"Our results show that medical factors cannot account
for occurrence of NDE"
So, we have 4 PhD's and MD's, peer-reviewed, and published in likely the most authoritative medical journal in the world, showing "hallucinations" that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model, along with perceptions of events expected to be unperceivable by the unconscious person, from a fully-experienced sense of complete personhood from a vantage point outside of their physical body.
Versus... MightyMartian and his wholly unbacked and unqualified mere characterizations.
First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.
Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".
And both were false.
As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.
You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.
Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.
Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.
So, editing the irrelevancies, your point to all this is to say that this particular medical/scientific process does not lead, in your mind, to the definitional questions of "what does 'human' mean exactly" posed by genetic manipulation in general (as also widely noted and discussed by others), that my actual post was addressing.
Okay, let's be clear. -You- replied to -my- broad high-level statement of logical implications of manipulating genetic processes in a general sense, for which my post was expanding on an even more broadly-stated parent post.
I do not know why you didn't post your as a reply to the originating article summary--that makes a lot more sense than to my particular post, for which it is an irrelevant focusing on a particular technique, and skipping my comment entirely, apparently with an air of "I know a lot about a subset of the science, so I'll go ahead and talk about that and not address your post as a supposed way of addressing it".
Whatever you think we are arguing about and you are contributing to specifically, we aren't.
Not with any more precision than I can "soul", but neither of us doubts it exists.
Notably, that it doesn't exist is one of the required "stances" , which end up being rather overtly indefensible, as an alternative way to rationalize the dilemma posed by the Mind-Body Problem.
If you want to delve into the question deeper here, googling "Mind-Body Problem" or "Cartesian Dualism" will provide you with all the background information on historical vetting of this issue you could want.
The line of the thread is clear, I thought. What categorization of yourself is available based on material inference from your DNA, such as, say, how anyone should consider you required to be treated in any way other than any other categorization of a pattern of DNA?
Just say what you are, and justify that with reference to your DNA, if that's what you acknowledge you have available to reference, as the material origin of what you are. Particularly, by way of inquiry, which nucleotides provide you with "rights" in contrast to other hominids. Just the sequence and causal steps to generating your organism's rights would be fine.
If you don't have any reason to think you having them is something real, that is an acceptable answer, as well. Just say so.
And that, as a matter of historical fact, came from philosophy.
Odd that your implicit assertion would be that it came suddenly from nowhere.
But if we're going to play dictionary games, here's Merriam-Webster:
noun sci-ence Popularity: Top 1% of lookups Simple Definition of science : knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation : a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science : a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
Does this scope specifically and only to the specific form-hypothesis-test-repeat steps (choose your alternate permutation of steps of which you claim there in only one standard) referred to as scientific method? No.
But then, no need for that. Such scoping is irrational and would immediately destroy science, if strong but untestable inference from established tested knowns is excluded.
Or, you can throw away, for one, most of Quantum Physics, particularly the core Interpretations, i.e. Copenhagen, Everett, etc., etc.
This physics is not science? Do you want more examples?
No, I just understand science better, and which domains of it allow for which scientific methodologies. Don't be the standard Slashdot science-poseur and claim there's only one.
Or, propose how you are going to reproduce upon demand findings of, say, anthropology, to reproduce the historical circumstances and test the inferential hypothesis per (a) scientific method.
Going -immediately- for the goalpost-shift to "proof", which nothing in science has either, eh?
But no, we have peer-reviewed NDE studies quantifying direct eye-witness (i.e. themselves) experience of the soul, and the Mind-Body Problem is unresolvable without either invoking a soul or completely irrational alternate stances on metaphysics, as determined by a couple of thousand years of attempts otherwise by secular philosophy... along with many many personal experiences which aren't dismissed by merely saying "they're all lying".
So, no, I wouldn't propose "proof", and you neither want that nor the forced conversion that would logically require--I propose there is -evidence-, as there most definitely is.
Particularly when it leads to definitional collapse leaving people with (or making them realize they always had) the question of what specifically justifies for them and their particular DNA pattern the specially-treated category of "human".
I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".
Your mileage, and your logically-unavoidable results, may vary.
Naturally, you could not cite, because your post was made-up nonsense not even potentially conveying meaning.
Precisely why requested, and precisely why you of course failed.
On the other sense of the question, you can cite my own posts, and when you fail that, the notion that I'm not a "decent human being" will, of course, be equally demonstrated made-up nonsense.
But in the end, none of that is even necessary. Your statements are not merely made-up, but self-contradictory. Everyone's life is "meaningless" but you're here to accuse me of an equally meaningless life? Me in particular? Impressive weight to that accusation, there.
