...consciousness is a feature of the brain... — TimeLine

Do you always write pure rubbish, or can you cite scientific research which establishes this fact? How were you made aware that the hard problem had been solved?

It would seem that every single statement there is questionable if not downright false:

A great deal of progress was made in the early 20C by scientists who denied the objective reality of what they were studying. Famously Einstein disagreed with them, but they were making the progress, not him!

Science does not claim truth for any of its theories or statements, or that true statements or theories are possible.

Justified true belief???? Nay, Nay, and thrice Nay! — tom

I didn't say I thought they were correct, only that they are underlying assumptions. Many, most scientists believe in an objective reality. Even particle physicists. Why else a multiverse interpretation. Same is true for the truth of scientific statements and theories. Also - why only 3 "nays" for JTB? It deserves more.

Ironically, I think the theory of Evolution might just provide an example of this. I don't mention it often, because the fits of emotional apoplexy it reaps, but I think the theory of Evolution is in large part a metaphysical theory which is unfalsifiable. — tom

Strongly disagree. First of all, let's be precise. There is evolution - which is a phenomenon. A proposed phenomenon if you must. Then there is the theory of evolution by natural selection - which is a proposed explanation for that phenomenon.

I use the phrase "proposed phenomenon" to avoid using the word "fact," but it is a fact. Now... thank you for the opportunity to bring out one of my favorite quotes from Stephen J. Gould.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." - from "Evolution as Fact and Theory,” in “Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes.”

Science is more methodological than axiomatic/foundationalist.

Something like self-critical, bias-minimizing model → evidence convergence, where tentative hypotheses can be derived from the models. Evidence, observation, experimental results, all that accumulate, and models converge thereupon.

The success of science (the most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history) is then evidence of science being onto something, so I guess you might say self-justifying in that sense.

That said, there are some things that's fallen out of quantum mechanics for example, that seem unfalsifiable. And, of course, science utilizes mathematics and such, which itself is more axiomatic.

(I was just discussing this with some other folks)

model → evidence convergence

Scientific progress:

The Flagellants (superstitious fools) probably made the Black Plague worse. Later medical research and antibiotics largely eradicated the Plague.

Aristotelian physics was long since abandoned. But it was a start.

Newtonian gravity from some 330 years ago is taught to this day, and used routinely by NASA and engineers around the globe. Technically, relativity supersedes Newtonian gravity, due to domain-specificity. Somewhat similarly, we already know that relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be quite “right”, though both are exceedingly successful in their respective domains — that is, they’re established, justified descriptions. (Much effort has gone into, and is going into, unification.)

It’s worth noting that models like relativity and quantum mechanics are descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s a fallacy to abstract the described away, only to go ahead and reify the descriptions instead.

We learn from when we’re wrong as well. When we discover that theories or propositions are incorrect or inaccurate, then that by itself is knowledge acquisition. Sometimes ancients had the audacity to postulate something :o and then later we found out that the postulates could do with some revisions, or perhaps be replaced. But they tried, started something. (y)

‘Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all. — Tennyson

Computers, communicating worldwide over the Internet, GPS (which depends on relativity), medical science (don’t forget taking your kids to the doctor on occasion), the International Space Station, etc, clearly demonstrates that we can increase our knowledge about it all.

On the whole this is the problem with Popper's project -- it is prescriptive, and when one looks at the work actual scientists do they simply do not follow the prescriptions. So it leaves one wondering what good are these prescriptions if the actual practices of scientists, which do, in fact, continue, aren't even close to what they prescribe. — Moliere

There are many eminent scientists who attribute their success to applying Popper's method when they really needed to think deeply to solve a problem.

Sir Peter Medawar - Nobel Prize winner for medicine said in 1972, "I think Popper is incomparably the greatest philosopher of science there has ever been."

Nobel Prize winner Jaques Monod publicly acknowledged his influence.

Nobel Prize winner Sir John Eccles wrote "...my scientific life owes so much to my conversion in 1945, if I may call it so, to Popper's teachings on the conduct of scientific investigations...I have endeavoured to follow Popper in the formulation and the investigation of the fundamental problems of neurobiology."

Sir Herman Bondi opined "there is no more to science than its method, and no more to its method than what Popper has said."

And of course the preeminent Popperian right now attributes the discovery of the quantum computer to following Popper.

One thing is for certain however, if you think Popper is prescriptive, you have never read "Logic of Scientific Discovery".

Strongly disagree. First of all, let's be precise. There is evolution - which is a phenomenon. A proposed phenomenon if you must. Then there is the theory of evolution by natural selection - which is a proposed explanation for that phenomenon. — T Clark

I've encountered ID fanatics who have said the same. The difference is that they adhere to known physics, and do not need to invoke "randomness" as a source of variation. You might call their theory metaphysical if you were in a good mood, but you certainly wouldn't call it scientific.

Evolutionary theory (I mean Darwinian not ID) is a branch of epistemology, and as such is metaphysics.

Do you always write pure rubbish, or can you cite scientific research which establishes this fact? How were you made aware that the hard problem had been solved? — Galuchat

If you can explicate why this is "pure rubbish" then you may just answer the OP' concern. While I never stated that the hard problem of consciousness is solved, do I really need to explain what property dualism is?

Apparently so.

I've encountered ID fanatics who have said the same. The difference is that they adhere to known physics, and do not need to invoke "randomness" as a source of variation. You might call their theory metaphysical if you were in a good mood, but you certainly wouldn't call it scientific.

Evolutionary theory (I mean Darwinian not ID) is a branch of epistemology, and as such is metaphysics. — tom

I don't get this argument at all. What do we have against randomness? All phenomena in the universe are based on randomness. Is the problem you've identified just a problem for evolutionary biology or does it cause trouble for other observational sciences, e.g. geology, paleontology, archeology?

To try and keep this in line with the OP, I guess I am not surprised considering you think the brain is like an 'analog system' which leads me to think about naturalistic dualism and the ERR model vis-a-vis the 'software' and the 'hardware' of the brain. The interesting thing about the model is that it does not contain computationally efficient algorithms so does information become a property of the physical world? If you think about the double-slit and that the wave function collapses because of the observer, that would mean wave-functions never collapsed prior to humans unless consciousness is external to us and thus comparable to panpsychist notions that mental properties are injected somehow and therefore a property of the universe, which is understandable but (in my opinion) garbage.

Physicalism denies that consciousness contains physical properties as - like your analog system - records information or phenomenal experiences and the brain simply plays this back. In relation to the OP and why I mentioned it, that is a static concept like substance dualism because we do not fully understand the complexity of the brain, making the suggestion 'pseudoscience' because there appears to be no further effort for progress. Information still appears to be within the physical domain because since your analog brain is recording immaterial information, it becomes a property of the material world, thus 'property dualism'.

Can I sleep now?

I don't get this argument at all. What do we have against randomness? All phenomena in the universe are based on randomness. Is the problem you've identified just a problem for evolutionary biology or does it cause trouble for other observational sciences, e.g. geology, paleontology, archeology? — T Clark

Quantum mechanics is a globally deterministic theory - it is completely unitary. General relativity is also deterministic. Combining the two has produced theories that are not only deterministic, but static.

So, how do you get metaphysical randomness from a globally deterministic theory? You have to impose it!

Any finite sequence will fail some test of randomness, and since finite sequences are all we ever have, is this randomness actually testable?

If all phenomena in the universe are based on randomness as you claim, how is accurate replication possible?

Do you always write pure rubbish, or can you cite scientific research which establishes this fact? How were you made aware that the hard problem had been solved? — Galuchat

There is a vast body of scientific research that establishes the fact that consciousness is a feature of the functioning brain. It is even possible to instantiate, through injury or surgery, more than one consciousness on a single brain, with different personalities, preferences and goals.

As for the hard problem, it has been solved in principle for about 30 years. Consciousness is a software feature.

What's your opinion of the Ellis and Silk paper, Defend the Integrity of Physics?

Consciousness is a software feature. — tom

All known software is the product of human intelligence. Who is the architect in this case?

If all phenomena in the universe are based on randomness as you claim, how is accurate replication possible? — tom

It is my understanding that just about every phenomenon in the universe represents the actions of many entities interacting in accordance with the principles of statistical mechanics - either classical or quantum. Statistical mechanics describes the mass actions of large numbers of individual particles or other entities acting in an indeterminate manner.

The success of science (the most successful epistemic endeavor in all of human history) is then evidence of science being onto something.... — jorndoe

Interesting statement. I want to argue about it just because I think it would be fun to argue about, but first I have to decide whether or not I agree with it. I may argue against it even if I think it's true just for entertainment.

What's your opinion of the Ellis and Silk paper, Defend the Integrity of Physics? — Wayfarer

I started a thread where I pointed out that everyone seems to accept the Cosmological Multiverse despite the total absence of evidence for it, whereas people are violently opposed to the Quantum Multiverse despite the overwhelming evidence. This is a very strange psychological phenomenon that I would like to understand.

Nevertheless, it took quite a bit of work to deduce testable predictions of our current best theories. In particular it took 100yrs before gravitational waves could be detected, and 50yrs for the Higgs, entanglement. If String theory and Inflation are scientific theories, they will make testable prediction eventually. They are certainly well worth trying.

In the end, the criticism that String theory and Inflationary cosmology are pathologically flexible may prevail. We just don't know, and we can't know without more effort.

It is interesting to note that the quantum computer was a result of trying to find a test to distinguish Many Worlds from Copenhagen.

All known software is the product of human intelligence. Who is the architect in this case? — Wayfarer

The code in DNA is software.

people are violently opposed to the Quantum Multiverse despite the overwhelming evidence — tom

The fact that there can be disagreement suggests that the evidence must be ambiguous.

