I Feel Your Pain, Neal Grossman!
Posted in Philosophy, Thinking Critically on | 4 minutes | 30 Comments →
I’ve often been dumbstruck by the similarities between hardcore materialists and religious fundamentalists. Along these lines, Neal Grossman wrote:
One of my earliest encounters with this kind of academic irrationality occurred more than twenty years ago. I was devouring everything on the near-death experience I could get my hands on, and eager to share what I was discovering with colleagues. It was unbelievable to me how dismissive they were of the evidence. “Drug-induced hallucinations,” “last gasp of a dying brain,” and “people see what they want to see” were some of the more commonly used phrases. One conversation in particular caused me to see more clearly the fundamental irrationality of academics with respect to evidence against materialism:
Grossman continues,
I asked, “What about people who accurately report the details of their operation?”
“Oh,” came the reply, “they probably just subconsciously heard the conversation in the operating room, and their brain subconsciously transposed the audio information into a visual format.”
“Well,” I responded, “what about cases where people report veridical perception of events remote from their body?”
“Oh, that’s just a coincidence or a lucky guess.”
Exasperated, I asked, “What will it take, short of having a near-death experience yourself, to convince you that it’s real?”
Very nonchalantly, without batting an eye, the response was: “Even if I were to have a near-death experience myself, I would conclude that I was hallucinating, rather than believe that my mind can exist independently of my brain.”
He went on to add that dualism—the philosophical thesis that mind and matter are independent substances, neither of which can be reduced to the other—is a false theory and that there cannot be evidence for something that is false. This was a momentous experience for me, because here was an educated, intelligent man telling me that he will not give up materialism, no matter what. -Neal Grossman, Who’s Afraid of Life After Death
Later in the piece, Grossman coins the term fundamaterialist to describe such people. I almost wet myself! I may not agree with all of Neal’s conclusions in the paper, but he sure hit the nail on the head there. Grossman continues:
Now, the term “irrational” has a wide range of mean- ings, and there is no doubt room for differences of opinion with respect to what consti- tutes irrational and illogical thinking. But everyone agrees that the domain of rational discourse is structured by basic rules of logic. Those who, while defending their own cherished beliefs, violate these rules may be fairly said to be behaving irrationally. Fun- damaterialists, like fundamentalists, are so self-righteously certain of the truth of their beliefs, that they are often blind to the elementary logical errors they commit in defense of their beliefs…
Why is it the case that otherwise rational people, when it comes to discussing empirical evidence for dualism, cheerfully commit all sorts of logical errors—errors that they would never let their students or colleagues get away with. I think there are three interrelated factors, or causes, that converge to generate academia’s collective irrationality with respect to this issue: (a) resistance to paradigm change, (b) intellectual arrogance, and (c) social taboo…
It seems there is something very deep in us humans that causes us to dismiss and ridicule any way of thinking different from our own. There is a natural resistance to forms of thinking that differs from what was internalized during the educational process…
Academic philosophers matriculate within a paradigm that is largely atheistic, materialistic, and reductionistic. There is no God; only material objects and processes exist; and human experience and behavior are to be explicated mechanically in terms of brain states. Books with the terms “mind” or “consciousness” in their title, for example, tend to have as their primary goal the reduction of mental and conscious experience to neurophysiology. To one who has internalized this paradigm, this way of approaching things appears to be right, reasonable, objective, and sensible. The paradigm itself is rarely questioned; it is the very water in which the academic philosopher swims, which is why it is so difficult for one who is immersed in the paradigm to see it as a paradigm, rather than as the way things “must be.” Someone operating out of a different paradigm appears to be out of touch with reality, irrational, and so forth.
Lastly, the clencher:
For the fundamaterialists and debunkers would have us believe that the burden of proof is on us to first disprove every alternative hypothesis they can imagine.
Sounds awfully familiar, doesn’t it? This is nearly word-for-word what I’ve been saying to various skeptics in recent discussions on NDE and other things. I tip my next beer–God willing–to you, Neal Grossman.
bossmanham
says...It’s almost fun to point this out to them. They just….won’t…..admit it!
cl
says...I question whether it’s a matter of won’t as opposed to can’t. I seriously believe that something major needs to happen in order to realize that one is “in the pool,” so to speak. Of course, this tendency must apply to all humans, so we have to be equally wary of being too cocksure at any given moment.
At some point, it might be better to simply dispense with efforts to persuade. Plant seeds, then move along. That sort of thing. I am definitely guilty of spending too much time trying to persuade, and that’s one thing I endeavor to change throughout the rest of this year. We have to remember that every minute spent on someone who already has their mind made up is a minute lost on someone with a genuine yearning for truth. God, I lament the time I’ve wasted. Then again, who’s to say the time I think I’ve wasted didn’t go to someone else’s benefit, behind the scenes? Not all who read, comment.
bossmanham
says...Yes, and I agree. I’ve been thinking of shifting tactics for quite a while.
cl
says...Any ideas as to what might be more productive?
Christopher
says...I have been regularly reading posts on here for a few months and I enjoy it. I hope you don’t think that the vast majority of non-believers like myself will always arrogantly reject ideas based solely on their affiliation with non-materialism. (not quite sure if that is even a word) I force myself to have an open mind about everything in life and not become sedentary in my thinking. I kind of have to: I am a high school math teacher. I learn new ways of teaching students and dealing with their problems on a regular basis.
cl
says...Christopher,
Excellent. Thanks for the good words. No, I never had you pegged as a fundamaterialist, not at all. You don’t comment here often, but what few comments you have left indicate a mind that–although not persuaded of Christianity–is certainly not closed. Folks like yourself are the payoff.
By the way, I’ve been meaning to finish up some thoughts we started in way back in the thread of Fundamentalism: It’s Not Just For Atheists, so, keep an eye out for new additions to that thread, and I’ll do my best to let you know once I’ve got back in there.
Enjoy the day…
dguller
says...cl:
I think that when you yourself admit that your evidence is inconclusive, and that we will have to wait for future studies that address the possible confounding factors that make the studies that you cite inconclusive to begin with, then the entire point of your OP fails altogether. I mean, it is not as if you are demonstrating the existence of a well-validated and empirically confirmed phenomena, and the “fundamentalist” is just being pig-headed and stubborn about refusing to accept its validity. You are presenting equivocal and inconclusive evidence, and when this is pointed out to you, you suddenly get upset and accusatory of others being closed-minded, being in thrall of a firm confirmation bias, and being utterly fundamentalist about their rejection of your weak tea.
I am very sorry that the evidence is so weak for your position. That does not mean that it is false, but it is just not good enough to overturn physicalism at this time. Maybe at a future date it will, as other scientific paradigms have been overturned, but it will take evidence more compelling that what you have presented. And again, it does your cause no good to become upset at those who simply present the errors and flaws in your case. Either address the concerns, or if you cannot, then recognize that future evidence will have to address them to validate your position.
I mean, I am not a fundamentalist materialist, or whatever you think I am. If dualism turns out to be true, then I will be a dualist. If materialism turns out to be true, then I will be a materialist. If theism turns out to be true, then I will become a believer. I honestly do not care, except that whatever position I assent to will have to have the bet evidence to support it. I am doing my best to live my life according to the truth, and one of my guiding assumptions is that the truth will have the best – not the worst – evidence to justify it. That said, physicalism seems more evidential at this time for me, and nothing that you have presented is sufficient to change this at this time. I’m sorry, but that’s where we are.
dguller
says...Cl:
>> For the fundamaterialists and debunkers would have us believe that the burden of proof is on us to first disprove every alternative hypothesis they can imagine.
Again, this is disingenuous. It makes it appear that my objections are figments of my imagination, and thus automatically lose standing as serious issues to consider. As I have tried to tell you again and again, my objections are not based upon imagination or logical possibility alone. They are not just stuff that I thought of while sitting on the toilet with the sole purpose of bolstering my worldview, because I am so threatened by the evidence that you have provided. No, they are genuine empirical possibilities that ANY scientist will point out to you are legitimate confounding factors that must be addressed before your claims can be accepted as valid. For you to STILL not understand this just boggles my mind, and continues to persuade me that you fundamentally do not understand scientific research at all.
And before you hurl insults at me about being self-righteous or rude or whatever, prove me wrong, and demonstrate that you do, in fact, understand that science is fundamentally about demonstrating the truth of its propositions by RULING OUT alternatives. Yes, this is hard, and yes, this requires a great deal of effort and time, and any legitimate scientist will tell you that when the evidence is inconclusive or equivocal, one should defer accepting or rejecting a hypothesis. No-one would do what you do, which is to take a number of inconclusive studies and claim victory by virtue of the sheer number of studies, as if ambiguity suddenly becomes clear when repeated often enough. Instead, just accept that you should suspend your judgment on this matter, as I have, and just wait to see what better evidence will show.
cl
says...Well well… I see this post worked somebody into a tizzy!
dguller, you ARE in the thrall of a firm confirmation bias! You said your exposure to the pertinent literature was “between 1-2” on a 1-10 scale. You said Pam’s case was inconclusive. Yet, BEFORE EVEN HEARING of Pam’s case, and on the admitted paucity of 5-10 hours reading time, you stated BOLDY that what I believe is “science fiction and fantasy.” If that is not being in the thrall of a firm confirmation bias, I don’t know what is.
Like I said, I’m not upset at you, at all. We could have drinks together and probably have a grand ol’ time. I was a bit frustrated at your intellectual chauvinism and double-standards, but hey, nobody’s perfect. You mistake forcefulness for emotion. Remember, confounders.
That would only be the case if Pam’s case were all I had to go on. I already explained that it is but the tip of the iceberg.
To be dead honest, I asked myself while writing this post: “Self, is dguller a fundamaterialist?” My immediate reaction was “yes,” but, upon further reflection, and going by the principle of CHARITY, I actually decided that you weren’t, because you do actually seem willing to follow the evidence where it leads.
However, your screeds in this thread are causing me to reconsider. You are reacting just like a fundamentalist would. Relax a bit, and let’s pick it up again on a cooler day. I’ve got nothin’ but love for you, and I mean that–regardless of the fact that I think you’re off your rocker at times.
cl
says...Ah, heck… I suppose I ought to address your second comment, too:
They are not based on imagination in the sense that confounding factors are real. In THIS SPECIFIC CASE, they ARE based on logical possibility alone, because you’ve given no compelling reason to believe that confounding factors are more parsimonious in THIS SPECIFIC CASE. It’s actually worse than that: according to the opinions of knowledgeable medical professionals with first-hand experience of the case, your objections are logically IMPROBABLE. This was pointed out by Jayman and myself, yet, you forge ahead. Put it this way, since you’re fond of legal analogies: A defense attorney has to point out SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIABLE flaws in the prosecution’s case, AND provide a more plausible interpretation of all the evidence. It’s not enough to just say, “Well maybe the witness is lying? After all, witnesses have lied before, you know.” Try that one in court and watch what happens.
Dispense with charity if you wish. I’m confident that an objective reader can look at my comments, and–while far from perfect in every regard–that reader will conclude I’ve got a solid grasp on science. I’ve addressed confounding factors and the criteria for legitimate science in other posts, i.e. Asking the Right Questions.
I’m too busy laughing to hurl insults, and I just did demonstrate my understanding: read the linked post. Note the number of times I refer to excluding confounding factors as a general rule of reliable induction. Then, when you’re ready and you’ve calmed down a bit, come back and apologize.
Yet, you default to materialism despite the fact that the evidence is equivocal, don’t you? This is what I mean by double-standards.
That’s not what I’ve done. First off, I haven’t “claimed victory” at all. Sure, I believe you’re about as stubborn a skeptic as they come, and I believe the TOTALITY of evidence across ALL FIELDS disfavors materialism, but I know better than to claim victory. Humility is a central ingredient in any legitimate Christian life [and by no means do I claim to be a legitimate Christian because I am an abysmal failure in that regard]. Science doesn’t uncover truth. It uncovers error, and when none is uncovered, some folks mistakenly presume truth. So no, I don’t claim victory. Check the St. Augustine quote on the right sidebar, second one down.
If Pam’s case was all I had in my tool shed, you’d be right. I’ve told you this. Four times now. LISTEN more, TALK less.
Oh, one other point from your first comment:
None of these things can “turn out to be true.” They are either true or false, RIGHT NOW, regardless of any evidence, whatsoever. This is an important point, and I’m not convinced you’ve got it because you repeated this mistake at least twice over the course of our discussion.
**********
You get the last word on these issues in this thread. If you want to talk about where you went for your trip, or something fun you did, or your favorite movie or food, I’m game, but I’ve spoke my peace on this one. Dead serious. Think about it a bit before you waste a bunch more of your precious time. I mean that sincerely, too. All our time is precious. Every second. More so for an atheist, at least, in their own mind.
I’m going out for a bit.
dguller
says...Cl:
>> dguller, you ARE in the thrall of a firm confirmation bias! You said your exposure to the pertinent literature was “between 1-2″ on a 1-10 scale. You said Pam’s case was inconclusive. Yet, BEFORE EVEN HEARING of Pam’s case, and on the admitted paucity of 5-10 hours reading time, you stated BOLDY that what I believe is “science fiction and fantasy.” If that is not being in the thrall of a firm confirmation bias, I don’t know what is.
Right. And further exposure to your evidence has proven me correct. The evidence that you have presented is inconclusive and equivocal, and thus your theory is nothing but speculation and fantasy. Rather than just accept this, you choose to quibble over words that I used MONTHS ago.
>> Like I said, I’m not upset at you, at all. We could have drinks together and probably have a grand ol’ time. I was a bit frustrated at your intellectual chauvinism and double-standards, but hey, nobody’s perfect. You mistake forcefulness for emotion. Remember, confounders.
Again, you have your own double standards. When I argue forcefully and passionately for my position, you consider me a chauvinist, but when you do so, it is a virtue.
>> That would only be the case if Pam’s case were all I had to go on. I already explained that it is but the tip of the iceberg.
Show me the rest of the iceberg, then. And if the rest of your evidence is equally equivocal and inconclusive, then you have not made your case at all. Again, I question a debating strategy where someone will invest so many months on their weakest evidence first. What is your strongest evidence?
>> However, your screeds in this thread are causing me to reconsider. You are reacting just like a fundamentalist would. Relax a bit, and let’s pick it up again on a cooler day. I’ve got nothin’ but love for you, and I mean that–regardless of the fact that I think you’re off your rocker at times.
First, now I write “screeds”? Again, you object to my use of passionate language, but I suppose it is okay for you, right? No double standards there.
Second, you are the one who identified me as a fundamentalist, and thus are the one hurling insults. I responded to your insults by pointing out that I am not being closed minded, but rational and scientific about this matter. You presented evidence, and I presented reasons why your evidence was not compelling. That does not make me a fundamentalist. A fundamentalist would be someone who rejects a solidly supported scientific theory for their irrational beliefs. Your theory is not solidly supported, and my rejection of it at this time is not irrational.
>> They are not based on imagination in the sense that confounding factors are real. In THIS SPECIFIC CASE, they ARE based on logical possibility alone, because you’ve given no compelling reason to believe that confounding factors are more parsimonious in THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
You still don’t get it. Please read something about research methodology. For a study to be inconclusive, there just have to be empirical possibilities that it failed to control for, and thus the very possibility of a confounding factor makes the study equivocal. Ever hear of “reasonable doubt”? One does not have to show that the confounding factor DID occur, but only that it could have occurred, to dilute the findings. Again, none of this makes a study’s results false, but only inconclusive, which requires further studies to address the specific concerns. Either you follow the rules of science, or you do not, and if you do not, then you do not get to cite scientific studies at all, because you have no idea what you are doing with them.
>> It’s actually worse than that: according to the opinions of knowledgeable medical professionals with first-hand experience of the case, your objections are logically IMPROBABLE.
Their opinions all fall prey to the fallacy of arguing from incredulity. I can bring in my own experts who have alternative theories for what happened. So what?
>> This was pointed out by Jayman and myself, yet, you forge ahead. Put it this way, since you’re fond of legal analogies: A defense attorney has to point out SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIABLE flaws in the prosecution’s case, AND provide a more plausible interpretation of all the evidence. It’s not enough to just say, “Well maybe the witness is lying? After all, witnesses have lied before, you know.” Try that one in court and watch what happens.
First, I have provided a more plausible interpretation of the evidence. Pam had a brain-generated hallucination while under anesthesia that was subsequently embellished and altered over the following three years, and likely incorporated new information that she subsequently forgot due to the emotional salience of the original experience, which rendered her vulnerable to multiple cognitive distortions and biases. The allegedly veridical aspects were due to a combination of the forgotten acquisition of new information, and chance and luck, which just cannot be ruled out in this case, because there was no statistical analysis performed on the data, and thus we just do not know whether she had genuine supernatural knowledge, or just made some lucky guesses. After all, lucky guesses happen all the time!
Second, if I would have presented specific flaws that truly did occur, then the matter would not be inconclusive at all, but conclusively false! When I say that the matter is inconclusive, then this means that there is insufficient information within the study to determine whether it is true or false. You have agreed with me, and so what are we arguing about? Just bring better evidence!
Third, remember that a court does not deal with certainties, but with probabilities. A defense attorney just has to show that it is POSSIBLE that the prosecution is wrong, and if that possibility occurs to the point that there are reasonable doubts, then the prosecution has failed to demonstrate their case. Remember, a defense attorney does not have to show that their version is true, but only that there are enough possibilities to lead to doubt. It seems that you have little understanding of legal, as well as, scientific issues.
>> I’m too busy laughing to hurl insults, and I just did demonstrate my understanding: read the linked post. Note the number of times I refer to excluding confounding factors as a general rule of reliable induction. Then, when you’re ready and you’ve calmed down a bit, come back and apologize.
Good, then if you did so before, then why do you object so strenuously to do so now? You cannot say, on the one hand, that you do know how scientific research is conducted, and then, on the other hand, say many things that contradict this. Either you accept that the possibility of confounding factors compromises the ability of a study to be definitive, or you do not. If you do, then you must realize that your study is inconclusive, and if you do not, then either you know science, but are choosing NOT to apply its methods to this case for some reason, or you truly do not know science at all.
>> Yet, you default to materialism despite the fact that the evidence is equivocal, don’t you? This is what I mean by double-standards.
Yes, because the totality of evidence is that consciousness and our mental life is a brain-generated phenomenon. Brain damaged, consciousness changed; drugs change neurochemistry, consciousness changed; brains take time to develop, consciousness and reason take time to develop; our mental life is intrinsically related to our bodies via sensation and emotion; and on and on.
You cannot just come along with equivocal evidence and say that this is all wrong, and that consciousness is really a spooky disembodied ghost that came from who knows where, interacts with – and is limited by – the brain who knows how or why, and after death, goes who knows where, and then behave as if you have somehow solved some important puzzle. You will need compelling evidence to show that consciousness is not embodied, and you have not provided it. So far, the preponderance of evidence shows it to be embodied entity, and so that must be the most parsimonious theory for now.
>> First off, I haven’t “claimed victory” at all. Sure, I believe you’re about as stubborn a skeptic as they come, and I believe the TOTALITY of evidence across ALL FIELDS disfavors materialism, but I know better than to claim victory. Humility is a central ingredient in any legitimate Christian life [and by no means do I claim to be a legitimate Christian because I am an abysmal failure in that regard] … So no, I don’t claim victory. Check the St. Augustine quote on the right sidebar, second one down.
Okay, fair enough.
>> Science doesn’t uncover truth. It uncovers error, and when none is uncovered, some folks mistakenly presume truth.
Whaaaaa?? So, quantum mechanics is not true? General and special relativity are not true? Theory of evolution is not true? The heliocentric model of the solar system is not true? What are you talking about? If science does not uncover truth, then how can we have learned so many truths about the universe by applying its methods? And if it cannot discover truth, then what is your preferred method?
>> If Pam’s case was all I had in my tool shed, you’d be right. I’ve told you this. Four times now. LISTEN more, TALK less.
Then show me more. I am listening, but you are not SAYING anything.
>> None of these things can “turn out to be true.” They are either true or false, RIGHT NOW, regardless of any evidence, whatsoever. This is an important point, and I’m not convinced you’ve got it because you repeated this mistake at least twice over the course of our discussion.
That is true. What I should have said is our theories about them can turn out to be true. And regardless, my point was that I am trying to follow the best evidence to uncover the truth. We have already had this discussion, and I know that you disagree that good evidence has any reliable relationship to truth, being agnostic about the matter. And I am still waiting for your answers to what better method than following the best evidence can increase your likelihood of having true beliefs. Perhaps you are following that method right now?
>> You get the last word on these issues in this thread. If you want to talk about where you went for your trip, or something fun you did, or your favorite movie or food, I’m game, but I’ve spoke my peace on this one. Dead serious. Think about it a bit before you waste a bunch more of your precious time. I mean that sincerely, too. All our time is precious. Every second. More so for an atheist, at least, in their own mind.
Thanks! Wrapping a 9-day trip to Walt Disney World with the wife and kids. We all had an absolutely fantastic time. Going back to Canada tonight. :(
Take care.
cl
says...The first line I read was:
Interesting. I had you pegged as a Massachussetts person. Is it true that there’s a ten-year waiting period for Americans to get into Canada? I imagine they don’t want us up there, as most of us are lummoxes.
More importantly:
What could convince you that theism in general–and the gospel of Jesus Christ in particular–were true?
cl
says...dguller,
We all have our double-standards–after all I just went back on my word about not commenting any further in this thread–but this is not one of mine. I don’t consider you an intellectual chauvinist for arguing forcefully and passionately. I consider you an intellectual chauvinist because–despite professed ignorance on the subject matter–you forged ahead and declared it “science fiction and fantasy,” BEFORE even hearing the arguments or educating yourself further. Will you really deny that such behavior accompanies intellectual chauvinism?
