Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Sriram on July 15, 2023, 06:10:26 AM
-
Hi everyone,
I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.
Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in. After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity. Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism. They become open to many possibilities.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Is it the 1st April today?
Thanks for the laugh anyway.
-
Hi everyone,
I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.
Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in. After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity. Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism. They become open to many possibilities.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Belief isn't a choice. The idea that people 'choose' to become atheists at age 12 or whatever does not map to reality.
What happens is that some people find religious claims to be unconvincing. Atheism is not a choice, nor a belief, just a state of being unconvinced by theism.
-
Hi everyone,
I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.
Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in. After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity. Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism. They become open to many possibilities.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
Not this nonsense again. Grow up!
-
Most religious believers also make their personal commitment during adolescence. It's when the basic outline of most people's beliefs (if they have any worth the name) becomes fixed, though it may be modified later.
-
I think most of us already know your thoughts on this, Sriram. You have repeated them enough times. Or, could it be that this is just another pathetic attempt to advertise your blog meanderings? ;) ;D
-
I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.
On the other hand, in some societies, theism could be seen as the result of childhood indoctrination which becomes progressively reinforced throughout adolescence and into 'maturity'. The same could be said of political persuasion, consumerism and celebrity status. Sceptical reactions may be early stages of freeing oneself from what could be seen as addictions.
-
Ahem....Just thought I'll remind you guys that it is time you got out of your habitual skepticism....and opened your minds up.
Skepticism is important at a certain stage in life....but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing you know.
-
Ahem....Just thought I'll remind you guys that it is time you got out of your habitual skepticism....and opened your minds up.
Skepticism is important at a certain stage in life....but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing you know.
On the contrary, critical thinking is a skill to continue to nurture.
-
Ahem....Just thought I'll remind you guys that it is time you got out of your habitual skepticism...
Being sceptical is entirely rational.
...and opened your minds up.
(https://media.tenor.com/X0Gp-pqN2N4AAAAC/irony.gif)
-
Skepticism is important at a certain stage in life.
Important at all stages of your life.
Otherwise I'd end up believing The Sun.
-
Sriram,
After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.
How and why would you propose that someone "grow out of" wrong arguments for woo of the type that populate your blog?
-
On the contrary, critical thinking is a skill to continue to nurture.
Critical thinking is fine....but habitual skepticism can be narrow and dysfunctional. It can prevent broader understanding.
It is just that...a habit... that some people cultivate because their culture and environment encourage it.
-
Critical thinking is fine....but habitual skepticism can be narrow and dysfunctional. It can prevent broader understanding.
Utter nonsense. Critical thinking and scepticism are the basis of rationality. The only reason you want to criticise them is because you clearly want to hold on to your own deeply irrational superstitions.
It is just that...a habit... that some people cultivate because their culture and environment encourage it.
Quite apart from anything else, it is the basis of science and engineering. Would you rather fly in a plane that was designed by somebody who was deeply sceptical about any proposed solutions and tried to find fault with them, or one designed by a starry-eyed optimist?
-
Quite apart from anything else, it is the basis of science and engineering. Would you rather fly in a plane that was designed by somebody who was deeply sceptical about any proposed solutions and tried to find fault with them, or one designed by a starry-eyed optimist?
There's probably a place for both. A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world. Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.
-
There's probably a place for both. A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world. Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.
Kind of misses the point. Yes, we need people to come up with new ideas and to have a certain amount of optimism about them, but the only way we get to have confidence in those new ideas is after somebody has done their very best to find fault with them.
You neither make make progress in science nor have reliable technology without large helpings of scepticism.
It's the pioneers who don't try to find fault with their ideas (or, better yet, get somebody else to) before trusting their lives to them who tend to end up dead.
-
There's probably a place for both. A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world. Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.
I get your drift, Ekim, but scepticism and fearfulness are two entirely different things. I see no particular reason to link them together. Also, I'd suggest that it is just as possible that those who are 'starry eyed optimists' can also be set in their ways.
-
Sriram,
Critical thinking is fine....but habitual skepticism can be narrow and dysfunctional. It can prevent broader understanding.
If you abandon critical thinking how do you know that you've "understood" something rather than been taken in by mindless woo - the notion that NDEs tell us something about actual death for example?
-
I get your drift, Ekim, but scepticism and fearfulness are two entirely different things. I see no particular reason to link them together. Also, I'd suggest that it is just as possible that those who are 'starry eyed optimists' can also be set in their ways.
Yes, they are different. Scepticism could be seen as an intellectual tool used in the scientific method but I would suggest that there is an emotional driving force (desire) behind the use of that tool. The optimist may be driven, for instance, by the desire for success in his pioneering project and risk his reputation or life in following that drive. The pessimist may be driven by fear of failure and use his scepticim to support his desire to abandon his project or may be driven by an egotistical superiority complex to support his sceptical pessimism. William Thomson, (Lord Kelvin) eminent physicist, whilst president of the Royal Society said - "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -"X-rays will prove to be a hoax" - "Radio has no future". on Marconi's experiments. - "I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".- writing to Niagara Falls Power Company. Both optimists and pessimists can be set in their ways. I would suggest that it is the driving forces behind those set ways that need exploring.
-
There's probably a place for both. A starry-eyed optimist might be a description of the pioneers of the world. Some may die as a result of their enthusiasm and some may succeed and try to pass their findings on to those more sceptical and perhaps more fearful and set in their ways.
There's no reason to assume sceptics are set in their ways. Quite the reverse, in fact. Sceptics go where the evidence leads. People like Sriram spend their time examining unevidenced woo and there fore waste it on nonsense. Sriram can't see the real world beyond the rubbish he believes.
-
Yes, they are different. Scepticism could be seen as an intellectual tool used in the scientific method but I would suggest that there is an emotional driving force (desire) behind the use of that tool. The optimist may be driven, for instance, by the desire for success in his pioneering project and risk his reputation or life in following that drive. The pessimist may be driven by fear of failure and use his scepticim to support his desire to abandon his project or may be driven by an egotistical superiority complex to support his sceptical pessimism. William Thomson, (Lord Kelvin) eminent physicist, whilst president of the Royal Society said - "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." -"X-rays will prove to be a hoax" - "Radio has no future". on Marconi's experiments. - "I trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current".- writing to Niagara Falls Power Company. Both optimists and pessimists can be set in their ways. I would suggest that it is the driving forces behind those set ways that need exploring.
Scepticism, which is a result of sound reasoning and/or scientific evidence, doesn't have to be negative at all. I doubt whether Lavoisier was at all negative when he opposed the then current theory of phlogiston or John Snow when he disagreed with the miasma theory in relation to cholera. Anyone, whether they be sceptical or 'starry eyed optimist' may be driven by 'an egotistical superiority complex'. The bottom line is whether that scepticism is well founded. For the scientist that should mean having as close as objective an attitude as possible and also show a willingness to change one's mind when the evidence demands it. Such was the abandonment of his allegiance to the steady state theory by Einstein after seeing the proposal of Lemaitre for an expanding universe. To be set in one's ways when reason and evidence suggests that you should think differently limits progress and has essentially a negative impact.
-
Sriram,
If you abandon critical thinking how do you know that you've "understood" something rather than been taken in by mindless woo - the notion that NDEs tell us something about actual death for example?
But if you have no conscious control of your thoughts, how do you come to know anything?
-
But if you have no conscious control of your thoughts, how do you come to know anything?
But Alan, surely you should know by now ...you don't need to know how your subconscious works, you just need to know that it does!
If that explanation is good enough for you then it must be good enough for everyone.
No?
-
Critical thinking is good. It has helped in science and lots of areas. I agree with that. I am however talking of HABITUAL skepticism. If skepticism becomes a habit and a person can't help being skeptical and something he is very proud of ....it can be a liability....even in science.
Evidence, as we have seen many times, is not always readily available. We have to accept certain things on a broad surmise and then start looking for evidence. Many things such as Relativity for example was broadly accepted and then people started looking for the evidence.
But if we take to a habit of skepticism we can never progress beyond the obvious thing for which evidence is readily available. The not so obvious phenomenon will escape our eyes. It is always lateral thinkers and open minded people (even among scientists) who come up with path breaking ideas.....never the habitual skeptics.
-
Hi everyone,
I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.
Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in. After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity. Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism. They become open to many possibilities.
Just some thoughts.
I don't have an argument, I'm just going to write a long-form ad hominem saying that anyone who disagrees with me is childish.
Cheers.
Sriram
Fixed that for you.
O.
-
Critical thinking is good. It has helped in science and lots of areas. I agree with that. I am however talking of HABITUAL skepticism. If skepticism becomes a habit and a person can't help being skeptical and something he is very proud of ....it can be a liability....even in science.
I don't think you understand what proper scepticism is. It doesn't mean rejecting everything for the sake of it.
Evidence, as we have seen many times, is not always readily available.
True.
We have to accept certain things on a broad surmise and then start looking for evidence.
No we don't. We are allowed to say "I don't know".
Many things such as Relativity for example was broadly accepted and then people started looking for the evidence.
Nope. Special Relativity was proposed to account for the apparent inconsistency between Maxwell's equations and Galileo's principle of relativity. General relativity was proposed to extend SR to acceleration and gravity and to explain some problems with Newtonian gravity.
Neither were dreamed up out of thin air and GR certainly wasn't generally accepted until it had been experimentally verified.
But if we take to a habit of skepticism we can never progress beyond the obvious thing for which evidence is readily available. The not so obvious phenomenon will escape our eyes. It is always lateral thinkers and open minded people (even among scientists) who come up with path breaking ideas.....never the habitual skeptics.
Scepticism doesn't rule out creativity. All it means is that, if you do come up with some spectacular idea, we don't have to believe it without good reason.
Your brand of dreaming hasn't advanced human knowledge in any way, simply because we can't show if your ideas are right or wrong.
-
Scepticism, which is a result of sound reasoning and/or scientific evidence, doesn't have to be negative at all. Anyone, whether they be sceptical or 'starry eyed optimist' may be driven by 'an egotistical superiority complex'. The bottom line is whether that scepticism is well founded. For the scientist that should mean having as close as objective an attitude as possible and also show a willingness to change one's mind when the evidence demands it.
I don't disagree with that as an objective attitude provided that you can believe the person claiming to use it, especially in this age of disinformation. The problem arises when a person who has had a strong inner 'experience' but cannot provide evidence of it to an outside observer. This is probably why it is conveyed by the language of mythos which to the staunch objective sceptic is called woo.
-
Critical thinking is good. It has helped in science and lots of areas. I agree with that. I am however talking of HABITUAL skepticism. If skepticism becomes a habit and a person can't help being skeptical and something he is very proud of ....it can be a liability....even in science.
Evidence, as we have seen many times, is not always readily available. We have to accept certain things on a broad surmise and then start looking for evidence. Many things such as Relativity for example was broadly accepted and then people started looking for the evidence.
But if we take to a habit of skepticism we can never progress beyond the obvious thing for which evidence is readily available. The not so obvious phenomenon will escape our eyes. It is always lateral thinkers and open minded people (even among scientists) who come up with path breaking ideas.....never the habitual skeptics.
I know of no one here who is your 'habitual' skeptic. When people on here are skeptical it is usually associated with specific ideas for which there is no evidence or for which there are more rational explanations. That does not stop the skeptic from being open minded at all. indeed, the person who is skeptical often has alternative explanations which may well be better explanations.
We should always consider rather than accept things on a 'broad surmise' and if we find them wanting in the fact that there is no reliable evidence forthcoming then we either take the stance of 'don't know' or, if there is a viable alternative which has rationality and/or reliable evidence to support it, we may well favour that alternative.
-
I don't disagree with that as an objective attitude provided that you can believe the person claiming to use it, especially in this age of disinformation.
Good. I'm glad you agree.
The problem arises when a person who has had a strong inner 'experience' but cannot provide evidence of it to an outside observer. This is probably why it is conveyed by the language of mythos which to the staunch objective sceptic is called woo.
I don't see that as a problem at all. The problem comes when those with such experiences try to impose their views as some sort of truth for everyone.
-
I don't see that as a problem at all. The problem comes when those with such experiences try to impose their views as some sort of truth for everyone.
And then try to tell the rest of us that we closed minded or immature just because we don't accept them at their word.
-
Hi everyone,
I have always maintained that atheism and materialism are just skeptical reactions to a well accepted norm. An adolescent reaction in fact.
Most atheists choose to become atheists at around the age of 12/13 or so when adolescence and skepticism sets in. After that they just continue with that mindset all their life without growing out of it.
https://tsriramrao.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/three-stages/
We all go through three stages...childhood, adolescent and maturity. Blind believers and hero worshipers are those who are stuck at childhood level. Habitual skeptics are those stuck with adolescence. Mature people are neither stuck with blind belief nor with blind materialism. They become open to many possibilities.
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
Sriram
I have no issue with your basic premise of three stages - in terms of fatherhood my Dad used to describe it as 'Daddy knows everything'; 'Dad knows nothing' and 'Actually Dad knows some things after all'.
But then you go down the insulting, and frankly rather infantile, approach of ascribing those who do not believe that god exists as being for ever in an adolescent stage.
Firstly you've provided no evidence to back up your claim that people tend to become atheist at age 12/13. I'd accept that kids often rebel against their upbringing at that age, but of course not all kids are brought up in religious households - however my experience suggests that actually becoming atheist (or recognising that you are atheist) tends to be rather later - late teens. Again I cannot back this up with evidence, but based on my experience and those I know.
But there is a broader point - surely the point at which one becomes mature is when an individual takes stick of upbringing, later experience and evidence to determine what they believe and do not believe as an adult. Now for some things this can vary considerable as we progress from young adult to middle age etc, but for religion the situation in early adulthood is very sticky - religious young adults become religious middle aged people and religious old people. Similarly, non religious young adults are very unlikely to develop religiosity as they get older.
But there is one really important factor - religiosity as an adult is almost always linked to a religious upbringing. It is exceptionally rare for person brought up in a non religious manner to become religious as an adult. The flip-side isn't the case - there are plenty (in the UK about 50%) of people who were brought up in a religious manner who reject that religion as an adult. Now none of that has anything to do with the adolescent rebel phase, but about the settled adult vs upbringing position.
What this leads me to conclude is that the claims of religion are effectively unbelievable if you only come to them as an adult and are only believable to those that have that social upbringing as a child. So religiosity in an adult seems to me to be a kind of hangover from the childhood stage rather, while being non religious may be that (if the child was brought up non religious) but for those huge number of non religious adults who were brought up in a religious manner it seems to be that the (non) claims of atheism seem more plausible and believable if you only come to them as an adult than the claims of religion.
-
Skepticism need not develop precisely at 12 or 13 years. It is an individual thing. I have broadly mentioned adolescence starting at 12/13 years.
My point is that there is natural tendency towards skepticism (dad knows nothing phase) starting in adolescence. This is when in most cases the seed of doubt is sown. Some people on this board in fact have said (long ago) that they first developed atheistic ideas around 12 years.
The problem is that many people are unable to shake off the childhood tendencies towards hero worship even much later in life. Similarly, many people are unable to shake off skepticism developed during adolescence even later in life...which becomes a habit and a mindset.
Its not about rationality and evidence. It is about a mindset....a form of mental programming that makes people perceive things in a particular way.
-
The problem comes when those with such experiences try to impose their views as some sort of truth for everyone.
Unfortunately that applies in many areas of life. It is part of the conditioning process to wield power, gain influence or make money. As the Borg say 'Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated'.
-
Skepticism need not develop precisely at 12 or 13 years. It is an individual thing. I have broadly mentioned adolescence starting at 12/13 years.
My point is that there is natural tendency towards skepticism (dad knows nothing phase) starting in adolescence. This is when in most cases the seed of doubt is sown. Some people on this board in fact have said (long ago) that they first developed atheistic ideas around 12 years.
The problem is that many people are unable to shake off the childhood tendencies towards hero worship even much later in life. Similarly, many people are unable to shake off skepticism developed during adolescence even later in life...which becomes a habit and a mindset.
Its not about rationality and evidence. It is about a mindset....a form of mental programming that makes people perceive things in a particular way.
You say it's 'not about rationality and evidence, it's about mindset' whilst your entire argument here is that older ideas must be right because they've been around longer. An argument doesn't stand or fall on how long it's been right or wrong, but on whether it was right or wrong in the first place. This depiction of people who don't just kowtow to your bullshit excuses for accepting woo as 'adolescents' in your world of pseudo-scientific adults is even lower than your usual 'efforts'.
O.
-
When did I say that older ideas must be right. You are making that up.
-
Sriram,
Its not about rationality and evidence.
Skepticism is all about rationality and evidence. That's the point of it, and that's why it's key if we're not to be taken in by unmitigated woo as, somewhat dispiritingly, you have been.
-
When did I say that older ideas must be right. You are making that up.
#
Yep, that's definitely the focal point of my post... ::)
O.
-
My point is that there is natural tendency towards skepticism (dad knows nothing phase) starting in adolescence.
But you seem to see this only in one direction. Surely if Dad is non religious or atheist then you should also argue that a child who rebels as an adolescent by toying with religion is being just as skeptical. Why do you only consider this to be skepticism when it is an adolescent rebelling against a religious upbringing but not the other way around.
This is when in most cases the seed of doubt is sown. Some people on this board in fact have said (long ago) that they first developed atheistic ideas around 12 years.
Well others will need to answer for themselves - but that certainly isn't my experience. In my case I came to recognise that I was an atheist at the age of 23. And I use that terminology 'came to recognise' as it was pretty clear to me that I never believed - I was just pretending when I thought perhaps I did. And having been brought up in a broadly non religious manner my 'rebellious' phase was a rather half hearted toying with christianity, largely because I fell in with groups when I was in the 6th form and at university who were christians and to an extent went along with this, largely from a social point of view (youth club type activities mainly). But as much as I might have 'tried' to believe at that time in retrospect it was crystal clear to me that I never really did.
-
The problem is that many people are unable to shake off the childhood tendencies towards hero worship even much later in life.
But isn't that exactly the issue with religion - it is effectively only a pursuit of those brought up with that 'hero worship' as a child. Don't inculcate that 'hero worship' as a child (i.e. don't bring them up in a religious manner) and the likelihood that they will develop that 'hero worship' (i.e. become religious) as an adult is vanishingly small.
-
Similarly, many people are unable to shake off skepticism developed during adolescence even later in life...which becomes a habit and a mindset.
Two points - firstly why is having a skeptical mindset as an adult a problem. I don't think it is at all - as adults we have obligations and responsibilities and it seems reasonable to me that we should base our decisions on evidence and a rational approach rather than on blind belief. And also that we should be prepared to admit that we don't know when that is the case. That's seems to be exactly the kind of mature mindset you'd want and expect in an adult.
Secondly - again you aren't being consistent. So an atheist may reject the notion that the christian god exists - or that Jesus was resurrected. But then so will many people who are religious but not christian. If the atheist has a skeptical mindset (that you seem to feel is somehow unhealthy) for rejecting these religious claims, then so do Sikhs, Hindus, Jews etc etc who also reject the very same religious claims.
So your argument seems to be that if there are X purported gods (and X its a pretty big number)
Reject X gods = unhealthy skepticism
Reject X-1 gods = fine and dandy
-
Two points - firstly why is having a skeptical mindset as an adult a problem. I don't think it is at all - as adults we have obligations and responsibilities and it seems reasonable to me that we should base our decisions on evidence and a rational approach rather than on blind belief. And also that we should be prepared to admit that we don't know when that is the case. That's seems to be exactly the kind of mature mindset you'd want and expect in an adult.
Secondly - again you aren't being consistent. So an atheist may reject the notion that the christian god exists - or that Jesus was resurrected. But then so will many people who are religious but not christian. If the atheist has a skeptical mindset (that you seem to feel is somehow unhealthy) for rejecting these religious claims, then so do Sikhs, Hindus, Jews etc etc who also reject the very same religious claims.
So your argument seems to be that if there are X purported gods (and X its a pretty big number)
Reject X gods = unhealthy skepticism
Reject X-1 gods = fine and dandy
Goodness! You are getting yourself into a tizzy. I am not saying any such thing. In fact, I am not even specifically talking about religions vs non religion only.
I am talking about an attitude. A mindset.....which decides the way we perceive things.
Some people remain blind believers based on authority....which is a childhood trait that doesn't go away. Some people become skeptics which they develop during adolescence, and remain skeptics even though there could be good reason to accept something as a possibility. Mature people on the other hand take a more 'i can't say' attitude rather than a blind belief or a firm disbelief.
-
Goodness! You are getting yourself into a tizzy. I am not saying any such thing. In fact, I am not even specifically talking about religions vs non religion only.
I am talking about an attitude. A mindset.....which decides the way we perceive things.
Some people remain blind believers based on authority....which is a childhood trait that doesn't go away. Some people become skeptics which they develop during adolescence, and remain skeptics even though there could be good reason to accept something as a possibility. Mature people on the other hand take a more 'i can't say' attitude rather than a blind belief or a firm disbelief.
Sceptics say 'I can't say' if there isn't sufficient evidence to convince them though don't they?
-
Some people remain blind believers based on authority....which is a childhood trait that doesn't go away. Some people become skeptics which they develop during adolescence, and remain skeptics even though there could be good reason to accept something as a possibility. Mature people on the other hand take a more 'i can't say' attitude rather than a blind belief or a firm disbelief.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) So you don't even understand what scepticism and critical thinking are. It's not about not accepting things a possibilities, it's about not accepting them as being probably true without good reasoning.
Except where you make obvious mistakes in science and terminology, nobody here is telling you that your ideas must be wrong, just that we have no good reason to accept them. They frequently take a "can't say" approach when there is not enough evidence.
The real irony is that you seem to be in the " blind believers based on authority" group. You seem utterly convinced of things for which you have no evidence simply because of your own blind belief.
-
You guys are out on your hunt quite early today...aren't you?! :D
-
You guys are out on your hunt quite early today...aren't you?! :D
And Sriram avoids the uncomfortable points again. ::)
That you accuse others of being immature is really rather funny.
-
Nothing uncomfortable.... If it were so, I wouldn't even be on these boards!
Its just that habitual skepticism combined with the Two boxes Syndrome can be dysfunctional....while giving the illusion that it is a great mindset to have....
-
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) So you don't even understand what scepticism and critical thinking are. It's not about not accepting things a possibilities, it's about not accepting them as being probably true without good reasoning.
Absolutely - skepticism isn't about refusing to accept that something isn't possible, it is about not accepting that something is true without reasonable evidence.
Now I might be wrong but I think pretty well (perhaps all) the atheists on this MB also describe themselves as agnostic on knowledge. So I (and I suspect others here) am atheist as I do not believe that god exists but agnostic because I do not know for certain that god does not exist. Hence I (and I suspect others here) accept the possibility that god could exist but due to the lack of any credible evidence I do not believe that to be the case.
So if skepticism is as Sriram describes (it isn't by the way), then none of the atheist here are skeptics as we accept that god could exist, albeit we do not believe god exists.
And again using Sriram's (wrong) definition of skepticism as someone who refused to accept the possibility of something, then it isn't the atheists here that are habitual skeptics and have a skeptical mindset. Nope it is the likes of AB and Vlad. While Sriram focusses on the possibility that god exists, there is an equally valid alternative - that god does not exist. And while I and others who are atheist seem to accept the possibility that god exists, it seems to me that Vlad and AB (as examples) seem to completely reject the possibility that god does not exist.
-
Its just that habitual skepticism combined with the Two boxes Syndrome can be dysfunctional....while giving the illusion that it is a great mindset to have....
Then why aren't you aiming your criticism at AM and Vlad - who seemingly refuse to accept the possibility that god might not exist, which by your definition would make them habitually skeptical.
Rather you take aim at atheists who are also agnostic, in so far as we accept the possibility that god could exists albeit we do not believe that to be the case due to the lack of any credible evidence.
-
Nothing uncomfortable.... If it were so, I wouldn't even be on these boards!
Yet you run away from addressing so many points. Why would that be?
Its just that habitual skepticism combined with the Two boxes Syndrome can be dysfunctional....while giving the illusion that it is a great mindset to have....
The problem is that you seem to think that your rather childish analogies serve as arguments. In fact they are just ad hominem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) fallacies. The fact of the matter is, that if scientists did not take a sceptical approach, then you wouldn't have an internet forum to post on.
It is also quite obvious that it is you who are taking the attitude that you are ascribing to others. It is you who refuse to accept that you might be wrong about (for example) consciousness, evolution, and NDEs. It is you who blindly believe things for no reason except (what you accept as) authority.
-
Its not about rationality and evidence. It is about a mindset....a form of mental programming that makes people perceive things in a particular way.
Don't worry, with education, you should be able to break it and then you will be freed from the shackles of your superstition to explore the wonders of the real Universe.
-
Absolutely - skepticism isn't about refusing to accept that something isn't possible, it is about not accepting that something is true without reasonable evidence.
Now I might be wrong but I think pretty well (perhaps all) the atheists on this MB also describe themselves as agnostic on knowledge. So I (and I suspect others here) am atheist as I do not believe that god exists but agnostic because I do not know for certain that god does not exist. Hence I (and I suspect others here) accept the possibility that god could exist but due to the lack of any credible evidence I do not believe that to be the case.
So if skepticism is as Sriram describes (it isn't by the way), then none of the atheist here are skeptics as we accept that god could exist, albeit we do not believe god exists.
And again using Sriram's (wrong) definition of skepticism as someone who refused to accept the possibility of something, then it isn't the atheists here that are habitual skeptics and have a skeptical mindset. Nope it is the likes of AB and Vlad. While Sriram focusses on the possibility that god exists, there is an equally valid alternative - that god does not exist. And while I and others who are atheist seem to accept the possibility that god exists, it seems to me that Vlad and AB (as examples) seem to completely reject the possibility that god does not exist.
Then I am sure, all of you will be happy to accept the possibility of an after-life based on NDE cases and the possibility of reincarnation based on cases studied by Jim Tucker. I am fine with that!
Thanks.
-
Then I am sure, all of you will be happy to accept the possibility of an after-life based on NDE cases and the possibility of reincarnation based on cases studied by Jim Tucker. I am fine with that!
That went right over you head, then. I'll accept the possibility of an afterlife (it can't be falsified) but not on the basis of this deeply flawed 'evidence'.
-
Then I am sure, all of you will be happy to accept the possibility of an after-life based on NDE cases and the possibility of reincarnation based on cases studied by Jim Tucker. I am fine with that!
Thanks.
I would accept the possibility of an after-life but wouldn't say that NDEs are evidence for it as we don't actually know what NDEs are.
-
Sriram,
Then I am sure, all of you will be happy to accept the possibility of an after-life based on NDE cases and the possibility of reincarnation based on cases studied by Jim Tucker. I am fine with that!
You don't understand the term "skepticism". In everyday parlance it just means critical thinking, and it doesn't therefore entail the rejection of possibilities about anything. Yes I accept the possibility of life after death, but only in the same way that I accept the possibility of leprechauns too. I have no way to disprove either claim (assuming for now anyone could even frame them coherently) so I have no basis definitively to eliminate their possibility.
What I also know though is that claiming that near death experiences tell us something about actual death is stupid. They tell us something about dying, but claiming they tell us about death too is like claiming that sex tells us something about pregnancy. They're qualitatively different states of being (or not being), so eliding them is a category error.
It's disappointing to have to explain this to you given that I've done so several times already without reply.
-
Then I am sure, all of you will be happy to accept the possibility of an after-life based on NDE cases and the possibility of reincarnation based on cases studied by Jim Tucker. I am fine with that!
Thanks.
I most certainly accept the 'possibility' of an after life and reincarnation, albeit I've not seen any credible evidence in support those possibilities to actually be true.
Certainly so-called NDE (which are neither necessarily near death as they can be replicated in circumstances that aren't close to death, nor do they tell us anything about what happens after death) don't provide any support for an after life. Firstly because even in the case of circumstances that are near to death, at best they tell us something about the process of dying (in the living) and nothing about what actually happens after death. Moreover, we know a load about the physiology of these phenomena through neuroscientific techniques and we can induce them/they are replicated in circumstances that aren't close to death at all - so this tells us we are dealing with a more fundamental interplay of physiology and neurophysiology that isn't necessarily associate withe the process of death.
Tucker's 'research' is laughably weak - full of suggestion, confirmation bias, potential for hoax with loads of stuff in the public domain and lack of any kind of proper control. That someone claiming that in his past life he wore a hat and smoked somehow provides strong evidence for reincarnation is for the most gullible of gullible people.
But the lack of credible evidence isn't proof that an after life or reincarnation don't exist - they remain as possibilities however implausible. However that lack of evidence leads me not to believe in them as being true and certainly not to alter my life on the basis that they might be true.
-
Whilst I'm sure we'd all like to think of ourselves as open minded, does it even make sense 'to accept the possibility of an after-life' without first knowing clearly what this might actually mean?
We all know what it's like to go to sleep on Monday night and then wake up on Tuesday morning, apparently the same person, albeit not exactly the same person. It all seems fairly obvious, though it becomes rather less so if we start to think about it. Maybe that's why people generally don't.
So what exactly is being claimed by those championing the idea of reincarnation? If we think of ourselves as being reborn there is perhaps a tendency to think of this as somewhat analogous to going to sleep on Monday and waking up on Tuesday, though clearly this can't be what happens at all. So in what meaningful sense am 'I' reincarnated?
The common theme in reincarnation claims is the belief that in some meaningful sense the process 'cancels' death. This is precisely why people want to believe it. If death (of the self) wasn't somehow effectively undone, reincarnation and biological death would be practically indistinguishable. Why then would anyone bother to make claims about having past and future lives?
The difficulty for reincarnationists is to construe the reincarnating self as sufficiently similar to the self of this life to remain meaningfully 'me' but sufficiently different from that self to navigate without injury the obvious destructiveness of physical death. I've yet to encounter an explanation of reincarnation that remotely succeeds in doing this. But without such an explanation, reincarnation doesn't even qualify as a coherent idea that can be accepted as a possibility. What exactly are we being asked to accept?
-
Whilst I'm sure we'd all like to think of ourselves as open minded, does it even make sense 'to accept the possibility of an after-life' without first knowing clearly what this might actually mean?
We all know what it's like to go to sleep on Monday night and then wake up on Tuesday morning, apparently the same person, albeit not exactly the same person. It all seems fairly obvious, though it becomes rather less so if we start to think about it. Maybe that's why people generally don't.
So what exactly is being claimed by those championing the idea of reincarnation? If we think of ourselves as being reborn there is perhaps a tendency to think of this as somewhat analogous to going to sleep on Monday and waking up on Tuesday, though clearly this can't be what happens at all. So in what meaningful sense am 'I' reincarnated?
The common theme in reincarnation claims is the belief that in some meaningful sense the process 'cancels' death. This is precisely why people want to believe it. If death (of the self) wasn't somehow effectively undone, reincarnation and biological death would be practically indistinguishable. Why then would anyone bother to make claims about having past and future lives?
The difficulty for reincarnationists is to construe the reincarnating self as sufficiently similar to the self of this life to remain meaningfully 'me' but sufficiently different from that self to navigate without injury the obvious destructiveness of physical death. I've yet to encounter an explanation of reincarnation that remotely succeeds in doing this. But without such an explanation, reincarnation doesn't even qualify as a coherent idea that can be accepted as a possibility. What exactly are we being asked to accept?
Yes I think you are correct to an extent.
Sure when asked about whether an after life is a possibility we might answer 'yes' (albeit there is no credible evidence to support to) on the basis of any kind of after life. If, on the other had, we are asked the same question about a very specific kind of after life, then we might consider the probability to be even less - so an even more implausible suggestion that just any kind of after life. But unless that probability reaches zero (and we cannot really know this) then it still remains a possibility, even if it seems even more implausible than any kind of after life. And as there is no credible evidence for any kind of after life it goes without saying that there is also no credible evidence for any specific kind of after life.
