Zelebg

Can you show that idea with practical example?

And yet we do not know of any other physical structure directly except magnetic and electric fields. That is all we interact with, all we ever measure...

Infinity can not be realized, it can not exist, except potentially through repetition, so no “unique” infinity can exist. There is a simple proof havi...

Only intuition, whatever that is. There are no words that can satisfy certainty because anyone’s beliefs are ultimately grounded in their own intuitio...

That’s the situation in every living cell. Everything floats entangled in a mess, stuff just bumping around randomly, and yet we do not fall apart. De...

Didn't I explain there is no randomness in chemistry or biology? H and O will always produce H2O, and never H4O3 or HO5. Chemical formulas are determi...

d.) I hypothesise photons are made of unicorn tears, and I explain everything with a story that makes sense as much as quantum mechanics, but my equat...

c.) I hypothesise consciousness is ‘integrated information’, it’s just how integrated information feels inside, and I can accurately predict levels of...

b.) I hypothesise many worlds, infinite number of universes and predict we will be able to see some kind of overlap when we discover super-strings or ...

a.) I hypothesise life after death and predict all kinds of phenomena like near-death experience, ghosts, communication with the dead. Are those falsi...

In case you missed, I mentioned a piece of information missing from the article. The Solution of Falsifiability In Popper's later work... statement be...

Yeah, so how do you reject the hard problem of consciousness?

No ordinary statements or claims here. Testability deals with predictions, and falsifiability with counterexamples.

There is a lot to reconsider. We have definitions of two concepts for verification, testability and falsifiability, both useless, less and more. Wikip...

Also confirmed/falsified instead of proved true/false brings more sense into sentences like this: first experiment confirmed prediction, but hypothesi...

Those are two different claims. First one is wrong. Possible, not able. Almost synonyms, which is why jump to error is not obvious... A claim is falsi...

I love conciseness and find your expression artfull. However, words “renders” and “verifiable” are very complex and thus too vague and ambiguous to be...

Mistake, I was quoting Banno.

Is any of the theories of consciousness falsifiable? And shouldn't article provide sufficiently precise definition so we can make that distinction?

I would limit it to what is testable right now, otherwise you could argue something like many worlds QM hypothesis is potentially testable in the futu...

You're right. I did not realize what I was saying. Then this: A hypothesis is falsifiable if it predicts observation that can prove it false. Without ...

I only now see you are not talking about my bold, but yours. In any case, can you articulate some explanation for your assertion? You test a hypothesi...

According to what?

We don't have language to describe ontology of pain or any of the qualia. We can talk about it on a superficial level because we share similar experie...

Hypothesis is falsifiable if predicts observation that will either prove it true or false. There has to be explicit prediction, if not even suggestion...

I guess that god of yours is not necessarily the one to create this universe then, not really that one necessary cause without a cause, after all. Too...

And I say god is fine-tuned to be intelligent. You think it’s an accident? I can argue senselessly like you, look: universe is natural and natural uni...

Oh yes, it is the case. You are merely substituting one word with another and think new word brings in explanation. Wake up!! God is fine tuned to be ...

Was there a chance for god to not create the universe?

Thought involves time and memory, so just by having memory be a subject of malfunction, for example, there is already a possibility to draw wrong conc...

Initial conditions mostly. Internal accidents due to radioactive decay, accidents due to external radiation, comet impacts, and such, is randomness ch...

So I had to read all that just to see your point is that you are refusing to talk because you have nothing relevant to say about it.

I mean subjective experience, of pain for example, yes radically private. You deny? Ok, let us hear your reasoning then.

Thought process entails existence, and that thought is a very special kind of thought, particularly self-evident, for some reason. But I do not see wh...

Randomness is on a different level, not chemistry or biology. Atoms and molecules are bound to strict rules with limited possibilities, and they activ...

You do not have an explanation. You just substituted one mystery with another, bigger one. Why does the universe exist - because of god. Why does god ...

God is fine-tuned to produce life in the same way you concluded the universe is fine tuned. It created life, so it was either fine tuned to do so or i...

You can not say "no" when you repeated the same thing, just more vaguely. When speaking about any rules it is wise to be overly specific to avoid any ...

It is trivially non-issue unless you are questioning starting axioms. If A is B and B is C, then A is necessarily C. That is not a statement about met...

Just read “necessary” as “always”, and may god help you find less trivial thoughts to think about.

It adds constancy, assures predictability, determinism. It says “no magic allowed”, no god or other some such potential devil could sneak up from outs...

Consequently is good too, but maybe not exactly hitting the point, which is to illustrate conclusion is exclusively defined by the proposition.

If A is B and B is C, then A is necessarily C. You are talking about semantics and you want to say “necessarily” is superfluous? It means the conclusi...

It is like the concept of thought experiment. So if I say let us imagine that A=B, you either play along or you don't. But instead you want to accept ...

There is nothing to follow, only to understand what "necessary by definition" means. Do you not see it's self-contradiction and pointles to deny what ...

Not necessary as some world feature, but necessary by definition. Therefore such truths can be found only in logic, mathematics and similar axiom base...

You are confusing yourself with unnecessary information. The choice boils down to this: 1. A just so happens to exist and has property B 2. X just so ...

Obviously then god must be fine-tuned to have information deficit, natural instincts and desire to create life, therefore there must be god-tuner.

There are external properties, like location, direction, and shape, that can be investigated objectively. That is empirical science. No problem here. ...

Why would anyone raise such idea as a serious issue? Issue for what exactly?