• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hawking says there are no gods

Status
Not open for further replies.
"But you can't prove there isn't a made up undetectable gap" isn't an argument.

Again stop acting like you're the first Woo-Slinger in history to hide behind the P-zombie idea.
 
David Mo said:
It is my criterion to know if an issue is scientific.
Click to expand...

This morning you tried to save face and downgrade that to merely "significant" rather than essential, because you discovered too late that your proposed standard isn't actually used by anyone but you and so now you need to pretend you weren't being so dogmatically wrong. For the statement in question, your argument was exactly that since no such statement appeared in an academic journal, it could not be considered science. If you reject examples and arguments from a position of ad hoc foisted criteria, then you are simply pleading specially. And also trying to reverse the burden of proof.
 
Last edited:
LarryS said:
I agree with your careful use of word 'associate'
Click to expand...

It wasn't careful. It was accurate. Just like we associate falling with gravity.

if there was even a half-baked guess or hunch offered as a causal relationship between nerve twitchings and a felling then I'd pay the full asking price.
Click to expand...

We have far more than a half-baked guess. We're in certainty territory. Feelings originate in the brain from various electro-chemical processes. There is literally no other conclusion from the evidence, and we have a LOT of evidence for it.

As it stands right now, if a subject is unable to communicate (like a giraffe), we have no idea if they expreience pain or just have the nerve twitchings.
Click to expand...

Are you joking? It's like you think science and reason can't infer one thing from another. The nervous system of a giraffe is very similar to our own. They have similar reactions to similar stimuli. We can infer that they feel pain to a good degree. So, yeah, we have more than a little idea about whether they experience pain or just have nerve twitchings.
 
LarryS said:
JoeM brought up 'feeling' - I'm not sure of his motivation.
And no, science can not see feelings, no matter how many times you repeat it, it does not make it so.
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you assert this it is still a strawman, you can use the methods of science to investigate feelings.
 
LarryS said:
I agree with your careful use of word 'associate' - if there was even a half-baked guess or hunch offered as a causal relationship between nerve twitchings and a felling then I'd pay the full asking price. As it stands right now, if a subject is unable to communicate (like a giraffe), we have no idea if they expreience pain or just have the nerve twitchings.
Click to expand...

Science is a method not a lab coat.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=identify+emotions
 
Dancing David said:
No matter how many times you assert this it is still a strawman, you can use the methods of science to investigate feelings.
Click to expand...

I never said otherwise. I see no reason to think that feelings/qualia/first person experience or etc. lie outside the domain of science.
 
Belz... said:
How do you reconcile that with your earlier post?
Click to expand...

Which post(s) did I suggest that research into feelings lies outside science? I think you said such is the case if feeling are not equivalent to nerves twitching.
 
LarryS said:
Which post(s) did I suggest that research into feelings lies outside science? I think you said such is the case if feeling are not equivalent to nerves twitching.
Click to expand...

See? Say two things that say different things and act like you can't be wrong.

"Feelings are not the same thing as nerves twitching" is saying that feelings lie outside science because science (and you know that whole pesky reality thing) says that the "nerve twitching" as you strawman it is the feelings.

But please tell me about the difference between that and the qualia.
 
JoeMorgue said:
See? Say two things that say different things and act like you can't be wrong.

"Feelings are not the same thing as nerves twitching" is saying that feelings lie outside science because science (and you know that whole pesky reality thing) says that the "nerve twitching" as you strawman it is the feelings.
But please tell me about the difference between that and the qualia.
Click to expand...

'Science' doesn't say the above - and, very few if any scientists do . . and a handful of zealots here.
 
LarryS said:
'Science' doesn't say the above - and, very few if any scientists do . . and a handful of zealots here.
Click to expand...



What is your take on what science says about consciousness, thought, etc?

My take is that science has firmly established that those things are entirely the product of brain function. Electrical signals conducted by nerves, with certain bundles of nerves controlling movement, emotion, involuntary functions, etc and neurotransmitters mediating the whole process. Interfere with those bundles of nerves or neurotransmitters and consciousness, mood, personality, movement, emotion, etc are altered.

If you agree with this very simplified take, then what else is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
xjx388 said:
What is your take on what science says about consciousness, thought, etc?

My take is that science has firmly established that those things are entirely the product of brain function. Electrical signals conducted by nerves, with certain bundles of nerves controlling movement, emotion, involuntary functions, etc and neurotransmitters mediating the whole process. Interfere with those bundles of nerves or neurotransmitters and consciousness, mood, personality, movement, emotion, etc are altered.

If you agree with this very simplified take, then what else is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

suggesting something is the case because 'what else is there?' is not doing science.
 
LarryS said:
I never said otherwise. I see no reason to think that feelings/qualia/first person experience or etc. lie outside the domain of science.
Click to expand...

Hmm This is what I saw and responded to ...

LarryS said:
JoeM brought up 'feeling' - I'm not sure of his motivation.
And no, science can not see feelings, no matter how many times you repeat it, it does not make it so.
Click to expand...
 
David Mo said:
What expert are you talking about? Do I have to agree with you because you are a self-procalma expert? If you are an expert, answer what I ask you with arguments and data. Can you give an example of that science that develops outside the published scientific literature?
Then we will have something to discuss. Otherwise we don't anything that turn around your empty claims.
Click to expand...
You can't be serious.

I call drug manufacturers on occasion to see if there is anything relevant to a drug I'm prescribing that has not yet been published. A lot of their research isn't ever published. You might be interested in Ben Goldacre's work on unpublished papers skewing results of meta-analyses. The book is Big Pharma. The science is not bad, rather negative results don't get published.

Beyond that example to humor you, I'm sorry but your assertion is just too laughable to address.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom