Scientific knowledge versus spiritual knowledge

[God of Mr. Hanky]

Perhaps I've been misled all along. Atheism, defined a a lack of belief, does not entail radical empiricism. From the above comments it would seem otherwise.

There's no such thing as "radical" empiricism. Medical science and aerospace engineering have been overwhelmingly successful by adhering to empiricism over woo, there's nothing "radical" about that. Nothing which makes modern society work was developed through non-empirical "knowledge", least of all the communications channels which we use today. Astrologists, psychic networks, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaxxers, vitamin snake-oil vendors, dowsers, Muslims, and evangelical Xtians are all examples of those who operate by non-empirical claims, and their contribution to any part of society which actually works is (apart from charity work, which can be measured empirically) absolutely zero! Empiricism is the only way by which one can move closer toward learning the truth about life and how it works, and how to get things of real value done. Because it is, not because I want it to be so, and not because I imagined the product of my own mind was somebody else talking to me! This fact is routinely tested in the real world, not just in scientific labs. It sets empiricism apart from ideologies, religious ideas, and also the theistic/mystical ideas of those who think they are slippery enough to dodge the label "religious". We have studied ideas such as the above in-depth, and our criticism is according to a consistent standard of empirical reasoning which cannot be made up in anybody's own head. You do nothing but lob pejoratives at ideas which you don't understand, when you wish not to understand them, and you cannot even explain your own - this is the mark of a pathetically immature person, and you need to stop this if you want your ideas to be treated with respect!

Atheism is correctly defined by a lack of belief in a god. This does leave atheism open to some who don't believe in gods, but live by the wooful ideas of astrology, Wicca, non-theistic Buddhism, and / or other forms of mysticism. There are also many atheists who live by ideological socio-political ideas, and ideology is as antithetical to empiricism as is mysticism. It so happens that the above groups have sites apart from here for interests such as the above, while those who are atheist on account of their logical rejection of unfalsifiable claims gravitate in our direction.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yawn. Is the value of pi approximate or absolute?

[LadyForCamus]

I intend to be clear, not annoying (this time).

Jackson’s thought problem tacitly appeals to Leibnitz’s law, “The Identity of Indiscernables.” Basically, if someone can say something about one thing that cannot be said about the other, then those two things are not identical. Everything true of Clemens is also true of Twain, hence they are identical. If brain and mind are identical then every true statement about the physical system of the brain is true about the mental experiences and vice versa. (Brain is a Clemens. Mind is a Twain.)

Thank you for taking the time to reform your response for me. You could have just as easily said "if she's too thick to figure it out, then forget it." I appreciate it. [emoji41]

I understand -why- you are trying to apply the "identity of indiscernibles" to the brain and mind, and to the hypothesis of Mary's Room, but I think your application here is contrived in that you are arbitrarily separating the human brain from its biological function (of generating consciousness) for the purpose of being able to hold them up next to each other and say, "look! They are different! The brain is not the same as the mind! There must be a metaphysical explanation!"

But we could do this with -any- organ in the human body. Let's take the human pancreas, and the insulin it produces as its biological function. All the true statements we can say about the human pancreas are not all true statements we can say about insulin, and vise versa. ...So...what? What's the point exactly? That insulin and the pancreas are two distinct things? Well, of course they are. This is not revelatory in any way. Maybe scientists haven't yet mapped out every detail about how the brain generates consciousness, but to declare it "non-physical" on that count is an argument from ignorance. I don't understand why you think sensory/sensual experience is NOT a physical process, or how you could ever possibly justify that point of view.

A physical reduction would mean that a complete description of something’s material composition and observable changes would exhaust all possible knowledge about that thing. Jackson’s initial claim was that conscious experiences are not identical to physical facts because a complete knowledge of the physical facts associated with consciousness does not include knowledge of what it is like to experience consciousness. To me, it shows that mental properties are not identical to brain states. This not to say that mental properties and physical brain states can exist independently, only that the existence of each should be considered distinct.

Sure, and a human kidney is distinct from urine, but it's not magic, it's biology. And by the way, Jackson later reneged on his conclusions regarding the non-physical knowledge Mary supposedly learned, and declared the set up of his thought experiment flawed.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I understand -why- you are trying to apply the "identity of indiscernibles" to the brain and mind…you are arbitrarily separating the human brain from its biological function (of generating consciousness) for the purpose of being able to hold them up next to each other and say, "look! They are different! The brain is not the same as the mind… I don't understand why you think sensory/sensual experience is NOT a physical process, or how you could ever possibly justify that point of view.

