Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?
Comments
-
No one ever said it was. Indoctrination takes many forms
It may take many forms, but it's root cause is quite possibly the same.It depends on what you mean by acceptable. People are free to believe whatever the hell they want, the problem only comes in when people want their personal subjective views to be given weight in public discourse. An example would be that in negotiations between Ireland and England, the belief that England (or Ireland) is self evidently superior has no place at the negotiating table.
Acceptable is meant in the sense where one person deems their own particular delusion to be allowable, while taking issue with another's. Where the consequences of ones own delusion are deemed, by the person themselves, as less harmful than the consequences of someone elses delusional belief.
It may be deemed delusional to believe that one country is indeed better than another, but that delusion is only a consequence of the primary delusion that either country exists in reality. If examined furhter, it becomes clear that belief that any country exists in reality, is delusional, as all countries are little more than concepts, that are widely accepted as being true, and defended as though they are reality.Similarly, if you want to believe you have experienced god that's great for you but if you want someone else to take that claim seriously you're going to have to produce evidence. And saying that the experience of god does not lend itself to providing evidence and must be experienced does not negate that requirement
The issue is not necessarily whether or nor someone can verify [my] "claim", seeing as how no such claim has been made, rather assumed, but the acquisition of knowledge, and how one can acquire knowledge.
Also, the issue of the nature of that knowledge whether it be reality or information is up for debate.
We can explore how the existence of anything is not verifiable by evidence, but rather is entirely axiomatic, insofar as its existence can only be verified by the thing itself, through direct experience of it. The only evidence of reality, is reality itself.
We can also explore how "evidence" actually serves to deepend delusions, and keep from direct experience of reality.Indeed. So really it's best not to go down the road of though police. What you deem delusional is not necessarily so either
We can rationally explore certain claims that are potentially delusional, and perhaps rule them in or out, and at the very worst potentially get a better understanding of reality.Indeed. And the only way to do that is through research and repeatable experiments
and the only way to know that the results of those experiments are true is to do them for oneself. Otherwise, to accept someone elses findings is to believe on the basis of faith.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »It may take many forms, but it's root cause is quite possibly the same.
Acceptable is meant in the sense where one person deems their own particular delusion to be allowable, while taking issue with another's. Where the consequences of ones own delusion are deemed, by the person themselves, as less harmful than the consequences of someone elses delusional belief.
It may be deemed delusional to believe that one country is indeed better than another, but that delusion is only a consequence of the primary delusion that either country exists in reality. If examined furhter, it becomes clear that belief that any country exists in reality, is delusional, as all countries are little more than concepts, that are widely accepted as being true, and defended as though they are reality.
The issue is not necessarily whether or nor someone can verify [my] "claim", seeing as how no such claim has been made, rather assumed, but the acquisition of knowledge, and how one can acquire knowledge.
Also, the issue of the nature of that knowledge whether it be reality or information is up for debate.
We can explore how the existence of anything is not verifiable by evidence, but rather is entirely axiomatic, insofar as its existence can only be verified by the thing itself, through direct experience of it. The only evidence of reality, is reality itself.
We can also explore how "evidence" actually serves to deepend delusions, and keep from direct experience of reality.
We can rationally explore certain claims that are potentially delusional, and perhaps rule them in or out, and at the very worst potentially get a better understanding of reality.
and the only way to know that the results of those experiments are true is to do them for oneself. Otherwise, to accept someone elses findings is to believe on the basis of faith.
Sorry mate you've gone back into the whole existential thing of personal experience being the bees knees as long as you're really really sure that you're right and I really have no interest in having that debate again0 -
Sorry mate you've gone back into the whole existential thing of personal experience being the bees knees as long as you're really really sure that you're right and I really have no interest in having that debate again
The comments made were in direct response to your points. If the conversation was headed back in that direction, it wasn't me that was leading it that way. I have no problem re-iterating my view point, though.
The issue of delusions however is a separate point, that can be explored without reference to the need for repeatable experiment, which will lead us back to the issue of personal experience.
Instead we can look at how evidence can be provided to support a delusion, but how reality is axiomatic, and can only be known once delusions are dispelled.
For example, if one were asked to provide evidence to support their claim that the country of the USA exists, they could no doubt find ample evidence to support this claim.
However, the USA does not actually exist in reality, it is merely a concept that is widely accepted as being true and indeed is defended militarily. This concept itself has spawned an entire culture and a belief in the reality of the country that is little more than a collective delusion.
However, in order to prove that the USA does not exists as anything other than a concept, one cannot provide any "externally verifiable evidence".
This highlights the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence"0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »The issue of delusions however is a separate point, that can be explored without reference to the need for repeatable experiment, which will lead us back to the issue of personal experience.
Instead we can look at how evidence can be provided to support a delusion, but how reality is axiomatic, and can only be known once delusions are dispelled.
For example, if one were asked to provide evidence to support their claim that the country of the USA exists, they could no doubt find ample evidence to support this claim.
However, the USA does not actually exist in reality, it is merely a concept that is widely accepted as being true and indeed is defended militarily. This concept itself has spawned an entire culture and a belief in the reality of the country that is little more than a collective delusion.
However, in order to prove that the USA does not exists as anything other than a concept, one cannot provide any "externally verifiable evidence".
This highlights the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence"
Yup, still flying in the face of everything we've learned since the dawn of reason and following a philosophy that would still have us living in caves. Sorry mate I'd have a mountain to climb to try to convince someone who thinks that looking at something once is better than testing the sh!t out of it in a million different ways as long as the person doing the looking thinks they're really great at looking at things, and I don't have the time to try to change someone's entire world view, especially one so at odds with reality0 -
Yup, still flying in the face of everything we've learned since the dawn of reason and following a philosophy that would still have us living in caves. Sorry mate I'd have a mountain to climb to try to convince someone who thinks that looking at something once is better than testing the sh!t out of it in a million different ways as long as the person doing the looking thinks they're really great at looking at things, and I don't have the time to try to change someone's entire world view, especially one so at odds with reality
Not so much flying in the face of everything we've learned, rather being willing to question the assumptions of what we have been taught, or should I say what we have been indoctrinated into. If you deem some delusions as being acceptible to you, while others aren't then you are just as guilty of those you chastise.
As for climbing your mountain, I would suggest not accepting everything that you read, because you have faith in it, but rather question the basic assumptions upon which it is based, and find it out for yourself. When baisc reasoning highlights certain flaws, then don't discard your entire world view, but investigate it.
As for being at odds with reality, it may be at odds with your perception of reality or indeed a widely accepted and unquestioned perception of "reality", but perception of reality, and reality are two completely different things.0 -
Advertisement
-
That is one magnificent, textbook-level Category Error.mangaroosh wrote: »For example, if one were asked to provide evidence to support their claim that the country of the USA exists, they could no doubt find ample evidence to support this claim. However, the USA does not actually exist in reality, it is merely a concept that is widely accepted as being true and indeed is defended militarily.0 -
That is one magnificent, textbook-level Category Error.
almost.
the same could be said of a country, except that a country is not defined by the buildings, people, banks, institutions that it contains, rather by its borders. A country may be empty of any such things, but still be classed as a country, purely by an agreement on where its imaginary borders lie, or where a "country" aggressively defends its "borders".0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »Not so much flying in the face of everything we've learned, rather being willing to question the assumptions of what we have been taught, or should I say what we have been indoctrinated into. If you deem some delusions as being acceptible to you, while others aren't then you are just as guilty of those you chastise.
Questioning assumptions is to be commended but honestly, you've gone way too far. Sometimes, just sometimes, something written down in a book might just be right and very very occasionally, someone can be totally sure that they experienced something and still be wrong.0 -
There's nothing "almost" about itmangaroosh wrote: »almost. the same could be said of a country, except that a country is not defined by the buildings, people, banks, institutions that it contains, rather by its borders.
You're trying to apply the rules of physical reality in the domain of political or definitional reality.
That's really not going to work.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »However, in order to prove that the USA does not exists as anything other than a concept, one cannot provide any "externally verifiable evidence".
This highlights the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence"
No it doesn't, it highlights the problem of proving a negative.
External verifiable evidence is great, but there is no point applying it to a question that is unanswerable.
BTW does someone want to fill me in on what the hell this thread is about now? :pac:0 -
Advertisement
-
Questioning assumptions is to be commended but honestly, you've gone way too far. Sometimes, just sometimes, something written down in a book might just be right and very very occasionally, someone can be totally sure that they experienced something and still be wrong.
I don't dispute that.
But in order to verify that the thing written in the book is right, one must verify it personally, otherwise one accepts it on the basis of faith or trust.
The issue may be due to the nature of experience. It seems to be assumed that the rationalisation of an experience is the same as the experience itself, which of course it isn't. The experience is independent of the rationalisation.
To use another example. I experience the digestion process every time I eat, but I could not give a rational explanation of it. I do not know what the scientific explanation of it is, and I don't need to know. I have experience of digestion that is completely objective, and I know how to digest, I know how to break down the food and take what I need from it and how to distribute it to the various parts of my body that need it. I cannot explain to you how I do it, but I do it, and I know how to do it.
This is just meant as an example to show how experience is not dependent on the mind for existence and therefore objective, not subjective.0 -
There's nothing "almost" about it
You're trying to apply the rules of physical reality in the domain of political or definitional reality.
That's really not going to work.
Just to clarify, I haven't seen the buildings of the country, seen the border patrol of the country, seen all the various things that make up the country, and then asked where is the country. I have said, I can show you all these things as evidence that the country exists, I can identify the country itself, but that does not mean that the country exists in reality.
A country is defined by its borders, and anything that falls within those borders is said to be "of" that country. However, whatever is said to be "of" that country is entirely dependent on its location within those borders.
The issue of course is that all borders are entirely imaginary, and do not exist in reality. Of course people may put up walls and fences, and they may deploy military personnel to defend and enforce this border, but what they are defending and enforcing is imaginary, and does not exist in reality.
Just a further point on reality, it is the state of things as they actually exist, so to talk about political reality and definitional reality, is not to talk about reality. Otherwise we can talk about religious reality.0 -
No it doesn't, it highlights the problem of proving a negative.
It highlights the fact that the only evidence for reality is reality itself, and that evidence of any form may very well be for something other than reality.External verifiable evidence is great, but there is no point applying it to a question that is unanswerable.
So what questions are deemed unanswerable, those that pertain the true nature of reality?BTW does someone want to fill me in on what the hell this thread is about now? :pac:
Still most annoying atheist arguments.0 -
Mangaroosh, you are conflating two issues. The issue of objectivity and subjectivity is separate to the issue of versimilitude.
Nobody is claiming scientific theories are necessarily true (I am effectively an instrumentalist.) but scientific theories are still objective, as their efficacy and descriptive power does not depend on who is involved. Again, I'll stress that human constructs are not necessarily subjective. "1+1=2" is a human construct, but the statement "1+1=2 follows from the properties of the real number line" was true before we ever crawled from the ocean.0 -
Mangaroosh, you are conflating two issues. The issue of objectivity and subjectivity is separate to the issue of versimilitude.
Very much correct, although I'm not sure why it appears that I am conflating the two issues. If you could elaborate I can either agree or explain.Nobody is claiming scientific theories are necessarily true (I am effectively an instrumentalist.) but scientific theories are still objective, as their efficacy and descriptive power does not depend on who is involved. Again, I'll stress that human constructs are not necessarily subjective. "1+1=2" is a human construct, but the statement "1+1=2 follows from the properties of the real number line" was true before we ever crawled from the ocean.
The confusion does seem to lie with the meaning of the words objective and subjective.
Any theory, because it is comprised of words, is subjective, because it depends entirely on the mind for existence. This is what the word means.
The theory itself is of course distinct from the thing which it describes. To use a previous example, Newton's description of Gravity is not the force of Gravity itself. Newton's description is not what holds planets in place or "makes things fall down". Just as a description of a cup is not a cup, one cannot use a description to drink out of.
The description i.e. the theory, is what is subjective, because the description is made up of words, symbols and perhaps images, which exist in the mind.
The experience of Gravity, as we are experiencing right now, is entirely objective.
while the experience of gravity is objective
Indeed, human constructs such as 1+1=2 are entirely subjective, not through any fault of their own, but because that is what the word means. As for 1+1=2 being true ever before we crawled out from the ocean, that is very much incorrect, seeing as how numbers only exist in our minds, and not in reality. We made them up, they are not necessarily inherent in reality, rather we have developed a system and applied it to reality.0 -
..
Why didn't you just say that reality exists only in the mind 30 pages ago?
