Evidence!

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

This 'evidence' thing is a little dicey.  It depends on ones mindset.

We all tend to analyse based on certain 'programs (software)' that are more or less fixed in our minds.....maybe due to genetics, epigenetics, upbringing...all put together. (These programs can also be called memes).

There is a 'believer program', an 'atheist program'...and so on in our minds.  Each of these programs will perform certain specific functions and types of analysis on the data that we feed in.

A program meant to add up all data will only add them all up. It cannot do anything else. A program designed to work out the sq root will only do that on all data fed in. It cannot do anything else.  (to give some very simple examples).

A person who is functioning with the 'believer program' will analyse all data through that program and will therefore come up with certain conclusions on that basis. A person functioning with the 'atheist program' will come up with a very different analysis based on the same data. 

Its not the data that makes the difference but the programming that we use.

Therefore 'evidence' is only how we perceive information. If we want to perceive it as evidence for something...we can... depending on how the mind works.

So....insisting on 'evidence' for God will not work if the wrong 'software' is being used.  Asking for more and more data & information will not help because the program will continue to perform the same functions and produce the same answers again and again.

If the mindset is changed.... even with very rudimentary data.... a very different analysis and result can be arrived at. Its about perception.....not entirely about information. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

[floo]

I started a thread on this topic on the Christian board!

[Sriram]

I started a thread on this topic on the Christian board!

I know you did. That thread was about evidence for Jesus and Christian beliefs. I did not want to derail that thread.

What I am talking about here is the basic issue of what 'evidence' is. It all about perception and mental programming.

This is meant to be a very different discussion (if people will allow it to be).   

[Sriram]

Doesn't anyone see anything to discuss on this philosophical subject....in spite of 'evidence' being such a fundamental demand from all atheists?!

[L.A.]

Doesn't anyone see anything to discuss on this philosophical subject....in spite of 'evidence' being such a fundamental demand from all atheists?!

The problem with the "believer " programme is its evidence is often subjective and is based on human experience, even culmative human experience over time.

The atheist programme will not accept human experience as evidence and tries to look outside it for its proofs.

IMO "never the twain shall meet"

😀🌹

Hi Rose,

when it comes down to it 'Human experience' is the only thing we have - everything else in our lives comes 'second hand'.

Maybe one day science will have a better understanding of the mind and it will all make perfect sense 

[Hope]

A person who is functioning with the 'believer program' will analyse all data through that program and will therefore come up with certain conclusions on that basis. A person functioning with the 'atheist program' will come up with a very different analysis based on the same data.

The problem with this scenario, is that there many people functioning through 2 or more such 'programs' Sriram.  Sometimes the programs produce different but comparable conclusions, sometimes different and conflicting conclusions.  For instance, as a linguist, I have a 'linguist program'; as an educated person I have an 'education program' (which has a fairly large degree of at least mid-level science within it; as a Christian I have a 'relational faith' program.  These different programs actually enable me to question received wisdom - both within a faith context and a social context - something that I hope that I do pretty often.

Your explanation seems to rule out such interplay between programs.

[Sriram]

A person who is functioning with the 'believer program' will analyse all data through that program and will therefore come up with certain conclusions on that basis. A person functioning with the 'atheist program' will come up with a very different analysis based on the same data.

The problem with this scenario, is that there many people functioning through 2 or more such 'programs' Sriram.  Sometimes the programs produce different but comparable conclusions, sometimes different and conflicting conclusions.  For instance, as a linguist, I have a 'linguist program'; as an educated person I have an 'education program' (which has a fairly large degree of at least mid-level science within it; as a Christian I have a 'relational faith' program.  These different programs actually enable me to question received wisdom - both within a faith context and a social context - something that I hope that I do pretty often.

Your explanation seems to rule out such interplay between programs.

Yes...I agree with that. Many normal functional  'programs' and even beliefs (memes) could overlap and to that extent they might be compatible.

