Faith, evidence and the Unconscious Mind

[ekim]

Since the 'land of the blind' is entirely hypothetical and there is no such thing, why do you think it helps at all in your argument?

It's an analogy which illustrates the position of those claiming to have a (spiritual) faculty which others dispute.  There is an element of argumentum ad populum against such an individual.  If nearly everybody had the faculty there would be little dispute.  Similarly in the land of the blind if a sighted person tried to convince the population that there was a rainbow in the sky, they would dispute it and he would not be able to prove otherwise.

[torridon]

Isn't that primarily as a result of the sense of vision?  Would that have happened in the land of the blind?

Humans don't do echo location, like bats, but that hasn't stopped us from developing radar and sonar.

[ekim]

Humans don't do echo location, like bats, but that hasn't stopped us from developing radar and sonar.

I'll bet the machinery wasn't developed by people without eyesight though.

[Shaker]

Humans don't do echo location, like bats

In a certain sense we do, actually - it's just a bit rubbish by comparison: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation

[Nearly Sane]

I'll bet the machinery wasn't developed by people without eyesight though.

for what was measured, they are without sight. You are using argument by ignoring analogy here, and insisting on everything bring the same. Which means you are misrepresenting analogy

[Outrider]

If a born blind man is stubborn and skeptical, and does not want to believe your words or experiments...there is nothing you can do to convince him that there is such a thing as Light that is in fact falling on his body at that very moment....and forms a fundamental feature of life on earth.

Which doesn't change the fact of light. We don't deduce that light is real because some people believe it, or even because some people have working eyes and others don't, but because it behaves consistently regardless of who observes it or how.

My point is very simple. Merely the absence of one single faculty can make us completely cut off from a very fundamental and crucial aspect of life such as Light, to such an extent, that we can exist life long with no awareness of it what so ever. And no experiments or instruments can convince us of its existence unless we want to believe in it.....and nor can we actually know what it really is through these indirect methods.

Equally, though, some people believing that they have a special perception that's completely unreplicatable by independent means, undetectable by machinery, and has no detectable influence on the measurable elements of reality that have been validated doesn't make that special perception right.

Only a direct experience through 'sight' can give us that.

And yet an enormous number of people are willing to accept microwaves, radio waves, gravity, Higgs Bosons, electrons and the existence of the Kuiper belt.

Awareness of certain unseen aspects of life that we call 'spiritual', are similar.

No, it could be similar, but you'd still need something more than unsubstantiated (and contradictory) claims of people to support the idea.

For many people spiritual forces and influences are as natural and as pervasive as light is to all of us....however skeptical others may be of them.

And, once upon a time, so were magic, aether, humours...

O.

[Sriram]

Which doesn't change the fact of light. We don't deduce that light is real because some people believe it, or even because some people have working eyes and others don't, but because it behaves consistently regardless of who observes it or how.

Equally, though, some people believing that they have a special perception that's completely unreplicatable by independent means, undetectable by machinery, and has no detectable influence on the measurable elements of reality that have been validated doesn't make that special perception right.

And yet an enormous number of people are willing to accept microwaves, radio waves, gravity, Higgs Bosons, electrons and the existence of the Kuiper belt.

No, it could be similar, but you'd still need something more than unsubstantiated (and contradictory) claims of people to support the idea.

And, once upon a time, so were magic, aether, humours...

O.

You are not getting the point, Outrider.   How do you even know that Light exists? It is because of your eyes. If humans did not have eyes, we would not have even known of Lights existence even though it exists all around us.

It depends entirely on our faculties and not  because somethings exists or not. Lots of things could exist but we could be completely unaware of them simply because we lack the faculty to sense them. If one man had an extra faculty ...he would be able to sense something that others are incapable of. He will be unable to prove to them that such and such phenomenon exists because they lack the necessary faculty. As simple as that.

This analogy is meant to underline the fact that our knowledge is limited by our faculties.

[torridon]

You are not getting the point, Outrider.   How do you even know that Light exists? It is because of your eyes. If humans did not have eyes, we would not have even known of Lights existence even though it exists all around us.

It depends entirely on our faculties and not  because somethings exists or not. Lots of things could exist but we could be completely unaware of them simply because we lack the faculty to sense them. If one man had an extra faculty ...he would be able to sense something that others are incapable of. He will be unable to prove to them that such and such phenomenon exists because they lack the necessary faculty. As simple as that.

This analogy is meant to underline the fact that our knowledge is limited by our faculties.

