Is My Hypothesis Valid???

I don't want to side track from the topic, but as I'm reading the debate this continues to cause some confusion, for me. Wouldn't the historical objective evidence for extra-terrestrial life be "terrestrial life", here, on this planet?How is that not sufficiant enough? I mean, in all of the discussions with creationist, we, the advocates of evolution, play down the process of life originating from basic elements. Why, now, do we play up the possibility of this happening again, on another random planet, with it's own set of elements, that simply combine to form life?IMO, it doesn't follow that we view life on this planet to be nothing more than simply chemical reactions that can take place without any guildance from non-complex natural processes. But, when we view it happening on another planet, we require evidence far beyond what our current technology can give us, for the sole purpose of winning an argument.It seems a bit stubborn to me to hold to the opinion that objective evidence of other life is required so that the meer hypothesis that life has occured elsewhere be valid.Life occurs in the universe, that should be suffice enough to know that life IS elsewhere. I'm having a little trouble following this. If the people think the shot came from some direction, versus, hearing the shot come from another direction, I would say the heard outweighs the think, right?Or did you mean something else? I would say that (50-100) people thinking something came from one direction, versus, (1) person saying they heard it from another direction, loses due to physical sensory usage, versus, wholely subjective intuition.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This is irrelevant towards RAZD's point. He has not made any claims about the characteristics of anything.Nor has he stated that objective evidence exists to support it.Further, to your flying island, not sure why you added magical, we have evidence of flight and we have evidence of islands - we don't have evidence of an island flying, but then again, lions don't live in the forest either - so both require some degree abnormality. Granted a flying island would be a greater abnormality, but that isn't the point. We all experience objective reality subjectively. Perhaps you meant the interpretation, to be considered valid, should have some objective evidence to support it?But, again, that would be irrelevant because RAZD has not denied the fact that there is no objective evidence for it. So is reality - objective reality. Everything is open to human interpretation because we use our senses to experience reality.What seems to be the issue is the lack of collaborating evidence for his subjective interpretaion. But that is only an issue if we have an a priori assumtion that we currently have all of the objective evidence that is to be known.

quote:

---

According to evidence proportionism, a subject's level of confidence in (H) should vary directly with the strength of his/her evidence in favor of (H's) truth. Likewise, his/her level of confidence in (H) conditional on (E) should vary directly with the strength of his/her evidence for (H's) truth when this evidence is augmented by the supposition of (E). It is a matter of some delicacy to say precisely what constitutes a person's evidence, and to explain how his/her beliefs should be "proportioned" to it. Nevertheless, the idea that incremental evidence is reflected in disparities between conditional and unconditional probabilities only makes sense if differences in subjective probability mirror differences in total evidence.

---

SourceYes, but *my* subjective experience supports *my* interpretation, of the exerience itself, which took place in reality. What is the issue is the degree to which my interpretation is probable. But, the degree to which it is probable can only be determined when all objective evidence is known, for a fact, to have been collected.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Then I, like you, will wait for his explanation as to what on earth is subjective evidence...? Determined by who...? Him...?My understanding is that the experience itself is the evidence for the subjective interpretation. As a human with a mind to do so you have the right to your subjective interpretation. Here is where "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a defense.The only thing subjective experience can be said to be evidence for is the persons own existance.Thanks for the clarification, Starggler.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

I know that you weren't, I thought your position about lions and forests were in direct relation to what RAZD claimed. My mistake.But let me then ask the question myself. What's wrong with this statement: "I had an subjective experience and I now believe god exists".Would I be required to show you objective evidence for god?How about this statement: "I had an experience and I believe (X) exists".Since I didn't define or place a characteristic on what I believed to exist, is it now more plausible that something exists?Why? Because magic doesn't exist. It already disqualifies the ability of an island to fly naturally - not that I think they do, but I haven't visited every area of the universe so, as I stated, I know flight is possible and I know islands exist. If you add magic then I'm forced to deny it's plausibility on that basis. But, if you just said "flying island", sans magic, I'll say it's unlikely knowing what I know, but I don't know everything so I can't disqualify it occuring naturally somewhere in this universe. I hold that all life is experienced subjectively. Objective reality is said to exist by people who determined it's existence subjectively. That we all have agreed to it doesn't remove the subjectiveness of the post-experience interpretation. The reality that you experience and are aware of is from YOUR personal subjective interpretation. It is validated by the fact that WE ALL have equal interpretations of what we all happen to experience, but you experience it in your mind, I experience reality in my mind, and we interacting in this third space called the physical world. So even the foot print of said Bigfeet is still your subjective interpretation of what you viewed. I don't agree that there is subjective evidence, so yes it is in no way the same thing.But dreams ARE the same as the reality you experience, especially lucid dreams, which you can control your body image.I wrote this in another thread but it seems relevant here too.

