Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
fullywired

. - Understanding religious delusion

680 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MARAB0D

I am not seeking to deny a few philosophers their right to refine english words FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES, only to disallow them to usurp the original meanings of those words. Neither god nor science is relevant in the philosophical framework under discussion here.

Science does not use objective and subjective in the same way philosophy does, Or it could not operate as science, although philosophers have adapted some science to try and shore up some philosophic pov. Ive never met a scientist who said my corn beef sandwich lost physical existence when ii couldnt see it.

I deny you the right to claim that when i use certain words they automatically fall under anyones provenance, other than the origian english language meanings and derivations of them.

Being a fan of berkely i guess you go along his assumptions that all which exists are minds and the thoughts within them.

His outright denial ofthe existence of a material world is understandable given the way our minds work, but cannot reconcile with scientific understandings to any useful purpose Science is all about the material world.

His books presented a very clear paradigm but there is no physical evidence for it. Even samuel johnsons famous retort illustrates theoretical and evolutionary nature of berkley's concept.

And then there is the small problem of why we all apparently see the same things.

Berkley.s solution to why our sandwiches keep existing when we are not looking at them was (ironically i imagine in your world view) via the mind of god. Berkley saw god as kindly maintining the focus which we could not, in order to maintain the reality of the universe. So, for him, reality was not in our minds but in gods.

MW, the words we are discussing - they are NOT English at all! They are mostly Greek and Latin. And in English their combinations, which we use, do not belong to "original english" but to the certain philosophical teachings. You cannot just use them in your own sense as you do! "Objective" and "Subjective" realities are defined in the materialistic philosophies ONLY, you are free to stop using them if you do not like. Science and Philosophy (Materialistic of course) is one the same thing, philosophy is a part, a branch of Science. Its job is to formulate the approaches in scientific work. You may think philosophy is for a fun talk only, but this is not so, alas, MW! Philosophy is a working tool in science, it defines how do the scientists think, and the young scientists are taught to think the way to be most productive in their future job - the Materialistic way, through full separation of Objective from Subjective. Science even has a degree, "Philosophy doctor" - would you deny this too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
name='Br Cornelius' timestamp='1284887582' post='3578434']

We see the same things because they are objective.

My point precisely

Its how we interpret them that makes the difference, in that sense we don't see the same things - we see our subjective impressions of objective "objects".

How peole perceive things makes no differnce/cannot alter their objective nature. It is this debate that I am having here. Philosophy takes the point of view that, because we cannot'objectively" perceive anything, we cannot be sure of anything's objective existence. That, in real life, is just ridiculous. The role of science is precisely to ascertain, as accurately as possible, the objective realities of existence; large and small. If you apply the philosophic view that objective reality cannot be ascertained, then science cant do its primary job.

In most case the distinction doesn't matter because the approximation between the two is functional. In the case of concepts such as God, Love and Hate then the subjective interpetation is very personal and particular and therefore we do not see the same things at all.

MAny constructs are subjectified more tha things which have objective existence, but even a construct can be seen and perceived objectively. To believe otherwise is to self limit the abilities of human sense perception and logical thought Modern neuroscience is establishing reasonably precisely the objective nature of thoughts, memeories, constructs, emotions etc.

We do not just live in a world of things, we also live in a world of ideas about things and pure ideas. The delusion of classical thinking is not to distinguish between those different orders of reality.

I can accept that, and acknowledge tha tit has been one of the more common failings of huma thought, but it is equally delusional to believe we CAN NOT see and examine things BOTH objectively, and subjectively.

Ontology is the foundation of trying to decide what is actually real and therefore been able to decide what ideas are actually real. Almost everyone skips the ontological stage when seeking meaning and falls into the bear trap of believing that their ideas are actually real things :lol:

An idea does have concrete, measurable, shape and form. It can be viewed, measured, recorded, and before long will be reproducible and transferable in physical form, but i understand what you are saying.

I have never been a person to whom a belief played a part in forming my perception or world view except in the ways that experience teaches us all. EG I learn not to step of a cliff because i have a conceptual idea of the nature of gravity, combined with a learned experiential understanding of its effects.

Aristotle was perhaps the first recognised ontologist philosopher, asking what an object was made of, what sort of thing it is etc Tha tis the way i tend to think

While plato might be considered an early epistomologist, that concept is really of the 20th century, with its focus on understanding how we know what we know.

There seems to be a lot of ongoing debate among epistomologist externalists and internalists and I, among many, am yet to be convinced that (unlike ontology), it really has any relevance to modern scientific process.

