ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , consciousness

Reply
Old 4th January 2018, 10:03 AM   #361
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
You asked "Do you want to discuss/debate whether it can be know if a Boltzmann brain is possible?"

My answer remains no unless you can show its assumptions to be correct.
Okay.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:05 AM   #362
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 80,162
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I hate when this happens. Because now we have to "nitpick" the word "objective. And no, you can't answer that in an objective manner without a first person subjective bias.
In my sentence substitute "objective" as "able to be viewed by all"
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:06 AM   #363
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 80,162
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Can you show that the basic assumption that you can trust your senses is correct?

I am going for that neither assumption is correct. I am a skeptic.
As a side issue - I don't assume that I can trust my senses - in fact I am sure I can't.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:09 AM   #364
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Provide the definition you are using for wrong and it might be possible.
"Wrong" can be a thick word, because it can relate to observations; i.e. it is raining or not.
It can relate to abstract reasoning; i.e. is 2+2=4 or not.
It can relate to feelings and emotions; i.e. "I hate you! You are so wrong and evil!"
It can relate to morality and ethics; i.e. "It is wrong to kill another human."

I used it in the 4th version.

Your turn.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:14 AM   #365
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
In my sentence substitute "objective" as "able to be viewed by all"
Some people can't see happiness, e.g. because they have asperger's syndrom. So no, not all humans can view happiness.
Happiness is an emotion and thus not objective. It can be inter-subjective, shared among several humans, but it doesn't make it objective.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:17 AM   #366
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 80,162
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
"Wrong" can be a thick word, because it can relate to observations; i.e. it is raining or not.
It can relate to abstract reasoning; i.e. is 2+2=4 or not.
It can relate to feelings and emotions; i.e. "I hate you! You are so wrong and evil!"
It can relate to morality and ethics; i.e. "It is wrong to kill another human."

I used it in the 4th version.

Your turn.
You are illustrating what I said about an assumption loaded question. Your question at the moment is in fact pretty much meaningless unless I assume a set of ethics and morals for you. For your question to have meaning will require you to explain your ethics and morals as it relates to the question so that an answer with meaning can be given.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:17 AM   #367
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,876
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Yes, in an indirect manner you have a point, but not in the sense that you can observe a happy life. Happy is first person experience.
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Some people can't see happiness, e.g. because they have asperger's syndrom. So no, not all humans can view happiness.
Happiness is an emotion and thus not objective. It can be inter-subjective, shared among several humans, but it doesn't make it objective.
I see that you either disagree with your statement a couple of hours ago that happiness is only a first person experience, or with your implied statement that some humans can in fact experience the happiness of others.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:19 AM   #368
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 13,376
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
"Wrong" can be a thick word, because it can relate to observations; i.e. it is raining or not.
It can relate to abstract reasoning; i.e. is 2+2=4 or not.
It can relate to feelings and emotions; i.e. "I hate you! You are so wrong and evil!"
It can relate to morality and ethics; i.e. "It is wrong to kill another human."

I used it in the 4th version.

Your turn.

"It can relate to morality and ethics" is as much a definition of "wrong" as "it can relate to zoology and forestry" is a definition of "elephant."

Please try again to provide an actual definition.
__________________
A zÝmbie once bit my sister...
Myriad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:19 AM   #369
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Religious people do something subjective and that can be shared inter-subjectively. It can be observed, described and explained using science, but science can't answer - what is the meaning with life? - because that is subjective/inter-subjective.

It doesn't mean that I am religious. It just means I know that science can't answer - what is the meaning with life?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:21 AM   #370
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 25,876
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It just means I know that science can't answer - what is the meaning with life?
Complex question fallacy.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:22 AM   #371
David Mo
Master Poster
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on Greenwich meridian
Posts: 2,198
Originally Posted by baron View Post
Heisenberg believes you are wrong, and I'll go with him.

Then you're in favour of reality being subjective, which is absurd. You state a rock is solid and that solidity is real, but to a neutrino that rock has no more solidity than a wisp of fog. You're taking your own specialised, limited model of reality that you find in your head and declaring it's objective real. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Heisenberg was a philosophical disaster. He had heard of a certain Berkeley but he forgot to read Hume, as Einstein recommended. They didn't get along, of course. A Jew and a Nazi, you know.

