Scientific proof that God exists?

[QuestionAuthority]

This is what the old Jesus with his followers was like 2000 years ago.



If Jesus was born today instead of back then he would be LL Cool Jesus. He wouldn't have followers, he'd have a posse and tons of bitches n hoes.

[1714634607]

1714634607

[1714634607]

1714634607

[1714634607]

1714634607

[cryptodevil]

Someone claiming to be an inter-dimensional galactic commander is already clearly suffering from a delusional mind state.

How would you KNOW? I see that you have used an ad-hominem instead of responding to the content.

Well, at no point is there any evidence presented to support the assertion he is an inter-dimensional galactic commander and ALL cases so far of people claiming to be inter-dimensional beings, space aliens, gods, angels, demons, etc. etc. have also failed to be able to support their own claims and are usually the result of either inherent mental illness, or drug-induced psychosis, such as chronic amphetamine abuse, which is known to induce a condition called 'amphetamine psychosis'.

So, as far as 'how would I KNOW'? I think it is pretty fucking safe to say that, until your 'galactic commander' can actually offer up valid evidence of his inter-dimensional state of being, he's just another nutter.

Cryptodevil, please consider Nagel's assertion that materialism—the idea that everything can be explained (eventually) in terms of physics—actually fails to do just that. Nagel always backs up his assertions; how about you?

Nagel insists that . . . On its own terms, materialism cannot account for brute facts. Brute facts are irreducible, and materialism, which operates by breaking things down to their physical components, stands useless before them. “There is little or no possibility,” he writes, “that these facts depend on nothing but the laws of physics.”

Ok, firstly, Nagel is a fucking philosopher, which is one step shy of being an astrologer. It ain't science, it is supposition.

Secondly, are you even reading what you are posting to see if it stands any chance of offering up anything of substance in your attempt to rebut my dismantling of your illusions? "Nagel insists . . ." is not a valid route towards supporting your position. You, like BADecker, also repeatedly insist things to be how you assert them to be, which is not at all the same thing as actually providing for either an objectively reasoned position, nor evidence.

What exactly are these 'Brute facts'? Simply stating that somebody is, like, super-clever n'all, does not mean everything they say is a fact.

That's called an appeal-to-authority fallacy, whereby you claim something to be correct simply because somebody who is seen as an authority on a subject says it is correct. That's not a reliable way to ascertain anything as being factual.

As for this:

I suggest you reference Journal 21, Chapter 3 and Journal 31, Chapter 13; I propose the straightforward idea that God has come to speak with you and I through these Journals.
.
My proposal is modest; if this thread would but read, the truth about man and god would be known.
.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_107.pdf
HATONN LIES
Readers, I and my secretary are continually called liars and bigots and every other bad name you can conjure. How so? Because I bring you that which is offered about your globe?? I don't have to go forth into the "universe" to find invisible stories to lay on you--if these be LIES--WHOSE LIES ARE THEY?? I AM BUT AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER!! SO BE IT.
.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_12.pdf
A rehash of other's opinion and interpretations is worthless. This is precisely why I give none of my scribe's opinions and always can back up statements with facts.
Excellent opportunity to get our material forth, however, for controversy of evil with truth is excellent for Aton does not often become faint at heart!
.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_12.pdf
Why do you send correspondence and messages to me (and you did so), unless you want a response? Further, did you expect me to sit and feed you back the lies simply because you assume "THIS RECEIVER" TO BE UNINFORMED AND PLAYING THE SAME OLD GAME OF "DUPE THE PUBLIC"?

I'm going to be honest with you here, Jag, if you believe that this collection of bizarre assertions is anything other than a clear symptom of mental illness, then you are badly mistaken. None of the above actually says anything. It is a collection of odd statements and I don't know what you thought it actually says, but it doesn't serve your case in any way whatsoever.

Skepticism of psychic phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science. That is why you use an ad-hominem attack against both Hatonn and I.