I posted Pam’s case less than two weeks ago, and the strategy is useful: it’s called, “give ’em enough rope and they might just hang themselves.” Look how many goalposts you’ve cemented. If we were to continue, I’d have quite a bit to work with.
Did you–or did you not–describe a prospective study that, if replicated, would convince you of the existence of disembodied minds? If yes, why ask me to write more blog posts? The AWARE results are set to publish late this year, last I recall. You’re going to have to wait at least another 10-20 years before replication gives you permission to believe, if it ever comes. Unless you wish to relent of this standard, we’re done discussing disembodied minds, and it’s time to move on to other topics. That easy.
Ana
says...cl
There is a phrase that I’ve kept in mind ever since I heard it : ” proof is different from persuasion”.
To make things more complicated, two people can disagree on whether X counts as proof for Y. But even if two people do agree that X is proof, they might disagree on whether X is sufficient proof for Y.
Matt
says...Hey CL,
I’ve been reading your posts for a while, and I think you have a lot of interesting things to say. As a philosophy student, I’m curious, are you really trying to advocate substance dualism (i.e. mind and body are ontologically independent)?
As an aside, using anecdotal near-death experience evidence is hardly an intelligible argument against physicalism. Especially considering the unreliability of people under the influence of sedatives, not receiving oxygen to the brain, not being conscious, etc.
cl
says...Ana,
I’ve been thinking about what you said.
I wasn’t sure what to make of this, because to me, proof is a Boolean concept. Therefore, the concept of “sufficient proof” is odd, because proof is sufficient. But, I’m not interested in telling you what I think as much as understanding what you meant, so… in what ways have you seen two people argue sufficiency of proof?
Matt,
Thanks. It’s always nice to hear something positive.
Well… the way I see it, the underlying framework I believe in–God, the Bible, not just those but basically the old school spiritual tradition that [with notable exceptions, of course] has been the foundation of effectively all human thought until we got too carried away with our own inventions–essentially requires something like substance dualism in order to be true. However, am I trying to advocate it, per se? I wouldn’t necessarily say that. I try to avoid getting locked into “being an advocate” for philosophical / metaphysical positions, although, it’s impossible to avoid it 100%. I mean, you have to nail yourself down on some things, else, you have no point of reference, right? But we get these people that are like, “I’m a staunch advocate of blah blah blah” and then they get locked into that. They’re no longer flexible. They get mentally rigid. Their worldview can’t accommodate new information. Yes, this fully applies to me, too–I mean, you could say, “Well you’re locked into God or the Bible or whatever,” but the difference is that I’ve got a flexible approach with it, aside from the basic roots. For example, it would take A LOT to convince me of atheism, but not that much [comparatively] to convince me of materialism. It might turn out that dualism is false, at least in our realm. I think it would be really difficult to run a fully coherent materialist parsing of the Bible, but hey, I’m just a fallible human being, and much of Jesus’ story in the NT involves telling the fallible religious believers of His day that they were getting it wrong. So, the last thing I want to do is fall into that trap by solidifying myself with various positions that might not even be correctly inferred from the Bible. The St. Augustine quote on the right-hand side of the blog, second one down, articulates this beautifully.
Like I’ve told dguller, if the Pam Reynolds case were all I had in my argument against physicalism, I would agree. That’s not the case. I think we have solid lines of evidence from a variety of fields in science that all point to a paradigm shift. Can I crank ’em all out in a week or even a month or year? Of course not, but, stick around, and I think you’ll see. This evidence has been there all along, it’s just that, the better we get at science, the harder it becomes to detect subtle errors in existing data. You seem pretty young, if that’s an actual picture of you in SF… pay close attention to what the physicists say over the next 50-60 years. Hell, even what they were saying earlier last century. […cue Hunter S. Thompson voice…] We’re headed back to the ether, baby! Tachyonic speeds. Other temporospatial dimensions. Hypotheses like that which can actually incorporate the TOTALITY of evidence far better than physicalism.
Way back when, Descartes convinced the Catholics to split science. It saved his arse, but for better or for worse, we’ve been doing plate glass science ever since. It’s always been turned to the outside world, for the specific purpose of keeping the error-prone, subjective viewer out of the picture. This is not without good reason, of course, but think of what we’re analyzing here: consciousness, right? It’s not like it’s a purely objective phenomena we can divorce ourselves from and study behind a plate glass. At least, not if we want to study it as it really is. Take drug studies for example. Not controlled medical studies of the sort the FDA requires for safety standards and the like, but the crazy-ass, LSD / mescalin / psychedelic mushroom stuff people used to study [cf. Doors of Perception]. We couldn’t expect a full, accurate account of what those things do unless we take into consideration the anecdotal accounts of the user, you know? If consciousness is what I think it’s cracked up to be, something like the meeting point between spirit and body–something immaterial that interfaces with the material–then we have to take that into consideration when we study it. This fundamental difference has to guide our methods of inquiry. If spirit is immaterial–which I think it is–that’s going to have enormous repercussions on the extent to which we can study it scientifically. Per the bit above about not wanting to get locked into being an advocate for things, I’m not nearly as interested in “proving disembodied minds” to skeptics as much as filling in the gaps in the human mosaic, if that makes sense. I know I need to keep my mind open, and I don’t do philosophy to supplement science.
I agree, but people are unreliable dead sober, so that’s not really saying much. Our best minds often get things totally wrong when completely clear in the head and trying their hardest not to. Thing is, many who experience NDE report clearer and better perception than normal waking states, which suggests that non-sedated, non-anoxic factors are more likely at work. There are accounts which clearly cannot reduce to anoxia. Blackmore’s rebuttal is pretty much kaput. What you mention actually lends strong support to the validity of NDE.
