That's not an experiment.

That's a philosophical argument.

Philosophical naturalism is a philosophical position.

The philosophy of science assumes naturalism (that's called methodological naturalism), it doesn't make a case that philosophical naturalism is the true metaphysical view of reality.

You've gone beyond science.

I have grown up rich, never met anyone who I'd consider a bad person srs. The envious, miserable and resentful aren't rich generally. Looks like OP is mad at the ****ty hand he got dealt.

read the edit

Sinals are any external stimuli from the cell. Something that the cell can react and respond to. On a macro scale, we could mean a sensory experience. On the micro scale, it means activating specific biochemical pathways to elicit responses. I'll remind you that the nature of these pathways were all predetermined by the genetics of the cell. That's kind of the whole point.

Nature vs Nurture is a debate essentially over whether people are "born bad". I am arguing that the capacity to be bad and what you were going to be was predetermined, but of course the nurture, the sequence of events, was absolutely vital to make you into the specific person you are. A different sequence would have left you a lump of cells. Perhaps a different sequence could have made you "not bad". What is an unsolved question in psychology is how critical are certain specific events to determining the outcome. IE, how important is child abuse in making a serial killer? Can anyone be made into a serial killer? Etc...these are unsolved and unknown.

Hope that rests any confusion over my point, and I hope you muppets have considered seeing humans as physical systems.

Ok i mostly agree with you. Though theres still a lot of vague information

I actually DONT know how dna interacts with the brain. I know that psychologists have looked for biological markers and havent found any, in an effort to discern between biology vs. Psychology

But i still dont think this has anything to do with whether or not these cells can be reorganized. Id also like to point out you cant point out how many "predetermined responses" or "signals" there are

Nobody knows exactly how the brain works. But we do know it is made of cells, and we know how all cells work roughly. So, it is clear this is still holding here. I can tell you the number of responses is finite, but very very large. No I can't give you the exact number. A brain is a fking complicated physical system bro.

Again, that's a philosophical claim.You don't seem to realize you're making a philosophical argument.

You've developed inferences, based on premises, that's philosophy not science.

Logic is not science. Logic is a component of the scientific method, not the whole of the method. Your argument is philosophy.

Here's another example:

Doctor Who: All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?

Davros: Perfectly.

Doctor Who: You know what a human would say to that?

Davros: What?

Tyssan: Elephants aren't pink.

Davros: Humans do not understand logic.

Also, how would what you wrote be falsifiable via experiment? (A requirement of the philosophy of science.)

this.

Ok, i dont want to keep arguing. I agree with you about the structure but not sure anything else.


Using your example, dna codes everything. Dont really know what you mean. Are you saying that all i ever was and know is already written? How come i can study some new subject i never knew

I know you were talking micro and theres this convo going back and forth from macro to micro and vice versa. But, again, how do i go into a class or something and learn new information i never knew?

What about this interaction was dna encoded?

Also, curious what youd say about the brain in a vacuum experiment. How would the brain function?

Science is literally a philosophy dude. You interpret observations to build models that explain behavior you see. There have been many experiments to determine that genetic information exists. (DNA, epigenetics, histone code, etc) There have been many experiments studying the biochemical pathways of cells and how cells respond to signals. There have been many experiments showing how translation occurs in response to these signals, and showing the role of proteins in the response of the cell. There have been several experiments that show that you are made of cells. Now, the claim that "Therefore, your collective response is governed by the individual responses of each cell along with their interactions with each other." is a logical one. There really is no alternative, honestly. If there is, I'd love to hear about it. And how zygotes respond to stimuli has been extensively experimentally tested.

BTW I will remind you that many physical theories have logical components and philsophical consequences. I am simply stating the philosophical consequence of what is known about organ systems and developmental biology. There is nothing unscientific about these consequences as they directly follow from the science. It's like when people argue over the implications of quantum theory. While there is some room for philosophical interpretation, there are also some philosophical positions that are actually ruled out by the theory. It has specific consequences. You are trying to create a dichotomy between the science and the interpretation of the science. I will just remind you that most physical theories have logical components to them in the form of claims or mathematical models.

