Materialism and Mechanisms

[steve001]

I typed up a long post last week about anecdotes that I was going to make a separate topic, but then I decided not to post it. Since this conversation has taken a turn to where I think it is relevant, I will post an excerpt:

Consider the difference (in the US court system anyway) between a criminal trial and a civil trial. To establish guilt in a criminal trial, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. To convict the defendant, the entire jury must agree that it is unreasonable to believe that the defendant is not guilty.

The civil trial on the other hand, requires only that a preponderance of evidence supports the claim. The civil trial is determining what is more likely, even if there is not a strong level of certainty.

Scientific proof is like the criminal trial. We have to be able to prove that a new hypothesis is very likely to be true and well-supported by evidence. This tends to be the realm of binary true/false type of situations. The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300 m/s - We have a lot of evidence to support this - The claim is true, and any other claim about the speed of light is false.

However, our personal beliefs are more like the civil trial. Each of us can look at the evidence and decide that one explanation is more likely than another, even if we don't have enough evidence to call it 'scientific proof'. We maintain a certain level of doubt, but lean in one direction or another. We weigh each possibility and determine how likely it is that each is true. We may all come to different conclusions for different reasons. This is (or at least should be) the realm of the agnostic.

1). So what do we do with anecdotes? Obviously they do not fit into the 'scientific proof' category. I think most of us can agree on that. But what about the personal belief category - is it unreasonable to consider any anecdotes? Are they completely worthless? Should we dismiss piles and piles of anecdotes just because they are not scientific proof? It seems in terms of determining what one personally thinks is more likely, some anecdotes should be considered - it is part of discovering the preponderance of evidence.

Let me first say I think you've made good sense.

Here's the overarching problem with anecdotes. How can they be tested? Are they completely worthless? Maybe not. It is difficult to determine if there is value in something that can't be examined firsthand and reexamined thereafter
As for their value in personal truth they are of great value. If it stopped there there would not be this offhanded dismissal of their use. But people do use then in a way that reaches well beyond power of the anecdote itself to state what is objectively true. Do you follow?

I think the trend in the skeptic community is to eliminate the 'personal belief' category altogether by making the standard for 'personal belief' the same as the standard for 'scientific proof'. You could almost use this as the definition for the skeptic philosophy. Whether this is the right thing to do or not is subjective, and I don't presume to be able to objectively define this as better or worse than any other belief system.

It's natural to have a personal belief. I can say for certain skeptics have that too. However no one should claim their belief is objectively true.

However, my personal feeling is that this approach is wise when we're talking about what should be written in a science textbook or taught in a science class. But in our personal lives? Most of human experience does not fit into the scientific proof category. If we eliminate the personal belief category altogether, I don't see how we can avoid losing some of what Joseph Campbell calls 'The feeling of being alive' that all human beings yearn for. Your life is your own personal anecdote, and it can be filled with magic if you allow it to be.

I agree with the textbook thought.
I'm going to look up this quote by Campbell before I comment. I want to understand precisely what is meant by it.

 

[Arouet]

Scientific proof is like the criminal trial.

While I get where you're coming from, I'm going to disagree. The fact is, both standards of proof in law are coming at the issue from a very different perspective from that of science and really we're talking about apples and oranges.

The legal system is based on resolving conflict. It accepts that it is mired in unreliable evidence. It accepts this because we recognise that conflicts must resolve, and criminals must be punished. The rules that have been put into place hope to result in the truth, but getting at the truth isn't actually the focus. In a trial there is a winner and a loser. It is set up as a contest. Sure there is some effort to require minimum standards of evidence but no-one is under the illusion that the standard is particular high from a "truth" perspective. We're stuck with the evidence that we have, and we have to make a decision even if the evidence is on the whole unreliable. At the end of a trial a decision must be made. We have a system of appeals to temper somewhat the unreliable nature of evidence in general which we hope will overturn mistakes. Make no mistake, though: the focus is on conflict resolution, picking a winner, rather than on the "truth". This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In an ideal world perhaps we'd be able to focus on truth but unfortunately we don't live in that world.

Science, however, has a different focus. It's not about conflict resolution. That is: there is no requirement to make a decision. In a trial, if the evidence is unreliable we have to make a decision anyway. Not so in science. In science we have the luxury to wait until the evidence is of a certain quality before making a decision. This allows for more focus on the "truth". Of course we still allow error bars but they are much smaller than those tolerated in law.

In short, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal law will still rely on evidence that is on the whole of a much lower quality (ie reliability) that that of science.

Bringing it back to annecdotes the issue in civil and criminal trials while we hope to have higher quality evidence it is entirely possible to have a trial with only anecdotal level evidence. There the judge or jury still has to make a decision. In a science experiment if we only have unreliable evidence we are justified in concluding that we shouldn't conclude anything yet.

In science we care the most about the reliability of the evidence. Not based on our gut instinct of what is reliable but based on methods that are specifically developed to control out gut instincts and have been empirically shown to produce more reliable results.

If there is a method to evaluate annecdotes to separate out the reliable ones from the less reliable ones then we should be willing to embrace the reliable ones in science. I've never seen anyone propose an empirically based method to evaluate anecdotes for reliability. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist - if someone knows of one, bring it forward so we can look at it!

 

[gabriel]

It depends on the rarity of the phenomenon. If a relative tells me they have seen or heard something inexplicable, and they're reliable people and not pushing the story to entertain or promote a belief system, I assume it fits the common definition of ghosts or whatever. The fact it isn't recognised by science is irrelevant, because such things are frequently reported by other reliable people, and have a long history. The most authentic position to adopt, is that science lacks the tools or determination to encounter such events, so they continue outside its jurisdiction. If a professional scientist tells me I shouldn't believe in the testimony, I judge it in the same light as if a member of the clergy told me I should and it is demonic in nature, that is to fit their belief system. Such events do not require belief to occur, and their history is at least as venerable as the scientific method.

 

[Arouet]

It depends on the rarity of the phenomenon. If a relative tells me they have seen or heard something inexplicable, and they're reliable people and not pushing the story to entertain or push a belief system, I assume it fits the common definition of ghosts or whatever. The fact it isn't recognised by science is irrelevant, because such things are frequently reported by other reliable people, and have a long history. The most authentic position to adopt, is that science lacks the tools or determination to encounter such events, so they continue outside its jurisdiction. If a professional scientist tells me I shouldn't believe in the testimony, I judge it in the same light as if a member of the clergy told me I should and it is demonic in nature, that is to fit their belief system. Such events do not require belief to occur, and their history is at least as venerable as the scientific method.

I think you're using reliable in a different sense than I am.

 

[gabriel]

I think you're using reliable in a different sense than I am.

I'm using it as per the dictionary definition.

 

[MysticG]

Let me first say I think you've made good sense.

Here's the overarching problem with anecdotes. How can they be tested? Are they completely worthless? Maybe not. It is difficult to determine if there is value in something that can't be examined firsthand and reexamined thereafter
As for their value in personal truth they are of great value. If it stopped there there would not be this offhanded dismissal of their use. But people do use then in a way that reaches well beyond power of the anecdote itself to state what is objectively true. Do you follow?

It's natural to have a personal belief. I can say for certain skeptics have that too. However no one should claim their belief is objectively true.

I agree with the textbook thought.
I'm going to look up this quote by Campbell before I comment. I want to understand precisely what is meant by it.

Perhaps we are not as far apart as I thought. I agree that sometimes anecdotes can be given too much emphasis. But I oppose blanket dismissal. It is hard for a scientist to do anything with them, regardless of his/her belief, because there is nothing to objectively study if the phenomena cannot be reproduced. But I often see an attitude of "If you can't prove it, it is false", where I generally prefer "If you can't prove it, I will have to remain agnostic". It sounds like a small difference, but I think there is value in keeping the mindset of 'I don't know, lets explore possibilities', instead of the (more common) mindset of 'I have the answer and I must defend it'.

Btw, this is full Campbell quote, which I actually misquoted, from The Power of Myth:

People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it’s all finally about, and that’s what these clues help us to find within ourselves.

 

[MysticG]

While I get where you're coming from, I'm going to disagree. The fact is, both standards of proof in law are coming at the issue from a very different perspective from that of science and really we're talking about apples and oranges.

