David Paszkiewicz should be fired

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 19 2007, 06:49 AM)

Bryan doesn't understand what he's reading. (What a surprise.) "Nothing" means no classical space and time, which is exactly the problem with a supposed "first cause." See page 49.

It means a singularity with a cause (quantum fluctuation) if you were paying attention. 

77977[/snapback]

So "nothing" means a singularity of infinitely dense matter.

[billydee4]

The conversation was taped, dummy. Fire the retarded atheist.

77902[/snapback]

Using your logic(?), Paszkiewicz should also be fired.

The difference is that Paszkiewicz was preaching, Corbett was teaching. Plaszkiewicz was proseletizing for a particular religion--fundamentalist, literalist Protestant. Corbett was not presenting any particular religion. Christianists need to realize that, even though they don't like it, it is perfectly within the law for other people to offend them.

[billydee4]

How much do you want to bet that the case against Corbett goes nowhere?

78007[/snapback]

If he wins, the christianists will say it is another sign of how godless we've become and another turn toward secular humanism and will distort the judge's decision.

If he loses, they will say "God's will has triumphed. We are returning to our foundation as a christian nation."

Either way they win.

If the case is dropped before it goes to court, it will disappear from the christianist media.

[Bryan]

QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 19 2007, 06:49 AM)

Bryan doesn't understand what he's reading. (What a surprise.) "Nothing" means no classical space and time, which is exactly the problem with a supposed "first cause." See page 49.

So "nothing" means a singularity of infinitely dense matter.

78066[/snapback]

You didn't understand what you were reading. You apparently desperately want LaClair to be correct after all. Lost cause, that.

This is more consistent with current suspicions that the Universe might have begun as a quantum fluctuation out of nothing: a spatially finite fluctuation is much easier to imagine than an infinite one!

http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/jay/ETU5...pter34_5th.html

With recent evidence for cosmic acceleration, and tak- ing Hawking radiation in such a universe seriously, there is a very attractive possibility of viewing inflation as a rare quantum fluctuation of an equilibrium state. In par- ticular, there could be a low but non-zero probability for microscopic levels of Hawking radiation to “boil” off

the horizon and eventually concentrate in a patch large enough for Cosmic Inflation to begin in classically. However, the singularity theorems tell us that if we treat the

waves classically after their initial appearance, there is no way to form an inflating region. As such, we want to find a way around the singularity theorems in a believable way.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:0RQjt...lient=firefox-a

Sometime in the distant past there was nothing – space and time did not exist

(page 6, PowerPoint)

http://glast.sonoma.edu/~lynnc/courses/a30...L12/A305L12.ppt

Most cosmologists now accept that the universe originated in some sort of quantum process. In most interpretationso f quantum cosmology, the birth of the universe from nothing is considered to be the result of some sort of existence of noise, which gives a curious new twist to the biblical proclamation that ‘‘in the beginning was the word.’’

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/...mology%2074.pdf

But take heart! You're just an anonymous guest so you can survive this humiliation and come back tomorrow pretending to be somebody else.

[Bryan]

He is very adept at dresssing up nonsense in fine-sounding language, but it's still nonsense.

"So 'Guest' is apparently saying a first cause has nothing to do with causation, but he declines to explain how that can be since half the term is explicitly about causation." - Bryan, post 503 - fallacy of reification (of a word)

And in like manner, "Guest" declines to identify how the supposed reification failed to accurately rebut the argument. Turtles all the way down, no doubt.

The use of reification in logical arguments is a mistake (fallacy), for example, "Justice is blind; the blind cannot read printed laws; therefore, to print laws cannot serve justice." In rhetoric it may be sometimes difficult to determine if reification was used correctly or incorrectly.

There is no resemblance to the example offered, and no attempt by "Guest" to show that the alleged reification was used correctly or incorrectly (much less that it existed in the first place).

Do you have a dart board on the wall with fallacies written on it, and you throw a dart at the board when you want to try to find one in my posts? Or did you just relabel the spinner from your game of Life?

"The fact is the explanation 'Guest' offered provides no path out of the dilemma." - Bryan, post 503 - contradiction (by definition, there is no way out of a dilemma - see also fallacy of unwarranted assumption)

Another whiff by "Guest." I offer the dilemma and I invite a third option if something passes for a third option. There is no unwarranted assumption, and the dilemma remains true to the definition of a dilemma exactly as long as no third option is presented.