quote:

---

The body that you/me/we experience right now, the thing we call the physical body, is really the phenomenal body, or the body image. In a dream you also experience the body image. When you dream you make a distinction, "thats just dream stuff", but what is the actual difference? And, if you take seriously the insight that one experiences in lucid dreams and the fact that you can control them as you do your physical body image, it can profoundly change the way you look at the "real" world.

---

Then you, or we humans, cannot say with 100% accuracy what exists and doesn't exist. I don't fully accept that these 5 sensory inputs are all there is to how we experience reality, but if it is then I agree with you.However,Quantum mechanics is still a very complex area of study and many nueroscientist have determined that the brain may function at the quantum level - so perhaps we can some how experience reality at quantum levels that are not yet fully understood. But that's off topic here.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

What exactly is "subjective evidence"...?How is it different from the "subjective interpretation of a subjective experience"...? Yet none have any evidence aside from their own, personal, subjective interpretation of a subjective experience, so it does not in any way validate any claims of god(s). It only validates the fact that we have subjective experiences. After that experience, the interpretation of what it was is left up to the person to desipher.But their testimonies are not considered "subjective evidence", they would be considered "subjective interpretations of subjective experiences".So we have evidence of billions of people with similar interpreations, but not billions of people with similar evidence. This takes it back to the degree to which your subjective interpretation can be plausible within the reality that we can all agree on that exists.However, I feel that the degree to which it can be plausible is only good when all of the facts about nature are known, which is of course impossible.So, IMO, the degree to which something can be plausible is a matter of opinion based on the limits one places on future undiscovered aspects of our reality. If you place no limit to it, then anything becomes equally plausible because there is no limit to what might exist.But if you limit it to objective evidence only, then the degree of plausibility becomes an issue when the interpretation can't be objectively verified.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi RAZD,This feels like I'm watching mom and dad argue and I'm almost hesitant to speak up for fear of being yelled at. The only thing, IMO, that this could be evidence for, is that the person is actually conscious*, has the ability to have subjective experiences, and, is limited by their view of reality. It says nothing about physical reality - neither positive or negative.*In other posts you have made specific the fact that the person is conscious as opposed to "dreaming", however, one cannot have a dream unless the person is conscious to begin with. Further, lucid dreams and normal awaken states differ in absolutely no way - in the mind. We simply add to our experiences our sensory inputs. However, nothing in the brain changes in function due to someone being asleep. So I don't see why dreaming and awake is any different. - (just a minor quibble) To the individual, nothing can be indistinguishable from the imagination and empirical reality, because, ones perception of reality involves all known methods of experiencing it.In this sense, reality, outside of the way I perceive it, doesn't mean anything to me. Reality IS what I experience - whether it includes imagined things or not - it's my reality, period.I cannot, however, make any claims about reality as being empirical unless we can all objectively agree that it exists - in our physical reality.Not that that means that what I perceive doesn't exist, it just means we can't all agree on the nature of this claim. - I believe you can agree with that. I would say that he has found nothing, other than realizing that he is conscious of his surroundings, has a functioning brain, and, has been told by this brain that he exists (I think therefore I am).Outside of that, his claim is worth nothing to anyone not in his mind - or not experiencing his reality (which is impossible). This is his reality, his reality does not need objectivity to confirm anything about it - it's his, it's true to him and he doesn't care what you personally perceive or not.However he has a problem. I have my reality as well, as do you and so does *he who shall remain nameless*. We experience them in our minds, which is to say that reality exists only in our minds. BUT, we also have a physical reality that we all meet up in. This reality is limited to the physical, to the objective and to the empirical - in this reality we have rules, also limited by the nature of this reality. These rules limit us to the objective.Now, this does not in anyway say anything about the true nature of reality. In fact, IMO, it means there are 2 realities, the one I experience and the physical reality that I'm also a part of. Nothing that exists in one of those realities has to be true in the other, however, in the physical reality I'm forced to adhere to it's rules, so I can't force my personal reality onto the physical one, or try to explain what I experienced in my mind without following the rules of physical reality.Which brings us to the experience of the person in the forest.Is it real - yes. Does it matter that he was conscious or not - in my opinion, no. Has this person discovered something *new* about reality - no, nothing other than "hey, I exist within it."Why? Because he has 2 realities to deal with - the one in his mind, and, the one limited by it's physical nature.In his mind, he has possibly discovered something *new* about the physical reality - BUT - He is limited when he tries to convey this information to the reat of us also in the physcial reality that we all meet up in - because the nature of this reality(physical) has rules to it. One of those rules, as I understand it, is it's objectivity.-------------------------------------------------------------------------Conclusion: Nothing experienced in an individual mind reflects anything about the nature of the physical reality that we all meet up. So, unicorns, that exist in my mind, are real - in my reality. God, that exists in my mind, is real - in my reality. Whatever I saw in the forest is real, in my mind, in my reality.HOWEVER, in our reality, the physical one, it is far from proof for anything, or even possible proof for anything, other than "I exist in the physical reality and have subjective experiences about it." Because the physical reality has rules. Well, I hope I have understood you properly.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Hi RAZD, sorry for the late reply. Hope you don't mind continuing where we left off. You've misunderstood. I agree that there is just one reality, I also agree that individual perceptions of reality play a role in how individuals see reality. But my point was that that individual perception of reality can differ from the one reality that we all agree on. In this sense there is a reality for each individual experiencing it based on the things you explained. No, not at all. Absolutly, but how do we find the contradictions if it's not by involving the third-person perspective? Well this gets tricky, because the "sensations" are locked inside the brain, therefore these known "sensations" can be referenced in dreams as well. There are many cases of individual testimonies of having "tasted" something, or "smelled" something, in a dream. Was that "something" realy there, or was it imagined? - In the case of a dream you can say "it was imagined", but curiously, in an awakened state it can also be said to be imagined, since we use the same methods to gain a sense of "whats there" in both states.In fact, our sensory inputs don't really do much in the way of verfiication. It's all repetition, even when you are in an awakened state.Have you heard of change blindness? - Not be confused with inattentional blindness.

