The brain

[Alan V]

Indeed, the proof is on the page, unfortunately the evidence is against you rather than in your favor. 

The whole idea that mainstream neurophysiologists and other accomplished scientists should quake in their boots because a handful of spiritually-minded scientists disagree with them is nonsense.  While it's always important and interesting to have dissenting voices to clarify gaps in our understanding, any conclusive pronouncements against materialism are premature, to say the least, when the vast majority of the evidence supports its perspectives.  A mere argument from analogy with a TV set is incredibly weak.

And Rupert Sheldrake?  Give me a break.

I would like to add that I found the end of Drich's linked video especially revealing.  It was an appeal to people's prejudices by mentioning God and meaning of life in the universe.  I assume this indicates that neither the video's creator or Drich understand that science is not about values or culture wars.  It's not about "those biased materialists, who are overlooking the obvious."  It's about following the evidence wherever it leads, regardless of whether we like the implications or not.

---

And there is more evidence that can prove, but I will look into one at a time to see if the evidence holds true.

What are your qualifications for judging the evidence, or even the authority of specific scientists on such matters?  Don't you think that if the brain-as-receiver promoters really had clear supporting evidence for their idea, it would be all over Nature and other prestigious scientific journals by now?

[Mystic]

---

And there is more evidence that can prove, but I will look into one at a time to see if the evidence holds true.

What are your qualifications for judging the evidence, or even the authority of specific scientists on such matters?  Don't you think that if the brain-as-receiver promoters really had clear supporting evidence for their idea, it would be all over Nature and other prestigious scientific journals by now?

I think you don't really understand the circular way of scientific method.

The problem is yes the evidence confirmed the brain-as-conscious creator, but, it also goes just as well with receiver.

So you have two equality valid hypothesis, and the evidence goes with both.

So to break the dead lock, you have to find something different.  I will see where the evidence leads, and my qualifications is not your concern.

[Mister Agenda]

Observation->hypothesis->experiment or prediction->hypothesis disconfirmed or tentatively supported.

So circular.

[Alan V]

The problem is yes the evidence confirmed the brain-as-conscious creator, but, it also goes just as well with receiver.

So you have two equality valid hypothesis, and the evidence goes with both.

Does it really?  How?  What is the warrant for even suggesting the brain-as-receiver idea, which adds a whole other unnecessary (and therefore uneconomical) level to reality to support it?  The fact that we would prefer reality to be that way?

---

Observation->hypothesis->experiment or prediction->hypothesis disconfirmed or tentatively supported.

So circular.

Spiraling, not circular.

[Mystic]

Not the original data, which goes with both theories, but additional data, that I have to study and see if it support it or doesn't.

---

Observation->hypothesis->experiment or prediction->hypothesis disconfirmed or tentatively supported.

So circular.

It's circular - show me one philosopher today who knows what circular argument looks like and says it's not.


This is why a dialogue happens, about pragmatism, and science can really disprove theories, but never prove a theory, but you work with working models that work with data from pragmatism... 

But it doesn't mean in the future, a different theory won't come a long and even be MORE useful in application.

[Mister Agenda]

It's circular - show me one philosopher today who knows what circular argument looks like and says it's not.

Show me one philosopher today who says it's circular. Genuinely curious about that.

[Mystic]

It's circular - show me one philosopher today who knows what circular argument looks like and says it's not.

Show me one philosopher today who says it's circular. Genuinely curious about that.

The first philosophy class I took in university had a professor explain this to us and it was part of the test material to know this. In fact, a whole dialogue occurred about how pragmatic or not, scientific method actually is, with the class but there was no dispute about it being circular, we all saw that.

[Mister Agenda]

Show me one philosopher today who says it's circular. Genuinely curious about that.

The first philosophy class I took in university had a professor explain this to us and it was part of the test material to know this. In fact, a whole dialogue occurred about how pragmatic or not, scientific method actually is, with the class but there was no dispute about it being circular, we all saw that.

So you can't name one that does, just share an anecdote about some professor you had once.

[Mystic]

The first philosophy class I took in university had a professor explain this to us and it was part of the test material to know this. In fact, a whole dialogue occurred about how pragmatic or not, scientific method actually is, with the class but there was no dispute about it being circular, we all saw that.

So you can't name one that does, just share an anecdote about some professor you had once.

How much do you want me to name?

[downbeatplumb]

Nope, you still need to try harder.

I am cleaning the floor with you chumps.. I got like 5 of you guys so butt hurt and broken they've been reduced to talking about a tv series, seems to me they don't even now if they are coming or going. If I tried any harder none of you would be able to sleep at night

You have a strange view of things. 

Just one more thing for you to be wrong about I suppose.

---

So you can't name one that does, just share an anecdote about some professor you had once.

How much do you want me to name?

The thing with the scientific theory is, circular or not, it actually works unlike everything else that mankind has tried over the years.