4 ms·

Of course we do, what do you mean? We can obviously check if there is anyone else in the room, with various instruments, and if there isn't, we obviously know f

Of course we do, what do you mean? We can obviously check if there is anyone else in the room, with various instruments, and if there isn't, we obviously know for certain that the experience was purely generated by the brain. What else could it even be?

mistermann 2y ago
Is it scientific consensus that an absence of evidence is proof of absence? And even if so: is it necessarily true? PS: did you notice you're using the same methodology "believers" use: it's obvious?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  Give the extreme level at which we understand the basic functioning of the physical world (the Standard Model), yes, absence of evidence for a phenomenon that would contradict this model constitutes evidence of absence of such a phenomenon. That is, since the only possible known interactions that the brain could pick up are electrical in nature, and given that no external electrical field changes are observed, that constitutes evidence that no external signal is being received by the person. The weak and strong forces don't work at such distances, so they are out of the question, and gravitational waves or neutrinos are far too weak to be detected by our brains, and impossible to make so targeted that only a single individual would receive the signal. Now, is it conceivable that a different fundamental interaction that mammalian brains can detect but that none of our experiments have ever found could exist? Yes, but it is so extraordinarily unlikely that it can be dismissed out of hand, absent any proof. And the memories of people experiencing hallucinations are certainly not proof.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    I'll add to it that there's a wide range of documented cases of humans experiencing all sorts of weird phenomena when their brains are being physically poked at. A drug chemically circuit-bending your brain therefore seems much more likely explanation than opening it to perceive an extra dimension of reality. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_bending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_bending
  - mistermann 2y ago
    > ... constitutes evidence of absence of such a phenomenon. Mostly everyone prefers that easy version of the question, but that isn't the one I asked. The one I asked is: Is it scientific consensus that an absence of evidence is proof of absence? ("proof" vs "evidence") (Note also my question was about scientific consensus, but you are welcome to choose either version.) > That is, since the only possible known interactions that the brain could pick up are electrical in nature This seems "off" to me..."the only know to be possible" seems perfectly logical, whereas your wording almost sounds like you determine how Mother Nature runs the show. Granted, that's how it intuitively seems, but still. Regardless, for clarity: are you asserting that the final answered has been reached here, in fact? Still outstanding (for bonus points): >> And even if so: is it necessarily true? >> PS: did you notice you're using the same methodology "believers" use: it's obvious? For your troubles, an extra bonus question: Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist?
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Nothing can really be perfectly proven, so go away if that's the only standard you will allow discussion of. > Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist? We were certainly able to detect atoms before we figured out the exact details.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        > Nothing can really be perfectly proven... Many here seem to disagree with you, at least if one interprets their words literally. It's hard to know what they mean they since getting anyone to answer a question directly is typically not possible. > ...so go away if that's the only standard you will allow discussion of. What does "if that's the only standard you will allow discussion of" refer to? >> Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist? > We were certainly able to detect atoms before we figured out the exact details. Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist? No obligation to answer the question that is asked, just thought it would be fun to see if you have the ability.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
We need to account for the odd similarity of experience across users, which leads to two most probable explanations. First, the brain generates the experience, and the patterns are a consequence of structural similarities across human brains. Second, these entities actually exist somehow and we can’t yet observe them with our modern instruments. I certainly think that the first is more likely, but I think we need to do more work to reduce the probability of the second, likely by recording the brain activity similarities we would expect to see if it were a generated experience or by finding a number of individuals who don’t have the same experiences. We can also have people undergo extended trips, as is being tested currently, and see if the characteristics of the entities or the world indicate a generated experience. My only point was that, since this is a matter that depends entirely upon subjective conscious experience, a phenomenon we lack tools to measure and understand somewhat poorly, and since this substance is majorly understudied, it isn’t smart to simply assume that the first explanation is the correct one.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  The second "explanation" requires a fundamental upending of basic physics research that is confirmed to higher degrees of accuracy than any direct experience we have ever had. The first explanation, while slightly handwavy, perfectly fits all established models of physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and psychology. I think even mentioning the second explanation is entirely splitting hairs. It's like reminding everyone that physics can't rule out that God could have created the world with its apparent 8 billion year history 2 hours ago.
  - BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
    Actually yeah I think you’re right.
    - lupire 2y ago
      This is called Bayesian reasoning, BTW, and you subconsciously do it all the time. Your entire life would be almost completely incomprehensible otherwise.

mistermann 2y ago

Is it scientific consensus that an absence of evidence is proof of absence? And even if so: is it necessarily true? PS: did you notice you're using the same methodology "believers" use: it's obvious?

tsimionescu 2y ago
Give the extreme level at which we understand the basic functioning of the physical world (the Standard Model), yes, absence of evidence for a phenomenon that would contradict this model constitutes evidence of absence of such a phenomenon. That is, since the only possible known interactions that the brain could pick up are electrical in nature, and given that no external electrical field changes are observed, that constitutes evidence that no external signal is being received by the person. The weak and strong forces don't work at such distances, so they are out of the question, and gravitational waves or neutrinos are far too weak to be detected by our brains, and impossible to make so targeted that only a single individual would receive the signal. Now, is it conceivable that a different fundamental interaction that mammalian brains can detect but that none of our experiments have ever found could exist? Yes, but it is so extraordinarily unlikely that it can be dismissed out of hand, absent any proof. And the memories of people experiencing hallucinations are certainly not proof.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  I'll add to it that there's a wide range of documented cases of humans experiencing all sorts of weird phenomena when their brains are being physically poked at. A drug chemically circuit-bending your brain therefore seems much more likely explanation than opening it to perceive an extra dimension of reality. -- [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_bending https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_bending
- mistermann 2y ago
  > ... constitutes evidence of absence of such a phenomenon. Mostly everyone prefers that easy version of the question, but that isn't the one I asked. The one I asked is: Is it scientific consensus that an absence of evidence is proof of absence? ("proof" vs "evidence") (Note also my question was about scientific consensus, but you are welcome to choose either version.) > That is, since the only possible known interactions that the brain could pick up are electrical in nature This seems "off" to me..."the only know to be possible" seems perfectly logical, whereas your wording almost sounds like you determine how Mother Nature runs the show. Granted, that's how it intuitively seems, but still. Regardless, for clarity: are you asserting that the final answered has been reached here, in fact? Still outstanding (for bonus points): >> And even if so: is it necessarily true? >> PS: did you notice you're using the same methodology "believers" use: it's obvious? For your troubles, an extra bonus question: Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist?
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Nothing can really be perfectly proven, so go away if that's the only standard you will allow discussion of. > Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist? We were certainly able to detect atoms before we figured out the exact details.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      > Nothing can really be perfectly proven... Many here seem to disagree with you, at least if one interprets their words literally. It's hard to know what they mean they since getting anyone to answer a question directly is typically not possible. > ...so go away if that's the only standard you will allow discussion of. What does "if that's the only standard you will allow discussion of" refer to? >> Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist? > We were certainly able to detect atoms before we figured out the exact details. Did atoms exist before they were discovered to exist? No obligation to answer the question that is asked, just thought it would be fun to see if you have the ability.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago

BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago

We need to account for the odd similarity of experience across users, which leads to two most probable explanations. First, the brain generates the experience, and the patterns are a consequence of structural similarities across human brains. Second, these entities actually exist somehow and we can’t yet observe them with our modern instruments. I certainly think that the first is more likely, but I think we need to do more work to reduce the probability of the second, likely by recording the brain activity similarities we would expect to see if it were a generated experience or by finding a number of individuals who don’t have the same experiences. We can also have people undergo extended trips, as is being tested currently, and see if the characteristics of the entities or the world indicate a generated experience. My only point was that, since this is a matter that depends entirely upon subjective conscious experience, a phenomenon we lack tools to measure and understand somewhat poorly, and since this substance is majorly understudied, it isn’t smart to simply assume that the first explanation is the correct one.

tsimionescu 2y ago
The second "explanation" requires a fundamental upending of basic physics research that is confirmed to higher degrees of accuracy than any direct experience we have ever had. The first explanation, while slightly handwavy, perfectly fits all established models of physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and psychology. I think even mentioning the second explanation is entirely splitting hairs. It's like reminding everyone that physics can't rule out that God could have created the world with its apparent 8 billion year history 2 hours ago.
- BriggyDwiggs42 2y ago
  Actually yeah I think you’re right.
  - lupire 2y ago
    This is called Bayesian reasoning, BTW, and you subconsciously do it all the time. Your entire life would be almost completely incomprehensible otherwise.