Dan Peterson Takes on the "No Evidence At All for The Book of Mormon" Argument

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm just not interested in discussing the merits of Carroll's arguments with somebody who doesn't understand them.

And one could argue that with the same words from the other side.

It's still Positivism vs Pragmatism essentially.

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, Analytics said:

Ironically, the statement is made by a preeminent theoretical physicist who like thousands of others would love nothing more than to learn something new. To better understand his point, which takes several chapters to fully explain, here is an extended quote from chapter 23:

 Again, it takes several chapters to flesh this out. The important thing to understand is that he isn't making a philosophical claim here. He is describing quantum field theory and the evidence that supports it.

 

In 1894 The prominent physicist Albert Michelson said pretty much the same thing " it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established". 

This was before the theories of special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Analytics]

9 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In 1894 The prominent physicist Albert Michelson said pretty much the same thing " it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established". 

This was before the theories of special relativity, general relativity and quantum mechanics.

 

Carroll talks about this a lot. In his words:

The situation now really is different from the way it has ever been at previous moments in the history of science. Not only do we have a successful theory, but we also know how far that theory can be extended before it ceases to be reliable. That’s just how powerful quantum field theory is. 
The logic behind our audacious claim is simple:

1. Everything we know says that quantum field theory is the correct framework for describing the physics underlying everyday life.
2. The rules of quantum field theory imply that there can’t be any new particles, forces, or interactions that could be relevant to our everyday lives. We’ve found them all.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Carroll talks about this a lot. In his words:

 

The situation now really is different from the way it has ever been at previous moments in the history of science. Not only do we have a successful theory, but we also know how far that theory can be extended before it ceases to be reliable. That’s just how powerful quantum field theory is. 
The logic behind our audacious claim is simple:

1. Everything we know says that quantum field theory is the correct framework for describing the physics underlying everyday life.
2. The rules of quantum field theory imply that there can’t be any new particles, forces, or interactions that could be relevant to our everyday lives. We’ve found them all.

Here's the problem:

It's the same mentality as we have been discussing ad infinitum here.

Regardless of what is "true" scientifically, that has nothing to do with spirituality.

It's like the first Russian in space, coming back and saying that he did not see God, therefore God does not exist.

The discussion should not be about science or physics at all- that is irrelevant to religious discussions.

Science put forth paradigms about HOW things work and religion puts forth paradigms about WHY things work, their purpose, and how religion gives us meaning in life. 

Scientific questions are solved by dispassionate objective observation, while religious questions are resolved be reaching subjective emotional peace with one's belief about the PURPOSE of life and one's own personal path to create that kind of meaning.

 

Edited March 14, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Scientific questions are solved by dispassionate objective observation, while religious questions are resolved be reaching subjective emotional peace with one's belief about the PURPOSE of life and one's own personal path to create that kind of meaning.

The problem is that at least according to the way some people interpret it, some religions make claims about the nature of reality--about how things work--and thereby encroach upon science. I have no problem with somebody believing in this or that religion because it adds value to their lives. And although it seems quite disingenuous to me, it is their prerogative to use the language of objective observation to describe that subjective phenomenon. 

But you can forgive me for thinking that people like Daniel C. Peterson and smac97 believe that there were literal Nephites, and think there is actual, real-world scientific evidence that there were. That is what this topic is about--whether there is actual real-world scientific evidence that the truth-claims of this religion correspond to reality (and if you say we are talking about all evidence and not just scientific evidence, that's conceding the point. As I'm using the term, scientific evidence encompasses all evidence that ought to hold any weight in a rational mind). I'd normally not insert myself in these conversations about faith, but when the topic is how I perceive the evidence in favor of Mormonism, it seems fair of me to clarify where I am coming from.

Regarding people who say there is "no evidence", I offer a final quote from Sean Carroll. When reading this, it is important to understand that the details of quantum field theory preclude the miraculous--including revelation, the existence of spirits, resurrection, etc. If any of those things are real, then quantum field theory is wrong.

In the words of Sean Carroll:

Quote

 

In chapters 22 to 24 we’ll dive more deeply into how our best theories of physics work, including the remarkably successful and unforgiving framework of quantum field theory. Within quantum field theory, there is no way for new forces or influences to play an important role in what atoms do in my body—or, more precisely, all of the possible ways this could happen have been ruled out by experiments. But it’s always conceivable that quantum field theory itself is just wrong. There’s no evidence that it’s wrong, however, and very powerful experimental and theoretical reasons to think it’s right, within a very wide domain of applicability. So we’re allowed to contemplate alterations in this basic paradigm of physics—but we should be aware of how dramatically we are changing our best theories of the world, just in order to account for a phenomenon...[emphasis added] 

Carroll, Sean. The Big Picture: On the Origins of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself (pp. 109-110). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The problem is that at least according to the way some people interpret it, some religions make claims about the nature of reality--about how things work--and thereby encroach upon science. I have no problem with somebody believing in this or that religion because it adds value to their lives. And although it seems quite disingenuous to me, it is their prerogative to use the language of objective observation to describe that subjective phenomenon. 