Humans, unlike sharks for instance,  have no innate sense of electroreception; but we don't therefore deny it exists.  Robins can navigate using the Earth's magnetic field; humans cannot, not being sensitive to it, so do we therefore deny magnetism ?

[Stranger]

How do you even know that Light exists? It is because of your eyes. If humans did not have eyes, we would not have even known of Lights existence even though it exists all around us.

It depends entirely on our faculties and not  because somethings exists or not.

This is still utterly daft: how do you know that microwaves exist? Certainly not because you can sense them directly.

Lots of things could exist but we could be completely unaware of them simply because we lack the faculty to sense them.

Except that we are aware of many, many things that we have no faculty to sense directly. It is of course true that there may be other things that we are not aware of, but it certainly does not only depend on what we have an innate ability to sense.

If one man had an extra faculty ...he would be able to sense something that others are incapable of. He will be unable to prove to them that such and such phenomenon exists because they lack the necessary faculty. As simple as that.

We can't prove anything in the real world - what we do is provide evidence. If what this supposed person was sensing was actually a real external phenomenon that actually affects other things, then there should be some objective evidence for it. Just like microwaves or ultraviolet.

This analogy is meant to underline the fact that our knowledge is limited by our faculties.

One which completely ignores our faculty to deduce the existence of things from indirect evidence.

[Udayana]

You are not getting the point, Outrider.   How do you even know that Light exists? It is because of your eyes. If humans did not have eyes, we would not have even known of Lights existence even though it exists all around us.

It depends entirely on our faculties and not  because somethings exists or not. Lots of things could exist but we could be completely unaware of them simply because we lack the faculty to sense them. If one man had an extra faculty ...he would be able to sense something that others are incapable of. He will be unable to prove to them that such and such phenomenon exists because they lack the necessary faculty. As simple as that.

This analogy is meant to underline the fact that our knowledge is limited by our faculties.

Since, as you propose, this super-man is unable to prove to the others that what he senses actually exists, why should they pay him any attention? If this extra faculty is useful he should be able to prove it to them.

[ekim]

Since, as you propose, this super-man is unable to prove to the others that what he senses actually exists, why should they pay him any attention? If this extra faculty is useful he should be able to prove it to them.

I think that was the point in the analogical story.  The man couldn't prove that he could see a rainbow or the moon and stars and the blind decided that his aberrations were caused by his (to them) deformed eyes and the cure was to remove them.  Much of the technology we have is like an extension to our senses and I suspect that the most dominant sense is vision.

[Udayana]

Ekim, yes. The sighted man in the story should have kept his calm and thought of a suitable way to demonstrate the existence and use of light, but his passion to be king destroyed him.

Really this is (again) a discussion about falsifiabilty, seems some have just not bothered to try and understand.

[Sriram]

Humans, unlike sharks for instance,  have no innate sense of electroreception; but we don't therefore deny it exists.  Robins can navigate using the Earth's magnetic field; humans cannot, not being sensitive to it, so do we therefore deny magnetism ?

torridon,

Can you prove to the blind people  that Light exists? That is the question. The point is not about what you may consider as reasonable for the blind people to accept or reject.

My point is that unless the blind people  are willing to trust you and willing to accept something completely outside their experience, it will be impossible for you to prove any such thing!  Whatever experiments you may set up to prove it to them......it could easily be rejected and refuted by the blind people. 

Even a very valid experience or phenomenon can be rejected by people because they are unable to experience it and no one can do anything about it.

About indirect evidence...it may or may not be accepted as evidence for a specific phenomenon depending on what seems logical to the people concerned. Just because people are running about without walking sticks or jumping over rocks is no proof that Light exists. It can be... but it need not be.

Just as NDE's can be proof of an after-life or it need not be, depending on how one wants to think of it.  Nothing can be proved conclusively and absolutely to the complete satisfaction of the people who are blind to an experience....more so if they choose to be blind. 

[SusanDoris]

Sriram #37

These posts of yours are, in my opinion, becoming more and more daft. Even a fictional story written by a well-known author is stretching even a very credulous person's disbelief.

[Sriram]

Sriram #37

These posts of yours are, in my opinion, becoming more and more daft. Even a fictional story written by a well-known author is stretching even a very credulous person's disbelief.

Don't get stressed and agitated needlessly, Susan. Take it easy. My post was not meant for you. 

[SusanDoris]

Don't get stressed and agitated needlessly, Susan. Take it easy. My post was not meant for you. 

At 81 , feeling really well, and enjoying every minute of life, stress is totally absent from my life!!!

[Sriram]

At 81 , feeling really well, and enjoying every minute of life, stress is totally absent from my life!!!