Ana
says...An example of where this is vividly the case (and in which I’ve had direct experience with), is when one engages with a so-called Jesus mythicist — a person who maintains that Jesus of Nazareth was not a historical figure.
Skeptics of this kind reject the gospels as establishing the historicity of his existence, on the basis that the gospels are anonymous (rejecting the Church’s handed down tradition of who wrote the gospels) and that they were written decades after the date in which Jesus would have died.
They reject the Pauline epistles on the basis that they are non-contemporaneous to the time when Jesus would have been alive.
They reject Josephus’ mention of Jesus in Antiquities of the Jews — the one that begins with “Now there was about this time Jesus …” — for being non-contemporaneous and by citing it as a forgery (disregarding the view that the passage in question contains interpolations, and thus is partially authentic. Interestingly, I haven’t seen them argue against the other Josephian passage relevant to the historicity of Jesus, that mentions “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James” which goes on to say that James was given over to authorities to be stoned. )
They reject Tacitus’ mention of Jesus as having suffered at the hands of Pilate, also for its non-contemporaneous status and by saying it might be a forgery, but even if it isn’t, Tacitus is merely reporting what Christians believed.
In short, skeptics of the existence of Jesus will disregard the above as proof, or, if they do accept them as proof, they accept them as weak proof, and thus maintain their skepticism.
Hence, the issue of percieved ( whether quantitatively or qualitatively) “insufficient” proof .
If you get a chance, watch this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRx0N4GF0AY
dguller
says...Cl:
>> Thing is, many who experience NDE report clearer and better perception than normal waking states, which suggests that non-sedated, non-anoxic factors are more likely at work.
I think that it is important to comment on this, because it ties into my criticisms of the veracity of the memories of those who have NDE’s, especially Pam’s, which were recollected three whole years later. The fact that someone remembers something vividly does not mean that their memory is more accurate. The fact is that flashbulb memories are no more accurate than ordinary memories, even though they are particularly vivid and compelling, and thus are liable to all the distortions and manipulations of garden variety memories. Furthermore, the more time passes, the less accurate our memories become, but flashbulb memories are different. As time passes, we recognize that our ordinary memories can become more inaccurate, but we feel that our flashbulb memories retain their accuracy over time. In other words, we falsely believe our flashbulb memories to be more accurate if they are more vivid in our minds, and this self-deception is often outside our awareness, and distorting our judgments.
With regards to Pam, for example, the fact that she recalled her NDE as particularly vivid and compelling does not imply that her memory is more accurate. In fact, it should be objectively treated as ANY memory would, and I think that you will agree that any memory of an event that occurred three years ago is likely inaccurate in multiple respects.
Now, with regards to vividness of perception, I think that you will agree that LSD generates particularly vivid and compelling subjective experiences. However, this alone is insufficient to demonstrate the veracity of those experiences, because an LSD-induced psychotic state is utterly divorced from reality. So, again, we use the heuristic of vividness to justify the veracity of memories, perceptions, and even the trustworthiness of other people, and this generally works fairly well, but we must not be confused that it always works, and must be even more cautious about cases where much is at stake, and a more dispassionate and objective analysis is required.
cl
says...Ana,
Thanks for the clip. Earman’s interlocutor said–word for word in many instances–the same things dguller said in response to the Pam Reynolds case: variant after variant of, “Well yeah, but isn’t it possible that X actually didn’t happen?” Accordingly, Earman replied exactly as I’ve been replying to dguller: “You can systematically doubt anything.”
I think what’s tripping me up here is the apparent conflation between proof and evidence. I don’t think that a genuine proof can ever be insufficient. When I switch proof for evidence and reread your comment, everything falls into place.
At any rate, therein lies the dilemma: what preventative measures can be put in place to keep the skeptic from systematically doubting whatever they don’t want to accept? It’s like I said to dguller elsewhere: a defense attorney doesn’t get to just say, “Well maybe the prosecution’s witness is lying? Maybe they aren’t a credible witness?” That’s not how it works. The defense attorney has to show why those possibilities should apply in the case at hand, and why they should trump the witness’ testimony. I mean, maybe O.J. didn’t do it, but nobody is going to overturn a conviction on mere empirical possibility. Such would be laughable, right?
dguller,
I don’t think so. You tried to pull this schtick already, and Jayman replied with a small battery of sources supporting the overall accuracy of flashbulb memories.
Have you ever taken it? If not, how do you know it generates vivid and compelling subjective experiences?
dguller
says...cl:
>> I don’t think so. You tried to pull this schtick already, and Jayman replied with a small battery of sources supporting the overall accuracy of flashbulb memories.
Let’s look at one of his quotes: “The majority of research has demonstrated that flashbulb memories are more accurate than everyday memories”. There is no comprehensive review cited to justify this assertion, and they only cite a single study (Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13, 196–206), which found that the subjects in question retained 75-80% accuracy at the one year mark. In other words, they lost 20-25% of information after just one year. Furthermore, there is evidence of further deterioration after the one year mark, but it is substantially less, and more along the lines of 5-10% further loss of information per year (J Exp Psychol Gen. 2009 May;138(2):161-76). The authors write: “this pattern of inconsistent memories accompanied by high confidence rating suggests that a trademark of flashbulb memories extends across long-term retention periods” and “In sum, the present results suggest that the rate of forgetting slows between the first and third years for both flashbulb memories and event memories.” That may not seem concerning to you, but it is to me, because it means that after three years, Pam may have forgotten 30-45% of information, which I find compelling enough for reasonable doubt.
