Most annoying/frustrating atheist arguments?

Malty_T wrote: »

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

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

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

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

The attachment one has to things is also an indication.

mangaroosh wrote: »

Now, a number of things that have been established:

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

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

decisions wrote: »

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

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

decisions wrote: »

dara dara dara:D:D:D

Indeed

Malty_T wrote: »

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

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


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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

Not quite.

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

Just to return to an interesting point.

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

The two meanings we have been considering:

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

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

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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

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


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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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



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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

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

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

Those are what I would call Ad-hoc hypotheses:

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

What's your point?

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Wicknight wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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


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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

This would mean that is is both objective and subjective.

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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

agreed

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

---

Morbert wrote: »

Now, onto the important bit.

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

Morbert wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

mangaroosh wrote: »

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

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

---

mangaroosh wrote: »

---

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