Inductive Atheism

And you can supernaturally explain it as well. The question is, is the explanation correct?Let's say you see Jesus turning water into wine. He gives you access to a powerful microscope and you watch, stunned, as molecules appear de novo in the water making it into a wine the likes of which is impossible to brew using material technology.How would you know you aren't crazy?
How do evolutionary biologists know they aren't crazy?Well they don't, not 100% but they can invite others to check their work. If their work is verified then either they are deluded about the verification and are so deluded its hopeless (aka The Matrix, brain in a jar etc).Sure, its a material explanation - but I think we can agree that absent any confirmatory evidence it would be foolish to accept that.For the sake of moving forwards lets try a different angle.The supernatural hypothesis of gods: There are two 'types' of substance. There is substance that has a quality called energy. Substances made of energy can be used to detect other substances made of energy. This substance acts in a certain way that can be described, and thus predicted. This substance is called matter. I appreciate that's a little simple but for our purposes it'll do.There is a second substance that has a quality called magic. Substances made of magic can be used to detect other substances made of magic. This substance also acts in a certain way (though possibly different than matter), it may or may not be possible to describe it fully and prediction may or not be feasible in certain circumstances. This substance is called spirit.Both substances are governed in some fashion by spiritual beings (1 or many) that for convenience we will call gods.Humans are mostly material, but have a soul which is made of spirit and can thus, in principle at least, detect other spiritual entities possibly including gods.

---

So Jesus does his final waltz and you ponder your position.The Supernatural Hypothesis is that the spiritual being god is using his governance over matter and spirit to make miracles happen. Or, the entire experience is occurring within the domain of the spiritual and you are observing it not with your eyes/brain but with your soul.The Natural Hypothesis is that you are crazy. That the soul is just the mind. Bluegenes' theory is that the experience stems from your imagination. Hallucinations are sometimes thought of as being where the brain mistakes projected possible worlds (imagined possibilities) for the real world.One of these theories is true (I stipulate for the purposes of making discussion around the subject at all possible). As with any theory it is actually technically impossible to absolutely falsify either one. That might seem like an extraordinary claim, but consider that any theory can be rescued with ad hoc exceptions or by dismissing the falsifier as crazy or incompetent.So let's consider how to falsify bluegenes' theory. First of all we can get brain scans, we might be a bit wonky on the human brain but if we see god and our optic systems are being stimulated in a way that hallucinations don't then that might weaken bluegenes theory.We can use the detection equipment given in the supernatural hypothesis. Let's say we find a helpful cherubim using our soulsight and ask it to think of a random number between 1 and 100 billion and to tell one person who enters the number into a computer and then isolates themselves from communication for the rest of the experiment. We get 1,000 people to walk into a room with the cherub and have the cherub tell them the number. They then record the number, enter it into a computer which encrypts it with a near unbreakable encryption. If all 1,000 people get the correct number and if it is not possible to film the cherubim (have 1,000 people watch a film of the cherubim saying the number or something) or weigh it etc - this is evidence that supports the supernatural theory and weakens bluegenes'.Of course, as RAZD likes to say, it is POSSIBLE that god exists (in that it is not absolutely ruled out by any of the information presently available) just as it is possible that bluegenes' theory might still be true, you might be crazy, we all might be in the Matrix etc etc, but there comes a point where you realize the evidence that supports that notion is highly questionable and the spiritual evidence that supports substance dualism is gaining a lot of ground.At some point you have to accept that the Matrix hypothesis or the crazy hypothesis are quirky philosophical notions that if true you are essentially captivated by them and have to live as if they weren't true.In this sense, bluegenes theory is falsified. Not ruled out 100%, even falsification is tentative! You can continue devising further experiments I'm sure. Perhaps you could take pills that suppress hallucinations, but you still couldn't be sure you weren't deluding yourself that you are taking them.The statement 'all swans are white' could be falsified by the observation of a black swan. But then, if we allow 'you're crazy' to rescue theories from falsification (as you are trying rescue bluegenes' during Armageddon) then we can dismiss the observation of a black swan. Indeed - we can dismiss any and all observations that falsify our theory. There comes a point where there are sufficient observations that continual dismissal is itself insane or incompetent. Even Popper did not believe that falsification was a purely naive and/or objective process. Source
It is a somewhat subjective process. So if you want - you can make the decision to stick to the 'I'm going crazy' hypothesis during Armageddon. It's not entirely unwarranted and it is unlikely that you as an individual will be able to perform the rigorous tests necessary to say positively otherwise. However, we are discussing falsification in principle - and it is likely that somebody will attempt these kinds of tests should Armageddon occur as per the hypothesis above and for there to still be time for testing. For them, with their information, it seems reasonable to me that they make the decision to accept substance dualism and the reality of Armageddon tentatively pending further tests which presumably would increase confidence incrementally. abe: Might I propose otherwise? There could be multiple types of laws:1 Natural laws: These are descriptions about how the realm of the material operates.2 Supernatural laws: These are descriptions about how the realm of spirit operates.A: Reality laws: This is the superset of all laws. It is merely the description(s) for how the whole of reality operates.If an entity was present that operated the way the natural laws could not describe but did operate consistent with supernatural laws one could deduce it was a supernatural entity.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