One exception may be in bioethics and the like, where establishing what truth is, and how it is ascertained can be very relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

MW, the words we are discussing - they are NOT English at all! They are mostly Greek and Latin. And in English their combinations, which we use, do not belong to "original english" but to the certain philosophical teachings. You cannot just use them in your own sense as you do! "Objective" and "Subjective" realities are defined in the materialistic philosophies ONLY, you are free to stop using them if you do not like. Science and Philosophy (Materialistic of course) is one the same thing, philosophy is a part, a branch of Science. Its job is to formulate the approaches in scientific work. You may think philosophy is for a fun talk only, but this is not so, alas, MW! Philosophy is a working tool in science, it defines how do the scientists think, and the young scientists are taught to think the way to be most productive in their future job - the Materialistic way, through full separation of Objective from Subjective. Science even has a degree, "Philosophy doctor" - would you deny this too?

Objective: Pertaining to the object, relating to that which is external to the mind.

Object:Anything presented to the senses or the mind.

And they come prior to that from Latin then French. LAtin: ob-jectus(something thrown forwards, here meaning thrown into our view or sight)French ob and jacere or jicere

Subjective:Relating to the subject. noting the point of view from which an object isregarded or conceived of by a conscious subject.

From the latin; subjectus, and the french; sub jicere (place or bring under. ie to place an object under the viewpoint or perspective of a conscious subject.)

FRom "The Standard Dictionary," but any English dictionary will give you similar . Even wiki gives these as at least one common definition for objective and subjective. It is not I who am usurping the original and common meanings of these words.

Perhaps some scientists today are being taught concepts like materialism via philosophy . If so, and in the terms you imply, then that is an error. It is akin to teaching theological forms of thought to assist scientific understandings.

My nephew, after passing with a perfect score his pre entrance exams, is now nearing completion of an honours degree in molecular biology. He is not being taught, in the terms you imply, any such understanding of a philosophical view.

He will eventually have a Ph D. It has nothing to do with philosophy (in australia at least) but is an accreditation given to a person who meets a set of criteria including peer reviewed thesis etc based on research. You can get a Ph D without even touching on philosophy per se. Particularly in the hard sciences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius
An idea does have concrete, measurable, shape and form. It can be viewed, measured, recorded, and before long will be reproducible and transferable in physical form, but i understand what you are saying.

You are just plain wrong about this and it is the very root of your misunderstanding of what we are talking about here. I cannot talk to you if you fail to acknowledge this.

