"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

[Me_Be]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


Your thoughts?

The concept known as 'Absence' is a thought. As such, the thought identified as ''Absence'' once it becomes known; can never become unknown.  So that which is conceptually known as ''Absence'' can never be unknown from it's own knowing, once known, this knowing already proves to be evident in it's own conception. All known concepts are immediately self-evident of this irrefutable knowing.

So in knowing any concept at all, what would there be left to not know? In knowing, there is never any experience of not-knowing. So anything claimed to be known can never be absent of it's own claim to know, the evidence is already the case.

[zorkan]

Yes but, what about the unknowns unknowns?
That's absence.

Just like to add, there is no such thing as evidence other than what the whole universe is based on, and that is decay.
You can see it everywhere.
The whole universe and life is based exclusively on decay.

[Asmodean]

The concept known as 'Absence' is a thought. As such, the thought identified as ''Absence'' once it becomes known; can never become unknown.  So that which is conceptually known as ''Absence'' can never be unknown from it's own knowing, once known, this knowing already proves to be evident in it's own conception. All known concepts are immediately self-evident of this irrefutable knowing.

So in knowing any concept at all, what would there be left to not know? In knowing, there is never any experience of not-knowing. So anything claimed to be known can never be absent of it's own claim to know, the evidence is already the case.

I disagree.

Concepts are generalisations. Common-thread templates, if you will. The concept behind "absence" is anti-presence within a given context.

For instance, there is such a thing as apples - whether as a concept, a word, an idea, a physical object or a representation thereof. Apples are currently absent from my dinner table.

[zorkan]

You'd better watch that.
An apple led to the fall of man.

[Asmodean]

Also, gravity, if rumors are to be believed.

That dang Newton and his apple juice soaked wig, keeping me from levitating with their shenanigans!

...But yes, in the spirit of what I was saying, them apples are also absent from my dinner table.

[Me_Be]

The concept known as 'Absence' is a thought. As such, the thought identified as ''Absence'' once it becomes known; can never become unknown.  So that which is conceptually known as ''Absence'' can never be unknown from it's own knowing, once known, this knowing already proves to be evident in it's own conception. All known concepts are immediately self-evident of this irrefutable knowing.

So in knowing any concept at all, what would there be left to not know? In knowing, there is never any experience of not-knowing. So anything claimed to be known can never be absent of it's own claim to know, the evidence is already the case.

I disagree.

Concepts are generalisations. Common-thread templates, if you will. The concept behind "absence" is anti-presence within a given context.

For instance, there is such a thing as apples - whether as a concept, a word, an idea, a physical object or a representation thereof. Apples are currently absent from my dinner table.

I agree, a concept known is known only as and through the tangible physical object it represents to the knower. In reality, there is no such thing as an apple existing outside of it's mental construction. No 'thought' is ever seen, thoughts are only known; as conceptually constructed objects.

For example: an apple maybe present or absent from the dinner table, but the fact it can be either present or absent is only possible because the concept of apple is already known to the knower as an image of the imageless. The knower of an apple is just a 'thought' which is never seen, it's only known conceptually, so the apple can only be known as an image of the imageless. That which knows apple or any concept for that matter cannot experience the object known to it, nor can it experience the absence of it's own concept of itself as the knower.

The phrase 'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' is a misnomer, since nothing that can be claimed to be known can experience it's own absence, or presence for that matter, as it's simply an artificially constructed concept.

[Asmodean]

Ah! I see.

No, I think that's missing the mark somewhat. In this case, evidence is the apples from the example. What is the context? Well, in the example, it is the contents of my dinner table. There is no ambiguity then in stating that apples are absent from it. It does not depend on "experiencing own absence," which, by the way, you are doing right now. You are experiencing your absence from my living room. How is it? ;-)

Absence of apples is the evidence of absence of apples.

[Me_Be]

Ah! I see.

The I is a construction of the mind there in you. You there, have constructed the I that is you there, and have also constructed the me here there in you. As there is nothing outside of your own mind that could ever be anything other than you're own experience there in you.. Everything you have ever known is nothing but the imagination of  you're own mind. You there have invented me here, I here do not exist outside of you're own creation of me there. You have imagined me.

No, I think that's missing the mark somewhat. In this case, evidence is the apples from the example. What is the context? Well, in the example, it is the contents of my dinner table. There is no ambiguity then in stating that apples are absent from it. It does not depend on "experiencing own absence," which, by the way, you are doing right now. You are experiencing your absence from my living room. How is it? ;-)

Absence of apples is the evidence of absence of apples.

The idea there in you, that there is a you/I here who is experiencing the absence of a living room belonging to the you there, is never the experience of me here. The idea of a me here experiencing the absence from you're living room is you're own construction there.

And yes, I agree that the absence of apples relative to the observer is the evidence of absent apples in the context of apples being  known to exist conceptually. My point is that apples are a mental construct, known in their image made from that which is imageless, an apple is simply a construct of a mind, an apple is a label for some object that has no idea what it is, except what is put there by a mind, a mind that is never seen, a mind that is only known as and through the evidence of conceptual knowing, an apple is basically an image of the imageless. There is no real apple out there, it exists only as your own construct that is neither out-there nor in-here. Here/there, where is that? where is the exact location where the mind can be pinned down, it can't.

Can any thing known, ever be absent from the knowing of the known? Not really, as any thing known can never not be known, or be absent from this knowing. While absent apples are evidence of their non-show, their absence is only illusory because their knower cannot experience it's own absence, and so as the knower of apples, there cannot be the absence of the known object that is apple, as the contents of the knower are inseparable from what the knower knows. The knower never shows up to it's own show, it's only the contents of the knower that is on show, as imaged. As the mind creates the image of itself, it can say, now you see me, now you don't in the construction process. But in reality, there is nothing here that can never not be here as in absent.. and while the knower is never seen, the knower is only known in it's own image that you conceptually construct.

To me here, the word absence, is like saying that nothing can exist, it's contradictive, but it's not, because it's obvious that nothingness cannot exist, except as a concept known to exist. Something does exist, and can only exist in it's conception. And this conception is the invention of you're own mind that cannot be negated or refuted, or be killed off, or naturally die due to entropy. The mind cannot not be, as in absent. As the you who has invented the concept known as absent can never not be here. You are never not here.

[Asmodean]

I'll revisit this when on a proper keyboard (being not-fourteen on an iPhone, and thereby my thinking far out-paces my typing capabilities)

For now, "absence" is not precisely saying that nothing can exist - not even the absence of existence says that. It speaks to... Anti-presence in the context of its use. Not the possibility of presence - merely its state of... Not-being. Ok, this was clumsily-worded.

To abstract, absence of x in y means that in the set y, there is not an element x. There can be tons of x outside y, however.

With regard to evidence, x is the evidence and y is the claim it relates to. Absence of evidence in this case means that claim y is not supported by whatever, if anything, x happens to be.

Yes... That was more of an explanation. I'll come back for an in-depth when on PC.

[Asmodean]

The Asmo hereby returneth and wall-of-texteth as promised... eth.

The I is a construction of the mind there in you. You there, have constructed the I that is you there, and have also constructed the me here there in you. As there is nothing outside of your own mind that could ever be anything other than you're own experience there in you.. Everything you have ever known is nothing but the imagination of  you're own mind. You there have invented me here, I here do not exist outside of you're own creation of me there. You have imagined me.

Yes and no. We perceive the environment through our considerable sensor suite, that is correct. That does not speak to the nature of said environment, however, only to our perception thereof.

We can gain a deeper understanding of what it is we perceive by combining sensor data and analysing the resulting patterns.

Einstein would have liked to believe that the Moon was there even when he was not looking at it. Well, there are ways to check. Put some sensor that is independent of you on it, then check sensor data from when you were looking away.

The current models of reality are sophisticated enough to be able to reasonably conclude that reality is more than an individual's perception thereof. (I'm not talking in spiritual sense of any kind - merely that there are things within your sensor range, and those without. Similarly, there are things within your sensing capabilities and those without.)

The idea there in you, that there is a you/I here who is experiencing the absence of a living room belonging to the you there, is never the experience of me here.

Sure it is. You are not in my living room. Therefore, you are experiencing not being in my living room. Your onboard sensor suite is incapable of detecting my living room and is thereby giving you feedback inconsistent with being in it - that's more or less all that means. Or are you speaking specifically to conscious experiences?

The idea of a me here experiencing the absence from you're living room is you're own construction there.

It was my idea, so of course It was my construct. But then, I am currently experiencing not having your ideas, in the sense that the very sensor data I keep coming back to is being analysed by me, independently of you.

And yes, I agree that the absence of apples relative to the observer is the evidence of absent apples in the context of apples being  known to exist conceptually.

That was better worded than what I did. Nice! Yes, though I would not limit the scope of "known" apples to "merely" conceptual.

My point is that apples are a mental construct, known in their image made from that which is imageless, an apple is simply a construct of a mind, an apple is a label for some object that has no idea what it is, except what is put there by a mind, a mind that is never seen, a mind that is only known as and through the evidence of conceptual knowing, an apple is basically an image of the imageless.

I disagree - perhaps strongly so, depending on the minutia.

The mind processes sensor data and catalogues its conclusions in certain ways. The mental image or understanding of an apple is just that - a model. That is not what the apple is. The apple is what the model is of.

It is in this case also completely irrelevant whether the object being modelled has any notion that it exists, what it is or is even physical in nature. There simply isn't a link there. "Apple" is your mental model based on certain sensory input. A blind person understands "apple" a little differently from one who can see. A red-green colorblind person understands red and green apples differently from one who can see colors normally for a human. An octopus understands it in yet another way. A person who has lifted an apple understands it slightly differently to one who has not, and there are minute variations simply from person to person. That's just processing sensor data. It speaks to an analyser's modelling capabilities - not what's being modeled. For that, you want multiple datasets that "agree" somewhere "in the middle."

There is no real apple out there, it exists only as your own construct that is neither out-there nor in-here. Here/there, where is that? where is the exact location where the mind can be pinned down, it can't.

Mind is a process. You can certainly pin down where it's run - its a brain connected to an array of inputs and outputs, performing signal analysis.

There are absolutely real apples out there, it's just that our individual models of what one is may vary to some degree. To a large degree, even, given a properly malfunctioning brain.

Can any thing known, ever be absent from the knowing of the known? Not really, as any thing known can never not be known, or be absent from this knowing.

It can. A model of reality - or a part thereof - can degrade, be damaged or rendered obsolete by a superior model. If you know that the Earth is a disc, you can certainly "un-know" it. That is somewhat beside the point however. Let's get back to them apples.

While absent apples are evidence of their non-show, their absence is only illusory because their knower cannot experience it's own absence, and so as the knower of apples, there cannot be the absence of the known object that is apple, as the contents of the knower are inseparable from what the knower knows.

An apple is still there whether there is a sensor on it or not, much like a yet-undiscovered planet is still orbiting its star. Yes, on quantum level, particles pop in and out of existence, tunnel and do all sorts of "unpredictable" weirdness. Sufficiently scaled up, however... It's not a very good comparison, but if you have a chunk of uranium and a uranium atom has a certain chance to "randomly" (not really, but simplifying) turn into lead, statistically, your chunk will still remain uranium for millions of years - just with an ever-increasing amount of lead in it.

Reality "runs" independently of our models of it.

The knower never shows up to it's own show, it's only the contents of the knower that is on show, as imaged. As the mind creates the image of itself, it can say, now you see me, now you don't in the construction process. But in reality, there is nothing here that can never not be here as in absent.. and while the knower is never seen, the knower is only known in it's own image that you conceptually construct.

Well... If you substitute "see" (show, image, etc - a specific call for visual representation) with "sense," then you can certainly sense the knower. Again, it is a process, not a thing that emits or reflects photons. You may simply need to apply a different suite of sensors to detect it. Electromagnetic can be a good start. Of course, if unable to use such sensors directly with sufficient resolution, you may want to then translate their output into something more processable, and thus stuff like infrared cameras are born, giving a visual representation of the wavelenghts of light that we commonly experience as heat rather than shapes and colours.

[Me_Be]

A model of reality - or a part thereof - can degrade, be damaged or rendered obsolete by a superior model. If you know that the Earth is a disc, you can certainly "un-know" it. That is somewhat beside the point however.

I do not think you can unknow knowing. That's what I was getting at. The claim the earth is a disc will first have to be known before that known can become unknown. Knowing is fundamental and cannot unknow what it knows, it can only change what it knows to something else, like for example: the earth is a disc can later be changed to the earth is a triangle. The knowing of both ideas never changes, only what is known changes. That's what I meant.

As for our models of reality, this to me means we can never directly know or experience objective reality, we can only know it according to our own representational model of it, which to me, can only mean the reality for the known knower on the human level, can only be an A.I. experience, and never be known to us as it actually is, because how it actually is, is unknowable to the human mind. We only have our back stories to represent it, but memory is often wrong on reflection, reflection is a poor representation of what is always and ever this immediate presentation and never a representation.

Let's get back to them apples.

You have responded in great detail about the subject of apples, which I appreciate, but have to admit I am rather perplexed as to why apples became relevant to what I was originally responding to in the OP started by Tank. But I understand how topics can often go off on unexpected tangents.

I was speaking in the context relating to absence of evidence for a supernatural realm and the idea of a God existing without evidence. What can be read below..is what I want to discuss, more than the existence of apples.

My aim was to address the post below. And to mention that all of what is being discussed here regarding the absence of a supernatural existence, or the idea that the absence of God is evidence of no God is all just basically a mental construct, showing up as and through the written word by the authors mind, in this case, Tanks mind.
My theory is that there is nothing outside of Tanks mind that has any obligation to exist or show up as evidence to prove it exists, as the entire content of what is being discussed here already does exist in Tanks mind. In other words without the projection screen of Tanks mind, where do these thoughts and ideas that can be put into words and read below, actually exist for real, except in the script contrived by Tanks mind?

So billions of humans, over hundreds of thousands of years, across tens of thousands of beliefs have lived their lives believing fairy stories. And not one claim by any of these people has a single shred of evidence to support it.

So while "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" the total lack of evidence does show that the possibility of the existence of a supernatural realm and a sentient all powerful entity, a god, that exists in that realm and interacts with the natural realm we perceive is effectively impossible.

The probability of the existence of a god is trillions to one. To live one's life based on such a tenuous probability is nothing short of insane. And it gets worse when people make up cultures based on that insanity.

[Me_Be]

ME
The idea there in you, that there is a you/I here who is experiencing the absence of a living room belonging to the you there, is never the experience of me here.

Sure it is. You are not in my living room. Therefore, you are experiencing not being in my living room. Your onboard sensor suite is incapable of detecting my living room and is thereby giving you feedback inconsistent with being in it - that's more or less all that means. Or are you speaking specifically to conscious experiences?

I just wanted to address this post of yours which I find rather interesting.

How can not being in your living room be my experience of absence, when in my world view, I do not exist until you decide to create me there in your mind. The absence of a created being separate from your own being can't possibly be the created beings experience, as that created being is something that is inside your mind.  I or other is always just a creation of you there, and never outside of you, there is no way you can step outside of your own mind and meet up with another mind as if it existed for real. Two minds can never meet. Two or many minds are simply imagined appearances, they are the creation of the one infinite mind making distinctions within itself, for itself and by itself. And so your mind is the only place another mind can exist for you, another mind will always be your own creation. You are infinite mind. You there can make up, imagine just about anything you want, and belief will make what you make up real for you.
You there can never be conscious of another persons conscious experience, so you cannot tell yourself that another person is experiencing the absent from your living room. To hear you say that doesn't make any sense to the mind here in me.

It's only my experience here, because you there is saying it is, and believing that it is. But, that which is there, is never here, only there, as there is nothing outside of one's mind, if that one's mind is to be believed to exist, then what that one mind is creating will project it's creation as if it exists out-there. That's the nature of duality, the split mind phenomena.

That's not to deny there is a reality outside existing out-there independent of the mind, there is without doubt or error. Reality is, it exists in an unborn nondual state. Only the mind is born, and the mind is what apparently splits the nondual reality into two, into knower and known, into you and me, here and there, albeit just the many distinctions within the infinite mind.

[Asmodean]

I do not think you can unknow knowing. That's what I was getting at. The claim the earth is a disc will first have to be known before that known can become unknown. Knowing is fundamental and cannot unknow what it knows, it can only change what it knows to something else, like for example: the earth is a disc can later be changed to the earth is a triangle. The knowing of both ideas never changes, only what is known changes. That's what I meant.

I think this is a semantic framing. nothing wrong with that. I am using "knowledge" in the sense of "accepting something as fact." You no longer know that the Earth is a disc when you no longer accept it as an accurate representation of the planet. Similarly, you never knew that the Earth was a disc if you never accepted that model as valid, for whatever reason - be it conscious application of knowledge, or just "never having thought about it."

In this sense, the known can, and in certain circles often is "un-learned."

As for our models of reality, this to me means we can never directly know or experience objective reality, we can only know it according to our own representational model of it, which to me, can only mean the reality for the known knower on the human level, can only be an A.I. experience, and never be known to us as it actually is, because how it actually is, is unknowable to the human mind.

That is not the implication though. Your brain constructs a model of reality based on a more-or-less continuous stream of "sensor readings." Whether or not the sensors have a margin of error, the readings are real data, pertaining to real experiences of the real reality.

If my sensors provide conflicting data, we can compare more datasets and see if either of our models is more accurate.

Certainly, there are degrees of accuracy involved in our individual understanding of reality, but that does not make it unknowable - it's just that the degree of precision with which you know something is not a constant.

For instance, Newtonian gravity is an inaccurate model of what gravity is and does when compared to Einsteinian, which in itself may be insufficient when compared to whatever-comes-next. It's more than good enough to enable us to make airplanes fly, though.

We only have our back stories to represent it, but memory is often wrong on reflection, reflection is a poor representation of what is always and ever this immediate presentation and never a representation.

There is such a thing as functionally good enough. Picture the following (The graph may not work as well on mobile screen - haven't tested)

Utterly false_______________________0________________1___2__Unequivocally true

If your model of something falls somewhere between 1 and 2, it is correct, even if not perfectly accurate.

It's not a matter of knowability - you can know whatever your sensor suite can pick up, and being crafty about it, you can probe the world your sensors were never designed for by using tools. I mentioned infrared cameras that allow you to see heat. Electron microscopes can let you see individual atoms. TV static can let you see and hear cosmic microwave background. You can know it - the rest is comparative. (As in, you can know it somewhere on the scale from "not at all" to "perfectly."

You have responded in great detail about the subject of apples, which I appreciate, but have to admit I am rather perplexed as to why apples became relevant to what I was originally responding to in the OP started by Tank. But I understand how topics can often go off on unexpected tangents.

Actually, it was me deliberately sticking to chosen example. you can substitute apples with children or laws or, for that matter, gods, and my position will remain consistent. I chose apples because an apple is "just a physical thing," which makes the associated explanation if not easier, then at least less esoteric to follow than if I stuck with "evidence," which is a matter of cause and effect. The same principles apply, they are just easier to visualise when its something visual.

I was speaking in the context relating to absence of evidence for a supernatural realm and the idea of a God existing without evidence. What can be read below..is what I want to discuss, more than the existence of apples.

Well, to put the last few walls of text into a sentence, it would be something like this: If you have looked and found no evidence of a thing, then there is not a thing. therefore, absence of evidence may indeed be the evidence of absence.

My aim was to address the post below. And to mention that all of what is being discussed here regarding the absence of a supernatural existence, or the idea that the absence of God is evidence of no God is all just basically a mental construct, showing up as and through the written word by the authors mind, in this case, Tanks mind.

It's all in good fun. I like deep-dives.

Here's the thing though, people who would usually throw "absence of this is not evidence of that" line tend to have certain common threads in their understanding of what makes a God. Knows about and interacts with the world, gives a rodent's bottom about you, so forth...

...To put it like this, absence of evidence of someone's specific god is not by itself the evidence of absence of gods as a species - or whatever they may or may not be. It is, however, the evidence of absence of that individual's God - or that individual God, even. That's where apples and dinner tables come from. What can I say, I'm convoluted.

My theory is that there is nothing outside of Tanks mind that has any obligation to exist or show up as evidence to prove it exists, as the entire content of what is being discussed here already does exist in Tanks mind. In other words without the projection screen of Tanks mind, where do these thoughts and ideas that can be put into words and read below, actually exist for real, except in the script contrived by Tanks mind?

You are of course correct in nothing having an obligation to anything. Obligations are a concept of conscious beings. The rest... Acts in certain ways which can sometimes be codified into what we refer to as the laws of nature. It's not because of those laws that, say, apples fall from apple trees, but rather, the laws are there because apples "predictably and invariably" do.

In any case, we've spent considerable effort addressing this point, so I'm not going too in-depth about it beyond re-stating that reality exists independent of good T's understanding thereof, and he has far more than his own dataset to compare when addressing most "everyday" dilemmas.

You could invoke probability, but then it would be worth remembering that you are teetering between "it doesn't exist ["as described" - throughout this sentence]" and "it absolutely doesn't exist," rather than between "it doesn't exist" and "it maybe-perhaps-might exist."

[Icarus]

Carry on gentle persons. You are digging deeply into the philosophic realm. I approve of exchanges of that sort.

[Me_Be]

Carry on gentle persons. You are digging deeply into the philosophic realm. I approve of exchanges of that sort.

Thank you Icarus. Nice name too.

''Icarus laughed as he fell. Threw his head back and yelled into the winds, arms spread wide, teeth bared to the world. (There is bitter triumph in crashing when you should be soaring.)''

Icarus, I'm happy you approve, why, because I had just been wondering whether the happy atheist corner of the internet could possibly have not been the right place to be expressing one's world views in a nondual philosophical context, so I apologise if it's not my place to do so here on this particular forum. However, if it's ok with you, then I'll carry on.     Thanks for dropping by.