I am talking about beliefs (memes) that are not compatible. In this case, no amount of information will make that belief change into a disbelief or the other way around. All information will get processed in the same manner and would produce the same result. This is why mere information and argument cannot resolve such matters and convert people from one belief to another.

Only some kind of personal experience can 'delete' one program and/or introduce another one such that the existing information itself would be analysed differently and would produce a new viewpoint (revelation).   

[SweetPea]

Hi everyone,

This 'evidence' thing is a little dicey.  It depends on ones mindset.

We all tend to analyse based on certain 'programs (software)' that are more or less fixed in our minds.....maybe due to genetics, epigenetics, upbringing...all put together. (These programs can also be called memes).

There is a 'believer program', an 'atheist program'...and so on in our minds.  Each of these programs will perform certain specific functions and types of analysis on the data that we feed in.

A program meant to add up all data will only add them all up. It cannot do anything else. A program designed to work out the sq root will only do that on all data fed in. It cannot do anything else.  (to give some very simple examples).

A person who is functioning with the 'believer program' will analyse all data through that program and will therefore come up with certain conclusions on that basis. A person functioning with the 'atheist program' will come up with a very different analysis based on the same data. 

Its not the data that makes the difference but the programming that we use.

Therefore 'evidence' is only how we perceive information. If we want to perceive it as evidence for something...we can... depending on how the mind works.

So....insisting on 'evidence' for God will not work if the wrong 'software' is being used.  Asking for more and more data & information will not help because the program will continue to perform the same functions and produce the same answers again and again.

If the mindset is changed.... even with very rudimentary data.... a very different analysis and result can be arrived at. Its about perception.....not entirely about information. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

An interesting analysis, Sriram, re believer and atheist programming. I'd agree, more often than not no amount of evidence will change some programmed minds. But sometimes it can take only a 'click' and a perception is changed. In this instance NLP (neuro-linguistic  programming) can play a part. This is where, in order to have a successful inception of an idea, it must be planted as a 'seed' or a vague notion in the subconscious and allowed to grow into a full-fledged idea. To gain access to the mind, it must be inserted when the subject has his or her guard relaxed and is open to listening.

A good example of a change in perception can be seen in Peter Hitchens - once a staunch atheist and now a Christian.

[Leonard James]

The problem arises in the interpretation of experiences. If people have been exposed to a "god" idea (and most people have), they  are in danger of such an idea overriding their perception.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

This 'evidence' thing is a little dicey.  It depends on ones mindset.

We all tend to analyse based on certain 'programs (software)' that are more or less fixed in our minds.....maybe due to genetics, epigenetics, upbringing...all put together. (These programs can also be called memes).

There is a 'believer program', an 'atheist program'...and so on in our minds.  Each of these programs will perform certain specific functions and types of analysis on the data that we feed in.

A program meant to add up all data will only add them all up. It cannot do anything else. A program designed to work out the sq root will only do that on all data fed in. It cannot do anything else.  (to give some very simple examples).

A person who is functioning with the 'believer program' will analyse all data through that program and will therefore come up with certain conclusions on that basis. A person functioning with the 'atheist program' will come up with a very different analysis based on the same data. 

Its not the data that makes the difference but the programming that we use.

Therefore 'evidence' is only how we perceive information. If we want to perceive it as evidence for something...we can... depending on how the mind works.

So....insisting on 'evidence' for God will not work if the wrong 'software' is being used.  Asking for more and more data & information will not help because the program will continue to perform the same functions and produce the same answers again and again.

If the mindset is changed.... even with very rudimentary data.... a very different analysis and result can be arrived at. Its about perception.....not entirely about information. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

An interesting analysis, Sriram, re believer and atheist programming. I'd agree, more often than not no amount of evidence will change some programmed minds. But sometimes it can take only a 'click' and a perception is changed. In this instance NLP (neuro-linguistic  programming) can play a part. This is where, in order to have a successful inception of an idea, it must be planted as a 'seed' or a vague notion in the subconscious and allowed to grow into a full-fledged idea. To gain access to the mind, it must be inserted when the subject has his or her guard relaxed and is open to listening.

