Clearing up a common misconception about science

An alumnus of TTU/Howard Hughes Medical Institute sent this message about what it means to do science. I though I would share!

Thanks Derek!!!

The Importance of the Universal Applicability of Axioms

Certain baseline assumptions are required for obtaining any knowledge. A string of 'why?' questions ultimately leads us back to the most basic kinds of knowledge.

Check out these two posts for an introduction for this post:

1. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions.html
2. http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2011/06/fundamental-assumptions-part-2.html

If you don't read them, this won't make sense!

A question I have often received is 'why not make morality a fundamental assumption?' This is a question I have frequently pondered myself, because it seems to be similar to some of the others. Especially in the case of the general reliability of the senses; if I trust my senses because they appear to be generally accurate, as well as absolutely applicable for living and making decisions, shouldn't objective morality itself be a fundamental assumption?

First off, there cannot be arguments for or against fundamental assumptions (let's call them 'axioms' from now on). Axioms are just true- we assume them because we have to assume things. In that sense, I can't say that it is wrong to make objective morality an axiom. I would just ask you to specify which morality for the sake of completeness.

Here is why I don't personally use objective morality as an axiom: The whole point of my axioms and subsequent process is to find the truth. Truth is out there, and I am going to figure out what it is.

In order to find it, I don't want to use any axioms that would disqualify potential truths, and selecting an objective morality would disqualify certain beliefs or worldviews. As in, no matter how strong the evidence is for or against a stance, if there is an axiom that discounts it, the argument is simply over. No other evidence matters, even in the slightest. If I make atheism an axiom, then no evidence can disprove atheism. If I make 'anyone who eats sandwiches is a bad person' an axiom, then no amount of evidence can disprove that statement.

Because I don't want to disqualify eating sandwiches from the realm of possible things that could be good, I won't make that an axiom.

Absolute truth exists, and if we knew what it was, then everything that we knew would be an axiom. We could just say "here is everything that exists, and we know everything, done." Unfortunately we do not know everything, so we have to start out by picking some axioms to make progress towards finding truth.

In picking our axioms, then, we need to be careful. If we pick something that disqualifies certain religions, moralities, or worldviews, then we automatically disqualify certain types of people from being able to find the truth. Keep in mind here, that we shouldn't assume that we are the 'certain types of people' I mentioned in that last sentences.

We want our axioms to be universal for the human race, to the greatest degree possible. By choosing axioms that are valid for all of humanity, and only using those to make progress, we protect ourselves from making unwarranted and unresolvable mistakes.

Think about it this way. Lets say there are 30 'correct' axioms, and 30 'incorrect' axioms. In order to make any progress whatsoever I have to pick at least 3. So I pick 3, and try to make progress, and succeed in doing so. That is awesome!

Now, should I pick 4? Why not? Oughtn't 4 be better and more useful than 3? Well, the fourth one would make subsequent progress easier, absolutely. HOWEVER, it would also decrease your odds of actually finding the truth, because you don't know that that axiom actually is part of absolute truth. It is a risky business, adding axioms to the bunch.

With morality specifically, if I pick Christian morals as an axiom, then it is impossible for the end result of my search to be anything other than Christianity, NO MATTER THE EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST. Once an axiom is established, it is there, and no one can argue with it, period. If I pick Mormon morality as an axiom, then I cannot logically end up believing something other than Mormonism. I have disqualified potential truths. If I make a certain moral stance an axiom, I disqualify other moral stances from the realm of possibility for me.

Axioms are as much about truth as they are about disqualifications. And you know what? I'm ok with disqualifying the possibility of logic not being valid. I'm just fine with disqualifying the possibility of my senses being unreliable. I also have absolutely no qualms with disqualifying the possibility of my own nonexistence.

I see no point in laying out the evidence for and against those things- there isn't even a conversation to be had there. If my hearing is unreliable, I couldn't even hear you, especially if I didn't exist, and logic being invalid would only make things worse.

In short, an axiom should only be made if the potential 'truth' it disqualifies results in catastrophic instantaneous meltdown.

Not making objective morals axiomatic sure does cause emotional strain, but it doesn't rip the heart out of the very fabric of space-time. In fact, making one specific objective morality an axiom DECREASES your odds of successfully finding out what the correct objective morality would be, if it did in fact exist.

We should not assume that we are not the 'other' people. If we utilize axioms that are not universal for the human race, we risk disqualifying ourselves from potential candidates who could find out pieces of absolute truth.

