Sounds pretty good. I've always taken that numbers are the logical expression of a living beings ability to discretely experience. Experience is the totality of your senses, thoughts, feelings, etc. A discrete experience is your ability to focus on an aspect of it. A sense. A thought. A feeling.

So you can say, that is a (one) blade of grass. Two blades are the concept of 1 and 1 together. And of course you can say, "That is a field of grass." "That is one piece of grass". And so on.

Information is the compact storage of a discrete experience that may be a combination of many aspects, properties, feelings etc. "My dog" evokes a lot of combined information into a neat and reasonable package to think and communicate about. So yes, I like your thinking on this!

In logic, to choose A, is to choose not B.

This is not a logical truth whatsoever. Choosing A may entail simultaneously choosing B — Bob Ross

I'm talking about the context of steal or starve, or mutually exclusive choices.

The act of rational deliberation is the act of making a choice, and one can certainly rationally deliberate such that they decide not to do anything. E.g., I can choose to not get up from my chair, and not getting up from my chair is NOT an action. — Bob Ross

It is though. Your action is to stay in the chair. An action is simply a decision of what to do as a living being from moment to moment. You cannot choose not to take an action as long as you live. The moment you cannot take any action, is death.

This is important in order to understand my theory, because omissions and commissions evaluated differently. — Bob Ross

Ok, I see where you're going with this then. An omission is generally understood as "Not doing the right thing". And generally, this is a descriptor of ignorance. At a very basic level, I had a choice to go right or left, I chose left on a whim, but the correct choice was to go right. Omissions generally means a choice that didn't turn out to be the right one, but the person involved didn't know that when they made the choice.

A commission on the other hand is when you know you should go right, but you go left instead. You have knowledge of the correct outcome, but do not choose it. This mirrors my explanation of agency earlier. No one is faulted for starving if there is no option that can alleviate starving. Or if someone offered you a poison apple, but you didn't know it was poison. You chose not to starve, but you didn't know the apple would kill you instead.

In the case of starve vs steal, we have full information. You can either choose to steal and not starve, or not steal and starve. The question is whether it is worse to starve or steal. And if you willingly choose the worse choice, its a commission. If you don't know what the worse choice is, and accidently choose it, its an omission. Actively deciding to starve is neither an omission or commission in this scenario as we don't know what is worse.

So if I choose not to steal, but then take the action of stealing, what does that mean?

It would mean you are acting irrationally; and that you chose to not act, but acted anyways. — Bob Ross

If I didn't choose to act, how did I act? Was it unconscious or did some other force move my hand? We can have all sorts of wishes or opinions on how we act, but at the end of the day, our actions are our choices if it was in our power to have acted in a different way.

If you make the decision that you are want to change the fact that you are starving such that you aren’t anymore but don’t actually do anything to change it, then you haven’t acted to change the fact that you are starving. — Bob Ross

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you here, and I think you'll find most will as well. If I choose to go on a hunger strike, I am acting purposefully not to eat. What you seem to be implying is that if I purposefully lie on my back for three days, I took no actions for three days. An action is 'a lived choice'. This is not the same thing as the colloquial term, "I did nothing today." No, you did something today, just not anything that's worthy of sharing in a conversation with another person. The action was, "I didn't get out of bed today."

What I was noting is that not doing something and doing something are nor morally calculated equally; and your response here is full of equivocating the two. — Bob Ross

Its not an equivocation. I'm not noting the morality of doing something vs not doing something. I'm just pointing out that if you make a choice, and go through with it in your lived experience, that's an action. It can be boring like sitting on the ground, but its still an action.

If you are currently in the state of starvation, then choosing to remain in that state produces no action pertaining to it—no different than me choosing to not move doesn’t cause movement. — Bob Ross

No, your action is to not move. But not moving doesn't mean you haven't taken an action.

By choosing one, you will commit an evil act.

Again, you don’t commit an evil act by allowing something bad to continue to happen; exactly no different than how I don’t do anything to not get up from the chair that I am in—there’s a choice being made, but some choices require inaction. — Bob Ross

This is again, an inaccurate use of the term for what we're discussing. If I am told to pick a card out of deck, I have 52 possibilities to pick a card. If I decided to take the action of simply leaving the table, I would be inactive in making a choice to pick a card, but I would actively be walking away from the table to do something else. Just like, "Currently I'm an inactive soldier". Its not that "I'm not taking actions", its simply a term that states, "I'm not taking any actions as a soldier anymore." In the case of steal vs starve, there are only two choices to act on. Steal or starve. Starving is not an inaction, it is a conscious choice made by not stealing.

"I would rather starve then steal".

By allowing yourself to continue to starve, you have committed an omission (an inaction); whereas if you steal you have committed a commission (an action). — Bob Ross

Again, this is not the correct use of the term 'omission'. An omission is when an action you have taken results in something bad happening, and you didn't know that was going to be the outcome. This term is used outside of morality as well. "I omitted my signature from the form because I didn't see the line. My form was rejected". Vs "I saw the line for the signature on the form, but decided not to sign it. My form was rejected". Here I have committed an improper act vs having an improper act happen because I omitted something. You cannot avoid making an action as long as you have agency.

It is a choice, but not an action. There’s no 50/50 decision being made, because it is morally impermissible to do something bad for the sake of something good; and so it is better to choose to not do anything than do something bad. — Bob Ross

This is a hard sell. In logic, to choose A, is to choose not B. If I were to grab A, it means I'm grabbing not B. To say that choice isn't an action seems odd to me. If you choose something but don't act on it, did you really choose? So if I choose not to steal, but then take the action of stealing, what does that mean? If I choose not to starve, but don't take an action to prevent starvation when that option is presented, didn't I act by not stealing, thus actionably starving?

The times that I see where we have no choice or ability to act, is when there is no agency. Agency can be defined as knowledge plus the ability to act. So if I have knowledge of a way to avoid starving, and the choice to act on it, then I have agency. If you choose not to steal to prevent starvation, you are actionably starving by agency. Just as if you chose to steal to avoid starving, you would act by agency.

If of course you were simply starving, and there was no way to stop it, you had no choice, and did not actionably starve. But if a person has knowledge, and the ability to act, acting on A means not acting on B, your other choice.

If you disagree that this specific scenario does not seem to fit the 50/50 scenario, its fine, but a 50/50 is going to happen. By choosing one, you will commit an evil act. By choosing the other, you will also commit an evil act. However, you do have relative evil, which I think resolves this major problem. In the face of a 50/50, you would choose the less evil act, and I think that's a good enough solution for the framework. Still, this does lead into two other considerations.

1. If there is relative evil, how do we determine the level of evil.
2. Logically, if there is relative evil, there is relative good.

In the second case, you may have your solution to the OP. Lets say intrinsically it is good to not be harmed. Then in the case of self-defence, it is less good to hurt another person, but not if they are being even less good by trying to harm you. The question of how you evaluate the relative good is the next question you have to tackle, but if there is relative evil, then logically there must be relative good. The same language can be used if you just change everything to being relative degrees of evil. Harming others is evil, but it is less evil if you are defending yourself from them trying to hurt you.

This does not counter your idea of intrinsic good/evil. We can still say that harming a person is a rating of 6 evil, or -6 good, while defending yourself is a 3 evil, or -3 good. You can still say that rape is intrinsically evil at a level of 10, while torture is intrinsically evil at a level of 9. How you determine the intrinsic level is the next step, but I don't think you run into an contradictions in your current framework as long as you allow relative comparisons and note that intrinsic good/bad has levels to compare.

As you see, relative ratings of good and evil are necessary to tackle complex moral issues, and this does not counter intrinsic values. Whether your values or intrinsic or not, relative measurements are going to be need to accurately make the most moral decision. What really comes next is how do we determine if something is intrinsically good/evil, and to what degree? I think in general the idea of, "Do the least harm/greatest good" is uncontroversial enough. How we determine what that is, is the next challenge.

The question in the OP is operating under the assumption that one accepts that a thing can be bad or good in-itself and simply that the action of harming someone is in-itself bad. — Bob Ross

Moreover, if they starve to death because their only option to avoid it was steal, then they did not do anything bad—just because it is bad to starve it does not follow that one is acting by allowing something to happen. — Bob Ross

I see. Isn't refusing to make an action that would prevent starvation a choice however? If I was starving and a pie was in front of me, the act of not eating the pie does seem to be choosing starvation. People go on hunger strikes all the time because they believe its essential to draw attention to the prisoner's inhumane treatment. Choosing not to eat, is a choice when you have the means in front of you to eat. So if this is the case, we still have the 50/50 scenario. The person can choose to steal the food in front of them the avoid starvation, or choose not to steal the food, and thus also choose to starve.

In its most generic sense, I mean “bad” and “good” in the common man’s usage of the terms as it relates to morality. In a more technical sense, I would say “badness” is “negative intrinsic valuableness” and “goodness” is “positive intrinsic valuableness”; however, these technical definitions are not required to understand, more generally, what is meant by “bad” and “good” in the OP. — Bob Ross

That is fine by me. For now we can assume that there is no reason behind what is good or bad intrinsically, only that they are. I am also assuming, and correct me if I'm wrong, that inherent goodness and badness don't have a 'rating'. For example, stealing isn't 2 badness, while murdering isn't 4 badness, they're just both intrinsically bad. Same for goodness. Helping a little old lady across the street is just as good as saving 1 million lives. While I see problems with this, I can accept this for now and discuss what it would be like to have such a system.

This also leads to the point that the 50/50 scenario doesn't need to be explicit. Maybe you don't like the steal/starve scenario, but that doesn't mean that there won't be a good/bad conflict of some kind. We can assume through the varieties of life experience, its going to happen. You can use a starve/steal example to make it less abstract, but any scenario will do. How does your moral framework handle such a scenario? A 60/40? Does a scenario have to be 100% good for a person to act, that even a 99% good choice should not be done if there is 1% evil involved?

We could say, equally, that it might be good per accidens to rape someone if they have to choose between raping them for 10 seconds or torturing them in a basement for 10 years (and assuming those are the only two options); but this would have no effect on the fact that rape itself is bad, when taken in isolation. — Bob Ross

There seems to be a bit of an answer to my above question in here. Again though, what about degrees of badness? If its rape, but the rape is your husband. Lets not make torture 10 years, but ten seconds to be more comparative. What if that torture is water boarding vs toe nail removal? The problem I'm getting at is that intrinsically good or bad without degrees of value overly simplifies morality. Morality is complex and can lead to some controversial and odd situations. A framework that cannot handle that is not strong.

And to not stray too far from your topic, this leads us back to:

1. It is morally impermissible to perform an action that is in-itself bad;
2. It is morally impermissible to directly intend something bad—even for the sake of something good;
3. Harming someone is, in-itself, bad.

It seems to me, under these stipulations, that one could never justify self-defense—e.g., harming someone that is about to kill you—because it will always be the case in such examples that one directly intends to harm that person for the sake of saving themselves. — Bob Ross

Which if a moral framework claims you can never defend yourself, this seems like the moral framework is unable to handle a fairly common moral scenario that is generally agreed upon by people across the world. Most of the world has determined that defending yourself is a moral right. Not that this means they're correct, but there's a high burden of reason for any framework to state that it is immoral to do so.

So in sum:

1. Does this framework have degrees of moral good and evil? If not, you run into a problem of oversimplicity, and an inability to handle moral complexities.
2. I don't think one can easily discount that 'not doing something' is 'not a choice', and a 50/50 scenario of some kind is unavoidable. How does this framework handle these scenarios?

As always, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood anything. :)

1. It is morally impermissible to perform an action that is in-itself bad;
2. It is morally impermissible to directly intend something bad—even for the sake of something good;
3. Harming someone is, in-itself, bad. — Bob Ross

Hey Bob! Its been a while, glad to see you again. There are a few clarifications I feel you need to give to address this.

1. What is bad? What is bad 'in-itself? Can you give an example of something that is is bad in itself, and why it is bad?

2. This is going to be important, because a person who doesn't have your set definitions can set up this scenario.

a. It is good to not starve.
b. It is bad to starve.
c. It is bad to steal.
d. It is good to not steal.
e. If you do not steal, you are going to starve.

Therefore if you do not steal and starve, you are doing both a bad and a good thing. But if you steal and don't starve, then you are doing both a good and a bad thing. If things are good or bad 'in themselves' then we reach a situation in which either choice is equally as good and bad as the other. But our intuitions, (and I'm sure deeper argumentation) justify stealing to not starve. So we have a situation by which things in themselves result in a coin flip outcome that I think many of us would not call a coin flip.

Yes, shameless plug, but a relevant one! https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

If you haven't read my work on knowledge within self-context, you may get your answer. There's a summary in the next post down that breaks it down very well.

I'm not quite saying that the "world is simply too complex to simply have formed," i.e., it's logically possible for the world to have simply come about by chance or some first cause (naturalistic first cause). — Sam26

Then I misunderstood your argument, my apologies.

I don't have to apply your criticism to an intelligence behind the universe (not necessarily God, any intelligence). It's perfectly reasonable to pick what you think the first cause might be based on the evidence and use that as your starting point. — Sam26

True. My point is that there doesn't seem to be anything that necessarily points to a creator as a starting point. The same arguments that would point to a creator, would point to the creator of a creator, and so on. What I'm not saying, to be clear, is that its impossible that there is a creator. Only that the argument does not give a compelling logical reason to believe that a creator is an origin vs not.

Also, why would you think that consciousness (I prefer to use consciousness or mind) is complex, it might be simple, we don't have enough information to say one way or another, — Sam26

To be clearer, I'm not talking about consciousness, I'm talking about an 'intelligent designer'. I actually believe there is varying level of consciousness, and that consciousness is really just another part of the brain that has been granted the ability to monitor and adjust certain portions of the body beyond autonomous reaction. I think dogs are conscious for example, just not intelligent enough to have a consciousness that can build a cities and shuttles to the stars.

And that's my point about an intelligent designer. Humans are the only one's that have been able to build something more complex and complicated then simple tools with sticks. So while there can be simple consciousness and simple intelligence, there is a level of conscious intelligence both needed to create a certain level of complexity, and to be aware of it. So if a God is an intelligent designer, and assuming it must be as intelligent of a designer as our greatest engineer, if our complexity is evidence we were designed, then logically so too must God have been designed. So we don't get anywhere, and we're back with a question.

That question of course is what I answer in the paper I linked. The answer is that inevitably, the 'first cause' or 'where there is no prior explanation for a things existence,' must inevitably be uncaused, or not caused by something else. Which means the reason for its existence is, "It simply is." While this leaves God as a plausible explanation for what caused the universe, it does not mean that God is necessary. That also pulls the idea of a God out of faith, and into one that now requires evidence. That evidence must be enough to show that a God necessarily occurred, while the universe simply being did not. And in regards to any particular claim of what God is like, that also would require evidence.

And so far, there is no such evidence for the necessity of our universe being created by God, nor any evidence of the existence that such a being is still around, would be good, all powerful, evil, etc. The most likely scenario is that such a creator is not all powerful, all knowing, and not around anymore. Further, that creator may have been made by another. There is certainly no viable evidence of eternal life, heaven, miracles, or any supernatural claims.

I'm trying to point out that a mind behind the universe is the best explanation based on all the data, especially specified information, which I haven't got to yet. — Sam26

I didn't quite see that. Would you like to elaborate more and present what else you have? I'm listening.

None of which has any bearing on what ‘divine intelligence’ means. I’m not sticking up for the idea, but at least it should be framed in the terms of classical theism. — Wayfarer

What? No, I frame it in MY argument. If my argument is illogical, point it out. But you don't get to insist I use words, phrases, or OTHER people's arguments in my argument.

You may think that the doctrine of divine simplicity is ‘nonsense’ but it is the orthodox view of the nature of God. So rather than dispute intelligent design on spurious philosophical grounds you’d be better off saying you just don’t believe in it. — Wayfarer

Wayfarer, what do you think philosophy is? Every idea that has ever been thought of or put down in a book was thought about by 'just a another person'. There is no weight to the argument because of its history, who wrote it, or what book its in. Those things are starters, places to begin in discussion with the hopes that such writings and arguments have some worth. But past that, the only thing which matters in the argument is the logic of the idea. As someone who harshly questions physicalism, I would think you would understand that well.

I laid out a clear idea of intelligence, and why the teleological argument fails. If you wish to introduce some catholic ancient idea of divine intelligence, and how its different, feel free. But if its nonsense, its nonsense. It deserves no more consideration or respect, and I surely am not going to use such outdated and nonsensical framing in my arguments.

Fast-forward to the 20-21'st century, and we seem more concerned with probabilities and statistical likelihoods, as per the field of quantum mechanics. — Shawn

Statistics are based on causality. Without causality, there is no reason and no limitations. What you might be confusing with anti-causality is 'limits on knowledge', specifically in regards to measurment. Statistics and probabilities are all based on limited knowledge. Take a classic coin flip for example. When the coin is flipped, the outcome is determined by the sum of the forces on it. However, we can't know all of those forces due to a lack of measurement. But what we've found is that a small variability in force can greatly affect the outcome. What we know is that few people have the capability to flip a coin with the exact precision and force to have it land on the same side every time. So we assume an average of variability from what we do know, and determine that its a 50% chance for the coin to land on either side.

To the broader question of modality or 'the nature of necessity', it is still held that forces always work in the same way. So if an electron is traveling with a particular set of forces that we could measure, the outcome would always be the same. People confuse quantum mechanics math with the idea that an electron is magically indeterminate. No, our lack of measurement and knowledge mean we have to use probability and indeterminate math to have any chance of approximating the electrons outcome. But underlying it all, the assumption that the forces of the world work deterministically is still held by modern science.