quote:

---

A crucial difference [with change blindness] is that successful change detection in the presence of a visual disruption requires a comparison of one image to another one held in memory. Consequently, change blindness can occur due to a failure to store the information in the first place or to a failure to compare the relevant information from the current scene to the representation (hence models of visual short term memory may be important for understanding the phenomenon). In contrast, inattentional blindness reflects the failure to detect an unexpected stimulus that is fully visible in a single display — it does not require a comparison to memory.

---

Due to this type of phenomenon we can see how fallacious first-person perception can be and we must invoke the third-person perspective for validation. - (The best method of "thrid-person perspective" is the scientific method). I would say, and I refer you to the works of Dan Dennett here as well, that the only way is through third-person point of view. You must place yourself as the subject in question, and see if you've overlooked something. The fact is that many people are just wrong about the results of their own introspection because people can't prevent themselves from theorizing when they "think" they are observing.Would you not agree that we must have some form of rigorous testing? Perception, at the individual level, has no bearing, IMO, on reality, unless we have third person confirmation. And if you can't do that, then you would have to be suspicious of the insights that you thought you had. Er...OK, I can agree with that.To the question of which one is faulty though, how would you suggest approaching that?For instance, 1 billion people agree on it being one way and 1 billion agree on it being another way, how do you deal with that?More to the issue though, I would say that there is nothing in our current understanding of reality that has this huge of a difference, without bringing in God to the equation, which you would like to leave out. Is there anything about reality that you feel has such a huge discrepancy, between to huge populations of people, that is not grounded in religious beliefs? This is not an accurate description of the history of science, though.Experiences from a first-person point of view have to be verified. You use subjects, and figure out some way to get what you've discovered from the first-person point of view to manifest itself for neutral observers from the third-person point of view. Again, if you can't do this, then you have to be suspicious what you thought you discovered. Right, but we don't live in RAZD's mind, we experience our own subjective reality, so maybe I never have this "unexpected experience" and nothing about reality ever seems out of wack.Something curious is understandable, but first-person curiosity can be third-person knowledge, therefore we must bring what we discover to the thrid-person point of view for justification. Agreed. I understand what you're saying now.But I'll add this:IF the experience raises the possibility - ("a possibility that is based on, focused, directed by, an experience, as opposed to random guessing, or the throwing of turtle bones")THEN it follows that the lack of confirmation should raise suspicion as to what was introspectively determined about the experience.Wouldn't you agree?- Oni

