What else could they be making a statement about? Any claim of how things are, or a statement made that is implied to have some truth to it, would be an objective claim. — Harry Hindu

What if I said that I feel a certain way, and someone else disagreed with me? That actually does happen on occasion. Or they disagree with what I claim to believe or not believe.

"The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus." is an objective statement about some state-of-affairs, or the way things are. — Harry Hindu

I guess so. It would be like making a statement about being inside the Matrix.

I have my doubts any of you actually has a real clue what you are talking about when it comes to the origin of science. — Jeremiah

I wasn't referring to the origins of science, only the actual discipline that exists now. I agree with your definition:

"Science is the process of building a predictive model of reality via the science method."

That color is dependent on the sort of eyes we have would be an objective statement about subjectivity. — Harry Hindu

That's a really good point. Hadn't thought of it that way before.

Any time we make a statement about some state-of-affairs, are we making an objective statement, or a subjective statement? To say that a particular piece of art makes you feel a certain way would also be an objective statement, no? You are describing how you feel, which is a real state-of-affairs in the world. — Harry Hindu

Not sure. You do raise an interesting question. Someone who's committed to radical subjectivism would deny that you're making a statement about state-of-affairs. Not sure wha the Kantians would say. The state-of-affairs would be our shared conceptual apparatus for them. I'll have to think about it. Landru comes to mind with these sorts of discussions (not Kantian but anti-realist).

look out the window (observation), and see a house across the road (fact established).
I answer, "yes" (condition explained).
That's Science. — Galuchat

No, unless you want to redefine the word "Science" to mean perception.

Science and technology are separate. Technology predates homo sapiens. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. Science is about coming up with testable theories to explain phenomena. Technology is about tool making. Tool making can happen without any scientific input. Our modern world heavily relies on science to make better tools, but most of our history wasn't like that.

There have been some attempts on here and the previous forum to conflate the science and technology. The agenda was a defense of extreme forms of anti-realism.

Do you agree with the relative-objective test to determine objectivity? — Samuel Lacrampe

I would add creature-dependency to the relative-objective test.

Care to try it out on another property of your choice? — Samuel Lacrampe

The dead animal smells awful. Most humans would agree. But turkey vultures probably find the smell delectable. Maybe that's more how we humans interpret the olfactory sensation than an actual property of the decaying animal.

What about warmth? People can be notoriously picky about the temperature, and there does seem to a degree of relativity involved in whether we think something feels warm or cold. But there's also a temperature range beyond which is cold or hot to all humans (at least in terms of bodily damage).

How about color? Humans can generally get consensus on colors, with some notable exceptions. But does that make the colors we see objective? Or are they dependant on the sorts of eyes we have?

And is a human majority enough for qualifying something as objective? We could say that the traffic light was objectively red when the driver ran through it, upon viewing the video. But is it colored red independent of human vision and for any organism that can see light at that wavelength?

Maybe Plato invented Socrates? Does that sound reasonable? I doubt Plato invented Socrates. — Bitter Crank

Probably not. The one difference here is that Plato was a student of Socrates, but Paul never met Jesus in the flesh! Paul's Christianity is revelationary. He does mention arguments with Peter and James, two of the disciples, and contact with other Christian groups. And he said he persecuted Christians before, so that's evidence of a pre-existing community.

Paul inventing Jesus and springing a fictional character on the world and in an historically very short period of time having the Roman Empire take up the religion of the fictional Jesus just doesn't seem plausible. — Bitter Crank

It did take over three centuries.

Even by the time of Paul there were already Christians (whatever they called themselves at that point). It was a rapidly growing group — Bitter Crank

Maybe there were, but is there any actual evidence to this? I mean, is there anything definitively showing the existence of Christians, Jesus, or his disciples before Paul wrote?

My understanding is there isn't. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, but it does lend some credence to the Paul invention theory (which is admittedly rare and controversial).

Paul is the oldest material we have about Jesus (maybe there is older like the Q gospel, but it hasn't survived or been found), and that's something people have overlooked.

PFS argues that our concept of consciousness is entirely embodied, and a specific "my body", much as you have suggested here. — Srap Tasmaner

That's what I think. Disembodied consciousness is probably incoherent, at least for human beings, because the only consciousness we know about is an embodied one. Ours is inherently embodied through and through.

So I think it will be really hard for someone to come up with a coherent version of disembodied consciousness which doesn't just borrow from our embodied experiences. That would be strong reason to be really skeptical of NDEs as evidence for out of body experiences.

