Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 12:15am PT
|
this is a particular philosophical view of science which I'm not sure is correct.
That's because whenever we talk about this you keep treating "truth" as "what seems to work best" and "proof" as "the weight of scientific evidence at the time."
I'm confident that you know the difference between a deductive proof and an inductive probability. Even in court we recognize that "proof" is impossible, because the nature of empirical evidence won't ever rise to that level. Even to kill a criminal, we require only "beyond a reasonable doubt," and we screw that up all the time. For civil matters, the bar is "preponderance of evidence." Nobody could ever be convicted or win a civil case if genuine proof was required.
So, I'd like to hear about a single empirical proof in the deductive sense. Science does induction rather than deduction. Its conclusions are probabilistic and draw an inductive inference from past effects to future projections. Even the notion of "repeatability" depends upon drawing inferences based on history that one then projects into the future: Repeat an experiment enough times, and we just accept that the same results "will always or generally" occur in the same conditions. But that is induction rather than deduction.
I am extremely confident that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. But I'm not certain, not in a deductive sense. I'm extremely confident that I have hands. But I'm not certain in a deductive sense. The preponderance of evidence strongly suggests that I have hands. But that's not the same as a proof.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 12:39am PT
|
So basically aligned with the post-modernists.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 06:40am PT
|
Healje
No, no, no.
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 07:52am PT
|
"He restores my soul."
Psalm 23:3
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 07:56am PT
|
The fact that you can't prove anything in the mind of a Post Modernist is meaningless in the discussion of science
I didn't ask for proof of a soul that lives beyond the death of the body because I already know there is zero
I said, "show it now if you have it"
To know, to prove, facts, whatever
Here in the reality based community, we have to rely on these words to have meaning, this is not a philosophical exercise.
|
|
miker12
Boulder climber
Us
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 18, 2018 - 09:52am PT
|
Scientist say "when somebody dies his/her bodyweigth decreases 3/4 of oz (21 g)" how do you explain this?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 10:22am PT
|
It's all perception. How we perceive. And that's not a fixed function observing a fixed "reality." Few are aware of how perception constantly shifts, or what is involved. Here are a few basics:
At any time our attention can be described by two qualities – direction (narrow or diffused) and a relation between self and reality (objective or immersed) and can be mapped on an attention styles graph.
The words narrow and diffuse describe how our attention is directed. It is narrow when we are focused on something. You are focused on these words reading them now. You can focus (narrow) your attention by looking at the black mark below for a moment.
*
It is diffuse when we attend stimuli coming from more than one direction or we are simultaneously aware of an object and space around and inside it. You can diffuse your attention by looking at all three black markss at the same time.
* * *
Another way to diffuse is becoming aware of white space on this screen or space between you and the screen while you are reading these words.
* * *
The words objective and immersed describe the relationship between the person who attends and reality.
In the objective style self/ego is separated from the reality. You are not the screen you are looking at now and the screen is not you. While you are in this style all objects around you seem separated like the two black marks below.
* *
In the immersed style self/ego connects with something/someone else losing its self awareness. If this text was a good novel you would feel for a main character and live her/his life for the duration of reading.
In this style everything merges together and becomes the one.
Whatever we do we have to attend it somehow. There are moments when we have to be focused and ‘to the point’ to achieve a specific goal – the narrow style. We dance losing ourselves in a rhythm – the immersed style – or stay in the corner of the dance room frustrated, or thrilled, with the DJ’s choice of music - the objective style.
Most of us subconsciously adjust an attention style to the circumstances. It usually works well and we simply do not think about it. However, there are situations when this spontaneous attention choice is not effective and we struggle.
The struggle comes from overusing a single attention style in everything that we do. Another reason is lack of knowledge about attention styles and inability to balance them before a particular activity.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 10:22am PT
|
"Proof" really means a deductive, not inductive, process
Precisely the case in mathematics. Even though a standard proof technique is call "mathematical induction" it is in fact a deductive process. I can't comment on the physical sciences.
edit: Nice commentary, JL.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 10:40am PT
|
Scientist say "when somebody dies his/her bodyweigth decreases 3/4 of oz (21 g)" how do you explain this? this is factually untrue
there is no weight difference after death
In the immersed style self/ego connects with something/someone else losing its self awareness. If this text was a good novel you would feel for a main character and live her/his life for the duration of reading.
In this style everything merges together and becomes the one.
Whatever we do we have to attend it somehow. There are moments when we have to be focused and ‘to the point’ to achieve a specific goal – the narrow style. We dance losing ourselves in a rhythm – the immersed style – or stay in the corner of the dance room frustrated, or thrilled, with the DJ’s choice of music - the objective style. No comment, other than what does it have to do with anything
and the question is....
does the soul live after death, not one of you actually address the question, it's all a chorus of screams "we can't KNOW anything!!!!!"
from the usual players, the anti-science folks
well the fact is, either the human soul lives on after death or it doesn't, what is it?
yes or no
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 01:02pm PT
|
Precisely the case in mathematics. Even though a standard proof technique is call "mathematical induction" it is in fact a deductive process.
Indeed, John. Few know this fact. I use it as a sort of litmus test to detect whether somebody has any training in formal logic, particularly mathematical logic.
The word "proof" gets bandied about in entirely inappropriate ways. And science does not do genuine proofs.
What Kant did was a genuine proof of the "I think."
But, as I've emphasized upthread, the "I think" is not what most people are talking about by "soul." They are referring to the "empirical self" that somehow survives death. In the antinomies section of the Critique, Kant also proves that there cannot in principle be either inductive or deductive arguments that will settle this question.
So, the debate about "mind" ("soul") will rage forever with no "solution" possible in principle. Scientists will insist, "We have no empirical evidence upon which to believe in a 'soul' or consciousness after death." And non-naturalists will insist, "We have this or that 'evidence.'"
