Subjective evidence: when is it adequate?

[SigurdReginson]

Earlier today, I saw a loaf of bread in my bread and that had gone moldy. I could see the mold starting to grow from outside of the bag. Surely enough, when I opened it up, I could smell that mold. I was definitely convinced that my bread had gone bad, so I threw it away.

Later on, when I was getting out of the shower, I saw a dark shadow in the corner of my eye. When I turned to look, nothing was there. I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me, and that nothing was there.

Now, years ago I had come to the conclusion that I had experienced a supernatural event where god had blessed me. I felt the love of God flow through me as the pastor drew a cross on my forehead with anointing oil. It was a powerful experience for me, and shaped much of my belief that I had known god existed, because I could feel his presence. Since leaving my faith, though, I feel it was most likely a trick if the mind.

What all of these events have in common is that they are subjectively experienced. Only I know intimately what I experience, and those experiences shape how I interact with and identify reality.

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error?

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds? With what do we judge these experiences against? Should they convince us of anything besides coming to the conclusion that we were mistaken?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error??

Leaving aside the fact that "acceptable" is a poorly defined standard, I would think that intersubjectively verifiable evidence would be preferred.

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds?

I doesn't. I allow a "damned if I know" category for such things.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Leaving aside the fact that "acceptable" is a poorly defined standard, I would think that intersubjectively verifiable evidence would be preferred.


I doesn't. I allow a "damned if I know" category for such things.

Unfortunately, "acceptable" is the only thing I can think of that works when incorporating things into our own world views. Either we accept something, or we don't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Unfortunately, "acceptable" is the only thing I can think of that works when incorporating things into our own world views. Either we accept something, or we don't.

Whatever ...

 

[SigurdReginson]

Whatever ...

That would be an example of not accepting something.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, among other things, it is good to know *how* the mind can play tricks with itself. There is a wide variety of optical illusions (as well as some for other senses) where we *know* that what we subjectively experience is not the truth. Learning when we are likely to misinterpret our experiences is part of learning when we can trust them.

So, it is quite unlikely that the mind will be able to create an illusion of mold on bread together with the smell when you open the package.

It is much more likely that the mind 'plays tricks' when the phenomena, even if powerful, are transitory and based on just one sensory modality. Also, it is easier to gum up the works if under stress, hungry, intoxicated, or have other mental health issues.

 

[bobhikes]

Earlier today, I saw a loaf of bread in my bread and that had gone moldy. I could see the mold starting to grow from outside of the bag. Surely enough, when I opened it up, I could smell that mold. I was definitely convinced that my bread had gone bad, so I threw it away.

Later on, when I was getting out of the shower, I saw a dark shadow in the corner of my eye. When I turned to look, nothing was there. I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me, and that nothing was there.

Now, years ago I had come to the conclusion that I had experienced a supernatural event where god had blessed me. I felt the love of God flow through me as the pastor drew a cross on my forehead with anointing oil. It was a powerful experience for me, and shaped much of my belief that I had known god existed, because I could feel his presence. Since leaving my faith, though, I feel it was most likely a trick if the mind.

What all of these events have in common is that they are subjectively experienced. Only I know intimately what I experience, and those experiences shape how I interact with and identify reality.

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error?

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds? With what do we judge these experiences against? Should they convince us of anything besides coming to the conclusion that we were mistaken?

In general for me everything is subjective. It is acceptable when another sane person agrees with me. Acceptable doesn't me objective though, it is still subjective but commutatively. Basically that's our life, our community decides on what is real and we accept it or don't. Most people accept it because of need of the community. Some may try to find a more acceptable community, some will live on the fringe of community and a few will try and change the community to their reality.

 

[exchemist]

Earlier today, I saw a loaf of bread in my bread and that had gone moldy. I could see the mold starting to grow from outside of the bag. Surely enough, when I opened it up, I could smell that mold. I was definitely convinced that my bread had gone bad, so I threw it away.

Later on, when I was getting out of the shower, I saw a dark shadow in the corner of my eye. When I turned to look, nothing was there. I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me, and that nothing was there.

Now, years ago I had come to the conclusion that I had experienced a supernatural event where god had blessed me. I felt the love of God flow through me as the pastor drew a cross on my forehead with anointing oil. It was a powerful experience for me, and shaped much of my belief that I had known god existed, because I could feel his presence. Since leaving my faith, though, I feel it was most likely a trick if the mind.

What all of these events have in common is that they are subjectively experienced. Only I know intimately what I experience, and those experiences shape how I interact with and identify reality.

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error?

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds? With what do we judge these experiences against? Should they convince us of anything besides coming to the conclusion that we were mistaken?

Some things rely on subjectivity. One that springs to mind is who one decides to marry.

 

[George-ananda]

Well the loaf of bread mold experience is reproducible. You can see and smell it as many times as you need.

Your shadow person and God experiences are not reproducible so you cannot know with the same certainty. You can only speak now in terms of best estimate of likelihood.

I am a believer in many things so-called paranormal just from the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I estimate the chance of all the billions of experiences in human history being just natural phenomena approaches zero. Now, in individual cases I can not be so sure.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Earlier today, I saw a loaf of bread in my bread and that had gone moldy. I could see the mold starting to grow from outside of the bag. Surely enough, when I opened it up, I could smell that mold. I was definitely convinced that my bread had gone bad, so I threw it away.

Later on, when I was getting out of the shower, I saw a dark shadow in the corner of my eye. When I turned to look, nothing was there. I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me, and that nothing was there.

Now, years ago I had come to the conclusion that I had experienced a supernatural event where god had blessed me. I felt the love of God flow through me as the pastor drew a cross on my forehead with anointing oil. It was a powerful experience for me, and shaped much of my belief that I had known god existed, because I could feel his presence. Since leaving my faith, though, I feel it was most likely a trick if the mind.

What all of these events have in common is that they are subjectively experienced. Only I know intimately what I experience, and those experiences shape how I interact with and identify reality.

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error?

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds? With what do we judge these experiences against? Should they convince us of anything besides coming to the conclusion that we were mistaken?

All anyone else can conclude is that there is evidence that you had an experience. How you chose to interpret that experience doesn't constitute evidence for anything other than how you chose to interpret it.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well the loaf of bread mold experience is reproducible. You can see and smell it as many times as you need.

Your shadow person and God experiences are not reproducible so you cannot know with the same certainty. You can only speak now in terms of best estimate of likelihood.

I am a believer in many things so-called paranormal just from the quantity, quality and consistency of the evidence. I estimate the chance of all the billions of experiences in human history being just natural phenomena approaches zero. Now, in individual cases I can not be so sure.

Hmm... Why do you estimate the chances of all the billions of experiences in human history being just natural phenomena being zero?

What does one measure such things against, if not natural phenomena? What does something that is supposed to be supernatural even look like if it can't be replicated under controlled conditions?

 

[George-ananda]

Hmm... Why do you estimate the chances of all the billions of experiences in human history being just natural phenomena being zero?

Well I have heard untold number of what I believe are very strong cases of so-called paranormal phenomena. Also I believe our senses although not perfect are generally quite reliable. The odds of being wrong that many times to me approaches zero. I am just using reason over a large body of data.

What does one measure such things against, if not natural phenomena? What does something that is supposed to be supernatural even look like if it can't be replicated under controlled conditions?

It is things not reasonably explainable as known phenomena. Physical phenomena. Multiple people seeing ghosts. Captures on video and audio equipment. What are the odds that every one of the billions of cases does have a natural phenomena? I think belief in the so-called paranormal is the most reasonable position.

Paranormal phenomena is generally spontaneous and short lasting leaving no after the event evidence. This is not ripe for controlled studies. Investigators have to go to known (haunted) hotspots and wait. And they have recorded some startling things.

In science observation (of the paranormal or anything really) can precede its scientific understanding. Science then has work to do.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well I have heard untold number of what I believe are very strong cases of so-called paranormal phenomena.

What makes them strong cases? How many of those could be influenced by mundane or explainable means? How many of those things could be explained in mundane terms we just don't know yet (such as how will-o'-wisps can be explained by mundane means now, though they were thought to be spirits for the longest time)?

Also I believe our senses although not perfect are generally quite reliable.

Interesting... I wouldn't agree with that, given my experiences in life. I will say, though, that through a good and constantly improving epistemological toolset, it does increase the chances of how reliable they can be. They are reliable enough to get us through much of our life, but not always reliable enough to help us tell the difference between an alien abduction and a dream fueled sleep paralysis session.

The odds of being wrong that many times to me approaches zero.

...except for the incorporation of things that can't be falsified. I could say that vampires also have to be real, given that every culture that ever existed has some kind of vampire. They can't all be wrong, with that logic.

I am just using reason over a large body of data.

What makes this reasoning more reasonable than reserving judgement until objective evidence can be falsified?

It is things not reasonably explainable as known phenomena. Physical phenomena. Multiple people seeing ghosts.

...which can be replicated via mundane means.

Captures on video and audio equipment.

Which can and have been faked in the past, or turned out to be other mundane manifestations, such as electrical issues or the natural way houses shift as temperatures drop.

What are the odds that every one of the billions of cases does have a natural phenomena?

100% until otherwise adequately demonstrated.

I think belief in the so-called paranormal is the most reasonable position.

It would be if there was sufficient evidence, but there really isn't.

Paranormal phenomena is generally spontaneous and short lasting leaving no after the event evidence. This is not ripe for controlled studies. Investigators have to go to known (haunted) hotspots and wait. And they have recorded some startling things.

I haven't seen evidence in these places that weren't explainable via mundane reasons or that could be tested and turned out to be real, though. There are plenty of folks out there who would love to deceive people just so they can have an interesting story to tell, and there are also people who are ignorant to how many mundane things work- there's a lot of factors that can change the ways we perceive things.

Something as simple as high voltage wire passing in a wall next to where someone sleeps can make them feel like supernatural phenomena are happening, such as being watched, or even being possessed. That doesn't even include the way our brains handle certain biochemical impulses, and the way they try to decipher those impulses.

In science observation (of the paranormal or anything really) can precede its scientific understanding. Science then has work to do.

For sure! Science always has work to do, and room to grow. Until there's sufficient evidence though, why not just wait to believe something until it can be proven to be objectively falsifiable?

It seems to me like the more possibilities you allow to be taken as aspects of reality (belief), the easier it would be to incorporate other possibilities as true aspects of reality. Where is the cut off point, then? How does one know what is true if they allow for unprovable things to be true?

 

[George-ananda]

What makes them strong cases? How many of those could be influenced by mundane or explainable means? How many of those things could be explained in mundane terms we just don't know yet (such as how will-o'-wisps can be explained by mundane means now, though they were thought to be spirits for the longest time)?



Interesting... I wouldn't agree with that, given my experiences in life. I will say, though, that through a good and constantly improving epistemological toolset, it does increase the chances of how reliable they can be. They are reliable enough to get us through much of our life, but not always reliable enough to help us tell the difference between an alien abduction and a dream fueled sleep paralysis session.



...except for the incorporation of things that can't be falsified. I could say that vampires also have to be real, given that every culture that ever existed has some kind of vampire. They can't all be wrong, with that logic.



What makes this reasoning more reasonable than reserving judgement until objective evidence can be falsified?



...which can be replicated via mundane means.



Which can and have been faked in the past, or turned out to be other mundane manifestations, such as electrical issues or the natural way houses shift as temperatures drop.



100% until otherwise adequately demonstrated.



It would be if there was sufficient evidence, but there really isn't.



I haven't seen evidence in these places that weren't explainable via mundane reasons or that could be tested and turned out to be real, though. There are plenty of folks out there who would love to deceive people just so they can have an interesting story to tell, and there are also people who are ignorant to how many mundane things work- there's a lot of factors that can change the ways we perceive things.

Something as simple as high voltage wire passing in a wall next to where someone sleeps can make them feel like supernatural phenomena are happening, such as being watched, or even being possessed. That doesn't even include the way our brains handle certain biochemical impulses, and the way they try to decipher those impulses.



For sure! Science always has work to do, and room to grow. Until there's sufficient evidence though, why not just wait to believe something until it can be proven to be objectively falsifiable?

It seems to me like the more possibilities you allow to be taken as aspects of reality (belief), the easier it would be to incorporate other possibilities as true aspects of reality. Where is the cut off point, then? How does one know what is true if they allow for unprovable things to be true?

Well, I read people's stories, investigator's stories, cable TV paranormal shows, etcetera and to me it is ten times over enough for me to think dramatic things do occur that are not explainable by our current knowledge. For example cases involving physical phenomena is not readily explainable in terms of unusual brain activity. The quantity, quality and consistency of these cases is convincing to me. If you disagree with that statement them we will have to end in disagreement.

For me I have also found in Theosophical, Vedic (Hindu) and other esoteric traditions an explanatory model of planes of nature that begins to make sense of this baffling phenomena. The so-called paranormal then becomes part and parcel of greater universe that contains planes of nature beyond the physical.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Well, I read people's stories, investigator's stories, cable TV paranormal shows, etcetera and to me it is ten times over enough for me to think dramatic things do occur that are not explainable by our current knowledge. For example cases involving physical phenomena is not readily explainable in terms of unusual brain activity. The quantity, quality and consistency of these cases is convincing to me. If you disagree with that statement them we will have to end in disagreement.

For me I have also found in Theosophical, Vedic (Hindu) and other esoteric traditions an explanatory model of planes of nature that begins to make sense of this baffling phenomena. The so-called paranormal then becomes part and parcel of greater universe that contains planes of nature beyond the physical.

I see... That's very fascinating. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on things!

We truly are lucky to get to experience the lives we do. It's a bitter sweet existence, but it's truly worth it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Earlier today, I saw a loaf of bread in my bread and that had gone moldy. I could see the mold starting to grow from outside of the bag. Surely enough, when I opened it up, I could smell that mold. I was definitely convinced that my bread had gone bad, so I threw it away.

Later on, when I was getting out of the shower, I saw a dark shadow in the corner of my eye. When I turned to look, nothing was there. I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me, and that nothing was there.

Now, years ago I had come to the conclusion that I had experienced a supernatural event where god had blessed me. I felt the love of God flow through me as the pastor drew a cross on my forehead with anointing oil. It was a powerful experience for me, and shaped much of my belief that I had known god existed, because I could feel his presence. Since leaving my faith, though, I feel it was most likely a trick if the mind.

What all of these events have in common is that they are subjectively experienced. Only I know intimately what I experience, and those experiences shape how I interact with and identify reality.

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error?

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds? With what do we judge these experiences against? Should they convince us of anything besides coming to the conclusion that we were mistaken?

SigurdReginson wrote," I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me"

How is one sure that one's mind is not playing tricks now also, please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[SigurdReginson]

SigurdReginson wrote," I was convinced that my mind was just playing tricks on me"

How is one sure that one's mind is not playing tricks now also, please?
Right, please?

Regards

I can't be 100% sure at all. For all I know, in my mind I could be typing this message to you, but in reality I could be in a straight jacket in a padded cell.

The fact is, however, that the subjective existence I experience is all that matters. It seems well structured, and there is a consistency to that existence, so I doubt very much that it's a helucination. Furthermore, there seems to be a consistency associated with corroberating two or more similar experiences (especially through experimentation) that people I encounter have when interacting within that existence. There seems to be an objective truth that I can discern through my subjective observations.

When something goes against the structure of my subjective experience, and it can't be explained through corroberation with evidence that others have presented, then it's likelyhood of existence is diminished until better evidence comes along.

I've experienced helucinations before, so I understand a little bit of how they work. They can fool a person into thinking they are experiencing something real, but at the end of the day, they are most likely a trick of the mind if they can't be corroberated with anything tangible. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Sunstone]

What determines acceptable subjective evidence vs. unacceptable subjective evidence? Is it objective verification? Past experiences? Trial and error?

Thank you for quite an interesting thread and OP, Sigurd!

Perhaps it would be a good idea here to remind ourselves that there is no such thing as objective experience, or objective verification, and that all experience is ultimately subjective, and all verification is ultimately subjective. At least, I think if we keep that in mind, then we might make better progress towards an adequate answer to the questions posed in the OP.

Incidentally, when I say there is no such thing as 'objective verification', I do not mean to reject the use of the term as a shorthand for 'intersubjective verification'. Just that if we are going to use the term 'objective verification', we should make clear that it's only a shorthand, and not a claim that such a thing is literally possible.

A second consideration that we might wish to bear in mind here is the profound distinction between our experience, on the one hand, and our interpretation of our experience, on the other hand. For instance, it might be noted that the examples given in the OP of "subjective experiences" prove upon analysis to be examples of interpretations of subjective experiences.

Now with that in mind, I wonder what, exactly, is being asked here? I take "acceptable evidence" in this context to mean "evidence that warrants or tends to warrant a certain interpretation and/or conclusion". Assuming my understanding of "acceptable evidence" is correct, then I think one possible answer to the OP might be that any or all of the usual methods and procedures for establishing whether a bit of evidence warrants or tends to warrant a specific conclusion or interpretation will do nicely.

How do these apply to life altering one time only experiences that are impossible to explain outside of our own minds? With what do we judge these experiences against? Should they convince us of anything besides coming to the conclusion that we were mistaken?

More good questions! I'll try to get back to you on these. I'm tired and half asleep at the moment.

 

[paarsurrey]

I can't be 100% sure at all. For all I know, in my mind I could be typing this message to you, but in reality I could be in a straight jacket in a padded cell.

The fact is, however, that the subjective existence I experience is all that matters. It seems well structured, and there is a consistency to that existence, so I doubt very much that it's a helucination. Furthermore, there seems to be a consistency associated with corroberating two or more similar experiences (especially through experimentation) that people I encounter have when interacting within that existence. There seems to be an objective truth that I can discern through my subjective observations.

When something goes against the structure of my subjective experience, and it can't be explained through corroberation with evidence that others have presented, then it's likelyhood of existence is diminished until better evidence comes along.

I've experienced helucinations before, so I understand a little bit of how they work. They can fool a person into thinking they are experiencing something real, but at the end of the day, they are most likely a trick of the mind if they can't be corroberated with anything tangible. It really is as simple as that.

Hasn't one experienced a dream at night, please?
Everything one sees/observes in a night-dream seems to be real but when one awakes then one realizes that it was just the "trick of the mind", please?
Is it possible that ones whole life is just a " long-night" and one has just seen a "long-night-dream" and a "lengthy-trick of the mind" please?
Right, please?

Regards

 

[SigurdReginson]

Hasn't one experienced a dream at night, please?
Everything one sees/observes in a night-dream seems to be real but when one awakes then one realizes that it was just the "trick of the mind", please?
Is it possible that ones whole life is just a " long-night" and one has just seen a "long-night-dream" and a "lengthy-trick of the mind" please?
Right, please?

Regards

Possible, but not likely. I explained why already in the post, though.