If you would cut off Yuja Wang's hands she could no longer play the piano, this proves that the ability to play the piano is locally generated inside the hands.
>>1404453
Can't be empirically disproved but can be proven as she can indeed not play piano if she doesn't have hands. Good science there buddy!
t. peer, you are now a peer-reviewed scientist
If Ingmar Bergman would've lived in a world with no cameras he wouldn't have made a single film. This proves that films have material underpinnings inside video cameras.
>>1404453
while you can demonstrate the brain is active in the process of playing a piano, you cannot demonstrate that any outside force is active in controlling the brains decision making processes.
So despite your example being a fallacy of composition, the one on how the brain works is not
>>1404453
Right Click
Hide Thread
>>1404566
What constitutes satisfactory demonstration is entirely up to the party demanding it. I guess I could call to attention the fact that most creative types - as well as race car drivers, mountain climbers, athletes, firemen - regularly speak of a "presence" when doing their thing. I guess I could mention the fact that culture seems to operate non-locally for all intents and purposes. Ideas, memes, archetypes, they seem to replicate and mutate outside of human agency. Science still refuses to acknowledge basic things like the non-corporeal nature of information or the sheer psychedelic nature of Symbol.
What do you want me to say? If all you have is a square hole...
>>1404453
But she would learn to play piano with her feet, checkmate
>>1404656
This further supports the theory, extremoplasticity - the plasticity of human extremities - is to be expected. Millions of years of evolution have granted the feet the ability to fill in for the hands.
What expectations I had formed, and how grievously was I disappointed! As I proceeded, I found my philosopher altogether forsaking mind or any other principle of order, but having recourse to air, and ether, and water, and other eccentricities. I might compare him to a person who began by maintaining generally that mind is the cause of the actions of Socrates, but who, when he endeavoured to explain the causes of my several actions in detail, went on to show that I sit here because my body is made up of bones and muscles; and the bones, as he would say, are hard and have joints which divide them, and the muscles are elastic, and they cover the bones, which have also a covering or environment of flesh and skin which contains them; and as the bones are lifted at their joints by the contraction or relaxation of the muscles, I am able to bend my limbs, and this is why I am sitting here in a curved posture—that is what he would say, and he would have a similar explanation of my talking to you, which he would attribute to sound, and air, and hearing, and he would assign ten thousand other causes of the same sort, forgetting to mention the true cause, which is, that the Athenians have thought fit to condemn me, and accordingly I have thought it better and more right to remain here and undergo my sentence; for I am inclined to think that these muscles and bones of mine would have gone off long ago to Megara or Boeotia—by the dog they would, if they had been moved only by their own idea of what was best, and if I had not chosen the better and nobler part, instead of playing truant and running away, of enduring any punishment which the state inflicts.
>>1404744
There is surely a strange confusion of causes and conditions in all this. It may be said, indeed, that without bones and muscles and the other parts of the body I cannot execute my purposes. But to say that I do as I do because of them, and that this is the way in which mind acts, and not from the choice of the best, is a very careless and idle mode of speaking. I wonder that they cannot distinguish the cause from the condition, which the many, feeling about in the dark, are always mistaking and misnaming. And thus one man makes a vortex all round and steadies the earth by the heaven; another gives the air as a support to the earth, which is a sort of broad trough. Any power which in arranging them as they are arranges them for the best never enters into their minds; and instead of finding any superior strength in it, they rather expect to discover another Atlas of the world who is stronger and more everlasting and more containing than the good;—of the obligatory and containing power of the good they think nothing; and yet this is the principle which I would fain learn if any one would teach me. But as I have failed either to discover myself, or to learn of any one else, the nature of the best, I will exhibit to you, if you like, what I have found to be the second best mode of enquiring into the cause.
>>1404640
>What constitutes satisfactory demonstration is entirely up to the party demanding it
That is true, but its not the science refuses to acknowledged your "proofs" its that they do not count as "proofs" in a scientific framework, which requires measurable and repeatable results that can be tested over and over again.
Until we have that there is no reason to regard such things as scientific facts
>>1404757
Well yeah that's what I said.
>If all you have is a square hole...
Which is awkward since:
1. I don't reject the scientific method.
2. There are plenty of mundane instances where it is not applicable.
Can you repeatedly measure my or anyone else's hypothetical perception of the suggested skull in this image?
>>1404809
Its not universally applicable, but say perception, we might but be able to measure your perception per say, but we could measure your brains electrical activity and compare it to others.
If your going to suggest that there is an unseen, unmeasurable force acting on the brain, you ought to be ready when people question this based on the lack of independent evidence. for this type of thing personal perception simply is not reliable given how prone people are to suggestion and hallucination
>>1404453
Do computers have souls, OP?
Don Quijote is merely a pile of pieces of paper with ink on them.
There's no difference between Don Quijote and the Encyclopaedia Britannica, except for page length. Hence no essential difference. Hence they are the same thing.
Every book is essentially the same book and all difference is an unfalsifiable arbitrary and metaphysical position.
All you're doing is proving you don't know what materialism is.
