Expanding on Science and Skepticism a bit. (oct 16)

Please refer to http://cdn.libsyn.com/skepticsguide/skepticast2006-12-13.mp3

This is a 'podcast' I listen to, actually the only one I listen to so far, and it generally is really entertaining and has speakers and stories carried by some hardcore research. This particular one includes some thoughts on Ahmadinejad, along with fun philosophy and science type questions.


In addition to the discussion of Ahmadinejad, they have speaker Allen Wallace. . if you do listen to either the podcast or speech, which I think you should, be aware that Allen Wallace is a kind of comic relief as this show goes..

He brings the lack of tangibility of thoughts as why we cannot measure the phenomena itself... he seems to pose questions asking whether you can think something without correlating brain activity.

The interviewer asks are brain functions necessary for subjective experience to exist. Wallace says that there are people (in computers) he believes who say you don't need a brain.
the interviewer says that his statement is a non-sequitur..

Any level of consciousness can be attributed to some part of the brain. I don't think Wallace agrees with this, and this means he is in denial of reality. I cite this with his analysis of computers rather than human anatomy.

What may be happening here is like with Ahmadinejad. I think Wallace's definition of science, especially consciousness is different than mine (and probably other ethical at least halfway educated or skeptical people)

Wallace asks that the interviewer prove impossible this non-science. He asks the interviewer "can you envision a scientific experiment, a rigorous mainstream scientific experiment, that actually could in principle refutiate the hypothesis that all possible states of consciousness must have a physical basis for their generation... can you design me an experiment"
Interviewer responds "the short answer is no," "you're asking can you prove that is impossible, and science does not operate that way."

I am not an expert on the workings of the human brain, even anatomically speaking I have more to study (past the names of key structures and some brief descriptions of function).

These types of discussion are a larger issue. It is the ability to bastardize science when considering the realms of politics or religion, especially when using information based in pseudo science, that I find so disturbing. To reiterate my previous point. Like church and state are best separate, I think science, church, and state should be separate.