The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[EricFilmer]

It shows how the information flows.

Revelation informs faith, science informs reason. Faith and Reason cannot be opposed. The area labeled IDvolution is where they must both be true.

Groovy! Works for me.

 

[Touchstone]

Your premise seems to be that because the concept of unity can be subjective, it must always be subjective. That’s a pretty big leap, and one that can be tested. I will now attempt to do so…

Example One: My garage has a vast assortment of automotive parts. When I walk into my garage, I understand this assortment as a “car”. I see a unity. But if a mouse is scampering around in the engine, its mind would probably only understand it as a vast assortment of strange objects, not necessarily being related to one another in functional way. In other words, whereas I see “one car”, the mouse sees “a lot of stuff.” In this case, the concept of unity is subjective (because the concept is based upon the perception of the mind doing the contemplation).

Example Two: Because of how the forces of gravity work out in our area of the universe, our solar system contains one star. This is a statement of fact, regardless of the perception of any minds. In this case, unity is a characteristic. It is not a subjective attribute a mind gives to it, but an objective characteristic of the reality that there is a finite number of stars in our solar system, and that number is one.

Therefore, concepts of unity can be subjective (an abstract product of the mind) and objective (a statement of reality not dependent upon the perception of a sentient being). Obviously, the origin of objective reality is not subjective perception. But subjective perception can be (and often is) a reflection upon existent objective reality. Therefore, humans did not create the concept of unity, but learned it by observing the unity that already exists in objective reality. So, contrary to your above quote, “unity” is certainly more than just a conception of the mind.

This is, once again, to confuse the map and the territory, to mistake the concept for what the concept is about is about. “One” is a concept we apply with our minds. Reality is what it is, independently of our minds, but there is no “one”, or “two” remaining if we remove all the minds from the universe, there is no unity – that’s a concept – there is just space/time/energy/mass.

Admittedly, it’s hard to talk about objective reality as such – reality independent of mind – because we are minds doing the talking, but “the solar system contains one star” is a fact, but that just condemns the proposition as subjective; a proposition is a statement (language) proceeding from mind. There are no facts in a universe without minds. Reality is what it is, but without minds, you necessarily do not have the concepts, descriptions, labels and abstractions that we introduce with our minds.

In a universe without minds, there would (could) exist what our “map” would describe as “one star territory”. But again, that is the map, and the map is not the territory. You are apparently thinking that the labels on the map are part of the territory, too, like thinking that a huge “NEBRASKA” is somehow really emblazoned on the landscape of that territory in 20 mile long letters.

As for evidence, you attribute this to science somehow, but this strikes me as perfectly foreign to it:

“After all, as I am sure you know, in science the term validity means that a tool truly measures what it is claimed to measure”.

Science has no semantics for “truly” like that. That’s a religious notion. We can say that, for example, light can measure distance in a vacuum by measuring the time light takes to cross a given amount of space. Our understanding is that the speed of light is constant, but the only “truly” science understands depends totally on model performance and phenomenological consitency, the very things you suppose are somehow inadequate. They are fallible (we always keep open some element of skepticism towards them), and they are ultimately somewhat tautological (how do we measure the time needed for that light to cross a segment of space? Why, with tools that depend on the speed of light themselves of course!).

But they are the best we have, and even while their use makes terms like “truly” naïve, they are performative and consistent in a model-based way (not just locally consistent, but consistent across the framework).

Whatever you want to claim about “other mode of evidence”, it’s either so innovative and new that it will make you world famous when you lay it out here, or it’s pathetic in its performance even in relation to empirical evidence, which is, as I said problematic enough in its own right. For all the problems and difficulties we have with the evidentiary models we use now, all the religious contributions that are suggested and promoted this far just annihilate and defeat the bits of knowledge and progress we do have.

-TS

 

[EricFilmer]

This is, once again, to confuse the map and the territory, to mistake the concept for what the concept is about is about. “One” is a concept we apply with our minds. Reality is what it is, independently of our minds, but there is no “one”, or “two” remaining if we remove all the minds from the universe, there is no unity – that’s a concept – there is just space/time/energy/mass.

Physical mass (which also shares the same nature) exists in space in a finite quantity. Words such as “one” and “two” may be terms we created to apply to those finite quantities, but the quantity exists nonetheless. As I have stated more than once so far, the words we use to describe math are words being applied to a universal absolute. How can a universal absolute be considered solely as a subjective concept with no independent reality? I have yet to hear a good answer to this question.

Admittedly, it’s hard to talk about objective reality as such – reality independent of mind – because we are minds doing the talking, but “the solar system contains one star” is a fact, but that just condemns the proposition as subjective; a proposition is a statement (language) proceeding from mind. There are no facts in a universe without minds. Reality is what it is, but without minds, you necessarily do not have the concepts, descriptions, labels and abstractions that we introduce with our minds.

I may subjectively call an apple “red” because of the way the surface of the apple absorbs and reflects light, as well as how the human eye usually interprets this data (and, moreover, those who developed the English language crafted the word “red” to correspond with the specific perceived color). But an unobserved apple still absorbs and reflects light in a specific pattern nonetheless. The forces at work are real and work independently of our labels and concepts.

In a universe without minds, there would (could) exist what our “map” would describe as “one star territory”. But again, that is the map, and the map is not the territory. You are apparently thinking that the labels on the map are part of the territory, too, like thinking that a huge “NEBRASKA” is somehow really emblazoned on the landscape of that territory in 20 mile long letters.

“Nebraska” is an artificial name created by humans to correspond with a socially agreed upon set of territorial boundaries. That stretch of land could have been called something else, or it could have been called nothing at all. Furthermore, in reality the name Nebraska is not written across that state. Therefore, “Nebraska” It is not a label which represents an actual characteristic of the place in question. A number, however, does represent an actual characteristic. So this Nebraska example is not applicable to what I have been saying about numbers.

In your description of the solar system, you are doing the sort of thing I pointed out in Post #409. We don’t call the solar system a “one star system” because we mapped it out and labeled it as such. We labeled it as such because, objectively speaking, it happens to be a one-star system. Our subjective labeling has its source in observing an independent objective reality, an objective reality that includes quantity.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued from my last post)

As for evidence, you attribute this to science somehow, but this strikes me as perfectly foreign to it:

“After all, as I am sure you know, in science the term validity means that a tool truly measures what it is claimed to measure”.

Science has no semantics for “truly” like that. That’s a religious notion.

“Truly” is just another word for “in truth” or “truthfully”. In the sense I used it, I meant “without error” or “in actuality.” So my application was, indeed, scientific rather than religious. But let me reword my statement just to be clear: in science a tool has validity if it actually measures that which it is claimed to measure. The measuring cup in my kitchen is a valid tool for measuring quantity, but an invalid tool for measuring the intensity of light. If this is not what validity really means in the scientific sense then I want my money back for the statistics course I took way back when I got my B.A. I don’t remember much from that class, but I do remember that.