What do we usually do when we observe things happening in the natural world which require explanations counter to everything else we thought we knew? But there is no evidence for souls or for their ability to detect otherwise undetectable magic; and a lot of the rest of what you say depends on humans having some sort of connection to a supernatural 'realm' that does not relate information via the standard materialistic highways, and so is not detectable by non-human material detection devices (cameras, scales, etc.). Why is this the 'natural hypothesis'? Is this how scientists really react when they observe things happening that appear counter to everything else they know? But I'm not trying to rescue any theories by appealing to craziness.ABE: You still have the problem of trying to explain how it is folk are detecting and realizing things that are not part of the material world, despite the fact that our eyes, ears, and other senses by which we gain information about reality (type A?) are entirely bounded by their materialistic limitationsthey cannot sense things which are not material. Some how proposing a soul capable of communicating with the magical realm just doesn't seem satisfactory.Anything observed in the natural world, such as water turning into wine, no matter how contrary to previous observation, would have to, by the very virtue of being material, be subsumed into the system of natural laws, whether this requires a change of the natural laws or not (which, as you know, is entirely possible and has been done many times throughout the history of science).JonEdited by Jon, : reply to ABE

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

We are willing to throw away our old theory and look for a better one. Which is precisely what I've been saying. I can hardly be blamed for the evidential failings of substance dualism can I? After all, I am one of the main people around here attacking it for its evidential failings.I was however, relating their theory and developing a hypothetical future in which there is evidence. My apologies, I was being charitable. Since you claimed to have a material explanation for Armageddon I looked for the only thing that was an explanation in your post:

quote:

---

Surely you are insane

---

I guess you weren't thinking that at the time - but it is a pretty good natural hypothesis. Feel free to provide another. I explained it. They have a soul. I know it is not satisfactory, but its not my theory. It's almost as if this stuff was made up!For further clarification in the setup I related, our senses can only detect material things (things with 'energy'). So they are limited to the subset of (A) that I labelled (1). The soul can experience at least some things in subset (1) and (2).Let's say we perform the cherub experiment and got the positive results I described....would you not say that this is positive evidence in favour of a second substance, not materially detectable? It's a fun example because it only relies on information flow between the realms which is permitted in all conceptions of substance dualism.

When, in all the history of making observations of the natural world, has 'it's magic' ever been a scientifically permissible explanation for new observations which conflict with our old understandings? Then you yourself do not actually believe the proposition 'all supernatural concepts are a product of imagination' to be falsifiable, in the sense that several here have defined 'supernatural' to be entirely materially undetectable? On the surface, I'd probably only be able to tell you I see a man moving his hands and some people coming back to life. Repeated experiments might show that every time he moves his hands, some more people come from their graves, thus connecting the two events causally.From there we might be able to look at things on a smaller level, perhaps the molecular instance where the rotting flesh becomes normal again. But whatever observations we made about these materialistic events, we would have to include these observations in our formulation of the natural lawsthese things, afterall, are taking place within nature, and so the natural laws must account for them in some way.Might this require an overturning of the present natural laws? Might all our current theories require reworking? Likely, especially regarding all the other Armageddon events. But, that's what science is all aboutlearning you were wrong. The alternative is to throw our hands in the air and pretend like the matter doesn't concern science, despite being entirely and wholly empirically detectable. How would this soul, being materially undetectable, communicate with a body that only accepts materially detectable inputs? I don't see the experiment even getting off the ground on accounts of being internally contradictory.Let me ask you this: When presented with a device that senses things that we ourselves cannot sense, do we treat it as a supernatural realm-hopper, or an instrument capable of sensing materially detectable things that we cannot detect ourselves? Do we regard everything it detects and reports back to us as being from another realm?Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

