Anyone fancy a debate?

[simonm]

There exist a cow in my barn

Well, this is more than an existential statement. In that it goes further than merely asserting the existance of a cow. It asserts that one can be found within the confines of the barn. This is a testable prediction because it is equivilent to saying: "if you go inside the barn, you will observe a cow."

Refuting the above statement does not refute the existence of the cow in question, it refutes the prediction that the cow can be found at the specified location.

Can you not see the distinction between these statements? Asserting the mere existance of a cow does not make any predictions. Asserting that a cow can be found at particular space/time coordinates is a prediction and can is therefore falsifiable.

[simonm]

Kedaman

Ok, I realize your problem now. Assume that you are omniscient, meaning superconscious(nothing is beyond your comprehension), then you can observe that cows do not actually exist anywhere at all.

Ok, there is no such thing as an irrefutable statement for a "superconsious" being. Since we are most definitely not superconsious, purely existential statements are irrefutable.

Now lets extend the example, if the barn was surrounded with angry dogs, and no man in no way could go into the barn without being killed by the dogs. Does that have something in common with "purely" existential statements?

Perhaps, although one might later find a means of gaining entrance to the barn even if one does not currently have the know-how at present.

It's like Super-String theory. This theory can be used to make predictions that are untestable only because we do not have the technology to put such experiments into practice. Conceivably (and probably one day) they will be testable.

And before you ask, no I do not beleive we might one day develop the technology to become "super-consious". Because, no matter how consious we become, we will never know if there aren't more things outside of our perception.

[kedaman]

And before you ask, no I do not beleive we might one day develop the technology to become "super-consious".

Simon, It doesn't matter what you think, there's plenty of scientist who discover things nobody believed in, how can you refute the possibility that they discover super-consciousness is possible and quite simple to achieve.

And those dogs are going to kill you no matter what you do, as much as 1+1=2.

I'm bad with examples, you're always finding ways around them, so I will stop with them now:
It is clear that refutability depends on the methods to refute available, correct?

[simonm]

Simon, It doesn't matter what you think, there's plenty of scientist who discover things nobody believed in, how can you refute the possibility that they discover super-consciousness is possible and quite simple to achieve.

I refute it because it's logical implications are self-contradictory.

I ask you this: How can any given "super-consiousness" theory be demonstrated to work? How do we know that after 20 thousand light years away, it ceases to work? How do we know that it works for all mediums? Even if it does work in all mediums that we know of, by definition, we won't know about the mediums we don't know about.

I don't think it's a matter of what I believe. Such a theory is not logically verifiable.

It is clear that refutability depends on the methods to refute available, correct?

Yes, that is correct.

However, do not be under the impression that I am equating refutability with verisimilitude (truth probability). Just because one statement is more refutable than another does not make it more likely to be true. I am saying that it is more worthy of scientific enquiry.

Since existential statements are not refutable (excluding the possibility of a super-consious mind), they are therfore non-scientific and cannot be dis-proven (they may be rendered logically improbable) by any conceivable observation.

[kedaman]

Simon

I refute it because it's logical implications are self-contradictory.

You misunderstand the logic, contradiction means a statement and a the negation of it. I see no sign of such in my statement.

I ask you this: How can any given "super-consiousness" theory be demonstrated to work?

by discovering that reality is essentially an illusion and that information is just that, information. This can be done easily: deny reality.

I don't think it's a matter of what I believe. Such a theory is not logically verifiable.

It's not a theory, its a proved theorem.

[simonm]

You misunderstand the logic, contradiction means a statement and a the negation of it. I see no sign of such in my statement.

OK, I didn't think I had to elaborate so here goes:

Say someone came up with a "super consiousness" helmet that gave it's effects to the wearer when they put it on. So, you sit down, put the helmet on and your brain suddenly get's flooded with knowledge.

How do you know that you know all? Since, by definition, your helmet enables you to know all, you must also know what you do not know. This is a contradiction. You can only know what you know. Obviously, you might choose to assume that there is nothing that you do not know, but you're only guessing.

by discovering that reality is essentially an illusion and that information is just that, information. This can be done easily: deny reality.

How can you discover that reality is an illusion? By believing something else your "illusion" shows you? Even if everything you perceive is an illusion, you still don't know if there is anything outside of your "universe". You may be just one of many isolated bubbles.

Denying reality prooves nothing.

It's not a theory, its a proved theorem.

What's a proven theorem? Super Consiousness? I doubt it. As I have shown, such a theory could not be proovable.

[kedaman]

How do you know that you know all? Since, by definition, your helmet enables you to know all, you must also know what you do not know. This is a contradiction.

Nope, you'd have to say:

You cannot know that you know all and the helmet enables you to know all

To successfully contradict yourself.
Logic is not related to reality, unlike what you suggest. Logic can only be applied on reality.

Now denying reality, you have logic and only logic, no state. And knowing your logic, you know everything that there is to know.

I can imagine that dying is the process of becoming superconscious, you stop relating to reality and thus only logic remains.

[simonm]

Kedaman

To successfully contradict yourself.
Logic is not related to reality, unlike what you suggest. Logic can only be applied on reality.

I am not saying that the notion of an "all-knowing" machine is self-contradictory because the nature of reality dictates it. I am saying that it is self-contradictory in terms of pure logic. Or, more precisely, any attempt to verify it's validity would lead to a contradiction.

Only someone else, outside of everything (which is a contradiction in itself) could verify that your machine entails you with "all-knowledge".

I can imagine that dying is the process of becoming superconscious, you stop relating to reality and thus only logic remains.

You might be right. You could never verify that fact though.

It is my opinion that logic's only purpose is for helping us relate to reality. Without that, it's just a pointless game.

[kedaman]

Simon
In my opinion reality is a pointless game, thats why people die.

I am saying that it is self-contradictory in terms of pure logic. Or, more precisely, any attempt to verify it's validity would lead to a contradiction.

verification and validity has nothing to do with logic. By refuting reality you have nothing left to verify or validate

You might be right. You could never verify that fact though.

How so, do you think you are immortal?