Wrong, skepticism of 'psychic phenomena' is based on the fact that it has never survived critical analysis. You know all those claims about NDE's such as when a woman saw something on a top shelf? There's a reason why no objective report exists on that, because it didn't happen. In fact, there have been studies where items were placed on a high shelf in an operating theatre, a hotbed of claims towards OBE's and NDE's concerning people saying they had floated out of their physical body and not a single event occurred where a patient who claimed to have risen up to the ceiling in the operating theatre actually saw what these items were. Do you know why? Because their experience was derived from what their brain created for them as being the operating theatre, not what actually was the operating theatre.

STOP honoring evil

If you want to know GOD
You have a good chance of proving to yourself that God exists if you get married.
YES, You stand a good chance of proving to yourself that God exists if you get married!

Here is a guide!

http://marriagemissions.com/navigating-stages-of-marriage-marriage-message-255-2/

Pascal would suggest to you to get married so that you might become a Christian. LOVE is real, and anyone can prove that to themselves as well!

Pascal's Wager doesn't inform us as to which god we should be worshiping and, as we know, worshiping the wrong god can be catastrophic for your soul, amirite?!!! LOL. So the 'correct' response to Pascal's Wager is not to worship any of them.

BTW, I'm married, but we had a secular ceremony, does that mean I don't get to prove to myself that your god exists? What about all the people who get married through other religions, you know, the 'wrong' ones?

[Buffer Overflow]

l's Wager doesn't inform us as to which god we should be worshiping and, as we know, worshiping the wrong god can be catastrophic for your soul, amirite?!!! LOL. So the 'correct' response to Pascal's Wager is not to worship any of them.

Precisely. Worshiping a god is extremely high risk and foolish. The risk you are unwittingly worshiping the devil in disguise is just too high.
The wise steer clear of any of that Russian roulette game.

[the joint]

Someone claiming to be an inter-dimensional galactic commander is already clearly suffering from a delusional mind state.

How would you KNOW? I see that you have used an ad-hominem instead of responding to the content.

Well, at no point is there any evidence presented to support the assertion he is an inter-dimensional galactic commander and ALL cases so far of people claiming to be inter-dimensional beings, space aliens, gods, angels, demons, etc. etc. have also failed to be able to support their own claims and are usually the result of either inherent mental illness, or drug-induced psychosis, such as chronic amphetamine abuse, which is known to induce a condition called 'amphetamine psychosis'.

So, as far as 'how would I KNOW'? I think it is pretty fucking safe to say that, until your 'galactic commander' can actually offer up valid evidence of his inter-dimensional state of being, he's just another nutter.

Cryptodevil, please consider Nagel's assertion that materialism—the idea that everything can be explained (eventually) in terms of physics—actually fails to do just that. Nagel always backs up his assertions; how about you?

Nagel insists that . . . On its own terms, materialism cannot account for brute facts. Brute facts are irreducible, and materialism, which operates by breaking things down to their physical components, stands useless before them. “There is little or no possibility,” he writes, “that these facts depend on nothing but the laws of physics.”

Ok, firstly, Nagel is a fucking philosopher, which is one step shy of being an astrologer. It ain't science, it is supposition.

Secondly, are you even reading what you are posting to see if it stands any chance of offering up anything of substance in your attempt to rebut my dismantling of your illusions? "Nagel insists . . ." is not a valid route towards supporting your position. You, like BADecker, also repeatedly insist things to be how you assert them to be, which is not at all the same thing as actually providing for either an objectively reasoned position, nor evidence.

What exactly are these 'Brute facts'? Simply stating that somebody is, like, super-clever n'all, does not mean everything they say is a fact.

That's called an appeal-to-authority fallacy, whereby you claim something to be correct simply because somebody who is seen as an authority on a subject says it is correct. That's not a reliable way to ascertain anything as being factual.

