Sense of humor?
The Case Against Immortality
- Thread starter DoomMetal
- Start date
-
- Tags
- immortality
I don't, but I can theorize. Which is what I actually said, isn't it?
Let me rephrase that: Suppose the null hypothesis is that nothing exists. Demonstrate otherwise.
If you mean evidence that I presume that the self is unknown, well, I can't prove that I'm not lying when I say I presume such. But I really, really and truly do. If you mean evidence that I can theorize [etc.] then I just did theorize same.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
No. But, knowledge, if it is to be worth anything, ought to be.
Try reading some of the books I recommended, especially Self Comes to Mind. Or, if you want more breadth of ideas than depth, try anything written by Susan Blackmore.
We have working definitions of what consciousness is, and ideas about how it can emerge. (We are NOT sweeping it under a run of "emerges", but rather examining the details of HOW it emerges, as specifically as possible.)
We might not know which ones are correct, but they can all be investigated, each one achieves a certain amount of progress in science, and they all predict thoughts are brain activities.
No productive ideas have been able to demonstrate that they come from anywhere else.
He is naïve, and probably wrong.
Lao Tzu didn't know anything about the mind that modern science does.
If we think we can, we will discover more about the nature of consciousness, along the way.
Assuming we can't, won't get us anywhere, at all.
Look, I'm not arrogant enough to assume that we will ever unravel all of the mysteries of consciousness. Maybe we will. Maybe it will turn out to be impossible, in the end, after all.
But, as long as we approach the problem in a manner that is entirely empirical, and testable, the MORE we will learn about it. And, we could probably use that knowledge to better ourselves in the future, in various ways.
The alternative is about as useful as navel gazing all day.
This is why we test things in ways that other parties can independently verify. If multiple parties, following multiple lines of investigation, come to the same conclusion, it becomes difficult to claim that conclusion isn't "the truth", or at least close-enough to the "truth" for us to care about.Which could call into question any sort of assumption that truth is empirically verifiable. Well, possibly one might say that in principle, an empirical confirmation that something could exist is the fact that it can be imagined. I suspect you won't go along with that, though.
Science dishes out provisional truths. But, "provisional" does NOT mean "inaccurate". Provisional truths have a way of becoming more accurate, over time, than assumed "actual" truths.
Last edited:
I'll do that. Thanks for the recommendations.
I don't mean to disrespect scientific method, and I will read the books you mention before I comment further on this statement. But there is an annoying tendency to treat scientific findings as unalterable truth. When that's done (and I submit that it's done a great deal on this forum), it becomes another form of religion and I find that disturbing.
For the record, he didn't say that. More correctly, there's no evidence that he did.
Right there with you on this one.
Reasonable, with the caveat that if we attach too much importance to empirical data, we may be going in circles if it turns out that the truth isn't empirically verifiable.
Who says navel gazing isn't useful? Let's say about as useful as watching TV all day.
Again reasonable, again with the above caveat. Philosophers and psychologists deserve to be in on the discussion as well IMHO, and some of their conclusions diverge significantly from the ones drawn from scientific data.
Agreed on all points. However provisional doesn't mean accurate either (of course, it does mean more likely to be accurate than "assumed" does). My point all along has been simply that we don't really know yet, and I have been taking exception to those who say that we do. How much data one needs before one makes up one's mind is an individual choice, most typically governed by what one finds to be emotionally attractive. Since I find the concept under discussion emotionally unattractive, I'm going to need to see more progress before I find it convincing.
Maybe we'll have a chance to see how true those provisional truths are. Maybe even before we die.
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
I think most scientists tend to treat findings as a provisional truth, that CAN be altered, but ONLY if there is sufficient evidence to do so.
It is EASY for someone without sufficient evidence to CLAIM scientists are "treating their findings as unalterable truths". But, the real problem is, in fact, that they lack sufficient evidence to change the scientists' minds.
Speculation on things that can't be tested counts as not having sufficient evidence to change their minds.
You understand why, right?
We aren't going around in circles. We are, slowly, making progress in understanding more about consciousness. Not less. Not the same amount reworded all the time. But, MORE actual knowledge.
I agree. I only mention that because people who are used to dealing with "Absolute Truths" (for example: the religiously devote) might think the "merely" provisional truths of science are actually weaker. "Probably" sounds weaker that "Absolutely Sure!"
The strengths of science rest upon improving the reliability of "truths", and that forces us to work with provisional ones. "Absolute" truths tend not to change even after they are proven to be unreliable.
(Though, they do change, slowly, across generations, anyway. But, that's a different subject.)
That's a pretty bland point to make, but okay.
In what direction?
Existence ain't all it's cracked up to be...