Great! Keep it that way. 

[Stranger]

Can you prove to the blind people  that Light exists? That is the question. The point is not about what you may consider as reasonable for the blind people to accept or reject.

My point is that unless the blind people  are willing to trust you and willing to accept something completely outside their experience, it will be impossible for you to prove any such thing!  Whatever experiments you may set up to prove it to them......it could easily be rejected and refuted by the blind people. 

Even a very valid experience or phenomenon can be rejected by people because they are unable to experience it and no one can do anything about it.

About indirect evidence...it may or may not be accepted as evidence for a specific phenomenon depending on what seems logical to the people concerned. Just because people are running about without walking sticks or jumping over rocks is no proof that Light exists. It can be... but it need not be.

This is getting dull. Once again: compare to microwaves, atoms, electricity, etc...

Either somebody is willing to accept objective evidence or they are not, in which case they are being stupid and stubborn - not sceptical.

Just as NDE's can be proof of an after-life or it need not be...

And here is an example of the unevidenced woo that you desperately want to justify...         

[ekim]

To help clarify the situation perhaps somebody could describe how microwaves are evidenced.

[Udayana]

You put your pie in and set the timer, about a minute later you get a hot pie out.  What more is needed?
Even people with no reading, writing or  arithmetic can use them, no problem!

[Walter]

To help clarify the situation perhaps somebody could describe how microwaves are evidenced.

ive got a big white metal box in my kitchen that warms stuff up , will that do?

[Stranger]

To help clarify the situation perhaps somebody could describe how microwaves are evidenced.

As has been pointed out, heating pies is probably the best evidence for most people in 21st century.     

However, perhaps more relevant to the topic: electromagnetic radiation, including microwaves, were predicted (in theory) by Maxwell. Hertz demonstrated the existence of microwaves by building devices to transmit and receive them.

Of course visible light was 'predicted' by the same theory - the connection was made because of the theoretical speed of EM radiation matching the already measured speed of light. However, it's easy to see that, had we not been able to directly sense light, a similar demonstration may well have taken place...

[torridon]

torridon,

Can you prove to the blind people  that Light exists? That is the question. The point is not about what you may consider as reasonable for the blind people to accept or reject.

My point is that unless the blind people  are willing to trust you and willing to accept something completely outside their experience, it will be impossible for you to prove any such thing!  Whatever experiments you may set up to prove it to them......it could easily be rejected and refuted by the blind people. 
...

I think you have that all wrong.  It is not about proof, it is about what is reasonable.  Proof is only available through abstract disciplines like pure logic and maths.  In the real world, we accept what is reasonable in the broader context, that is the best we can do under the circumstances of partial knowledge.  I can't prove that atoms exist and I can't see atoms, but I accept the concept of atomic matter on grounds of broader reasonableness.  Your imagined blind people are not just blind to light, they are also blind to reason it would seem.

[ekim]

As has been pointed out, heating pies is probably the best evidence for most people in 21st century.     

However, perhaps more relevant to the topic: electromagnetic radiation, including microwaves, were predicted (in theory) by Maxwell. Hertz demonstrated the existence of microwaves by building devices to transmit and receive them.

Of course visible light was 'predicted' by the same theory - the connection was made because of the theoretical speed of EM radiation matching the already measured speed of light. However, it's easy to see that, had we not been able to directly sense light, a similar demonstration may well have taken place...

Thank you.  I'm glad somebody could see the relevance of the question and that it's not about a label on a cooker.  So developing the discussion further, if the human race had been born blind do you think that the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum (or even something as simple as a rainbow) would have been evidenced by using the remaining senses?

[Stranger]

So developing the discussion further, if the human race had been born blind do you think that the existence of the electromagnetic spectrum (or even something as simple as a rainbow) would have been evidenced by using the remaining senses?

The idea that humans would have evolved without sight but would otherwise be exactly the same is totally unrealistic and, as far as I can see, irrelevant.

It is possible to imagine intelligent beings who primarily use (say) echo location, would discover electromagnetic radiation via the study of electricity and magnetism in much the same way as Maxwell - but again that's not really the point.

The point is that we are currently in the position of being able to provide ample objective evidence and a well tested theoretical basis for EM radiation in general and light in particular, so Sriram's "blind man" would be being stupid and stubborn, not sceptical.

This is about the need for objective evidence before being willing to accept something. Sriram is just trying to undermine that by pretending that his stupid "blind man" is just being rationally sceptical. He just wants his various varienties of woo to be taken seriously despite the woeful lack of any supporting evidence...