Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Morbert

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.

pH

Morbert wrote: »

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?

Sam Vimes

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 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.

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

2) It is possible to know "things" (if we're not living in a dream or "the matrix")

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

mangaroosh 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.

True, but an experiment that allows anyone who so chooses to have this experience is better that one guy saying he experienced something

mangaroosh wrote: »

6) Personal experience cannot be explained using words, but only described.

Those mean the same thing

mangaroosh 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.

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

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

I have not been following this thread but has anyone suggested otherwise?

No, it was meant as a separate point on the issue of evidence

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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 thing

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Wicknight wrote: »

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 it

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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 God

Wicknight wrote: »

Not 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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Wicknight wrote: »

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]

Morbert

pH wrote: »

Do you? Really? This is standard in scientific texts? If I read a 'scientific' paper, I'll see some small print to this effect?

It is standard in the philosophy of science.

Or did you just make that up?

no

pH

Morbert wrote: »

It is standard in the philosophy of science.

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

Morbert

pH wrote: »

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.

Zombrex

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.

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 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.

Experience without explanation is simply raw data detached from knowledge or understanding.

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.

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: »

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.

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.

It doesn't matter, you are still forming explanations for sensory experience.

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?

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.

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?

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?

mangaroosh wrote: »

Whose understanding of God is that?

The one where he is omnipotent. Are you saying God isn't all powerful? How have you determined 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?

pH

Wicknight wrote: »

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!

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

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 experience

Morbert wrote: »

What 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.

Morbert wrote: »

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

Morbert wrote: »

"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.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Morbert wrote: »

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

Morbert wrote: »

• 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.

We all seem to be using the more common first definition, and you seem to be using a more specific kantian definition

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.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

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.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

roosh

Happy Christmas by the way, or Happy non-denominational holiday perhaps

Morbert

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.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh 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.

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:subjective&ei=FTM0S9ihFIf00gSZpowZ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE

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

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.

That's actually evolution in action. That "knowledge" is built into your genes.

mangaroosh 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.

Non sequitur

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.

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.

mangaroosh 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.

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 origins

mangaroosh 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.

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 verified

mangaroosh wrote: »

Again, in order for the people to verify it, they must experience it for themselves.

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% wrong

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.

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:

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:

Sam Vimes

Morbert wrote: »

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")

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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?

Sam Vimes

liamw wrote: »

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.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

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 person

roosh

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

Experience is separate from explanation.

Again, we are in agreement.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

It doesn't matter, you are still forming explanations for sensory experience.

Explanations do not necessarily have to be formed.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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 described

Wicknight wrote: »

If 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?

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

Wicknight wrote: »

How do you experience non-reality?

Think a thought.

Zombrex

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, if you don't think you are doing that. But I and others think you are so we can't really continue with your analogy any further.

It is like saying "Star Wars never happened, it is a made up story, but people claim to have 'seen' it. How can people claim to have seen something that never happened, think about that for a minute! Blow your mind!"

The issue here isn't the concepts of what is real or not real but purely a miss use of English.

If you can't see this I really can't discuss the analogy of countries and "real" things any further.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Not quite so, it is actually the other way around. One does not have a clue what they are explaining, without the experience.

Not sure how you can say that. I've never experienced an atomic blast 5 metres from my face but I can explain to you what happens.

On the other hand if you grab a man from Egypt ten thousand years ago and set off an atomic blast in front of him he wouldn't have a freaking clue what was happening to him, even if he had time to actually properly observe himself being vaporised.

The experience on its own is pretty much useless in terms of knowledge gathering. You only start "knowing" what was happening when you start on the explanation, even if it is as simple as saying that painful thud in my face was someone hitting me with a 2 by 4

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

Yeah of course, the only way something can be verified is if someone actually verifies it, but that isn't relevant to the point. You still need the model. The experience of opening up someone's head is not going to tell you anything on its own.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

No it doesn't, because raw sensory data is not knowledge. Feeling sharp pain in your face is not knowledge. I just got hit in the face by a plank of wood is knowledge and that is also the explanation for the experience. And it is also subjective, you may not have just got hit in the face with a plank of wood, you may have felt that for some other reason.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

He is explaining it to someone, he is explaining it to himself. He is not going merely on experience, his experience is simply raw data. From his experiences he has constructed an explanation for what has happened when he played with the clutch, why what happened did happen.

