Falsifiability

Sanoy said:

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?

Click to expand...

That's my point. You said souls use brains to interact with the world. But brains are a part of the world. So how can a soul interact with a brain?

Kylie said:

That's my point. You said souls use brains to interact with the world. But brains are a part of the world. So how can a soul interact with a brain?

Click to expand...

Neat! I missed that refutation.

Kylie said:

That's my point. You said souls use brains to interact with the world. But brains are a part of the world. So how can a soul interact with a brain?

Click to expand...

Wait, this question is a refutation? One way they can act is by the collapsing of the superposition of tryptophan qubits. Or as Maxwells demon, which has been demonstrated in the actual world. Or maybe it can act as an unknown field/force which are the cause of matter and motion. Or perhaps a way we have haven't thought of.

You forgot to answer these two questions. We are definitely going to need the second one for your next reply. So you need to include it when you do. I have also been waiting a long time now for your answer to number 1.

1)What is your reason to believe the world is real?
2)Why is your mass of matter (brain) capable in regards to truth acquisition Kylie?

Sanoy said:

Wait, this question is a refutation?

Click to expand...

Implicitly and delectably.

Sanoy said:

2)Why is your mass of matter capable in regards to truth acquisition Kylie?

Click to expand...

I didn't understand this the first time you posted it. I don't understand it now. Would you rephrase or expand it so that ambiguities are removed.

Ophiolite said:

Implicitly and delectably.

I didn't understand this the first time you posted it. I don't understand it now. Would you rephrase or expand it so that ambiguities are removed.

Click to expand...

Refutations are statements, not questions. If refutations can be questions, consider my two unanswered questions as ongoing refutations.

Why is your brain capable of acquiring the truth.

Sanoy said:

Refutations are statements, not questions.

Click to expand...

Questions can contain implicit statements, as was the case here. Didn't you know that? (Can you spot the implicit statement in that question? And that one? Is there a pattern developing here?)

Sanoy said:

Why is your brain capable of acquiring the truth.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying that.

I realise that was addressed to Kylie, but for what its worth, here is my response:
I don't know if my brain can acquire the truth.
I do know that my brain can acquire a reasonable explanation for many of the things that I perceive, either by direct observation and contemplation of those "things", or through reports of others who purport to have carried out their own direct observation and contemplation.
I have no idea if any of that is truth, or if those "things" or other people actually exist, but I have found it convenient to work on the presumption that they are. Thus far this has not caused any perceived contradictions or ambiguities and by and large I am quite enjoying it.

Ophiolite said:

Questions can contain implicit statements, as was the case here. Didn't you know that? (Can you spot the implicit statement in that question? And that one? Is there a pattern developing here?)

Thank you for clarifying that.

I realise that was addressed to Kylie, but for what its worth, here is my response:
I don't know if my brain can acquire the truth.
I do know that my brain can acquire a reasonable explanation for many of the things that I perceive, either by direct observation and contemplation of those "things", or through reports of others who purport to have carried out their own direct observation and contemplation.
I have no idea if any of that is truth, or if those "things" or other people actually exist, but I have found it convenient to work on the presumption that they are. Thus far this has not caused any perceived contradictions or ambiguities and by and large I am quite enjoying it.

Click to expand...

You are wrong. Refutations are not questions.

I applaud your honesty in not being able to make truth claims like "The actual shape of planet earth is rounded rather than flat", but a lot of what you said was self refuting or self defeating of your position. For example you said the statement: "I don't know if my brain can acquire the truth". If "I" is your brain, then you are claiming to know a truth about your brain which defeats the statement. The only way "I" does not defeat the statement is if "I" is a separate entity from your brain which then refutes the position of being identical to the brain. Your final statement "Thus far this has not caused any perceived contradictions or ambiguities and by and large I am quite enjoying it" seems downright ominous in light of the entire list of self refuting statements you just gave.

I went ahead and bookmarked and downloaded your answer for easy reference if I see you sliding back into making truth claims. From now on I expect to hear merely convenient statements from you which I will then disregard for having no truth value.

Sanoy said:

You are wrong. Refutations are not questions.

Click to expand...

It seems that some statements are also not refutations, even when there author asserts that they are. However, you have not refuted my chain of logic: questions may contain implicit statements; statements can be refutations; thus implicit statements may be refutations.

Sanoy said:

I applaud your honesty in not being able to make truth claims like "The actual shape of planet earth is rounded rather than flat",

Click to expand...

I don't hold a lot of interest in truth. The word is of limited value. For all practical purposes if something appears to be - to a high degree of probability - true, then it may be called true. However, because of the elements of doubt previously noted, it makes that word "true" essentially valueless.

