On 27 May 2017 at 21:20, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 27, 2017 David Nyman <da...@davidnyman.com> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