Fewer axioms are better. Axioms regarding specific kinds of morality decrease your odds of finding the truth (including the truth regarding morality itself), as opposed to helping you find truth.

Because I shouldn't assume that I am not part of group B. If the arguments I formulate are based off of axioms that apply to all of humanity, then I am ensuring that whatever arguments I use end up correctly applying to me, in a retroactive sort of way. Not including morality as an axiom is a way of ensuring that whether or not I start out believing the correct thing, I can end up believing the correct thing.

Neither a specific objective morality nor the existence of morality itself should be axioms, in the same way that 'eating sandwiches is a bad idea' should not be an axiom. Sure, we could include both, but then we end up excluding certain types of people from ever being able to find the truth; and we should never assume that we aren't the 'other' people.

Examples of Screens

Again, in the interest of explaining the screen argument further, I will list out every example I can think of of screens.

1. The screen of vision

Me standing in the Gulf of Mexico, thinking philosophical thoughts.

This screen, which I have devoted by far the most time to, is comprised of what you are looking at right now. Look at it, there it is! It exists in the form that you are seeing it, is correlated to the natural world one to one in a translational for via neural pathways in brains, but is not found in brains in the form that you see it right now.

2. The screen of sound
http://www.listenonrepeat.com/watch/?v=0NKUpo_xKyQ

Listen to this Ellie Goulding's song, Lights (I hope it is to your taste). The sounds you hear are just as much a screen as the 'image' of your field of vision. I am saying that those sounds exist, because there they are. Listen. Those sounds exist, and they exist in the form that you are hearing them. However, in your brain those sounds do not exist in the form that you are perceiving them. Your brain is completely sufficient for hearing sounds and interpreting them, but no where in your brain do the sounds you are hearing exist in the form that you hear them.

3. The screen of touch
Go find yourself  a safety pin, such as this one:

Now, poke yourself in the finger. Painful, right? Why did you agree to actually do that?

While any feeling from touching could be used as an example, I picked a painful pin prick because it stands out. The pain you feel right when that pin, or needle, or spine goes right through your skin making your exclaim 'ouch!' is a screen. I'm saying that the pain itself exists. Why? Because there it is. You are feeling it. That really is the only way to argue for its existence. THERE IT IS. If you don't get it yet, poke yourself again.

The pain correspond to neural pathways, true. But the actual pain itself, as a screen, does not exist in your brain. The pain does not exist in the natural world that you are experiencing through your senses.

If it did, could you point at it? Point at the pain of a pin prick. Or perhaps you could take the mass of the screen of touch?

I don't think you can, but at the same time, the pain of that pin prick does exist.

4. The screen of taste/smell.
Go eat a strawberry! The actual taste itself exists.

Now smell a skunk. That smell actually exists.

Or perhaps the taste/smell of smoke?

 That would be a... Wait for it...SMOKESCREEN.

Same argument as the past three, I hope this is starting to make sense!

5. The screen of thought, imagination, and memory
I'm not sure whether or not to break this into categories, so I'll just talk about them at the same time.

Wait, what is that big scary monster sneaking up behind you???

Did you perhaps, just imagine a scary monster behind you? If you did not, please do so now, for the sake of argument.

For example, you may have imagined this:

Or perhaps you imagined a tall, scary, slender man.

Maybe that wasn't your imagination.

No matter what you imagined, you can picture things in your mind. Those mental images you create are screens too. Think of a unicorn. You have a mental image of a unicorn, correct? Now think of a snail. Got that picture in your mind?

Remember your first kiss? Remember eating a really tasty meal? Remember being really embarrassed in high school? Remember yesterday? These memories are screens.

Finally, think out loud to yourself: "The world is an interesting place." Now think out loud, in your mind, "I wonder how many grains of sand there are on the beach?"

Those 'words' you are thinking in your mind exist in the form that you are thinking them, but they do not exist in the form that you are thinking them in the natural world.

Conclusion
The argument should be clear at this point.

1. Screens exist.
2. Screens exist in the form that they exist
3. Screens do not exist in the natural world.

• You cannot point at screens in the natural world. They do not have mass. Neural pathways correspond to screens, but have a different form than screens.
• We know that screens exist in the form that they exist because THERE THEY ARE. You are seeing/hearing/feeling/thinking them RIGHT NOW. Look/listen/feel/taste/think!