Br Cornelius

~~~

NOTE: Br Cornelius and everyone -- Please try to include the quote link of the poster to whom you reply, in YOUR reply-post. If you don't know how, please ask how that's done.

Karlis

Edited by Karlis
Added quote link - plus a note in the post regarding including links

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

MW, the words we are discussing - they are NOT English at all! They are mostly Greek and Latin. And in English their combinations, which we use, do not belong to "original english" but to the certain philosophical teachings. You cannot just use them in your own sense as you do! "Objective" and "Subjective" realities are defined in the materialistic philosophies ONLY, you are free to stop using them if you do not like. Science and Philosophy (Materialistic of course) is one the same thing, philosophy is a part, a branch of Science. Its job is to formulate the approaches in scientific work. You may think philosophy is for a fun talk only, but this is not so, alas, MW! Philosophy is a working tool in science, it defines how do the scientists think, and the young scientists are taught to think the way to be most productive in their future job - the Materialistic way, through full separation of Objective from Subjective. Science even has a degree, "Philosophy doctor" - would you deny this too?

But I wonder how a purely materialistic approach allows us to answer those questions that are essentially metaphysical in nature, they will most certainly fall short because they are essentially blinding their left eye while proclaiming that they can see perfectly well through their right eye.

Materialism, does not hold adequate answers to these questions, and one cannot proclaim that they do, when for all practical purposes they refuse to accept any approach that isn't materialistic in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

As a side note to how far QM has taken science into metaphysics let me give a very brief explanation of what the wave partical duality actually seems to means.

An electron has a probability wave associated with it which tells you the probability of it been in any particular place at any given time, and this probability extends to all points possible. Until that electron is actually measured thats all it actually is - a probability. The reason that an electron can be "transported" from one place to another - which is refered to as quantum tunneling, is because what we are forcing it to do is to decide where in the probability field it actually is. We are simply localizing it in a particular place. Until we actually perform the actual measurement its simply exists a a set of probable locations. The reason it seems to move from one spot to another instantaneously by teleportation is because we a) know where it was generated because we generated it b ) we know where it ends up because that is where we have placed our measuring instrument. If we had failed to measure it, it would have remained an intangible probability. It is the act of measuring which forced it to be an electron in a particular place. On top of this weirdness is the fact that if we choose to measure it as an actual physical wave then it performs as a dispersed wave, but if we choose to measure it as a particle then it performs as a particle. It cannot exist as both simultaneously, and the probability wave is not the same as the physical wave we measure.

In this sense quantum mechanics actually tells us that reality is actually altered by the preconceptions (choice of measuring instrument) which we use.

The electron has no objective reality outside of what we expect of it subjectively. As you see these problems extend to every facet of reality. The great problem of the 21st century is how to reconcile the experimental evidence of quantum mechanics with a "objective material universe".

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

As a side note to how far QM has taken science into metaphysics let me give a very brief explanation of what the wave partical duality actually seems to means.

An electron has a probability wave associated with it which tells you the probability of it been in any particular place at any given time, and this probability extends to all points possible. Until that electron is actually measured thats all it actually is - a probability. The reason that an electron can be "transported" from one place to another - which is refered to as quantum tunneling, is because what we are forcing it to do is to decide where in the probability field it actually is. We are simply localizing it in a particular place. Until we actually perform the actual measurement its simply exists a a set of probable locations. The reason it seems to move from one spot to another instantaneously by teleportation is because we a) know where it was generated because we generated it B) we know where it ends up because that is where we have placed our measuring instrument. If we had failed to measure it, it would have remained an intangible probability. It is the act of measuring which forced it to be an electron in a particular place. On top of this weirdness is the fact that if we choose to measure it as an actual physical wave then it performs as a dispersed wave, but if we choose to measure it as a particle then it performs as a particle. It cannot exist as both simultaneously, and the probability wave is not the same as the physical wave we measure.

In this sense quantum mechanics actually tells us that reality is actually altered by the preconceptions (choice of measuring instrument) which we use.

The electron has no objective reality outside of what we expect of it subjectively. As you see these problems extend to every facet of reality. The great problem of the 21st century is how to reconcile the experimental evidence of quantum mechanics with a "objective material universe".

Br Cornelius

Agreed Br. C... let us also add that if one had to compress an object like a person so that the atoms making up that object were to touch side by side instead of the distances between the atoms that are called Van der Waals Forces, we would effectively make an object disappear to the size of a pinhead. Essentially what we percieve to be the real and objective world is nothing more than empty space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Of course you can use the word how ever you want, but if you want to advance the discussion it helps to use it in context.

Not make up a context.

Jorel quotes;

"Yes, an experience that was brought upon me, I did not seek it, although it changed my life, it was observed by me through the cognitive process thus altered my paradigm of reality. The point being that it IS OUR paridigm of reality that makes the distinction of what is real or nor and also what is objective or not. We may both witness the same event for example, but it is our paradigm that will determine, how we shall see or interpret that event."

But it can be used in that very way, I've seen articles use the term and even better yet we have the term Paradigm shift, which is used in multiple ways... Yes it is used in science yet it is also used in the social and economic sciences as well.

The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain "thought pattern" a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing.

A Paradigm shift, is a shift in perspective a radical shift of awareness, if one holds to a particular paradigm of reality as you do, you would undergo a paradigm shift in you awareness and perspective if you suddenly became a believer... In other words your entire worldview would change, how you percieve the world would change, your interaction with the world would change, you wouldn't be the same person anymore.

So as you can see I can use the word in the very context I used it initially and I'm sure everybody for the last month since this thread started understood the context equally well.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

