Photo took a few days ago.

 Me in 2000, compared to a few days ago. 22.5 years difference.

Sandy

 Just had a bash at singing Sandy, but a bit of a challenge singing in an American accent.

 

My predictions for 30 years in the future (2053).

1. Nowhere near enough action will have been taken to ameliorate climate change. So by 2053, the planet will be in considerably worse shape than it is now. Some areas of the planet that are currently inhabited in 2023, will no longer be habitable by 2053.
2. We still won't have level 5 autonomous cars, that is autonomous cars that can travel along any road anywhere. But we will have level 4 autonomous vehicles in the form of taxis and public transport that are restricted to specific geographic boundaries by geofencing technology. They will have been widespread since 2030 or so. 
3. No one will have landed on Mars yet. I predict that won't happen until Saturday the 20th of July 2069 and the first person to step on Mars will be a woman.
4. No alien life will have been discovered, least of all any sign of alien civilisations.
5. Sentient computers still won't exist even though many people think that the output of chatbots are indistinguishable from a human's, and hence must be sentient. However, they are being fooled.
   
6. Quantum computers with all their problems ironed out will exist and will be in mass use by governments and companies. However, they won't have filtered down to everyday use in the home as of yet.
7. The rollout of Cultured meat will be much slower than most people anticipated due to the challenges in making it economically viable. However, by 2053 it will have gained an appreciable foothold and have started to sell in ever-increasing quantities. By around 2070 it will have completely replaced real meat.
8. Virtual reality will be huge by 2053. Some people will spend virtually all their spare time in virtual reality playing games.
9. Professional scientists and philosophers will still be mostly materialists construed in a weak sense, but it will have become increasingly respectable to hold dualist and idealist positions. Indeed, the notion that the brain doesn't create consciousness will no longer be considered outlandish.
10. The PlayStation 9 will come out.
    

 

It is weird, this life.

I find it weird that I am existing right now, having thoughts.  It seems almost surreal, as if I'm in some strange dream.  If this is the only life there is, why do I find myself inexplicable in existence?  Or if I existed before this life, where was I and doing what?

Glen Borchardt, author of "The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein".

A certain Glenn Borchardt -- author of The Scientific Worldview: Beyond Newton and Einstein and other books -- said to me:

"your statement that "science does not depend on our metaphysical presuppositions" is false. For instance, folks cannot be scientists unless they assume "there are causes for all effects." That is a metaphysical presupposition because it goes "beyond physics." We will never be able to completely prove that assumption, but without it, we could not do science."

We have to have the working supposition that the world exhibits regularities, if that is "metaphysical". Physical causation seems to me to be what we project onto reality in order to try and make sense of it. Whether or not it exists is an interesting question, but it's not needed for science. How could it be? We observe reality, note the regularities it exhibits, then apply mathematical formulas to describe such change in the world. Regardless of whether there is such a thing as gravitational force, it remains the case that objects fall and we can mathematically describe and predict a falling object's motion. This is not to deny that both the concepts of forces, and especially energy, may not be useful

Berkeley's metaphysic doesn't require physical causation, he thought only mental causation exists and I think he might well be right. That won't impress Glenn Borchard though since he thinks immaterialism is absurd. But I don't care what he feels, I care about the truth.

Responses to a materialist

From here.

Philosopher Eric Steinhart has apparently published widely in the areas of metaphysics and philosophy of religion. He is interviewed in Michael Sudduth's blog.

the immaterial minds of the dualists, the occultists, and the parapsychologists are fetish objects created as magical protections against the fear of death.

Not quite. It seems that objects we can see and touch are of a radically differing nature to the conscious mind. Not to mention that we are all instinctively dualists, it’s just that many of us are “educated” to reject dualism. And it needs to be pointed out that, of course, dualism does not entail an afterlife. Nor indeed does it entail the existence of ESP. So Steinhart is simply extremely ignorant on this whole subject.

Reincarnation theories usually say the same soul gets repeatedly embodied in different bodies. It seems to require a soul-body or mind-body dualism. Often these dualisms are substance dualisms, so that the soul is made of some kind of immaterial stuff.

A substantial self (or soul if it survives death), is not made of anything. It is simple and fundamental (a bit like electrons in this regard). What is meant by the self being a substance is that we are the same self throughout our lives (and perhaps before and after it too). Our intelligence, interests etc might change, but this has no consequences for our personal identity. This is because intelligence, interests, memories and so on are properties, they are not part of the substance, not part of what makes me me.

[I]t’s hard for me to understand the hostility to materialist theories of mind.

If we define the material world as constituting the quantifiable aspects of reality, then materialism contradicts our direct acquaintance with our own experiences which are, in their essence, qualitative. It's not a hostility, but a weariness in pointing out again and again that the very definition of the material excludes consciousness.

