okie dokie, I'll have something for you when you wake up.

Peace.

Hey Tony:

Got your invite. I'm observing and possibly interacting. I just had surgery, though, so that puts me more towards the observing end of things at present.

One question. Your post above said "I'd like to invite another atheist friend of mine to watch and observe and possibly interact." You didn't mean that to be me, did you? Because I'm definitely not an atheist.

Joe

Surgery?  I didn't hear about a surgery.   I second DB's sentiment for recovery.

I did mean Dannyboy.  But I went ahead and invited you, too.  I realized that if I was going to invite DB I might need someone to absorb DB's saliva-soaked projectiles and distract him with your deft ninja-like maneuvers while I kept after Tim.

Glad you both showed up.  :)

"There's no vacillation - I contend that all evidence is "physical evidence". To me, there simply isn't any other kind, because the physical world is all there is."

So that is like the man encased in the black box saying that there is nothing outside the box.  The black box is the sum total system of all reality.  But now let me come along and say, "There are certain things about our box that suggests it is not the sum total of all reality."  Now, if you reply, "That is not possible, 'because the physical world is all there is'" you are begging the question.  One of the very thing we are debating is whether or not the 'physical world is all there is.'

"Now, that's not to say that this will always be the case. Memories are stored in the brain (somehow), and it is highly likely that memories will one day be able to be extracted   and examined by some process as yet unknown."

This is a good time to bring up one of my guiding principles.  I call it the 'golden rule of epistemology.'  Basically, I mean:  if our assessment of what is true about reality leads us to call into doubt the means by which we derived that assessment, that assessment must be chucked; we have cut off the branch we are standing on.  You are very close to violating this principle.  I shall explain more if we go further in this direction.  I discussed the principle more generally, here:   http://swordoftruth.us/philosophy-history-and-more/more-epistemology-sntjohnny%27s-epistemological-golden-rule/

"Yes... and no. Our empirical senses are indeed the only tools we have to assess the nature of the universe, but this only gets the the deist god off the hook. The theistic version - answering prayers, performing miracles, smiting the odd heathen here and there - is eminently detectable with the faculties he was so kind to endow us with."

You are getting ahead of yourself, here.  Remember we are in the black box.  Now, let us think of the difference between the deist god and the theistic one.  The deist one is one we infer exists, but he is still one who transcends the box.  The main difference with the theistic god is that he acts within the box.  But of course, given our situation- locked inside the box- and his nature- transcending the box- really the only way that we could know anything interesting about this being is if he did in fact act within the box.  But that does not mean that he is IN the box with us.  My fish cannot get out of the aquarium but I can reach in with my hand.  The fish's limitations don't apply to me but my ability to enter the fish's system doesn't make me an aquatic entity.

You are quite wrong to think that just because the Christian God has interacted in reality that he is detectable as though he were just another fish. 

"But the physical evidence is always the actual contents of the hard drive (the memory), not what you read on the screen (the words that come out of the witness's mouth)."

I know that I've just said quite a bit, but its actually this that I wanted to emphasize.  However, I have to ask some more questions first to make sure we understand each other.  Now, in your view, all evidence is physical evidence, and all reality is physical.  So why argue that the words on the screen/out of the mouth is not physical evidence when you've just said that all there is is the physical?  I don't know why you are drawing the distinction.

"...yet! The fact that I cannot access it myself does not imply that such information does not exist, or is forever unknowable."

Alright, 'yet', but what's the point?  There is no way for you to currently interface directly with another human mind or even a hard drive.  This sentence implies that without having a direct connection to another human mind or hard drive, the information either does not exist, is questionable, or unknowable.  I am confused because, in the first place, on your view, the interface devices- such as the screen, or the mouth of the witness- are still 'physical' so what's your beef?  More importantly, in the second place, it is clear that you don't automatically repudiate what you see on your screen or hear in your ears, despite the fact that you cannot 'access it yourself.'  Or am I wrong, and you're waiting the hundreds and hundreds of years for humans to have the ability to access a hard drive with their mind alone or tap into another mind directly before you trust anything you see or hear?

""But the transaction is not complete until we have spent some time making sure that you as the 'computer' receiving the data is equipped with a filtering system that will interpret it fairly and correctly.  Right?""
"Right."

I'm highlighting this just because it is important and we will return to it.

""There are obviously two sides to the transaction - my brain must interpret, decode and store the information that the witness gives me, but the witness's memory was also encoded and stored at the time of the event, and we know that such memories, even when recounted truthfully, are often found to be faulty.""
"But I don't think that's what's at issue here... is it?"

