Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Turtwig

That seems to be the biggest pile of utter crap I read in a while.
I'm still open to your idea but boy does it seem baloney!
Can you show the scientific evidence that confirms, or at least argues, these claims?

roosh

Malty_T wrote: »

That seems to be the biggest pile of utter crap I read in a while.
I'm still open to your idea but boy does it seem baloney!
Can you show the scientific evidence that confirms, or at least argues, these claims?

With regard to our body. Atomic and sub-atomic theories, including Quantum Theory will attest to the claim that what we perceive as our bodies is merely a subjective perception. What we perceive as our bodies is just the organisation of sub-atomic particles, which we view subjectively. So we are not our bodies, or at least what we perceive as our bodies. Including our brain, which itself is just a collection of sub-atomic particles, which we again, perceive subjectively.

Ironically what we use to perceive ourselves is a subjective perception of sub-atomic particles itself.

As for the mind, one would need to investigate to what degree they are identified with their thoughts. This can be done by assessing one's reaction to various situations, where anger, sadness, fear, etc. manifest.

The attachment one has to things is also an indication.

Turtwig

No, our minds are the result of neurons (and other similar cells) even if these are made up of little preformed mangarooshs it makes no difference because the functions they perform is creating our minds.

robindch

mangaroosh wrote: »

With this information, the question again is. Who/what is the "we", that is not capable of knowledge?

Reminds me of something Bill Clinton said during the Lewinsky gig ten years ago.

Bill Clinton wrote:

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the -- if he -- if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not -- that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

With regard to our body. Atomic and sub-atomic theories, including Quantum Theory will attest to the claim that what we perceive as our bodies is merely a subjective perception. What we perceive as our bodies is just the organisation of sub-atomic particles, which we view subjectively. So we are not our bodies, or at least what we perceive as our bodies. Including our brain, which itself is just a collection of sub-atomic particles, which we again, perceive subjectively.

As opposed to what exactly?

To me what you just describe is "our bodies".

What would you consider our bodies to actually be baring in mind that the entire universe is "just" sub-atomic particles.

mangaroosh wrote: »

As for the mind, one would need to investigate to what degree they are identified with their thoughts. This can be done by assessing one's reaction to various situations, where anger, sadness, fear, etc. manifest.

The attachment one has to things is also an indication.

How is that an indication that the mind is seperate to the brain? Can the brain not have attachments (keeping mind that we have already identified the area of the brain that actually deals with feelings of attachment and have been able to manipulate it)

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now, a number of things that have been established:

We are not our bodies. Scientific evidence highlights that what we perceive as our bodies is merely a subjective perception of reality.

I'll grant you this one. Everything we perceive is subjective.

mangaroosh wrote: »

This means that our brain too, the processing centre of our senses is merely a subjective perception, and is equally not who we are. So while our senses may indeed be fallible, the processing centre for them, is not necessarily who we are.

Also, we are not the content of our [ordinary] mind, or perhaps more pointedly, what we think our mind is, is not necessarily the true nature of our mind. Bearing in "mind" that, according to scientific evidence, our brain is not necessarily real, but rather a subjective perception.

We know that we exist, but we do not necessarily know what the nature of our existence is. We can determine what the nature of existence is not however, as established, it is not our bodies or what we perceive to be our minds.

With this information, the question again is. Who/what is the "we", that is not capable of knowledge?

I think we're getting closer to the point you're trying to make. You seem to be of the opinion that behind our fallible bodies, our fallible senses, our fallible brains and our fallible minds, there is some kind of true self that can overcome all of these fallibilities and perceive the universe as it truly is.

While this is a nice idea I have seen nothing to suggest that this is actually the case in the real world. All the scientific evidence seems to suggest that we are complicated biological machines and that everything we consider as our "self" is accomplished within the brain through electrical and chemical impulses. You're right when we say we're not our brains, our "self" is the software running on our brains the same way that an operating system runs on a computer. The computer is not completely defined by its hard drive, ram and input devices, it has extremely complicated software running on top of that that interprets the data from the input devices and can interact with the world through output devices but the way the computer perceives the world is limited by its input devices, it has no way to surpass them and "truly perceive the world" and I have never seen anything to suggest that humans can surpass their senses either. It would be nice to think we can but again, it seems to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

One thing that would indicate that we do have access to some kind of deeper knowledge and that we can truly perceive the world as it is, that we can truly perceive the true nature of god would be if many people independently of each other all arrived at exactly the same understanding of god but the last time I checked there were 33,820 denominations of christianity alone and millions of other perceptions of god throughout history so the idea that we have access to "knowledge" through a "self" that bypassess our fallible senses and truly perceives the world remains a nice idea with little grounding in reality

decisions

"It's in the Bible, it has to be true" (and the associated circle) to "All Catholics/Christians are atheists, since they do not believe in god x" or another favourite "The pope is infalliable in ALL things".

im an atheist but all that just sounds like this

/www.youtube.com/watch?v=0123R6vjIoE



dara dara dara:D:D:D

Sam Vimes

decisions wrote: »

"All Catholics/Christians are atheists, since they do not believe in god x"

I don't see why that's so annoying. Obviously they're not atheists in the normal sense but atheism is defined as lack of belief in god or gods and they have a lack of belief in thousands of gods. You'll often hear theists say they can't understand how anyone could not believe in god and use all kinds of ad hominem attacks like we're just doing it to be cool or whatever so it's perfectly valid to point out that there are many gods that they don't believe in.

decisions wrote: »

dara dara dara:D:D:D

Indeed

Morbert

<snipped some segments to avoid repetition>

mangaroosh wrote: »

We have agreed that something cannot be both subjective and objective at the same time, so the definitions need to be reconciled.

Well I've agreed that, under a given definition, something cannot be both objective and subjective. If we have two separate meanings then something can be.

The two meanings we have been considering:

1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
2 dependent on the mind for existence.

Either way, upon thinking about it further, I believe scientific theories qualify as objective under both definitions, for reasons I will mention later.

"dependent on the mind for existence" is a fairly rigid definition, and there doesn't appear to be much room for interpretation there, although, we can consider any possible interpretations.

"dependent on the personal characteristics of the mind", seems to be fairly straight forward too, but when examined it very much conforms to the definition of "dependent on the mind for existence", even with the qualifying adjective "personal" included.

I still believe the qualifying adjective is very important. Furthermore, my interpretation of the Webster definition is backed up by definition 1. of the OED, which explicitly mentions tastes, feelings, and opinions.

The issue however is, that the real number system doesn't exist in reality, i.e. it doesn't have any intrinsic existence of its own. In order for the real number system to exist, it is dependent on the human mind for existence, which makes it subjective under "definition 2".

So far, I agree.

Now, it may of course be agreed upon by all, as to what the properties of the real number system are, and it may appear to be free form personal bias, opinions etc., which makes it potentially objective by "definition 1".

The issue however is one of individuality, where each individual has their own [ordinary] mind - I refer to ordinary because the nature of mind is a separate discussion.

Now, as individuals have their own [ordinary] mind ("mind" from here on), every thought that they have is "dependent on the personal characteristics of the mind", or the mind of the individual that is. This would make the thoughts of any individual subjective, by "definition 1".

But these definitions do not pertain to particular individuals. A convention makes the real number system impersonal. 1+1=2 has a rigid structure that does not depend on personal taste. If I say some ice cream is nice, and you say some ice cream is horrible, we could be talking about the same ice-cream. If you say 1+1=2 and I say 1+1=1, then we cannot both be discussing the same construct, no matter what our personal tastes are. Indeed, many mathematicians toy around with number systems similar to the latter, and it in no way effects the standard real number system.

As mentioned, any thoughts I have are dependent on the personal characteristics of my mind, just as any thoughts you have are dependent on the personal characteristics of your mind - because we use our own personal minds to think.

But mathematics is impersonal and formal. i.e. it does not "concern or affect a particular person or his or her private life and personality". I think this is a fairly obvious point.