I'm talking about people--generally not scientists--who state as fact the provisional findings that we've been talking about. For example, people who say "now we know that mankind originated in Africa" instead of "the current prevailing theory is that mankind originated in Africa." Perhaps there is all kinds of evidence to the contrary buried under the ice in Antarctica.
But of course, unless and until someone finds it, the prevailing theory is what it is. So yes, I understand why.
I will look at your books, but from what I can see, the progress you mention is based on empirical data. My caveat therefore stands.
I completely agree with this, and would only add that the "now we know that" example I gave is an example of just this sort of religious devotion. Religion comes from the need to replace the unknown with fantasy, and treating a "provisional truth" as an "absolute" one is just another fantasy, motivated by the same need.
Works for me.
One picks one's battles.
In what direction?[/QUOTE]Towards improving the reliability of this particular "truth."
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
How can a "truth" be in any way relevant if there is no empirical data to support it? How does it even earn the label "truth" if there is no empirical data to support it? Ideas without support aren't "truth". They're just ideas. The way you get from an idea to an idea that is true is via empirical data. Your caveat is irrelevant and meaningless.
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
Too much importance to empirical data?
Ah, now I get it. You're talking about truths that aren't actually true.
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
He's just another on of those who assert that since science doesn't know everything his woo is true.
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
People can say one thing and mean the other, you know.
One could verbally state "We know that mankind originated in Africa", but in the back of their minds they are also thinking "that's the current prevailing theory, anyway".
I agree that more scientists should use hedging language more often. But, that's all you're complaining about: Their usage of language.
I am fairly certain almost all scientists would accept evidence to the contrary, even if it was buried under the ice in Antarctica, as long as that evidence check out as reliable enough; even if they don't explicitly say that in how they talk.
Your caveat claims we would go in exactly the sort of circles the actual science is currently NOT going in.
If you wish to define truth as only true if there is a physical analog to support it, then of course you are right. For example, you would say that there is no such thing as seven without there being seven physical items to have seven of. Fair enough. I define truth differently If you wish to say that your definition is the only meaningful one then you've said your piece and I've said mine and it would seem that we have nothing more to say to one another.
Are your comments empirical evidence of how you feel, or is there some other reason that it's clear to anyone that they are sarcastic and hence hostile?
Hedging language unfortunately leads to the general public thinking that science is uncertain, and that religious/woo-woo dogma are worth just as much.
When scientists say "there is no documentation that healing works", most do not know that in normal parlance this would mean "it doesn't work". They think it means that it probably works but science is not interested in documenting it!
I'm not explaining myself clearly enough. It's not scientists I'm speaking of. It's people who use scientific data as a support system for their own beliefs and treat them as incontrovertible evidence of such. You know, the ones that get angry, sarcastic and abusive when you say that the data are not full proof of the position they are advancing. The science as religion types. It's the same feeling of annoyance I get when I see some televangelist quoting chapter and verse from the Bible to "prove" there's a devil or whatever.
The evidence that science isn't going in circles doesn't apply in the context of the caveat!
To not use hedging language in an attempt to redress that perceived imbalance is to attempt to manipulate public thinking to better embrace science by misrepresenting it as an alternative dogma. Wouldn't that be just another form of propaganda?
Last edited:
Wowbagger
The Infinitely Prolonged
My comment also largely applies to them. Perhaps to a slightly lesser degree. But, it still holds.
Most PEOPLE who use (genuine) scientific data as a support system for their own beliefs, WILL change their own beliefs, should the data indicate that they should do so.
The problem is that people who don't actually have such data are expecting their ideas to be taken just as seriously as the currently accepted ones. But, you now understand why that doesn't happen, right?
Here's your quote I am referring to, for reference:
If we WERE, hypothetically, going in such circles, we would be able to tell, since no new knowledge would be generated from our endeavors. There would be the occasional reworking or rephrasing of old ideas, but that's just "re-arranging the deck chairs", so-to-speak. Nothing innovative or novel. (This is what the "noetic sciences" basically does.)
The fact that legit brain sciences are continuing to generate new, novel, innovative knowledge demonstrates we are NOT going around in those circles, and that we are coming closer and closer to what is probably the truth.
What's this? An appeal to popularity fallacy? Once you say the magic wooword everyone will believe what you say whether it's true or not? Not that it matters to you (obviously), but where's your evidence for your claim? Or are you just another one of those apostles of your sacred cause who think it's their sacred duty to spread lies about anyone calling that cause into any sort of question?
No, it is talking the language of normal people. Nobody is scientifically exact in everyday language. When we say "John is at home" we should perhaps say "John was at home an hour ago when I checked" if we wanted to be exact. What is important is that everybody knows this.
Hedging should be reserved for those situations where there is a real uncertainty, such as for dietary advice.