-
Then I am sure, all of you will be happy to accept the possibility of an after-life based on NDE cases and the possibility of reincarnation based on cases studied by Jim Tucker. I am fine with that!
Thanks.
I would not default to accepting that claim. You would have to demonstrate that it is possible first.
Equally, I would not accept that it was impossible for the same reason.
-
I would not default to accepting that claim. You would have to demonstrate that it is possible first.
Equally, I would not accept that it was impossible for the same reason.
So there we go.
Sriram accuses us of having a skeptical mindset on the basis that he thinks we refuse to accept certain things as possibilities.
Yet, here we are - we all seem to have a completely open mindset - prepared to accept the possibility of after life and resurrection, yet (quite reasonably) expecting evidence before we accept that possibility to actually be true.
And all the while Sriram regularly refuses to accept certain things - e.g. evolution being a non-directed process - where there is huge amounts of evidence to be possible. Hmm so who it is that has the closed mindset? And that's before we get onto his complete inability to see beyond a narrow anthropocentric mentality.
-
So there we go.
Sriram accuses us of having a skeptical mindset on the basis that he thinks we refuse to accept certain things as possibilities.
Yet, here we are - we all seem to have a completely open mindset - prepared to accept the possibility of after life and resurrection, yet (quite reasonably) expecting evidence before we accept that possibility to actually be true.
And all the while Sriram regularly refuses to accept certain things - e.g. evolution being a non-directed process - where there is huge amounts of evidence to be possible. Hmm so who it is that has the closed mindset? And that's before we get onto his complete inability to see beyond a narrow anthropocentric mentality.
Isn't BR explicitly saying that he's not ruling out the possibility, rather than accepting that it is a possibility?
-
Isn't BR explicitly saying that he's not ruling out the possibility, rather than accepting that it is a possibility?
Same thing - if you don't rule something out, you therefore accept it to be a possibility - even if that something is ... err ... a possibility.
Actually what he said was:
'I would not accept that it was impossible for the same reason.' - if he isn't accepting that it is impossible, then he must be accepting that it is a possibility.
If I've read this wrong and BR doesn't accept it is a possibility, then I'm sure he will clarify.
-
Same thing - if you don't rule something out, you therefore accept it to be a possibility - even if that something is ... err ... a possibility.
Actually what he said was:
'I would not accept that it was impossible for the same reason.' - if he isn't accepting that it is impossible, then he must be accepting that it is a possibility.
If I've read this wrong and BR doesn't accept it is a possibility, then I'm sure he will clarify.
Saying that I cannot say that something is not a possibility is not saying that I am saying that it is a possibility. I don't have sufficient information to say if it is.
-
Yes I think you are correct to an extent.
Sure when asked about whether an after life is a possibility we might answer 'yes' (albeit there is no credible evidence to support to) on the basis of any kind of after life. If, on the other had, we are asked the same question about a very specific kind of after life, then we might consider the probability to be even less - so an even more implausible suggestion that just any kind of after life. But unless that probability reaches zero (and we cannot really know this) then it still remains a possibility, even if it seems even more implausible than any kind of after life. And as there is no credible evidence for any kind of after life it goes without saying that there is also no credible evidence for any specific kind of after life.
For it to make any sense at all to refer to 'my after-life' surely there must be some meaningful continuity of what we normally consider to be the everyday experience of 'my' selfhood. It strikes me as simply incoherent to posit some other 'very specific kind of after-life' that differs from this fundamental requirement. Yet reincarnationists are obliged to recognise that (at least for the vast majority of people) the new being is in no obvious sense recognisably a continuation of the deceased one. Pretty much everything changes - genetics, environment, body, characteristics, personality, even species. Only in a few rare cases is there any claim of past life memories. A sense of selfhood may remain constant but this doesn't mean the new life experiences themselves as a continuation of the previous self. Let's say Jack dies and in dependence on his death Jill is born but has no knowledge of Jack and no sense of ever having existed previously. In what meaningful sense can we say Jill is Jack's after-life? Even if something passed from one life to the other (karma, for example) it clearly wasn't any sense of being a related self.
-
Saying that I cannot say that something is not a possibility is not saying that I am saying that it is a possibility. I don't have sufficient information to say if it is.
If something is impossible, then the probability of it happening is 0. Any probability >0 means something is possible. If we do not know that the probability is 0 and therefore conclude it is impossible then we must accept that the probability may be >0 and therefore it is a possibility.
The only time we can reasonably conclude that something is impossible is where we know probability is 0 - otherwise (and this includes situations where we lack knowledge) we must conclude that something is possible as we cannot conclude that probability is 0.
-
If something is impossible, then the probability of it happening is 0. Any probability >0 means something is possible. If we do not know that the probability is 0 and therefore conclude it is impossible then we must accept that the probability may be >0 and therefore it is a possibility.
The only time we can reasonably conclude that something is impossible is where we know probability is 0 - otherwise (and this includes situations where we lack knowledge) we must conclude that something is possible as we cannot conclude that probability is 0.
I am not concluding that it is an impossibility. I am just not accepting the positive claim that it is a possibility. Can you demonstrate the positive claim that the after life is a pissibility?
-
I am not concluding that it is an impossibility. I am just not accepting the positive claim that it is a possibility. Can you demonstrate the positive claim that the after life is a pissibility?
Something being a possibility isn't really a positive claim, though, is it. All it means is that was cannot conclude that it is impossible - i.e. we cannot conclude that probability is 0.
On an afterlife - I do know (and likely cannot know) that it is impossible, therefore I cannot reasonably conclude the probability is 0 and therefore I must conclude it is possible until or unless someone can demonstrate that it is impossible (probability = 0).
Simple logic.
-
Isn't BR explicitly saying that he's not ruling out the possibility, rather than accepting that it is a possibility?
Yes my position is that I do not know.
I do not know if it is possible, possiblity would need to be demonstrated.
-
Something being a possibility isn't really a positive claim, though, is it. All it means is that was cannot conclude that it is impossible - i.e. we cannot conclude that probability is 0.
On an afterlife - I do know (and likely cannot know) that it is impossible, therefore I cannot reasonably conclude the probability is 0 and therefore I must conclude it is possible until or unless someone can demonstrate that it is impossible (probability = 0).
Simple logic.
It's bad logic. The claim that something is a possibilty is by definition a positive one. I don't know if the 'after life' is possible.
-
Something being a possibility isn't really a positive claim, though, is it. All it means is that was cannot conclude that it is impossible - i.e. we cannot conclude that probability is 0.
On an afterlife - I do know (and likely cannot know) that it is impossible, therefore I cannot reasonably conclude the probability is 0 and therefore I must conclude it is possible until or unless someone can demonstrate that it is impossible (probability = 0).
Simple logic.
Isn't the default position to just not know, and only accept claims when the evidence is compelling?
Possibility and impossibility are claims that would need to be demonstrated.
-
Yes my position is that I do not know.
I do not know if it is possible, possiblity would need to be demonstrated.
But surely if you do not know it to be impossible, then you lack of knowledge must render the think possible.
Try this example.
Image you are asked to roll a six sided dice and asked whether it is possible that you roll a 7. Now if you know it is a standard dice with sides labelled 1-6, then you cold reasonably conclude that rolling a 7 is impossible and therefore is not a possibility. If on the other hand you don't know what it on one side (lack of knowledge) an assumption that the dice has a standard 1-6 could be wrong (you haven't verified it) and it could be that the dice has sides 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7. Therefore your lack of knowledge that one side might not be a 7, renders rolling a 7 possible. It only ceases to be possible if you can reasonable conclude it to be impossible.
-
Possibility and impossibility are claims that would need to be demonstrated.
Not really - something is either possible or impossible - there are no other categories. Impossible means probability = 0. Possible simply means not impossible, i.e. probability >0. So unless we have demonstrated something to be impossible we must conclude (in the absence of confirmatory evidence) that it is possible because we cannot reasonable conclude that the probability is definitely 0.
-
Isn't the default position to just not know, and only accept claims when the evidence is compelling?
Sure - but that is a different question. Accepting a claim is not the same as accepting a claim to be possible (i.e. not impossible). Typically we'd only accept a claim if there is sufficient evidence so to do - but the absence of that evidence doesn't render that claim impossible, and therefore we should accept it to be possible even if we don't actually accept the claim itself.
-
Not really - something is either possible or impossible - there are no other categories. Possible simply means not impossible. So unless we have demonstrated something to be impossible we must conclude (in the absence of confirmatory evidence) that it is possible.
Drivel. If you cannot demonstrate something is possible, you have no reason to accept that as a claim. You have insufficient reason to conclude it is possible. You not being able to demonstrate that it is impossible gives no valudation to the claim that it is possible.
Since you accept the claim that an 'after life' is possible, could you please demonstrate it?
-
Drivel. If you cannot demonstrate something is possible, you have no reason to accept that as a claim. You have insufficient reason to conclude it is possible. You not being able to demonstrate that it is impossible gives no valudation to the claim that it is possible.
Not drivel - basic logic. Something is either demonstrated to have probability of 0, in other words we can conclude that it is impossible. If it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible (i.e. we cannot conclude that the probability is definitely 0) then the probability lies somewhere greater than 0 all the way up to 1 and we must conclude that it is possible.
Since you accept the claim that an 'after life' is possible, could you please demonstrate it?
I don't have to - all I have to do is state that we cannot conclude the probability of an after life existing is exactly 0 (i.e. it is impossible). I'm not claiming it actually does exist (or I'd be concluding that the probability was 1) - all I am saying is that I cannot conclude (as I don't have the evidence) that the probability is definitely 0.
-
Not drivel - basic logic. Something is either demonstrated to have probability of 0, in other words it is impossible. If it hasn't been demonstrated to be impossible (i.e. we cannot conclude that the probability is definitely 0) then is it possible as the probability lies somewhere greater than 0 all the way up to 1.
I don't have to - all I have to do is state that we cannot conclude the probability of an after life existing is exactly 0 (i.e. it is impossible). I'm not claiming it actually does exist (or I'd be concluding that the probability was 1) - all I am saying is that I cannot conclude (as I don't have the evidence) to conclude that the probability is definitely 0.
You're very confused. There is a significant difference between claiming something is a possibility, and that it exists as your second para seems to substitute as the claim.
To state that something is a possibility means you must demonstrate that the possibility is not 0.
-
You're very confused. There is a significant difference between claiming something is a possibility, and that it exists as your second para seems to substitute as the claim.
I'm not confused at all - all along I've been clear about the difference between considering a claim to exist or be true and whether a claim is possible - however implausible.
To state that something is a possibility means you must demonstrate that the possibility is not 0.
But you are into Popper territory - the only way we take something out of possibility is to demonstrate that the probability is either 0 (impossible) or 1 (certain) - unless either of those two positive claims have been demonstrated then we retain the negative claim that it is possible - i.e. probability is >0 but <1.
So for my dice example - while we lack knowledge (what is on one side is unknown) then we cannot say rolling a 7 is impossible, so it remains a possibility (the hidden side could be a 7). If we gain additional knowledge - i.e the hidden side is revealed to a 6, then the notion that rolling a 7 is possible falls away as it has been demonstrated to be impossible (probability 0).
-
Not really - something is either possible or impossible - there are no other categories. Impossible means probability = 0. Possible simply means not impossible, i.e. probability >0. So unless we have demonstrated something to be impossible we must conclude (in the absence of confirmatory evidence) that it is possible because we cannot reasonable conclude that the probability is definitely 0.
I accept this it is either possible or not possible, as they are logical opposites. But as to what the answer actually is, I do not know. I cannot accept either.
My example would be, my lawn has either an odd number of blades of grass or an even number. I accept it HAS to be one or the other, but I do not accept the claim that the number is odd, nor do I accept that is is even. I would have to count them, then I would know.
-
I'm not confused at all - all along I've been clear about the difference between considering a claim to exist or be true and whether a claim is possible - however implausible.
But you are into Popper territory - the only way we take something out of possibility is to demonstrate that the probability is either 0 (impossible) or 1 (certain) - unless either of those two positive claims have been demonstrated then we retain the negative claim that it is possible - i.e. probability is >0 but <1.
So for my dice example - while we lack knowledge (what is on one side is unknown) then we cannot say rolling a 7 is impossible, so it remains a possibility. If we gain additional knowledge - i.e the hidden side is revealed to a 6, then the notion that rolling a 7 is possible falls away as it has been demonstrated to be impossible (probability 0).
Except that in the case of the die you know the 7 is possible. It can be demonstrated because of your knowledge of dice. What equivalent knowledge do you have of 'after life'?
-
I accept this it is either possible or not possible, as they are logical opposites. But as to what the answer actually is, I do not know. I cannot accept either.
My example would be, my lawn has either an odd number of blades of grass or an even number. I accept it HAS to be one or the other, but I do not accept the claim that the number is odd, nor do I accept that is is even. I would have to count them, then I would know.
Absolutely correct - but until (or unless) we have definitely demonstrated the number of grass blades to be either odd or even both remain a possibility. If we count 10,000,000 then we can conclude that odd is impossible and therefore the possibility falls away.
But in your example we'd start on the basis of probability of around 0.5, until we have a definitive answer. With the claims we are discussing we might be considering that the probability is absolutely tiny, but we cannot conclude that it is definitely 0.
-
I accept this it is either possible or not possible, as they are logical opposites. But as to what the answer actually is, I do not know. I cannot accept either.
My example would be, my lawn has either an odd number of blades of grass or an even number. I accept it HAS to be one or the other, but I do not accept the claim that the number is odd, nor do I accept that is is even. I would have to count them, then I would know.
Not sure that works here as you accept because of the nature of the claim and your knowledge of numbers both the possibilities that there are even or odd numbers of blades of grass.
I would suggest that in the case of 'after life' we have no such equivalent knowledge, and that's what allows the position that it makes no sense to claim it is a possibility
-
Absolutely correct - but until (or unless) we have definitely demonstrated the number of grass blades to be either odd or even both remain a possibility. If we count 10,000,000 then we can conclude that odd is impossible and therefore the possibility falls away.
But in your example we'd start on the basis of probability of around 0.5, until we have a definitive answer. With the claims we are discussing we might be considering that the probability is absolutely tiny, but we cannot conclude that it is definitely 0.
I slightly disagree as in my example the possibility of the number being odd or even HAS been demonstrated, because we know how numbers work, and we know what a lawn is.
If I said my lawn also contained SDFds64534!!". Would you think it possible that it did?
I would not accept this claim until it was defined, and demonstrated that it could be on my lawn.
Simply speaking I do not say everything is possible. How can I, I do not know what is possible or impossible. Whoever makes the claim that something is possible or not, has the burden.
-
Except that in the case of the die you know the 7 is possible.
No you don't if all the visible sides aren't 7 but there is a hidden side that could be a 7 or might not be a 7. Only once we know that the other side isn't a 7 can we conclude that rolling a 7 is impossible and possibility falls away.
It can be demonstrated because of your knowledge of dice. What equivalent knowledge do you have of 'after life'?
But the issue is our lack of knowledge - and that is the same for an after life. It may be 'unknowable' in which case we can never conclude absolutely that the probability is 0 (i.e. impossible) and therefore that it would always remain possible, however implausible and however much we do not accept it as a claim.
It would be a bit like asking about rolling a 7, but never being allowed to know what the hidden side actually shows.
-
No you don't if all the visible sides aren't 7 but there is a hidden side that could be a 7 or might not be a 7. Only once we know that the other side isn't a 7 can we conclude that rolling a 7 is impossible and possibility falls away.
But the issue is our lack of knowledge - and that is the same for an after life. It may be 'unknowable' in which case we can never conclude absolutely that the probability is 0 (i.e. impossible) and therefore that it would always remain possible, however implausible and however much we do not accept it as a claim.
It would be a bit like asking about rolling a 7, but never being allowed to know what the hidden side actually shows.
But you have knowledge of numbers and dice that means you can conclude it is a possibility. You've merely provided another version of BR's blades of grass, which you quite rightly argued doesn't work'.