I'll also remind you that the guy you are reading, Popper, was not a scientist. He tried to create a hard distinction between science and philosophy. Such a distinction is necessarily blurred, and he seems to have forgotten that science itself is a philosophy. The most naive problem with Popper's view is that he thinks anyone can describe anything empirically to exhaustion. Let's suppose you make a claim about electrons. Someone can easily show your claim to have philosophical assumptions. After all, what is meant by electron and its entire nature cannot be captured or understood fully. We assume certain things in order to even talk about it, and in fact, logical claims are made. We posit certain mathematical models that describe the electron fields, for example. Then, we do experiments to try to falsify the model. But even just to talk about electrons or anything you observe requires some philosophical interpretation and logical claims. The idea that ou can divorce yourself from these things was clearly put forth by a philosopher who wasn't a scientist.

I am saying it was essentially predetermined sans some quantum randomness at the atomic and subatomic levels, yes. It's not really that controversial. You are a macroscopic physical system, after all. You can study something, learn and change because the physical system that is you allows for that to happen and actually dictates it. The entire manner by how you learn, remember, perceive was all essentially hard coded.

Brain in a vat is fine. It's not surprising that every description of phenomena we formulate in science is observer dependent fundamentally. Reality is perceived through the lens of your own existence. That thought experiment just draws attention to this fact, but it's obvious. In a sense nothing is "real" beyond your own experiences. But you already know that since the only thing you conclusively empirically know without any room for doubt is your own existence. "It's not I think therefore I am". It starts with just "I am.". You know this, and essentally nothing else. All the math you know rests on assumptions which you take to be true but don't really KNOW, and everything else you experience rests on your interpreted reality through the lens of your own existence.

That's a fine little point and illustrates the lonely, solipsistic nature of existence, but whether we are "really" in a vat or the matrix or w/e is of little consequence to what you label and perceive as reality. Regardless of whether you are in the matrix or not, you can still observe phenomena and see that they seem to follow some rules. And whether you think you're the only thing that is real or not, the same rules will still seem to apply.

I want to understand why youre arguing.

I dont think youve ever once discerned whether or not you can change. And then youre using vague words like - response, predetermined, and whatever else that dont explicitly state thing. E.g. what is the response? What is predetermined? What are the stimuli?

Theres almost just so much vague information that it doesnt mean anything

Can people change or not? What do you think about neuroplasticity?

And once again, we can say that even if we agree to a preconceived structure that has no forebearance on whether or not the structures, responses( what responses), stimuli (what stimuli) can be reorganized

People certainly change. (In predetermined ways as repsonses to their environments.) This is true for any physical system btw.

I am arguing to illustrate that the debate between nature and nurture should be reinterpreted since its common interpretation is silly given what we know about biology. The correct debate is to argue over which aspects of nurture were key to develop specific traits while being mindful that the nature was still governing the responses to the nurture.

Ok. Yea id agree. Im not sure to the extent though

Im pretty sure most people are arguing with you because you seem to be using this as some crux for why you can or cant succeed

I think youve argued some points but i dont really understand how they apply

I'm not. It has nothing to do with me (at least not beyond the same ramifications it has to everyone). People brought me up as an ad hominem because they couldn't address my seemingly contentious claim that we are physical systems. They want to retain their illusion of agency over the universe.

These fuktards legitimately believe that they can violate the laws of physics just fking lmao. Somehow they have the power to make quantum particles behave exactly the way they want or to get cells to not respond in their genetically predetermined ways to biochemical pathways. Mind over matter? Your mind is matter motherfuker. Just fuking lol. THAT claim is extraordinary. I'd like to see evidence of how that works. If anyone can show me how you think with anything other than your brain and that thinking is not a process subject to the laws of physics, please do!!

but muh meritocracy. muh bootstraps. muh just world

Yes, and part of that philosophy is; direct observation, creating an explanatory and predictive model, falsification and experiment.

Making inferences from premises is not how we apply the philosophy of science. That is just philosophy.I'll spell it out for you...

You are taking scientific theories, that have not concluded your claim, to conclude your claim via inference. That's philosophy.

Do you understand that you are making inferences, from scientific theories that have not directly addressed your claim?Wincel, please read this carefully...

A conclusion can be true, based on a flawed premise or presuppostion.

