What do people mean when they say there's no evidence?

It's interesting that people on the web constantly say "there's no evidence for an afterlife", or "there's no evidence for psi". For this seems to be straightforwardly false. Take reincarnation. There's research into alleged past lives of young children that appears to show that they are getting accurate information about a person that had previously lived. Or take psi. Parapsychologists have provided plenty of evidence for it. 

Obviously, most of these people are presumably just repeating each other. But what justification could be given for the origin of this claim that there's no evidence for such things?

Consider the case where someone declares that we have evidence that beds are dangerous as people disproportionately die in them compared to elsewhere. Would this be evidence that beds are dangerous, even if only very weak evidence?

It depends on what people mean by "evidence". I would say yes, but I think most science educated people would say no. One reason why they would say no is because we already have a good explanation for why people die in beds -- namely because they go to bed when they are ill. But, another more compelling reason, is that it seems there's no conceivable mechanism whereby beds in and of themselves could somehow play a causal role in precipitating death.

Let's, for the sake of argument, accept for the moment these peoples' conception of "evidence" as requiring a possible mechanism.  Now, consider reincarnation. Even though young children appear to recollect previous lives, people assert there's no conceivable causal mechanism whereby consciousness can depart from a person who has died, to then appear in a fetus or new born baby. Hence, until someone proposes a possible mechanism, there can be no scientific evidence for reincarnation. Same applies more generally to an afterlife, or to psi.

There's a deep problem here though. There appears to be an implicit assumption that our everyday embodied consciousness being produced by brains is entirely unproblematic and hence that there will be a mechanism whereby this is achieved even though we have yet to discover it. Or, even if it's not entirely unproblematic, we can be confident that brains do somehow produce consciousness because of all the ways that brains affect our mind-states -- especially when we consider such debilitating conditions as dementia.

I would maintain, though, that the mind-brain correlations that supposedly prove that brains produce minds, appears to be no more persuasive than eyeglasses- acuity of vision correlations prove that eyeglasses produce vision. In the case of the eyeglasses, there clearly is no conceivable mechanism. And we know that vision already exists, it is merely changed by the eyeglasses. However, it seems to me, brains are in the same boat. There is nothing about the ultimate particles that brains are made of that could possibly produce our phenomenological experiences. So, similar to eyeglasses-vision, perhaps consciousness already exists with brains merely changing it.

But, regardless of whether I am right or wrong about the brain somehow producing consciousness, it seems to me we don’t have any conceivable mechanism for how the brain does this. Hence, if despite the correlations we have no evidence that beds precipitate death, then likewise, despite the mind-brain correlations, and since we lack a conceivable mechanism, we also have no evidence that brains produce consciousness. So even if – contrary to my position – the thesis that brains produce consciousness is at least conceivable (unlike eyeglasses producing vision), we have no evidence that brains actually do so (least of all do we have proof).

Indeed, we have a more plausible scenario; namely consciousness exists all along with brains merely changing it i.e. consciousness is fundamental. And if that should be the case, then consciousness can exist independently of brains just as vision exists independently of eyeglasses.  If this is so then the demand for a mechanism is misplaced.  Indeed, demanding a possible mechanism appears to presuppose that consciousness is material and hence is question-begging.

Now let’s consider psi. Even if the notion of the brain producing consciousness is unproblematic, the fact still remains we have no causal mechanism for how it is produced. But psi, if it exists, will be an ability or property of consciousness. If we lack a causal mechanism for the very existence of consciousness, how on earth can we expect anyone to produce a causal mechanism for psi? Further, if I am correct and consciousness is not produced by the brain, how can we a priori declare what properties consciousness must have?

When people say psi is impossible due to no possible causal mechanism, they have in mind that physics pretty much describes the entirety of reality and it doesn’t allow for psi. But physics leaves out consciousness in its description of reality; indeed it suggests consciousness shouldn’t exist. If it suggests this, it is scarcely likely to suggest a property of consciousness like psi should exist, or even free will or a causal role for consciousness.

Souls are real but are not things?

I've just read the following piece by Vance Morgan a philosophy professor.

The Soul is Not a Thing, but it Most Certainly is Real

Not sure what it means to say the soul is not a thing but that it nevertheless exists.  And he doesn't explain what he means.  It's not a material thing, no.  But if a soul is our essence, if it is that which makes us the very same person throughout our lives, then why is it not an immaterial thing?

But anyway, the author says: 

[S]cience tells us that everything about us, including our consciousness and all that it entails, is at least in principle reducible to the operations of our physical bodies.

And he also says:

[S]cience has told us for a long time that everything that human beings have traditionally thought that we needed an immaterial “something else” to explain—our thoughts, consciousness, emotions, and so on—is rooted in brain activity.

This is complete nonsense, science tells us no such thing.  Or, if he thinks otherwise, he is required to specify what this research is that suggests this.  

He also says:

[A]s a philosophy professor who, at least in my own understanding of my job description, am there to ask difficult questions, challenge embedded assumptions, and generally blow my students’ minds. For instance, does the notion “non-physical thing” even make sense, since all of our experience of “things that exist” are rooted in stuff made of matter?

So this seems to be suggesting that only things that can be cashed out in terms of our sensory experiences -- i.e only what we see, hear, touch, smell and taste -- can be said to exist.



The first point to make is, why think that? Why do minds, or consciousness, have to be directly perceived in order to exist? No-one ever sees my mind, nor my experiences. Others can only infer what I experience from what I say or from my behaviour, but they do not perceive it. Should we follow the author on this and conclude that the existence of my mind or experiences do not exist?  That would result in each and every person concluding no-one else exists in the world apart from themselves!  And maybe not even themselves since we do not perceive through our senses our own consciousness or minds.  We are just simply directly acquainted with our own consciousness.

Second point, does this mean that what we perceive -- namely colours, smells, sounds etc -- actually exist? That they are part of the furniture of reality? Because this is denied by mainstream scientific thinking.

A review of the Fire HD 10 Tablet

This is so incredibly frustrating. I bought this tablet in order to read books on it. After having possession of it for a few hours I've arranged to send it back to Amazon.

The main problem is that no matter what I do, I simply cannot transfer any non-Amazon purchased books to the tablet. These books do not have drm, they are in mobi format, they have no problem in being transferred to my kindle paperwhite. I've also tried to transfer my own docx and txt files, but they can't be viewed either.

I've tried connecting the tablet to my PC and copying the books over to the books folder (and other folders on the off chance). No luck there. I've tried the calibre software -- it claims the books have transferred and lists them as being on the device. But the kindle app on the tablet doesn't detect them. I've tried sending using the kindle email. That doesn't work. I downloaded this software called "Amazon send to kindle". That doesn't work either. 

I've spent so many hours trying to get this thing to work. I've been chatting with a fair few people on Amazon's customer support. I'm not used to mobiles or tablets and have never read an ebook on one, so perhaps I'm simply missing something very simple. But sometimes you just have to give in. I'm sick of my life being sucked away trying to get modern technology to work. I've had enough . .nay . .more than enough.

Also, on first switching on, it was asking me for my name and address and other details, and then I couldn't get the home page. Swiping up from the padlock simply got a message saying 'wait a min', which lasted interminably, and eventually presented itself with the same locked screen! I eventually sorted it by a hard reset, or factory reset or whatever (can't remember now). This time I wasn't asked for my name and address (why not??) and it simply asked for my email and other stuff instead. This time it all went more smoothly.

Until, that is, I tried to use Alexa and tried to view kindle books actually purchased from Amazon. It threw up errors. Eventually I discovered the wifi had an exclamation mark over it (even though it had already detected my wifi). Simply pressing the wifi icon solved that. But the tablet keeps losing the wifi connection where I simply need to press the wifi icon to reconnect. So what the heck is all that about?? 

And every time I connect to my PC I have to go to the settings and alter some setting to file transfer. Every single time! Unless I do that no folders on the fire are visible. 

OK I've spent many many hours on this thing trying to sort it out. Hours I'll never get back. It's going back. What a complete waste of money.

Yet more on Covid

Just read the following article:

Boris Johnson’s latest Covid strategy: no hope and no end in sight

Article says:

However, shortly afterwards documents were released showing that Sage had advised the government three weeks ago to bring in five measures including a short “circuit breaker” lockdown, or else face a “very large epidemic”.

The official documents dated 21 September also called for a ban on household mixing in homes; the closure of all bars, restaurants, cafes, indoor gyms and services such as hairdressers; and all university and college teaching to be online “unless absolutely essential”.

So all this was significantly watered down. 

Inevitable the growth R will increase when relaxing lockdown measures. Hence, if R is only marginally below 1, it is inadvisable to relax all the lockdown measures since this will likely increase the R rate to above 1.  It was especially foolish allowing students to go to University as people from all over the country are mixing together there.  

R needs to be substantially below 1 before reverting back to normal life and this needs to be applied to all the different regions of the country.  Alternatively, we can let the virus rip through most of the population, but try to keep the vulnerable isolated.

But the choice has to be made.  The Government appears to have opted for the former.  But why on earth wasn't the advice from Sage followed?  Allowing R to get above 1 can be calamitous since this is exponential growth we're talking about here. Sorry, but I regard the Government -- and especially Boris Johnson -- as utterly incompetent, at least at handling a pandemic.

I wrote about the virus way back in March on my other blog here.  And on this blog both here and here.  

Sabine Hossenfelder and her denial of Free Will

I watched the following video of the physicist Sabine Hossenfelder and her arguments against the existence of free will.

I find it exasperating that scientists continually pontificate on philosophical issues such as whether there's free will, whether there's an afterlife etc, when they simply do not have the appropriate expertise.

This video is a case in point.

There's 2 claims she makes:

a) Free will is incompatible with the laws of nature.

b) Free will is entirely meaningless.

She addresses "a" first, but "b" is clearly more important. If free will is meaningless, then to refute free will one doesn't have to appeal to the laws of nature or anything else. So I shall address "b" first.

b) She says:

"[Free will] never made sense in the first place. You see that thing you call "free will" should in some sense allow you to choose what you want. But then it's either determined by what you want, in which case it's not free, or it's not determined, in which case it's not a will."

Determined by what we want... In other words, we have the innate capacity within us to act on our wants, to choose in other words. But this is precisely what is meant by free will! If we have the power to choose as we please, if we are not constrained to act in a specific manner by physical laws or by physical chains of causes and effects, then this is what is meant by free will.

a) The problem here is she assumes reductive materialism. Unfortunately, reductive materialism is incompatible with the very existence of consciousness, hence it is scarcely surprising that it leaves no room for a causally efficacious consciousness! Indeed, science leaves out consciousness in its description of reality, hence the "hard problem" (the "hard problem" is the apparent intractable difficulty in reconciling the existence of consciousness within some type of materialist metaphysic.)

One last point. She says:

 "If you want to define free will in such a way that it is still consistent with the laws of nature, that is fine by me, though I will continue to complain that's just verbal acrobatics."

But no verbal acrobatics are required. We do what we want, what we choose, and the laws of nature, as applied to us, are a simple description of that freely chosen behaviour.

Of course, she might complain that only the 4 fundamental forces have any genuine causal agency, but this is both to assume reductive materialism and that these forces do indeed have genuine causal agency. But physics merely describes the world. Assigning innate powers to electrons etc is a metaphysical position. Free will is a metaphysical position too (as is its denial), but at least in our own case we are immediately and directly acquainted with our own causal agency.

I have written an essay on the issue of free will in the below link

http://ian-wardell.blogspot.com/2019/11/a-causal-consciousness-free-will-and.html