"That's not a diversion or anything." - Bryan, post 508 - diversion (Bryan refuses to address the questions. A recurrent theme in his writing is accusing others of what he does repeatedly.)

I don't ask long lists of questions in an effort to distract from the topic, and I'm very good about answering questions that are on topic.

It is absurd to accuse somebody of diversion for refusing to follow a diversion.

"Who said anything about laws of causation?" - Bryan, post 509 - contradiction - (The answer is: Bryan did. See post 503, as above.) See also, infra., Bryan, post 509: "The notion of a first cause has everything to do with causation." - again, contradiction

Apparently "Guest" hopes that "our notions of causation" passes for "laws of causation" and that a first cause is some type of law of causation.

"The supposed 'laws of causation' have nothing to do with the dilemma. There is no law of causation at all that can get you away from the dilemma that there is either a first cause or an endless succession of causes (representing an eternal regress)." Bryan, post 509 - fallacy of unwarranted assumption (Bryan refuses to address the implications of modern science. It's the flat earth approach, dressed up in contemporary language.)

"Guest" continues to bob and weave when it comes to saying what implication of modern science escapes the dilemma. Classic red herring fallacy. He appears to assume an unwarranted assumption. Is that assumption warranted and if so, why?

"That model still ends up in an infinite regress, so the dilemma remains intact. That's assuming that backward causation is logically consistent, which is by no means an uncontested point." Bryan, post 509 - contradiction (If a dilemma rests on an assumption, then it's not a dilemma, since disproving the assumption resolves it.) Also, contradiction.

"Guest" commits a non sequitur.

Without backward causation there is no counterexample. It is only by assumption that the counterexample is allowed in the first place (apparently the one who proposed it had no problem with backward causation). In short, the dilemma doesn't rest on an assumption. It was the attempted counterexample that required the assumption. I allowed the assumption and showed that it still doesn't solve the dilemma because it results in another infinite regress.

"I'm not trying to escape the dilemma. I simply recommend one of the two options on the basis of reason." - Bryan, post 509 - contradiction (In a dilemma, neither option offers a solution.)

Oh, goodness. "Guest" is too stupid to know what a dilemma is. In logic, a dilemma is just a point where there are two choices.

Logic. a form of syllogism in which the major premise is formed of two or more hypothetical propositions and the minor premise is a disjunctive proposition, as “If A, then B; if C then D. Either A or C. Therefore, either B or D.”

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dilemma

Or we call say "Guest" committed a fallacy of equivocation.

"On the other hand, a slightly modified law of causation appears to take care of the situation in terms of logical consistency: Everything that begins to exist has a cause." - Bryan, post 509 - This is called making stuff up. It carves out an exception to the rule that all things have a cause. "No problem," says Bryan, "let's just assume that the thing I want to believe in existed forever. I win! I win!"

Why shouldn't there be an exception to the rule that all things have a cause? Why is one made-up rule OK and the other one not? Or did somebody go out and prove that absolutely everything has a cause and I missed it?

This type of "making stuff up" is exactly how the process of logical reasoning works. If the rule "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is logically consistent and is able to describe a possible world, then it is a useful proposition. It's not any more made up than the rule that "Guest" apparently regards as sacrosanct.

I'd continue, but what's the point?

You've amply demonstrated your ineptitude, indeed. And there really isn't any point because you're just an anonymous guest and you'll be back making similar idiotic claims tomorrow with a clean slate.

There are enough fallacies, mis-statements, falsehoods, etc., in Bryan's writing to sink Noah's ark, with or without dinosaurs and sentient rocks on it.

78014[/snapback]

You're 3000 times better at committing fallacies than you are at identifying them.

[Guest Paul]

Using your logic(?), Paszkiewicz should also be fired.

The difference is that Paszkiewicz was preaching, Corbett was teaching.  Plaszkiewicz was proseletizing for a  particular religion--fundamentalist, literalist Protestant.  Corbett was not presenting any particular religion.  Christianists need to realize that, even though they don't like it, it is perfectly within the law for other people to offend them.

78071[/snapback]

I have to disagree with your second paragraph. Corbett was denigrating Christianity. That's no more allowed in a public school than advancing a particular religion is.

I've seen only a few quotations from what he said, but most of what I saw was over the line, especially the remark about putting "your Jesus glasses on." Can't do that.

[Guest Guest]

Using your logic(?), Paszkiewicz should also be fired.