As for this:

I suggest you reference Journal 21, Chapter 3 and Journal 31, Chapter 13; I propose the straightforward idea that God has come to speak with you and I through these Journals.
.
My proposal is modest; if this thread would but read, the truth about man and god would be known.
.

http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_107.pdf
HATONN LIES
Readers, I and my secretary are continually called liars and bigots and every other bad name you can conjure. How so? Because I bring you that which is offered about your globe?? I don't have to go forth into the "universe" to find invisible stories to lay on you--if these be LIES--WHOSE LIES ARE THEY?? I AM BUT AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER!! SO BE IT.
.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_12.pdf
A rehash of other's opinion and interpretations is worthless. This is precisely why I give none of my scribe's opinions and always can back up statements with facts.
Excellent opportunity to get our material forth, however, for controversy of evil with truth is excellent for Aton does not often become faint at heart!
.
http://www.phoenixsourcedistributors.com/PJ_12.pdf
Why do you send correspondence and messages to me (and you did so), unless you want a response? Further, did you expect me to sit and feed you back the lies simply because you assume "THIS RECEIVER" TO BE UNINFORMED AND PLAYING THE SAME OLD GAME OF "DUPE THE PUBLIC"?

I'm going to be honest with you here, Jag, if you believe that this collection of bizarre assertions is anything other than a clear symptom of mental illness, then you are badly mistaken. None of the above actually says anything. It is a collection of odd statements and I don't know what you thought it actually says, but it doesn't serve your case in any way whatsoever.

Skepticism of psychic phenomena is based more on a religion of materialism than on hard science. That is why you use an ad-hominem attack against both Hatonn and I.

Wrong, skepticism of 'psychic phenomena' is based on the fact that it has never survived critical analysis. You know all those claims about NDE's such as when a woman saw something on a top shelf? There's a reason why no objective report exists on that, because it didn't happen. In fact, there have been studies where items were placed on a high shelf in an operating theatre, a hotbed of claims towards OBE's and NDE's concerning people saying they had floated out of their physical body and not a single event occurred where a patient who claimed to have risen up to the ceiling in the operating theatre actually saw what these items were. Do you know why? Because their experience was derived from what their brain created for them as being the operating theatre, not what actually was the operating theatre.

STOP honoring evil

If you want to know GOD
You have a good chance of proving to yourself that God exists if you get married.
YES, You stand a good chance of proving to yourself that God exists if you get married!

Here is a guide!

http://marriagemissions.com/navigating-stages-of-marriage-marriage-message-255-2/

Pascal would suggest to you to get married so that you might become a Christian. LOVE is real, and anyone can prove that to themselves as well!

Pascal's Wager doesn't inform us as to which god we should be worshiping and, as we know, worshiping the wrong god can be catastrophic for your soul, amirite?!!! LOL. So the 'correct' response to Pascal's Wager is not to worship any of them.

BTW, I'm married, but we had a secular ceremony, does that mean I don't get to prove to myself that your god exists? What about all the people who get married through other religions, you know, the 'wrong' ones?

Philosophical explanation > scientific explanation 100% of the time.

Empiricism is merely a subset of philosophy.  Where empirical/scientific evidence contradicts itself, philosophy and/or mathematics is needed to resolve the contradiction.  Science has no built in mechanism for reconciling contradictory empirical data.   And more generally, Philosophy is entirely responsible for allowing scientific exploration in the first place.  Without philosophy, science is entirely useless (because it axiomatically wouldn't exist).

[Vod]

[cryptodevil]

Philosophical explanation > scientific explanation 100% of the time.

ORLY? Care to take a punt at Dualism?

Philosophers, like theists, assume dualism to be a fact, then they spend forty years gazing at their navels and throwing word-salad around in the company of those eager to hear anything which even suggests that there might be a basis for dualism because, you know, souls-n'-shit.

Trouble is, there never has been a good reason to believe in dualism, other than wishful thinking and even then it throws up way more problems in the long run than it solves, which is conveniently ignored or, what's worse, used as 'evidence' of the Things-Which-Cannot-Evar-Be-'Splained!!!1!1!!!1!1

The idea that there exists things for which there can *never* be an explanation, is the founding platform by which philosophers and theists/creationists love to get together and pound out their we're-in-agreement love for each other because, hey, you can't prove love exists but we *know* it does, right?RIGHT? How do you explain the beauty of a sunrise? HMM? You can't explain that! Ergo. . .dualism. Or something equally vapid and 'woo'.


:epicrolleyes:

[the joint]

Philosophical explanation > scientific explanation 100% of the time.

ORLY? Care to take a punt at Dualism?

Philosophers, like theists, assume dualism to be a fact, then they spend forty years gazing at their navels and throwing word-salad around in the company of those eager to hear anything which even suggests that there might be a basis for dualism because, you know, souls-n'-shit.

