Why the soul?

[m_the0ry]

Even on the cellular level - as in, the simple neurotransmitter pathways between neurons - a simulation of a human brain would require computational power orders of magnitude more powerful than the fastest supercomputers in the world.

That means that if sentience can be explained as deterministic in a system of neuron networks with predefined stimulus, there is no practical way to model this. Even if we stick to moores law (big if) it would be centuries before we could come close to simulating a human brain.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you reconcile a pompous attitude with the selfless objectivity (formerly, perhaps) expected of a scientist?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that, ideally as you say, a scientist has to be selflessly objective when doing science. Philosophy (especially when done by amateurs) is full of pompous pronouncements and this board is no exception. Both scientists and non-scientists often get carried away with their own views and speak as if they are fact rather than debatable opinion. Your post seemed to imply that "pretend scientists" shouldnt do this - I would say you've set a high bar that most of us are going to be unable to clear. Why not accept that as a bunch of amateurs we're going to get it wrong from time to time? If someone posts something you disagree with or feel is unjustified then rebut it or ignore it. Telling them to go home or play in their sandbox or whatever doesnt have many advantages that I can see. It's certainly not going to persuade an unconvinced reader that you're right.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

What makes a statement true is the way the real world actually is, properties the real world actually has, etc. If the statement corresponds to that, then it is true (irrespective of if anyone believes it or not).


[/ QUOTE ]

But here you are again using empirical knowledge to counter an argument that involves logical inference.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm claiming that logical inference leads to a conclusion and that, if the premises mirror the real world, so will the conclusion. I'm not suggesting that we know this through empirical means. I believe it without evidence.

[ QUOTE ]
Your final paragraph accepts inference as valid, but that isn't the question. The question is, given that inference is valid, how can that be explained if materialism is true. You raise circularity but that isn't the issue here either.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have clearly failed to see the issue then. To me the argument seemed to reduce to "If all our beliefs, both true and false, arise from material laws and there is nothing else. How can we claim to know truth through logical inference?" I've been trying to answer that question and I think the answer involves clearly delineating between semantics and epistemology rather than blurring them together.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither side of this discussion has a sound empirical basis, so let the pretend scientists put an end to their pompous pronouncements and confine themselves to their sandboxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Aren't pompous scientists allowed to speculate on philosophical issues as well? It seems to me that, just because you believe in science, there's no reason to be precluded from discussion of areas which are not yet scientifically discussable.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you reconcile a pompous attitude with the selfless objectivity (formerly, perhaps) expected of a scientist?

[/ QUOTE ]
My point is that, ideally as you say, a scientist has to be selflessly objective when doing science. Philosophy (especially when done by amateurs) is full of pompous pronouncements and this board is no exception. Both scientists and non-scientists often get carried away with their own views and speak as if they are fact rather than debatable opinion. Your post seemed to imply that "pretend scientists" shouldnt do this - I would say you've set a high bar that most of us are going to be unable to clear. Why not accept that as a bunch of amateurs we're going to get it wrong from time to time? If someone posts something you disagree with or feel is unjustified then rebut it or ignore it. Telling them to go home or play in their sandbox or whatever doesnt have many advantages that I can see. It's certainly not going to persuade an unconvinced reader that you're right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair point. I got carried away. Apologies to the forum.