The legal system is based on resolving conflict. It accepts that it is mired in unreliable evidence. It accepts this because we recognise that conflicts must resolve, and criminals must be punished. The rules that have been put into place hope to result in the truth, but getting at the truth isn't actually the focus. In a trial there is a winner and a loser. It is set up as a contest. Sure there is some effort to require minimum standards of evidence but no-one is under the illusion that the standard is particular high from a "truth" perspective. We're stuck with the evidence that we have, and we have to make a decision even if the evidence is on the whole unreliable. At the end of a trial a decision must be made. We have a system of appeals to temper somewhat the unreliable nature of evidence in general which we hope will overturn mistakes. Make no mistake, though: the focus is on conflict resolution, picking a winner, rather than on the "truth". This isn't necessarily a bad thing. In an ideal world perhaps we'd be able to focus on truth but unfortunately we don't live in that world.

Science, however, has a different focus. It's not about conflict resolution. That is: there is no requirement to make a decision. In a trial, if the evidence is unreliable we have to make a decision anyway. Not so in science. In science we have the luxury to wait until the evidence is of a certain quality before making a decision. This allows for more focus on the "truth". Of course we still allow error bars but they are much smaller than those tolerated in law.

In short, the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in criminal law will still rely on evidence that is on the whole of a much lower quality (ie reliability) that that of science.

Bringing it back to annecdotes the issue in civil and criminal trials while we hope to have higher quality evidence it is entirely possible to have a trial with only anecdotal level evidence. There the judge or jury still has to make a decision. In a science experiment if we only have unreliable evidence we are justified in concluding that we shouldn't conclude anything yet.

In science we care the most about the reliability of the evidence. Not based on our gut instinct of what is reliable but based on methods that are specifically developed to control out gut instincts and have been empirically shown to produce more reliable results.

If there is a method to evaluate annecdotes to separate out the reliable ones from the less reliable ones then we should be willing to embrace the reliable ones in science. I've never seen anyone propose an empirically based method to evaluate anecdotes for reliability. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist - if someone knows of one, bring it forward so we can look at it!

You make a good point about the time restraints on the criminal trial, and I agree with that. It is an imperfect analogy - but I was essentially just trying to open up the agnostic space between true and false, where we can lean one direction without claiming to know for sure that it is true. I think it is makes sense to do so. I also do not know of any method to admit anecdotes to science - I don't think it exists. I am arguing there is room for them in our discussions outside of scientific proof, without immediate dismissal. And not just in the bar or telling stories around a campfire, but serious discussion of our human experiences. We certainly don't have to agree with all of them, but IMO there is value which is lost if everything that can't be objectively proven is dismissed. Thanks for the detailed response.

 

[billw]

I suggested that we look at cases in which recall wasn't faulty. You were the one who suggested that we proceed without knowing which cases were faulty, as though it doesn't matter which cases are reported accurately and which are not, so long as there is an assumption that some have been.

Okay, so you seem to agree that eyewitness testimony can be false. Does it matter whether or not you have a way to find out when recall has been faulty? And what if you think it does matter, but you don't have a way to find out (as you claimed earlier)? If we agree, "it can't all be faulty", but you don't know when it hasn't been faulty, then any case we try to discuss could be a case in which recall has been faulty. How are you getting around this?

Maybe we meant the same thing. I simply meant that you examine each case and apply the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." But I realize that when it comes to psi, some people have such a strong doubt that the phenomena is even possible and such certainty that it never, ever occurs, that they are incapable of being reasonable. And to be clear, I am not referring to you.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[billw]

You make a good point about the time restraints on the criminal trial, and I agree with that. It is an imperfect analogy - but I was essentially just trying to open up the agnostic space between true and false, where we can lean one direction without claiming to know for sure that it is true. I think it is makes sense to do so. I also do not know of any method to admit anecdotes to science - I don't think it exists. I am arguing there is room for them in our discussions outside of scientific proof, without immediate dismissal. And not just in the bar or telling stories around a campfire, but serious discussion of our human experiences. We certainly don't have to agree with all of them, but IMO there is value which is lost if everything that can't be objectively proven is dismissed. Thanks for the detailed response.