All known software is the product of human intelligence. Who is the architect in this case?
— Wayfarer

The code in DNA is software. — tom

But that doesn't answer the question. Actual software is made by an agency - the fact that 'DNA is software' is actually one of the main arguments of ID advocates, on the that very basis.

Science is a social endeavor. There are universities and research centers that produce research. There are scientific journals and book publishers that publish research. There are conferences that organize meetings and presentations. There are governmental and non-governmental agencies that distribute funds and commission and stimulate research programmes. There are educational institutions that teach science fundamentals, and government institutions that issue educational guidelines and select textbooks. There are entrepreneurs and corporate R&D departments that turn research into practical applications.

All of these institutions, each in their own capacity, are engaged in evaluating science, one way or another. At the most basic level, that comes down to the question: Is it even science? So it is no use to stamp your feet and rail against those who ask and answer that question, @darthbarracuda. They have to. And no, science, or "science," is not going away, and thank god for that.


As for the demarcation criteria, in the real life they can be vague and messy, and vary depending on who is asking the question. But I think that what is known as "falsifiability" does get at some important, though fairly obvious, idea. It is inherent in the very notion of empirical knowledge. In order to qualify as such, empirical knowledge has to be sensitive to observations. And the more sensitive it is, the more engaged it is with empirical observations - the more relevant it is.

Popper was not the first to realize this, nor the last. He was just one of the philosophers of science and epistemologists who were trying to formalize this empiricist intuition and incorporate it into his own theory. In the end, it seems, his theory didn't prove to be all that influential (most of those who name-drop Popper know very little of it), but he did succeed in popularizing some terms and basic notions.

There is a vast body of scientific research that establishes the fact that consciousness is a feature of the functioning brain. — tom

I'm still waiting for a citation.

It's relevant to the OP to determine whether this particular claim is based on empirical evidence or not (i.e., whether or not it is based on pseudoscience). So, I would be keen to review the research you think establishes this claim as fact.

But that doesn't answer the question. Actual software is made by an agency - the fact that 'DNA is software' is actually one of the main arguments of ID advocates, on the that very basis. — Wayfarer

Actual software is not made by an actual agency according to actual Darwinism.

There are eminent persons the world over who cite philosophers as the basis for their action, but I wouldn't say that this then entails that the eminent persons actually followed said philosopher. Stephen J Gould, for one, credited Feyerabend with some of his scientific thinking, but Gould was far from a scientific anarchist.

And I'm not sure how you read Popper, but given that his theory is all about choices between competing theories given such and such basic statements that is so clearly prescriptive that I'm not sure how else to read him. He believes that we should choose theories which are easier to refute, and hold them tentatively.

I'm still waiting for a citation.

It's relevant to the OP to determine whether this particular claim is based on empirical evidence or not (i.e., whether or not it is based on pseudoscience). So, I would be keen to review the research you think establishes this claim as fact. — Galuchat

There are literally libraries worth of evidence, research, clinical findings. Go to one!

There are literally libraries worth of evidence, research, clinical findings. Go to one! — tom

You made the claim; the burden of proof is on you.

You made the claim; the burden of proof is on you. — Galuchat

Have you ever visited a university library? You would need many tonnes of haulage to carry the evidence.

Actual software is not made by an actual agency according to actual Darwinism. — tom

But, you see, DNA is not actually 'software', but is a metaphorical description. So not being able to distinguish the metaphorical from the actual is rather a basic error, don't you think?

And one relevant text on the metaphor of 'mind as computer' is Hacker and Bennett's The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience.

“The Mereological Fallacy in Neuroscience” - Bennett and Hacker set out a critical framework that is the pivot of the book. They argue that for some neuroscientists, the brain does all manner of things: it believes (Crick); interprets (Edelman); knows (Blakemore); poses questions to itself (Young); makes decisions (Damasio); contains symbols (Gregory) and represents information (Marr). Implicit in these assertions is a philosophical mistake, insofar as it unreasonably inflates the conception of the 'brain' by assigning to it powers and activities that are normally reserved for sentient beings. It is the degree to which these assertions depart from the norms of linguistic practice that sends up a red flag. The reason for objection is this: it is one thing to suggest on empirical grounds correlations between a subjective, complex whole (say, the activity of deciding and some particular physical part of that capacity, say, neural firings) but there is considerable objection to concluding that the part just is the whole. These claims are not false; rather, they are devoid of sense.

But, you see, DNA is not actually 'software', but is a metaphorical description. So not being able to distinguish the metaphorical from the actual is rather a basic error, don't you think? — Wayfarer

My Haskell metaphorical description seems to run though.

And one relevant text on the metaphor of 'mind as computer' is Hacker and Bennett's The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience. — Wayfarer

It's not metaphor. Computationally universal machines can emulate each other.