If we look again at the real number system, we can see that it doesn't have any intrinsic existence of its own, it exists solely in the human mind, or more to the point, in the mind of the individuals who are familiar with it. There may of course be consensus with regard to its properties, that confirms that each individual thinks the same thing when they think of the real number system.

Again, in complete agreement here.

They do appear to be fundamentally different alright, but perhaps under a different heading. With regard to subjectivity, they would both be subjective, because they are dependent on the mind for existence.

Yes, they depend on the mind for existence, but they do not concern "personal tastes, feeling, or opinions". This is the key point I am trying to make.

And in addition, in an attempt to make this exchange more meaningful, I put it to you that scientific theories, in a very important sense, are not subjective under both definitions 1 and 2. For even if the language of the theories depends on the mind for existence, the theories themselves suppose a behaviour of reality that doesn't depend on the mind for existence.

And as for the more general topic of "Can we know anything?". I would not use that phrase myself. Instead, I would ask if there is any way to formally know whether or not any statement about a mind-independent reality could be determined to be "necessarily true".

roosh

Malty_T wrote: »

No, our minds are the result of neurons (and other similar cells) even if these are made up of little preformed mangarooshs it makes no difference because the functions they perform is creating our minds.

There could be a separate debate about whether matter creates mind or mind creates matter, but we can avoid that, but the assumption that it is those physical processes that create the mind should be questioned on the basis that those physical processes are themselves just out perception.


However, with regard to the point above, understanding what [may] give rise to the mind, the physical processes and components, is one thing, understanding the nature of what they give rise to, is quite another.

To use Sam's analogy, while one may understand the hardware that runs the software, understanding the software is completely different.

Of course the analogy ends there, because there are fundamental differences between a computer and a human.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

As opposed to what exactly?

To me what you just describe is "our bodies".

What would you consider our bodies to actually be baring in mind that the entire universe is "just" sub-atomic particles.

Indeed, and what was described were also merely subjective perceptions of reality, themselves not necessarily real. So perceiving our bodies as such, is in itself a misperception.

Ultimately I don't think it is important, with regard to the overarching question on the existence of God, what our bodies are. It is sufficient to realise, that what we perceive ourselves to be, is not necessarily what we see with our eyes.

Wicknight wrote: »

How is that an indication that the mind is seperate to the brain? Can the brain not have attachments (keeping mind that we have already identified the area of the brain that actually deals with feelings of attachment and have been able to manipulate it)

Can you point me in the direction of some reading on that, because I would genuinely be interested in checking it out.

Bear in mind however, that the brain is just a subjective perception, but also, to use Sam's analogy again, understanding the CPU is not the same as understanding the Operating System. Indeed, we may be able to manipulate the hardware to give a certain output, but that doesn't mean that we understand how the software works.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'll grant you this one. Everything we perceive is subjective.

Luckily it isn't for you or I to grant anything. The truth remains true regardless of who know's it or believes it.

The arguments still stand however, that the only manner in which knowledge can be acquired is through personal experience. Perhaps the nature of the knowledge is up for debate, but if we assume the scientific principle of never knowing anything for sure and for certain, it remains that the only way of acquiring the kind of knowledge that science deals with, is still through personal experience.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think we're getting closer to the point you're trying to make. You seem to be of the opinion that behind our fallible bodies, our fallible senses, our fallible brains and our fallible minds, there is some kind of true self that can overcome all of these fallibilities and perceive the universe as it truly is.

Not quite.

While we are indeed capable of midperception, on the basis of our fallible senses, we are also capable of misperceiving our minds. In the same sense that people perceive themselves as having eyes, ears, toes, a brain, etc., which scientific discovery tells us is merely a "mis"perception of the reality of what we are made up of, we are also capable of misperceiving what our minds actually are.

On the basis of both misperceptions, our true self is what we actually are, as opposed to what we perceive ourselves to be. If we become aware of our misperceptions about ourself, and who/what we are, then we can have a better understanding of who/what we are.

It is not necessarily some form of "soul" (that appears to be described above), that resides in our bodies, and that is detached from it - bearing in mind that what we perceive as our bodies does not necessarily exist.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

While this is a nice idea I have seen nothing to suggest that this is actually the case in the real world. All the scientific evidence seems to suggest that we are complicated biological machines and that everything we consider as our "self" is accomplished within the brain through electrical and chemical impulses.

You're right when we say we're not our brains, our "self" is the software running on our brains the same way that an operating system runs on a computer. The computer is not completely defined by its hard drive, ram and input devices, it has extremely complicated software running on top of that

It is a very useful analogy actually, apologies for being to quick to dismiss it earlier.

The thing is, the complicated biological machines are themselves just a subjective perception, and while it may [or may not] be the case, that the mind and/or the "self" is accomplished through the "CPU" of the brain, understanding how the CPU works does not mean that we understand the software, which is itself something completely different. We may be able to figure out how to get the machine to execute certain functions, by manipulating the hardware, but understanding the software offers much more possibilities - especially if we learn how the software operates and how we can program it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

that interprets the data from the input devices and can interact with the world through output devices but the way the computer perceives the world is limited by its input devices, it has no way to surpass them and "truly perceive the world" and I have never seen anything to suggest that humans can surpass their senses either. It would be nice to think we can but again, it seems to me to be nothing more than wishful thinking.

There are obvious fundamental differences between the capabilities of a man made computer being able to "truly perceive the world" and the human mind. For example, consciousness and self-awareness are two of the major ones. The mind is also a fundamental difference that enables us to at least attempt to perceive the world around us.

While our senses may be fallible, that does not mean that they are always wrong, and if the mind is the "interpretation centre" for the senses, then understanding the true nature of the mind, can perhaps aid in identifying what exactly it is that is incorrect and correct. That is, understanding the software as opposed to the hardware, not that understanding the hardware is not important, but rather understanding both is better.

Spirituality is primarily concerned with understanding the nature of the mind, and doesn't necessarily need to have anything to do with God, and in most cases, actually tries to avoid the concept of God.

Ironically, the concept of God becomes unimportant in spirituality, rather what is important is understanding the nature of the mind and "the self", and the potential benefits that arise from the insights of practice.

It may be the case - and quite likely will be - that there comes a moment when one realises, "oh, that's what is meant by 'God', actually a better explanation would be.....". Again, ultimately it isn't that important.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

One thing that would indicate that we do have access to some kind of deeper knowledge and that we can truly perceive the world as it is, that we can truly perceive the true nature of god would be if many people independently of each other all arrived at exactly the same understanding of god but the last time I checked there were 33,820 denominations of christianity alone and millions of other perceptions of god throughout history so the idea that we have access to "knowledge" through a "self" that bypassess our fallible senses and truly perceives the world remains a nice idea with little grounding in reality

Just a couple of things. Firstly, don't confuse the different denominations of Christianity with different understandings of God, they are more likely just different interpretations of certain traditions, the God is the same for all of them, as is it the same God in Judaism and Islam.

The emboldened above is a non-sequitur. Our access to knowledge through our "true self" is not dependent on people arriving at a consensus on the existence or nature of God. Consensus may indeed be reached if we do have access to knowledge through our "true selves" - assuming people learn how to access that knowledge.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

our "self" is the software running on our brains the same way that an operating system runs on a computer

Just to return to an interesting point.

If we ask the question "who or what are you", what would your answer be?

use just the headings under which you would provide information, or use false information if desired, just to give and idea of how you would answer this question.

roosh

decisions wrote: »

"It's in the Bible, it has to be true" (and the associated circle) to "All Catholics/Christians are atheists, since they do not believe in god x" or another favourite "The pope is infalliable in ALL things".

im an atheist but all that just sounds like this

dara dara dara:D:D:D

Dara O'Briain is pure quality.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Well I've agreed that, under a given definition, something cannot be both objective and subjective. If we have two separate meanings then something can be.

The two meanings we have been considering:

1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
2 dependent on the mind for existence.

Indeed, if there are two separate meanings then something could be, but the question is ultimately, can something be objective and subjective at the same time. If objectivity precludes subjectivity, and vice versa, then the meaning of the one that permits both must surely be wrong.

