No such thing as a hierarchical causal series in the real world

[IQ170]

What is morally good would be one very real aspect of existence that cannot be measured physically.

Sorry, but what is morally good or bad is not an objective decision. The same act performed under the same circumstances by the same people will be evaluated from two different ethical systems and they will yield two different ethical evaluation. And the number of ethical systems is large.
Since there is NO objective epistemological (meta-ethical) system which could measure and evaluate which ethical system is “valid” and which one is “invalid”, the reference to morality does not help.

Here we demonstrate an awareness of something we may classify as psychological and also spitirtual.

The psychological is also physical. The activity of the brain can be measured and influenced. That is why I keep on suggesting to study neurophysics. Not in detail, just the basics so you will understand how our brain works.

Most of our neural activities happen in the white cells (the subconscious) and only a very small percentage occurs in the grey cells (the conscious). Actual experiments show beyond any doubt that way before we realize that we made a decision (grey cells) that decision was already made in the subconscious (white cells). That is why I explain that our decisions to believe or accept something is NOT a volitional action. We decide volitionally that we shall embark on a discovery tour, but the evaluation is not done volitionally. That is why no one can “decide” to believe something that is diametrically different from what they believed before.

The word “spiritual” is undefined. Maybe you mean the alleged non-physical beings? That would be useful to agree upon.

This so called non-physical or spiritual existence is not restricted to God. There are all sorts of other (hypothetical) beings involved, guardian and other angels, demons, ghosts, poltergeists, and who knows what else? Paranormal activities, too. Those are also alleged non-physical activities. These are all assumed to have real, active, physical interaction with the physical reality. The demons can be invoked by some incantation, and then can be detected by the exorcists, who then assumed to perform some physical activities, involving physical means (holy water, etc.) and then the demons will “go back where they came from” (where have I heard this phrase recently?). As you see, there are all sorts of physical actions involved, and those can be measured. And every measurement comes back with “no such number, no such zone” (as Elvis Presley sang in “Return to Sender”).

 

[IQ170]

This might be a start.

This two-way, physical interaction is not my invention, it is a fundamental teaching of the Catholic Church. And that would be a really good way to start the investigation.

Of course, in theory, your suggestion might be useful… IF… If the result of our activities would yield observable consequences, immediately, here and now. When you act “morally”, the positive reward would follow immediately. When you act immorally, the punishment would also come immediately. Just like we do with small children and in training of animals. To “push” the reward or punishment to the unobservable “hereafter” makes this method meaningless.

Again, we are back to the observable, measurable reality.

 

[IQ170]

Since you kindly offered me your summary, I will return the favor, make a short one myself.

Umm… all evidence can be used as “evidence for the veracity of the claim”.

Even the words of a well-trained primate? The mumbling of a retarded person? You think that the “eye-witness” is a special category, which has a built-in reliability. Of course you have no evidence if one really was an “eye-witness”, or merely claims to be one.

And, of course there is another step to consider: “where did that alleged eye-witness get the information from?”. From another alleged eye-witness? Or a direct, physical interaction with that “non-physical” entity? This is called “revelation”. And there is no evidence (except an unsubstantiated claim) that this revelation really happened.

But the point is that there MUST be a physical interaction between the alleged non-physical entity and the physical reality. As such to say that it is irrational to expect to have a physical interaction between the non-physical and the physical world - simply does not make sense. It is you (the apologist) who insist that there was such a physical interaction as a personal or public “revelation”.

Now I have a suspicion (been around a long time) that the next objection is: “on what grounds do YOU demand that this alleged non-physical entity would be YOUR beck and call?” I hope you will not try that route. This another easy to answer question, but it is beside the point.

Your assertion was that one cannot reasonably expect to have a physical interaction between a physical and the non-physical realm. And then you assert that such interaction really happened. You can’t have both ways.

I will add more as soon as the system allows me to do so… For some unfathomable reason only 3 replies are allowed… even if one replies to different posts. And of course the length of the post is limited…

 

[Gorgias]

Even the words of a well-trained primate? The mumbling of a retarded person?

I’d stick with humans, but sure: if you trained a primate to communicate, you’d be able to use its expressions as ‘evidence.’ Would that match up to something you might offer? Probably not. Still, you’d listen, look, and then decide.

You think that the “eye-witness” is a special category, which has a built-in reliability.

“built-in reliability”? Whoever said that? I said “listen and then evaluate.” You seem to be missing that point.

And, of course there is another step to consider: “ where did that alleged eye-witness get the information from? ”

We’re talking about the Gospels, right? Well, then… this might come as a shock to you, but: “from Jesus”.

But the point is that there MUST be a physical interaction between the alleged non-physical entity and the physical reality. As such to say that it is irrational to expect to have a physical interaction between the non-physical and the physical world - simply does not make sense. It is you (the apologist) who insist that there was such a physical interaction as a personal or public “revelation”.

I’m fine with that assertion. However, unless you have a method that can predict the interaction (such that you can be ready to record or observe it), then you can’t draw any conclusions from not having recorded it. That’s simple logic. You seem intent to keep avoiding addressing this point, as well…

Now I have a suspicion (been around a long time) that the next objection is: “on what grounds do YOU demand that this alleged non-physical entity would be YOUR beck and call?”

It’s a good question. Nevertheless, until you answer the others I’ve asked, it seems fruitless to ask additional ones.

For some unfathomable reason only 3 replies are allowed…

Three in a row, it seems.

And of course the length of the post is limited…

The system seems much less tolerant of beating dead horses than we seem to be…

 

[IQ170]

We’re talking about the Gospels, right? Well, then… this might come as a shock to you, but: “from Jesus”.

No, we are speaking about the connection between the physical and the non-physical world.

Now back to our topic.

That’s not at all what you described to me: you mentioned that you looked at the religion of your youth, from an intellectual perspective, and made the volitional decision that you found it lacking. As a result, you found that you could no longer believe in it. It’s all part of a process, which you initiated – volitionally! – and followed through to its logical conclusion. To turn around, then, and say “faith isn’t volitional” is to miss the point.

The process is more nuanced.

1. First we (as very young children) have the training performed by someone.
2. To listen, or not is somewhat volitional, as much as a young child can decide not to listen, and risk some serious repercussions. (not really volitional)
3. The young child has no critical skills, they will accept everything that is told to them. There is no decision involved in this step. (no volition)
4. Sometimes (like in my case) some doubt will creep in. This doubt is not volitional. No one can decide: “well I will doubt from now on, even though everything hunky-dory”. (no volition)
5. The person can decide (volitionally, again) to act on those doubts.
6. If they act, then an investigation starts (volition)
7. At the result of the investigation two things can happen.
   a) the person finds the evidence persuasive, or
   b) not.
8. Both of these are (non-volitional).

So the process is a mixture of the volitional and non-volitional activities. You seem to say that since there was a volition involved in some steps, therefore the whole process was volitional.

I say the exact opposite. Since there were non-volitional steps involved, especially the last, deciding step, the result is non-volitional.

 

[IQ170]

When only relying on empirical methods? I agree. Yet, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to proceed, or that there isn’t evidence that can be considered. Eyewitness testimony is one of those means; but, you’re unwilling to even consider that it falls into the realm of “evidence.”

Eye-witness or ANY OTHER kind of testimonies are not epistemological METHODS, they are epistemological SHORTCUTS. Just because someone claims to have been an eye-witness, it does not raise the reliability of the person one bit. And is not an evidence that this person was REALLY an eye-witness.

But only if you can predict when and where you might catch them “red-handed”. After all, if you want to catch a bank robber, but you stand in the middle of the desert, or if you have no way to predict where they’ll hit next, then you’ll never catch them. Yet, you wouldn’t be able to claim (reasonably) that “they don’t exist.”

Not a good analogy. I don’t need to be able to predict where the next bank robbery will happen, only that it WILL happen. I cannot predict who will die in a traffic accident next weekend. But using statistics we can predict with extreme precision how many lethal traffic accidents will happen next weekend.

Likewise I cannot predict who will have his lost limb regrown as the result of a supplicative prayer, but I can predict with absolute certainty that such an event will NOT happen.