Agreed Br. C... let us also add that if one had to compress an object like a person so that the atoms making up that object were to touch side by side instead of the distances between the atoms that are called Van der Waals Forces, we would effectively make an object disappear to the size of a pinhead. Essentially what we percieve to be the real and objective world is nothing more than empty space.

That would be like taking a piece of music and playing all the notes within it at once.

Music is not just the notes. It's the spaces between the notes that make it Music.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

It is the act of measuring which forced it to be an electron in a particular place.

Alternatively - it's the interaction with the wave that causes it to form an electron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

That would be like taking a piece of music and playing all the notes within it at once.

Music is not just the notes. It's the spaces between the notes that make it Music.

Of course it isn't, I was just commenting on the fact that things are not as solid or steadfast as most people assume when they think of what is real, or in this case, what an object is.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

But it can be used in that very way, I've seen articles use the term and even better yet we have the term Paradigm shift, which is used in multiple ways... Yes it is used in science yet it is also used in the social and economic sciences as well.

The term "paradigm shift" has found uses in other contexts, representing the notion of a major change in a certain "thought pattern" — a radical change in personal beliefs, complex systems or organizations, replacing the former way of thinking or organizing with a radically different way of thinking or organizing.

A Paradigm shift, is a shift in perspective a radical shift of awareness, if one holds to a particular paradigm of reality as you do, you would undergo a paradigm shift in you awareness and perspective if you suddenly became a believer... In other words your entire worldview would change, how you percieve the world would change, your interaction with the world would change, you wouldn't be the same person anymore.

So as you can see I can use the word in the very context I used it initially and I'm sure everybody for the last month since this thread started understood the context equally well.

IMO this is religious nonsense.

What changes is how you use or don't use your thinking apparatus.

For instance you ( as in general) would not except anything on belief or faith and argue without evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

IMO this is religious nonsense.

What changes is how you use or don't use your thinking apparatus.

For instance you ( as in general) would not except anything on belief or faith and argue without evidence.

Excuse me Sheri but I don't understand you, could you clarify your statement?

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Excuse me Sheri but I don't understand you, could you clarify your statement?

Basically that which constitutes fact is evidence. Truth value is determined by evidence, If there is none, it's assumed something isn't a fact until evidence enters the picture. In this context or understanding one generally doesn't argue personal beliefs or their subjective reality/pov as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Basically that which constitutes fact is evidence. Truth value is determined by evidence, If there is none, it's assumed something isn't a fact until evidence enters the picture. In this context or understanding one generally doesn't argue personal beliefs or their subjective reality/pov as fact.

To this, I'll repeat my earlier words...

But I wonder how a purely materialistic approach allows us to answer those questions that are essentially metaphysical in nature, they will most certainly fall short because they are essentially blinding their left eye while proclaiming that they can see perfectly well through their right eye.

Materialism, does not hold adequate answers to these questions, and one cannot proclaim that they do, when for all practical purposes they refuse to accept any approach that isn't materialistic in nature.

I will add that this the very bias which will not allow us to ever come to a consensus on this board.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Br Cornelius

To this, I'll repeat my earlier words...

I will add that this the very bias which will not allow us to ever come to a consensus on this board.

Science doesn't by definition restrict itself to the material, but a thing must effect the material in some tangible way to be said to have evidence and hence "objective" meaning. An idea is evidence of nothing other than itself.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Science doesn't by definition restrict itself to the material, but a thing must effect the material in some tangible way to be said to have evidence and hence "objective" meaning. An idea is evidence of nothing other than itself.

Br Cornelius

Merely by definition, in practice, it's a whole different ballgame.

The whole point of the last 6 pages or so of this thread reveal that "objective meanining" is a non sequitur.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

To this, I'll repeat my earlier words...

I will add that this the very bias which will not allow us to ever come to a consensus on this board.

Perhaps, your wanting g-d to be objective so badly your wanting science to prove it. That's the problem with excepting things on faith they may or may not pan out and the g-d thing in my pov is not even on the objective radar ,as of yet.

I am biased, the point is not that I am not biased, but that I account for it in my arguments and frame my arguments in way that reflects this, to the best of my ability.

I try to apply intellectual integrity as outlined by the disciplines of my culture( the reason for getting educated. )

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Merely by definition, in practice, it's a whole different ballgame.

The whole point of the last 6 pages or so of this thread reveal that "objective meanining" is a non sequitur.

After all this , all the contributions by various educated people in different disciplines. You conclude objective reality is moot.

Except Jor el, that wasn't the point of the last 6 pages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Perhaps, your wanting g-d to be objective so badly your wanting science to prove it. That's the problem with excepting things on faith they may or may not pan out and the g-d thing in my pov is not even on the objective radar ,as of yet.

I am biased, the point is not that I am not biased, but that I account for it in my arguments and frame my arguments in way that reflects this, to the best of my ability.

I try to apply intellectual integrity as outlined by the disciplines of my culture( the reason for getting educated. )

God is not objective or subjective and science will never prove it one way or the other... it won't ever even get close. That was never the point, the point here is that people use these arguments as if they had an actual answer to these questions wheras we all know that science and the scientific method will never give it to them.

That is the underlying fallacy end error of arguing from your POV.

Materialism, does not hold adequate answers to these questions, and one cannot proclaim that they do, when for all practical purposes they refuse to accept any approach that isn't materialistic in nature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

After all this , all the contributions by various educated people in different disciplines. You conclude objective reality is moot.

Except Jor el, that wasn't the point of the last 6 pages.

Oh, what was?

Objectivity is beholden to our perception of the material world, if our perceptions differ how can you ever say that there is such a thing as objectivity... that is what the last few pages have been about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

You are just plain wrong about this and it is the very root of your misunderstanding of what we are talking about here. I cannot talk to you if you fail to acknowledge this.

Br Cornelius

