Same with numbers. If I hold up a couple of fingers, it becomes vital to know that they can objectively be known as the number "two". If the immediate response is for people to argue about whether they mean three or four of five hundred, then communication simply is impossible. WIthout this basic objectivity, math would simply not be possible. We would all be "speaking Greek" to one another if we did not agree on the basic objectivity of words and numbers. And they need no "presuppostions", they simply occur as the long-term result of communication among humans. No "presuppositions" are required in either case, only human experience "from the ground up"., The basic problem with your claim of a "God" is that it only provides evidence and/or proof in the realm of PHILOSOPHY and not in the realm of REALISM. The problem then becomes that we as humans do not live in the world of philosphy but rather in the world of reality. As I say time and again, philosphy does not build bridges of skyscrapers. Your "God" only occurs in the juxtaposition of words, and nowhere else.

As for "true-ness", I have asked you this before but I don't remember if you answered: you like to speak of "truth", but I don't know that you have actually DEFINED your claim of a definition for it. My definition is that truth is derived from the objective analysis of alternatives. What alternative to that definition do you present?

As for empiricism, you are just strawmanning atheists with the word. I have explained to you a number of times that the "abstract concepts" of which you speak, items such as love or loyalty, derive from the consciousness that is directly a result of the MATERIAL elctro-chemical reactions in the brain, as can be measured by EEGs. That you have to dismiss this with strawman claims of what atheists/materialists "must" believe is just more of the quicksand that you use to make your argument. Yes, we ask you for objective, reality-based evidence and you admit that you have none, that your evidence is based in philosophic meanderings. We agree."

http://web.archive. org/20240508/ https:// debatepolitics.com/threads/does-objective-reality-exist-or-is-it-just-a-working-hypothesis.305050/#post-1067989213 (https://archive.ph/rZvRu): Better question would be "Is reality intuitive?", which I disagree.,"Objective Reality" = "all of reasoning"-fundamental concept... Objective Reality is fundamental to any/all claims about reality. It is not an answer to the question, it's the reason why *there are any questions at all*. No objective reality = no rule for learning Claim that objective reality *is*. Mixing the fact of ob. r. in metaphysics with how humans understand and perceive our objective reality (epistemology) or similar. You can examine all onion layers yet the philosophical (metaphysical) part is that the onion exists.

For all intents and purposes deduce objective reality 99.9...% times through science, logical deduction and what we deems as nature's law.

Difference between religious belief and Quantum Mechanics is that Quantum Mechanics is based of reality-observation in practice-using to consistently-successfully describe certain realm-existence despite our understanding. Science is a step-by-step-building framework. Evidence > presupposed result. Mysticism fails tiding nature consistently. No logical, successful predictions.

The experience is real. No way of knowing claim. Limited rational, consistent, logically deduced real impressions, no.

"one might as well accept all subjective reality as equally valid"

To each his own I agree... but all sub. real. are not equal. valid. We will progress as a species by applying real world problems.. Pragmatism and probability dictate so. The wall in front of me may not be real, but in all probability my fist will hurt after wall-punch.

At quantum-level things exists as probabilities rather than concrete "objects" but that's part of objective reality too. Now I have serious doubts that we can ever truly know objective reality, given our limited senses and constrained in 3-spatial-dimensions. The best we can hope for are useful models that allow us to navigate and predict.

Evilroddy:"Argh! Screwed over by my own subjective reality occluding objective reality. How humiliating and how ironic. My apologies to both Russell797 and Mach for the mix-up. Mea Culpa!

Cheers.

Evilroddy (the confused)"

http://web.archive.org/web/20240509123233/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-15 : "collective perception is what you are calling reality.

Even the ancient Greeks knew that, they just had to look at the shadow cast on the moon by the Earth.

Mariners knew the earth was round because they could see it."..."We can't know things we don't know therefore we don't really know objective reality, we understand collective agreement."

"not worried about what might be, I care about what is." "No, people knew that the world was spherical (it isn't round, round is 2-dimensional) a long, long time ago. There were plenty of people who were ignorant of what to look for, they made mistaken assumptions and had false beliefs. Anyone who thinks that there was ever objective proof that the Earth was flat doesn't have a clue what "objective" means." "If you're saying that your personal standard is described by what you've said, but you don't know whether it's objectively correct, then I have no idea why you're wasting your time or anyone else's in threads like these. With such a relativistic epistemic caveat, you've left yourself with no power to assert or persuade anyone else. What shakes out of your standard may be true for you, but not for me or anyone else." "too bad, fantasy enriches our world so. It allows us to solve problems that never would have been solved by logic alone. More innovative ideas come from mistakes than pure logic.

Rational thought is important as well of course, but if all of us took the same route, held the same beliefs, took the same approach what a sad lacking place it would be." "Produce evidence that there's any other standard that consistently and demonstrably generates as much factual data as science. There's a reason why every rational thing uses the scientific method instead of the imaginary method." "Fantasy as entertainment is one thing. Fantasy as a means of understanding the world around us is delusional." "Believing in something without evidence is abhorrent and it should be. Otherwise, you're just a delusional crazy." "only have trouble with people who label others less than if their beliefs differ. "..."They want all to fit a mould. I will never fit a mould. I will never accept that I have to." "You are calling them ignorant because they didn't know what to look for, how do we know you are looking for the right thing? How do we know you aren't mistaken in your assumptions? We don't know what we don't know."..."Objective is a state of mind. If reality exists outside of our perception it isn't objective it can't be, it just is. Your usage of the phrase "objective reality" is just an attempt to say that your perception is correct." "no truly it isn't delusional...we only get into trouble when forcing others to see things as we do

there is not a single being on the face of the earth that can not teach us something"..."to miss the lesson is to miss an opportunity" _Sal DP Veteran:"are you so sure of yourself and that your approach is right because if it is, put downs should be unnecessary"..."if you are so certain of your superior stance, denigration should be below you, otherwise you have lost the argument." "As well as believers, and non believers there are also skeptics who neither believe nor disbelieve." CLAX1911 DP Veteran:"Personal attacks don't really have much effect on the discussion."..."It would just be a declaration of my feelings, and as such wouldn't really bring anything to the discussion."

http://web.archive.org/web/20240509130144/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-16 : "Here's where I think we ought to start:

1) Logic. We ought to accept S5 and PL (or, if not S5, then S3 or even K). Look these up if you have questions.