A good example of a change in perception can be seen in Peter Hitchens - once a staunch atheist and now a Christian.

Yes...SweetPea. Its all basically about how our minds are programmed. The same information on Cosmology, QM, Evolution, genetics, Near Death Experiences, Paranormal activity and many other aspects of life are available to everyone. But we tend to view these phenomena in different ways.

Just because of the discoveries in physics and biology everyone does not become materialistic. And just because of  NDE's and the paranormal...everyone doesn't become a spiritualist.

The same facts become 'evidence' for very different ultimate realities depending on our perceptions and programming.

[torridon]

Hi everyone,

This 'evidence' thing is a little dicey.  It depends on ones mindset.

We all tend to analyse based on certain 'programs (software)' that are more or less fixed in our minds.....maybe due to genetics, epigenetics, upbringing...all put together. (These programs can also be called memes).

There is a 'believer program', an 'atheist program'...and so on in our minds.  Each of these programs will perform certain specific functions and types of analysis on the data that we feed in.

A program meant to add up all data will only add them all up. It cannot do anything else. A program designed to work out the sq root will only do that on all data fed in. It cannot do anything else.  (to give some very simple examples).

A person who is functioning with the 'believer program' will analyse all data through that program and will therefore come up with certain conclusions on that basis. A person functioning with the 'atheist program' will come up with a very different analysis based on the same data. 

Its not the data that makes the difference but the programming that we use.

Therefore 'evidence' is only how we perceive information. If we want to perceive it as evidence for something...we can... depending on how the mind works.

So....insisting on 'evidence' for God will not work if the wrong 'software' is being used.  Asking for more and more data & information will not help because the program will continue to perform the same functions and produce the same answers again and again.

If the mindset is changed.... even with very rudimentary data.... a very different analysis and result can be arrived at. Its about perception.....not entirely about information. 

Just some thoughts.

Cheers.

Sriram

What you are describing here, is mostly the operation of confirmation bias, not evidence. To try to understand things, we build rival abstract explanatory models. At its best, evidence, is something that is independent of human opinion that identifies which of the explanatory models is truest; that is why the scientific approach is founded on the elimination of subjective human input. It's not possible to eliminate humans from the loop completely though; it's always human minds that conceive the models and human minds interpret results. Human minds are infested with legacy beliefs and inherited biases and we cannot help but see the world the the lens of the portfolio of biases that we inherit. Maybe when we succeed in building conscious machines, they will tell us what is really true and what is not.  Or maybe they too will become infected with our biases 

[Sriram]

What you are describing here, is mostly the operation of confirmation bias, not evidence. To try to understand things, we build rival abstract explanatory models. At its best, evidence, is something that is independent of human opinion that identifies which of the explanatory models is truest; that is why the scientific approach is founded on the elimination of subjective human input. It's not possible to eliminate humans from the loop completely though; it's always human minds that conceive the models and human minds interpret results. Human minds are infested with legacy beliefs and inherited biases and we cannot help but see the world the the lens of the portfolio of biases that we inherit. Maybe when we succeed in building conscious machines, they will tell us what is really true and what is not.  Or maybe they too will become infected with our biases 

Your confirmation bias is incredible! You seriously think truth is only objective truth....and subjectivity is a hindrance. 

All objective observation and analysis (even by a robot) has to be limited by its sensory inputs and the software that is loaded in it.  Even a  robot has to be programmed to analyse data. The programming is its limitation....besides its limited sensory devices.  I am not talking about bias...but about natural limitations. 

'Truth' has to exist beyond these limitations. 

If someone introduces data regarding a phenomenon that lies beyond the observation of the robot....the robot will not be able to analyse the data free of its limitation.   It will still produce the same result or treat the data as redundant because that's what it is programmed to do.

Robots will be more limited than humans because they cannot change their programs internally as humans can through their will ..... with just one small trigger. We humans are more than just sensory machines.



