10 ms·

> It's an elaboration of the fact that brain meat is not magic, and can't be magic, and everything we understand about the laws of physics leaves no room for ma

by fivea 5y ago

> It's an elaboration of the fact that brain meat is not magic, and can't be magic, and everything we understand about the laws of physics leaves no room for magic. This assertion is rather short-sighted and presumes, wrongly, that knowledge on a topic is already complete. Yet, we live in a day and age when scientists are still discovering muscles in the jaw. We're talking about basic anatomy, not how neurons work. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705819 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29705819 Is it too hard to imagine that knowledge on how the brain actually works is still far from complete?

skywal_l 5y ago
What the parent is trying to say is that it's not because we do not know how something works that any explanation is therefore true. The equivalent of "it's never aliens". There might be an afterlife or not. But in order to accept this idea as true, a proof (extraordinary one in that case) is needed. And for now, except some anecdata, there isn't much to it (as far as I know).
- fivea 5y ago
  Your comment makes no sense at all and is based on an attempt to surreptitiously invert the burden of proof. No one has argued that "not know how something works" implies that "any explanation is therefore true." That would be silly. The basic principle is falsiability. It has been widely established that a sufficient condition to alter or eliminate consciousness and even personality traits is inflicting precise physical changes to the brain, such as severing pathways. There is absolutely no evidence, let alone reproducible observations, supporting crackpot theories such as afterlifes or any form of consciousness that is not dictated by the brain. It makes absolutely no sense to appeal to this or any other form of crackpot theories by alleging that established facts and knowledge covered by mainstream theories is still under development.
  - jiocrag 5y ago
    Narrow thinking. There is currently no evidence supporting “crackpot” theories like consciousness persisting our understanding of the physical realm. Of COURSE we’ve not witnessed any scientific evidence of life after death — that would be a scientific discovery! To assert that atomic activity dictates the bounds of consciousness sounds a lot more like asserting the moon is made of cheese than entertaining the possibility that it isn’t. We didn’t even understand basic atomic principles until Rutherford et al around 100 years ago, and our knowledge regarding neutrinos and particle acceleration is still rapidly evolving. To claim that because we have not directly witnessed or extra-physical consciousness is a bit like saying a grain of sand is the smallest unit because we haven’t witnessed anything smaller.

by fivea 5y ago

skywal_l 5y ago

What the parent is trying to say is that it's not because we do not know how something works that any explanation is therefore true. The equivalent of "it's never aliens". There might be an afterlife or not. But in order to accept this idea as true, a proof (extraordinary one in that case) is needed. And for now, except some anecdata, there isn't much to it (as far as I know).

fivea 5y ago
Your comment makes no sense at all and is based on an attempt to surreptitiously invert the burden of proof. No one has argued that "not know how something works" implies that "any explanation is therefore true." That would be silly. The basic principle is falsiability. It has been widely established that a sufficient condition to alter or eliminate consciousness and even personality traits is inflicting precise physical changes to the brain, such as severing pathways. There is absolutely no evidence, let alone reproducible observations, supporting crackpot theories such as afterlifes or any form of consciousness that is not dictated by the brain. It makes absolutely no sense to appeal to this or any other form of crackpot theories by alleging that established facts and knowledge covered by mainstream theories is still under development.
- jiocrag 5y ago
  Narrow thinking. There is currently no evidence supporting “crackpot” theories like consciousness persisting our understanding of the physical realm. Of COURSE we’ve not witnessed any scientific evidence of life after death — that would be a scientific discovery! To assert that atomic activity dictates the bounds of consciousness sounds a lot more like asserting the moon is made of cheese than entertaining the possibility that it isn’t. We didn’t even understand basic atomic principles until Rutherford et al around 100 years ago, and our knowledge regarding neutrinos and particle acceleration is still rapidly evolving. To claim that because we have not directly witnessed or extra-physical consciousness is a bit like saying a grain of sand is the smallest unit because we haven’t witnessed anything smaller.