• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Opinions on Unobservable Things?

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
I think that premise is a sound one. But I actually think the opposite. It was "observed" that the sun revolved around the earth, for a very long time. However there wasn't a mechanism attributed to this. The universe used to be filled with ether because how else would the light waves propagate? We now use similar arguments for these things like dark matter and dark energy. "Well if it didn't exist, what could it be?".

I disagree. It was observed that the image of the sun revolved around the earth, not the sun itself. And, relative to the earth, the sun does revolve around it.

People jumped to false conclusions, when agnosticism on the matter was a more rational choice.

A lot of people probably weren't aware of the cosmos and its nature, so to some of them the sun was nothing but its image. A sensible opinion, at the time.

Until I can "see" the particles, forces, masses, ie, the mechanisms for some of these things I will always be skeptical and looking deeper for Truth.

Where does that cycle end? Surely the same can be applied to the mechanisms behind these things.

I certainly agree that the more that is observed of a situation, the more we can know. So, to observe particles and forces, is to know more of these mechanisms. But that does not imply we know them completely.
 

JocktheMotie

Habitual Fi LineStepper
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
8,491
I disagree. It was observed that the image of the sun revolved around the earth, not the sun itself. And, relative to the earth, the sun does revolve around it.

People jumped to false conclusions, when agnosticism on the matter was a more rational choice.

A lot of people probably weren't aware of the cosmos and its nature, so to some of them the sun was nothing but its image. A sensible opinion, at the time.

I'd argue "agnosticism" is equally as applicable in the case of Dark Matter and Energy. I can see it from both sides. On one hand, the fact that everything we can experimentally observe consists of 4% of the total energy density of the universe seems absurd, and our models need to be drastically altered.

But on the other hand, it somewhat makes sense that the majority of the universe is not affected by some silly radiation that only illuminates 4% of the universe!
Where does that cycle end? Surely the same can be applied to the mechanisms behind these things.

I certainly agree that the more that is observed of a situation, the more we can know. So, to observe particles and forces, is to know more of these mechanisms. But that does not imply we know them completely.

I agree. Everything is always up for debate, and nothing is completely certain, provided you can back it up.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,192
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Religion and the afterlife was one thing. Now people often claim they know death is eternal oblivion, that they didn't exist before they were born, that they only have one life, that life has no greater purpose, and so on. I hear these kind of claims all the time, yet I wonder how they are any different from claims to an afterlife. Essentially what I'm asking is, where's the evidence?

The rational position, from my point of view, is Agnosticism. No evidence, no assumptions.

Same here.

All we know is that we are born, and that we die.

Everything else is guesswork and thus a choice based on personal faith or inclination.

I don't mind people having opinions, I just prefer to have them labeled for what they are.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, my opinion is that we can't know anything about what isn't observable. My default assumption would be to start with the assumption it's not there, but not everyone would make that same one.
I think that tends to be considered the more rational position - that something is assumed to not exist until proven otherwise.

I've wrestled with the question about the null hypothesis whether it means the beginning point is the assumption that nothing exists until proven otherwise, or if it is better suited to mean it's simply unknown. In the process of defining fact, I think the former is necessary because possibilities are so limitless that it becomes inefficient to hide behind remote possibilities as still belonging on the table. My own thought processes tend to be as inclusive as possible, but it can be severely limiting when constructing thought.

The experience of death is not entirely observable, but aspects of it are. We have some idea of how our brains work as a living organism. There is some reason to assume that once the system fails, it no longer functions. In the same way a deceased heart ceases to function, so a deceased mind ends functioning. This implies that thoughts end. Observations, even with limitations, do strongly suggest that life is limited to the functioning of our little biological machines. To extrapolate further, to assume a previous life or an afterlife requires many more added assumptions than to assume there is nothing more. The unobservable aspects are not equivalent, even if you can maintain that strictly speaking it is unknown.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
I've wrestled with the question about the null hypothesis whether it means the beginning point is the assumption that nothing exists until proven otherwise, or if it is better suited to mean it's simply unknown. In the process of defining fact, I think the former is necessary because possibilities are so limitless that it becomes inefficient to hide behind remote possibilities as still belonging on the table. My own thought processes tend to be as inclusive as possible, but it can be severely limiting when constructing thought.

My point exactly. Why assume the examples I mentioned in the OP, when they are a few of so many possibilities?