~~~

NOTE: Br Cornelius and everyone -- Please try to include the quote link of the poster to whom you reply, in YOUR reply-post. If you don't know how, please ask how that's done.

Karlis

That is not waht modern neuro science, artificial intelligence experts and other cutting edge scientists in the realm of thought, memory etc., are concluding.

I am not an expert but i read and watch enough to know that thoughts and memories can be viewed using technology, as they work in the human mind,

And that scientists can already remove specific memories and are on the brink of being able to implant and transfer specific memories. If this can be done, then thoughts and memories must have objective existence, to allow them to be manipulated in these ways. Something non concrete can not be physically manipulated, somthing material/concrete/with objective existence, can.

This is largely irrelevant to the nature of objective/subjective realities, but thoughts and memories are no longer the immaterial subjective concepts they were up until this millenia.

We are now understanding that not only are thoughts and memories organic, but just how they are created, retained/stored and transferred. Thus a human thought can be sent to a machine and make that machine operate. Again, something without material existence cannot do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

As a side note to how far QM has taken science into metaphysics let me give a very brief explanation of what the wave partical duality actually seems to means.

An electron has a probability wave associated with it which tells you the probability of it been in any particular place at any given time, and this probability extends to all points possible. Until that electron is actually measured thats all it actually is - a probability. The reason that an electron can be "transported" from one place to another - which is refered to as quantum tunneling, is because what we are forcing it to do is to decide where in the probability field it actually is. We are simply localizing it in a particular place. Until we actually perform the actual measurement its simply exists a a set of probable locations. The reason it seems to move from one spot to another instantaneously by teleportation is because we a) know where it was generated because we generated it b ) we know where it ends up because that is where we have placed our measuring instrument. If we had failed to measure it, it would have remained an intangible probability. It is the act of measuring which forced it to be an electron in a particular place. On top of this weirdness is the fact that if we choose to measure it as an actual physical wave then it performs as a dispersed wave, but if we choose to measure it as a particle then it performs as a particle. It cannot exist as both simultaneously, and the probability wave is not the same as the physical wave we measure.

In this sense quantum mechanics actually tells us that reality is actually altered by the preconceptions (choice of measuring instrument) which we use.

The electron has no objective reality outside of what we expect of it subjectively. As you see these problems extend to every facet of reality. The great problem of the 21st century is how to reconcile the experimental evidence of quantum mechanics with a "objective material universe".

Br Cornelius

In essence this is an argument about the nature of objective reality, not its existence.

Its like early scientists knowing about electricity, but not having the tools, equipment, or data base of background knowledge, to fully comprehend its nature.

Already scientists are apply quantum concepts in everything from entangled photons for computing, through to matter transference and manipulation. Again, one can't physically manipulate something which does not have objective existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Try finding something useful, developed by those who do not separate Objective from Subjective, I would give you time till Christmas to report it here!

And you try finding something creative; from music, painting to architecture which does fully separate Objective from Subjective. I'll give you the same time frame.

I would argue that even the greatest discoveries of science came from human minds where objective and subjective viewpoints and realities were, at least in part, entangled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

God is not objective or subjective and science will never prove it one way or the other... it won't ever even get close. That was never the point, the point here is that people use these arguments as if they had an actual answer to these questions wheras we all know that science and the scientific method will never give it to them.

That is the underlying fallacy end error of arguing from your POV.

Materialism, does not hold adequate answers to these questions, and one cannot proclaim that they do, when for all practical purposes they refuse to accept any approach that isn't materialistic in nature.

Science is able to enquire into anything that effects the Universe. If it has an effect on the Universe, then it can be measured. If it can be measured then it falls under the realm of Science.

That includes being able to test necessary constraints for a God, such as his ability to answer prayer, a necessary constraint which appears to be suspiciously absent.

In short - your rejection of Science is not because it cannot answer those questions, but because you don't like the answers it gives you.

You're not alone, however. I do it, too. I reject pretty much all quantum interpretations because losing the idea of local reality is anathema to me. Like Einstein, I don't believe that God plays dice with the Universe. Especially the God bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.