Kevin's Watch

ussusimiel wrote:...in the case of something like chiropractic or homeopathy why not just trust people to decide for themselves. If something is obviously ineffective they will not continue with it. (It's ironic that I am using free market principles to bolster my position. I wonder if this some subtle ruse to convert me )

If it were free market, I'd agree with you. But chiropractors use the powerful force of lobbying to convince a few bureaucrats (who may themselves believe in things like creationism) to force insurance companies to cover it, which forces me to pay for it through my premiums. That's not a free market choice, it's forced upon us by government.

I've never viewed Dawkins as defensive, but he is a champion of a worldview that is largely under attack by mainstream society, so I can see how someone outside his worldview might interpret him that way. I think he views his role in society as reaching out to and supporting those who don't feel they can stand up for themselves, like atheist children of strictly religious parents, or women in Muslim countries. In fact, he has characterized himself this way in his book, The God Delusion. There aren't many societies were atheists can "come out" without great social friction, from their friends, family, church, community, etc. In the Bible Belt, we feel we must hide or downplay our beliefs to avoid alienating those around us. And that's a shame.

ussusimiel wrote:I agree with your conclusion that if there is no afterlife (or beforelife ) then imagining one is an illusion and a colossal waste of energy. However, a couple of points arise here. One is very practical: some people, for whatever reason, find bare existence unbearable and rather than face it they would prefer to kill themselves (and do). (To paraphrase Freud, too much reality can be bad for you.) Now a survival-of-the-fittest attitude might say 'good riddance', we're the stronger for it. However, a more compassionate view might hold that, in such a case, a bit of illusion is no bad thing. (Jung once told an alcoholic client that to be cured he needed to have a spiritual experience (which indirectly led to the formation of the AA).)

"Survival of the fittest" would include societies that care for their weaker members in need. That makes a society "fitter." Compassion is certainly a viable survival technique.

A certain amount of illusion is inevitable, and sometimes instructive, if for no other reason than to illuminate reality. In fact, reality may be something that we can ONLY approach through a succession of "tearing down illusion," a process which is never complete. That means reality is only ever glimpsed through a filter of illusion, and never "in itself."

However, I believe there is enough beauty in the world itself to combat
suicidal despair. I believe Donaldson has written six volumes of the Chronicles specifically to address that.

ussusimiel wrote:The other is more contentious: if existence just happens to hold realities that it is not possible to prove exist, then the more accurate image of reality is one that allows for that (weak argument, I know, but bear with me ). In my case, my experience (and the experience of others) has led me to believe that I have a spirit that comes from another place. I feel that I have to accept this. If I denied or dismissed my experiences I would then occupy what, for me, would feel like an inauthentic place.

And I am more comfortable with a world that includes the idea of a spirit not simply because it gives me a strong sense of continued existence, but also because it makes a lot of human experience (past and present) understandable. There are a whole range of things that I do not now have to deny as existing (ghosts, ESP, psychics (like Don ) etc.) and there are many stories and experiences that sane people tell me that I do not have to dismiss as delusion or wishful thinking.

u.

It might surprise you to learn that I've had many "spiritual" experiences myself, mainly on psychotropics. And I saw what I thought was an angel as a child. I understand the power of these experiences. And they were some of the most beautiful, awe-inspiring experiences I've ever had. However, none of them convinced me that there is a significant distinction between "spirit" and "mind." While I don't believe mind can simply be reduced to a pure materialistic explanation, I don't believe that it is entirely independent of matter. The former point leads people to believe in spirits, the latter point convinces others that even "mind" is an illusion. But I think the truth is somewhere in between, and we'll eventually find that we've thought too materialistically about matter.

aliantha wrote:How do we always end up talking about religion?

The second someone says either the word "science" or "superstition" the next word that follows is "religion".

This discussion reminded Don Ex of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" but it also reminded me of the climax to the Matrix trilogy. As Neo lies beaten at Agent Smith's feet, Smith begins asking Neo again to justify his existence, to assign a logical reason or driving purpose to explain why he does what he does. Neo's simple response "because I choose to" infuriates Smith because he doesn't understand it. The act of choosing to believe in something that cannot be proven or disproven via the Scientific Method is illogical and irrational...but that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that the object of belief is invalid or even untrue; rather, it simply is. Even Covenant himself, at the climax of the First Chronicles, chooses to believe in both the Land and Unbelief, despite Foul's insistence that they cannot both be real.

The problem people run into is that they think they can convert non-believers into believers or, conversely, believers into non-believers. When people quit trying to convert each other and accept the fact that other people simply believe differently you will see nasty online discussion decline in number (except for politics threads).

The problem is that won't be the end of it. Z's concern it's real. People are killing because of these beliefs that are not supportable in any empirical way. I agree that that's wrong. Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. We can't "take back morality from the theists." First of all, it's not necessary. They don't have a monopoly on morality.

Second, not all theists use that morality to justify atrocities.

Third, it's impossible. If we decided to take all of their children away from them and raise them the way we think is best... Well, I don't suppose I have to point out the irony of that moral stance.

It's like this TNG conversation:
Riker: "But we can hardly hate what we once were. They may grow and learn."

Portal: "And learn ways of destroying you."

Riker: "Our values require us to face that possibility."

Fist and Faith wrote:The problem is that won't be the end of it. Z's concern it's real. People are killing because of these beliefs that are not supportable in any empirical way. I agree that that's wrong. Unfortunately, we can't do anything about it.

I agree--people who justify reprehensible things in the name of some religion are in the wrong. The only good thing I can say about that is that it doesn't happen as often as it used to, especially in many parts of the world, even though it still happens more often that it should.

aliantha wrote:...that doesn't preclude the possibility that there are things out there that will never be explained rationally because no rational explanation exists. Sort of a "natural-but-inexplicable" category, if that makes sense. Stuff like knowing a loved one has died before anyone tells you -- it's not a repeatable event so it can't be scientifically tested, but enough people have said that it's happened to them that the phenomenon is at least plausible.

Well, just because it's not repeatable doesn't mean it can't be studied scientifically. I believe quite a lot of rational thought has been devoted to subjects like this. Have you ever picked up a copy of Skeptic magazine? They talk about stuff like this every month.

People have lots of premonitions and dreams that later come true. The problem is that people have a lot *more* that don't come true. They tend to remember the former and forget the latter. There's your explanation.

I also think, Z, that you've made a pretty big leap by equating "supernatural" with the Christian God.

Considering how much time I've given to chiropractors in this thread--not to mention an explicit definition of supernatural which didn't mention god, much less the Christian one--I think this statement is a pretty big leap.

it's certainly possible to think about the natural-but-inexplicable without bringing a religious belief system into the discussion.

True. You're free to emphasize whichever you want. I think both are fascinating topics for discussion. As for the concept "natural-but-inexplicable," I think it's kind of contradictory, if we're talking about in principle and not merely not yet explained. There are plenty of things which we can't yet explain, but that doesn't make them supernatural (like black holes, as Hashi mentioned). But something that's inexplicable in principle ... how do you know? Seriously? How can you insist there's no possible explanation without testing every possible explanation (even the ones we haven't invented yet)?

Also, just as an aside, I don't get anything out of watching a beautiful sunset other than, "Ooh, pretty colors!" and "Time to think about sleep." There's nothing inherently end-of-life-related in it. But maybe I'm not thinking deeply enough about it. Maybe I'm just tired.

Well, that can be explained in scientific terms, too. Why are bright, brilliant colors moving to humans? Specifically ones near the red end of the spectrum? Maybe the same reason that some people get flustered at the sight of blood? The experience of color is a powerfully emotive experience, and this, too, is rooted in our evolution. It doesn't have to be a conscious, rational thought at the time. But that doesn't mean there aren't scientific, rational reasons for it to effect us subconsciously. Color is a powerful indicator of a plethora of survival factors.

The most beautiful thing in the world to most guys is the female form. We can dress that up in poetry all we want, but when you get down to it, it's about passing genes on to the next generation. There is a deep sense of mystery and connectedness between the "needs" of the genes driving the needs of the phenotype, and for me this sense of mystery is not diminished by having the correct scientific words to talk about it. (I'm certainly not a poet. ) In fact, my sense of awe is immeasurably increased.

Tell it to Godel.

Tell him what?

[Double post]

Have you ever read "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine? I had a subscription for a number of years.

Z wrote:People have lots of premonitions and dreams that later come true. The problem is that people have a lot *more* that don't come true. They tend to remember the former and forget the latter. There's your explanation.

My example involved neither a premonition nor a dream. "Premonition" implies prior knowledge of an event. If the sense of knowledge comes at the exact same time the event happens, then it's not prior knowledge in the sense of foretelling.

Z wrote:Considering how much time I've given to chiropractors in this thread--not to mention an explicit definition of supernatural which didn't mention god, much less the Christian one--I think this statement is a pretty big leap.

In your very first post in this thread, you wrote:The inability to distinguish pseudo-science from science leads to:

* Trying to teach creationism in science class
* Wasting money on things like chiropractors
* Distrusting doctors/scientists
* Distrusting reason
* Cease questioning reality
* Cease questioning authority (especially religious authority)
* Submission to questionable morality (e.g. stoning gays, mutilating girls)
* Subjugation of other humans based on mythical mandates
* Dogmatic entrenchment that comes from no longer questioning, making everything on this list easier to perpetuate and harder to stop or overcome.

With the exception of the one about chiropractors, all of your points here are criticisms of religion. But more importantly, they're all worst-case scenarios. There's a *lot* of ground in between "science" and, for example, female genital mutilation. You're employing scare tactics to make your point.

Z wrote:But something that's inexplicable in principle ... how do you know? Seriously? How can you insist there's no possible explanation without testing every possible explanation (even the ones we haven't invented yet)?

That's the functional equivalent of asking me to disprove the existence of God. I'm not gonna bite.

aliantha wrote:Have you ever read "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine? I had a subscription for a number of years.

That one is good, too.

aliantha wrote:My example involved neither a premonition nor a dream. "Premonition" implies prior knowledge of an event. If the sense of knowledge comes at the exact same time the event happens, then it's not prior knowledge in the sense of foretelling.

You say this as if it makes one bit of difference to my point.

aliantha wrote:

The inability to distinguish pseudo-science from science leads to:

* Trying to teach creationism in science class
* Wasting money on things like chiropractors
* Distrusting doctors/scientists
* Distrusting reason
* Cease questioning reality
* Cease questioning authority (especially religious authority)
* Submission to questionable morality (e.g. stoning gays, mutilating girls)
* Subjugation of other humans based on mythical mandates
* Dogmatic entrenchment that comes from no longer questioning, making everything on this list easier to perpetuate and harder to stop or overcome.

With the exception of the one about chiropractors, all of your points here are criticisms of religion.

No, my list had 8 items, of which only 3 could arguably be about religion (38%), of which only 2 are undeniably about religion (25%), of which only 1 was exclusively about religion (Islam). Exactly zero were specifically about Christianity and/or God, which was your specific criticism. You said that I was, "equating "supernatural" with the Christian God," not that I was merely tangentially mentioning topics that are sometimes related to religion. I hate to nit-pick, but it's right there in black and white yet you still mischaracterize it.

aliantha wrote:But more importantly, they're all worst-case scenarios. There's a *lot* of ground in between "science" and, for example, female genital mutilation. You're employing scare tactics to make your point.

But my point was directed at Hashi's point when he said that supernatural beliefs are harmless. How else am I supposed to counter that without bringing up examples of harm?

aliantha wrote:

Z wrote:But something that's inexplicable in principle ... how do you know? Seriously? How can you insist there's no possible explanation without testing every possible explanation (even the ones we haven't invented yet)?

That's the functional equivalent of asking me to disprove the existence of God. I'm not gonna bite.

Why are you making this about god?

[Edit: I miscounted my list, left the first one out. I don't really view creation vs science as Christianity vs science, but rather science vs pseudo-science.]

Zarathustra wrote:It might surprise you to learn that I've had many "spiritual" experiences myself, mainly on psychotropics.

You and Av and your psychtropics

Zarathustra wrote:However, none of them convinced me that there is a significant distinction between "spirit" and "mind." While I don't believe mind can simply be reduced to a pure materialistic explanation, I don't believe that it is entirely independent of matter. The former point leads people to believe in spirits, the latter point convinces others that even "mind" is an illusion. But I think the truth is somewhere in between, and we'll eventually find that we've thought too materialistically about matter.

Here I can agree with you without reserve. The osteopath I attend once said that, after 25 years working hands-on with people, the more he knew about the body the more its mystery deepened.

u.

Zarathustra wrote:Tell him what?

You are focused on scientific explanations, or the faith that they are obtainable for all phenomena. Yet scientific explanations and predictions are predicated on models which, at a fundamental level, connect empirical phenomena to mathematical systems of representation. Mathematical systems are axiomatic. Axiomatic systems have limited explanatory scope as proved by Godel. Therefore there are inherent limitations upon the scope of knowledge that is available from scientific models. What does seem to be possible is the elaboration of delimited slices of empirical phenomena that can be unified into limited but self-consistent models. But the ultimate union of these models into a self-consistent meta-model is not possible. Note that "self-consistent" precludes paradoxical phenomena, though experience of the universe seems to contain a degree of paradox (plurality within unity, which parallels Jung's duality within unity inside the noosphere). That's why I choose to emphasize the importance of paradox in my own epistemology.

PS If I am observed to be in error here as to the nature of mathematical systems, I would take the critique quite kindly.

Godel showed that for any consistent formal system of sufficient complexity, there will always be true statements within that system that cannot be proven within that system. People are using this incompleteness to suppose that there are corresponding phenomena in the physical universe that are real, but which the formal system used to model the universe cannot explain, due to this incompleteness. But where does this assumption come from? Why do we assume those "extra" phenomena exist merely because "extra" true statements exist in the formal systems we use to model phenomena? Such reasoning would necessitate a one-to-one relationship between every possible true statement in the formal system with a corresponding existing phenomenon.

While it's true that we use math to model the universe, the universe is obviously not a formal system. Therefore, the same reasoning that applies to formal systems cannot be applied to the universe. Specifically, there is no reason to suppose a true fact corresponding (i.e. existing) for every possible true statement that can be formulated within that formal system used to model the universe. There is no necessity whatsoever upon physical phenomenon existing, merely because your model can describe them (if they did exist). The laws of physics define the physical possibilities, the parameters that matter and energy must follow, but they don't therefore have to follow every single possibility. Therefore, no conclusion can be made regarding the incompleteness of the model to explain the physical system.

For instance (this is a very simplistic example I just made up), I use numbers to count my fingers. I can even do some arithmetic on my fingers. But there is no requirement whatsoever that I have as many fingers as there are true statements in arithmetic. There are in fact many complex computations in arithmetic that I'd never be able to do on my fingers. Does that mean that my model for counting my fingers is incomplete? Does that mean I'll never know how many fingers I have? Of course not. The model is more robust--containing more possibilities--than I need. But it still works fine for my system.

The fact that humans can understand Godel's proof--indeed, they can prove it--means that we're already "bigger" in a sense than this incompleteness. A conscious entity in the physical world can "step outside" of the incompleteness of formal systems, and get beyond this limitation.

I do believe that paradox is part of reality, and that strict logical consistency isn't necessary to understand or explain it, no more than it's necessary to explain or understand Godel's theorem.

Of course, no single mind can ever know every single true fact in the universe, no more than we can see all the stars. There are too many facts. Our time and our minds are finite. But that doesn't mean that we can't understand all the principles that would explain those facts, if we were in the right time or place to witness them.

Zarathustra wrote:Something can't be life affirming if it affirms a fiction or things that go beyond life. Placing the ultimate meaning of life beyond this world or beyond the grave is death-affirming. [Someone around here seems to have a signature about all this ... ]

Surely you're not saying that fiction can't be life-affirming?

But ok, I understand what you're saying in the context of an "afterlife."

But it doesn't affect me. If you want to believe something that gets you through the day/year/life, good for you.

I don't need anything like that, but it doesn't make my life any worse because somebody else believes in it.

--A

Don Exnihilote wrote:PS If I am observed to be in error here as to the nature of mathematical systems, I would take the critique quite kindly.

No, your grasp of the situation is sufficiently solid and you are thus not in error.

Zarathustra wrote:Godel showed that for any consistent formal system of sufficient complexity, there will always be true statements within that system that cannot be proven within that system. People are using this incompleteness to suppose that there are corresponding phenomena in the physical universe that are real, but which the formal system used to model the universe cannot explain, due to this incompleteness. But where does this assumption come from? Why do we assume those "extra" phenomena exist merely because "extra" true statements exist in the formal systems we use to model phenomena? Such reasoning would necessitate a one-to-one relationship between every possible true statement in the formal system with a corresponding existing phenomenon.

Quantum mechanics tells us that anything that can exist does exist.

What happens deep inside the event horizon of a black hole? The matter being sucked in gets disintegrated into energy but keeps falling inside, so when does it stop falling? What does it run in to? How large is the actual singularity inside the hole? Is the gravity inside powerful enough to overcome every other fundamental force and we are left with what is essentially an atomic nucleus only on a large scale? We don't know--we do not een have any way of figuring out those answers, but we know that singularities are real. We still cannot solve the three body problem, and those exist, as well.

Zarathustra wrote:The fact that humans can understand Godel's proof--indeed, they can prove it--means that we're already "bigger" in a sense than this incompleteness. A conscious entity in the physical world can "step outside" of the incompleteness of formal systems, and get beyond this limitation.

You were doing so well right up until this point. We cannot step outside the incompleteness of the universe any more than we can violate other universal realities like gravity or the laws of motion.

Zarathustra wrote:* Distrusting doctors/scientists

A general question which relates to this point is: Why do people turn to complementary and alternative sources of medicine?

My own guess is that the focus of medical science solely on the physical sources of illness limits it when it is faced with chronic illnesses (where psychosomatic (or other) factors may be involved). When people who suffer from chronic illness reach the end of what medical science can offer them and have found no cure or permanent relief they then turn to other sources. This is not an expression of distrust in medical science, it is an acceptance that (at the moment) conventional medicine has limits.

Without directly addressing the therapies themselves (and accepting that the placebo effect is responsible for some of the efficacy) I think that there are a number of reasons why alternative medicine regularly helps people.

One is the time. In this part of Europe an hour with most alternative therapists costs €60. A medical doctor (at €60 each) can usually sees at least of four patients in an hour. The extra time allows the therapist to listen to the patient. The freedom to express oneself fully in a safe atmosphere is by its very nature beneficial.

Another difference is that very often there is a sustained level of physical contact between the therapist and the client. A doctor usually only touches a patient as part of a clinical examination where the aim is to minimise the amount of touch for professional reasons. Reflexology, massage, osteopathy and many other of the alternative therapies are significantly hands-on. Again, physical touch alone is beneficial.

All good alternative therapists pay a large amount of attention to the psychological state of the person they are treating. Meeting that person weekly or monthly over a period of time allows for a clearer picture of the likely psychological factors (if any) that are at play in the chronic illness. A doctor does not have the same opportunity.

The final factor that I would draw attention to are the therapists themselves. It has been my experience that certain people are gifted as healers. For these people the type of therapy they use is not really that imporatant. What the therapy does is allow the person to focus their natural talent in an effective way.

u.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: Quantum mechanics tells us that anything that can exist does exist.

No, it doesn't. You're blurring the line between actually and possibility. A star can exist where I'm currently sitting. I can verify absolutely that there isn't one here.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: We don't know--we do not een have any way of figuring out those answers, but we know that singularities are real. We still cannot solve the three body problem, and those exist, as well.

That's a great example. It sure seems like a quandary we'll never figure out. Of course, they used to say that about the composition of stars. So I'm not confident predicting ignorance as permanent merely on the basis of current ignorance.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: You were doing so well right up until this point. We cannot step outside the incompleteness of the universe any more than we can violate other universal realities like gravity or the laws of motion.

I said nothing about the incompleteness of the universe. I was talking about formal systems (so was Godel). There are bits of the universe (you and me) which can overcome the limitations of Godel's Incompleteness in order to "step outside it" (something a computer--no matter how complex--could ever do). So the universe already gives us an example of a phenomenon that is "greater" than this incompleteness. It also seems to imply that consciousness isn't algorithmic. But since consciousness is produced by matter, this also means that matter--and the phenomena which it produces--isn't necessarily algorithmic.

Axiomatic systems lead to logically necessary conclusions. The universe works on contingency, not logical necessity.

[Edit: according to this link, we're both using it incorrectly. It can neither prove the incompleteness of physics or the nonmechanical nature of consciousness.]

Zarathustra wrote:I'm not confident predicting ignorance as permanent merely on the basis of current ignorance.

Fair enough. Past performance is never an indicator of future behavior, as economists and financial advisors often tell us.

Zarathustra wrote:I said nothing about the incompleteness of the universe. I was talking about formal systems (so was Godel). There are bits of the universe (you and me) which can overcome the limitations of Godel's Incompleteness in order to "step outside it" (something a computer--no matter how complex--could ever do). So the universe already gives us an example of a phenomenon that is "greater" than this incompleteness. It also seems to imply that consciousness isn't algorithmic. But since consciousness is produced by matter, this also means that matter--and the phenomena which it produces--isn't necessarily algorithmic.

Axiomatic systems lead to logically necessary conclusions. The universe works on contingency, not logical necessity.

Just so we are on the same page, may I paraphrase your comments here?
1) consciousness is not algorithmic
2) consiousness is produced by matter
3) 1 and 2 imply that matter is not necessarily algorithmic

How do we know that consciousness is not algorithmic? Perhaps we simply do not have a sufficiently-advanced method of algorithmic programming to adequately describe "consciousness", even though a recent AI experiment was able to realize that an object was a "cat" even though it had never been told what a "cat" was. The instant an AI routine asks the question "am I a computer?" we will be on a whole new level of what we mean by "consciousness".

For now, though, I tried to disprove your claim via set theory, looking for an element in the set "matter" that was also in the set "things which are algorithmic" but I could not figure out a way to do this. In short, I could not dispute your claims at this time. I will try again in a little bit but for now your claims stand as "non-refuted".

Zarathustra wrote:[Edit: according to this link, we're both using it incorrectly. It can neither prove the incompleteness of physics or the nonmechanical nature of consciousness.]

Great find! I will read this in a little while then I will try and track down the book itself.

Zarathustra wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote: Quantum mechanics tells us that anything that can exist does exist.

No, it doesn't. You're blurring the line between actually and possibility. A star can exist where I'm currently sitting. I can verify absolutely that there isn't one here.

Z's on the right track here. Quantum mechanics is a numbers game that relies on the probability of something happening. This is because we can not observe things as clearly at the small levels that quantum mechanics deal with, particularly without changing the nature of the thing. Hence, uncertainty, hence all this weird stuff you hear which leads to the statements like Hashi's (I do not blame you, I blame educators who are afraid to or incapable of teaching actual Quantum Mechanics) or the critique I'm going to make of Z's example (if you do not observe a star where you are sitting, then it can not exist in your place and time).

In an overly simplified way, Quantum mechanics=statistics.

Lol post wiped.

OK well to get back to my musings...I don't mind anyone who tries to know/model everything, and while it seems to be impossible, I don't really see the harm in people believing it's possible (except maybe if they succeed in achieving that knowledge ). But seriously, I don't think that a world of utter certainty as the result of complete knowledge would be really boring. In some ways, it would be more boring though. Would kind of eliminate the suspense.

And if something doesn't exist, it can't exist. And if it doesn't exist at a particular place and time, it can't exist at that particular place and time.

One other thing I'll say is that some people seem to assume the supernatural is comforting, or lends itself to a framework of beliefs. Maybe the real supernatural (lol) is or does. Or that which is passed down through generations, real or not. But if you don't have confidence or trust in it, the belief in the supernatural can become the biggest challenge to your faith in what makes sense. And even if you return to a belief that things make sense, you won't necessarily believe you can make sense of them.