You may be right, but with regards to the implications of either belief, there are none. The consequences of both monism and dualism are practically identical. How could you prove either to be "correct?" You could take the reductionist path and say that monism wins because of its simplicity, but what justifies reductionism outside of a scientific scope?superluminal said:
Saving Theists a Ton of Grief
- Thread starter superluminal
- Start date
Nothing. As a philosophy, monism, as you define it, is a simple basis that requires no evidence. Only convincing evidence of some form of dual reality would put monism in question.baumgarten said:
And only convincing evidence of the absence thereof would put dualism in question. If you treat either as a theory, neither is falsifiable.
What was my point again? Haha
What was my point again? Haha
How can you claim that I've not experienced anything of this nature? You don't know me, you can't possibly assume what I've experienced or not.
BTW I'm an atheist from a religious background, I came to the conclusion I was deluding my objective mind to subjective fantasy. The mind is a reality perceptive tool, as much as I wished, or delude myself to the notions of gods, does not make it so. The mind is not a reality creating organ, but an organ that can easily be deluded with non-sequirtus truths accepted as facts, deprived of any evidence, we are asked to take on these beliefs on faith. Faith is nothing more then the willfull submission of reason, to fantasy.
Godless
I don't think that any of you understand what either baumgarten or myself have been trying to get at through all of these debates. That is, namely, that the vast majority of you seem to believe that those things which are objectively verifiable are more "real" than those things which are subjective and personal. That "subjective" is somehow connected with "fake"(except when it relates to things which everyone experiences regularly), and then the lot of you assert that this belief that you all share is an objective fact in and of itself, which it is not. It is a product of numerous philosophical underpinnings, none of which have any more solid ground to stand upon than any other (these underpinnings have been mentioned numerous times by various members taking issue with this assertion). The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing that says that the subjective experiences which we all have are less "real" than those things which we commonly observe and call "objective". Neither position is more valid than the other.
You could not be more wrong. Everything that you see, taste, touch, smell, feel, hear, all of it is sensory information interpretated by your brain. You can't possibly know what the world outside of your senses is, and any claim to that ability is rooted in delusions which are much more profound than those which you ascribe to religious people. All of the things which you believe were come to by either your own personal experiences, or the experiences of others passed on to you anecdotally, including those things which you claim are "objectively verifiable". I'm not disputing the accuracy of scientific findings, but what I am saying is that these things are no more "objective" than anything else. There is no such thing as "objective" (that we can know), only those things which we all commonly experience.Godless said:
Ummm... yeah. Clearly.Jaster Mereel said:
No. What you don't seem to be getting is the distinction between objective reality and subjective reality. One is a world of concrete, independently verifiable "things" whether you "believe" in them or not. The sun is a star, by definition. Your "belief" has no bearing on the reality of this.
The other is a world of emotional judgements about "things". "I like the warm sun on my face". Good for you. I hate it. You could be lying, I could be lying. No way to ever prove this one way or the other. "God exists". Good for you. Show me.
Absolute bullshit. How can you even begin to compare the assertions of those who have zero physical evidence of any value, with those who base their outlook on testable, verifiable evidence? Our simple assertion is that theists have no proof or credible evidence to support their position.
This dosen't make their assertions any less real, it just makes them worthless. Right?
Absoulte and utter bullshit. See above.
Wow. Please look up the definition of "objective" vs "subjective". If you are going to toss the use of defined language, then you win. Tell me, if objectivity is not defined as the process of quantifying the effects of A upon B by repeatedly observing and testing, and seeing that the outcome of this observing and testing is the same, no matter who performs the observations and tests, then what the hell are we talking about?
You can hold the subjective opinion that the apple in front of you is a delusion. But when you throw your imaginary apple at someone, and they come over and beat the crap out of you, you have two choices. You can believe that the blood flowing from your nose is also illusory, or that the apple had substance and really caused an effect on Bubba, who just nearly rendered you unconscious.
Subjective opinions regarding the external world are certainly real, but they are nothing more than tentative assessments, waiting for objective support. Subjective opinions regarding your inner mental state are also real, but have no bearing on the outside world. My opinion that a good Merlot with some fine cheddar cheese is one of the best reasons to be alive, is good for me and is real to me. What does it have to do with the existence of wine or cheese?
Jaster Mereel said:
The human brain, as far as we have observed, has the capability to translate a sensory experience from external input and generate a sensory experience from internal input (dreams for example).
When a person has a sensory experience (either way) they are REALLY having that sensory experience. When a sensory experience is declared 'real', the sensory experience is the result of external input (which can be verified). When a sensory experience is declared as 'hallucination' (i.e. not real), the sensory experience is the result of internal input (which cannot be verified).
If a person experiences being stabbed and has no injury then that is an experience resulting from internal input. If a person experiences being stabbed and has stab wounds then that is an experience resulting from external input.
This is why we have words to describe the experience as being 'real' or 'hallucination'. A healthy person can easily experience hypnogigia while awke if they are very tired (I've experienced this myself). Similarly, if someone is dreaming, the sound of an alarm clock could be translated into the dream and the dreamer could hear it but not wake up. This means that external input and internal input can superimpose on each each other under various circumstances.
This is a reason to double-check the validity of strange experiences against external sources. It also places the experiences at different value. If I was a governor, had hallucaintion about dragons attacking the country, declared a state of emergency, and called in the millitary then I would be fired for incompetence.
Experiences from external input (i.e. 'real') are valid when disussing the external input. Experiences from internal input (i.e. 'hallucination') are not valid when declaring the source of the input as external.
In the English language, to declare something as 'existing' means that it is an external source. To declare something that exists from an internal source has to be modified with the use of adjectives to reflect the change in meaning. For example:
* Dragon's exist - means that big flying fire-breathing lizards are external sources of input.
* Dragon's exist in my mind - means that big flying fire-breathing lizards are an internal source of input.
Now, if we tread into theology, the claim that 'God' exists is clearly treated as an external source of input and no evidence for it exists beyond being an internal source of input; therefore, it's placed in an invalid position.
Nice ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Folkes we are dealing here, with a nut job, a delusional, smart, witty, nut.
Why look at this shit:
"The mind is not a reality creating organ"
VS
You could not be more wrong.
This idiot thinks he can make reality work as he wishes, he thinks he can manipulate reality as is with his freaking mind. That's a nut job. Hey Why dont you jump of a fucking cliff and think yourself floating, that way you wont splat your ass on the ground! :bugeye:
Godless
Why look at this shit:
"The mind is not a reality creating organ"
VS
You could not be more wrong.
This idiot thinks he can make reality work as he wishes, he thinks he can manipulate reality as is with his freaking mind. That's a nut job. Hey Why dont you jump of a fucking cliff and think yourself floating, that way you wont splat your ass on the ground! :bugeye:
Godless
I take issue with your point, Jaster. In terms of experiences, there's nothing fake about anything subjective, sure. Any experience - including that of an external object - is subjective by its nature, yes. However, to take it a step further and say that the impossibility of logically proving the existence of an object implies that the object does not in fact exist
1. contradicts all our observations both of the physical world and the properties of mathematics thus far; and more importantly,
2. is internally inconsistent. If your assertion that the relationship between subjective and objective is that the latter is a coincidental, but otherwise identical, case of the former, means that this very statement of supposed fact, since it is not self-evident, is necessarily fair game for rejection or corroboration by anyone else. That is, anyone can disagree with you and still be right. This follows very similar lines of logic to the evidentialist refutation of the existence of god, which has been demonstrated on numerous occasions to be logically fallacious.
1. contradicts all our observations both of the physical world and the properties of mathematics thus far; and more importantly,
2. is internally inconsistent. If your assertion that the relationship between subjective and objective is that the latter is a coincidental, but otherwise identical, case of the former, means that this very statement of supposed fact, since it is not self-evident, is necessarily fair game for rejection or corroboration by anyone else. That is, anyone can disagree with you and still be right. This follows very similar lines of logic to the evidentialist refutation of the existence of god, which has been demonstrated on numerous occasions to be logically fallacious.
I think what Jaster is saying is that subjective experience is a primary knowledge i.e. we experience things (e.g. pain or colour or fear (or God?)) directly, and therefore there is little doubt of its existence for the person experiencing it.
(Quote from Wiki on Empiricism)
"Objective" knowledge, is secondary, in that it is derived or deduced from our sense experiences but can never be known directly. There are therefore serious questions as to whether our scientific models are reality, or just a way of interpreting our experiences.
Thomas Nagel's book called "The View form Nowhere" is so called because that is the "objective" viewpoint of science. Nagel points out that while this viewpoint works well for constructing scientific models, it is never complete. In terms of deciding how to live a meaningful life, personal experience and the subjective viewpoint are essential components. Heidegger blamed the alienation we have from nature, the environment etc. on our "view from nowhere" scientistic view of reality.
If you want to see the effects of our "paradigm", contrast our culture with that of the Australian Aborigine, who regards himself as belonging to the land, not the other way round. His worldview is not "objective", it relates him intimately and personally to his world. This ensures he cares and looks after his environment as the land is like his Mother. We, on the other hand who have objectified the world, as a consequence regard it as simply an exploitable resource. The result is environmental disaster.
So, our objective scientific view of reality is not "Truth". It is a way of interpreting our observations (Kuhn's "scientific paradigm"). What it leaves out as a total worldview is our personal subjective experiences, which is what makes life meaningful for most of us. Sartre was saying this when he stressed the importance of "being-for-itself", as Heidegger did "being there".
(Quote from Wiki on Empiricism)
"Objective" knowledge, is secondary, in that it is derived or deduced from our sense experiences but can never be known directly. There are therefore serious questions as to whether our scientific models are reality, or just a way of interpreting our experiences.
Thomas Nagel's book called "The View form Nowhere" is so called because that is the "objective" viewpoint of science. Nagel points out that while this viewpoint works well for constructing scientific models, it is never complete. In terms of deciding how to live a meaningful life, personal experience and the subjective viewpoint are essential components. Heidegger blamed the alienation we have from nature, the environment etc. on our "view from nowhere" scientistic view of reality.
If you want to see the effects of our "paradigm", contrast our culture with that of the Australian Aborigine, who regards himself as belonging to the land, not the other way round. His worldview is not "objective", it relates him intimately and personally to his world. This ensures he cares and looks after his environment as the land is like his Mother. We, on the other hand who have objectified the world, as a consequence regard it as simply an exploitable resource. The result is environmental disaster.
So, our objective scientific view of reality is not "Truth". It is a way of interpreting our observations (Kuhn's "scientific paradigm"). What it leaves out as a total worldview is our personal subjective experiences, which is what makes life meaningful for most of us. Sartre was saying this when he stressed the importance of "being-for-itself", as Heidegger did "being there".
I agree with pretty much that whole post, especially that the scientific view of reality is not the True one, and also that there cannot be such an authoritative view of reality. That's actually the reason why I took issue with Jaster's statement, but perhaps I misunderstood him.
I think the problem arises when we say that the universe is "ultimately subjective," which is what I gathered from Jaster's words. Our experiences surely are not only ultimately but immediately subjective, but to extend this to the universe being observed makes a moot point of sorts. The model by which we imagine the relationship between universe and observer is itself a distinction solely of the observer.
Consider the distinction made when we separate an object from the rest of the environment and give it a name. You can say that the "objects" named are not what gave us their constituent data; something else outside the observer's head inspired these. Now we have the problem of defining what it means to be "outside" the observer's head, because we can't refer to something without conceiving of it in our thoughts first and discussing that concept rather than the "something" which it represents. But we also have an issue when it comes to defining the space inside our heads, because without a clearly defined outside, the inside loses its meaning as well. With everything happening in the same "space," then, is there no actual difference between experiences of imaginary and real things? Damn straight there isn't. And what of the things themselves? We were never discussing them in the first place; the entire premise of this line of reasoning was that we cannot because they are outside our heads. But what is outside...
We can never escape. Our model of the world is subject to its own conditions, itself being a part of the world it models. Like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, our world views cannot be comprehensive and authoritative, and they cannot conclusively account for themselves. How is it, then, that the universe can exist ultimately within them?
I'm aware that this is all very off-point. It does, however, lend credence to taking science off of its pedestal of Truth and acknowledging that any model of the universe is adequate insofar as it works. Nothing necessitates the absence of a god in your world view, so you can have one if you want. And in such a case, God will keep working the way he always has - you will not dictate the parameters of his operation. Regardless of how you look at it, scientifically or religiously, the world will continue to work the way it works.
I think the problem arises when we say that the universe is "ultimately subjective," which is what I gathered from Jaster's words. Our experiences surely are not only ultimately but immediately subjective, but to extend this to the universe being observed makes a moot point of sorts. The model by which we imagine the relationship between universe and observer is itself a distinction solely of the observer.
Consider the distinction made when we separate an object from the rest of the environment and give it a name. You can say that the "objects" named are not what gave us their constituent data; something else outside the observer's head inspired these. Now we have the problem of defining what it means to be "outside" the observer's head, because we can't refer to something without conceiving of it in our thoughts first and discussing that concept rather than the "something" which it represents. But we also have an issue when it comes to defining the space inside our heads, because without a clearly defined outside, the inside loses its meaning as well. With everything happening in the same "space," then, is there no actual difference between experiences of imaginary and real things? Damn straight there isn't. And what of the things themselves? We were never discussing them in the first place; the entire premise of this line of reasoning was that we cannot because they are outside our heads. But what is outside...
We can never escape. Our model of the world is subject to its own conditions, itself being a part of the world it models. Like Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, our world views cannot be comprehensive and authoritative, and they cannot conclusively account for themselves. How is it, then, that the universe can exist ultimately within them?
I'm aware that this is all very off-point. It does, however, lend credence to taking science off of its pedestal of Truth and acknowledging that any model of the universe is adequate insofar as it works. Nothing necessitates the absence of a god in your world view, so you can have one if you want. And in such a case, God will keep working the way he always has - you will not dictate the parameters of his operation. Regardless of how you look at it, scientifically or religiously, the world will continue to work the way it works.
While I, on the other hand, find this a complete load of useless drivel. It illuminates nothing. Explains nothing. Enlightens no one. You are supporting a view that subjective "knowledge" whatever the hell that could be, is more fundamental than objective knowledge, the validity of which you question. Amazing.Diogenes' Dog said:
Stick yourself in a box for the next month and tell us what you learn of the cosmos by self-generating some subjective "knowledge".
Absolute horseshit. You like the thought of us westerners being all simple-minded, evil and resource wasty. Guess how many objective scientists and other technical people care about the environment and want to help make the earth a beautiful place to live. Most of them. And with the population expanding at the rate it is, we need them to. Also, the Aborigine lives in a wasteland that, if it could, would support an overflowing population of Aborigines, wallowing in their own industrial waste. His relationship to his world is a direct consequence of living in a wasteland where every possible resource must be used as efficiently as possible.
Diogenes' Dog only showed how objective knowledge is not the absolute Truth. I don't see where he proposes that anything at all would be instead.
That's basically what Einstein did, is it not? The theory of relativity was originally based on a thought experiment, which did a lot to fuel the controversy surrounding it prior to its experimental verification in 1919.
Ok.baumgarten said:
Nope. Without the results of objective experiments like those done by Galileo (Galilean relativity), Michelson-Morely, and many others (demonstrating the constancy of the speed of light and it's independence of the state of motion of the source, etc.) Einstien would have had nothing to think about but patent applications and maybe the photoelectric effect - also based completely on objective experimental results.
Without reference to the "real" world as the final arbiter, philosophy is just mental wacking off.
You got me there.
Philosophy doesn't need to have physical implications. In fact, I don't think it should - that's what hard science is for. Amen on the wacking off part, though.
See? That was a good analogy wasn't it?baumgarten said:
superluminal said:
I agree with my luminal friend there. I walked away from that post with zero gian.
No? So which reality do you suppose makes the "'True" one?
The only reality that exists, is the objective reality, everything else is just in your head. True we perceive objective things subjectively, it's in our head what we see, hear, taste, and feel. Also covering subjective feelings such as emotions, pain, fear and love. All these are real, but some are subjective while many others are objective.
What we see, if everyone else sees the same phenomena, is objective. Thus that tree in front of your house, is an objective phenomena, it's not only in your head it's existence is determined by all those who come visit you as well. If the tree was only visible to you, and no one else saw it. This would be psychological problem with the person who only perceives the tree that no one else sees. And that is subjective.
The mind is an organ that perceives reality as it is, it can be fooled, "magicians" do that all the time, but if your sane, and every thing that you see, is experienced not only by you but by everyone else aroundy you it's objective. Your headacke however is subjective, your emotions of what you feel after that magic tric, is subjective.
** The words "subjective" and " objective" cause lots of confusion. Their misuse is responsible for subjectivism in ethics. Ethical subjectivism is the view that moral judgements are nothing but statements or expressions of personal opinion or feeling and thus that moral judgements cannot be supported or refuted by reason. Careless use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" also leads to odd views in metaphysics, e.g., the denial of material reality (idealism); and odd views in epistemology, e.g., the claim that all statements are equally warranted. In other words, if you're careless about how you handle the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, you can end up saying there's no such thing as morality, reality, or truth!
The ordinary non-philosophical (i.e., oversimplified) view is that the word "subjective" is the complete opposite (negation or contradictory) of the word "objective." If something is subjective, it's not objective; if something is objective, it's not subjective. "Subjective" is thought to mean "from someone’s point of view." " Objective" means "not just from someone’s point of view." An objective matter is one that everyone (who is sane, rational, and appropriately informed) will agree about. "Subjectivity" connotes lack of objectivity. Ethical subjectivism is the view that since we can’t be "objective" about morality, morality must be purely "subjective."**Sandra LaFave West Valley College. click
She makes some very good points in order to understand subjective vs objective reality.
Godless