Proof (Blog)

[UrbaneSpaceman]

I confess that I am a "science guy" at heart - I like to have proof of most things.

That is not to say that I don't find discussion of unproven (non-provable?) subjects fascinating, and there are plenty of instances where I would love to be able to experience something that I cannot think of any way to prove.

Steve's post, however, uses lucid dreaming as an example. Now this is something that I found fascinating when I first heard of it (on this blog) and I have since learned, with a lot of patience, to accomplish (although not very often). So this is rather a poor example of something which is non-provable.

I am torn as to whether to believe that all things possible are also provable. I would like to think so, and that we have not yet found the proof for some experiences, but if Gödel's imcompleteness theorum can be extended outside the realm of mathematics then perhaps there are some things that we cannot prove.

As for objective reality - for me it's a nice thought but even if it is true I don't think I could be objective enough to experience it. For the moment I'll stick with my attempts at lucid dreaming

Cheers

Mike

[Angela]

I can totally understand liking or preferring proof, scientific curiosity and all.

It seems like some people here demand and require proof, as if it's something that is owed to them. Now, Steve started his blog, in part, to explore extraordinary experiences and find his own evidence and then to report what he found. He never promised anybody a traditional scientific approach.

I find that true for most of the people here who want to talk about their whoo-whooo experiences -- they're excited about exploring and finding their own proof, such as it is, but it's rare to see someone insist that you believe it, too. Maybe it sounds like they are when they say, "well, you just have to experience it to believe it," but really I think that's just their way of saying, "if you want evidence or proof, go explore it on your own!" But for the proof demanders, that just seems to rile you up even more!

Some of you seem to feel oppressed or irritated by folks asserting their whoo-whoo experiences -- why? You can explore it for yourself if you're interested, or ignore it if you're not, but why would you feel that anyone owes you evidence or proof? They're not intervening in your life, except for possibly asking that you don't ridicule or bully them. They're not (generally) insisting that you adopt their beliefs as your own. Even the ones who are intervening, how well does the "you owe me proof" work in that situation, anyway? Couldn't you simply say, "I'll believe what you say when I see convincing evidence for it; meanwhile please stop intervening in my life."?

You can demand proof all until you're blue in the face, and you'll just end up with a blue face. If you are so intent on finding proof one way or the other, why not just go do your research?

[Gary]

It seems that the references to extraordinary are all about personal experiences (lucid dreaming, personal income, what a person perceives, or creates) This seems to be a pretty small scale of "extraordinary".

Perhaps Carl Sagan was talking about something on a larger scale. Perhaps something like Global Warming, or war crimes of a US President.

Wouldn't these claims call for extraordinary evidence and proof? These aren't personal experiences. They affect millions of people over generations.

Seems like a good quote to me if we expand our assumptions of extraordinary beyond the personal.

[Angela]

...and Gary, it seems to me that your "larger" examples of extraordinary experiences would all be considered interventionist -- that is, proof or disproof of them would have repercussions beyond one person's personal experience. In cases like that, I can see where folks might consider it important to nail it down scientifically.

[Dan.Linehan]

I have a friend who is an inventor.

He's in his mid 40's, and one of the rare sort who still who still invents completely independently, rather than as a part of a large team funded under corporate management. Has a Tesla coil he built from scraps in his garage and all that.

The guy also considers himself to be fully psychic. He meditates and channels, he sees images and visions from touching certain items. He sees ghosts constantly.

He also has a PHD in physics from Berkeley, and pretty much every tech and energy company in California wants to hire him (and get him to sign a non-compete,) but he stays at home and invents on his own instead.

Right now, he's obsessed with finding alternate energy sources, and is working on some pretty mind blowing stuff. He considers true inspiration to be, well... inspired. A gift from higher guides and spirits.

Point being, I bet if those of you who demand proof talked to some real inventors, their scientific process is not nearly as scientific as popular culture would have you believe. Its imaginative and instinctual.

Look who developed the aircar. Was it the billion dollar automotive R&D industry? Or just one man following his imagination?

Or Ben Franklin, where did he get his ideas? Spiritually he believed in deism, a movement that derives the existence and nature of God from reason and personal experience.

If my friend builds what he has been seeing in his most recent visions and gets it to work (as he is prone to do,) is that science? Or psychic phenomena? What proof would you seek?

Imagination is more important than knowledge... - Albert Einstein

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Angela

Maybe it sounds like they are when they say, "well, you just have to experience it to believe it," but really I think that's just their way of saying, "if you want evidence or proof, go explore it on your own!"

