[ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering

[William Flynn Wallace]

And there are no scientific facts about consciousness,   John wrote

--
It seems to me that quite a few EEG type studies have been done trying to
locate the center of consciousness.

There are studies of subliminal perception also, which involve influencing
the person while bypassing consciousness.

Are these not scientific?  I do acknowledge that there are tons of junk
around about this subject, mostly from philosophers.

bill w

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:10 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> The term I learned is 'operational definition' - you define your terms,
>> ego, atom, anything you want to study by the scientific method, by the way
>> you measure it
>>
>
> ​I ​know of no way to measure consciousness or use the scientific method
> to study it unless a assumption is made that has never been proven and will
> never be proven, that there is a relationship between intelligent behavior
> and consciousness. From Godel we know there are a infinite number of true
> statements that can not be proven, not because the proof is hard to find
> but because the proof does not exist.
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> If you cannot do that, you cannot claim to have produced a scientific
>> fact with your experiments.
>
>
> ​And there are no scientific facts about consciousness, that's why
> consciousness theories are so easy to dream up, there are no facts they
> must fit, one works as well as another unless certain axioms are assumed to
> be true.  ​
>
>
> ​> ​
>> I only object to your use of a circular definition.
>
>
> ​
> Without examples all definitions are circular if you plumb them to their
> depth, and all correct mathematical equations are tautologies
>
>
>> ​>
>> I think we basically agree in that you argue that an 'example' is what
>> justifies the use of the word 'science'.
>>
>
> It's not just science, examples of how people use words is how
> lexicographers got the information to figure out how to write the
> definitions in their dictionary. Examples begat definitions not the other
> way around.
>
>>
>> ​> ​
>>  People outside of science are puzzled by such definitions as
>> 'intelligence is what intelligence tests measure'.
>>
>
> ​That works, but its a example not a definition, so is intelligence is
> the sort of behavior Einstein engaged in when he worked on physics.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>    ​
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170401/3f2155ce/attachment.html>