Likewise, if there is no objective morality, all your characterizations are meaningless by definition. I'll also give those the weight your position logically demands.
If you want vetted philosophical arguments that morality is objective, there is an endless amount of that available from 2500 years of Western philosophy. It is, however, not in the domain of "science", so "peer reviewed" here, is, as you know, a disingenuous and inapplicable expectation. That fact doesn't alter the fact your subjectivist stance immediately devolves into self-contradictory nonsense, as you've thoroughly demonstrated here.
As for falsifiablity or peer-review strictly scoping "science", you can look to the failed history of Logical Positivism for thoroughly demonstrating that is impossible. By excluding strong inference from tested knowns as "science", or by setting expectations hypotheses cannot meet at the point at which they are formed, such as defining and executing tests before a hypothesis is allowed to be conceptualized in the first place, or expecting they are peer reviewed as a precondition to being proposed, you do nothing but misrepresent and damage what science actually is.
But then, given your irrational presentation so far, and that clear taint of unstated rage, I have no doubt you'd happily damage or destroy science to whatever degree necessary to shelter your personal biased feelings. As is typical for the non-thinking "science versus religion" False Dichotomy bandwagon joiners. Attack religion as you like, you can't do anything about it. Just avoid damaging science as you pursue your (self-confessedly) goalless obsession.
We've had a more realistic notion of the degree to which political "equality" can be applied to genetics for quite a long time.
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
--Darwin, ~1850 AD
Oh wait. Misattribution.
--Jesus, ~0 AD
So, pick your worldview. Same conclusion. Long time, or longer.
Occam's beliefs are relevant in that he correctly applied his Razor, which contrary to common incorrect restatement, does not make any claims to determine the likelihood of a particular model's correctness, or exclude his own theistic model.
All else being absolutely equal between two competing models, Occam's Razor specifies that the simpler model be used -for the purposes of conceptual economy-. The simpler model is used because it is simpler. That implies greater ease of further use in analysis, again, all else being completely equal.
It speaks to a model's straightforward use, not its preferability as representing fact. Were that the case, scientific progress would come to a halt, because in the great majority of cases (i.e. Newtonian physics), the simpler model is simply the inaccurate one.
"Presumptive path" would be a separate heuristic from what Occam's Razor addresses, and I suggest care in not conflating the two such that one's argument is equivocating from "useful" to "true".
The application of the standard model would say nothing about the content of Dark Matter, any more than by saying if we stipulate X amount of matter within Y space, you can thereby say what that matter contains in our "everyday" observable universe. That is the statement of mine you are responding to, not what physics applies. Does it contain complex structures? Life? We have no idea. You appear to be angling for a categorical dismissal you have no basis to make based on a red herring of what system of physics may apply.
As for your question, though, what is your position on the scientific validity of considering "random" as an analyzable, hence scientific, causal factor?
Slashdot Mirror
that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model
Full unpaywalled text
"Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE"
So, we have 4 PhD's and MD's, peer-reviewed, and published in likely the most authoritative medical journal in the world, showing "hallucinations" that just happen to correspond specifically to the predictions of the theological model, along with perceptions of events expected to be unperceivable by the unconscious person, from a fully-experienced sense of complete personhood from a vantage point outside of their physical body.
Versus... MightyMartian and his wholly unbacked and unqualified mere characterizations.
Lie on.
And keep lying.
Even that you get wrong.
Science is what philosophy says it is, and the correct branch it's under is epistemology.
Repeat your circular, coming-from-nowhere, demonstrated-wrong scoping and definition, though.
Ah, no, you are muddling the issues here.
First of all, there is no hypothesis is science that has a "provable result". There is current correspondence between empirical information and a given scientific model, which is -permanently- provisional and open to new data.
Luminiferous Ether was, per all testing of the model at the time, "proven". The Steady State model of the universe was, by per all testing of the model of the time, "proven".
And both were false.
As for what a hypothesis "can lead to", if presently it is not testable, that it will or won't be is an exercise of you injecting your psychic powers regarding the future into science. Better to adjust your stance to what science actually is--that a strong inference from tested knowns is science, even in the absence of a known or proposable test, e.g., the QM Interpretations.