What if people actually explored it and saw there is nothing to it? Now you have two conflicting reports, of course folks will ask for a proof and evidence.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

If my friend builds what he has been seeing in his most recent visions and gets it to work (as he is prone to do,) is that science or psychic phenomena? What proof would you seek?

Dan, I think this is interesting account. How we come up with stuff, inventions and such is not well understood. The "talking" voice (thoughts) that we hear in our head is not it. The inventions and new stuff just "pops" into that talking stream, but how it gets there, I do not think its known.

Is it subconsciousness working in background on a problem and solving or is it psychic phenomena? I do not think we know and thats why we explore.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by tekomino

What if people actually explored it and saw there is nothing to it? Now you have two conflicting reports, of course folks will ask for a proof and evidence.

Sure! And then the third person can do his own exploration, and maybe there will be three conflicting reports. Still, none of these three people owes you any evidence or proof regarding their experience. Asking for information about someone's (non-interventionist belief) is one thing; demanding and feeling like anyone owes you anything regarding their belief is another.

Why get yourself all conflicted, just because other people's stories conflict? Or because someone else's story conflicts with your own?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

Point being, I bet if those of you who demand proof talked to some real inventors, their scientific process is not nearly as scientific as popular culture would have you believe. Its imaginative and instinctual.

That reminds me of Einstein's famous quote, which I see you included at the end of your post:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

Fitting those imaginings into an intellectual framework happens later. Subjective creation can manifest objective proof, but only to the satisfaction of those who are ready to sync themselves with that creation.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Angela

Still, none of these three people owes you any evidence or proof regarding their experience. Asking for information about someone's (non-interventionist belief) is one thing; demanding and feeling like anyone owes you anything regarding their belief is another.

I think you are way, way negative about that. Why does it have to be negative?

It is not that anyone owes anything, but rather if you try something, and you see different result, you start asking about evidence and pointers to try to find out where you have gone wrong and to see what you can do differently to replicate original experience.

[Savage]

It's interesting to see all the different angles on this topic. I expected it would generate some good discussion.

One assumption I see a lot of proof-seekers making is that other conscious people exist and that they can prove things independently of you and then show or demonstrate that proof to you. It's the notion that proof is some kind of external entity, and it presupposes the existence of an external, objective reality that's independent of the observer. However, it's important to realize that this is one very big assumption, and it may in fact be totally wrong.

From the standpoint of you as an individual, proof is actually an entirely subjective experience that involves shifting your beliefs about reality. There is no external component to it. Your entire experience of proof comes via your perceptions, which exist only in your mind.

The subjective viewpoint is like having a lucid dream. You know the dream world is all you, so the idea of looking for proof inside your dream becomes a creative process. You construct a world that's congruent with your suppositions. Proof-seekers end up experiencing reality as a non-lucid dream by trapping themselves in a creative process that ironically limits their creativity.

My recommendation is to loosen your grip on the notion that proof is somehow objective and begin to notice that proof is really an internal, personal process, not because what I'm suggesting is objectively true but because it could lead you to an alternative, eye-opening way of perceiving reality. After you've been well-versed in the objective version of proof, take a little time to view it from the subjective side. I think you'll find the process very rich and satisfying and not nearly as frightening or delusional as you previously feared.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

That reminds me of Einstein's famous quote, which I see you included at the end of your post:

Imagination is more important than knowledge.

I find it interesting that you guys are using Einstein's famous quote in support of something that Einstein was strongly against. For years until his death, he had an on-going debate in support of a complete 100% Objective Reality against those scientists who supported a Quantum Theory that had some elements of subjective reality at the atom-level. I'm not really adding to the debate here, but just making an observation I find interesting.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by tekomino

I think you are way, way negative about that. Why does it have to be negative?

It is not that anyone owes anything, but rather if you try something, and you see different result, you start asking about evidence and pointers to try to find out where you have gone wrong and to see what you can do differently to replicate original experience.

Negative about what, tekomino? About asking for evidence or proof? On the contrary, I feel very positively about people sharing their experiences, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and even asking for evidence or proof. That's something we spend a lot of time doing around here, isn't it?

Or are you saying it's negative of me to question why anyone would demand, need or feel owed proof (which is what I was referring to in my posts here)? If you ask me for evidence or proof of something I'm experiencing subjectively, I'll either give you some or I won't. But why would you feel like I owe it to you, even if my experience conflicts with yours or another person's?