That said, logic has its (well-studied) limitations. For one thing, logic deals in propositions, and there are epistemic goods that aren't expressed in propositions. So:

2) We ought to recognize the limitations of logic. Demonstrably, PL is sound but not complete. That is, it never admits invalid reasoning, but there are some instances of valid reasoning that PL doesn't recognize. It's also demonstable that no formal system can capture every instance of valid reasoning. So:

3) We ought to appeal to common intuitions about what is reasonable. But those intuitions cannot remain unanalyzed. They have to be examined. So:

4) It's pretty common to take your view these days. But your position doesn't stand up to analysis. There's no way to fully support a consistent thoroughgoing empiricist position. There's also no way to demonstrate a consistent objective reality (in fact, the exact opposite appears to be correct--look up Bell's Inequality). So:

5) Probably the best we can do is adopt an epistemically neutral attitude, which includes neutrality toward the propositions which underlie exactly the kind of scientism you seem to espouse.",

"Since we don't understand experience in general, I think we have to withhold judgment about the first bit (chemicals in the brain)."..."First, we should take into account the fact that records of anything at all didn't appear until recently when compared to the overall lifespan of the human race so far.

Second, we should also take into account the fact that so many more records have been lost than preserved.

Third, we should take into account the fact that of all the records that have been preserved, only a tiny fraction have been translated and are actually known (to illustrate this point: I know a scholar of Vedic literature who has been to India and seen warehouses full of crates of ancient palm leaf prints. No one knows what's on them).

Finally, we should take into account the fact that a person dying and then coming back is not only a rare occurrence at any time, but also largely a result of modern techniques of resuscitation. Absent those, it's a vanishingly rare occurrence. Nevertheless, there are ancient accounts of NDEs (Plato even records one).","lots of people almost die all the time. One would think the numbers would be higher." (Near-Death-Experience)

"argument against physicalism is usually argued from the dualism point of view. But physics (not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc.) seems to describe everything in the universe.", "If everything that exists can already be supported or verified by existing technology, methodology, or science, then why in the world do we continue to do scientific experiments? Scientific research?"<-Reply:"No one ever said that, but you don't find explanations by simply asserting explanations","There is a difference between "it didn't happen" and "I have no reason to think that it actually happened"."..."There are really only two rational ways to look at any given claim. Either it is something we can intellectually demonstrate a cause for through objective evidence and critical thinking, where we can draw a direct and demonstrable causal link between the event and the actual cause, or it is not. If it is not, then simply guessing at an emotionally comforting explanation is asinine. We can only say that we do not know what happened and continue to investigate until we do. We may never know. There is never a time when it is rational to simply invent a cause out of whole cloth for an inexplicable event, just because the cause appeals to you, or you're uncomfortable with not having an explanation. Never."..."No one ever said that, but you don't find explanations by simply asserting explanations. We will accept that ghosts exist when, and only when, there is actual, demonstrable, objective evidence that they really do. So far, none of the supposed "researchers" have ever produced any evidence that ghosts are real. All they have done is taken unexplained images, strange sounds and a lot of wishful thinking and CLAIMED they were ghosts. That's no more credible than arbitrarily claiming that Bigfoot did it.","This isn't about being imaginative, it's about knowing how to tell the difference between fact and fantasy.

Disprove or falsify that if you can. :)

Since you said nothing to disprove, done and done. All you did was make some vague accusations and show that, yet again, you haven't got a clue what you're talking about.","Yes, you didn't present anything that needed disproving, all you did was wave your arms around a little and make claims without a shred of evidence. I was referring to the other people in this thread who had made claims about the existence of ghosts and similar things, which, at least so far as I've seen, you have yet to do." , web.archive.org/20240509/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-17 : <-Reply:"

Very well. Since I'm pretty sure you can't prove any hand waving along with all the other things you have stated about my arguments that you cannot prove, I then rest my case on my previous arguments. They may suck but I think they were better than yours. :)"<-Reply:"Because that's all you have, it's all you've ever had in any discussion we've ever had. I ask you for evidence, you have none, you just spout a bunch of feel-good nonsense about what you WANT to believe and how people should take what you WANT to believe seriously. No, they shouldn't. They shouldn't take anything that anyone says seriously until they can back it up objectively and rationally. You cannot do that. Neither can any of the people arguing for ghosts. Neither can any of the people arguing for gods. Lots of those are the same people by the way. It's all wishful thinking. It's an emotional fantasy. So long as that's all you've got, nobody has any obligation to take your pie-in-the-sky beliefs and blind faith seriously.

You can think whatever you want. I care what you can prove and apparently, that's painfully little.",

"My computer is physical, and that is where the program resides in this physical universe.