 

 

[Hope]

What you are describing here, is mostly the operation of confirmation bias, not evidence. To try to understand things, we build rival abstract explanatory models. At its best, evidence, is something that is independent of human opinion that identifies which of the explanatory models is truest; that is why the scientific approach is founded on the elimination of subjective human input. It's not possible to eliminate humans from the loop completely though; it's always human minds that conceive the models and human minds interpret results. Human minds are infested with legacy beliefs and inherited biases and we cannot help but see the world the the lens of the portfolio of biases that we inherit. Maybe when we succeed in building conscious machines, they will tell us what is really true and what is not.  Or maybe they too will become infected with our biases 

The problem with this, torri, is that even the strictest of 'scientific evidence' supporters here will have had to read up on the stuff they support, sometimes reading conflicting interpretations of the same evidence, and will then have to have made a partially subjective decision as to which interpretation or which scientist's explanation is the one that they will go with.  I doubt that any of us here will have been present at the events surrounding the 'confirmation' of the existence of the Higgs-Bosun - we will all have relied on third-party reportage.

[Harrowby Hall]

If someone introduces data regarding a phenomenon that lies beyond the observation of the robot....the robot will not be able to analyse the data free of its limitation.   It will still produce the same result or treat the data as redundant because that's what it is programmed to do.

Robots will be more limited than humans because they cannot change their programs internally as humans can through their will ..... with just one small trigger. We humans are more than just sensory machines.

You've not seen Star Trek then.

[Maeght]

What you are describing here, is mostly the operation of confirmation bias, not evidence. To try to understand things, we build rival abstract explanatory models. At its best, evidence, is something that is independent of human opinion that identifies which of the explanatory models is truest; that is why the scientific approach is founded on the elimination of subjective human input. It's not possible to eliminate humans from the loop completely though; it's always human minds that conceive the models and human minds interpret results. Human minds are infested with legacy beliefs and inherited biases and we cannot help but see the world the the lens of the portfolio of biases that we inherit. Maybe when we succeed in building conscious machines, they will tell us what is really true and what is not.  Or maybe they too will become infected with our biases 

The problem with this, torri, is that even the strictest of 'scientific evidence' supporters here will have had to read up on the stuff they support, sometimes reading conflicting interpretations of the same evidence, and will then have to have made a partially subjective decision as to which interpretation or which scientist's explanation is the one that they will go with.  I doubt that any of us here will have been present at the events surrounding the 'confirmation' of the existence of the Higgs-Bosun - we will all have relied on third-party reportage.

That's why there is the system of peer review in science though.

[Sriram]

In the thread on 'There is no health in us' on the Christian board...Floo has mentioned to the effect  that a field that she owned had some 'magical' properties because of which many people visited it for healing purposes. She has herself admitted being cured of her frozen shoulder, though her doctors had not succeeded in curing it. 

Clearly Floo has just  brushed her shoulders and not bothered to register the fact that she has experienced something that could (in normal experience) be termed a miracle. (A miracle being something that one does not experience in normal day to day life and for which there is no ready scientific or common sense explanation).

I am not suggesting that it is a 'supernatural' event. I don't believe anything is 'supernatural'.  Everything is natural but not necessarily something we can investigate scientifically.

I am not here going into what the explanation for the cure could be.

More importantly, the attitude of Floo and the fact that all other atheists have steered clear of that thread/post brings out what I have mentioned in the OP here. The mind is programmed and we only accept what we are programmed to accept ....regardless of the evidence. 

So...our atheist friends should stop demanding evidence. Even if it is presented...they wouldn't recognize it or accept it.

[Shaker]

More importantly, the attitude of Floo and the fact that all other atheists have steered clear of that thread/post brings out what I have mentioned in the OP here. The mind is programmed and we only accept what we are programmed to accept ....regardless of the evidence. 

I've not commented on it (not "steered clear") because a self-limiting condition coming to an end* is hardly news, is it?

* Wikipedia: "The condition tends to be self-limiting and usually resolves over time without surgery."