The difference is that Why even answer people like this, he doesn't even know what religion Mr. P was promotingwas preaching, Corbett was teaching.  Plaszkiewicz was proseletizing for a  particular religion--fundamentalist, literalist Protestant.  Corbett was not presenting any particular religion.  Christianists need to realize that, even though they don't like it, it is perfectly within the law for other people to offend them.

78071[/snapback]

Stop talking about logic and how much more informed than the rest of us you are. You don't even know what religion Mr. P is involved in.

[Guest Guest]

I have to disagree with your second paragraph. Corbett was denigrating Christianity. That's no more allowed in a public school than advancing a particular religion is.

I've seen only a few quotations from what he said, but most of what I saw was over the line, especially the remark about putting "your Jesus glasses on." Can't do that.

78101[/snapback]

A teacher has the right to say whatever they feel helps their students' education.

In a free country like ours it's well within their First Admendment rights. Sheakesspeare had the right idea!

[Guest Guest]

You didn't understand what you were reading.  You apparently desperately want LaClair to be correct after all.  Lost cause, that.

This is more consistent with current suspicions that the Universe might have begun as a quantum fluctuation out of nothing: a spatially finite fluctuation is much easier to imagine than an infinite one!

http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/jay/ETU5...pter34_5th.html

With recent evidence for cosmic acceleration, and tak- ing Hawking radiation in such a universe seriously, there is a very attractive possibility of viewing inflation as a rare quantum fluctuation of an equilibrium state. In par- ticular, there could be a low but non-zero probability for microscopic levels of Hawking radiation to “boil” off

the horizon and eventually concentrate in a patch large enough for Cosmic Inflation to begin in classically. However, the singularity theorems tell us that if we treat the

waves classically after their initial appearance, there is no way to form an inflating region. As such, we want to find a way around the singularity theorems in a believable way.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:0RQjt...lient=firefox-a

Sometime in the distant past there was nothing – space and time did not exist

(page 6, PowerPoint)

http://glast.sonoma.edu/~lynnc/courses/a30...L12/A305L12.ppt

Most cosmologists now accept that the universe originated in some sort of quantum process.  In most interpretationso f quantum cosmology, the birth of the universe from nothing is considered to be the result of some sort of existence of noise, which gives a curious new twist to the biblical proclamation that ‘‘in the beginning was the word.’’

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/...mology%2074.pdf

But take heart!  You're just an anonymous guest so you can survive this humiliation and come back tomorrow pretending to be somebody else.

78089[/snapback]

The heart of the argument is whether we can best learn about the universe via science or via theology. Because a singularity can be looked at as "nothing" (no time and space) or as "something" (infinitely dense matter and time), scientists are trying to unravel what it all means. By contrast, you're just playing with words.

[Guest Guest]

A teacher has the right to say whatever they feel helps their students' education.

In a free country like ours it's well within their First Admendment rights. Sheakesspeare had the right idea!

78169[/snapback]

That's not true. Teachers are bound by the law, just like everyone else, and the law is very clear that public school teachers may neither advance nor denigrate a religious position. To the extent this runs into conflict with science teaching, science wins.

[Guest Guest]

The heart of the argument is whether we can best learn about the universe via science or via theology. Because a singularity can be looked at as "nothing" (no time and space) or as "something" (infinitely dense matter and time), scientists are trying to unravel what it all means. By contrast, you're just playing with words.

78199[/snapback]

Bryan is just playing word games with scientific knowledge, in order to promote his theological agenda.

The scientific argument starts with the evidence, which tells us that in a black hole (or a singularity) matter (by the best mathematical models we have) is infinitely dense in space and time.

What does that mean? Bryan refuses to address that central question, contenting himself instead with gotcha word games.

When we actually look at what it means, we realize that if time and space are infinitely dense, we can look at it in traditional terms (it's something), or we can make the observation that if the density is infinite, then there is no time and space in a singularity (it can't be something because there's no time or space). So, does that mean that there's nothing there because there's no "there" or "then" for anything to be? By one way of looking at things, that's exactly what it means, and that's the side of the argument Bryan is playing with now. However, on the other hand, that view of things comes from a conclusion that this singularity consisted of infinitely dense matter - that's not nothing! Or is it? That's what scientists are trying to figure out, and they're not going to resolve it by how they phrase it, which is as far as Bryan ever gets.