But you can forgive me for thinking that people like Daniel C. Peterson and smac97 believe that there were literal Nephites, and think there is actual, real-world scientific evidence that there were. That is what this topic is about--whether there is actual real-world scientific evidence that the truth-claims of this religion correspond to reality (and if you say we are talking about all evidence and not just scientific evidence, that's conceding the point. As I'm using the term, scientific evidence encompasses all evidence that ought to hold any weight in a rational mind). I'd normally not insert myself in these conversations about faith, but when the topic is how I perceive the evidence in favor of Mormonism, it seems fair of me to clarify where I am coming from.

Regarding people who say there is "no evidence", I offer a final quote from Sean Carroll. When reading this, it is important to understand that the details of quantum field theory preclude the miraculous--including revelation, the existence of spirits, resurrection, etc. If any of those things are real, then quantum field theory is wrong.

In the words of Sean Carroll:

 

I strongly suggest you read William James' paper about "Radical Empiricism".  This is the wikipedia interpretation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

First I need to define "transempirical". 

"Transempirical" evidence would be evidence which cannot be experienced.  Statements about the supernatural would be "transempirical".  Statements about "substance" or "being" are transempirical.

We must remember- and it is crucial to do so- that the LDS paradigm is NOT based on transempirical evidence.   We do not believe in the "supernatural" BECAUSE we believe that even spirit is matter AND spirit CAN be experienced.  Millions of people across the world maintain that they have had a "Religious EXPERIENCE" is human experience and therefore statements about religious experience are NOT included in the set of transempirical statements.

So- belief that God consists of three persons united by "substance" is not something which can be experienced, therefore that would be a "transempirical" belief.

"God consists of three persons united in purpose and love" on the other hand is NOT transempirical since "purpose and love" CAN and ARE "real experiences".  Loving one's spouse is a real and experienced emotion.  Data could be obtained about how many people love their spouses etc and they would understand what the question means. Also "united in purpose" could be very easily empirically determined in any enterprise, comparing the lowest customer service person with the CEO of a company- all of those people would be united in purpose with the purpose of the company itself- perhaps to manufacture and sell widgets.  The concept is NOT transempirical.  One's "purpose" can be empirically assertained through say even an interview, while no one even knows what "united by substance" even MEANS.   Whether or not that statement - that God IS a unity of three persons united in purpose on the other hand WOULD be transempirical, but billions testifying that their experience of belief in such an entity has been beneficial in their lives is perfectly empirical.   All one would have to do is put out a questionnaire asking people about the benefits of their EXPERIENCE of belief in God.

Quote

 

Radical empiricism is a philosophical doctrine put forth by William James. It asserts that experience includes both particulars and relations between those particulars, and that therefore both deserve a place in our explanations. In concrete terms: Any philosophical worldview is flawed if it stops at the physical level and fails to explain how meaning, values and intentionality can arise from that.^[1]

Radical empiricism[edit]

Radical empiricism is a postulate, a statement of fact, and a conclusion, says James in The Meaning of Truth. The postulate is that "the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience." The fact is that our experience contains disconnected entities as well as various types of connections; it is full of meaning and values. The conclusion is that our worldview does not need "extraneous trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure."

Postulate[edit]

The postulate is a basic statement of the empiricist method: Our theories shouldn't incorporate supernatural or transempirical entities. Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that emphasizes the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. James allows that transempirical entities may exist, but that it's not fruitful to talk about them.

Fact[edit]

James' factual statement is that our experience isn't just a stream of data, but a complex process that's full of meaning. We see objects in terms of what they mean to us and we see causal connections between phenomena. Experience is "double-barreled"; it has both a content ("sense data") and a reference, and empiricists unjustly try to reduce experience to bare sensations, according to James. Such a "thick" description of conscious experience was already part of William James' monumental work The Principles of Psychology in 1890, more than a decade before he first wrote about radical empiricism.

It differs notably from the traditional empiricist view of Locke and Hume, who see experience in terms of atoms like patches of color and soundwaves, which are in themselves meaningless and need to be interpreted by ratiocination before we can act upon them.

