[Hank Kerchief]

I have some doubt that either you or HK has read these pieces. Of course, I would be delighted to be proved in error on this score.

Well I read the entire post (for which I deserve a medal), and some of the links (which I got through by pretending they were a newly discovered works of Mark Twain).

I confess, I did not read everything. (Because I have every intention of maintaining my sanity.)

When someone writes, "3 plus 4 actually equals 17," then provides a long treatise to prove it, I do not need to read his treatise to know he's wrong. Science is the study of that material existence we are conscious of. Consciousness is not material existence. It is not an emergent quality of matter. These folks do not know which direction they are coming from. Is consciousness something other than material existence? If it is, how does one discover what it is my creating an artificial "material" form of it, such as AI. From the beginning, the very nature of life is misunderstood by these guys. Why do I need to read any more.

There are certainly problems with science, and one of the main problems is the shift from the study of the nature of material existence, to the new versions which attempt to include or incorporate concepts totally unrelated to material existence. What people like Kafatos, Drãgãnescu, and Grandpierre are doing is not a solution to the problem, but an exacerbation of it by the introduction of mysticism in a field that can make no progress except when it is totally objective.

As for no points in my, "rebuttal," my description of the nature of life alone is more cogent than anything in your post. If you think there is something wrong with my argument about the nature of life, please address that. It is short, and succinct. A method never used by those practicing junk science.

Hank

[unspun]

sci·ence    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (s ns)
n.

1. 1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
   2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
   3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

HK: You presume definition 1.b.  That's not anyone else's fault.   Reductionism may be a skill, but it won't help you find all that you need to deal with, though not comprehending.

BTW, don't you believe in leaving people alone but for personal gain?  Why are you continuing to post here?  What's in it for you?<

[betty boop]

...new versions which attempt to include or incorporate concepts totally unrelated to material existence. What people like Kafatos, Drãgãnescu, and Grandpierre are doing is not a solution to the problem, but an exacerbation of it by the introduction of mysticism in a field that can make no progress except when it is totally objective.

Hank, just in case you're not onto this aspect of the problem (yet): The Test of Truth cannot be demonstrated in terms of the purely "material." That is the entire point of what Kafatos, Drãgãnescu, and Grandpierre are doing here.

Hello!!!!

Stop pretending that this isn't the case; for I suspect you are a hail of a lot smarter than that. So why you keep up this little charade of yours is completely beyond my comprehension. (But then, maybe I'm not as "smart" as you are. That is always a possibility.)

FWIW, Kafatos, Drãgãnescu, and Grandpierre are not in the least engaging in "mysticism" here. They are simply looking at the world of existential reality -- in which we all live, including you and me -- and trying to make the best possible description of it that they can.

And, IMHO, they get very, very far in terms of "objective," native observation, and first-rate ratiocination.

Do you have a beef with the employment of totally rational principles such as they are relying on in these three extraordinary papers?