Falsifiability

[Sanoy]

And of course, you know what I am thinking better than I do. There's that arrogance again.



Pressing your beliefs onto others because you are convinced that you are right and you can't imagine how what worked for you couldn't also work for everyone is not love. It's you ignoring that other people are different and have different views. If you can't respect those people enough to understand that they may not want you to push your beliefs onto them, why should they be bothered with what you have to say?



But you're just guessing. If you had any actual evidence for what you say, you'd have presented it. I find your speculation to be underwhelming.

Everyone has opinions about why someone does something, as I'm sure you have opinions about me. If I'm mistaken it's not arrogance it's just being mistaken. Whatever the case may be there is no positive reason for what you have done to your own mind to deny my points in this conversation.

You think it's love to let someone drink poison when you believe it's poison? You think that's respect? No, that is the exact opposite of respect and love. Do you know what forum you are on? It's the Christian forum.

No it's not just guessing. It is a metaphysical necessity, and implied by our intuitions. There are many physical necessities in science, things that are required to explain something. This is not different. If it's not A (physicalism), and it's not B(materialism), and it's not AB, then it must be neither A, neither B, Neither AB.

 

[Kylie]

Everyone has opinions about why someone does something, as I'm sure you have opinions about me. If I'm mistaken it's not arrogance it's just being mistaken. Whatever the case may be there is no positive reason for what you have done to your own mind to deny my points in this conversation.

My reason is that you are claiming that there must be a soul that is separate to the brain, despite the fact that you have provided no evidence to do so. A little bit odd for a thread about falsifiability, doncha think? You are trying to support your position with an unfalsifiable claim? I also pointed out that my position has support - namely the fact that injuries to the brain create drastic changes in personality. You have said that you don't know if souls can interact with the world without using a brain. I would submit that your idea requires that they MUST be able to interact with the world without using a brain, since they would otherwise be unable to interact with a brain without the use of a secondary brain - which they would not be able to use without a tertiary brain, and so on, ad infinitum. The only way to avoid that is to say that souls can interact with the world directly - but that leaves you unable to explain why a person's soul changes so drastically when an unessential piece of equipment is damaged.

You think it's love to let someone drink poison when you believe it's poison? You think that's respect? No, that is the exact opposite of respect and love. Do you know what forum you are on? It's the Christian forum.

Except you can't show it's poison. You think you are the first person to tell me this? Of course you aren't. To extend your analogy, I'm sitting at the bar trying to enjoy my drink and discuss the merits of beer over wine, and you're the tenth person to come and tell me my drink is poison. The first person, I humoured them and did a test for poison on my drink. The results did not convince me it was poison. The second person was unable to tell me what poison it was, how it got poisoned, only that they had been told by someone that all drinks except the one they like were poisoned. And now I keep getting people telling me my drink is poison, despite there being no evidence apart from the aforementioned, "But I was told before that all drinks except the one I like are pure poison!" It's tired, and I'm sick of it.

No it's not just guessing. It is a metaphysical necessity, and implied by our intuitions. There are many physical necessities in science, things that are required to explain something. This is not different. If it's not A (physicalism), and it's not B(materialism), and it's not AB, then it must be neither A, neither B, Neither AB.

Yeah, still not seeing any evidence for your position here.

 

[Sanoy]

My reason is that you are claiming that there must be a soul that is separate to the brain, despite the fact that you have provided no evidence to do so. A little bit odd for a thread about falsifiability, doncha think? You are trying to support your position with an unfalsifiable claim? I also pointed out that my position has support - namely the fact that injuries to the brain create drastic changes in personality. You have said that you don't know if souls can interact with the world without using a brain. I would submit that your idea requires that they MUST be able to interact with the world without using a brain, since they would otherwise be unable to interact with a brain without the use of a secondary brain - which they would not be able to use without a tertiary brain, and so on, ad infinitum. The only way to avoid that is to say that souls can interact with the world directly - but that leaves you unable to explain why a person's soul changes so drastically when an unessential piece of equipment is damaged.



Except you can't show it's poison. You think you are the first person to tell me this? Of course you aren't. To extend your analogy, I'm sitting at the bar trying to enjoy my drink and discuss the merits of beer over wine, and you're the tenth person to come and tell me my drink is poison. The first person, I humoured them and did a test for poison on my drink. The results did not convince me it was poison. The second person was unable to tell me what poison it was, how it got poisoned, only that they had been told by someone that all drinks except the one they like were poisoned. And now I keep getting people telling me my drink is poison, despite there being no evidence apart from the aforementioned, "But I was told before that all drinks except the one I like are pure poison!" It's tired, and I'm sick of it.



Yeah, still not seeing any evidence for your position here.

I can't give you physical evidence for a non physical thing. Such an expectation is absurd. I have given many logical reasons for why the brain is not the mind in this thread. The hypothesis that the mind is not the brain is falsifiable, find the mind in the matter and you will falsify it. A brain is a part of the world which I have said multiple times now, and is obviously true to begin with. I have no idea what point you are trying to construct through this infinite interaction bit.