Conclusion[edit]

James concludes that experience is full of connections and that these connections are part of what is actually experienced:

Just so, I maintain, does a given undivided portion of experience, taken in one context of associates, play the part of a knower, of a state of mind, of 'consciousness'; while in a different context the same undivided bit of experience plays the part of a thing known, of an objective 'content.' In a word, in one group it figures as a thought, in another group as a thing. And, since it can figure in both groups simultaneously we have every right to speak of it as subjective and objective, both at once. (James 1912, Essay I)

Context and importance[edit]

James put forth the doctrine because he thought ordinary empiricism, inspired by the advances in physical science, has or had the tendency to emphasize 'whirling particles' at the expense of the bigger picture: connections, causality, meaning. Both elements, James claims, are equally present in experience and both need to be accounted for.

The observation that our adherence to science seems to put us in a quandary is not exclusive to James. For example, Bertrand Russell notes the paradox in his Analysis of Matter (1927): we appeal to ordinary perception to arrive at our physical theories, yet those same theories seem to undermine that everyday perception, which is rich in meaning.

Radical empiricism relates to discussions about direct versus indirect realism as well as to early twentieth-century discussions against the idealism of influential philosophers like Josiah Royce. This is how neo-realists like William Pepperell Montague and Ralph Barton Perry interpreted James.

The conclusion that our worldview does not need transempirical support is also important in discussions about the adequacy of naturalistic descriptions of meaning and intentionality, which James attempts to provide, in contrast to phenomenological approaches or some forms of reductionism that claim that meaning is an illusion.^{[citation needed]}

 

And this is only about William James, but many other philosophers like Husserl and Heidegger and many others were concluding the same things around the same time- the turn of the century between the 19 hundreds and the 20th century.

So your use of "real" in the above post is NOT the way that most 20th century philosophers think of "truth" OR "reality"

Further more there are serious problems with ANY statement purporting to say that ANY observation "corresponds to reality" because WE CANNOT GO BEYOND observations/ experiences to see if they in fact "Correspond" to ANYTHING outside of Experience itself!

"The sky is blue" is a statement about MY EXPERIENCE of the perception of looking at the sky.  I see what has been defined as the color "blue"  That is "empirical" as opposed to transempirical- my seeing blue sky is an experience.

On the other hand "Bukowski's brain scan shows activity at point xyz in the visual cortex" is also an empirical statement, but it says NOTHING about "blue"

As is characteristic with scientific statements MEANING is ignored.

One statement - that "Bukowski SEES "blue" is NOT represented by statements, nor does it "correspond" to statements about what is also happening in Bukowski's visual cortext.

One purportedly makes a statement about a brain, and the other makes a statement about what someone else might observe during a brainscan.

One statement does not logically entail the other- they are NOT "saying the same thing" much less "corresponding" to each other.

But we have been through this before.

 

 

[Bob Crockett]

Rarified balogna. 

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 

[rodheadlee]

5 hours ago, Analytics said:

The problem is that at least according to the way some people interpret it, some religions make claims about the nature of reality--about how things work--and thereby encroach upon science. I have no problem with somebody believing in this or that religion because it adds value to their lives. And although it seems quite disingenuous to me, it is their prerogative to use the language of objective observation to describe that subjective phenomenon. 

But you can forgive me for thinking that people like Daniel C. Peterson and smac97 believe that there were literal Nephites, and think there is actual, real-world scientific evidence that there were. That is what this topic is about--whether there is actual real-world scientific evidence that the truth-claims of this religion correspond to reality (and if you say we are talking about all evidence and not just scientific evidence, that's conceding the point. As I'm using the term, scientific evidence encompasses all evidence that ought to hold any weight in a rational mind). I'd normally not insert myself in these conversations about faith, but when the topic is how I perceive the evidence in favor of Mormonism, it seems fair of me to clarify where I am coming from.

Regarding people who say there is "no evidence", I offer a final quote from Sean Carroll. When reading this, it is important to understand that the details of quantum field theory preclude the miraculous--including revelation, the existence of spirits, resurrection, etc. If any of those things are real, then quantum field theory is wrong.

In the words of Sean Carroll:

 

In Avi Loeb's book Extraterrestrial there is a list of scientists that made absolute statements that turned out to be wrong and stifled scientific innovation. Avi Loeb has PhD in plasma physics, he was the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard from 2011 to 2020. You can read these statements in Chapter 7, Learning From Children, of his book starting on page 103.

The main reason I chose to stick my nose in this thread is because I have anecdotal evidence that Sean Carroll is wrong about there can be no spirit. When I was 19 years old I died, DEAD. My spirit left my body and hovered at the top of the room near the ceiling and viewed my body strapped to the gurney. Then I moved on over to the window where I could read the writing on the police vans outside the hospital. It could not have been my sub conscience playing tricks on me because I was dead.

