5 ms·

It’s called dualism, and you’re basically proposing a soul in 21st century language. Like a soul, it’s not testable, and lacks any evidence in favor of it, whil

It’s called dualism, and you’re basically proposing a soul in 21st century language. Like a soul, it’s not testable, and lacks any evidence in favor of it, while requiring a new set of assumptions which cannot be tested. You’re also proposing some kind of new physics, which again, is somehow complementary to and yet hidden from current current theories.

sombremesa 9y ago
Yep. The fact that this kind of drivel is upvoted to the TOP, and has commenters seriously interested in it, makes me despair for the state of - not only cognitive science - but science in general. Although on second thought, popular science has always been like this, and the ivory tower built by the PhD tradition still stands - so maybe it's too early to despair even with the anti-intellectual vibe of the modern world.
mozumder 9y ago
You haven't proven that it's not testable.
- sombremesa 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
  - cgore 9y ago
    That's kind of missing his point. "Russell's Teapot" is a mental exercise that states the person making the claim that is nonstandard of current thought needs to provide proof. He's suggesting that there IS some way to provide proof perhaps, one way or the other.
  - mozumder 9y ago
    Doesn't work here, since Erlangolem made the statement that it's not testable. Erlangolem made that explicit assertion, and now has to back up that statement up.
    - Erlangolem 9y ago
      I don’t, because this is nothing new and all of the ground has been covered. The argument over an ability to test, or not, spiritual matters is older than us, and I doubt that this site wants theological arguments. In short, I replied to someone restating an ancient concept, and I replied with a very old rejoinder. Souls and gods are not rational, and the argument inevitably is just a matter of one side finding gaps in knowledge to shoehorn beliefs, and the other tightening the screws. It literally never ends, and it’s the opposite of intellectual stimulation. If you really want that argument, life and the internet are overloaded with opportunities to have it until all parties are dead. Very little ever moves or happens, but occasionally someone gets a book deal.
      - mozumder 9y ago
        That's a lot of words just to say "I can't really prove my statement or back it up with facts." And, no, this isn't "ancient arguments" Fundamental forces of nature weren't all known until about 80 years ago, and there are plenty of unknown in science, including things like dark energy and whether the universe is a simulation. We don't even know if string-theory can be tested or not. It might take too much energy, or it might involve new science discoveries to test. Who knows. In the end just don't make self-congratulatory assertions you can't actually back up, otherwise people like me will call you out on it. Thanks.
- SolarNet 9y ago
  It's non-falsifiable, which is the actual standard of science, because we don't have a test for it yet. We'd have to have something to observe and measure, something to test. As some quick examples for this specific case: * There are mental disorders, drugs, experiences that seem to imply dualism; those are entirely inside those people's mind with no way to prove those experiences are true, or simply products of the brain. * Damage to a brain seems to change consciousness (this is falsifiable, and proven) which seems to suggest that it is where our consciousness is; damaging the receiver damages the connection, it's obvious that something must bind the consciousness. This is a well thought about topic. If you have some sort of falsifiable test, please suggest it, otherwise, far wiser people have tried and failed to think of one (and as a note, it's up to you to prove that your hypothesis can be falsified, it's your claim).
  - mozumder 9y ago
    > It's non-falsifiable You just made an assertion. Now you have to prove it. If the idea that the spirit is another fundamental force of nature is true, then it can be tested and be falsifiable.
    - skolemtotem 9y ago
      If you think it's testable, then you should write up a test and, hopefully, carry it out.
    - SolarNet 9y ago
      I can't think of a test, many people haven't been able to, and neither can you apparently, until someone has a test it is effectively non-falsifiable. Science isn't about proof, if observations change (primarily improve) then we change what we think we know. Which is why the above is all the "proof" I need. you can falsify it very simply. Provide a test. I have met my burden.
      - mozumder 9y ago
        So, if you can't back up the assertion that it's not testable, you have "effectively" lost the argument. Go back 90 years. How do you know there isn't a 4th fundamental force of nature? Science isn't about making assertions and not being able to back it up.
noetic_techy 9y ago
No new physics may be necessary: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-m...
- Erlangolem 9y ago
  (2014) There’s zero evidence of quantum mechanical effects playing a role in any aspect of cognition. Worse, the classical model suffices. Far worse, the review you cited has been thoroughly trashed. https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEwMy9waHlzcmV2ZS42MS40MTk0/tegmark2000.pdf https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEwMy9waHlzcmV2ZS42MS40MTk0/te... https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjI4Ny41NDU0Ljc5MQ==/seife2000.pdf https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjI4Ny41NDU0Ljc... The “quantum mind” is just another case of quantum mechanics being used as the new woo of choice where “because God said so” wouldn’t be well received. Believe me, I’d love to discover that we’re not just meat hurtling towards our own extinction, but the evidence doesn’t bear out a rosier hypothesis. Even with the surprising duration of coherent state in “hot” systems, the human brain is a poor candidate for a quantum mechanical system, and the math strongly supports that. Where quantum mechanics is concerned, math is God.
monort 9y ago
It is not hidden, we don't have a complete physical theory - quantum mechanics and general relativity are not compatible. As an additional fun fact - we don't know how general anesthesia works.
- Erlangolem 9y ago
  Gaps in knowledge don’t imply gods in them, and especially really tight gaps imply nothing more than a gap in knowledge. The precise mechanism of GA isn’t certain, but it is known that disruption of hippocampal function is key, and no one is seriously suggesting thst it’s disconnection from “the soul” that does it. A theory of quantum gravity would be complementary to QM and GR, and that leaves no room for remote soul control either. It’s just not scientific or rational to point at some things we don’t understand with the assumption that it must mean God did it. That’s mysticism and religion, not science, and if it uses the language of science, but not the substance it’s called pseudoscience. If you want to postulate a soul within the rubric of QM/GR complementary theories, it’s very much on you to hypothesize and test. What field is carrying the signal? What machinery is receiving it? What’s sending it? Why is there no lag? Why is it all totally undetectable? Why are we trying to add a whole new set of assumptions on top of existing ones? Occam’s Razor really applies here, especially when it’s science vs. “devoutly to be wished.” Just because we want reality to conform to ancient beliefs and present desires doesn’t make it so.
  - monort 9y ago
    Nobody saying there is a god or soul, but explanation can be in unknown parts of physics and surprisingly we have that unknown parts. We have unexplained phenomenon - consciousness, everyone (well, at least me) experience it. We don't have the mechanism for it, so we reject that phenomenon exists. I don't think it's a good idea to outright reject hypothesis, that have evidences behind it, but don't have a mechanism. Remember what happened to theory of washing hands for surgeons or to continental drift (it took half a century for it to be taken seriously!)