What is electricity? a form of energy resulting from the existence of charged particles (such as electrons or protons), either statically as an accumulation of charge or dynamically as a current. Electricity is physical and also exists in the physical universe not some magical place where you seem to think these things exist. Including bank cards which also exist in a physical universe. Take away their physics and none of what you mentioned would exist.", "Just because people tell such stories doesnt put any real worth to the stories, except as fascinating stories or cultural and historical significance."..."Physicalism is a ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical. To be clear I do not believe in physicalism, I have just been unable to disprove it."..."We cant just take things on someones word alone on such a profound claim. Unlike gods, ghosts do not have a doctrine to follow to have faith in. So in lieu of faith we need something to observe a starting point of discovery. So far in all cases it turns out that it was a ghost story. The evidence points towards ghosts being the figments of human imagination. If you have more than stories told by humans as evidence can we look at said evidence?"..."You think that then we should leave the possibility of ghosts because we cant know everything."

http://web.archive.org/20240509/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-18 : "Science isn't everything. And perhaps the supernatural is simply natural things that we have no means of testing currently.

Physicalism is a ontological thesis that "everything is physical", that there is "nothing over and above" the physical, or that everything supervenes on the physical. To be clear I do not believe in physicalism, I have just been unable to disprove it.

Why do you keep presenting the lack of physical evidence as though it were some gospel truth? You feel safe doing things that can't be proven physically don't exist. If that isn't belief, I don't know what is."..."Every time you say this I am going to repeat that eyewitness accounts may not be conclusive evidence but they are evidence. That is an untrue statement"..."prove it to the scientific community but I never asked if ghosts where scientifically proven did I?","I asked for a location yes. a particular place or position. I did not ask for a address. If one is to claim that there is a non physical universe somewhere, they should at least be able to say where that might ought to be. Other wise they are just talking out of their ass."<-Reply:"Okay, outside physics." , "That is just a representation of the binary, not the binary itself. Any number is simply an abstract concept whether it is in binary or base 10."<-Reply:"Abstract concepts are developed by humans in a physical universe."<-Reply:"Abstract concepts have always existed, even before there were humans. Humans are starting to comprehend them, but they still don't exist in the physical universe.

What does the square root of -1 look like? Feel like? smell like? sound like?"<-Reply 2011-11-16:""In metaphysics, and especially ontology, a concept is a fundamental category of existence. In contemporary philosophy, there are at least three prevailing ways to understand what a concept is:[1]

Concepts as mental representations, where concepts are entities that exist in the brain.

Concepts as abilities, where concepts are abilities peculiar to cognitive agents.

Concepts as abstract objects, where objects are the constituents of propositions that mediate between thought, language, and referents." Concept - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"..."None of the above because the result is the imaginary number (i).

BTW what does red smell like?"<-Reply:"Physics doesn't explain everything.",<-Reply:"You could not possibly know that. All that we understand as a species is explained by physics. Claiming that there are things that cannot be explained by physics is a claim to have evidence that would not only gain you a noble prize but your name would be known to every school kid. SO it is your opinion that physics doesnt explain everything.", "And quit complaining"..."

I don't recall complaining. And your drilling is ticklish at best. I am just keeping you on track."<-Reply:"Ok since we are staying on track, outside of physics how can that be?","

Perhaps if you applied yourself you could make decision on that?

But it would just be an opinion. My decision doesn't really have any bearing on what is."<-Reply:"Only true if you dont apply yourself to the task. The information is out there just waiting for you to find. Hell I even made it easy for you and provided a link for you but you refused to read it."

http://web.archive.org/20240509/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-19 : "I can and do know that. All that we do understand is explained by physics. Things we don't understand aren't. There is no way we understand everything thus physics falls short. This begs the question if all that we understand it's explained by physics, that doesn't mean physics explains everything."..."If you think it can than I challenge you physically explain how the big bang occurred, how a black hole works the square root of negative one. Physics is simply a crude tool to help us understand our world.", "Physics doesn't explain everything.

Produce one demonstrable thing that physics or the other sciences don't explain. Just one", *squareroot -1*, " Any algorithm capable of execution can be executed by a recursive process. Another way to say the same thing is that any computer is equivalent to some Turing Machine.

FreedomFromAll said:

"If those 1's and 0's are physical things, however, they behave in distinctly odd manner." Binary code doesnt behave it just is.

If so, then its behavior is even stranger, since it would be the only physical thing known to have no behavior."..."Your assumption is that the code isnt a physical object

This doesn't seem to be an assumption so much as a conclusion. There are too many differences in the properties between physical things and object code. We divide things up by how similar or dissimilar their properties are, so it's a fairly straightforward conclusion to reach. Two different computers run the same program, for example, which means that the program can be in two different places at once. Physical things can't do that.

", "The imaginary number (i) exists, but it has no physical form. In a similar way, the concept of zero exists, but has no physical form. Were there no entities with brains well enough developed to understand the concept, it would still exist. Not everything depends on physical form."..."do have a physical form? A table may appear solid, but it really consists mostly of empty space. The same is true of all of the objects that surround us, including the bodies we inhabit: Most of it is empty space. The way we perceive it depends on the arrangement of atoms in that space.

Oh, and the color red is simply light of a particular wave length. The light is made up of energy, but the concept of red is neither matter nor energy.", 2024-08-24: Cephus:"I said DEMONSTRABLE thing. DEMONSTRABLE. Meaning you can PROVE IT IS REAL. Mathematics is conceptual.

