Proof (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Proof

[Sam988]

Apart from all the other claims you made that i disagree with, this is the one that i couldn't let pass:


Steve Pavlina: "At its core, proof-seeking is rooted in fear, self-doubt, and low self-esteem. What if I believe something that turns out to be false? What if I make a mistake? What if I stray too far from the herd?"



Great, so let's all trip to dream land and believe whatever we're told to, because since all experience is subjective, everything that one says is true, at least to them. I'll start paying more attention to what the guys down at a mental clinic say, because since all experience is subjective, they can't be wrong, can they?

While your thinking, steve, makes sense to some extent, it allows someone who accepts it to create all sorts of wishful thinking based on things that they heard and chose to believe, because they "need no proof anymore".



edit: I forgot to add, i guess that after this article done by steve no one can deny anymore that there's a dragon in carl sagan's garage. Article down here written by CARL SAGAN. Hehe funny since he's the one that steve disagrees with.

Carl Sagan: The Dragon In My Garage

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Sam988

While your thinking, steve, makes sense to some extent, it allows someone who accepts it to create all sorts of wishful thinking based on things that they heard and chose to believe, because they "need no proof anymore".

By stating your fear that wishful thinking will lead to impaired functionality, you provide a pretty good demonstration that proof-seeking is indeed fear-based, which was a key point of the article.

However, when you actually turn that page -- as in turn it yourself personally, not merely projecting it onto people you imagine have already done it -- quite a difference experience follows.

I'm suggesting that your fear of wishful thinking is a facade you're using to block your own creative self-expression. I understand how attached people get to those facades, but they're unnecessary. By letting go of the fear-based need for proof, you won't suddenly becoming a gullible wreck. But you will free up a lot of creative energy that you can channel into more fulfilling pursuits.

[Trezker]

"I don't believe in that stuff, prove it!"
"I don't believe in you, prove that you exist!"

As a programmer I'd be severely crippled if I had to prove that my code has no bugs. It might be possible to prove it, but it'd take way too much time with my current knowledge in the area.
So, since I can't waste time making proofs, I just take an interesting theory and put it in code. I'll do my best to iron out all possibilities of bugs that I can think of and deal with whatever might be left when someone discovers it.
Sadly, in my reality bugs almost always sneak into my code, it doesn't matter if I think they will or not. I guess bugs are created somewhere in my unconscious mind.

[thinkhacker]

I agree, Steve.

The real courage is to proceed without proof. You must seek out the mystery, the unknown. That is where the meat of life is: exploration.

And, paradoxically, by believing the unbelievable, we often create the proof we couldn't get before we believed it.

And Sam988: wishful thinking isn't bad -- it's just that people often wish for things that won't improve their lives. When they get them, they blame the whole idea of wishful thinking.

Eric
Think Hacks

[robrosenbaum]

Carl Sagan's actual quote was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Not proof, evience. There is no such thing as proof in science, only confirmation or contradiction. Our modern society has elected scientists as its priests, and I consider it tragic that the public confuses ignorant claims about science with science itself. Science says, "If you think something might be, then don't just sit around thinking you're right. Go use your senses to find out." I see this as a radical and liberating point of view. My perspective is the opposite of Steve's - I believe people hide in their illusions. I think people are afraid to be wrong, and that is why they ignore evidence. To be truly scientific requires courage and vulnerability - any one of your ideas could be wrong, and you will be powerless to stop the truth, no matter how much it hurts.
I should also mention the second part of science - not only should you go out and see if you are right, you should tell me how you did it, so that I can go see for myself. If I see the very thing you did, then that means something significant, something that extends beyond merely what I think. Science is not just an individual experience - it is the devlopment and sharing of tools for allowing the universe to tell you what it is. The idea that we create our own observations is hard to maintain, since science has brought us so many surprises. What physical scientists would have expected observer dependence? Does the "uncertainty principle" sound like something a stereotypical scientist would expect to find? You cannot help but be surprised constantly, when the source of truth is outside of yourself. People trapped in their illusions, however, are never surprised. They already know everything, and reality, for them, does not exist. They fit every statement, idea, and event into a tiny box, a preconceived structure from which nothing escapes. Only the outside world, the not-them, has the potential to shake that structure down.

[tekomino]

Originally Posted by robrosenbaum

Carl Sagan's actual quote was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Exactly evidence. Where is the evidence and how do I replicate what you are claiming. That is why people are skeptical. Claims without evidence are theories at best.

Originally Posted by StevePavlina

Even in the face of overwhelming evidence, people will cling to their pre-existing beliefs for emotional reasons.