Matter can be defined as a family resemblance (Wittgenstein). It doesn't include a precise set of defining features, but a cloud of ressemblances. Therefore a "dialectical materialist" is not the same than a "historical materialist", although Friedrich Engels was ot aware of this and wrote some erroneous books. It is not easy to understand because we have an Aristotelian conceptual framework that is essentialist and we think of matter as a "thing". Even those that claim to be positivists or that they have no philosophy -that it is simply impossible.

In an ontological sense matter is everytihg that happens in some coordinates of space and time and only in relation with other things that happen in space and time. It is different from ghosts, spirits, gods and souls because these alleged entities have an existence out of space and/or time. This is to say, none.

Of course, spiritual entities can manifest themselves in form of ectoplasms, vanishing images, screams, fires or other matterialized aspects. But these things are really scary and only happen in the movies.

Last edited by David Mo; 4th January 2018 at 10:27 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:28 AM   #372
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 80,162
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Some people can't see happiness, e.g. because they have asperger's syndrom. So no, not all humans can view happiness. Happiness is an emotion and thus not objective. It can be inter-subjective, shared among several humans, but it doesn't make it objective.
Yes some people do have disabilities in terms of their first person experiences - I am one of them - that doesn't mean that something isn't objective - after all we have blind and deaf humans.

Happiness is a human behaviour, it is something we do, like running, we can make people "feel" happy by many different means, we can record their happiness, we can measure their happiness, we can compare happiness - seems pretty damned objective to me.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 10:29 AM   #373
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 15,396
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
I hate when this happens. Because now we have to "nitpick" the word "objective. And no, you can't answer that in an objective manner without a first person subjective bias.
NO..NO.. NO... NO!!!!

We're not going down the path if a tree falls in the forest did it make a sound bull crap.

'Objective' is real and independent of individual perception or perspective. 'Subjective' is a person's opinion or perspective. Obective is never ever ever dependent on the Subjective.

While we as individuals may not know with 100 percent certainty that our perception of reality is objectively real, it doesn't change reality.
__________________
ď A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. Ē
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 11:31 AM   #374
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,315
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Heisenberg was a philosophical disaster. He had heard of a certain Berkeley but he forgot to read Hume, as Einstein recommended. They didn't get along, of course. A Jew and a Nazi, you know.

Whoaaa there!!

Heisenberg might have worked on the German A-Bomb development, but he was not a Nazi. In fact he was outspoken about the need to keep the education of scientists under the auspices of the Academic Community and to not politicize it. He was also criticised by the Deutsche Physik (German Physics) movement because he openly taught about the role of Jewish scientists, and this led to him being investigated by the SS.

For this, he came under a fair bit of criticism from Nazi Party media. At one stage, Himmler called Heisenberg a White Jew who should be made to disappear.

German? yes (and so was Einstein)
Nazi? Definitely not!
[/off topic]
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 4th January 2018 at 11:41 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 11:41 AM   #375
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 7,315
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
'Objective' is real and independent of individual perception or perspective. 'Subjective' is a person's opinion or perspective. Obective is never ever ever dependent on the Subjective.
THIS

An example in sports,

Top Scorer in a match is the player who scores the highest number of points/goals. That is objective, its a fact of the match stats that cannot be denied or debated.

Most Valuable Player in a match is the player who, in the opinion of one or more people, contributed the most to his team or the game. It is a subjective judgement based on multiple criteria.
__________________
► 9/11 was a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists; 12 Apollo astronauts really did walk on the Moon; JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald,who acted alone.
► Never underestimate the power of the Internet to lend unwarranted credibility to the colossally misinformed. - Jay Utah
► Heisenberg's Law - The weirdness of the Universe is inversely proportional to the scale at which you observe it, or not.

Last edited by smartcooky; 4th January 2018 at 11:47 AM.
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 11:53 AM   #376
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,880
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Which leads me to the following question. Will computers develop their own religions?
Goodness, as I work with the wonder of Windows and Chromebooks I hope not!

Windows would be the most fragmented and bizarre basis of a religion, hmmm, not that different really

__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 11:54 AM   #377
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Hi guys.
Now we are in a many versus one situation, so I will shift mode of answering. So tl;dr it is.

