Churn in Religion

ruhk wrote:

Because of the way our brains and sensory organs are wired, we can never even know objective truth, unfortunately, just our subjective interpretations of the evidence. Yes, the ball may be red, and our readings of the ball may present the ball as being in the red spectrum, but the concept of the color "red" may vary from individual to individual, just ask anyone who's colorblind.

It doesn't matter if the concept of the color red varies from individual to individual, we can still objectively determine what wavelength the light is, and if it falls into the spectrum what we have collectively termed red, regardless of how an individual brain processes color. One of the joys of science and the scientific method is that it makes us aware of our cognitive flaws and gives us ways to overcome them.

CannibalCrowley wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

What does god need with a starship?

To go boldly where no god has gone before?

To sleep with alien chicks?

Alien Love Gardener wrote:
ruhk wrote:

Because of the way our brains and sensory organs are wired, we can never even know objective truth, unfortunately, just our subjective interpretations of the evidence. Yes, the ball may be red, and our readings of the ball may present the ball as being in the red spectrum, but the concept of the color "red" may vary from individual to individual, just ask anyone who's colorblind.

It doesn't matter if the concept of the color red varies from individual to individual, we can still objectively determine what wavelength the light is, and if it falls into the spectrum what we have collectively termed red, regardless of how an individual brain processes color. One of the joys of science and the scientific method is that it makes us aware of our cognitive flaws and gives us ways to overcome them.

For something to be objectively true it must exist independent of the observer, but truth is a cognitive process- it requires an active participant. Without an observer the question of the ball's color is meaningless, color is a perception of the observer, it's not an independent truth. It can't be.

Just because we collectively agree that a certain phenomena meets agreed upon criteria doesn't necessarily make it objectively true. There is no objective "red" per se, the object itself isn't red, it's just absorbing all light except a certain frequency in the red spectrum, making it appear that color to the observer. Technically, the object is every color but red, it's the color that the object is "rejecting" that forms our "truth" about that object's appearance.

The phenomenon we collectively describe with the term "color" concerns the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted or reflected by an object relative to a human retina. The term "red" is applied to the longest wavelengths detectable by the human retina. Just because individual perception of these wavelengths differ does not mean we cannot make meaningful investigations into the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by an object, and whether it falls into the ~400 nm spectrum or not. This underlying phenomenon will continue to exist whether we're there to observe it or not.

Basically what you seem to argue is that because we make up and collectively agree on the symbols we use to describe external phenomena, it is impossible to say anything about those phenomena using those symbols. This is at best an interesting thought experiment, albeit one that's utterly useless in practical terms.

Usually though its utter bollocks used to justify unsupportable positions and dismiss uncomfortable truths. This causes a severe urge in me to punch people in the face while going "There is no objective "my fist" or "your nose" or process of "breaking" so why should I or the legal system be bothered with your subjective interpretation of events? Truly, knowledge is so unattainable we cannot say anything beforehand about the differing results of me escorting you through the front door or proceeding to throw you out the fifth story window!"

I blame postmodernism. It's a f*cking rot that leads people to say things like "when we move, we create our own reality."

For something to be objectively true it must exist independent of the observer, but truth is a cognitive process- it requires an active participant. Without an observer the question of the ball's color is meaningless, color is a perception of the observer, it's not an independent truth. It can't be.

Are you asserting then that the ball does not reflect light - or even exist - if not observed? If not, then the properties of the ball exist independent of the observer, regardless of the names we give them (or whether they have no name at all).

Just because we collectively agree that a certain phenomena meets agreed upon criteria doesn't necessarily make it objectively true. There is no objective "red" per se

Then what did we agree upon? If it does not exist the same for each observer (ie, independent of the observer), how could they each experience the same thing? It seems to me that your view is that the universe is necessarily subjective for each of us, but with the added element that we *can't* agree on anything that we experience as being the same - therefore, there can be no objective truth.

And yet, we agree. No objective that is not subjective, and yet no subjective without objective? Sounds like Derrida.

I don't think a limited personal pallette has any effect on the combined concept of red. Just like our concept of dog does not change depending on what breed we may think of. What I see as red may actually be "brick.". Some tool may try to argue that a fire hydrant is red, but a Mustang is cherry. They are both shades of red. But red does not exist. That is the definition of a concept, a synthetic mental construct. Red is not the same as a dog, it is a term we have chosen to apply to a particular spectrum of visible radiation. What you are actually seeing are the photons bouncing back at your eyes, and were told to call it red. A concept is a definition. Red has no physical nature.

What if God was one of us?

Jayhawker wrote:

What if God was one of us?

morning spit take. Right here. In a metaphysical discussion in which people are figuring out whether or not a ball exists, you make a Joan Osbourne reference.

I'm sending you the bill for a new keyboard.

Red is not the same as a dog, it is a term we have chosen to apply to a particular spectrum of visible radiation. What you are actually seeing are the photons bouncing back at your eyes, and were told to call it red. A concept is a definition. Red has no physical nature.

Red is *exactly* the same as "a dog", since both are words that describe things that exist independently of those words. Red has a physical nature - it's mapped to a particular set of wavelengths of light. "A dog" has a physical nature - it's mapped to a particular canine. No differences there, and whether or not we have words for them does not affect their existence one bit.

If what you are describing is effectively the separation between Sinn and Unsinn, well, you're right. But it's a trivial distinction in the everyday world. Even if the word "red" didn't exist, the wavelengths of light would. We could invent a word for them and it would be just as useful as "red".

IMAGE(http://www.expressexpression.com/images/Neo_No_Spoon.jpg)

For something to be objectively true it must exist independent of the observer, but truth is a cognitive process- it requires an active participant. Without an observer the question of the ball's color is meaningless, color is a perception of the observer, it's not an independent truth. It can't be.

You've taken this a little too far. With things that have no objective reality, you're correct, but with real physical objects, if you arrive at a definition of what 'red' is, an object can be determined to be red without a human observer. The object will reflect photons at the same wavelength whether or not there are people around.

We make up the definitions, and project the definitions onto the world, but physical objects have an underlying reality that doesn't require human intervention. The red object would still reflect photons at the same wavelength even if humans had never existed at all.

However, this:

Red is *exactly* the same as "a dog"

isn't really true either, because red is a direct physical description of a property, and 'a dog' is a mental construct we use to group animals we consider canines. This involves a great deal of abstraction, glossing over the details of any particular dog. The variance in that group is extremely high. Both Chihuahuas and Great Danes are 'dogs', but they're very, very different creatures.

Abstract groupings have less reality to them, because when we group objects, we ignore almost everything about them. I can pick up a piece of sandstone and a piece of basalt, and say, "look, I have two rocks", but I'm ignoring almost everything about them to do so. Their shapes, sizes, and textures are very different, and yet I ignore all that and call them both 'rocks', and then further project a count onto those very dissimilar objects. (Advanced Zen practioners will even point out that the concept of an 'object' separate from the self is something of a fallacy, but going that far makes my head hurt.)

Our ability to think abstractly is both an incredible tool and a set of blinders so pervasive and all-encompassing that it's extremely difficult to even be aware of them. One good analogy is that it's like being the beam of a flashlight, and trying to perceive the dark. Everywhere you look, it's brightly lit, so obviously there's no such thing as darkness.

There's a GIANT difference between 'useful' and 'true'. Most useful things aren't true, and most true things aren't useful. Newtonian mechanics isn't true, but it lets us put things into orbit. Geometry isn't true -- there's no such thing as a one- or two-dimensional ANYTHING -- but we can use it to create mighty skyscrapers.

And if you want to truly see one of the rocks in the above example, you're not going to be doing much of anything else for awhile. You can sort of get at the truth of the object, but you'll almost certainly be doing nothing useful for the duration.

isn't really true either, because red is a direct physical description of a property, and 'a dog' is a mental construct we use to group animals we consider canines.

Red is a range of wavelengths, just like "a dog" is a standin for canines. Unless you're going strict Platonist on us, the fact that both are usefully non-specific is a wash.

Oh, and welcome back.

If a tree falls in the forest, is the dog red?

Rezzy wrote:

If a tree falls in the forest, is the dog red?

Definitely.

IMAGE(http://www.fle.henderson.k12.nc.us/Teachers/mhaney-web/014755E4-000F5C5C.38/clifford.jpg)

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

The phenomenon we collectively describe with the term "color" concerns the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted or reflected by an object relative to a human retina. The term "red" is applied to the longest wavelengths detectable by the human retina. Just because individual perception of these wavelengths differ does not mean we cannot make meaningful investigations into the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by an object, and whether it falls into the ~400 nm spectrum or not. This underlying phenomenon will continue to exist whether we're there to observe it or not.

Robear wrote:

Are you asserting then that the ball does not reflect light - or even exist - if not observed? If not, then the properties of the ball exist independent of the observer, regardless of the names we give them (or whether they have no name at all).

Robear wrote:
Red is not the same as a dog, it is a term we have chosen to apply to a particular spectrum of visible radiation. What you are actually seeing are the photons bouncing back at your eyes, and were told to call it red. A concept is a definition. Red has no physical nature.

Red is *exactly* the same as "a dog", since both are words that describe things that exist independently of those words. Red has a physical nature - it's mapped to a particular set of wavelengths of light. "A dog" has a physical nature - it's mapped to a particular canine. No differences there, and whether or not we have words for them does not affect their existence one bit.

If what you are describing is effectively the separation between Sinn and Unsinn, well, you're right. But it's a trivial distinction in the everyday world. Even if the word "red" didn't exist, the wavelengths of light would. We could invent a word for them and it would be just as useful as "red".

The ball exists, but the ball itself doesn't emit or produce the light, it's reflected radiation from an external source. The object has no inherent color, just properties that make it more or less likely to absorb or reflect certain wavelengths.

The reflected light has no inherent color, either. The color is manufactured by the brain of the observer in response to the light stimulating a sensory organ. Different wavelengths stimulate the photoreceptors in different ways, producing perceived colors. The idea of "red" has no meaning outside of the observer's perception. That's why it's so hard to describe colors in anything other than vague generalities like "orange looks warm" or "blue is soothing-" colors are concepts, not objects, and therefore have no objective reality.

I'm not saying that physical objects don't exist if not evidenced, though. Dogs as physical objects obviously exist, they have objective form and can be independantly observed. In fact, most are pretty forcefully annoying about their existence. If a dog is locked in a room outside of my perception, that doesn't alter it's physical existence in any way. However, if I am not aware that the dog is locked in the room next to me, cannot perceive it in any way, am not given any evidence of it's existence, then the question of whether the dog exists or not is meaningless to me. Same with God. I like to argue that he doesn't exist, but ultimately the question is really nothing more than an issue of self-indulgence. While "the faithful" may put me down and leave nasty notes on my car because of my pro-darwin bumper sticker, God itself doesn't impact our lives in any way, so debating his existence is little more than mental masturbation.

Someone may argue that "God" does indeed impact their lives through their faith, but that's getting the question wrong. Faith is an entirely internal, subjective experience, whereas God is allegedly an external force or presence. God showing up and smiting your enemies or yanking you out from in front of a speeding bus is an example of directly impacting your life, not warm fuzzies whenever you think of the concept of a God.

colors are concepts, not objects, and therefore have no objective reality.

Colors are a function of perception, which is closely tied to physical reality. We're analog devices, so definitions are necessarily fuzzy, but 'red' is not a concept, it's a sensation. And that sensation is directly tied to the physical reality of the world, the fact that given objects reflect certain wavelengths.

Our eyes are an instrument, a measuring device. They measure objective reality, at least as much of it as we can perceive.

The ball exists, but the ball itself doesn't emit or produce the light, it's reflected radiation from an external source. The object has no inherent color, just properties that make it more or less likely to absorb or reflect certain wavelengths.

So? We all know this. It doesn't affect your argument, as far as I can tell.

[/quote]
The reflected light has no inherent color, either. The color is manufactured by the brain of the observer in response to the light stimulating a sensory organ. Different wavelengths stimulate the photoreceptors in different ways, producing perceived colors. The idea of "red" has no meaning outside of the observer's perception. That's why it's so hard to describe colors in anything other than vague generalities like "orange looks warm" or "blue is soothing-" colors are concepts, not objects, and therefore have no objective reality.
[/quote]

You're way past splitting hairs here, and into splitting the nature of the phonemic reference of the word "hair" as commonly used in American Standard English. The reflected light has a wavelength, or a combined range of wavelengths, which is perceivable by the eye or any device capable of detecting it. Our brain represents it in a particular way, slightly different for everyone in every situation. We give a name, a word, to the range of wavelengths of light as we perceive them - in this case, "red". It can cover a range of similar perceptions.

It's not hard to describe colors, when you use the language of physics. Red is the wavelengths around 650nm. That's a name for an objective reality - light of that wavelength exists.

But that does not mean that I am attempting to assert that the word "color" has some universal meaning outside of it's sense and reference. Nor does it mean that the word "red" has no attachment to the real world wavelengths that we use it to identify. Nor does it mean that words cannot transfer meaning.

Red balls reflect light within a range of wavelengths that we identify as red. That's an objective truth. You can't cite the problems of semantic transfer and interpretation to make the objective reality of the light go away. It's there, whether or not there is an observer. In common parlance, everyday use of language, it's understood that a red ball has an objective reality that anyone can perceive and describe to our mutual agreement and satisfaction. Anything that moves us away from that is confusing the issue.

Another aspect is that yes, it does matter to you whether things you don't perceive exist, because if you came into contact with them, what would be the circumstances of their creation and the creation of their effects? For example, if you were the first to see an asteroid that is 5 light minutes away, it would have to exist at least five minutes before you looked. Either it always existed, or the universe is far, far stranger than it needs to be.

Spoon boy: Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Spoon boy: There is no spoon.
Neo: There is no spoon?
Spoon boy: Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.

Robear wrote:

It's not hard to describe colors, when you use the language of physics. Red is the wavelengths around 650nm. That's a name for an objective reality - light of that wavelength exists.

But that does not mean that I am attempting to assert that the word "color" has some universal meaning outside of it's sense and reference. Nor does it mean that the word "red" has no attachment to the real world wavelengths that we use it to identify. Nor does it mean that words cannot transfer meaning.

The wavelength of light is not the color, the color is a byproduct of the wavelength interacting with the sensory organs of the observer. They are connected, but only in the way that a bell and a musical note are connected- one produces the other through external manipulation. If there is no observer, there is no color, even though the wavelength that produces that color is still there.

Malor wrote:

Colors are a function of perception, which is closely tied to physical reality. We're analog devices, so definitions are necessarily fuzzy, but 'red' is not a concept, it's a sensation. And that sensation is directly tied to the physical reality of the world, the fact that given objects reflect certain wavelengths.

Our eyes are an instrument, a measuring device. They measure objective reality, at least as much of it as we can perceive.

I finally agree with someone about this tangent, though I would argue that the actual perception of the color is the sensation, but that the collective idea that we assign the term "red" is most definitely a concept.

Robear wrote:

Another aspect is that yes, it does matter to you whether things you don't perceive exist, because if you came into contact with them, what would be the circumstances of their creation and the creation of their effects? For example, if you were the first to see an asteroid that is 5 light minutes away, it would have to exist at least five minutes before you looked. Either it always existed, or the universe is far, far stranger than it needs to be.

I'm not saying that physical objects don't exist if they aren't perceived. I'm not a postmodernist. My argument was that if we aren't interacting with or perceiving an object, any questions about it's existence are fundamentally meaningless. From my prior post:

ruhk wrote:

I'm not saying that physical objects don't exist if not evidenced, though. Dogs as physical objects obviously exist, they have objective form and can be independantly observed. In fact, most are pretty forcefully annoying about their existence. If a dog is locked in a room outside of my perception, that doesn't alter it's physical existence in any way. However, if I am not aware that the dog is locked in the room next to me, cannot perceive it in any way, am not given any evidence of it's existence, then the question of whether the dog exists or not is meaningless to me.

To paraphrase, if you aren't aware of something, any questions about that thing you aren't aware will be meaningless to you. It may as well not exist. That's not saying that it doesn't exist objectively, but it wouldn't exist for you until you came into contact with it.

The wavelength of light is not the color, the color is a byproduct of the wavelength interacting with the sensory organs of the observer.

So? I'm still trying to understand the utility of the distinction you are making here. I don't buy the "things aren't true without an observer" line. Truth is something we discern by logical evaluation. We define it. But when we say "objectively true", what that *phrase* means is that something exists in the same way for all observers. It's not changed by an observers' beliefs or opinions. It's not referring to the content of a logical assertion expressed in a truth table. You seem to be relating a phrase that was meant to denote physical existence with an argument about the nature of perception. That's fine but it does not address the idea that was raised - that when something can be perceived by more than one observer, or by equipment in the *lack* of an observer, it is "objectively true" - which was in opposition to the idea that truth is subjective, different for each observer, as in some religious truths.

My argument was that if we aren't interacting with or perceiving an object, any questions about it's existence are fundamentally meaningless.

What does "fundamentally meaningless" mean? Just because we can't see a rock at the beginning of a rockslide doesn't mean that it's fundamentally meaningless. Scientists often posit things that are not known to exist and then search for them - are their discussions of things like atoms "fundamentally meaningless" before those things are observed? And what does it mean when a machine observes something? Is that also meaningless?

My use of the phrase "objectively true" was to denote that there is a difference between something that exists entirely within the mind, and those things that exist outside of it. Yes, we interpret the exterior things and create internal representations of them, but that does not affect the essential distinction, that the mind can perceive things that don't exist as well as things that do, and religion is one way where the former is asserted to be part of the latter. My proposition is that if you want me to believe something is supernaturally caused, it had better be apparent to everyone, and not just inside my head, or someone else's.

At this point I suppose it's worth mentioning that George Berkeley (and John Locke before him) covered this topic exhaustively about 300 years ago. Though I imagine there are a few people in this thread that probably already know this

I hadn't actually known about Berkeley's view; his conclusion that everything is real only with a universal observer (ie, God) to perceive it seems cooked to me. Who observes God, to make Him real?

Robear wrote:

I hadn't actually known about Berkeley's view; his conclusion that everything is real only with a universal observer (ie, God) to perceive it seems cooked to me. Who observes God, to make Him real?

God Observes Himself.

(it's similar to performing the stranger on yourself.)

Seth wrote:
Robear wrote:

I hadn't actually known about Berkeley's view; his conclusion that everything is real only with a universal observer (ie, God) to perceive it seems cooked to me. Who observes God, to make Him real?

God Observes Himself.

Are we all gods?

Like Descartes, Berkeley was a lot better at deconstruction than reconstruction. What I really like about Berkeley (and Locke, in turn) is his discussion of intrinsic qualities of objects, etc.

Most of my experience is with later philosophers, and I lean towards Functionalism and Pragmatism overall.

Yeah, I think I learned about Berkeley in Philosophy 101. His ideas stuck with me because they have that "fun at parties" vibe about them. I was really more into ethics and theory of mind though, in general.

complexmath wrote:

Yeah, I think I learned about Berkeley in Philosophy 101. His ideas stuck with me because they have that "fun at parties" vibe about them. I was really more into ethics and theory of mind though, in general.

This thread needs more weed.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Seth wrote:
Robear wrote:

I hadn't actually known about Berkeley's view; his conclusion that everything is real only with a universal observer (ie, God) to perceive it seems cooked to me. Who observes God, to make Him real?

God Observes Itself.

Are we all gods?

Maybe. Or just a part. Consciousness is a mirror. Maybe.

Also edited above for correction.

Seth wrote:
Robear wrote:

I hadn't actually known about Berkeley's view; his conclusion that everything is real only with a universal observer (ie, God) to perceive it seems cooked to me. Who observes God, to make Him real?

God Observes Himself.

(it's similar to performing the stranger on yourself.)

Ok, I had to go look that last part up. Thank the gods for urbandictionary.com. There is no end of strange things I learn there.