No subject changes. — AJJ

The subject is how empirical evidence supports claims.

That could still be interpreted as experiences being based on brain phenomena.

So says you. You have qualia, rationality and intentionality to deal with there. Perhaps you’re right, but the claim simply on the back of that evidence that brain phenomena are identical to experiences is too much.

That could still be interpreted as experiences being based on brain phenomena. — AJJ

Because that's a possibility and empirical claims are not provable.

Right?

Didn't we go over that already?

Hence the whole point of this being a problem because what you're doing--appealing to proof (apparently without being able to realize this), could be done with any empirical claim whatsoever. So per this tactic, we can have no empirical evidence of any particular claim, period.

Re "so says me" sure, and no one says anything different, because absolutely no one even makes the slightest attempt to make the notion of nonphysical existents coherent.

I wasn’t appealing to proof. I was asking for a legitimate justification for your chosen conclusion. The best you’ve given is that the notion of immaterial things is incoherent. Yet the first argument I gave in this thread was about qualia, about the quality of redness existing in the mind but not in the material world. But that’s there already and I don’t want to go back to it.

I wasn’t appealing to proof. — AJJ

Yes, you are. You're talking about possibilities not being excluded. That's another way of describing the notion of proof.

No. I’m not talking about excluding possibilities. I believe the mind is immaterial. I do not therefore think the materialist possibility has been excluded. You can justify a belief without definitively proving it; this is what I was asking from you. Not proof. Justification.

No. I’m not talking about excluding possibilities. — AJJ

But you were saying that the evidence wasn't evidence for something because there's another possibility, right?

No. It could be evidence for what you say. But it seems to me - in the case of this particular evidence, not for evidence in general, and without knowing anything else - that there is an equally valid alternative explanation, which is that our experiences are simply based on our brain phenomena, rather than being identical to them.

Would there be possibilities that aren't equally valid explanations in your view?

Looking back over my posts I have said in some that it isn’t evidence for your claim. I should have been saying that it’s not necessarily evidence for your claim.

Yes. Coincidence seems ludicrous given the probabilities involved.

Yes. Coincidence seems ludicrous given the probabilities involved. — AJJ

What would you be basing probabilities on?

For the same brain phenomena to occur alongside the same experiences all the time by chance would, I’m only guessing, be unlikely.

I’m only guessing, be unlikely. — AJJ

How is a probability "guess" not just arbitrary?

Mate, coincidences are by their nature unlikely. If you’re going to depart from common-sense like this (and if you’re going to now scoff at the notion of common-sense) then let’s just call it a day.

Yes, especially given that all evidence points to it. — Terrapin Station

Am I alone here in thinking that evidence can be strong or weak, and that weak evidence is not enough to justify a conclusion?

I’m only guessing, be unlikely. — AJJ

How is a probability "guess" not just arbitrary? — Terrapin Station

Because there's such a thing as educated guesswork. Our guesses aren't random, but they are also (very) far from Objective. But a guess remains a guess, no matter how educated.

Am I alone here in thinking that evidence can be strong or weak, — Pattern-chaser

How would you define the distinction between strong and weak evidence (preferably in a way that doesn't make it purely a subjective judgment)?

Because there's such a thing as educated guesswork. — Pattern-chaser

And our education fueling probability guesses for which there is no frequency data would be?

How would you define the distinction between strong and weak evidence (preferably in a way that doesn't make it purely a subjective judgment)? — Terrapin Station

Strong evidence leads to a robust conclusion. A justified conclusion. Weaker evidence may point in the direction of the conclusion we seek, but does not justify it.

And our education fueling probability guesses for which there is no frequency data would be? — Terrapin Station

If I understand you correctly: guesswork.

Strong evidence leads to a robust conclusion. A justified conclusion. — Pattern-chaser

How are "robust" and "justified" any clearer re objective properties?

If I understand you correctly: guesswork. — Pattern-chaser

Guesswork is educated if it's based on guesswork, but not if it's just guesswork???

Guesswork is educated if it's based on guesswork, but not if it's just guesswork??? — Terrapin Station

Yes, well, I had a lot of trouble parsing this:

And our education fueling probability guesses for which there is no frequency data would be? — Terrapin Station

Maybe I misunderstood, as I implied in my answer. What does the above sentence mean? :chin:

So we were talking about making guesses in the way of probability statements.

You said that we could have educated versus non-educated guesses.

So I was asking what we could be educated about that would enable the sort of probability statement being made. Because one of the big problems is that there is no frequency data.

So just what sort of education is behind the probability guesses being made, so that there's any distinction between an educated probability guess versus a non-educated probability guess.

https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078

Behave. By Robert Sapolsky. I believe every philosophy major should take at least one serious neuroscience class. This book is a good (and very readable) substitute.

You said that we could have educated versus non-educated guesses.

So I was asking what we could be educated about that would enable the sort of probability statement being made. Because one of the big problems is that there is no frequency data. — Terrapin Station

Ah, I see. You asked me before what strong and weak evidence were, and now you're asking what educated guesswork is. Hmm. I'm autistic, and my ability to tell whether you are sincere or not is ... guesswork. I don't have that skill. So I'm going to assume you're sincere. :chin:

Describing evidence as strong or weak is common, and (I think) well understood. And so is the concept of educated guesswork. No, it doesn't refer to a particular form of education. It just describes guessing based on what information we have, perhaps especially where the amount of information we have is much less than we might prefer. I think its purpose is to distinguish itself from random guesswork, which is based on no information at all, just a metaphorical (or even literal) dice roll.

If you want to use formal logic (that, for what I know, is the only form of logic that we can trust for sure), you have to define the term "objective reality".

If "objective reality" means mathematical model, as you said, this sentence is trivially false: it is false that there is no way to show that a proposition is true in all models. In fact, all mathematical theorems that have a demonstration are true in all models.

But probably by "objective reality" here you mean "physical reality" or "physical universe". So, the sentence becomes "there is no way to show that a proposition is true in the physical universe". In this case it depends of what you mean by "proposition" and "to show".

If you interpret "to show" as to perform an experiment and "proposition" as a description of a physical experiment, than the sentence is again false, because it is possible to perform experiments in the physical world with a result of "true" or "false" (only that it is not guaranteed a priori that the same experiment gives always the same result).

But if you want to interpret "to show" and "proposition" in the mathematical meaning (as a purely formal system of rules based on axioms) and you want to take as model for the variables that appear in the proposition objects of the physical world, then in my opinion the proposition is ture: you cannot make demonstrations using formal logic referring the variables to objects of the physical world: the porposition can be true or false depending on which particular object of the physical world you are referring to, but there is no way to specify to which physical object you refer using a formal language. So, every proposition interpreted in this sense is not demonstrable, meaning "not true in all models".

This is my opinion, but probably I missed something important because i didn't read all posts from the beginning.. :-) Please say me if I missed something important.