Things you should know by now, but only just discovered

RawkGWJ wrote:

To this day, there is zero evidence for the existence of the soul, so we must conclude that the soul does not exist.

Well there’s the difference right there between science and philosophy: sure, philosophically you can reach that conclusion, but scientifically you can just say that no evidence exists and that therefore science can’t currently support that any such soul exists.

Right, what Keithustus said. The philosophical debate is trying to determine whether there is a legitimate question there, and so far, there is wiggle room for the Dualists. That's not independent of the evidence, but it serves to constrain the discussion, on both sides. The fact is, there are still *potential* claims that could validate Dualism. They just have not been definitively confirmed by evidence.

That's the interplay between philosophy and science.

RawkGWJ wrote:

With the scientific method, typically we don’t try to disprove or falsify things.

Not knowing your background, I naively ask.... Why then do hypotheses need to be falsifiable before investigation begins?

Keithustus wrote:

but scientifically you can just say that no evidence exists and that therefore science can’t currently support that any such soul exists.

It’s not the responsibility of rational thinkers to disprove Sasquatch, god, or the soul.

If a thing is outside of the realm of science, we need to assume that it doesn’t exist. To do otherwise is harmful to humanity.

How do we know *anything* is outside the realm of science? That in itself is an area of philosophical disagreement, still.

Also, it's absolutely the responsibility of science to distinguish between what is consensually real, and what is not. That involves, among other things, disproving even widely held ideas that turn out to be incorrect. The germ theory of disease explicitly disproved the idea of bodily humors, for example. In fact, I'd go so far as to describe the disproof of widely held ideas as the basis for the idea of the paradigm shift. (You can't have a shift without having a previously held position that was disproved.)

RawkGWJ wrote:

It’s not the responsibility of rational thinkers to disprove Sasquatch, god, or the soul.

If a thing is outside of the realm of science, we need to assume that it doesn’t exist. To do otherwise is harmful to humanity.

Yes, but don’t strain science to do what only philosophy and other categories of rational thought can. Science says only that so far there is no evidence to confirm or deny Sasquatch, god(s), or souls. Specifically, every test so far of every testable-meaning-potentially-valid hypothesis to distinguish between the existence and non-existence of any of those have yet to make a good case for them existing rather than not existing, so that belief in any must be based on premises either untestable (outside science) or not yet tested, rather than existing science.

Robear wrote:

How do we know *anything* is outside the realm of science? That in itself is an area of philosophical disagreement, still.

I think you’re talking about a demarcation problem. Where do we draw the line between what is science and what is fantasy? Most things are really easy to sort out. Nessie goes in the fantasy bucket. Dinosaurs go in the science bucket.

But some things are hovering between those buckets. I think extraterrestrial life is a good example. Theoretical models suggest that extraterrestrial life is almost guaranteed to be a reality, but we have not detected any convincing signs of its existence. Though it’s not in the fantasy bucket, it’s not in the science bucket either. The demarcation line is blurry. IMO, it’s something interesting to think about, but humanity should not concern ourselves too much about it. Thankfully we don’t.

But the existence of the soul is not supported by any convincing theoretical models. We can’t measure it or detect it. It goes in the fantasy bucket, and is clearly outside of the realm of science.

Robear wrote:

Also, it's absolutely the responsibility of science to distinguish between what is consensually real, and what is not. That involves, among other things, disproving even widely held ideas that turn out to be incorrect. The germ theory of disease explicitly disproved the idea of bodily humors, for example. In fact, I'd go so far as to describe the disproof of widely held ideas as the basis for the idea of the paradigm shift. (You can't have a shift without having a previously held position that was disproved.)

I think I disagree on a semantic level. I agree with all of those ideas, just not the way that they’re worded.

One of the most important parts of the scientific method is that we must update our previously formed models when new and better evidence and data are discovered. For example, if a research group invented a way to measure and detect the existence of the soul, and their findings were able to be replicated by other researchers and pass the scrutiny of the scientific community, then we MUST update our previously held beliefs to reflect the new findings. And if that ever happens, I will change my stance on the existence of the soul.

Gravitational waves is a great example of something that started as a theoretical model, then moved into the realm of science once the tools and methods of detecting them were created.

If a widely held belief can be disproved, then it should be disproved. But some things cannot be proved or disproved. If someone is making an outrageous claim that can neither be proved nor disproved, it’s not the responsibility of rational thinkers to disprove the thing. It’s the responsibility of the one who’s making the outrageous claim to provide proof.

More semantics. The existence of bodily humors was never proven. To say that germ theory disproved it is accurate. In science speak it’s maybe more accurate to say that the germ theory model replaced the humors model. I’m being pedantic. I know.

Keithustus wrote:
RawkGWJ wrote:

It’s not the responsibility of rational thinkers to disprove Sasquatch, god, or the soul.

If a thing is outside of the realm of science, we need to assume that it doesn’t exist. To do otherwise is harmful to humanity.

Yes, but don’t strain science to do what only philosophy and other categories of rational thought can. Science says only that so far there is no evidence to confirm or deny Sasquatch, god(s), or souls. Specifically, every test so far of every testable-meaning-potentially-valid hypothesis to distinguish between the existence and non-existence of any of those have yet to make a good case for them existing rather than not existing, so that belief in any must be based on premises either untestable (outside science) or not yet tested, rather than existing science.

When there are no existing theoretic models to suggest that a thing is likely to exist, I feel that we can safely assume that they don’t. I’m not talking about crackpot theories. I mean theoretic models that the scientific community largely agree upon. Especially the scientists involved in a specific field.