We are debating reality.
In order for us to do so we need a model of how words work and since this is also about how reality works in practice; i.e. we also need a model of what scientists do in practice.

So words it is. Words or signs require a brain/brains, they have a meaning and they are about something.
So are all words everything? No!
Are words nothing? No!
They are necessary but not sufficient in describing how reality works in practice.
Further words are not about the same thing and there are at least 3 different kinds of words.
Words we use when we interact with the physical aspects of reality; e.g. gravity.
Words when we do abstract reasoning; e.g. 2+2=11.
Words when we do emotions, feelings, normative claims and so; e.g. I love you, so I will help you more than I would help other humans, because I love you. (That would for me be my wife.)

This relates to objective, inter-subjective and subjective, because e.g. gravity is objective as it is a physical process independent of all humans (if we removed all humans, gravity would still be there.)
Mathematics is objective in the sense as without bias and using abstract reasoning some humans can understand 2+2=11. It is inter-subjective in that for earth, if we removed all humans and computer there would be no mathematics. (Ups, maybe I forgot some other great apes and so on.)
Love is subjective, because it is a feeling/emotion and thus not without bias. That I love my wife is a behavior/feeling/emotion in me; i.e my brain/body. It can't be seen as you can see e.g. rain and you can't replicate it as a scientist. As a human you could fall in love with my wife, but that wouldn't be you do science or being objective.

Now scientists as explained by a philosopher. Science is a human behavior, which can be observed in some humans, but not all. It requires training, because a scientist learns to use her/his brain in a certain manner.
So scientists do something, which has different aspects of objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
They observe through observation or instruments. They share this behavior(inter-subjective) and reason about their observations and models/theories. They each one have to subjectively to live up to an inter-subjective ethical code of doing this with reason and without bias.

Now what about how reality works in practice. Well, tell me what you can do and can't do and that is how reality works in practice. Tell how you use different words and how they work for you. Learn to differentiate between the different things you do and you will notice this.
You can't do science all the time, because science is a limited behavior in humans.
So I will show you this and if you can replicate this you have learned in practice the limitations of science.

Objective:
#1a: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind.
#1b: involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena.
#2: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

So since love is a learned behavior and so it is science, let us look at objective as a behavior in humans.
For #1 it requires that it is external to a given brain and thus it can be shared with other brains through observation; i.e. see in most cases.
For #2 it is the objective description of what is going on without a subjective evaluation.

Now the word "happy".
Can you observe that other humans use this word? Yes.
Can you see happy as happy in other humans? No, you don't see happy, you infer it as a psychological ability unless you e.g. have Asperger syndrome.
Can you be happy as expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations? No, but not that happiness is a distortion per se, but rather if you are happy, you are not doing science as science. You could be happy doing science, but that is not science as such. That is you being happy.
So can you replicate happiness using only the natural science methodology. No, because you would neither be doing objective #1 nor #2.

Science just as love and happiness is a behavior observable in some humans, but not all.
Science is useful, but it doesn't work of all of reality, because it is limited human behavior.
So is philosophy btw

Now guys, I am a naturalist and atheist, but I am also a philosopher and I have learned a different behavior that some of you.
So here it is in practice:
Reality is neither objective nor subjective. Reality is not just physical, because physical is a limited human behavior. Reality is not just mental (or idealism/religion in some cases), because the mental is a limited human behavior.
The same goes for reason and logic as human behaviors.

In short, science is useful, but limited as a human behavior.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed

Last edited by Tommy Jeppesen; 4th January 2018 at 11:56 AM.
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:00 PM   #378
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

I know that science cant answer - what is the meaning with life
Science only deals with observable phenomena and so has no remit beyond that. Another reason is that it uses
intersubjectivity to gain consensus but a question about the meaning of life is not one with an objective answer
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:12 PM   #379
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
Science only deals with observable phenomena and so has no remit beyond that. Another reason is that it uses
intersubjectivity to gain consensus but a question about the meaning of life is not one with an objective answer
No, it is a subjective answer. But to some subjective is "subjective". I am not certain what it means, but it seems to be that they don't like subjectivity. I once saw it claimed like this. "Objectivity is better than subjectivity." The problem is that the word "better" in the context seems to be subjective.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:29 PM   #380
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 17,312
The inherent problem with all of this rampant solipsism is that all of it's proponents act as if they don't believe a word of it.