But is He? Richard Dawkins also says that, but it founders on the rock of divine simplicity. — Wayfarer

If you're going on the fact of an intelligent designer, we need a base line of what 'intelligent' means. Can a dog create anything more complex then a hole? No. A beaver can create dams. Monkeys can create primitive tools. So if we're going to state that there is an intelligent designer, at minimum, it would need to be at the level of a human. If it did not have intelligence, then it would be a mechanical process, but then it wouldn't really be a designer anymore either.

And if a human being, the height of known intelligence, is considered so complicated that it needs a designer, then God as an intelligent being which can design and create far more than a human can, would also need a designer. I think its a straight forward line of reasoning.

According to the doctrine of divine simplicity, God is simple, not complex, and not composed of parts.

God is necessary because he is simple and not because he exists in all metaphysically possible worlds. And while one may say that the simple God is or exists, God is not an existent among existents or a being among beings, but Being (esse) itself in its prime instance and in this respect is different from every other being (ens). — Wayfarer

This is nonsense. Being which is not being. Existence which is not existence. This is poetry masking as meaningfulness.

I looked at your thread on 'first cause', but I don't think you're at all familiar with the classical description of 'first cause'. A forum thread is not the place to try and fill that void, and anyway, I lack the expertise to do it. — Wayfarer

Feel free to post what you think it lacks on that thread so we don't detract here. You'll notice I give a definition of first cause, and build from there. If you disagree with the definition or find a problem with it, please give your opinion there, I'll address it.

↪Philosophim ↪Sam26 Also contra "intelligent design" (i.e. creationism), consider the dysteleological argument:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

In sum: both the universe in general and organic life in particular appear defective, or suboptimal, just as it's most reasonable to expect it be according evident and explicablee, nonintelligent processes of (e.g.) nucleogenesis and biological evolution (especially given that 99.99% of baryonic matter – the observable universe that has been expanding for at least 13.8 billion years from a planck radius of random (i.e. non-causal, ergo not "created / designed") fluctuations – is vacuum radiation inimical to organic/human life (in a universe evidently "fine-tuned" for lifelessness). — 180 Proof

This is another good point.

The teleological argument for God is by far the best of the core 3, but it suffers from a crippling counter point.

Essentially, you are saying people and the world are too complex to simply have formed. But have you applied that same criticism to a God? Once you do, the argument falls apart. God is at least as complex as a human being, so therefore the same argument would apply to a God. Something would have to create a God. But then, something would have to create that as well! The only logical conclusion is that the origin point of causality must have existed without prior cause. That origin could be a God, but it could also be a universe without a God. I have post on it here if you want to look into it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

I don’t believe I did that, nor did I wish to imply it. — Wayfarer

If I note you made a clear appeal to authority, ask you to give some actual examples because its an innocent enough mistake to make, then you double down and tell me you won't because you think I already know how I'll respond, then you're implying it. Even one example could have been enough to demonstrate you were taking the conversation seriously. Wayfarer, I keep telling you I'm a lot more open to your ideas then you'll allow in your own head. Give people a chance, especially if they're willing to engage with you.

Currently the hypothesis, "Our consciousness does not survive death," has been confirmed in applicable tests. You'll need to show me actual tests that passed peer review, and can be repeated that show our consciousness exists beyond death. To my mind, there are none, but I am open to read if you cite one.
— Philosophim

Where the obvious difficulty is that of obtaining an objective validation of a subjective state of being and which only occurs in extreme conditions. — Wayfarer

True, and I don't discount this. Again, I've gone over this in my conversation with Sam. I've mentioned how NDEs can be seemingly reproduced at a less intense level through drug stimulation and situations of oxygen deprivation. I do not have an issue with pointing out weaknesses in things I've addressed with Sam, but you aren't referencing those and just assuming things. Again, a simple enough mistake to make, but when I've tried to correct you to go read, you keep making false assumptions about where the conversation has gone, indicating you still haven't done that. If you don't want to, that's fine, but stop making accusations or criticisms from ignorance.

Myself, I don't really see how the claim that there can be a state beyond physical death is ever going to be scientifically validated, although I believe there are research programs underway to do that. — Wayfarer

There are. Here's a modern article which mentions a few groups that are attempting to study NDE's as the least.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lifting-the-veil-on-near-death-experiences/

One example of a test that has not borne fruit yet is putting distinct objects out of sight of the patient and if they have a OBE, seeing if they can say they saw it while floating above their body.

It's easy to dismiss Stevenson as a crank or charlatan but he did amass a considerable amount of data which I happen to think is a more empirically reliable source of data than NDE testimonies. — Wayfarer

Again, I would have taken this more seriously if you had given some examples and not a simple book reference.

I also laid out a sketch of an alternative metaphysic, within which the idea of continuity from life-to-life might be considered plausible, to which you didn't respond. — Wayfarer

This was not addressed to me, but AmadeusD. But if you think it relevant, I'll give my thoughts.

But I think the soul could be better conceived in terms of a field that acts as an organising principle - analogous to the physical and magnetic fields that were discovered during the 19th century, that were found to be fundamental in the behaviour of particles. — Wayfarer

This isn't a bad idea, but we have to be careful in understanding what a field is. The best analogy I can give is calculating the waves of the ocean vs measuring the particles of water involved. A wave is a mathematical way of looking at particle behavior in large groups. You've probably heard that light can be both a wave and a particle. Light doesn't change, its our mathematical calculations of viewing light as waves vs particles that hold sound in testing.

Meaning that if the soul were a wave, or some type of large conscious energy force, there would be something measurable. Considering that logically the soul would have to interact with the brain, this also means that the soul must be able to impact physical reality, and vice versa. Thus in repeated viewings of death, we should be able to detect something.

You'll note in the article I link this is a common thing they find.

"In 2023 Borjigin and her colleagues published what they suspect could be a signature of NDEs in the dying brain. The researchers analyzed EEG data from four comatose patients before and after their ventilators were removed. As their brains became deprived of oxygen, two of the dying patients exhibited a paradoxical surge of gamma activity, a type of high-frequency brain wave linked to the formation of memory and the integration of information.

Borjigin had seen the same upwelling of activity in previous studies of the brains of healthy rats during induced cardiac arrest. In the rodents, the surge occurred across the entire brain. In humans, though, it was confined primarily to the junction of the brain’s temporal, parietal and occipital lobes, a region involved in multiple features of consciousness, including visual, auditory and motion processing. Past research has also associated the region with out-of-body sensations, as well as with altruism and empathy. Although these are all regular components of NDEs, Borjigin says, it’s impossible to know whether the two patients actually experienced an NDE because they did not live to tell about it. But “I could almost guess what they might have experienced,” she says."

Things like these are exciting because they're repeatable finds. It still doesn't explain why some have it and others don't, but at least there's something measurable. Whether it will be something that the brain simply does on its own, or whether there is some energy or force we can trace leaving the brain remains to be seen.

As the morphic field is capable of storing and transmitting remembered information, then 'the soul' could be conceived in such terms. The morphic field does, at the very least, provide an explanatory metaphor for such persistence. — Wayfarer

I have often thought the memories and their preservation could be captured somehow. Generally though memory is stored as a medium, and it needs a translator to process it into an experience. Even a simple computer is a good example of the broad concept. To make this idea actionable, we would need to find this medium, find evidence of it interacting with the brain, and then attempt to repeat it and see what happens. So this is still in the speculative fiction category, but possibly the Jules Verne kind.

Then he identified from journals, birth-and-death records, and witness accounts, the deceased person the child supposedly remembered, and attempted to validate the facts from those sources that matched the child’s memory. — Wayfarer

Ah, I see, this is what you were talking about. I took some time to review a bit of Stevens. Its interesting material. Stevens himself never attempted to use his claims to prove that reincarnation was real, but that was what he leaned on the most. Honestly, a guy like him is a pioneer who I have a lot of respect for. The question is whether his methodology was sound, and whether a repeat in the study would result in similar conclusions. Science is not one study, but repeated attempts to poke, prod, and explore. Its a bit telling there doesn't seem to be much follow up research or attempts to build upon his work from the 1970s. There are several interested parties in wanting reincarnation to be real, and I'm sure enough money could be found to explore that interest. So a neat start, but can't be considered more seriously without further research.

Carroll goes on in his essay to say that 'Everything we know about quantum field theory (QFT) says that there aren’t any sensible answers to these questions (about the persistence of consciousness)'. However, that springs from his starting assumption that 'the soul' must be something physical, which, again, arises from the presumption that everything is physical, or reducible to physics. — Wayfarer

From my point we can replace the word physics with, "Measureable". And as I noted earlier, logically, if there is some other type of substance that interacts with the human body, it must be detectable in some way. It would be part of reality, and measurable. So its a neat idea to keep exploring, but until such a measurable thing is discovered, we can't conclude its more than a hypothesis.

My argument against Sam26 is that he believes the strongest inductive idea we can present is that consciousness survives death. That's plainly false. Its fun to think about, explore, and experiment with. But as of today, it is an incredibly weak argument in the face of the conclusions which have lead to us understanding that consciousness does not survive death. Its a difference between theory and fact. Theory is a lot of fun. Exploring possibilities is necessary for the human race to further itself. But expressing theories as facts, or more viability then they currently do, is wrong. Just as outright dismissing theories that contradict the norm as possible things we should explore. Both are instances of a misapplication of the human spirit and mind for discovery about the world.

Must they be hallucinatory? I don't know. I never claimed that. Did you read our discussion and my points, or are you only taking a later post?
— Philosophim

Never? — Wayfarer

No, we're talking about hallucinatory as the more likely inductive possibility. You obviously did not read our full conversation over the life of this thread.

The point about Van Lommel and Ian Stephenson is simply to indicate that large data sets exist, that researches have wrestled with the question as to whether nde’s and past-life memories have any basis in reality. — Wayfarer

And my point, again, is that it is irrelevant, and a logical fallacy to site that these have any value without you having read them. Kind of like your criticisms of my conversation when you haven't read it in full either.

I could take the time to reproduce some of their examples for discussion, but I have a fair idea of what the response would be, so I’m not going to bother. — Wayfarer

We have this weird dichotomy Wayfarer. I keep taking the time to treat you like you're not an idiot, and you keep proving me wrong. You keep taking the time to treat me like I'm an idiot, and I keep proving you wrong. Is this ever going to change? Maybe realize some of your arguments aren't very good, and have a humble conversation?

I believe somewhere in that insecure mess of a brain of yours, is an actual intellectual who has curiosity, wonder at thinking about things, and the potential to both learn and contribute. But once again, when your points have been countered or shown to be faulty in an argument, you break down into this passive aggressive conversation style where I can practically see you sulking as you type the words out. If you got over yourself, you might be surprised at what you could do. Or at the very least, learn to quit before I have to call you out on your behavior.

Appealing to data in response to a claim is not a fallacy. — Wayfarer

You didn't post any data, only that some scientist had written a book. You appealing to that without indicating what the argument or evidence is, is the definition of the fallacy.

If you claim that near death experiences must be hallucinatory, then evidence to the contrary ought to be considered also, and Pim Van Lommel's books are a source of that evidence. — Wayfarer

Must they be hallucinatory? I don't know. I never claimed that. Did you read our discussion and my points, or are you only taking a later post? As for Lommel, again, you never posted any of his evidence or argumentation. For all I know, he's a quack. I'm not going to take time out of my day to read an entire book, as I'm not arguing for consciousness existing outside of the body. If he has good arguments, post them. If not, the reference is as good as me referencing Billy Bob Johnson's book on gator wraslin'. He might have some great points, or he could be missing some fingers and toes and his book is widely suggested to be avoided. Just because someone is a 'scientist' and has a 'book' does not mean anything they've written is worthwhile to consider.

but there is testimonial evidence - and what other kind could there be for this subject? — Wayfarer

The tests I've noted?

What I'm getting at, is not the belief that these experiences have no basis in reality, but why they can't have any basis in reality. — Wayfarer

I never said they couldn't. If you've been reading my discussion, you'll note that this has been a discussion of his lack of evidence and cogent arguments for NDEs being more than mere subjective experiences, and me providing counter arguments and evidence that more strongly indicate that NDEs are only subjective experiences, and fail objective tests in lab settings.

Let's discuss why they couldn't be, what would have to be the case for such experiences to be real. — Wayfarer

Feel free to read through our discussion and you should have everything I've provided. Quote and make some counter-arguments if you think you see any issues with what I've noted.

So, I disagree with your carte blanche dismissal of what Sam has been presenting. — Wayfarer

If you read our discussion in its entirety, I think you'll see why I disagree with him, the problems his arguments has, and why they are good arguments for his conclusion. If you have issues with any of those specifics, again, feel free to post them and we can discuss. Otherwise it seems you're making a judgement without fully understanding my arguments to Sam.

if you claim that all NDE's are 'merely hallucination' then the evidence of a cardiovascular doctor who has amassed considerable data to the contrary is salient, because you're writing as if there is no such evidence. — Wayfarer

No, that's an appeal to authority fallacy. Lets see what actual argument he gives and the evidence he provides for it.

The philosophical point is, what is the significance of such claims? If you believe they're hallucinatory, then they're not significant. But, your objections illustrate my point, as they're based on the conviction that it's all superstition and pseudo-science. — Wayfarer

Its not a conviction, its a conclusion based on the arguments and evidence presented. If you have specific arguments and evidence that would show that it is not superstition and/or pseudo-science, we can explore those. That is what separates superstition from meaningful ideas. Meaningful ideas can provide sound arguments and evidence for their existence, while superstition fail to provide anything more than a desire for wish fulfillment or, "But maybe" argument.

So, it’s not all just ‘wake up and smell the roses’. Worse things can happen. — Wayfarer

Agreed. My Aunt had a terrible NDE before she died. I've mentioned it to Sam in an earlier post. This happened during an operation they had to make on her to save her life prior to cancer eventually taking her.

what reason do I have to believe in the maintenance of the self as opposed to its constant creation and subsequent destruction and replacement by another self? — Lionino

You don't. But they aren't exclusive either. Prior to destruction, it is set in place that your replacement is similar to what comes before. Because every copy isn't exactly identical, over time there is more and more noticeable change. The idea is to preserve the parts of you that are good over time, and purge the parts of you that are bad over time.

PS: Even though it may be that I feel as though I am the same person as I were yesterday, that might simply be an illusion created by the neurological conditions of the body, which are the memories I/we hold. — Lionino

Correct. Its even worse then that. You're really just a ton of brain cells teaming up together to survive. Which is why we need an emphasis on things greater than ourselves. 'We' are extremely temporary. It is the preservation of continued existence of not only our selves, but others where possible which is paramount.

So, the sense in which I'm saying NDEs are real is that they are the same as the experience I'm having sitting here typing this response, viz., it's veridical. This is the disagreement. — Sam26

Right, we all get that. Where is your evidence that people's perceptions that they are real, means they are real? We've already given plenty of points to note that people have experiences in reality, and interpret them in a way that isn't veridical. They believe it to be a correct interpretation of reality, but its found it isn't. Remember the sun circling around the Earth? Feeling like things are real is not the same as it actually being real. Even if a lot of people feel that it is. That is an incredibly important point that you have not addressed, and must be addressed if you are to have an argument.

I don't know where you studied logic, but you are incorrect, i.e., the more variety you have in the cases studied, generally the stronger the conclusion. Maybe there are exceptions to this, but I think it's generally true for the type of argument I'm using. For example, let's say we have 10 witnesses of a car accident standing 30 feet away, and all the witnesses are standing roughly in the same spot. So, their observations are coming from the same general area. — Sam26

No, this is a consistency in experiences, not a variety. Perhaps you are using the wrong word or phrase here. What you seem to be implying is, "Consistency of results when repeated." So if we have 30 people witness the same thing, that would be a consistent outcome. If all 30 people had different results, variety, that would indicate more sound evidence that what was observed happened.

And again, we have a variety of NDEs. Some are positive, neutral, and horrifying. Only 5% of people have them, while most don't. When we look for a consistency of outcomes when testing its veridicalness, or if people subjective experience translates to objective reality, they fail. OBEs cannot observe things that they should be able to. Religious figures are based on what one beliefs in life instead of some objective religious figure or God they all experience.

The problem again, is you keep presenting information that definitely shows that NDEs are real subjective experiences, but does not have enough weight to argue that the interpretation of these subjective experiences match reality. What's worse, is you keep ignoring these points and reverting back to, "But NDEs are experienced," as your only go to here. This is immature thinking Sam. You can do better. You can simply say, "Yes, I guess there are competing compelling evidence that counters the idea that consciousness survives death. I don't have answers for them, but I'll think about it." And if you do have answers, bring them up to address the points. But if you have nothing more to say then, "But they experience NDE's", then this is not a philosophical conversation, but a person insistent in the rightness of their beliefs without a viable argument.

I don't know if Pim Van Lommel has been mentioned in this thread but he claims to have research that indicates that nde's can't be dismissed as mere hallucination. I'm not going into bat for that research, only noting that it does exist — Wayfarer

The link was just a link to their book. I can find at least one person in a professional setting who will go to bat for anything. The only thing that matters is the soundness of their evidence and the logic of their argument. My point in this thread is that Sam is not presenting a logical argument with sound reason. They are only presenting the fact that NDE's exist. Wayfarer, if you have the actual arguments and evidence, it might help Sam out in this thread a lot. I'm not against him, just his argument.

I think an interesting philosophical question to consider about this matter is, why the controversy? Not only is it controversial, but it provokes a great deal of hostility about 'pseudo-science' and 'superstitious nonsense'. As I said above, it's a taboo. I believe it's because it challenges the physicalist account of life, that living beings are purely or only physical in nature. If we believe that, then it's a closed question - and it's not necessarily a question we want to contemplate opening again. — Wayfarer

For me, this is not the case. I would love for there to be life after death. Only weird people who cut themselves in the dark while crying to death metal don't. :) But you learn as you grow that believing in things that you want but aren't true is childish at best, and dangerous at worst.

First, there is the danger of self-righteousness or excessive self-importance. The fantastic is exciting! Feeling like you've learned that a dragon is real can be an amazing feeling. Too amazing. You start to look down on other people who don't share it. You start to think "You get it, but they don't." And when you're holding onto an idea that's at its core a fantasy, you start to make other decisions in your life based on fantasy, and not reality. In general, such decisions don't end well for most people.

Second, and this can be heard from people who were deep in cults, belief in psychic powers etc...it makes you stupid. And no one wants to be stupid, especially smart people. Often times this underlying fear that one is wrong keeps people believing exciting fantasies long after they know in their hearts that its not true. It compels a person to subtly lie or disregard any evidence that would show them to be wrong. Thus, dishonestly and myopic vision sets in. People like this are often very easy to manipulate because once you start to justify believing the fantasy at any cost, people know your priorities and can get you to do things that a sane and honest mind would not do. My statement to them is that you're not dumb or dishonest for having bought into a fantasy. You're only dumb and dishonest if you stay with it when you know better. :)

Third, if you've been in such a pseudosystem before, you know the arguments and pattern of 'reasoning' already. And very rarely do people present knew arguments or rationals for the pseudosystem. Its not that I personally wouldn't love to hear new arguments. I would! I have no problem abandoning my old notions of reality if there is evidence of something better. But it needs to be more logically sound then my current notions.

Fourth, you can get caught up in the excitement of the fantastic as a rush, instead of looking at how exciting the mundane is. I know you're not a fan of everything being described in the physical Wayfarer, and maybe that's because its boring. I don't know. To me, I find it amazing that we're able to categorize and label almost all of objective existence into a category of measurable entities. I'm fascinated by the magic of chemistry. Of the fact that we can be wizards who ride around in giant death metal cages that run on the power of explosive liquid. When you see and understand reality, you can invent with it. You can improve with it. You can make magic with it.

Pseudoscience is always a dead end. You can't ever do anything with it but marvel at the idea of the idea. And once you get into a mindset that exciting lies and half truths are truth, regular reality can become dull and inconvenient. And that's a terrible thing. So its why, at least from my account, why I am against exciting and cool ideas that have no facts behind them, and need to pass certain evidential and logical bars of justification.

Well, we just disagree. — Sam26

It is more than that. Your claim is objectively not a strong inductive argument, and you have objectively failed to present a good and cogent argument worth considering. This is the philosophy boards, not the opinion boards.

I have a deck of cards containing one card - the jack of spades.

I draw one card. It is necessarily the jack of spades.

This is just induction. — Treatid

I'm scratching my head here TreatId. This is not induction. Induction is the belief that the next card which is drawn will be the jack of spades. The outcome of that draw has nothing to do with your induction. An induction understands, "My conclusion is not necessarily true from the premises."

Once the card is drawn, that is the known outcome. Whether your induction was correct or incorrect does not counter the fact that based on what you knew before the card was drawn, your belief may, or may not have been correct.

Here is an example of a deduction. We have a normal deck of 52 cards. All 51 cards have been drawn. The only card that hasn't been drawn is the jack of spades. Therefore we can deduce that necessarily, the final card has to be the jack of spades. There is no other viable outcome with what we know.

Lets say unknown to us, someone switched the final card out, and its actually a joker. Our deduction was still a deduction, because there was no other outcome we could have drawn based on the evidence we have.

It may be that you're confusing 'truth' with 'logic and knowledge'. Truth is, "What is". "What is" does not care about our opinions, reasonings, etc. It simply is. Deduction and inductions are ways we attempt to ascertain 'what is'. Deduction in general gives us our best chance of actually figuring out what is, while induction is always less certain and thus more likely to be wrong.

First, number. It seems rather obvious that if you have a greater number of testimonials that say something happened, then the stronger the argument. — Sam26

Again, no one, and I mean no one, is saying that NDE's aren't real. This is the part you seem to keep glossing over. If a bunch of people have a hallucination, no one doubts they have a hallucination. But the fact that multiple people have a hallucination is not an argument for that hallucination being real.

Second, variety. The greater the variety of cases cited the stronger the conclusion. — Sam26

No, this is evidence of a weak inductive argument, not a strong one. A strong inductive argument is based on whether reality easily contradicts its conclusions. A variety of NDE's do not strengthen the argument that a NDE is really happening. Reality tends to be consistent. Jumping out of a plane is consistent. If someone jumped out of a plane and started floating higher, something is going on that we're not aware of.

Third, the scope of the conclusion. This has already been covered briefly in the opening paragraph (I'm referring to an opening paragraph in my Quora space.), it means that the less the conclusion claims the stronger the argument — Sam26

This is true. And its been mentioned repeatedly that the scope of your conclusions is too broad. Everyone accepts, "NDE's are real." There is not a good inductive conclusion for stating, "Therefore our consciousness actually leaves and returns to our bodies." Your scope is far too large, making this a weak inductive argument.

Fourth, truth of the premises. — Sam26

Of course. But again, the only truth that we all agree on is that we have NDEs. I've noted we can duplicate it with other experiences that aren't near death. I've noted that a person experiencing a NDE has never been able to describe an experience that was outside of their bodies senses, like a bright yellow duck that they didn't know was just behind them. Right there this destroys the idea that NDE's are actual out of body sensory experiences, as controlled settings demonstrate people are unable to prove they can sense things their body can't.

Fifth is cogency. — Sam26

And your argument is not cogent. The only thing you have is, "We have NDE's." That's means less than nothing. From that, we cannot conclude they are correct interpretations of reality, or memories of actively leaving the body when there is zero evidence of this actually happening in any study we've done.

Now lets go to your argument.

1. 5% of the population has had NDEs

Only viable conclusion: They had NDEs.
I agree they have NDEs. There is nothing more to be drawn from this point alone.

2.

NDEs have been reported in every culture from around the world, which by definition means that we are getting reports from different religious views, and different world views. — Sam26

Only viable conclusion: They had NDEs.
I agree they have NDEs. There is nothing more to be drawn from this point alone.

The third criterion is the scope of the conclusion, and the scope of this conclusion is limited to consciousness surviving the body. The conclusion claims that we can know that consciousness survives bodily death. — Sam26

No, you have nothing that demonstrates this. We have NDEs. You have not demonstrated that the subjective experience of a NDE represents objective reality apart from their perception. Just like I can subjectively experience that the sun rotates around the Earth, the objective reality is the Earth rotates around the sun. I've already mentioned that scientific lab attempts to find any consistently odd reading, evidence of consciousness leaving the body, or OBE confirmations have all failed. Look into tests for psychic powers and other failed theories of science that have similar outcomes.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay — Sam26

No one doubts people are having these experiences. Not me, or anyone else you've been discussing with. And yet you keep repeating it as if people having these experiences negates all the points we've mentioned about their subjective interpretations not matching with objective reality.

Another aid in establishing the truth of the testimonial evidence is firsthand accounts, as opposed to hearsay. — Sam26

Again, NDEs are real. You keep repeating this. We all know. We all agree. That doesn't mean they are viable evidence that consciousness leaves the body. You keep ignoring all the points we make about this and say, "But people experience NDE's!" We know. It does not logically lead to the conclusion that consciousness survives brain death.

This argument claims that it is highly probable that consciousness survives the death of the body, and that the conclusion is very strong based on what makes for a strong inductive argument. — Sam26

Where? How? You don't give any evidence that NDE's objectively mean consciousness survives brain death. You only give evidence that people experience NDEs and we ALL agree with you on that. This is the repetition I'm talking about.

"OBE experiences in a lab settings cannot confirm actual sensing of what's in the room beyond a the person's immediate sensory fields, but that are clearly visible in the room."

Your rebuttal: "But NDE's happen to people!"

"We can duplicate NDE's without the brain being in a near death state."

Your rebuttal: "But NDE's happen to people!"

You have no crux of any argument that NDE's are any more than a common brain hallucination upon mild to moderate oxygen deprivation. You have no evidence that OBE's aren't more than piecing together what a person already sensed in the room prior to unconsciousness, or is processed by the unconscious sensing ears and eyes in between lucidity. All you have, is that we have NDE's. That is the only logical conclusion you can make. You have provided no evidence of any viable induction that consciousness can survive brain death. None. Repeating, "But we have NDE's!" is pointless. Please address the other points against why having a NDE does not mean consciousness has left the body, and you may have something. Until then, you just have a belief system with no viable evidence or argument.

My apologies for the delay! I'm back and settled. You speak well and seem to understand the notion, so I'll only comment on a few points.

I’m not dismissing the application on the social context, I am trying to point out that paradigms are, possibly, more fixed deductive filters that either sort and organize communication and knowledge, or distorts and disorganizes. 
An example would be to look at language itself. For some people, words can be ‘true’, whilst to others, words are always ‘relative’, in that you add in context, meaning etc. These two ‘groups’ will butt heads on many subjects, and will often feel they aren't 'speaking the same language'. A third would be the variant that not only sees the relative in written texts, but that also sees itself, the discrete experiencer, as part of various contexts, and therefore naturally adds in a self-understanding of itself in its understanding of others, a meta-self. 

To tie that together with the prior part about induction, each paradigm have certain parts of reality that, despite the continuous lack of applicable knowledge, continues to use the least probable way to gain more knowledge about that field, or when forced, reduces the findings to mesh with already known knowledge. Consistently. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Well stated. While the theory above does give us a stable foundation to build off of, once we start looking beyond that base the amount that ca be built is stories high. The interesting thing, is we can build several types of buildings. Some may fit certain situations better than others. And in society that's what we find. Different cultures and subcultures with their own emphasis on truth vs relative, subjective vs objective.

They key for me is that it is fine that we have these multiple scaffolds. The part we should be doing is to define what it means to build something, and why we should build it based on the situation. Just like you want a bendable building in an earthquake, you might want a knowledge structure that is flexible when exploring new ideas and themes.

There is no 'one right way', because we are not computers that have infinite time and energy to truly establish, "X is applicably known." What is right is knowing the guidelines themselves. Knowing what a floor, walls, and ceiling are. This will let us create or improve upon contexts of different peoples based on people's needs and desires with some type of foundational rules.

Whereas you here (third post) argue that the premise for using induction is ‘hitting a roadblock’, my argument is that the use of induction is reasonably fixed according to the given context/paradigm (further differentiated by culture, personality upbringing, genes etc.) and as such in any given paradigm there will be no further self-directed inquires into the lack of clear deductive beliefs. Within any given distinctive context there will be those that question it, but those are also the ones possibly changing paradigm, and seeing many things in a new light and gaining traction on the fields where there were a lack. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. Your understanding of this and of people is impressive! Just like any person can fish, any person can think. But the person who understands the rules of fishing is going to do better overall in the long term than an amateur who fishes for fun. Of course, the amateur may not care to do more than fishing for fun, and there is nothing we can, or should do, to change this. It is up to the professionals to push the boundaries of and refine the established rules of the game. Some of that leaks down and is emulated by people who only dabble into it. So I think those who want to take knowledge seriously should have a solid foundation to work with. How they use it is up to them and the needs of the people involved.

However, the 'dominant' paradigm will have an influence on most things, and so 'science/technology, and some type of market-capitalism' is something most paradigms will have to deal with somehow. This isn't what I would consider 'being' on a paradigm, it is a more forced shift in behavior of outward appearance to avoid, or elicit, certain benefits/risks, not from an adherence and self-governed understanding of the underlying principles governing the structures, as well as general agreement with the underlying focus. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Correct. This is part of the context a person must consider when wishing to alter or impact other people's 'knowledge' sets.

Again, thanks for your replies and sincerity so far. This conversation does not fit the stereotypical experience of being on the internet, and I mean that in a very good way. — Caerulea-Lawrence

Agreed! Its great to talk with a like mind who's interested in this subject matter and thinks deeply about it like you do. Great points!

Sam, I'm reading your future posts to others after our discussion ended, and an observation is that you don't address the criticisms people are levying against your points, you're just repeating again and again that "These testimonies seem so real, so they must be real." That's just not an argument. That's a belief. We get you want it to be real. We can taste it through the screen. :) But its not an argument. You need to address so much more before anyone with good logical sense can buy into this.

I've been busy this week and out of town. I saw the responses and will reply when I return.

Could you go into more detail regarding the mechanisms of deduction? — Treatid

Certainly, there can be a lot of confusion around deduction vs induction as a context that often gets mistakenly applied to it is "truth". But deduction and induction have never meant to imply the truth of their conclusions. They imply the necessary logical outcome that results from a set of premises.

Before we get to matching memory, let me explain deduction and induction in their raw forms.

A conclusion has a set of what we call essential properties that define it. These are the properties that when fulfilled, we say, "This is 'that'". The number '2', is two one's grouped together. No other properties really matter. Whether the two things are candy, fruit, or cards, what is essential to the concept of '2', is the grouping of two ones.

1 + X = 2 If we solve for X, there is necessarily only one solution, X = 1. This is deduction in its simplest form.

I could also induce the solution. I could guess that X = 3. Of course if I added it, it would not be correct. And this is where the confusion about truth can come into play. We often say that x=1 is true, and in this case it is. But a deduction doesn't claim 1 is true, only that 1 is the only conclusion we can logically conclude.

In this case, our induction is wrong, but we could also induce X=1, without thinking about it at all. Again, X=1 is true, but it wasn't deduced, it was induced. Just as a deduction is not an assertion of truth or falsity of reality, an induction is not an assertion of truth or falsity of reality either.

Let me give a different example now to hammer this point home. In ancient times, many people deduced that the sun rotates around the Earth. One could have a person run around them as they stood still and see the phenomenon. What else could the conclusion be? And with those premises the only logical conclusion was that the sun must rotate around the Earth.

Of course, someone eventually added more premises to consider. What is the other person stood still and you spun slowly in place? Since we haven't risen into the sky ourselves, can we truly know if the rules are the same up there? These additional premises create a new logical problem that cannot deduce that the sun rotates around Earth. At that point, we don't have only one outcome, but potentially many.

If you remember the early part of the paper, I go over this phenomenon with a goat and a sheep. An individual has decided the essential properties of a sheep, and it turns out that all of those essential properties bleed into a goat. A sheep is an animal with curly hair and hooves. If the person does not recognize the different properties of a goat as essential, then they can deduce that a sheep and a goat are the same type of animal. They might do addendums like say, "A goat is a mountain sheep." Of course, other people could see the that some of the qualities of a goat are different enough from a sheep that it becomes an essential identifier, and a new concept is formed, "A goat".

Notice that there is no 'truth' as to where the form of the goat are the sheep represent some outside nebulous 'true' goat. There is only the distinctive knowledge of a defined goat or sheep, and premises that either necessarily lead to a conclusion, or premises that do not.

Since distinctive knowledge, or our ability to discretely experience and create identities can be whatever we want, induction and deduction do not have to apply to the creation of our terminology. I can create in my head the essential properties of a unicorn. I know it distinctively, but I have never applied it successfully to the world and deduced that any living creature matches the definition of a unicorn in my head.

But back to deduction and induction. Why use deduction over induction? Because of this scenario.

Lets say that my definitions accurately match reality fully. Nothing is contradicted by reality that is known and unknown. So lets us say that I have a quarter in my hand, and it is a quarter in reality. What method of thinking is most likely going to give me the knowledge that what I am holding is indeed a quarter? If the premises are all accurate to reality, and logic is simply a necessary consequence of what that means, then my deduction will be in line with the reality of the object being a quarter in my hand.

But what if I only induce its a quarter in my hand? The problem is, my conclusion that I can induce does not necessarily follow from the premises. I might induce its a spy object that looks like a quarter, even though the premises I have do not lead to that conclusion in any logical sense.

In short, deductions and inductions are tools. While both are dependent on the information that you have available to you, if the information available is complete enough that reality does not contradict it, the deduction will lead to the correct conclusion about reality every time, while the induction will not necessarily do so. Thus the most reasonable form of assessing reality is deduction, assuming our premises are not contradicted by reality.

So then, if we think on it further, we realize we need to deduce the hierarchy of inductions. We can't induce the hierarchy, because that means our conclusions don't necessarily follow from the premises. And if it the hierarchy is true, we can only have proper repeatable knowledge through deduction. Because deduction leads to the same result every time, where induction does not necessarily do so.

Thus, probability is a deduced induction. At its most basic, lets return to a world in which we have a goat and sheep defined, and the only essential difference between the two is the fact that goats have horns on their heads while sheep do not. You spy a curly haired animal that is walking away from you with its head down in a field. You see it has hooves. The only thing you can't see is its head. Because the only two possibilities from our premises is that it is either a sheep or a goat, we can deduce that we can induce that it is either a sheep or a goat. Thus the sentence, "I know it is either a sheep or a goat, and I choose to believe it is a goat."

And to clarify, we do not have other competing premises in this above situation. Like the initial deducers that concluded the sun rotated around the Earth, we have no other distinctive knowledge to compete. So no crazy ideas that its all an illusion, or a space monster, or anything else. Only that that to be a goat or a sheep is defined clearly as is, and there are no exceptions. As such, we deduce our limitations, and then can reasonably make an induction that it is either a goat or a sheep. This is why inductions rely on deductions and logic. A proper induction is a deduced set of limitations that allow us to make a guess within a more reasonable and limited range then pure random and wild beliefs.

Thus when I induce 1+X = 2 and X = 3, I'm pulling from the limited possibility that it must be a number. I'm not guess X = "Dennis" for example. :) I could guess this of course, but most people would think I was joking at best, irrational at worst.

I didn't get into memory per say, but if you understand the above, it should make the topic of memory more clear. After you think about what's said here and want to go into memory, feel free to post your thoughts and I'll cover that next if needed.

The idea that we need to confirm our subjective experiences in controlled settings or they're not veridical is ridiculous on its face. — Sam26

That's not what I said. Maybe it is true that David Copperfield really levitated that day. Its a given that what we subjectively experience may, or may not be true. Its about whether we have the proper evidence to claim that our interpretation of that subjective experience is in alignment with what really happened. Given that we can duplicate and test NDEs, it is only reasonable that we test and use those findings to figure out what is going on in reality when people have these experiences.

Or, that we need something more than hundreds of thousands of corroborated (objective) reports is so irrational that only someone with a worldview that is set in cement would accept it. — Sam26

We have billions of people that look into the sky and see that the Sun travels around the Earth. The Sun rises in the East, and sets in the West. No one is saying we don't have that unified and confirmed subjective experience. But is our interpretation of that subjective experience true? No. It turns out that the Earth actually orbits the sun. But from our limited perspectives, and can feel like its the other way around.

Your problem is one of epistemology. I encourage you to open up your field of study into it if it was not your original focus. That was my field of study when I got my degrees years ago. I have my own take on epistemology here if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14044/knowledge-and-induction-within-your-self-context/p1

For example, you continue to say that it's just subjective and when I point out that there has been objective corroboration from doctors, nurses, friends, and family members you just reject it. — Sam26

No, there has been subjective testimony in an uncontrolled setting. Objectively, that testimony has occurred. That does not mean that the perception of what happened means that what they interpreted was objectively real. For example, in the cases in which patients have claimed to see or hear things that sound like they are in the room in uncontrolled settings, it is unknown at what time they had those experiences. If a person is going into anesthesia or coming out of it, consciousness can return at points that are not fully registered to the disoriented individual. But I have already gone over these tests, so will not repeat myself.

A further case in point: Psychics.

I can gather tons of testimonial evidence that certain people have psychic powers. They're able to repeat them in front of people repeatedly, and people would swear they have powers. Much like magicians. But, take any psychic and put them in a controlled lab setting, and you find they're frauds. I'm not saying they didn't objectively have these experiences, same with people who have NDEs and OBEs. Its whether what they are subjectively interpreting matches with objective reality, "I actually left my body and truly observed the room as it is" that needs to be confirmed and has not.

I don't need peer-reviewed studies to understand that there is objective corroboration. — Sam26

You do not need peer reviewed studies to determine objective corroboration with seeing psychics or magicians either. Observation from many subjects in an uncontrolled and tested setting has never been enough evidence to determine any objective conclusions as to whether their perception of the situation matches with objective reality.

Again, you keep making the wrong logical leap. You think that because many people say something in an uncontrolled setting, that their perceptions and beliefs about what happened match objective reality. That could not be further from the truth. At best, you have a situation that generates a hypothesis that needs to be tested. And in every testing case that I am aware of with OBE, it has been found that the person's subjective experience does not conform with objective reality. your argument is the equivalent of a crowd at a David Copperfield performance swearing that he objectively levitated off the ground because that's what everyone saw.

Either you are dodging my point, or you are simply do not understand it. As a person with a background in philosophy, it should be crystal clear to you by now. If you do not provide any evidence that these subjective interpretations of reality have been confirmed as objective realities in controlled settings, then your argument has failed as an assertion. It is a hypothesis, no more, and cannot stand against other the contrary hypothesis that has been confirmed as of this day: "Consciousness does not survive death".

I’m quite familiar with symbolic logic and I know some modal logic which means that I know something about correct reasoning, including how to analyze arguments. — Sam26

We have to prove this every time we make an argument. The proof is in the argument, not our past accomplishments.

Most of our reasoning, including science, is inductive. — Sam26

Very true. But you have to give an inductive argument that rises to the level of scientific consideration. I can inductively believe the moon has little men living inside of it, but its not rigorous or cogent enough to be given serious consideration. Good inductive arguments base as much of their argument on deduction as possible, and only go to induction when it is the only choice. This is different from a hypotheses, which is a claim that has not been tested yet.

You can claim, "Consciousness exists beyond death," as a hypotheses, but then it has to be actually tested and confirmed at least once. This confirmation must be rigorous, and once again, involve as much logic and deduction as possible. You claims pass a hypothesis, but I have not seen any confirmation of your claims. Currently the hypothesis, "Our consciousness does not survive death," has been confirmed in applicable tests. You'll need to show me actual tests that passed peer review, and can be repeated that show our consciousness exists beyond death. To my mind, there are none, but I am open to read if you cite one.

A word about sound arguments (soundness is a property of deductive arguments, it includes validity and the truth of the premises), in logic it’s used as a criterion to describe good deductive arguments, although the truth of the premises of an inductive argument is parallel to soundness in deductive arguments. — Sam26

Certainly, I speak to everyone as if they are a layman until they show me otherwise. Most people do not need the technical context of the word in logic. 'Sound' to the layman is often understood as 'An argument confirmed to be correct'. I've reiterated my point above demonstrating that your inductive argument is at best a hypothesis that has not passed the rigorous testing needed to counter the current conclusion in science that consciousness does not survive death.

For someone to say, “You strike me as a thinker in earlier stages of development,” is laughable given these comments on logic. — Sam26

Knowledge of vocabulary in expert contexts has nothing to do with thinking. Thinking is the strength of our arguments when both sides are on the same contextual vocabulary. I do not see how your arguments have met the criterion I've noted above to be considered more than an unconfirmed hypothesis.

Just because we can duplicate NDEs, it doesn’t follow that NDEs are not objectively real. It just means we know what things can trigger similar aspects of the NDE. It also just means that the brain plays a role in consciousness as we know it. It doesn’t follow that duplicating NDEs demonstrates that consciousness is solely a construct of the brain. — Sam26

Of course being able to duplicate NDEs does not mean they are not real. But it also doesn't demonstrate that they are real apart from subjective experience. Being able to duplicate NDEs means

1. We can set up situations to test NDEs.
2. We can monitor the brain and observe how 'dead' it is.

In the tests that I am aware of, no one has ever been able to observe anything in the room outside of their vision, or confirm outside noises that cannot penetrate the room during the specified time frame. That's a huge blow to the idea that NDE's are more than simply subjective experiences like dreams.

Further, NDE's can be duplicated merely under brain 'stress' in which the brain is still very much alive and active. How can one have a consciousness that both leaves the brain and is in the brain at the same time? I suppose if there was a particular location of the brain that contained consciousness, we could coodinate the reported time of an OBE by what was happening in the room and find a particular brain region that goes dim so we can say, "That's the location consciousness resides". To my knowledge, that hasn't happened yet either.

Another point is that visual and auditory imaging is processed through the brain and the senses. If consciousness left your brain, how is it seeing or hearing? Even if it could receive light or detect the vibrations in the air, wouldn't the perception be different from a brain if you're not getting the information from a brain? The fact that its as a brain would imagine, and the fact that its OBEs have not picked up a confirmed sight or noise outside of visual or auditory range, leads much more tot he idea that an OBE is not actually happening outside of a subjective brain experience.

For someone who claims to have studied NDEs and who continues to say things like, “How do you reconcile the fact that no OBE has ever been shown to see something that was placed outside of their bodies field of view during the time in which the NDE should be occurring?” - is completely mystifying to me. There have been many corroborative NDE accounts of people seeing and hearing things that are nowhere near their bodies. Just a cursory study of NDEs should dispel this belief. — Sam26

Cite a scientific article that has been peer reviewed, proper control and variable setup, and has been repeated with the same success elsewhere and you have a point. Don't be baffled. Just point out the studies.

People have heard conversations in other parts of the hospital, have heard and seen things happening many miles from where their body is located, and have seen people in their NDE that they didn’t know were dead, this happens all the time. — Sam26

If this is in a non-scientific setting, its useful as a means to explore a hypothesis, but nothing more. Cite a reputable article in a controlled setting and you'll have something.

One example of corroboration is given in Pam's NDE out of Atlanta, GA — Sam26

I responded to this a few posts back with an article that demonstrated why the claims were not enough to confirm an actual OBE. Feel free to refute them, no statute of limitations here! :)

To know if the premises are true, we need corroboration of the testimonial evidence, a high degree of consistency, and firsthand testimony. In all or most of these cases, it seems clear that we have all three. — Sam26

Again, all this proves is a subjective consistency in some people, while as you've noticed in The Near Death experience paper you cited, there are many people who also do not have, or have very different NDE experiences. Only about half have OBEs, while the majority have variations of pleasant feelings. Considering OBEs have not been show to be objectively real, the majority having pleasant feelings when under oxygen deprivation or other slowed brain activity is hardly a slam dunk argument that consciousness is surviving outside of the brain.

Again, everything except Pam that you have cited is evidence of a shared subjective experience people have, NOT an objective confirmation that consciousness is actually leaving the brain, making observations, then returning to the brain after. Pam is again, a great example of something which lends to a hypothesis. But testing is where objectivity is determined. And unless you can give such testing, your argument that consciousness survives outside of the brain as an objective reality has no real evidence.

I think at its most basic, justification is simply, "An answer to why I make my choice/conclusion".

Justification can be deductive or inductive. In general, I favor justifications that rely on as much deductive reasoning as possible, and where that fails, probability and possibilities for types of inductions. Generally justification that relies on pluasibilities, or "Things we can imagine as being possible, but we have not actually confirmed that they are possible" is not good enough.

For example: Consciousness lives on after we die. There is no fact or possibility (that it has been confirmed to have happened at least one time) but only plausibility. We imagine its possible, but we haven't actually confirmed that it is. This is not a good enough justification to believe the claim, therefore rationally we should not agree with it.

What is the definition of a universal that you're using?

I wouldn't call this a riddle. This is a logic problem. They can be pretty fun to do, but there are countless online. https://www.brainzilla.com/logic/logic-grid/ if you want to join up and play a bunch.

The more I interact with your ideas, the more familiar and relatable they become. — Treatid

That is a very nice compliment and I am humbled to see it. You have a keen and curious mind, and you've given me plenty to think on as well.

A hill climbing algorithm can get stuck at a local maxima and never find the global maxima. — Treatid

Yes. I've thought about this a long time ago but never had anyone bring this aspect up before. That is because we create perfectly logical systems. What a perfectly logical system lacks is induction, and a variety of approaches towards the same problem. Since I thought of this, machine learning has introduced 'induction' and imperfect data into systems, and we have largely escaped the issue you note.

Here's a fun video on machine learning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lu56xVlZ40M

But lets talk at the level of the theory as well. If you recall I labeled four classifications of induction, probability, possibility, plausibility, and irrational. As a quick reminder

Probability-Predicted outcomes based on know limitations. A coin has 50/50 chance of one side on flip.
Possibility- What has happened once is believed to be able to happen again.
Plausibility-A pure untested imagined scenario then is not immediately contradicted by what we know. Maybe aliens exist a billion light years away.
Irrational - A belief that what is applicably known is wrong. 1+1=2, but I believe its really 3.

While plausibility and irrational beliefs are looked down upon in established systems, they are invaluable in discovering new systems of thought.

Plausibility is fairly obvious, as its essentially imagination and hypothesis. But irrationality is also incredibly useful in some circumstances. To break out of local maximum, sometimes you have to do something against the grain that everyone thinks is impossible.

In the life of a human, I can think of at least one example where irrational beliefs are useful. There may be times when one can no longer come up with plausible explorations. But an irrational exploration is essentially poking at the already establish system. Its a stress test of sorts. It can find holes in logic no one realized. You can't have the majority of your population being irrational, but having a few is useful.

And this leads to the next part that you may find more interesting. How a society tackles induction.

In general we have one algorithm run a program, and alter it slightly. It evolves from its previous data, and seeks a solution to it. But after a point it eliminates other explorations. What if we had multiple ai's running separately and tweaked the amount of 'inductive' decisions they made?

For example

AI 1: 100% logical decisions
AI 2: 98% logical, 1% probable decisions, 1% possible decisions.
AI 3: 96% logical, 1% probable, 1% possible, 1% irrational decisions.

It would be interesting to see where each AI ended up. Especially if we duplicated this experiment millions of times with the same AIs, and even different variations.

I view humanity as a whole as the biological variant of this experiment. We have potentially millions of humans looking at a problem with different levels of emphasis on deduction vs induction. The difference is we have more of an emphasis on the induction part then the logical decisions. That's because human intelligence is optimized for efficiency, and pure logical and verified deductive thought takes the most time out of all approaches.

So where do I fall? The reality is that we have a propensity to favor inductions, and at the lower end of the hierarchy in a lot of our thinking. We are emotional beings with bias, and our nature is to rationalize what gives us what we want while tending to disregard that which does not.

https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/when-it-comes-politics-youre-not-rational-you-think
“What we find is both sides are equally biased in their own direction,” Ditto said.

People are savvy at spotting bias in other people’s arguments, but they consistently fail to recognize bias in themselves."

As such, I try to use the hierarchy myself. I first favor strong facts and conclusions. Probabilities and possibilities are strong contenders. I try to avoid plausibilities as conclusions, only as possible avenues of exploration. And I constantly question if I'm wrong. Typically when I come up with an idea, I explore it, but then I try to disprove it myself. It wasn't easy at first, and it can still be tough when you have an idea you really like, but that habit is invaluable to cultivate. I work on not sinking into the trap of arrogance or hubris, and keep myself grounded that I am no better than any other human being. I try to listen to anyone no matter how new or inexperienced they might seem as insight can be found anywhere. As you noted, we all have a propensity for a local maximum, and it can be anyone who can break us out of it.

That being said, I'm still human. No matter how brilliant any human is, their intelligence was designed in the petri dish of evolution, not for optimal conclusive thinking. This is why I believe AI can be the next advancement of the human race. If we can get over our own biases, we can have something think inefficiently with massive amounts of electricity that can work at a logical level we can only dream of.

Anyway, a bit of my thoughts. Let me know what you think.

I mean we all have places we come from and thoughts we start at, but if you walk into the chemistry department and start talking alchemy someone might correct you. — Moliere

This is not a forum exclusive to collegiates, this is a general public forum. I have no issue with being corrected or told new things. While he may have responded well to you, he jumped into a conversation I was having with another poster without context, and when I asked him to clarify his issue he came across as dismissive. I encourage you not to do the same and jump into another conversation between two people.

We did have a conversation earlier though right? You asked my take on the barbershop paradox, and asked my clarification on what I meant by this being a language issue. Did you have any follow up on that?

If the long reply made you feel better, that's fine. You can't argue against how you come across to other people on a forum. Hopefully we'll have a better encounter in another thread. Good luck in explaining your side, I do agree with it.

For what its worth, I think you're running into a mismatch between most people's general sense of seeing -> as a strict conditional. Perhaps in your field or life 'material conditional' is a common phrase, but for most people who use logic, this is never introduced. For them, its almost always seen as a strict conditional. Remember that this forum is populated by all types of people, and most of them are not logicians or philosophers themselves. Explaining and contrasting a strict conditional vs a material conditional should make the issue clear for most people.

I gave you the best advice anyone could ever give you regarding this subject: Look at a textbook. — TonesInDeepFreeze

You do me or no one else favors here. We're having a discussion, and if you want to make a point, link or note your point. "Look at a textbook" is dismissive and means you're removing yourself from the conversation.

Your attitude is hostile and condescending
— Philosophim

Actually, you insulted me. I hadn't written anything "hostile" or "condescending" but then insultingly you wrote:

Don't be a troll.
— Philosophim — TonesInDeepFreeze

Like this?

Then give your proof.
— Leontiskos

Are you serious? You don't know how to prove it yourself? — TonesInDeepFreeze

Not exactly the model of a sage and wise poster. You came on here with a chip on your shoulder to everyone. I gave you a chance to have a good conversation, but I didn't see a change in your attitude.

You misunderstand. You said that '->' means 'necessarily leads to'. And that is false. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If I'm clearly using it as a strict conditional, as I noted in prior posts as I was talking to someone other than yourself, then I'm correct. Now if you had an issue with my use of -> or wanted to teach me the difference between a modal and material implication, something I did not know before today, you could have spent less then a minute citing a wiki post somewhere like Banno did. Instead, we have wasted time back and forth and your attitude didn't win you respect today.

This is not a place where we should banter back and forth for our egos. Its about spreading knowledge and wisdom with one another with good discussions. You seem to have knowledge, which is wonderful. Share it and teach. You'll earn respect. Don't bare it and preach. You'll get eyes rolled at you.

↪Philosophim Wiki might suffice to show you the difference between material implication and strict implication. That might be what you have in mind.

Tones is correct. — Banno

If he is using the term of implication to mean, "could lead to", then that's fine. I've already written on that on the first page. I did not catch that 'material' conditional was anything different from the modal operator.

It is not trolling to point out an incorrect statement, and it not trolling nor handwaving to suggest that one can look in textbooks to see that the statement is incorrect. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Your attitude is hostile and condescending without backing up your claim clearly. I had no idea that there was a specific logical term called a material conditional. You spoke so tersely and dismissively, I didn't take your reply seriously. Give detail and respect, and it will be given back by good people.

I will state again, you misunderstood what I was stating earlier. I'm replying to someone specifically in which I covered both types of meanings of the words 'imply', as the OP did not specify what they meant. One where "Imply" means "necessary" and one where imply means "Could lead to".

I already noted in the second case that A could lead to B and A could lead to not B are not contradictions. But they are contradictions in the sense of using the word 'implication' as necessary. Or to use Banno's link if we are going to use formal logical terminology, 'material conditional' vs a 'modal operator'.

↪Philosophim

Look in any textbook on symbolic logic. — TonesInDeepFreeze

If you're not going to bother answering like I did, I'm going to hand wave you away. Don't be a troll. Show it.

So what?

'->' is ordinarily regarded as standing for material implication that does not require necessity. — TonesInDeepFreeze

Please demonstrate your claim.

https://people.cs.rutgers.edu/~elgammal/classes/cs205/implication.pdf

"Different forms for implications
p implies q is equivalent to
If p then q
q if p
q whenever p
q when p
q follows from p
p is sufficient for q
a sufficient condition for q is p
q is necessary for p
a necessary condition for p is q"