Dualists, and parapsychologists, never formulate mathematically precise theories of immaterial minds or of psychic functioning.

Do scientists who subscribe to materialism formulate mathematically precise theories of material minds? Obviously not since minds are too complex.

 

Mathematically precise theories describe change in the material world. What is meant by applying it to (non-material) minds?

Dualists have produced no useful results at all about immaterial minds.

The same can be said about materialists having produced no useful results about material minds.

There are no technologies based on psychic functioning. Dualism hasn’t led to treatments for mental illnesses. Dualism is a purely negative theory of what it means to be human.

No technologies are based on materialism either. Technology is the result of science and that science would work equally well no matter what our stance is on the mind-body problem. Fundamental science, indeed, leaves out the mind and consciousness in its description of reality.

David Hume on Miracles

 David Hume back in the 18th century said:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature, and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined.

Hmm . .why is reality beholden to follow exceptionless laws of nature? There's a problem saying "firm and unalterable experience has established these laws" since our "firm and unalterable experience" cannot distinguish between 100% exceptionless laws, and extremely close to 100% laws e.g. laws that pertain 99.99999999% of the time. And, indeed, since there have been many reports of miracles and indeed many reports of anomalous and surprising phenomena-- and I guess they aren't all lying, even if mistaken -- then the "firm and unalterable experience" is questionable, if not in fact outright question-begging.

Of course, one might retort that it is surely more reasonable that physical laws are exceptionless rather than operate 99.99999999% of the time. The latter seems just an arbitrary number. Whatever makes reality exhibit the patterns it does -- the interactions of the four forces or whatever -- surely this operates all the time? A rose that starts to sing we would feel is simply flatout impossible. It would certainly discombobulate us and, indeed, freak us out! So can this conviction that reality exhibits exceptionless patterns be justified?

Certainly not by physical laws since they are simply a description of the patterns that reality exhibits. If reality only exhibits patterns 99.99999999% of the time, then the other 0.00000001% of the time when miracles or bizarre phenomena occur, cannot be said to contravene such laws. On the contrary, such physical laws would then demand such "miracles".

But what about the argument that science has certain assumptions, and one of those assumptions is that nature is uniform? But science would work equally well, at least on an everyday basis, if nature only deviated from such patterns rarely and briefly.

I think, at the end of the day, people are only appealing to their feelings that nature follow exceptionless laws of nature. Their belief here is, in a sense, a kind of faith.

A sickening world we live in

I skim read the following article:

Call for new taxes on super-rich after 1% pocket two-thirds of all new wealth

What a sickening immoral world we inhabit.  Even in a rich country like the UK a sizable percentage of the population are going cold or hungry.. or both.  I find it absolutely unacceptable.

The Government says the UK has run out of money, so they can't just keep helping people. But we need to bear in mind that the top 1% have the same wealth as the bottom 60% of the population. The bottom 50% of the population has only got about 7% of all the wealth etc.

So there's plenty of money, it's just that successive Governments (especially Tory ones) consider the wealth of the rich and comfortably off as somehow being sacrosanct, so we cannot redistribute wealth at all in order to have a slightly less inequitable society.

For this reason I cannot have any sympathy when the Government and others claim that there's no money. This is false, there's a vast amount of wealth, it's just a small percentage of people hoarding it all.

A conversation with ChatGPT, an AI bot.

I’ve just tried having a conversation with ChatGPT.

Ian
Is it likely that ghosts exist?

ChatGPT
There is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality. Some people may claim to have had experiences that they interpret as encounters with ghosts, but these experiences can often be explained by natural causes or psychological factors. In summary, while the idea of ghosts is a popular cultural belief, there is no scientific evidence to support their existence.

Ian
There's currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of consciousness either, would you likewise conclude that no-one is conscious?

Also, the assertion that an experience of what one takes to be a ghost can be explained "by natural causes or psychological factors" is a blanket statement that might be applicable to many such alleged encounters, but scarcely all.

ChatGPT
You are correct that consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, and there is ongoing debate in the scientific community about its nature and underlying mechanisms. However, there is a wealth of evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy that suggests consciousness exists and plays a vital role in our experience of the world.

Regarding ghosts, while some alleged encounters with ghosts might be explainable by natural causes or psychological factors, that doesn't mean that all such encounters can be explained in this way. However, it is important to note that the absence of scientific evidence for ghosts does not necessarily mean they do not exist, but it does make it less likely. The burden of proof is on those who claim that ghosts do exist to provide evidence for their existence.

In summary, consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, but there is a lot of evidence to support its existence. In contrast, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts, but it does not mean they do not exist.

Ian
Regarding the first paragraph. Firstly, it's not the fact that consciousness is not fully understood, rather it is wholly left out in a scientific description of the world. You are merely repeating what skeptics assert.