I don't equate "looking" for a specific species of bird as having "experienced" something that you introspectively determined was (X).Could you explain? The experience itself can't be, I agree, but what you introspectively determined about the experience, can be.For example, if you determined it was the "Lockness Monster", we could search for it to verify your claim.Science is the only thing we could apply to your claim, not to the experience, but just to your introspective conclusions. I honestly can't see any claim that can't be scienctifically evaluated. In fact, even claims that were said to be beyond science, like the idea of atoms 200 years ago, have been proven by science. Yes, but if both claims were wrong, then an independent, thrid-party evaluation would be the only way of making the final determination. Neither sides introspective determination of their individual experiences can be held as evidence for reality, in my opinion. Agreed.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD, No, not at all.But then we would have to establish before hand that we are talking about something objective that was observed, at some point, or in the case of some evolved organism, known to possibily exist due to pre-existing objective evidence, right? Agreed. I understand. It could very well have been a waterspout that looks like a pliesiosaurs, or, maybe even a pliesiosaurs that looks like a waterspout, as long as some kind of objective stimuli was involved I think the subjective interpretation can be anything that makes one happy. In some cases people don't even want validation and are happy accepting their interpretation.The phenomenon of consciousness and of subjectively experiencing reality doesn't get questioned when some kind of objective stimuli is involved (ie. water spouts that are confused for pliesiosaurs, or vise versa). I think subjective experienced get questioned when there are no objective stimuli and yet the person sticks to their subjective experience as being evidence of something existing in reality. At least that's at the point that I question it. Well, at the very least a third-party can validate that they saw something, too.Let's use the nessy example.You claim it was nessy that you saw, I don't believe you, but then *he who must not be mentioned* can say, at the very least, that he saw something, too. So now we at least have proof of something, then the scientific method can be applied, if necessary.So I agree that the SM is the best tool of investigation, but let's not short change our eyes and ears, which can validate the original claim. Once we've validated an objective stimuli (ie. water spouts or pliesiosaurs), the rest is what we define as "science" - investigating using the scientific method.Likewise, if you claimed to see nessy, and I didn't believe you. When I then turn to the third-party and ask if he saw something, if they say, no, it will then raise my suspicion of your original claim. In some cases disqualifying it completely. In fact, I would say that in most cases, if you can't get a third-peson confirmation when 2 people are there to witness it, your claim is disqualified. I would say a continuation of investigating in this area requires "faith", and by definition this would not be science.So we need validation of some objective stimuli before we can call the endeavor "science", right? Well, I don't think we need to as long as we are dealing with objective reality. But, if I personally had an inner experience that said there was something around the corner that was going to harm me, I would seek validation. As long as the experiences don't violate what you refered to as the "mundane" I think there is no need for valdation. It's when it doesn't that it raises suspicion.- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Hi RAZD, Agreed. If that is the only discrepancy then I'm willing to say that all endeavors that seem reasonable to a single person should be pursued by that single person, or who ever they convince to help them.This is where I usually tend to take my opinion of spirituality and personal religious "quests." If they seem of value to any individual then by all means and available methods, persue it to all end. I simply stipulate, with no authority on the matter, that the person should eventually be honest to themselves and judge the evidence of whatever they seek honestly. I would also go as far as to say, what may seem like nothing of value to one person, may be of great value to another person, and as such is at equal with any other individual persuit.But, as all subjective experiences are individual experiences, who am I to judge the value of said experience? If it matters to the individual then that is all that matters, IMHO. Well, I can agree that a general consensus is not needed for further inquiry. I also agree that one can close themselves off from learning many things if one does not pursue certain unvalidated claims with an open mind - like you said, new things are learned through these pursuits.My point was, though, that an eventual confirmation is needed from a non-subjective sense to eventually validate the original experience. However, this is only if the individual requires it, or wants to be honest about their claim. Many do not need validation as we see with people of faith. And this is fine, at least in my opinion, because, like I wrote in a previous post, reality is only what we experience subjectively and as such any and all illusions, when believed whole heartedly, are no longer illusions to the individual person and is part of their individual reality.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

