Search results

Absolutely. The Star wars prequels are the best example. I grew up with those and still love them. The OT I also like, and saw as a kid, but they don't land the same way. They're not for me--they're my dad's movies. The larger scale reevaluation of the films also coincides with people who saw...

Gotcha. I agree. Freeman Dyson is another good example. My PhD is in one of the natural sciences. And, that's the extent of what I want to say on this topic.

I'm not sure I follow. Someone else brought up the idea that it was "my first hypothesis", with the undertone that I didn't know much about science. I thought it was relevant that I had done more science than that person.

I took the observer idea in this context to mean something different than it does in QM. Yes, I mentioned this. Right. In the context of metaphysics--does "science not helping you" mean "it's not real"? That's a very strong claim, it turns out.

Then we are in trouble, scientifically speaking :) Yes, that is the point I'm trying to make. To state it directly: there are conceptions of ghosts which are compatible with self-reported experiences which are not amenable to scientific investigation. Self reported supernatural experiences are...

Or, the downstream observations. Science can interrogate things that are irreproducible, like "did the Late Heavy Bombardment occur" by looking at the ages of impact melts or simulating solar system evolution. In that case the experiments at least are reproducible. But with ghosts you are a few...

Yes. Another interesting example is taste, like with cilantro. But for the external world, we can typically make it conform enough to do repeatable experiments. You can feed a bunch of people cilantro, for example. It is pretty easy to just decide that if we can't all observe it then it must be...

One of the assumptions buried in the idea that we would just perform the right scientific tests is the thought that we would all observe ghosts in the same way. But what if they appear only to certain people, for whatever reason? You could start trying to determine which people and why, but...

"Too many"? There is quite a bit to say about the assumptions underlying that claim, but I will not go that direction. I am not suggesting the extinction event was because of intelligence specifically. I'm speaking more generally--as far as we can tell, intelligence is evolved only rarely and...

I am a big fan of AI, but there are limits to how long these things can run autonomously and succeed at complex tasks and it is not very high. There is a fun project, "Claude plays Pokemon", that lets the AI try to beat those games. The last I checked the furthest progress it had gotten was 3...

There is a lot that is unknown here. In addition to the substantial energy costs, there are thoughts that the longer childhood, especially infancy, and difficult childbirth are all byproducts of intelligence. Then, very few species have progressed that far up the intelligence ladder, and humans...

Ime that fallibility is dealt with using statements like "it seems to me the facts imply X". I.e., facts can imply things, but our understanding of this objective relationship is fallible. That's strongest in the mathematics or logic case. "All men must die" and "Socrates is a man" implies...

Yes, I agree with that. That was something I had in mind; in either case the conclusion is assumed based on the preferred definition of implies. I can see a narrow case by which you can argue "implies ought not to be used this way". It's not one I find convincing, given, as you note that is not...

That's an interesting thought. It has definitely been used that way in mathematics in my experience. I think I understand but the logic doesn't seem valid to me. I read you as: i) the use of implies suggests agency ii) it is bad to ascribe agency to facts or to a state of affairs iii)...

Is there a dictionary that supports the idea "only a person can imply something"? I've literally never seen that claim before.

It was my statement that was at question, and I'm willing to chalk it up to a miscommunication or a regional difference in the use of language. Maybe @Morrus is using it in a way more common in England? Certainly the statement "Only a person can imply something" does not match my understanding...

I agree with you based on the traditional definitions of 'actor' and 'author' but I think this discussion is revealing a real weakness of these definitions. By describing what my character sees, I am authoring new fiction in a way that describing only my character's actions does not. That is...

It's worth noting, the converse of this is that there is an appeal to rejecting the supernatural. It says we can really understand things, that all we have to do is apply our reason or to trust the right people and we will be able to understand. Coupled with this is not much appreciation for the...

I've heard that objection a lot in my life. I've also heard people say the same thing about football (they call it 'handegg'), soccer, basketball, sports in general ('sportsball'). Ian Malcolm calls sports "grown men swatting little balls while the rest of the world pays to applaud". From this...

I agree! I think this is what has poisoned the well, so to speak, on scientific inquiry into UFOs. It is hard to research a topic in earnest when so much of what is out there is just a more recent manifestation of these older phenomena.