We can say that, for example, light can measure distance in a vacuum by measuring the time light takes to cross a given amount of space. Our understanding is that the speed of light is constant, but the only “truly” science understands depends totally on model performance and phenomenological consitency, the very things you suppose are somehow inadequate.

I’m not quite sure when I ever said that scientific methods were “inadequate.” I said in Post #385: “The scientific method does not rule out the possibility of other methods in determining truth,” and “Neither in this thread nor any other have I ever rejected the importance of the accuracy of scientific examination. I do, however, point out that it has its limitations.”

And as a side note, in terms of “phenomenological consistency”, that’s statistical reliability, right? Hey, I remember something else from that class.

They are fallible (we always keep open some element of skepticism towards them),

“Fallible” implies limitations, so I guess we are on the same page here.

But they are the best we have, and even while their use makes terms like “truly” naïve, they are performative and consistent in a model-based way (not just locally consistent, but consistent across the framework).

As I said earlier in this thread when this came up, “best way” does not equal “only way.”

Whatever you want to claim about “other mode of evidence”, it’s either so innovative and new that it will make you world famous when you lay it out here

I didn’t realize that the suggestion that the number one exists was “innovative and new.” The ancient Greek philosophers certainly put a lot of thought into it, although I don’t embrace the same conclusions that some of them did. But with this in mind I am certainly not coming up with something new.

or it’s pathetic in its performance even in relation to empirical evidence, which is, as I said problematic enough in its own right.

So numbers and math have no relation to empirical evidence? Now there’s a concept that is “problematic enough in its own right”!

For all the problems and difficulties we have with the evidentiary models we use now, all the religious contributions that are suggested and promoted this far just annihilate and defeat the bits of knowledge and progress we do have.

I’ll keep that in mind if I choose to make a religious contribution to this thread.
But on behalf of my fellow religion enthusiasts, would you care to give me an example of a bit of “knowledge and progress” that got “annihilated and defeated” by a “religious contribution”? I don’t want to get too far off-topic, so I would be satisfied with just one example. I’m not suggesting that such an example does not exist, but I personally can’t think of one (but then again, I am susceptible to being naive, as you pointed out).

Ok, TS, you have gone over my use of the term “truly” in detail. Would you care now to address the context in which I used the term? In other words, am I unreasonable in wanting to examine AntiTheist’s definition for evidence if he intends to use it as the “litmus test” for what is and is not acceptable evidence in this thread? Quite frankly, I fail to see why I or anyone else should accept his definition simply because it’s his opinion that it is correct.

Yours “truly”,
-Eric

 

[The_Exodus]

I’m not refuting the notion that humans conceive unity – I’m refuting the notion that “unity” is anything more than a conception of the mind.

Where is this “conception” derived from?

antitheist:

A “thing,” a “unity,” is a creation of the mind for the convenience of labeling and discussing experience.

What does this conception of the mind label, exactly? What do you mean by “experience?” This is an extremely vague use of the word.

antitheist:

We’re way off topic, by the way.

This is a fundamental point of epistemology and is not off topic.

antitheist:

Can someone please present evidence that the magical elements of the Gospel happened?

Could you present me with evidence that your “computer” exists, since it is nothing more than an a priori conception, on your view? Or could you give me an example of any “thing” which exists, outside your mind, since “thing” is a category we impose onto reality?

 

[Touchstone]

Physical mass (which also shares the same nature) exists in space in a finite quantity. Words such as “one” and “two” may be terms we created to apply to those finite quantities, but the quantity exists nonetheless. As I have stated more than once so far, the words we use to describe math are words being applied to a universal absolute. How can a universal absolute be considered solely as a subjective concept with no independent reality? I have yet to hear a good answer to this question.

I gave you a good answer above – you’ve confused the “map” that says ‘universal absolute’ with the “territory”, which is the extramental reality, which knows nothing, has no concepts, just is what it is. It can be a subjective concept, because all concepts are themselves ontologically subjective, and epistemically, there’s no “quantity” that exists in the terms you used above – in space in a finite quantity. You are having trouble separating you rmind and its concepts from extramentality reality. Once you get some clarity on that, the subjectivity (the dependence of your concept on your mind) is easy to see, and the idea that “one” is some ‘universal absolute’ is equally problematic.

I may subjectively call an apple “red” because of the way the surface of the apple absorbs and reflects light, as well as how the human eye usually interprets this data (and, moreover, those who developed the English language crafted the word “red” to correspond with the specific perceived color). But an unobserved apple still absorbs and reflects light in a specific pattern nonetheless. The forces at work are real and work independently of our labels and concepts.

Yes, sure, but that’s physics. You’re confusing language with physical stuff being physical. “One” is not a physical dynamic, a physical feature of anything. It’s a mental construct. A highly useful one, but a mental construct, a tool for thinking about extramental reality. The light that bounces off the surface of an apple obtains in precisely the way “one” does NOT obtain. It obtains independent of mind (Catholic confusions on this with ‘objective reality’ being the product of God’s will aside for the moment).

Without minds in the universe, there are still photons bouncing around. There is no “one”, because that is a concept, a product of a mind, a kind of thing we just stated we do not have in this proposition.

“Nebraska” is an artificial name created by humans to correspond with a socially agreed upon set of territorial boundaries. That stretch of land could have been called something else, or it could have been called nothing at all. Furthermore, in reality the name Nebraska is not written across that state. Therefore, “Nebraska” It is not a label which represents an actual characteristic of the place in question. A number, however, does represent an actual characteristic. So this Nebraska example is not applicable to what I have been saying about numbers.

What do you mean by “actual” then? Is it extended in time and space as the photons of light bouncing off the atoms of the apple’s surface are? It exists as an electrical-chemical state of our brains, but apart from that subjecitve context, no, “one” is meaningless, incoherent as anything ‘actual’.

My example would have worked just as well with topo-lines, the curvy lines on a topographcial map which indicate elevation levels. Those aren’t artificial in the sense they are arbitrarily chosen, like a name. But neither are they a feature of the territory – the territory is what it is, it has no “topo lines” marking elevations across the landscape – they are just markers that identify conceptual mnemonics that correspond to our measurements.

In your description of the solar system, you are doing exactly the sort of thing I pointed out in my last post. We don’t call the solar system a “one star system” because we mapped it out and labeled it as such. We labeled it as such because, objectively speaking, it happens to be a one-star system.

It’s not an anything descriptively until we use our language to describe it. Reality is what it is, our minds don’t define it or confer its structure upon it. That’s a conceit, and one that Catholicism, like so many religions engages to extremes (reality isn’t brute, but an artifact of God’s mind/will!). There is no “objectively speaking”, and that is the profound point. You may speak subjectively about concepts that have objective referents, but the concepts and language you deploy – “one”, “sun”, “big”, “apple”, “red”, “light”… these are all constructs of a mind, and have no existence apart from our minds and their utility in our minds to think and communicate.

