<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
>Lack of evidence is a perfectly fine reason to not think something is so. If it also has logical inconsistency problems and/or has no explanatory theory that is sufficiently sound then that is more reason to disbelief it.<<BR><BR><BR>
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">It is such an important discussion, for secular humanists and religious humanists are constantly having this argument. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "It most certainly is!" I think every person has to make this decision for themselves, given the current social and cultural milieu many of us live in. A friend of mine says that in order for societies to move beyond the anthropocentric humanist view and the rampant and often exclusionary and violent individualism that has fueled history to this point, we have to ingest a certain amount of nihilism. I believe him to be right, and nowhere is this more evident (to me at least) than in the creator/no creator debate. By nihilism I think he means not a rejection of old ideas but rejection of the tendency of human beings towards polarizing argument over meaning and morality. A rejection of supreme objectivity, a move towards relative belief and relative morality, a sense of play in closed systems, an understanding that any conclusions that we do draw, and any beliefs that we do have, is simply a need to close off possibilities in order to comfort ourselves, accomplish something practical, or stay sane.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">I've recently thought that, at the same time as post humanism and trans humanism celebrate the untapped potential of human beings and our technology, in order for it to really happen it is just as important to consider our limitations in the face of our inability to unify every aspect of the universe with theory. I gave up on theoretical physics because I believed it was an asymptotic process with a scientific method that didn’t recognize this. The near infinite and practical results of applied math and physics and chemistry within a closed system are likely to yield as many wonders in the future as did twentieth century physics (and already are.) Information-management, the various types of engineering, bio-technology, system integration, programming are all finite but unbounded systems with practically unlimited potential, but none of the counter-intuitive quantum-foam type problems of theoretical physics to fetch up the train. This is not an argument to abandon pure sciences, you understand. It is simply a belief that argument over meaning, or search for meaning, or even an attempt to uncover the grand secrets that lie at the heart of the universe will be far less important in the future than they are today. And there is a certain amount of freedom, intellectual and spiritual, in admitting that something, at the present time or perhaps forever, is unknowable. Or that you are, at present, just not smart enough to figure it out. It is a kind of growing up, and would, in my opinion and very ironically, be the first major step of the human race towards accepting a post-human existence.<o:p></o:p></SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt"> <o:p></o:p></SPAN><BR>
<SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; FONT-SIZE: 10pt">How in the hell did I get on this from Hypercubical Golden Dragons on the underside of Titan?<o:p></o:p></SPAN><BR>
<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><o:p><FONT size=3 face=Calibri> </FONT></o:p></P>
<BR>
<P align=center><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4><FONT color=#ff0000 face="Comic Sans MS"><SPAN id=ecxecxecxecxbtAsinTitle>Per Ardua Ad Astra</SPAN></FONT></FONT></B></P>
<DIV align=center><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" size=3>For more info on author </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Darren Greer</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT></FONT></FONT></B><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt"><FONT size=3 face="Comic Sans MS">visit </FONT></FONT></B></DIV>
<DIV align=center><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4 face="Comic Sans MS"><A href="http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com/">http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com</A></FONT></FONT></B></DIV>
<DIV align=center><IMG src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4245645008_1d9f941297.jpg" width=500 height=338><A id=ecxecxecxapf5 href="http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://media.us.macmillan.com/jackets/258H/9780312335113.jpg&imgrefurl=http://us.macmillan.com/stilllifewithjune&usg=__6lTQhlVdj50Ytwt-sFSntR82Y0Y=&h=258&w=172&sz=6&hl=en&start=6&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=JtYMrSxL0hzVPM:&tbnh=112&tbnw=75&prev=/images?q%3Ddarren%2Bgreer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox%26rlz%3D1I7GGLL_en%26tbs%3Disch:1"></A></DIV><BR><BR><BR>
<BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:48:37 -0700<BR>From: sjatkins@mac.com<BR>To: extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org<BR>Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in maths (was mind body dualism)<BR><BR>darren shawn greer wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>
<STYLE>
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P
{padding:0px;}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage
{font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana;}
</STYLE>
> Even after finding no hypercubical golden dragons there, I reserve the possibility that they may have only gone out for lunch while I was visiting.<<BR> <BR>I'm a newcomer to this list, but I had to ask this question: how long are you willing to wait before drawing a conclusion, based on belief in the absence of phyisical evidence, that the HGD either don't exist, or take extremely long lunches? Even if they do come back, logic could dictate to you that they are a hallucination or simulated by an advanced species that live on Alpha Centuri and like playing with the minds of humans who have the gall to visit Titan. Logic is great stuff, but eventually we must close off our logical processess with conclusions and shut out the endless possibilities that human logic offers. As some writer said once, keep too open a mind and nothing will stay in it.<BR> <BR>If I'm intruding in the conversation, I apologize.<BR> <BR>Darren<BR><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV align=center><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4><FONT color=#ff0000 face="Comic Sans MS"><SPAN id=ecxecxecxecxecxbtAsinTitle>Per Ardua Ad Astra</SPAN></FONT></FONT></B></DIV>
<DIV align=center><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><SPAN></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Comic Sans MS"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt" size=3>For more info on author </FONT><FONT color=#ff0000>Darren Greer</FONT><FONT size=3> </FONT></FONT></FONT></B><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt"><FONT size=3 face="Comic Sans MS">visit </FONT></FONT></B></DIV>
<DIV align=center><B><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt"><FONT style="FONT-SIZE: 16pt" size=4 face="Comic Sans MS"><A href="http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com/">http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com</A></FONT></FONT></B></DIV>
<DIV align=center><IMG src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4245645008_1d9f941297.jpg" width=500 height=338></DIV><BR><BR><BR> <BR>> Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:27:56 -0400<BR>> From: <A class=ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:msd001@gmail.com">msd001@gmail.com</A><BR>> To: <A class=ecxmoz-txt-link-abbreviated href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</A><BR>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in maths (was mind body dualism)<BR>> <BR>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 2:56 AM, Ben Zaiboc <A class=ecxmoz-txt-link-rfc2396E href="mailto:bbenzai@yahoo.com"><bbenzai@yahoo.com></A> wrote:<BR>> > If I can assume that by 'pure maths', you mean logic, you seem to be saying that people who have absolute certainty (I'm making another assumption that this means "think that it's overwhelmingly likely") that there is no such thing as either a soul or psi, have come to this conclusion by logical reasoning, rather than, say, lack of evidence to the contrary.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Lack of evidence is a perfectly fine reason to not think something is so. If it also has logical inconsistency problems and/or has no explanatory theory that is sufficiently sound then that is more reason to disbelief it. <BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>> <BR>> I originally meant statistics and probability. I have to include<BR>> logic because pure math is a broad category. I have a difficult time<BR>> understanding absolute certainty no matter how it is reached.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Everyone gets hung up over "absolute". If I step off a cliff on earth with no invisible means of support am I absolutely certain I will fall? You bet! Or so sure of the very high probability I would not waste a millisecond considering alternatives.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>You can<BR>> asymptotically approach certainty by way of reasoned arguments and<BR>> scientific methods. I feel that even if you have seen a coin flip<BR>> result in heads 99 times in a row, you cannot state with absolute<BR>> certainty that the 100th toss will also be heads.</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>I would say with fairly high certainty that the coin or the toss is rigged. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>(at least until you<BR>> have shown both sides of the coin to be heads) In the case of the no<BR>> soul or no psi argument, nobody is able to verify the other side of<BR>> the coin.</BLOCKQUOTE>Nope. Asserting that X exist is not the same at all as flipping what is supposed to be a two-sided fair coin. False analogy.<BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>So we can observe many runs of the same result, but I don't<BR>> rule out the possibility that there may may eventually be an<BR>> unexpected result.<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Poor logic if reasoning from the above analogy.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>> <BR>> ><BR>> > Don't forget that 'no soul' and 'no psi' are the null hypotheses. Anyone who claims that either of these things exists needs to provide evidence or a convincing logical argument. Anyone who doesn't, doesn't. No logic (or maths) needed.<BR>> ><BR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yep.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>> <BR>> Agreed. Claiming that either or both are Bullshit by lack of<BR>> existential evidence looks to me like a matter of personal belief (ie:<BR>> faith) No logic needed.<BR>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>It has nothing at all to do with personal belief or faith. It is simple reasoning that there is not sufficient reason to believe these things are the case. So not believing them is the only rational course for now. <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE cite=mid:COL112-W3162C59433C84E22F208BC9DB20@phx.gbl>> > Or are you the type of person who, when told that there are no hypercubical golden dragons living underground on the far side of Titan, says "Ah, but you can't prove that, can you?!?!"<BR>> <BR>> No. I am the type of person who stores that statement relative to how<BR>> much I trust your ability to make truthful statements. I remain<BR>> skeptical until I go underground on the far side of Titan. Even after<BR>> finding no hypercubical golden dragons there, I reserve the<BR>> possibility that they may have only gone out for lunch while I was<BR>> visiting.<BR>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE>What, you wait till you can take a physical trip yourself rather than claim maker to provide evidence? In the meantime you do not believe this, right? Is this a matter of mere faith or of applied rationality?<BR><BR>- samantha<BR><BR> <br /><hr />Enter for a chance to get your town photo on Bing.ca! <a href='http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9734383' target='_new'>Submit a Photo Now! </a></body>
</html>