You have been beating on this idea of something beyond physicality (see below) for a long time. You need to get down to brass tacks and put in writing what you have been circumlocuting. Do you have the original paper presented at CSG? Could we see your most formal expression of this?
You are simply conflating the issue of what constitutes doing science with the viability of PCT as a suitable explanation for human behavior. In my previous note, I was talking strictly about doing an experiment, using the list from Intelligent (or so they describe it) Design. BTW, it was YOU who suggested that a father of an abused person might start or be part of a lynch mob to kill that person without a trial (I no longer
have the quote, but it was odious in view of the fact that we have the
proper judicial institutions.)
Listen, you put words down, and all I have are those words to interpret.
My contribution is that you are talking rubbish when you consider
testing for something that by definition is not testable. My
contribution is that such speculations are worthless to the furthering
of knowledge unless you can construct an experiment that can yield
unbiased data. Please don't go all fatherly and authoritarian on me in
this forum, unless you are willing to appear anti-scientific, paternalistic/authoritarian and medieval. Now....
Spirit (human spirit, whatever) is a just weasel word, and perhaps you should think of not using it at all. My opinion, but mixing metaphysical with physical does not help making your point.
Let me see:
Human spirit: Not supernatural, but "relates to various non-body and
non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics or capabilities that are
clearly definable and measurable in humans. They are distinct from any
'animal spirit.'" as you put it. How are they clearly definable? In what way? With what descriptors? What is the test for this? Secondary equally interpretable data? Seems like an assumption for which you will be willing to look for any data at all that will satisfy your claim. But that is not doing science.
Physicality or Non-psysicality: "Non-body and non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics...." What the heck is all that? Such mumbo jumbo I would never allow in an experimental design proposal. By definition, if it's non-body that means non-physical, and drops out of the realm of testable phenonmena. So, if it is not in the body, which is all we have to test, then it must by definition be OUTSIDE THE BODY. Check out: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_problem> Seems to me that once we get past the physical body, we are out of the realm of doing science.
Different Human and Dog spirits? Hmm... Get off...! Given our common existence with the rest of life, there is nothing different between humans and the rest of the universe. Nothing in the data. If you want to talk about "human spirit," well, what is it then? What-IS-it? Back to the above. Circuluar argument. That is not doing science.
"Humans have bodies different from dogs. Humans have brains/minds different from dogs. And, [BT: is there a missing 'therefore' here?] I contend that humans have innate 'spirits' with desires or reference signals different from dogs. You might relate to them more as human instincts. But they are real and testable. And, they have something to do with human behavior." ??? You said that there is an essense of being human, as I try to understand, that is not shared by any other living organism. Yet, this essense is somehow extra-corporeal, yet within or alongside of the body. What do you mean by desires? How can reference signals (in their electro-chemical nature) differ, given the same physical biochem processes? Rubbish. What kind of pre-scientific pauline-cristo-aristotelian philosophic /stuff/ is this? What do you mean by real? What do you mean by testable? What indeed does this extra-corporeal thing you say exists have to do with human behavior, if it is not of the same stuff?
Just tell me plainly, what IS human spirit? Give me a concrete definition that will amount to a testable assertion, and that will submit to empirical testing. Then design an experiment that will distinguish between human life and the rest of creation. Go ahead. Put it in writing. I would wager that most if not all scientific circles would ridicule such a proposal in any laboratory except in the Discovery Institute, and well....!
I would offer that if you cannot truly meet this simple request to clarify your vague claims, then this is no different than any non-scientific expression such as the Bermuda Triangle, UFOs, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Intelligent Design, or any other pseudoscience.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience> I wonder, Kenny, if you read any of these links I post. While I do not prefer wiki necessarily, it is a quick way to get to some commonly accepted summary knowledge. Sorry to speculate on your lack of enthusiasm for testing what you know, but it seems as if you don't review the articles or that you may open a page, grimace, and close it quickly, rejecting it out of hand. That is too bad, if that is so. So, therefore, have you made your mind up already about what you conclude about science or what you believe about it? If so, that does exclude you from the scientific community pretty much.
That is my contribution, really. ;-/
[Kenny Kitzke (2005.12.05EST)]
<Bryan Thalhammer (2005.12.04.2245 CST)>
<Spirit is not anything that can be tested for, and from a scientific
perspective, suggesting a spiritual component of HPTC is laughable. Here
is a reference I can give you to understand the objection. It is from an
article about Intelligent Design, a similarly ridiculous claim:
"Portraying Intelligent Design as science," In article about 1/4 down:
You would make a greater contribution here by commenting on what I present
and mean, not on what you understand words that I use mean to you.
I have repeated many times in CSG that I use the tern "human spirit" not
"spirit." I am quite aware that religious men often use the term
something supernatural. They might say they have an eternal spirit in
lives on after their soul dies. I do not believe in that one iota.
My use of the term "human spirit" is eminently scientific and observable in
humans. It is just as easy to test and compare as a "human body." I
you do not object to discussing your liver and how it affects your behavior?
My term "human spirit" relates to various non-body and
non-conscious/cognitive/mind characteristics or capabilities that are
clearly definable and
measurable in humans. They are distinct from any "animal spirit." Do
animals have instincts, Bry? Have you ever wondered why and how the
my window knows it needs to build a nest in which to lay her eggs? Or, how
she knows how to build a nest? Do you have a PCT scientific explanation for
this observable animal nature? Would you tell me how her reference
these things got there? Would you test for it? I would like to hear it
your own words, not from some reference article or wiki you like.
Humans have bodies different from dogs. Humans have brains/minds different
from dogs. And, I contend that humans have innate "spirits" with desires or
reference signals different from dogs. You might relate to them more as
instincts. But they are real and testable. And, they have something to do
with human behavior. And, I don't think HPCT has yet reached any level of
demonstration for the reorganization system in humans that would meet
below for a scientific theory. Do you? If so, go down the list and
evidence. I am all ears.
<"For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
* Consistent (internally and externally)
* Parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations, see
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena)
* Empirically testable & falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based upon multiple observations, often in the form of controlled,
* Correctable & dynamic (changes are made as new data are discovered)
* Progressive (achieves all that previous theories have and more)
* Provisional or tentative (admits that it might not be correct rather
than asserting certainty)">
Now, if HPCT does not qualify as a scientific theory under your
we can discuss it here, I am not sure why I should not be able to discuss my
"human spirit" ideas here also as I think they might affect human behavior.
<Each of these qualifications is very important to how to determine
whether a 12th level, a "human spirit" that set references for
"intrinsic neural references.">
This shows your lack of understanding of what I am even implying. The
Twelfth Level I proposed is "self" and is not connected with the "human
"human spirit" characteristic or ability is much more akin to the
"reorganization system" of Bill Powers. I think Bill understands that
even if you don't.
And, my comments were made to Dick Robertson in a context, not to you
<Design an experiment where you can test for reference levels set by
"spirit." If you cannot suggest a test for this speculation, it has no
place on a scientific forum like this, just as suggesting that a murder
suspect be tried by a lynch mob (not in our courts), your most recent
When you put words in my mouth, and then ridicule them, it reflects more on
you than it does on me. And, why not make a contribution here yourself?
exactly what experiments have you done to determine where the reference
signals for Level 11 come from? No one else has done any either. It is all
speculation, not science at all.
<My commentary on this is that there is no empirical evidence for spirit,
and therefore no way to test for references being set from outside the
living control system, not to mention by a means outside of physical means.>
If you understood anything I have said above, you would recognize that I
not made any claims about references being set from the outside of anyone,
naturally or supernaturally.