 

[Gorgias]

We’re talking about the Gospels, right? Well, then… this might come as a shock to you, but: “from Jesus”.

And, of course there is another step to consider: “ where

Umm… ok. Whatever. Still, when I’ve addressed the issue of the reliability of eyewitnesses, I’ve been talking about the Gospels. You seem to not want to address that question (other than taking out-of-date scholarship that theorizes “late authorship” of the Gospels).

• Sometimes (like in my case) some doubt will creep in. This doubt is not volitional. No one can decide: “well I will doubt from now on, even though everything hunky-dory”. (no volition)

LOL! I think that’s the first time that I’ve heard a self-proclaimed skeptic make the claim that they’re a skeptic non-volitionally!

You seem to say that since there was a volition involved in some steps, therefore the whole process was volitional.

And you seem to be saying that, since there was a lack of volition in some steps, the whole process is non-volitional. That’s just silly.

By the way – “finding the evidence persuasive” does involve rational thought and volition to accept what one observes. But hey – if you think you act non-volitionally, then have at it, brother…

I don’t need to be able to predict where the next bank robbery will happen, only that it WILL happen.

Ahh, but if your goal is to “catch the robber red-handed”, then you do need to predict ‘where and when’.

 

[IQ170]

“built-in reliability”? Whoever said that ?

You are the one, who keeps on offering “eyewitness testimony” as the number one (or only?) alternative epistemological method - as opposed to physical evidence. Do you wish to backpedal now? I would understand.

I said “listen and then evaluate.” You seem to be missing that point.

No, you did not say that. If you had, that would have been acceptable, because then you would have talked about a “potential” evidence. (That qualifier never left your mouth.) But declaring any kind of proposition, uttered by any Dick, Tom and Harry about any topic as “evidence” (which is actual evidence) is ridiculous. If you happen to be a Thomist you would know the difference between a potential and an actual.

Of course you still don’t realize that the testimony of any kind of witness must start with physical interaction between the alleged non-physical and the actual physical parties (revelations). Otherwise it is just the result of a fantasy. And NOT to do some preliminary filtering activities to get rid of the obviously ridiculous phantasmagorical stuff is a very bad husbandry of your time.

How much time did you spend on the claims of Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, animistic religions and the rest? All of those religions have their prophets, witnesses, sacred texts, traditions, testimonies, etc… How much time did you spend on them? One second, each? After all you consider their “testimonies” to be evidence!!

LOL! I think that’s the first time that I’ve heard a self-proclaimed skeptic make the claim that they’re a skeptic non-volitionally!

I am honestly glad that I was able to help you (giving information you did not have before) - without any of the condescending and snarky overtones of your similar proclamations. No, I never decided to become a skeptic. I was quite happy to be a believer. And if there would come some real evidence to show that I am in error, I would become a believer again. Though it would probably be a traumatic experience at first…

And that is why I suggested you to study neurophysics. So you would learn about the activity of the brain (at least in a rudimentary fashion) and the difference between the conscious and subconscious areas of the brain. It is substantiated beyond any doubt (not just beyond any reasonable doubt), that our thought processes first happen in the white cells (the subconscious) and only when the decision making process is finished will the result emerge into the conscious area of the brain. This is not a hypothesis. Until you learn this, it is a waste of time to go on.

 

[IQ170]

Ahh, but if your goal is to “catch the robber red-handed”, then you do need to predict ‘where and when’.

I am not that ambitious. That would be the second step. For the time being I would be satisfied if there would be some actual (aka physical!) evidence of the “generic” non-physical realm, including gods, devils, angels, demons, ghosts, poltergeists, prayers, evocations, paranormal activities, extra-sensory perception, telekinesis, the curative powers of pyramids and the rest of “goodies”. Whether they would point to some religion or superstition (I think you do not equate them ), it does not matter. Anything about a non-physical but physically active phenomenon will do.

But I am willing to play your game, too. We can collect a large number of believers, organize some prayer breakfasts, start to pray for some non-trivial results - which coincide with God’s allegedly declared wishes - and adding the mandatory “if it be thy will” disclaimer - and let the chips fall where they may. I am willing to predict that nothing positive will happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

Put some skin into the game.

I would appreciate if you gave me some actual answers to the following questions:

1. What is the difference between a potential evidence and an actual evidence?
2. How much time did you spend on investigating the claims of other religions and what we consider - superstitions?
3. How much do you know about the conscious and sub-conscious activities of the brain?
4. Do you have any physical evidence for the physical activities of the non-physical entities?

Of course only if you have time and inclination to answer. But please answer these questions first, before talking about anything else. It is very easy to lose track of a conversation, and get derailed, even with the best intents. And I presume the best intents on your part, too.

 

[Gorgias]

You are the one, who keeps on offering “eyewitness testimony” as the number one (or only?) alternative epistemological method - as opposed to physical evidence. Do you wish to backpedal now? I would understand.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Gorgias:

No backpedaling, although I get that you might want to frame it up that way. No assertion that eyewitness is “the only epistemological method” – that’s a construction of your own imagination. I’m saying that eyewitness testimony is also a valid source of evidence, whereas you seem to be saying that only physical evidence counts. That’s simply not true, inasmuch as you seem to want it to be.

because then you would have talked about a “ potential ” evidence. (That qualifier never left your mouth.)

I talked about evidence that is evaluated for its value. Your straw men are showing…

How much time did you spend on them? One second, each?

Keep building your straw men, brother. It’s pretty entertaining…

Until you learn this, it is a waste of time to go on.

And yet, you go on and on and on and on and…

But I am willing to play your game, too. We can collect a large number of believers, organize some prayer breakfasts, start to pray for some non-trivial results - which coincide with God’s allegedly declared wishes - and adding the mandatory “if it be thy will” disclaimer - and let the chips fall where they may. I am willing to predict that nothing positive will happen. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?

Not on that attempt, since it mischaracterizes prayer and what one might be able to hope to prove. The approach you’re proposing – one which others have proposed – fundamentally misunderstands prayer and the range of outcomes, not to mention the measurability of those outcomes. If you want to set up a sham experiment, you’re on your own. Have fun…

 

[Gorgias]

1. What is the difference between a potential evidence and an actual evidence?

I’m characterizing it differently: I’m calling it all “evidence”. Yet, not all evidence is created equal; once you evaluate the evidence, you reject some and accept others. You’re talking about the process in both stages – pre- and post-evaluation – and attempting to compare them directly. That’s unhelpful.

1. How much time did you spend on investigating the claims of other religions and what we consider - superstitions?

Sigh… yes, I’ve studied world religions.

1. How much do you know about the conscious and sub-conscious activities of the brain?

I’ve studied biology at the undergrad area, and done quite a bit of study in AI and the philosophy of the mind. So, yeah… I’m not the duffer you seem to think I am.

1. Do you have any physical evidence for the physical activities of the non-physical entities?

What kind of physical evidence would you accept? More to the point, what kind of physical evidence do you expect is reasonable? Even more important: how would you propose to distinguish between ‘physical evidence from physical causes’ and ‘physical evidence from spiritual causes’?

After all, if you cannot distinguish between the two, then there’s no evidence that you would accept as coming from non-physical causes… and we’re back to the “not acting in good faith” stumbling block.

 

[Aloysium]

Sorry

The same act performed under the same circumstances by the same people will be evaluated from two different ethical systems and they will yield two different ethical evaluation.

An evaluation is not the same as the objective reality of a situation’s goodness.

In the case above, whether the “sorry” was an authentic expression of regret over the possibility of offending someone, or of condescension, it reflects a reality of interpersonal relations where our self-image is impacted upon by the actions of others and our responses. The sorry may reflect pride in one’s own ideas and the awareness of how easily that bubble can burst.

The fact is that the universe is brought into being through an act of Divine Love, which is synomymous with Existence, Truth, Beauty, in other words God. But, something has gone terribly wrong, enough that it required the incarnation, death and resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ to set things right again.

Since there is NO objective epistemological (meta-ethical) system which could measure and evaluate which ethical system is “valid” and which one is “invalid”, the reference to morality does not help.

The Golden Rule is an indication of what we know to be true in our hearts. There was a suggestion earlier that it is unfair for our Creator to take out of existence that which He has made. Such moral considerations are based on our human understanding of love and justice.

 

[Aloysium]

To “push” the reward or punishment to the unobservable “hereafter” makes this method meaningless.

Heaven begins here and now. The hereafter is important only because what we do is set forever and cannot be changed, only forgiven. One can feel the love here and now, albeit many times, through the acute awareness of the shadow it casts by its absence in the world.

 

[Aloysium]

how would you propose to distinguish between ‘physical evidence from physical causes’ and ‘physical evidence from spiritual causes’?

Neurons are making new connections in our cerebral cortex as we encounter new ideas, the body and spirit being one unitary form of being. The physical activity of the cells’ biochemistry is causing the dendrites to stretch out to meet other cells and form a different pattern of neuronal firing. The physical causes the physical as learning, a mental event, takes place. So while we could say that the mind causes the brain to change, that would appear to be a distortion of the reality that it is the person who is changing.

 

[IQ170]

We are now deep in the questions of epistemology.

I’m saying that eyewitness testimony is also a valid source of evidence, whereas you seem to be saying that only physical evidence counts.

Does mere fantasizing about something count as evidence? How does the witness gain information about the non-physical event he is reporting? What is the nature of “revelation”? How do you know if the witness correctly recalls the events? What is the starting point of the chain of witness testimonials? (These are all real, very serious questions.)

I talked about evidence that is evaluated for its value. Your straw men are showing…

Keep building your straw men, brother. It’s pretty entertaining…

It is not a straw man to ask: “How do you evaluate the value of the proposed evidence?” To what do you compare the presented evidence for evaluation?

And the good, old “straw man” argument. The last resort of the ignoramus. Or next to the last… the other one is “red herring”. Every time I see a “red herring” or a “straw man” I see that the other party has no answer, but does not wish to admit it. (There are quite a few more…)

The approach you’re proposing – one which others have proposed – fundamentally misunderstands prayer and the range of outcomes, not to mention the measurability of those outcomes.

I do not misunderstand it. All the millions of believers, who utter millions or supplicatory prayers every day are the ones who “misunderstand” it - according to YOUR opinion. It is mighty easy to measure the outcome. And the outcome is predictably - negative. I see that you are not interested in putting your money where your mouth is. Wise decision. You would lose.

Yet, not all evidence is created equal; once you evaluate the evidence, you reject some and accept others.

Excellent. Yes, that is my opinion as well. On what grounds do you accept one and reject the other? That is the fundamental point.

 

[IQ170]

Sigh… yes , I’ve studied world religions.

How many of them and at what depth? Using which language? And what method did you use to ascertain that they are wrong? Did you compare their claims to the reality? Or only compare them to your beliefs?

I’ve studied biology at the undergrad area, and done quite a bit of study in AI and the philosophy of the mind. So, yeah… I’m not the duffer you seem to think I am.

AI, or the philosophy of the mind are both irrelevant compared to the anatomy of the brain and neuroscience. And the results of the experiments which prove beyond any doubt that the process of decision making happens in the sub-conscious.

What kind of physical evidence would you accept?

I already explained. There is this pesky reality. And there is the proposed evidence. If they are in correspondence, the proposed evidence was correct.

More to the point, what kind of physical evidence do you expect is reasonable?

The same as above. Compare the proposed evidence to reality.

Even more important: how would you propose to distinguish between ‘physical evidence from physical causes’ and ‘physical evidence from spiritual causes’?

Present a “spiritual cause” and we can discuss it. Don’t forget that the list of “non-physical” entities is long: “gods, devils, angels, demons, paranormal forces, ghosts, poltergeists” and many more. What epistemological method do you use to find out which ones of them are the result of someone’s fantasy and which ones are “real”… whatever “real” means in this context?

So the list of unanswered questions keep accumulating:

1. Does mere fantasizing about something count as evidence?
2. How does the witness gain information about the event he is reporting?
3. How do you know if the witness correctly reports the events?
4. Which ones of the non-physical entities are inventions of some human’s fantasy?
5. On what grounds do you accept one testimony and reject the other?
6. Is the testimony of the witness grounded in the testimony of another witness? Or is it grounded in the observation of reality? How did the witness observe the “spiritual” reality?

These are all very real questions. Can you answer them?

 

[goout]

Because I can’t measure love in a test tube, my wife doesn’t love me. Ok,.,.,.,
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. etc…,.

It’s always amusing when someone demands hard evidence for unseen or supernatural things while at the same time:

Can’t explain how they came to be
Can’t explain where they are going (not as in down to the barber shop this afternoon, but more like where does your “life force” go when you die)
Can’t explain the meaning and purpose of their life without reference to intangibles like oh…love.

All the while insisting that God can’t exist cause “there’s no evidence”.
It’s just patently silly and kinda sad.

 

[Aloysium]

And the results of the experiments which prove beyond any doubt that the process of decision making happens in the sub-conscious.

Let’s explore what this means and the implications, beginning with an example of how this body works. One can feel the pressure of the chair on one’s behind simply by pointing out that it exists. The impulses from receptors on skin, muscle and bone are constantly sending messages up the spinal chord to the thalamus which directs any change onto the cortex. This is where the mental image of the body is related to patterns of neuronal excitation. Clearly, the sensations are unconscious, until we become aware of them. I would go on to add that the colours on the screen in front of us are unconscious until we take note of them. A beam of existence, relationally joining the unseen observer to that which is being observed in the observation, skims the page when it is pointed out that these words exist. Before that one is in a realm of ideas. The choice to switch one’s focus from one previously unconscious element of reality to another is an act, by this mystery that is the person, who is can know and is ultimately object to the ultimate mystery of Existence itself, eternal, One Love.

 

[IQ170]

Let’s explore what this means and the implications, beginning with an example of how this body works. One can feel the pressure of the chair on one’s behind simply by pointing out that it exists. The impulses from receptors on skin, muscle and bone are constantly sending messages up the spinal chord to the thalamus which directs any change onto the cortex. This is where the mental image of the body is related to patterns of neuronal excitation. Clearly, the sensations are unconscious, until we become aware of them. I would go on to add that the colours on the screen in front of us are unconscious until we take note of them. A beam of existence, relationally joining the unseen observer to that which is being observed in the observation, skims the page when it is pointed out that these words exist. Before that one is in a realm of ideas. The choice to switch one’s focus from one previously unconscious element of reality to another is an act, by this mystery that is the person, who is can know and is ultimately object to the ultimate mystery of Existence itself.

Pretty good summary, up until the last sentence.

 

[Gorgias]

Does mere fantasizing about something count as evidence?

When the claimed evidence is examined, then if it’s revealed to be “mere fantasizing”, then it’s discarded. So, yes: evidence (like any other), and possibly accepted or rejected (like any other).

How does the witness gain information about the non-physical event he is reporting?

Different question. Whereas earlier, we seemed to be talking about eyewitness testimony about supernatural events observed in the world (e.g., “Jesus walking on water”), now you seem to be talking about spiritual events described in Scripture (e.g., “God’s creation of the universe”). The two are distinctly different questions, with different answers. Which one are you asking?

How do you know if the witness correctly recalls the events?

In the same way that you assess whether any witness recalls the events correctly – corroboration, etc, etc.

What is the starting point of the chain of witness testimonials?

Not sure I understand what you’re trying to ask. The trivial answer, to what seems a trivial question, is: “the eyewitness himself.”

It is not a straw man to ask: “How do you evaluate the value of the proposed evidence?” To what do you compare the presented evidence for evaluation?

Again: just as you would do with any eyewitness testimony. Of course, when dealing with events in antiquity, it is silly to suggest that we have iPhone video or living eyewitnesses to events in 1st century A.D. Palestine…

And the good, old “straw man” argument. The last resort of the ignoramus. Or next to the last… the other one is “red herring”. Every time I see a “red herring” or a “straw man” I see that the other party has no answer, but does not wish to admit it.

Nah… sometimes there really are straw men and red herrings, and it’s necessary to point out to the ignoramus exactly what he’s trying to get away with…

It is mighty easy to measure the outcome.

Let’s see your methodology, then. I guarantee you, you’re misunderstanding the context. Let’s see what you’ve got…