Logic makes an idea consistent, it does not make it's premises and presuppostions true.

Again, here is the example that explains that...

Doctor Who: All elephants are pink, Nellie is an elephant, therefore Nellie is pink. Logical?

Davros: Perfectly.

Doctor Who: You know what a human would say to that?

Davros: What?

Tyssan: Elephants aren't pink.
Yep.

I already said (literally in my last post to you), that logic was a part of science. You are presenting a purely logic based argument, and claiming that it's science. The part is not the whole.

You are making a direct claim about the nature of consciousness, do you have a falsifiable mathethematical model that explain and predict consciousness response to environment in the same way that we have for atoms?

Do you neuroscience studies that havedirectlytested your claim of how consciousness responds to environments?

If not, then by your own example, you are not practising science. You are practicing philosophy, you are not practicing science.

I think that is tied to this. That's why they get so upset over these basic ideas. They want to believe they have agency over the universe. When I say that it's predetermined (approximately), that robs them of that agency. Also, anyone who wants to be a smartass and bring up quantum indeterminacy, I'll remind you that you can't control the measurement outcomes. They are random. So, you don't control the randomness either. Life has the illusion of control. You change and respond in preset ways. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for what we do. We are. We think and take actions to respond to things we perceive. Whether that was fundamentally predetermined is irrelevant to how you respond. If you knew your future, it wouldn't change anything. You'd go through life knowing your future, but you wouldn't be able to change it.

The burden of proof is on the person who asserts that something is so.

Philosophical naturalism is what you have literally just asserted, so please make your argument.The burden of proof is on you.

It's just you're a pseudo-intellectual that's why people take umbrage with your posts ITT

Which claim specifically is not testable or supported by experiment? I just broke down everything I said and showed you at each step that it was not controversial and well tested. The only contentious place might be the part about how because your brain is made of cells, the only way it can respond is governed by the way the cells respond to each other and their environment. That is a logical claim, but that is something patently true based on the fact that cells are things.

Incidentally, even this is really a scientific statement at heart. That the behavior of a system of particles is governed by the behavior of its constituent particles along with their interactions is well known. We have many experimental observations of many body systems where approximations were used to model their behavior and they were quite consistent with experiment.(Hartree Fock methods for particles, large scale tissue simulations where each cell acts and interacts in parallel done on supercomputers, etc)

This shouldn't be controversial at all. Again, please show me how I am wrong. Whether you want to label it a consequence of the science or a claim lying in the philosophy of science is irrelevant to me. I'd like to see how it could be any other way. I've explained how it makes sense my way. Show me what is wrong with it or an alternative pls.

Basically, a lot of people argue that reductionism is BS. While you can get emergent phenomena from simple rules, those simple rules do indirectly dictate the behavior of the emergent phenomena. You can't really get away from that. I'd like to see someone explain why it is BS. I always see everyone say it is BS. Nobody ever says why.

To clarify the argument more, your contention is literally that I haven't empirically tested it for a specific N in a many body problem even though the same principles ought to apply, by the theory, to any N. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter if N is 3 or a quintillion. The same rules are dictating the behavior. It just becomes harder to solve/simulate. There may be surprising behavior that occurs at different scales, such as chemistry, biology, human behavior, economic and social behaviors, atmospheric behaviors, astrophysical phenomena etc. But fundamentally, it's following the same rules. This is similar to how with numbers, a simple set of rules generates the natural numbers, but each number has unique and interesting properties, and each class of numbers you choose has distinct behaviors.

In this thread, Wincel sees the NPC meme and decides that yes, he is an NPC.

Ok so there are experiments that show your mind is matter. The easiest one is when parts of the brain are damaged or removed and the person's mind changes. And of course, removing certain brain functions removes the capacity for thought. This has been well documented by studies in Neurology and Neuroscience. If this is controversial to you, IDK what to say.

What would it take for me to not be pseudo? I consider myself at least somewhat intellectual. Would it help if I taught you functional analysis or quantum mechanics or something? At what point am I considered educated enough to make a claim and not be labeled a pseudointellectual and be personally attacked for it? All I ask is that one of you fuks show me how it could be any other way. I've shown why my idea makes sense. Show an alternative instead of constsntly going hurr durr u r dum without any argument against what I said.

