New Christian Visitor

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Why not let your posted image of something blue be the judge of whether we are unique or not?

 

You do scientific work in science lab.

 

You test and check and re-check.

 

Why not test here?

Ok, let's take a bunch of four year olds  that haven't been taught their colors yet.  Will that suffice? 

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Ok, let's take a bunch of four year olds  that haven't been taught their colors yet.  Will that suffice? 

 

There's no need to do that - because of the logic implied in your sentence above.

 

If young children don't know the concept or the word for blue, but older children and adults do, then total personal uniqueness ceases to function in humans at an early age. 

 

The fact that humans don't communicate properly at birth and then do later in life is an elegant proof that total uniqueness is just a passing phase in our development.

 

Your ability to understand and communicate with me is the smoking gun here, Ed.

 

If you and I were totally unique and with nothing in common, how could we be communicating?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

There's no need to do that - because of the logic implied in your sentence above.

 

If young children don't know the concept or the word for blue, but older children and adults do, then total personal uniqueness ceases to function in humans at an early age. 

 

The fact that humans don't communicate properly at birth and then do later in life is an elegant proof that total uniqueness is just a passing phase in our development.

 

Your ability to understand and communicate with me is the smoking gun here, Ed.

 

If you and I were totally unique and with nothing in common, how could we be communicating?

 

 

Yet we continue to change through experience and conditions.  I just don't know why, if we are assessing reality, that we wouldn't try to figure out how to address the dynamics in the assessment.  

 

Was just a simple inquiry about belief....yet here we are.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

38 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yet we continue to change through experience and conditions.  I just don't know why, if we are assessing reality, that we wouldn't try to figure out how to address the dynamics in the assessment.  

 

Was just a simple inquiry about belief....yet here we are.

 

 

 

I agree.  

 

Each of us is changing in too many ways to count or understand, every day.  If we are assessing reality we can only go with what we've got - and what we've got can't get to a full understanding of the dynamics you speak of.

 

But, here's the $ 1,000,000 question, Ed.

 

Do we need to have a full, complete and total understanding of the whole dynamic to say something useful about those parts of the dynamic that we do understand?  The answer to that can be found right here in this forum, right here in this thread even.  Right here in our dialogue today.

 

I don't fully understand everything about you and you don't fully understand everything about me.  ( Hell, I don't even understand myself sometimes! )  And yet we've understood each other well enough to communicate reasonably well here.  Today we've understood enough from each other to move this thread forward a little.

 

The fact that we can do that and keep on doing that is an elegant proof that complete and total understanding between us isn't required.  That it's a standard we can never reach.  That it's an idealized belief that doesn't give us anything to work with.  We can get by on less than absolute and 100% understanding.  I'd even suggest that this is how the entire human race goes about things - getting by with what's at hand at any given moment.  So, do you see where this line of argument leads us?

 

It leads us to stop 'making a rod for our own backs' by demanding nothing less than absolute understanding.

 

We've already consigned total subjectivity to the bin because we've agreed that following that line leads to total scepticism, where no belief can be favoured over another.  Total subjectivity gets us nowhere and gives us nothing.

 

Now we can start to see that a belief in total uniqueness can't possibly be true either.  Because, even with much less than a 100% understanding of each other and ourselves, we can still understand enough and still communicate well enough.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Most everyone can learn what blue is. 

 

True. Blue isn't some innate characteristic of all human beings. It's just some part of the electromagnetic spectrum we have been trained to associate with a word. And then there is another factor that says color blindness exists in about 300 million people worldwide so the 'blue' test in this thread is not that compelling. 

 

"Colour (color) blindness (colour vision deficiency, or CVD) affects approximately 1 in 12 men (8%) and 1 in 200 women."

 

https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/

 

What color is the dress? 

 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html#:~:text=Remember%2C the dress is actually,Because shadows overrepresent blue light.