Chapter 2? I skimmed the thread so I might have missed mention of a book. The three-bodies thought experiment sounds intriguing.

Nothing Is just a useful concept. It's not anything real with properties, or lacking properties, or the opposite of something/everything, or whatever.

Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter and Mary Magdalene. — Bitter Crank

How do they know for sure that Paul didn't invent Jesus? I know that's not a popular view, but some interesting points have been made along those lines. The first thing to note is that the writings known to be Paul's predate the Gospels. Paul is the oldest NT writer.

The second thing being that Paul didn't know Jesus during his life. Paul's theology is largely based on revelation. And that included a risen savior who died for sins and to overcome death, which is the same thing the Gospel writers have to say about his crucifixion (well maybe not Mark but definitely the other three).

What it's like to be a Ghost:

Your body is nearing death. Your consciousness become disconnected. You are now disembodied. Do you float up, or does gravity still hold you to the ground? Can you walk through walls and jump through floors? Do your visual experiences come from the same height when you had a body? Do you feel the flutter in your heart upon realizing you're a ghost?

Can your mind reach out and touch objects? Maybe your body was holding back your telekinetic powers. Perhaps you can sense the numerous radio waves all around you.

What does reality look like now? You no longer filter it through sense organs, or construct it via brain processes. Do you see things as they really are? Is the world still full of the same colors? Can you meander over to the cafeteria and stick your ghostly tongue inside an apple? Taste the atomic structure?

Maybe you can make yourself subatomic or giant sized. Walk (or float) around like Godzilla. Does that cause any sort of trimmers? Do sound and light waves pass through you as you sample them? Maybe your ghostly existence allows you a kind of camouflage.

And if you really concentrate hard enough, perhaps you can teleport yourself to other places. What about other times? You're not longer a physical being.

Come to think about it, what if Kant was right? Time and space are mental constructs. Are they still constructs without a brain? Can you access your memories stored in that brain?

There's all sorts of things to consider. Perhaps you will criticize the above on the grounds that it assumes the material world.

Okay, let's put it another way. We live a life of bodily experiences. Disembodied consciousness would mean experiences absent a body. So what is that like?

What is it like to be a ghost? Is it possible to provide an account of experience that is not grounded in bodily sensation or perception?

Agreed! It's too bad we can't intentionally bring these people back to near death, and have their disembodied spirits read some flash cards. — CasKev

This reminds me of the tv show, "The OA", where the main character tells a story of having been abducted by a mad scientist who repeatedly bring her and four other people to near death (or actual death but revival before brain damage) using som device to record their experiences. He wants to provide scientific proof that the afterlife exists.

Part of the problem is that people are so invested in a particular world view that they are not willing to consider non-materialist views, or even evidence that goes against their conclusions. — Sam26

Fair enough, we should all be open to revising our world views as the arguments and evidence support doing so. However In this case, there is a huge conceptual hurdle to overcome.

What would it mean for consciousness to be disembodied? You mention that people report having seen their bodies while experiencing an NDE, overhearing conversations and what not. That is very interesting.

But let's think about it. If your consciousness becomes disembodied, then you no longer experience the world through your sensory organs. So what does it mean for a disembodied consciousness to "see" or "hear"?

Let's say for sake of argument that you can see and hear without a body. Okay, but what is that like? Do the NDEs report seeing their body as if they have two normal human eyes, with all the limitations that go with that? Or do they report having a 360 degree vision that can see into the microscopic and across the EM spectrum?

Is their hearing similarly unlimited? Because if they see and hear just like normal embodied people, then my guess would be that they're still embodied, but are experiencing a form of psychological dissociation where it seems like they've become separated from their bodies.

I don't know how the brain would produce the experience of seeing one's body lying in a hospital bed or what not, but then again, it's possible that sort of thing happens in dreams on occasion. I can't specifically remember having that exact dream experience, but I have experienced flying and other things my body can't actually perform.

Seems more likely than some entirely new form of existence (one without a body).

So I think the first thing you would need to do in support of our position is to lay out what it would mean to actually be disembodied. Then the next thing would be to show how NDEs can't be embodied in some abnormal psychological state due to the brain being close to death.

there is enough room in Texas for the entire world's population for each family of four to have a 2,000 sq ft home and decent yard. — Victoribus Spolia

Assuming this is actually true, it's only part of the equation. You still need additional land for farming, mining, water, factories, business, parks/recreation and energy production. And then there's roads. So it's a bit misleading to only mention being able to cram 7.xx billion people into Texas.

