Falsifiability

[Kylie]

I don't agree with that Kylie. I have concluded that the perceived world is reality, where as you have told me that you are proceeding on the assumption that it is. (#290) I know this is frustrating, but it should be if we ignore a teleological end to our noetic faculties.

But since there is no evidence that the world is reality that can't also be produced by a simulation, your conclusion amounts to an assumption as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I could but if you don't have noetic faculties it would be the same as providing evidence to a chair. I don't know how to communicate with a chair.

Translation, you have nothing but confirmation bias.

 

[Sanoy]

There are members on this forum who doubtless believe they have noetic faculties. Just address the answer to them.

Were you unaware that those professing to be atheist or agnostic are unlikely to believe they have such faculties? If so, how could you possibly be so illogical?

And you genuinely found this more shocking than those who project hate and disregard for their fellow humans, or . . . well the list isn't endless, but the announcement that there are inhabitants of the planet who don't subscribe to quaint religious notions should not be news to you.

Do you know what noetic faculties are?

 

[Sanoy]

So only a person capable of direct apprehension of the divine would be capable of understanding your response?

Do you know what noetic faculties are?

 

[Sanoy]

But since there is no evidence that the world is reality that can't also be produced by a simulation, your conclusion amounts to an assumption as well.

The conclusion is no longer an assumption when it follows deductively from the premise.

 

[Kylie]

The conclusion is no longer an assumption when it follows deductively from the premise.

Funnily enough, the only bit I can find where you have stated something that can be taken as a premise is in post 180, where you said:

There is 0 direct evidence that the mind is the body. (IE: Correlation /= Causation).

And that's demonstrably false, since there have been plenty of situations where damage to the physical structure of a person has resulted in a drastic personality change.

If you've stated a different premise somewhere else, please tell me. I certainly can't find any clear description of any premise from you in our conversation.

 

[Speedwell]

Do you know what noetic faculties are?

Our highest faculty, that part of our being which apprehends or perceives God and His presence through His grace. As the Fathers used the term it means, colloquially speaking, what we know by the heart rather than the mind.

 

[Ophiolite]

Do you know what noetic faculties are?

These are the supposed ability of humans to understand the will or mind of God, or at least portions of it, through direct communion rather than by rational observation, deduction or induction. Colloquially this might be taken as knowledge via the heart rather than the mind. If I recall correctly noetic faculties have more importance in Eastern faiths than the west.

When I have read reports of, or talked to individuals who have claimed to use such faculties I find them akin (even identical) to the "spiritual" connection I (and countless others) feel with Nature. You ascribe to contact with God. Others describe it as an appreciation of their place in the Cosmos.

Edit: I see I've cross posted with Speedwell.

 

[Sanoy]

Our highest faculty, that part of our being which apprehends or perceives God and His presence through His grace. As the Fathers used the term it means, colloquially speaking, what we know by the heart rather than the mind.

These are the supposed ability of humans to understand the will or mind of God, or at least portions of it, through direct communion rather than by rational observation, deduction or induction. Colloquially this might be taken as knowledge via the heart rather than the mind. If I recall correctly noetic faculties have more importance in Eastern faiths than the west.

When I have read reports of, or talked to individuals who have claimed to use such faculties I find them akin (even identical) to the "spiritual" connection I (and countless others) feel with Nature. You ascribe to contact with God. Others describe it as an appreciation of their place in the Cosmos.

Edit: I see I've cross posted with Speedwell.

You both are confusing Sensus divinitatis with noetic faculties. Noetic faculties are the intellectual faculties of the mind. Those same faculties are used to come to the realization of God, but those faculties are simply your intellect not a sensus divinitatis. So when you deny that you have noetic faculties it is the same as saying I have no intellectual faculties.

 

[Sanoy]

Funnily enough, the only bit I can find where you have stated something that can be taken as a premise is in post 180, where you said:



And that's demonstrably false, since there have been plenty of situations where damage to the physical structure of a person has resulted in a drastic personality change.