Get up in the morning and shave those imaginary whiskers, do they? Why?

Have a shower because what?

Why have any concern crossing the road? Even if an 18 wheeler hits you, it doesn't matter because the 18 wheeler is not real.

That is what solipsism fails.

None of it's proponents actually believes a damn word of it. Else clip shows on TV would be full of such Darwin award nominees.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:37 PM   #381
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
The inherent problem with all of this rampant solipsism is that all of it's proponents act as if they don't believe a word of it.

Get up in the morning and shave those imaginary whiskers, do they? Why?

Have a shower because what?

Why have any concern crossing the road? Even if an 18 wheeler hits you, it doesn't matter because the 18 wheeler is not real.

That is what solipsism fails.

None of it's proponents actually believes a damn word of it. Else clip shows on TV would be full of such Darwin award nominees.
Let us say that I am a Boltzmann brain. That I don't believe that nor act as if I am one, wont stop me from being a Boltzmann brain.
Your argument fails in the following manner:
If you believe that you are not a Boltzmann brain, that will not determine whether you are a Boltzmann brain or not.
Try again.

P.S. It is not the first time I have heard this line of reasoning, but it still doesn't work.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:39 PM   #382
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 354
Objective is better than subjective with regard to empiricism [ science ] or logic [ mathematics ] This is not a subjective
view but an objective one. Saying it is subjective somewhat implies that it could be wrong and that is definitely not true
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:43 PM   #383
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
Objective is better than subjective with regard to empiricism [ science ] or logic [ mathematics ] This is not a subjective
view but an objective one. Saying it is subjective somewhat implies that it could be wrong and that is definitely not true
Yes, objective is better than subjective with regard to empiricism [ science ] or logic [ mathematics ]. But that doesn't in general make objectivity better than subjectivity. Neither science nor mathematics is everything when it comes to the human condition.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 12:59 PM   #384
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,275
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Religious people do something subjective and that can be shared inter-subjectively.
So What? Making up fantasy stuff and sharing it with others isn’t the preserve of religious people. All paranormal believers do it. Fiction writers do it. Liars do it.

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It can be observed, described and explained using science,
Yes .

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
but science can't answer - what is the meaning with life? - because that is subjective/inter-subjective.
No. Science can’t answer because it isn’t a logical/meaningful question that can be logically/meaningfully answered. Before “what is” can be answered it first has to be established that “there is”. Merely believing that life must and does have some meaning doesn’t establish it actually does. Might as well ask "What is the colour of dragons?"

Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
It doesn't mean that I am religious. It just means I know that science can't answer - what is the meaning with life?
Like some other members on this forum your often repeated “I’m not religious” claim contradicts the strong smell of your apparent religiosity.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 4th January 2018 at 01:06 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:09 PM   #385
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

Neither science nor mathematics is everything when it comes to the human condition
No they are not but what they are however are the two most rigorous disciplines there are so if accuracy is what you are seeking that is
where you go. The best disciplines for examining the human condition are not science and mathematics but philosophy and psychology
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:16 PM   #386
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
...

No. Science canít answer because it isnít a logical/meaningful question that can be logically/meaningfully answered. Before ďwhat isĒ can be answered it first has to be established that ďthere isĒ. Merely believing that life must and does have some meaning doesnít establish it actually does. Might as well ask "What is the colour of dragons?"

...
Please explain what you mean by meaningful?

That I find it meaningful to do philosophy is what makes it meaningful to me and subjective. That you apparently don't find philosophy meaningful is meaningful to you and subjective. How you intent to use science and logic on that is beyond me, because of the following:
Only that which can be answered by science is meaningful and logical, is neither logical or is it a scientific statement. It is a first person subjective and biased interpretation.
Look: "Only that which can be answered by science is meaningful and logical." Now give evidence for that using only science. You can't, because the statement - "Only that which can be answered by science is meaningful and logical" - is neither science nor logical and it is only meaningful, if you find it meaningful.

It appears that you are using some form of feelings and/or emotions and that you don't like philosophy. That is okay with me and it doesn't make it wrong, nor you wrong. It just means that you are subjective.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:17 PM   #387
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
No they are not but what they are however are the two most rigorous disciplines there are so if accuracy is what you are seeking that is
where you go. The best disciplines for examining the human condition are not science and mathematics but philosophy and psychology
We agree
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:18 PM   #388
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,275
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
No they are not but what they are however are the two most rigorous disciplines there are so if accuracy is what you are seeking that is
where you go. The best disciplines for examining the human condition are not science and mathematics but philosophy and psychology
If your "human condition" is badly injured in an accident you will be consulting philosophers and psychologists? Yeah right!
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:21 PM   #389
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,275
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Please explain what you mean by meaningful?
Meaningful to the process of establishing the truth of reality.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:24 PM   #390
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
Meaningful to the process of establishing the truth of reality.
Then please do so and explain the methodology of establishing the truth of reality.

That is in part philosophy and not just science and logic.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:26 PM   #391
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
If your "human condition" is badly injured in an accident you will be consulting philosophers and psychologists? Yeah right!
So reality is being badly injured in an accident? That is all there is to reality. So victims of injury use psychology to learn to live with their injuries. Does that mean that they are religious?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:28 PM   #392
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,275
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
Then please do so and explain the methodology of establishing the truth of reality.
The scientific method.

Your turn . . .

What can answer "What is the meaning with life?".

What is the methodology of establishing the answer?

What is the answer?
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:32 PM   #393
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
The scientific method.

...?
What is the scientific method?
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:39 PM   #394
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 354
The human condition is a reference to our existence in the grand scheme of things and
has got nothing to do with physical injury because it pertains to the mind not the body
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:44 PM   #395
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,275
Feigned ignorance for the sake of obfuscation . . .
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen View Post
What is the scientific method?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Now you answer my questions . . .
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
What can answer "What is the meaning with life?".

What is the methodology of establishing the answer?

What is the answer?
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 4th January 2018 at 01:56 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:50 PM   #396
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,275
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
The human condition is a reference to our existence in the grand scheme of things and
has got nothing to do with physical injury because it pertains to the mind not the body
"The human condition is the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality" -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

Key events like birth pertain only to the mind and not the body?

I would say a serious accident is a key event that pertains to mortality.
__________________
Rumours of a godís existence have been greatly exaggerated.

Last edited by ynot; 4th January 2018 at 01:54 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:55 PM   #397
surreptitious57
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Tommy Jeppesen

What is the scientific method
A means by which observable phenomena are objectively studied using observation / experimentation
/ replication / evidence / inter subjectivity / testable hypotheses / potential falsification / peer review
__________________
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:56 PM   #398
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Quote:
To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Okay, so you find this meaningful. Now give evidence for that based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
You can't because A) it is not empirical or measurable evidence that you find it meaningful and B) you have given no reason other than that you find it meaningful.

I get that you like science, but that you like science is not a scientific claim. It is a claim about what you find meaningful or if you like: To you the meaning of life is do science.

Originally Posted by ynot View Post
...

Your turn . . .

What can answer "What is the meaning with life?".

What is the methodology of establishing the answer?

What is the answer?
A person can answer about what she/he find meaningful. You have do so. You find science meaningful.

The methodology is to ask a person.

The answer is the answer the person gives.
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 01:58 PM   #399
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
A means by which observable phenomena are objectively studied using observation / experimentation
/ replication / evidence / inter subjectivity / testable hypotheses / potential falsification / peer review
Yes, that has nothing to do if it would make me happy leaving a building through a window on the 20th floor. (the example is ynot's earlier in the thread)
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th January 2018, 02:02 PM   #400
Tommy Jeppesen
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,991
Originally Posted by ynot View Post
"The human condition is the characteristics, key events, and situations which compose the essentials of human existence, such as birth, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, and mortality" -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_condition

Key events like birth pertain only to the mind and not the body?

I would say a serious accident is a key event that pertains to mortality.
No it pertains both to the mind and the body.
That you find science meaningful is in your mind and I can only replicate it, if I think/feel like you. You can't observe that science is meaningful and it is only meaningful to you, if it is so.

Why did you live out emotionality?
Answer that!!!
__________________
I don't believe in God and all the rest outside of methodological naturalism But I am a cognitive and ethical relativist/subjectivist and skeptic.
#JeSuisAhmed
Tommy Jeppesen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.