[floo]

In the thread on 'There is no health in us' on the Christian board...Floo has mentioned to the effect  that a field that she owned had some 'magical' properties because of which many people visited it for healing purposes. She has herself admitted being cured of her frozen shoulder, though her doctors had not succeeded in curing it. 

Clearly Floo has just  brushed her shoulders and not bothered to register the fact that she has experienced something that could (in normal experience) be termed a miracle. (A miracle being something that one does not experience in normal day to day life and for which there is no ready scientific or common sense explanation).

I am not suggesting that it is a 'supernatural' event. I don't believe anything is 'supernatural'.  Everything is natural but not necessarily something we can investigate scientifically.

I am not here going into what the explanation for the cure could be.

More importantly, the attitude of Floo and the fact that all other atheists have steered clear of that thread/post brings out what I have mentioned in the OP here. The mind is programmed and we only accept what we are programmed to accept ....regardless of the evidence. 

So...our atheist friends should stop demanding evidence. Even if it is presented...they wouldn't recognize it or accept it.

I am quite sure there is natural explanation for my 'cure', and the others attributed to the field, mind over matter.

[Hope]

I am talking about beliefs (memes) that are not compatible.

Not compatible in whose terms?  Are any beliefs/memes truly incompatible or is this dependent on cultural preconceptions?

Only some kind of personal experience can 'delete' one program and/or introduce another one such that the existing information itself would be analysed differently and would produce a new viewpoint (revelation).

Is it necessarily the case that one memes has to be 'deleted' before another can come into play?

[Hope]

I am quite sure there is natural explanation for my 'cure', and the others attributed to the field, mind over matter.

I'm sure there is, Floo.  The problem is that you seem to regard the metaphysical elements of human life as non-natural.

[Maeght]

People's mindset does effect how they interpret things - of course. However when people (atheists) ask for evidence they are asking for independantly verified information and data not personal experience or beliefs.

[trippymonkey]

And THIS is where it all 'falls down' so to speak.
Belief can never be verifiable. Then some here feel they've been backed into a corner & have to fight their way out.

[torridon]

More importantly, the attitude of Floo and the fact that all other atheists have steered clear of that thread/post brings out what I have mentioned in the OP here. The mind is programmed and we only accept what we are programmed to accept ....regardless of the evidence. 

This is why the modern world puts an emphasis on evidence though.  It is through evidence based reasoning that we have managed, to some extent, to bypass the prejudices and biases that we are 'programmed' with. The whole point about evidence is that it takes the subjective out of the equation and gets us closer to to what is objectively, really, true.

[Sriram]

Floo's experience is not a belief. It is a real experience of a chronically skeptical person. So...why is that experience not evidence of some extraordinary (not supernatural) phenomenon?!

Why doesn't she and all of you take it as something intriguing instead of dismissing it as 'mind over matter' ...'self limiting condition'...whatever?  That is the programmed mindset I am talking about.
 

[Sriram]

In the thread on 'There is no health in us' on the Christian board...Floo has mentioned to the effect  that a field that she owned had some 'magical' properties because of which many people visited it for healing purposes. She has herself admitted being cured of her frozen shoulder, though her doctors had not succeeded in curing it. 

Clearly Floo has just  brushed her shoulders and not bothered to register the fact that she has experienced something that could (in normal experience) be termed a miracle. (A miracle being something that one does not experience in normal day to day life and for which there is no ready scientific or common sense explanation).

I am not suggesting that it is a 'supernatural' event. I don't believe anything is 'supernatural'.  Everything is natural but not necessarily something we can investigate scientifically.

I am not here going into what the explanation for the cure could be.

More importantly, the attitude of Floo and the fact that all other atheists have steered clear of that thread/post brings out what I have mentioned in the OP here. The mind is programmed and we only accept what we are programmed to accept ....regardless of the evidence. 

So...our atheist friends should stop demanding evidence. Even if it is presented...they wouldn't recognize it or accept it.

I am quite sure there is natural explanation for my 'cure', and the others attributed to the field, mind over matter.

Your field has a mind?!