I agree with what Arouet said regarding the nature of the scientific process, and I also agree with you that there is absolutely value in examining the annecdotal cases as well, and not dismissing them outright. They represent a significant aspect of human experience. While we may need to wait for science to produce a theory and "mechanism" to explain them, that does not mean we need to sit around and wait for science to tell us the experiences are genuine "beyond a reasonable doubt," and not always the result of fraud, wishful thinking, law of large numbers, or faulty recall. The experiences are too numerous to dismiss in that way.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

A World Ruled by Meaning

It seems this would be the theistic take on mechanism - the spiritual is not subsumed into the causal chains of the materialist paradigm, but rather the causal chains of materialism are part of the medium in which the Phenomenal works:
http://sharonrawlette.wordpress.com/2014/04/17/a-world-ruled-by-meaning/

I think that the real difference between the typical naturalist and the typical spiritually-minded person is not in a belief about the universe’s operating in certain regular patterns. They both believe that, I think. The difference is in what they think regulates this pattern. The typical naturalist is a reductionist. He or she thinks that everything can be reduced to its component parts, and that what happens on a macro scale is simply a consequence of lots of events on the micro scale. Natural laws govern the workings of those micro events (if atom A moves at such and such a speed in such and such a direction, it will have such and such an effect on atom B, etc.), and what happens to us human beings and any other macro beings is simply a product of what’s going on “down there,” detectable only by an electron microscope or some other, more sensitive device.

What I realized a few years ago was that this view of the order of nature was not sufficient to explain my experience. I had some very specific experiences in which I experienced the physical world as being governed by an overarching intelligence. I felt the realization come over me that what ruled the universe was not the physics of atomic particles, everything else being just a consequence of that. No, there was regulation at a much higher level. The level of intention. The level of meaning. I realized that reductionists–myself included–were taking it as an article of faith that there was no grand design behind the macro events of the world. That everything was ultimately the result of random physical processes. And I realized that there was a completely opposite way of viewing the world. And good reason to think that that way of viewing it was more accurate.

No idea how true this is but it presents an interesting perspective that reminded me of Hoffman's Conscious Realism.

 

[EthanT]

Btw, this is full Campbell quote, which I actually misquoted, from The Power of Myth:

People say that what we’re all seeking is a meaning for life. I don’t think that’s what we’re really seeking. I think that what we’re seeking is an experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive. That’s what it’s all finally about, and that’s what these clues help us to find within ourselves.

Gotta love Joseph Campbell ;-)

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

Returning to the aforementioned notion of meaningful coincidences -> Sometimes I think synchronicity is definitively real, other times I think a coincidence can be an opportunity for reflection but isn't anything more than that. But if Jung was right, it would seem that the overriding mechanisms of reality are at least partially in service to conscious entities.

Paul Levy explains it better than I can:
CATCHING THE BUG OF SYNCHRONICITY

Because it is so radically discontinuous with our conventional notions of the nature of reality, the experience of synchronicity is so literally mind-blowing that Jung contemplated this phenomenon for over twenty years before he published his thinking about it. Jung’s synchronistic universe was a new world view which embraced linear causality while simultaneously transcending it. A synchronistic universe balances and complements the mechanistic world of linear causality with a realm that is outside of space, time and causality. In a synchronicity, two heterogeneous world-systems, the causal and acausal, interlock and interpenetrate each other for a moment in time, which is both an expression of while creating in the field an aspect of our wholeness to manifest. The synchronistic universe is beginning-less in that we are participating in its creation right now, which is why Jung calls it “an act of creation in time.”

 

[Arouet]

The problem is that its pretty hard to have a control group for this one. No one seems to be saying that even if there is no such synchronicity that people aren't from time to time going to notice certain coincidences that trigger meaning for them.

 

[gabriel]

There was a well attested case about twenty years ago, where an employee had a day off work and went to a different town. The secretary of the office needed him, and didn't know he wasn't at his desk as usual. Looking up his extension number, she absent mindedly called the number on his pay code instead. The code happened to coincide with the number of a public call box in the town the man was in, and as it was ringing as he passed, he picked up the phone. The secretary, believing he was at his desk, continued the conversation, until the employee asked how on earth she'd reached him at a place even he didn't expect to be.

It sounds apocryphal, but the case has been researched and all parties agree it happened. It's impossible not to believe some form of synchronicity was involved that isn't accounted for by big numbers or coincidence.

 

[fls]

The problem is that its pretty hard to have a control group for this one. No one seems to be saying that even if there is no such synchronicity that people aren't from time to time going to notice certain coincidences that trigger meaning for them.