","Giving me a half truth is bad form. You are assuming that the Turing machine theory will do things that it wont. For example if you write 1 +1 = in the sand it will never write the number 2 as the answer. It will remain unanswered until something happens that will erode or otherwise destroy the writing in the sand.","Sigh... binary code is in matter it isnt matter itself. My point is that it is impossible for anything in a physical universe to not be physically related. The universe as a whole is physical which is everything within it. A computer no matter what it is made of organic or not is made of matter. Virtual reality programs are based in physical machines."..."anyways here you go: Integrated information theory (IIT)",2024-08-24: Lethargic Apititude: "All that is imagined is imagined by brains which are made of matter."..."you cannot smell color because color has no properties to smell. But color as a concept like ALL concepts is based in the brain which is made of matter."..."What is telling is that have ignored the actual use of the word concept (Concept | Define Concept at Dictionary.com) which involves thought not an actuality like how you seem to be using the word.","right because they dont actually have a open mind but have already concluded a possibility without further investigating if that possibility is even a valid possibility."<-(Reply:"you don't know that at all...that is your conclusion about their experience and it may well be erroneous") "Why not leave the possibility that I AM your GOD?"<-(Reply:"see the thing you dismiss here is the possibility of someone else's experience being real because you want them to prove it to you...in your way..."), 2024-08-24"

*

* #463

CLAX1911 said:

There are thousands of opinions, none of them are right or wrong. I have my own. Why should somebody else's sway me?

You are entitled to that which cannot be taken away. The crux is that information can take away opinions.

","if I am your god there isnt a way for a mortal like yourself to disprove my godliness.

why would I need to? your belief that you are my god has zero impact upon me"..."It could be possible because you know you dont know everything about the universe right? So keep a open mind or you might go to hell when you die.

I don't know everything in the universe...but I do have an open mind, and I have no worries about going to hell, because it doesn't exist

(concluded from my experience of the world and the way I perceive things) if I am wrong eternity could be uncomfortable...lol...but that's how I view it and it is logical to me :lol:"."Logic well if we are going to be logical then appealing to the open mind argument isnt at all logical. When you assert the supremacy of a open mind you are telling me that you dictate what I do and do not accept as reality. I reject any claims by anyone of seeing ghosts as a legitimate claim. The scientific method exists to put to rest the problem of perceptional differences in the human mind from one to another. Logically if a claim is valid it must meet the rigorous requirements of scientific method. If in your open mind you are not using the logic of scientific method then you are just wasting everyones time in masturbatory self gratification of your perceptions of reality.",2024-08-24

"

* #466

The Fallacy of the Open Mind

"The Fallacy of the Open Mind

" (http://dewey.area24.net/TheFallacyOfTheOpenMind.htm)..."Discovering the limits of the range of validity of a fact does not discredit it. Lorentz and Einstein did not discredit Newton."","if the imaginary numbers, the concept of zero, or any other abstract concept isn't imagined by brains, does that mean it doesn't exist?"<-(Reply:"A concept is dependent on a brain.")

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise? I say, it does. It doesn't matter if we perceive a thing or understand it or not, it still exists."<-(Reply:"I never claimed that we need to observe something for it to exist.")

Does the physical world, the one that we like to think of as the "real" world, only exist as a series of sensory inputs into our brains, or would it exist even if we weren't around to see, hear, smell, and feel it?"..."I think it would, but then, who knows?"<-(Reply:"Either way you have failed to show a non physical universe. All what you have done is shown the abstracts that exist in this physical universe."),"You are entitled to that which cannot be taken away. The crux is that information can take away opinions.

Not any you presented", "I dont own scientific method, so it isnt my individual method its a international standard. Virtually all modern societies use scientific method. To ignore it is like asking people to speak in your own made up language."

http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-20 : "so put it this way...how I end up knowing precisely exactly how some things in my future will turn out is unknown to me...but is proof enough for me, that "something" happens which allows me to know that....

and proof enough for me, that all is not known","I believe that scientific methodology is valid...I just do not believe it is possible yet for all things.", "My method?"..."there hasnt been anything but your opinion so far.","difference between the car maneuvering on a marked track and writing symbols in the sand is that the former is a recursive process. The latter is not."..."A car driving in a pattern will never 'do' anything extraordinary just because you think it would."..."Such a setup could execute any algorithm capable of recursion. I know this, because one of the proven models of a Turing machine is just a little car that drives on a piece of paper.

But it could never become conscious, any more than an array of tiny silicon switches could do so. That's the point of these examples. Computers aren't speecial, and for that matter neither are brains. But consciousness is, in the relevant respects."..."Try it yourself driver your car (if you can drive yet) in patterns and see if they compute anything.

I already posted an example of how this could be done. If you want to calculate the sum of any two numbers, drive the car in the positive direction the first number of marks, and then the second number of marks.

"..."binary code is in matter it isnt matter itself.

isn't that more or less exactly what Descartes said about Res Mensa?"..." "My point is that it is impossible for anything in a physical universe to not be physically related. The universe as a whole is physical which is everything within it. A computer no matter what it is made of organic or not is made of matter. Virtual reality programs are based in physical machines."...<-(Reply:"up the problem of the principle of causal closure, it's probably not really a problem. No one knows if the universe is causally closed, and at least some quantum effects suggest that it probably isn't."),"If binary code doesnt exist in our physical universe where might it exist then?

I'm not sure I see why that existence necessarily entails physical location. That seems to be exactly the sort of proposition that someone who accepts physicalism must accept, and exactly the kind of proposition that someone who denies physicalism in turn denies. In short, such a demand begs the question.

Nothing about existence logically entails location."..."Death isnt ambiguous at all.

In the relevant sense, death seems to be the most ambiguous event of all.

"..."You can wish all that you want that a dead person has a consciousness that cannot die but seriously unless you are magical yourself you have nothing to base that claim on.

I disagree, and again, for pretty straightforward reasons. The fact that no physical explanation of consciousness exists, despite our extensive knowledge of physical systems, gives me quite a good reason for believing consciousness may well survive death.","I should have said that t he actuality of imaginary numbers or the actuality of zero does not reside in the material universe.

Sometimes, reality is non material.","So dont hate me for not thinking that your opinion is relevant.

My my aren't you a little victim. I never hate on you. I simply said your opinion isn't relevant.

You could make it relevant if you employed universally accepted scientific method.

