A Physicist’s Explanation of Why the Soul May Exist

More Quantum Krap!

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: A Physicist’s Explanation of Why the Soul May Exist

#21  Postby kennyc » Jul 02, 2014 11:21 pm

Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama
User avatar
kennyc
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Kenny A. Chaffin
Posts: 8698
Male

Country: U.S.A.
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: A Physicist’s Explanation of Why the Soul May Exist

#22  Postby tolman » Jul 03, 2014 1:28 am

From the original article:
He wrote of the “growing tendency of people to exonerate themselves by arguing that it is not ‘I’ who is at fault, but some mechanical process within: ‘my genes made me do it’; or ‘my high blood-sugar content made me do it.’ Recall the infamous ‘Twinkie Defense’ that got Dan White off with five years for murdering San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.”


Isn't that 'Twinkie defence' reference bollocks, and the sign of a writer whose research is sub-Wikipedia in quality?

Dan White's defence was that he was suffering from depression.
Which he entirely gave the lie to by killing himself a couple of years after getting out of prison.
I don't do sarcasm smileys, but someone as bright as you has probably figured that out already.
tolman
 
Posts: 7106

Country: UK
Print view this post

Re: A Physicist’s Explanation of Why the Soul May Exist

#23  Postby BWE » Jul 04, 2014 5:16 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
BWE wrote:yeah, this is a weird thing for a physicist to attach to physics. It reminds me of the stuff that Fred Wolf comes up with about quantum consciousness and that sort of thing. I mean, QM is really weird to be sure and it is fun to speculate on models which might be consistent with QM, but it seems strange to assume that extraneous models should be considered seriously with no way to test the extraneous parts.


I don't think any weird shit can or should be ruled out BUT it MUST be testable. If a scientist is limited in imagination, or thinks of some weird shit but then says to hims/herself that it is "too weird" or 'couldn't be real" then further progress is stifled. No matter how crazy the idea is, then it should be considered SO LONG AS it is testable. This is why I think science should be agnostic about reality and why methodological naturalism should be the compass. The history of science for the last hundred years or so demonstrates that "weird shit" is where the action is at. Not so much for routine science, which can probably survive and do many things assuming naive reality. But coming up with revolutionary breakthroughs might sometimes be beyond imagination. it wont help is thinking is straight-jacketed into what scientist opinions are about "what is real?"
Occum said we should not entertain hypotheses beyond necessity, I would add to that the necessity of having minimum metaphysical baggage. This is why I believe realism in science is both unnecessary and wrong.


And I agree with all of that. I meant that the extraneous parts being the untestable parts, should be presented as fun speculation, not information to base behavior on.
User avatar
BWE
 
Posts: 2498

Print view this post

Re: A Physicist’s Explanation of Why the Soul May Exist

#24  Postby Darwinsbulldog » Jul 04, 2014 9:49 am

BWE wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:
BWE wrote:yeah, this is a weird thing for a physicist to attach to physics. It reminds me of the stuff that Fred Wolf comes up with about quantum consciousness and that sort of thing. I mean, QM is really weird to be sure and it is fun to speculate on models which might be consistent with QM, but it seems strange to assume that extraneous models should be considered seriously with no way to test the extraneous parts.


I don't think any weird shit can or should be ruled out BUT it MUST be testable. If a scientist is limited in imagination, or thinks of some weird shit but then says to hims/herself that it is "too weird" or 'couldn't be real" then further progress is stifled. No matter how crazy the idea is, then it should be considered SO LONG AS it is testable. This is why I think science should be agnostic about reality and why methodological naturalism should be the compass. The history of science for the last hundred years or so demonstrates that "weird shit" is where the action is at. Not so much for routine science, which can probably survive and do many things assuming naive reality. But coming up with revolutionary breakthroughs might sometimes be beyond imagination. it wont help is thinking is straight-jacketed into what scientist opinions are about "what is real?"
Occum said we should not entertain hypotheses beyond necessity, I would add to that the necessity of having minimum metaphysical baggage. This is why I believe realism in science is both unnecessary and wrong.


And I agree with all of that. I meant that the extraneous parts being the untestable parts, should be presented as fun speculation, not information to base behavior on.


Indeed! :thumbup:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 66

Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest