Hi Hector, >> You may say the hypothesis of neural hypercomputing valid in the sense >> that it helps guide you to interesting, falsifiable theories. That's >> fine. But, then you must admit that the hypothesis of souls could be >> valid in the same sense, right? It could guide some other people to >> interesting, falsifiable theories -- even though, in itself, it stands >> outside the domain of scientific validation/falsification. >> > > I understand the point, but I insist that it is not that trivial. You > could apply the same argument against the automated proof of the > four-color theorem. Since there is no human capable of verifying it in > a lifetime (and even if a group of people try to verify it, no single > mind would ever have the intellectual capacity to get convinced by its > own), then the four-color proof is not science...
So, the distinction here is that -- in one case, **no possible finite set of observations** can verify or falsify the hypothesis at hand [hypercomputing] -- in the other case, some finite set of observations could verify or falsify the hypothesis at hand ... but this observation set wouldn't fit into the mind of a certain observer O [four color theorem] So, to simplify a bit, do I define "X has direct scientific meaning" as "I can personally falsify X" or as "Some being could potentially falsify X; and I can use science to distinguish those being capable of falsifying X from those that are incapable" ?? If the former, then the four color theorem isn't human science If the latter, it is... I choose the latter... ben ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