It certainly is, as will become apparent soon.  First I'd like some clarifications about what your beliefs are, if you don't mind.

"I don't mind at all... ask away. Or are all the questions you wanted to ask above...?"

Yes, they were the questions I'd already asked and I'm glad I did, because I'm not sure we're on the same page.

Let me put it this way:  I wish to explain the reasons why I believe the 'box' and its contents cannot be explained in terms of itself, and the nature of my proposition is thus 'superboxical.'  But you insist on boxical evidence.  When pressed, you acknowledge that the thing to be discussed is superboxical but you also agree that in some real sense, all evidence is boxical- because it is the system we are locked into- but at the point where I might begin discussing my reasons, one category of boxical evidences- testimony- is taken off the table as not being boxical!  A useful distinction, you say... looks like special pleading to me!

Does this help explain my confusion?  On your view, eventually testimony must be regarded as physical evidence, but you don't seem prepared to accept it as such.  It almost sounds like if you could directly tap into the witness's brain directly, it would count as such, but since you can't, and have to rely on the 'representation,' it is no longer physical evidence, even though it is your view that the representation itself is also a physical thing!

I think I get what you're trying to say- witnesses can lie.  Well, yes.  But the significance of a physical item must be interpreted by a mind.  The knife allegedly used in a brutal crime does not scream out, "Alright!  I admit it!  It was me!"  Several pieces have to be put together... can we place it at the scene, can we link it to the suspect, does it appear the item has been tampered with, etc, and these things combine into a mental argument about the significance of the item.  But we can lie to ourselves, and the persons preparing or presenting the item can lie about it.  I don't see any fundamental difference qualitatively between the 'physical' evidence of a knife versus the 'physical' evidence of a person's testimony.  There is certainly a categorical difference:  you can cross examine a person and the person can speak for himself, whilst you cannot question the knife directly.

"but is it not a little like saying "Any logical result that causes us to doubt logic must be discarded"? And if so, is that not a contradiction in terms, since a logical result that violates logic is illogical by definition?"

Yes, you've got the idea.  I will be explaining why I think your position reduces to this in the near future.   We are right on track.  :)

Good call, Joe.  That book definitely raises the issues that are forthcoming in this thread.

If anyone wants to read it on Kindle and shoot me about a dollar they can order it from this link:  http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004EHZRSA

Agh... must make use of the preview button

Ahh... the modify button! Awesome

My tables can tell you how many people with similar characteristics (age, sex etc) died during our last mortality investigation, and we can use that to  estimate the probability of you dying within a certain time frame... if you like

Well, that's the line we have to tell people. But secretly I know you are going to die on May 18, 2052. Go you!

Tim:

Well, that's the line we have to tell people. But secretly I know you are going to die on May 18, 2052. Go you!

Excellent! That's longer than I expected to live. Maybe, by then, the Cincinnati Bengals will have had a winning season. Not likely, but I keep hoping.

I guess the short answer is, they wouldn't, because it's not even possible.

It happens in the book. The main character, a square, interacts with people in Lineland (1 dimension) and pointland (consisting of one "person" who perceives any interaction as his own thoughts). He is contacted by a Sphere and his mind opens to the third dimension. So, in the construct of the book, it is possible. It's hard, but possible.

The main character struggles, trying to find people/shapes willing to look beyond their dimension to see what might exist. The point, the line, his fellow 2D-ers and even the sphere don't think beyond their dimensions because they expect all other dimensions to be defined by their limited view. The question for each of these characters, then, is what kind of evidence would they accept? What would it take for them to consider – not necessarily believe, just consider – the existence of other dimensions?

Something convinced the square.

Now, much like explaining the third dimension to the good people of Flatland, a Christian would say that there are concepts which we can only comprehend after popping up to heaven - such as timelessness, or the trinity.

I wouldn't say that. I think it's possible to understand spiritual concepts without having visited heaven.

We don't just have people saying "I've been to Spaceland, and seen the third-dimension". We have people saying "I prayed to St Camillus de Lellis, and he cured my gout".

There certainly is a lot of craziness out there. There's a lot of craziness in nearly every area of human understanding (except for actuaries. You guys are all normal). The question for us, then, is how do we evaluate what is real and what is the philosophical equivalent of Italian saints curing gout? What kind of evidence will we accept? If I'm a square and I'm telling you about spheres, what would it take for you consider it?

BTW … I looked up Saint Camillus's page on Wikipedia. He looks like a younger version of Ringo Starr. I'd much prefer to call him "Saint Ringo."

-Joe