We only experience gravity through our minds so yeah it's subjective by your reasoning.
Objective experience are just impossible.
Sorry...0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »Very much correct, although I'm not sure why it appears that I am conflating the two issues. If you could elaborate I can either agree or explain.
The confusion does seem to lie with the meaning of the words objective and subjective.
Any theory, because it is comprised of words, is subjective, because it depends entirely on the mind for existence. This is what the word means.
The theory itself is of course distinct from the thing which it describes. To use a previous example, Newton's description of Gravity is not the force of Gravity itself. Newton's description is not what holds planets in place or "makes things fall down". Just as a description of a cup is not a cup, one cannot use a description to drink out of.
The description i.e. the theory, is what is subjective, because the description is made up of words, symbols and perhaps images, which exist in the mind.
The experience of Gravity, as we are experiencing right now, is entirely objective. while the experience of gravity is objective
I'm not sure if that last paragraph was a typo or not so I'll leave that for now.
What I mean by conflating the two issues: I doubt anyone here would claim scientific theories are 'true' by the impeccably rigorous definition used by, say, philosophers and mathematicians. But scientific theories can still be considered objective, as their descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject. As mentioned before, an alien that experiences gravity as colours, or electromagnetic waves as falling, could still employ our scientific theories of electromagnetism and general relativity to make predictions. He could do this despite the fact that his subjective experiences are different to our own, and despite the fact that the mathematical language of electromagnetism and relativity are human constructs. This is what people mean when they say science is objective.
I'm all for nihilism. I have said many times on this forum that I think even solipsists are making assumptions when they say "I think therefore I am". So I'm all with you in terms of the "reality of scientific theories". But I still hold that they are not subjective.Indeed, human constructs such as 1+1=2 are entirely subjective, not through any fault of their own, but because that is what the word means. As for 1+1=2 being true ever before we crawled out from the ocean, that is very much incorrect, seeing as how numbers only exist in our minds, and not in reality. We made them up, they are not necessarily inherent in reality, rather we have developed a system and applied it to reality.
Remember, though that I never claimed "1+1=2" was true before we called from the ocean. I said "1+1=2 follows from the axioms of the real number system". 1+1=2 will follow from the real number system whether you are a human, or an alien, or a dog, or a rock. It is this "platonic objectivity" which allows us to all consistently apply mathematics to descriptions of phenomena. You can happily construct a consistent number ring where 1+1=0=1, but that will not be the real number system.
And now, to lighten the mood:
0 -
..
Why didn't you just say that reality exists only in the mind 30 pages ago?
We only experience gravity through our minds so yeah it's subjective by your reasoning.
Objective experience are just impossible.
Sorry...
Because I would have been misrepresenting myself. Reality does not exist in the mind.
I would question the notion that we only experience gravity through our minds.
If of coure reality does exist in the mind, then does that mean that anything that exists in the mind is reality?0 -
I'm not sure if that last paragraph was a typo or not so I'll leave that for now.
What I mean by conflating the two issues: I doubt anyone here would claim scientific theories are 'true' by the impeccably rigorous definition used by, say, philosophers and mathematicians. But scientific theories can still be considered objective, as their descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject.
The issue is not whether a scientific theory is true or not, rather whether personal experience is objective or subjective, and whether or not science is dependent on personal experience.
Indeed, something can be subjective and still be true, as long as it confroms to reality.
As for scientific theories being objective, they could be considered objective if the above was what the word subjective actually meant, but the word subjective doesn't mean that descriptions and predictions are dependent on the subject.
The word subjective means:
OED Online definition of Subjective
• adjective 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence. 3 [SIZE=-1]Grammar[/SIZE] relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
But even if the definition of subjectivity were "descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject", it is questionable how descriptions and predictions would not be dependent on the subject, they are describing and predicting. Unless there is a different interpretation of the word subject.As mentioned before, an alien that experiences gravity as colours, or electromagnetic waves as falling, could still employ our scientific theories of electromagnetism and general relativity to make predictions. He could do this despite the fact that his subjective experiences are different to our own, and despite the fact that the mathematical language of electromagnetism and relativity are human constructs.
That is based on the assumption that this alien could understand our language and our symbols. If the alien could understand our language and symbols then perhaps they might, but if they couldn't then it is highly unlikely they could.
We don't need to hypothesise imaginary alien beings however, we can simply refer to erathbound creatures and ask if the other animals on this planet can use our theories to make predictions. So far, there is nothing to suggest that they could.This is what people mean when they say science is objective.
If this is what they mean, then they don't understand what objective means.
If I were to give the same example of the alien above and say "that is what I mean when I say that science is onomatopoeic.
The word onomatopoeic however does not mean that, and it us clear that I have misunderstood what the word means.
What is described above sounds more like the word "usable"I'm all for nihilism. I have said many times on this forum that I think even solipsists are making assumptions when they say "I think therefore I am". So I'm all with you in terms of the "reality of scientific theories". But I still hold that they are not subjective.
The definition of the word "subjective" would suggest that they are, by definition subjective, whether you or I think so or not.Remember, though that I never claimed "1+1=2" was true before we called from the ocean. I said "1+1=2 follows from the axioms of the real number system".
My apologies for that, but remember that "the real number system" is entirely subjective, and does not exist in reality.1+1=2 will follow from the real number system whether you are a human, or an alien, or a dog, or a rock.
No, it will only follow if you are human and you understand the concepts of 1, +, =, and 2.It is this "platonic objectivity" which allows us to all consistently apply mathematics to descriptions of phenomena. You can happily construct a consistent number ring where 1+1=0=1, but that will not be the real number system.
Exactly, we apply mathematics to the descriptions of phenomena, it exists only in the human mind.And now, to lighten the mood:
damn it, I'll have to admit that that went over my head. anyone explain because I'm sure it was good.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »The issue is not whether a scientific theory is true or not, rather whether personal experience is objective or subjective, and whether or not science is dependent on personal experience.
Indeed, something can be subjective and still be true, as long as it confroms to reality.
As for scientific theories being objective, they could be considered objective if the above was what the word subjective actually meant, but the word subjective doesn't mean that descriptions and predictions are dependent on the subject.
The word subjective means:
OED Online definition of Subjective
• adjective 1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. 2 dependent on the mind for existence. 3 [SIZE=-1]Grammar[/SIZE] relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence.
But even if the definition of subjectivity were "descriptions and predictions do not depend on the subject", it is questionable how descriptions and predictions would not be dependent on the subject, they are describing and predicting. Unless there is a different interpretation of the word subject.
Remember that we're not talking about the existence or 'Necessary Truth' of things. Science is instead concerned with the efficacy of descriptions and frameworks, and how instrumental they are. My research requires the use of quantum mechanical wavefunctions, but I would never claim they are "real". Versimilitude can be left to the philosophers, as scientific theories do not depend on being "real" to work.
For (another) example, the "existence" of the language of electromagnetism (fields and vector calculus) depends on the mind, so their "existence" would be subjective. But the instrumentalism of these vector fields is not subjective. If all of life disappeared tomorrow, electromagnetism would still accurately describe the behaviour of magnets,even though the language of electromagentism (or even the idea of a magnet itself) would no longer "exist"/"be experienced".That is based on the assumption that this alien could understand our language and our symbols. If the alien could understand our language and symbols then perhaps they might, but if they couldn't then it is highly unlikely they could.
We don't need to hypothesise imaginary alien beings however, we can simply refer to erathbound creatures and ask if the other animals on this planet can use our theories to make predictions. So far, there is nothing to suggest that they could.
Well the symbols and language themselves aren't important. Electromagnetism was initially described using a horrible bunch of differential equations. It was re-written in the language of vectors, and again in the language of special relativity. It's still the same theory regardless of the symbols or maths you use.If this is what they mean, then they don't understand what objective means.
If I were to give the same example of the alien above and say "that is what I mean when I say that science is onomatopoeic.
The word onomatopoeic however does not mean that, and it us clear that I have misunderstood what the word means.
What is described above sounds more like the word "usable"
Well this is a little off topic but:
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aobjective&meta=&rlz=1R2GGIT_en&aq=f&oq=
All of these definitions (bar the specific ones related to military and whatnot) conform to our use of the word objective. So your comparison isn't really appropriate.
But even using your definition of objective, scientific theories have a strong objectivity.My apologies for that, but remember that "the real number system" is entirely subjective, and does not exist in reality.
But I never said anything about the existence of the real number system. I am only talking about what follows from it.No, it will only follow if you are human and you understand the concepts of 1, +, =, and 2.
It followed before we existed. It is "platonic".
<snipped the rest to stop us from going in circles.
PS: It's just a joke about how the assumptions of logical positivists (in this case the girl) aren't necessarily appropriate or true.0 -
Advertisement
-
mangaroosh wrote: »It highlights the fact that the only evidence for reality is reality itself, and that evidence of any form may very well be for something other than reality.
But that doesn't mean very much. It is like in science where they say there is no proof of anything, only varying degrees of accuracy.
I haven't been following this thread in a while, but I get the feeling you are trying to explain in a very convoluted way what the rest of us already know and accept.
I'm not sure if you made this argument or not, but the problem with the idea that all experience is ultimately subjective is when people then start using that as a reason to believe any explanation for something that happened to them (ie It was God!)
All experience is subjective but that doesn't mean that all explanations for phenomena are equally valid
You said you experience your digestive process. You don't. You experience eating, and after that you don't experience anything else bar the odd feeling in your stomach.
The idea that you are digesting food is an explanation (a model or theory) for what is happening in your body when you eat food.
You accept that explanation as being the most plausible because biologists can support the theory. You never know 100% that this is what happens to your food, but you accept the theory because it has the most support, it explains the most things and appears to do this accurately.
Another explanation for what happens to your food is that fairies eat it in your stomach. That certainly explains what you experience. But does it have support? Not really. We can't make further predictions about how fairies operate, so we can't test this explanation beyond that it explains why where your food is gone.
This is the problem with people using "I was talking to God" as an explanation for what they experience. It is a very bad explanation because they can't determine at all if it is a better explanation than any other explanation.
Well a good example is the question "Does God not exist?" is unanswerable because by definition it is not possible to determine if a supernatural all powerful deity doesn't exist. You cannot tell the difference between a universe with out God (or the Flying Spigettie Monster) and a universe where God is simply not revealing himself at that particular moment.mangaroosh wrote: »So what questions are deemed unanswerable, those that pertain the true nature of reality?
Because the two are indistingusable you cannot answer that question.mangaroosh wrote: »Still most annoying atheist arguments.
Which argument specifically?0 -
Remember that we're not talking about the existence or 'Necessary Truth' of things.
The overall discussion is centred around the existence of GodScience is instead concerned with the efficacy of descriptions and frameworks, and how instrumental they are. My research requires the use of quantum mechanical wavefunctions, but I would never claim they are "real". Versimilitude can be left to the philosophers, as scientific theories do not depend on being "real" to work.
we are perhaps at cross-purposes, as the discussion is not so much about science and what it does or doesn't do, rather the objectivity of personal experience, with regard to experiencing reality and therefore having knowledge of it.For (another) example, the "existence" of the language of electromagnetism (fields and vector calculus) depends on the mind, so their "existence" would be subjective. But the instrumentalism of these vector fields is not subjective.
It is the langugage that is subjective not electromagnetism.If all of life disappeared tomorrow, electromagnetism would still accurately describe the behaviour of magnets,even though the language of electromagentism (or even the idea of a magnet itself) would no longer "exist"/"be experienced".
If all of life ceased to exist tomorrow, then what is described by the term electromagnetism would continue to exist, correct, however, "electromagnetism" would not describe anything as there would be no one to use the term or even to describe the force of electromagnetism. It would simply exist without the need to be explained.Well the symbols and language themselves aren't important. Electromagnetism was initially described using a horrible bunch of differential equations. It was re-written in the language of vectors, and again in the language of special relativity. It's still the same theory regardless of the symbols or maths you use.
And regardless of the symbols or the langauge, the description is still subjective.Well this is a little off topic but:
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3Aobjective&meta=&rlz=1R2GGIT_en&aq=f&oq=
All of these definitions (bar the specific ones related to military and whatnot) conform to our use of the word objective. So your comparison isn't really appropriate.
be careful what sources you use. If one is looking for a reliable source on the definition of a word, then the Oxford English Dictionary is the authourity.But even using your definition of objective, scientific theories have a strong objectivity.
It isn't my definition, it is the OED definition of Objective. Using this definition, no scientific theory is objective.But I never said anything about the existence of the real number system. I am only talking about what follows from it.