-
I slightly disagree as in my example the possibility of the number being odd or even HAS been demonstrated, because we know how numbers work, and we know what a lawn is.
If I said my lawn also contained SDFds64534!!". Would you think it possible that it did?
I would not accept this claim until it was defined, and demonstrated that it could be on my lawn.
Simply speaking I do not say everything is possible. How can I, I do not know what is possible or impossible. Whoever makes the claim that something is possible or not, has the burden.
I think that's a better approach. It's not clear to me that 'after life', or indeed god, have logically coherent definitions.
I cannot say that SDFds64534!!, whatever you mean by that, is impossible but that does not mean that I think, as Prof D's approach is, that it is possible. I am an SDFds64534!! noncognitivist.
-
Not sure that works here as you accept because of the nature of the claim and your knowledge of numbers both the possibilities that there are even or odd numbers of blades of grass.
I would suggest that in the case of 'after life' we have no such equivalent knowledge, and that's what allows the position that it makes no sense to claim it is a possibility
Completely agree. We do not know if it is possible so we cannot accept it.
For example, it might be that it IS possible for life to continue after death, just that it never does in reality.
-
Completely agree. We do not know if it is possible so we cannot accept it.
I don't disagree, but firstly for something to be possible all that means is that is isn't impossible and for it to be demonstrably to be impossible we'd need to have been able to definitely falsified the claim. So to my mind anything that hasn't been definitely demonstrated (i.e. the claim has been proven to be true) nor definitely falsified (i.e. the claim had been proved to be impossible) then it sits in the 'possible' category, however implausible. All possible mean is 'not demonstrated' and 'not falsified'.
But secondly, and more importantly, just because a claim is possible (i.e. not definitely demonstrated, nor falsified) doesn't mean we should accept it. This is where the distinction between believe and knowledge lies. I'm an atheist as I do not believe the claims that god exists. But I am agnostic on knowledge - as the existence of god has neither been definitely demonstrated, nor definitively falsified god's existence remains possible, however implausible.
For example, it might be that it IS possible for life to continue after death, just that it never does in reality.
The surely that would remain as a possibility - and this is where we have major challenges with supernatural claims that aren't able to either demonstrated nor falsified. So although a supernatural claim may always remain a possibility (as if has not and perhaps cannot be either demonstrated nor falsified) in terms of the real world the notion that it remains a possibility becomes completely pointless as it has no bearing on reality. Russell's teapot and all that.
-
I don't disagree, but firstly for something to be possible all that means is that is isn't impossible ...
Not being able to show something is impossible is not equivalent to it not being impossible - as you have used it here.
Edited to make sense.
-
If I said my lawn also contained SDFds64534!!". Would you think it possible that it did?
I would not accept this claim until it was defined, and demonstrated that it could be on my lawn.
Nor would I accept the claim, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. And until a claim is either definitely demonstrated or definitively falsified it remains a possibility.
Indeed the lack of definition doesn't help, because it counters the ability to demonstrate or falsify and renders the claim still possible (albeit potentially a rather pointless claim).
So while SDFds64534 remains completely undefined we remain firmly in the territory of possible - however it it is finally defined as a well known weed variety, water, or my pet dog, then we might firmly accept the claim.
Alternatively (and this is where the supernatural claims come in) it could be defined like Russell's teapot or Sagan's garage dragon - an supernatural entirely that isn't susceptible to detection by any objective and material processes. In that case, well it would still remain possible, but we'd reject the actual claim on the basis of lack of evidence and also that we could never tell the difference between a lawn with SDFds64534 and one without.
-
Nor would I accept the claim, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible. And until a claim is either definitely demonstrated or definitively falsified it remains a possibility.
Indeed the lack of definition doesn't help, because it counters the ability to demonstrate or falsify and renders the claim still possible (albeit potentially a rather pointless claim).
So while SDFds64534 remains completely undefined we remain firmly in the territory of possible - however it it is finally defined as a well known weed variety, water, or my pet dog, then we might firmly accept the claim.
Alternatively (and this is where the supernatural claims come in) it could be defined like Russell's teapot or Sagan's garage dragon - an supernatural entirely that isn't susceptible to detection by any objective and material processes. In that case, well it would still remain possible, but we'd reject the actual claim on the basis of lack of evidence and also that we could never tell the difference between a lawn with SDFds64534 and one without.
If you cannot define something coherently, talking about possibility or impossibility is in the not even wrong territory.
-
If you cannot define something coherently, talking about possibility or impossibility is in the not even wrong territory.
It may be entirely pointless, but that is a different matter to whether the claim is possible or not. But in pure logic terms if a claim isn't clearly defined then it is far harder to ether demonstrate or falsify and therefore will continue to remain in the territory of possible.
That's why science is based on tightly defined claims (we call them hypotheses) that are amenable to testing to be demonstrate or falsified. That said, even in the world of objective science, what we are really doing is working in the territory of ranges of probabilities. Typically we accept a 'positive' result if the likelihood of the realist happening by chance is less than 5% (some studies may have more stringent criteria), but we are never really able to say that the probability is 0, i.e. it is impossible that it could happen by chance.
-
It may be entirely pointless, but that is a different matter to whether the claim is possible or not. But in pure logic terms if a claim isn't clearly defined then it is far harder to ether demonstrate or falsify and therefore will continue to remain in the territory of possible.
That's why science is based on tightly defined claims (we call them hypotheses) that are amenable to testing to be demonstrate or falsified. That said, even in the world of objective science, what we are really doing is working in the territory of ranges of probabilities. Typically we accept a 'positive' result if the likelihood of the realist happening by chance is less than 5% (some studies may have more stringent criteria), but we are never really able to say that the probability is 0, i.e. it is impossible that it could happen by chance.
So is it possible that green ideas sleep furiously?
-
So is it possible that green ideas sleep furiously?
Yes if the claim is completely undefined (e.g. that green ideas is in fact a person who has a disturbed sleep disorder that makes him or her thrash around at night that his or her partner describes as 'sleeping furiously'), albeit it is a completely pointless claim without proper definition and so is irrelevant for consideration or action - see Sagan's dragon.
-
NS,
I think that's a better approach. It's not clear to me that 'after life', or indeed god, have logically coherent definitions.
I cannot say that SDFds64534!!, whatever you mean by that, is impossible but that does not mean that I think, as Prof D's approach is, that it is possible. I am an SDFds64534!! noncognitivist.
Isn’t the point here the “possible/impossible” are expressions of states of knowledge, but not necessarily descriptions of reality too? Thus any-thing is possible even though I have no idea what that “thing” might be, even if the framing of the proposition isn’t coherent to me either.
If for all I know I’m just a character in a super-advanced version of The Sims then maybe my algorithm is just programmed to tell me that square circles are impossible, and maybe too “ih9&)^&” has a meaning even though I have no idea what it might be and so, conceptually at least, could also be possible.
-
NS,
So is it possible that green ideas sleep furiously?
Yes, at least conceptually, because for all I know that sentence has meaning beyond my ability to discern what it is.
-
Yes if the claim is completely undefined (e.g. that green ideas is in fact a person who has a disturbed sleep disorder that makes him or her thrash around at night that his or her partner describes as 'sleeping furiously'), albeit it is a completely pointless claim without proper definition and so is irrelevant for consideration or action - see Sagan's dragon.
Sagan's dragon is a point about unfalsifiability, not about logical incoherence. Good to know ypu have no understanding of Sagan, as well as Chomsky.
-
NS,
Yes, at least conceptually, because for all I know that sentence has meaning beyond my ability to discern what it is.
But can you with your current state of kniwledge say that it is possible?
ETA - your formulation seems to me to be a version of you being unable to say that it is impossible.
-
Sagan's dragon is a point about unfalsifiability, not about logical incoherence.
The points are completely linked - if something is unfalsifiable (and presumable also not amenable to be definitely demonstrated, as per Sagan's example) it forever will sit in the category of possible, but that we would neither accept the claim nor make any adjustment to our life on the basis of the claim.
-
The points are completely linked - if something is unfalsifiable (and presumable also not amenable to be definitely demonstrated, as per Sagan's example) it forever will sit in the category of possible, but that we would neither accept the claim nor make any adjustment to our life on the basis of the claim.
I disagree that it falls into the possible camp. It falls into the unkown camp.
What if you accept something as possible (because you have insufficient information) when in reality it is impossible.
There is no need to accept something as possible, until it can be demonstrated that it is indeed possible.
-
But can you with your current state of kniwledge say that it is possible?
ETA - your formulation seems to me to be a version of you being unable to say that it is impossible.
BHS seems to be spot on, if I am reading his post correctly.
Something remains possible until or unless it has been demonstrate definitely (then it becomes certain) or falsified (demonstrated to be impossible, i.e. probability of the claim being correct is 0). If we lack knowledge we will find it that much harder to either demonstrate definitely or definitely falsify the claim. So lack of knowledge makes it far more likely that a claim is possible, rather than impossible (or certain, which is really a subset of possible where probability is 1).
-
I disagree that it falls into the possible camp. It falls into the unkown camp.
But it isn't either or - plenty of things are unknown but also possible. If I asked you whether it is raining in the middle of the Pacific Ocean right now, you may not know (you lack knowledge) but you'd accept it to be perfectly possible (i.e. not impossible). On the other hand if I asked the same question about a point somewhere between our galaxy and another galaxy ... well, that might produce a different response!
-
I am not concluding that it is an impossibility. I am just not accepting the positive claim that it is a possibility. Can you demonstrate the positive claim that the after life is a pissibility?
It's not a positive claim. It's merely the recognition that the evidence doesn't rule out an afterlife. If you conclude that the afterlife cannot be ruled out given the evidence we have, you logically must accept that it is a possibility.
Accepting the possibility is nothing like believing there is an afterlife.
-
It's bad logic.
No it isn't.
The claim that something is a possibilty is by definition a positive one.
No it isn't.
I don't know if the 'after life' is possible.
Nor do you know it is impossible based on current evidence, therefore on the basis of evidence, you must conclude it is possible.
-
It's not a positive claim. It's merely the recognition that the evidence doesn't rule out an afterlife. If you conclude that the afterlife cannot be ruled out given the evidence we have, you logically must accept that it is a possibility.
Accepting the possibility is nothing like believing there is an afterlife.
Explain how 'It is possible' is not a postive claim.
-
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
Nor do you know it is impossible based on current evidence, therefore on the basis of evidence, you must conclude it is possible.
It is possible is equivalent to stating it is not impidsible. What evidence do you have to show it is not impossible?
-
The points are completely linked - if something is unfalsifiable (and presumable also not amenable to be definitely demonstrated, as per Sagan's example) it forever will sit in the category of possible, but that we would neither accept the claim nor make any adjustment to our life on the basis of the claim.
So following you connecting these ideas, it would follow from your logic that were you to say that you were unable to show that something was unfalsifiable, that would mean that it was falsifiable.
-
Explain how 'It is possible' is not a postive claim.
It's not really a claim at all. It's merely saying "we can't rule it out".
-
It is possible is equivalent to stating it is not impidsible. What evidence do you have to show it is not impossible?
I cannot give you any evidence to show that it is impossible. Therefore, by definition, it is possible.
-
It's not really a claim at all. It's merely saying "we can't rule it out".
So something may indeed not be possible, but saying it is possible is not a positive claim about it?
You are also happy to say that the statement 'I do not know if it is possible or not' is equivalent to 'It is possible' here.
-
I cannot give you any evidence to show that it is impossible. Therefore, by definition, it is possible.
even if in fact it is impossible.
'I cannot give you any evidence to show that it is unfalsifiable. Therefore, by definition, it is falsifiable'
-
So something may indeed not be possible, but saying it is possible is not a positive claim about it?
You are also happy to say that the statement 'I do not know if it is possible or not' is equivalent to 'It is possible' here.
Yes I am.
Obviously, I think it unlikely that there is an afterlife and if you want me to place a bet, it would be against an afterlife, but I cannot bring evidence to the table to say it is impossible, therefore I have to concede it is possible - by definition.
-
Yes I am.
Obviously, I think it unlikely that there is an afterlife and if you want me to place a bet, it would be against an afterlife, but I cannot bring evidence to the table to say it is impossible, therefore I have to concede it is possible - by definition.
So we reverse the approach, and I ask you for evidence that it is possible, and you can provide none, by this approach it means it is impossible?
-
Yes I am.
Obviously, I think it unlikely that there is an afterlife and if you want me to place a bet, it would be against an afterlife, but I cannot bring evidence to the table to say it is impossible, therefore I have to concede it is possible - by definition.
So if you ask the question 'Is this possible?', a person saying 'I don't know' and a person saying 'Yes' are making exactly equivalent statements?
-
NS,
But can you with your current state of kniwledge say that it is possible?
But that the “with my current state of knowledge” is the critical a priori point here. I have no basis to assume that my current state of knowledge gives me anywhere near enough information to rule out anything – square circles and "y*&^%(^TO*G" included. The former is impossible only inasmuch as my grasp of logic tells me it is, and the latter may turn out to have meaning even though I have no way of discerning what it is.
Absent omniscience, on what ground then could argue that either of them (or anything else) isn’t possible?
ETA - your formulation seems to me to be a version of you being unable to say that it is impossible.
But if I cannot say that anything is impossible, aren’t I also saying necessarily that anything is therefore possible (even if that “thing” is incoherent to me)?
-
NS,
But that the “with my current state of knowledge” is the a priori point here. I have no basis to assume that my current state of knowledge gives me anywhere near enough information to rule out anything – square circles and "y*&^%(^TO*G" included. The former is impossible only inasmuch as my grasp of logic tells me it is, and the latter may turn out to have meaning even though I have no way of discerning what it is.
Absent omniscience, on what ground then could argue that either of them (or anything else) isn’t possible?
But if I cannot say that anything is impossible, aren’t I also saying necessarily that anything is therefore possible (even if that “thing” is incoherent to me)?
Saying 'I don't know if something is possible' is not ruling anything out.
Saying something is possible is ruling out that it is impossible.
-
NS,
Saying 'I don't know if something is possible' is not ruling anything out.
Yes.
Saying something is possible is ruling out that it is impossible.
In epistemological terms, yes. I can’t rule out that anything is impossible even when the proposed "thing" is undefined or incoherent to me.
-
NS,
Yes.
In epistemological terms, yes. I can’t rule out that anything is impossible even when the proposed "thing" is undefined or incoherent to me.
I'm confused by your last paragraph. Prof D is saying that because we can't say 'after life' is impossible, therefore it is possible. And yet you've agreed with me saying
'Saying something is possible is ruling out that it is impossible'. So that would mean you think Prof D has a logical paradox in his position.
-
I previously said that I'd accept that an after life is possible, but I don't actually know if it is possible or not really. How you phrase that to everyone's satisfaction I don't really know either. Maybe saying I accept it might be possible?
-
I previously said that I'd accept that an after life is possible, but I don't actually know if it is possible or not really. How you phrase that to everyone's satisfaction I don't really know either. Maybe saying I accept it might be possible?
I think something is either possible (probability >0) or impossible (probability =0). So unless a claim is confirmed to be impossible, i.e. falsified, then it should be considered possible.
Now we also have to factor in the level of knowledge - so we make a judgment on the current available evidence. So a claim may be considered possible currently, but if knowledge increases to the extent that the claim is clearly falsified we would conclude that on the basis of the new evidence that the claim isn't possible.
But I think the notion of 'I don't know if it is possible' seems to be muddying the waters - if you don't know that it is impossible then surely it must be considered possible based on the knowledge available at the time.
-
But it isn't either or - plenty of things are unknown but also possible. If I asked you whether it is raining in the middle of the Pacific Ocean right now, you may not know (you lack knowledge) but you'd accept it to be perfectly possible (i.e. not impossible). On the other hand if I asked the same question about a point somewhere between our galaxy and another galaxy ... well, that might produce a different response!
Agreed. But rain has been demonstrated, and so has the Pacific Ocean. So this is a possibility.
I think where I disagree, is when you accept something as possible simply because you do not know that it is impossible, and I don't think that is the correct approach.