Our subjective labeling has its source in observing an independent objective reality, an objective reality that includes quantity.

(Continued in my next post)

See the “topo lines” bit above. The elevation measurements, if we stipulate them to be objective accurate (to some precision) do not reify the topo lines on the map as features of the territory, too. “100 meters” is an objective measurement, given our subjective means of conceptualizing distance, but reality is what it is, and has no more “topo lines” on the hills of Nebraska than it does “one” as a counting identifier for the cardinality of stars in our solar system.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Without minds in the universe, there are still photons bouncing around. There is no “one”, because that is a concept, a product of a mind, a kind of thing we just stated we do not have in this proposition.

The first statement here is meaningless, if the consequent is true (i.e. if quantity doesn’t obtain outside our minds.) It is absurd to say “things” obtain outside the mind, if what distinguishes quantity – what makes it true to say “things” instead of “thing” – is the mind itself. Yet this is what you are doing when you state that quantity is dependent on mind, while at the same time maintaining that photon"S" exist, independently of mind. These two statements are mutually exclusive . Without mind (on your view) it is absurd to draw the distinction between “photon” and “photons.” Therefore, it doesn’t follow to say that “without minds in the universe, there are still photons bouncing around.”

Further, it is quite odd even to claim “photon” exists itself at all, without mind, since “photon” is a type of being – i.e. a substance, which again, on your view, is a mental construct. Thus it is also absurd to say that, without minds, either photon or photons exist or “bounce around.”

You are bringing up old errors of Perminides and Heraclitus, which were addressed 2000+ years ago.

 

[Touchstone]

“Truly” is just another word for “in truth” or “truthfully”. In the sense I used it, I meant “without error” or “in actuality.” So my application was, indeed, scientific rather than religious. But let me reword my statement just to be clear: in science a tool has validity if it actually measures that which it is claimed to measure.

Oy. That is either a compounding or a restatement of the error. There is no “authoritative measure” by which you can judge “actually measures”. That really is a religious and non-scientific notion.

We can say that our tools are internally consistent. This particular clock regularly measures other phenomena which we suppose are of equal time span with times that consistently match. But that’s as closes as we get to “actually measures”. We can point to consistent, performative tools with matching models, and we accept that, reasonably, as the best effort we can make toward “actually measuring”. But there is no “ultimate yardstick” to test against.

The measuring cup in my kitchen is a valid tool for measuring quantity, but an invalid tool for measuring the intensity of light. If this is not what validity really means in the scientific sense then I want my money back for the statistics course I took way back when I got my B.A. I don’t remember much from that class, but I do remember that.

You are talking about consistency and uniformity. And that’s fine, practically useful and effective for building performative models. But without pushing this into yet another philosophy of science bunny trail, all of your consistency => truth relies on a metaphysical assumption that I happen to also share, but as a metaphysical assumption, convicts one as religious if its held out as more than that. I accept that the cup is a consistent, practical tool for measuring volumes, but only because I make the metaphysical commitment that reality is real, and reflected by my senses, obtaining objectively apart from my mind. I accept that in part because I’m wired by my physiology to think that way, but also because upon review of all the models available, it seems to perform the best in terms of explanation, prediction and being liable to falsification, virtues that proceed from those metaphysical assumptions.

That matters here, profoundly, when we talk about evidence, because it is this metaphysical commitment that makes religious “evidence” that doesn’t jibe with emprical/naturalist models look pathetic.

I’m not quite sure when I ever said that scientific methods were “inadequate.” I said in Post #385: “The scientific method does not rule out the possibility of other methods in determining truth,” and “Neither in this thread nor any other have I ever rejected the importance of the accuracy of scientific examination. I do, however, point out that it has its limitations.”

I don’t rule out the possibility of other methods of determining truth, either. And for some questions (what is my favorite rock band?) that are not amenable to the scientific method, my subjective notions are ‘true’ by simple tautology – my favorite band is the band I regard as my favorite. But on matters of interperspectival fact, while I remain open to other methods in principle, the approaches that get posited instead of science, particularly in religious modes, are consistently spectacular fails. There may be other methods, but if you think the measuring cup really is a consistent, veridical tool – religious “innovations” in determining truth are just losers in terms of performance and coherence based ON THAT VERY CRITERION that had you valuing the measuring cup. That is, if the measuring cup really is useful toward truth-finding, religious ideas of evidence are bogus. And vice versa.

And as a side note, in terms of “phenomenological consistency”, that’s statistical reliability, right? Hey, I remember something else from that class.

Right. There’s nothing “authoritative” about that consistency and predictability that makes it “absolute truth”. It’s just the most compelling model we have.

“Fallible” implies limitations, so I guess we are on the same page here.

OK.

As I said earlier in this thread when this came up, “best way” does not equal “only way.”

No, but then you have consistency problems, and intractable ones. Take “religious truth method X”. If that is “a way”, now you have a coherence problem. Is the measuring cup “a way” now, or not? These inevitably collide, and if you really do believe the measuring cup is a way, then the resurrection of Jesus is necessarily an outrageously bogus claim. If it’s not a bogus claim, then the measuring cup isn’t telling you anything, because that miracle fundamentally annihilates the basis you had to think it was actually measuring anything “truly”.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

I didn’t realize that the suggestion that the number one exists was “innovative and new.” The ancient Greek philosophers certainly put a lot of thought into it, although I don’t embrace the same conclusions that some of them did. But with this in mind I am certainly not coming up with something new.

No, it’s not new with you, of course. It’s a product of minds. Yes, Plato came before you, but billions of years before Plato, or any human mind, there was reality, existing as it does. No concepts, because there are no minds. “One” is a conspicuous anachronism, if we suppose “one” is an actuality back then.

So numbers and math have no relation to empirical evidence? Now there’s a concept that is “problematic enough in its own right”!

Certainly they do. But that all obtains as a function of cognition, as a matter of thinking and language, the product of minds. No minds, no ‘one’ no pi; a circular orbit (assuming such a thing can occur perfectly in nature) obtains per physical law same as it would in a universe with minds, but the math and number concepts (and all the other concepts) are maps of the territory, not the territory itself.

I’ll keep that in mind if I choose to make a religious contribution to this thread.
But on behalf of my fellow religion enthusiasts, would you care to give me an example of a bit of “knowledge and progress” that got “annihilated and defeated” by a “religious contribution”? I don’t want to get too far off-topic, so I would be satisfied with just one example. I’m not suggesting that such an example does not exist, but I personally can’t think of one (but then again, I am susceptible to being naive, as you pointed out).