Just present a scientific argument not a philosophical one and know the difference.

I've said this 3 times in this thread btw.

lol @ you getting upset btw

For the record whether something is the "true view of reality" is not the claim I am making. If I say something is scientifically true, I mean empirically true aka "true as far as we know based on what hs been observed". Scientific truth is an oxymoron when taken literally. And if you study science, you should know that. When I make any claim about how the universe "is", it is really a claim about how it "seems to be given what we know". Always. No exception, except in the case of the knowledge that I exist. I didn't think I would need to bring these semantics into this discussion, but that seems to be where you are going with that so I will address that now.

[QUOTE=wincel post_id=1563759281]Which claim specifically is not testable or supported by experiment?[/QUOTE]I'll spell it out for you again...

You talked about cell theory... Cell theory does/did not directly test your claim regarding consciousness.

You talked about DNA theory... DNA theory does/did not directly test your claim regarding consciousness.

You talked about the field of Epigenetics... The field of Epigentics is not directly testing your claim regarding consciousness.

You talked about Histone code... The hypothesis is not directly testing your claim regarding consciousness.

None of the things you cite have directly tested your claim.

You seem to be using these fields, hypotheses, and theories, to justify your philosophical conclusion of physicalism. And then (I think correctly) concluding genetic determinism from physicalism.

[b]The scienfitic method tests direct claims. Your specific claim about consciousness has not been tested via the scientific method. [B]That's why what you are presenting is philosophy, and not science.

So I'll repeat...

[b]You are taking scientific theories, that have not concluded your claim, to conclude your claim via inference. That's philosophy.

Do you understand that you are making inferences, from scientific theories that have not directly addressed your claim?[/b]

[QUOTE]The only contentious place might be the part about how because your brain is made of cells, the only way it can respond is governed by the way the cells respond to each other and their environment. That is a logical claim, but that is something patently true based on the fact that cells are things.[/QUOTE]I agree that it's a logical claim... Based on the presupposition of philosophical naturalism, which IMO is the presupposition of your argument.

[QUOTE]This shouldn't be controversial at all. Again, please show me how I am wrong. Whether you want to label it a consequence of the science or a claim lying in the philosophy of science is irrelevant to me. I'd like to see how it could be any other way. I've explained how it makes sense my way. Show me what is wrong with it or an alternative pls.[/QUOTE]When I was a philosophical naturalist, I had the same position as you.

I'm no longer a philosophical naturalist though, best argument I can find against that is to study the research into Near Death Experiences (eg. Evidence Of The Afterlife By Jeffrey Long, and Life After Life By Raymond Moody).


However, when Sam Harris made your argument he was met with counter arguments...

(links from wiki, long time since I read the book)

[URL=https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/will-this-post-make-sam-harris-change-his-mind-about-free-will/]https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...out-free-will/[/URL]

[URL=https://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/05/15/An-Analysis-of-Sam-Harris-Free-Will.aspx]https://www.philosophynews.com/post/...Free-Will.aspx[/URL]

[URL=https://aphilosopherstake.com/2012/07/29/free-will-why-sam-harris-needs-to-read-more-philosophy/]https://aphilosopherstake.com/2012/0...re-philosophy/[/URL]


Also, there is a pragmatic benefit for believing in free will...

[i]"The second reason to hold on to the prospect of free will comes from studies observing that our beliefs can actually influence real-life outcomes. [b]The most recent study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in February, showed that students who agree with statements like “I am in charge of my actions even when my life’s circumstances are difficult” consistently earn higher grades on tests and generally perform better overall as compared to their peers whose answers to those questions reveal a disbelief in free will. [/b]And that’s true even when other factors like demographics and socioeconomic status are taken into account.

Previous research has resulted in similar outcomes. When people believe they have more control—that they can exercise free will to their benefit—their performance at work, school and other facets of their lives improves.

This brings us to one more question. Even if free will is, to some extent, an illusion, is it a useful illusion? Beliefs have consequences. "
[/i]
[URL=https://qz.com/628829/the-important-psychological-benefit-of-believing-in-free-will/]https://qz.com/628829/the-important-...-in-free-will/[/URL]