I don't really care what you find relevant or not. It's merely your opinion that scientific method makes it relevant.","former is a recursive process. The latter is not."...<-(Reply:"

While the existence of consciousness in living organism is remarkable IMO, but there is nothing special about consciousness in the context of the universe. And I suppose that you believe that if you ignore neural science you can just keep your head in the sand? BTW you are doing a hell of a good job at trying to derail the conversation. But my attention span is a bit longer then that.

Just because you believe in a afterlife (what a ignorant word) that doesnt make it possible."), "repeatedly told you there is no proof"...<-(Reply:"now I get it you are just sharing your opinions and nothing more. So you shouldnt mind at all when I share mine right?")<-(Reply:"I don't. The only thing that really gets a bit frustrating is when you constantly being up points I conceeded over and over again."), "There is evidence, evidence isn't proof.","sharing your opinions and nothing more."<-(Reply:"That is really all anybody can do on this website.")..."there you failed to show how ghosts could be possible admitting that it all was just a pointless personal belief.

You failed to show how they are impossible so you are exactly at the same point I am."..."So I will continue to discuss this subject, you can just ignore me if you wish since you have zero to add to this thread.

I will continue to point out where you are mistaken. You haven't defended yourself once with in the parameters of this discussion. If I frustrate you, feel free to ignore me.",

"I don"'"t "really need to show how ghosts are impossible."<-(Reply:"don't need to show how they are possible. I don't value your agreement.") "You are the one that said they were possible maybe. That puts the burden of proof in your lap and thats what we have been trying to get you to do for 44 pages (I mean 13 pages). But every time someone says that ghosts are not possible you assert that they are possible. SO then rationally the person that you say it to would like to know how ghosts could be possible. Cant you just say I dont know or would that be actually conceding?"<-(Reply:"I don't know, that is what I said in the op. Boy you have a terrible memory."),"That puts the burden of proof in your lap and thats what we have been trying to get you to do for 44 pages (I mean 13 pages).

See post #484 big red letters you can't miss them. Amazing you have already forgotten."..."But every time someone says that ghosts are not possible you assert that they are possible.

I can't really rule them out. Not enough evidence one way or the other.","Ok. Then what method are you proposing to use? I am curious as to what ,method supersedes scientific method in some cases?

I am not proposing to use any method. I feel no need to prove the world of spirit to anyone.",

2024-08-25: Sal DP Veteran:"zyzygy said:

How convenient

"

"Ikari

Moderator DP Veteran

* "2024-08-25"

*

* #497

~SAL said:

was there a point you were attempting to make or are you just in a nasty frame of mind?

I don't think it's a "nasty frame of mind", it's just that those proposing or saying "well I can't discount" blah conveniently deflect any responsibility to evidence. 107 billion dead, one would think that at this point we'd have quite a few ghost stories. But everything from the presentation of personal testimony to the deflection of actual evidence all seems fairly shady and a bit dishonest (it's certainly intellectually dishonest). That's all there is to it.

In the end the numbers don't add up, there's nothing that suggests the existence of spirits and nothing that would confirm their existence; even with 107 billion dead.",Dittohead not! master political analyst DP Veteran :"Ok then what non material actualities are not in this physical universe? ANd how would you know that they were? What could possibly tell you that?

Non material actualities, like zero, imaginary numbers, and spirits, are not in any physical universe. That's the point I've been making all along: They don't have to be material to be real.",

"the existence of consciousness in living organism is remarkable IMO, but there is nothing special about consciousness in the context of the universe.

I don't even know what that means. In the context of the universe?"..."And I suppose that you believe that if you ignore neural science you can just keep your head in the sand?

Quite the contrary. I read avidly in neuroscience. Do you think there's some definitive evidence in neuroscience that will establish physicalism? If so, I've never heard of it...and I almost certainly would have heard of it if it existed. If you think you've got something, feel free to post it.

On the other hand, the fact that you just did a block quote and avoided addressing any of points suggests you're trying the head/sand trick. The points I've posted are pretty standard ones in the debate over computationalism. It seems to me that you are completely unfamiliar with these results, which have been widely known and acknowledged since the 1950's. Their impact in Cognitive Science is still coming to be appreciated, but they're the main reasons CS is dying.

FreedomFromAll said:

BTW you are doing a hell of a good job at trying to derail the conversation. But my attention span is a bit longer then that.

I'm not derailing anything. If the idea is that ghosts cannot exist because physicalism is correct, it seems fairly straightforward that the first order of business is to take down physicalism. Physicalism is in fact false, so there's no valid theoretical objection to the existence of ghosts.

"..."First, how can a word be ignorant? Second, I have never argued that because I believe something, it must therefore be correct.", "pushing for proof when people have readily admitted there is no proof other than personal experience. A parallel situation would be pain measurement. It can not be proven that a patient's pain level is a 10 and that they need morphine at the moment.","not the people who are saying they are open to the possibility of spirit that are being dishonest. It is the constant barrage of prove"

http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-21 : "The human brain is excellent at finding correlations between events, even if no such correlation is real. Just sort of the way our brains work. For instance, 1000's of ghost stories seems so very small. Even assuming that each ghost story is of a unique ghost, that accounts for 9.35*10^-7% of all dead folk. Millions? Still 0.000935% of all dead people. If ghosts are a true phenomenon, one would expect a much larger number of encounters and unique stories.