4. If screens exist, but do not exist in the natural world, then there are things that exist outside of the natural world.

This is interesting, because it appears that these things that exist outside of the natural world are tied to the natural world, via brains.

Understanding this reveals something extremely interesting about what it means to be human. We, as humans, seem to be both natural and more than natural beings. We exist in nature, but a part of us exists outside of nature.

The knowledge that we are more than natural beings is quite literally, right in front of our eyes.

I find that to be deeply interesting.

 Thanks for reading,

-JTS

The Screen Argument, Further Explained

The whole screen argument seems to be persistent in its defiance for understanding, so I am just gonna keep on trying to explain it.

Look at this tree:

Lets talk about this tree a little bit. First, when you 'see' it, you see green leaves. By this I mean that electromagnetic radiation enters your eyes, which transfer information to your brain, which interprets the information, and comes up with 'green' for the color of the leaves.

But are the leaves actually green? In the actual, physical world, are they green? We don't know. All we know is that our brains interpret that wavelength of electromagnetic radiation as corresponding to the color 'green'.

If there is an actual, physical world out there, outside of our perception of it, we have no reason to think that the actual leaves on this actual tree look green.

The green you see is a result of your neural interpretation, not a dictation of what the actual world looks like.

Back to the Screen Argument

When you look at the image of the tree above, I argue that the image you see actually exists in the form that you see it. As in, 'green' does exist, as part of the screen of vision you possess. It DOES exist, because THERE IT IS. Just look at it.

Now, if you dissect a brain, you will not find a picture of a tree with green leaves in it. You WILL WILL WILL find neural pathways which correspond to the image of the tree. Your brain is completely sufficient for processing that image and comprehending it. However, there is no 'green' and no 'tree' in the form that you observe it in your brain. The screen does not exist in your brain. It corresponds to the brain, but there is a translation that must take place.

Screen exist, but they do not exist in the physical world.

An Argument for Dualism

Introduction:

In this post, I am going to argue that souls exist. By souls, I don't mean the conventional, religiously based conception of souls. By soul, in this post, I simply mean that there is an aspect of humanity that is more than purely physical. I also hope to show that our evidence for the existence of souls is stronger than our evidence for the existence of the natural world.

In other words, I am about to argue that the evidence for the existence of your soul is better than the evidence for the existence of natural objects, for example, the statue of liberty.


Primer:

In my opinion, this argument will be somewhat difficult to understand, because it requires an uncommon kind of abstract and introspective thought. This is not to say that those who disagree simply cannot understand the argument; I simply ask that sufficient time is taken to think about what I have to say.

To 'prime the mind' to consider the subject material, consider the following scenario:

Lets say that an amazingly complex computer was invented. The computer is so complex

that it can make observations concerning its environment and make decisions. Now, here is a question: Would that computer be conscious? Would the computer have a first person perspective?

Here is a second question: How would we be able to tell?

Think about that for a few moments. How would we be able to tell whether or not the computer had first person perspecive?

If you don't personally think that computers could become complex enough to attain a state of self-awareness, what about growing a brain in a carefully regulated laboratory environment? Would that brain be self aware? What about animals? Are dolphins or elephants self aware? Do they see the world the way we see it? Do they 'think out loud' in their mind? I don't think there is any way to know definitely whether or not dogs, for example, are conscious. This concludes the primer section of this post. Now that we are thinking within the realm that my argument will reside within, the actual argument.

Why Souls Exist

First Person Perspective

Consider your own first person perspective. Think about the 'image' that you observe when you look at the world (http://honestsearchfortruth.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-screen.html). Is it possible for you to point at this image?

To illustrate my point, check out The Starry Night, by Vincent van Gogh:

You see the painting, correct? Excellent. Now, inside of your brain, does that image exist in the form that you perceive it right now?

Obviously, in a sense, yes. There are neural pathways in your brain that correspond to The Starry Night as your eyes transfer sensory input into your brain, and the brain interprets that information to generate a model of the world.

This is not what I am interested in, though. I am interested in knowing whether or not The Starry Night exists inside of your brain in the form that you see it right now. For example, if we dissected a brain, would we find an image of The Starry Night inside? Would we find the 'blue' of the painting anywhere? What about the 'yellow' of the moon?

The obvious answer is no. When autopsies of brains are done, we find nothing that is blue and yellow and takes on the form of the images we look at from our first person perspective.

Again, I'm not saying that the image doesn't exist in a translated and corresponding fashion inside of the brain. It most certainly does. But that is also irrelevant to the point I am trying to make.

There is no image inside of your brain that you could reach out and touch that looks anything like The Starry Night as you observe the painting.

When you stop at a traffic light, I challenge you to point out where in your brain a 'red light' is. You cannot touch 'red' inside of your brain.

Another example are the thoughts that we have. As you read this blog post, I suspect that you are 'thinking out loud' in your mind. I suspect that many readers will continue to think to themselves "Josh! All of this is going on due to neural pathways in the brain!" I get it. That was my inclination at first while I was thinking about this too. Please hear me out!

Our First Person Perspective Exists

This may seem like a no brainer, but I am saying more than just our first person perspective exists.

I am saying that the image in your mind when you observe The Starry Night exists in the form that you observe it.

This is the entire point of my argument, so I will say it again:

When you observe The Starry Night, the image that you are perceiving exists in the form that you are perceiving it. 

How do we know the 'image' exists in the form that we are observing it? Because there it is. Look at it.

Sure, that image is most certainly dependent upon neural pathways in your brain. No doubt. But if we look inside the brain we don't see that image, and the image exists. You cannot point at any spot in the universe that looks like the 'screen' that you observe when you look at the world.

Spelling Out The Argument

Here is the argument spelled out:

1. The image that we 'see' when we observe the world exists.

2. The image does not exist in the natural world.

3. Therefore, there is a component of our existence that exists outside of the natural world.

Note: This part of us that exists outside of the natural world is directly tied to the natural world via brains and sensory input.

Pretty much, dualism.

Discussion

Remember how I brought up whether or not it would be possible to tell whether or not a computer is conscious or self aware? We can't tell, because self consciousness, the images we observe from the seat of our first person perspective, the thoughts we think in our minds, and the 'screens' (Again, see the blog post entitle "Screens" for my definition of screens) we generate do not exist in the natural world in the form that they exist in our minds.

Our 'screens' never observe screens.

Again I'll say it. We can't tell whether or not a computer is conscious because we can't point at consciousness. Any test that we could use to figure this out would probably disqualify humans too.

Conclusion

Our evidence for the part of our existence that exists outside of the natural world is better than our evidence for the existence of the natural world itself. This is because our evidence for the existence of the natural world is dependent upon our first person perspective. We can't observe the natural world without screens.

Our brains certainly could be purely natural collections of cells. If that were the case, we would be able to observe the entirety of human existence in the natural world. The simple fact, however, is that we cannot observe the entirety of human existence in the natural world, because we cannot point out screens.

Therefore, humans are unique, combinatorial entities which are comprised of parts that are in and outside of the natural world. The part that is outside of the natural world seems to be dependent upon the natural part to observe the natural world, although I don't really know how we would test this to obtain convincing results. Our evidence for the part that is outside of the physical world is better than our evidence for the natural part, because our evidence for the natural part is exhibited to our conscious state in the form of screens.

Further Thought

Some readers may be familiar with Dr. William Lane Criag's favorite argument for God's existence, the cosmological argument. If you are not familiar with his particular spin on the argument, watch Dr. Criag's opening statement in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xcgjtps5ks.

Dr. Craig argues that a reasonable culprit for the agent which gave the universe its beginning is "an unembodied mind."

Before considering my own argument for the existence of souls, I found Dr. Craig's argument problematic. Why would we assume that something that is a part of our existence be a prime suspect for whatever agent generated physics and space-time? That mysterious agent would more probably NOT be something that we are familiar with, as opposed to something that we are familiar with.

However, if we think that souls exist outside of nature, which are at the same time tied to nature, Dr. Craig's argument starts to make more sense. It would certainly offer an explanation for the soul-body dualist existence we seem to be experiencing.

What could be responsible for the origin of 'minds' which exist outside of the natural world, create the natural world, and then tie the two realms together? Why not another mind which is outside of space-time and has the ability to create? Minds are not subject to the various frailties present in naturalistic candidates for the existence of the universe.

Based on my argument, we also need an explanation for the existence of screens. Because natural things do not appear to be able to create supernatural things, such as screens, it makes more sense to think that something supernatural created screens.

Maybe I'm a theist. Maybe I think God created the universe and people. Maybe it makes sense that humans are created in the image of God, in that a part of them is a mind which exists outside of the natural world.

Maybe.

Thanks for reading.

-JTS