Sanoy said:

but a lot of what you said was self refuting or self defeating of your position. For example you said the statement: "I don't know if my brain can acquire the truth". If "I" is your brain, then you are claiming to know a truth about your brain which defeats the statement.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The previous reservations apply. All the evidence suggests that I and my brain are equivalent. Therefore, on a provisional and practical basis, I work as if that were true, while remaining ready - upon the appearance of contrary evidence, to accept a different (provisional and practical) explanation. (And once again we see why the word "true" has zero or low value.)

Sanoy said:

Your final statement "Thus far this has not caused any perceived contradictions or ambiguities and by and large I am quite enjoying it" seems downright ominous in light of the entire list of self refuting statements you just gave.

Click to expand...

I'll add ominous to truth as another word you don't understand.

Sanoy said:

I went ahead and bookmarked and downloaded your answer for easy reference if I see you sliding back into making truth claims. From now on I expect to hear merely convenient statements from you which I will then disregard for having no truth value.

Click to expand...

Go right ahead. In fact, I encourage you to go through the 3,000 plus posts I have made on this forum and query any where I mention truth. I hope I have made my view of the value of truth clear: it has none to little.

Ophiolite said:

It seems that some statements are also not refutations, even when there author asserts that they are. However, you have not refuted my chain of logic: questions may contain implicit statements; statements can be refutations; thus implicit statements may be refutations.

I don't hold a lot of interest in truth. The word is of limited value. For all practical purposes if something appears to be - to a high degree of probability - true, then it may be called true. However, because of the elements of doubt previously noted, it makes that word "true" essentially valueless.

Not at all. The previous reservations apply. All the evidence suggests that I and my brain are equivalent. Therefore, on a provisional and practical basis, I work as if that were true, while remaining ready - upon the appearance of contrary evidence, to accept a different (provisional and practical) explanation. (And once again we see why the word "true" has zero or low value.)

I'll add ominous to truth as another word you don't understand.

Go right ahead. In fact, I encourage you to go through the 3,000 plus posts I have made on this forum and query any where I mention truth. I hope I have made my view of the value of truth clear: it has none to little.

Click to expand...

Your chain of logic, which are truth claims by the way, is a composition error. Refutations are not questions. And what do you mean by logic? Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. ...but you deny such things. This is yet another self refutation of yours, or rather another inconsistency between the way you behave and what you claim to believe.

You state that for all practical purposes if something appears to be - to a high degree of probability - true, then it may be called true. But "to a high degree of probability" will require true propositions as a metric.

All your statements were self refuting. Your explanation of why you made those self refuting statements doesn't change the fact that they are. You say the evidence suggests that you are your brain. Under what paradigm does it make such a suggestion? There is no escaping the appeal to a true proposition. If you don't believe that, try denying it.

I have a challenge for you. Act out your claimed beliefs for a month. Warn your boss that you don't know if your brain can acquire the truth. Tell your significant others that you don't know if you truly love them. Don't appeal to logic. Let's hear it, will you take up the challenge?

Sanoy said:

Your chain of logic, which are truth claims by the way, is a composition error. Refutations are not questions. And what do you mean by logic? Logic is reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity. ...but you deny such things. This is yet another self refutation of yours, or rather another inconsistency between the way you behave and what you claim to believe.

Click to expand...

No. I leave open the question as to "the reality of perceived reality", but on a day to day, second to second, year to year basis I act as if the perceived reality was - more or less - actual reality. That's not an inconsistency. That's keeping an open mind as to what's down the rabbit hole, while continuing rambling in the countryside.

Sanoy said:

I have a challenge for you. Act out your claimed beliefs for a month. Warn your boss that you don't know if your brain can acquire the truth. Tell your significant others that you don't know if you truly love them. Don't appeal to logic. Let's hear it, will you take up the challenge?

Click to expand...

As noted above I act on my beliefs every day. i.e. I presume what I perceive is real and act accordingly, while simultaneously keeping an open mind as to alternatives. I'm not sure why you find that so difficult to understand.
When it has seemed appropriate I have shared those views with others, including bosses, friends, loved ones and casual acquaintances at cocktail parties. Your challenge is half a century out of date.

Ophiolite said:

No. I leave open the question as to "the reality of perceived reality", but on a day to day, second to second, year to year basis I act as if the perceived reality was - more or less - actual reality. That's not an inconsistency. That's keeping an open mind as to what's down the rabbit hole, while continuing rambling in the countryside.

As noted above I act on my beliefs every day. i.e. I presume what I perceive is real and act accordingly, while simultaneously keeping an open mind as to alternatives. I'm not sure why you find that so difficult to understand.
When it has seemed appropriate I have shared those views with others, including bosses, friends, loved ones and casual acquaintances at cocktail parties. Your challenge is half a century out of date.

Click to expand...