In concept, some functions could be realized in multiple ways (keywords “multiple realizability”). People can use a word processor on a Mac or a PC. The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular physical composition.

…Jackson later reneged on his conclusions regarding the non-physical knowledge Mary supposedly learned, and declared the set-up of his thought experiment flawed.

Yes, I was aware of that he did. That’s why I referred to his initial claim. His reconsideration has not stopped many others from continuing to opine on the thought experiment. I retracted my prior atheism. I imagine you consider my former position the correct one.

[The Grand Nudger]

In concept, some functions could be realized in multiple ways (keywords “multiple realizability”). People can use a word processor on a Mac or a PC. The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular physical composition.

Entirely and laughably untrue.  The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular -brand- such as mac or pc.  It definitely depends upon a particular physical composition..unless you've been using a word processor from your toaster or toilet bowl of late. The underlaying architecture of pc's and macs has been identical for a -long- time, they buy from the same suppliers. Back when there -was- a marginal difference it was a difference in the architecture of commensurate systmes that worked using the same principles in each and every example.

Perhaps you should stick with the type of stuff you know, spirit stuff? I was worried that you'd try to mix the two somehow and fuck one or the other up in the process, wasn't I?

[Neo-Scholastic]

In concept, some functions could be realized in multiple ways (keywords “multiple realizability”). People can use a word processor on a Mac or a PC. The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular physical composition.

Entirely and laughably untrue.  The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular -brand- such as mac or pc.  It definitely depends upon a particular physical composition..unless you've been using a word processor from your toaster or toilet bowl of late.

Hmmm. And here I thought you could make programs for all different kinds of computers even with with punch cards, magnetic tapes and vacuum tubes. Silly me.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Different kinds of computers" is a list of functionally commensurate physical systems, all of which working -as- computers due to the exact same principles. Yes, silly you, and you can stop at any time. Or you can keep referring to your misconceptions regarding category a knowledge as they pertain to your category b knowledge.

Always been your call.

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Different kinds of computers" is a list of functionally commensurate physical systems, all of which working -as- computers due to the exact same principles.

(emphasis mine) You basically conceded the point without realizing it. Principles are not physical things although physical systems can conform to them.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I understand -why- you are trying to apply the "identity of indiscernibles" to the brain and mind…you are arbitrarily separating the human brain from its biological function (of generating consciousness) for the purpose of being able to hold them up next to each other and say, "look!  They are different! The brain is not the same as the mind… I don't understand why you think sensory/sensual experience is NOT a physical process, or how you could ever possibly justify that point of view.

In concept, some functions could be realized in multiple ways (keywords “multiple realizability”). People can use a word processor on a Mac or a PC. The function performed does not appear to depend on any particular physical composition.

…Jackson later reneged on his conclusions regarding the non-physical knowledge Mary supposedly learned, and declared the set-up of his thought experiment flawed.

Yes, I was aware of that he did. That’s why I referred to his initial claim. His reconsideration has not stopped many others from continuing to opine on the thought experiment. I retracted my prior atheism. I imagine you consider my former position the correct one.

Just you try and make a Linux program run on your Windoze or Mac - it won't, because it's compiled for a far more secure and adaptable OS.

[The Grand Nudger]

"Different kinds of computers" is a list of functionally commensurate physical systems, all of which working -as- computers due to the exact same principles.

(emphasis mine) You basically conceded the point without realizing it. Principles are not physical things although physical systems can conform to them.

These are the principles of computing, which rely on the physical actions of the mechanisms to model the logical operations.  There is no computing if those physical interactions are not present and reliable.  You were simply and demonstrably wrong about pcs and macs, you were simply and demonstrable wrong about comp systems, and now you're simply and demonstrably wrong about the requirements of the principles of computing in the comp systems.   You;re flying off on a tangent now, about things being being made to conform, that's equally as wrong as everything that preceded it and completely irrelevant.

Is this the sort of thing your category b knowledge is founded upon, gross "misunderstandings" of category a knowledge combined with machine gun irrationality?