sombremesa 9y ago

Yep. The fact that this kind of drivel is upvoted to the TOP, and has commenters seriously interested in it, makes me despair for the state of - not only cognitive science - but science in general. Although on second thought, popular science has always been like this, and the ivory tower built by the PhD tradition still stands - so maybe it's too early to despair even with the anti-intellectual vibe of the modern world.

mozumder 9y ago

You haven't proven that it's not testable.

sombremesa 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
- cgore 9y ago
  That's kind of missing his point. "Russell's Teapot" is a mental exercise that states the person making the claim that is nonstandard of current thought needs to provide proof. He's suggesting that there IS some way to provide proof perhaps, one way or the other.
- mozumder 9y ago
  Doesn't work here, since Erlangolem made the statement that it's not testable. Erlangolem made that explicit assertion, and now has to back up that statement up.
  - Erlangolem 9y ago
    I don’t, because this is nothing new and all of the ground has been covered. The argument over an ability to test, or not, spiritual matters is older than us, and I doubt that this site wants theological arguments. In short, I replied to someone restating an ancient concept, and I replied with a very old rejoinder. Souls and gods are not rational, and the argument inevitably is just a matter of one side finding gaps in knowledge to shoehorn beliefs, and the other tightening the screws. It literally never ends, and it’s the opposite of intellectual stimulation. If you really want that argument, life and the internet are overloaded with opportunities to have it until all parties are dead. Very little ever moves or happens, but occasionally someone gets a book deal.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      That's a lot of words just to say "I can't really prove my statement or back it up with facts." And, no, this isn't "ancient arguments" Fundamental forces of nature weren't all known until about 80 years ago, and there are plenty of unknown in science, including things like dark energy and whether the universe is a simulation. We don't even know if string-theory can be tested or not. It might take too much energy, or it might involve new science discoveries to test. Who knows. In the end just don't make self-congratulatory assertions you can't actually back up, otherwise people like me will call you out on it. Thanks.
SolarNet 9y ago
It's non-falsifiable, which is the actual standard of science, because we don't have a test for it yet. We'd have to have something to observe and measure, something to test. As some quick examples for this specific case: * There are mental disorders, drugs, experiences that seem to imply dualism; those are entirely inside those people's mind with no way to prove those experiences are true, or simply products of the brain. * Damage to a brain seems to change consciousness (this is falsifiable, and proven) which seems to suggest that it is where our consciousness is; damaging the receiver damages the connection, it's obvious that something must bind the consciousness. This is a well thought about topic. If you have some sort of falsifiable test, please suggest it, otherwise, far wiser people have tried and failed to think of one (and as a note, it's up to you to prove that your hypothesis can be falsified, it's your claim).
- mozumder 9y ago
  > It's non-falsifiable You just made an assertion. Now you have to prove it. If the idea that the spirit is another fundamental force of nature is true, then it can be tested and be falsifiable.
  - skolemtotem 9y ago
    If you think it's testable, then you should write up a test and, hopefully, carry it out.
  - SolarNet 9y ago
    I can't think of a test, many people haven't been able to, and neither can you apparently, until someone has a test it is effectively non-falsifiable. Science isn't about proof, if observations change (primarily improve) then we change what we think we know. Which is why the above is all the "proof" I need. you can falsify it very simply. Provide a test. I have met my burden.
    - mozumder 9y ago
      So, if you can't back up the assertion that it's not testable, you have "effectively" lost the argument. Go back 90 years. How do you know there isn't a 4th fundamental force of nature? Science isn't about making assertions and not being able to back it up.