This is a great scientific puzzle, which scientists are trying to figure out. Science itself has two different ways of looking at the same thing. That's good, but what an intelligent person does next is look deeper into the facts to try to understand the problem better. They don't just put a single word on it ("something" or "nothing") and declare the problem solved. In fact, Bryan and others like him can't even play their little game without relying on the science.

That's why Bryan's attempts at resolving these problems, by simple application of basic "logic," are meaningless. Bryan is very proud, for example, of what he calls a "dilemma," but what he does not understand or refuses to acknowledge, is that the assumptions leading to the construction of the dilemma don't operate in a singularity, and therefore cannot be applied to the origins of the universe (which scientists believe arose out of a singularity) or of all things (hypothetically, the rules of nature, which are even more hidden from us that what we call the universe). He keeps insisting that there has to be a third choice in order for his "dilemma" to be escaped, but in fact there is - the dilemma never existed in the first place. He just refuses to see it, or can't see it, because he insists that this can all be resolved without doing the science.

To put the matter more simply, theology is no match for science when it comes to understanding the universe. Nature is more complicated than the simple formulations of theology, and science employs far more sophisticated models for understanding reality than any theological argument.

More to the point, science is advancing knowledge. Theology is not. This has been proved time and time again over the past many centuries. Of course, this does not stop some people from insisting that they know more about the physical laws of the universe than the scientists do.

[Bryan]

The heart of the argument is whether we can best learn about the universe via science or via theology.

You're the first in this thread to introduce theology. The issue was the use of philosophy to understand the universe--and you can't really have science without philosophy.

So, "Guest" has no point without dishonestly trading in "philosophy" for "theology."

But it's OK. You're not disgraced. You can post something just as stupid tomorrow with a clean slate because you're an anonymous guest. Nice work!

Because a singularity can be looked at as "nothing" (no time and space) or as "something" (infinitely dense matter and time), scientists are trying to unravel what it all means. By contrast, you're just playing with words.

78199[/snapback]

Unable to detect the overpowering irony in your statement above, eh?

Nothing/no time=infinitely dense matter/time

[billydee4]

Stop talking about logic and how much more informed than the rest of us you are.  You don't even know what religion Mr. P is involved in.

78126[/snapback]

Stop misquoting and distorting my posts. From the beginning we have known that Paszkiewicz is the youth pastor at a baptist church.

[Guest Guest]

You're the first in this thread to introduce theology.  The issue was the use of philosophy to understand the universe--and you can't really have science without philosophy.

So, "Guest" has no point without dishonestly trading in "philosophy" for "theology."

But it's OK.  You're not disgraced.  You can post something just as stupid tomorrow with a clean slate because you're an anonymous guest.  Nice work!

Unable to detect the overpowering irony in your statement above, eh?

Nothing/no time=infinitely dense matter/time

78269[/snapback]

You post stupid nonsense every day under your own name, and your argument about theology not having been introduced before is bunk. Your entire argument is theology - "a conscious first cause." Give me a freaking break.

Thanks for letting us know you're ashamed of your own argument, though. You should be.

As for your comment about the science of singularities: irony requires a clear set of facts. That's not where science is on that subject.

[Guest Guest]

You didn't understand what you were reading.  You apparently desperately want LaClair to be correct after all.  Lost cause, that.

This is more consistent with current suspicions that the Universe might have begun as a quantum fluctuation out of nothing: a spatially finite fluctuation is much easier to imagine than an infinite one!

http://www.williams.edu/Astronomy/jay/ETU5...pter34_5th.html

With recent evidence for cosmic acceleration, and tak- ing Hawking radiation in such a universe seriously, there is a very attractive possibility of viewing inflation as a rare quantum fluctuation of an equilibrium state. In par- ticular, there could be a low but non-zero probability for microscopic levels of Hawking radiation to “boil” off

the horizon and eventually concentrate in a patch large enough for Cosmic Inflation to begin in classically. However, the singularity theorems tell us that if we treat the

waves classically after their initial appearance, there is no way to form an inflating region. As such, we want to find a way around the singularity theorems in a believable way.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:0RQjt...lient=firefox-a

Sometime in the distant past there was nothing – space and time did not exist

(page 6, PowerPoint)

http://glast.sonoma.edu/~lynnc/courses/a30...L12/A305L12.ppt

Most cosmologists now accept that the universe originated in some sort of quantum process.  In most interpretationso f quantum cosmology, the birth of the universe from nothing is considered to be the result of some sort of existence of noise, which gives a curious new twist to the biblical proclamation that ‘‘in the beginning was the word.’’

http://cosmos.asu.edu/publications/papers/...mology%2074.pdf

But take heart!  You're just an anonymous guest so you can survive this humiliation and come back tomorrow pretending to be somebody else.