If you've stated a different premise somewhere else, please tell me. I certainly can't find any clear description of any premise from you in our conversation.

The example of brain damage is demonstrably correlation, not causation. As I stated, even in your immediate quote of me, "There is 0 direct evidence that the mind is the body. (IE: Correlation /= Causation)."

I believe that God is the designer of my intellectual faculties. That provides the teleology from which trust can be warranted in experience.

 

[Speedwell]

You both are confusing Sensus divinitatis with noetic faculties. Noetic faculties are the intellectual faculties of the mind. Those same faculties are used to come to the realization of God, but those faculties are simply your intellect not a sensus divinitatis. So when you deny that you have noetic faculties it is the same as saying I have no intellectual faculties.

So you are offering a secular definition, one that I had not previously heard of. That certainly accounts for the confusion.

 

[TBDude65]

I asked you a YES or NO question. To call the understanding of "NO" a misunderstanding is absurd.
Original Q/A - Do you believe that the analytic facts described by physics and chemistry are also synthetic facts (real)? You answered NO.
Changed answer - facts from physics and chemistry are facts about reality

Those are contradictions. (note synthetic truths are also analytic truths)

I am unaware of any questions I haven't answered.

I agree with your premise that an "I exist" conclusion is indubitable. However you then make a superman jump to saying that you are demonstrably more than just my mind. You can try and demonstrate that, but only in circularity, and only analytically. That things are predictable says nothing about whether those things relate to the actual world. Things were predictable in the matrix, there were people that confirmed the same events. Those things can't be used to conclude you are in the real world. You have already made this claim in #112 and we have already discussed this issue regarding the matrix TBDude.

lol
I have nothing beyond laughing at this

 

[Kylie]

The example of brain damage is demonstrably correlation, not causation. As I stated, even in your immediate quote of me, "There is 0 direct evidence that the mind is the body. (IE: Correlation /= Causation)."

I believe that God is the designer of my intellectual faculties. That provides the teleology from which trust can be warranted in experience.

I think there's more than enough evidence to show that it's causation, since we know what part of the brain controls what functions. We know if a particular part of the brain is damaged, then a person is incapable of producing speech, for example.

 

[Sanoy]

I think there's more than enough evidence to show that it's causation, since we know what part of the brain controls what functions. We know if a particular part of the brain is damaged, then a person is incapable of producing speech, for example.

Dualism and Materialism are "empirically equivalent theories" because under dualsim the soul uses the brain to interact with the world. The brain is the piano and the soul is the pianist. Damaging the piano says nothing about the pianist. So all you are showing is correlation that is expected on both theories. The "damage problem" is actually a problem only for materialism, because it's left explained why the music is poor on dualism, and left unexplained why the music continues to play at all on materialism (A, B, C, and much more). You will find that many of the "classic" materialist examples actually show the opposite of what they claim.

I listed several reason why you are not your brain earlier in the thread. I will list one here for you. The law of identity states that A and B are identical when everything true of A is also true of B. There are things true of my mind that are not true of my brain, therefore they are not the same. If you still think it has been demonstrated that you are your brain try googling "proof that we are our brains".

 

[Kylie]

Dualism and Materialism are "empirically equivalent theories" because under dualsim the soul uses the brain to interact with the world.

So the soul can't interact with the world.

Therefore, it uses a brain as a means to interact with the world.

But a brain is a part of the world.

Therefore, a soul can't interact with a brain, because brains are part of the world, and souls can't interact with the world.

Wow, you got a problem there.

The brain is the piano and the soul is the pianist. Damaging the piano says nothing about the pianist.

How about this: The brain is the computer and the mind is the program. The program is not something separate, it is a change in the hardware of the computer. When you install a program, you are altering the physical construction of the computer, such as changing the way magnetic particles on the hard disk are arranged. If the disk is damaged, then the particles are damaged, and parts of the program are altered, perhaps even to the point where the program no longer works.

There are things true of my mind that are not true of my brain, therefore they are not the same.