noetic_techy 9y ago

No new physics may be necessary: https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-microtubules-corroborates.html https://phys.org/news/2014-01-discovery-quantum-vibrations-m...

Erlangolem 9y ago
(2014) There’s zero evidence of quantum mechanical effects playing a role in any aspect of cognition. Worse, the classical model suffices. Far worse, the review you cited has been thoroughly trashed. https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEwMy9waHlzcmV2ZS42MS40MTk0/tegmark2000.pdf https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEwMy9waHlzcmV2ZS42MS40MTk0/te... https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjI4Ny41NDU0Ljc5MQ==/seife2000.pdf https://cyber.sci-hub.la/MTAuMTEyNi9zY2llbmNlLjI4Ny41NDU0Ljc... The “quantum mind” is just another case of quantum mechanics being used as the new woo of choice where “because God said so” wouldn’t be well received. Believe me, I’d love to discover that we’re not just meat hurtling towards our own extinction, but the evidence doesn’t bear out a rosier hypothesis. Even with the surprising duration of coherent state in “hot” systems, the human brain is a poor candidate for a quantum mechanical system, and the math strongly supports that. Where quantum mechanics is concerned, math is God.

monort 9y ago

It is not hidden, we don't have a complete physical theory - quantum mechanics and general relativity are not compatible. As an additional fun fact - we don't know how general anesthesia works.

Erlangolem 9y ago
Gaps in knowledge don’t imply gods in them, and especially really tight gaps imply nothing more than a gap in knowledge. The precise mechanism of GA isn’t certain, but it is known that disruption of hippocampal function is key, and no one is seriously suggesting thst it’s disconnection from “the soul” that does it. A theory of quantum gravity would be complementary to QM and GR, and that leaves no room for remote soul control either. It’s just not scientific or rational to point at some things we don’t understand with the assumption that it must mean God did it. That’s mysticism and religion, not science, and if it uses the language of science, but not the substance it’s called pseudoscience. If you want to postulate a soul within the rubric of QM/GR complementary theories, it’s very much on you to hypothesize and test. What field is carrying the signal? What machinery is receiving it? What’s sending it? Why is there no lag? Why is it all totally undetectable? Why are we trying to add a whole new set of assumptions on top of existing ones? Occam’s Razor really applies here, especially when it’s science vs. “devoutly to be wished.” Just because we want reality to conform to ancient beliefs and present desires doesn’t make it so.
- monort 9y ago
  Nobody saying there is a god or soul, but explanation can be in unknown parts of physics and surprisingly we have that unknown parts. We have unexplained phenomenon - consciousness, everyone (well, at least me) experience it. We don't have the mechanism for it, so we reject that phenomenon exists. I don't think it's a good idea to outright reject hypothesis, that have evidences behind it, but don't have a mechanism. Remember what happened to theory of washing hands for surgeons or to continental drift (it took half a century for it to be taken seriously!)