So far, never. Likely due to its lack of existence. But we were talking about a world in which the supernatural is real, and I proposed a way in which that evidence might be found to support that. I am talking about detecting something non-materially that cannot be detected materially so I guess your supposition is false. Presuming there is a natural cause. But we are stipulating there is no natural cause, so it cannot be explained naturally. It can be described as you do by pointing out what natural things are affected, but those natural things are not acting in a way they would normally without intervention. Jesus gives you a mathematical formula for spiritual reincarnations that relies on spiritual metaphysics and the material effects all make sense and can even be predicted.To repeat for stress: You can describe the material effects materially. But you cannot find any material causation for those effects. You can find non-material causation by experience. Or - the natural laws stand and new non-natural laws are discovered. Why neglect this outcome? One presumes the dualists are of the opinion that your assumption that the body only accepts materially detectable inputs is false.Quoth Descartes:

quote:

---

I remark, in the next place, that the mind does not immediately receive the impression from all the parts of the body, but only from the brain, or perhaps even from one small part of it, viz, that in which the common sense (senses communis) is said to be, which as often as it is affected in the same way gives rise to the same perception in the mind, although meanwhile the other parts of the body may be diversely disposed, as is proved by innumerable experiments, which it is unnecessary here to enumerate.

​

{a discussion about how moving a foot is deterministic from a series of biomechanical causes up to the brain...}

​

I remark, finally, that as each of the movements that are made in the part of the brain by which the mind is immediately affected, impresses it with but a single sensation, the most likely supposition in the circumstances is, that this movement causes the mind to experience, among all the sensations which it is capable of impressing upon it; that one which is the best fitted, and generally the most useful for the preservation of the human body when it is in full health. But experience shows us that all the perceptions which nature has given us are of such a kind as I have mentioned; and accordingly, there is nothing found in them that does not manifest the power and goodness of God. Thus, for example, when the nerves of the foot are violently or more than usually shaken, the motion passing through the medulla of the spine to the innermost parts of the brain affords a sign to the mind on which it experiences a sensation, viz, of pain, as if it were in the foot, by which the mind is admonished and excited to do its utmost to remove the cause of it as dangerous and hurtful to the foot.

---

The cherub experiment that I described is still awaiting... What I'm talking about is something that we can sense that no instrument can. And no, we don't automatically regard everything we detect as being from another realm. The sensible amongst us presently regard undetectable 'phantoms' as minor but relatively common hallucinations or other such works of the imagination. However, the existence of non-material beings can be established by identifying the existence of a being that is not made of matter (inluding energy et al). We could call this 'extra' substance what we want; the extranatural, the paramundane, the praeternatural, the supernatural or even Super Psychic Intransient Roaming Independent Tellurians.

Whether a man-made instrument, or something else, the principle is the same. If a device (organic or not) detects something and materially relates the information it has detected to us (on a screen, or through speakers, etc.), when is it ever okay to treat that detected information as non-material, and therefore supernatural? The reason we don't attribute things to magic when doing science is because that's not how science works. Magic, Supernatural, Godditit, etc. are all the non-scientific explanations to observed natural occurrences. Then you're talking about theoretical falsifiability, not actual falsifiability. Scientific theories require actual falsifiability, not that other meaningless kind. Who said anything about causes? Also, I'm using the term 'natural' to refer to anything that is a part of the empirical world. Who cares? It is entirely and wholly unlike anything ever witnessed before; but that's how scientific theories are discarded and new ones drawn up that incorporate the new evidence. Just because things don't fit the old model, doesn't mean we get to throw out the whole process altogether. Of course you can; I already mentioned one material cause: Jesus waved his hands. Because it has absolutely no relation whatsoever to science or the scientific method. They've yet to present any scientific evidence to counter my assumption. I already addressed it; there is no reason to label the thing undetectable by our eyes but detectable by some other detectable device (be it a soul or a camera) as 'supernatural'. All our experience and standards for operation tell us to classify such a detection as 'natural', thereby removing entirely from our experiment the 'supernatural', making it wholly impossible for our experiment to falsify anything related to the 'supernatural'.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

