|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th August 2015, 07:59 PM | #361 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
15th August 2015, 08:45 PM | #362 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
15th August 2015, 08:52 PM | #363 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
hold on, I'm thinking.
|
15th August 2015, 09:02 PM | #364 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
All I've said about a whole divided into thirds and pi is that it isn't representative of the reality that we see. It indicates an infinite amount even though we apply them to concrete volumes. What I've said about the mathematical theories applied to light is also true, it doesn't adequately represent our experience of light.
Okay, now I'm getting in over my head with the mathematics so I'm open for correction but here goes: Try taking Godel's theorems of incompleteness as applied to human intelligence and extrapolate that to the near death experience. If the human mind is equivalent to a Turing Machine, which is finite, and if that analogy is consistent, then Godel's theorems of incompleteness would apply to the near death experience since it is a result of human intelligence. Therefore the existence of human intelligence existing after death is essentially undecidable using any kind of science based on mathematics ergo you can't use NDE research as evidence that there is no life after death. |
15th August 2015, 09:03 PM | #365 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
15th August 2015, 09:13 PM | #366 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
The world is messy unlike the world of ideal forms described by mathematics. There are no perfect circles nor objects cut into equal thirds. This however doesn't stop us using mathematics as an essential tool in predicting the world.
While you take a forward step in admitting being out of depth why do you name drop concepts like Godels incompleteness theorems with zero argument for relevance? |
15th August 2015, 09:18 PM | #367 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
|
Nor does it need to. The use of science has allowed us to establish that claims of an afterlife via NDEs is not supported by the evidence.
ETA - I was about to comment on your unintentional Godwinning of the thread, but you spoiled it by correcting the name of the person. So disappoint.... |
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it.... |
|
15th August 2015, 09:56 PM | #368 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I felt it was relevant. We haven't succeeded in building AI equivalent to human intelligence because mathematical computations really can't be applied to human intelligence. If a near death experience is the result of human intelligence then nothing could be inferred from that to indicate that death is the end.
|
15th August 2015, 10:01 PM | #369 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I know, I sublimated one of my favorite shopping sites for a math philosopher, go figure.
http://www.goebel.de/en/ |
15th August 2015, 10:21 PM | #370 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
Are we behind schedule on building a replication of human intelligence?
How do you know mathematical computations cannot be applied to human intelligence? Granted if NDEs can be explained without resorting to the afterlife, death may not be the end. This is true of any number of unfalsified ideas we might come up with. |
15th August 2015, 10:28 PM | #371 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
There have been a lot of interesting philosophical arguments to certain approaches to replicating human consciousness, as well as understandings of human thought and rationality, but these don't seem to be the avenues popularly explored today.
You seem to be alluding to arguments like these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hube...l_intelligence |
16th August 2015, 12:22 AM | #372 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
Because Gödel, something. This means our minds are beyond math or any computation.
I'm sold. Tell me more.
Quote:
What I'm getting from your posts is that math can't count properly, it's out. Clever math heavy Godel incompleteness theorems don't complete; they used math, so, duh! Ergo we are not alive at all... |
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
16th August 2015, 01:53 AM | #373 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
No, it isn't, it is using an appropriate model to best explain the results, not choosing only those results that fit a particular model. Nether light as particles nor light as waves is put forward by science as "demonstrating reality". You are arguing against a strawman. Light exhibits wave-particle duality; there are no alternative theories to be chosen here. |
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
16th August 2015, 03:08 AM | #374 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
16th August 2015, 03:09 AM | #375 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
16th August 2015, 03:12 AM | #376 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
16th August 2015, 03:15 AM | #377 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
16th August 2015, 03:16 AM | #378 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
16th August 2015, 03:18 AM | #379 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
16th August 2015, 03:24 AM | #380 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
16th August 2015, 04:15 AM | #381 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
When measuring in ṫrollströms, reversing the proof burden is a natural consequence. Doupleplusundeath is a few ṫrolls from the skull.
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
16th August 2015, 08:41 AM | #382 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
16th August 2015, 09:29 AM | #383 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: In my head.
Posts: 7,758
|
|
__________________
"If I hadn't believed it with my own mind, I would never have seen it." - thanks sackett "If you stand on a piece of paper, you are indeed closer to the moon." - MRC_Hans "I was a believer. Until I saw it." - Magrat |
|
16th August 2015, 11:34 AM | #384 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Ironically it is the math that typically matches the reality, as shown by actual experiment and it is the human perception that is often incorrect and does not match the reality. Humans typically don't have an intuitive understanding of relativistic effects, yet GPS confirms that it is the prediction of the math, not the human expectation, that is correct and matches reality in this case. Same for the dual nature of light: it is not that the math fails to explain it, but that we have trouble intuitively understanding it. Again, it is the math that matches the reality as confirmed by experiments. Our perception is incorrect.
