Amos, I like your answers because they are thoughtful. But I must respectfully disagree with some of the premises.

". Butif you can't conceive of a test which COULD falsify the proposition, then you have an unfalsifiable assertion and no way to test it. My use of "intentional falsification" was a bad choice of words. The intent is to test, and in order to test, the proposition must be capable of failing (or passing) the test."

this is true. In short, you can't prove a negative. (Logical fallacy)

As regards EInstein, etc., having creative responses in solving problems, I have no disagreement. But they were not testing consciousness. They were testing mass, energy, inertia, and such. I don't know for certain what tests Einstein did actually."

They are finding in evolutionary psychology and neuroscience that "consciousness"
can be measured by "mass,energy, inertia and such" as applied to the brain.


"My point was a different one: creating test scenarios for consciousness itself must take into account that it is not the constant, mindless cooperative stuff that moleculart compounds are."

In quantum mechanics they are finding that the laws of the universe are not constant,
cooperative and the molecular compounds on the quantum level are unpredictable
and fly in the face of assumptions of Relativity.


" It is quite a challenge, therefore, to meet a standard of replicabililty in applying science to consciousness. It does not matter what the tritium in a table-top fusion experiment thinks, if there is any. IF you are testing a subject for remote viewing, itmatters a great deal."

Science is not just limited to testing "tritium in a table-top fusion". It is today about testing the assumptions of the human brain and how it operates. It's a lot closer
to measuring "human experience and consciousness" than is usually supposed.



"The quantum phenomena youo refer to seem to reflect (as far as I have read) the consciousness of the experimenter as an unwitting influence int he experiment. If this is a problem in particle behaviour, it seems to me it would be a much greater one in studying consciousness."

Here, I agree. But that "consciousness" in the experimenter can be tested and that is the exact role of science. That "consciousness" may be accurate or inaccurate but without the
tools of science, this can't be determined. I maintain that with the tools of science these assumptions can be tested as to what "consciousness" is.

"I do not by any means think that consciousness cannot be addressed by science, but the science involved would require an understanding of the difference between insensate object study and dealing with living thought itself, THis is not beyond the broad intellectual principles of good science, but it is hopelessly out of reach of the crude material protocols most scientists are used to."

I think this is less and less true as we learn more about the brain. Living thought, we find, can be manipulated by scientific tools. Today, a study of oxytocsin or dopamine can explain certain feelings of love in human beings. The ethical consideration here is that this can be manipulated by stimulating brain centers or using drugs.

"As to the brain being the origin of thought, I think this is about as likely (as I have said before) as discovering that cellphones have infinite numbers of stories hidden inside them somewhere, as an explanation as to why every time you talk on one, a new and different conversation comes out. It makes a lot of sense, because otherwise you would have to postulate some remote unseen entity connected to the phone by some invisible means, sending an invisible flow of information to it, which is really silly. The answer must be in the wires, capacitors and PCBs of the phone."

I think that the analogy breaks down because it dismisses the human interaction with the machine. There are reasons why certain conversations take place regardless of the transmitting machine. No scientist would accept that the answer is in the wires, capictors and PCB's. Here we enter the realm of sociobiology, neurobiology, evolutionary psychology and related sciences.

Good conversation. Enjoy talking with you.

Frank