OK, I'm not sure I got the point being made, but it must be remembered that anything that follows from it, equally does not exist in reality.It followed before we existed. It is "platonic".
If this is still with reference to the real number system, then I don't see how it could have followed before we existed, as it was mankind that brought it into "existence".<snipped the rest to stop us from going in circles.
PS: It's just a joke about how the assumptions of logical positivists (in this case the girl) aren't necessarily appropriate or true.
cool, cheers for the explanation.0 -
But that doesn't mean very much. It is like in science where they say there is no proof of anything, only varying degrees of accuracy.
The point was to highlight the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence" when it comes to reality. It is possible to show evidence for the existence of a country, that would support that hypothesis that a country exists.
However, when examined, it becomes clear that countries do not exist in reality, their borders [which define them] are merely agreed upon (although often disputed) and accepted as a matter of consensus. These borders are then defended as though they are real, and our entire way of life operates on the basis that they do exist, economies are based on them being real, wars are fought over them, and economies operate on the basis that they are real, with the very real division of wealth and poverty being a direct consequence.
Yest despite this mountain of evidence, the fact remain, that countries only exist in our minds, as the borders are completely imaginary. So the reality of the situation is that countries do not actually exist in reality, so how can evidence be provided to support this fact of reality?
Apparently it cannot. This would suggest that one cannot provide evidence for reality, rather one must do away with delusions firstly, before one can know reality.I haven't been following this thread in a while, but I get the feeling you are trying to explain in a very convoluted way what the rest of us already know and accept.
I'm not sure if you made this argument or not, but the problem with the idea that all experience is ultimately subjective is when people then start using that as a reason to believe any explanation for something that happened to them (ie It was God!)
All experience is subjective but that doesn't mean that all explanations for phenomena are equally valid
Again, the meaning of the word Subjective must be clarified to ensure that we are not at cross-purposes. The word subjective literally means "dependent on the mind for existence". Now, not all experience is dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore is not necessarily subjective.
It may perhaps be useful to discuss the nature of mind, when discussing this issue, but that may not be necessary at this juncture.
If by subjective, you mean personal (as many seem to do), in the sense that everything a person does is subjective, then it must be pointed out, that this is not what the word subjective actually means.
A person can experience something, that is not dependent on their mind for existence - childbirth is not merely dependent on the mind for existence - and this is therefore objective. That is not to say that they will not rationalise that experience. Indeed any rationalisation of it, and attempted explanation of it, is very much subjective. Again, however, the rationalisation of the experience, is not the experience itself.You said you experience your digestive process. You don't. You experience eating, and after that you don't experience anything else bar the odd feeling in your stomach.
I must correct you, I, and indeed anyone else who eats, most definitely does experience the digestive process. I experience eating, and then I experience digestion. My conscious mind may not be able to tell you when things are happening, but I am not simply my conscious mind.
Again, the nature of mind and who it is that experiences things may be a fruitful discussion.The idea that you are digesting food is an explanation (a model or theory) for what is happening in your body when you eat food.
Indeed, and the explanation of the Krebs Cycle is subjective, however, I am not familiar with it, nor do I need to be in order to experience what is referred to as, the digestive process.You accept that explanation as being the most plausible because biologists can support the theory. You never know 100% that this is what happens to your food, but you accept the theory because it has the most support, it explains the most things and appears to do this accurately.
Apologies for breaking this up into numerous parts, but I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not familiar with the scientific explanation/description of what is referred to as the Digestive process or the Krebs Cycle. I am aware that these explanations "exist", however I do not know them, nor do I need to, in order to experience what it is that they describe.Another explanation for what happens to your food is that fairies eat it in your stomach. That certainly explains what you experience. But does it have support? Not really. We can't make further predictions about how fairies operate, so we can't test this explanation beyond that it explains why where your food is gone.
Any explanation is subjective, but it is not necessary to know them, in order to experience what they refer to. If the description is incorrect, then it simply means that the experience has not been explained accurately.This is the problem with people using "I was talking to God" as an explanation for what they experience. It is a very bad explanation because they can't determine at all if it is a better explanation than any other explanation.
Indeed, I would very much agree. "Talking to God" is very much misleading, as it implies a two-way conversation where one hears "the voice of God", and where the "voice of God" communicates using words. The interpretation of words is itself entirely subjective.
However, the fact that someone innacurately describes something, which cannot be described using words, it does not mean that what they experienced was incorrect, rather their rationalisation of it is not accurate.
To illustrate this point, ask a woman to describe what it is like to give birth. See if she conveys it in such a way that leaves you in no doubt that you know exactly what it is like to give birth.
Equally, try to explain to her what it is like to get a kicked in the crotch, and see if you can leave here in no doubt as to what it is like.
These examples are meant to highlight the difficulty of rationalising an experience in a manner that the nature of the experience is communicated.Well a good example is the question "Does God not exist?" is unanswerable because by definition it is not possible to determine if a supernatural all powerful deity doesn't exist. You cannot tell the difference between a universe with out God (or the Flying Spigettie Monster) and a universe where God is simply not revealing himself at that particular moment.
OK, I will put the point back in it's original context, but first just to answer the above. While it may not be possible to "ell the difference between a universe with out God (or the Flying Spigettie Monster) and a universe where God is simply not revealing himself at that particular moment", it may also be a simple case that what God actually is, is not fully understood, and that if God were understood then evidence would be readily "visible".
To oversimplify for the sake of explanation. A person may be looking out at an airport terminal and say that there is no evidence of any planes, but that may be becaues they do not know what a plane is.
If they subsequently gain an understanding of what a plane actually is and they go back to the airport, they would then see planes everywhere.
Unfortunately God doesn't quite take the guise of a plane, but that is just meant to highlight how our understanding can affect our perception of evidnece. And, so long as someone is looking for evidence of an old guy sitting on a cloud somewhere, they definitiely will not find any evidence.
Just to refere back to the original context of the point though, it was the issue of "externally verifiable evidence" being provided for reality. We had the case where we can provide evidence for a country, yet the country does not exist in reality. How do we show the reality of the situation with evidence?
We can't, there is no piece of evidence that we can bring that will highlight reality, the person must either experience it or reason it for themselves. In this case, reality is only revealed once the delusion is done away with. This suggests that in order to know reality, one must do away with delusions.Which argument specifically?
It was the argument against personal experience as a source of knowledge0 -
I haven't been following this thread in a while, but I get the feeling you are trying to explain in a very convoluted way what the rest of us already know and accept.
I'm not sure if you made this argument or not, but the problem with the idea that all experience is ultimately subjective is when people then start using that as a reason to believe any explanation for something that happened to them (ie It was God!)
All experience is subjective but that doesn't mean that all explanations for phenomena are equally valid
That's not exactly what he's saying. He's basically trying to rubbish the idea of evidence in favour of personal experience which allows you to "know" things as long as you think your senses are infallible and if you're 100% sure there have been no conscious or subconscious errors in interpretation. How one is supposed to do this remains to be seen0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »The point was to highlight the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence" when it comes to reality. It is possible to show evidence for the existence of a country, that would support that hypothesis that a country exists.
However, when examined, it becomes clear that countries do not exist in reality, their borders [which define them] are merely agreed upon (although often disputed) and accepted as a matter of consensus. These borders are then defended as though they are real, and our entire way of life operates on the basis that they do exist, economies are based on them being real, wars are fought over them, and economies operate on the basis that they are real, with the very real division of wealth and poverty being a direct consequence.
But who thinks countries actually exist as subsets of reality? I've never heard anyone claim that.
Countries are abstract concepts. They don't exist as a subset of reality. When people say "America exists" what they mean is that there exists people who consider America to be a country defined based on these criteria.
As Robin points out this is not highlighting the problem with externally verifiable evidence, it is merely highlighting a problem with classification. You are using two different definitions of "real" as if they were interchangable, when they aren't.
A much better example of the problem with external evidence would be something like the observer effect in quantum physics. The act of measuring an atomic particle like an electron or a photon alters the properties of what you are observing. You cannot ever know the full set of properties were before you measured them and thus this knowledge is unknowable.
I've never seen any evidence that countries exist anywhere else but in our minds. Countries are abstract concepts defined based on the criteria determined by consensus of the humans making such decisions and only exists as an abstract concept. There is no evidence suggesting otherwise?mangaroosh wrote: »Yest despite this mountain of evidence, the fact remain, that countries only exist in our minds, as the borders are completely imaginary.
I have not been following this thread but has anyone suggested otherwise?
No, people can provide evidence in support of a conceptual model of reality (in science known as a theory). No one can know if their model of reality is actually a 100% accurate representation of reality. But you can test your model against observations in reality to see if your model at least predicts some aspects of observed reality.mangaroosh wrote: »Apparently it cannot. This would suggest that one cannot provide evidence for reality, rather one must do away with delusions firstly, before one can know reality.mangaroosh wrote: »Again, the meaning of the word Subjective must be clarified to ensure that we are not at cross-purposes. The word subjective literally means "dependent on the mind for existence". Now, not all experience is dependent on the mind for existence, and therefore is not necessarily subjective.
I cannot think of any experience that is not dependent on the mind for existence (how do you experience something without using your mind?)mangaroosh wrote: »A person can experience something, that is not dependent on their mind for existence - childbirth is not merely dependent on the mind for existence - and this is therefore objective.
You cannot experience childbirth without experiencing it through the processing of external sensor information through your brain, and as such is like all experience, subjective. The way your brain processes the sensor information will effect how you experience it.
No but the experience itself is unknowable. You cannot experience childbirth, or anything else for that matter, without your brain filtering the sensory information.mangaroosh wrote: »That is not to say that they will not rationalise that experience. Indeed any rationalisation of it, and attempted explanation of it, is very much subjective. Again, however, the rationalisation of the experience, is not the experience itself.
No you don't. You experience the sensory experience of eating. It is the biological model presented to you by scientists that explains to you that what is happening is that your food is being digested. You food could be being eaten by fairies.mangaroosh wrote: »I must correct you, I, and indeed anyone else who eats, most definitely does experience the digestive process. I experience eating, and then I experience digestion.
This is why most people 500 years ago didn't have a clue what was happening to their food after it disappeared into their throat.
"Food digestion" is a theory, a model, of what is happening that is used to explain the observed phenomena.mangaroosh wrote: »My conscious mind may not be able to tell you when things are happening, but I am not simply my conscious mind.
Your experience are. Your stomach does not "experience" food digestion as your stomach does not have the capacity to process and story information (which is what experience means). Your mind does.mangaroosh wrote: »Indeed, and the explanation of the Krebs Cycle is subjective, however, I am not familiar with it, nor do I need to be in order to experience what is referred to as, the digestive process.
But you would have no idea what the "digestive process" is unless this knowledge was explained to you (as it probably was when you were a child or teenager).
Which again is why people didn't have a clue what was happening to their food a few hundred years ago.
The digestive process is a theory, a theoretical model explaining the observed phenomena, including the sensory perceptions that make up your experience (experience is the recording and and processing of sensory data by the brain)
Well given that you used the term "digestion" a number of times you apparently are aware of it.mangaroosh wrote: »Apologies for breaking this up into numerous parts, but I just wanted to re-iterate that I am not familiar with the scientific explanation/description of what is referred to as the Digestive process or the Krebs Cycle.
No but without them you have no explanation for what you experience. You simple have a series of unexplained sensory inputs. You can't say you know you experience digestion unless you know that what you are experiencing is digestion, as opposed to say a heart attack.mangaroosh wrote: »I am aware that these explanations "exist", however I do not know them, nor do I need to, in order to experience what it is that they describe.mangaroosh wrote: »However, the fact that someone innacurately describes something, which cannot be described using words, it does not mean that what they experienced was incorrect, rather their rationalisation of it is not accurate.
No, but again without an explanation for the experience you just have a set of sensory inputs. Someone cannot say they experiences talking to God, any more than you can say you experienced digestion. Both these things are explanations, models explaining the sensory input. They explain the sensory input (the experience) they are not the experience itself.
The experience itself would be something along the lines of "sensory situmation from front of mouth. Sensory situmation from back of throat. Sensory stimulation from throat. Sensory stimulation from stomach area"
"Digestion" explains these. "Talking to God" explains the sensory record of a person having the experience people typically associate with talking to God. The question then becomes how accurate is that explanation, how accurate is that model at explaining the experience. Turns out not very...
You don't need to highlight that, such a difficulty is the whole reason science exists.mangaroosh wrote: »These examples are meant to highlight the difficulty of rationalising an experience in a manner that the nature of the experience is communicated.
