What is Evidence?

[RestlessSoul]

"We" do. Our brains receive all of the information generated by our senses. However, the conscious process which most people only identify as, only receives an interpretation of this direct information.

For example colors don't actually exist. They are an interpretation of a small spectrum of wave energy.

Two problems recent science identifies with the existence of an objective reality external to the observer, are as follows;

General Relativity tells us that facts about time and space are not absolute; they depend always upon a frame of reference, which is unique to each observer. And;

Quantum Mechanics tells us that neutral observation of a system behaving as it would do were the observer not there observing it, is not possible. The act of observing a system is in itself an interaction, impacting on the behaviour of said system; distinctions between the object, the observer and the act of observation are arbitrary.

This separation of human experience into external reality and internal perceptions is illusory and misleading. We are not outside the world observing it objectively, we are within it looking out; while it is simultaneously within us, informing our experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Two problems recent science identifies with an objective reality external to the observer, are as follows;

General Relativity tells us that facts about time and space are not absolute; they depend always upon a frame of reference, which is unique to each observer. And;

Quantum Mechanics tells us that neutral observation of a system behaving as it would do were the observer not there observing it, is not possible. The act of observing a system is in itself an interaction, impacting on the behaviour of said system; distinctions between the object, the observer and the act of observation are arbitrary.

This separation of human experience into external reality and internal perceptions is illusory and misleading. We are not outside the world observing it objectively, we are within it looking out; while it is simultaneously within us, informing our experience.

@Nakosis

The problem is further that if your mind is caused by objective reality, then you have to know if objective reality is epistemologcally fair, for you, Nakosis, to know what objective reality is in the metaphysical sense as you claim you know.

 

[Nakosis]

Two problems recent science identifies with the existence of an objective reality external to the observer, are as follows;

General Relativity tells us that facts about time and space are not absolute; they depend always upon a frame of reference, which is unique to each observer. And;

Quantum Mechanics tells us that neutral observation of a system behaving as it would do were the observer not there observing it, is not possible. The act of observing a system is in itself an interaction, impacting on the behaviour of said system; distinctions between the object, the observer and the act of observation are arbitrary.

That's not true.

Yes I know that some of you are thinking of the double slit experiment. You make a screen with two slits, shine light through and get an interference pattern. Put a detector at one slit, attach a dial to the detector, and have a scientist watching the dial so they can see which slit the photon went through, and the interference pattern disappears. Perhaps, thought some of the early scientists, consciousness causes the quantum wave function to collapse, the universe doesn't like us knowing which slit the photon goes through.

However, lets do a few more experiments. Repeat the previous one, except that the scientist is sleeping in front of the dial. No interference pattern. Turn the dial to face the wall, remove the scientist entirely. Still no interference pattern. Unplug the dial from the detector, so electrical impulses run up the wire and then can't go anywhere. Again, no interference. Whatever is stopping interference patterns, it looks like detectors, not consciousness.
Quantum Mechanics, Nothing to do with Consciousness — LessWrong

It turns out that the collapse of the wave function is relatively easy. Not by conscious observation but by the presence of the physical detector. The detector doesn't even have to be turned on.

This separation of human experience into external reality and internal perceptions is illusory and misleading.

This part I agree with but I'll assume for different reasons. The conscious process creates an "illusionary" interface to help us consciously make sense of the world.

We are not outside the world observing it objectively, we are within it looking out; while it is simultaneously within us, informing our experience.

Yes we are part of reality. We can even affect that reality through physical processes.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, the problem is that you believe you know something about reality. And you assume I also know something about reality. I don't, since I am a strong skeptic.

Yes I can test reality to verify my knowledge of it. So can you. However that doesn't mean you can't willfully deny the results. I don't think you are a strong skeptic, I think you are an absolute skeptic. IOW, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink. There is nothing admirable about this position.

You really don't understand that sicence as an epistemological system is axiomatic and what that means.

No I don't. Because it is not practical to understand science in terms of philosophy. The problem with philosophy is that it like you never answers questions. It only asks them.

 

[Nakosis]

It’s a reasonable assumption that conscious experience is dependent on physical correlates in the material world. It may also be that the reverse is equally true. There is as yet no empirical evidence to confirm or deny either proposition, not may either be upheld by logic alone.

Ok, then, how does this non-physical process work. What are the mechanics of it and how can you test for it?
Every experience is explainable in physical terms. Where is the non-physical explanation?

 

[Nakosis]

Sorry, I'll be away for a few hours. I got to go do some nuclear testing. I assure you, an entirely physical process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes I can test reality to verify my knowledge of it. So can you. However that doesn't mean you can't willfully deny the results. I don't think you are a strong skeptic, I think you are an absolute skeptic. IOW, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink. There is nothing admirable about this position.



No I don't. Because it is not practical to understand science in terms of philosophy. The problem with philosophy is that it like you never answers questions. It only asks them.

Well. I don't care for your subjective feelings as these are not science, not with evicence and only meausreble based on how you feel.

As for the second part you are all humans and therefore you decide for all humans with science and evidence, right?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Ok, then, how does this non-physical process work. What are the mechanics of it and how can you test for it?
Every experience is explainable in physical terms. Where is the non-physical explanation?

How can you physically measure or evaluate non physical phenomena? You can’t, obviously. You cannot weigh a thought. Which might explain why, given all the progress medicine had made in the last century, there remains no biological test which can diagnose mental illness.

But you’re missing the point; even where clear correlates exist between mental processes and electro magnetic activity in the brain, there is no evidence to show which is fundamental and which is emergent. In other words, which is cause and which is effect. Neuroplasticity is the term used to describe the effect that activity in the mind can have on the structure of the brain, clearly indicating that in some instances the mind has priority over the body.

Nor can it ever make sense to argue that you can reduce conscious experience to physical phenomena without something vital being lost - you are not just a flurry of electro chemical impulses occurring in the brain, you are a self-aware, living entity having a conscious experience.

 

[Nakosis]

Well. I don't care for your subjective feelings as these are not science, not with evicence and only meausreble based on how you feel.

That's ok, it is really not necessary for you to care about my subjective feelings. Just worry about your own. I promise I won't feel bad.

As for the second part you are all humans and therefore you decide for all humans with science and evidence, right?

The second part is for you to provide an argument to support your position. Something more than just doubt. I mean if it wouldn't offend your position as a skeptic.

 

[1213]

If we used the Bible we would surely predict that the world has not had time enough to produce reservoirs of crude oil.

Oil can be formed relatively fast.

"Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour"

Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour

Researchers believe they have figured out a way to make a promising biofuel that is cheap enough to compete with gasoline

www.smithsonianmag.com

 

[Nakosis]

Oil can be formed relatively fast.

"Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour"

Scientists Turn Algae Into Crude Oil In Less Than An Hour

Researchers believe they have figured out a way to make a promising biofuel that is cheap enough to compete with gasoline

www.smithsonianmag.com

Yes crude oil does not come from dinosaurs. However it still took millions of years to form naturally.
Over the course of millions of years, “members of these massive colonies died off” and “sank to the bottom of the sea and were gradually covered by accumulating sediment,” writes Strauss. "Over millions of years, these layers of sediment grew heavier and heavier until the dead bacteria trapped below were ‘cooked’ by the pressure and temperature into a stew of liquid hydrocarbons.”
Sorry, folks, oil does not come from dinosaurs

Great though if we can speed up the process.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think Bible could be used as well to predict where oil should be.

You can think whatever you like.

SHOW it.

Show me a drilling company hiring people who use the bible to tell them where to drill instead of modern geology.
Go ahead. Don't just claim it. Show it.

 

[1213]

Yes crude oil does not come from dinosaurs. However it still took millions of years to form naturally.

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe so, especially when it can be done in very short time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem with that is, I have no good reason to believe so, especially when it can be done in very short time.

It seems that everybody that needs to put their money where their mouth is (like oil drilling companies) seem to have very good reason to believe so.

It's all very easy to merely make these empty claims when nothing in your life actually depends on it being true or not.
But the second millions, nay - billions, of dollars are involved... not so much it seems.