78089[/snapback]

Does the word "suspicions" mean anything to you?

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Guest @ Nov 7 2007, 02:38 PM)

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that there was a first cause?

Based on the apparent impossibility of an infinite regress (if an endless series of events precedes the present, then we could never have reached the present because crossing an actual infinity by successive addition is an apparent impossibility).

That's why.

72668[/snapback]

What if time loops back on itself? You're assuming that reality conforms to the linear notions of time and space of Newtonian physics. We know that it does not. We know that time and space are at least "curved." Therefore, your assumption is known to be false. So on what basis do you support your conclusion? Simply, no basis.

That's why reasonable people no longer rely on "philosophy" to draw conclusions about the shape and nature of reality. Too many of the standard assumptions of philosophy have been proved wrong by modern science.

You keep ignoring this fact, insisting that your primitive view is unassailed by everything the past 100 years of science have taught us. Your views are indeed untouched by that knowledge, but that's hardly something to be proud of.

[Guest Guest]

On what basis do you demand empirical evidence in order to resolve this question?  Provide the empirical proof that your momma is conscious (or ever was conscious).

72668[/snapback]

What a ridiculous comment. I observed my momma to be conscious. Her actions could only have been the products of consciousness. They were observed by others, as were her open eyes, her laughter, her tears, her smiles, her frowns, all the hallmarks of consciousness.

Bryan admits having no empirical evidence on the point, and then pulls his usual switcheroo onto whomever challenged him. Classic authoritarian personality. And yet conscious, empirically verified as such.

[Guest Guest]

How would you scientifically falsify the claim that dinosaurs were on the ark? 

71848[/snapback]

What do you mean "how would you?" It has been falsified, flat-out disproved. You would do exactly what paleontologists have done. You would take the data demonstrating the age of the dinosaurs at the time of their extinction, along with the data demonstrating when homo sapiens evolved. Seeing that all the evidence proved conclusively that homo sapiens did not evolve until approximately 65 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct, you would draw the inescapable conclusion that they never lived at the same time, and therefore could not have been aboard an ark that was constructed by humans, whether or not there was a flood covering the entire land mass of the Earth, which is an equally ridiculous claim.

That is how "you" would do it. Well, not you, Bryan, but that is how a reasonable person who actually cared about the truth would do it.

[Strife767]

QUOTE(Guest @ Nov 7 2007, 02:38 PM)

On what basis must a reasonable person conclude that there was a first cause?

What if time loops back on itself? You're assuming that reality conforms to the linear notions of time and space of Newtonian physics.

Anyone who's interested (and I mean really interested, because this is heavy stuff, now) in seeing what we do and don't know about time (namely why we perceive it as moving forward in a straight line), can read the Arrow of Time FAQ here:

http://cosmicvariance.com/2007/12/03/arrow-of-time-faq/

Warning: it's long, detailed, and not kind to the uneducated. In other words, it may be over the heads of certain regulars here. I think you know who you are.

[Bryan]

What do you mean "how would you?" It has been falsified, flat-out disproved.

If that were the case then you could describe how it was done (without committing a logical fallacy).

You would do exactly what paleontologists have done. You would take the data demonstrating the age of the dinosaurs at the time of their extinction, along with the data demonstrating when homo sapiens evolved.

Apparently you don't understand the concept of falsification.

You're describing how to begin a probabilistic argument to the effect that dinosaurs weren't on the ark. That's not the same thing.

Seeing that all the evidence proved conclusively that homo sapiens did not evolve until approximately 65 million years after the dinosaurs became extinct, you would draw the inescapable conclusion that they never lived at the same time, and therefore could not have been aboard an ark that was constructed by humans, whether or not there was a flood covering the entire land mass of the Earth, which is an equally ridiculous claim.

It sounds like your argument depends on the assumption that miracles are impossible. Is that what science means to you?

That is how "you" would do it. Well, not you, Bryan, but that is how a reasonable person who actually cared about the truth would do it.

78504[/snapback]

A scientist wouldn't claim that dinosaurs on the ark was a falsifiable proposition (except maybe a very stupid scientist).

[Bryan]

What if time loops back on itself?

What if you keep asking me the same question over and over?

I've addressed this already. It continues to describe an infinite regress, unless you'd like to further describe what you mean by time looping back on itself.

