believe they are, so I do believe based on the testimony that we can live out other lives by simply re-entering another body. — Sam26

But what does it mean for me to leave my body and enter another body? What is doing the exiting and entering?

hat's going on is the quantum mechanics pretty much put the last nail in the coffin of materialism, physicalism, and determinism. — Rich

Nah, only old-outdated versions of those things. Physicalists are not troubled by QM.

t doesn't take quantum mechanics to kill materialism and determinism. Both are metaphysics, not statements about how the world is, whether or not that is understood by those who accept or reject them.. — T Clark

The physical sciences are materialistic. They describe phenomenon in terms of material interactions.

You're kidding, right? — Galuchat

Sometimes I wonder.

The OP is concerned with the relationship between Science and Philosophy. We attach different meanings to the term "Science", so it's only logical that I try to ascertain what you mean by the term "Philosophy" — Galuchat

Philosophy is much more open ended than science. It doesn't have a rigorous empirical testing requirement. I'm not really sure what the full definition of philosophy would be. It's a kind of meta thinking where we ask questions about anything that's normally taken for granted. And then there's the whole ethical and how-to-live-your life part of philosophy.

But clearly there is overlap between philosophy, science, technology, math, logic and I'll throw history into there, because I had a recent online argument over whether history was science (it's not).

All of those are separate domains, but they can all be related, or used in the different domains.

I didn't say that you are furthering science. I said you are doing science by testing the theory the technology was based on. — Harry Hindu

But I'm not testing any theory when I use technology. I'm using the technology for every day purposes, not to test some scientific theory.

It's also quite possible to have technology that works in absence of any good scientific explanation. Humans tinker a lot and can discover working solutions where we don't know how they work.

And that's largely what we did before modern science.

Do you see your contradiction? — Harry Hindu

There is no contradiction.

Is science about explaining the world? If "Yes", then Aristotle was doing science by explaining the world. — Harry Hindu

That's the goal of science.

Is science about testing theories? — Harry Hindu

Theories are tested to further our understanding of the world.

If "Yes", then don't we do that every time we use technology based on some scientific theory? — Harry Hindu

No, not at all. I'm not furthering science when I use my iPhone to text someone about an upcoming sporting event. Nor when I use my bike made of the latest lightweight alloy to get some exercise.

In those cases and many others, I'm just using tools to accomplish some non-scientific goal of mine.

What is your modern definition of "Philosophy"? — Galuchat

Wasting time arguing semantics on an internet forum.

Technology is a tool that science uses for testing scientific theories. — Harry Hindu

Yeah. But technology is not science. Technology is tool making and refining. It can be used for science, warfare, gaining food, etc.

Then please define "Philosophy" in a way which includes activities such as Aristotle's zoological observations? — Galuchat

That was considered natural philosophy at the time, and Aristotle came up with explanations. But he didn't have a method for testing his explanations. He just made observations and came up with hypothesis. That's not enough.

It's not an observation, but a prediction based on previous observations. Any good scientific theory makes predictions about what you will find, or what will happen, when you test it. — Harry Hindu

Any good scientific theory will also include an explanation, such as what makes the termites stick to the stick.

Would you say that chimpanzees are practicing science when putting sticks in a termite hole for the purpose of getting food? I would say they are merely using a tool to get food, and that's all.

Using technology is testing the theory it is based on, and therefore a scientific act. — Harry Hindu

That doesn't make technology science. Technology is a tool that science uses, and the results of science inform the making of better tools.

Science isn't math either, but it makes heavy use of math like it does technology.

So, Aristotle's zoological observations were philosophy, not science? — Galuchat

No, they were not science.

The theory being tested is that when a stick is inserted into a termite mound and removed, termites will be on the stick. Now let's test the theory by inserting sticks in to termite mounds and removing them. Every time you do that you are testing that theory. — Harry Hindu

That's not a theory, it's an observation. Observation alone isn't science.

Any time we use technology based on a certain scientific theory, we are testing the theory, which is itself a scientific act. If everyone in your social group is using sticks to draw out termites from a mound, then isn't that testing the scientific observation and the subsequent conclusion that termites attach themselves to sticks when stuck into their mound? — Harry Hindu

What is the scientific theory that chimpanzees are testing when using sticks to draw termites out of termite mounds?

Or what would our ancestors have been testing? That the ancestral spirit has gifted them with termites to eat? That the goddess causes termites to stick because of the sacrifice last full moon?

Of course it does. How can you make such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? And how can you test such a claim without using technology (like telescopes)? — Harry Hindu

The claim is a statement of fact about the world, not technology. That's the point. Science isn't about making the next great smartphone. It's about explaining the world. Obviously, science makes heavy use of technology, and vice versa.

But the two aren't the same and it's a mistake to conflate them.

For the OP, notice how, ""Science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000.", has nothing whatsoever to do with technology (as a statement).

Contrast with: "The Iphone X will usher in a new age of augmented and virtual reality, thanks to Apple's redesign of the processors, screen and sensors."

Does the origin of the scientific method go back "thousands of years" (Jeremiah), or "several centuries" (Marchesk)? — Galuchat

The origin, or the accepted practice? I have modern science in mind which is a community built around the scientific method and naturalistic explanations based on the results of various experiments and research performed over time.

When we say "Science tells us the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not 6,000", we mean the what the scientific community says based on centuries long results of scientific research and building up of explanations. That's fundamentally different than what was done in the past. Our society is scientific in a way no previous civilizations were.

Please, it is completely subjective. — Jeremiah

It's only completely subjective taken out of context. I assume most people realize the scientific revolution happened several centuries ago. So let's go with 1543 AD.

. Science as a discipline is relatively recent. — Marchesk

I threw you in that mix for this subjective comment.
. Science as a discipline is relatively recent.
— Marchesk — Jeremiah

It's not subjective, it's historically accurate for a reasonable definition of "relatively recent", like as in several centuries.

provided a definition for "Science" in my first post to this thread.
Feel free to provide a different one for consideration. — Galuchat

1) Science: empirical investigation which provides a reliable explanation.

That doesn't go far enough. Empirical investigation is only part of it. You need the method for rigorous testing that seeks to get past our biases and frailties. And you need the theoretical part that investigations are fit into.

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.