His ability or lack of ability to explain it to someone else has nothing to do with that fact. That is a question of lingustics and verbal expression. He may not have the words to communicate his model to someone else. But he knows it. It is his model in his own head.

He could not have done any of that without forming a model in his head of how the clutch works. This is the explanation for his experiences with the clutch.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

"Becoming true" is irrelevant since humans never know if something they believe about the world (I just saw a cup) is true or not. Science recognises this and does not deal with true or false, simply with accurate or not accurate.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

They would never say it is true.

They would say it accurately predicts observed phenomena, or it doesn't accurately predict observed phenomena. The case for whether or not it accurately predicts observed phenomena is strengthened if other scientists can repeat the experiment using the same theory and get the same result as the first scientist.

In science (or anything else for that matter) you never know is anything true or not, only degrees of how well it predicts phenomena.

mangaroosh wrote: »

The truth is independent of who knows it.

And you can never know is something is true.

A good example is Newton's laws of motion. They accurately predicted observed phenomena up to a point. But they were inaccurate in some regards. Along came General Relativity. This more accurately predicted phenomena, so scientists could say that this was closer to what is actually happening than Newton (closer to the truth)

But scientist don't know is some more accurate theory will come along tomorrow, and as such cannot say if General Relativity is true or not. It might be, it might be 100% accurate and require no further refinements, it might be as true an explanation as possible. But no scientists can determine this.

Scientists watch the universe and build models of what they think is happening based on what they observe

A classic analogy is playing chess. You watch two people play chess and try and determine the rules from what they are doing. You see that one player moves his pawn two places, and you record that. The other player does that as well. You go "Ok, I have a model now of what a pawn can do, it can move two places"

Then you see the player move is pawn one place. You go "Ah ha! My model was incurrate. A pawn can also move one place" You adjust your model

After a while you notice that pawns only move two places on their first go. You add this to your model.

After a while you have build up quite a good model of what can happen is chess. Is this model "true" (ie 100% accurate). You have no idea. You have no idea if the next move will show that your model is some what inaccurate in some way, just like what happened after the pawn moved only one place.

That is the nature of human learning of the world around us, something science recognises. You never prove anything in science, you never know if your model is 100% accurate. You never know if you understand properly what just happened.

mangaroosh wrote: »

There is an assumption that one can't, however, the question is, have you tried, and what is your understanding of the issue/topic?

No that isn't the question.

The question is how do you know you are not making up the explanation. How do you know your mind is not playing a trick on you? How do you determine this on your own

This highlights the flaw in relying purely on your own judgement. The idea that you would know if your brain was tricking you is silly.

mangaroosh wrote: »

If one knows the truth, then one cannot be lied to, it is impossible.

What do you mean by "the truth" How does someone know that the first time they heard "the truth" it wasn't a lie?

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

That is a completely non-answer. God could lie by representing something that is not true. The subjective nature of words is utterly irrelevant to his.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

And as we have already established you cannot know that you know the truth. And as such you could always be being lied to.

mangaroosh wrote: »

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.

Another non-answer.

It's ok to say you don't know the answer to these questions Mangaroosh, people have been wrestling with this issues for thousands of years.

roosh

Morbert wrote: »

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.

There are a number of qualifiers in the above explanations, I have emboldened and underlined them.

Just to point out that what a collectie experience actually is, is a group of personal experiences. Without the individual personal experiences, there is no collective.

Also, words, symbols and numbers are typical of the mind and are therefore a characteristic of the mind. Seeing as how the mind is a personal thing i.e. everyone personally has their own. It follows that scientific theories being based on words, symbols, numbers etc. are defined by personal characteristics of the mind.

They are therefore subjective.

Morbert wrote: »

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.

Knowledge of "coherent descriptions of the universe" is different from knowledge of the universe. One can have knowledge of these coherent descriptions, but one cannot know if they are true or not, without some form of direct experience, to confirm the description.