What you describe is literally an inconsistency, acting in discordance with your professed beliefs.

You say that "I act on my beliefs everyday". But if you are your brain then you just made a tautology, my brain acts on my brain. You then make the statement "I presume what I perceive is real", but that very statement is a truth statement about what you presume. You have fulfilled my prediction that you will be unable to make a claim without depending on some true proposition. The issue here is that the qualifying propositions you need to be true are undercut by your denial of truth acquisition.

My challenge was not to share your views with someone. It was to act out your claimed beliefs for a month. Shouldn't you be consistent? Why deny the challenge?

Sanoy said:

What you describe is literally an inconsistency, acting in discordance with your professed beliefs.

You say that "I act on my beliefs everyday". But if you are your brain then you just made a tautology, my brain acts on my brain. You then make the statement "I presume what I perceive is real", but that very statement is a truth statement about what you presume. You have fulfilled my prediction that you will be unable to make a claim without depending on some true proposition. The issue here is that the qualifying propositions you need to be true are undercut by your denial of truth acquisition.

My challenge was not to share your views with someone. It was to act out your claimed beliefs for a month. Shouldn't you be consistent? Why deny the challenge?

Click to expand...

Clearly your use (some might say misuse) of the English language differs in key matters from mine, Fowler and the OED. My comments, rather than being a self refutation are self confirmation.

The challenge has been met, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Since I find no coherent string of logic within your posts and little evidence of either "truth" or truth, I see little point in discussing the matter with you further. If you experience an epiphany and begin to post with clarity and conviction send me a pm.

Ophiolite said:

Clearly your use (some might say misuse) of the English language differs in key matters from mine, Fowler and the OED. My comments, rather than being a self refutation are self confirmation.

The challenge has been met, despite your assertions to the contrary.

Since I find no coherent string of logic within your posts and little evidence of either "truth" or truth, I see little point in discussing the matter with you further. If you experience an epiphany and begin to post with clarity and conviction send me a pm.

Click to expand...

I certainly don't expect you to know if I'm using different words, that would be another self refutation.

No, my challenge was for you to act out your claimed beliefs for a month. Unless you use a different meaning for month, or acting out. Or is it because you won't know when a month transpires?

You keep referring to logic. I asked you to explain what logic is, or do you have your own definition for that as you do truth. See when I hear someone invoke logic I assume they mean reasoning conducted, or assessed according to strict principles of validity. But you don't have that so all I can do is scratch my head as to what meaning your sentence carries. The only thing I do know about your statement is that it carries none to little truth value.... of course when you stated that it had none to little truth value you were making a truth claim, which would then have none to little truth value. So really at this point everything you say is just incoherent upon this self destructive world view. I'd commend your honesty for admitting such a self destructive world view but you're not actually living according to it, so I guess there isn't any redeemable value here, just neuronal chattering.

Sanoy said:

I certainly don't expect you to know if I'm using different words, that would be another self refutation.

No, my challenge was for you to act out your claimed beliefs for a month. Unless you use a different meaning for month, or acting out. Or is it because you won't know when a month transpires?

You keep referring to logic. I asked you to explain what logic is, or do you have your own definition for that as you do truth. See when I hear someone invoke logic I assume they mean reasoning conducted, or assessed according to strict principles of validity. But you don't have that so all I can do is scratch my head as to what meaning your sentence carries. The only thing I do know about your statement is that it carries none to little truth value.... of course when you stated that it had none to little truth value you were making a truth claim, which would then have none to little truth value. So really at this point everything you say is just incoherent upon this self destructive world view. I'd commend your honesty for admitting such a self destructive world view but you're not actually living according to it, so I guess there isn't any redeemable value here, just neuronal chattering.

Click to expand...

Laughable. Please do tell about what is self destructive about a worldview that uses rational observations to determine how the world appears to work, yet retains the possibility - no matter how remote - that things might not be as they seem. Frankly, any alternative view is delusional.

Ophiolite said:

Laughable. Please do tell about what is self destructive about a worldview that uses rational observations to determine how the world appears to work, yet retains the possibility - no matter how remote - that things might not be as they seem. Frankly, any alternative view is delusional.

Click to expand...

No it's not laughable, but very grave. I have had to pray twice today to see you through Christ's eyes rather than laugh at the position you have put yourself in to deny the hand that stretches out to save you.

Rational observations? You keep using traditional words without explaining what they mean to someone who doesn't know if they can acquire the truth, and doesn't hold a lot of interest in truth. You finish your remark by saying any other world view but yours is delusional, but then you don't know if that's true, and it has none to little truth value. Why is your neuronal chattering better at coming to that conclusion than the chemical reaction in the gut of a scorpion?

