The X delusion

cavedave

Do you believe in any things without evidence in the way many people of faith believe in god? I believe in loads of silly unproved things. These include

1.Other people having consciousness. We just assume they do but it is impossible to prove. Even if you hook up an MRI and say their brain lights up in the same way as yours does that does not really prove they have a true inner life. We kind of just have to assume that they do.

2. Nations exist. If the river on a border moves does the country? Surely the nation delusion is as widespread and as dangerous as the god one?

3. Mental illness. Loads of mental illnesses have very little evidence for their existence. Believing in god is not that odder then believing in bipolar disorder in terms of evidence available. Yes something weird is going on but we do not know what it is so until we do locking people up and forcibly drugging them seems a bit harsh.

So what do you believe in that you cannot prove exists?

Zombrex

cavedave wrote:

Do you believe in any things without evidence in the way many people of faith believe in god? I believe in loads of silly unproved things. These include

1.Other people having consciousness. We just assume they do but it is impossible to prove. Even if you hook up an MRI and say their brain lights up in the same way as yours does that does not really prove they have a true inner life. We kind of just have to assume that they do.

2. Nations exist. If the river on a border moves does the country? Surely the nation delusion is as widespread and as dangerous as the god one?

3. Mental illness. Loads of mental illnesses have very little evidence for their existence. Believing in god is not that odder then believing in bipolar disorder in terms of evidence available. Yes something weird is going on but we do not know what it is so until we do locking people up and forcibly drugging them seems a bit harsh.

So what do you believe in that you cannot prove exists?

I would point out that there is a difference between proving something (which science doesn't do by the way) and using evidence for something to make a rational judgment

There is evidence that other people are consciousness. This evidence doesn't prove they do, but such proof is probably not possible in the same way that it would be very hard for me to show that the "red" you see is the same as the "red" I see.

Nations are a human concept. They don't "exist" beyond that and I'm not sure someone would claim they do

The evidence that mental illness exists is the patient in front of you. By definition something is happening to them. The classification of the medical diagnosis is again, like a nation, a human concept.

cavedave

I would point out that there is a difference between proving something (which science doesn't do by the way) and using evidence for something to make a rational judgment

So science has not proved that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry?

There is evidence that other people are consciousness. This evidence doesn't prove they do, but such proof is probably not possible in the same way that it would be very hard for me to show that the "red" you see is the same as the "red" I see.

I am trying to avoid sophistry and i accept we can never know what it feels like to be a bat. What separates the Delusion that you have an imaginary friend who lives in a cloud from the delusion that the person you are talking to has a voice going on inside their head?

Nations are a human concept. They don't "exist" beyond that and I'm not sure someone would claim they do
The evidence that mental illness exists is the patient in front of you. By definition something is happening to them. The classification of the medical diagnosis is again, like a nation, a human concept.

Fair point asking for proof of "Justice" would seem a bit odd. Let us say that schizophrenia is not a human concept but a testable hypothesis (it results in altered fatty acid absorption apparantly so you could do blood tests etc for it). Do other illnesses that are purely "mental" not count as a myth?

Myksyk

There's a book which was published last year with almost that precise title ... "what do you believe but cannot prove?" ... or something. It canvassed people like Dawkins, Dennett, Pinker et al. I'll look it up tonight when I get home and tell you what they believe but cannot prove!!

robindch

The book was produced by the good folks over at The Edge and, Myksyk is right -- it's called What We Believe but Cannot Prove and it's a far more thought-provoking read than any religious texts that I can think of.

Myksyk

cavedave wrote:

Do other illnesses that are purely "mental" not count as a myth?

All mental activity has neural correlates. The exploration of that mind-blowingly vast territory is progressing slowly but surely. People who verbally describe their (good, bad or neutral) mental experiences are reflecting on unseen, but not necessarily unseeable, neural activity.

Zillah

cavedave wrote:

1.Other people having consciousness. We just assume they do but it is impossible to prove. Even if you hook up an MRI and say their brain lights up in the same way as yours does that does not really prove they have a true inner life. We kind of just have to assume that they do.

This one I fully agree with and have said so before. But I also accept that point that everything we can measure says that their brain is the same as mine, which means that it would probably have the same attributes as mine. We can't confirm it 100%, but in fairness the vast majority of scientific conclusions are not 100%.

2. Nations exist. If the river on a border moves does the country? Surely the nation delusion is as widespread and as dangerous as the god one?

A nation exists as a legal entity, which means that people will behave in certain ways based on that. It absolutely exists 100% as a mental construct. "Culture" is the one that has no true existence, it is fluid and subjective, it has no legal existence.

3. Mental illness. Loads of mental illnesses have very little evidence for their existence. Believing in god is not that odder then believing in bipolar disorder in terms of evidence available. Yes something weird is going on but we do not know what it is so until we do locking people up and forcibly drugging them seems a bit harsh.

Mental illnesses exist in an arbitrary sense. "When someone shows behavioural symptoms X, Y and Z we will call it mental illness ABC." Claiming that a mental illness is objectively bad is a value judgement and incorrect, but again, as a mental construct it absolutely exists.

There are of course badly defined diseases where X, Y and Z are sometimes X, Y and K, but thats more poor definitions than whether they "exist" or not. (EDIT: So I suppose if someone believed that a badly defined mental illness existed then they would believe in a delusion because the only existense such conditions have is as a mental construct, so if it lacks cohesive mental construction then it doesn't actually exist )

So what do you believe in that you cannot prove exists?

Absolutely everything I believe in cannot be proven in an objective sense. I make rational judgements based on evidence. If there is not enough evidence I remain unconvinced.

To answer the spirit of your question; nothing.

Scofflaw

cavedave wrote:

So science has not proved that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry?

Indeed it hasn't - that's maths, which is not a science but an art.

cavedave wrote:

2. Nations exist. If the river on a border moves does the country? Surely the nation delusion is as widespread and as dangerous as the god one?

I tend to agree with this one - I'd add "race", and probably a couple of others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Zillah wrote:

A nation exists as a legal entity, which means that people will behave in certain ways based on that. It absolutely exists 100% as a mental construct. "Culture" is the one that has no true existence, it is fluid and subjective, it has no legal existence.

Firstly, you are implicitly assuming that something can only exist if it has a "legal existence", whatever that is. Do you mean that something only "exists" if there is a written description or set of rules governing how the entity can interact with other entities? Perhaps a definition of the word "exists" would be useful?

And secondly, "culture" (in the common understanding of the word) has as much of an existence within the memesphere as any legal entity and people will "behave in certain ways based upon that" wrt culture at least as much as they do do legally-instituted entities, and quite possibly more so. I'll grant you that, like religion, culture means whatever people want it to mean, but that simply means that there's no agreed definition rather than the concept has no existential meaning at all.

Zombrex

cavedave wrote:

So science has not proved that the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees in Euclidean geometry?

No it hasn't, nor has it attempted to. As Scofflaw points out that is mathematics, not science.

cavedave wrote:

What separates the Delusion that you have an imaginary friend who lives in a cloud from the delusion that the person you are talking to has a voice going on inside their head?

For a start, the fact that you also think that other people are conscious entities.

If other people could see my "imaginary" friend as I see him I would regard the theory that this friend actually exists as I see him as being more likely to represent reality.

cavedave wrote:

Do other illnesses that are purely "mental" not count as a myth?

Depends on what you mean by a "myth"

We define a set of criteria and then define that a person who meets these criteria is mentally ill.

Zillah

robindch wrote:

Firstly, you are implicitly assuming that something can only exist if it has a "legal existence", whatever that is. Do you mean that something only "exists" if there is a written description or set of rules governing how the entity can interact with other entities? Perhaps a definition of the word "exists" would be useful?

If something exists as a legal entity then it has an existence. I did not say that something must have existence of a legal type, merely a defined existence of some sort.

For example, existence could come in the forms of: Physical, legal and as a mental construct. I don't mean to imply this is an exhaustive list, it merely serves to illustrate my point.

And secondly, "culture" (in the common understanding of the word) has as much of an existence within the memesphere as any legal entity and people will "behave in certain ways based upon that" wrt culture at least as much as they do do legally-instituted entities, and quite possibly more so. I'll grant you that, like religion, culture means whatever people want it to mean, but that simply means that there's no agreed definition rather than the concept has no existential meaning at all.

If something is a "nation" then it has a fairly objective existence; The Republic of Ireland has concrete borders, government etc etc. The "Irish People" or the "Culture of Ireland" is an entirely subjective notion; Some would say you're an Irish person if you have citizenship, some would say you are Irish if you have anscestors from Ireland etc. It would be almost impossible to get 5 random Irish people in a room and get them to agree on what "Irish Culture" is.

I'd say the vast majority of the time they would all immediately agree as to what the "Republic of Ireland" is however.


I suppose the degree of objective existence and subjective existence is becoming important. It would appear that "John O'Reilly's definition of Irish Culture" exists as a thing, but "Irish Culture" doesn't, whereas "The Republic of Ireland" does exist, considering that it has been agreed amongst everyone what it is.

Bloody hell this is messy stuff.

bonkey

cavedave wrote:

Do you believe in any things without evidence in the way many people of faith believe in god?

Define what you mean by evidence?

1.Other people having consciousness. We just assume they do but...

No buts. We don't just assume that they do.

Using the scientific method, we can define what we mean by consciousness. We can, based on this definition, create falsifiable tests. We can, therefore, scientifically establish that our theory of consciousness holds water.

it is impossible to prove.

As has been noted, science doesn't deal with proof.

2. Nations exist.

Define what you mean by nations, and what you mean by existence.

(Maybe you're spotting a trend in my responses already?)

Once you do so, you can form a model of what nations existing would look like. You can derive falsifiable predictions from these models. You can test those predictions against observation.

3. Mental illness. Loads of mental illnesses have very little evidence for their existence.

I disagree. Mental illnesses are defined by a set of traits, be they behavioural or underlying physical traits. They can be modelled. They can be falsifiably tested for.

While there can be disagreement over whether something is a condition, or an illness, there is generally no disagreement over whether or not it exists.

Believing in god is not that odder then believing in bipolar disorder in terms of evidence available.

I disagree. We can make falsifiable predictions about people who are bipolar. We cannot make falsifiable predictions about God.

In short, God cannot be addressed by the scientific method. All the examples you give can be.

So what do you believe in that you cannot prove exists?

As mentioned before...science doesn't deal in proof. I can't prove that reality exists. I can't prove that gravity won't suddenty disappear. I can't prove that I'm actually typing this message.

(I can, incidentally, prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle in Euclidean space will equal 180 degrees, but I also recognise that Euclidean space is seperate from our reality.)

Dades

cavedave wrote:

So what do you believe in that you cannot prove exists?

The Karma Police. :eek:

cavedave

Bloody hell this is messy stuff.

Sorry i did not mean to turn this into a "please define everything" conversation. I just think it is interesting that i do not believe in God but there are other weird things i do believe in.

(I can, incidentally, prove that the sum of the angles of a triangle in Euclidean space will equal 180 degrees, but I also recognise that Euclidean space is seperate from our reality.)

You do have to assume the numbers 0 and 1 exist so even maths is based on assumptions.

Using the scientific method, we can define what we mean by consciousness. We can, based on this definition, create falsifiable tests. We can, therefore, scientifically establish that our theory of consciousness holds water.

I have never read any convincing definitions of this. Most seem to be of the "i would recognise it if i saw it" type. which does sound a bit similiar to religious reasoning to me.

We cannot make falsifiable predictions about God.

Would be at least in principle scientifically possible to prove god would it not? If a girl came down and did some miracle tricks in a laboratory would you not have to accept at some stage that she was God?

Define what you mean by evidence?

Evidence i would regard as a set of observations that support a theory.

Son Goku

cavedave wrote:

You do have to assume the numbers 0 and 1 exist so even maths is based on assumptions.

The whole point of maths is that none of it exists. It is simply, in such and such a logic, the following predicate made from the logic's basic elements is true with respect to those elements. You don't declare 0 and 1 exist, merely you prove statements about a system consisting of zero and one, it is simply lucky that these systems conform to reality.
For example Leonardo Da Vinci didn't assume the bridge behind the Mona Lisa existed, he simply painted it. In this sense maths is a creative art, you simply make up stuff with their own rules and see what the rules imply, at no point do you assume they exist. However commonly these made up systems are useful. (For whatever reason)

PoleStar

The nuts and bolts of this post boils down to ( if we exclude all the questions relating to arbitrary decisions on reality put in place by humans eg where nations lie, who is mentally ill etc) the argument put forward by Solipsism and that is: you cant really be sure anything outside your own head exists.

robindch

Zillah wrote:

existence could come in the forms of: Physical, legal and as a mental construct

Yes, but you still have to define what you mean by 'existence' -- from your examples, it sounds like existence is an attribute of things which have different attributes, or more straight-forwardly, anything which can be thought of at all (which doesn't get us very far).

In the legal world, things like companies and other organizations are given a type of existence by the process of "incorporation", meaning they are converted into the legal equivalent of a human body. In this way, companies attract many of the rights normally reserved for humans -- they can own property, open bank accounts, be defamed, pay taxes etc, etc. I don't know the legal form for registering a country, but I'd imagine it's much the same. Hence I believe that the only things which exist legally are human bodies or their equivalents.

Zillah wrote:

I suppose the degree of objective existence and subjective existence is becoming important. [...] Bloody hell, this is messy stuff.

I don't know if subjective and objective are the right words here.

Going off topic a bit, I wonder if it's worth thinking less about whether or not something "exists" (for some suitable definition of "exist"), but, given that many ideas ("irish culture", for example) exist only in peoples' heads, whether the idea itself actually needs to have any specific definition, or whether people are perfectly happy believing that everybody else has a similar notion, regardless of whether or not they actually do. In which case, an idea isn't so much defined by what it is, but by what people believe it is.

Incidentally, this is something that religion does quite well -- by phrasing its dogmas so incoherently and obtusely, different people can each believe that they believe the same thing as everybody else, since nobody can actually explain what it is that they actually believe (the trinity being a good example). This seems, to me at least, to act as a kind of meta-memetic glue to hold a collection of separate memes together, under the umbrella of a greater one.

None of which gets us much further. But it is fun trying

aidan24326

Credit to cavedave for posing an interesting question although this thread is in danger of descending into a philosophical quagmire!

A nation is an arbitray line on a map. That's all. Though your cultural makeup is decided by which side of that line you're born on in a similiar way to how your religious leanings can be heavily influenced by the same geographical lottery.

We can never 'prove' exactly what anybody else experiences but we have to start from some agreed set of axioms, otherwise we get nowhere.

Which wavelength of light corresponds to my perception of 'red' might not be precisely the same as the next person's, but we share a framework for what we perceive and if we both agree that something is red then it is red, since human perception is of a qualatitive nature, with no absolutes.

PoleStar

aidan24326 wrote:

Which wavelength of light corresponds to my perception of 'red' might not be precisely the same as the next person's, but we share a framework for what we perceive and if we both agree that something is red then it is red, since human perception is of a qualatitive nature, with no absolutes.

Just to be a bitch! You have this the wrong way round, the wavelength is the same, its other peoples perception of that wavelength in their own heads that is not the same. To clarify, wavelength 475 which has arbitrarily been denoted "blue" by humans, will to both persons be seen as "blue" (unless they are colour blind ), however the bit between the ears may not be the same.

cavedave

The nuts and bolts of this post boils down to ( if we exclude all the questions relating to arbitrary decisions on reality put in place by humans eg where nations lie, who is mentally ill etc) the argument put forward by Solipsism and that is: you cant really be sure anything outside your own head exists.

I reread some Popper last night and the induction chapter in "The fabric of Reality". The points about maths being an abstract thing make sense. So I change my request from "proof" to "would be predicted by the best available theory".
This would make the "do other people have consciousness" problem go away. The theory of evolution says other people are similar to me. So either they experience life in a similar way or they do not but claim they do (a philosophical zombie). The first explanation is more parsimonious so that one holds currently. Arguing other people think fundamentally different is a bit like arguing that if i jumped off the eiffel tower I would float, as the dialogue in Deutsch's book explores.

I tend to agree with this one - I'd add "race", and probably a couple of others

What others? What illusions are generally held by people that are probably mainly culture based? As in I was raised catholic based on an accident of birth so my catholicism was probably a cultural thing.
IQ, enviromentalism, beauty all sorts of things could be the X in "the X delusion"

aidan24326

PoleStar wrote:

Just to be a bitch! You have this the wrong way round, the wavelength is the same, its other peoples perception of that wavelength in their own heads that is not the same. To clarify, wavelength 475 which has arbitrarily been denoted "blue" by humans, will to both persons be seen as "blue" (unless they are colour blind ), however the bit between the ears may not be the same.

Yes but colours fall within a bandwidth of wavelengths. And there's even a pretty rare condition (can't remember the name of it) where a person's senses get a bit mixed up, and it's pretty much impossible for anyone else to understand how they perceive things. So I guess it's essential that the vast majority of people do agree on a set of initial assumptions about how we perceive things like colours,smells etc. It would be very difficult to have human interaction otherwise.

Zombrex

I think the point was more to highlight the question of how you do you know that your "blue" appears the same as my "blue"

We might be looking at exactly the same wavelength, we might both say "that is the colour blue", but if I was to "see" your blue would I see it in the same way in my head that you do?

Of course this is impossible to tell, and ultimately it is irrelevant, but it is an interesting question

Scofflaw

aidan24326 wrote:

Yes but colours fall within a bandwidth of wavelengths. And there's even a pretty rare condition (can't remember the name of it) where a person's senses get a bit mixed up, and it's pretty much impossible for anyone else to understand how they perceive things.

Synesthesia.

Wicknight wrote:

I think the point was more to highlight the question of how you do you know that your "blue" appears the same as my "blue"

We might be looking at exactly the same wavelength, we might both say "that is the colour blue", but if I was to "see" your blue would I see it in the same way in my head that you do?

Of course this is impossible to tell, and ultimately it is irrelevant, but it is an interesting question

One I once debated with friends until one of the non-philosophers in our group hit us with a saucepan to make us stop. The pain was entirely subjective, of course.

cordially,
Scofflaw

aidan24326

Wicknight wrote:

I think the point was more to highlight the question of how you do you know that your "blue" appears the same as my "blue"

We might be looking at exactly the same wavelength, we might both say "that is the colour blue", but if I was to "see" your blue would I see it in the same way in my head that you do?

Of course this is impossible to tell, and ultimately it is irrelevant, but it is an interesting question

I guess there's no possible way of ever knowing. But we can assume it very likely that most of us do experience things in much the same way, since we've all evolved in the same way and are made of the same stuff. Agree that it doesn't really matter though. One of those kinda pointless philosophical questions that we can't really answer, like wondering what's going on in a dog's head.

scofflaw wrote:

Synesthesia.

That's the one.

Red Hand

Related to what the OP was saying initially...is it wrong for a layman to use as evidence something that he doesn't fully understand if debating, say, Creationism with a Christian, and using the Big Bang as a theory that you support? If you do not fully understand the chemistry and physics of the Big Bang theory, then should you use it? I mean knowing intimately the really complex things like Red Shift and the maths that have been used to work out such theories?

Its one thing to present things simply and clearly in a nice shiny new science textbook at school and say "look, thats the Big Bang", and have people "believe" in it, and yet know very little of the specifics?

Zillah

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

Related to what the OP was saying initially...is it wrong for a layman to use as evidence something that he doesn't fully understand if debating, say, Creationism with a Christian, and using the Big Bang as a theory that you support? If you do not fully understand the chemistry and physics of the Big Bang theory, then should you use it? I mean knowing intimately the really complex things like Red Shift and the maths that have been used to work out such theories?

Its one thing to present things simply and clearly in a nice shiny new science textbook at school and say "look, thats the Big Bang", and have people "believe" in it, and yet know very little of the specifics?

Sam Harris addresses this very point. 90% of everything a human learns comes from other people. Nothing I know about geology, geography, astronomy, biology, Turkey, The South Pole etc etc came from direct experience. We trust such information because of the motivation and intellectual authority of these people. I trust the Biologists of the world in matters of Biology because they are experts in their field and have shown a vested interest in acquiring the truth.

Similarily if Sky News says a house in London burned down, in theory they might be lying, or wrong, but its so unlikely, and completely not in their interest that if Sky News says a house burned down in London then we can be fairly sure it happened.

When we come to the topic of the Big Bang versus Creationism, you have to ask yourself: What is it about the people forwarding both sides that makes me agree/disagree? One has expertise in matters of Astronomy and has a dedication to uncovering the truth of the world, the other has no relevant expertise and has dubious motivations.

Dades

Zillah wrote:

When we come to the topic of the Big Bang versus Creationism, you have to ask yourself: What is it about the people forwarding both sides that makes me agree/disagree? One has expertise in matters of Astronomy and has a dedication to uncovering the truth of the world, the other has no relevant expertise and has dubious motivations.

Another way to look at it would be which source of information has something to gain from promoting their claim?

Zillah

The Atheist wrote:

Another way to look at it would be which source of information has something to gain from promoting their claim?

Well, thats intention, we have to take ability into account. From the paranormal forum I can assure you there are dozens of very well intentioned people who have nothing to gain promoting all sorts of unverified/unverifiable claims about magic and the universe.

robindch

Zillah wrote:

we have to take ability into account. From the paranormal forum [...] there are dozens of [...] people who have nothing to gain promoting all sorts of unverifiable claims

If you take the view that much of human cultural activity is directed towards validating the investment of time in acquiring, retaining and propagating different ideas, I would say that the dozens of people in the paranormal forum do have something to gain -- the probability of being taken seriously. In form, religion is identical.

Zillah

robindch wrote:

I would say that the dozens of people in the paranormal forum do have something to gain -- the probability of being taken seriously.

Hmm. Excellent observation.

cavedave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg&mode=related&search=

Just on the subject on believing things you cannot prove.

Is it because the theory of evolution is easier to understand then the physics involved in the big bang that it is used as evidence that the bible is inaccurate? Geology, cosmology, archeology, astronomy etc all prove the earth is older then 5 thousand years old buy no one says "teach the controversy" with them. Why do atheists rely on biological evolution so much?

Fallen Seraph

cavedave wrote:

Is it because the theory of evolution is easier to understand then the physics involved in the big bang that it is used as evidence that the bible is inaccurate? Geology, cosmology, archeology, astronomy etc all prove the earth is older then 5 thousand years old buy no one says "teach the controversy" with them. Why do atheists rely on biological evolution so much?

Imo, the astronomy needed to be done to show that the universe must be older than 12000 years is much easier to get one's head around and observe than evolution. But I think you're putting the horse before the cart a little here; for the most part it's the religious who feel the need to refute evolution, not atheists having a particular affinity for it. But indeed, why the religious have it in for evolution so bad is a bit mysterious to me too.

Scofflaw

cavedave wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg&mode=related&search=

Just on the subject on believing things you cannot prove.

Is it because the theory of evolution is easier to understand then the physics involved in the big bang that it is used as evidence that the bible is inaccurate? Geology, cosmology, archeology, astronomy etc all prove the earth is older then 5 thousand years old buy no one says "teach the controversy" with them. Why do atheists rely on biological evolution so much?

It's more the other way round, really. "Atheists" defend evolution a lot because it gets attacked a lot - and it's Creationists who say "teach the controversy".

This is, I think, because no-one has any really beef with the hills being very old, or the Universe very big, but nearly everyone thinks of humanity as 'special' (which almost every religion tells them it is) - they don't want to hear that we're just another species, so attacking evolution (which says exactly that) attracts much more support.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

I agree. It's definitely a "we are not just animals" thing.

But I agree with cavedave, in that the evolution is easier for the layman to explain than astrophysics. And of course it directly contradicts the bible.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I agree. It's definitely a "we are not just animals" thing.

But I agree with cavedave, in that the evolution is easier for the layman to explain than astrophysics. And of course it directly contradicts the bible.

Certainly that's another strong reason. After all, the Bible says nothing about geology or astrophysics.

cordially,
Scofflaw