Trouble is, there never has been a good reason to believe in dualism, other than wishful thinking and even then it throws up way more problems in the long run than it solves, which is conveniently ignored or, what's worse, used as 'evidence' of the Things-Which-Cannot-Evar-Be-'Splained!!!1!1!!!1!1

The idea that there exists things for which there can *never* be an explanation, is the founding platform by which philosophers and theists/creationists love to get together and pound out their we're-in-agreement love for each other because, hey, you can't prove love exists but we *know* it does, right?RIGHT? How do you explain the beauty of a sunrise? HMM? You can't explain that! Ergo. . .dualism. Or something equally vapid and 'woo'.


:epicrolleyes:

Dubious reply.

First, with regards to dualism, we already have a logical tautology to reconcile it.  The sameness-in-difference principle states that two or more relational entities must reduce to a common medium.  From that single tautology, we prove that dualism necessarily stems from monism and only constitutes topological differences between real phenomena.

The problem with science is precisely that it assumes dualism through its assumption that the Universe is Positivistic.  This is why science works as it does, controlling for the role of the observer so that some isolated phenomena can be objectively described in relation to some other isolated phenomena.

However, Philosophy in general does not make this assumption as you otherwise suggest.  The reason that classical physics and metaphysics have not yet been synthesized is primarily due to the fact that classical physics maintains assumptions that metaphysics does not.

Second, there are different types of explanations.  Empirical explanations are one kind, philosophical explanations are another.  Just because you don't have an empirical explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't a sound logical explanation.

Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions.  The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use?  The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.

Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.

[BADecker]

Philosophical explanation > scientific explanation 100% of the time.

ORLY? Care to take a punt at Dualism?

Philosophers, like theists, assume dualism to be a fact, then they spend forty years gazing at their navels and throwing word-salad around in the company of those eager to hear anything which even suggests that there might be a basis for dualism because, you know, souls-n'-shit.

Trouble is, there never has been a good reason to believe in dualism, other than wishful thinking and even then it throws up way more problems in the long run than it solves, which is conveniently ignored or, what's worse, used as 'evidence' of the Things-Which-Cannot-Evar-Be-'Splained!!!1!1!!!1!1

The idea that there exists things for which there can *never* be an explanation, is the founding platform by which philosophers and theists/creationists love to get together and pound out their we're-in-agreement love for each other because, hey, you can't prove love exists but we *know* it does, right?RIGHT? How do you explain the beauty of a sunrise? HMM? You can't explain that! Ergo. . .dualism. Or something equally vapid and 'woo'.


:epicrolleyes:

Dubious reply.

First, with regards to dualism, we already have a logical tautology to reconcile it.  The sameness-in-difference principle states that two or more relational entities must reduce to a common medium.  From that single tautology, we prove that dualism necessarily stems from monism and only constitutes topological differences between real phenomena.

The problem with science is precisely that it assumes dualism through its assumption that the Universe is Positivistic.  This is why science works as it does, controlling for the role of the observer so that some isolated phenomena can be objectively described in relation to some other isolated phenomena.

However, Philosophy in general does not make this assumption as you otherwise suggest.  The reason that classical physics and metaphysics have not yet been synthesized is primarily due to the fact that classical physics maintains assumptions that metaphysics does not.

Second, there are different types of explanations.  Empirical explanations are one kind, philosophical explanations are another.  Just because you don't have an empirical explanation for something doesn't mean there isn't a sound logical explanation.

Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions.  The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use?  The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.

Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.

This is entirely why the scientific method doesn't work when proving for God. The universe includes everything. But, because of Who God is, the universe might not include God. Or God might be both within and without the universe. Or God might fill the universe as well as being within and without.

There is no other meaning for "the universe" than "everything." So, science can't work with God the same as it works with the universe.

[the joint]

This is entirely why the scientific method doesn't work when proving for God.

If you believe what you say, here, then you must simultaneously concede that your "proof" (i.e. the link you keep pasting over and over) is not proof at all.  Either you believe physical evidence can prove God's existence or you don't.  You can't have it both ways (and, furthermore, there is a correct answer despite your beliefs).