Sanoy said:

No it's not laughable, but very grave. I have had to pray twice today to see you through Christ's eyes rather than laugh at the position you have put yourself in to deny the hand that stretches out to save you.

Click to expand...

I misinterpreted your posts as being the work of a pedantic and ill-informed amateur philosopher, rather than arising from an evangelical and perhaps fundamentalist Christian. My apologies for the misreading. I should have looked at your profile and read more of your posts before first responding. In the interests of your own well-being I shall be placing you on Ignore.

Ophiolite said:

I misinterpreted your posts as being the work of a pedantic and ill-informed amateur philosopher, rather than arising from an evangelical and perhaps fundamentalist Christian. My apologies for the misreading. I should have looked at your profile and read more of your posts before first responding. In the interests of your own well-being I shall be placing you on Ignore.

Click to expand...

Is it pedantic to hold someone to their own words and claims? Is it pedantic to point out that a claim is self refuting? Apparently interest in the truth is pedantry for those who claim to "not hold a lot of interest in truth."

Sanoy said:

Wait, this question is a refutation? One way they can act is by the collapsing of the superposition of tryptophan q bits. Or as Maxwells demon, which has been demonstrated in the actual world. Or maybe it can act as an unknown field/force which are the cause of matter and motion. Or perhaps a way we have haven't thought of.

You forgot to answer these two questions. We are definitely going to need the second one for your next reply. So you need to include it when you do. I have also been waiting a long time now for your answer to number 1.

1)What is your reason to believe the world is real?
2)Why is your mass of matter (brain) capable in regards to truth acquisition Kylie?

Click to expand...

Don't avoid the issue here.

You said that souls can't interact directly with the world, so they need to use a brain to interact indirectly.

But a brain is part of this world.

If souls can't interact with this world, then they can't interact with brains.

Your argument has a hole in it. Please explain how a soul can interact with a brain if a soul is incapable of interacting with the world.

You've claimed they do it by "the collapsing of the superposition of tryptophan q bits" which is utterly meaningless. It's nothing more than a bunch of buzzwords and you've given absolutely NOTHING to show that it's relevant to what we are talking about.

And as for Maxwell's Demon, it seems to me that the activity of the demon itself would more than compensate for the violation of thermodynamics, since we are now looking at a system that includes the demon - a criticism which has been around for a long time. Maxwell's demon - Wikipedia

In any case, I can't see how either of those explain how a soul that is incapable of interacting with any part of this world could interact with a brain (which is part of this world)

Sanoy said:

You are wrong. Refutations are not questions.

Click to expand...

A question presented in order to show the person that attempts to answer it that the question has no logical answer can act as a refutation. It's called "proof by contradiction", in which we assume the argument is true and then follow it until it gets to a point where it contradicts itself.

In this case, you have claimed that souls can't interact with the world, and so they need to use brains as proxies.

Starting from this premise (and also the premise that brains are a part of this world), I then point out the contradiction that a soul (which is incapable of interacting with this world) is required to interact with brains (which are part of this world).

So, souls using brains as proxies violates your original premise - that souls are incapable of interacting with this world.

Kylie said:

Don't avoid the issue here.

You said that souls can't interact directly with the world, so they need to use a brain to interact indirectly.

But a brain is part of this world.

If souls can't interact with this world, then they can't interact with brains.

Your argument has a hole in it. Please explain how a soul can interact with a brain if a soul is incapable of interacting with the world.

You've claimed they do it by "the collapsing of the superposition of tryptophan q bits" which is utterly meaningless. It's nothing more than a bunch of buzzwords and you've given absolutely NOTHING to show that it's relevant to what we are talking about.

And as for Maxwell's Demon, it seems to me that the activity of the demon itself would more than compensate for the violation of thermodynamics, since we are now looking at a system that includes the demon - a criticism which has been around for a long time. Maxwell's demon - Wikipedia

In any case, I can't see how either of those explain how a soul that is incapable of interacting with any part of this world could interact with a brain (which is part of this world)

Click to expand...

I did not say souls can't interact with this world. You said that. I said the soul uses the brain to interact with the world. The world as in, the rest of the world besides your brain which is also a part of the world.

Questions are not refutations, because they contain no clear conclusions, or sequitor process. If you would like to present a refutation present a formal refutation. If you think asking me how souls can interact with the world stands for a refutation then receive a reciprocal refutation. How does matter have intentionality?

The potential of Tryptophan qubits are a real thing even if you don't understand it. As I said Maxwells demon has been shown to work even in the real world without violation, information can be a medium for transferring energy. (The point being called here is not it's possible non violation, but it's use as a medium.)

You have ignored my question again Kylie. Will you answer it? Why is your mass of matter (brain) capable in regards to truth acquisition? If you are sticking to your adopted view of refutation through questions, then consider yourself refuted until you answer it.