God
- Life after death
- Personal experience/observation that is not accessible to an "objective" third party
- Value judgments
But the most distinguishing feature of science that resembles religion is orthodoxy.
Ideas, theories or hypotheses that challenge accepted orthodoxy are not well accepted.
Immanuel Velikovsky's work is a good example of this. Admittedly, many (or most) of Velikovsky's alleged facts were not correct.
Well into the 1970s the scientific community ridiculed Velikovsky, ostracized him, and even tried to prevent publication of his work and deny him academic employment. The scientific community's attitude towards Velikovsky was significantly quieted when the Shoemaker-Levy comet struck Jupiter in the 1990s.
Here's the point - if one wants to be accepted as a legitimate employable academically respectable scientist, there are specific beliefs which one must accept. Failure to do so precludes becoming or remaining part of the scientific community.
The overwhelming majority of professional scientists claim to be "atheists."
If consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain, explain how stimulating or damaging parts of the brain can drastically alter personality, memory, level of consciousness and sensory experience. Explain why mental development is correlated with brain development. Explain why mental activity is correlated with brain activity. None of these questions can be answered convincingly with the model of the brain being the receiver of some external signal of consciousness.
Fact of the matter is, although we don't understand the brain fully, any test of "if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, then..." has come back as affirmative.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: payt69
This requires great leaps in logic, over complications and many untestable assumptions to get the data to fit a model that does not give us any more explanatory power. Occam's Razor easily cuts this model down.
Let me ask you: why would any reasonable scientist accept this dualism model over the emergent model?
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: payt69
Your argument is analogous to this in the way it attempts to force fit a model that makes extra untestable assumptions to the data whilst offering no further explanatory power:
The result of a coin toss is not actually chance, but chosen by a mystical, unobservable cosmic force according to a predetermined pattern that is indistinguishable from chance.
So I ask you again: Why would any reasonable scientist accept this dualism model over the emergent model? Or rather, why would any reasonable scientist pick the magical intelligence coin toss model over chance, as the data suggests?
Furthermore: What useful predictions does the dualism model make? What tests can be performed to rule out emergentism for dualism? How can this magical consciousness force be measures?
The prediction it makes is also addressed by a former post, being that contrary to the predictions of the emergent model, what we're actually seeing Instead of reduced consciousness, hightened states of consciousness and highly lucid experiences are being reported
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: payt69
You're quoting a random computer engineer with no credentials in order to frame a false dichotomy. I'm not interested in any of that. Go find me a neuroscientist or neurologist who's active in their field if you wish to appeal to an authority.
1) Where is this data?
2) And how do you dismiss the mountain of empirical evidence that correlates brain damage with reduced mental states?
3) And if this mystical source of consciousness is not dualism dressed up in a cheap dress, what is the source?
And you still haven't answered any of my previous questions.
originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt
I know you think your religion is good and theirs is bad, but most of those scriptures were written while they were being oppressed and ruled over by other people. Even holy war is supposed to be a battle within your mind. It boils down to interpretation. One can interpret and cherry pick old testament verses literally and murder anybody who worships other gods, or treat homosexuals unfairly. Or you can cherry pick verses in the Quaran to take literally and use it as justification to kill innocent people. Neither side is right, it depends how you interpret it.
Most moderate Muslims see the Quaran for the good verses and understand that it was written during war times. Similarly most moderate Christians see the old testament as out dated and understand that none of it should really be taken literally aside from the direct teachings of Jesus. That's why I find it funny when Christians scream about bad verses in the Quaran. 99% of them haven't even read the whole thing in context and their holy book contains things that are just as bad.