The experience of death is not entirely observable, but aspects of it are. We have some idea of how our brains work as a living organism. There is some reason to assume that once the system fails, it no longer functions. In the same way a deceased heart ceases to function, so a deceased mind ends functioning. This implies that thoughts end. Observations, even with limitations, do strongly suggest that life is limited to the functioning of our little biological machines. To extrapolate further, to assume a previous life or an afterlife requires many more added assumptions than to assume there is nothing more. The unobservable aspects are not equivalent, even if you can maintain that strictly speaking it is unknown.

There's a few definitions that need clearing up there. My definition of life, for example, means biological life. Yes, that ends when biological life ends, aka death. That merely moves the question to whether death is the end of other things people identify themselves with. Mainly conscious experience. It also moves the question to whether or not our biological life ends once and for all with death, or whether it began with birth. These answers, seem unknowable at this time.

Other than that, positing an afterlife or a priorlife requires evidence, so does positing lack of an afterlife or priorlife. 'I don't know' is the rational response to what happened to your consciousness during dreamless sleep, or during an episode of severe alcohol poisoning, because memories, the only form of evidence, aren't present. To say, with certainty, that there was no conscious experience during them seems absurd. I am applying the same logic to other areas with which I lack memories of.

Yes, there is evidence to suggest conscious experience during alcohol poisoning, same now with sleep. Without those, it would seem logical, by your structure of logic, to assume that conscious experience ceases during those situations. To me, in that situation, it seems sensible to claim nothing but ignorance.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
But that 'rational' conclusion is riddled with assumptions.

Most notably, that we know anything about before we were alive. The only conclusion I can come to about before I was alive is that I have no memories of it.

I agree that the brain and the mind are strongly linked, but to say one causes the other or vice versa is impossible at the moment. Yes, it's a safe assumption to say if the brain changes, so does the mind. But what's to stop the brain from reforming? Afterall it won't 'go', merely change shape and evidence suggests come back in a few googelplex years. That's a massive extrapolation with our limited knowledge of the laws of physics, but an equal one to saying we'll cease to exist.

The only assumption I'm making is that your example individual has no confidence in the supernatural. If someone does not have confidence in the supernatural, they must only consider the physical, and in such case the "mind" is fully dependent on the "brain" to function.

You could perhaps consider the brain to the hardware and the mind to be software - if the hardware is damaged the software is adversely affected, much like brain damage. If the hardware is destroyed (or decays to the point of uselessness) the software ceases to function. And the software certainly did not exist before the hardware existed. When looking at a computer, it isn't a stretch to say the software only exists when it exists, couldn't possibly perform/save anything before it existed, or after it ceases to exist, so why would a "meat computer" follow special unobservable rules otherwise?
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
If you don't believe in atoms, then what -did- happen to Hiroshima? :/

erm, hold on, ill get back to you on that ;)

Except, the atom is observable.

Not directly observable, but their effects can be seen. Some spiritual things can be disproven, but only the ones that need to be observable in order for them to be true.



.

This is all wrong, and plain blatant implicit assumptions.

First of all, atoms are NOT observable, in a visible sense anyway. Atoms are a construct we are introduced to in the most basic introductory science courses. What IS visible to us isn't even the direct reception from atoms... ..technically, We do not "observe" photons, either!! what we perceive and recognize as the real physical world is radically and categorically different than the physical input. Photons illicit a series of neurological activation states which yield the percept of a complete object, color, good continuation, all of the gestalt grouping principles of perception, and all other cognitions related to the input that reasult from observing atomic input.

What you ARE doing here, is correlating the construct of the atom which what you see in the real world, but they are not the same thing.

An atom is not a thing in the same sense that an apple is a thing ~ an atom is invisible to us, the apple is not. an atom is, however, observable to us, but again, not in the same way the apple is observable to us.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
This is all wrong, and plain blatant implicit assumptions.

First of all, atoms are NOT observable, in a visible sense anyway. Atoms are a construct we are introduced to in the most basic introductory science courses. What IS visible to us isn't even the direct reception from atoms... ..technically, We do not "observe" photons, either!! what we perceive and recognize as the real physical world is radically and categorically different than the physical input. Photons illicit a series of neurological activation states which yield the percept of a complete object, color, good continuation, all of the gestalt grouping principles of perception, and all other cognitions related to the input that reasult from observing atomic input.