I disagree with this. Evidence allows "non-believers" to replicate the actual claims. If there is no way to replicate the evidence by independent parties it is not evidence. Just theory or anecdotal evidence but not evidence in scientific sense. Some people will ignore it, some people will try it, like with anything else.

Evidence like light, helps us see things as they really are.

It is true that people cling to pre-existing beliefs, but under overwhelming evidence very, very few do so. Nobody is claiming that earth is flat anymore, right?

I wish all talk about subjective reality was based on evidence that community can use to replicate the actual results instead of saying you cannot prove this or that or worse, you do not care to prove any of your assertions... Starts to sound like some kind of cult...

[The Wise Turtle]

"I’m sorry to disappoint those who ask me to prove the existence of lucid dreaming… or astral projection… or even how much income I earn. Those people will be waiting a very long time because I don’t care to prove anything. That would actually do people a disservice by feeding their fears instead of helping them move through their fears."

Does walking away from the conversation help them move through their fears, though? (Which is what you suggest you would do if someone asked you this kind of question...)

I'm thinking that one way to help people move through their fears is to straight out tell them that there is no way I can be absolutely sure, but that I've found that I have interesting, enjoyable, productive, and sustainable experiences in the past when I've accepted that my beliefs about this are probably correct. And if, in the future, I start having not so interesting, enjoyable, productive, and sustainable experiences using this belief, I'll reconsider my acceptance of it.

Does that seem like a good way to frame things for people, Steve?

Peace, Love, and Bicycles,
Turtle

PS, I love the bit about measuring gravity with the goal of expanding my creativity. It's a great message for those of us who are very logical and interested in the more observable, consistent forms of energy in the universe. So thanks a bunch for that particular comment!

[cdn2wheeler]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

I’m sorry to disappoint those who ask me to prove the existence of lucid dreaming… or astral projection… or even how much income I earn. Those people will be waiting a very long time because I don’t care to prove anything. That would actually do people a disservice by feeding their fears instead of helping them move through their fears.

Ah, well there's the rub. Where, actually, does the fear lie?

Does it reside in the person who wishes some sort of objective confirmation? Or does it actually lie in the person who refuses to even discuss the matter?

Throwing off the shackles of preconceived notions is a two-way street, and a healthy one at that. But wanting it both ways simply isn't consistent with rational thought.

Turning one's back on the process of seeking, and explaining, truth is actually the fear-based model. Seeking truth, and proving it, requires courage and foresight, because one may actually find that their own presuppositions are incorrect,whether it's about evolution or astral projection or gravity. That's frightening, even terrifying for some.

Holding one's own presuppositions up to the light, describing them, studying them and attempting to prove them can go a long way to dispelling the fear. And one may even learn something in the process.

But simply saying, "I don't wish to prove it, now go away and stop bothering me with troubling questions" is the fear-based model, not the other way around.

[Andwan]

This is really not all that serious....Steve...Why do you think everybody has a hard time accepting subjective reality? Is it because they feel that their're all alone in the universe? Is it because they feel they have no God, so if they adopt this belief system they'll have to give up pointless activites like praying, fasting, and everything else that they've gotton results with? Or do they feel that if they believe in subjective reality they are clearly believing in something that contradicts what your wife can do? I just don't understand how your wife can communicate with spirits if Im the only one who's there? I kept trying to ask was your ego/spirit still aware after you're dead? I guess she believes so, but I don't understand how its possible in a subjective reality world...Have you ever gotton the ideal to write about subjective reality from a more spiritual point of view? Or maybe ask Erin to write a less complicated version in her blog?

[ExploringTheMatrix]

Originally Posted by Andwan

Why do you think everybody has a hard time accepting subjective reality? Is it because they feel that their're all alone in the universe? Is it because they feel they have no God, so if they adopt this belief system they'll have to give up pointless activites like praying, fasting, and everything else that they've gotton results with?

For a long time the vast majority of us have to educated in a hard, tangible reality. I'd say this stems from the rise in importance as science has replaced mysticism in our culture over the last 200 or so years. I wonder if perhaps there has been a need for a concrete shared reality which has pushed subjective experiences to the side. In a world of increased communication and structure, it becomes necessary to have a common belief structure to hold society and technology together.

Subjective reality doesn't suggest that you should abandon prayer or fasting. It merely is a lens which suggests that the reason those things work for you is because you believe in them, rather than there being some outside objective force which gives them power. The whole purpose is to return you to a point where you can take control of your reality again.

Or do they feel that if they believe in subjective reality they are clearly believing in something that contradicts what your wife can do? I just don't understand how your wife can communicate with spirits if Im the only one who's there? I kept trying to ask was your ego/spirit still aware after you're dead? I guess she believes so, but I don't understand how its possible in a subjective reality world...Have you ever gotton the ideal to write about subjective reality from a more spiritual point of view? Or maybe ask Erin to write a less complicated version in her blog?

