My Boundary Challenge

[HitchSlap]

I was recently the intended victim of an internet scam. Upon careful review I found that the scammer did nothing illegal, but intended to inflict great harm on me financially. According to the 'evidence' no harm could be done as everything was legal. However, in my mind great harm would have been done in the form of fear, anxiety, and financial loss. How does science square this?

Square what, exactly?

 

[AirPo]

Quite the opposite. The more complexity is observed the less likely a purely physical explanation is possible.

Not true at all.

At some point science must begin to say...."Nowaitaminute".

That point was when science began.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Square what, exactly?

Science would view the event through scanty physical evidence, not the emotions of either the scammer or myself. So how would their conclusions be more valid than mine? How does science measure the fear and anxiety resulting from such a scam?

How does science explain the gut wrenching fear that the parents of a kidnapped child feels? Is there an evolved "gut wrenching fear" gene?

 

[quatona]

I was recently the intended victim of an internet scam. Upon careful review I found that the scammer did nothing illegal, but intended to enrich himself at my expense. According to the 'evidence' no harm could be done as everything was legal, and would simply have been a 'fee for service'. However, in my mind great harm might have been done in the form of fear, anxiety, and financial loss. How does science square this?

Square what exactly?

 

[HitchSlap]

Science would view the event through scanty physical evidence, not the emotions of either the scammer or myself. So how would their conclusions be more valid than mine? How does science measure the fear and anxiety resulting from such a scam?

There are a number of metrics that could be employed; vitals, fMRI brain scans, subjective questionnaires, lab work, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

Sure, you could postulate some entirely independent, unconnected something, that continues after a physical death - but if it is at any time and in any way connected to, or interacting with, the physical body (e.g. brain), then - no; if it interacts, it's accessible to empirical enquiry, if it doesn't, then by definition, it's not part of 'you', the owner of the body that dies.

It's the 'interaction problem'. We know what the brain is made of - protons, neutrons, & electrons, and we know how they interact with each other and other particles, and we know what forces they are affected by and at what range (at biological scales, electromagnetism and gravity). Anything that can affect, or is affected by, the brain and its functioning, is detectable by that very interaction, and so is accessible to empirical enquiry. If it isn't accessible to empirical enquiry, it has no detectable effects on the physical world, which means it has no significant interactions with the physical world (at human scales). Sean Carroll explains more clearly here: 'The Higgs Boson and the Nature of Reality'....

Great reply.
There's 2 leftover places for me to retreat to.
1. the interactions are empirically accessible, but we cant currently detect them properly, or cant distinguish them from other 'noise'.
2. the interactions are not really distinguishable from a biological brain acting on-its-own.

I'm not clinging to this stuff. Just skeptical about big statements of what must be.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't know what you have in mind - can you give an example of 'anthropological evidence about the stories we are likely to invent, and so on, or compelling personal testimonies' that you feel are difficult to explain as physical?

Anthropological evidence would be the results of inquiring into:
Do humans make up stories?
For what reasons?
What might compel us to invent the idea of the supernatural?
What desires are satisfied by belief in the supernatural?

Personal testimonies like:
Remote sensing of loved one's perils.
Personal foreshadowing.

 

[timewerx]

Science ends when someone fails to listen and understand what the other has to say.

It applies to both sides. As Albert Einstein famously said "Religion without science is dead, and science without religion is lame" I think it got it mixed up but you get the idea....

Like for example, science observes the atrocious blood bath in nature like animals eating other animals alive and thinks its normal. Never even thinking if it's really normal in the grand scheme of things or is it a disease (where a cure needs to be found) or was there ever a time it wasn't like that.

Perfectly plausible right? Does science ever thought of that?? A science that doesn't consider every possible scenario is not science at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like for example, science observes the atrocious blood bath in nature like animals eating other animals alive and thinks its normal. Never even thinking if it's really normal in the grand scheme of things or is it a disease (where a cure needs to be found) or was there ever a time it wasn't like that.

Perfectly plausible right? Does science ever thought of that?? A science that doesn't consider every possible scenario is not science at all.

For the record, science does address that.

Those "blood baths" are known as Malthusian catastrophies.

And as far as I know, scientists have not falsified them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think dreams would qualify. If they make no sense to the dreamer what chance would science have to explain them?

Science can explain how the brain dreams, i.e. which parts are involved and what they do, but it hasn't yet fully explained why we dream, although recent research suggests that it involves memory consolidation, reorganizing and integrating. During this process, activity occurs in many regions, including those associated with visual imagery.

There is no particular reason why dreams should make sense to the dreamer - they appear to be part of necessary 'housekeeping' in that if you are deprived of dream sleep you will become unwell, even if you get the full amount of non-dreaming sleep, and you will catch up on lost dream sleep given the opportunity. If you are woken during housekeeping dreaming, the dream imagery and symbology usually fades rapidly, but if they catch conscious attention, an attempt to generate a narrative from the traces may occur.

There seems to be more than one type of dream - in addition to the surreal nonsense type, which is associated with memory consolidation and integration, there are narrative dreams where the sleeper has a higher level of conscious awareness, sometimes reaching the fully conscious 'lucid' dream state. Narrative dreams may partly be a means of rehearsing reactions to difficult or unusual situations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Those "blood baths" are known as Malthusian catastrophies.

Animals eating other animals alive is pretty standard procedure for nature, 'red in tooth and claw'. A Malthusian catastrophe is when population growth exceeds the capacity of available food resources (e.g. agriculture), forcing a catastrophic collapse back to subsistence level and decimation of the population.

 

[quatona]

Science would view the event through scanty physical evidence, not the emotions of either the scammer or myself. So how would their conclusions be more valid than mine?

Which scientific conclusions are in contradiction to which of yours?

How does science measure the fear and anxiety resulting from such a scam?

Science can measure fear and anxiety quite fine, based on evidence. However, the emotinal reactions and responses to certain encounters are individually different (as the evidence shows).
So let´s say science has measured your personal fear and anxiety. What now?

How does science explain the gut wrenching fear that the parents of a kidnapped child feels?

What specifically about it do you want to be scientifically explained?

Is there an evolved "gut wrenching fear" gene?

I don´t think so.

But what the heck has all this to do with my post that you responded to?

 

[RickG]

I think both are still open questions (besides, I don't like the scientific answers).

That concept is what is known as "willful ignorance", which is the practice of accepting the science one wishes to accept and deliberately ignoring all the science that does not support their position.

 

[RickG]

I was recently the intended victim of an internet scam. Upon careful review I found that the scammer did nothing illegal, but intended to enrich himself at my expense. According to the 'evidence' no harm could be done as everything was legal, and would simply have been a 'fee for service'. However, in my mind great harm might have been done in the form of fear, anxiety, and financial loss. How does science square this?

That has nothing to do with science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Animals eating other animals alive is pretty standard procedure for nature, 'red in tooth and claw'. A Malthusian catastrophe is when population growth exceeds the capacity of available food resources (e.g. agriculture), forcing a catastrophic collapse back to subsistence level and decimation of the population.

Yes, I'm familiar with the term.

Care to tell us how those decimations occur?

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes, I'm familiar with the term.

Care to tell us how those decimations occur?

You could read Jared Diamond's book "Collapse."

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know. I thought you wanted to know how societies become decimated?

I'd like to know how societies become decimated according to Malthusian scientists?

Remember Hurricane Katrina?

I couldn't, for the life of me, get Taoists to give me an honest answer as to what caused Hurricane Katrina according to Taoism.

Scientists are no different.

On the other hand, I'm not at all ashamed to attribute some catastrophies (weather, diseases, earthquakes) to God.

Remember this: 16 ?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not particularly;

Then let's hear from your scientist himself:

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

SOURCE

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Great reply.

Thanks.

[There's 2 leftover places for me to retreat to.
1. the interactions are empirically accessible, but we cant currently detect them properly, or cant distinguish them from other 'noise'.

Something interacting with the brain so subtly that it doesn't raise above the measurable noise threshold would be noise to the brain too; but, at a stretch, one could suppose some such subtle electromagnetic influence tipping the balance of certain threshold signals so as to modify brain activity in particular directions.

One problem for this concept is the skull. There is a device that can alter the firing pattern of the brain using electromagnetic induction via powerful magnetic pulses (TCMS or TransCranial Magnetic Stimulation), but it's not subtle and only crudely targetable. The field strengths used are around 2 or 3 Tesla (the Earth's magnetic field is 25 to 65 microteslas).
Another problem is the source of the electromagnetic field that interacts; thermodynamics and conservation of energy would rule it out - what generates it? what sustains it? how can it be directed to such subtle effect? what directs it? how could any of this remain undetectable? etc. It's a non-starter.

2. the interactions are not really distinguishable from a biological brain acting on-its-own.

If they're not distinguishable how could they have significant effect? But in any case, you run into the second problem above.

I'm not clinging to this stuff. Just skeptical about big statements of what must be.

There's no 'must' about it; it's beyond reasonable doubt if you accept current quantum field theory as broadly correct. If you don't accept it, you'd need to propose a model that does at least as well as QFT in all respects, and also includes an explanation for your proposed undetectable phenomenon (and all that goes with it!) in the same framework...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then let's hear from your scientist himself:

Not mine - you brought him into the discussion.