I am saying: what good does it do you to feel entitled to evidence or proof from someone? You're free to research your own evidence, or to ask someone else who is more willing, or to drop it completely, or a million other choices. How would taking away my choice help you?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by seeker5

I find it interesting that you guys are using Einstein's famous quote in support of something that Einstein was strongly against. For years until his death, he had an on-going debate in support of a complete 100% Objective Reality against those scientists who supported a Quantum Theory that had some elements of subjective reality at the atom-level. I'm not really adding to the debate here, but just making an observation I find interesting.

Yup, that's where he screwed up. He should have paid more attention to his own quote.

[Dan.Linehan]

Or this one,

There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Yup, that's where he screwed up. He should have paid more attention to his own quote.

hehe That's a funny way to put it.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Angela

Or are you saying it's negative of me to question why anyone would demand, need or feel owed proof (which is what I was referring to in my posts here)?

Assumption that someone is asking for proof/evidence as demand (owing) is in my view negative.

I do not think that anyone is stating that as demand, I think people are saying I tried, I experienced something different, I'd like to find out more about your evidence...

There is no demand, it is a conversation...

[Angela]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Assumption that someone is asking for proof/evidence as demand (owing) is in my view negative.

I do not think that anyone is stating that as demand, I think people are saying I tried, I experienced something different, I'd like to find out more about your evidence...

There is no demand, it is a conversation...

Well, I think you're right, SOME people ask. And plenty of folks demand and feel entitled. Those are the people I was wondering about.

I have been on the receiving end of both, tekomino, and can usually recognize the difference. (by the way, you've made negative assumptions about my negative assumptions! You little mirror, you.)

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by Angela

(by the way, you've made negative assumptions about my negative assumptions! You little mirror, you.)

Hey its a conversation. Two people talk and there are 3 truths and none is wrong. My, yours and what actually happened

[Angela]

Originally Posted by tekomino

Hey its a conversation. Two people talk and there are 3 truths and none is wrong. My, yours and what actually happened

Prove it!!!

(nah, just messin' around. )

[Mr.Mustache]

Originally Posted by tekomino

So with the overwhelming body of evidence for evolution you still believe in designer, creator?

I couldn't let this asinine comment go. How does the evidence for evolution invalidate design in nature? It implies it in my opinion. Also, it takes a leap of faith to believe that we emerged from primordial soup, yes we evolved but there is a good chance design was nessecary to take the first step. Evolution is a fact but maybe our perception of time as linear is an illusion? Contemporary physics makes it clear that it a possibility. Consciousness has not been shown to be created by the brain, the hard problem of consciousness still needs to be answered; if it ever will. So, just because our biological forms evolved it doesn't mean that the fine-tuned universe we live in is an accident of miracle proportions.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

I notice brains, minds and neural pathways and their workings are often compared to computers, circuits, programmes, etc, which all obviously have an intentional designer, builder or creator, and operator. So the simplest most accurate way of discovering their workings is to consult the manual, or ask the designer and creator or operator. Yet suddenly, in the case of the brains, minds and pathways, the wall goes up, and the notion of a designer, creator and operator is fervently rejected, leading to blindly trying to figure out what the things do.

The computer analogy for brains is useful to an extent, but as with all analogies, it breaks down, and in this case fairly quickly. It is useful for comparing functions (short-term vs. long-term memory, processing of information), but not at all useful for comparing physical components. So there the fact that computers are designed doesn't suggest that brains are designed as well.

Secondly, there is nothing 'blind' about scientists' approaches to understanding the brain. Read any research paper and you will see a careful, systematic, thorough approach.

Originally Posted by Uplift

Little wonder scientists have virtually no knowledge of them, and what they are capable of, or whether they are causing or creating harm.

I think the people contributing to the many psychology and neuroscience journals around the world would have a different opinion...

Originally Posted by Angela

I can totally understand liking or preferring proof, scientific curiosity and all.

...

If you are so intent on finding proof one way or the other, why not just go do your research?

Come back when I've got my PhD in Neuroscience

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

So, just because our biological forms evolved it doesn't mean that the fine-tuned universe we live in is an accident of miracle proportions.

But it does suggest that perhaps, like ourselves, the existence of the universe can be explained without resorting to appeal to a higher power.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Come back when I've got my PhD in Neuroscience

If not having a PhD in Neuroscience is why you wouldn't do your own research (to "prove" an experience such as OBE's or other whoo-whoo's), why would one expect to get satisfactory proof from Steve, who also doesn't have such a degree? Or from anyone else who talks about their w-w's, for that matter. Most of us don't have PhDs in Neuroscience, I think.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Angela

If not having a PhD in Neuroscience is why you wouldn't do your own research (to "prove" an experience such as OBE's or other whoo-whoo's), why would one expect to get satisfactory proof from Steve, who also doesn't have such a degree? Or from anyone else who talks about their w-w's, for that matter. Most of us don't have PhDs in Neuroscience, I think.

I can't speak for anyone else (though I've often tried ), but I wouldn't do my own research because I doubt I'd be allowed to poke at people's brains without a PhD.

I don't expect to get any proof from Steve (I'm not sure I've ever seen him reference a book, let alone a study). But I don't read Steve's writing in order to get any proof, of anything. He writes interesting posts which encourage me to think (and recently, to think critically).

But you don't have to be an expert to make discoveries, validate, and explain them. Being an expert helps in being taken seriously by others, and you'll definitely have to work with other people if you want something extraordinary to be accepted by them. Nonetheless anyone can make a claim and satisfactly back it up. Otherwise I'd expect them to acknowledge that a) it's a belief they don't expect anyone else to accept, and/or b) they could be wrong.

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

The computer analogy for brains is useful to an extent, but as with all analogies, it breaks down, and in this case fairly quickly. It is useful for comparing functions (short-term vs. long-term memory, processing of information), but not at all useful for comparing physical components. So there the fact that computers are designed doesn't suggest that brains are designed as well.

Secondly, there is nothing 'blind' about scientists' approaches to understanding the brain. Read any research paper and you will see a careful, systematic, thorough approach.

I think the people contributing to the many psychology and neuroscience journals around the world would have a different opinion...

Come back when I've got my PhD in Neuroscience

But it does suggest that perhaps, like ourselves, the existence of the universe can be explained without resorting to appeal to a higher power.

Another brick in the wall. You accept, in fact advocate, that they have identifiable similar functions, and that one is obviously the result of intentional design, yet fervently dismiss the relevance to the other. Bottles hold fluids, so do tetra packs. Just because they differ dramatically physically has nothing to do with one not being designed to perform similar tasks. They both are. Some people go as far as asserting that cells are in fact robots. Robots obviously have a designer and creator, but then the same people frantically assert that cells can't have, that they were just random accidents or mutations.

I can sit my dog in front of a computer and she will carefully and systematically destroy it. That is the mode of science in looking for life and the creative source by dismantling and destroying the creation.

Books and journals are just that. The actual experience is they know next to nothing about the mind and life and sources.

When computers and robots evolved to what they are today, was it the result of random mutation, or conscious design and intent? Again many people parade the fact of computers and robots evolution, and even lay claim to it. Then many of the same people fervently dismiss the possibility of a designer in the evolution of minds and life and cells.

As far as coming back when you are qualified, I'd prefer to see the examples and results the qualification produces, to assess their usefullness to me.

[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Uplift

Another brick in the wall. You accept, in fact advocate, that they have identifiable similar functions, and that one is obviously the result of intentional design, yet fervently dismiss the relevance to the other. Bottles hold fluids, so do tetra packs. Just because they differ dramatically physically has nothing to do with one not being designed to perform similar tasks. They both are.

However bottles and tetra packs are not so dramatically different. Their materials are different and their shape can differ, but ultimately they both have the required physical attributes of a sealable, water-tight container. So does much of nature. So on one hand we still have something clearly designed, and on the other something which performs the same function and might have a mystical designer, but the evidence points to evolution.

Secondly, the comparison between two objects with similar physical attributes which allow them to perform the same function doesn't apply to a comparison of the physical components of computers and the brain. A computer has one main processing unit (made up of millions of transistors) while the brain has trillions of individual cells working together in immensely complex ways. There is no similarity at the physical level. Also, a computer is an extremely fast, serial processor. The brain is a comparatively slow, massively parallel processor. So while they perform what seems to be a similar function, it's similar only at the highest level (there's very little that's similar about the ways in which computers and brains actually process information).

So yes, we can ask if the brain was designed, but we can't look at a computer to answer that question.

Originally Posted by Uplift

Some people go as far as asserting that cells are in fact robots.

Are you sure you're not confusing analogy with definition?

Originally Posted by Uplift

When computers and robots evolved to what they are today, was it the result of random mutation, or conscious design and intent? Again many people parade the fact of computers and robots evolution, and even lay claim to it. Then many of the same people fervently dismiss the possibility of a designer in the evolution of minds and life and cells.