The way that I interpret this is that you are the space or container in which everything happens. Ultimately everything is a product of your beliefs. However within that belief structure, there are beliefs that are a consequence of other beliefs. You believe there are other people and those people can have beliefs that are different than yours. It allows for a richer experience, as well as enabling you to discover other perspectives you might want to try. Without Erin, how would you even consider communicating with spirits?

Applying a spiritual lens to subjective reality would just complicate matters further. Within SR it's just as reasonable to believe that when your friends & family die, they just _disappear_. After all that's what you believe now. It's just more empowering to consider that there's a way to communicate with people who are important to you but no longer alive. Depending on what you believe, you could experience that they're in heaven/hell, a different spiritual dimension, or reincarnated. You choose whichever appeals to you.

[Pavick]

The blog post attempts imply that proofs rely on assumptions which are subjective. However, assumptions are definitions that are should be agreed upon before discussion for deeper understanding is engaged. In this context proof is the epitome of creativity and discovery. It consists of the creation of new tricks and observations that heighten the awareness of others about reality. The substance that is created is an irrefutable argument that anyone from any background will understand, agree upon, and be able to use given enough time and effort. Proof is a discovery of reality that can be shared by others; it's a delicate creation and is subject to the most objective scrutiny that humans can offer. What is rather amazing is that if assumptions imposed in a proof is observed in a particular context of reality, then all of the results known in the abstract follow for free in that context of reality. Because of this, it is reasonable that people should seek proofs to observe and/or distill truth. More importantly, a proof should be viewed higher than the specific truth it validates because it is proofs rather than specific truths that tend to lead to the discovery of other truths.

It is true that most scientists do not offer proofs, but the goal of science is not truth. Science attempts to create explanatory and predictive power that is consistent with itself and observed reality. The assumptions in science are constraints that humans' collective observations have imposed on reality. If you accept those constraints and that the proofs that use those constraints are without error, the you should accept the conclusion of those proofs.

[Andrew Brunelle]

What do you think this article was trying to prove?

Nothing. It was describing the subjective experience of Steve Pavlina not needing to prove anything. He has his subjective life and he experiences what he wants and they are his experiences, so how can he prove his experience to you anyway? He can't prove to you he had a lucid dream. And he definitely can't show you his time share in the astral realm. So, instead of saying, "Prove it," ask for details, ask for a description of the experience. You may learn something.

[Life Warrior]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

Extraordinary experiences require extraordinary creativity.

Instead of trying to prove reality, see it as something you experience… something you help create. Your involvement is to participate in the experience by expressing yourself creatively, not merely to passively observe. You don’t need gravity to be proven to you. Just experience it. Create with it. If you feel compelled to measure gravity, then measure with the intention of expanding your creative capacity.

Thanks for this bit Steve. I'm in the midst of another transition, and this really helped me get back to what I knew all along.

In terms of measuring gravity with the intention of expanding your creative capacity, that's definitely a great way to frame the idea. Speaking from my rock climbing experience, it is a great feeling when you become one with gravity and the rock, and actually feel the energy flow through you as you move up the wall and experience all the little nuances of the intricate movement you are doing while at the core of it all, being yourself, finding new ways to express your spirit through the movement. When you are in that moment, nothing else matters. You just are. You, the gravity and the rock. And the wonderful experience you're having in your relationship with them -- something that really defies words, just a serene feeling of oneness as you are in sync with everything around you. So yes, a very good analogy. And thank you for your take on the subject.

[Angela]

Steve, your blog post on Proof is timely for me -- this concept of people "needing" proof is one that has niggled at me, but I haven't been able to articulate to myself why. Thank you for articulating it to me, for me.

@Robrosenbaum, wowee! So well spoken! I also find this point of view radical and liberating. Welcome to the forum and I hope you have a wonderful time here. I have a feeling I'm really going to enjoy your posts!

Love,
Angela

Carl Sagan's actual quote was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Not proof, evidence. There is no such thing as proof in science, only confirmation or contradiction. Our modern society has elected scientists as its priests, and I consider it tragic that the public confuses ignorant claims about science with science itself. Science says, "If you think something might be, then don't just sit around thinking you're right. Go use your senses to find out."

[saganite]

Steve,

You have misquoted Carl Sagan. Furthermore, you have critisized his misquote.

This is unethical and worthy of public apology.

Please write a blog post correcting for the error (an apology would be appreciated, but a correction is the minimal thing you could do), or remove your blog post altogether.