Personal assessment of what is happening during an experience (ie going from Sensory stimulation in the mouth to the explanation that the food is causing your taste buds to under go a chemical reaction) are notoriously unreliable.
People are very bad at determining the explanation for their own experiences.mangaroosh wrote: »it may also be a simple case that what God actually is, is not fully understood, and that if God were understood then evidence would be readily "visible".
Not under any definition of God I'm aware of. How do you understand a being that has unlimited abilities.
Most theists seem to think that you understand him because he tells you what he is like. But that is logically flawed because he could just be lying. We lack the capacity to test if he is lying or not, in the same way we lack the capacity to test if he doesn't exist, since we have nothing to compare with. What does a God that lies appear like? What does a God that doesn't lie look like? We have no idea and since God is all powerful and we aren't we never will.mangaroosh wrote: »A person may be looking out at an airport terminal and say that there is no evidence of any planes, but that may be becaues they do not know what a plane is.
If they subsequently gain an understanding of what a plane actually is and they go back to the airport, they would then see planes everywhere.
True but what if a "plane" could also be a "car". The person goes back and looks at the airport. He sees lots of things on the runway. Are they planes or are they cars. He can't tell because he doesn't know the difference, nor can he tell the difference.
He can say there is something there, but he can't determine what it is because it can be both a car or a plane. With God expand that to the infinite. God can be anything he wants to be. So how do we determine that? For all we know my bed is God. How do I determine my bed is or isn't God given that God has the ability to be my bed if he so wishes?
But that is the point, God takes the guise of anything he wants. God can look like a universe where he doesn't exist. God can look like a bed. God can look like a cat.mangaroosh wrote: »Unfortunately God doesn't quite take the guise of a plane
We cannot compare God being a bed to just a regular bed because we do not have the ability test that. What does God being a bed look like? What does a universe without a God look like? What does a universe with a God look like. What are the differences?
That is a terrible example because no one thinks a "country" is a concept that should exist in reality in the first place.mangaroosh wrote: »Just to refere back to the original context of the point though, it was the issue of "externally verifiable evidence" being provided for reality. We had the case where we can provide evidence for a country, yet the country does not exist in reality. How do we show the reality of the situation with evidence?
A much better expample is a door. What is the externally verifiable evidence that a door exists. Well you chuck something at it and see if the thing lands on the other side of the door. Then you mate Bob does the same thing. Compare your results. Come up with a model explaining your results and then send both your model and your results to someone on the other side of the world and see if they too manage to get your model to predict the results.0 -
PS: It's just a joke about how the assumptions of logical positivists (in this case the girl) aren't necessarily appropriate or true.
I don't really want to wade in on this, but, mmm... I think you are missing the punchline of this joke... completely
Yes logical positivism is relevant, but only to the point that he knows, under its tenets, without observational evidence (ergo the lack of any browser history) the fact he was looking at porn the night before can never be ascertained.0 -
-
mangaroosh wrote: »we are perhaps at cross-purposes, as the discussion is not so much about science and what it does or doesn't do, rather the objectivity of personal experience, with regard to experiencing reality and therefore having knowledge of it.
I'm going to try to cut this massive debate down to the above main point. You contend that personal experience is objective and it's just the interpretation that's subjective. So:- How do you reconcile objective senses with the imperfection of evolution? Everyone's senses are different, for example how I'm colour blind or people can hear different frequencies or how there is a whole spectrum of light and sound that we are incapable of perceiving. And that's just the obvious flaws, our senses are adapted by blind and unintelligent process so how can you be so sure that what they perceive is objective?
- Ask anyone in insurance and they will tell you that if you ask 5 eye witnesses what happened you'll get 5 different stories. How does one tell the difference between "knowing" something and only thinking you know it?
Please try to keep your answers as brief as possible and I'd prefer if you avoided analogies please0 -
I think I've spotted the problem heremangaroosh wrote: »The overall discussion is centred around the existence of God
we are perhaps at cross-purposes, as the discussion is not so much about science and what it does or doesn't do, rather the objectivity of personal experience, with regard to experiencing reality and therefore having knowledge of it.
It is the langugage that is subjective not electromagnetism.
Perhaps if I understood your overall contention relating to the exitence of God then I would better understand what you are trying to say.
What I am saying is personal experiences are subjective, as they are related to the person doing the experiencing. What scientists do is consider multiple experiences from multiple people to ascertain those qualitites that do not vary with respect to the person doing the experiencing. This removes the "personal" dependencies of scientific theories. So we can say that a scientific theory is a description shared by everyone. "Icecream tastes nice" is true for some people. Electromagnetism is true for everyone.
Now, you seem to be saying that, on another level, scientific theories are still subjective as we have no way of knowing if they truly correspond to a mind-independent reality. I mostly agree with this, and I doubt anyone else disagrees. But when we say subjective, we are using the more common definition
"1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."
And science is not subjective by this definition. Science is considered more reliable than personal experience because of this.be careful what sources you use. If one is looking for a reliable source on the definition of a word, then the Oxford English Dictionary is the authourity.
That would be a big mistake. The greatest virtue of the english language is that no dictionary is an authority. They are purely descriptive and not prescriptive. But either way, to quote my unabridged Third New International Webster Dictionary:- Subjective: In relating to, or being in experience or knowledge conditioned merely by personal characteristics of the mind or by particular states of mind as opposed to what is determined only by the universal condition of human experience and knowledge
- Arising from within or belonging strictly to the individual.
Under the same entry, it defines Kantian subjectivism as "being of, related to, or determined by the mind."
We all seem to be using the more common first definition, and you seem to be using a more specific kantian definition, which leads me to my next question: Assuming we accept that scientific theories are subjective in a very specific Kantian sense, how is that related to the existence of God?I don't really want to wade in on this, but, mmm... I think you are missing the punchline of this joke... completely
Yes logical positivism is relevant, but only to the point that he knows, under its tenets, without observational evidence (ergo the lack of any browser history) the fact he was looking at porn the night before can never be ascertained.
Is this joke from a book or something? I only inferred the irony of no evidence for research into logical positivism. I'm not sure how looking at porn was implied.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's not exactly what he's saying. He's basically trying to rubbish the idea of evidence in favour of personal experience which allows you to "know" things as long as you think your senses are infallible and if you're 100% sure there have been no conscious or subconscious errors in interpretation. How one is supposed to do this remains to be seen
That's not necessarily what is being said either.
The points being made are:
1) [Personal] experience does not take place solely in the mind i.e.it is not completely imaginary, and therefore by definition is not subjective, but rather objective - because this is what the words objective and subjective actually refer to.
2) It is possible to know "things" (if we're not living in a dream or "the matrix")
3) Personal experience is the only source of knowledge open to human beings.
4) Science is dependet on various scientists personal experience in order to verify claims i.e. some scientists must personally carry out experiments in order to verify a hypothesis/claim, otherwise the hypothesis/claim goes unverified.
5) In order to verify something as correct or incorrect, there must be some experience of what is being claimed.
6) Personal experience cannot be explained using words, but only described. No attempt to rationalise an experience will be sufficient to capture the true nature of the experience, to the extent that the person who hears the rationalisation, will know exactly what was experienced and will have the same knowledge as the person who had the experience.
7) Knowledge of information about something, is not the same as knowing "the thing" itself. In fact, knowledge of information about something can only ever be believed, or accepted as truth based on faith,, until such point as a person verifies the information for themselves, personally.
To [try and] use a scientific example. This is just a general example and the core details are ultimately not essential for demonstration.
If we take string theory. There is quite a bit of information on the subject, and a number of theories also. The 5 differeing theories were united under M theory, and lets just assume that this is generally accepted as the "best" of all the theories.
There is mathematical modelling that supports this theory, and a scientist can be very well versed in it, and the other information surrounding string theory. However, as of yet, it cannot be said that M theory is correct. The reason may be because there is little evidence as of yet to support it, or because no one has actually seen the vibrating string.
A scientist may then discover a piece of evidence, through their own personal experience of carrying out experiments, and inform the wider scientific community. This of course will have to be verified by other scientists, who will have to witness this evidence for themselves. This witnessing of the evidence must be done so personally, before any scientist can verify the claim.
There may come a point when a certain threshold is reached and a sufficient number of scientists agree that a claim is correct, and the claim is published in various scientific journals as being true. A person may read this information and know the information about string theory.
Then, depending on their level of faith in the scientific method, or those scientists that verified the claim, they can choose to believe that the information is true. They cannot however, know that it is true, until such time as they witness the evidence for themselves.
Of course, evidence is not sufficient to say for sure that M theory is correct. In order to be sure that it is correct, a scientist will have to personally see the vibrating string. The same verfication process will have to occur, relying on the personal experience of each scientist at every step in the process.0 -
That's not necessarily what is being said either.
The points being made are:
1) [Personal] experience does not take place solely in the mind i.e.it is not completely imaginary, and therefore by definition is not subjective, but rather objective - because this is what the words objective and subjective actually refer to.
2) It is possible to know "things" (if we're not living in a dream or "the matrix")
3) Personal experience is the only source of knowledge open to human beings.
4) Science is dependet on various scientists personal experience in order to verify claims i.e. some scientists must personally carry out experiments in order to verify a hypothesis/claim, otherwise the hypothesis/claim goes unverified.
5) In order to verify something as correct or incorrect, there must be some experience of what is being claimed.
6) Personal experience cannot be explained using words, but only described. No attempt to rationalise an experience will be sufficient to capture the true nature of the experience, to the extent that the person who hears the rationalisation, will know exactly what was experienced and will have the same knowledge as the person who had the experience.
7) Knowledge of information about something, is not the same as knowing "the thing" itself. In fact, knowledge of information about something can only ever be believed, or accepted as truth based on faith,, until such point as a person verifies the information for themselves, personally.
To [try and] use a scientific example. This is just a general example and the core details are ultimately not essential for demonstration.
If we take string theory. There is quite a bit of information on the subject, and a number of theories also. The 5 differeing theories were united under M theory, and lets just assume that this is generally accepted as the "best" of all the theories.
There is mathematical modelling that supports this theory, and a scientist can be very well versed in it, and the other information surrounding string theory. However, as of yet, it cannot be said that M theory is correct. The reason may be because there is little evidence as of yet to support it, or because no one has actually seen the vibrating string.
A scientist may then discover a piece of evidence, through their own personal experience of carrying out experiments, and inform the wider scientific community. This of course will have to be verified by other scientists, who will have to witness this evidence for themselves. This witnessing of the evidence must be done so personally, before any scientist can verify the claim.
There may come a point when a certain threshold is reached and a sufficient number of scientists agree that a claim is correct, and the claim is published in various scientific journals as being true. A person may read this information and know the information about string theory.
Then, depending on their level of faith in the scientific method, or those scientists that verified the claim, they can choose to believe that the information is true. They cannot however, know that it is true, until such time as they witness the evidence for themselves.
Of course, evidence is not sufficient to say for sure that M theory is correct. In order to be sure that it is correct, a scientist will have to personally see the vibrating string. The same verfication process will have to occur, relying on the personal experience of each scientist at every step in the process.
I responded on the previous page to the issue of what we mean by subjective and objective so I won't go into much of that here.
I agree with most of these points but would again stress that this is precisely why scientists would never claim a scientific theory is "necessarily true" even if they personally experience the evidence. We only say it is true assuming that our collective experiences correspond to a mind-independent reality.0 -
I agree with most of these points but would again stress that this is precisely why scientists would never claim a scientific theory is "necessarily true" even if they personally experience the evidence. We only say it is true assuming that our collective experiences correspond to a mind-independent reality.
Do you? Really? This is standard in scientific texts? If I read a 'scientific' paper, I'll see some small print to this effect?
Or did you just make that up?0 -
The word subjective has two definitions, one of which you keep ignoring: open to personal opinion or bias. An event is objective, when something happens only one thing happens but the way in which people experience it can be completely different, for example how my colour blindness will cause me to experience green where you experience red. The redness of this event is objective but both of our experiences are subjective.mangaroosh wrote: »That's not necessarily what is being said either.
The points being made are:
1) [Personal] experience does not take place solely in the mind i.e.it is not completely imaginary, and therefore by definition is not subjective, but rather objective - because this is what the words objective and subjective actually refer to.