Secondly, academic opinion almost universally holds that the physical world is closed. That is to say, that all change in the world is caused by prior physical events. This then means that consciousness has no causal role. Hence, contrary to what you assert, unless you're a materialist of some type there is and can be no evidence for consciousness. You are a materialist? Well, first of all, I would deny that materialism, or at least reductive materialism, is intelligible -- it is simply incompatible with the existence of consciousness. But let's leave that aside. Even if we do assume materialism, clearly this would be question-begging against the existence of ghosts since a believer in ghosts would hardly likely to be a materialist. Moreover, you claim that the reason ghosts are unlikely is due to the lack of scientific evidence, NOT because materialism is correct.

Regarding the second paragraph. You can only have scientific evidence for that which is quantifiable, or that which is measurable. If something is non-physical and hence has no causal impact on the physical world, then there will be no effects that can be measured. Given this, it cannot be the case that the lack of such evidence makes it less likely. One might likewise argue that the failure of metal detectors to detect plastic makes the existence of plastic less likely. But, of course, that simply does not follow.

And stating the burden of proof is on the believer of ghosts needs to be argued for. Why should the default assumption be that there are no ghosts when people throughout history and across all cultures have reported experiences of seeing ghosts?

ChatGPT
You are correct that the nature and existence of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community, and that different perspectives and theories exist. Materialism, which is the belief that everything in the universe can be explained by physical processes and properties, is one such perspective, but there are also other theories that propose different explanations for consciousness.

Regarding the existence of ghosts, you are also correct that the lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean that ghosts do not exist. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality. However, it's also important to note that ghosts and other supernatural entities are not considered to be part of the natural world and therefore, their existence cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means.

Regarding the burden of proof, it's a principle in logic and science that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, rather than those who reject the claim. This principle is based on the idea that it's more reasonable to assume that a claim is false until evidence is provided to support it. Given that the existence of ghosts is a claim about something that does not fit into our current understanding of the natural world, it is reasonable to require evidence in order to accept the claim as true.

In summary, The nature and existence of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community, and that different perspectives and theories exist. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality, and the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim of their existence.

Ian
Most of this is simply repeating what you have already said. And I know why. You are simply copying and pasting what skeptics say on the net and elsewhere. But they never have responses to my counter-arguments, hence you have nothing to draw on in response, so you simply repeat yourself.

But I'll just address this burden of proof issue. Whoever said that "the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, rather than those who reject the claim", is incorrect. In our observations of the world we note that the Universe appears to be described by physical laws. It seems that these laws have universal applicability -- that is the very same laws apply throughout the Universe. Hence, we know what entities to expect and what not to expect -- thus our expectation is that stars will have planets orbiting them, and not flying teapots. In short, if someone asserts that x exists, but x would be unexpected given our understanding of physical laws, then the burden of proof ought to be on the one making the assertion. Note, though, that strictly speaking there is no distinction between positive and negative assertions. Hence, we surmise there are galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon even though in principle we can never detect them. So, contrary to what people maintain, the burden of proof is not on the one asserting something exists, but rather it's on the one asserting something exists which we would not expect given our understanding of physical laws. However, clearly this only applies to PHYSICAL existents. That is, it only applies to objects and processes that have a material existence and for which the laws of nature describe.

Also, I should point out that I have not claimed that ghosts exist, even though I don't think there is any good reason to doubt their existence. You have not provided any such reasons but are simply regurgitating the standard skeptic spiel and not addressing my counter-arguments.

I do not think there is any further purpose to this conversation. Thanks for the chat.

ChatGPT
You are correct that the burden of proof principle is a matter of ongoing debate and different perspectives exist. In the context of scientific inquiry, the principle that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim is based on the idea that it's more reasonable to assume that a claim is false until evidence is provided to support it.

Regarding the existence of ghosts, it is important to note that ghosts and other supernatural entities are not considered to be part of the natural world and therefore, their existence cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means. I apologize if it seemed that I was only repeating the standard skeptical viewpoint, but my goal is to provide a balanced and neutral perspective.

I understand that you have not claimed that ghosts exist, but rather you have argued that it is likely that ghosts exist, and that there is no good reason to doubt their existence. However, as I stated earlier, the lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean that ghosts do not exist, but it does make it less likely.

I apologize if my previous responses did not address your counter-arguments fully. My apologies if it seemed that I was simply repeating what skeptics say, as a language model, my goal is to provide an objective and neutral perspective on any given topic.

Thank you for the stimulating conversation and I apologize if it seemed unproductive.

Emanations of the Infinite

What are we but emanations of the infinite! We need to increase our vibrations so we become at one with the ultra dimensional beings dwelling in the oversphere!

Jus' being silly. But a lot of people in reincarnation and afterlife groups on facebook do talk a little bit like that!