I personally do not believe in consciousness after death. And nothing hangs on the "I think" surviving death, because Kant proved that it would be unconscious ("empty," having nothing to process). So, I have good reason to believe in a non-empirical entity (the transcendental 'self'), but I also have good reason to believe that it is not "mind" or "consciousness" in the traditional sense. Finally, I have good reason to believe that at death the "self" goes unconscious, so I don't believe in "life after death" in the traditional sense of that phrase.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 02:49pm PT
|
You have not established this so-called fact of 'one or the other."
Well, since he's cast the two propositions as negations of each other, actually he's just set the question up as:
P: The soul lives on after death.
P v ~P
But the above is just the law of the excluded middle. So, he is logically entitled to his dichotomy, unless you're prepared to debate the law of the excluded middle. We could have a rollicking discussion of non-classical logics, but I think that that would count as thread drift and not be very productive. I have yet to see a non-classical logic that was actually very well motivated.
Edit: The point is that it's not mere "opinion" to set up the dichotomy as he has. On the other hand, it's tautologically true, meaning it really doesn't convey any substantive content. It might as well be, "Well, it's just a fact that either dogs fly or they don't." All statements of this form are tautologically true.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 03:05pm PT
|
The soul is never born nor ever dies.
It transmigrates from body to body in the material world according to the material consciousness it has developed.
After death YOU the soul will enter another material body according to your developed consciousness before death.
Think of your dog at the time of death you will be given a dog body in your next life.
Many clueless gross materialists think becoming a dog is good.
They are insane.
Not everyone comes back to this planet.
Some go up to the upper planetary systems, some go down to the lower planetary systems.
There is life form on every planet in the universe.
The modern gross materialists are always clueless along with their incomplete defective scientific methods .....
The soul is non-material and fully spiritual part parcel of God.
Those who fully awaken their spiritual self with god consciousness enter the spiritual realm at time of leaving their mortal material body.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 03:12pm PT
|
Finally, I have good reason to believe that at death the "self" goes unconscious
Raymond Chandler said it best: The Big Sleep
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 03:24pm PT
|
But what of Schrödinger's cat? Dead or not?
Light: wave or particle?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 03:50pm PT
|
Suppose there were a dog that "sort of" flew. Maybe someone shot it out of a cannon. But there wasn't a consensus as to whether it really flew or not. Would that qualify as middle ground?
Maybe not. But what of Schrödinger's cat? Dead or not?
You mention some of the reasons that motivate some to go into non-classical logic. And quantum mechanics is definitely a realm in which non-classical logics initially seem motivated. Your particular example suggests a logic called by the same name, but to my understanding that does not abandon the law of the excluded middle.
Upon closer examination it turns out that the sorts of questions that motivate non-classical logics are epistemological rather than logical. For example, in your "sort of flew" case, you are dealing with ambiguity. You're really just shorthanding classic paradoxes of ambiguity ("Joe is bald," etc.). Our lives are filled with vague and ambiguous terminology. And the problem lies in definitions rather than in logic.
There's no need to abandon the law of the excluded middle due to such cases. We can just recognize that our verbiage is ambiguous without granting that that fact introduces an actual logical ambiguity. At any point, we can draw "arbitrary" lines to crisply define "fly," for example. This is not a logical problem.
In short, the vast, vast majority of logicians find that abandoning the law of the excluded middle produces more problems than it solves, and it's not necessary to tweak your actual logic to "cope with" what are really epistemological problems in the first place.
Quantum logic is in a different category, both because it is motivated by, say, quantum computing, and because the "ambiguity" seems to concern actual facts rather than mere definitions. Now this would go into serious thread-drift, but I doubt that DMT was asserting that the soul is really some quantum entity and so can only accurately be discussed in quantum-logical terms and necessarily abandon the law of the excluded middle.
So, I would suggest that for this thread, we stick with classical logic and leave the law of the excluded middle intact. I don't think that there's some middle ground between "consciousness after death" or NOT, either-or, no middle ground. Like "fly," we might struggle to define "death" and "consciousness," but that's a definitional/epistemological problem rather than a logical one.
And I don't think it's "mere opinion" to suggest that we need clarity much more than non-classical logic in this discussion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 03:51pm PT
|
Light: wave or particle?
That question is not obviously concerning propositions that are the mere negations of each other.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 05:18pm PT
|
because the "ambiguity" seems to concern actual facts rather than mere definitions.
-------
Except actual facts do not exist, en toto, separate from perception. And the facts change when our perception changes. The belief that there is a totally unambiguous "real" world out there is apparently what you are pitching for, whereby ambiguity lies only in definitions, or the manner etc. by which we "know" (epistemic).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 05:25pm PT
|
The belief that there is a totally unambiguous "real" world out there is apparently what you are pitching for, whereby ambiguity lies only in definitions, or the manner etc. by which we "know" (epistemic).
No, I'm not pitching for this interpretation. I'm trying to accomplish two things, in order to create as much common ground as possible.
1) Stipulate that treating the "soul" as some "quantum object" that demands quantum logic to properly discuss will prove unproductive for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that we don't descend into this sort of nightmare when talking about ANY other "macro" or "complex" objects. Whatever "soul" is, it is certainly a complex.
2) Avoid presupposing a "denial of objectivity" regarding "facts," or smuggle in idealism or other such things.
Your "veil of perception" doctrine is itself contentious, so I've been avoiding settling on any such thing in my most basic discussion of logic and epistemology.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
May 18, 2018 - 05:52pm PT
|
That question is not obviously concerning propositions that are the mere negations of each other.
It's good to see a careful mind at work.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!