If I can see something which neither emits nor reflects electromagnetic waves, nor has any energy, mass or the like and yet, all humans that look, see the thing. I think we've got a good bit of evidence in favour of the supernatural. But, as you say, science extends to take new information into account. If the spiritual realm exists, I see no reason that science can't extend it's methodology to try to learn about it, once it is given the appropriate information (ie., some kind of howto for bridging the gap, or a sudden appearance of a menagerie of spiritual beings readily experienced by all and sundry). If you want to define supernatural as having the property 'cannot be experienced', then we're back to Straggler's argument that whatever opinions humans have of the supernatural are necessarily human inventions since they did not acquire that knowledge through some experience by definition.I was trying to shoot for a different angle as I recall, since that one went precisely nowhere interesting.As for causes, we were talking about science explaining stuff. That is, finding the causes and explaining how those causes can cause the effect that was caused. I'm not suggesting we throw out the whole process! I'm suggesting that we do resort to a new theory. And no, I'm not suggesting we need jump straight into theism at the sign of an interesting result. I'm suggesting that the accumulation of a certain kind of interesting result predicted by supernaturalists and defined as being 'supernatural' by them is increasingly supportive of their general theory of substance dualism. To justify that it is a cause you have to tie it to thermodynamically improbable events in some fashion. Did Jesus pull Maxwell's demon out of hell? Did he redirect the fire so that the shadows it casts were of wine rather than water?Otherwise it's not a cause, it's just an observation of a preceding event. Maybe it was just Jesus being a showman. Of course it does. If it turned out that science could access a parallel universe - would this be nothing to do with science? That's essentially all that I am proposing here - that and that the physics may be different in that universe. But that the physics in that universe and our own universe abide by a larger set of physics that govern reality.So science gets to communicate with beings that are not made of matter or energy. Do you think scientists would suddenly say, 'well technically this isn't something in our remit to study' or do you think, people driven to learn everything they can about reality might just abandon rigid dogmas about how science should be, and roll with the times. And nor have you to support it. You can call it whatever you like. It's just a name. The name isn't important. It's that it has the properties described by dualists that is of interest.

---

Just to make it clear, when bluegenes uses the word 'supernatural' he refers to things such as gods, miracle causing agents and the like. If such beings were to exist, regardless of if they are called 'supernatural' or not, this would be sufficient to falsify bluegenes' theory.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Indeed. And as I've already mentioned, there is good evidence that such critters do not exist:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 21:

​

Scientifically and inductively there is no evidence for any God;
Scientifically and inductively there is plenty evidence to conclude that all God concepts are made up;

---

Most god and paranormal concepts (Thor, Re, vampires, witches, Yahweh, etc.) are easily falsifiable, and have been falsified for all practical purposes. Also something I've already mentioned:

quote:

---

Jon in Message 21:

​

I think it can be safely agreed upon by most that if there is a supernatural God whose interaction with this world cannot be sensed, then the origin of any concept related to that God can indeed come from nowhere other than the human imagination.

---

Or the event could be the overthrow of even our most basic laws of nature, meaning our explanation needn't appeal to any of the previous bullshit science we'd been doing. Under the new system of natural laws, 'Jesus did it by waving his hands' might just be the best scientific explanation possible. Then they're just playing word games. What's more, their theory is then wholly falsifiable and testableso far the tests aren't looking good for dualism. In as much as science is bound by empiricism, such a parallel universe would have to be empirically detectable to be accessible by science. If such a universe did exist, then our natural laws would change to incorporate the new processes active in the parallel universe. It appears that we are proposing the same thing in this regard, as you mention, the 'larger set of physics', which is what I'd simply call the new set of natural laws covering this and the parallel universe. But there is nothing about science that requires it be limited to things of matter or energy. Stuff does have to be detectable, though. Their theory neither requires nor allows for materially undetectable mumble jumble. So it seems they work under the same assumption as I do.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

There remains no evidential reason to consider any one entirely empirically undetectable entity as more or less likely to actually exist than any other does there? Your use of the term "supernatural" to exclude all sorts of empirically detectable god concepts (Thor, Zeus, Christ 'God the son'...etc.) is hardly standard. By your use of the term "supernatural" you and I could find ourselves in biblically described hell together having witnessed biblical Armageddon and, even as we are tortured by demons for all eternity, accurately claim that there is no evidence for the existence of anything supernatural.Needless to say this is somewhat at odds with any common use of the term "supernatural".

