5 ms·

Yeah, sorry for the inconsistency there. I didn't consider that personal anecdotes and hearsay are technically evidence as evidence is literally anything that s

Yeah, sorry for the inconsistency there. I didn't consider that personal anecdotes and hearsay are technically evidence as evidence is literally anything that supports a conclusion. It is however, a good indicator for how little I value those two forms of evidence however. My point with "today's age of misinformation" is not really that there is more misinformation these days. That may be true, but it could also just be that we have access to a higher volume of information. It's more that we are more aware of misinformation, and can develop habits + tools to deal with misinformation.

strogonoff 2y ago
Any evidence here would be unsound if you try to apply natural science’s requirements to it. Scientific method is about making observable predictions; i.e., it ultimately hinges on the experience of the observer and existence of observer’s mind. When you try to apply it to the theory of mind itself, you short-circuit that logic. There is pretty much no useful (falsifiable or provable) claim or conclusion to be made, and all evidence is immediately tainted as it gets deconstructed into arbitrary categories in vogue today, goes through the meatgrinder of lossy verbal descriptions, and ultimately gets subjectively interpreted by your own mind. In other words, it is not the problem of the evidence—this is among the best evidence you can get—it is the problem of the framework you are interpreting it in.
- nulld3v 2y ago
  In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. And of course there's that whole aspect of replication along with that "scientific method" thing. If science was simply the act of humans making observable predictions and telling them to others, then there would be no difference between "science" and "personal anecdote". I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. We are trying to prove something that exists outside the mind right? However, even if this phenomena was something that only humans could observe, it would still be testable with science. Science makes observations about human behavior all the time. Ok, all that said, almost none of this is relevant because my proof standards are not as rigorous as scientific standards. I just want to see some videos of the beings, I'm not asking someone to perform a study here.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    > In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. An unconscious, non-experiencing mechanism is not an observer in the way the term “empirical”[0] is meant—to observe is to experience. > I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. See above. (I do not think I really understood the rest of your comment.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
    - nulld3v 2y ago
      You can observe the state of a machine that is expected to derive it's state from an event or state of another object. For example, a video camera derives it's state from the light rays entering the lenses. I'm asking for some video evidence of religion. So really I am asking for an opportunity to observe a state of a machine, albeit a very specific state. I suppose you could argue this is just a very roundabout way to indirectly experience religion.
      - strogonoff 2y ago
        > You can observe the state of a machine Yes, but you still observe it, right? That’s how evidence is created. Religion operates at a level closer to philosophy. You can interrogate theories of mind logically, but when you try to apply scientific method it breaks down—there’s no hard evidence you can obtain to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Similar is true of the claims made by a religion, though its obvious weak point is it’s more axiomatic and less logically rigorous (which is why I am not a proponent).
        nulld3v 2y ago
        But why is religion special in this regard? Why does religion necessarily operate at a level closer to philosophy but other things don't?
        strogonoff 2y ago

strogonoff 2y ago

Any evidence here would be unsound if you try to apply natural science’s requirements to it. Scientific method is about making observable predictions; i.e., it ultimately hinges on the experience of the observer and existence of observer’s mind. When you try to apply it to the theory of mind itself, you short-circuit that logic. There is pretty much no useful (falsifiable or provable) claim or conclusion to be made, and all evidence is immediately tainted as it gets deconstructed into arbitrary categories in vogue today, goes through the meatgrinder of lossy verbal descriptions, and ultimately gets subjectively interpreted by your own mind. In other words, it is not the problem of the evidence—this is among the best evidence you can get—it is the problem of the framework you are interpreting it in.

nulld3v 2y ago
In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. And of course there's that whole aspect of replication along with that "scientific method" thing. If science was simply the act of humans making observable predictions and telling them to others, then there would be no difference between "science" and "personal anecdote". I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. We are trying to prove something that exists outside the mind right? However, even if this phenomena was something that only humans could observe, it would still be testable with science. Science makes observations about human behavior all the time. Ok, all that said, almost none of this is relevant because my proof standards are not as rigorous as scientific standards. I just want to see some videos of the beings, I'm not asking someone to perform a study here.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  > In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. An unconscious, non-experiencing mechanism is not an observer in the way the term “empirical”[0] is meant—to observe is to experience. > I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. See above. (I do not think I really understood the rest of your comment.) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
  - nulld3v 2y ago
    You can observe the state of a machine that is expected to derive it's state from an event or state of another object. For example, a video camera derives it's state from the light rays entering the lenses. I'm asking for some video evidence of religion. So really I am asking for an opportunity to observe a state of a machine, albeit a very specific state. I suppose you could argue this is just a very roundabout way to indirectly experience religion.
    - strogonoff 2y ago
      > You can observe the state of a machine Yes, but you still observe it, right? That’s how evidence is created. Religion operates at a level closer to philosophy. You can interrogate theories of mind logically, but when you try to apply scientific method it breaks down—there’s no hard evidence you can obtain to prove or disprove your hypothesis. Similar is true of the claims made by a religion, though its obvious weak point is it’s more axiomatic and less logically rigorous (which is why I am not a proponent).
      - nulld3v 2y ago
        But why is religion special in this regard? Why does religion necessarily operate at a level closer to philosophy but other things don't?
        strogonoff 2y ago