The exploration of that one that permits both is therefore necessary.

Either way, upon thinking about it further, I believe scientific theories qualify as objective under both definitions, for reasons I will mention later.

Morbert wrote: »

I still believe the qualifying adjective is very important. Furthermore, my interpretation of the Webster definition is backed up by definition 1. of the OED, which explicitly mentions tastes, feelings, and opinions.

Indeed, the qualifying adjective is very important and has been considered so. Again, the interpretation of the Webster defintion together with the first OED definition, arguably creates a paradox. It has been this paradox that has been explored and the interpretation questioned.

That has been explored on the basis of the webster definition, and can be explored on the basis of the OED first definition.

Morbert wrote: »

But these definitions do not pertain to particular individuals. A convention makes the real number system impersonal. 1+1=2 has a rigid structure that does not depend on personal taste. If I say some ice cream is nice, and you say some ice cream is horrible, we could be talking about the same ice-cream. If you say 1+1=2 and I say 1+1=1, then we cannot both be discussing the same construct, no matter what our personal tastes are. Indeed, many mathematicians toy around with number systems similar to the latter, and it in no way effects the standard real number system.

As mentioned however, the real number system, unlike the ice cream, has no intrinsic existence of its own. In fact, it can only exist in the mind of each individual that "thinks it into existence". This then makes it a de facto personal opinion
on the bases that it is:
1 - "a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", in the sense that numbers do not exist in reality

2 - "the belief or view of people in general". The real number system does not exist in reality and is therefore only a belief held by people in general.

3 - it is the belief or view of one particular person, as it can only "exist" in the mind of the indivdual, and is therefore the belief of each individual.


It also qualifies as personal taste on the basis that it is:
2 - "the faculty of perceiving this". The real number system must be perceived in order to "exist".

Morbert wrote: »

But mathematics is impersonal and formal. i.e. it does not "concern or affect a particular person or his or her private life and personality". I think this is a fairly obvious point.

it does affect "a particular person" because in order for mathematics to "exist", it must be perceived by a particular person. You cannot perceive it for me, I cannot perceive it for you, everyone must perceive it for themselves and it is therefore dependent on each particualr person who perceives it.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, they depend on the mind for existence, but they do not concern "personal tastes, feeling, or opinions". This is the key point I am trying to make.

This is hopefully dealth with above, in that they do depend on personal taste and opinions.

Morbert wrote: »

And in addition, in an attempt to make this exchange more meaningful, I put it to you that scientific theories, in a very important sense, are not subjective under both definitions 1 and 2. For even if the language of the theories depends on the mind for existence, the theories themselves suppose a behaviour of reality that doesn't depend on the mind for existence.

Then it is the behaviour of reality that is objective, but the explanation of them that is subjective. The explanation and the behaviour, that is supposed or explained, are distinct from each other.

There is an interesting point however that rises from all of this, in the sense, that an explanation could potentially be so accurate as to be considered almost objective. It may perhaps be the basis under which "correct perception" could be understood.



And as for the more general topic of "Can we know anything?". I would not use that phrase myself. Instead, I would ask if there is any way to formally know whether or not any statement about a mind-independent reality could be determined to be "necessarily true".[/quote]

At the risk of sounding facetious, even though that is not my intention, I would again say that personal experience is the only possible way. Indeed, the scientific method is an excellent example of this I would say.

With regard to the concept of a "mind-independent reality", I would ask the question of what exactly is meant by that? There may perhaps be different understandings of what the mind is.

It is for this reason that I would contend that spiritual practice or indeed investigation, on the part of the individual, is necessary for furthering this understanding, and determining what is meant by mind, so as to make sense of the term "mind-independent reality".

Of course, the term spiritual practice/investigation, may itself need some clarification, as it may perhaps be confused with the already jaundiced view of religion. Spiritual practice is of course distinct from religion, and focuses largely on personal investigation of the nature of the mind. The Buddhist teachings/theories may perhaps be the best known of these.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

The arguments still stand however, that the only manner in which knowledge can be acquired is through personal experience.

No it doesn't stand. Nobody here is arguing that second hand information is as good as personal experience, we are arguing that personal experience still isn't perfect and it can never be. I have never seen anything to suggest that knowledge in the way you mean it can be acquired with or without personal experience.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just a couple of things. Firstly, don't confuse the different denominations of Christianity with different understandings of God, they are more likely just different interpretations of certain traditions, the God is the same for all of them, as is it the same God in Judaism and Islam.

If there is the slightest discrepancy between two people's understanding of god then at least one of them does not "know" god. God either sent an angel down to Mohamed or he didn't. Either the Jews or the muslims must be wrong and they might both be wrong

mangaroosh wrote: »

The emboldened above is a non-sequitur. Our access to knowledge through our "true self" is not dependent on people arriving at a consensus on the existence or nature of God. Consensus may indeed be reached if we do have access to knowledge through our "true selves" - assuming people learn how to access that knowledge.

The point I am making is not a non-sequitur, in fact it's the point made in your third sentence, that consensus can be reached if we really do have access to knowledge in the way you suggest. Interpretations of the supernatural vary widely across cultures and I have never seen any evidence of two people independently arriving at the same understanding of god which suggests that we don't have access to knowledge in this way or at least that it's extremely difficult to access it.

How do you propose to access this knowledge? Be specific please

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it doesn't stand. Nobody here is arguing that second hand information is as good as personal experience, we are arguing that personal experience still isn't perfect and it can never be. I have never seen anything to suggest that knowledge in the way you mean it can be acquired with or without personal experience.

The counter argument to that is that it is the interpretation of the experience that isn't perfect, hence the need to understand the nature of mind.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there is the slightest discrepancy between two people's understanding of god then at least one of them does not "know" god.

we could end up in a discussion over the meaning of the word understand, but I will try to use it in the manner that I think you mean it.

a person's understanding is not necessarily their explanation. someone may understand how to bake a loaf of bread, but they may not necessarily be able to, adequately, explain how to do it. While another person may be able to do both. This doesn't mean that one knows how to bake the bread and the other doesn't, it means that one is better able to explain than the other.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

God either sent an angel down to Mohamed or he didn't. Either the Jews or the muslims must be wrong and they might both be wrong

Indeed, they might both be wrong, or there may be Jewish people who believe this is true, or even Islamic people who question this. Of course, what each understands by both "God" and "angel" could affect how right or wrong either is.

The thing is though, that the existence of God is independent of any claims about God's actions, assuming that God is not passive.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The point I am making is not a non-sequitur, in fact it's the point made in your third sentence, that consensus can be reached if we really do have access to knowledge in the way you suggest.

The original point was a non-sequitur. The absence of consensus does not mean that access to knowledge doesn't exist.

Indeed consensus my perhaps be reached if that access to knowledge is explored. While the door may be there, it is up to the individual to go through it.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Interpretations of the supernatural vary widely across cultures and I have never seen any evidence of two people independently arriving at the same understanding of god which suggests that we don't have access to knowledge in this way or at least that it's extremely difficult to access it.

the emboldened was the non-sequitur referred to above, apologies, I may have incorrectly labelled it. However, the fact that consensus has not been reached may also suggest a whole host of other things, such as a lack of effort in trying to access this knowledge, lack of guidance, lack of diligence, lack of exposure to the methods [in the west].

However, with regard to the "true nature of mind", there is indeed consensus among buddhist teachings on that issue, which could perhaps be cross referenced with taoism.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

How do you propose to access this knowledge? Be specific please

Daily practice of meditation would be a good starter (and something I should do more of myself), also read some spititual literature, specifically related to the nature of mind. Buddhist teachings are perhaps the best known, although there are others, some more suited to different individuals, than others.



Just to return to the earlier question. If you were asked to describe who you are, how would you go about it?
just give headings or use false info. just to give a sample answer.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, and what was described were also merely subjective perceptions of reality, themselves not necessarily real. So perceiving our bodies as such, is in itself a misperception.

