The mind, the soul and the (alleged) afterlife.

Remove all ads!

I think you missed the entire context of that, like the statement immediately below it.

And the one above it.

And the part beside it.

What I am saying is the way in which I define if something is fact, as do we all, is that we belive it to be true. There are various ways in which we can be convinced of something in order that we may believe it, but they all ultimately rely on our belief.

I was defing the word: 'Fact' Something we belive is true, and is true.

Of course, the fact that we believe it to be true necessitates that we are convinved of the validity of its truthfulness.

But this is too a belief, as are everything which we deem facts.

Are we arguing sematics here?

Edit: on a side note, it is also a belief of mine that something with enough force of will behind it can be caused to be.

This is of course incredibily difficult, but is seen to a much lesser extent in a quasi-manner throughout most of our lives.

This is directly related, and dependant upon, the statements I made earlier.

 

No, we're not arguing semantics. You're missing that I was being a smart-ass and making a joke.

More serious, whether something is 'fact' is independent of belief. Whether we believe it true is irrelevant.

 

Aye, of course. Truth is an objective thing above any of us, I am speaking only of how we ourselves may decide what is fact, and we only have belief to rely on in this.

We could change the language so as to omit any refference to truth or fact when speaking about everyday life, but I think it is taken as accepted that allthough we may never truly know a thing, we may be certain enough for practical reasons.

 

You may be right as a matter of general consent among people. However, you are not technically right. How can you prove that you're at this moment reading my post or how can you make claims that it's written over a navy-coloured background?

Such is human fate: at some point you have to belief. You have to believe your religious leaders, you science protagonists, whomever. Or if not other people, you have to believe your senses. There's no other way. What you see or hear is a fact for you, but for someone else, perhaps u hypothetical intelligent non-human it may look or sound different. You have to update your knowledge and bring it onto a higher level, or accept some level of relativity.

Even if you went further and didn't believe your senses, you have to believe your reason for any logical reasoning to function in your brain, providing various reasons. Even logic itself is not a supernatural force in the universe, it was created by humans and it thus relies on a prearrangement. How can we prove primary facts on the grounds of secondary set of rules governing evaluation of perceived data? Logically, that's an internal contradiction So, everything starts with axioms.

Oh joy, I should prove that logic is illogical some day

 

Gotta run so don't have time to reply to all right now but briefly:

The burden of proof in an existential debate rests WITH THE CLAIMANT. It is logically impossible to "disprove" ANYTHING. Try proving to me that Santa Claus does not exist for example. It cannot be done which is why claims must be proven by their proponents before being accepted as likely true.

jschild is about spot on with his understanding of scientific methodology and I am sorry manus but, physics award or not, you seem utterly clueless about the same.

Will answer posts in greater detail when I get back

 

And we can get in a long, long dispute as to who is the claimant in which case. While you can't prove the existence of Santa Claus, and you can't present it to others as logically a fact, you can't claim he doesn't exist and present that non-existence as logically a fact. That's because it works both ways. As I sufficiently explained above, existence or nonexistence of an object or factuality/non-factuality of a claim, does not depend on the existence of proof. Proof is what the name suggests - proof. Something does not become existent when we prove it, nor does it become nonexistent the moment we disprove it. That's because logic, together will all proof and inference, has no creational power and no effect as to the fact being examined. Therefore, the statement "Santa Claus exists" is no less contrfactual than the statement "Santa Claus doesn't exist". Neither is logically proven. A neutral sentence, not requiring any proof is "There is no certainty as to whether Santa Claus exists".

Another important thing that needs to be pointed out is that when someone makes such a sentence as "Santa Claus" exists, he's not making a claim of having logical proof for that. He says what for him is a fact (independently from that factuality or non-factuality doesn't depend on recognition), or more precisely: is perceived as fact by him. He does not enforce that view on anyone.

So, for example, if a believer invokes the name of his deity, he needn't add any such disclaimers as "with all due respect to all other beliefs or lack thereof and not implying that the existence of the deity whose name I'm invoking is not logically proven".

Therefore, supposing I believe in Santa Claus, if you ask me "Does Santa Claus exist?" I can say "Yes." instead of "I believe so.".

What you were trying to do about Manus, was applying to opinions logical methods applicable to claims of factuality/non-factuality.

 

Chevalier:

I am not sure how one would go about attempting to disprove "faith"?? I have never asked anyone to "prove your faith" either. What I DO ask is that extraordinary existential claims are supported by rational argument and/or evidence according to rules of inference.

I am not sure what you mean. The reason why we have these rules of logic is because the alternative is to assume that everything ever claimed is true. Here and in your follow up posts you seem to present that since we cannot say "This doesn't exist" with 100% certainty, then all things become equally probable. My point is not that I know with 100% certainty that God or Santa do not exist but rather that, according to the evidence given in support of both existence and non-existence, the claims are HIGHLY unlikely. I do not deal in certainties, but rather likelihoods.
When I say "I cannot assent to your claim that God exists until you support your claim with reasonable evidence" I am not saying "It is an imuttable fact that your god does not exist!" I am saying that the god claims I have been presented with sound just as likely as Santa Claus.

I do not see the point in saying "God/Santa's existence is not certain" because this strongly implies that the likelihood of the claim is equal to, say "It is not certain that men have landed on the moon". One of those claims (men have landed on the moon or God exists) is obviously more likely than the other to be true(though technically they could both be true).

I do not have faith and never touch the stuff. I do not se the sense in accepting anything on "faith", let alone a claim such as the ones for God's existence. What if you are wrong? Maybe no gods exist and the worst that results is you have been a fool. But what if God exists and he is evil or only likes Muslims or bald people?
You would have invested much worship in something that was not worthy and was going to do you harm anyway. You MAY have even empowered it somehow to do you adn your loved ones great harm!

Sure it can. I accept the existence of gravity as fact and I would do the same for God if he were so warranted.

Exactly! As I said you cannot disprove a thing empirically. Our pattern-seeking belief mechanisms will insure that we find reasons to believe even when the belief is completely wrong/false

You CAN prove a positive, at least to the satisfaction of logic and science. What you CANNOT do is to take a negative(i.e. "I don't believe in any gods") and flip it("I believe in the non-existence of all gods!") to change the burden of proof.

I disagree. ANything that exists in our reality in such a way that it can have independent effect on reality, can be at least potentially revealed. ANything which cannot be revealed by scientific methodology, cannot be said to exist except as things such as poetry or morals exist.

He can't do it with evidence which could as easily support the claim that elves or the Snozzwoggler exist. If he can come up with evidence that elevates his claim as more likely than the claim that elves or Snozzwogglers exist then I will assent to such plausibility.

I am not trying to take away his imaginary friends or anything. One is free to believe that a great dragon lives at the intersection of 23rd and I street and devours pedestrians there. But if you claim such and then try and convince ME that this is true and I should beware of walking through there, then you are obligated to make your case and the burden of proof is with YOU. Otherwise you cannot say that you lack belief in elves without first disproving they exist(and how would one do that?).

Non-existent/imaginary things are also beyond proof and must simply be believed or not. How do we seperate existent, non-proveable things from imaginary things then?

Yes but Manus is the one who tried to make his case to me by stating that our physical bodies were "ideal" as if this were a factual statement about an objective standard. Hence my reply.

Ah but the existence of the natural can be established independently of one's wishes or personal bias. A wall prohibits you from walking straight into the cafeteria from your parking space. Even having never met you the same wall prevents ME from doing the same.

Neither do I. There are more than two options when presented with such and them being liars is only one possibility and not even the most likely possibility.

They COULD be describing their experience OR they could be describing their delusions. Without evidence to eliminate either as likely, i simply do not assent.

Yes we can. If one man in a stadium claims that God is descending onto the football field weilding a flaming sword, he is more than likely delusional or lieing about his "experience". If the entire stadiumn reacts at once as if a god is swinging a firey blade about we can say that it is more than likely that they experienced something .Because of the consistency of their reactions and accounts afterward we can say this is not the typical case of mass hysteria(as happened to America during Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre Troupe production of War of the Worlds). We can then investigate the burn damage to the stadium, the dead players etc..

See above.

But I am not suggesting that, for example, someone who truly believes they have seen a ghost should just dismisas the experience because I do not happen to believe the event likely. I am saying that the ghost-witness cannot convince ME or any other impartial skeptic that what he claims is precisely what occured.

The follwoing is paraphrased from Charles Fiterman over at B-net.

I conclude that gods are more than likely made up things. I can come to this conclusion because of the following:

1)They exhibit many traits of other made up things. I can see the human hand behind the creation of gods just as I can see it behind a comic book or video game.

2)Gods exhibit almost none of the characteristics of existant things(tangibility etc.).

3) When I assume that gods are made up things then the stories/mythologies related to them make perfect sense but when I assume they are real their ways become confounding and nonsensical.

4)Ontologically, "That which is greater than anything imagined" MUST itself be imagined! Real parrots can mimmick words and such but cannot construct sentences or think abstractly themselves. Imaginary parrots can speak in full sentences, retaliate to insults with barbs of their own, etc. Real gods are wooden idols and puffed up madmen...therefore it is likely that Gods which are much greater than and can do much more than wooden idols and madmen are made up.

Back on point, I agree that we must proceed from certain axioms in order to achieve any knowledge at all. I proceed from the presupposiiton that matter exists and is the primary stuff of the universe. I tried idealism. I checked out solopsism. I was unable to get anywahere understanding the universe with those axioms. Materialism has proved, as far as I can tell, flawless as a starting point.

The cat analogy is not valid because you are making a comparison of an ordinary claim which anyone should have no reason to doubt on anecdote alone, and an extraordinary claim which MUST be supported by more than "Chev' says it is so".

 

Positive statements which carry burden of proof by the claimant:

"Santa does not exist!"

"God does exist"

"Psychics are for real!"


Negative statements of dissent from positive claims which DO NOT require the person holding them to prove anything:

"I do not believe gods exist"

"I do not believe in nSanta Claus' existence."


See the difference? You can try and reword a negative statement so that it reads like a positive but that does not make it so. That is why I am a weak atheist who simply lacks god-beliefs, rather than a strong atheist who asserts that "God does not exist".

 

To go back on topic here. I dont belive in any sort of mysticism or supernatural occurances. If something exists it must per definition be a part of the physical natural tangible world. An atom is a physical, tangible thing even if we cant really pick it up and toss it around nor even see it with out naked eyes, nonetheless most of us believe in the existance of atoms, most of us even see their existance as a fact.
Lately I have started to see the existance of soul or life essence or something in a way similar to atoms and quarks. That the consciousness of a being albeit tied to the body also exists on "another level" so to speak. If this is so I am sure that in time we will see it as something as natural as the bloodsystem or the nervsystem.

However, the mind's capability of making things up and illusions should never be underestimated either. We are very good at seeing and experiencing things that arent there. Phantom pains in limbs and psychosomatic pains are two examples which have quite a bit of foundation to them. I dont think Manus lies about his experiences and his facts, but he do seem to have a very active mind. I remember as a kid I could have sworn I saw a werewolf under the table, it was so real before my eyes and the terror I felt I have never again felt but when I blinked my eyes to look again it was gone. That unnerved me for a long time. Same with oijo boards, it has freaked me out many a times in my teens. The same mechanics which made me see the werewolf (it wasnt really a werewolf it was actually only a hairy arm sticking out under the table) and made me and my friends in my teens move that glass on the oija board is what makes wiccans, psychics, seers believe in what they do, and be sure that they see results. However, not a single supernatural thing have ever passed any testing under any half decent integrity. There is even an institution for para-psychology at the university of Glasgow (think it is Glasgow, could be some other city in Scotland) and they consistently come up with nothing. Most of the people into this kind of stuff dont want to put themselves to the test cause it is "degrading" or the entire thing is surrounded by a need for privacy, quite convinient dont you think?

If there was such things as for example Manus describes and believes in and they are as useful as Manus claims, how come they are not widely spread? Why dont we utilize these powers for the benefit of all? They might have not been popular during the heydays of monotheistic religions but in todays enlightened world I am sure no one would be burned on a state, contrary these skills would be welcomed with open arms. How come they arent taught in schools? Used in hospitals? I could go on but I think you get my point.

 

Yes, I agree. Everything you see and hear depends on our minds. It works remarkably well when everything's fine. But what if it's slightly off? What if one neuron misfires? Is it real, or just a product of that single misfire? How many of them are misfiring? Is your brain 100% all the time? When you think of how coordinated and complex brain patterns are, and how everything must be precisely regulated, you realise how easy it is for some little thing to go wrong, and it only takes a split second before everything's back to normal again.

As for souls... well, I don't really know. The mind is very powerful. It's creative. It shapes how we perceive reality. It also makes us come up with some far fetched ideas like souls and afterlives... or are they that far-fetched?

 

I know you're too smart to ask such fool questions, but you got close to placing people between a dichotomic choice: prove your dogmas or dismiss them. Even if you didn't really mean that, which seems quite likely to me, it sounded that way. If it had been that way, that was a logical error, anyway.

Good.

Nah, I don't really invest anything. I believe I can't pay back what I have already got, let alone make a surplus.

Yes, that shouldn't be done. What I insist on, is making the difference clear. To me, "God doesn't exist" as equally as scientific as "God exists" Scientifically speaking, there is no logical certainty, or logical truth. Heck, by definition of faith there can't be logical certainty... or it's no longer faith, anyway.

Partially revealed yes, proven no. For example what believers consider miracles, non-believers consider unexplained happenings etc. Won't convince anyone either way without belief at some point. Which means there's no way to believe in God without believing in something you have no proof for. If it were possible to prove the existence of God, it would have been proven already by some of the great theologists, of genial scientists who believed in God etc. I'm nowhere close to genius or professional theologist, so if they couldn't, I don't really seem likely to succeed Well, apart from the fact that it's impossible to succeed in 100%, hehe.

This still doesn't bar religious people from speaking of their deities as existent. Just why wouldn't they? To them that's truth, how can we expect them to say otherwise? Heck, myself I believe in the existence of God and even though I don't present it as fact to non-believers, I'm not going to play with modals. Neither am I going to concede that God's existence is non-fact or something. For me, God exists, period. Doesn't mean that God exists because I say so. Far from that. Existence doesn't depend on belief, ever. If God didn't exist, my belief wouldn't make Him exist, right? And if God doesn't exist, my belief doesn't help. If someone doesn't like that, well, that's his problem, so long as I leave him alone.

There is some difference between such beliefs and religions. Let's say, religions are much more serious. Also, religious people aren't necessarily suffering from mental or intellectual disorders. It's not like they're lacking in logical reasoning. After all, some are scientists, professors, Nobel winners. Heck, the guys who developed formal logic in mediaeval era were Christians and formal logic was developed mostly for use in theology.

Not proven doesn't mean nonexistent. Nonexistent is proven not to exist. Non-proveable is not subject to logic. Imaginary can't be objectively separated from existent non-proveable.

So long as we believe our senses and our reasoning. As we both agree, we have to start with axioms.

Those points lend some credit to his point, but the proof is partial and only proves likelihood. That's a formal thing, his proof is inductional, so it's not enough to earn a 1.

Misunderstanding here. That analogy was abstract and served to show things from the point of view of the claimant. You know, getting in his shoes for a while. We know my cat is one big walking boolean 1, but what if someone says "prove it"? Also, for someone who has really seen something, and supposing he has seen that, there's no difference between the truthfulness of that dubious occurence and, let's say, the fact that sun is yellow. Both are data received by his brain. Generally, he has serious reasons to go and have his head examined rather than believe at once. And if I started to see angels and saints, I would indeed first show up at a mental clinic's door, but that's because of knowledge. Knowledge is not the same in every individual For them, the likelihood of truthfulness of that is 100%, as of everything they see. Anyway, I was just showing what things look like from their point of view.

OK, good it's been explained.

Basically what I was saying.

Technically, sentences beginning with "I think/believe/claim/maintain" etc are unproveable as there's no way to prove you think this and not that. Oh well, but enough nitpicking.

 

Hehe...we managed to maintain almost diametrically oppositie views on the existence of God and yet seem to agree on pretty much everything else surrounding the discussion.

Good show!

 

I hope I have cleared up some things in the thread upon omniscience. Based upon that, I only wish to say a few things.

You stated that the natural can be established independantly of one's wishes or personal bias, while the supernatural cannot.

This is not so according to what I have interpreted you meaning. The supernatural (using that ghost for example) can have nothing to do with personal bias. Any thing which is true exists objectively, in order for us to be impartial, we must assume the possibility of this being the case, of existing as real as does any other thing, and according to religion, even more real.

You may not be able to see the ghost at a later date, but if someone had knocked down the wall you would not be able to see that anymore either. You would garner belief that there was a wall there at some point based upon others telling you it was there, perhaps a photo that pictured it, or records from the company that demolished it. People have recorded photos of supernatural things (such as kirlian photography), some ghosts are said to be poltergheists, and therefore physical objects have been affected, and you have the testimony of those who tell you it was there.

The only difference is that ghosts are taken to be a good deal less common than walls. If a wall was built and then demolished over-night, and you had not seen what a wall looked like previously, you may not beleive the photo, you may believe that the rubble was merely placed there, or that it fell in the storm the previous night, and you may believe that the very few people who were there and saw it, were hallucinating due to being tired and it being very dark.

To you, all these things may seem very likely compared to the fact that this mysterious 'wall' ever existed.

Thus the only difference between a substantiated claim, and one which must be proven, and which you then say should be dissented without proof, relies only upon the number of people involved, who do not believe that such a thing specifically did not happen, in order for the idea to become an accpeted fact.

Keep in mind that if we were to take the existential debate to extend geographically larger than your local area, or temporarily to extend to a historically longer period than your present time, then you would then be in the minority. By your own defintion of accepted fact, as you have here used it in relation to certain stements not requiring proof, you would then be incorrect. Science is not always a linear progression either, as has been seen countless times this past few centuries, often an idea that is rejected by the current scientific paradigm is later returned to and proven true, usually by broadening what was constitued as proof, or by developing a way of observing that which was previously considered unobservable.

This includes ideas which date far back into history as well, we are all aware of the Greek influence upon modern atomic physics and mathematics, as well as biology and of course philosophy, which were only re-accepted (or re-learnt) gradually over the past few hundred years. The same has applied to many Oriental sciences as well. There was a time when all notions of phsycholgy were discounted by modern science, yet those principles were often used in Ancient times, such as disease being linked to a mental imbalance. We know know that this can be the case, yet it was refuted often.

On a side note, from the point of view of many religions and philosphical school, a wall could be passed through by one with sufficient abilities. I do not expect you to believe this, I just thought it needed to be said.

 

Exactly my point! More below.

Here's the thing. There are no groups of people who do not believe that walls exist. Even if the wall had been demolished, we can witness this(as we have witnessed other walls being demolished) and come to grips with it's non-existence afterwards.
In order for ghosts to be considered "real" independently of delusion or wishful thinking on the part of believers, these ghosts must be witnessed and reacted to in the same way theat walls are. The way to prove to "nonwallists" that walls exist is to direct them to a place where a wall stands between, say a bench and a drinking fountain. Take them to the bench and tell them to go to the fountain, taking the shortest route.
if the wall exists, they will walk around it like everyone else(they can still deny or rationalize the incident away but their reactions are undeniable.This is the problem that solopsists and certain types of idealists run into).

If a mixed grooup of people(by mixed i mean NOT a collection of parapsychologists) were to react as if a ghost were wailing about in front to them then that would be good evidence that SOMETHING existed which at least appeared to be a ghost. Furthermore, if a controlled test is performed which eliminates the possibility of holograms or somesuch being used, then we have pretty damn good proof.

Right now the only evidence we have for ghosts is the same evidence we have for fairies existing(and yes, there ARE fairiests out there still). Not very convincing.

 

Hey, we're not going to start on the fairies now are we?

But I do see your point, if only some spirits would make themselves known more often so it could be readily done. A man who has never found a wall that blocked his path would find little reason to belive in one, it is true.

But could not one also come to the conclusion that he didn't see a ghost when he did, according to the same priciples of wishful-thinking and selective rationalisation?

These things have a more subtle effect, especially when compared to a wall -I doubt any such thing could be proven as irrefutably as those, but as I said, I do see your point.