The Evidence Required Is?

[Whateverist]

Stimbo, because your reductionist philosophy limits your ability to inquire only into physical events, you exclude apriori, anything not explained by physics, like the mind-body interaction. Subjective qualia are part of reality and most likely beyond the reach of the scientific method. Sure you HOPE that science with figure it out someday and have FAITH that that day will come, but c'mon. You sound like those Christians that say you'll be proven wrong in the afterlife. Try to work with the knowledge available today.

I do have faith that neuroscience will render our speculation moot before too very long regarding subjective qualia. Still, I do agree that something of the kind is what gives rise to the sense people have of being able to commune with a 'mysterious and mostly silent other' in prayer, etc.

I'm not so comfortable with the phrase "mind-body interaction". The mind is a process of the body, the part that the brain produces. We wouldn't say the "gastrointestinal-body interaction" for the process of the body that takes place in the GI tract because it just sounds redundant. "Mind-body" sounds exactly the same to my ear.

---

Agreed, with the rider that a simple, natural explanation explanation that fits the available facts beats a complicated, non-natural one that has to be shoehorned to fit; particularly one that invokes the least plausible entities and agents to make it work.

Agreed, with the rider that natural explanations are the only kind that qualify as such. Any appeals to magic or the unknowable don't really count as explanation. They are just a sorting activity.

---

"Remember science is a process of investigation." - Stimbo
Natural science is only one means of investigation. Mathematics investigates relationships of another kind. Contemplation investigates the inner life. Music investigates the power of beauty. Literature explores meaning and values. The ways of investigating the world are more rich and diverse than you are willing to admit.

A point I completely agree with. Science is a wonderful tool and the best one we have for investigating the physical world. But it will never take the measure of our humanity. In Six Non-lectures, cummings says something of the kind roughly like:

"So long as you and I have lips and tongues which are to kiss and sing with,
who cares if some one-eyed sonofabitch invents an instrument to measure spring with?"

"...things as mind-body interaction most certainly can be investigated, though I may personally lack the knowledge to explain how."- Stimbo

Sounds like blind faith to me. You have no idea how it could be and yet you believe it to be so.

Is there another kind of faith? I share Stimbo's faith in this matter.

---

Mathematics produces results, and can be shown to exist. Were 1+1 is 8 in one persons equations and 42 in another, but never 2, we would discard it as useless. Clearly something is wrong.

Yet the square root of negative one produces results that have application yet clearly does not exist, hence the moniker "imaginary". Do concepts such as number exist outside of our imaginings? IDK

I'm not sure mathematics can be shown to exist, though it can be shown to have application. Whitehead and Russell thought they could underpin logic using mathematics but it is hard to say which is more basic.

The ways of investigating the world are diverse, and each and every single way of investigating the universe has turned up nothing with respect to any gods.

Joseph Campbell turned up quite a few gods in investigating the beliefs of people from all cultures all over the world. So many and so universally that it can be argued that unless you can account for why that is, you don't really understand human nature. Personally I think it is too easy to say they are just mistakes in attempting to give a natural explanation of the world which were made in our youth as a sapient species. That claim would require evidence.

Pain can be measured (and often is), so much so that you can get a degree in exactly how to prevent it, again, by demonstrable means which show results.

While drugs have been found which affect the way in which pain is experienced I don't think it is very well understood at all. You know how they ask people to rate their pain on a scale from 1 to 10? That's just to establish a relative scale for each individual because it really is that subjective. A 4 on your scale might be my 10. There is just no way of knowing. This really is a good example of a subjective reality, probably the best example.


[Interesting thread, you guys. But its time for second sleep. So I'll have to finish getting caught up later and I'll be out all day tomorrow. If it remains this interesting, I look forward to the task.]

[Neo-Scholastic]

Most of the responses to my OP started with the premise that physical reality was the only reality. Some responses objected to specific forms of theism, so in my responses, I backed away from the idea of deity to focus the discussion on the idea of the transcendent. My claim is that to what we call physical reality is a sub-set of the totality, and not the whole of it. One need not be a theist to acknowledge this as a legitimate position, i.e. that not everything in the world reduces to physics nor is the scientific method the only means for investigating the world.

Mathematics is the perfect example of this, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific method that it supports. Math is pure induction. It cannot be subjected to empirical verification. Empirical deduction is contingent upon mathematics even at the most basic level. Likewise scientific investigations are performed using our ability to experience sensation. Observations, such as those made during scientific inquiry, are contingent upon sensations.

In the first case, a priori rules are set-up that cannot be evaluated with the system of rules itself (Kant, Godel). In the second, the effects of consciousness can be observed but not the cause of consciousness itself (Sartre). Saying Mind=Brain fails to explain why one set of nuerons firing in one part of the brain produces pain while an indistinguishable set of cells, that differ only by location, causes the memory of your grandmother.

That is why I consider it painfully obvious that physical reality occurs either within or adjacent to other transcendent parts. It is equally obvious to me that we can and do interact with those transcendent parts of reality everyday. No belief in deity is required to hold this position. Yet, too many of you appear to believe that being an atheist requires you to be a reductionist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yet the square root of negative one produces results that have application yet clearly does not exist, hence the moniker "imaginary". Do concepts such as number exist outside of our imaginings? IDK

Yep, it;s really simple, hold an object in one hand, and an object in another, that's 2. It doesn't matter what symbol you've imagined to express this. "2" is a description of a thing or a state, or a quantity (or it's relationship to other things or itself), "2" is the written analog of an idea. Numbers are imaginary, in the same way that any language is ultimately imaginary. Do words not exist? Are they not a demonstrable thing? Do numbers float about unattached to this or that? Only in our systems, which again, we created. I don't require them to be any more "real" than this, because thet's as real as they need to be for the purpose they were designed. Do they describe the concept we are attempting to communicate effectively? Yes. Is there a better way to describe it? Some better symbol or sound? No, not that we know of.

