While I hear this argument as strong, it is actually not all that clear and decisive imo. Your analogy between radiowaves and consciousness(waves?) doesn't hold very well at all. — AmadeusD

I did not mean to state it as a fact, just a separate consideration before we jump onto the idea that we're only correlating.

It's also quite fun, so I really appreciate you making a thorough response in good faith there. Unsure why Sam got upset tbh. — AmadeusD

I appreciate it, I was unsure myself.

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories. They just shouldn't take precedence. But, the "brain-as-receiver" theory is as old as time and has some explanatory power so I like that it's not being written off. — AmadeusD

Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like?

Are they red?

I think this is a little bit of a red herring when it comes to theorizing in teh way we do here (or, philosophy in general). I think if the theory has no knock-downs, we can hold unparsimonious theories... — AmadeusD

This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. That may not be what you meant, because you followed with:

...They just shouldn't take precedence.

What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence?

My view: a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" -i.e. the product of abductive reasoning. Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it (and the sort of abductive reasoning we do will be unavoidably subjective).

:up: :up: Of course.
:grin:

just a separate consideration before we jump onto the idea that we're only correlating — Philosophim

Fair enough mate :)

Do you have the conscious experience of homunculusly controlling a meat puppet through some sort of communication channel? If so, what do the controls (that homunculus-you uses to control meat puppet-you) looks like? — wonderer1

1. Yes;
2. Choices.

This answers nought. Sometimes those choices appear Red to me. This also doesn't answer anything ;)

This seems to suggest that it's OK to believe any theory that isn't provably false. — Relativist

No. "believe" is doing a huge amount of speculative assumption here. I did not intend, nor did I (best I can tell) intimate that i even considered this aspect of the issue as relevant. Belief is not relevant here.

What does it mean to "hold" a theory, but not have it take precedence? — Relativist

Entertain it. Don't write it off (this also, best I can tell, a pretty clear inference from my post - I said it outright at the end). Let it explain what it can for those who want to play with it until it doesn't. Not your circus.

a theory can only be rationally held if it is arguably the "best explanation" — Relativist

In areas where we have no good ones(or at least satisfactory)? Bollocks. Entertain all comers.

Even so, that is often too low a bar to compel belief in it — Relativist

Luckily, I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth.

This answers nought. Sometimes those choices appear Red to me. This also doesn't answer anything ;) — AmadeusD

It wasn't intended to answer anything. Just provide food for thought.

I made no attempt to even intimate 'belief' in what I was trying to say. Apologies if this post comes off combative - I feel words were put in my mouth. — AmadeusD

I was simply asking for clarification of what you meant, because I had not drawn the "clear inference" you thought I should. I think I understand now. Sorry to bother you.

Fair enough!

Sorry to bother you. — Relativist

Not at all! I was far more concerned that my reply would come off bothering to you :P