Could there be ghosts? Sure, in the same way there could be leprechauns or unicorns or dragons or any other plethora of things that have no direct evidence for or against. But is it likely? Highly localized, highly isolated events under suspicious circumstances and environments. Doesn't seem very likely, does it?", "term open-minded, close-minded...which I can see could upset some. I never viewed it that way since personally I would say I am closed to the idea of an angry and condemning god with the concept of hell fire. Others are very open to it. They would say I am close minded about it...they would be right. Not to say though that experiences could not lead me to re-examine the concept but none the less currently I am closed minded about it. I place no value judgement upon that. I will be more careful about my wording. So thanks for pointing that out.", "perceive things in skewed ways. One of the reasons we now know that eye witnesses are not all that accurate.", "don't need 100%, but even any appreciable percentage of folk becoming ghosts would seem to indicate that we should see and observe and record far greater numbers of ghosts than what we currently realize.", "The word afterlife is a very ignorant word, it says that life ends then there is something else. It ignores death. It shows that user of that word is afraid to die.","Cognitive Science is a name that refers to a field which tries to work out computational models of the human mind. There hasn't been any meaningful advance in the subject since the mid 1990's. The Blue Brain project taught us a lot about the organization of cortical columns, for example, but didn't really shed any new light on the questions CS is supposed to address."<-(Reply:Wait back up the train wtf you dont even know wth you are talking about. Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, and anthropology etc.")<-(Reply:"I'm not so sure about anthropology, but I agree that all the rest of the above disciplines touch on Cognitive Science, and vice versa. However, Cognitive Scientists proceed on the theory that the brain is a computer and the mind the result of some algorithm executed on that computer. As a profession, cognitive scientists are not strictly speaking linguists or philosophers or computer programmers. They do cognitive science. Philosophers, linguists, and the rest also do some cognitive science in the course of their work, and vice versa.

I would also agree that cognitive scientists usually work in university computer science departments, though that doesn't mean they are computer scientists, as such.")..."So, since you use the word, I should infer that you're afraid to die, and that you ignore "direct reality" (again, whatever that means)?"..."word afterlife is still a ignorant word like many other illogical words. But hey one cant be too harsh since the word came about in such primitive times. Perhaps eventually we will retire the word like we have many other outdated words.","course zero exists, as do imaginary and any other sorts of numbers. Just because they aren't material doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Understanding zero was a quantum leap forward in the understanding of mathematics.","FreedomFromAll said:

I know a great deal about them which makes me smile when reading about what you think they are.

If you did, you'd see that driving a car on a marked track per the procedures I have described is just one model of a Turing Machine extended in size to normal-sized cars.", 2024-08-25 ashurbanipal DP Veteran:"I have a Doctorate in Philosophy; I did my dissertation on epistemic goods and computationalism. I have a certificate, equivalent to an M.S., in Cognitive Science from one of the best universities in the country. I take pains to keep my identity private on these boards, so that's all I will say."<-(Reply:"Yet you didnt know that Cognitive Science is a field of study that covers many different subjects. Sorry dude but you dont seem to be what you claim. Your lack of understanding about the Turing Machine was entertaining but you claiming to hide your identity as if you were someone special just takes the cake. Did your tape go blank and it halted everything? A turing machine requires rules to emulate a computer"<-"Sure. In just the same way, computers require rules to be computers. So what?" ", software system it isnt magic like you make it sound."<-"Actually, I think you're the one who wants to make software something magical. Consciousness is not software running on a "wet computer" precisely because software doesn't have the requisite "magic," if you want to call it that." "Turing machines are nothing more than a thought experiment representing a computing machine. They help computer scientists understand the limits of mechanical computation. They dont all have the same ability in performance.")->"Well, no one has ever built a Turing machine as Turing himself proposed (as far as I know), but everyone acknowleges that any computer could be simulated by some Turing machine. People have built register machines, abaci, mechanical calculators, and other such, and all of these can be algebraically described by the same ordered quadruple as a Turing Machine...which means, more or less, that physical instantiation of a calculating machine is meaningless."..."Do you believe in ghosts?

That's a complicated issue. I think there is some phenomenon that gives people the heebie jeebies and which isn't explainable by reference to mundane phenomena. Whether they are the spirits of dead people is another question. I'm unsure about that. Ghosts may be nothing more than, say, intense localized EM fields or some such. But I wouldn't rule out that they are the spirits of dead people, either. Anyone who is absolutely sure about the matter either has some personal experience I lack, or is in the grip of some ideology." - 2014-08-25, "Is a empty room outside of the physical universe?

What actual evidence do you have that shows that something can exist outside of our known universe?", "There are things that exist right here in this universe, but that are not material. If there are some things that are demonstrably not material, why could there not be others?

Where is this place is an illogical question. If something is non material, then it doesn't occupy a place.","You say very clearly that Cognitive Science is attempt to "work out computational models of the human mind". you failed to give the actual meaning."<"are there cognitive scientists (i.e. people who describe themselves as cogntive scientists) that aren'tcalculationists? Better, are there people who describe themselves as cognitive scientists who aren't calculationists and who don't work on models of the mind? I'm curious to see if you can name one and provide some relevant references." Yes there is a branch of the field of science that is interested with computational models of the human mind but that is only a small fraction of the field of science known as Cognitive Science. ANd the fact that I had to tell you that speaks volumes about your claims of needing to hide your identity."..."Sure. In just the same way, computers require rules to be computers. So what?

Without those recursive rules your turing brain emulation goes nowhere."<"Again, so what? The point is the brain instantiates the same method of calculation. Only the physical details differ."<"evidence of that claim? Or are you just sharing a opinion?", "requisite "magic," if you want to call it that.

Not at all since I dont find consciousness to be magical. Remarkable yes, considering the set of conditions needed for complexities of life. There just simply isnt anything magical about consciousness it is just the result of a specific"<"I don't think consciousness is magical in the sense that it's something supernatural. But it may well be non-physical, and IMO almost certainly is.", "Turing Machine...which means, more or less, that physical instantiation of a calculating machine is meaningless.

Similarly, when considering the human brain, if it's just a computer (as it seems to be), then it's equivalent to some Turing Machine.