Granted, we could be much more efficient if the entire population lived in the continental US, leaving the rest of the world to nature. But that's not how things are, and adding another 2-3 billion people over the next few decades is only going to strain resources and the climate that much more.

Given our incredible inefficiencies and wastefulness across the globe, it would have been better if the human population had levelled out at 2 billion or so. But we didn't so we have to make do with a polluted, overfished, warming planet of 10 billion by mid century.

But maybe the robots will save us.

I guess in order to ground your position you would have to detail how life under Machine rule is a just, good life. If life in a vat can't be justified, then the people of Zion are not terrorists, they are revolutionaries. — Cavacava

One consideration would be the history of being under Machine rule. According to The Animatrix, humans started the war out of jealousy and fear of machine capabilities. Morpheus states that humans darkened the skies to deprive the machines of power, so the machines ended up using humans as batteries. And then Agent Smith tells Morpheus they initially tried to create a perfect world inside the Matrix, but humans wouldn't accept it in preference for a world of suffering.

Another would be whether revolution is the preferable outcome. Say Zion succeeded and the Matrix was destroyed. Would they be able to feed, shelter and provide a meaningful existence for all those formerly envatted humans? How many would perish in destroying the Matrix?

The terrorist's value system is not concerned with order, only with disruption of existing order, and if that entails killing of innocents then so be it. — Cavacava

Isn't that the mission of Zion in the Matrix movies? To disrupt the existing social order and free the humans?

It's interesting that the third movie ends with a truce instead of a victory for the humans. And that was the Oracle's plan all along. She wanted the humans and machines to reach a new way to coexist. Morpheus and everyone in Zion wanted the machines to be defeated. They thought the Oracle was exclusively on their side. But she was on both sides.

I think the directors message was that the Oracle had a better way out than total war, and that peace is better than preferable to one side winning.

Does only the result matter, or the motivation as well? For one killing is negative, for the other it's positive. — BlueBanana

What matters is that people are being killed for the cause. In the Matrix movie, Morpheus, Neo, etc. never really give a defense for doing it. It's just presented as necessary, because sometimes human security forces get in the way. They're collateral damage. But it's not like Neo exactly goes out of his way to avoid it either. Neo and Trinity walk into that building expecting to blow people away.

What do you mean by objective reality and how do you know that there is such a thing as an objective reality? — Mikkel

The fact that we're able to do science, and objectivity has a meaning and use.

Is there an ethical difference when it comes to taking lives?

On the other hand, it seems like in all of these cases, there was something to gain from performing such actions — Alec

Would you want someone to say that they loved and cared for you, but they didn't gain anything from it? That their concern for your well being was not accompanied by any feeling on their part? That it didn't satisfy any desire in them? That they wouldn't feel bad if something bad happened to us?

Consider someone bringing their lover a flower, but explaining that it gave them no pleasure or gain from doing so. Would the lover accept such an offering?

No, not at all. We don't want that from our loved ones.

Any time someone wants something that isn't to their own benefit. Compare I simply want to save someone from a burning house vs. I want to save someone from a burning house in order to protect myself from the guilt of not doing so. — Alec

Is this really why people rush in to save someone from a burning house? Do you think the would-be rescuer sits there and debates with themselves until guilt takes over, and they decide to risk their lives?

That's not what I've heard. People tend to act heroically in the moment, but they can't really say why they did.

think this was the premise behind the Selfish Gene book by Richard Dawkins. I believe his contention was that altruistic actions serve to promote the survival of the species and are therefore ultimately selfish, with self defined at that population. — MikeL

If it was for promoting the survival of the species, why would those acts be selfish? Acting for the good of others is not defined as selfish by most moral codes.

Also, I'm suspicious of reducing all human motivation to genes. Genes can explain how we evolved abilities like empathy, but they don't necessarily explain the complex behavior that occurs as a result of those abilities, particularly in the kinds of societies humans live in, where culture is a big thing.

Consider your brain. You can come up with evolution stories for how the different faculties of your brain evolved. But none of those explain sitting in a classroom discussing Plato. That's on an entirely different level of explanation (historical, cultural, sociological, meta-cognitive, etc).

It's like saying that Lebron James was born to play basketball. No, he wasn't. Basketball isn't something any human evolved to play, nor is Plato something any human evolved to think about it. Rather, those are complex emergent behaviors because we create culture and can self-reflect, and like to have fun while challenging ourselves.

The emergent behavior can model itself. — Jake Tarragon

How about a conventional computer running a simulation of a billion chinese using pencil & paper over a century to simulate a conscious society of humans.

I don't really want to derail your thread further from your main topic, I just wanted to voice my objection to you dismissing idealism out of hand. — Victoribus Spolia

This thread hasn't been commented on for a while, so it doesn't matter.

I don't dismiss idealism out of hand, because I've been involved in plenty of very long idealism/realisms threads in the past, which challenged me to seriously consider the idealist arguments, but ultimately, realism is more convincing.

So that seems to beg the question. Science assumes a mind-independent reality, how can you therefore use such to prove the existence of such? — Victoribus Spolia

Proof might not be doable in metaphysics, but I take it to be a most reasonable inference. If a plant is observed to have grown while nobody was around to perceive it, then it makes sense to suppose the plant underwent growth independent of any observers. There are all sort of things like that where the reasonable inference is that stuff is going on when we're not around to perceive.

The alternative is that somehow our experiences are structured as if stuff goes on without us. How experiences could be like that is a mystery.

Well, the Wittgensteinian answer would be to say that the environmental and cultural context that is normally present when asserting that "China Brain" is conscious, is lacking, in the same way that the normal context required for the same assertion is also lacking when considering the abstract operations of a human brain divorced from it's environmental and inter-personal context. — sime

But what if it's a simulation of a human society and not just a brain? Would all those 1s and 0s written out on paper over a century have experiences then?

On what grounds do you believe that there exists more than consciousness and conscious content? — Victoribus Spolia

Science. I was intending on starting a thread on science and realism where I would explain.

Why can't you accept #5? That seems like an unsettling declaration that lacks objectivity (no pun intended), or is perhaps based on a misunderstanding of Idealism..... — Victoribus Spolia

I'm convinced there is more to the world than what we perceive.

Or maybe silicon chips aren't, but that in the future we are able to build organic computers (which would amount to artificial brains, I suppose). — Michael

A Jupiter-sized organic brain that could dream of us?

Supposedly a Jupiter-sized computer could perform one million ancestor simulations a second, so I guess all the boring detail isn't that big a deal, and probably would just be for research purposes, such as alternate histories or figuring out things traditional history lacks the data for.

But whether a Jupiter-sized computer could actually be built and perform such incredible feats is pure speculation. And whether an advanced civilization would be motivated to build it, who knows.

Or you could reject a physicalist account of consciousness and argue that simulated consciousness is impossible. — Michael

You could reject that consciousness could be emulated (not just simulated where the Sims act as if they were conscious) and still be a physicalist about it. Physicalism doesn't commit one to functionalism about subjectivity. Searle would probably reject the simulation argument, for example.

His argument (from physics) isn't just that spontaneous brains are more likely, but that spontaneous brains with memories of a life like ours are more likely. — Michael

Is this spontaneity a form of last Thursdayism? Also, the spontaneous brains would involve the formation of an environment I can survive in long enough to remember, and will likely involve interaction with other people and technology, such as what I'm using right now.

In the old days, this kind of thread would go 100 pages, with much talk of apples, cats on mats, and the height of Mount Everest before it was cataloged.

Isn't that also what Buddhism says?

The latter position, to be coherent, must posit God or some kind of universal or collective mind. That is just the point I have been making. — Janus

And without some kind of universal perceiver, the idealist has no way to justify the existence of other minds. The universal perceiver plays the role of spacetime for idealists.

Just mix in something about politics and race and you'll get a nice FB discussion going.

Ideas, as in thoughts? — javra

Ideas as in perception, not concepts. That's the sense-data theory of perception that Locke, Hume, Berkeley and others have championed. And it does bring up the specter of skepticism regarding other minds.

But if we directly perceive minds/bodies when we interact with people, the problem of other minds need not be an issue.

And the materialist has to show how mind A can know about body B via ideas in mind A. — Michael

Au contraire. The materialist can just deny that perceptions are ideas in the mind. It's my understanding that the majority of professional philosophers who weigh in on perception are direct realists these days, and that sense-data has fallen out of favor.

I fail to see how that's more parsimonious than saying that ideas in mind A are caused by interacting with mind B. — Michael

You're right, but that's a problem for indirect realists and dualists to deal with.