Okay, so you say your soul and your brain are two separate things. Just out of curiosity, what would you expect to see different in the world if they were the same thing?

 

[Sanoy]

So the soul can't interact with the world.

Therefore, it uses a brain as a means to interact with the world.

But a brain is a part of the world.

Therefore, a soul can't interact with a brain, because brains are part of the world, and souls can't interact with the world.

Wow, you got a problem there.



How about this: The brain is the computer and the mind is the program. The program is not something separate, it is a change in the hardware of the computer. When you install a program, you are altering the physical construction of the computer, such as changing the way magnetic particles on the hard disk are arranged. If the disk is damaged, then the particles are damaged, and parts of the program are altered, perhaps even to the point where the program no longer works.



Okay, so you say your soul and your brain are two separate things. Just out of curiosity, what would you expect to see different in the world if they were the same thing?

Your argument is thus stated.
1.So the soul can't interact with the world.
2.Therefore, it uses a brain as a means to interact with the world.
3.But a brain is a part of the world.
4.Therefore, a soul can't interact with a brain, because brains are part of the world, and souls can't interact with the world.

Your argument is circular Kylie. A brain is a part of the world, Premise 1 assumes the conclusion.

The "damage problem" is actually a problem only for materialism, because it's left explained why the music is poor on dualism, and left unexplained why the music continues to play at all on materialism (A, B, C and much more). You will find that many of the "classic" materialist examples actually show the opposite of what they claim.

If A and B were identical I should not expect to see consciousness at all let alone qualia. I should observe nothing more than I do with a computer since both should be determined. This brings up something else, my computer is teleological and capable to it's end, why is your mass of matter capable in regards to truth acquisition Kylie?

 

[Kylie]

Your argument is thus stated.
1.So the soul can't interact with the world.
2.Therefore, it uses a brain as a means to interact with the world.
3.But a brain is a part of the world.
4.Therefore, a soul can't interact with a brain, because brains are part of the world, and souls can't interact with the world.

Your argument is circular Kylie. A brain is a part of the world, Premise 1 assumes the conclusion.

If souls don't need brains to interact with the world, why do we have brains?

The "damage problem" is actually a problem only for materialism, because it's left explained why the music is poor on dualism, and left unexplained why the music continues to play at all on materialism (A, B, C and much more). You will find that many of the "classic" materialist examples actually show the opposite of what they claim.

If A and B were identical I should not expect to see consciousness at all let alone qualia. I should observe nothing more than I do with a computer since both should be determined. This brings up something else, my computer is teleological and capable to it's end, why is your mass of matter capable in regards to truth acquisition Kylie?

Steve Novella, a neuroscientist and thus far more qualified to make comment on this topic than you, disagrees with you.

 

[USincognito]

People have answered your questions on this forum ad nauseam. The fact you appear to neither remember past discussions nor learn anything from there is why people are losing patience with you.

Because of your failure to listen. The question was answered a long time ago. You ignored the answer.

It's absolutely fascinating watching the outright denial that some C/IDers live in and how obstinately they are committed to it. We explain something to them and it's almost as if they wake up with no memories (or worse false memories) the next day because just come back asking for it to be explained to them again and again.

It's like Groudhog Day if Bill Murray's character lost his memory every time things reset.

 

[Ophiolite]

If souls don't need brains to interact with the world, why do we have brains?

To be fair to Sanoy's argument, it's not clear that everyone does have a brain. If we work on the hypothesis that some of them are missing it could explain a lot.

 

[Sanoy]

If souls don't need brains to interact with the world, why do we have brains?



Steve Novella, a neuroscientist and thus far more qualified to make comment on this topic than you, disagrees with you.

Who said souls don't use the brain, or brain stems, to interact?

Steve Novella disagrees with me? So what. My statements and sources stand or fall on their own, independently of Steve Novella opinion.

Before we drift too far off I would like to ask you these two questions again. What is your reason to believe the world is real? Why is your mass of matter capable in regards to truth acquisition Kylie?