3 ms·

Ehhhhhh. I was trying to say the opposite. Or rather, I was actually trying to say that phenomenon are rarely unscientific, only the explanations. You can ha

Ehhhhhh. I was trying to say the opposite. Or rather, I was actually trying to say that phenomenon are rarely unscientific, only the explanations. You can have scientific and unscientific explanations of the origin of life on Earth. You really only declare a phenomenon unscientific if we've spent a long time not being able to come up with any good scientific explanations. For instance, we commonly regard the question, "What happened before the Big Bang?" as outside the reach of science. But that's just provisional -- if someone came up with a really great theory that explained the nature of the universe before the Big Bang, and it produced testable predictions, then suddenly the question would in fact be inside the reach of science.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
The difference is that we can conceive of such testable predictions, even if we don't have any currently. That's because they'd be objectively observable. I challenge you to even conceive of what a "test for consciousness" would look like. Let's imagine you have one. How confident in it will you be when the first person who fails it says "but I am conscious!"?
- saalweachter 8y ago
  You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness". False positive and negative rates are not particularly new to science or medicine. When we run blood tests to determine if a person has a particular disease, some percent of people with the disease will be tested as not having it, and some percentage of people without the disease will be tested as having it. Just because we fail to detect something accurately 100% of the time doesn't mean we don't understand it.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    You're missing the point, which is this: How do you know your scientific test is accurate? With a disease, we know by looking at the results of people who were inoculated or treated vs those who weren't. This is possible because data is objective. When you are making your magic consciousness detector, how will you know when it is working?
    - saalweachter 8y ago
      Why do you need a consciousness detector/test at all to study the nature of consciousness and develop a falsifiable theory that explains its origins, properties, and the conditions under which it can exist?
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
        If you have a theory about the conditions under which consciousness can exist, you will need to test it. How will you test that theory if you cannot tell what is and isn't conscious in the first place? Let's say my theory says that rocks are conscious and hippos are not. Without some means of detecting consciousness this theory is untestable.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

The difference is that we can conceive of such testable predictions, even if we don't have any currently. That's because they'd be objectively observable. I challenge you to even conceive of what a "test for consciousness" would look like. Let's imagine you have one. How confident in it will you be when the first person who fails it says "but I am conscious!"?

saalweachter 8y ago
You are confusing "a scientific test for consciousness" with "a scientific theory of consciousness". False positive and negative rates are not particularly new to science or medicine. When we run blood tests to determine if a person has a particular disease, some percent of people with the disease will be tested as not having it, and some percentage of people without the disease will be tested as having it. Just because we fail to detect something accurately 100% of the time doesn't mean we don't understand it.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  You're missing the point, which is this: How do you know your scientific test is accurate? With a disease, we know by looking at the results of people who were inoculated or treated vs those who weren't. This is possible because data is objective. When you are making your magic consciousness detector, how will you know when it is working?
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    Why do you need a consciousness detector/test at all to study the nature of consciousness and develop a falsifiable theory that explains its origins, properties, and the conditions under which it can exist?
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      If you have a theory about the conditions under which consciousness can exist, you will need to test it. How will you test that theory if you cannot tell what is and isn't conscious in the first place? Let's say my theory says that rocks are conscious and hippos are not. Without some means of detecting consciousness this theory is untestable.