RE: What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body
August 19, 2016 at 10:04 am
(This post was last modified: August 19, 2016 at 10:05 am by bennyboy.)
(August 19, 2016 at 9:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: You consistently confuse sufficiency, with satisfaction or totality. The hypothesis we have are -sufficient-, which is not the same as saying they are true. It simply means that they -could be- true. If they were not..they would not satisfy the basic conditions of a working scientific hypothesis. Sufficiency is a measure of whether or not something -can- explain x...not whether or not it -does-. The distinction is subtle, and important.The hypotheses are not sufficient, because they do not in fact explain anything. If I ask you "why is there gravity," you would make the "hypothesis" that matter pulls matter toward itself, I suppose, and claim that that's where the best available evidence points.
Quote:Which, again, is an empty set without the nuerology end of it. Frankly, when you ask what -allows- for this you are explicitly asking me about nuerology. Which is why it's then futile to talk about brain waving, or insist that we're really just limiting ourselves to psychology or psychogeny in this. You're -asking- for it, and then complaining when you -get- it.I'm pretty sure I'm not asking you about neurology or even psychogeny, and that I'm talking about psychogony. But I'm interested that we are no longer waving at the brain, but at neurons. Tell me, what is it about the neurons that allows for subjective awareness?
