Pleasure and Joy

[Neo-Scholastic]

The claims of your religion are unfalsifiable and unproven and, therefore, worthless.

The scientific method is only one means for securing knowledge.

[Captain Colostomy]

The claims of your religion are unfalsifiable and unproven and, therefore, worthless.

The scientific method is only one means for securing knowledge.

Way to segue into your Magic 8-Ball pitch.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The scientific method is only one means for securing knowledge.

Way to segue into your Magic 8-Ball pitch.

"The beauty of Bach's music is unfalsifiable and therefore useless."

The notion that what does not fit your little box of logical positivism is worthless demonstrates that your view of reality is very limited.

[Bad Writer]

Way to segue into your Magic 8-Ball pitch.

"The beauty of Bach's music is unfalsifiable and therefore useless."

That statement is a product of circular logic, as it simply restates its assumed premise, that anything unfalsifiable is useless. You know that this is what you did, so don't even try to deny it; I've seen your posts here, and I know you're an edumacated feller. Begging the question is used as a way to bait others into arguing against fallacies, so why are you using this quote as your model for what you think we're saying?

The question begged here is "Is Bach's music useless?", and that's what should really be discussed. When applied to what you were getting at, that is, "The truth of god is unfalsifiable and therefore useless" we are again ignoring the real question: "Is god useless?"

Now we can talk.

[Captain Colostomy]

And your lack of lulz, CW, demonstrates that your view on humor is very limited.

I guess were both poor receivers for certain frequencies.

[genkaus]

Nevertheless your conviction would not be based on science.

Actually, the only thing it would be based on is science. We both know that science does not operate in a philosophical vacuum.

In your opinion, brain events generate mental properties. An alternate opinion, one with which I agree, holds that brain states represent mental properties similar to how abacus beads stand for numbers.It would be like erasing a PDF after you read it. The signs that represent meaning would be gone, but the meaning would remain in thought.

The problem with this analogy is that numbers, meanings and thoughts themselves are mental properties. They cannot exist without a mind. Which is why applying the same logic to mind itself is putting the cart before the horse.

In either case, when brain activity ceases, the body would no longer be able to express mental properties. Neither theory is falsifiable nor does either one of them qualify as a proper scientific theory. Thus resolution of the mind-body problem is beyond the reach of neuroscience.

On the contrary, "brain generates mind" is a proper scientific hypothesis precisely because it is testable and falsifiable. If brain generates mind, then alterations in brain would produce changes in consciousness. If it fails to do so, then the hypothesis is falsified. And lo, and behold, we find that it does precisely that.

Your response to this is obvious. You'd argue that consciousness itself is not changed, but the expression of consciousness is. The problem with that is that position is unfalsifiable - as long as you continue to define consciousness in such a way that it remains beyond scientific inquiry. It also goes against the law of identity. If consciousness exists, it'd have a specific nature and its expression would be indicative of that nature. Therefore, any change in its expression would be indicative of a change in consciousness itself. Lastly, it is based on the incorrect assumption that consciousness itself cannot be directly perceived.

---

The scientific method is only one means for securing knowledge.

Yes, the other method is rational inquiry.

[Esquilax]

Way to segue into your Magic 8-Ball pitch.

"The beauty of Bach's music is unfalsifiable and therefore useless."

Come now. I honestly thought you were better than this kind of equivocation, and I know you're smart enough that I don't have to explain the difference between subjective assertions of quality and objective, existential claims.

[Silver]

The scientific method is only one means for securing knowledge.

Of course, but if the knowledge is unverifiable, then it is useless and considered unreasonable. One can have all the personal knowledge he wishes in regards to unicorns, but it does not mean that unicorns exists.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...numbers, meanings and thoughts themselves are mental properties. They cannot exist without a mind. Which is why applying the same logic to mind itself is putting the cart before the horse.

The first part is correct. No knowledge can exist apart from a mind that knows.

If brain generates mind, then alterations in brain would produce changes in consciousness. If it fails to do so, then the hypothesis is falsified...Your response to this is obvious.

That's a bit presumptious, especiallly since that would not be my objection. I agree that alterations in the brain produce changes in consciousness. That does not exclude the possibility that changes in mind produce changes in the brain.

You'd argue that consciousness itself is not changed, but the expression of consciousness is. The problem with that is that position is unfalsifiable - as long as you continue to define consciousness in such a way that it remains beyond scientific inquiry.

True. I believe that some problems are beyond the reach of scientific inquiry. For example, determining whether a number is irrational or not. The mind-body problem falls into that category.

It also goes against the law of identity. If consciousness exists, it'd have a specific nature and its expression would be indicative of that nature. Therefore, any change in its expression would be indicative of a change in
consciousness itself.

You're confusing essential properties with accidental properties. Anything that exists has both. A particular person can be standing still or running, happy or sad, and still be the same person. The mind is not different in this regard. It's contents can vary and it can operate on the brain in various capacities and still be the same mind. Nevertheless consciousness (which is itself only one particular state of mind) does have a specific nature: intentionality. While the contents of consciousness vary, this feature of consciousness is always present.

[Anomalocaris]

"The beauty of Bach's music is unfalsifiable and therefore useless."

Come now. I honestly thought you were better than this kind of equivocation, and I know you're smart enough that I don't have to explain the difference between subjective assertions of quality and objective, existential claims.

Come on. You were wrong, and you are wrong. It is a silly sentimental mistake too, one that you should know far better than to make if you read a even the barest handful of wooter's smarmy posts.