On 27 May 2017 at 21:20, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > >> it is unscientific to ignore alternative modes of explanation when >> progress seems to be blocked >> > > Those > alternative modes of explanation > are not only > unscientific > there are a complete waste of time because there is no way, even with > unlimited experimental capacity, such explanations can ever be proved or > disproved. And as if that isn't bad enough the "explanations" can't even be > stated without numerous personal pronouns with no unique referent due to > the fact that personal pronoun duplicating machines have been invented. > > >> > >> Of course any theory offered in replacement must subsume what has >> succeeded up to that point. This is the sort of thing that happens quite >> normally when one theory replaces another in the same domain, as for >> example Einsteins's did with Newton's. >> > > Einstein gave many very clear examples of his theory making different > predictions than Newton did, the precession of Mercury's orbit is only one > example. If even one of Einstein's prediction had failed his entire theory > would be forgotten today, but none of them failed. Where is the equivalent > for Bruno's theory or any other consciousness theory? Show me the > precession > ! > > >> > >> A different mode of enquiry may well allow us to take a quite different >> view of its 'brute facts'. >> > > Maybe. Maybe > > the chain of "what caused that?" questions goes on forever in which case > there will always be unanswered question. So either unanswered question or > brute facts must exist, you can't get rid of both. > > >>> >> >>> There is every indication that "consciousness is the way data feels when >>> it is being processed" is a brute fact and it's pointless to ask how did >>> that happen. >>> >> >> >> > >> Oh dear. Alas, there are far too many unacknowledged assumptions in that >> slogan to gain any understanding of what is actually being claimed. >> > > > What is > actually > being claimed is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being > processed > . >
Data feels something? Data feels something in a way? When 'it' is being processed? By what? I could continue. > You can argue if that is true or not but I think the claim itself is > pretty clear, or at least as clear as things get when consciousness is > involved. > Frankly i t's about as clear as mud. I think we can be a little clearer. David > > John K Clark > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