So, which is it?  Do you believe it is possible for physical evidence to prove God's existence, or not?

The universe includes everything. But, because of Who God is, the universe might not include God. Or God might be both within and without the universe. Or God might fill the universe as well as being within and without.

I find it easier to just stick with defined sets such as "real" and "unreal."  Using the phrase "Universe" isn't necessarily bad, but it does us little good to reference if there are instead multiple or parallel Universes that we cannot observe.

By sticking to "real" and "unreal," it doesn't make any difference how many Universes there are.  It also helps us avoid potential problems that you're alluding to, here.  If God is real, he is included within the set of Reality, and it doesn't matter whether or not he exists in this Universe.

There is no other meaning for "the universe" than "everything." So, science can't work with God the same as it works with the universe.

Again, this problem is avoided by sticking to the sets 'Real' and 'Unreal.'

[bl4kjaguar]

It has been two months since this post:

God is love. In my opinion, The love energy "purple plate" is physical evidence of God.

Science has proven that by projecting love or positive energy to a plant, the plant will flourish. The plate energy will also do the same thing to plants. Burns, cuts, aches and pains involve a sudden change to the normal vibration rate of tissue. The theory is that the energy around the plates helps to accelerate the healing and thus return the injured area to its normal rate of vibration.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy09.htm

Precisely how the plates work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you. There are so many mini-miracles the plates accomplish (some of which you’ll discover for yourself) it’s difficult to detail all of them.

The effect that I notice most is that healing is noticeably accelerated.

This healing device is effective and since the forum's God thread also needs healing, I recommend researching and purchasing plates for yourself and your family. You can find the plates on Amazon.

[Vod]

[username18333]

Precisely how the pla[cebo]s work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you.

One of the most puzzling facts of medicine is the placebo effect: namely, that a substantial proportion of patients report feeling better after receiving a "sugar pill," or some other treatment with no known benefit for their illness. Between 30 - 60% of patients with illnesses ranging from arthritis to depression report a substantial improvement in their symptoms after receiving a placebo. It is not clear that placebo can "cure" any illness, but the power of the placebo effect in improving symptoms and reducing suffering is impressive.

[bl4kjaguar]

Precisely how the pla[cebo]s work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you.

One of the most puzzling facts of medicine is the placebo effect: namely, that a substantial proportion of patients report feeling better after receiving a "sugar pill," or some other treatment with no known benefit for their illness. Between 30 - 60% of patients with illnesses ranging from arthritis to depression report a substantial improvement in their symptoms after receiving a placebo. It is not clear that placebo can "cure" any illness, but the power of the placebo effect in improving symptoms and reducing suffering is impressive.

You use armchair skepticism, but you never bothered to experiment with the plate...

There is no way to use "placebo" as an explanation with plants.

Furthermore, one's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible; kindly reference again Nagel's arguments and the latest research in mind science:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/thomas-nagel-and-the-anathema-of-questioning-materialism
http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/

[SparkedDev]

You mean other then the world being 2015 years old?

That statement always blows my mind there is no proof that he does our don't.

[the joint]

There is no way to use "placebo" as an explanation with plants.

One could, subconsciously, be providing better care to them.

Furthermore, one's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible

:  a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also :  extreme egocentrism

In other words, such a network is unable to distinguish between a veridical perception and an hallucination. Doing so would require the existence of another, independent network, whose task it is to learn to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network’s hidden units. That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

Logic is axiomatically a predicate for logical networks (any network or system is self-apparently logical by virtue of its structure and consistency).

Logical self-reference provides the 'independent network' capable of "learn[ing] to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network's hidden units."

[bl4kjaguar]

There is no way to use "placebo" as an explanation with plants.

One could, subconsciously, be providing better care to them.

Ah, but one could easily design an experiment to eliminate this bias. The truly skeptical should do just that!