Probably because the designer is an unverifiable dismissal of any attempt at explanation. Did those who believe in a designer do anything to try to understand all the evidence that science has accumulated before they felt threatened by science's explanations. Did they even notice what they were seeing, what Darwin revealed to the world?

[Uplift]

Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre

Are you sure you're not confusing analogy with definition?

Probably because the designer is an unverifiable dismissal of any attempt at explanation. Did those who believe in a designer do anything to try to understand all the evidence that science has accumulated before they felt threatened by science's explanations. Did they even notice what they were seeing, what Darwin revealed to the world?

I admit, Danny Dennet and his 'BMW supported', we are a zillion robots speech was confusing. Remember...the one you suggested we all watch? Didn't you watch it?

If he says, as he puts it, 'our bodies are made up of 100 trillion little robots', well thats what he says. No analogy. He says thats what we are, made of, robots. What we are, not what we are like.

TED | Talks | Dan Dennett: Can we know our own minds? (video)

Despite the glitz and glamour and seeming profoundness and expertise of Danny's performance, I did pay most attention to his quickly, slyly requesting a handout, and being flat broke, despite the 'BMW support', whilst he simultaneously attacked and mocked ignorant charlotans fleecing others. And his remarkably, disastrously poor health, whilst professing ultimate knowledge of the workings of the robotic human body really captured my attention. But thats just me, as I said, I dont pay much attention to journals and speeches and asserted proofs, just examples.

Here's a new example. Indigenous peoples threatened by science, and being unjust, unfair to science? That's a new, ludicrous angle. They were absolutely correct in feeling threatened. So, science completely dismissing 40,000 - 120,000 years of accumulated belief and example, by slaughtering it, butchering it, becomes that. And Indigenous Peoples butchered the world over becomes , 'Darwin 'revealing knowledge to them'. 'Look behind the bullets, and all will be revealed', so to speak. Thats the only reason you are able to assert your adopted 'proofs'. No one in the land, and many other lands, believed or wanted anything to do with Darwin's theories, or the examples espousing them, and living them. They were rightly appalled at the examples thrust upon them. And Indigenous Peoples made no threats whatsoever against science. Attempts at defending themselves after being attacked, yes, threats no. Poor, hard done by science. There's one indisputable fact about science and its proofs, despite you introducing this ludicrous, new angle. It is adopted here, and many places, because no one had, or has a choice. It had, and has nothing whatsoever to do with proof, but all to do with science dismissing all that chose otherwise, and using unbelievable brute, barbaric force to enforce the dismissal, and then strut around parading their 'proof'.

[shnu]

In another thread, Steve replied to this post:

Originally Posted by Zukin

In the book Maximum Achievement, Brian Tracy talks about emotions and shares this insight:

I've always heard psychologists say that acknowledging and expressing negative emotions is important for growth, but I was skeptical of that advice. Now, cognitive behavioral therapy teaches people to consciously modify their emotions in order to be happier and more fulfilled.

This post is another interesting take on the idea of feelings as feedback:
Most People Are Depressed For a Very Good Reason · Violent Acres

by writing:

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

What he wrote sounds nice, but personally I think it's B.S.

Did Steve, in rejecting Tracy's subjective reality, succumb to fear-based thinking? I don't think so, and likewise I don't think Steve should be dismissing all attempts to look critically at the quality of evidence as deriving from fear-based reasoning, just because some such attempts are.

Postscript: I should add that I have no problems with Steve's questioning of the objectivity of proof, only with his generalisations about what is going on when we seek proof. I think Sagan is trying to help people see error and avoid being manipulated: he strikes me as an outflow sort of person...

[seeker5]

Originally Posted by shnu

In another thread, Steve replied to this post:

When you posted, you missed out the Brian Tracy quote that Steve was replying to. The quote from Brian Tracy is:

Originally Posted by Brian Tracy

The insight that changed my life was the discovery that negative emotions are completely unnecessary and unnatural in the life of man. There is no need for them. They serve no good purpose. They are only destructive. They are the major reason men and women fail to grow and evolve to higher levels of consciousness and character. And you do not have to suffer them at all if you consciously choose to get rid of them.

ps. Would be helpful if next time you link to the thread in question so we don't have to search for it

[shnu]

Originally Posted by seeker5

When you posted, you missed out the Brian Tracy quote that Steve was replying to.

Thanks, edited in.

Originally Posted by seeker5

ps. Would be helpful if next time you link to the thread in question so we don't have to search for it

If you click on the right arrows in quote boxes, just after the bolded username, you get to the quoted text.