I have no doubt Sean Carroll has a very high IQ and is well studied in his field but in this instance he is wrong.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In Avi Loeb's book Extraterrestrial there is a list of scientists that made absolute statements that turned out to be wrong and stifled scientific innovation. Avi Loeb has PhD in plasma physics, he was the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard from 2011 to 2020. You can read these statements in Chapter 7, Learning From Children, of his book starting on page 103.

The main reason I chose to stick my nose in this thread is because I have anecdotal evidence that Sean Carroll is wrong about there can be no spirit. When I was 19 years old I died, DEAD. My spirit left my body and hovered at the top of the room near the ceiling and viewed my body strapped to the gurney. Then I moved on over to the window where I could read the writing on the police vans outside the hospital. It could not have been my sub conscience playing tricks on me because I was dead.

I have no doubt Sean Carroll has a very high IQ and is well studied in his field but in this instance he is wrong.

Wow!

[Calm]

5 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In Avi Loeb's book Extraterrestrial there is a list of scientists that made absolute statements that turned out to be wrong and stifled scientific innovation. Avi Loeb has PhD in plasma physics, he was the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard from 2011 to 2020. You can read these statements in Chapter 7, Learning From Children, of his book starting on page 103.

 

I was looking for a copy of this list and came across this article. I like what he says about what science should be. I don’t know if he is accurate about the current culture of the scientific community, wouldn’t be surprised either way. 
 

Quote

Too many scientists are now mostly motivated by ego, by getting honors and awards, by showing their colleagues how smart they are. They treat science as a monologue about themselves rather than a dialogue with nature. They build echo chambers using students and postdocs who repeat their mantras so that their voice will be louder and their image will be promoted. But that’s not the purpose of science. Science is not about us; it’s not about empowering ourselves or making our image great. It’s about trying to understand the world, and it’s meant to be a learning experience in which we take risks and make mistakes along the way. You can never tell in advance, when you work on the frontier, what is the right path forward. You only learn that by getting feedback from experiments.

Which is the other problem with science today: people are not only motivated by the wrong reasons; they are also no longer guided by evidence. Evidence keeps you modest because you predict something, you test it, and the evidence sometimes shows you’re wrong. Right now you have many celebrated scientists doing mathematical gymnastics about lots of untestable things: string theory, the multiverse, even the theory of cosmic inflation. Once, in a public forum, I asked [physicist] Alan Guth, who originated the theory, “Is inflation falsifiable?” And he said it’s a silly question, because for whatever cosmological data an experiment gives us, a model of inflation can be found that accommodates it. And therefore, inflation is in a very strong position because it can explain anything! But I see this as a very weak position because a theory of everything is sometimes a theory of nothing. There may be no difference between the two.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomer-avi-loeb-says-aliens-have-visited-and-hes-not-kidding1/

I don’t think speculation about string theory and other untestable ideas is inherently bad myself (and perhaps the interview lost nuances as how does a theoretical physicist avoid speculation?) as speculation may lead to a new way of exploration that can be tested, I suspect a number of theories were created over the centuries before they could be tested.  People just need to keep in mind what speculation is and that is not evidence, but ideas. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Here is an article probably related to the chapter Rod refers to...

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/06/focal-point-harvard-professor-avi-loeb-wants-more-scientists-to-think-like-children/

Quote

We are born innocent and humble, wondering about the world around us and trying to figure it out, initially without even having a language to express our findings. There is no bigger privilege to being alive than this learning experience. As kids, we tolerate mistakes and take risks because these are inseparable from the process of expanding our knowledge base. These aspects make most childhoods exciting and authentic.

I am not sure I would use the term “humble” because some kids just know they are right and arguing with them is useless.  But curiosity naturally brings openness Imo, though I suppose for some curiosity gets turned into a tool to find evidence to support what they are certain about. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

An very interesting description of 4 theories that had predictions come true and yet were wrong, not as well known as the usual list:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

An very interesting description of 4 theories that had predictions come true and yet were wrong, not as well known as the usual list:

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/scientific-theories-proven-wrong

The great thing is, better science can correct bad science. And the corrections can be demonstrated and shared.

[Meadowchik]

58 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The great thing is, better science can correct bad science. And the corrections can be demonstrated and shared.

Florence Nightingale forced major changes in British military hospitals by 1)having the data and 2)sharing it clearly in a chart that showed the positive impact of hygienic measures. The story is really neat. Just the year before, the chief medical officer had claimed that infectious disease was a major cause of soldiers' deaths but was unavoidable. She not only put the data together, but in a way Queen Victoria and politicians could readily consume, the public as well, and it was so compelling that they had no choice but to improve.

There was doubtless error in the data--there is always a margin of error--and there were likely some flaws in her chart, but the information was such a vast improvement that is was a true blessing for untold numbers of people. Here's that chart: 

[Analytics]

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In Avi Loeb's book Extraterrestrial there is a list of scientists that made absolute statements that turned out to be wrong and stifled scientific innovation. Avi Loeb has PhD in plasma physics, he was the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard from 2011 to 2020. You can read these statements in Chapter 7, Learning From Children, of his book starting on page 103.

I would postulate a couple of things. First, there are a set of natural laws that are in fact correct. Second, science is in fact figuring things out--it is progressing. Given those two things, it follows that sooner or later science will postulate laws of physics that will in fact be true.

The question for us lay observers then is what will it look like when physicists figure out the true nature of physics in the realm that affects our day-to-day lives (including the physics that underlie the workings of the brain).

11 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

The main reason I chose to stick my nose in this thread is because I have anecdotal evidence that Sean Carroll is wrong about there can be no spirit. When I was 19 years old I died, DEAD. My spirit left my body and hovered at the top of the room near the ceiling and viewed my body strapped to the gurney. Then I moved on over to the window where I could read the writing on the police vans outside the hospital. It could not have been my sub conscience playing tricks on me because I was dead.

I have no doubt Sean Carroll has a very high IQ and is well studied in his field but in this instance he is wrong.

I presume that when you say you died what you really mean is that you nearly died, right? You aren't claiming that you are a ghost right now. That is why experiences such as yours are called "near-death experiences" rather than "death experiences."

Neuroscientists almost universally believe that your experience was actually driven by your own imagination--that you don't have a spirit and it didn't leave your body. As one example among many I could draw from to illustrate the point, you said that while your spirit was floating above your body and looking outside the window, you read the writing on the side of the police vans. Let's talk about what that means.

When somebody claims they read the letters on a police van, what it means is that the van is in a lit environment. Light reflects off the letters on the side of the van and make it to your eyeball. The lens of your eye changes the direction of the light beams and focuses them onto the retina. When the focused light hits the retina it stimulates nerve cells that change the light energy into electrical impulses. The electrical impulses travel through the optic nerve where a giant section of your brain takes those signals, processes them, does a whole bunch of interpolation and interpretation to make sense of it and fill in the gaps, and then sends those processed images to your consciousness.

Given that's what it means from the perspective of physics and neuroscience to "see" words written on a van, how do you see words on a van without an eye with a lens and a retina, without optic nerves, and without a brain? If your spirit doesn't have a lens to focus the light, how can it see clearly enough to read? If it doesn't have a retina that transforms the light into electrical impulses, how does it sense there is even light there?

If your spirit was focusing light and intercepting it in order to see, then manifestations of spirits messing with the lights should be detectible wherever such spirits are present. Yet there is no evidence that spirits meddle with light in a way that would permit sight. The evidence for this is lacking to the extent that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 

[Meadowchik]

21 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I would postulate a couple of things. First, there are a set of natural laws that are in fact correct. Second, science is in fact figuring things out--it is progressing. Given those two things, it follows that sooner or later science will postulate laws of physics that will in fact be true.

The question for us lay observers then is what will it look like when physicists figure out the true nature of physics in the realm that affects our day-to-day lives (including the physics that underlie the workings of the brain).

I presume that when you say you died what you really mean is that you nearly died, right? You aren't claiming that you are a ghost right now. That is why experiences such as yours are called "near-death experiences" rather than "death experiences."

Neuroscientists almost universally believe that your experience was actually driven by your own imagination--that you don't have a spirit and it didn't leave your body. As one example among many I could draw from to illustrate the point, you said that while your spirit was floating above your body and looking outside the window, you read the writing on the side of the police vans. Let's talk about what that means.

When somebody claims they read the letters on a police van, what it means is that the van is in a lit environment. Light reflects off the letters on the side of the van and make it to your eyeball. The lens of your eye changes the direction of the light beams and focuses them onto the retina. When the focused light hits the retina it stimulates nerve cells that change the light energy into electrical impulses. The electrical impulses travel through the optic nerve where a giant section of your brain takes those signals, processes them, does a whole bunch of interpolation and interpretation to make sense of it and fill in the gaps, and then sends those processed images to your consciousness.

Given that's what it means from the perspective of physics and neuroscience to "see" words written on a van, how do you see words on a van without an eye with a lens and a retina, without optic nerves, and without a brain? If your spirit doesn't have a lens to focus the light, how can it see clearly enough to read? If it doesn't have a retina that transforms the light into electrical impulses, how does it sense there is even light there?