Others? Can you point me to these "others"....? If you are talking about Nwr then he has accused me of subscribing to what he calls the "conventional wisdom" regarding the nature of science. And I think it is fair to say that he has a rather "unique" (to be polite) alternative take on these matters. Given that you consider the second coming of Christ, biblical Armageddon and an eternal physical existence being tortured by demons in hell to be wholly "natural" simply by virtue of being empirically detectable I think it is fair to say that it is you rather than I that is out of step with common conceptual usage of the terms being applied here.But for a laugh why don't you actually take a position and explain to us all what exactly you mean by "supernatural" and where you stand on the existence of beings that would qualify as such?

The existence of the concepts, the source of origin of these concepts and human belief that such beings actually do exist. The only known source of supernatural being concepts is human imagination. Any other demonstrable source will falsify the theory. People wrongly believing that natural phenoma are supernatural (e.g. Xongsmiths gravity story or your Jim Jones example or indeed any number of examples throughout human history) is evidence in favour of the human imagination theory rather than against it. Obviously. We are looking for the source of the concepts yes? If we find evidence of a being that accurately matches the supernatural concept in question actually existing the theory can reasonably be considered falsified as this would be a source of that concept. A being that can genuinely defy the natural laws that restrict the rest of us in the way that concepts like Thor or Christ or Yahweh etc. are supposed to be able to would, if it could be shown to exist, falsify the theory by any reasonable standard of evidence wouldn't it? So what are you saying?Because at the moment you and Xongsmith seem to be making the same claims about science that are made by creationists and Intelligent Designists. Namely the claim that science is so innately biased and blinkered that it must deny any positive objective empirical evidence in favour of supernatural interpretations no matter how overwhelming such evidence may even theoretically be.Is this your position?

If you have been conflating "known" and "explained" then I suspect this has been the cause of a great deal of miscommunication.Why on Earth do you think anyone but you has been doing this?

Of course, but who cares what we call a thing? Would we not both be agreed that such a thing exists? (By the way, let's try to keep me out of the hell in our examples.) Needless to say, technical discussions are more to the point if they avoid common definitions and stick with precise ones. I've told you countless times my use of the term; my stance is that there is no evidence for their existence, and it is personal choice to believe or not in any of them.Jon

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr

Hi Jon,
You seem to trying to read my posts so as specifically to argue against them, and it renders your points somewhat unclear.For instance you said: That response doesn't really make sense. First of all I think we both know that neither of us believes there is good evidence that such critters exist so you don't need to repeat it. Second of all, my statement is a conditional.I'm sure many of course, would be interested to hear the 'good evidence' that God doesn't exist. So I suppose I shouldn't let that slip just in case you have some staggering insight into this subject.To repeat what I said in a different wayIf evidence of the set of example entities does turn up, this would serve as adequate falsification of bluegenes theory. IT does not matter what you choose to call them, your metaphysical nomenclature is not relevant. And as I mentioned to you, Jon. That ends the conversation. Your version of bluegenes theory becomes a tautology: Things which are products of the human mind are products of the human mind. Obviously, being tautologous it is unfalsifiable but it is also boring and trivial.I was going for a more interesting angle of an empirically detectable supernatural world. You know, the kind of supernatural world that supernaturalists actually believe exists?If you want to stick with your personal, unconventional, definition - what else is there to discuss? Again I'm baffled. How are they just playing word games? You are the one sticking with a strange definition so as to make a theory a tautology. How is acquiring evidence to support your position a word game, anyway? How is a making your theory falsifiable and testable, the kind of thing that makes a theory 'not look good'? Great. In that case, since you want to stick to that let's translate bluegenes theory into Jonglish.

quote:

---

The non-earth bound places, the non-human non-animal intelligent agents that seem to predominate through religious thought are products of the human imagination. Any resemblance of characters to actual persons, living or undead, is purely coincidental.