Being able to describe something coherently is not a characteristic of knowledge. It may be an indicator of knowledge, but it is not knowledge itself. I have knowledge of driving, yet I may not be able to describe that knowledge in a manner that is coherent. This however, does not detract from my knowledge of driving, rather my ability to teach somebody else. Regardless, my knowledge of driving is unaffected.

Experience on its own can be enough for knowledge. Knoweldge of information about something i.e. a description is not sufficient without experience, as one cannot know if the information is accurate or indeed correct. They may believe it is correct, and have good reason to believe it is correct, but without the personal experience to verify the information, they cannot know.

A woman will acquire a certain type of knowledge by going through childbirth - whether some like it or not, this is called tacit knowledge. This knowledge can be acquired without knowledge of the information surrouding childbirth.

However, if a woman only knows the information surrounding childbirth, then she will not have the same knowledge as the woman who has gone through childbirth.

Morbert

mangaroosh wrote: »

There are a number of qualifiers in the above explanations, I have emboldened and underlined them.

Just to point out that what a collectie experience actually is, is a group of personal experiences. Without the individual personal experiences, there is no collective.

Also, words, symbols and numbers are typical of the mind and are therefore a characteristic of the mind. Seeing as how the mind is a personal thing i.e. everyone personally has their own. It follows that scientific theories being based on words, symbols, numbers etc. are defined by personal characteristics of the mind.

They are therefore subjective.

Words, charactersm symbols, and numbers, are not dependent on personal characteristics of the mind, even if minds are needed to construct them. There are also not dependent on particular states. They are therefore not subjective, as they instead depend on the collective experience and experiments of the scientific community.

Knowledge of "coherent descriptions of the universe" is different from knowledge of the universe. One can have knowledge of these coherent descriptions, but one cannot know if they are true or not, without some form of direct experience, to confirm the description.

Being able to describe something coherently is not a characteristic of knowledge. It may be an indicator of knowledge, but it is not knowledge itself. I have knowledge of driving, yet I may not be able to describe that knowledge in a manner that is coherent. This however, does not detract from my knowledge of driving, rather my ability to teach somebody else. Regardless, my knowledge of driving is unaffected.

Experience on its own can be enough for knowledge. Knoweldge of information about something i.e. a description is not sufficient without experience, as one cannot know if the information is accurate or indeed correct. They may believe it is correct, and have good reason to believe it is correct, but without the personal experience to verify the information, they cannot know.

A woman will acquire a certain type of knowledge by going through childbirth - whether some like it or not, this is called tacit knowledge. This knowledge can be acquired without knowledge of the information surrouding childbirth.

However, if a woman only knows the information surrounding childbirth, then she will not have the same knowledge as the woman who has gone through childbirth

Well yes, it is different. But if I am unable to formulate knowledge then I won't be able to compare my experiences to the experiences of others. If a woman tenders an incoherent theory of childbirth, then other women will not be able to see if her theory also describes and predicts their experience of childbirth.

And how would direct experience give us any knowledge of a mind-independent reality? Coherent instrumental descriptions of experiences with predictive power is the best we've done so far.

Morbert

In addition to my previous post. Here are some examples of the common use of the word objective we are adopting.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#H1

IEP Essay on Objectivity wrote:

“Objective judgment or belief” refers to a judgment or belief based on objectively strong supporting evidence, the sort of evidence that would be compelling for any rational being. A subjective judgment would then seem to be a judgment or belief supported by evidence that is compelling for some rational beings (subjects) but not compelling for others. It could also refer to a judgment based on evidence that is of necessity available only to some subjects.

Wikipedia Article on the Philosophy of science wrote:

It is vitally important for science that the information about the surrounding world and the objects of study be as accurate and as reliable as possible. For the sake of this, measurements which are the source of this information must be as objective as possible. Before the invention of measuring tools (like weights, meter sticks, clocks, etc) the only source of information available to humans were their senses (vision, hearing, taste, tactile, sense of heat, sense of gravity, etc.). Because human senses differ from person to person (due to wide variations in personal chemistry, deficiencies, inherited flaws, etc) there were no objective measurements before the invention of these tools. The consequence of this was the lack of a rigorous science.