What you ARE doing here, is correlating the construct of the atom which what you see in the real world, but they are not the same thing.

An atom is not a thing in the same sense that an apple is a thing ~ an atom is invisible to us, the apple is not. an atom is, however, observable to us, but again, not in the same way the apple is observable to us.

You are going to have to explain the fundamentals of observations then. We don't directly observe an apple, usually just the electromagnetic effects it has on us. Same with atoms. Since then we have gone on to observe the strong, weak, and gravitational effects it has on us as well.

Both are merely constructs in the sense you give. Atoms are just invisible (to the human eye), apples are visible. Through many experiments, followed by the rest of the scientific method, we have come to observe atoms as we have apples. We just do so less often.

I repeat, if one cannot observe something, it is illogical to state it exists or does not exist. We observe the effects of every particle in the universe on our bodies at this very moment. Not even with a delay caused by c being the only universal constant, as the 'entanglement' effect has shown.

The only assumption I'm making is that your example individual has no confidence in the supernatural. If someone does not have confidence in the supernatural, they must only consider the physical, and in such case the "mind" is fully dependent on the "brain" to function.

You could perhaps consider the brain to the hardware and the mind to be software - if the hardware is damaged the software is adversely affected, much like brain damage. If the hardware is destroyed (or decays to the point of uselessness) the software ceases to function. And the software certainly did not exist before the hardware existed. When looking at a computer, it isn't a stretch to say the software only exists when it exists, couldn't possibly perform/save anything before it existed, or after it ceases to exist, so why would a "meat computer" follow special unobservable rules otherwise?

Okay, first of all, define 'supernatural'. By my definition, if say magic exists, it is natural. Anything observed is part of the laws of nature, if magic is observed, it is part of the laws of nature.

Second, I never said the brain follows special rules. The same can be said of any computer or object, regardless of whether they possess the capabilities for qualitive experience or not. In a few googelplex years, specific computers will be back too, who's to say?

You're also falsely applying the mind to the brain. What if our thoughts are merely a particular formation of electrical impulses? Why then, would destruction of the brain limit that? Certainly effect it, but not so harshly as to stop it from occurring elsewhere, or to stop it changing beyond recognition.

I'm not stating any of these examples with the force of evidence, merely attempting to show that they possess the same amount of evidence as the theories you have claimed, thus far.
 

nozflubber

DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
Joined
Mar 30, 2008
Messages
2,078
MBTI Type
Hype
aha, but i did not say atoms don't exist, i said I don't believe in them!! (as described to me)!!
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx

The difference between your example and mine is that I can cite a clear cause and effect. If I give a man a concussion, which is a brain injury, then thinking is impaired. Your notion of electrical impulses that exist outside the brain in some undefined manner is now venturing into the supernatural (that which science cannot prove) and is essentially saying "well if anything can be anything, then anything is possible".

I'll certainly grant you that, when magic become a factor, you can rationalize anything you like. :D
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
The difference between your example and mine is that I can cite a clear cause and effect. If I give a man a concussion, which is a brain injury, then thinking is impaired. Your notion of electrical impulses that exist outside the brain in some undefined manner is now venturing into the supernatural (that which science cannot prove) and is essentially saying "well if anything can be anything, then anything is possible".

I'll certainly grant you that, when magic become a factor, you can rationalize anything you like. :D

I was talking about the fact that both computers and brains are capable of thought. Suggesting it is the electrical impulses, hence reducing thought to the lowest common denominator. Not supernatural.

My argument remains around empirical evidence, I never suggested magic is real.

It could be though.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
Alright, and if the brain is what generates these electrical impulses, how do they continue once the brain is destroyed? Or put another way, if I destroy my computer hardware, how does the software continue to run?
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Alright, and if the brain is what generates these electrical impulses, how do they continue once the brain is destroyed? Or put another way, if I destroy my computer hardware, how does the software continue to run?

What's to stop those electrical impulses forming somewhere else?

Software is nothing but binary, it's not destroyed by physical action. It runs on other computers, it can be rebuilt, it can be uploaded, it can be on the internet. Software has an 'afterlife', in some sense. It can even be argued that the hardware can have an 'afterlife', it just occurs less often.

