New Christian Visitor

[Myrkhoos]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"Subjectivity" is often just an excuse for people to keep believing shit they know ain't true.  This kind of cowardice isn't just exclusive to religion, either, though it often presents most starkly in that area.  But take any social, political, or economic issue and the excuse of "subjectivity" keeps people from accepting the plain, often obvious, truth.  Gun control, for example, or abortion, gender/racial/sexual equality, global warming--there are objective truths in every one of these issues.  But as long as people want to hide behind "subjectivity", these truths can be conveniently ignored in favor of preferred beliefs, no matter how irrational, hypocritical, or contradictory.  

 

We see clearly, in the past few threads in this forum a disturbing example of "subjectivity" over-ruling objective fact.  We have presented objective evidence of the suffering of children in this world, several times with photographic visuals.  The obvious and objective implication of the evidence is that there is not a loving god in control of this world.  Maybe a loving god exists; but, if so, he is not in control.  Maybe a god is in control; but, if so, he is not loving.  Yet, in the face of the evidence, two different christians, on multiple occasions each, have denied the plain truth and hid behind their emotional attachment to the idea that jesus really dies live the little children.  Citing "subjectivity" in such situations is just admitting that thinking is hard and you'd rather believe.  It's childish, naive, and cowardly.

       Dependending on definitions and level of analysis, I would argue there is no way we can verify "objective" reality because all we have at our disposal is our senses and interpretations. But this is a deep epistemological claim.

     But even given this, we construct working models that are better than others for all intents and purposes. I might just be dreaming, but in this dream if I cut your throat, your biological life ceases.

    My beef is that people DO build their working models, but, when presented with a flaw, they revert to their basic claim of radical subjectivity. It's not really answering the question because it changes the level of analysis. Using the dream analogu, I cut your throat and kill you and the police comes and ask why I did it. Well, it just might all be a dream, don't you know? It might, but, again, in this possible dream you still killed someone. Or another analogy, it's like you kill someone and say what's difference between life and death, both are just atoms and molecules. You haven't lied, but you are not speaking on the right level of things. 

       On another note, that is why you cannot have , in the same time, a missionary religion with a claim of radical subjectivity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Does anyone see things differently? I am really open to seeing other views.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

41 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

       Dependending on definitions and level of analysis, I would argue there is no way we can verify "objective" reality because all we have at our disposal is our senses and interpretations. But this is a deep epistemological claim.

     But even given this, we construct working models that are better than others for all intents and purposes. I might just be dreaming, but in this dream if I cut your throat, your biological life ceases.

    My beef is that people DO build their working models, but, when presented with a flaw, they revert to their basic claim of radical subjectivity. It's not really answering the question because it changes the level of analysis. Using the dream analogu, I cut your throat and kill you and the police comes and ask why I did it. Well, it just might all be a dream, don't you know? It might, but, again, in this possible dream you still killed someone. Or another analogy, it's like you kill someone and say what's difference between life and death, both are just atoms and molecules. You haven't lied, but you are not speaking on the right level of things. 

       On another note, that is why you cannot have , in the same time, a missionary religion with a claim of radical subjectivity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Does anyone see things differently? I am really open to seeing other views.

I'd say we are on the same page, or at least in the same chapter.  I suppose when I speak of objective facts or objective truths, I'm referring to the specific number of people killed by gun violence each year, for example, or the specific number of degrees the global temperature has risen since 1957.  These things are not subjective, nor are they open to interpretation.  As you observe, though, they may not be objectively perceived through our flawed senses or mental filters.  There is a difference, though, between accepting the subjectivity of our perception of objective fact, versus trying to reinterpret the facts to fit our subjectively held beliefs.  And it is this reinterpretation that we observe when our christian friends attempt to justify the rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, Myrkhoos said:

       Dependending on definitions and level of analysis, I would argue there is no way we can verify "objective" reality because all we have at our disposal is our senses and interpretations. But this is a deep epistemological claim.

     But even given this, we construct working models that are better than others for all intents and purposes. I might just be dreaming, but in this dream if I cut your throat, your biological life ceases.

    My beef is that people DO build their working models, but, when presented with a flaw, they revert to their basic claim of radical subjectivity. It's not really answering the question because it changes the level of analysis. Using the dream analogu, I cut your throat and kill you and the police comes and ask why I did it. Well, it just might all be a dream, don't you know? It might, but, again, in this possible dream you still killed someone. Or another analogy, it's like you kill someone and say what's difference between life and death, both are just atoms and molecules. You haven't lied, but you are not speaking on the right level of things. 