If your spirit was focusing light and intercepting it in order to see, then manifestations of spirits messing with the lights should be detectible wherever such spirits are present. Yet there is no evidence that spirits meddle with light in a way that would permit sight. The evidence for this is lacking to the extent that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 

Speaking of the brain and our perception of ourselves, stroke patients have reported completely different types of perception when one side of the brain is experiencing a clot causing interrupted function. It could be that when brain function is compromised, what we experience is the result of the brain working with a very extraordinary combination of tools. And so it may lead to very atypical experiences.

[Harry T. Clark]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

I would postulate a couple of things. First, there are a set of natural laws that are in fact correct. Second, science is in fact figuring things out--it is progressing. Given those two things, it follows that sooner or later science will postulate laws of physics that will in fact be true.

The question for us lay observers then is what will it look like when physicists figure out the true nature of physics in the realm that affects our day-to-day lives (including the physics that underlie the workings of the brain).

I presume that when you say you died what you really mean is that you nearly died, right? You aren't claiming that you are a ghost right now. That is why experiences such as yours are called "near-death experiences" rather than "death experiences."

Neuroscientists almost universally believe that your experience was actually driven by your own imagination--that you don't have a spirit and it didn't leave your body. As one example among many I could draw from to illustrate the point, you said that while your spirit was floating above your body and looking outside the window, you read the writing on the side of the police vans. Let's talk about what that means.

When somebody claims they read the letters on a police van, what it means is that the van is in a lit environment. Light reflects off the letters on the side of the van and make it to your eyeball. The lens of your eye changes the direction of the light beams and focuses them onto the retina. When the focused light hits the retina it stimulates nerve cells that change the light energy into electrical impulses. The electrical impulses travel through the optic nerve where a giant section of your brain takes those signals, processes them, does a whole bunch of interpolation and interpretation to make sense of it and fill in the gaps, and then sends those processed images to your consciousness.

Given that's what it means from the perspective of physics and neuroscience to "see" words written on a van, how do you see words on a van without an eye with a lens and a retina, without optic nerves, and without a brain? If your spirit doesn't have a lens to focus the light, how can it see clearly enough to read? If it doesn't have a retina that transforms the light into electrical impulses, how does it sense there is even light there?

If your spirit was focusing light and intercepting it in order to see, then manifestations of spirits messing with the lights should be detectible wherever such spirits are present. Yet there is no evidence that spirits meddle with light in a way that would permit sight. The evidence for this is lacking to the extent that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. 

I remain agnostic regarding NDE.  It is entirely possible that Rodheadlee had his experience as told, left his body and perceived what he perceived on the police van.  It could also be some sort of psychological experience brought on by some sort of trauma, etc.  There is no way to test it, however, at least where science is now, as no one comes back from death and scientists cannot induce death, follow the person and then bring the person back.  So, we are left with anecdotal evidence that is subject to motivated reasoning.  Even so, my father tells of how his grandfather had a similar experience where he left his body for a few minutes and heard everyone discussing his death.  I also have a client that claims to have died while in the hospital and came back in the hospital morgue with a sheet over his head.  He had been pronounced dead by the hospital staff and he startled the morgue attendant pretty good when he came back.  He claims that he was taken up to a place and was met by several individuals who said that he had to return to his body and that he couldn't go any further.  Supposedly, he was "gone" for more than 10 hours.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Harry T. Clark

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I remain agnostic regarding NDE.  It is entirely possible that Rodheadlee had his experience as told, left his body and perceived what he perceived on the police van.  It could also be some sort of psychological experience brought on by some sort of trauma, etc.  There is no way to test it, however, at least where science is now, as no one comes back from death and scientists cannot induce death, follow the person and then bring the person back.  So, we are left with anecdotal evidence that is subject to motivated reasoning.  Even so, my father tells of how his grandfather had a similar experience where he left his body for a few minutes and heard everyone discussing his death.  I also have a client that claims to have died while in the hospital and came back in the hospital morgue with a sheet over his head.  He had been pronounced dead by the hospital staff and he startled the morgue attendant pretty good when he came back.  He claims that he was taken up to a place and was met by several individuals who said that he had to return to his body and that he couldn't go any further.  Supposedly, he was "gone" for more than 10 hours.

In the broadest sense anything is possible. But interpreting NDE's as anything other than experiences that are generated by the brain under the extreme duress of dying contradicts everything we know about science. There isn't even a well-stated hypothesis of what a spirit is, much less a hypothesis of how their existence could possibly be consistent with the hard scientific facts of physics. In contrast, the theory that the brain can and does imagine and falsely remember NDE experiences is consistent with how we know it does in fact operate.