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

True. Blue isn't some innate characteristic of all human beings. It's just some part of the electromagnetic spectrum we have been trained to associate with a word. And then there is another factor that says color blindness exists in about 300 million people worldwide so the 'blue' test in this thread is not that compelling. 

 

"Colour (color) blindness (colour vision deficiency, or CVD) affects approximately 1 in 12 men (8%) and 1 in 200 women."

 

https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/

 

What color is the dress? 

 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html#:~:text=Remember%2C the dress is actually,Because shadows overrepresent blue light.

 

The 'blue test' would not be compelling if we were talking about the entire world population.

 

But the Prof simply asked people in this thread to post something blue.

 

So that is the proper context in which to see the Prof's argument.

 

And mine.

 

If total personal uniqueness were a total barrier to communication and understanding IN THIS THREAD then nobody should have been able to post images of something blue.

 

But they did.

 

So, the Prof's argument stands, my argument stands and the belief in total personal uniqueness is shown to be false.

[Edgarcito]

46 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

True. Blue isn't some innate characteristic of all human beings. It's just some part of the electromagnetic spectrum we have been trained to associate with a word. And then there is another factor that says color blindness exists in about 300 million people worldwide so the 'blue' test in this thread is not that compelling. 

 

"Colour (color) blindness (colour vision deficiency, or CVD) affects approximately 1 in 12 men (8%) and 1 in 200 women."

 

https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/

 

What color is the dress? 

 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html#:~:text=Remember%2C the dress is actually,Because shadows overrepresent blue light.

Just post a damn picture of blue and you can remain on the invitation list....lol.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

 

True. Blue isn't some innate characteristic of all human beings. It's just some part of the electromagnetic spectrum we have been trained to associate with a word. And then there is another factor that says color blindness exists in about 300 million people worldwide so the 'blue' test in this thread is not that compelling. 

 

"Colour (color) blindness (colour vision deficiency, or CVD) affects approximately 1 in 12 men (8%) and 1 in 200 women."

 

https://www.colourblindawareness.org/colour-blindness/

 

What color is the dress? 

 

https://slate.com/technology/2017/04/heres-why-people-saw-the-dress-differently.html#:~:text=Remember%2C the dress is actually,Because shadows overrepresent blue light.

 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The 'blue test' would not be compelling if we were talking about the entire world population.

 

But the Prof simply asked people in this thread to post something blue.

 

So that is the proper context in which to see the Prof's argument.

 

And mine.

 

If total personal uniqueness were a total barrier to communication and understanding IN THIS THREAD then nobody should have been able to post images of something blue.

 

But they did.

 

So, the Prof's argument stands, my argument stands and the belief in total personal uniqueness is shown to be false.

Exactly.  The point of the blue test was not to show that blue is a universal concept or an absolute truth.  Rather, it was intended only to demonstrate that I am not the only person with a concept of blue.  

 

If:

A ) my own experience, knowledge, and understanding is exclusively unique to me

And

B ) I have an understanding or concept of blue

Then:

C ) the concept and understanding of blue is exclusively unique to me. 

 

But, as was demonstrated, multiple other people also have a concept or understanding of blue that is strikingly similar to mine.  The conclusion, then, must be that not all of my understanding, knowledge, and experience is exclusively unique to me. 

[walterpthefirst]

Both Edgarcito and Midniterider have suggested that the concept of 'blue' is a result of training and learning.

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

One of the main arguments against a belief in total personal uniqueness is the function of language in our communication and understanding.  Nobody is born with their language skills in place.  These things have to be taught and learned.  And as our vocabularies expand, so to do our cognitive abilities to juggle linguistic concepts and shape them into meaningful thoughts. 

 

So, even if we are born as totally unique individuals, the normal phases of development as we grow dissolve that uniqueness, leaving us fully equipped to communicate with each other and understand each other.  The tool we use to do that is language. 

 

Even though each of may perceive the colour blue differently and have different thoughts about it, we are all united in a sufficiently common understanding of the concept to know what the Prof meant by the letters B and L and U and E without having to ask him to clarify or explain further.  