       On another note, that is why you cannot have , in the same time, a missionary religion with a claim of radical subjectivity. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Does anyone see things differently? I am really open to seeing other views.

Yeah, not that deep there buddy…I’ll swim over here in the less theoretical end..

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

I understand, but when you say these tracks never x, y, z, then there must be a reduction for reality, otherwise you are saying something outside of our efforts, is acting.  To answer, I’ve always professed similarities rather than never.

 

Hmm... I'm not sure that I follow this, Edgarcito.

 

 

But let me check a few things with you.

 

When I used the metaphor of tracks I'm just referring to our preferred ways of asking questions about reality.  If you don't agree with the way I'm using these metaphors then please adapt, adjust or change them and I'll take a fresh look.

 

If I'm being too reductionist here, ditto.  I'm open to new ideas and perspectives.  Whether I'll adopt them myself is another matter.  But I won't write them off without giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I can't honestly say if I know or even surmise that there's anything outside of us, acting upon us Edgarcito.  I presume you mean some other intelligent agency rather than blind natural forces like gravity or quantum fluctuations?

 

By similarities do you mean that you think there are more similar things in our different approaches (tracks) than not?

 

 

Walter. 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

16 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Hmm... I'm not sure that I follow this, Edgarcito.

 

 

But let me check a few things with you.

 

When I used the metaphor of tracks I'm just referring to our preferred ways of asking questions about reality.  If you don't agree with the way I'm using these metaphors then please adapt, adjust or change them and I'll take a fresh look.

 

If I'm being too reductionist here, ditto.  I'm open to new ideas and perspectives.  Whether I'll adopt them myself is another matter.  But I won't write them off without giving them the benefit of the doubt.

 

I can't honestly say if I know or even surmise that there's anything outside of us, acting upon us Edgarcito.  I presume you mean some other intelligent agency rather than blind natural forces like gravity or quantum fluctuations?

 

By similarities do you mean that you think there are more similar things in our different approaches (tracks) than not?

 

 

Walter. 

 

 

I understand.  All I’m trying to convey is subjectivity in the form of any instantaneous molecular makeup.  And is it valid to exclude an unique experience/expression as a result.  Certainly the experiences are real outside of some theoretical.  That is, why would we discount or ignore an experience as a valid data point…. given the sum of our brains cannot be calculated at any given instant.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

I understand.  All I’m trying to convey is subjectivity in the form of any instantaneous molecular makeup.  And is it valid to exclude an unique experience/expression as a result.  Certainly the experiences are real outside of some theoretical.  That is, why would we discount or ignore an experience as a valid data point…. given the sum of our brains cannot be calculated at any given instant.

 

Ok.

 

Could you explain a little more as to what you mean by instantaneous molecular makeup?

 

I'm guessing that you mean some kind of quantum probability or indeterminacy.

 

Once I have a better grasp of what you mean there I might be able to move on to the next step.

 

What you mean by the exclusion of unique experience/expression.

 

 

But I can say something about calculating the sum of our brains.

 

In my opinion there's no need to set the bar as high as any kind of complete sum (total) of our brains.  Nobody's had real any success in fully understanding what consciousness is and it's therefore not very likely that we will do so here.  There's a British expression that goes, 'Don't make a rod for your own back'.  Do you have that in the US?  In case you don't it just means don't make your job any more difficult than it has to be.

 

For example, I'm currently learning Portuguese with an eye to future vacations in Portugal, the Azores Islands and other Portuguese-speaking parts of the world.  Should I make a rod for my own back by not going to these places until I can speak Portuguese perfectly?  Or should I learn just enough of that language to make myself understood?  At my age it will take me years and years of hard work to learn the complete sum of perfect Portuguese.  But it will take me several months to learn enough to get by.

 

Which is the better option?

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"I’ll swim over here in the less theoretical end..."

 

In other words, "Thinking is hard; I prefer belief."

[Edgarcito]

4 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"I’ll swim over here in the less theoretical end..."

 

In other words, "Thinking is hard; I prefer belief."

No, his position is extreme and I’ve already been berated here for that argument years ago.  Just skipping the exercise.  I would enjoy him discussing on a reasonable level.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"That is, why would we discount or ignore an experience as a valid data point(?)"

 

The reason it is not a valid data point is that no one else can verify, quantify, qualify, or replicate another individual's experience.  Only the individual can speak to the experience.  The rest of us just have to take that person's word for it; and, given people's propensity for dishonesty, the rest of us have no way if knowing if that person's word is an accurate rendering of what happened or not.

 

Having a blood-alcohol level of 0.23 is a valid data point, because anybody with a breathalyzer can verify and quantify it, and anybody with a bottle of brown liquor and a reasonably high tolerance can replicate it.  Your unique experience of having a blood-alcohol level of 0.23, though, really is unique to you.

[Edgarcito]

17 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Ok.

 

Could you explain a little more as to what you mean by instantaneous molecular makeup?

 

I'm guessing that you mean some kind of quantum probability or indeterminacy.

 

Once I have a better grasp of what you mean there I might be able to move on to the next step.

 

What you mean by the exclusion of unique experience/expression.

 

 

But I can say something about calculating the sum of our brains.

 

In my opinion there's no need to set the bar as high as any kind of complete sum (total) of our brains.  Nobody's had real any success in fully understanding what consciousness is and it's therefore not very likely that we will do so here.  There's a British expression that goes, 'Don't make a rod for your own back'.  Do you have that in the US?  In case you don't it just means don't make your job any more difficult than it has to be.

 

For example, I'm currently learning Portuguese with an eye to future vacations in Portugal, the Azores Islands and other Portuguese-speaking parts of the world.  Should I make a rod for my own back by not going to these places until I can speak Portuguese perfectly?  Or should I learn just enough of that language to make myself understood?  At my age it will take me years and years of hard work to learn the complete sum of perfect Portuguese.  But it will take me several months to learn enough to get by.

 

Which is the better option?

 

 

Walter.

I just expect that we are all instantaneously unique molecularly speaking… diet, environment, etc.  

 

Why wouldn’t we include this reality in our assessment of reality.

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"That is, why would we discount or ignore an experience as a valid data point(?)"

 

The reason it is not a valid data point is that no one else can verify, quantify, qualify, or replicate another individual's experience.  Only the individual can speak to the experience.  The rest of us just have to take that person's word for it; and, given people's propensity for dishonesty, the rest of us have no way if knowing if that person's word is an accurate rendering of what happened or not.

 

Having a blood-alcohol level of 0.23 is a valid data point, because anybody with a breathalyzer can verify and quantify it, and anybody with a bottle of brown liquor and a reasonably high tolerance can replicate it.  Your unique experience of having a blood-alcohol level of 0.23, though, really is unique to you.

But you are simultaneously discounting beliefs with no means to evaluate, labeling them cowardly.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I just expect that we are all instantaneously unique molecularly speaking… diet, environment, etc.  

 

Why wouldn’t we include this reality in our assessment of reality.

 

Ok, let's go with that expectation and see where it leads us.

 

Earlier in this thread it was agreed that if everything is totally subjective, then the only reasonable and logical approach was to be sceptical of everything.  Which meant that in a religious context, no particular religion is better than any other.  That we should treat them all with equal scepticism.

 

Your expectation of individual molecular uniqueness leads us down a similar path, Edgarcito.

 

If everyone is totally unique, then the only reasonable and logical approach we can take is to be sceptical of everyone else's experience of reality.  Since you are totally unique and I am totally unique we share nothing in common.  We do not experience reality in the same ways, we do not think in the same ways and we cannot even communicate with each other about anything.  Each of us totally isolated in our own unique bubble, forever cut off from each other and from the rest of reality.

 

Do you see how similar this is to believing that everything is totally subjective?

 

Both beliefs, EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE and EACH OF US TOTALLY UNIQUE, end up at the same destination - total scepticism.   Nothing and nobody can be preferred over anything else.  Nothing can really be known.  Nothing can really be discovered.  Trying to understand anything or trying to discover anything are just exercises in futility.  Doomed to failure because our senses and experiences can never agree with anyone else's.  That's what it means to be totally unique.  That's what it means for everything to be subjective.  Infinite isolation forever. 

 

I'll let that sink in.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

But what I've just written can't be true, can it Edgarcito?

 

You DO understand my words my thoughts and I DO understand yours.

 

Not completely to be sure.  But enough for us to communicate, right?

 

 

Therefore, those two beliefs - EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE and EACH OF US IS TOTALLY UNIQUE cannot be true.

 

If they were true then you wouldn't understand what I've just written.

 

If they were true then I wouldn't understand what you've just written.

 

But since we DO understand each other, these two beliefs can't be true.

 

 

You see the logic of the argument?

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

It's late here and I'm logging off asap.

 

 

But please consider this for tomorrow, Edgarcito.

 

If you are totally unique and I am totally unique then we are totally different from each other in every possible way.

 

If your experience of reality is totally subjective and mine is too then our realities are totally different from each other in every possible way.

 

It should therefore be totally impossible for us to communicate with each other.

 

It should therefore be totally impossible for us to understand each other.

 

 

But we do both.  We do communicate with each other.  We do understand each other.

 

Therefore there must be something wrong with those two beliefs - total subjectivity and total uniqueness.

 

Please think on this.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

31 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But you are simultaneously discounting beliefs with no means to evaluate, labeling them cowardly.

This is both false and irrelevant.  I never labelled beliefs cowardly.  I labelled hiding from objective facts behind a veneer of subjectivity cowardly. 

 

You are lying to say otherwise. 

 

This is also irrelevant to the difference between an objective fact (which would be a valid data point) and a subjective experience (which would not be a valid data point).   

 

Perhaps you need to review the difference between belief and knowledge.  I get tired of having to explain this to you every 3 months; nevertheless, I persist.  When there is verifiable, repeatable evidence, then the product is knowledge.  We know, based on the evidence.  We know the objective facts.  In the absence of evidence, the best you can do is believe.  Without facts, you have faith.  As a result, belief (without the support of objective evidence) is rejected as a valid data point.

 

Now, I would appreciate it if you would keep your posts honest and relevant in the future.  Thank you.

[Edgarcito]

9 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

It's late here and I'm logging off asap.

 

 

But please consider this for tomorrow, Edgarcito.

 

If you are totally unique and I am totally unique then we are totally different from each other in every possible way.

 

If your experience of reality is totally subjective and mine is too then our realities are totally different from each other in every possible way.

 

It should therefore be totally impossible for us to communicate with each other.

 

It should therefore be totally impossible for us to understand each other.

 

 

But we do both.  We do communicate with each other.  We do understand each other.

 

Therefore there must be something wrong with those two beliefs - total subjectivity and total uniqueness.

 

Please think on this.

 

I will Walter, thanks for the effort.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Here's an exercise that might demonstrate that our personal experiences cannot be completely and totally unique and subjective.

 

If our individual experiences are totally unique, then our knowledge and understanding should also be completely and totally unique, since they are both based on our own experience.  If this is true, then no one but me knows what the color blue looks like, or even that blue is a color.  I say this because I do know that blue is a color and what the color blue looks like.  But, if my experience is unique to me; and I know what blue is, then the knowledge of blue must be unique to me alone.

 

Let's test it like the scientists we are.  @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst, would both of you please post a picture of something blue?  @aik, would you also post a picture of something blue, so that we can get an unbiased christian perspective?  I'll follow up tomorrow with a picture of my own.  If our blues all match, meaning occupying roughly the same range in nM, then this will demonstrate that my knowledge and experience is not completely unique to me, nor is it completely subjective.  

 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's an exercise that might demonstrate that our personal experiences cannot be completely and totally unique and subjective.

 

If our individual experiences are totally unique, then our knowledge and understanding should also be completely and totally unique, since they are both based on our own experience.  If this is true, then no one but me knows what the color blue looks like, or even that blue is a color.  I say this because I do know that blue is a color and what the color blue looks like.  But, if my experience is unique to me; and I know what blue is, then the knowledge of blue must be unique to me alone.

 

Let's test it like the scientists we are.  @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst, would both of you please post a picture of something blue?  @aik, would you also post a picture of something blue, so that we can get an unbiased christian perspective?  I'll follow up tomorrow with a picture of my own.  If our blues all match, meaning occupying roughly the same range in nM, then this will demonstrate that my knowledge and experience is not completely unique to me, nor is it completely subjective.  

 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

I think this is blue

 

 

but some say this is.

 

 

I call this green  

 

DB

[aik]

26 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's an exercise that might demonstrate that our personal experiences cannot be completely and totally unique and subjective.

 

If our individual experiences are totally unique, then our knowledge and understanding should also be completely and totally unique, since they are both based on our own experience.  If this is true, then no one but me knows what the color blue looks like, or even that blue is a color.  I say this because I do know that blue is a color and what the color blue looks like.  But, if my experience is unique to me; and I know what blue is, then the knowledge of blue must be unique to me alone.

 

Let's test it like the scientists we are.  @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst, would both of you please post a picture of something blue?  @aik, would you also post a picture of something blue, so that we can get an unbiased christian perspective?  I'll follow up tomorrow with a picture of my own.  If our blues all match, meaning occupying roughly the same range in nM, then this will demonstrate that my knowledge and experience is not completely unique to me, nor is it completely subjective.  

 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

[Edgarcito]

'Subjectivity" is often just an excuse for people to keep believing shit they know ain't true.  This kind of cowardice isn't just exclusive to religion, either, though it often presents most starkly in that area.

 

So my beliefs are by definition subjective because I am at any instance unique, even by scientific evaluation, and therefore subjectivity is an excuse of cowards...veneer.

 

The reason it is not a valid data point is that no one else can verify, quantify, qualify, or replicate another individual's experience.  Only the individual can speak to the experience.  The rest of us just have to take that person's word for it; and, given people's propensity for dishonesty, the rest of us have no way if knowing if that person's word is an accurate rendering of what happened or not.

 

 

And because we can't measure the complexity of someone's brain (experience), therefore no evidence...and with no evidence, it's irrelevant to the study of belief. 

 

And at any given instant, there is no possible way that the molecular makeup of individuals is not completely and totally unique.  Despite the color blue.

 

[Edgarcito]

31 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's an exercise that might demonstrate that our personal experiences cannot be completely and totally unique and subjective.

 

If our individual experiences are totally unique, then our knowledge and understanding should also be completely and totally unique, since they are both based on our own experience.  If this is true, then no one but me knows what the color blue looks like, or even that blue is a color.  I say this because I do know that blue is a color and what the color blue looks like.  But, if my experience is unique to me; and I know what blue is, then the knowledge of blue must be unique to me alone.

 

Let's test it like the scientists we are.  @DarkBishop and @walterpthefirst, would both of you please post a picture of something blue?  @aik, would you also post a picture of something blue, so that we can get an unbiased christian perspective?  I'll follow up tomorrow with a picture of my own.  If our blues all match, meaning occupying roughly the same range in nM, then this will demonstrate that my knowledge and experience is not completely unique to me, nor is it completely subjective.  

 

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. 

Are you serious?  Can we add a preschool toddler to the survey?

[duderonomy]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

"Subjectivity" is often just an excuse for people to keep believing shit they know ain't true.  This kind of cowardice isn't just exclusive to religion, either, though it often presents most starkly in that area.  But take any social, political, or economic issue and the excuse of "subjectivity" keeps people from accepting the plain, often obvious, truth.  Gun control, for example, or abortion, gender/racial/sexual equality, global warming--there are objective truths in every one of these issues.  But as long as people want to hide behind "subjectivity", these truths can be conveniently ignored in favor of preferred beliefs, no matter how irrational, hypocritical, or contradictory.  

 

We see clearly, in the past few threads in this forum a disturbing example of "subjectivity" over-ruling objective fact.  We have presented objective evidence of the suffering of children in this world, several times with photographic visuals.  The obvious and objective implication of the evidence is that there is not a loving god in control of this world.  Maybe a loving god exists; but, if so, he is not in control.  Maybe a god is in control; but, if so, he is not loving.  Yet, in the face of the evidence, two different christians, on multiple occasions each, have denied the plain truth and hid behind their emotional attachment to the idea that jesus really dies live the little children.  Citing "subjectivity" in such situations is just admitting that thinking is hard and you'd rather believe.  It's childish, naive, and cowardly.

 

Prof, are you sure you are talking about the Jesus of the Bible?  I mean, instead of a Strawman Jesus.

 

No offense, but if this is real life changing dead v eternity stuff we might need a baseline, right?

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

So my beliefs are by definition subjective because I am at any instance unique, even by scientific evaluation, and therefore subjectivity is an excuse of cowards...veneer.

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said and you know it.  I have already called you out on this lie once before; yet you persist in repeating it.  If you will not give me the courtesy and respect of engaging in honest dialog, then further conversation will not be possible.

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

And because we can't measure the complexity of someone's brain (experience), therefore no evidence...and with no evidence, it's irrelevant to the study of belief. 

This is a deliberate misrepresentation of what we can, and cannot, measure.  You are, again, attempting to conflate valid data points with invalid data points.

 

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

And at any given instant, there is no possible way that the molecular makeup of individuals is not completely and totally unique.  Despite the color blue.

As you know, I am a biological scientist.  I think I've mentioned before that I am in the pharmaceutical industry.   More specifically, Ed, I am currently for the United States government in the field of molecular medicine, researching the use of macromolecules and biosimilars as potential treatment options for a variety of illnesses.  This field of medical science operates completely on the objective fact that, at the molecular level human beings are nearly identical . 

 

At the risk of being accused of appealing to authority, your entire assertion here is complete and utter bullshit.  Despite the color blue.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Are you serious?  Can we add a preschool toddler to the survey?

That would certainly raise the level of intelligence from your end of the conversation. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, duderonomy said:

 

Prof, are you sure you are talking about the Jesus of the Bible?  I mean, instead of a Strawman Jesus.

 

No offense, but if this is real life changing dead v eternity stuff we might need a baseline, right?

 

If you have evidence of any jesus at all, you're welcome to present it.  I mean, instead of your Strawman Argument.