Wikipedia Article on Objectivity wrote:

In philosophy, an objective fact means a truth that remains true everywhere, independently of human thought or feelings. For instance, it is true always and everywhere that 'in base 10, 2 plus 2 equals 4'. A subjective fact is one that is only true under certain conditions, at certain times, in certain places, or for certain people.

Peter Mandik Essay on Objectivity wrote:

One common use of the notions of objectivity and subjectivity is to demarcate kinds of judgement (or thought or belief). On such a usage, prototypically objective judgements concern matters of empirical and mathematical fact such as the moon has no atmosphere and two and two are four. In contrast, prototypically subjective judgements concern matters of value and preference such as Mozart is better than Bach and vanilla ice cream with ketchup is disgusting. I offer these examples not to take sides on whether such judgements actually are objective or subjective, but only to call attention to a typical way of using "objective" and "subjective".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science)

Wikipedia Article on Objectivity (Science) wrote:

To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction.

Some of these examples are indeed from wikipedia, but they are all well supported by references. And important examples are not from wikipedia, so I pre-emptively disagree with any objection to using such sources. It is evident that your definition of objective is very different to the one used by the majority of people here, and I would wager that, if a single definition was adopted for this discussion, the conversation would progress much more rapidly.

Morbert

And just for ****s and giggles (although this will stray us far off topic): I put it to you that, (accepting your definition of objective and subjective) it is impossible to determine any objective properties of the universe.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:subjective&ei=FTM0S9ihFIf00gSZpowZ&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAcQkAE

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.

OK, here I have been accused of the above. Let me just point out that there are in fact 14 defintions on the link that you provided and 12 of them are the same definition that I have been using, or at least are dependent on "things" which are completely dependent on the mind for existene e.g. opinions, beliefs, desires, feelings, perspective, etc. etc.

There are 2 defintions on the page that could possibly be interpreted in the context that has so far been argued, one of those is the one stated above.

Let us examine those further.

Wiktionary defintion on Google page wrote:

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. ...
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/subjective

A subject is defined as "one who perceives or is aware". Who or what is it that perceives or is aware? I would argue that it is the mind, as perception is dependent on the mind. Awareness on the other hand is a little more vague, and indeed would require a discussion on the nature of mind and awareness in order to see how things would qualify as subjective.

So the above description could perhaps pass on the basis of the vagueness of the term "awareness", although a very strong case could be made against this.

However, upon furhter examination we find:

Wikipedia definition on google page wrote:

Subjectivity refers to a person's perspective or opinion, particularly feelings, beliefs, and desires. It is often used casually to refer to unsubstantiated personal opinions, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs. In philosophy, the term is often contrasted with objectivity.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Here we have a second entry from a similar source, although I'm not sure how separate wikipedia and wiktionary are from each other. In this, the emboldened words are all dependent on the mind for existence, so it ties in with the OED defintion.

The bit in italics even makes the distinction between knowledge and subjectivity. The fact-based belief is however somewhat of a contradiction as it goes against what was already mentioned in bold. This could be argued on the basis of ambiguity at best, but would equally be classed as "clutching at straws" (apologies for poisoning the well).



The other entry that would support the contention with regard to the meaning of subjectivity is the well reknowned authority on the english langauge:

access.autistics.org website wrote:

Individual and internal. Having to do with one's own experience and interpretation of that experience. See also: objective.
access.autistics.org/resources/glossary/main.html

Here the part that matches the contention is "having to do with one's own experience", however it must of course be both individual and internal. An arguement could of course be made against both those qualifiers.

The latter part of the description matches the OED description.



I'm not sure if it is a scientific principle or not, but surely checking one's sources for reliability should be a pretty basic requirement of the scientific method. When it comes to the english language, then the OED is the most reliable source.


So just to be clear, in case there is any temptation to argue the point, any attempt to take an extremely strict view of what the word subjective means, to try and fit it to the argument, is not something that I have done at all. In fact, 12 of the 14 sources you cited, use a very similar description as the OED namely, 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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

That's actually evolution in action. That "knowledge" is built into your genes.

I would question if it is built into the genes, as babies do not seem to have the same ability to use the knowledge. Regardless of where it is located however, it is still retained within me and other indiviudals, and does not depend on the mind for existence.

Thank you evolution nonetheless!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Non sequitur

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.

We can examine whether or not it is a non-sequitur or not, using the John Smith example.

The contention was that if this is indeed John Smith's dream, then John Smith (the dreamer) is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that is referred to as God.

If this is his dream, then everything in this dream takes place inside his head, the entire universe, including the language we use to describe things. If the entire universe is his dream, then his act of dreaming the universe into existence was the act of creation, he created the universe.

If this is all taking place inside his head, then he is everywhere, he is omnipresent. The fact that he can dream anything to happen in this universe, makes him, according to our definition, omnipotent. Seeing as how everything takes place within his dream, he knows everything there is to know, and is therefore omniscient.

If this is somebody's dream, then whoever is dreaming the dream, is what is referred to as God, according to the language they have dreamed up.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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 origins

According to science however the moon is not reality, the moon is basically sub-atomic particles that we perceive as the moon, and neurological explanations fall by the same sword.

There may indeed be many erroneus claims made within religions, but to paraphrase, God doesn't really care, as God is independent of religious claims. There are of course some notable contradictions within the realm of science. Most notable the incompatability of the two main theories of physics - general relativity and quantum theory, where both cannot be simultaneously true.

Unless of course the, as of yet unsubstantiated, hypothesis of string theory proves to be true.

Other claims notable by the lack of evidence to substantiate their validity would be such things as black holes (unobservable by definition), dark energy and dark matter, which together make up over 95% of the [un]observable universe.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

In fact no scientific experiments lead to "truth", the best they lead to is an improved understanding.

If they don't lead to truth, then one must ask, what exactly is it that one will better understand?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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 verified

It is not so much that the standard of truth does not exist in the real world, it does, by definition exist. Reality exists, there is some form of objective reality. The error appears to be in the understanding of what is meant by the terms objective and subjective. When these are correctly understood, then it becomes clear that an objective reality is open to experience.

I do take your point however, that if this is a dream, then perhaps the "objective reality" is beyond our ability to experience. However, as explained, if this is the case, then what is referred to by the word God, within the realm of this dream, is the dreamer of the dream.

God can exist, even if we cannot experience objective reality. If we can experience objective reality, then we can experience God, and personal experience is the only means available to do this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Again, just to re-iterate, a persons interpretation of an experience is not the same as the experience. Two people who share an experience will share a common knowledge. They may interpret the knowledge differently, as good or bad, as pleasureable or not, but independent of this interpretation will be a shared knowledge.

Two women who give birth to a child will have a similar experience, there may be differences but an integral part of the experience will be the same. They may intepret it differently, and even explain it differently, but they will not be able to rationalise it completely as a rationalisation takes place in the mind, whereas the expereince does not. They may have different explanations (for various reasons), but there will be a knowledge that is shared among them, and other women who have given birth.

Similar goes for men who have been kicked in the balls, or even the top of the knob. This is what is meant by "knowing what someone is talking about", as opposed to believing you understand what they are talking about.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It is not only possible but extremely common for people to be 100% sure of things that are 100% wrong

I don't dispute that, but this is not the only scenario. It is not uncommon for people to be 100% sure of something and for them to be right either. For example, a person can be 100% sure they are coming down with a cold.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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:

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?

Hopefully it has been sufficiently explained, even using the sources that you cited yourself, that every part of an experience is objective, becuase it does not depend on the mind for existence.

It is the interpretation/rationalisation/explanation/etc. that is subjective. However all of the aforementioned are not the experience themselves, and they are not the knowledge acquired by the experience.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

Knowledge does not have to be recollected. "Interpretational errors"may occur from time to time, but this is usually done by the subjective mind. Once the mind has cleared, then the knowledge can be accessed without subjective interpretation. This is often what is referred to as "being in the zone", where a person does not need to consciously recall information, but rather acts based on their acquired knowledge.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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:

Nice theory, but the confusion does not appear to be on my part, with regard to what has been discussed thus far.

Another theory of how religion started, and feel free to dismiss this, as it is just my own personal one, but seeing as we're doing the personal theory thing:

There have existed certain people down through the ages who have become enlightened, or perhaps just had insights (don't worry I don't include myself in all of this), for example Lao Tzu, Siddartha Gautama, Jesus, allegedly Thomas Acquinas, and several realised buddhist masters. These people, upon their enlightenment, sought to tell people what they had experienced, and sought to show the people how to have the experience for themselves.

When trying to explain their experiences, they, naturally enough, used the language that they had learned and tried to present the information in a way that the people might understand, using words and phrases that they were familiar with.

Unfortunately, because the people had not had the same experience, they had trouble interpreting the "teachings" correctly. They may have interpreted certain words or phrases according to their own slightly incorrect understanding, they may have taken some things too literally, and other not literally enough. Perhaps it was like a woman trying to explain childbirth to a man, where the man understood what was being said, but could not meaningfully interpret the knowledge, because of an absence of a shared experience.

There would of course have been people who would have seen the potential to exploit these teachings for their own gain, while others would have sought earnestly to organise the teachings in such a manner as to bring them to a wider audience. This attempted organisation may have required the appeasing of a wide variety of demands from different people, which would have affected the organisation.

These teachings would then have been passed down through the generations, where people who did not fully grasp the meaning of them would have been passing them to others who did not fully understand them. What would have ensued would have been a chinese whisper style passing of the message, to the extent that the message would have been distorted along the way, almost beyond recognition, but at the core the message would still be the same.


All these "enlightened beings" may have realised the same thing, but expressed it in a different way according to their culture, their langugage, the age they lived in and the history that had gone before them.

For some, elaborate stories may have sprung up around them, the thing of folklore, in accordance with the folk tales passed down through the ages

the Simpsons wrote:

Went by the name of Homer. Seven feet tall he was, with arms like tree trunks. His eyes were like steel: cold, hard. Had a shock of hair, red, like the fires of Hell

There may have been talk of virgin births, cruxifictions and resurrections, because the folk tales all told of these things. There may have been other stories, meant as teaching aids that existed in the culture that were adopted into the body of literature.


The original message of these enlightened beings may have been adorned with a lot of excess baggage, but the core of the message may still be there for those who wish to hear it.

But again, that is just my own personal theory.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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")

I think we might still be talking about slightly different things here, which is understandable, given the nature of what we are talking about. I could be wrong but bear with me.

Firstly, just to point out that the discussion thus far has not been about, "God exists because I have had a personal experience of God", it has instead been about the nature of knowledge and the role personal experience plays, in the acquisition of knowledge.

Even if the conclusion is that, yes, personal experience is objective and is the only manner in which knowledge can be acquired, it does not mean that God exists for that reason - to suggest that God exists for that reason would be a non-sequitur. It also doesn't mean that anyone who claims to have had a personal experience of God, has necessarily had a personal experience of God. It would simply mean that this would be applicable to the issue of the existence of God.


I think the difference in what we are talking to boils down to:
1) the experience
2) the knowledge gained from the experience
3) the interpretation of the experience
4) the description of the experience
5) the description/rationalisation of the knowledge to an outside party.

These are all separate things, despite being closely related.

If we focus on two of the above, namely the knowledge gained from an experience and the rationalisation of that knowledge.

The knowledge gained from an experience, because of its nature, will not necessarily be translatable into langugage, images, symbols, numbers, etc. It is for this reason too that analogies are necessary, so that a point that cannot necessarily be described in words can draw on one's own personal experience, for the purpose of illustration.
This is why shared experiences are useful.

If we take the [hopefully common] experience of cycling a bike. For anyone who knows how to cycle, they may very well be able to explain how it is done to another person. The description of the knowledge from the cyclist, to the other person, will not be the same as the knowledge that the person has about how to ride a bike. That knowledge is stored in such a way that it cannot easily be described.