Like I said, working “top down” – finding evidence that ‘truly’ matters, judging the evidence by some a priori commitment – rather than “bottom up” – building models that perform, cohere, predict and explain as we can – is a religious concept. If we accept, for example, that the universe is a creation from God’s will and exists as it does only as a product of his will, and sustained by his will, we are powerless to build any model that is consistent toward “actual”. If a resurrection can just arbitrarily happen at God’s behest, the water you are measuring in your cup might just be wine. We can have no knowledge at all in that model, because the very consistency of nature you rely is undermined by the religious commitment to inconsistency; this is God showing his power and glory, and knowledge goes out the window, which is useful, too – keeps those uppity creatures guessing!

Ok, TS, you have gone over my use of the term “truly” in detail. Would you care now to address the context in which I used the term? In other words, am I unreasonable in wanting to examine AntiTheist’s definition for evidence if he intends to use it as the “litmus test” for what is and is not acceptable evidence in this thread? Quite frankly, I fail to see why I or anyone else should accept his definition simply because it’s his opinion that it is correct.

Yours “truly”,
-Eric

I won’t speak for AntiTheist, but the basis for accepting his definition (and it isn’t his definition in any particular way – he’s just adopted the same heuristic I and a great many now and previously have adopted) is not just opinion, but the performance of the model. And it’s a model I think if we followed you around day to day, we’d find your actions showed you adopted as well, except in cases where you’ve gerrymandered around that model to accommodate religious beliefs you desire to maintain. It’s your prerogrative to do all the special pleading and ad-hoc apealling to supernaturalism you like, but where you do, not only are you being inconsistent conceptual, the parts which you adopt for religious purposes break the model you normally engage.

That would reduce the answer to simple: *so that you have a consistent, coherent model for the world around you. *I totally realize that has serious ramifications and daunting challenges associated with it (I was a Christian for 30+ years), and also that there are powerful social, psychological and personal factors that may make that undesirable.

But that is the reason, as I see it. Because you want to adopt a model that is consistent, coherent, performative and which incorporates features that discourage self-deception and caprice.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

The first statement here is meaningless, if the consequent is true (i.e. if quantity doesn’t obtain outside our minds.) It is absurd to say “things” obtain outside the mind, if what distinguishes quantity – what makes it true to say “things” instead of “thing” – is the mind itself.

Right. But remember that the only means we have to discuss concepts like this is with language and minds, and that makes this a bit tricky. It’s difficult to talk about a reality without minds and language, because they are transcendental predicates for the conversation itself. Even so, we can talk about hypotheticals that have attributes and aspects that we necessarily must describe via language, but which have conceptual referents which are not language-bound, or mind-bound, themselves.

If we imagine a universe with nothing – no minds – but space/time and a single particle, we discuss it with minds and language, but that does not place minds or language in that hypothetical universe. It appears you are confusing map and territory here, as well, and supposing that to talk about such a universe is to place our minds and language in that universe. Such a discussion does not entail that.

Yet this is what you are doing when you state that quantity is dependent on mind, while at the same time maintaining that photon"S" exist, independently of mind. These two statements are mutually exclusive . Without mind (on your view) it is absurd to draw the distinction between “photon” and “photons.” Therefore, it doesn’t follow to say that “without minds in the universe, there are still photons bouncing around.”

Strictly speaking we can’t talk about it at all, because any language would be relying on concepts, which are problematic in the pedantic sense you are appealing to. This is the thrust intended by my stating “reality is what it is”, meaning it has identity and existence that are independent of my concepts or descriptions. I speak (and therefore must use language) of some arrangement (“has photons”), but my language doesn’t create, delete or alter any features of that universe, or the photons in question. The map is not the territory.

Further, it is quite odd even to claim “photon” exists itself at all, without mind, since “photon” is a type of being – i.e. a substance, which again, on your view, is a mental construct. Thus it is also absurd to say that, without minds, either photon or photons exist or “bounce around.”

No, not hardly. I don’t suppose my mind is required for photons to be photons, no matter how I might speak about them, or not. They can’t be bothered by my language, or yours, or anyone, if reality obtains objectively, independent of mind. Just because minds exist here that can describe them and apply language and concepts to them as phenomenal does NOT invalidate, or affect in any way at all, their existence or behavior if my mind, and all minds, weren’t around to think or talk about them. Reality is what it is, independent of my mind.

I think you have accidentally put a Catholic view around my shoulders? On Catholicism, what you suggest here would obtain. Without mind, there’d be nothing at all, and nothing created, nothing extant, since existence is a subjective artifact of God’s will, on Catholicism. Easy enough to test: On Catholicism, if there was no God, would there be a universe, or any reality at all?

You are bringing up old errors of Perminides and Heraclitus, which were addressed 2000+ years ago.

Uh no. Again, not hardly – these two are more examples of religious intuitions, part of the problem and not the solution.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Right.

Since you concede your statement was meaningless, it is quite useless (not to mention impossible) to go on drawing out its ramifications as if it were coherent.

touchstone:

Even so, we can talk about hypotheticals that have attributes and aspects that we necessarily must describe via language, but which have conceptual referents which are not language-bound, or mind-bound, themselves.

Language is preceeded by concept, is it not? Ergo, all this talk of language is secondary to the primary epistemic claim you are making, which is about concept, or what is in the mind. On your view, is concept coherent, or accurately reflective of reality?

touchstone:

If we imagine a universe with nothing – no minds – but space/time and a single particle, we discuss it with minds and language, but that does not place minds or language in that hypothetical universe.

Again, this statement is incoherent, because, on your view, “single x” cannot obtain in a universe with no minds. You’ve readily admitted this point. Now, if you want to claim that quantity or unity can possibly obtain, that’s a different matter, and would require you to reject the notion that it is dependent on our mind.

Further, all the example above could show is that number obtains in an “imagined universe with nothing but space/time.” It doesn’t follow from this that you can move from your ontological imagining, however, to real applicability.

touchstone:

Strictly speaking we can’t talk about it at all, because any language would be relying on concepts, which are problematic in the pedantic sense you are appealing to.

Well, this is a nice claim, but what is your reasoning behind it? I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on “concept” and how it relates to reality.

touchstone:

This is the thrust intended by my stating “reality is what it is”, meaning it has identity and existence that are independent of my concepts or descriptions. I speak (and therefore must use language) of some arrangement (“has photons”), but my language doesn’t create, delete or alter any features of that universe, or the photons in question.

It’s never been maintained that our language, which is built on our concept, “creates” what it is referring to. Rather, language is built on concept which apprehends and identifies what it is referring to.

Again, I’d like to hear more about how you suppose we develop concept in the first place.

touchstone:

No, not hardly. I don’t suppose my mind is required for photons to be photons, no matter how I might speak about them, or not.

Your concept “photon” is what, on your view? Where does it come from, and why is it “photon” instead of “electron” or “neutron?”