There was a time when global warming and human created climate change was not fully accepted by the entire scientific community. But 99.9% of climate scientists knew that it was a reality. Over time, the rest of the scientific community came around to the idea. Well, 99.9% of them anyway.

And yet David Chalmers and many others still work to maintain Dualism... If you can solve the hard problem of consciousness to back up your belief, Rawk, you'll induce an actual paradigm change, or at least, lock it down.

IEP wrote:

In more detail, the challenge arises because it does not seem that the qualitative and subjective aspects of conscious experience—how consciousness “feels” and the fact that it is directly “for me”—fit into a physicalist ontology, one consisting of just the basic elements of physics plus structural, dynamical, and functional combinations of those basic elements. It appears that even a complete specification of a creature in physical terms leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the creature is conscious. And it seems that we can easily conceive of creatures just like us physically and functionally that nonetheless lack consciousness. This indicates that a physical explanation of consciousness is fundamentally incomplete: it leaves out what it is like to be the subject, for the subject. There seems to be an unbridgeable explanatory gap between the physical world and consciousness. All these factors make the hard problem hard.

We cannot yet say that simply fully assembling a living creature makes it conscious. Since we can't, the possibility exists that consciousness is separate from the physical nature of a being. We can't yet rule it out.

Robear wrote:

And yet David Chalmers and many others still work to maintain Dualism... If you can solve the hard problem of consciousness to back up your belief, Rawk, you'll induce an actual paradigm change, or at least, lock it down.

All I’ve done in this thread is apply critical thinking and the scientific method to the concept of the soul. I’ve been refining my science-fu for most of my adult life, but in the last five years or so I’ve had access to great resources that didn’t exist previously.

I still make blunders all the time. Many of them happen in these forums.

My supervisors at work hate debating me about my job. If they’re right, I accept their advice and incorporate it into my work habits as soon as I can. But when they’re being ridiculous... I stay calm and politely point out all the places where they’ve gone astray. Supervisors at UPS don’t like to have their authority questioned. Most other drivers are extremely intimidated by our management. And for good reason. They use every mind-f*ck tactic that they can to keep your head spinning. Eventually it wares a guy down and you just submit to their BS. Their dirty management tactics are what inspired me get well versed in critical thinking and logical fallacies.

Does that count as a selective pressure to evolve?

Absolutely. Remember, I'm laying out the arguments as they stand in the field, to the best of my knowledge. I did study this stuff in college, but that's been a long time now. I'm actually with you, but given that it's dead obvious that there's still a strong constituency for Dualism, it's hard for me to declare the matter closed, in spite of my own opinion.

The thing is, if any of us could rule it out, a simple letter to someone like Dennett would start the ball rolling. But if you dig into it, there are some currently intractable issues that keep us from planting the stake in the issue's chest.

New thread time?

IMAGE(https://i.imgur.com/VUbT7Nz.png)

Eh... Seems to have died out like they always do, Leaping. Not to worry.

A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand and says "Make me one with everything."

IMAGE(https://myglassesruledotcom-files-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/myglassesruledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/hot-dog.jpg?w=768)

When he gets the hot dog, he eats it and walks back to work.

Keithustus wrote:

IMAGE(https://myglassesruledotcom-files-wordpress-com.cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/myglassesruledotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/hot-dog.jpg?w=768)

No sauerkraut that isn't on with everything.

Grenn wrote:

A Buddhist walks up to a hotdog stand and says "Make me one with everything."

The Buddhist pays with a $20, then after a while says "what about my change?" The vendor replies: "Change comes from within."

Har, har.

Rykin wrote:

No sauerkraut that isn't on with everything.

Everything edible, to clarify.

My Germanic heritage compels me to challenge you to a duel, sir. Pistols at dawn!

TIL that Sauerkraut originated in China.

Keithustus wrote:
Rykin wrote:

No sauerkraut that isn't on with everything.

Everything edible, to clarify.

I love sauerkraut on a hotdog. Someone posted a recipe for a pan fried hotdog on here years ago and I make them like that with spicy brown mustard, sauerkraut, some sweet and spicy relish (or just diced up pickles), and some sriracha. Right up there with Chicago style for best hotdog IMHO.

Nathan's hot dog with chili, shredded cheddar, diced onions and some nice spicy brown mustard! *drool*

Rykin wrote:
Keithustus wrote:
Rykin wrote:

No sauerkraut that isn't on with everything.

Everything edible, to clarify.

I love sauerkraut on a hotdog. Someone posted a recipe for a pan fried hotdog on here years ago and I make them like that with spicy brown mustard, sauerkraut, some sweet and spicy relish (or just diced up pickles), and some sriracha. Right up there with Chicago style for best hotdog IMHO.

Sauerkraut is my favorite hot dog condiment, might be due to how rarely I have it though.

505 Southwestern Hatch Chili Sauce is fantastic on hot dogs (and many, many other savory dishes).

Mustard and kraut. It is the way.

Mustard and Kraut. Absolutely.

Robear wrote:

TIL that Sauerkraut originated in China.

That doesn't seem to be accurate. Saurkraut is similar to suan tsai, but there's a long history of fermented cabbage dishes throughout Eastern and Central Europe. It looks more like multiple discovery.

Hey, the Great Debate thread is thataway!

It's a hot dog, people. It's like the Barbie Horse Adventures of fast food. They're just lips and assholes.