Joseph Campbell turned up quite a few gods in investigating the beliefs of people from all cultures all over the world. So many and so universally that it can be argued that unless you can account for why that is, you don't really understand human nature. Personally I think it is too easy to say they are just mistakes in attempting to give a natural explanation of the world which were made in our youth as a sapient species. That claim would require evidence.

He turned up quite a few stories, but I don't recall him leading a god back to civilization by the hand for peer review to the astonishment of his fellows. It's a claim with a vast amount of evidence attached. We have attempted to explain what was inexplicable to us by way of cosmic skyhooks that are very familiar to us. Just turns out that we've been consistently wrong.

While drugs have been found which affect the way in which pain is experienced I don't think it is very well understood at all. You know how they ask people to rate their pain on a scale from 1 to 10? That's just to establish a relative scale for each individual because it really is that subjective. A 4 on your scale might be my 10. There is just no way of knowing. This really is a good example of a subjective reality, probably the best example.

Understood well enough for anesthesia to work. "Not completely understood" is not equal to mysterious, especially if we are using god or gods or spirits as measures of mystery. As my daughter is so fond of saying "One of these things is not like the others".

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Yep, it's really simple, hold an object in one hand, and an object in another, that's 2." - Rhythm

Actually, its not that simple. What makes something a "one"? 12 apple make "one" dozen. A man, woman and child are "one" family. Many families make "one" community. Many communities make "one" country. But what is one itself? One apple is different from another. How much more different are other countable things. How many dogs are in a room that has a real great dane, a stuffed animal with floppy ears and a tail, and a poster of the Peanuts character Snoopy. What is "one" hand? You can have two hands but where do your hands end and your forearms begin.

No argument from ignorance here. I calling for an expanded understanding of what qualifies as knowledge. Real knowledge that can be accessed by means other than by the empirical scientific method. Other means that are subjective in nature and result from inductive reasoning, contemplation, and inner experience.

[Epimethean]

Now you're playing with the overlap between discrete numbers and sets. It does nothing to advance an argument against Rhythm's point. Hold one dozen in one hand and one dozen in another, and you have two if you are concerned about dozens as discrete sets, or twenty-four if you are concerned with individual items.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hold bestrecht in one hand, bestrecht in another, you have fortwent. It is a system, the value of one has been decided, you move forward from there. We created the system, it need only be consistent to itself as a system that rests solely in our minds. That it is consistent with some observation about the world around us is what lends us practicality, and demonstrates it's existence as a system with descriptive ability. I've heard this argument before Chad. You'd rather argue against numbers than for your deity? Why am I not surprised. That's the christian scorched earth policy. "No jesus, no nothing!"

[Bgood]

You have some suggestion as to what else we might use to investigate these things, since science alone is apparently not going to cut it? How did you come about this probability anyway?

I say life is apricot jam. The dharma is clearly lacking in the "noble truth" department. Sounds more like an obvious oversimplification to me (and as such completely and absurdly incorrect). But hey, that's how you dredge the net as far as possible, state some generality as "truth", preferably one that will appeal to those who are likely to be emotionally needy. Makes good ad copy.

The various sciences are unquestionably the best source of investigation. But results are misinterpreted, manipulated and contaminated by subjective human beings. I think Intuition from a buddha can explain alot that science can't, for example the truth of universal suffering and it's cessation through meditation.

The Buddha in a sense, uses the scientific method in understanding human nature and the riddles of the mind-body. But the human mind is not wholly scientific and logical. We have a creative side that is hard to pin down and say it is thus.

Evidence for or against anything many times goes unheeded anyway. Look at all the evidence for 911 being an inside job and still people believe that our government is incapable and too caring to pull such a devastating false flag operation. Perfect example..evidence doesn't mean anything. People believe what they feel comfortable with.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Setting the value of one is not the same thing as the ability to recognize any particular thing or set of things as a "one". You can only have internal consistency of rules within a system that allows you to have rules. You've heard my argument before. That does not make it false. I've heard your refutation before. That does not make it true.

[The Grand Nudger]

Explain one single thing by "intuition from Buddha". I have no aptitude for ceasing suffering by meditation, nor does anyone I know, nor have I ever seen it done. Do you mean to say "if I try really hard I can ignore pain". Well, so can I, it's called "not being a pussy". Do you mean to say "if i try really hard, I can avoid thinking about things that cause me emotional pain". Well so can I, it's called "not being a crybaby". No Buddha required. But hey, I'm sure you'll be able to explain something, anything, right? You wouldn't be the kind of buddhist that wanders around trying to sell platitudes would you? Surely not.

No Chad, my having heard your argument does not make it false, that would be the premise, structure, and conclusions of your argument. It's old, it's tired, let it rest.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Okay, I can do that. The point we covered many not have resolved anything between us, but they may prompt others to think more deeply about the issues raised. Fun sparring with you, though. See you in another thread.