This is aside my point, as I am simply arguing that there is no evidence, nor analogy, that adequately suggests all the aspects of our mind (a vague term) cease to function after (another vague term) destruction of the brain.

After=outside of what we have observed.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
What's to cause them to form somewhere else? There's no observable cause and effect, or even a plausible theory, so the assumption is baseless, ergo supernatural. My hypothetical person dismisses this option in favor of tangible and observable effect, and can come to the conclusion of oblivion.
 

kendoiwan

I am Sofa King!!!
Joined
Dec 24, 2008
Messages
1,334
MBTI Type
IsTP
"You humans speak of a soul so lightly. If I crush your skull will I see it? If I crack open your chest will I see it then?"
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
What's to cause them to form somewhere else? There's no observable cause and effect, or even a plausible theory, so the assumption is baseless, ergo supernatural. My hypothetical person dismisses this option in favor of tangible and observable effect, and can come to the conclusion of oblivion.

The same thing that caused them to form in the first place? Other examples: Cloning, reformation of the universe (big bang crunch cycle), another universe, vacuum energy fluctuation, the electronic impulses present throughout the entire universe, a computer etc.

Generally, any formation of particles that resembles, or is indistinguishable from 'you', whatever you define 'you' as. Even if 'you' is qualitative experience, link it to particles and do it again. (I'm not going to bother listing possible unobserved phenomenom that could bring you back)

I'd like to point out that you've defined supernatural as the unobservable, essentially saying it's absurd. That was my point all along. Any claim to knowledge of the afterlife is 'supernatural', whether oblivion, salvation etc.

To put it plainly, you are stating that we will never reoccur again, or continue on depending on your definition of 'we'. In order to make that claim successfully, you'll need a solid understanding of the universe. That includes what will happen throughout all of space and time, as well as what happens in any 'supernatural' areas there might be.

"You humans speak of a soul so lightly. If I crush your skull will I see it? If I crack open your chest will I see it then?"

Define 'soul' and that quote can be answered.

Like quotes about god, you really have to define god first, to be coherent in the slightest.
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
The same thing that caused them to form in the first place? Other examples: Cloning, reformation of the universe (big bang crunch cycle), another universe, vacuum energy fluctuation, the electronic impulses present throughout the entire universe, a computer etc.

Generally, any formation of particles that resembles, or is indistinguishable from 'you', whatever you define 'you' as. Even if 'you' is qualitative experience, link it to particles and do it again. (I'm not going to bother listing possible unobserved phenomenom that could bring you back)

I'd like to point out that you've defined supernatural as the unobservable, essentially saying it's absurd. That was my point all along. Any claim to knowledge of the afterlife is 'supernatural', whether oblivion, salvation etc.

To put it plainly, you are stating that we will never reoccur again, or continue on depending on your definition of 'we'. In order to make that claim successfully, you'll need a solid understanding of the universe. That includes what will happen throughout all of space and time, as well as what happens in any 'supernatural' areas there might be.


Again you're saying that anything could be anything. I think we're going in circles here and I'm not going to argue with magic.

In summary of my points - one can be led to an educated assumption of oblivion as an end state as a more (most?) likely outcome given our current understanding of how things work. Call it a hypothesis rather than a guess.
 

erm

Permabanned
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
1,652
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
5
Again you're saying that anything could be anything. I think we're going in circles here and I'm not going to argue with magic.

In summary of my points - one can be led to an educated assumption of oblivion as an end state as a more (most?) likely outcome given our current understanding of how things work. Call it a hypothesis rather than a guess.

You're yet to make one argument as to why we won't come back...

Your assumption is not an educated one. All one needs is a reasonable understanding of physics to come to the conclusion that this universe will reoccur countless times. Not a solid conclusion in the slightest, but certainly more solid than your conclusion. I've already posted this however, and you haven't provided any sought of counterpoint. You seem to just call it magic and dismiss it on that basis.

Ultimate fate of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There's a start on why oblivion does not seem a likely end state. My previous link in this thread gives some info on the quantum field fluctuation theory, which I don't think is mentioned in the wiki article (it is the follow through of the entropy scenario).

I'll ask one more time, have you any evidence to provide, at all, to back up oblivion as the end state of an individual life?

Presumably you even believe we came out of oblivion, yet you deny it will happen again. All I want is some evidence as to why life will only occur 'once'.
 
Top