 

I don't know if anyone noticed but 20 hours ago aik responded to the Prof's request by posting an image of a blue square.  This is highly significant.  Think about it for a minute.  The Prof was writing in modern American English and aik is a Russian.  English is not his first language.  Even the alphabets of the two languages are different, so it's not like comparing English with French.  Russian is written in Cyrillic, like this.

 

 

Then aik would have to process the Prof's words through Google Translate to understand what they meant.  But even after all of these differences aik knew exactly what was meant and responded correctly.  Language enabled two radically different people from different cultures and backgrounds, speaking different languages to arrive at exactly the same answer.

 

If this isn't gold standard, ironclad and rock solid evidence against total personal uniqueness, then what is?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

On 11/26/2022 at 8:16 PM, Edgarcito said:

I know my subjective feel for truth is never the same feeling, scientific affirmation vs. religious affirmation.....the latter wins hands down personally.  So again, it's not even a choice for me.  Thx.

 

This has struck a chord with me.  It sounds similar to WLC's claim he knows Christianity to be true "by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit.  - (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/counterfeit-claims-to-the-witness-of-the-spirit)

 

@Edgarcito appears to be in the same boat as WLC.  Ed has experiences that he attributes to his understanding of Christianity.

 

Like Ed, WLC says that his religious affirmation will trump objective evidence:  

Quote

You ask how this position is consistent with my “allowing a witness of the Spirit to trump objective evidence.” It’s right in line with it, when you realize that you’re reverting back to the question of how I know Christianity is true. My knowledge of Christianity’s truth, while supported by strong arguments, is not ultimately based on those arguments but on the witness of God Himself. 

 

@Myrkhoos is correct in that it's dressed up in what are essentially non-sensical statements devoid of probative power.  To pare down the argument is lay bare its arrogance - "I am right because my experiences tell me I am right and your experiences cannot trump my experiences."

 

If the other side will not even consider their experiences to be mistaken (". . . the latter wins hands down personally.  So again, it's not even a choice for me.") then no progress can be made.

 

@Edgarcito, are you willing to entertain that if you were raised in another culture, which followed a different book, would your actual "religious affirmations" affirm the religious environment of that culture ("I got a sense of peace or euphoria when reading the holy scriptures/attending a religious event") or were these affirmations of the explicit "Jesus himself appeared and said the Bible as written in English and understood in Protestant 20th & 21st Century America is the Word of God" variety?

 

I think this is why we've hit the current impasse of subjectivity, because once it is admitted there exists a less subjective mutual experience, then it follows that experiences can and do incorrectly perceive the mutual experience.  The question then begs - whose experiences are more likely to be true, whose are more likely to be deviant/false, and does there exist a way to increase the odds of evaluating the truth claims?

[walterpthefirst]

There's a thread about the planet Neptune taking place right now over at Physicsforums.com

 

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/neptune-my-beauty.1047594/#post-6825895

 

Personally, I would say I am a Neptune fan. This planet is extreme. Temperature, wind speed etc. I love this beautiful deep blue light from so many photos. Some white clouds on the top, so lovely. My question: How real is the picture I got? What if I am as a human 1 million kilometres away, how does the planet look for me? Say, I have "standard eyes", a mean value.

 

Omega0 asked this question and so far pinball1970, Vanadium50 and collinsmark have responded.

 

So far nobody has had to ask what 'blue' means or to have the concept clarified.  Language has united these different people from all over the world so well that when they look through their telescopes and see something like this...

 

 

...they know that Neptune is coloured blue.

 

Omega0 asks about the reality of his experiences and what would he see if he were a million kilometres from the planet.  If he were a totally unique person with nothing in common with the other members of that forum then his request for help would be pointless.  Why bother asking other, totally unique people about their totally unique experiences of Neptune if your experiences and theirs are totally different?  None of the other members would even be able to understand him.

 

But, just like the responses to the Prof's request here, Omega0's request has succeeded.  Thanks to the power of language.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I'm pretty sure this says something about the One Ring.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Nope!

 

This is what the One Ring says.

 

 

Try running that through Google Translate!

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

28 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Nope!

 

This is what the One Ring says.

 

 

Try running that through Google Translate!

 

Now, Walt, how could you have possibly understood my reference, given that I used a command of the Russian language that is exclusive to me alone,  combined with a knowledge of pop culture, which is also exclusively unique to me alone, to design this particular allusion?  

[Edgarcito]

The facts are countless chemical reactions are happening instantaneously in my body, that are different from those in everyone else's body.  

 

I have analytical instruments in my lab that are built by the same company to analyze the same analytes.... same everything.  And still, there are different limits for repeatability of one instrument and reproducibility between other instruments.  I "taught" them to recognize different hydrocarbons, but the science demonstrates that they are unique instruments with unique properties.

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, Krowb said:

 

This has struck a chord with me.  It sounds similar to WLC's claim he knows Christianity to be true "by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit.  - (https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/counterfeit-claims-to-the-witness-of-the-spirit)

 

@Edgarcito appears to be in the same boat as WLC.  Ed has experiences that he attributes to his understanding of Christianity.

 

Like Ed, WLC says that his religious affirmation will trump objective evidence:  

 

@Myrkhoos is correct in that it's dressed up in what are essentially non-sensical statements devoid of probative power.  To pare down the argument is lay bare its arrogance - "I am right because my experiences tell me I am right and your experiences cannot trump my experiences."

 

If the other side will not even consider their experiences to be mistaken (". . . the latter wins hands down personally.  So again, it's not even a choice for me.") then no progress can be made.

 

@Edgarcito, are you willing to entertain that if you were raised in another culture, which followed a different book, would your actual "religious affirmations" affirm the religious environment of that culture ("I got a sense of peace or euphoria when reading the holy scriptures/attending a religious event") or were these affirmations of the explicit "Jesus himself appeared and said the Bible as written in English and understood in Protestant 20th & 21st Century America is the Word of God" variety?

 

I think this is why we've hit the current impasse of subjectivity, because once it is admitted there exists a less subjective mutual experience, then it follows that experiences can and do incorrectly perceive the mutual experience.  The question then begs - whose experiences are more likely to be true, whose are more likely to be deviant/false, and does there exist a way to increase the odds of evaluating the truth claims?

I think it's possible, just don't know if another religion would have invoked the same response.  I don't know.  Again, I think it's possible.  To the "hands down" statement.  I arrived here 15 years ago roughly, when I stumbled on this site.  I've only once been truly scared for my belief....and I was a hair past the fundamental stage of Christianity.  I've heard many many arguments.  I can see that side; I just don't think it will ever win the day for me.  Granted I find it difficult to sit in church and keep silent.  Trust me when I say they do not entertain these discussions.  Thx for the post.

[duderonomy]

20 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm under no obligation to provide you with a baseline for your mythological deity or any claims or beliefs that stem from it.  Reckon you're shit out of luck, there, sport.

 

Excuse me?  You support a strawman argument by claiming that in a world under the control of a loving god there wouldn't be children suffering. You mentioned actual photos of suffering children! Wow!

 

The Bible clearly states that there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilence, disease, famine, the poor will be with us always (I'm one of them), liars, murderers, false prophets and anti-Christs, inflation, and wait! There's more!

 

My point was/is that if you are going to not believe the Bible, do it because you don't believe what it says and not because of what you think it says.

The Santa Claus blue eyed surfer dude Jesus and the Coca Cola Santa Claus God doesn't exist and never did. 

I hate to break it to you Prof, but that's the one you are railing against, and of course it's easy to not believe in an imaginary God.

 

What I'm asking for  is a baseline.  Which  Christian God are you against? The one in the Bible, or the one of your own making? 

You can claim and argue that they are both imaginary and that's fine if that's what you want to believe, but people coming here should know that there is a difference.

 

It seems to me that that would be a bit important to you, what with you being a Prof and all, and damn me for asking in a thread called "New Christian Visitor" because I thought it was an important point to make.

 

 

 

Also, Prof, why are you so hostile? 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Excuse me?  You pointed out a strawman argument by claiming that in a world under the control of a loving god there wouldn't be children suffering. You mentioned actual photos of suffering children! Wow!

 

The Bible clearly states that there will be wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, pestilence, disease, famine, the poor will be with us always (I'm one of them), liars, murderers, false prophets and anti-Christs, inflation, and wait! There's more!

 

My point was/is that if you are going to not believe the Bible, do it because you don't believe what it says and not because of what you think it says.

 

The Santa Claus blue eyed surfer dude Jesus and the Coca Cola Santa Claus God doesn't exist and never did. 

I hate to break it to you Prof, but that's the one you are railing against. 

 

What I'm asking for  is a baseline.  Which  Christian God are you against? The one in the Bible, or the one of your own making?

 

It seems to me that that would be a bit important to you, what with you being a Prof and all, and damn me for asking in a thread called "New Christian Visitor".

 

Also, Prof, why are you so hostile?

 

 

 

 

 

Again, champ, I'm under no obligation to provide you with a god damn thing.  I'm not here to disbelieve on your terms or reject theism in a way that you deem satisfactory.  If you have a problem with my disbelief, you're welcome to talk to your imaginary friend about it.  But if you're pissed at the idea of me disbelieving in a different version of your imaginary friend than the version you'd prefer I disbelieve in, then that sounds a hell of a lot like a problem I don't give a flying fuck about.  Not in the slightest.

 

So, again, looks like you're shit out of luck, there, sport.

[duderonomy]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Again, champ, I'm under no obligation to provide you with a god damn thing.  I'm not here to disbelieve on your terms or reject theism in a way that you deem satisfactory.  If you have a problem with my disbelief, you're welcome to talk to your imaginary friend about it.  But if you're pissed at the idea of me disbelieving in a different version of your imaginary friend than the version you'd prefer I disbelieve in, then that sounds a hell of a lot like a problem I don't give a flying fuck about.  Not in the slightest.

 

So, again, looks like you're shit out of luck, there, sport.

Prof, I was editing that post when you responded to it just now. You are a Super Moderator and the Moose should have told you, but still. 

[duderonomy]

Prof, you said  "But if you're pissed at the idea of me disbelieving in a different version of your imaginary friend than the version you'd prefer I disbelieve in, then that sounds a hell of a lot like a problem I don't give a flying fuck about.  Not in the slightest."

 

Like I said, Strawman stuff. 

 

What exactly are we disbelieving here at Ex-C then? Your version? My version? The KJB? The NIV? Alice In Wonderland? 

 

Yeah, Baseline, motherfucker. TrUsT tHe SciEncE

[TheRedneckProfessor]

49 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

You can claim and argue that they are both imaginary and that's fine if that's what you want to believe, but people coming here should know that there is a difference.

As I've told you before, you are more than welcome to start your own thread here in the Den and present your ideas.  Perhaps presenting this "difference" to the masses is a ministry the lord is calling you into.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

Like I said, Strawman stuff. 

You do not seem to know what a Strawman Argument actually is.

[duderonomy]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I've told you before, you are more than welcome to start your own thread here in the Den and present your ideas.  Perhaps presenting this "difference" to the masses is a ministry the lord is calling you into.

 

Nice Dodge.

[duderonomy]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You do not seem to know what a Strawman Argument actually is.

 

Nicer Dodge. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

What exactly are we disbelieving here at Ex-C then? Your version? My version? The KJB? The NIV? Alice In Wonderland? 

We do not disbelieve in anything in particular.  The one thing that unites most of us is our status as ex-christians (the name of the website might have given you a hint; if not, the moose should have told you).