Hi CS, How else do we experience reality, if not through our senses?At the very least would you agree that the only way to experience reality is through our senses? Wouldn't this just be an argument from incredulity?How is that evidence? But if there is no other way to experience reality, wouldn't you agree that we are limited as to what we can call 'evidenced', because we are limited to just our senses? Perhaps, but wouldn't we still need empirical evidence of this new 'sense' before we can attribute any functions to it?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Wouldn't your logic, applied to any such situation, be a collection of empirical data aquired through your experiences?How do you know a 'square' ball doesn't exist?There is a prerequisite to applying logic. That being that your logic is a collection of your experiences. Unless you know of another way, reality is experienced through our sensory system and thus your logic is an emergent property of your senses. We can 'say it', but without empirical evidence it's still held as tenative. IMO, saying that there is life on other planets, without empirical evidence, is an hypothesis based on supporting empirical evidence.But the question was in reference to actual 'experiences'. In and of themselves, is there any other way to experience reality other than through our senses? Perhaps, but this particular argument: Does seem to be. But we don't. Empirically it has not been evidenced, yet. And when it does, then there will be empirical evidence for it. You're digging deep for this one my friend.Our confidence no more supports that there is life on other planets than it supported geocentrism. Cool, and I do, but would you?If not, why not? You said not necessarily, how so?If it's not through our sensory system, how else? Well if there is no empirical evidence for this '6th sense', how do we know it exists?- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

So is your belief in god equal to say the belief in Zues for the Greeks?Or does the argument fall apart once specific characteristics start to be asigned to god(s)? Unless the origin of the god(s) proves to be completely made-up.I think your position holds up when you say "something out there." But when the god(s) have specific stories and characteristics (likes, dislikes, laws, motives) your position doesn't seem to hold up. It's not enough that one believes there is "something out there," now that something out there sent his son to earth, helped certain tribes, doesn't want certain acts commited by it's people, etc.How does one go from "something out there," to a specific god, of a specific religion, without empirical evidence for that specific god?- "I had an experience and I believe there is something greater than us out there."- "I had an experience and it was Jesus, and not any other god."I can see how no empirical evidence would be required by individuals to confirm the conclusion for the first scenario, but I can't see how the second one wouldn't require empirical evidence.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

By 'vision' am I correct in interpreting that, not as in "I saw it physically in reality," but more like a "mental vision?"If it's the latter then I think this crosses over into Stragglers argument about it manifesting solely in the mind, and as such cannot be empiricaly evidenced.However, if the person claims to have actually seen something in physical reality, then at the very least we have some empirical evidence to work with. Of course an isolated incident won't help establish anything about the actual, physical image, but the person should not be swayed by that single isolated incident either. ...if that's the case I'm praying for nude images to be zapped into my head of Jessica Biel.How shitty to have a mind vision of some dude in a robe, wearing sandles and being preachy all the time. - Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Yes, it should be able to be empirically evidence by photograph, video or any other scientific instrument, and if you cannot, then that persons single isolated experience is not evidence for anything existing in physical reality - currently. And, until such time that it can be evidenced, it will be held as a subjective experience not representing anything in physical reality - currently.But that single experience can cause someone to be swayed to believing in a particular god, they can, if they want to, use that experience as evidence for themselves, if in fact their mental image was of that particular god.What you quoted was in this context, in my discussion with CS. Not in reference to your discussion with RAZD. (I think I'm about to test your sanity )I personally feel that we humans don't know enough about reality to say that with absolute confidence.If we are talking about the god(s) of scriptures or mythology then, yes, I would agree with you. These are silly, man-made entities ascribed all kinds of human-type characteristics that seem, IMO, almost juvenile to accept.However, that it could be evidence for something greater than our current understanding, IMO, is yet to be determined.That is why I asked CS, how does one get from an experience of "something greater than my understanding" to "it was Jesus?"The experience can be evidence of something not understood yet, but we cannot ascribe characteristics to it and call it a specific god(s). That cannot be confirmed by simply having "an experience." You must first assume that the current methods of detection are the only means of detecting all things in reality. Are you willing to make that claim?Our instruments have one key down fall: they are only as good and as accurate as we've made them. Human ingenuity is limited to human knowledge.I would say this, with our current methods of detection it seems that these claims are nothing more than "in the mind," but I would not say that as an absolute statement. And I also wouldn't say that they can never be detected in the future. I don't know everything about reality yet to make such a bold statement.*PS. I'm glad to see mom and dad have returned to the dinner table to continue the discussion - dinner was getting cold. - Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin