- #36
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
Because they don't have one, unless it is
self-referential of course...
Is this inductive or deductive reasoning?
Cause-and-Effect. Is Causality necessarily true?
- Thread starter Mentat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Causality
In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of causality and its validity in various scenarios. It is brought up in the thread, "I think therefore I am," by user Manuel_Silvio, and the question of whether everything we believe is caused by something we did is explored. Examples, such as flipping a coin and slapping someone, are used to illustrate how causality may not always be true and how quantum mechanics challenges traditional notions of cause and effect. The conversation ends with a discussion about the need for more than just a correlation of occurrences to establish causality.
Is this inductive or deductive reasoning?
- #37
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
And yet all of the things you mention allow for the existence of an "observer", which would exist as a separate entity to that which is "observed".
- #38
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
No, QM does not allow for such separation.
- #39
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
It is a simple scientific fact, for now.
- #40
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Have you forgotten Schrodinger's Cat entirely? The state remains undertermined, until observed.
- #41
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
You aren't answering my question.
Besides, since when is it a scientific fact that all things that are "basic", are undefinable? This may (emphasis on the "may") be philosophically true, but that doesn't mean that it is a scientific fact.
- #42
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
In which case you yourself are in a superposition
of states. Though, I heard that modern experiments
have shown that WF collapse is quite delicate.
In addition you can not possibly be objective
or a separate observer where particles have
no identity. Basicly, according to QM you can
not define any distinct particles and the
only time you know they are somewhere (without
knowing which) is when you, supposedly, observe them.
So, I could have a free electron in my body
exchanged with a free electron from the keyboard
and it will seemingly be the same electron
as it interacts with other particles in my body.
In fact, it is meaningless to say that this electron
belongs to my body and that one belongs to the
table - I have no possible way of knowing this for
certain. It's just a liekly assumption.
To sum up - QM forbids the observer/observed
separation, period.
Live long and prosper.
- #43
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2.
Peace and long life.
I can not define science - observation as being
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea.
I was referring to SPECIFIC basic entities in science.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2.
Peace and long life.
- #44
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Still wrong, as QM does allow for there to be individiual particles, it just doesn't allow you to describe their position (or any other part of their current state) accurately. However, when you get to large, complex, beings - like humans - you get the distinction between observer and the observed, even though the large, complex, being's position is not perfectly definable either.
- #45
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
I can not define science - observation as being
either an inductive or a deductive process,
'cause I got no idea.
I'm not talking about Science, I'm talking about things that are "basic". You said that they are all undefinable. I asked how you knew that, and you responded, "Because they don't have [a definition], unless it is self-referential of course...". I asked you if this was inductive (meaning that you had actually tried to define every single "basic" entity, and found that this was true in all cases) or deductive (meaning that you had followed logical premises to this conclusion) reasoning.
I was referring to SPECIFIC basic entities in science.
Further more, there were just 8 words in my relevant
message and it appears that you did not read the
last 2.
I read it, but I disagree, as I don't think it is a fact now, or that it has ever been.
- #46
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
point because I am no expert in the field
and hence do not have the knowledge to do
this with full accuracy and validity as you
would probably prefer. I do, however, know
that QM is said not to allow observer/observed
separation for the general reasons I explained above.
For more details you could pose a question
to the real experts in one of the physics forums.
Live long and prosper.
Look, I will not continue to argue this
point because I am no expert in the field
and hence do not have the knowledge to do
this with full accuracy and validity as you
would probably prefer. I do, however, know
that QM is said not to allow observer/observed
separation for the general reasons I explained above.
For more details you could pose a question
to the real experts in one of the physics forums.
Live long and prosper.
- #47
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Fair enough.
- #48
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings again, Mentat !
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).
We were discussing causality and I said that
you can NOT decide if it's true - in response to
your original question, because even when it
was considered a scientific principle it was
a basic one - self-referential/unexplained, and
thus one has no way of discerning its truth
or anything else about it, the same way I can't
say an electron is true/false.
Now, in science a basic thing has a name and
certain characteristics discribed by the way
this basic thing is incorporated into our likely
model of observation. Hence, by definition it
has no explanation, until one is invented - theorized,
which in turn relies on other basics or is
self-referential. Clear ?
Live long and prosper.
AGAIN, I referred to SPECIFIC BASICS - WITHIN
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).
We were discussing causality and I said that
you can NOT decide if it's true - in response to
your original question, because even when it
was considered a scientific principle it was
a basic one - self-referential/unexplained, and
thus one has no way of discerning its truth
or anything else about it, the same way I can't
say an electron is true/false.
Now, in science a basic thing has a name and
certain characteristics discribed by the way
this basic thing is incorporated into our likely
model of observation. Hence, by definition it
has no explanation, until one is invented - theorized,
which in turn relies on other basics or is
self-referential. Clear ?
Please, explain an electron.
Live long and prosper.
- #49
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
Greetings again, Mentat !
AGAIN, I referred to SPECIFIC BASICS - WITHIN
SCIENCE. NOT to ALL basics (whatever that might mean).
That's exactly what you referred to. Just read the third post of the third page of this thread.
I was asking why you immediately make this connection (between being basic, and being unexplained).
Oh, ok, you are saying that if something is definable, then you have to define the terms used to define it, and so on ad infinitum or until one runs into self-reference. While this is true, it is not practical, as language is based on the use of words to define words.
- #50
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings !
I meant one and the same thing from the beginning.
used to refer to things that have no explanation.
If I could explain the scientific term of
an electron the same way I can explain an
orange - as consisting of other particles,
I would not call it basic. But, for the moment,
I can't, so I say it's a basic concept - an
axiom of science. Or, an axiom of the reasoning
we apply to observation.
Now, same went to classical causality when
it was assumed to be a part of science.
But, even if it were a part of science today,
I could not decide if it's true/false because
these terms have a meaning INSIDE science and
can not be extended to its axioms. Unless,
of course, you consider some form of reasoning
BEYOND what you use in science. You may do
so, of course, and it may allow you to say
weather causality is indeed true (whatever true
will mean in that system), but first you'll have
to justify this system. That is why there is
probably no ultimate proof.
talking about here and how it's related ?
Live long and prosper.
Clearly we had a misunderstanding, because
I meant one and the same thing from the beginning.
Because basic is supposed to be a concept
used to refer to things that have no explanation.
If I could explain the scientific term of
an electron the same way I can explain an
orange - as consisting of other particles,
I would not call it basic. But, for the moment,
I can't, so I say it's a basic concept - an
axiom of science. Or, an axiom of the reasoning
we apply to observation.
Now, same went to classical causality when
it was assumed to be a part of science.
But, even if it were a part of science today,
I could not decide if it's true/false because
these terms have a meaning INSIDE science and
can not be extended to its axioms. Unless,
of course, you consider some form of reasoning
BEYOND what you use in science. You may do
so, of course, and it may allow you to say
weather causality is indeed true (whatever true
will mean in that system), but first you'll have
to justify this system. That is why there is
probably no ultimate proof.
[zz)]
I don't think I understand what you're
talking about here and how it's related ?
Live long and prosper.
- #51
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
I'm talking about the fact that we can only communicate using some kind of language, and if we are using language, we are confined to it's rules - one of which is that words have meaning. So, if you ask me to define each word, and then define the words I used to define that word, and so on, you are just negating the use of language to describe phenomena, you are not negating my proof (as it exists within the confines of language).
- #52
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with
, you don't have one.Peace and long life.
- #53
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
We use language in order to be able to communicate
concepts. We can agree/disagree about concepts,
can't we ? Further more, some concepts are
not rigorously defined, they are approximations
of observation that we use for simplification
of otherwise very complex ideas, like love, thrill,
awareness and so on. So, when you attempt to provide
such approximations with exact meaning (consciousness ?),
I must ask for your rigorous proof. And, like I
suspected to begin with
Peace and long life.
I have proof, but explaining it relies on the use of words, and you seem bent on side-stepping my argument by quibbling about the undefined nature of words.
- #54
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
You have proof of causality ?!
- #55
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
You said "consciousness", in your last post. That's what I have proof of. I can't prove cause-and-effect - as is evident by the very existence of this thread.
- #56
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
No ! I just used it as an example in brackets.
Now it's your turn to get confused between the 2 threads...
- #57
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Well, the point is the same: Any proof that I offer, on any subject, will require that you take words for their inherent meaning, as stipulated by either a dictionary, or a textbook on the subject.
- #58
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).
Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.
Anyway, what's your proof ?
Live long and prosper.
And I tell you again that meaning of words
is not a precise definition because we have
many words with no precise definition. If you
want to prove something you should use words
that make sense according to some type
of reasoning system connected with observation
(preferably the seemingly most successful one - science).
Statements like "I'm conscious because I'm aware." or
"I think, therefor I am." have no concrete meaning
that is in consensus and thus none that we can discuss
and reason with together.
Anyway, what's your proof ?
Live long and prosper.
- #59
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Why?
Not true. "I think therefore I am" was discussed rather rigorously, by Manuel_Silvio and I, and the words need not be rigorously defined for us to do so.
My proof is the empirical data, taken from my own personal experience of consciousness. If you like science, you should respect empirical data taken from your own personal experience.
- #60
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION.
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.
If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".
The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.
I personally think it's better to leave consciousness
outside of science, as part of the PoE, rather than
throw away science because of this problem and
crack our heads at how we can define a type of
reasoniong compatible with consciousness (seemingly
complete lack of causality ).
Live long and prosper.
Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION.
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.
Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ?
Science operates in a different way. Science
adepts a reasoning system to the observed data
and then tries to make sense of it by translating
the data accordingly.
If you can define a reasoning system of some sort
(that is not unlikely - opposed by observation) and
then define the consciousness accordingly then
I'll adress your "empirical data".
The simple fact is that you (personally and at this time,
at least)can't formalize this piece of observation
in any clear manner. Remember that science does not
adress what it can not define and since consciousness
is not defined in science - there's no problem here.
I mean, you could say that science ignores it, but
that would in turn question all of the scientific
interpretations we have and throw them out the window.
I personally think it's better to leave consciousness
outside of science, as part of the PoE, rather than
throw away science because of this problem and
crack our heads at how we can define a type of
reasoniong compatible with consciousness (seemingly
complete lack of causality ).
Live long and prosper.
- #61
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Originally posted by drag
Because words are a part of language and
that in turn is a means of COMMUNICATION.
If we can not agree upon the precise meaning
of the words then we can not communicate efficiently.
We could agree on their meaning, if you were willing to do so.
Did he agree with you ? And in case he did - did others ?
I don't think anyone else has even read our posts, as no one has commented for or against any of them. I really wish you would read some of it. Perhaps you could copy it and paste it on a word processor, and then you could read it in your spare time.
You see, it assumes that there are data to be observed (as opposed to just "Mindul perceptions", to borrow a lifegazer term), and that there is sense to be made out of them.
How about the fact that you are thinking about what I have typed here? I've used this kind of argument before, and it's undoubtedly true - if you know what I have posted here, you are conscious of it.
I don't think Science ignores it. We have such fields as Psychology and Psychiatry (and even much of Sociology) which deal with the conscious actions of human beings.
- #62
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
No, thanks. Not to mention that you can't even
explain your meaning (for a very good reason - it
has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition).
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?
with it. We do not deal with data if we don't get
any. We make probable asumptions by applying
various types of reasoning and theories to the data.
If some reasoning appears to apply and show consistentcy
according to the data then it would appear that it
"makes sense" of the data.
If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.)
One, amongst others, interesting aspect of a definition
is that it should not contain itself. Another is
that it should have content.
a complex system of the specific - human type.
These fields use consciousness as an approximation
to direct discription according to physical laws.
That is, instead of explaining how is it that I
require food and how the whole procedure goes on in
the body and the environment, the approximation just
notes - I want to eat. That is the basic info input
that we appear to have while physics is a reasoning
frame we apply to it and interpret it through.
The info itself has no characterization (except the
self-referential maybe) out of the context of our reasoning.
Peace and long life.
Now that's a good approach - "agree to my meaning".
No, thanks. Not to mention that you can't even
explain your meaning (for a very good reason - it
has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition).
That would indeed require a lot of spare time.
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?
It assumes nothing. We get some data and we deal
with it. We do not deal with data if we don't get
any. We make probable asumptions by applying
various types of reasoning and theories to the data.
If some reasoning appears to apply and show consistentcy
according to the data then it would appear that it
"makes sense" of the data.
If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.
)Perhaps you need to learn a bit about definitions.
One, amongst others, interesting aspect of a definition
is that it should not contain itself. Another is
that it should have content.
These fields deal with physical approximations of
a complex system of the specific - human type.
These fields use consciousness as an approximation
to direct discription according to physical laws.
That is, instead of explaining how is it that I
require food and how the whole procedure goes on in
the body and the environment, the approximation just
notes - I want to eat. That is the basic info input
that we appear to have while physics is a reasoning
frame we apply to it and interpret it through.
The info itself has no characterization (except the
self-referential maybe) out of the context of our reasoning.
Peace and long life.
- #63
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
What has no satisfactory scientific explanation or definition? Consciousness or Causality? It's really hard to keep up with both of these threads at the same time, without "losing thread" of what you were arguing.
That would indeed require a lot of spare time.
How about a short sum up(I'm pretty skeptical about this) ?
I can try to do a short sum-up. Just know that it's not the whole thing, and I'm probably missing more than one important point.
"Uncertainty" (with a capital "U", which is how Manuel and I agreed to refer to the uncertainty of all things) does not allow one to take anything for granted, correct? However, one must first take Uncertainty for granted, before deciding not to take anything for granted. This means that there is a paradox at the heart of Uncertainty (the paradox of taking for granted that one should take nothing for granted). With this paradox at it's heart, it become quite unusable, as one could not possibly give it a use (without running into it's paradoxicality (if that's actually a word).
Anyway, that's the shortest sum-up I could think of. I'll post more on that, if it becomes necessary.
Remember, to assume that you assume nothing is a paradox
.Oh yes? So we assume that we are "getting some data" (which is an assumption of an objective Universe), and we assume that we are capable of "dealing with it".
And whether or not it's showing consistency isn't left to assumption?
If you wan'na show that science is a belief
you can start a separate thread on this.
(And don't use Alexander's views as an example.
I'm not saying that Science is a belief, I'm saying it's based on a few of them (much like any other branch of Philosophy).
I wasn't defining, I was pointing out a bit of reasoning that proves that you are conscious.
I must point out that this is your assumption, and nothing more, as there are many reputable scientists who believe otherwise.
- #64
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
aren't we ?
it's part of the philosophical background of science.
have - existence, characterized by what we experience.
I did not say we were capable of dealing with it.
It is one of many possibilities that we just try.
If it gives us anything - alright, if not - then not.
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).
Science deals with observation. Philosophy is the
background "below", "above" and to the "sides".
additional to that content. It reasons nothing and
proves nothing. Sorry.
(This is like Alexander saying that he discribes a
wave using mathematics so mathematics must've created it.)
Doubt or shout !
Peace and long life.
I think we're talking about consciousness in both now,
aren't we ?
Yeah, I know. A paradox, remember ?
What I said is not a scientific assumption,Originally posted by Mentat
Remember, to assume that you assume nothing is a paradox
it's part of the philosophical background of science.
We ARE getting data. That is the only absolute we
have - existence, characterized by what we experience.
I did not say we were capable of dealing with it.
It is one of many possibilities that we just try.
If it gives us anything - alright, if not - then not.
Of course not. Consistency is judged according to
invented abstract reasoning systems that are by
themselves absolute and axiomatic (at least, all
our abstract reasoning systems so far used axioms).
Science is NOT a branch of philosophy.
Science deals with observation. Philosophy is the
background "below", "above" and to the "sides".
Your "reasoning" is self-referential and with no
additional to that content. It reasons nothing and
proves nothing. Sorry.
(This is like Alexander saying that he discribes a
wave using mathematics so mathematics must've created it.)
Any quotes of scientists on consciousness ?
Doubt or shout !
Peace and long life.
- #65
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Alright then.
Yeah, I know. A paradox, remember ?
Thus a dead-end in a rational line of reasoning, as that's what a paradox really is.
Are we going to discuss Science, or it's Philosophical background. The difference is important, as you are taking the stance of someone who believes in Science (thus, as is my nature, I must take the opposite stance, no matter how much I agree with you), and you cannot just leave it (for it's philosophical background) whenever you wish.
Existence may be the only absolute we have (Wuliheron had an excellent thread about this), but existence doesn't equal "getting data".
But you did say that we try. And if we always try to deal with the data that we get, isn't the logical conclusion that we believe (assume) it is right (and possible) to do so?
How many things are you going to declare absolute, before realizing that absolutes are all assumptions?
Philosophy is the love and pursuit of Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. Science is one of the ways to pursue Wisdom/Knowledge/Understanding. There was a whole thread dedicated to this point.
It doesn't matter that it's self-referential, as the clause against self-reference is only toward definitions and deductions. If I tell you that you are thinking about that which I have typed at this time, I am telling you the simple, demonstrable, scientific, truth.
There is a book by the [great] Philosopher, Daniel Dennet, called "Consciousness Explained". In it (as well as in "The Mind's I") there are numerous insights - with regard to consciousness - that are based on the studies of neurologists and psychologists (both of which are branches of Science, obviously).
- #66
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings Mentat !
observation. Philsophy deals with applying (often
the same) type of reasoning to any abstract thought.
I do not "believe" in science, I "think" it's correct
BECAUSE it's probable.
I do not see why you should take any side but your own.
basic and self-referential concepts (in this context).
or simply ignore it, the possibilities are infinite
I think and some people try to pursue those that
appear usefull (while others don't... ).
That's supposed to be my line for you.
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )
Philosophy are all perspectives upon existence - everything.
I guess I should correct myself, you could say that
science is a sub-field of philosophy. It's just that
their roles in modern society slightly obscure this
in terms of semantics.
a mathematical discription. Please, provide one.
as scientists.
Anyway, the examples are not that important and are
not a real indication anyway so it's unfair of me
to ask you to do this as some sort of proof. I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?")
Live long and prosper.
Indeed.
Science deal with applying some reasoning to
observation. Philsophy deals with applying (often
the same) type of reasoning to any abstract thought.
I do not "believe" in science, I "think" it's correct
BECAUSE it's probable.
I do not see why you should take any side but your own.
I think it does, these are seemingly all connected,
basic and self-referential concepts (in this context).
Well, we could also try to cook it for dinner
or simply ignore it, the possibilities are infinite
I think and some people try to pursue those that
appear usefull (while others don't... ).
What ?!
That's supposed to be my line for you.
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )
Science are likely perspectives upon contents of existence.
Philosophy are all perspectives upon existence - everything.
I guess I should correct myself, you could say that
science is a sub-field of philosophy. It's just that
their roles in modern society slightly obscure this
in terms of semantics.
No, a scientific truth in modern times is defined as
a mathematical discription. Please, provide one.
I'm terribly sorry but I do not regard philosophers
as scientists.
Anyway, the examples are not that important and are
not a real indication anyway so it's unfair of me
to ask you to do this as some sort of proof. I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?"
)Live long and prosper.
- #67
sage
- 110
- 0
Mind if I join drag and mentat. I have a question.
WHAT IS A DEFINITION?
WHAT IS A DEFINITION?
- #68
drag
Science Advisor
- 1,105
- 1
Greetings sage !
use some air considering this tight discussion.
concept.
Preferably, the other concepts and their
use in this case should be in consensus amongst the
people deriving the definition since it would
otherwise be considered a subjective rather than
a correct definition by these people as a whole.
Live long and prosper.
Not at all, I think the two of us could certainly
use some air considering this tight discussion.
The use of other concepts to explain a specific
concept.
Preferably, the other concepts and their
use in this case should be in consensus amongst the
people deriving the definition since it would
otherwise be considered a subjective rather than
a correct definition by these people as a whole.
Live long and prosper.
- #69
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Philosophy deals with applying some type of reasoning to anything. Science limits itself to observable phenomena.
Why do you think it's probable?
That's the point. The true devil's advocate (who has a truly open mind) doesn't have a "side of his/her own", and can thus take whichever "side" they wish, whenever they wish.
Not really so. In one direction, yes - as, in order to take in input, one must exist. But in the other direction, no - as one can exist without taking in input.
Don't you realize that Scientists all fall into the category of "people who try to pursue those that appear useful"?
What ?!
That's supposed to be my line for you.
(Is this delibarate or did you seriously fail to
understand me, or perhaps I failed to explain myself,
so badly ? )
I don't think I misunderstood. You said:
And I say that that's an assumption. Well, isn't it?
I fully agree with you here (and commend you on a succinct way of describing the problem).
Bull. Scientific truth is only verified by mathematical descriptions/predictions.
I'm terribly sorry but I do not regard philosophers
as scientists.
I don't either, I regard Scientists as Philosophers.
Besides, you do agree that neurology, cognitive science, and psychology are all Sciences, right?
I believe
you are mistaken about this, but let's leave it at that.
(We could post a poll - "Consciousness - something
special according to modern science ?"
Fine, if you wish to agree to disagree, I can do that.
And I like this idea for a thread. You should post it, as it is your idea.
- #70
Mentat
- 3,960
- 3
Not at all, good buddy, go right ahead
.Hmm. I'd say that a definition is a way that we (humans) describe something, so as to make another human aware of it's meaning.