The word doesn't just mean dependent on the mind for existence, it means dependent on the subject. All personal experience is subjective because it is all dependent on the subject experiencing it
You can choose to define the word any way you want but no one here uses it the way you do and there is no point having a conversation as long as we're using the same word to mean different things. You're essentially saying that because personal experience doesn't match your narrow definition of the word subjective it must be objective but you are only using one strict interpretation of the word and ignoring the other meanings it has
The best we can say we think we know something because we have nothing to check it against except our own minds. The fact that we cannot definitively say that we are not in a dream or the matrix shows that we cannot "know" anythingmangaroosh wrote: »2) It is possible to know "things" (if we're not living in a dream or "the matrix")
True, but an experiment that allows anyone who so chooses to have this experience is better that one guy saying he experienced somethingmangaroosh wrote: »4) Science is dependet on various scientists personal experience in order to verify claims i.e. some scientists must personally carry out experiments in order to verify a hypothesis/claim, otherwise the hypothesis/claim goes unverified.
Those mean the same thingmangaroosh wrote: »6) Personal experience cannot be explained using words, but only described.
which is why we have repeatable experiments. You used an example of a walk to the shops and said I can't describe exactly what was experienced and that's true but what I can do is tell people to walk it themselves and experience it for themselves and I can get more and more people to do the walk and document the experience in as much detail as possible until we have as accurate an account of the experience as possiblemangaroosh wrote: »No attempt to rationalise an experience will be sufficient to capture the true nature of the experience, to the extent that the person who hears the rationalisation, will know exactly what was experienced and will have the same knowledge as the person who had the experience.0 -
But who thinks countries actually exist as subsets of reality? I've never heard anyone claim that.
Countries are abstract concepts. They don't exist as a subset of reality. When people say "America exists" what they mean is that there exists people who consider America to be a country defined based on these criteria.
The fact that people are killed defending these imaginary places would suggest that they are taken to be very real. Also, it is possible to recognise the fallacy of such things, yet to completely belie this understanding with actions.As Robin points out this is not highlighting the problem with externally verifiable evidence, it is merely highlighting a problem with classification. You are using two different definitions of "real" as if they were interchangable, when they aren't.
I'm trying to stick to one classification of "real" and show that such things as countries do not fall into that category.A much better example of the problem with external evidence would be something like the observer effect in quantum physics. The act of measuring an atomic particle like an electron or a photon alters the properties of what you are observing. You cannot ever know the full set of properties were before you measured them and thus this knowledge is unknowable.
Interesting point also, and I have wondered about where this idea came from? Is it the result of mathematical modelling that has lead to this conclusion?
Regardless, if this phenomenon is due to the act of observing i.e. seeing something, it must be remembered that what our mind processes as vision is not reality, rather a subjective interpretation of it.I've never seen any evidence that countries exist anywhere else but in our minds. Countries are abstract concepts defined based on the criteria determined by consensus of the humans making such decisions and only exists as an abstract concept. There is no evidence suggesting otherwise?
Ample evidence could be provided to suggest that a particular country exists, however, you are correct in saying that they do not exist in reality. The issue is that no evidence can be provided to verify the reality of the situation.I have not been following this thread but has anyone suggested otherwise?
No, it was meant as a separate point on the issue of evidenceNo, people can provide evidence in support of a conceptual model of reality (in science known as a theory). No one can know if their model of reality is actually a 100% accurate representation of reality. But you can test your model against observations in reality to see if your model at least predicts some aspects of observed reality.
Any model of reality is not reality. It may be a decent description of reality, but it can never be reality. Reality has to be experienced directly and so the only evidence for reality, is reality itself.I cannot think of any experience that is not dependent on the mind for existence (how do you experience something without using your mind?)
You cannot experience childbirth without experiencing it through the processing of external sensor information through your brain, and as such is like all experience, subjective. The way your brain processes the sensor information will effect how you experience it.
Just one thing to be aware of, and that is the fact that the mind and the brain are not the same thing. The brain may be what gives rise to the mind, but the mind does not give rise to the brain. The mind is the faculty of conscious thought, and is not necessarily where experience happens, or indeed where all sensory input is received. Rather it is where much of it is rationalised.No but the experience itself is unknowable. You cannot experience childbirth, or anything else for that matter, without your brain filtering the sensory information.
Just again, the mind and the brain are not the same thingNo you don't. You experience the sensory experience of eating. It is the biological model presented to you by scientists that explains to you that what is happening is that your food is being digested. You food could be being eaten by fairies.
This is why most people 500 years ago didn't have a clue what was happening to their food after it disappeared into their throat.
"Food digestion" is a theory, a model, of what is happening that is used to explain the observed phenomena.
Indeed, and I experience the process that "digestion" tries to describe. That does not necessarily mean that the description is accurate or that what I experience is incorrect. I experience what is referred to as digestion, with or without the explanation. It could possibly be fairies, whatever it is I experience it, and I know how to do it - or at least do my part of it.Your experience are. Your stomach does not "experience" food digestion as your stomach does not have the capacity to process and story information (which is what experience means). Your mind does.
The mind is what rationalises the information into positive or negative taste, smell, vision, etc. according to a set of learned principles i.e. what good and bad are. The brain processes much more information than we are usually consciously aware of. I've seen figures such as the processing of 4bn bits of information while we are usually only aware of 2000.But you would have no idea what the "digestive process" is unless this knowledge was explained to you (as it probably was when you were a child or teenager).
Which again is why people didn't have a clue what was happening to their food a few hundred years ago.
The digestive process is a theory, a theoretical model explaining the observed phenomena, including the sensory perceptions that make up your experience (experience is the recording and and processing of sensory data by the brain)
I don't need to know what the description of the digestive process is, in order to know how to do it. In fact, I have a very vague understanding of what it is, but still manage to do it just fine.
Again, just to highlight the difference between the mind and the brain. Indeed, some spiritual investigation into the nature of mind could prove quite interesting, to highlight that who [many of us] think we are, is not necessarily who we actually are.
Some of us are increasingly identified with our minds and our bodies, yet, upon investigation it becomes clear that those are both just illusions to a certain extent.
This may provide some food for thought when answering the question, what is meant by the statement that we are created in God's image?Well given that you used the term "digestion" a number of times you apparently are aware of it.
Indeed, I am aware of it, but just not that familiar with itNo but without them you have no explanation for what you experience. You simple have a series of unexplained sensory inputs. You can't say you know you experience digestion unless you know that what you are experiencing is digestion, as opposed to say a heart attack.
Any explanation of an experience is subjective, but one does not need to explain an experience in order to gain knowledge from it. The much disputed "tacit knowledge" is a valid form of knowledge that arises from experience, that is not necessarily stored in the mind, nor open to rationalisation.
Also, as said before, it is impossible to explain an experience in such a way that it captures the essence of the experience. In order for someone to meaningfully interpret the explanation, they would have to have the same/similar experience.
For example, a woman cannot explain childbirth to you, to such an extent that you can have the knowledge of the expeience, because in order to acquire the knowledge, you must first have the experience.No, but again without an explanation for the experience you just have a set of sensory inputs. Someone cannot say they experiences talking to God, any more than you can say you experienced digestion. Both these things are explanations, models explaining the sensory input. They explain the sensory input (the experience) they are not the experience itself.
The experience itself would be something along the lines of "sensory situmation from front of mouth. Sensory situmation from back of throat. Sensory stimulation from throat. Sensory stimulation from stomach area"
"Digestion" explains these. "Talking to God" explains the sensory record of a person having the experience people typically associate with talking to God. The question then becomes how accurate is that explanation, how accurate is that model at explaining the experience. Turns out not very...
We are in agreement here, and I have made a similar point with regard to Newton's theory of gravity, not being the force of gravity.
If someone does claim they have "talked to God", this is more than likely their conscious mind interpreting information in a manner that is meaningful to them. They could of course be lying, but if they are not then this is one possible explanation.
This is why any attempt to describe God will never be more than just a description, and why God must be experienced personally/directly in order to meaningfully interpret the explanation.
While God, the concept, does not exist. That to which the word God refers, does.
This doesn't mean that the bible or the koran or the torah are factually accurate, as they themselves are not God either.You don't need to highlight that, such a difficulty is the whole reason science exists.
Personal assessment of what is happening during an experience (ie going from Sensory stimulation in the mouth to the explanation that the food is causing your taste buds to under go a chemical reaction) are notoriously unreliable.
People are very bad at determining the explanation for their own experiences.
I think we are largely in agreement with this, and you are completely correct. Personal assessment or rationalisation are notoriously unreliable and people can be very bad at determining their own experiences, however, this doesn't mean that all people are incapable of doing it. In fact, people can improve this through training and experience.
Indeed science is reliant on the fact that through training and experience, people can become better able to make sense of experiences, this is why people study science to develop their skills. Perhaps equally this is why people study religion, and devote their lives to understanding GodNot under any definition of God I'm aware of. How do you understand a being that has unlimited abilities.
As we said, no definition of a thing is actually the thing itself, so no definition will ever be fully correct. Things can only ever be described. The problem of course is that things can be described incorrectly, as the number of discarded scientific theories will attest to. It may only be through personal investigation that one can arrive at a better understanding.
As for understanding a being that has unlimited abilities, perhaps it cannot be understood with the finite and limited human mind. Of course it must be remembered that we are much more than just the contents of our minds. It is posited by some that we have our ordinary minds which can be more of a hinderance due to how it behaves, as well as the true nature of our mind, or indeed our being.
While our true nature may indeed be described [never defined], and some have attempted to do so, ultimately the description is meaningless without some direct experience of our true nature. At the heart of spiritual practice is the exploring of this true nature.
It could possibly be said that a being of unlimited abilities could be understood as everything in existence, as being everywhere, and knowing everything. It could perhaps be described as being a floating membrane, a "theory" that has developed from string theory. But again, any description of God, will not be God itself, and would ultimately be useless without direct experience of God.Most theists seem to think that you understand him because he tells you what he is like. But that is logically flawed because he could just be lying. We lack the capacity to test if he is lying or not, in the same way we lack the capacity to test if he doesn't exist, since we have nothing to compare with. What does a God that lies appear like? What does a God that doesn't lie look like? We have no idea and since God is all powerful and we aren't we never will.
The problem with what mosts theists think, is that it may not be known where they are getting their ideas from. They may be getting their info second or third hand, misinterpreting it and choosing to believe it. They may choose to believe in a version of a chinese whisper that has become very distorted. What we receive from them is an even further distortion of the message, that has been processed according to their understanding. Again, however, their description of what God is, is not what God actually is.
This is agian why personal experience is necessary, and why personal investigation is required.
As for recognising a God that lies to us, we must first understand who we are, and what our true nature is. The more we understand that the more we realise we cannot be lied to, or rather that we won't believe any lies. And if we really are created in Gods image, then the more we understand our true nature, the more we understand God. Even if we aren't, then at least we understand ourselves, and therefore others, better.True but what if a "plane" could also be a "car". The person goes back and looks at the airport. He sees lots of things on the runway. Are they planes or are they cars. He can't tell because he doesn't know the difference, nor can he tell the difference.
He can say there is something there, but he can't determine what it is because it can be both a car or a plane. With God expand that to the infinite. God can be anything he wants to be. So how do we determine that? For all we know my bed is God. How do I determine my bed is or isn't God given that God has the ability to be my bed if he so wishes?
If a car was created in the image of a plane, then knowing more about the car, he would know more about the plane, knowing more about the plane he can better determine what is and what isn't evidene of a plane. Through experience he could learn to tell the difference.
If we are created in the image of God, then knowing more about ourselves we know more about God, and the more we know about God, the better able we are to tell whether or nor our bed is God.But that is the point, God takes the guise of anything he wants. God can look like a universe where he doesn't exist. God can look like a bed. God can look like a cat.
Whose understanding of God is that?We cannot compare God being a bed to just a regular bed because we do not have the ability test that. What does God being a bed look like? What does a universe without a God look like? What does a universe with a God look like. What are the differences?
What does reality look like? What is the difference between reality and non-reality? This cannot be understood by the limited mind, it cannot be explained, but only experienced.
That is a terrible example because no one thinks a "country" is a concept that should exist in reality in the first place.
A much better expample is a door. What is the externally verifiable evidence that a door exists. Well you chuck something at it and see if the thing lands on the other side of the door. Then you mate Bob does the same thing. Compare your results. Come up with a model explaining your results and then send both your model and your results to someone on the other side of the world and see if they too manage to get your model to predict the results.[/quote]0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Wait, are we talking about philosophy here or science?*
* Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.- attrib Richard Feynman
Philosophy. And I agree with the quote. Weinberg's chapter "against philosophy" is a good read, and is freely available online.Interesting point also, and I have wondered about where this idea [quantum mechanics] came from? Is it the result of mathematical modelling that has lead to this conclusion?
Quantum mechanics stems from observations. The idea that observations effect the outcome of experiments is an early interpretation of QM (The most famous example of quantum oddness is probably the "double slit experiment"). Ultmately the theory of quantum mechanics is represented mathematically, and it is difficult to attribute classical meaning to it. What does it mean, for example, to apply operators to vectors in Hilbert space?
Quantum mechanics is a lesson in the limitatons of what evoltion has given us. Our brains have no problem constructing the classical concepts of Newton, and even Einstein. But quantum mechanics is another matter. Even the simple idea of identical conditions producing different results is jarring to us.0 -
mangaroosh wrote: »The fact that people are killed defending these imaginary places would suggest that they are taken to be very real.
No it wouldn't because as has already been pointed out you are confusing two meanings of the word "real"
No one who defended Paris in 1941 believed that "France" was a physical thing that existed independently of any humans who decide that this land area was going to be called "France". France is an abstract concept, that is very real in the sense that people exist who determine that this is France and wish to protect people who fall within her borders, but it is not real in the sense that it exists in the subset of things that physically exist, and no one has ever claimed otherwise.
Experience is separate from explanation. You experience reality but you have no clue what you just experienced without explanation. And all explanations are models. They are what we think just happened. You are prefectly correct that a model of reality is not reality, but it is the best we have. The only thing you can do is attempt to model reality in the hope of understanding what and why things happen, including the sensory inputs that make up your own individual experiences.mangaroosh wrote: »Any model of reality is not reality. It may be a decent description of reality, but it can never be reality. Reality has to be experienced directly and so the only evidence for reality, is reality itself.
Experience without explanation is simply raw data detached from knowledge or understanding.
I've never seen any evidence presented that that is actually true. Such a model of human consciousness seems to be mere wishful thinking on the part of those who think such an explanation is more exciting than the alternative.mangaroosh wrote: »Just one thing to be aware of, and that is the fact that the mind and the brain are not the same thing.mangaroosh wrote: »Indeed, and I experience the process that "digestion" tries to describe. That does not necessarily mean that the description is accurate or that what I experience is incorrect.
Applying the term "incorrect" to what you experience is irrelevant, it is an oxymoron. It is like saying the string of digits 5,6,8,2,4,7 is "incorrect".
The experience is neither correct nor incorrect, it is just the experience. The raw data streaming into your brain.
It is the explanation that is either correct or incorrect. Saw you experience a bright light in front of you. That is the experience, it is say 5,6,8,2,4,7 optical data streaming into your brain. That is not incorrect, that just is. It is a fact.
No the first thing you do is start constructing an explanation for why 5,6,8,2,4,7 just streamed into your brain. Is it because there is a bright light in front of you. Is it because you are having a stroke and your nerves in your optic nerve are being damaged, sending crazy information to your brain. These are explanations, formed based on the models of various things you have constructed about reality (ie what a bright light in front of you should look like, what a stroke may be like)
These explanations can be correct or incorrect.
It doesn't matter, you are still forming explanations for sensory experience.mangaroosh wrote: »The much disputed "tacit knowledge" is a valid form of knowledge that arises from experience, that is not necessarily stored in the mind, nor open to rationalization.
Take language, the often used example for tacit knowledge. As as baby experiences the audio inputs from adults speaking around them they form a mental model of what is happening and why. The experience is simply air vibrating on the ear drum, but the explanation they form is that daddy is communicating with mommy using words.
It is very easy to see that the experience is separate from the explanation when you pick up an English speaking and drop him in Germany. The experience is exactly the same, vibrations in the vocal cords of others causing air to vibrate on the ear drum. But the explanation and the model is completely different and thus makes no sense to the person listening. His explanation for the "uh" sound is different to the explanation in Germany, despite the experience being exactly the same.
And by the way the mental model of language is stored in the brain. You can rationalise it but that doesn't mean you have to, babies automatically pick up speech patterns because they have evolved parts of the brain to do this instinctively.
Also, as said before, it is impossible to explain an experience in such a way that it captures the essence of the experience. In order for someone to meaningfully interpret the explanation, they would have to have the same/similar experience.
For example, a woman cannot explain childbirth to you, to such an extent that you can have the knowledge of the expeience, because in order to acquire the knowledge, you must first have the experience.mangaroosh wrote: »Indeed science is reliant on the fact that through training and experience, people can become better able to make sense of experiences, this is why people study science to develop their skills.
Well no, science removes the "skills" completely. A scientist does not personally interpret their own data, no matter how developed their interpretation is or isn't.
They produce a model that then is run by others totally independently of the original scientist. The scientist's personal interpretation of what happened is largely irrelevant.mangaroosh wrote: »As we said, no definition of a thing is actually the thing itself, so no definition will ever be fully correct. Things can only ever be described. The problem of course is that things can be described incorrectly, as the number of discarded scientific theories will attest to. It may only be through personal investigation that one can arrive at a better understanding.
No, personal investigation is what leads people to pick comforting explanations over accurate ones. Personally investigation rarely leads to better understand (as 5,000 years of nonsense before science came along will attest to) and if it does by a fluke lead to better understanding you won't know it has because you can't remove yourself and your own biases from the equation.
It is like you personally deciding your girlfriend isn't cheating on you. Now, how do you determine that this is actually accurate and not a conclusion you reached simply because you don't want her to be cheating on you? The only way to do that is to test your conclusion independently of your own personal assessment of what is happening. At which point you are no longer personally investigating something. Anyone could run the same test you just did and they would get the same result. It becomes far more objective that it previously was.mangaroosh wrote: »While our true nature may indeed be described [never defined], and some have attempted to do so, ultimately the description is meaningless without some direct experience of our true nature. At the heart of spiritual practice is the exploring of this true nature.
And how do you tell the difference between exploring our true nature and simply making up more interesting explanations that are not in fact true?
If you can't then why think this exploration has lead to any further insights into humans?mangaroosh wrote: »Again, however, their description of what God is, is not what God actually is.
This is agian why personal experience is necessary, and why personal investigation is required.
Why would your personal experience of God be a more accurate description of God than theirs?
That doesn't make any sense. By definition an all powerful supernatural deity can lying to what ever he likes since he controls everything. If God wanted to you he could have created the entire universe 3 seconds ago and put all your memories into your head (or mind or what ever) as completely made up, in which case your entire life is a lie. How would you tell the difference?mangaroosh wrote: »As for recognising a God that lies to us, we must first understand who we are, and what our true nature is. The more we understand that the more we realise we cannot be lied to, or rather that we won't believe any lies.
There is a difference between believing you cannot be lied to and that you won't be lied to, something believers in the supernatural deities seem to confuse an awful lot.mangaroosh wrote: »If we are created in the image of God, then knowing more about ourselves we know more about God, and the more we know about God, the better able we are to tell whether or nor our bed is God.
No because that implies that you will eventually determine that there is a difference between a bed and God pretending to be a bed.
But as I said God is all powerful. He can by definition make himself into a bed that looks exactly like a bed with absolutely no difference.
So then how do you determine otherwise?
The one where he is omnipotent. Are you saying God isn't all powerful? How have you determined that?mangaroosh wrote: »Whose understanding of God is that?mangaroosh wrote: »What does reality look like? What is the difference between reality and non-reality? This cannot be understood by the limited mind, it cannot be explained, but only experienced.
How do you experience non-reality?0 -
How do you experience non-reality?
I guess you'd argue that you could experience "non-reality" through dreams, hallucinations, imagining or even media such as novels or films.
Though then you're probably arguing about the meaning of the word "experience", all these long winded arguments always seem to come down to being able to define a particular word in a particular way to suit a particular argument, making all of it, particularly pointless!0 -
I think I've spotted the problem here
Perhaps if I understood your overall contention relating to the exitence of God then I would better understand what you are trying to say.
The contention with regard to God is the same contention with knowledge, in that knowledge can only be gained through personal experienceWhat I am saying is personal experiences are subjective, as they are related to the person doing the experiencing.
The word subjective doesn't mean "related to the person doing the experiencing", and we can examine the definition below and find that the definition below is almost exactly the same as the OED Online definition.
Perhaps where the confusion arises is in with the word "personal", as that is what is described above i.e. relating to the person doing the experiencing. With regard to the term "personal experience", the word personal does [roughly] mean related to the person doing the experiencing, but again that does not mean it is subjective.What scientists do is consider multiple experiences from multiple people to ascertain those qualitites that do not vary with respect to the person doing the experiencing. This removes the "personal" dependencies of scientific theories. So we can say that a scientific theory is a description shared by everyone.
This sounds more like the word consensus"Icecream tastes nice" is true for some people. Electromagnetism is true for everyone.
Saying that "Ice cream tastes nice" is indeed subjective as the concept of nice is an opinion, as indeed are most [if not all] judgements and of course words.
The force that is described by electromagnetism is true for everyone (if of course what it describes is correct), however the theory that puts electromagnetism into words is subjective as it depends on the mind for existence and it is based on words, and measurements, which are themselves opinions.Now, you seem to be saying that, on another level, scientific theories are still subjective as we have no way of knowing if they truly correspond to a mind-independent reality.
No, what I am saying is that they are subjective because the words and measurements used are dependent on the mind for existence, and they are essentially opinions. A theory may be the most accurate description of reality possible, but it would still be subjective, because it is a theory and not the thing it describes.
The thing it describes would be objective.I mostly agree with this, and I doubt anyone else disagrees. But when we say subjective, we are using the more common definition
"1 based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions."
And science is not subjective by this definition. Science is considered more reliable than personal experience because of this.
All of science is not subjective, indeed the act of carrying out an experiment is objective, however, the details of any results expressed in language, figures, symbols, etc. is subjective, because they are ultimately based on opinions, i.e. it is the words, symbols, etc. that are opinions. They may be adopted as standardised on the basis of consensus, because everyone is of the same opinion, but they remain opinions nonetheless.That would be a big mistake. The greatest virtue of the english language is that no dictionary is an authority.
The Oxford English Dictionary is generally accepted as the authority on the english language, and has been for some time. Whether or not this is a virtue or a curse is not for either of us to decide.They are purely descriptive and not prescriptive. But either way, to quote my unabridged Third New International Webster Dictionary:
We can examine the description nonetheless- Subjective: In relating to, or being in experience or knowledge conditioned merely by personal characteristics of the mind or by particular states of mind as opposed to what is determined only by the universal condition of human experience and knowledge
- Arising from within or belonging strictly to the individual.
I have underlined the qualifying parts of the explanation above, and we can see that, again, what is referred to is, conditioning merely by the personal characteristics of the mind, or by particular states of mind.
It even makes the distinction between this and human experience, saying that the universal condition of human experience is not subjective.Under the same entry, it defines Kantian subjectivism as "being of, related to, or determined by the mind."
It is clear that Kantian subjectivism is little more than subjectivism at its purest, even by the definition above.which leads me to my next question: Assuming we accept that scientific theories are subjective in a very specific Kantian sense, how is that related to the existence of God?
Scientific theories are subjective by definition, Kantian or otherwise, what they describe or refer to is objective, or at least can be experienced objectively.
How this relates to God is covered in more depth in the preceding pages, but to try and give a brief summary (that will no doubt be insufficient), knowledge of God is only available through personal experience, just all knowledge is only available through personal experience.
One may know information about God and one may disprove theories about God, but that has no bearing on what God actually is, nor God's existence.
It should probably be re-iterated that God is not some dude on a cloud somewhere, and what an individuals interpretation of God is, is not necessarily what God actually is.0 -
Advertisement
-
I responded on the previous page to the issue of what we mean by subjective and objective so I won't go into much of that here.
I agree with most of these points but would again stress that this is precisely why scientists would never claim a scientific theory is "necessarily true" even if they personally experience the evidence. We only say it is true assuming that our collective experiences correspond to a mind-independent reality.
discussion on the nature of mind may perhaps clear up a few things, because it may cause some confusion, I know it did for me until it was explained.
It may seem reasonable to assume that we cannot experience anything independent of the mind, but one must first understand what they refer to when they say "the mind", because it can be a tricky thing to pin down.
Sometimes its helpful to think in terms of "the ordinary mind" and the "true nature of mind".
Also, it must be remembered that our brain is not the same thing as our mind.0 -
The word subjective has two definitions, one of which you keep ignoring: open to personal opinion or bias.
Opinions are themselves based on the mind for existence. The showing of bias is to decide in favour of one thing over another, based on a set of learned principles that distinguishes what is more favourable. This again is a matter of opinion, and opinions are dependent on the mind for existence.An event is objective, when something happens only one thing happens but the way in which people experience it can be completely different, for example how my colour blindness will cause me to experience green where you experience red. The redness of this event is objective but both of our experiences are subjective.
Vision of anything is itself subjective, because it is dependent on the conscious mind for existence, so whehter one of us sees red or the other sees green is irrelevant, as what each of us sees is subjective. However, our brain processes much more information than we perceive with our conscious mind, so while our interpretation of an experience may be translated subjectively by us, the objective knowledge gained from the experience resides in us outside the conscious mind.
For example, I have no inkling how gravity works, or at least I am not familiar with Newton's theory (I am aware of it), yet I make successful predictions using Gravity every day. I cannot rationalise this in such a way as it will match with Newton's theory, but I still have knowledge of how it works, from my experience with it.The word doesn't just mean dependent on the mind for existence, it means dependent on the subject. All personal experience is subjective because it is all dependent on the subject experiencing it
I'm not sure where the defintion with the explanation "dependent on the subject" comes from, but I have not seen it written anywhere. It may perhaps be written somewhere, but if we are to apply a [perhaps pseudo-] scientific criteria when choosing our sources based on reliability, then it doesn't correspond with the OED definition or indeed the Merriam-Webster [I think it was] provided by Morbert.You can choose to define the word any way you want but no one here uses it the way you do and there is no point having a conversation as long as we're using the same word to mean different things. You're essentially saying that because personal experience doesn't match your narrow definition of the word subjective it must be objective but you are only using one strict interpretation of the word and ignoring the other meanings it has
I can assure you, it is not my own personal, narrow defintion, it is that of the generally accepted "authority" on the english language, and indeed what is backed up by the Merriam-Webster definition.
While the OED is the most reliable source when it comes to looking up the meaning of an english word, it appears that, in this case, it is backed up the MW dictionary. I would be more willing to accept, that it is more a case that people are unsure of what the word means, as opposed to the authority on the english language being inaccurate, and another fairly widely accepted "authority", also being incorrect. I say that only because I had a similar misunderstanding of the word myself, until I looked it up.The best we can say we think we know something because we have nothing to check it against except our own minds. The fact that we cannot definitively say that we are not in a dream or the matrix shows that we cannot "know" anything
And I accept that, which is why we do not have to assume that we are not in a dream. We can work on the assumption that this is in fact a dream.
If this is a dream then God is the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent dreamer.True, but an experiment that allows anyone who so chooses to have this experience is better that one guy saying he experienced something
I won't dispute what is better or what is worse, the issue remains the acquisition of knowledge through personal experience.
As is the case with many scientific experiments, much study and research is required before one can carry out the experiment for oneself. Of course, serendipity is always possible. Similar may be said of the spiritual "experiment" or "path", especially when both claim to deal with reality. In the case of religion, the existence of God.
It must be pointed out also, that not all scientific experiments lead to the truth, many theories are indeed discarded. Sometimes much research is required of the individual to discern which [career] path to follow. Similar may be said of the spiritual path.which is why we have repeatable experiments. You used an example of a walk to the shops and said I can't describe exactly what was experienced and that's true but what I can do is tell people to walk it themselves and experience it for themselves and I can get more and more people to do the walk and document the experience in as much detail as possible until we have as accurate an account of the experience as possible
Again, in order for the people to verify it, they must experience it for themselves.
It must be remembered too however, that there are a great number of spiritual paths outlined, that people can undertake for themselves. Just as with anything, the results often depend on the person undertaking the experiment and how strictly they adhere to the guidelines.
There are of course certain teachers who may be better than others, or different paths that are more suitable than others depending on the person. They of course do not have to be taken on as a sole vocation, but can be done in tandem with other undertakings.
Ultimately, we have to find out for ourselves.0 -
Happy Christmas by the way, or Happy non-denominational holiday perhaps 0
-
To avoid repeating myself, I've attempted to respond to the crux of the matter.mangaroosh wrote: »We can examine the description nonetheless
I have underlined the qualifying parts of the explanation above, and we can see that, again, what is referred to is, conditioning merely by the personal characteristics of the mind, or by particular states of mind.
It even makes the distinction between this and human experience, saying that the universal condition of human experience is not subjective.
The definition explicity refers to knowledge defined by personal characteristics of the mind or by particular states of mind. Scientific theories do not depend on personal characteristics of the mind. They are impersonal, as they rely on the collective experiences and experiments of the scientific community.The contention with regard to God is the same contention with knowledge, in that knowledge can only be gained through personal experience
How this relates to God is covered in more depth in the preceding pages, but to try and give a brief summary (that will no doubt be insufficient), knowledge of God is only available through personal experience, just all knowledge is only available through personal experience.
One may know information about God and one may disprove theories about God, but that has no bearing on what God actually is, nor God's existence.
It should probably be re-iterated that God is not some dude on a cloud somewhere, and what an individuals interpretation of God is, is not necessarily what God actually is.
Well I agree that personal experience is essential for obtaining knowledge (and by knowledge I mean coherent descriptions of the universe with efficacy). But I would also say that personal experience, although essential, is not enough. I would compare my experiences to those of others, and see if my knowledge is reputable, in the hope of obtaining an impersonal description of phenomena.0 -
http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:subjective&ei=FTM0S9ihFIf00gSZpowZ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAEmangaroosh wrote: »I'm not sure where the defintion with the explanation "dependent on the subject" comes from, but I have not seen it written anywhere. It may perhaps be written somewhere, but if we are to apply a [perhaps pseudo-] scientific criteria when choosing our sources based on reliability, then it doesn't correspond with the OED definition or indeed the Merriam-Webster [I think it was] provided by Morbert.
Pertaining to subjects as opposed to objects (A subject is one who perceives or is aware; an object is the thing perceived or the thing that the subject is aware of. ...
You have incorrectly taken the extremely strict view that subjective applies only to things that exist solely in the mind. Even if an object or an event is objective, that does not mean that your experience of it is objective. That even fits into your narrow definition: your experience of an objective event is dependent on your mind for existence. All experience is subjective because all experience is dependent on the mind for existence. You are confusing an objective event with an objective experience. The latter does not exist
That's actually evolution in action. That "knowledge" is built into your genes.mangaroosh wrote: »For example, I have no inkling how gravity works, or at least I am not familiar with Newton's theory (I am aware of it), yet I make successful predictions using Gravity every day. I cannot rationalise this in such a way as it will match with Newton's theory, but I still have knowledge of how it works, from my experience with it.
Non sequiturmangaroosh wrote: »And I accept that, which is why we do not have to assume that we are not in a dream. We can work on the assumption that this is in fact a dream.
If this is a dream then God is the all knowing, all powerful, omnipotent dreamer.
If this is a dream then we could be the dream of John Smith from Tallaght. Anything can happen in a dream and you don't have to be omnipotent to have one.A non sequitur (pronounced /ˌnɒnˈsiːkwɨtər or ˌnɒnˈsɛkwɨtər/) is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows,[1] seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing, as in the following joke:
Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Fish.
Except that religion claims to deal with reality and it fails miserably every time where science succeeds to the point of putting men on the moon and explaining neurologically many of the things that religion claims have supernatural originsmangaroosh wrote: »As is the case with many scientific experiments, much study and research is required before one can carry out the experiment for oneself. Of course, serendipity is always possible. Similar may be said of the spiritual "experiment" or "path", especially when both claim to deal with reality. In the case of religion, the existence of God.
In fact no scientific experiments lead to "truth", the best they lead to is an improved understanding. But that is because the standard of "truth" proclaimed by philosophy and religion does not exist in the real world. The word "truth" will always remain in quotes until it can be externally verified and it can never be externally verifiedmangaroosh wrote: »It must be pointed out also, that not all scientific experiments lead to the truth, many theories are indeed discarded. Sometimes much research is required of the individual to discern which [career] path to follow. Similar may be said of the spiritual path.
Yes, of course they do, what is your point? That does not mean that every single person who experiences something will interpret it in exactly the same way and 100% correctly. If that were the case there would be no such thing as opinion and we would all be identical. It is not only possible but extremely common for people to be 100% sure of things that are 100% wrongmangaroosh wrote: »Again, in order for the people to verify it, they must experience it for themselves.
I left this to the end because I honestly don't know how to respond to this other than to say: What the **** are you talking about? But I'll give it a shot:mangaroosh wrote: »Vision of anything is itself subjective, because it is dependent on the conscious mind for existence, so whehter one of us sees red or the other sees green is irrelevant, as what each of us sees is subjective. However, our brain processes much more information than we perceive with our conscious mind, so while our interpretation of an experience may be translated subjectively by us, the objective knowledge gained from the experience resides in us outside the conscious mind.
For the purposes of this discussion I will grant you the completely incorrect assumption that every part of an experience is objective except the conscious part but even if we make that assumption; so what? Even if on some level in our mind the event is recorded correctly, every time we try to recollect it or use this "knowledge" in some way, it will be subject to the same interpretational errors.
In all honesty, it sounds to me like you're confusing your evolved instincts and your unconscious biases with some kind of deeper knowledge. What you're saying actually goes a long way to explaining the origins of religion: thousands of years ago people just like you confused evolved instincts and unconscious biases for deeper knowledge and they wrote their subjective experiences and subjective opinions on things like morality down in holy books as if they were objective and declared that they were god's will. Sure how could they not be? How could they be wrong? They had experienced these things so they "knew" them :rolleyes:0 -
Well I agree that personal experience is essential for obtaining knowledge (and by knowledge I mean coherent descriptions of the universe with efficacy). But I would also say that personal experience, although essential, is not enough. I would compare my experiences to those of others, and see if my knowledge is reputable, in the hope of obtaining an impersonal description of phenomena.
A very important point. If I think I have experienced something I might make a mistake where someone else might not make the same mistake. Have 1000 people look at something and you're extremely likely to pick up any mistakes that humans are capable of picking up. That's why repeatability is so important. One guy's unverifiable description of something is all but useless in determining "truth" (as far as humans are capable of determining "truth")0 -
A very important point. If I think I have experienced something I might make a mistake where someone else might not make the same mistake. Have 1000 people look at something and you're extremely likely to pick up any mistakes that humans are capable of picking up. That's why repeatability is so important. One guy's unverifiable description of something is all but useless in determining "truth" (as far as humans are capable of determining "truth")
But remember there was a time when everyone thought the world was flat and nowadays we have the same issue with people claiming to have 'personal experiences' with God.
Argument ad populum I believe it's called. So are you saying that it's typically a decent rule-of-thumb or do personal experiences with God fall outside what your saying?0 -
But remember there was a time when everyone thought the world was flat and nowadays we have the same issue with people claiming to have 'personal experiences' with God.
Argument ad populum I believe it's called. So are you saying that it's typically a decent rule-of-thumb or do personal experiences with God fall outside what your saying?
It's a kind of an argument ad populum with a bit of argument from authority thrown in. For the lay person the peer review process basically says "a lot of really smart people all verified this so it's very likely that they're right". It doesn't mean they're always right but they're more likely to be right than some guy with a feeling, no matter how good he thinks he is at sensing and interpreting things.
The important difference between science and an argument ad populum though is that it also tags on "but if you don't want to take our word for it you can go and verify it for yourself and here's exactly how you do it". That's the bit that religion is missing.0 -
Philosophy. And I agree with the quote. Weinberg's chapter "against philosophy" is a good read, and is freely available online.
Quantum mechanics stems from observations. The idea that observations effect the outcome of experiments is an early interpretation of QM (The most famous example of quantum oddness is probably the "double slit experiment"). Ultmately the theory of quantum mechanics is represented mathematically, and it is difficult to attribute classical meaning to it. What does it mean, for example, to apply operators to vectors in Hilbert space?
Quantum mechanics is a lesson in the limitatons of what evoltion has given us. Our brains have no problem constructing the classical concepts of Newton, and even Einstein. But quantum mechanics is another matter. Even the simple idea of identical conditions producing different results is jarring to us.
cheers. I want to look into that furhter. I remember coming across it a couple of times.
Do you know of any documentaries or anythign like that, that deal with it in a manner that would be intelligible to a lay person0 -
No it wouldn't because as has already been pointed out you are confusing two meanings of the word "real"
No, it has been asserted that I am confusing two meanings of the word "real". If any valid points are put forward, I will respond to them.No one who defended Paris in 1941 believed that "France" was a physical thing that existed independently of any humans who decide that this land area was going to be called "France".
This is backed up by?France is an abstract concept, that is very real in the sense that people exist who determine that this is France and wish to protect people who fall within her borders, but it is not real in the sense that it exists in the subset of things that physically exist, and no one has ever claimed otherwise.
We are, to a certain extent, in agreement, France is an abstract concept but it is not real, regardless of the sense. It does not exist in reality, so it is not real. However, if it "is very real in the sense that people exist who determine that this is France and wish to protect people who fall within her borders", then it must be pointed out that the borders are themselves not real, but imaginary. If the basis for protecting people is on their location with respect to an imaginary line, then it suggests that people believe this line exists, otherwise there would be no need for distinction.
But again, we are in agreement with regard to the nature of the country, however, if a person accepts that a country is in fact an abstract concept and not real, but then defend people on the basis of this imaginary concept, it would belie any belief that the borders are imaginary. In other words, they may say they believe it is abstract, but their actions would suggest otherwise.
Also, if a person were asked to provide evidence to show that a country existed, then a person could provide a lot of evidence that supports the claim "France is real". This would be despite the reality of the situation that France is not actually real, as it does not actually exist, other than in the imaginations of a wide number of people.
On the other hand, no evidence can be provided to support the reality of the situation, that France does not exist. A person could not bring a piece of "externally verifiable evidence" that supports reality, thereby highlighting the fallibility of "externally verifiable evidence" with regard to reality.
If there appears to be any confusion of the "two meanings of the word 'real'", then please state what the "two meanings of the word 'real'" are and how they are being confused.
Again, we are in agreement.Experience is separate from explanation.You experience reality but you have no clue what you just experienced without explanation.
Not quite so, it is actually the other way around. One does not have a clue what they are explaining, without the experience.
It may be helpful to understand the chronology of how explanations come about, when considering this. A person will have an experience and then seek to explain it. Bear in mind that the explanation and the experience are not the same thing.
A person may not have a clue how to explain the experience, or they may be unaware of how others would explain it, or that there exists a framework within which it can be explained, however knowledge of the explanation of an experience is not knowledge of the experience.
I may not be able to explain how "the digestive process works", but I know "digestion". I do it every day.And all explanations are models. They are what we think just happened. You are prefectly correct that a model of reality is not reality, but it is the best we have. The only thing you can do is attempt to model reality in the hope of understanding what and why things happen, including the sensory inputs that make up your own individual experiences.
Knowledge of a model of reality, is not knowledge of reality. The only way the accuracy of a model can be verified is through personal experience.
I may learn all the information there is about brain surgery, and I can meet all the top brain surgeons in the world, who tell me the information I have is correct, but I cannot know if it is true until I put it into practice, until I have direct personal experience.
Experience without explanation is simply raw data detached from knowledge or understanding.I've never seen any evidence presented that that is actually true. Such a model of human consciousness seems to be mere wishful thinking on the part of those who think such an explanation is more exciting than the alternative.
You may be correct in that, the statement that the human brain processes something like 4bn bits of information a second, and that we are only aware of something like 2000, may be inaccurate.
However, the true nature of the mind is still far from understood, so at this point in time, the understanding of the mind is that it is not the same as the brain. This understanding may develop, to the extent that the brain and the mind are equated as one, but until then they remain separate.
Of course, one can explore the natue of ones own mind themselves to verify much of the spiritual information that exists on the topic, and in so doing develop a better understanding. Again, it must be pointed out that the information can only be verified using personal experience.Applying the term "incorrect" to what you experience is irrelevant, it is an oxymoron. It is like saying the string of digits 5,6,8,2,4,7 is "incorrect".
The experience is neither correct nor incorrect, it is just the experience. The raw data streaming into your brain.
This may be a decent explanation of the objective nature of experience.It is the explanation that is either correct or incorrect. Saw you experience a bright light in front of you. That is the experience, it is say 5,6,8,2,4,7 optical data streaming into your brain. That is not incorrect, that just is. It is a fact.
Indeed, and it is the explanation that is subjective.No the first thing you do is start constructing an explanation for why 5,6,8,2,4,7 just streamed into your brain. Is it because there is a bright light in front of you. Is it because you are having a stroke and your nerves in your optic nerve are being damaged, sending crazy information to your brain. These are explanations, formed based on the models of various things you have constructed about reality (ie what a bright light in front of you should look like, what a stroke may be like)
These explanations can be correct or incorrect.
Again, as agreed, the explanation is not the experience. Further, the knowledge is not the explanation. The explanation may of course be correct or incorrect, however that may be dependent on a persons ability to express themseles, the knowledge however remains objective.
For example, a person may know how to perform a very complicated task, say a mechanic, who has had no theory training. They may be able to change the clutch on a car. They may not be able to explain to another person how to do it, according to the standards and practices outlined in a professional mechanics qualification, that does not change the fact that they know how to do it.
So the explanation may indeed be correct or incorrect (this of course is an entirely subjective judgement), but ability to explain something has no bearing on knowledge. It may impact how one transfers the knowledge to someone else, but again that is immaterial, and does not affect a persons ability to know something.It doesn't matter, you are still forming explanations for sensory experience.
Explanations do not necessarily have to be formed.Take language, the often used example for tacit knowledge. As as baby experiences the audio inputs from adults speaking around them they form a mental model of what is happening and why. The experience is simply air vibrating on the ear drum, but the explanation they form is that daddy is communicating with mommy using words.
It is very easy to see that the experience is separate from the explanation when you pick up an English speaking and drop him in Germany. The experience is exactly the same, vibrations in the vocal cords of others causing air to vibrate on the ear drum. But the explanation and the model is completely different and thus makes no sense to the person listening. His explanation for the "uh" sound is different to the explanation in Germany, despite the experience being exactly the same.
And by the way the mental model of language is stored in the brain. You can rationalise it but that doesn't mean you have to, babies automatically pick up speech patterns because they have evolved parts of the brain to do this instinctively.
This is a very pertinent example, as it can be used to highlight the nature of words, and the necessity for experience to make sense of words.
If we use a similar example above, where a person learns words, we can see that the words themselves are meaningless without the experience that accompanies them, or the associated act or object.
With the example above, it is the vibration of air on the eardrums that is objective, and something we still to this day experience. It is the interpretation of those vibrations into words that is subjective.
If we take the child, the child and advance them a couple of years to where they have learned a few words. Lets say that they have learned the word "cup", or they have learned the vibrations on the eardrum that to them no sounds like "cup". This child may continually repeat the word cup and go through life without ever experiencing/seeing/holding a cup. If this is the case, then the word itself will be meaningless to them.
However, it is the fact that they learn to associate the word with the object, that is referred to by the sounds "cup", that they learn to attribute meaning to it. They learn that the object is referred to as "cup", so in future if they require such an object (that has the function they associate with their experience of a cup), then they say the word to indicate the object to which they are referring, and which they have experienced.
If we take this further and the child grows up and heads to germany, and finds himself (or herself) in a location where no one speaks any english, and they do not speak german (for good measure).
If they then try to ask the german for a cup, the german will not have any understanding of what they mean, and may even start to repeat the word like the child, with no understanding of what the word means. The reason for this would be, of course, because the german knows the object as "die Tasse", so cup has absolutely no meaning for them.
In order for the two to arrive at an understanding they will have to try and draw on the others personal experience, to clarify what they mean. The english speaking person may describe the cup, using actions or even by drawing it, to see if the german recognises the object.
Words are themselves merely labels we apply to things for the purpose of communication. "The cup" does not actually mean "die Tasse", rather both words point to the same object.
If we extend this example to God, then trying to explain what God is to someone who has never experienced God, becomes like the two people trying to describe the cup. Without the experience, then the attempted description is nigh impossible.Well no, science removes the "skills" completely. A scientist does not personally interpret their own data, no matter how developed their interpretation is or isn't.
They produce a model that then is run by others totally independently of the original scientist. The scientist's personal interpretation of what happened is largely irrelevant.
There appears to be an incorrect assumption as to how science operates, that there is an individual scientist who may discover something and that there are other scientists who are free from the same biases as the original scientist. It also appears to be assumed that something does not become true until it is verified by other scientists, this of course is not correct.
A scientist may make a claim. This claim is either true or it isn't, regardless of whether or not it is verified, or regardless of what the original scientist maintains. They may say it is true, but it may be false. Equally, they may say it is false but it is actually true. The scientist may also maintain that it is false and it may actually be false.
Equally however, the scientist may maintain that the claim is true, and it may indeed be true.
If another scientist carries out the experiment and verifies that the claim is true, that does not make it true or false. The claim is either true or false independent of verification. The verification process is just a manner in which, very boadly speaking, people can know if the claim is true or false.
Verification of a claim is merely a by-product of the acquisition of knowledge on a personal level. It does not affect the truth of the claim, rather who knows the truth.
The truth is independent of who knows it.No, personal investigation is what leads people to pick comforting explanations over accurate ones.
In order for a scientist to verify a claim, they must do so personally, themselves. If no one personally verifies a claim, then the claim does not get verified. This of course does not affect the truth of the claim, rather who knows the truth.
Only those who personally investigate have the opportunity to actually know the truth.
If a thousand scientists verify a claim as either true or false and you read that in a scientific journal then you don't know if it is true or false, you can choose to believe it is true or false, based on your faith in the scientific methodology. You may have good reason to have faith, but it is faith nonetheless.Personally investigation rarely leads to better understand (as 5,000 years of nonsense before science came along will attest to) and if it does by a fluke lead to better understanding you won't know it has because you can't remove yourself and your own biases from the equation.
The only way you can have a better understanding of something is through personal investigation. No one else can develop and understanding for you, you must do it yourself. I cannot learn stuff for you, no more than any eminent scientist can. You may read a scientific journal, but this of course is part of what personal investigation is. The knowledge that you would have as a result of this is knowldge of information, again, which you can choose to believe or not, based on your levele of faith.It is like you personally deciding your girlfriend isn't cheating on you. Now, how do you determine that this is actually accurate and not a conclusion you reached simply because you don't want her to be cheating on you? The only way to do that is to test your conclusion independently of your own personal assessment of what is happening. At which point you are no longer personally investigating something. Anyone could run the same test you just did and they would get the same result. It becomes far more objective that it previously was.
One way you could know is by spending every minute in her company (personally, as a form of investigation). You may choose to spend a lot of time in her company, and the rest following her without allowing her to leave your sight. This again would be personal investigation.
If you try to do it independently, e.g get someone else to follow her (and outline what you consider to be cheating), then you cannot know, you can only believe this independent third party. Personal investigation is the only way you can know, especially in this scenario.And how do you tell the difference between exploring our true nature and simply making up more interesting explanations that are not in fact true?
If you are making up explanations, then you know it isn't your true nature, as our true nature is not words or thoughts. Any explanation of reality, is not reality. It can of course be describedIf you can't then why think this exploration has lead to any further insights into humans?
There is an assumption that one can't, however, the question is, have you tried, and what is your understanding of the issue/topic?Why would your personal experience of God be a more accurate description of God than theirs?
This isn't a discussion about any individuals experience of God, rather the relevance of personal experience with regard to the existence of God.
A description of an experience is not the experience, and one persons experience cannot be more accurate than anothers, as accuracy is not an attribute that can be ascribed to experience.
As for how one description could be more accurate than another? How would one persons description of the digestive process be more accurate than anothers?That doesn't make any sense. By definition an all powerful supernatural deity can lying to what ever he likes since he controls everything. If God wanted to you he could have created the entire universe 3 seconds ago and put all your memories into your head (or mind or what ever) as completely made up, in which case your entire life is a lie. How would you tell the difference?
This depends on ones understanding of what God is, and the nature of reality.There is a difference between believing you cannot be lied to and that you won't be lied to, something believers in the supernatural deities seem to confuse an awful lot.
If one knows the truth, then one cannot be lied to, it is impossible. As for the supposition that God could lie, that is based on a subjective interpretation of what God is and sounds as though it is conditioned by the idea that God could speak using words.
As we know however, words are subjective and not part of reality.No because that implies that you will eventually determine that there is a difference between a bed and God pretending to be a bed.
Knoweldge of that depends on ones knowledge of God and indeed reality. If one knows reality, then one knows the truth, if one knows the truth, then one could tell the difference.But as I said God is all powerful. He can by definition make himself into a bed that looks exactly like a bed with absolutely no difference.
So then how do you determine otherwise?
seeing a bed is a subjective perception of reality. A bed exists at the sub-atomic level and quite possibly at the sub-string level. If one sees a bed, then what they are seeing is not reality.
Also, talk of God turning into a bed is based on a subjective interpretation of what God is.
the difference.The one where he is omnipotent. Are you saying God isn't all powerful? How have you determined that?
There are some questions that do not make sense, like asking whether or not the number 5 is married. Perhaps understanding ones own true natuer might mean that such questions are easier distinguished.How do you experience non-reality?
Think a thought.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement