<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large">And there are no scientific facts about consciousness, John wrote</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large">--</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large">It seems to me that quite a few EEG type studies have been done trying to locate the center of consciousness. </span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large">There are studies of subliminal perception also, which involve influencing the person while bypassing consciousness.</span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large">Are these not scientific? I do acknowledge that there are tons of junk around about this subject, mostly from philosophers.</span><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-size:large">bill w</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 7:10 PM, John Clark <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><span class=""><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 William Flynn Wallace </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:foozler83@gmail.com" target="_blank">foozler83@gmail.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><span class=""><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:small;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(34,34,34)"> </span><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><font size="4" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div></font>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</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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. </font></div> </font></div><span class=""><div> <span style="font-size:large;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>If you cannot do that, you cannot claim to have produced a scientific fact with your experiments. </blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">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. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><span class=""><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>I only object to your use of a circular definition. </blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><font size="4"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>Without examples all definitions are circular if you plumb them to their depth, and all correct mathematical equations are tautologies <br> </font> </div><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><font size="4" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div></font>I think we basically agree in that you argue that an 'example' is what justifies the use of the word 'science'. </div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><font size="4">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. <br> </font><span class=""><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><font size="4" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12.8px"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div></font> People outside of science are puzzled by such definitions as 'intelligence is what intelligence tests measure'.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">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.</font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">John K Clark </font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"><br></font></div></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4"> </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><div><br></div><div> </div></div></div></div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-<wbr>chat</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>