I can only reinforce what others here have said: the generating of a repeating string when dividing 1 by 3 is only a problem of the nomenclature, not the math itself. 1/3 is a perfectly acceptable mathematical notation for the precise answer to this division: if you wish instead to express it as a decimal, you must write a bar over the last digit of .3 to use this decimal nomenclature accurately, but it doesn't make either the math itself or the nomenclature incorrect. Different nomenclatures use the same math, but some are more useful than others for given purposes. Fractions for example are easier to write than certain decimals, but harder to use in accounting legers. The nomenclature is just a series of symbols; they are not truly the mathematical concepts that they are meant to indicate. |
16th August 2015, 11:42 AM | #385 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
Back to the main focus of this thread: of course there are many things yet to be discovered! But there are many, many more things that will never be discovered simply because they do not exist. There is a massive amount of evidence against a concept of an afterlife, and no convincing evidence for it. So although one may wish, in principal, to not completely rule out the possibility, it is so very low as to not be worthwhile considering until there is good evidence for an afterlife. At that time I will re-consider my opinion. Until then, the concept appears to have no more evidence than there being a unicorn in my attic, and I have no more reason to consider an afterlife than to consider feeding my unicorn.
|
17th August 2015, 01:52 PM | #386 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
17th August 2015, 01:54 PM | #387 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I don't see how the research for near death experiences can indicate that an after life doesn't exist. If our perceptions are limited, then what people claim to be seeing would simply be a brain function. How would that be evidence that an after life didn't exist? If there is other evidence than these particular studies, I'm not aware of it.
|
17th August 2015, 03:21 PM | #388 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
17th August 2015, 03:23 PM | #389 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
If there is no data available how can you say there isn't? It works both ways, does it not? It's a matter of belief regardless.
|
17th August 2015, 03:30 PM | #390 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
If data on such would have been available, surely this would have been made known publicly.
It would be quite an incentive for funding further research considering public interest could be enormous. |
__________________
|
|
17th August 2015, 03:38 PM | #391 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
Non available data, or evidence, doesn't mean it's not there. If you want to believe no after life exists based on the lack of evidence so far then I'm fine with that. It's an equally biased statement based on the keyword "believe". I think it will be a very long time before we get there since we can't replicate how the mind works, assuming that has anything at all to do with what part of us might continue after we die.
|
17th August 2015, 03:43 PM | #392 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
17th August 2015, 03:46 PM | #393 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,950
|
Certainly. And if you want to believe there's no leprechaun hiding in your house, you're free to remain close-minded. I mean, it's just as biased as believing there is.
|
17th August 2015, 03:47 PM | #394 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
|
This is, in a round-about way, my point. If we presume that life after death can not be detected using our instruments and sensors, then it is much like the situation with my attic, which I have not checked for unicorns for many months. Either an afterlife or a unicorn in my attic could exist, both being beyond my ability to deduce based on what I already know right now. But there is no reason to assume that either exists. The existence of either requires special pleading (they exist, but you can't detect them because they happen to have properties that are special and unlike all the other things that you do know exist in the world). Are they possible in theory- sure. But are they likely enough to be worth considering? I'd say no.
I would also point out that fundamental to the proposal that there is an afterlife is the concept that somehow our consciousness is separable and distinct from the physical and chemical function of the brain. Another example of special pleading. No one proposes that the functions of our kidnys somehow out live us and continue after the kidneys themselves die. Same with our hearts, or livers, or our muscles. When these organs are dead, people accept that the functions of these organs while alive also stop on death. But somehow, some people would like to believe that our brain function, our minds, will outlive our brains. I see no reason to believe that. |
17th August 2015, 03:59 PM | #395 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
I'm assuming belief is the drive to ask the question in the first place. The data is non available if you are looking in the wrong place. Can you find a television show in a broken television? If I knew where to look for the data I certainly wouldn't be here debating the question.
|
17th August 2015, 04:03 PM | #396 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
|
17th August 2015, 04:15 PM | #397 |
Featherless biped
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 26,431
|
|
17th August 2015, 04:19 PM | #398 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 6,231
|
LOLOL...you're not wrong there.
|
17th August 2015, 04:27 PM | #399 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
17th August 2015, 04:28 PM | #400 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: hic.
Posts: 8,035
|
|
__________________
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|