Furthermore, one's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible

:  a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also :  extreme egocentrism

In other words, such a network is unable to distinguish between a veridical perception and an hallucination. Doing so would require the existence of another, independent network, whose task it is to learn to associate specific input patterns with specific patterns of activity of the first network’s hidden units. That system would then be able to identify cases where the latter exists in the absence of the former, and hence, to learn to distinguish between cases of veridical perception and cases of hallucination. Such internal monitoring is viewed here as constitutive of conscious experience: A mental state is a conscious mental state when the system that possesses this mental state is (at least non-conceptually) sensitive to its existence. Thus, and unlike what is assumed to be case in HOT Theory, meta-representations can be both subpersonal and non-conceptual.

This fits with what I and Hatonn and Chopra have been saying about finding god within you and about metabiological evolution; a shift in the consciousness of consciousness.

For your reference, Deepak Chopra's The Way of the Wizard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyMfuTzSDLw

[QuestionAuthority]

It has been two months since this post:

God is love. In my opinion, The love energy "purple plate" is physical evidence of God.

Science has proven that by projecting love or positive energy to a plant, the plant will flourish. The plate energy will also do the same thing to plants. Burns, cuts, aches and pains involve a sudden change to the normal vibration rate of tissue. The theory is that the energy around the plates helps to accelerate the healing and thus return the injured area to its normal rate of vibration.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_universalenergy09.htm

Precisely how the plates work should not be of as much concern to you as what they can do for you. There are so many mini-miracles the plates accomplish (some of which you’ll discover for yourself) it’s difficult to detail all of them.

The effect that I notice most is that healing is noticeably accelerated.

This healing device is effective and since the forum's God thread also needs healing, I recommend researching and purchasing plates for yourself and your family. You can find the plates on Amazon.

I have a couple of those collectable Disney plates, would those work? I have a few genital warts that just won't go away. All those piercings and tattoos should have warned me the bitch was nasty. Do I rub the plates all over my crotch? Exactly how does that work?

[bl4kjaguar]

Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions.  The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use?  The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.

Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.

One product of the Positivistic Universe is the Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) in which the mind was reduced to being the byproduct of a highly sophisticated, biological computer—the brain.

Irreducible Mind skillfully argues that CTM is empirically false and provides detailed documentation of what CTM cannot explain. For example, CTM never addresses how consciousness could arise from the brain, and anomalous experiences suggest otherwise. CTM can’t even account for some of our everyday experiences, such as volition, or free will. CTM is a theory that reflects its origins rather than the richness of human experience.

http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/

[bl4kjaguar]

Hi QuestionAuthority:
You use armchair skepticism, but you never bothered to experiment with the plate... The point is this:

One's own experience cannot be reduced to neural signals; consciousness is irreducible; kindly reference again Nagel's arguments and the latest research in mind science:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2013/03/thomas-nagel-and-the-anathema-of-questioning-materialism
http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/

Also, on that second link you will find mention of the word hypnosis. I have made a post about that subject here. Please keep in mind that Knowledge that is not your own is dangerous, more dangerous than ignorance.

[the joint]

Finally, to demonstrate just how necessary philosophy is, keep in mind that science is wholly incapable of exploring, verifying, or concluding upon its own assumptions.  The assumption of a Positivistic Universe is fundamentally required for scientific exploration, and yet 1) there is not a shred of evidence that such a Universe exists, and 2) the assumption itself is empirically unfalsifiable.

But if the assumption is empirically unfalsifiable (i.e. It's unscientific), why does science permit its use?  The answer is simple: science yields to Philosophy to justify the Positivistic Universe assumption by deferring to the rules and limitations of sound inference via inductive reasoning.

Again, philosophical explanations > empirical explanations 100% of the time.

One product of the Positivistic Universe is the Computational Theory of the Mind (CTM) in which the mind was reduced to being the byproduct of a highly sophisticated, biological computer—the brain.

Irreducible Mind skillfully argues that CTM is empirically false and provides detailed documentation of what CTM cannot explain. For example, CTM never addresses how consciousness could arise from the brain, and anomalous experiences suggest otherwise. CTM can’t even account for some of our everyday experiences, such as volition, or free will. CTM is a theory that reflects its origins rather than the richness of human experience.

http://www.noetic.org/library/book-reviews/irreducible-mind/

Yes.  The problem with CTM is that it ignores the effect of perception on the brain as it is defined.  That is, it ignores that the theory itself emerges from the product of the thing it tries to explain in the first place.