[Bob Crockett]

15 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

In Avi Loeb's book Extraterrestrial there is a list of scientists that made absolute statements that turned out to be wrong and stifled scientific innovation. Avi Loeb has PhD in plasma physics, he was the chair of the astronomy department at Harvard from 2011 to 2020. You can read these statements in Chapter 7, Learning From Children, of his book starting on page 103.

The main reason I chose to stick my nose in this thread is because I have anecdotal evidence that Sean Carroll is wrong about there can be no spirit. When I was 19 years old I died, DEAD. My spirit left my body and hovered at the top of the room near the ceiling and viewed my body strapped to the gurney. Then I moved on over to the window where I could read the writing on the police vans outside the hospital. It could not have been my sub conscience playing tricks on me because I was dead.

I have no doubt Sean Carroll has a very high IQ and is well studied in his field but in this instance he is wrong.

The argument of your first paragraph is contrary to logic and legal evidence.  It is an absurd argument, that some proofs in the past have been wrong and thus my unsupported argument is right.

As to your near death statement, I consider that to be on the level of spiritualism, table rapping, water witching, and superstition.  We're adults here.  We don't believe in stuff without evidence.    Read the NDE accounts of Buddhists, Muslims and other non-Christians.  

Edited March 15, 2021 by Bob Crockett

[OGHoosier]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The argument of your first paragraph is contrary to logic and legal evidence.  It is an absurd argument, that some proofs in the past have been wrong and thus my unsupported argument is right.

As to your near death statement, I consider that to be on the level of spiritualism, table rapping, water witching, and superstition.  We're adults here.  We don't believe in stuff without evidence.    Read the NDE accounts of Buddhists, Muslims and other non-Christians.  

Generally the ability to accurately predict and describe unexpected but verified phenomena is a sign of a veridical experience. NDE accounts from a variety of different religions don't eliminate these kinds of evidence which point to veridicality. 

Thanks for the contempt though. 

As for a scientific theory on NDEs, our understanding of the nature of sight presumes an embodied consciousness and fully functioning ocular and nervous system. Its applicability is thus limited to situations where those presumed conditions (embodied consciousness, fully functioning ocular and nervous system) are in fact true.  I don't think that saying "this contradicts what we know about how embodied sight works" when the condition embodied_true is false constitutes an effective response. As @mfbukowski is fond of pointing out, category error. In any case LDS pneumatology endorses a form of material spirit which could well interact with light.  

I'd recommend "Evidential Near-Death Experiences" by G.R. Habermas in the Blackstone Companion to Substance Dualism, but I'm not sure how many of you have academic library credentials and it would be hard to get otherwise. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by OGHoosier

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, OGHoosier said:

Generally the ability to accurately predict and describe unexpected but verified phenomena is a sign of a veridical experience. NDE accounts from a variety of different religions don't eliminate these kinds of evidence which point to veridicality. 

Thanks for the contempt though. 

As for a scientific theory on NDEs, our current biological mechanisms of sight presume an embodied consciousness and fully functioning ocular and nervous system. Their applicability is thus limited to situations where those presumed conditions (embodied consciousness, fully functioning ocular and nervous system) are in fact true.  I don't think that saying "this contradicts what we know about how embodied sight works" when the condition embodied_true is false constitutes an effective response. As @mfbukowski is fond of pointing out, category error. In any case LDS pneumatology endorses a form of material spirit which could well interact with light.  

I'd recommend "Evidential Near-Death Experiences" by G.R. Habermas in the Blackstone Companion to Substance Dualism, but I'm not sure how many of you have academic library credentials and it would be hard to get otherwise. 

You are welcome to my contempt.  What adults will believe. Big words don't help. 

[OGHoosier]

37 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You are welcome to my contempt.  What adults will believe. Big words don't help. 

That doesn't make any sense. 

[Bob Crockett]

14 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

That doesn't make any sense. 

I'd say you believe in superstition. 

[Kevin Christensen]

4 hours ago, Harry T. Clark said:

I remain agnostic regarding NDE.  It is entirely possible that Rodheadlee had his experience as told, left his body and perceived what he perceived on the police van.  It could also be some sort of psychological experience brought on by some sort of trauma, etc.  There is no way to test it, however, at least where science is now, as no one comes back from death and scientists cannot induce death, follow the person and then bring the person back.  So, we are left with anecdotal evidence that is subject to motivated reasoning.  Even so, my father tells of how his grandfather had a similar experience where he left his body for a few minutes and heard everyone discussing his death.  I also have a client that claims to have died while in the hospital and came back in the hospital morgue with a sheet over his head.  He had been pronounced dead by the hospital staff and he startled the morgue attendant pretty good when he came back.  He claims that he was taken up to a place and was met by several individuals who said that he had to return to his body and that he couldn't go any further.  Supposedly, he was "gone" for more than 10 hours.