Further, all you can speak about is what your concept is. Therefore, if all concept is mind-created, it is absurd to make the above claim, that photons can exist, independent of your mind, in reality, because then, you would have a concept which depended on mind, obtaining in reality without mind.

Let us take “photon” as a concept x. Now, do you suppose x to be abstracted from reality? If so, why is x x, and not rather y or z? How do you suppose x comes to be in the mind? If you do not think it exists in reality first, as being x, in and of itself, it can never get there from your mind alone. If, then, x is not apprehended but created, you are simply speaking meaninglessness when you say that x obtains, whether or not you think x obtains, since x, by definition, obtains by mental creation.

 

[Touchstone]

Since you concede your statement was meaningless,

Hang on, you’re getting ahead of yourself. This is what the “Right” was referring to:

what makes it true to say “things” instead of “thing” – is the mind itself.

These are concepts, things of the mind. Right. I wasn’t conceding anything about my previous statement.

it is quite useless (not to mention impossible) to go on drawing out its ramifications as if it were coherent.

The concession you are basing this on was a misunderstanding. Sorry that wasn’t more clear, but you were mistaken in your response.

Language is preceeded by concept, is it not? Ergo, all this talk of language is secondary to the primary epistemic claim you are making, which is about concept, or what is in the mind. On your view, is concept coherent, or accurately reflective of reality?

Concepts are “map points” in our model of the territory. They are not the (extramental) territory. The accuracy of the concept depends on the concept. Some concepts seem to perform very well, others spectacularly fail for accuracy against the territory, as best can be judged.

Again, this statement is incoherent, because, on your view, “single x” cannot obtain in a universe with no minds.

You’re confusing map and territory again. Our concept of “single x” cannot obtain, by definition, in a universe with no minds. Whatever “x” points to may indeed obtain, in such a universe. If you label something, creating a symbol pointing at a referent, destroying the symbol doesn’t destroy the referent, necessarily. The referent may will still obtain, after the symbol has been removed.

You’ve readily admitted this point.

I’m advocating for precision and care in distinguishing symbol from referent, map from territory. An [thing we are pointing to with the concept “x”] may still obtain in a universe with no minds, even though “single x” as a concept necessarily will not. I still don’t think you are getting the distinction here, and are conflating your map with the territory.

Now, if you want to claim that quantity or unity can possibly obtain, that’s a different matter, and would require you to reject the notion that it is dependent on our mind.

I [thing we are pointing to with the concept “x”] is another concept, then by definition it would not obtain in a universe without minds. But if were to refer to some physical phenomenon that obtains without any mind, no problem. It exists, it’s just unlabeled, unreferenced, “unconcepted”.

Further, all the example above could show is that number obtains in an “imagined universe with nothing but space/time.” It doesn’t follow from this that you can move from your ontological imagining, however, to real applicability.

Well, here, I have a much more limited goal, which is just some conceptual integrity in the discussion, some distinction between what the mind refers to with its concepts, and those concepts themselves. There is the idea here that “one” is some kind of entity apart from being a concept that somehow obtains in a don’t-ask-but-it-does-exist mode of reality. And, it’s good evidence, to boot, of something or other. That’s just confused, and that point is what I’m pressing, here.

Well, this is a nice claim, but what is your reasoning behind it? I’d like to hear more of your thoughts on “concept” and how it relates to reality.

OK, you layout your entire epistemology first, here in the thread – and provide citations, please. Then I’ll go. Come on, this is just the subject/object distinction. The concept we have in mind about the referent is not the referent. That means that the mind has concepts which are not extra-mental reality itself, but a model of extra-mental reality, a conceptual construction that approximates it to some degree or other, that we use to negotiate our surroundings and pursue goals. That’s a good synopsis, but if you want sling homework assignments and busywork, you go first and I’ll follow.

It’s never been maintained that our language, which is built on our concept, “creates” what it is referring to.

Uh, yes it has. This is Anselm’s ontological argument, for example. The mind embracing this nonsense supposes it can create God conceptually, and the real world doesn’t even need to be consulted. Aquinas Five Ways are only marginally less clumsy in supposing the mind creates reality, that reality must conform to its intuitions.

Rather, language is built on concept which apprehends and identifies what it is referring to.

If only! Would toward that it were the case, more often. That is man as a natural being, but that very biology has favored a pyschology that is prone to story telling and wild imaginations. This serves us fine in a practical sense, but inclines us toward all manner of superstitions, where we formulate mentally what we’d like to be real, and decide we’re done, and that it is real (magic!).

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

The Exodus:

Again, I’d like to hear more about how you suppose we develop concept in the first place.

If you want to spin up a thread on concept formation, I’ll be happy to participate.

Your concept “photon” is what, on your view? Where does it come from, and why is it “photon” instead of “electron” or “neutron?”

The name in particular? “Photon” I believe just integrates “photo-” and “-on”, the anglicized Greek words for “light” and “unit”. But you can Google the etymology of those words as well as I can. Conceptually, these are distinguished by the physical features of each. An electron, for example, is a particle with a negative charge, where a neutron has a neutral charge. The electron distinguishes itself by having no mass, where they electron and neutron do. These are not the only distinctions, but representative of the distinguishing physical features that we associate with each concept. [What we call ‘photon’] is what it is, no matter what we think about it, but we’ve observed things about it consistently enough that we can associate a concept which is distinct from [what we call ‘electron’], for example.

Further, all you can speak about is what your concept is. Therefore, if all concept is mind-created, it is absurd to make the above claim, that photons can exist, independent of your mind, in reality, because then, you would have a concept which depended on mind, obtaining in reality without mind.

From the evidence and observations we have available, nothing in the features, dynamics or behavior of a photon suggests that it depends on mind to exist. We can’t know what obtains when we aren’t observing, but somethings (like concepts) we can trace in their provenance to minds, and other (photons) have no discernible dependence on minds, and the physical models that we have that work to produce successful predictions and explanations have no need of mind for their existence.

Let us take “photon” as a concept x. Now, do you suppose x to be abstracted from reality?

To make sure the bases are covered, here:

1. x, as a concept of the mind, exists as a physical phenomenon - a “brain state” (or “functional state”, depending on which model of cognition you embrace).
2. x, as a concept, is not the target of the concept, except in cases where the concept is self-referential (x is a concept about itself). For any x, where the target is not itself, x is not the target. I’ve heard good arguments that suggest that neurological, this does not happen, and that any given concept necessarily maps to network machinery somewhere else in the brain, but for our purposes, I’m fine with allowing that some concepts are self-referential.
3. x, as a concept, is not extra-mental reality, but a part of a cognitive model of extra-mental reality.
4. x, per 3), is an abstraction of extra-mental reality to the extent it reflects the state of extra-mental reality in some respect.

If so, why is x x, and not rather y or z?