One aspect of the idea is the extent to which people grossly underestimate the opportunities for coincidence. People forget the multitude of times they previously thought about "x" until a second instance of "x" with an emotional component appears in closer proximity. This can be tested by manipulating whether or not people have a thought about "x" and then subsequently presenting them with an instance of "x", to see whether opportunities for coincidences are accurately identified and when (e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1153/abstract).

Linda

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

One aspect of the idea is the extent to which people grossly underestimate the opportunities for coincidence. People forget the multitude of times they previously thought about "x" until a second instance of "x" with an emotional component appears in closer proximity. This can be tested by manipulating whether or not people have a thought about "x" and then subsequently presenting them with an instance of "x", to see whether opportunities for coincidences are accurately identified and when (e.g. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.1153/abstract).

Linda

I think Jung actually noted these kinds of runs aren't really synchronicities at all?

 

[fls]

I think Jung actually noted these kinds of runs aren't really synchronicities at all?

They probably wouldn't be perceived as synchronicities (I think there needs to be an emotional component). I'm not sure how that's relevant?

Linda

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

They probably wouldn't be perceived as synchronicities (I think there needs to be an emotional component). I'm not sure how that's relevant?

Linda

I'll have to double check but I recall Jung cautioning against elevating continual encounters with some subject in a limited time frame to the level of the kind of "acausal" events he was talking about.

So a synchronicity would have to be more than seeing something over and over again, regardless of emotional impact. That said, synchronicity has definitely seen an expansion of what it signifies over time. It was interesting, however, that the term doesn't seem to even come up during the American Life broadcast on coincidences.

I did like the one about the grandmother in the photo:

Blake Oliver is living in Nicaragua right now. We talked on Skype. About four months ago, he was on the phone to his friend Camille, who goes by Cami. He mentioned to her that the screensaver on his iPhone had been the same picture for a long time, that he wanted to change it.

Blake Oliver
So I asked her to just send me a picture of something. And it was really funny. She ended up sending me this picture of her as little kid as a joke. And I was like, oh, yeah, that's kind of funny. It's not what I was expecting, but that's funny. And then I glanced back at the picture, and I saw my grandma walking through behind her.

 

[fls]

I'll have to double check but I recall Jung cautioning against elevating continual encounters with some subject in a limited time frame to the level of the kind of "acausal" events he was talking about.

I think I see what you mean. But the point of the research is that the continual encounters go unnoticed. Until a second instance which has some emotional or other sort of noticeable impact arrives. At which point, the most recent (or apropos) of the continual encounters is recalled, while rest have been forgotten, not having had any opportunity for reinforcement. What's left is a perception of two disparate and infrequent events coming together in a synchrocity. If you remembered that you you always got a sense of unease when visiting a friend at his place of work, you wouldn't necessarily regard it as significant if on one of those occasions, your number finally came up and you and your friend were mugged,

Linda

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I think Jung would still see that example as mere coincidence, whereas something like the scarab story would qualify as a synchronicity.

That said, it does seem that the line between coincidence versus synchronicity, or meaningful pattern vs apophenia, is in the eye of the beholder, and given everyone has to find a livable truth subjective evaluation may be more useful than outside judgement.

However, ideally someone isn't using synchronicity to make every life decision as that seems bound for a bad end.

=-=-=
Teleology vs. Mechanism

...I shall now suggest that considerations deriving from parapsychology may be relevant to the issue between compatibilists and libertarians....

If this teleological model of PK were to be accepted, it would throw a flood of light on our understanding of the ordinary purposeful actions tht characterise human behaviour. Thus, when we raise our arm, we know no more about the specific nerve fibres that have to activated than Schmidt's subjects know about the construction of the RNG. In normal action, it is always open to the physical determinist to argue that what actually causes the relevant nerve cells to fire is not anything mental, i.e., the intention in the mind of the agent, but rather his specific brain state of which the intention is but a subjective reflection. In the case of a paranormal action, on the other hand, this option is cut off since, ex hypothesi, every physical link between the subject's brain and the target system is presumed to have been excluded. If the recent advances in PK research were to become more widely known and accepted and began to figure in the deliberations of philosophers, it would seem more reasonable to drop the supposition of a cryptic physiological determinism in the case of normal action and to treat alike the normal and paranormal case as not merely teleological in character (about which there is no dispute), but as radically teleological in nature.