---

So - we have a parallel world which matches the properties of a world described by, for the sake of argument, many Christians. It can be investigated empirically and it transpires this parallel world is no different than the one Christian's call...heaven.Despite the fact that we can understand and investigate it. Despite the fact that Jon insists that we should definitely put heaven under the rubrick of 'nature', and despite all the reasonable and good arguments that can be made for doing so. Bluegenes' theory would be considered falsified.Why? Because when Bluegenes was talking about supernatural beings, he meant beings that come from some other 'realm' that match the properties that humans have held in their minds at one time or another. And that's what we've got, in contradiction with bluegenes theory. Now we we have identified another source of supernatural being concepts:- Their actual existence in what scientists have labeled a 'parallel world', but others call 'the spiritual realm'. But you assumed that the body cannot receive input from materially undetectable sources. And they didn't. So no - they don't operate under the same assumptions as you do. Furthermore, it's "mumbo jumbo'. Their theory does require materially undetectable entities, however. Except it isn't scientific and it isn't an explanation. It's just a description of an event. I already stipulated we don't have to throw out natural laws either. When Einstein came around, we didn't throw out Newton's laws, we just realized they are an exceptionally accurate approximation of low energy interactions.That's all that need happen here: Thermodynamics might be an accurate description of the universe in low magic conditions. When magic is involved we have to turn to Modulous' 2nd Law of Thaumadynamics.

But then you're just defining 'magic' as what happens when Jesus waves his hands to bring people back to life. If that's your game plan, then you're not doing much different than what I proposed, albeit giving it a different name. Your explanation is no different; you've just labeled the explanation 'Jesus waved his hands' as 'magic'. That's all any scientific explanation ever is: a description of a thing or event and its connection to an effect. And I'd rather we not throw them out. But I'd also be very ready to accept that, scientifically, there is a man Jesus who behaves in a certain unique way, while the other things we've discovered about the rest of the world hold true. To accept that different things operate by different natural laws is not outside the realm of science; it was once the going conclusion, until folk like Newton overturned the idea that the skies operate differently than the Earth; I don't see how reverting back to the old views is unreasonable given the evidence for it. And, if you want to call the natural laws by which Jesus interacts with the world around him 'magic', then I suppose you're free to do so. Indeed; what I was specifically trying to point out was my agreement that in regards most god concepts, the BG theory is falsifiable. In as much as the theory discusses materially detectable entities accessible to observation in some form (no matter how indirect, I suppose) it is falsifiable, though being so far supported by an overwhelming mass of evidence. Certainly! And you mentioned a test; unfortunately, no such test has been carried out, and you and I both know that the results of such a test would be uninteresting; the most we might hope to learn, for example, is that people have a preference for numbers less than 100 when pulling them from their ass, even though they've been given a range from 1 to 100 billion. The theory doesn't look good because the tests required to verify or falsify only show the promise of falsification; it doesn't look good for those supporting such theoriesout look not so good, as the eight-ball says. Let's get lookin'! Of course, even if the evidence were rather weak. At some point there is a material, brain, which receives the instruction from the soul. For the soul to be in communication with the material body and affect its material senses, then it must be materially detectable, at least in as much as we are to materially detect its existence on the basis of its inputs and outputs to our material detectorssenses. You said it, not me . Of course not; because the materially detectable soul is just another device used to detect things that our in-built material detectors cannot detect. And as with all such instances where we have a device used to detect things that we cannot detect with our naked senses, there should be no reason to assume what the soul detects is 'materially undetectable', while calling the things detected by my radio receiver 'materially detectable'. I cannot pick up radio signals with my ears, and I may not be able to see cherubs with my eyes; I use my radio to pick up one type of signal, and my soul to pick up the other type of signal. Why should we assume one of them to be materially detectable and the other one not to be?Anyway, that's more a semantic debate; if there is a soul that communicates with the body about things our other senses cannot readily perceive (and that assumes these things exist), then the cherub experiment should be one way to verify or falsify such a notion. So far, though, it's not looking good for the dualists; no experiment has yet borne out their testable hypothesis. The things do not exist, the soul cannot communicate with them, the soul itself does not exist, or all three are the case. In some way or another, the current evidence tells us that their theory, in its present form, is in some way at least bullshit. Aside from semantics, I think we're mostly in agreement.JonEdited by Jon, : No reason given.

---

Check out No webpage found at provided URL: Apollo's Temple!
Ignorance is temporary; you should be able to overcome it. - nwr