[The concept we associate with ‘photon’] is what it is because it maps with our observations, and the features of the other concepts with which it integrates in our conceptual model of physics. [The concept we associate with ‘photon’] is not [The concept we associate with ‘electron’] because [The concept we associate with ‘photon’] identifies a massless particle that is the basic unit of light, conceptual features that do not match the conceptual ingredients of [The concept we associate with ‘electron’].

How do you suppose x comes to be in the mind?

Observation, sensory (name removed by moderator)ut, reasoning on that (name removed by moderator)ut, model testing, feedback, refinement.

If you do not think it exists in reality first, as being x, in and of itself, it can never get there from your mind alone.

I suppose it can. I can imagine, say, more fundamental parts that make up a “string”, which is the most fundamental unit in M-Theory. It doesn’t need to exist, nor do I need to think it exists, for me to imagine such a possibility.

If, then, x is not apprehended but created, you are simply speaking meaninglessness when you say that x obtains, whether or not you think x obtains, since x, by definition, obtains by mental creation.

It’s only meaningless insofar as we deny the epistemic value of experience and empirical observation. I might imagine all sorts of things which I don’t think exist, but hypothetically I entertain as concepts. This does not create them, or discover them. I need to consult extra-mental reality to get some validation (or falsification) if I suppose there is meaning invested in “x obtains”.

-TS

 

[The_Exodus]

Concepts are “map points” in our model of the territory. They are not the (extramental) territory. The accuracy of the concept depends on the concept.

This is clearly circular: “Concepts are gained from concepts, therefore, their accuracy depends on further concepts.” The consequence of this appeals to infinity and makes knowledge, science, and language impossible.

If you do not refer to one definite thing when you are speaking, you are evidently not refering to any definite thing at all. And you certainly can’t get anywhere by saying you are refering to a concept, which is based on another concept, ad infinitum.

It’s a simple question I’m asking: where do our concepts come from, intially?

touchstone:

You’re confusing map and territory again.

Your presentation of this hypothesis has been quite vague, and I continually see you saying the above to many people on this forum. Perhaps the fault is in the explication (no need to re-present it however.)

touchstone:

Our concept of “single x” cannot obtain, by definition, in a universe with no minds.

Then we manifestly have no concept of “single x,” and no reason to think it exists. We only have a concept of “concept of single x.”

You keep pushing the distinction back, and cutting us off from actually getting at anything outside our mind. Yet you keep trying to make statements about “single x” obtaining outside the mind, which, since you’ve severed communion with reality, is impossible.

The distinction you are drawing between what obtains in reality (“single x”), and the concept of single x is unjustified, since it is meaningless for you to speak about “single x” outside our conception; for what is “single x” on your view, if not a concept which cannot get at “single x?”. “Single x” as you use it above is totally incoherent phrase and can express no meaning whatsoever, unless we admit we can really get at single x, in and of itself. However, you claim “single x” in the above example as obtaining in reality, while at the same time denying we can access what single x actually is in itself, or as it exists in itself. There is no way for us to know this, however, or make this statement, if our concepts do not actually obtain in reality.

Further, why can’t our concepts obtain in the first place? You claim this dogmatically, but what reason do you have for saying this, and why can they not, if they are apprehensive and not creative, obtain?

touchstone:

I’m advocating for precision and care in distinguishing symbol from referent

Symbol in reference to what? All you can say here is an unknowable x. And if it is entirely unknowable, it makes no sense to speak of it at all, under any context, not even to distinguish it from your concept of “unknowable x,” let alone as a “single” object.

touchstone:

But if were to refer to some physical phenomenon that obtains without any mind, no problem.

“Physical” is just as conceptual a mode of being as quantity.

touchstone:

Come on, this is just the subject/object distinction.

And yet you implicitly deny the existence of object. What is the concept of, if not an object? What is the symbol referencing, if not an object? And if you do say object, how can an object obtain, unless it be “an” object, or some self-subsisting entity; i.e. a being in itself? What is the word “object” but a warbled concept of inaccessible phenomena, on your view?

touchstone:

The concept we have in mind about the referent is not the referent. That means that the mind has concepts which are not extra-mental reality itself, but a model of extra-mental reality, a conceptual construction that approximates it to some degree or other, that we use to negotiate our surroundings and pursue goals.

The crux of the matter rests precisely where you are most lax in analysis: “a conceptual construction that approximates it to some degree or other…”

“Some degree or other”…?

That says positively nothing.

Furthermore, what does the concept “approximate” to?

touchstone:

This is Anselm’s ontological argument, for example.

Strawman. Anselm (on this point) has never been followed by classical scholasticism.

 

[The_Exodus]

These are not the only distinctions, but representative of the distinguishing physical features that we associate with each concept.

So “distinguishing physical features” obtain in reality, and are what our concepts are “associated” with?

I’m trying to understand you as best as possible.

1. x, as a concept of the mind, exists as a physical phenomenon - a “brain state” (or “functional state”, depending on which model of cognition you embrace).

Concept of x obtains in the mind…I follow

2. x, as a concept, is not the target of the concept, except in cases where the concept is self-referential (x is a concept about itself). For any x, where the target is not itself, x is not the target. .

I don’t see how this point is relevant, but, so far as here concerns us, I agree, that concepts (once formed) can be self-referential.

3. x, as a concept, is not extra-mental reality, but a part of a cognitive model of extra-mental reality.

Ok, so what is x a concept of, precisely, with regard to extra-mental reality?

4. x, per 3), is an abstraction of extra-mental reality to the extent it reflects the state of extra-mental reality in some respect.

…this?

This is what your answer boils down to, and is the foundation on which your theory of knowledge is built. This point is the crux of the matter, which is the dividing line between idealism and realism, and your answer is vague and near meaningless. “Some respect” has no explanatory power and is severly lacking in critical analysis.

 

[Touchstone]

This is clearly circular: “Concepts are gained from concepts, therefore, their accuracy depends on further concepts.”

Some concepts are informed by other concepts, but our experiences are the primary driver of concept formation. Outside information comes to use through our senses, which makes this a directed process, not circular.

The consequence of this appeals to infinity and makes knowledge, science, and language impossible.

Did you really suppose that was what was being advanced, here?

If you do not refer to one definite thing when you are speaking, you are evidently not refering to any definite thing at all. And you certainly can’t get anywhere by saying you are refering to a concept, which is based on another concept, ad infinitum.

Some concepts refer to other concepts – math concepts are a good example of this. But certainly, many concepts are grounded in sensory experience. “Hot” is informed by my sense of touch, for example.

It’s a simple question I’m asking: where do our concepts come from, intially?

If you mean as an infant, then we are at the beginning, and lean nearly exclusively on our sensory experience. If you wonder where the initial formation of a particular concept comes from, right now, it depends on the concept. Seeing a new kind of cactus, for example, puts something conceptually new in my concept store, and that would be based on visual (name removed by moderator)ut. But a new math concept I read about may rely on the integration of two or more other, existing concepts. Its formation may be triggered by the visual (name removed by moderator)ut of my reading, but the new concept draws upon other concepts I already have.

It’s not a simple question you are asking. This is one of the most challenging questions going in science.

Your presentation of this hypothesis has been quite vague, and I continually see you saying the above to many people on this forum. Perhaps the fault is in the explication (no need to re-present it however.)

It’s a general problem, but I’m happy to go into specifics when people need detail.

Then we manifestly have no concept of “single x,” and no reason to think it exists. We only have a concept of “concept of single x.”

“concept of single x” implies ‘single x’. That is the referent. It doesn’t need to exist, anymore than “purple unicorn” needs to exist as the target of a concept. But the target may be something that exists, and exists in a world with no minds. Given our understanding of physics, for example, no minds or concepts are needed for [target of the concept ‘photon’] to exist. We have reason to think it exist because the model performs, and works as well without minds involved.

You keep pushing the distinction back, and cutting us off from actually getting at anything outside our mind. Yet you keep trying to make statements about “single x” obtaining outside the mind, which, since you’ve severed communion with reality, is impossible.

Not. We experience inbound information from the extra-mental world constantly. From this information we build models with concepts in our minds. It is grounded in the experience of the extra-mental reality. We are in communion with it. We just don’t determine it with our thoughts. It is what it is, regardless, and we build models that seek to comprehend it.

The distinction you are drawing between what obtains in reality (“single x”), and the concept of single x is unjustified, since it is meaningless for you to speak about “single x” outside our conception;

No it’s not. That’s no different than saying a tree that falls in the woods with no one to hear it makes no sound. The sound waves are still what they are, whether they hit human ears or not. It’s a profound understanding to realize that our physical models are not dependent as suppose, and it’s meaningful, as it removes our minds from a position of conceit; we are observers and apprehenders of something that isn’t dependent on our minds. Sound waves don’t need ears to be sound waves. Those waves interact with the environment as they do, ears or not.

for what is “single x” on your view, if not a concept which cannot get at “single x?”.

The concept has x as a target. But constructing a concept that points at x doesn’t mean the concept reifies x. X may obtain completely independently of any concept I or anyone has about it. The photon is what it is, no matter if I or you have “photon” as a concept in our heads.

“Single x” as you use it above is totally incoherent phrase and can express no meaning whatsoever, unless we admit we can really get at single x, in and of itself.

That’s not been an issue throughout. We can experience photons at work, and incorporate a whole variety of observations and empirical tests that “really get at” a photon, providing the basis for a concept we call “photon”.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

However, you claim “single x” in the above example as obtaining in reality, while at the same time denying we can access what single x actually is in itself, or as it exists in itself.

No, haven’t denied that. Some concepts have other concepts as their basis, rather than raw percepts and stimuli. Even “photon” is not a good example of a concept based on raw percepts; it is a concept derived from a number of other concepts in a model of physics, one of those being “light”, say, which we might ground in raw percepts. We can and do “really get at” extra-mental reality, but concept formation and model building is not this naive stimulus=>model direct instantiation you apparently suppose. Through the array of our percepts and cognitive integrations (e.g. chunking and pattern-matching in visual integration for sight) we develop an array of concepts from which we form models we apply, and which get refined and extended with feedback from that same flow of percepts and concepts.

There is no way for us to know this, however, or make this statement, if our concepts do not actually obtain in reality.

Further, why can’t our concepts obtain in the first place? You claim this dogmatically, but what reason do you have for saying this, and why can they not, if they are apprehensive and not creative, obtain?

The targets of some concepts do obtain, we believe, based on the performance of the model using that concept. [that which we refer to by the concept labeled “photon”] we understand to actually obtain in reality, based on the performance of that concept as part of a physics model that works (predictive, explanatory, falsifiable, economical, etc.).

Symbol in reference to what? All you can say here is an unknowable x.

X is knowable insofar as it corresponds with models based on our experience that perform. We know “photon” insofar as that concept works empirically.

And if it is entirely unknowable, it makes no sense to speak of it at all, under any context, not even to distinguish it from your concept of “unknowable x,” let alone as a “single” object.

Yeah, you’re stuck in a groove that has nothing to do with my claims or statements here. Not sure how that happened, but see above.

“Physical” is just as conceptual a mode of being as quantity.

Yes. But that doesn’t establish or deny its actuality. That actuality obtains empirically, for those who accept the metaphysical proposition that reality is real, and our experiences reflect extra-mental reality.

And yet you implicitly deny the existence of object.

No, I don’t. To the extent we can supply models that posit that existence, and those models perform empirically, it’s existence is affirmed. X just doesn’t need my affirmation or denial to exist or not exist.

What is the concept of, if not an object? What is the symbol referencing, if not an object? And if you do say object, how can an object obtain, unless it be “an” object, or some self-subsisting entity; i.e. a being in itself? What is the word “object” but a warbled concept of inaccessible phenomena, on your view?

See sections 1.2 and 1.3 here. There’s a lot there, but this is a good bit to pull out:

As Strawson’s remark in particular makes clear, the formal concept at issue corresponds to the notion of a logical subject—a value of a Wittgensteinian ‘variable name’—where a ‘logical subject’ is itself understood as the correlate of a semantically singular reference.

The ‘logical subject’ may well be derived from “accessible phenomena”. But that is too narrow as a necessarily qualification. Some ‘object’ may not directly derive from from outside experience.

The crux of the matter rests precisely where you are most lax in analysis: “a conceptual construction that approximates it to some degree or other…”

“Some degree or other”…?

That’s not lax. Mileage varies from concept to concept. “Photon” is a concept which empirically matches our extra-mental world to a high degree. “Ghost” is a concept which approximates badly, on the same grounds. The process for gauging is solid, but the results vary. The process isn’t lax, but some of the concepts are.

That says positively nothing.

Furthermore, what does the concept “approximate” to?

Depends on what the measure is. If we are testing the concept of “photon” as part of our physical model, we use empirical analysis to see how well that concept performs against our experience. Observations from the extra-mental world serve as the judge of the quality of approximation, in that case.

If “adherence to religious dogma” is the measure, than some theological concepts will approximate the truth measured that way better than others.

Strawman. Anselm (on this point) has never been followed by classical scholasticism.

Well, your idea was that reality isn’t forged simply be thought – “humans haven’t done that”, or something like that. Manifestly, they have, and it’s a rich philosophical tradition, going back to the Greeks.

-TS

 

[EricFilmer]

The human mind perceives objects by arbitrarily (and unconsciously) drawing borders around “things.” I perceive the thing I’m sitting on as “one chair,” though I could just as easily perceive it as a collection of a large number of individual wooden parts that are interconnected.