You don't really understand the words you are using here trying to address what philosophy actually is, since "metaphysics" is a core branch of of philosophy, along with epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and politics. It does not mean "stuff they show on Ghost Hunter". Metaphysics is the domain that studies "what fundamentally exists", and even if your stance is "only material scientifically-detectable things exist", you still have a metaphysics, and that is your stance on it. That aside, philosophy is -extremely- rigorous. Logic, for one, defines rules for evaluation of premises that are far more rigorous that statements we can make in science, due to the fact theories are provisional. A fallacious argument is fallacious, period, fully demonstrated right then and there and refuted forever. Science does not have, and never can have, that level of definitive certainty.
Most important application of this rigor is exactly what has, again, been specifically what happened historically--defining at the core what science is, and is not. Fortunately, that rigor has held and so we have means of properly defining and scoping science, which, again, you don't, and haven't, as demonstrated precisely what you're claiming. You have nothing more than a circular definition of "science"--your (inaccurate) notion of science is backed by... you repeating your demonstrated-false definition of science.
Science can thank philosophy for keeping science-damaging people like you from repeatedly harming people's understanding of it. Yes, I know, your whole reason for excluding untestable QM science as "science" is because Dawkins convinced you that science is whatever you need to say it is, to politically exclude anything relating to religion.
Fix your understanding anyway.
So, editing the irrelevancies, your point to all this is to say that this particular medical/scientific process does not lead, in your mind, to the definitional questions of "what does 'human' mean exactly" posed by genetic manipulation in general (as also widely noted and discussed by others), that my actual post was addressing.
Noted.
Okay, let's be clear. -You- replied to -my- broad high-level statement of logical implications of manipulating genetic processes in a general sense, for which my post was expanding on an even more broadly-stated parent post.
I do not know why you didn't post your as a reply to the originating article summary--that makes a lot more sense than to my particular post, for which it is an irrelevant focusing on a particular technique, and skipping my comment entirely, apparently with an air of "I know a lot about a subset of the science, so I'll go ahead and talk about that and not address your post as a supposed way of addressing it".
Whatever you think we are arguing about and you are contributing to specifically, we aren't.
Can you define what "consciousness" is?
Not with any more precision than I can "soul", but neither of us doubts it exists.
Notably, that it doesn't exist is one of the required "stances" , which end up being rather overtly indefensible, as an alternative way to rationalize the dilemma posed by the Mind-Body Problem.
If you want to delve into the question deeper here, googling "Mind-Body Problem" or "Cartesian Dualism" will provide you with all the background information on historical vetting of this issue you could want.
For a summary, I'd recommend:
http://www.owl232.net/mind.htm
Written by, incidentally, if you suspect me of bias, a current professor of philosophy and stated atheist (see top level URL).
I have nothing to defend.
The line of the thread is clear, I thought. What categorization of yourself is available based on material inference from your DNA, such as, say, how anyone should consider you required to be treated in any way other than any other categorization of a pattern of DNA?
Just say what you are, and justify that with reference to your DNA, if that's what you acknowledge you have available to reference, as the material origin of what you are. Particularly, by way of inquiry, which nucleotides provide you with "rights" in contrast to other hominids. Just the sequence and causal steps to generating your organism's rights would be fine.
If you don't have any reason to think you having them is something real, that is an acceptable answer, as well. Just say so.
And that, as a matter of historical fact, came from philosophy.
Odd that your implicit assertion would be that it came suddenly from nowhere.
But if we're going to play dictionary games, here's Merriam-Webster:
noun sci-ence
Popularity: Top 1% of lookups
Simple Definition of science
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.
Does this scope specifically and only to the specific form-hypothesis-test-repeat steps (choose your alternate permutation of steps of which you claim there in only one standard) referred to as scientific method? No.
But then, no need for that. Such scoping is irrational and would immediately destroy science, if strong but untestable inference from established tested knowns is excluded.
Or, you can throw away, for one, most of Quantum Physics, particularly the core Interpretations, i.e. Copenhagen, Everett, etc., etc.
This physics is not science? Do you want more examples?
AC... suitably... arbitrary.
Seems it comes down to who gets to choose in the end.
Metaphysics and philosophy determine what science is.
And you have it wrong.
Bring lots of friends to the Disco Inferno, then.
Preferably ones I'd be interested in. You can stay behind.
No, I just understand science better, and which domains of it allow for which scientific methodologies. Don't be the standard Slashdot science-poseur and claim there's only one.
Or, propose how you are going to reproduce upon demand findings of, say, anthropology, to reproduce the historical circumstances and test the inferential hypothesis per (a) scientific method.
Since you haven't thought about it, take a moment to. Should I address your DNA as "sir", "miss", "animal", or "thing"?
I want to be Politically Correct here, and address you as you "self identify".
Scientific justification for your alternative, which will of course hold sway in the final sense, I'll leave to you.