This is, what? The fourth or fifth time running that you, once again, avoided the vast majority of my post.

The proper description that you are looking for is a Universal Turing Machine."<"I can't see any reason why what we've been discussing would require a UTM."<"Perhaps its because its what Turing wanted?" (One would think with your highly acclaimed education that you would have known that. And yet no reaction about my turing joke: lol Did your tape go blank and it halted everything?)"..."other words yes the Turing machine is complicated but it does zero in determining the outcome of the question of the existence of ghosts.","halting problem have to do with anything I've said so far? I suppose there is an argument about the halting problem and consciousness (this was essentially Penrose's point), but I haven't posted it."<"called sarcasm. That pocked fun at the fact that it has really nothing to do with ghosts.","Here is one (below). Before we had a quantum microscope no one had actually viewed a electron. But none the less we have known that electrons exist for a great deal of time. ANd not just as a hypothesis but direct proof. We knew for a fact that they existed because we could see there effects and just about everything else but see them."..."Ghosts and gods if real would leave some kind of trace indicating their existence"..."To them its as real as anything. But then so are aliens and bigfoot to others."..."Everybody has the authority to think for themselves and not be dictated to by believers and nonbelievers alike. We also share the right to join in conversation (unless a mod says otherwise).","Graduates with a baccalaureate degree in cognitive science are highly sought by industry." *explains Cognitive Science nuanced* "Dr." ashurbanipal still doesn't react to Blank-Turner-joke.

http://web.archive.org/web/20240510104052/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-22 : "Lots of non-material things exist. Electricity, dark matter love, gravity, potential, heat so on so forth.", "I said that cognitive science is a field whose members try to figure out calculationist models of the human mind. If that's wrong, then there should be people who describe themselves as cognitive scientists who are either not calculationists, or who don't try to model the human mind, or both."..."Quite the contrary, most cognitive scientists don't map the brain. That's for neuroanatomists. Cognitive scientists try to come up with theories about which kinds of circuits have to exist in order for the human mind to do the things it can do. It's then left to neuroscientists to find those circuits (or, more often, not)."..."already have. Turing proved that any computer is equivalent to some Turing machine. If the brain is a computer, it's equivalent to some Turing machine."<"proved it with a "If" lol you have a strange definition of proven. You would think with all that education that you would have a better grasp of how these things work.","I don't know what that means in response to my post. The point is that brains are (probably) not arbitrary computers. You wouldn't need a UTM to simulate a brain, just some Turing Machine.

Come on dont you even remember what you type? "Well, no one has ever built a Turing machine as Turing himself proposed (as far as I know)" Turing proposed a Universal Turing Machine. But you are right that is neither here or there and has zero to do with ghosts. SO does any of this have anything to do with ghosts or are you just trying to sound smart?", "FreedomFromAll said:

Electricity,potential and heat are based in physics.

Love has been shown to originate in the brain. The brain is made of mass.

Physics may explain things but they aren't material.

The brain may be mass, but that isn't really relevant.

Gravity depends on mass.

But not material.

Dark matter is a kind of matter hypothesized in astronomy and cosmology to account for gravitational effects that appear to be the result of invisible mass.

it's really a shot in the dark, a guess.

See what Michio Kaku (a famous physicist) says about it.

Michio Kaku: What Is Dark Matter?: http://youtu.be/e4nnpg4N35o"<2014-08-27:"Physics can explain those things because they are physics in a a physical universe." *explains properties*..."Electromagnetic radiation are a stream of photons that are massless particles each travelling with wavelike properties at the speed of light. A photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of light, its the substance of electromagnetic radiation.

Photons have Physical properties making them material. This can be expanded on by discussing special relativity. "..."When something is described by physics it belongs to the physical universe because that is the point of physics. All the things that you mentioned (including dark matter) belong to physics hence why I asserted that they were all physical.

Pop-physicist Michio Kaku said 'here are some ideas but I dont really know what dark matter is except that its an excuse for gravitational forces'. None one though thinks that dark matter is a non-material thing."

"Making none of your examples non material.

They are all non material. You made squat.", "Actually, all of those things are material. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they aren't just another form of matter.

Energy isn't matter.", "FreedomFromAll said:

Its good of you to follow my lead. Next show after the break.

Your posts are chock full of snippy sarcastic comments lacking any real content. I usually don't point this out (since it should be obvious), but all you're doing is signalling that your arsenal has run dry."..."Conditional statements appear in proofs all the time. All of the standard logical operators can be put in terms of conditionals and negation."..."Turing proposed Turing Machines, and then showed that with a few more uncontroversial assumptions, a Turing Machine can be a UTM."..."How many times do I have to draw the connection? It's super-easy to grasp. The usual objection to the existence of ghosts is that materialism wouldn't allow them to exist. Materialism (it is supposed by those who argue this way) is true, so ghosts (being non-material) cannot exist.

But: materialism is probably not true. So those grounds for objecting to the existence of ghosts are bad ones."<"Great your argument is against materialism. But that wasnt my argument. Anymore strawman that you want to construct?"<"

Are you not a materialist?"<Cephus: "I'm a realist. When you can demonstrate that there is anything outside of the material realm, when you can provide objective evidence to prove that you're correct, then I'll reconsider your claims, but not until.", "energy isn't matter.

e=mc^2">...>"You know, that formula you learn in high school showing that mass and energy are the same thing? :roll:" Lethargic Aptitude = FreedomForAll , "Well, wait a minute. What do you mean by "objective"? And what counts as evidence?

Anything that can be freely studied by anyone without having to have a belief in it first. Look up words that you don't understand.", 2014-08-27: Political Parties = Corruption DP Veteran: Lethargic Aptitude: "Jump forward a century to Non-Reductive Physicalism. Though I am not really a physicalist either but more of a realist. As a realist though physicalism seems to work very well in reality.

But still souls and ghosts are not real and I also seel no reason to be agnostic about it.", " 2014-08-24", "

* #547

FreedomFromAll said:

So then non-material things do not exist? If it occupies zero space then how was it that you know that it exists?

You have been given several examples of non material.. what was your word? Actualities?

Does the number 5 exist? If so, where is it?

", http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-45 : "The point is that, before the mathematical proof was found, reports of dark matter would have been categorized the same as reports of ghosts.

Before the mathematical proof existed, there wasn't a clue that dark matter existed, it came about as an explanation for the mathematical proof that showed that there had to be something there.

It's just like black holes. Einstein's calculations showed that they had to exist but it was many years until we actually saw one. Math is a great predictor of the physical universe, so long as we have enough of an understanding to plug in the correct numbers.

For ghosts though, we have nothing that even suggests they exist. There is no data. There is no math to back up their existence. It's all wishful thinking. That's the difference.", "William Rea said:

I have no idea why you decided to start this crap when we appear to pretty much agree on what is being posted by the 'rational' side in here but, you have and if you want to go at it lets take it somewhere else. Otherwise, it's going to get messy. up to you.

If you're unable to control yourself and follow the rules, that says something pretty pathetic about you."<"You started the trolling buddy", ""In fact, very few cases of 'veridical perception' during NDEs have been corroborated. In many cases, details which are said to have been accurate "are not the kind that can easily be checked later" (Blackmore, "Dying" 114). Even the 'founding father' of near-death studies, Raymond Moody, concedes that most cases of alleged veridical perception during NDEs are found well after the fact and are usually attested to only by the NDEr and perhaps a few friends (114). And in one study Carlos Alvarado found that although nearly one-fifth of participants claimed to have made "verifiable observations" during their OBEs, only 3 of the 61 cases even "qualified as potentially veridical when experients were asked to provide fuller descriptions" (Alvarado 187)."

http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-46 : "While I can't object to peoples personal experiences. I can object to the claim of what causes that experience.", 2014-10-11:"I give up. I think that you are just amusing yourself."...Nah, it is just a childlike position of being a contrarian and naysaying.", 2024-10-10: DP Veteran zyzygy: "I've seen people getting married. I did it myself.", "'Love' offers an evolutionary advantage for successful reproduction just as any social bonding does.

'Paranormal experiences' are a by-product of an evolutionary advantage we developed to make assessments of stimuli and react to them in order to fight or flight and survive.

Both are delusions, as demonstrated by the divorce rate in most liberal countries and the almost complete lack of positive evidence for teh woo."

http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/are-ghosts-real.202326/page-47 : "rational people don't believe in highly improbable things without" true "evidence"

http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/is-morality-subjective-or-objective.226698/page-14#post-1064779512 : Moral is in broadest sense objective and more subjective the more you zoom to specific culture/individual.

http://web.archive.org/20240511/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/what-is-reality.170530/page-6#post-1062248692 : 2013-08-28: Lethargic Aptitude: "Quantum mechanics doesnt change what is real, it only defines more accurately what is real."..."Myself I believe that reality (not the subjective observation of reality but the true real state of existence) is the only real truth to be after."..."Are there other universes? I dont know and neither does anyone else. AT this point I dont think that it really matters until we gain more knowledge to understand if that is reality. Until then it will reside in the realm of a very educated guess but not actually definitive.", "testable laws of physics at the very least are the only true reality", http://web.archive.org/web/20240512074601/http://www.sinequanonthebook.com/Light2.html slightly contradicts Lethargic Aptitude's "Sound is a longitudinal wave." with "(Sound is not a longitudinal wave as well

because it propagates in the three-dimensional medium of air.)". Based in Aether Theory being contradicted to https://archive.ph/20240517134030/https://www.researchgate.net/publication/202222681_Universal_medium researchgate.org pdf:"https://archive.ph/gCayO" : Aether, used in aether-theories is too vague and fails to describe many physical actions of matter bodies, logically. ‘Hypothesis on MATTER’ envisages an all-encompassing medium, which has only one type of real (postulated) constituent particles and definite properties. Envisaging a universal medium, as described in the concept, helps to logically explain all physical phenomena, related to matter.". eTools.ch all 2024-05-12: "what are the examples of tranverse waves and longi…

sound is a longitudinal wave … No, sound is not a longitudinal wave as it travels in the form of compressions amd rarefactions.

https://www.meritnation.com/ask-answer/question/what-are-the-examples-of-tranverse-waves-and-longitudi/sound/9960919", http://web.archive.org/20240512/https://mountainreggaeradio.com/is-sound-a-transverse-wave/ : "So, is sound a transverse or longitudinal wave? The answer is that it can be both, depending on the circumstances.","Even sound waves can be longitudinal and transversal, depending on whether the particles in a wave oscillate along the direction of the wave propagation or perpendicular to it. Such transversal waves cannot exist in liquids and gases, but necessarily present in solids. A string of a musical instrument is also a good example of sound wave that is not longitudinal.", http://web.archive.org/20240512/https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=524477 : 2018-11-10: "relative amount of power in different overtones" Only string-height-top changed. ":" "1) 'transverse'","2) 'tension'","3) 'zip tone', a longitudinal compression wave in the strings"

2. Counter to Lethargic Aptitude : "Sonic 20 - 20 000 HZ" :"http://web.archive.org/20240512/https://www.soundproofcow.com/can-humans-hear-20-hz-20khz/" : healthy adults.

http://web.archive.org/20240510/https://debatepolitics.com/threads/in-defense-of-realism.11639/ : 2006-06-11 : nationaljournal as politically realistic journal