Carl Sagan was an advocate of peace and human exploration. Misquoting the dead is deeply insulting and "fear based".

Thank you.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan, in "Cosmos". Carl Sagan - Wikiquote

[cdn2wheeler]

I take responsibility for the misquote. I found it here as "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" but you're right, the actual quote was "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

My fault, not Steves.

[saganite]

No, Steve published without checking his facts. He is accountable.

Your words, cdn2wheeler, reach very few people. Steve's reached thousands.

Steve, please write a correction, an apology, a repost - please take action, if not for your own accountability, then to at least respect the dead.

Thank you.

[Savage]

"Extraordinary evidence" vs. "extraordinary proof"


Thanks for pointing this out. It took some digging because I actually found both quotes attributed to Sagan in multiple places, so my initial fact checking didn't turn up any problems. For the purpose of this blog post, proof and evidence are interchangeable, so it didn't significantly change the meaning IMO. However, I edited the post with this correction:

A forum member recently shared the Carl Sagan quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Sagan is credited with popularizing that slight rephrasing of an older quote by Marcello Truzzi: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof."

Really this article aims to point out the difference between objective evidence (or proof) vs. subjective creation. You can never be sure what effect your thoughts are having on reality, since there's no way to subjectively prove that anything exists beyond your consciousness. So the assumption that reality is objective may in fact be a creative choice rather than an evidential observation -- hence the reason I disagree with Sagan & Truzzi and choose to come at this from the experiential/creative side instead. The only way to know which approach is more accurate is to try deliberately creating with your thoughts to see what effect they have. Once you go that route (and really start becoming congruent with it), it's a pretty wild ride.

[cylon]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

The only way to know which approach is more accurate is to try deliberately creating with your thoughts to see what effect they have. Once you go that route (and really start becoming congruent with it), it's a pretty wild ride.

Steve, when you were creating with your thoughts at the beginning, did negative manifestations occur "accidentally" as you were still getting the hang of it, or did you just notice positive manifestations/reflections?

[Dive Bomb]

I don't think there is anything wrong with needing proof if you have the right attitude to it .

If you are genuninly intersted to see if what somebody is saying is valid (at least in an objective stance), than I think that is fine

If you demand proof just to debunk whatever they are saying, regardless whether proof helps you or the person with the information, than there is a problem.

People are always going to require evidence to believe in something. Many don't want to be seen as a guillable fool. Truth changes over time anyway.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

"Extraordinary evidence" vs. "extraordinary proof"


For the purpose of this blog post, proof and evidence are interchangeable

It's all semantics and intellectualism. Proof and evidence? I think Sagan meant evidence to mean experience and observation; the precursors of proof. You do him a dis-justice by your post. You said "At its core, proof-seeking is rooted in fear, self-doubt, and low self-esteem." That does not accurately describe Carl Sagan whom you base this post on.

We all have our own ways to describe our observations of reality, and we all have our ways of relating the nitty-gritty of that to others. Depending on who we are speaking to, we cloak our words accordingly. The bulk of what Sagan had to say was to infer that which cannot yet be proved, but which can be deduced by evidence and by imagination.

IMHO,
John

[Sam988]

Wow i've been out for just a day and this thread got many replies.



Thanks god you touched this issue, because this is one more issue that i wanted to touch in my initial but ended up forgetting to add it:

Originally Posted by Steve Pavlina

By stating your fear that wishful thinking will lead to impaired functionality, you provide a pretty good demonstration that proof-seeking is indeed fear-based, which was a key point of the article.

Given your line of reasoning, i can also create this line of reasoning, which is exactly as yours but the opposite of what you claim. What about if i say this: "no proof seeking is a sign of fear-based thinking, meaning that what you believe in and want to believe in might be false, but you don't want to investigate it because you're afraid of your fantasies to end".



Also, how can wishful thinking ever be helpful? You're telling me that, i.e., suddenly because i see/feel/hear/whatever a "sign" coming from the Universe and i interpret it as it suggesting me to invest all my money in stock "x", i should do it because i "should let go of my fear that wishful thinking will lead to impaired functionality"?

[Zukin]

I really like Marcello Truzzi and his writings on pseudoskepticism.

This Wikipedia entry is interesting reading:
Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Tynan]

There is no such thing as absolute proof. This doesn't mean we need to abandon the idea of objective reality, because the idea of objective reality doesn't need to be proved to be useful.

The brain/mind is a feed-forward machine. Its only purpose is to predict future input based on past input.

The idea of 'objective reality' doesn't need to be 'proven' absolutely to be useful in this task. I can't prove objective reality, but the idea that I live in an objective reality has cleanly predicted every single subjective observation I have ever made. Thats why I stick with it. It is USEFUL.