Indeed, the non-cyclist may hear this information about how to cycle a bike and they can know this information inside out, but that does not mean that they know how to cycle a bike, because they have not acquired the knowledge of this skill yet.

In fact, it is only through the personal experience of learning to cycle, that they can confirm that what the cyclist told them was true or not.

If we apply this to the 1000 people.

We have the example above, where one cyclist tells a non-cyclist how to cycle. The non-cyclist does not know if the cyclist is telling the truth. Then the non-cyclist tries it out for themselves. They then acquire the knowledge of how to cycle for themselves and can verify the claim. They may find that the original cyclist has not explained it very well and they may develop the explanation for the next cyclist, to ensure that it is more accurate.

However, this does not mean that the original cyclist does not know how to cycle. The second cyclist may indeed doubt whether or not the original cyclist can cycle or not. This of course is immaterial to the second cyclist, because they have acquired the knowledge of the skill that is referred to as cycling, through their own personal experience.

This chain can continue all the way through the 1000 people, with each perhaps doubting their mentor, but still acquiring the knowledge of the skill through their own personal experience, and altering the explanation so as to improve it down along the line, so that the 9,999th person may pass on the most accurate description to the 1000th person, but the 1000th person still has to acquire the knowledge throught their own personal experience in order to verify the explanation.

Here we can see that each cyclist acquires the knowledge through their own personal experience, but has difficulty in passing that knowledge on to the next person, with the explanation improving the more people that are involved, but still the only means available for verifying the accuracy is through the personal experience of each individual.

Also, it is only the individual who has had direct personal experience who actually has the knowledge. The person who hears the explanation but does not verify it for themselves, will only have the explanation, which they can choose to believe or not. If more people confirm the explanation that they have, then they may have more reason to believe it, but they still do not posess the knowledge, and so cannot know if the explanation is true or not.

roosh

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

In a sense you are right, religion is missing that part to an extent, or at least the likes of Christianity, Judaism and Islam appear to be missing it. It is still there at the core of the religions though, even though it has become somewhat obscured.

Religion does detail a "path" that can be followed in order to "verify it for yourself", the issue is,that it doesn't so much say "if you don't want to take our word for it", as opposed to "you better take our word for it, or else". But again, this is not so much a fault of the message at the core of religion, rather perhaps a fault with those that pass on the message.

Buddhism is one religion that basically says "don't take our word for it, verify it yourself", and there is no belief in the concept of God in Buddhism, although the nature of God is not denied.

That again is probably a major problem with some who follow a religion, is that there is a belief in concepts, which themselves are divorced from reality.

Sam Vimes

mangaroosh wrote: »

OK, here I have been accused of the above. Let me just point out that there are in fact 14 defintions on the link that you provided and 12 of them are the same definition that I have been using, or at least are dependent on "things" which are completely dependent on the mind for existene e.g. opinions, beliefs, desires, feelings, perspective, etc. etc.

There are 2 defintions on the page that could possibly be interpreted in the context that has so far been argued, one of those is the one stated above.

The thing is that I don't really care if your definition of the word technically matches what it says in most dictionaries (but not all). The fact remains that your understanding of the word is not the same as mine or indeed the same as anyone on the forum and since we do not accept your understanding of the words subjective and objective (among many others such as "experience", "know", "tacit knowledge" etc), we are not going to accept any opinion you have based on your understanding of those words. This is an argument over semantics, much like our previous discussion where you defined the word supernatural to include anything that humans do not yet understand, as opposed to beyond the laws of nature which is my understanding of the word.

So there really is no point continuing the conversation. I'm sure all of your opinions make perfect sense to you but I don't have the same understanding of those words as you do so they make no sense to me and they never will because I am not going to change my understanding of the words. And another reason not to continue it is that you have again written a massive chunk of text that I simply cannot summon the will to read. Honestly mangaroosh, if you want to have online discussions you need to get the hang of brevity, or click here:http://en.wordpress.com/signup/

philologos

pH wrote: »

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

It's impossible to deal with the question of whether or not God exists using science alone, precisely because it is a philosophical question to begin with. That's what I would have thought anyway.