What if someone posited several claims some of which would make previous claims impossible. If you accept them all as possible, then you know for sure that you must be accepting a claim that is countered by another.
-
It's not really a claim at all. It's merely saying "we can't rule it out".
True, but you also cannot rule it in either.
Saying something is possible or impossible is a claim that has a burden.
Simply saying we don't know does not.
-
True, but you also cannot rule it in either.
But saying a claim is possible is neither ruling it in nor ruling it out - unless it is 'certain', then it is the equivalent of saying that we don't know whether the claim is true or not.
Saying something is possible or impossible is a claim that has a burden.
Not really - saying something is impossible is a positive claim that the original claim is false. Saying it is possible isn't the same - effectively all it means is that we cannot conclude that it is impossible - it is no more a positive claim than saying you don't believe in something.
Simply saying we don't know does not.
But it is effectively the same thing - the question isn't 'do I know if it is possible' - the claim is either true or not true - if it is not true then it is impossible, if the claim is true that doesn't make it possible (which retains an element of doubt) - nope it makes it certain.
If we don't know whether a claim is true or not then we cannot conclude that the probability of the claim being true is either 0 (impossible/falsified) or 1 (certain/demonstrated). In which case probability is >0 but <1, and that surely must be described as possible (but neither impossible/false nor certain/true).
-
But to say something is "not impossible" surely leaves open the option of it being "possible".
If the "not impossible" is a proposal that is grounded on what is currently in place: say that the storage potential of batteries for electric cars could be increased by 20% over the next 5 years due to technical advances, then that proposal is "not impossible" since it is informed speculation based on what is extant, even if it turned out to be wrong.
However if "not impossible" is the response to a claim like 'an after life' that has no grounding in logic, reason or credible evidence then surely the correct response is say that without any grounding in logic, reason or credible evidence then the claim is currently no more than meaningless white noise, and that no assessment of it's 'possibility' can therefore be made. In essence, the 'impossible/possible' categorisation can't even be considered since it can't apply as things stand.
-
But to say something is "not impossible" surely leaves open the option of it being "possible".
If the "not impossible" is a proposal that is grounded on what is currently in place: say that the storage potential of batteries for electric cars could be increased by 20% over the next 5 years due to technical advances, then that proposal is "not impossible" since it is informed speculation based on what is extant, even if it turned out to be wrong.
However if "not impossible" is the response to a claim like 'an after life' that has no grounding in logic, reason or credible evidence then surely the correct response is say that without any grounding in logic, reason or credile evidbence then the claim is currently no more than meaningless white noise, and that no assessment of it's 'possibility' can therefore be made. In essence, the 'impossible/possible' categorisation can't even be considered since it can't apply as things stand.
You put it much better than me, and yes I completely agree.
-
So we reverse the approach, and I ask you for evidence that it is possible, and you can provide none, by this approach it means it is impossible?
No, because that would be an argument from personal incredulity.
-
No, because that would be an argument from personal incredulity.
So the reverse of that is simply personal credulity, and equally worthless.
-
NS,
But that the “with my current state of knowledge” is the critical a priori point here. I have no basis to assume that my current state of knowledge gives me anywhere near enough information to rule out anything – square circles and "y*&^%(^TO*G" included. The former is impossible only inasmuch as my grasp of logic tells me it is, and the latter may turn out to have meaning even though I have no way of discerning what it is.
Absent omniscience, on what ground then could argue that either of them (or anything else) isn’t possible?
But if I cannot say that anything is impossible, aren’t I also saying necessarily that anything is therefore possible (even if that “thing” is incoherent to me)?
You can definitely rule out square circles. That is definitionally an absurdity.
The problem is that NS is sort of conflating two things. There are two questions
A does x exist?
B is it possible that x exists?
If we answer B with "yes" it tells us nothing about the answer to A. If we answer B with "no" we are also answering A, so it follows the same standard of evidence is required.
I can't definitively rule out an afterlife, so I have to concede one is possible.
-
So the reverse of that is simply personal credulity, and equally worthless.
No. The reverse of "I can't believe it so it must be true" would be "I could believe it therefore it must be true", which is obviously a fallacy and so is the weaker "I could believe it therefore, it could be true". My position is "I can't rule it out therefore I must concede it might be true".
-
You can definitely rule out square circles. That is definitionally an absurdity.
The problem is that NS is sort of conflating two things. There are two questions
A does x exist?
B is it possible that x exists?
If we answer B with "yes" it tells us nothing about the answer to A. If we answer B with "no" we are also answering A, so it follows the same standard of evidence is required.
I can't definitively rule out an afterlife, so I have to concede one is possible.
No, I'm not conflating those 2 questions. In order to say something is possible - a claim to knowledge, you need sufficient knowledge to say that it is.
-
No. The reverse of "I can't believe it so it must be true" would be "I could believe it therefore it must be true", which is obviously a fallacy and so is the weaker "I could believe it therefore, it could be true". My position is "I can't rule it out therefore I must concede it might be true".
The statement that 'it might be true' is not equivalent to 'it is possible'.
-
No, I'm not conflating those 2 questions. In order to say something is possible - a claim to knowledge, you need sufficient knowledge to say that it is.
I have sufficient knowledge to say that it is possible.
-
But to say something is "not impossible" surely leaves open the option of it being "possible".
If the "not impossible" is a proposal that is grounded on what is currently in place: say that the storage potential of batteries for electric cars could be increased by 20% over the next 5 years due to technical advances, then that proposal is "not impossible" since it is informed speculation based on what is extant, even if it turned out to be wrong.
However if "not impossible" is the response to a claim like 'an after life' that has no grounding in logic, reason or credible evidence then surely the correct response is say that without any grounding in logic, reason or credible evidence then the claim is currently no more than meaningless white noise, and that no assessment of it's 'possibility' can therefore be made. In essence, the 'impossible/possible' categorisation can't even be considered since it can't apply as things stand.
Spot on, Gordon.
Ascribing truth values or probabilities to meaningless propositions is not valid - if allowed just drags in the "principle of explosion" where no statement has any useable meaning.
I'm just surprised by how a Sriram OP (essentially drivel) can still cascade into a flow of so many bad arguments.
Still ... "if 6 turned out be 9 ... "
-
NS,
I'm confused by your last paragraph. Prof D is saying that because we can't say 'after life' is impossible, therefore it is possible. And yet you've agreed with me saying 'Saying something is possible is ruling out that it is impossible'. So that would mean you think Prof D has a logical paradox in his position.
Maybe I’m having a slow start this morning, but I can’t see the paradox. If we can’t say that anything is impossible (and I think we can’t no matter how undefined, apparently contradictory or incoherent to us) then it’s necessarily possible isn’t it?
-
Jeremy,
You can definitely rule out square circles. That is definitionally an absurdity.
Insofar as our grasp of logic makes it an absurdity that's true, but how would you know that that logic is universally applicable? How for example would you rule out "you" being a computer avatar that's just programmed to to think square circles are absurdities?
-
You can definitely rule out square circles. That is definitionally an absurdity.
The problem is that NS is sort of conflating two things. There are two questions
A does x exist?
B is it possible that x exists?
If we answer B with "yes" it tells us nothing about the answer to A. If we answer B with "no" we are also answering A, so it follows the same standard of evidence is required.
I can't definitively rule out an afterlife, so I have to concede one is possible.
Using a silly example. If there was a murder in the manor house (the butler did it of course), but he says an invisisble alien from plant zod did it, and just made all the evidence look like it was the butler.
Does the alien qualify as a candidate explanation for the murder, as you cannot say it is impossible that the alien did it. Or do you need some demonstration that the alien exists, and is capable of fiddling with evidence?
The butler did it as in all good murders!
-
NS,
Maybe I’m having a slow start this morning, but I can’t see the paradox. If we can’t say that anything is impossible (and I think we can’t no matter how undefined, apparently contradictory or incoherent to us) then it’s necessarily possible isn’t it?
I think we just say that some things are not possibility-apt and leave at that until such times as there are grounds to take whatever it is moderately seriously - such as 'after life' notions.
-
NS,
Maybe I’m having a slow start this morning, but I can’t see the paradox. If we can’t say that anything is impossible (and I think we can’t no matter how undefined, apparently contradictory or incoherent to us) then it’s necessarily possible isn’t it?
It's a bootstrap paradox
If you start with :
If you can't show something to be impossible, it is possible (note, I don't agree with that but for the purposes of illustrating the paradox, let's accept Prof D's starting position)
Followed by:
If something is possible, it rules out it being impossible
(Which you agreed with)
Then it follows that you have shown it by that logic to be impossible from a starting point of just not being able to show that it is impossible.
-
I have sufficient knowledge to say that it is possible.
Then demonstrate it to be possible
-
Jeremy,
Insofar as our grasp of logic makes it an absurdity that's true, but how would you know that that logic is universally applicable? How for example would you rule out "you" being a computer avatar that's just programmed to to think square circles are absurdities?
The mathematical definition of a circle rules out it being a square and vice versa. These are names we apply to different phenomena. If you claim mathematics and logic are not universal, it still doesn't help your point because these are definitions we have arrived at using our logic and our mathematics. They would hold no meaning for some alien species with different logic and mathematical systems.
-
Then demonstrate it to be possible
I know I can't show it to be impossible. That knowledge leads me to concede it is possible.
-
I know I can't show it to be impossible. That knowledge leads me to concede it is possible.
What if in reality, it is impossible? You have then conceded something that is just wrong.
Why do you feel to need to take a position on possible/impossible before a demonstration has been made.
Is it no better to just not know?
-
I know I can't show it to be impossible. That knowledge leads me to concede it is possible.
That's insufficient knowledge for a claim that it is possible. You do not know whether it is possible or not.
-
What if in reality, it is impossible? You have then conceded something that is just wrong.
That may be the case, but for the moment, I can't demonstrate it is impossible.
Why do you feel to need to take a position on possible/impossible before a demonstration has been made.
It's no skin off my nose to concede it may be possible. The important question is not "is it possible that there is an afterlife?" but "is there an afterlife?"
-
That's insufficient knowledge for a claim that it is possible.
No it isn't.
You do not know whether it is possible or not.
Based on the knowledge I have, I have to concede it is possible.
Let's take a more cut and dried statement:
"Is there an even number greater than two that cannot be written as the sum of two primes?"
For example
4 = 2 + 2
6 = 3 + 3
8 = 5 + 3
10 = 5 + 5
12 = 7 + 5
I cannot prove that such a number does not exist, nor can anybody else (yet) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture), therefore I must concede that it is possible it does exist. This is in spite of the fact that such a number must be greater than 4 x 1018 - all even numbers smaller than that have been verified to be the sum of two primes.
-
No it isn't.Based on the knowledge I have, I have to concede it is possible.
Let's take a more cut and dried statement:
"Is there an even number greater than two that cannot be written as the sum of two primes?"
For example
4 = 2 + 2
6 = 3 + 3
8 = 5 + 3
10 = 5 + 5
12 = 7 + 5
I cannot prove that such a number does not exist, nor can anybody else (yet) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture), therefore I must concede that it is possible it does exist. This is in spite of the fact that such a number must be greater than 4 x 1018 - all numbers smaller than that have been verified to be the sum of two primes.0
The example does not work, in fact it illustrates the opposite since it is based around your knowledge of numbers, and maths. What similar knowledge do you have as regards a claim about 'after life'?
-
The example does not work
Yes it does.
in fact it illustrates the opposite since it is based around your knowledge of numbers, and maths.
Nonsense. It's based around the fact that there is no proof of the impossibility.
What similar knowledge do you have as regards a claim about 'after life'?
I know quite a lot about various different versions of the afterlife and I know quite a lot about human physiology for a layman. Of course, my knowledge about these things is not as good as my knowledge about mathematics (I have a BSc in the latter), but that makes me more likely to concede an afterlife is possible.
-
NS,
Sorry it’s taken me a while to reply…
…It's a bootstrap paradox
If you start with :
If you can't show something to be impossible, it is possible (note, I don't agree with that but for the purposes of illustrating the paradox, let's accept Prof D's starting position)
I do start with that yes – though I’d probably qualify the “possible” with “conceptually” or “theoretically”. How for example would I eliminate the possibility that I’m merely programmed to think that square circles are impossible?
In other words, any statement of fact is necessarily delimited by our ability to know things to be facts and we’re not omniscient.
Followed by:
If something is possible, it rules out it being impossible
(Which you agreed with)
Yes. I can’t rule out that anything is categorically impossible when there’s necessarily a theoretical possibility of being wrong about that – it’s the “unknown unknowns” problem.
Then it follows that you have shown it by that logic to be impossible from a starting point of just not being able to show that it is impossible.
I’ve read this several times and still can’t make sense of it. Maybe it’s me, but can you clarify please?
-
That's insufficient knowledge for a claim that it is possible. You do not know whether it is possible or not.
But you can turn that around.
If there is insufficient knowledge to determine that a claim is impossible then it must be considered possible (the only other option being 'certain') until or unless it is determined to be either proven (certain) or falsified (impossible).
If you do not know that it is either impossible, or certain, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it is possible.
-
But you can turn that around.
If there is insufficient knowledge to determine that a claim is impossible then it must be considered possible (the only other option being 'certain') until or unless it is determined to be either proven (certain) or falsified (impossible).
If you do not know that it is either impossible, or certain, then the only reasonable conclusion is that it is possible.
I disagree. I do not think that is reasonable.
I think the reasonable thing to do is withhold any conclusion.
Your reasonable beliefs or assumptions should be based on evidence and reason.
You are say that you have no evidence or reason to think that it is possible, but you are going to assume it is until shown that it is impossible.
This seems wrong to me.
-
Hi BR,
I disagree. I do not think that is reasonable.
I think the reasonable thing to do is withhold any conclusion.
Your reasonable beliefs or assumptions should be based on evidence and reason.
You are say that you have no evidence or reason to think that it is possible, but you are going to assume it is until shown that it is impossible.
This seems wrong to me
But why? The mistake here I think is to treat “impossible” and “possible” as opposites, when they’re not. “Impossible” is a claim of certainty – ie, that something definitively cannot be the case no matter the limitations on human understanding. “Possible” on the other hand is a probabilistic statement (albeit that the probability is unknown). That is, “impossible” and “possible” are in different epistemic categories.
In other words, if “impossible” cannot definitively be justified (and I think it can’t) then “possible” is the only other option.
-
Hi BR,
But why? The mistake here I think is to treat “impossible” and “possible” as opposites, when they’re not. “Impossible” is a claim of certainty – ie, that something definitively cannot be the case no matter the limitations on human understanding. “Possible” on the other hand is a probabilistic statement (albeit that the probability is unknown). That is, “impossible” and “possible” are in different epistemic categories.
In other words, if “impossible” cannot definitively be justified (and I think it can’t) then “possible” is the only other option.
This can lead you to wrong conclusions I think
What if something actually is impossible, but you are not able to determine that. You then conclude that it is possible.
I think possible and impossible are opposites and both are claims that have the burden of proof.
If some thing cannot be shown to be either possible or impossible, then the conclusion is that is might be either, so no determination can be made.
-
BR,
This can lead you to wrong conclusions I think
What if something actually is impossible, but you are not able to determine that. You then conclude that it is possible.
Yes.
I think possible and impossible are opposites and both are claims that have the burden of proof.
No. “Impossible” does, but “possible” is just another way of saying “don’t know”. If I can’t rule something (or anything for that matter) out definitively, then “possible” is all that’s left.
If some thing cannot be shown to be either possible or impossible, then the conclusion is that is might be either, so no determination can be made.
But you’re conflating here the objective fact of the matter with the epistemic belief about the fact of the matter. For all I know there are many things that definitively are impossible, but in epistemological terms I cannot justifiably assign that status to any claim because I’m not omniscient. There’s a phrase that summarises this rather neatly: “the map is not the territory”.
-
If I say something is impossible, I'm making a definite claim and you would be within your rights to demand good evidence to back my claim up.
If I say something is possible, it can mean anything from "I can't show it is impossible" to "I can't show it happened but I can see a way it could have happened". The former is not saying anything really, it's fence sitting (which is a legitimate position). The latter is saying a bit more IMO and i would say "life after death" falls in that category for me.
I can't show that life after death is impossible. Everything I know about human physiology tells me that life ceases at death but I can't rule it out completely. In fact, I can conceive of a couple of ways it might be true, just off the top of my head. For example, quantum mechanics tells us that there is a finite probability that the fundamental particles in a dead body might spontaneously rearrange themselves into a living body. The probability of that happening is extremely low, but if the Universe is infinite, it probably has happened somewhere. Also, if the simulation hypothesis is true, I could imagine its programmers saving our brain state at or just before death and injecting it into another simulation elsewhere.
So I am comfortable with saying life after death is possible even under NS's definition. However, I'm not challenging Sriram to show it is possible, I'm challenging him to show it happens.
-
When death is a matter of individual experience, how can I show that an after life actually happens?! It is not a material phenomenon that can be filmed or measured. It is a philosophical possibility and NDE's are (according to me and most others) sufficient evidence for it.
-
When death is a matter of individual experience, how can I show that an after life actually happens?!
It does not appear that you can; given that you can't show anyone else, how can you have any confidence yourself?
It is not a material phenomenon that can be filmed or measured.
Yet the life that is finishing is, at least partially, a material phenomenon. You could attempt to justify the notion that something of life was non-material, in order for there to be a need for something 'else' for the non-material element to do, but so far you've not managed that, either.
It is a philosophical possibility and NDE's are (according to me and most others) sufficient evidence for it.
I don't know about 'most'. Whilst I'll accept that most people believe in an afterlife, I don't think 'most' people would cite NDE as the justification for their claim, the majority would just likely cite religious teaching. As we've seen from pretty exhaustive iterations of the same failed arguments, near death experiences (sort of by definition) aren't reliable evidence that something happens after death, let alone what it might be.
O.
-
Jeremy,
If I say something is impossible, I'm making a definite claim and you would be within your rights to demand good evidence to back my claim up.
Yes, though if we’re talking in epistemological terms that’d be a fool’s errand because, axiomatically, we cannot be sure that anything is impossible because we’re not omniscient. Square circles for example are only as impossible as our ability to reason about such things, but who’s to say that that’s also true at a deeper but inaccessible level of reasoning?
(Just by way of a side bar, no doubt by the way pre the quantum age wave-particle duality would have seemed as impossible as square circles do to us now too.)
If I say something is possible, it can mean anything from "I can't show it is impossible" to "I can't show it happened but I can see a way it could have happened". The former is not saying anything really, it's fence sitting (which is a legitimate position). The latter is saying a bit more IMO and i would say "life after death" falls in that category for me.
I can't show that life after death is impossible. Everything I know about human physiology tells me that life ceases at death but I can't rule it out completely. In fact, I can conceive of a couple of ways it might be true, just off the top of my head. For example, quantum mechanics tells us that there is a finite probability that the fundamental particles in a dead body might spontaneously rearrange themselves into a living body. The probability of that happening is extremely low, but if the Universe is infinite, it probably has happened somewhere. Also, if the simulation hypothesis is true, I could imagine its programmers saving our brain state at or just before death and injecting it into another simulation elsewhere.
So I am comfortable with saying life after death is possible even under NS's definition. However, I'm not challenging Sriram to show it is possible, I'm challenging him to show it happens.
Or better yet that it’s probable rather than just possible. He’ll never do that no matter how many times he’s asked but that’s his fundamental problem: finding a logical path from possible to probable.
-
Sriram,
When death is a matter of individual experience, how can I show that an after life actually happens?!
That’s your problem. If you want to assert an afterlife then the burden of proof to demonstrate that rests with you, the person making the claim. It’s no use calling it “an individual experience” and then expecting people just to take your word for it.
It is not a material phenomenon that can be filmed or measured.
Like leprechauns are not a material phenomenon too you mean? Again, if something can’t be “filmed or measured” then how would you know that it’s real at all?
It is a philosophical possibility…
So are leprechauns. So what though?
… and NDE's…
...that tell us no more about actual death than sex tells us about actual pregnancy remember?
…are (according to me and most others)…
A dubious claim at best, and an argumentum ad populum fallacy too.
…sufficient evidence for it.
Utter bullshit. At best NDEs tell us something about physiological processes as we approach death, but there’s no good reason to think they also tell us something about actual death too. It’s shame you always run away when you’re asked to show a path from the “Near” part to an “actual” part, but the problem doesn’t go away for all your avoidance of it.
-
It does not appear that you can; given that you can't show anyone else, how can you have any confidence yourself?
Yet the life that is finishing is, at least partially, a material phenomenon. You could attempt to justify the notion that something of life was non-material, in order for there to be a need for something 'else' for the non-material element to do, but so far you've not managed that, either.
I don't know about 'most'. Whilst I'll accept that most people believe in an afterlife, I don't think 'most' people would cite NDE as the justification for their claim, the majority would just likely cite religious teaching. As we've seen from pretty exhaustive iterations of the same failed arguments, near death experiences (sort of by definition) aren't reliable evidence that something happens after death, let alone what it might be.
O.
It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.
-
It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.
Confirmation bias.
-
It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.
Which is why there is no much confusion and and so many contradictory beliefs in the world. People start from a position of beliefs that they like, and then invest time and effort in trying to bolster them. A true student of life has to be prepared to abandon beliefs and follow the evidence to discover wherever it leads.
-
Beliefs are not without reason. They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes. Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.
You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.
-
Beliefs are not without reason. They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes. Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.
You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.
Of course you are convinced because it fits with your pre-existing beliefs. Confirmation bias.
-
Beliefs are not without reason. They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes. Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.
You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.
Not accepting claims without sufficient evidence is no obstruction to thinking on such (or any) topics. Denialism, which I think is what you are referring to, does.
-
Beliefs are not without reason. They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes. Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.
You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.
I had an OBE once, a mild one. I have no problem understanding it as a short lived aberration in otherwise normal brain function. All our experience is essentially controlled ongoing hallucination. It's not surprising that this process might go awry under particular circumstances.
-
Sriram,
It starts with a belief…
When you start with a belief rather than with the evidence you’ll consider anything that confirms the belief to be evidence. That’s called confirmation bias – yet another of the fallacies on which you rely.
…and faith…
“Faith” is epistemically indistinguishable from guessing.
…and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences.
This is a major mistake: “personal experiences” fundamentally are subjective. If you want to justify your claim to have evidence for your beliefs you need to find an objective means to do that.
Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.
No they don’t. They don’t for the reasons that keep being explained to you and that you keep running away from.
Again, you poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
Sriram,
Beliefs are not without reason.
Now you’re contradicting yourself. In your previous posts you told us “It starts with a belief and faith”. Here though you tell us it starts with reasons. You need to work out which horse you’re riding here, but if it’s now starting with reasons before you form the belief then you need to justify those reasons if you want the belief to be taken seriously. So far at least your reasons (such as they are) have been hopeless.
They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.
If you want to claim too have “insights” then you need to explain why they’re different from dumb guessing. Until and unless you can do that there’s no reason to treat them anything but dumb guessing.
Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology.
What “forces”? So far, all you’ve done is to assert then rather than demonstrate them.
These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.
Not if they’re not there in the first place they can’t, no – see above. You have quite the facility for just asserting things into existence, and then making various claims about them.
You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....
Explain, not dismiss but ok.
…your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise. But I am convinced that they are real after life events.
But your convictions rest variously on ad homs, further logical fallacies and unqualified and evidence-denying assertions. As (presumably) you’d like people here not to think them to be nonsense, why are you never concerned with addressing these problems?
Again, you poor reasoning is letting you down here.
-
Jeremy,
Yes, though if we’re talking in epistemological terms that’d be a fool’s errand because, axiomatically, we cannot be sure that anything is impossible because we’re not omniscient. Square circles for example are only as impossible as our ability to reason about such things, but who’s to say that that’s also true at a deeper but inaccessible level of reasoning?
No, square circles are definitely impossible because that is a matter of definition. If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition. I know what you are trying to say, but this is a bad example.
In fact, we can say that any mathematical theorem with a proof is definitely true even if we assume that human reasoning is not the be all and end all. In maths we define a few axioms which we often say are "self evidently true" although they don't have to be and then we use our reasoning abilities to work out new results, but, at the end of the day, these new results are tautologies: we don't have any new information. It was all encoded in the axioms and the reasoning system.
Or better yet that it’s probable rather than just possible. He’ll never do that no matter how many times he’s asked but that’s his fundamental problem: finding a logical path from possible to probable.
Yes. The evidence for life after death is meagre at the moment and more easily explained by hallucinations and hoaxes.I need a lot more to tip the balance of probabilities into the more likely than not region.
-
Jeremy,
No, square circles are definitely impossible because that is a matter of definition. If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition. I know what you are trying to say, but this is a bad example.
But you’re forgetting that definitions are also human-made. Pre the quantum age for example a wave was in part defined as “not capable of acting as a particle” and vice versa because that was as far as contemporary reasoning and evidence went, yet it was wrong. That’s the point – “If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition” is a stating of a contemporary and localised definition, but not necessarily of a universal truth.
In fact, we can say that any mathematical theorem with a proof is definitely true even if we assume that human reasoning is not the be all and end all.
No we can’t. The most we can say is that a mathematical theorem is “definitely true” but only insofar our ability to reason tells us that it’s definitely true. How for example would you eliminate even the possibility that “you” are actually a simulation in a celestial computer game that’s just programmed to think that 2+2=4?
In maths we define a few axioms which we often say are "self evidently true" although they don't have to be and then we use our reasoning abilities to work out new results, but, at the end of the day, these new results are tautologies: we don't have any new information. It was all encoded in the axioms and the reasoning system.
Yes axioms are assumptions that we have to accept as true to serve as premises for further reasoning, but we cannot know for certain that the axioms are certainly true unless we're also omniscient. Axioms are functionally and usefully true, but it's overreaching to assume them to be therefore universally true too. That’s the point.
Yes. The evidence for life after death is meagre at the moment and more easily explained by hallucinations and hoaxes.I need a lot more to tip the balance of probabilities into the more likely than not region.
As would anyone possessed of a functioning intellect…
-
I had an OBE once, a mild one. I have no problem understanding it as a short lived aberration in otherwise normal brain function. All our experience is essentially controlled ongoing hallucination. It's not surprising that this process might go awry under particular circumstances.
OBE's can be had by anyone because we all have a soul (we are the soul in fact) which can at times (no idea why) leave the body temporarily.
https://www.healthline.com/health/out-of-body-experience#takeaway
***********
A recent 2022 reviewTrusted Source tried to explore this by evaluating a variety of studies and case reports evaluating consciousness, cognitive awareness, and recall in people who survived cardiac arrest.
They noted that some people report experiencing a separation from their body during resuscitation and some even reported an awareness of events they wouldn’t have seen from their actual perspective.
In addition, one study included in the review noted that two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. Only one was well enough to follow up, but he gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
************
-
Sriram,
OBE's can be had by anyone because we all have a soul (we are the soul in fact) which can at times (no idea why) leave the body temporarily.
Thank you for you entirely un-evidenced blind faith claim. Here's mine:
Leprechauns are definitely musical because they must be to be able to play the harp (no idea why).
OK, your turn...
Alternatively you could perhaps consider desisting with the mindless bullshit and instead trying at least to address the questions that hitherto you've just avoided. You might for example want to begin with finally telling us why you think Near death experiences tell us any more about actual death than, say, sex tells us about pregnancy.
Your call though.
-
Sriram,
OBE's can be had by anyone because we all have a soul (we are the soul in fact) which can at times (no idea why) leave the body temporarily.
https://www.healthline.com/health/out-of-body-experience#takeaway
***********
A recent 2022 reviewTrusted Source tried to explore this by evaluating a variety of studies and case reports evaluating consciousness, cognitive awareness, and recall in people who survived cardiac arrest.
They noted that some people report experiencing a separation from their body during resuscitation and some even reported an awareness of events they wouldn’t have seen from their actual perspective.
In addition, one study included in the review noted that two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. Only one was well enough to follow up, but he gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
Ooh, epic quote mining there Sriram. Here are some of the bits you cut out that completely undermine your blind faith claims (emphases added in bold):
“An out-of-body experience is often described as feeling like you’ve left your physical body. There are many potential causes, including several medical conditions and experiences.”
“Still, there’s no scientific evidence to support the idea that a person’s consciousness can actually travel outside the body.”
‘What can cause them?
No one’s sure about the exact causes of OBEs, but experts have identified several possible explanations.
Stress or trauma
A frightening, dangerous, or difficult situation can provoke a fear response, which might cause you to dissociate from the situation and feel as if you’re an onlooker. This may make you feel as though you are watching the events from somewhere outside your body.
According to 2017 researchTrusted Source reviewing the experience of women in labor, OBEs during childbirth aren’t unusual.
The study didn’t specifically link OBEs to post-traumatic stress disorder, but the authors did point out that women who had OBEs had either gone through trauma during labor or another situation not related to childbirth.
This suggests that OBEs could occur as a way to cope with trauma, but more research is needed on this potential link.
Medical conditions
Experts have linked several medical and mental health conditions to OBEs, including:
• epilepsy
• migraine
• cardiac arrest
• brain injuries
• depression
• anxiety
• Guillain-Barré syndrome
Dissociative disorders, particularly depersonalization-derealization disorder, can involve frequent feelings or episodes where you seem to be observing yourself from outside your body.
Sleep paralysis has also been noted as a possible cause of OBEs. It refers to a temporary state of waking paralysis that occurs during REM sleep and often involvesTrusted Source hallucinations.
Research suggestsTrusted Source many people who have OBEs with a near-death experience also often experience sleep paralysis.
In addition, a review of literature from 2020 suggests that sleep-wake disturbances may contributeTrusted Source to dissociative symptoms. This can include a feeling of leaving your body.
Medication and drugs
Some people report having an OBE while under the influence of anesthesia.
Other substances, including cannabis, ketamine, or hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, can causeTrusted Source this sensation.
Near-death experiences
OBEs can occur during near-death experiences, often alongside other phenomena like flashbacks of previous memories or seeing a light at the end of a tunnel.
Though it’s not clear exactly why this happens, it’s believed to be caused by disruptions in certain areas of the brain involved with processing sensory information. A 2021 reviewTrusted Source suggests that these experiences may be more likely to occur during life threatening situations, which can include:
• cardiac arrest
• traumatic injury
• brain hemorrhage
• drowning
• suffocation
Strong G-forces
Pilots and astronauts sometimes experience OBEs when strong gravitational forces, or G-forces, are encountered. This is because it causesTrusted Source blood to pool in the lower body, which can lead to loss of conscious and may induce an OBE.
Extreme G-forces can also causeTrusted Source spatial disorientation, peripheral vision loss, and disconnection between cognition and the ability to act.’
And just to put the last nail in your coffin…
“Paranormal
Though not backed by research, some people believe that OBEs can occur when your soul or spirit leaves your body...
...However, research has not been able to show that these practices cause OBEs.”[/quote]
In other words, according to the article you linked to, there's lots of evidence for naturalistic causes of NDEs and OBEs, and none at all for your woo conclusions.
If you really want to try citing trusted sources for support you might in future want to consider finding some that don’t actually undermine the argument you’re trying to make.
Just a thought.
-
Sriram,
Statement 1: women give birth to babies.
Statement 2: storks deliver babies.
Statement 1: has overwhelming evidence.
Statement 2: has no evidence whatsoever.
You: babies are definitely delivered by storks.
Your arguments:
- Just because you can’t film or measure storks doing it doesn’t mean storks aren’t doing it
- Your scepticism prevents you from accepting the obvious truth of my claim about storks
- Lots of people think it’s storks
- You’re suffering from microscopic thinking, so can’t focus properly on the stork delivery big picture
- The evidence for storks delivering babies could be everywhere (though I can’t actually produce any of it)
- Here’s an article about storks delivering babies that makes it very clear that there’s no evidence for it whatsoever Oh wait, what?
Have I missed any?
-
Jeremy,
But you’re forgetting that definitions are also human-made.
No I am not. I am explicitly accepting that. Squares and circles are abstract concepts defined within the framework of human reasoning. They are definitionally mutually exclusive. You may say some other reasoning framework exists somewhere in which squares and circles can be the same thing, but the objects to which you are referring are explicitly not the squares and circles of our logical framework.
Pre the quantum age for example a wave was in part defined as “not capable of acting as a particle” and vice versa
Was it? I don't believe that is the case. I think people just thought of them as different phenomena. People don't usually define things in terms of what they are not.
because that was as far as contemporary reasoning and evidence went, yet it was wrong.
I don't think the problem arose until people started observing objects that appeared to behave like particles in some circumstances and waves in others. The resolution was simple in that it turned out that quantum level objects are neither particles (in the Newtonian sense) nor waves but objects whose behaviour can be described by mathematics that looks identical to the mathematics of waves.
That’s the point – “If there is a right angle anywhere on the perimeter of a shape, it is not a circle by definition” is a stating of a contemporary and localised definition, but not necessarily of a universal truth.
It is by definition because it is a definition.
No we can’t. The most we can say is that a mathematical theorem is “definitely true” but only insofar our ability to reason tells us that it’s definitely true. How for example would you eliminate even the possibility that “you” are actually a simulation in a celestial computer game that’s just programmed to think that 2+2=4?
But in our "celestial computer", 2+2=4 ids a fundamental truth. It may not be in some other celestial computer (seems unlikely though), but it is certainly true that "in our reality 2+2=4"
Yes axioms are assumptions that we have to accept as true to serve as premises for further reasoning, but we cannot know for certain that the axioms are certainly true unless we're also omniscient. Axioms are functionally and usefully true, but it's overreaching to assume them to be therefore universally true too. That’s the point.
Wrong. Axioms do not have to be "true". Mathematicians use them and invent them and see if interesting things come out in the wash. For example, if you take as your axioms the five geometric axioms of Euclid, you can show by a line of logical reasoning that the angles of a triangle always add up to two right angles. However, it turns out that you don't have to accept one of the axioms - the "parallel postulate". If you substitute it with a different axiom, you find that the angles of a triangle do not add up to two right angles. The statement "the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is false, but the statement "if we accept Euclid's axioms including the parallel postulate, then the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is true."
There really is no such thing as a square circle.
There might be life after death, but I doubt it and I would bet my house that there isn't.
-
Sriram,
Ooh, epic quote mining there Sriram. Here are some of the bits you cut out that completely undermine your blind faith claims (emphases added in bold):
“An out-of-body experience is often described as feeling like you’ve left your physical body. There are many potential causes, including several medical conditions and experiences.”
“Still, there’s no scientific evidence to support the idea that a person’s consciousness can actually travel outside the body.”
‘What can cause them?
No one’s sure about the exact causes of OBEs, but experts have identified several possible explanations.
Stress or trauma
A frightening, dangerous, or difficult situation can provoke a fear response, which might cause you to dissociate from the situation and feel as if you’re an onlooker. This may make you feel as though you are watching the events from somewhere outside your body.
According to 2017 researchTrusted Source reviewing the experience of women in labor, OBEs during childbirth aren’t unusual.
The study didn’t specifically link OBEs to post-traumatic stress disorder, but the authors did point out that women who had OBEs had either gone through trauma during labor or another situation not related to childbirth.
This suggests that OBEs could occur as a way to cope with trauma, but more research is needed on this potential link.
Medical conditions
Experts have linked several medical and mental health conditions to OBEs, including:
• epilepsy
• migraine
• cardiac arrest
• brain injuries
• depression
• anxiety
• Guillain-Barré syndrome
Dissociative disorders, particularly depersonalization-derealization disorder, can involve frequent feelings or episodes where you seem to be observing yourself from outside your body.
Sleep paralysis has also been noted as a possible cause of OBEs. It refers to a temporary state of waking paralysis that occurs during REM sleep and often involvesTrusted Source hallucinations.
Research suggestsTrusted Source many people who have OBEs with a near-death experience also often experience sleep paralysis.
In addition, a review of literature from 2020 suggests that sleep-wake disturbances may contributeTrusted Source to dissociative symptoms. This can include a feeling of leaving your body.
Medication and drugs
Some people report having an OBE while under the influence of anesthesia.
Other substances, including cannabis, ketamine, or hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD, can causeTrusted Source this sensation.
Near-death experiences
OBEs can occur during near-death experiences, often alongside other phenomena like flashbacks of previous memories or seeing a light at the end of a tunnel.
Though it’s not clear exactly why this happens, it’s believed to be caused by disruptions in certain areas of the brain involved with processing sensory information. A 2021 reviewTrusted Source suggests that these experiences may be more likely to occur during life threatening situations, which can include:
• cardiac arrest
• traumatic injury
• brain hemorrhage
• drowning
• suffocation
Strong G-forces
Pilots and astronauts sometimes experience OBEs when strong gravitational forces, or G-forces, are encountered. This is because it causesTrusted Source blood to pool in the lower body, which can lead to loss of conscious and may induce an OBE.
Extreme G-forces can also causeTrusted Source spatial disorientation, peripheral vision loss, and disconnection between cognition and the ability to act.’
And just to put the last nail in your coffin…
“Paranormal
Though not backed by research, some people believe that OBEs can occur when your soul or spirit leaves your body...
...However, research has not been able to show that these practices cause OBEs.”
In other words, according to the article you linked to, there's lots of evidence for naturalistic causes of NDEs and OBEs, and none at all for your woo conclusions.
If you really want to try citing trusted sources for support you might in future want to consider finding some that don’t actually undermine the argument you’re trying to make.
Just a thought.
Scientists are not sure what it is. They have noted instances where the two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. One gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
Even one such instance is enough to indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. You people however are cocksure that it is all a hallucination....which is wrong.
In fact, during epilepsy, heart attacks etc...the soul could leave the body temporarily. You only accept what you can see and measure....that need not always be the truth.
-
Scientists are not sure what it is. They have noted instances where the two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. One gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
Even one such instance is enough to indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. You people however are cocksure that it is all a hallucination....which is wrong.
In fact, during epilepsy, heart attacks etc...the soul could leave the body temporarily. You only accept what you can see and measure....that need not always be the truth.
That these events are hallucinatory episodes is what research suggests. All experience is sustained ongoing hallucination generated by brain function. If you open your eyes and look at something, it is not the external thing you are seeing, you are having a visual experience that is generated from within by the workings of mind. Sensory information arriving on twin optic nerve fibres merely modulates the experience, it does not generate it. This is at the heart of understanding why illusions occur. Given this, it is hardly surprising that we sometimes experience altered states of consciousness; therefore we have no longer have any need for prescientific concepts like 'souls' which have no basis in ether evidence or reason.
-
That these events are hallucinatory episodes is what research suggests. All experience is sustained ongoing hallucination generated by brain function. If you open your eyes and look at something, it is not the external thing you are seeing, you are having a visual experience that is generated from within by the workings of mind. Sensory information arriving on twin optic nerve fibres merely modulates the experience, it does not generate it. This is at the heart of understanding why illusions occur. Given this, it is hardly surprising that we sometimes experience altered states of consciousness; therefore we have no longer have any need for prescientific concepts like 'souls' which have no basis in ether evidence or reason.
You still have these archaic ideas of prescience ideas and post science ideas. Reality is one. We had some models earlier and we have some models now. It is not necessary that all the models of today are necessarily correct and all earlier models are necessarily wrong. We may have to re-look at some earlier models and see if they work along with today's models to present a more meaningful picture.
Problem is that when something goes against your fondly held models ....even if presented by eminent people of your own scientific community....you people react violently and dismissively....
-
You still have these archaic ideas of prescience ideas and post science ideas. Reality is one. We had some models earlier and we have some models now. It is not necessary that all the models of today are necessarily correct and all earlier models are necessarily wrong. We may have to re-look at some earlier models and see if they work along with today's models to present a more meaningful picture.
Problem is that when something goes against your fondly held models ....even if presented by eminent people of your own scientific community....you people react violently and dismissively....
The ideas I put on here are not archaic, they are from the cutting edge of consciousness research.
-
That these events are hallucinatory episodes is what research suggests. All experience is sustained ongoing hallucination generated by brain function. If you open your eyes and look at something, it is not the external thing you are seeing, you are having a visual experience that is generated from within by the workings of mind. Sensory information arriving on twin optic nerve fibres merely modulates the experience, it does not generate it. This is at the heart of understanding why illusions occur. Given this, it is hardly surprising that we sometimes experience altered states of consciousness; therefore we have no longer have any need for prescientific concepts like 'souls' which have no basis in ether evidence or reason.
https://tinyurl.com/46r4hsvd
-
Scientists are not sure what it is. They have noted instances where the two participants reported having both visual and auditory experiences while in cardiac arrest. One gave an accurate, detailed description of what took place for about three minutes of his resuscitation from cardiac arrest.
Even one such instance is enough to indicate that there is more to it than meets the eye. You people however are cocksure that it is all a hallucination....which is wrong.
In fact, during epilepsy, heart attacks etc...the soul could leave the body temporarily. You only accept what you can see and measure....that need not always be the truth.
As the article makes clear, the description of what took place was during the CPR phase, where the possibility of CPR induced consciousness is accepted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9108988/
The article also makes clear that so far there have been zero instances that confirm veridical perception in OBEs(including the two cases mentioned in your original link).
You have still produced nothing of any worth which suggests that there is life after death or that there is such a thing as a soul. Hence, suggesting that the soul can leave the body is a futile exercise on your part to convince others, unless and until you can produce evidence that a soul actually exists.
-
Jeremy,
No I am not. I am explicitly accepting that. Squares and circles are abstract concepts defined within the framework of human reasoning. They are definitionally mutually exclusive. You may say some other reasoning framework exists somewhere in which squares and circles can be the same thing, but the objects to which you are referring are explicitly not the squares and circles of our logical framework.
But you’re saying here “if I define squares as having right angles then a shape without right angles cannot be a square”. That tells us nothing about the universal properties of squares and circles though – just about the definitions we (currently) apply to them. That doesn’t mean however that it’s impossible for a square also to be circle nonetheless because current definitions do not necessarily map to that potential reality.
Was it? I don't believe that is the case. I think people just thought of them as different phenomena. People don't usually define things in terms of what they are not.
Yes. “Things” were defined as one thing or a different thing, but it was thought to be impossible for them to behave as both at the same time.
I don't think the problem arose until people started observing objects that appeared to behave like particles in some circumstances and waves in others. The resolution was simple in that it turned out that quantum level objects are neither particles (in the Newtonian sense) nor waves but objects whose behaviour can be described by mathematics that looks identical to the mathematics of waves.
Yes, but the point rather is that something considered impossible wasn’t. I referenced the quantum not to have discussion about it, but rather to illustrate that sometimes things though to be impossible are later found to be not impossible – ie, we cannot rule out the possibility that anything else currently thought to be impossible isn’t impossible after all.
It is by definition because it is a definition.
But not necessarily the reality it seeks to define. That’s the point. We define “square” in a very specific way, but that’s all it is – a definition. Who’s to say that one day someone might not say, “unlike what we thought squares to be back in the 21st century, we now know that squares have all sorts of different circular properties too”?
But in our "celestial computer", 2+2=4 ids a fundamental truth. It may not be in some other celestial computer (seems unlikely though), but it is certainly true that "in our reality 2+2=4"
But what makes you think that our reality is also the reality, and in the game it’s not only a “fundamental truth” inasmuch as that’s what an algorithm tells “us” to think? Axioms are also referred to sometimes as assumptions – and for good reason: assumptions can be wrong.
On what basis then could we be sure that claims of impossibility that rest on axioms might not also therefore be wrong?
Wrong. Axioms do not have to be "true".
Yes they do if you want to rely on them to claim a consequent universal truth – ie, that something is universally impossible. As you cannot know an axiom to be universally true though, accordingly you cannot then assert the consequent claim of “impossible” to be a universal truth.
Mathematicians use them and invent them and see if interesting things come out in the wash. For example, if you take as your axioms the five geometric axioms of Euclid, you can show by a line of logical reasoning that the angles of a triangle always add up to two right angles. However, it turns out that you don't have to accept one of the axioms - the "parallel postulate". If you substitute it with a different axiom, you find that the angles of a triangle do not add up to two right angles. The statement "the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is false, but the statement "if we accept Euclid's axioms including the parallel postulate, then the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees" is true."
But that “if” is what undoes you here. It’s a conditional proposition, but what if the underpinning axioms for it are wrong? All that you’ve said here is true, but there’s an unspoken suffix: “according to current human understanding”. That’s the problem with claiming epistemic impossibility.
There really is no such thing as a square circle.
At a colloquial level that’s fine, but not necesriy at a universal level. How could you know that to be true?
Shakespeare got there before you by the way: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy” (Hamlet)
There might be life after death, but I doubt it and I would bet my house that there isn't.
So would I, but still I can’t justifiably calling it categorically, universally, 0% chance of it being true impossible. That’s the point here.
-
Jeremy,
But you’re saying here “if I define squares as having right angles then a shape without right angles cannot be a square”. That tells us nothing about the universal properties of squares and circles though
Yes it does.
– just about the definitions we (currently) apply to them.
What is a square though? It's a shape defined as having four sides of equal length and four right angles between them.
In arguments about the meanings of English words, people often say that dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. Well, mathematical definitions are the opposite. The mathematical definition of a square is prescriptive. Shapes that don't have right angles are not squares by definition.
-
Jeremy,
Yes it does.
How do you know that? You’re assuming here that the map is also the territory, rather than our attempt to describe the territory (that could be wrong).
What is a square though? It's a shape defined as having four sides of equal length and four right angles between them.
Yes it is defined as that.
In arguments about the meanings of English words, people often say that dictionary definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive. Well, mathematical definitions are the opposite. The mathematical definition of a square is prescriptive. Shapes that don't have right angles are not squares by definition.
No doubt, but what makes you think mathematical definitions are necessarily universally true rather than just the most robust explanations humankind has, so far, developed?
To be clear, I’m not suggesting here that square circles are real – I cannot even conceive of such things as they seem fundamentally contradictory to me. What I am suggesting is that in epistemological terms I cannot however claim absolute certainty about that. And I don’t understand how you can either (unless you’re omniscient?).
Again: how would you eliminate even the possibility that for example you’re an avatar in a celestial kid’s computer game that’s just programmed to find square circles impossible?
-
Jeremy,
How do you know that? You’re assuming here that the map is also the territory, rather than our attempt to describe the territory (that could be wrong).
Yes it is defined as that.
No doubt, but what makes you think mathematical definitions are necessarily universally true rather than just the most robust explanations humankind has, so far, developed?
The definition of a square is not an explanation. It tells us what a square is. Any mathematical object you come up with that does not have four right angles is not a square. It is that simple.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting here that square circles are real
Squares and circles are not real in the sense of existing in the Universe. They are abstract mathematical concepts that we define.
– I cannot even conceive of such things as they seem fundamentally contradictory to me. What I am suggesting is that in epistemological terms I cannot however claim absolute certainty about that. And I don’t understand how you can either (unless you’re omniscient?).
I told you how I can. A square is a shape with four straight equal length sides and angles between them that are right angles. Show mew any shape at all that does not meet that definition and I am correct to say "it's not a square". It does not meet the definition.
Again: how would you eliminate even the possibility that for example you’re an avatar in a celestial kid’s computer game that’s just programmed to find square circles impossible?
Because it's us in the computer game that define what a square is and what a circle is.
-
Jeremy,
The definition of a square is not an explanation. It tells us what a square is. Any mathematical object you come up with that does not have four right angles is not a square. It is that simple.
No it doesn’t. What it tells us is what the (current) definition of a square is. Again, you’re conflating the map with the territory. How though would you eliminate even the possibility that some distant future person might demonstrate that our current definition of squares was wrong?