My idea of objective reality does not include genuine psychic phenomena, astral projection, paranormal events, etc because they are unnecessary and unelegant.

One could try to construct a world model including these phenomena as genuine, but it will invariably be full of subtle but persistent self-contradictions and ambiguities, and will be excessively complicated. Why bother?

The hard scientific view of reality predicts EVERYTHING with startling elegance and from a remarkably small set of first principles. Its predictions include all paranormal observations (easily explained as subjective artifacts of an over-eager pattern matcher in the human brain - especially because all these effects disappear when we control for individual perceptive biases).

If I ever see anything that contradicts my current world model I'll gladly revise it.

Originally Posted by StevePavlina

You can never be sure what effect your thoughts are having on reality

Blind experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[rawaccess]

hello everyone, i have a question that has been bugging me for years. the latest steve blog entry encouraged me to ask it out loud.

how does the existence of a common language (english) fit into the SR model?



i dont believe it does or can, which is why steve created an escape route for this problem by stating he uses the OR model as well.

for me, the use of language is a huge problem in believing only in SR. for year i could come to no reasonable solution on how to solve this problem of the use of a common tongue. however, early articles by steve resolved this issue by comparing SR reality to lucid dreaming, or virtual reality.

not only is stating OR exists inside of SR an escape from this language problem, it seems to be the only reasonable idea that makes sense.


remember, there are more than four dimensions.

thank you

[rawaccess]

Originally Posted by Tynan

One could try to construct a world model including these phenomena as genuine, but it will invariably be full of subtle but persistent self-contradictions and ambiguities, and will be excessively complicated. Why bother?
]

i came to that conclusion regarding OR as well

ghosts and such just dont fit inside that perfect, limited reality very well.

[Frans]

Originally Posted by Tynan

My idea of objective reality does not include genuine psychic phenomena, astral projection, paranormal events, etc because they are unnecessary and unelegant.

In my subjective reality, these phenomena don't exist either for the same reason: they are unnecessary to explain my reality (lucky me ).

[Lola]

What am I missing?

Why is there frequently such a demand for Steve to prove something, anything that he experiences in his personal reality? And I think that is the distinction here. He is sharing his personal experiences. He's not claiming to make verifiable reports of scientific experiments. I can accept his accounts of his experiences and use them as a catalyst to learn more - to stretch my reality beyond its current boundaries and strive to have such experiences myself - or I can reject them because I have no basis for understanding. Either way, my ability to perceive Steve's experience has no affect on his reality of his experience and certainly is not a valid indication of it happening or not. Or of the possibility it COULD happen.

Let's say I write a post telling you all about going sailing yesterday. I could embellish that story with great detail, emotion and physical sensation. Can I prove to you that I had a good time sailing with friends yesterday? Not likely. A "good time" is a subjective experience, wouldn't you agree? Can I even prove to you that I went sailing yesterday? Well, maybe. If you're open to accepting the verification of my companions as proof. But perhaps you would believe that my alleged companions are a figment of my imagination as well. Or I might falsify their statements and pass it off as truth. Can I prove to you that the wind felt chilly coming off the water? Or that the ropes burned my hands when I failed to wear my gloves? Can I prove the feeling of euphoria when speeding across the water? Not likely. Because it's all my perception. MY experience of sailing is contained within MY self. The story I would write would be an accounting of how I experienced the event.

Or maybe I didn't go sailing at all yesterday. Maybe I'm making it all up. Does it really matter if my story really happened if it sparks within you a desire to experience sailing for yourself? And will you ever REALLY understand the lure of sailing unless you experience it yourself? And if you try it and are a failure as a sailor, does that diminish the validity of MY experience?

Or perhaps, you've never actually been sailing yet you think you know enough about it to assert that you could never do it and would never do it and would never like doing it. Maybe you'd read my story and say, "That's not true. Sailing is NOT fun, she cannot PROVE to me that it is fun, and furthermore, I don't believe she even actually went sailing." Which is your perception and is, for you, the end of the story.

My personal experience, however, remains unchanged whether you believe or not.

[Angela]

Lola, don't forget about all those good samaritans out there who want to protect the wan, unwashed, gullible souls out there from the dangers inherent in everything Steve says. The place is crawling with 'em!

I read something yesterday that jumped off the page at me:

"People will write off even the clearest, most loving person in the world when he opposes their belief system. They will invalidate him, negate him, obliterate him, prove that he's wrong, he's a fraud, he's dangerous to society, so that they can protect what they really believe is important. They'd rather be right than free.
-- Byron Katie, A Thousand Names for Joy