Regarding NDEs, there are many ways to test NDEs, including the personal test that we will all get around to eventually.  Ideological dismissal is, I suppose, a kind of test.  But ideological dismissal is not a test of the dismissing ideology itself.  Paradigm debate requires both comparison as well as appeals to criterion that are not paradigm dependent.  The trick is to acknowledge up front that the issue is neither verification, nor falsification, which both have practical and inescapable limits when dealing with large questions.  But we can make comparative assessments and conciously appeal to criterion that are not paradigm dependent, not self-referential, not a disguised way of dismissing the other as "Not one of us, us being the ones who are always right."

This is a different test of NDEs.  Not proof one way or another, but a serious assessment I made a while back.

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol2/iss1/2/

This thread has lots of rehashing of notions that Nibley treats at length in The Ancient State in the Sophic and Mantic essays, alas, not online since the regretable overhaul of the Maxwell Website.   Here is a hint of where he goes, starting with the Greek thinkers who said basically the same things:

Quote

What Riskas’s choice of paradigm provides is neatly predicted in Nibley’s “Notes on the Sophic and Mantic.” ((Hugh Nibley, The Ancient State, 380–478.)) For example:

Proposition 2. The foundation of Sophic thinking was the elimination of the supernatural or superhuman, i.e., anything that could not be weighed, measured, or sensed objectively from a description of the real world. ((Nibley, 38.))

From start to finish, Riskas marches to ... this ancient drum beat.

Proposition 3. Having dismissed the Mantic, the Sophic becomes impatient of its lingering survival, which it views with uncompromising hostility. ((Nibley, 38.))

“Uncompromising hostility” is a far better description of Riskas’s attitude than “balanced” “religiously sensitive,” and “fair-minded.”

Proposition 4. Claiming magisterial authority, the Sophic acknowledges no possibility of defeat or rivalry. In principle it can never be wrong. Its confidence is absolute. ((Nibley, 39.))

As an example of his own open-mindedness, Riskas says, “It would seem that the honest answer to the question of what [Page 152]would convince me that there is a god (or to return to a god) could be reduced to a one word answer: ‘Nothing.'” ((Riskas, 338.))

Proposition 9. The world without the Mantic offers the best test of the Sophic. It is marked by (A) piteous disappointment, (B) a puzzling deadness of spirit, and (C) a world plagued by doubt, insecurity, cynicism, and despair. ((Nibley, 431.))

Riskas sees believers as striving to avoid “the clear cosmic meaningless and ultimate extinction that weighs on them despite their adamant denials and claimed beliefs and attestations to the contrary.” ((Riskas, xxxi.))

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

And there is this little book, which, among other things, undercuts the positivist position upon which Analytics stands.  Ian Barbour, Myths, Models and Paradigms: A Comparative Study of Science and Religion.

https://www.religion-online.org/book/myths-models-and-paradigms-a-comparative-study-in-science-and-religion/

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Robert F. Smith]

21 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Regarding NDEs, there are many ways to test NDEs, including the personal test that we will all get around to eventually.  Ideological dismissal is, I suppose, a kind of test.  But ideological dismissal is not a test of the dismissing ideology itself.  Paradigm debate requires both comparison as well as appeals to criterion that are not paradigm dependent.  The trick is to acknowledge up front that the issue is neither verification, nor falsification, which both have practical and inescapable limits when dealing with large questions.  But we can make comparative assessments and conciously appeal to criterion that are not paradigm dependent, not self-referential, not a disguised way of dismissing the other as "Not one of us, us being the ones who are always right."

This is a different test of NDEs.  Not proof one way or another, but a serious assessment I made a while back.

People I have known have recounted to me their own experience of death and their return from it.  Nibley published his experience.  I have enjoyed hearing and reading such accounts, but there is no way to test them objectively, any more than we can prove the Resurrection of Jesus.  These are matters of faith.  I am always astonished that the evangelicals cannot understand that.

Quote

........................

Quote

As an example of his own open-mindedness, Riskas says, “It would seem that the honest answer to the question of what [Page 152]would convince me that there is a god (or to return to a god) could be reduced to a one word answer: ‘Nothing.'” ((Riskas, 338.))

..........................

Given the standard definition of "God" which this statement presupposes, I see nothing wrong with his obduracy.  We should see it as appropriate under the circumstances.

Since the biblical and LDS God is finite and only crafts Creation from pre-existing material, such a nihilistic approach is unwarranted.  However, the atheists and skeptics prefer not to discuss that question at all.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Robert F. Smith