The point is that although flashbulb memories appear to be vivid and compelling, that does not necessarily imply that they are particularly accurate. There is always lost information over time, and the fact that one may not appreciate this due to the vividness of the memory means that one is prone to various biases and distortions that are not perceived at all.
>> Have you ever taken it? If not, how do you know it generates vivid and compelling subjective experiences?
Yes, I have, and yes, it does.
Matt DeStefano
says...cl:
>>>>>Yes, this fully applies to me, too–I mean, you could say, “Well you’re locked into God or the Bible or whatever,” but the difference is that I’ve got a flexible approach with it, aside from the basic roots.
Out of curiosity, what are these “basic roots” and why are they not flexible? I’m totally with you, however, on being able to react to new information as it comes along. I look forward to you presenting the evidence about NDE, although I’m admittedly very skeptical.
cl
says...By “basic roots” I mean something like the claim that God created the world. I’m not saying some strain of theist couldn’t deny this, I just mean that I don’t think a reasonable reading of the Bible permits it.
Cool, it’s always nice to have other sets of ears, so thanks. However, remember that I’m not necessarily focusing exclusively or even primarily on NDE. NDE are just one branch in the tree. As far as physicalism is concerned, what’s your take on the stuff in Consciousness Primer? How would you explain the Video Game Incident in purely physicalist terms? Or, the situation with Marianne George? Ingo Swann?
There are bits and pieces of evidence already scattered around the site, but I’ll definitely be adding to them.
dguller
says...cl:
>> What could convince you that theism in general–and the gospel of Jesus Christ in particular–were true?
Sorry, I forgot to answer this question before.
With regards to theism, I take this to be the existence of a supreme being who has a specific personality that consists of a number of traditional qualities, such as being omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. What would convince me would be a radical disruption of natural laws that is clearly observable by the majority of human beings, and with the additional aspect of some clear communication, understandable to those human beings in uncertain terms in their own languages that this disruption was caused by such a being and that he has the traditional qualities of God. Something like this would be extremely compelling to me, and I would find it impossible to doubt it, especially if it was corroborated by the majority of human beings. What does not convince me is scattered evidence of dubious validity and suspicious authenticity that is allegedly presented by an all-powerful deity who desperately wishes for humanity to know and love him.
With regards to the gospel of Jesus Christ in particular, I think the above phenomenon, but with a special appearance by Jesus Christ to most human beings and a clear communication from him that his gospel is true. I would be even more impressed if such an appearance occurred mostly to non-Christians, especially to me! Again, a series of appearances by Jesus to scattered individuals throughout history is insufficient, but a monumental presentation of his power and presence to the majority of mankind would be completely compelling to me. I think that it would be highly unlikely for that mass experience to have been the result of a shared hallucination, especially if the experience is identical to all participants.
cl
says...dguller,
No worries, we’ve been all over the map lately–literally, in your case!
As far as your answer, I lament. You are in the worst position to possibly be in, and I think this is directly related to [what I would call] your staunch skepticism. The Bible is very clear that what you ask for will in fact happen, the problem is, when Jesus comes back next time it’s to separate the wheat from the chaff, if you get my drift. If you will only believe given Jesus’ second coming, this seems to put you past the “decision time,” if that makes sense.
Is that your final answer? Or, can you think of something within the decision time that’s less [epistemically] than the second coming?
dguller
says...cl:
>> As far as your answer, I lament. You are in the worst position to possibly be in, and I think this is directly related to [what I would call] your staunch skepticism. The Bible is very clear that what you ask for will in fact happen, the problem is, when Jesus comes back next time it’s to separate the wheat from the chaff, if you get my drift. If you will only believe given Jesus’ second coming, this seems to put you past the “decision time,” if that makes sense.
I think that I am applying the very same standards of evidence that you likely apply to the religious claims of other faiths. What would it take for you to reject Christianity for Islam or Hinduism, for example? Their evidence is just as good as yours, and there is a great deal of overlap, especially with their natural theology and rational arguments about divine existence and qualities. Where is their evidence lacking in a compelling way for you to justify not believing their claims?
>> Is that your final answer? Or, can you think of something within the decision time that’s less [epistemically] than the second coming?
I’m afraid not. I think that there is too much wiggle room with the current evidence that just makes it not compelling. Plus, the fact that a God who desperately wants his beloved children to know and love him seems to have scattered weak and inconclusive evidence all over the place means that it is more likely that there is just no such God at all. I just find it hard to believe that any caring parent would be so careless towards his children about a matter of cosmic importance. I mean, the evidence could be much better and clearer, but it isn’t, and one can certainly make assumptions about why God would behave in such a way, but then you are on even shakier ground altogether, because you are speculating about the intentions of an utterly transcendent being that is completely beyond our comprehension.
The matter is completely different if one wants to bring in faith, because then the responsibility to believe is not of an epistemic type, which means that a failure of epistemic justification is not a bug, but a feature of the system itself. However, that opens up a whole host of other problems, such as the complete lack of any standards to decide WHICH religious claims are true. I mean, either the standards of inquiry apply, or they do not, and if the former, then the evidence just is insufficient to demonstrate the full-throated theism of religious belief, and if the latter, then we are stuck in sheer relativism without any foundation for religious belief at all.
I mean, God seems to agree with me that compelling miraculous events are often necessary to justify believe in his existence, and the Bible is littered with such events. And the very existence of Jesus Christ as the divine incarnate in human flesh who died and was resurrected is supposed to be the ultimate miracle and absolute paradox that shatters our logical and conceptual capacities, making space for religious faith itself, at least according to Kierkegaard’s account, which I find both compelling and terrifying. Fear and trembling, and all that.
woodchuck64
says...cl,
I would say dguller speaks for me as well in regards for what it would take for me to believe in theism in general and Christianity in particular. It has to be an event strong enough to overcome staunch skepticism because staunch skepticism is a very defensible position given the ways the human mind can be fooled by reality (and that’s assuming we can even say reality exists and aren’t forced into some kind of anti-realism position… which I often find myself in actually).
However, here’s the real problem: what if I do know the truth of theism and Christianity in particular in some deep spiritual metaphysical sense but am denying it because I’m sinful? It certainly doesn’t feel that way to me, but then wouldn’t I lie about what I feel if I’m truly sinful? Is this where we are now or would you agree that skeptics can truly, honestly be staunch skeptics without denying some God-given “God-sense” in an ad-hoc or even immoral fashion?
cl
says...dguller,
I assure you that you are not. I accept many of the claims of other religions, including some that seem to overlap, as well as some that don’t seem to. However, when I don’t accept a religious claim, I usually rely on something more than the “mere possibility” that the claim might be wrong. I wouldn’t demand a personal visit from Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu to accept the akasha, for instance. So, I’m definitely applying a different standard.
You seem to assume that I reject more than accept claims of other religions, when that’s not really the case.
This is a matter of opinion entirely, and I don’t see any math that would justify your probability claim, so I think what you mean is that you, personally perceive things this way, not that things actually are this way. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Which account are you referring to? Can you shoot me a link or a reference?
woodchuck64,
While there is a grain of truth there, staunch skepticism also maximizes error, so this is really quite a tricky proposition and I submit that one needs to be careful.
Then it would seem the problem is not one that “evidence” can overcome, wouldn’t you say? For, given such a condition, any evidence can be explained away. This results from the same “human capacity to be fooled” that you just alluded to. What course of action is left?
Not necessarily, at least, not if you truly believed that’s how you feel. I think that’s when sin is its strongest: when we actually believe error. I imagine no human is exempt.
I’m not entirely sure I’ve understood your question as you intended it, but I’ll attempt an answer anyways. In my opinion, the evidence is sufficient, so it’s a bit difficult to give an unbiased answer. Are staunch skeptics acting immorally? I’ll eschew any sort of general rule here, and say that I suppose this hinges on one’s definition of immoral. I certainly think staunch skeptics act unreasonably and even inconsistently, but then again, don’t we all? Is bias immoral? I’m not sure, but I am sure it’s an impediment to truth.
woodchuck64
says...cl,
Skepticism may allow one to believe something to be probably false which is actually true, but will at least minimize instances of believing something to be true which is actually false. Generally speaking, I see more harm in believing something to be true that is actually false than in believing something to be false which is actually true.
The question might be asked how many true things can be believed to be false before it starts to be a serious detriment to well-being.
Evidence that is indisputable can not be explained away. I’m just wondering if you believed that certain crucial evidence for belief is inherently private/personal. It would be possible, but I think unfalsifiable, to believe that everyone knows deep down that God exists, for example, and that skeptics simply deny this.
In the absence of all errors that can be identified objectively (such as errors of logic, inconsistency), one could conceivably approach all propositions with a prior chosen probability threshold for truth. A very weak skeptic could act on any proposition as true if it exceeds a 50% likelihood of truth (calculated laboriously through a study of evidence with reasonable Bayesian priors, say), a strong skeptic, on the other hand, could act on any proposition as true if it exceeds 90% likelihood of truth (calculated the same way). Both approaches seem sort of reasonable, but I think the weak skeptic might run into more problems than the strong skeptic since positive actions based on weak evidence seems risky, while the absence of positive actions on weak evidence seems generally safer behavior. I would peg myself as more to the 90% side of the scale. But would you say it is better to be closer to the 50% side of the scale? Is this an accurate characterization of the theist/atheist divide?
dguller
says...Cl:
>> However, when I don’t accept a religious claim, I usually rely on something more than the “mere possibility” that the claim might be wrong.
Good. So do I. When I don’t accept a religious claim it is either because it is internally inconsistent and incoherent, or because it is contradicted by a more validated and secure empirical theory or set of observations.
>> I wouldn’t demand a personal visit from Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu to accept the akasha, for instance. So, I’m definitely applying a different standard.
What is your standard?
>> This is a matter of opinion entirely, and I don’t see any math that would justify your probability claim, so I think what you mean is that you, personally perceive things this way, not that things actually are this way. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder.
Say you met a man who claimed to be an incredibly loving and devoted father to his children, and that his major priority was to shower them with love and affection. You then find out that he systematically abused them and deliberately set them up to fail, but then justified this behavior by saying that that their limited successes would be all the more impressive. Wouldn’t you conclude that this father was unlikely to be genuinely loving, and is more likely abusive and malevolent, but is either lying to you or to himself (or both)?
Just to make things more interesting, say you have the duty to call Children’s Aid Services. Would you call them about this man, or would you not?
>> Which account are you referring to? Can you shoot me a link or a reference?
Soren Kierkegaard’s book “Fear and Trembling”. Best defense of faith that I have ever read. Utterly compelling, and completely terrifying. Kierkegaard is someone who took faith completely seriously and on its own terms, refusing to dilute its power by subsuming it under the dictates of reason. I highly recommend that book, and if you want an excellent introduction to his thinking, you should read John D. Caputo’s “Kierkegaard” first.
Lina
says...Amazing blog, do you know other modern philosophers that do research in this area too? Thanks,
Lina