Your remark about whether I can demonstrate something is poison says nothing about why I shouldn't tell you it's poison if I believe it is.

A metaphysical necessity is provided for by logical evidence, not empirical. If we know the mind exists and it's not in any white jar, or any black jar it must be in a non white or black jar. I can give you logical reasons why the mind is not the brain, but you can't give me empirical reasons that it is, and you should be able to if it is. So your claim of no evidence is returned to it's rightfully owner. Not only do you have no such evidence, you couldn't acquire it because such evidence would be undermined by the chaotic nature of your neuronal chattering. Worse than having no evidence you have intellectually disarmed yourself of the very ability to acquire any evidence of any thing.

 

[Kylie]

I can't give you physical evidence for a non physical thing. Such an expectation is absurd. I have given many logical reasons for why the brain is not the mind in this thread. The hypothesis that the mind is not the brain is falsifiable, find the mind in the matter and you will falsify it. A brain is a part of the world which I have said multiple times now, and is obviously true to begin with. I have no idea what point you are trying to construct through this infinite interaction bit.

And I have explained to you that the mind is not just the matter, it is the interactions that happen that form the mind. These interactions can be measured. Of course, you dismiss this - it seems due solely to your insistence that it can't be true.

Also, you seem to be using a technique that dad is so fond of using - making a claim and then claiming that evidence for it is that no one has shown otherwise. Can you provide a single shred of positive evidence to support your idea?

Your remark about whether I can demonstrate something is poison says nothing about why I shouldn't tell you it's poison if I believe it is.

You miss the point.

A metaphysical necessity is provided for by logical evidence, not empirical. If we know the mind exists and it's not in any white jar, or any black jar it must be in a non white or black jar. I can give you logical reasons why the mind is not the brain, but you can't give me empirical reasons that it is, and you should be able to if it is. So your claim of no evidence is returned to it's rightfully owner. Not only do you have no such evidence, you couldn't acquire it because such evidence would be undermined by the chaotic nature of your neuronal chattering. Worse than having no evidence you have intellectually disarmed yourself of the very ability to acquire any evidence of any thing.

Why should you get to use one type of evidence while insisting that I use another type of evidence?

You must present me with the same kind of evidence you demand I present you. Give me empirical evidence that the mind is separate from the brain. Show me that the mind can exist when separated from the brain.

 

[Sanoy]

And I have explained to you that the mind is not just the matter, it is the interactions that happen that form the mind. These interactions can be measured. Of course, you dismiss this - it seems due solely to your insistence that it can't be true.

Also, you seem to be using a technique that dad is so fond of using - making a claim and then claiming that evidence for it is that no one has shown otherwise. Can you provide a single shred of positive evidence to support your idea?



You miss the point.



Why should you get to use one type of evidence while insisting that I use another type of evidence?

You must present me with the same kind of evidence you demand I present you. Give me empirical evidence that the mind is separate from the brain. Show me that the mind can exist when separated from the brain.

In the last 3 or so exchanges nothing new has been presented. I fear you will simply grow to hate me if it continues. Unless you object, I suggest we end this particular dialogue lest it escalate. If we get involved in another conversation let be fresh. In the meantime I hope you consider some of the things that I said.

 

[USincognito]

Do you know what forum you are on? It's the Christian forum.

I see this all the time and I'd like to ask you a question. Do really think people are so stupid that they would log into a website hundreds of times over the last six years (far longer than you by the way) and post 7,800 messages (far more than you by the way) and somehow not know that this was Christian Forums?

 

[Kylie]

In the last 3 or so exchanges nothing new has been presented. I fear you will simply grow to hate me if it continues. Unless you object, I suggest we end this particular dialogue lest it escalate. If we get involved in another conversation let be fresh. In the meantime I hope you consider some of the things that I said.

If you want to. I think it's been a little one sided though, since I tried my best to explain my position when you asked me questions, and you couldn't give me a clear answer to the one question I asked you.

 

[Kylie]

I see this all the time and I'd like to ask you a question. Do really think people are so stupid that they would log into a website hundreds of times over the last six years (far longer than you by the way) and post 7,800 messages (far more than you by the way) and somehow not know that this was Christian Forums?

Wait, this is a forum for religious discussions? I've been trying to sell my car!

 

[Ophiolite]

Wait, this is a forum for religious discussions? I've been trying to sell my car!

What colour is it? I might be interested. I don't like green.

I see this all the time and I'd like to ask you a question. Do really think people are so stupid that they would log into a website hundreds of times over the last six years (far longer than you by the way) and post 7,800 messages (far more than you by the way) and somehow not know that this was Christian Forums?

For me the thing that gave it away was the big font at the top left of the page that says "Christian Forums". I wasn't entirely convinced, but then I was kept out of large sections of the forum because I was an agnostic. I knew only a Christian would do that!

 

[Shemjaza]

Wait, this is a forum for religious discussions? I've been trying to sell my car!

The important question is whether it is self replicating and whether it has a penguin seat.

 

[Kylie]

What colour is it? I might be interested. I don't like green.

It's more of a deep brownish red colour. Quite a lot like rust, you could say.