|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: ArtArt Date: Jun 8, 2008 09:58
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 11:59:43 +0100, "andy-k" wrote:
>There are no scientific observations of consciousness -- it is
>entirely private, and so there can be no science of consciousness.
>That's not to say that scientists can't have their opinions about
>consciousness -- just that they can't test their opinions in the public
>domain (i.e. scientifically).
Consciousness is not "entirely private" as you assert unless you're
a solipsist. We assume that at least all humans are conscious. We
can compare our extraordinary experiences, for one thing ... and such
a social endeavor _can_ be scientific in nature. In fact, it seems
that some ancient Eastern mystical traditions approached "mind
science" in a reasonably organized and disciplined way. Today there
are many groups dedicated to explorations of consciouness with
different emphasis. For example, some groups focus strictly on
comparing out of body experiences while others focus on remote
viewing.
Another avenue of consciousness study has been scientific research
into the reincarnation hypothesis. This can be viewed as continuation
of consciousness after death.
|
| Show full article (1.73Kb) |
| 26 Comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 8, 2008 10:39
Art wrote:
> "andy-k" wrote:
>
>> There are no scientific observations of consciousness -- it is
>> entirely private, and so there can be no science of consciousness.
>> That's not to say that scientists can't have their opinions about
>> consciousness -- just that they can't test their opinions in the
>> public domain (i.e. scientifically).
>
> Consciousness is not "entirely private" as you assert unless you're
> a solipsist. We assume that at least all humans are conscious.
I'm not sure it's correct to say that we *assume* all humans are
conscious
-- I don't think we make any such assumption. We *instinctively*
believe that other people are conscious. The problem is that there's no way
to verify this belief objectively (i.e. scientifically), since consciousness
is entirely private.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Jun 8, 2008 13:52
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 18:39:58 +0100, "andy-k" wrote:
>Art wrote:
>> "andy-k" wrote:
>>
>>> There are no scientific observations of consciousness -- it is
>>> entirely private, and so there can be no science of consciousness.
>>> That's not to say that scientists...
|
| Show full article (1.27Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 8, 2008 14:03
Art wrote:
> Physics was built on the assumption that there's a observable world
> "out there" independent of the observer ... and that all agree.
Negative. No such assumption is necessary for physics.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Jun 8, 2008 14:12
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:03:00 +0100, "andy-k" wrote:
>Art wrote:
>> Physics was built on the assumption that there's a observable world
>> "out there" independent of the observer ... and that all agree.
>
>Negative. No such assumption is necessary for physics.
Oh? Since when did physics change it's fundamental assumptions?
What fundamental assumptions do you say physics is based on?
Art
http://home.ptd.net/~artnpeg
|
| |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 8, 2008 15:31
Art wrote:
> "andy-k" wrote:
>> Art wrote:
>>> Physics was built on the assumption that there's a observable world
>>> "out there" independent of the observer ... and that all agree.
>>
>> Negative. No such assumption is necessary for physics.
>
> Oh? Since when did physics change it's fundamental assumptions?
> What fundamental assumptions do you say physics is based on?
The realist/anti-realist debate is philosophy, not physics.
Most physicists, however, are realists,
though this is not a prerequisite for doing physics.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: ArtArt Date: Jun 8, 2008 16:27
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 23:31:54 +0100, "andy-k" wrote:
>Art wrote:
>> "andy-k" wrote:
>>> Art wrote:
>>>> Physics was built on the assumption that there's a observable world
>>>> "out there" independent of the observer ... and that all agree.
>>>
>>> Negative. No such assumption is necessary for physics.
>>
>> Oh? Since when did physics change it's fundamental assumptions?
>> What fundamental assumptions do you say physics is based on?
>
>The realist/anti-realist debate is philosophy, not physics.
>Most physicists, however, are realists,
>though this is not a prerequisite for doing physics.
Regardless of a physicist's personal philosophy, physics is based on
certain fundamental assumptions, whether you admit that fact or not.
Sometimes those assumptions are proved wrong ... Newton's absolute
time being a case in point.
|
| Show full article (1.28Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: bigfletch8bigfletch8 Date: Jun 8, 2008 16:46
On Jun 9, 3:39 am, "andy-k" wrote:
> Art wrote:
>> "andy-k" wrote:
>
>>> There are no scientific observations of consciousness -- it is
>>> entirely private, and so there can be no science of consciousness.
>>> That's not to say that scientists can't have their opinions about
>>> consciousness -- just that they can't test their opinions in the
>>> public domain (i.e. scientifically).
>
>> Consciousness is not "entirely private" as you assert unless you're
>> a solipsist. We assume that at least all humans are conscious.
>
> I'm not sure it's correct to say that we *assume* all humans are
> conscious -- I don't think we make any such assumption. We *instinctively*
> believe that other people are conscious. The problem is that there's no way
> to verify this belief objectively...
|
| Show full article (1.32Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jun 8, 2008 22:58
"Art" wrote:
> "andy-k" wrote:
>>Art wrote:
>>> "andy-k" wrote:
>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>> Physics was built on the assumption that there's a observable world
>>>>> "out there" independent of the observer ... and that all agree.
>>>>
>>>> Negative. No such assumption is necessary for physics.
>>>
>>> Oh? Since when did physics change it's fundamental assumptions?
>>> What fundamental assumptions do you say physics is based on?
>>
>>The realist/anti-realist debate is philosophy, not physics.
>>Most physicists, however, are realists,
>>though this is not a prerequisite for doing physics.
>
> Regardless of a physicist's personal philosophy, physics is based on
> certain fundamental assumptions, whether you admit that fact or not.
> Sometimes those assumptions are proved wrong ... Newton's absolute ...
|
| Show full article (1.93Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: impromptuimpromptu Date: Jun 9, 2008 09:04
andy-k wrote:
> "Art" wrote:
>> "andy-k" wrote:
>>>Art wrote:
>>>> "andy-k" wrote:
>>>>> Art wrote:
>>>>>> Physics was built on the assumption that there's a observable world
>>>>>> "out there" independent of the observer ... and that all agree.
>>>>>
>>>>> Negative. No such assumption is necessary for physics.
>>>>
>>>> Oh? Since when did physics change it's fundamental assumptions?
>>>> What fundamental assumptions do you say physics is based on?
>>>
>>>The realist/anti-realist debate is philosophy, not physics.
>>>Most physicists, however, are realists,
>>>though this is not a prerequisite for doing physics.
>>
>> Regardless of a physicist's personal philosophy, physics is based on
>> certain fundamental assumptions, whether you admit that fact or not. ...
|
| Show full article (2.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