Going -immediately- for the goalpost-shift to "proof", which nothing in science has either, eh?
But no, we have peer-reviewed NDE studies quantifying direct eye-witness (i.e. themselves) experience of the soul, and the Mind-Body Problem is unresolvable without either invoking a soul or completely irrational alternate stances on metaphysics, as determined by a couple of thousand years of attempts otherwise by secular philosophy... along with many many personal experiences which aren't dismissed by merely saying "they're all lying".
So, no, I wouldn't propose "proof", and you neither want that nor the forced conversion that would logically require--I propose there is -evidence-, as there most definitely is.
Particularly when it leads to definitional collapse leaving people with (or making them realize they always had) the question of what specifically justifies for them and their particular DNA pattern the specially-treated category of "human".
I suggest the differentiator of a "soul".
Your mileage, and your logically-unavoidable results, may vary.
In that case, better come up with a biological differentiator for your own DNA pattern. Probably quickly.
Naturally, you could not cite, because your post was made-up nonsense not even potentially conveying meaning.
Precisely why requested, and precisely why you of course failed.
On the other sense of the question, you can cite my own posts, and when you fail that, the notion that I'm not a "decent human being" will, of course, be equally demonstrated made-up nonsense.
But in the end, none of that is even necessary. Your statements are not merely made-up, but self-contradictory. Everyone's life is "meaningless" but you're here to accuse me of an equally meaningless life? Me in particular? Impressive weight to that accusation, there.
Likewise, if there is no objective morality, all your characterizations are meaningless by definition. I'll also give those the weight your position logically demands.
If you want vetted philosophical arguments that morality is objective, there is an endless amount of that available from 2500 years of Western philosophy. It is, however, not in the domain of "science", so "peer reviewed" here, is, as you know, a disingenuous and inapplicable expectation. That fact doesn't alter the fact your subjectivist stance immediately devolves into self-contradictory nonsense, as you've thoroughly demonstrated here.
As for falsifiablity or peer-review strictly scoping "science", you can look to the failed history of Logical Positivism for thoroughly demonstrating that is impossible. By excluding strong inference from tested knowns as "science", or by setting expectations hypotheses cannot meet at the point at which they are formed, such as defining and executing tests before a hypothesis is allowed to be conceptualized in the first place, or expecting they are peer reviewed as a precondition to being proposed, you do nothing but misrepresent and damage what science actually is.
But then, given your irrational presentation so far, and that clear taint of unstated rage, I have no doubt you'd happily damage or destroy science to whatever degree necessary to shelter your personal biased feelings. As is typical for the non-thinking "science versus religion" False Dichotomy bandwagon joiners. Attack religion as you like, you can't do anything about it. Just avoid damaging science as you pursue your (self-confessedly) goalless obsession.
If you have some refutation of Everett to share, we can discuss on your way to picking up your Nobel...
That'd be why I called it "populist click-bait".
Neither "lost" nor seeing how the topology of the universe is pertinent in any sense to that.
Rather a long stretch from the science to a populist click-bait philosophical "conclusion"...
We've had a more realistic notion of the degree to which political "equality" can be applied to genetics for quite a long time.
"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"
--Darwin, ~1850 AD
Oh wait. Misattribution.
--Jesus, ~0 AD
So, pick your worldview. Same conclusion. Long time, or longer.
Occam's beliefs are relevant in that he correctly applied his Razor, which contrary to common incorrect restatement, does not make any claims to determine the likelihood of a particular model's correctness, or exclude his own theistic model.
All else being absolutely equal between two competing models, Occam's Razor specifies that the simpler model be used -for the purposes of conceptual economy-. The simpler model is used because it is simpler. That implies greater ease of further use in analysis, again, all else being completely equal.
It speaks to a model's straightforward use, not its preferability as representing fact. Were that the case, scientific progress would come to a halt, because in the great majority of cases (i.e. Newtonian physics), the simpler model is simply the inaccurate one.
"Presumptive path" would be a separate heuristic from what Occam's Razor addresses, and I suggest care in not conflating the two such that one's argument is equivocating from "useful" to "true".
The application of the standard model would say nothing about the content of Dark Matter, any more than by saying if we stipulate X amount of matter within Y space, you can thereby say what that matter contains in our "everyday" observable universe. That is the statement of mine you are responding to, not what physics applies. Does it contain complex structures? Life? We have no idea. You appear to be angling for a categorical dismissal you have no basis to make based on a red herring of what system of physics may apply.
As for your question, though, what is your position on the scientific validity of considering "random" as an analyzable, hence scientific, causal factor?