Squares and circles are not real in the sense of existing in the Universe. They are abstract mathematical concepts that we define.
But they’re “concepts” that seek to describe phenomena that do exist in the universe. That’s the point – whether linguistic or mathematical they’re only ever descriptive of the “real stuff” they seek to describe, and descriptions aren’t necessarily infallible.
I told you how I can. A square is a shape with four straight equal length sides and angles between them that are right angles. Show mew any shape at all that does not meet that definition and I am correct to say "it's not a square". It does not meet the definition.
Yes, it doesn’t “meet the description”. That’s all it doesn’t do though. How though do you know that “the description” would always be correct about what squares must be in any place in the universe and at any time in the future unless you’re already omniscient?
Because it's us in the computer game that define what a square is and what a circle is.
In the computer game, that’s right. There’s also though a reality outside the game that might have a different understanding of reality. All you’re saying here is that, within the paradigm of the game, square circles are impossible. I agree with that, but that’s not what this is about.
At its root the problem here is the risk of unknown unknowns – there’s no way to eliminate them and, worse yet, even if there was, there’s no way to know we’d eliminated them.
-
No it doesn’t. What it tells us is what the (current) definition of a square is.
No! When we say "square" we are using the word as a label for the object that the definition applies to. If you change the definition of "square" all you are doing is changing the label to refer to a different object. Currently "square" means "shape with four equal length sides at right angles to each other". This is something that cannot be a circle. If you change the definition of "square" to something that is compatible with a circle, you have not solved your problem because a shape with four equal length sides at right angles to each other is still not a circle.
Again, you’re conflating the map with the territory. How though would you eliminate even the possibility that some distant future person might demonstrate that our current definition of squares was wrong?
No. In mathematics there is no territory. It's all the map.
But they’re “concepts” that seek to describe phenomena that do exist in the universe.
A square isn't. A square is an abstract concept in an abstract two dimensional space. Sure, there are objects in the Universe that look like they can be modelled using squares.
You might have a field, for example and you measure its sides and find they are the same length and you measure the angle at one of its corners and find it is a right angle, so you say this field is square. And then you can use facts known about squares to measure the field's area. But the field isn't a square. The angles are never exact right angles and the sides are never exactly the same length. You might find the area is bigger than predicted by maths because the land in the field is not flat.
Mathematical concepts are not defined by the real world. Some of them were created by observing the real world. The mathematical concept of a square probably came from observing square approximations in the world. But once they are part of maths, they are no longer part of the real world.
Of course mathematical concepts can be used to describe the real world, but if the maths you are using to describe some real phenomenon turns out not to predict the phenomenon correctly in all circumstances, we don't change the maths, we use different maths.
For example, the principle of relativity* tells us that there is no special state of rest. Anybody who is moving at a constant velocity has the right to assume they are at rest and everything else is moving. So a person on a train can observe a child running down it towards the front and say the child is moving at 7mph. A person outside notes the train is moving at 50mph, so how fast is the child moving relative to the person outside? The physicists say "let's model the situation with addition and subtraction of real numbers". And it works. They calculate the child is moving at 57mph relative to the outside observer and then they measure the child's speed and find their calculation is correct.
However, trains get faster, children get faster and speed measuring instruments get more accurate. Eventually the physicists discover that there are consistent errors in the calculation. The child is never moving quite as fast as the calculation predicts.
The physicists find that instead of simply adding the velocities, you have to multiply the sum by a factor that is less than 1 and gets smaller as the velocities get closer to the speed of light. That's a new mathematical model but it does not mean that the mathematicians have to go back and change the definition of addition of real numbers.
That’s the point – whether linguistic or mathematical they’re only ever descriptive of the “real stuff” they seek to describe
That is precisely the opposite of the point. You don't change mathematics because a real world phenomenon you were hoping to describe with it doesn't behave according to the definition. You use (or create) a different mathematical concept.
*the principle of relativity was first described by Galileo.
-
It starts with a belief and faith and later turns to a conviction based on personal experiences. Events like NDE's only confirm our beliefs.
If you have to start with belief you have no basis for accepting the claim - faith is belief without evidence. In what way can starting with accepting a claim without evidence lead to being 'convinced'? Convinced by what, you've already accepted that you are believing on no basis.
Woo, right the way through.
O.
-
Beliefs are not without reason.
Beliefs are not always without reason, but sometimes they are.
They are based on insights of forces working behind the scenes.
Sometimes, yes. Often, perhaps. But the fact that they are based on insights does not mean they stand up to investigation. Regardless, if your ideas were amongst these then you could have started with the belief, but you could offer us the insight and the reason. You don't.
Imagining these forces in real terms results in mythology. These myths could be proved to be false from time to time. But the real forces don't go away.
No, but your explanations remain, at best, conjecture, and at worst rigorously demonstrated to be nonsense.
You people might dismiss NDE's and OBE's as just brain related phenomena....your habitual skepticism doesn't allow you to think otherwise.
Of course it does, it just doesn't allow us to accept a claim based on your admitted preconception that you're going to accept the claim. Skepticism is a hurdle your claim has to clear if we're to accept it, it's not an impassable barrier unless you have no basis for your claim.
But I am convinced that they are real after life events.
No, you aren't convinced at all. You started, by your own admission, with an acceptance of the claim without basis - a 'faith' in the claim. Then you went looking for explanations that could justify your pre-existing belief, and dismissed or attempted to deride anything which contradicted it. You say this isn't a religion, that's its a 'new' way of looking at things, but it's the same old story: belief, either in the absence of, or in spite of, the evidence. It's religion all over again.
O.
-
Jeremy,
No! When we say "square" we are using the word as a label for the object that the definition applies to. If you change the definition of "square" all you are doing is changing the label to refer to a different object. Currently "square" means "shape with four equal length sides at right angles to each other". This is something that cannot be a circle. If you change the definition of "square" to something that is compatible with a circle, you have not solved your problem because a shape with four equal length sides at right angles to each other is still not a circle.
You’re not getting it still. Using “square” to describe “the object the description applies to” is a conceptualisation of that object’s characteristics but, like any other conceptualisation, at some level it rests on axioms because axioms are the bedrock of our understating of anything. There’s no way to dig beneath axioms though so they have to be assumed, and assumptions necessarily can be wrong.
That’s all I’m saying here. We could dance around whether, say, some more profound maths could ever be discovered that would show our definition of squares to be wrong or whether we only define “square” as we do because we’re just computer game avatars programmed to think that while oblivious to deeper truths but, ultimately, these are all second order speculations. The primary one is that any claim to knowledge must rest on axioms. Unless you can find a way to dispense with that, then epistemically any claim to absolute impossibility about anything cannot be justified.
No. In mathematics there is no territory. It's all the map.
That’s a big claim. Are you suggesting that mathematics somehow doesn’t rest ultimately on its axioms?
How so?
A square isn't. A square is an abstract concept in an abstract two dimensional space. Sure, there are objects in the Universe that look like they can be modelled using squares.
You might have a field, for example and you measure its sides and find they are the same length and you measure the angle at one of its corners and find it is a right angle, so you say this field is square. And then you can use facts known about squares to measure the field's area. But the field isn't a square. The angles are never exact right angles and the sides are never exactly the same length. You might find the area is bigger than predicted by maths because the land in the field is not flat.
Mathematical concepts are not defined by the real world. Some of them were created by observing the real world. The mathematical concept of a square probably came from observing square approximations in the world. But once they are part of maths, they are no longer part of the real world.
Of course mathematical concepts can be used to describe the real world, but if the maths you are using to describe some real phenomenon turns out not to predict the phenomenon correctly in all circumstances, we don't change the maths, we use different maths.
For example, the principle of relativity* tells us that there is no special state of rest. Anybody who is moving at a constant velocity has the right to assume they are at rest and everything else is moving. So a person on a train can observe a child running down it towards the front and say the child is moving at 7mph. A person outside notes the train is moving at 50mph, so how fast is the child moving relative to the person outside? The physicists say "let's model the situation with addition and subtraction of real numbers". And it works. They calculate the child is moving at 57mph relative to the outside observer and then they measure the child's speed and find their calculation is correct.
However, trains get faster, children get faster and speed measuring instruments get more accurate. Eventually the physicists discover that there are consistent errors in the calculation. The child is never moving quite as fast as the calculation predicts.
The physicists find that instead of simply adding the velocities, you have to multiply the sum by a factor that is less than 1 and gets smaller as the velocities get closer to the speed of light. That's a new mathematical model but it does not mean that the mathematicians have to go back and change the definition of addition of real numbers.
Yes I know. All of these models make perfect sense insofar as we’re capable of understanding such things, and insofar as they haven’t been replaced or amended by subsequent “different maths”. Let’s agree on that.
Now then. How do you know that any of this also maps to an ultimate reality, and not just to the reality we’re capable of perceiving and modelling? That’s the point here – not the specifics of maths or of physics or of any other field of knowledge, but rather the hard barrier that all knowledge sits on that we can’t get behind, namely its axioms.
This is why we can never be sure the map is the territory rather than just our constructions of what the territory appears to be – at some level we must rely on assumptions.
That is precisely the opposite of the point. You don't change mathematics because a real world phenomenon you were hoping to describe with it doesn't behave according to the definition. You use (or create) a different mathematical concept.
No, it is the point. You can use or create different mathematical concepts as much as you like and, no doubt, when you do that you’ll obtain more robust models to describe reality. Try as you might though, you can never be certain that those models are definitive descriptions of reality.
*the principle of relativity was first described by Galileo.
Which means that before Galileo it wasn’t. The point here wasn’t about the historical specifics, but rather about the general phenomenon of certainties being undone by subsequent discoveries – and that there’s no way to determine that you’ve reached a hard end to that possibility.
-
Jeremy,
You’re not getting it still.
Really stop saying that. It's a lie.
I do get it. It's you who seems to be having a problem getting your head around what we are talking about.
Using “square” to describe “the object the description applies to” is a conceptualisation of that object’s characteristics
No it isn't. "square" is just a label. The conceptualisation in maths is the definition.
but, like any other conceptualisation, at some level it rests on axioms because axioms are the bedrock of our understating of anything. There’s no way to dig beneath axioms though so they have to be assumed, and assumptions necessarily can be wrong.
Again you miss the point. Axioms are assumptions, but in maths, they don't need some sort of underlying truth in the real world. They just have to be interesting and not mutually contradictory.
That’s all I’m saying here. We could dance around whether, say, some more profound maths could ever be discovered that would show our definition of squares to be wrong
One again, in maths, definitions are prescriptive. They cannot be wrong.
That’s a big claim. Are you suggesting that mathematics somehow doesn’t rest ultimately on its axioms?
No. I'm saying that axioms do not have to embody somer truth in physical reality.
Yes I know. All of these models make perfect sense insofar as we’re capable of understanding such things, and insofar as they haven’t been replaced or amended by subsequent “different maths”. Let’s agree on that.
But we don't change maths based on our experience of the real world, we use different formulas. equations and models grounded in the same maths.
Now then. How do you know that any of this also maps to an ultimate reality
We don't. Our only tool for finding out if a certain mathematical model is a map of any kind of reality is by doing experiments. If you are saying there is some ultimate reality that we are incapable of observing, then we can never know if it is real or if any particular model describes it.
, and not just to the reality we’re capable of perceiving and modelling? That’s the point here – not the specifics of maths or of physics or of any other field of knowledge, but rather the hard barrier that all knowledge sits on that we can’t get behind, namely its axioms.
Axioms aren't knowledge.
No, it is the point. You can use or create different mathematical concepts as much as you like and, no doubt, when you do that you’ll obtain more robust models to describe reality. Try as you might though, you can never be certain that those models are definitive descriptions of reality.
This is true, but a certain model turning out not to describe reality does not invalidate the maths used in it. We did not throw away addition just because special relativity shows it doesn't model velocities correctly.
Which means that before Galileo it wasn’t. The point here wasn’t about the historical specifics, but rather about the general phenomenon of certainties being undone by subsequent discoveries – and that there’s no way to determine that you’ve reached a hard end to that possibility.
I only put that note in to avoid confusion with the Theory of Relativity.
-
Jeremy,
Really stop saying that. It's a lie.
I do get it. It's you who seems to be having a problem getting your head around what we are talking about.
Well, I think it’s up to me to decide whether you’re getting the point I’m making but ok – let’s see…
No it isn't. "square" is just a label. The conceptualisation in maths is the definition.
But at some level a definition is “just” a label too. It’s our best attempt to describe something but that’s all it can be – our best attempt.
Again you miss the point. Axioms are assumptions, but in maths, they don't need some sort of underlying truth in the real world. They just have to be interesting and not mutually contradictory.
But now you’re abandoning mapping to an objective reality entirely and retrenching just to a subjective and abstracted approximation of reality. Which is fine so far as it goes, but it gives you no basis to claim anything about the objective, “out there” world to be impossible. It’s espistemically equivalent to me saying “leprechauns are musical, therefore non-musical leprechauns are impossible”.
This is essentially tautological – “when my definition of something is contradicted by a different definition of that thing, the different
definition is impossible but only by reference to my definition” (which, presumably is also what the super-advanced alien with a different definition to yours would say about your definition). That doesn’t make either of them objectively impossible though – just contradictory.
One again, in maths, definitions are prescriptive. They cannot be wrong.
No. I'm saying that axioms do not have to embody somer truth in physical reality.
I’m not sure how, if a prescription cannot be wrong and another prescription contradicts it, neither can be wrong (ie, impossible) even when they contradict each other, but in any case presumably prescriptive definitions still require justification so as not to be white noise don’t they? And if they do, those justification too must at some level rest on axioms mustn’t they?
But we don't change maths based on our experience of the real world, we use different formulas. equations and models grounded in the same maths.
But it was you who introduced real world phenomena to make your point – trains and running children. If you want to talk about maths purely in the abstract instead though that’s fine, but to be meaningful still these abstracted ideas must rest on something mustn’t they?
We don't. Our only tool for finding out if a certain mathematical model is a map of any kind of reality is by doing experiments. If you are saying there is some ultimate reality that we are incapable of observing, then we can never know if it is real or if any particular model describes it.
Not quite. I’m saying that while there may be an “ultimate reality”, in any case we can’t know for certain that we know what it is even if we do. Why? Because any knowledge we do have about reality (ultimate or not) rests at some level on assumptions, and assumptions can be wrong.
Axioms aren't knowledge.
But they underpin everything we think to be knowledge. That’s the point.
This is true, but a certain model turning out not to describe reality does not invalidate the maths used in it. We did not throw away addition just because special relativity shows it doesn't model velocities correctly.
I’m not suggesting it should be thrown away, just that we cannot be sure that it’s correct in all possible circumstances – which I think is what you’ve just said too. And if that is the case, on what basis could we say that something is definitively impossible even when the maths that say it it’s impossible aren’t invalidated?
I only put that note in to avoid confusion with the Theory of Relativity.
Fair enough.
-
Jeremy,
Well, I think it’s up to me to decide whether you’re getting the point I’m making but ok – let’s see…
You are trying to make a point that is wrong.
But at some level a definition is “just” a label too. It’s our best attempt to describe something but that’s all it can be – our best attempt.
No it isn't.
And for the umpteenth time. Definitions in mathematics are not descriptive, they are prescriptive.
I'm not going to answer any of the rest of your points because this is the key issue that you do not understand. The square is not described by its mathematical definition, it is defined by it.
-
I lied slightly. I am going to answer some of your points.
I’m not sure how, if a prescription cannot be wrong and another prescription contradicts it, neither can be wrong (ie, impossible) even when they contradict each other,
They can't. Did anybody say they can?
In mathematics, if you have a system in which contradictory results can be derived, it is called "inconsistent". The consistency of a system is of great concern because "from a contradiction, anything follows". I'll admit that proving consistency is often a difficult task (and impossible in the general case).
Anyway, if you have a definition that contradicts my definition then our definitions are obviously of different objects. I'm talking about mathematical objects here - definitions of objects in the real world can be (or appear to be) contradictory e.g. the wave/particle duality. That usually signifies an incomplete understanding of the phenomenon.