From: x@x.org   
      
   On 3/19/25 03:52, D wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   > On Wed, 19 Mar 2025, Richmond wrote:   
   >   
   >> D  writes:   
   >>   
   >>> On Tue, 18 Mar 2025, Ed Cryer wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> I don't doubt that the mind is a product of the brain; and that the   
   >>>> brain is physical. Nor have I ever seriously doubted that the world   
   >>>> is physical and real. I'm a naive realist by temperament. I like to   
   >>>> call myself a "western scientific rationalist".   
   >>>   
   >>> Hooray, I'm not alone! ;)   
   >>>   
   >>>> All this seems rather unphilosophical. I guess I'm no philosopher. I   
   >>>> just like talking with intelligent people, and having my mind   
   >>>> stimulated by interesting speculation. Let the dialogue of reason   
   >>>> continue. It's the breeding ground of new ideas and change.   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, it can be! Discuss with quantum physicists and then discuss if   
   >>> you should or should not infer things from formulas that can never be   
   >>> proven or shown evidence or disproven (choose your favourite). Are you   
   >>> justified in believing the inferences?   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Have you come across proof by induction? It proves that the sum of the   
   >> first n numbers is n(n+1)/2, and that's true for any value of n. Now you   
   >> must say it is nonsense because you cannot test any value of n. You   
   >> cannot test infinity-1 for example. But I think you will say mathematics   
   >> is in a separate compartment from physics. In which case I'll say that   
   >> when you get to the quantum level, all you have is numbers.   
   >   
   > And that is why I safely disregard any non-testable predictions or   
   > inferences. It has no connection with reality, so as far as I am   
   > concerned it is "null and void".   
   >   
   > As per a previous message (I think) I also do not think a case can be   
   > made for translating from numbers to human language as well.   
   >   
   > You are correct about me keeping math distinct from physics as an   
   > empirical science.   
      
   These lines of reasoning of course have fundamental flaws.  Theories   
   about theories may be different from specific theories themselves.   
      
   That the brain is the seat of the might is simply a theory.  It   
   may have been tested throughout time but once upon a time people   
   once thought that the seat of something like a soul, mind, 'ka' or   
   something was an organ called a heart or liver.  But a theory about   
   a theory is different from a theory itself.   
      
   Many theories have to do with subjects about phenomena that are   
   entirely outside the human body.  Like theories about what might   
   happen in a particle accelerator might be different from what   
   may happen in a lung.  The theories about lungs might be different   
   from theories about what may happen in a particle accelerator.   
   You may not necessarily prove or disprove something about particle   
   accelerators by talking about lungs.  You may not necessarily   
   prove or disprove something about lungs by talking about something   
   in a particle accelerator.  When they throw in the word 'brain'   
   however they often toss out the idea that physics might be   
   different from biology.  Sometimes they do not but some times   
   they do, and that actually is a fundamental flaw in logic.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)