I agree that humans can create arbitrary borders around things. However, borders also exist in nature independent of what we do. Mass, space and gravitational forces create boundaries, for example. They can encompass certain things and at the same time exclude others.

From the experience of perceiving an object, humans abstracted the concept of “one.” From perceiving one object and one object placed next to each other, humans abstracted the concept of two, and drew the conclusion that one and one make two. From there, you can build a whole system of numbers that is useful for determining things in the real world (something we can investigate and determine that it has actual, practical use).

You are trying to relegate the whole concept of math to that of language. As I have mentioned before, we do not see the limitations and variations in math that we do with language. Math is a universal constant, but no language even comes close to this.

At any rate, I’m not terribly keen to get sidetracked into a discussion of math because it’s largely irrelevant. Even if math is something intangible that exists “out there,” humans are only aware of it because we can detect it, because we can label an object “one” and another object “one” and confirm that one and one are two. We can confirm that our calculations map to things in the real world.

It is relevant in that I am using it to test your position concerning what will be acceptable evidence in this thread discussion. You intend to test the information presented to you by Christians, so I want to “test the test.”
And when you say “we can confirm that our calculations map to things in the real world”, that is just another way of saying that any subjective perception of math is tested against objective reality. An objective reality, by definition, is not an aspect that exists solely in the human mind.

EDIT: You say this yourself when you claim that people “discovered” math. Discovery necessitates gathering evidence and observations.

I wholeheartedly agree that discovery involves perception. But what we disagree on is how this perception takes place. If numbers and mathematics are immaterial but nonetheless part of objective reality then we somehow perceived such things without them affecting the world in a physically detectable way. Someone may naturally ask how such a thing could happen, but for the sake of the discussion at hand, it suffices for me to demonstrate that it happened.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

You’re playing childish games now that are mixed up about the way language works.

I came up with this concept as an example of what, in my honest opinion, would be a way to test the validity of your definition of evidence. This is not some trick formulated to stump an atheist. If someone else came up with it then I did so independent of them or any agendas they have. As I stated before, I have no predictions as to the outcome of this challenge, and likewise have no anticipation that it can stump anyone. As far as I know, you or someone else could come up with a definition which properly meets the set parameters.

But I will go ahead test the merits of this challenge. As stated earlier, the task is to define the number one without using the word “one” or a synonym of it. There is nothing childish about such a rule when giving the definition of anything. Likewise, because the whole basis of the experiment is to examine whether or not the number one has real existence, then it seems reasonable that the definition should not presume that it exists in the first place. This rules out the use of other numbers and math, because such things presume its existence.

I will now pick a concept that we both would agree is something fashioned by humans: a hammer. In my dictionary, one of the definitions of a hammer is, “A hand tool for use in pounding.” The definition did not use the word “hammer,” so it meets the first requirement. Likewise, the definition does not presume the existence of hammers, because this could easily be the definition for the first hammer ever made (i.e., there were no pre-existing hammers). So it meets the second requirement.

Now, definitions of a hammer that would fail to meet the requirements would be things like, “What you use to hammer something”, or “What gets manufactured by a hammer factory.” Naturally, rejecting such definitions would have merit and not because some sort of game is being played.

You might as well play “the dictionary game” where you ask me to define a word and then ask me to define each of the words I used to define the first word and so on and so forth until I eventually use the first word again.

Going back to my hammer example, even if I wanted to further dissect the elements of that definition (i.e., define “hand tool”, “use”, “pounding”) there is no indication that the conversation would ever necessitate that the word “hammer” would eventually come up. So if we can successfully define a hammer in the context of my challenge, then we ought to be able to do the same with the number one, provided that the number one is, indeed, solely something fashioned by humans.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

“One” is the word we use to label things we perceive as an individual unit. I can talk about my computer as “one thing,” and I can also talk about it as a collection of chips and wires and other individual “things.” And I can talk about those things as collections of subatomic particles.

Let’s take a moment to consider particles. Despite our concepts of boundaries and unity (i.e., is the machine in my garage “one car” or “large assortment of automotive parts”?), if we break down the universe into the simplest of components, there would still be a finite amount of particles. After all, does science say that anything within creation is infinite? No. Did the Big Bang start with an infinite amount of material? No. Did the finite material at the beginning of the universe’s creation somehow become infinite since then? No. The existence of a finite number of anything necessarily indicates a quantity. In other words, it is a contradiction to state that a given object has a finite number, and then to say that it does not have a quantity. All finite numbers correspond to quantity, and all quantities correspond to finite numbers. This quantity, being a necessary aspect of the existing thing, is a matter of objective reality, and not of subjective perception. The only thing subjective about it is the word we have within a human language to signify what that quantity is (such as the words “one”, “three thousand”, etc.), so that we can comprehend it. But an objective reality, by definition, is not dependent upon the human mind, and would exist if there were no minds in the universe. So “one”, being the simplest example of a finite quantity, likewise exists as an aspect of objective reality.

Ok. “Evidence” does not have to strictly be scientific. I have plenty of evidence that my car will start when I turn the key, regardless of whether or not I have conducted any experiments.

My claim is that a 21st century human being has no good reason to accept a claim until it is detectable by a 21st century human being.

I’m drawing a distinction between the truth of the matter and what we believe about the truth of the matter.

I think I have made a reasonable case in demonstrating that numbers exist independent of the human mind. Moreover, numbers are immaterial (and therefore do not affect the world in physically detectable ways). Nevertheless, a 21st Century human obviously has a good reason to believe in numbers and math.

To use another example, it could be that the crazy homeless guy raving about aliens is 100% right, but I have no reason to believe him, and he has no good basis for making his claim.

I agree with this line of reasoning. I wouldn’t believe him either (unless, of course, there actually happened to be a bunch of aliens right behind him).

So, is it possible that your god exists? Sure, in the same way that it’s possible for any claim to be true. But we don’t have any good reason to think that it is true until we have evidence for it.

For the record, all I am attempting to do at this moment is examine the validity of the methods used for examining evidence in this thread. I am not making a case for belief in God. As far as I am concerned, a person can accept my statements concerning the existence of the number one without logically also having to believe in God.

So, to refine my definitions even further. “Exist” means “be a part of reality,” but the practical definition of exist is “affecting the world in a detectable way” because this is the one and only way we could ever know that something exists.

I’m really not sure how much clearer I can be.

There really is no reason for further clarification. I think I have a clear and proper understanding of your terms for existence and evidence. I agree that your terms are valuable and very practical, but this is a pretty big topic at hand (i.e., what exists and what kinds of evidence indicate it). So I first desire to test them against that which everyone (generally speaking) agrees exists. If your conceptions of existence and evidence do not properly encompass all that obviously exists then there is no reason to trust them in considering what might possibly exist.