You're assuming that reality conforms to the linear notions of time and space of Newtonian physics.

Then why, if that's the case, do I welcome the suggestion that time could loop back on itself, albeit I point out that the situation continues to describe an infinite regress and thus fails to remove the problem?

It's like you're trying to use the accusation that I'm making an assumption as a "Get out of jail, free!" card to magically resolve the dilemma.

We know that it does not.

We most certainly do not know that reverse causation is a coherent concept. If you'd like to describe the post-Newtonian view of logical priority then feel free--you can even take the lazy man's way out by referring us to an appropriate outside resource.

Frankly, I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about so I won't be holding my breath.

We know that time and space are at least "curved." Therefore, your assumption is known to be false.

So, you'll explain how a curvature of space-time eliminates the need for logical priority in terms of causation?

So on what basis do you support your conclusion? Simply, no basis.

Seems to work pretty well for you, Guest.

That's why reasonable people no longer rely on "philosophy" to draw conclusions about the shape and nature of reality. Too many of the standard assumptions of philosophy have been proved wrong by modern science.

Science itself relies on standard assumptions of philosophy.

You keep ignoring this fact, insisting that your primitive view is unassailed by everything the past 100 years of science have taught us. Your views are indeed untouched by that knowledge, but that's hardly something to be proud of.

78500[/snapback]

Your unintended irony is worthy of an entry in Ripley's Believe it or Not.

[Bryan]

What a ridiculous comment.

Thanks for the warning about what is to come in the rest of your post.

I observed my momma to be conscious.

No, you don't. You're an idiot who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Her actions could only have been the products of consciousness.

Oh? And how would you know that minus an appeal to analogy unless you're using the science of Intelligent Design?

They were observed by others, as were her open eyes, her laughter, her tears, her smiles, her frowns, all the hallmarks of consciousness.

So you've never even heard of the Turing test, eh?

Bryan admits having no empirical evidence on the point, and then pulls his usual switcheroo onto whomever challenged him.

IIRC, I simply asked on what basis an empirical demand for evidence was made. I notice that "Guest" skipped that question entirely in favor of a clueless argument in favor of his mom's consciousness.

Classic authoritarian personality.

Meh. Another LaClair clone.

And yet conscious, empirically verified as such.

78503[/snapback]

There's no such thing as an empirical proof of consciousness. You were blowing your words out yer arse.

This sums it up:

The most we can expect from scientific research is the identification of a range of material properties that correlate in human beings with pain, say, or colours, or indeed being conscious at all. However, this won’t pinpoint the material essence of any such conscious state, for there will always be a plurality of such human material correlates for any conscious property. And in the face of this plurality science is impotent, for the methodology of consciousness research offers no handle by which to separate material properties that are perfectly correlated in normal humans.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ip/davidpapineau/Staf...ers/SciCns.html

[Guest Guest]

QUOTE(Guest @ Dec 24 2007, 09:27 AM)

What if time loops back on itself?

I've addressed this already.  It continues to describe an infinite regress . . .

78647[/snapback]

How do you know that, or IOW, what is the basis for that claim?

[Guest Guest]

Thanks for the warning about what is to come in the rest of your post.

No, you don't.  You're an idiot who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Oh?  And how would you know that minus an appeal to analogy unless you're using the science of Intelligent Design?

So you've never even heard of the Turing test, eh?

IIRC, I simply asked on what basis an empirical demand for evidence was made.  I notice that "Guest" skipped that question entirely in favor of a clueless argument in favor of his mom's consciousness.

Meh.  Another LaClair clone.

There's no such thing as an empirical proof of consciousness.  You were blowing your words out yer arse.

This sums it up:

The most we can expect from scientific research is the identification of a range of material properties that correlate in human beings with pain, say, or colours, or indeed being conscious at all.  However, this won’t pinpoint the material essence of any such conscious state, for there will always be a plurality of such human material correlates for any conscious property.  And in the face of this plurality science is impotent, for the methodology of consciousness research offers no handle by which to separate material properties that are perfectly correlated in normal humans.

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/ip/davidpapineau/Staf...ers/SciCns.html

78668[/snapback]

So now to Bryan's sentient rocks and moons made out of cheese, we can add human mothers who were never conscious beings.

[Guest Guest]

There's no such thing as an empirical proof of consciousness.

78668[/snapback]

Earth to Bryan: observation counts as evidence, both in court and in science.