Not necessarily. There is a difference between saying we cannot determine if our perception of our bodies is accurate and saying that the perception of our bodies is inaccurate.

Which is what I meant by my "opposed to what" comment. You speak as if you have some how determined that our perception of our bodies is inaccurate, where I suspect that this is simply a leap in logic you have made based on realising that we cannot know if the preception of our bodies is accurate or not.

This comes back to knowing "truth" and the game of chess. We observe our bodies as something but we can never know if how we observe our bodies is 100% accurate, ie true.

But that isn't to say we can then assume it isn't. That is an equally unfounded jump in logic. For all we know the way we perceive our bodies is 100% accurate. We just can't tell.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Ultimately I don't think it is important, with regard to the overarching question on the existence of God, what our bodies are.

The specific question of what our bodies are isn't important but the over all realisation that we cannot know truth we can only build models of accuracy is very important to the question of God because so far no one has figured out how to build a testable model of God and thus it is very hard to say that we know anything about him or even if he exists.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Can you point me in the direction of some reading on that, because I would genuinely be interested in checking it out.

Will do my best, the maniuplate experiment was done on Horizon so I've yet to see the original paper it was based on. Here are some articles from Google about the study of love through brain scanners.

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=274
http://www.ramcconnell.com/hormonallove.pdf
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002802.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Bear in mind however, that the brain is just a subjective perception, but also, to use Sam's analogy again, understanding the CPU is not the same as understanding the Operating System. Indeed, we may be able to manipulate the hardware to give a certain output, but that doesn't mean that we understand how the software works.

That analogy doesn't quite hold because the brain is a neural network so in effect the hardware is the software.

But ultimately the question still holds, if you are saying it is a jump for these people to say that they have demonstrated that emotions such as love are directly tied into the physical brain how are you able to say that you have demonstrated that the mind exists independently?

If they are making a jump with a ton of evidence behind them are you not making a jump with no evidence behind you?

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

a person's understanding is not necessarily their explanation. someone may understand how to bake a loaf of bread, but they may not necessarily be able to, adequately, explain how to do it. While another person may be able to do both. This doesn't mean that one knows how to bake the bread and the other doesn't, it means that one is better able to explain than the other.

As Einstein said, if you can't explain something to a child you don't really understand it

mangaroosh wrote: »

The original point was a non-sequitur. The absence of consensus does not mean that access to knowledge doesn't exist.

Indeed consensus my perhaps be reached if that access to knowledge is explored. While the door may be there, it is up to the individual to go through it.

You misunderstand me. I don't mean that everyone has to independently reach the same understanding, just a few people. If even two people in the world completely independently of each other came to exactly the same understanding of god that would be evidence that it is possible to access such knowledge but I have never seen anything that suggests this is the case.

mangaroosh wrote: »

the emboldened was the non-sequitur referred to above, apologies, I may have incorrectly labelled it. However, the fact that consensus has not been reached may also suggest a whole host of other things, such as a lack of effort in trying to access this knowledge, lack of guidance, lack of diligence, lack of exposure to the methods [in the west].

Those are what I would call Ad-hoc hypotheses:

An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one’s belief or theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists. For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments

mangaroosh wrote: »

Daily practice of meditation would be a good starter (and something I should do more of myself), also read some spititual literature, specifically related to the nature of mind. Buddhist teachings are perhaps the best known, although there are others, some more suited to different individuals, than others.

Ah right, so now we're finally getting to the point: Buddhism and spirituality teachings. Bearing in mind that this is an atheism forum and we tend not to accept pseudo-science, mysticism, spirituality or theology, how likely is it do you think that we're going to accept the teachings of Buddhism as being true? Have they been through clinical trials for example?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Just to return to the earlier question. If you were asked to describe who you are, how would you go about it?

What's your point?

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

As Einstein said, if you can't explain something to a child you don't really understand it

Simplified, what we see isn't necessarily real.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You misunderstand me. I don't mean that everyone has to independently reach the same understanding, just a few people. If even two people in the world completely independently of each other came to exactly the same understanding of god that would be evidence that it is possible to access such knowledge but I have never seen anything that suggests this is the case.

Check out what Eckhart Tolle says about God in "the Power of Now" and what Sogyal Rinpoche say about God.

Also, check out what a great many spiritual teachers have all arrived at independently of each other.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Those are what I would call Ad-hoc hypotheses:

your own included of course

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ah right, so now we're finally getting to the point: Buddhism and spirituality teachings. Bearing in mind that this is an atheism forum and we tend not to accept pseudo-science, mysticism, spirituality or theology, how likely is it do you think that we're going to accept the teachings of Buddhism as being true? Have they been through clinical trials for example?

there is no intention to get anyone to accept anything. The points that have been made so far have been clear and rational, and have relied on logic.Regardless of whether one accepts any form of religion, spirituality, etc., the logic remains.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What's your point?

The point is somewhat dependent on your answer.

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

Not necessarily. There is a difference between saying we cannot determine if our perception of our bodies is accurate and saying that the perception of our bodies is inaccurate.

yep fair point, although there is a similar difference between saying that we cannot determine if our perception of our bodies [physical objects] is accurate and that we cannot know anything.

The nature of knowledge is not based on what we perceive with our eyes (with or without the aid of a microscope).

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is what I meant by my "opposed to what" comment. You speak as if you have some how determined that our perception of our bodies is inaccurate, where I suspect that this is simply a leap in logic you have made based on realising that we cannot know if the preception of our bodies is accurate or not.

with regard to having determined that our perception of our bodies is inaccurate, as was re-iterated, that was more with reference to what we see with our eyes - naked eyes was what was meant although I did erroneously extend that to further scientific discovery.

However the "leap in logic" with regard to the scientific discovery is based on the fact that we know that what we observe with our eyes - with or without technology - is incomplete. It is also based on the other potential perspectives that we are aware of.

Wicknight wrote: »

This comes back to knowing "truth" and the game of chess. We observe our bodies as something but we can never know if how we observe our bodies is 100% accurate, ie true.

There is a difference between not knowing whether or not a model is complete, and whether or not what the model is based on is accurate.

Again, however, there is an assumption that we can never know, based on the possibility that we can't know for sure now. It is also possible that if and when we do "observe the truth", that we will know for sure, with the implication that what we have currently observed is not 100% accurate.

Of course there is an assumption that we will be able to observe reality, that reality will be what we see with our eyes, when we are already aware that it is the mind that our sense of vision is interpreted.

But that isn't to say we can then assume it isn't. That is an equally unfounded jump in logic. For all we know the way we perceive our bodies is 100% accurate. We just can't tell.

Wicknight wrote: »

The specific question of what our bodies are isn't important but the over all realisation that we cannot know truth we can only build models of accuracy is very important to the question of God because so far no one has figured out how to build a testable model of God and thus it is very hard to say that we know anything about him or even if he exists.

Again, the concept of accuracy entirely dependent on the ability to know something. If nothing can be known then one thing cannot be said to be more accruate than the other.

With regard to the issue of a testable model of God, there are a number of clear spiritual experiments that one can undertake, to determine their accuracy.

Wicknight wrote: »

Will do my best, the maniuplate experiment was done on Horizon so I've yet to see the original paper it was based on. Here are some articles from Google about the study of love through brain scanners.

http://www.jyi.org/news/nb.php?id=274
http://www.ramcconnell.com/hormonallove.pdf
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002802.

Wicknight wrote: »

That analogy doesn't quite hold because the brain is a neural network so in effect the hardware is the software.

There are other shortcomings with the analogy, however it is useful for explaining a number of things.

We may of course perceive the brain as a neural network, but that is not necessarily what it is in reality, and indeed we might never know what it is, for the reasons you quite rightly mentioned above.

We can however explore the mind, which is the bedrock with regard to knowledge, so the issue of whether or not we can know anything is more a question of the mind, than of the body. The mind itself is not solely reliant on vision, or indeed the senses, despite the "fact" that it is the mind that interprets the input from them.

Wicknight wrote: »

But ultimately the question still holds, if you are saying it is a jump for these people to say that they have demonstrated that emotions such as love are directly tied into the physical brain how are you able to say that you have demonstrated that the mind exists independently?

If they are making a jump with a ton of evidence behind them are you not making a jump with no evidence behind you?

To use the analogy again. If I find a computer and cannot make out the letters on the keyboard, but after a while trashing around on it I manage to figure out the letters that type the word "mind". I will be able to identify these keys and even label them so I can find them again.

I can even take the computer apart and explore exactly what goes on inside the computer, when I hit the keys. The issue however is, that without the operating software, none of that would work.

Of course, someone else may have a better knowledge of the operating software, that can provide key insights to the overall operating of the computer.


As for the ton of evidence, there is a mountain of spiritual literature, in particular Buddhist literature, that all pertains to the mind, and that is accompanied with details on how to explore this for oneself.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

Indeed, if there are two separate meanings then something could be, but the question is ultimately, can something be objective and subjective at the same time. If objectivity precludes subjectivity, and vice versa, then the meaning of the one that permits both must surely be wrong.

The exploration of that one that permits both is therefore necessary.

Neither meaning permits both. The only way both are permitted is if we mix meanings. If we accept that "1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." and "2. dependent on the mind for existence" are different (which they clearly are), then we must qualify which meaning we are using.

As mentioned however, the real number system, unlike the ice cream, has no intrinsic existence of its own. In fact, it can only exist in the mind of each individual that "thinks it into existence". This then makes it a de facto personal opinion
on the bases that it is:
1 - "a view or judgement not necessarily based on fact or knowledge", in the sense that numbers do not exist in reality

2 - "the belief or view of people in general". The real number system does not exist in reality and is therefore only a belief held by people in general.

3 - it is the belief or view of one particular person, as it can only "exist" in the mind of the indivdual, and is therefore the belief of each individual.

It also qualifies as personal taste on the basis that it is:
2 - "the faculty of perceiving this". The real number system must be perceived in order to "exist".

But it isn't personal on the bases that it is not:

1 of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person. The real number system is studied by the world. Professors in Africa study the same assumptions that professors in Germany do.

2 involving the presence or action of a particular individual. A defining feature of mathematics is theorems are so impeccable, they can be verified by anyone willing to study the steps of reason. No particular individual needs to be considered.

3 concerning a person’s private rather than professional life.

4 making inappropriate or offensive reference to a person’s character or appearance.

5 relating to a person’s body. (These last three obviously don't apply.)

7 existing as a self-aware entity, not as an abstraction or an impersonal force. Mathematics is an abstraction.

Also, you're being contrived. Do you honestly believe you are interpreting the OED definition of taste correctly? Do you believe people taste mathematics? Also, tax policies depend on the mind for existence. They are not personal.

it does affect "a particular person" because in order for mathematics to "exist", it must be perceived by a particular person. You cannot perceive it for me, I cannot perceive it for you, everyone must perceive it for themselves and it is therefore dependent on each particualr person who perceives it.

This is irrelevent. The fact that maths can be perceived by any particular person does not make the real number system personal, as the real number system does not depend on personal taste, bias, or opinion of the subject in question.

The theorem "There exists no positive integers x and y such that x < y and x - y = a positive integer, where integers are defined as in 'Introduction to Real Analysis' by Robert G. Bartle and Donald R. Sherbert" is true for everyone, as it makes no reference to a particular bias or personal feeling.

---

Now, onto the important bit.

Then it is the behaviour of reality that is objective, but the explanation of them that is subjective. The explanation and the behaviour, that is supposed or explained, are distinct from each other.

Different explanations assert different behaviour. It is this objective behaviour that makes theories reputable. As mentioned before, the way a theory is explained is ultimately a matter of convenience.

At the risk of sounding facetious, even though that is not my intention, I would again say that personal experience is the only possible way. Indeed, the scientific method is an excellent example of this I would say.

And I agree that personal experience would be essential. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Personal experience itself is not free from scrutiny. Personal experience might simply be a representation of reality. Or it might be wholly unrelated to reality at all.

With regard to the concept of a "mind-independent reality", I would ask the question of what exactly is meant by that? There may perhaps be different understandings of what the mind is.

By "mind-inependent reality", I mean the reality that would persist if thoughts were subtracted.

It is for this reason that I would contend that spiritual practice or indeed investigation, on the part of the individual, is necessary for furthering this understanding, and determining what is meant by mind, so as to make sense of the term "mind-independent reality".

Of course, the term spiritual practice/investigation, may itself need some clarification, as it may perhaps be confused with the already jaundiced view of religion. Spiritual practice is of course distinct from religion, and focuses largely on personal investigation of the nature of the mind. The Buddhist teachings/theories may perhaps be the best known of these.

While such practises may be theraputic, I don't think they've made any real progress on what we can say is necessarily true.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Neither meaning permits both. The only way both are permitted is if we mix meanings. If we accept that "1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions." and "2. dependent on the mind for existence" are different (which they clearly are), then we must qualify which meaning we are using.

the issue is that proposition that you are arguing, something which is dependent on the mind for existence (and therefore subjective) could be deemed objective, based on an interpretation of #1.

This would mean that is is both objective and subjective.

However, when broken down, it is clear that #1 is in clear accordance with number #2.

Morbert wrote: »

But it isn't personal on the bases that it is not:

1 of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person. The real number system is studied by the world. Professors in Africa study the same assumptions that professors in Germany do.

Indeed, but it only exists in the mind of the individual. If I study the real number system, it "exists" in my mind, not in someone elses (unless they are thinking about it too). It is therefore of me and/or affecting a particular person - me (or whoever it is that is thinking about it). It could be argued that it belongs to that person, insofar as all an individuals thoughts belong to them.

The real number system does not have any inherent existence of its own. If no one thinks about it, then it does not exist, so it is entirely personal, because only individuals can thnink it for themselves

Morbert wrote: »

2 involving the presence or action of a particular individual. A defining feature of mathematics is theorems are so impeccable, they can be verified by anyone willing to study the steps of reason. No particular individual needs to be considered.

The real number system does not exist in reality and must be thought into existence. Indoviduals can only think for themselves, therefore it involves the action (thought) of a particular indivudual (the person who thinks about the real number system). The same goes for presence.

Morbert wrote: »

3 concerning a person’s private rather than professional life.

4 making inappropriate or offensive reference to a person’s character or appearance.

5 relating to a person’s body. (These last three obviously don't apply.)

agreed

Morbert wrote: »

7 existing as a self-aware entity, not as an abstraction or an impersonal force. Mathematics is an abstraction.

indeed, something that is dependent on the mind for existence and personal under all the other descriptions, and therefore subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

Also, you're being contrived. Do you honestly believe you are interpreting the OED definition of taste correctly? Do you believe people taste mathematics? Also, tax policies depend on the mind for existence. They are not personal.

That was somewhat contrived alright, but, to be honest, I didn't actually realise that taste actually meant that, but I'm willing to bow to the dictionary as the superior source.

However, it doesn't need to be according to personal taste, as it qualifies under opinion anyhow.

Tax policies would be subjective for the same reasons, and possibly more.

Morbert wrote: »

This is irrelevent. The fact that maths can be perceived by any particular person does not make the real number system personal, as the real number system does not depend on personal taste, bias, or opinion of the subject in question.

It's not so much that it can be perceived by a particular person, it is that it must be perceived by each individual, which makes it a de facto personal opinion, albeit an opinion that is in accord with consensus.

Morbert wrote: »

The theorem "There exists no positive integers x and y such that x < y and x - y = a positive integer, where integers are defined as in 'Introduction to Real Analysis' by Robert G. Bartle and Donald R. Sherbert" is true for everyone, as it makes no reference to a particular bias or personal feeling.

again, same reasoning. All of that must be "thought into existence" by each individual, which makes it a de facto personal opinion, dependent on personal charactersitics of the mind, and the two definitions of personal above.

---

Morbert wrote: »

Now, onto the important bit.

Different explanations assert different behaviour. It is this objective behaviour that makes theories reputable. As mentioned before, the way a theory is explained is ultimately a matter of convenience.

again, it is the behaviour that is objective, but the explanation that is subjective. The reputability of the theory has no bearing on subjectivity or objectivity.

Morbert wrote: »

And I agree that personal experience would be essential. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Personal experience itself is not free from scrutiny. Personal experience might simply be a representation of reality. Or it might be wholly unrelated to reality at all.

indeed, but it remains the only manner in which knowledge (if it is possible) can be acquired.

Morbert wrote: »

By "mind-inependent reality", I mean the reality that would persist if thoughts were subtracted.

While such practises may be theraputic, I don't think they've made any real progress on what we can say is necessarily true.

Spirituality - Buddhism specifically - deals particularly with this. Meditation is the practice of quieting the mind, so that thoughts are, not so much subtracted, but rather the intervals between thoughts are recognised and that occurnece deepened.

Indeed it helps with the practice of "removing" personal taste, opinions, biases, etc.

It is of course not only therapeutic, but remarkably insightful. If you haven't already then it may be interesting to look up some of the scientific research that has been done on Buddhist monks.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

The real number system does not exist in reality and must be thought into existence.

No it must not. The real number system is an objective property of our universe. 2 is greater than 1 because that's the way the universe is. We can decide on the symbols we use to represent these properties of the universe but we don't get to simply think a thought and make 2 less than 1. We could swap the symbols alright but we would just be changing the way we represent these properties of the universe. There are an infinite number of ways that the number 2 could be represented but it's always the same 2. Even if there was not a single mind in existence, if every living thing died today, 2 would still be greater than 1, there just wouldn't anyone alive to know that.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No it must not. The real number system is an objective property of our universe. 2 is greater than 1 because that's the way the universe is. We can decide on the symbols we use to represent these properties of the universe but we don't get to simply think a thought and make 2 less than 1. We could swap the symbols alright but we would just be changing the way we represent these properties of the universe. There are an infinite number of ways that the number 2 could be represented but it's always the same 2. Even if there was not a single mind in existence, if every living thing died today, 2 would still be greater than 1, there just wouldn't anyone alive to know that.

The real number system does not exist, so it cannot be an objective property of the universe.

Numbers are just concpets, there is no such thing as one, or two, etc. To designate something as bein one thing is simply a matter of opinion.

The universe isn't mathematical in nature, maths is one of our many attempts to rationalise what we observe.

If there were no living being in existence, then the notions of 1 and 2 would be meaningless. All things would just be as they are, and there would be no arbitrary separation of things into cateogories for the purpose of rationalisation.

liamw

I always saw mathematics as a human invention that models our universe objectively.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

If there were no living being in existence, then the notions of 1 and 2 would be meaningless. All things would just be as they are, and there would be no arbitrary separation of things into cateogories for the purpose of rationalisation.

If there were no living beings in existence there would be no notion of a rock but it would go on being a rock anyway. All that's missing is the notion

If aliens came up with a system to model the real numbers do you think it would be different to our model? Not just the symbols which would of course be different but the values and the significance of each symbol. As in could they devise a number system where 1+1=3 and would it be just as valid as ours?

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

the issue is that proposition that you are arguing, something which is dependent on the mind for existence (and therefore subjective) could be deemed objective, based on an interpretation of #1.

This would mean that is is both objective and subjective.

No it wouldn't. It would only be both objective and subjective if you conflate the meanings.

However, when broken down, it is clear that #1 is in clear accordance with number #2.

I have addressed this already. 1 implies 2 but 2 does not imply one.

Indeed, but it only exists in the mind of the individual. If I study the real number system, it "exists" in my mind, not in someone elses (unless they are thinking about it too). It is therefore of me and/or affecting a particular person - me (or whoever it is that is thinking about it). It could be argued that it belongs to that person, insofar as all an individuals thoughts belong to them.

The real number system does not have any inherent existence of its own. If no one thinks about it, then it does not exist, so it is entirely personal, because only individuals can thnink it for themselves

You are now just asserting it is personal without any reference to why it is personal. So once again, two people, with the same axioms, will not arrive at different, contradictory theorems regardless of their pesonal tastes, opinions, or biases. The theorems of real analysis do not depend on any personal quality to be true.

The real number system does not exist in reality and must be thought into existence. Indoviduals can only think for themselves, therefore it involves the action (thought) of a particular indivudual (the person who thinks about the real number system). The same goes for presence.

This is a non-sequitur. The claim that mathematics is influenced by the personal bias or opinion or taste of a particular individual does not follow from the fact that mathematics is the study of formal systems supposed by people.

That was somewhat contrived alright, but, to be honest, I didn't actually realise that taste actually meant that, but I'm willing to bow to the dictionary as the superior source.

But that isn't what it means. The dictionary was not talking about perception in general. To be honest I am not impressed with the terseness of the OED online dictionary. My unabridged webster dictionary (hard copy) goes into much more detail.

However, it doesn't need to be according to personal taste, as it qualifies under opinion anyhow.

No it doesn't. It is not a personal opinion, for example, that f(x) = 3 is defined for all x under the real number system.

Tax policies would be subjective for the same reasons, and possibly more.

Tax policies are not subjective. Your personal opinion of them is.

It's not so much that it can be perceived by a particular person, it is that it must be perceived by each individual, which makes it a de facto personal opinion, albeit an opinion that is in accord with consensus.

This would make every claim ever made by anyone subjective.

---

again, it is the behaviour that is objective, but the explanation that is subjective. The reputability of the theory has no bearing on subjectivity or objectivity.

Yes it does. If a theory is reputable then it has been found to accurately predict objective behaviour. The personal language you use to convey the theory has no bearing on the theory itself. Again, I think you're confusing versimilitude (is a theory necessarily true) with objectivity (the theory passes the same tests for everyone).

Spirituality - Buddhism specifically - deals particularly with this. Meditation is the practice of quieting the mind, so that thoughts are, not so much subtracted, but rather the intervals between thoughts are recognised and that occurnece deepened.

Indeed it helps with the practice of "removing" personal taste, opinions, biases, etc.

It is of course not only therapeutic, but remarkably insightful. If you haven't already then it may be interesting to look up some of the scientific research that has been done on Buddhist monks.

How has it been shown that the practise of quieting the mind helps us discern what is necessarily true?

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If there were no living beings in existence there would be no notion of a rock but it would go on being a rock anyway. All that's missing is the notion

that's because a rock has its own inherent existence and isn't a thought system.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If aliens came up with a system to model the real numbers do you think it would be different to our model? Not just the symbols which would of course be different but the values and the significance of each symbol. As in could they devise a number system where 1+1=3 and would it be just as valid as ours?

---

robindch

mangaroosh wrote: »

that's because a rock has its own inherent existence and isn't a thought system.

How do you know that?

We simply don't have the tools to figure out if a horse is conscious, let alone a rock.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

---

I don't understand. Could aliens define a number system where 1+1=3?

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

No it wouldn't. It would only be both objective and subjective if you conflate the meanings.

If we take the real number system.

It is being argued that it is not based on personal opinion, taste, bias, etc. This would make it objective.

However, it is dependent on the mind for existence. This would make it subjective.


It isn't a case of apply one definition to it, as both definitions would apply equally, making it both subjective and objective simultaneously. Therefore, if this position is not "allowable" one of the definitions must be either wrong, or interpreted incorrectly.

Morbert wrote: »

I have addressed this already. 1 implies 2 but 2 does not imply one.

The issue is that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. qualify as subjective under both. When 1 is broken down, it is clear that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. are basically personal opinions, because they exist only as thoughts.

An individuals own thoughts are personal, and all words exist as thoughts and all words, symbols, etc. are merely opinions, this makes them de facto personal opinions.

Therefore their use for anythign makes whatever it is they are used for, subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

You are now just asserting it is personal without any reference to why it is personal.

Just to re-iterate

The issue is that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. qualify as subjective under both. When 1 is broken down, it is clear that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. are basically personal opinions, because they exist only as thoughts.

An individuals own thoughts are personal, and all words exist as thoughts and all words, symbols, etc. are merely opinions, this makes them de facto personal opinions.

Morbert wrote: »

So once again, two people, with the same axioms, will not arrive at different, contradictory theorems regardless of their pesonal tastes, opinions, or biases. The theorems of real analysis do not depend on any personal quality to be true.

Two people can share the same opinion, and in the case of mathematics, words, etc. they may share the same opinion as to what the symbols and numbers mean.

Again, an individuals thoughts are personal, numbers, symbols, etc. only exist as thoughts, and they are de facto opinions, this makes them, and anything that uses them, subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

This is a non-sequitur. The claim that mathematics is influenced by the personal bias or opinion or taste of a particular individual does not follow from the fact that mathematics is the study of formal systems supposed by people.

Again, the numbers, words, symbols that are used in mathematics only exist as thoughts, and an individuals thoughts are personal. The symbols etc. are just opinions, albeit the shared opinion or consensus of many. Therefore, they and anything that uses them are based on personal opinions, even if everyone has the same opinion about them.

Morbert wrote: »

But that isn't what it means. The dictionary was not talking about perception in general. To be honest I am not impressed with the terseness of the OED online dictionary. My unabridged webster dictionary (hard copy) goes into much more detail.

Indeed, that is why it is useful to cross reference it with a hard-copy OED (not sure what they call the big fat, A4 ones). Whatever other definitions are there we can explore them to see if they are applicable, or contradictory.

Morbert wrote: »

No it doesn't. It is not a personal opinion, for example, that f(x) = 3 is defined for all x under the real number system.

f,(, ), x, = and 3 are all opinions. They may be the shared opinions of the vast majority, but they are opinions nonetheless.

Also, they only exist as thoughts, and individual can only think for themselves, which makes their thoughts personal.

That makes all the aforementioned symbols, and all the others, de facto personal opinions.

Morbert wrote: »

Tax policies are not subjective. Your personal opinion of them is.

Both are, tax policies for the same reasons as above.

Morbert wrote: »

This would make every claim ever made by anyone subjective.

Yep, all claims are subjective, although they may be based on objective knowledge.

Again, the "claim" about Gravity is subjective, but Gravity and our experience of it is objective.

The claim/theory are separate from the experience/thing itself.

---

Morbert wrote: »

Yes it does. If a theory is reputable then it has been found to accurately predict objective behaviour.

again, it is the [experience of the] behaviour that is objective, but the rationalisation/explanation of it, that is subjective, for the reasons mentioned above.

Bear in mind that an experience does not necessarily have to be rationalised, one does not have to come up with a theory to explain everything. that is a personal choice.

Morbert wrote: »

The personal language you use to convey the theory has no bearing on the theory itself.

the theory is completely dependent on the words, without the words there is no theory.

This is where the nature of words comes into it, where the words themselves are used to refer to something real or observed, and without the "object" they are ultimately meaningless. Indeed, the words themselves are not the things to which they rever. As mentioned, the word Gravity, and indeed the theory of Gravity, are not Gravity itself.

The thing to which the words refer (or the experiece of them) is objective, while the words themselves are subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, I think you're confusing versimilitude (is a theory necessarily true) with objectivity (the theory passes the same tests for everyone).

There may be a potential overlap, but to be honest I don't think I have it in me to explore that one, but it is definitely subjectivity and objectivity that was being discussed.

Morbert wrote: »

How has it been shown that the practise of quieting the mind helps us discern what is necessarily true?

I'll refrain from re-asserting the position from the outset, and not simply say it has been shown through personal expericnce.

However, if one is looking for evidence to support the claims of Buddhist practice to knowledge of the mind, then it might be worth checking out some of the research[/quote] that has been conducted on Buddhist monks. Also worth checking out, are some videos on "self-immolation".

Of course, just to re-iterate, there is no substitute for personal experience.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't understand. Could aliens define a number system where 1+1=3?

sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a discussion on whether aliens could define the above number system is where it is for me.

roosh

robindch wrote: »

How do you know that?

We simply don't have the tools to figure out if a horse is conscious, let alone a rock.

the response was based on the assumption of the rocks existence, from the post that was replied to.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

sorry, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and a discussion on whether aliens could define the above number system is where it is for me.

It's a very important question. You don't have to think of it in terms of aliens, maybe even a remote tribe that had never seen other humans. Could they have defined a number system where 1+1=3 and if not why not?

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Could they have defined a number system where 1+1=3 and if not why not?

Allow me.

If you define an arithmetic in which the operator '+' means 'add the following denary number twice', then your statement is valid, assuming all other symbols have their usual meaning.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we take the real number system.

It is being argued that it is not based on personal opinion, taste, bias, etc. This would make it objective.

However, it is dependent on the mind for existence. This would make it subjective.


It isn't a case of apply one definition to it, as both definitions would apply equally, making it both subjective and objective simultaneously. Therefore, if this position is not "allowable" one of the definitions must be either wrong, or interpreted incorrectly.

Well the majority of literature I have come across favours the interpretation I have tendered. Also, consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

The issue is that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. qualify as subjective under both. When 1 is broken down, it is clear that all words, symbols, numbers, etc. are basically personal opinions, because they exist only as thoughts.

An individuals own thoughts are personal, and all words exist as thoughts and all words, symbols, etc. are merely opinions, this makes them de facto personal opinions.

Therefore their use for anythign makes whatever it is they are used for, subjective.

Mathematics is not words, symbols, and numbers. It is the exploration of formal systems. Axioms and inference rules might be arbitrarily defined by any individual, but the theorems of those axioms and inference rules are not. They cannot vary from individual to individual.

Two people can share the same opinion, and in the case of mathematics, words, etc. they may share the same opinion as to what the symbols and numbers mean

See above

Again, an individuals thoughts are personal, numbers, symbols, etc. only exist as thoughts, and they are de facto opinions, this makes them, and anything that uses them, subjective.

See above

Again, the numbers, words, symbols that are used in mathematics only exist as thoughts, and an individuals thoughts are personal. The symbols etc. are just opinions, albeit the shared opinion or consensus of many. Therefore, they and anything that uses them are based on personal opinions, even if everyone has the same opinion about them.

See above

f,(, ), x, = and 3 are all opinions. They may be the shared opinions of the vast majority, but they are opinions nonetheless.

Again, the consequences of those opinions, however, do not change from person to person. It is the subtle difference between what is necessarily true and what is true according to axioms. What follows from axioms and inference rules, once they are defined, can never be influenced by personal opinion, taste, or feelings. This is the nature of mathematics.

<snipped repetition>

Yep, all claims are subjective, although they may be based on objective knowledge.

Again, the "claim" about Gravity is subjective, but Gravity and our experience of it is objective.

So what do people mean by the phrase "objective journalsim"?

the theory is completely dependent on the words, without the words there is no theory.

This is where the nature of words comes into it, where the words themselves are used to refer to something real or observed, and without the "object" they are ultimately meaningless. Indeed, the words themselves are not the things to which they rever. As mentioned, the word Gravity, and indeed the theory of Gravity, are not Gravity itself.

Do you accept that the theory, even if it can be said to depend on words for practical reasons, is not the words themselves. F=dp/dt and F=ma are both identical laws, for example.

I'll refrain from re-asserting the position from the outset, and not simply say it has been shown through personal expericnce.

Yes, because that would be circular reasoning. If we are assessing the validity of personal experience, then personal experience cannot be used to confirm that validity.

However, if one is looking for evidence to support the claims of Buddhist practice to knowledge of the mind, then it might be worth checking out some of the research that has been conducted on Buddhist monks. Also worth checking out, are some videos on "self-immolation".

Of course, just to re-iterate, there is no substitute for personal experience.

Well I think that link shows that such monks are no close than any of us to answering the question.

Naz_st

mangaroosh wrote: »

If we take the real number system.

It is being argued that it is not based on personal opinion, taste, bias, etc. This would make it objective.

However, it is dependent on the mind for existence. This would make it subjective.

No.

Mathematics is one of the few areas where we have definite objective knowledge of universal truths, where "proof" is a viable concept. There is nothing subjective about it. The real number system is objective. It does not require a "mind for existence" [incidentally, I would interpret the somewhat unhelpful OED's definition of "requiring the mind for existence" as meaning "based on personal opinion" anyway, i.e. "based on the personal opinion of the mind that is interpreting it"]. Regardless, whether we humans or any other intelligent life existed on Earth or not, in this solar system there would still be 1 moon orbiting around the 3rd planet of one star that converts 120 million tons of hydrogen into helium ovey 60 seconds.

robindch wrote: »

Allow me.

If you define an arithmetic in which the operator '+' means 'add the following denary number twice', then your statement is valid, assuming all other symbols have their usual meaning.

True, but ignoring the symbol used, the mathematical operation of addition on the set of real numbers still remains objectively true:
1 {symbol denoting the operation addition} 1 = 2

robindch

Naz_st wrote: »

True, but ignoring the symbol used, the mathematical operation of addition on the set of real numbers still remains objectively true: 1 {symbol denoting the operation addition} 1 = 2

Er, no. You're just playing with symbols and there's no truth inherent within them any more than there is in a fly's foot.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Er, no. You're just playing with symbols and there's no truth inherent within them any more than there is in a fly's foot.

Then again, if you are going to play with the symbol + to give it a different meaning, you might as well play with the symbol = to give it a different meaning too.

So 1+1=3 will still be false (where + means sneaking in an extra number and where = means not equal to).

Then again, you can change the meaning of the word 'false' to make it mean 'true'. In that case you could argue that 1+1=3 is not false.

Naz_st

robindch wrote: »

Er, no. You're just playing with symbols and there's no truth inherent within them any more than there is in a fly's foot.

Addition is a mathematical operation - it doesn't matter what symbols you use, the underlying concept remains the same:

Wikipedia wrote:

As a mathematical operation, addition follows several important patterns. It is commutative, meaning that order does not matter, and it is associative, meaning that when one adds more than two numbers, order in which addition is performed does not matter (see Summation). Repeated addition of 1 is the same as counting; addition of 0 does not change a number. Addition also obeys predictable rules concerning related operations such as subtraction and multiplication. All of these rules can be proven, starting with the addition of natural numbers and generalizing up through the real numbers and beyond. General binary operations that continue these patterns are studied in abstract algebra.

Wikipedia wrote:

There are also situations where addition is "understood" even though no symbol appears:

e.g:

A column of numbers, with the last number in the column underlined, usually indicates that the numbers in the column are to be added, with the sum written below the underlined number.

A whole number followed immediately by a fraction indicates the sum of the two, called a mixed number.[2] For example,
3½ = 3 + ½ = 3.5.

Symbols are used to denote concepts, the underlying concept doesn't change if you replace the symbol with a different symbol.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

In that case you could argue that 1+1=3 is not false.

Yep, quite true.

Or false. Depending on your perspective.

Morbert

Regarding the truth of mathematics, I think Penrose has described it best. He talks of a platonic sense of existence, where theorems follow from axioms and rules regardless of whether or not such axioms have been explored by people.

So axioms of a formal system depend on the mind for existence, and do not have a platonic existence. The validity of theorems which follow from axioms however, does have a platonic existence, and proofs of these theorems do not depend on perspective.

So the meanings of '1' '+' '=' etc. are arbitrary, but "1+2=3" would follow from the axioms and definitions of the real number system no matter who you are.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's a very important question. You don't have to think of it in terms of aliens, maybe even a remote tribe that had never seen other humans. Could they have defined a number system where 1+1=3 and if not why not?

There are a number of issues with the question.

Firstly, the parameters are such that the answer is implied.

Secondly, there is an assumption that the aliens or tribe would actually come up with a number system in the first place.

Thirdly, that consensus (between us and the aliens/tribe) would make the number system objective.



The discussion on the number system might be better served, by discussing the nature of numbers and how they are based on an arbitrary , selective perception.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Regarding the truth of mathematics, I think Penrose has described it best. He talks of a platonic sense of existence, where theorems follow from axioms and rules regardless of whether or not such axioms have been explored by people.

So axioms of a formal system depend on the mind for existence, and do not have a platonic existence. The validity of theorems which follow from axioms however, does have a platonic existence, and proofs of these theorems do not depend on perspective.

So the meanings of '1' '+' '=' etc. are arbitrary, but "1+2=3" would follow from the axioms and definitions of the real number system no matter who you are.

pardon my ignorance (and forgive me if it sounds like a stupid question) but could you clarify what the axioms of the real number system are, and does the real number system fall under the heading of "a formal system".

to attempt to answer however, "1+2=3" exists only as a thought and does not exist in reality.

the designation of anything as a singular item, is entirely based on perspective, as the items do not have to be designated, they simply exist.

The same can be said for the designation of anything in two's or three's.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

Well the majority of literature I have come across favours the interpretation I have tendered. Also, consider the Merriam-Webster online dictionary.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

These could be food for an interesting discussion, so if you want to detail the ones which support your proposition, we can explore them further.

One which I found particularly interesting was with regard to the MW definition of 'subject', which is heavily relied upon for the definition of subjective, was

2c the mind, ego, or agent of whatever sort that sustains or assumes the form of thought or consciousness

Interestingly, spirituality is concerned primarily and overarchingly with the exploration of all of the abover phenomena.

Buddhist "philosophy" or [in the scientific sense] "theories" are fairly well established on these topics.

Morbert wrote: »

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

With regard to objectivity,

1b phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers

The underlined above supports the contention that experience compatible with objectivity.

The underlined could easily be mistaken as a description of meditation, Buddhist or otherwise.

Morbert wrote: »

Mathematics is not words, symbols, and numbers. It is the exploration of formal systems. Axioms and inference rules might be arbitrarily defined by any individual, but the theorems of those axioms and inference rules are not. They cannot vary from individual to individual.

They only exist in the mind of the individual however. While everyone may be able to think of the same theorem, each must do it using their own mind.

Morbert wrote: »

Again, the consequences of those opinions, however, do not change from person to person. It is the subtle difference between what is necessarily true and what is true according to axioms. What follows from axioms and inference rules, once they are defined, can never be influenced by personal opinion, taste, or feelings. This is the nature of mathematics.

<snipped repetition>

whether or not the consequences change from indiviudal to individual is not relevant to the issue of subjectivity or objectivity, as opinions can be shared i.e. everyone may have a personal opinion that is the same as everyone elses.

Morbert wrote: »

So what do people mean by the phrase "objective journalsim"?

It may be best to ask them, then to ask them if they know what the word objective means, and what the word journalism actually means.

Morbert wrote: »

Do you accept that the theory, even if it can be said to depend on words for practical reasons, is not the words themselves. F=dp/dt and F=ma are both identical laws, for example.

A theory is the words themselves, it is the phenomenon or law that is not the words.

the above equations (for Newton's laws of motion is it - according to a basic google search) would be the theory and would be "the words themselves". It is the actual laws of motion that are not the words themselves.

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, because that would be circular reasoning. If we are assessing the validity of personal experience, then personal experience cannot be used to confirm that validity.

The question was how has quiteing the mind been shown to lead to the truth, to say that it has been shown through personal experience would not be circular reasoning, because personal experience represents the manner in which it has been shown to lead to the truth.

Indeed, personal experience is not a form of reasoning, rather a practical means by which one can either confirm or deny a hypothesis.

The condition could be added, to say that, if there is an objective reality, then personal experience is the only way in which it can be known, for the reasons outlined above.

Morbert wrote: »

Well I think that link shows that such monks are no close than any of us to answering the question.

What it also shows is their practical ability to use the mind, based on their training in the Buddhist teachings. That coupled with the fact that Buddhist monks are scinetifically proven to be happier, again, due to their practice, is further evidence on their credentials when it comes to knowledge of the mind.