The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[AntiTheist]

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.

You’re confusing the map and the territory. If no minds were in the universe, and if two rocks fell on top of two rocks and made four rocks, the physical stuff that we label would still exist, but there wouldn’t any mind to label it. No one would be around to come up with the concepts of “rock,” “two,” “addition,” and “four.”

“Two” and “four” don’t exist in a universe without minds. And neither do “addition” or “rock.” They exist only as concepts in the human mind. The stuff that we label with those concepts would still exist and happen in a universe without minds, but the concepts would not still exist.

To dust off an old chestnut – pun intended – if a tree falls in the woods and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Well, the physical stuff still happens, but there are no minds around to label things (“tree,” “falling”) and to convert the resulting waves into “sound.”

Here’s another example: in a universe without minds, gravity would still function – it would, in fact, work just as it does in this universe, and it would still take the same number of days for planets to orbit the sun, etc. But there would be no “theory of gravity,” and there would be no gravity laws and formulae, which are conceptual models that humans have come up with to predict gravity’s behavior.

Gravity would still work in the same way – the physical stuff that we label and do calculations with would still be around, and if a mind suddenly appeared and was able to come up with and do the calculations, they’d still produce correct results – but the calculations themselves wouldn’t exist in that universe because there are no minds to come up with those calculations and apply them.

Unless we agree on this most basic of points, we’re not going to get much further, so tell me whether or not you agree with the above.

 

[AntiTheist]

Oh, I missed the exchange between EricFilmer and Touchstone on the last page – amusingly enough, Touchstone used the exact same map and territory language that I did.

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).

Correct. And humans are capable of viewing a car as parts as well.

Example Two: Because of how the forces of gravity work out in our area of the universe, our solar system contains one star.

You could perceive it as one star. You could also perceive it as a whole bunch of molecules of hydrogen and a whole bunch of molecules of helium.

So wait, if the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium, is it two things? Or is it billions of things, since there are billions of molecules of each? And since these molecules are always in motion, where do we draw the borders between one thing and the other? Or if we choose to perceive the sun as “one thing,” where do we draw the borders around it, since it’s always in motion? And what if we want to perceive each hydrogen molecule as atoms? And what if we want to perceive each atom as subatomic particles whizzing around?

[Note: obviously, we can’t directly “perceive” atoms and subatomic particles…I mean that we can think of the sun as such]

So wait, then, how many parts are there, anyway?

Unity isn’t a characteristic inherent in reality – it’s a concept that we impose on the universe in order to label experience and to discuss it.

In day-to-day speech, when I say, “My car exists,” or “The sun exists,” I am speaking with the assumption that the listener shares the basic conceptual and linguistic labels that we have all adopted for convenience, but I am not making metaphysical declarations about the existence of unity or the existence of the concept car or sun outside of the human mind.

The concept is not the thing; the map is not the territory.

 

[EricFilmer]

Oh, I missed the exchange between EricFilmer and Touchstone on the last page – amusingly enough, Touchstone used the exact same map and territory language that I did.

To avoid being redundant in this thread, I will simply wait and address this particular item in my response to Touchstone in the near future.

So wait, if the sun is composed of hydrogen and helium, is it two things? Or is it billions of things, since there are billions of molecules of each? And since these molecules are always in motion, where do we draw the borders between one thing and the other? Or if we choose to perceive the sun as “one thing,” where do we draw the borders around it, since it’s always in motion? And what if we want to perceive each hydrogen molecule as atoms? And what if we want to perceive each atom as subatomic particles whizzing around?

As I mentioned before, even if the universe had no boundaries within it, and we considered it in terms of its simplest component (such as subatomic particles), there would still be a finite number of this component, and (as far as I can tell) it is a contradiction to suggest that quantity is not an aspect of a finite number (and vice versa). And no matter how we chose to consider what the universe is (particles, atoms, molecules, apples vs. non-apples) there would still be a finite amount.

It is true that any proposed number is subjective in terms of how we chose to apply it to an artificially conceived categorize within creation. For example, if I want to express a quantity of apples, that mental decision has already excluded counting non-apples. Furthermore, when I count apples, that number will change depending on the boundaries I arbitrarily set. To illustrate this, let’s say that I decide to only count the apples in my refrigerator and come up with a quantity of four. Let us say that I then decided to count the apples in my town and ended up with a quantity of 100 (not too many apple lovers around). Here we obviously see a subjective quality to the exercise, because 4 and 100 are two completely different quantities.

However, objectively speaking, regardless of the exercise chosen, there is still a finite number of apples in the universe. No matter what boundaries I consider, there will be a finite number represented by what is included in the boundaries, and what is excluded. For example, what if there are a total of 1000 apples in the universe? (a ridiculously low proposition, to be sure, but I want to work with some low numbers for the sake of this illustration.) The quantity of apples in my refrigerator is 4. But the total amount of apples that exist is still 1000. My subjectively chosen boundary simply results in there being a distinction between 4 apples inside the boundary and 996 apples outside (even if I am personally unaware of the second amount). Let’s say I then decide to count the number of apples in my town, and end up with 100. That is a different quantity than the first time, because 100 is not the same as 4. Nevertheless, objectively speaking, there are 900 apples outside of my town, for a total of 1000 in existence. No matter what I do with boundaries, there is no subjectivity involving the total number that exists.

Having said this, I don’t see how the amount of something ceases to have existence or even significance unless there is a mind contemplating it. After all, the interplay of mass and gravity upon the fabric of space-time tells me that the amount of material within a particular gravitational grouping (such as a star, planet, etc.) is significant in terms of its affect on everything else. But I will also admit that physics and astronomy are definitely not my areas of expertise, so maybe I’m wrong. But that’s my understanding.

So wait, then, how many parts are there, anyway?

We may not know, but I think it is safe to assume that neither of us thinks there are an infinite number of parts. Therefore, there is a finite number, regardless of whether or not we know it.

 

[EricFilmer]

Unity isn’t a characteristic inherent in reality – it’s a concept that we impose on the universe in order to label experience and to discuss it.

If a finite number exists as an aspect of objective reality, then that necessitates the existence of the number one. There cannot be a billion particles in existence without recognizing that there is also at least one particle in existence. Even if the concept of unity is solely subjective, that does not rule out the number one existing as an aspect of objective reality.

In day-to-day speech, when I say, “My car exists,” or “The sun exists,” I am speaking with the assumption that the listener shares the basic conceptual and linguistic labels that we have all adopted for convenience, but I am not making metaphysical declarations about the existence of unity or the existence of the concept car or sun outside of the human mind.

The concept is not the thing; the map is not the territory.

We both agree that some things obviously exist independent of the human mind. The car, for example, contains matter. We also both agree that certain aspects of the car only have significance as a subjective perception of a mind. The car, for example, is “fast.” If all minds ceased to exist, the car would still contain matter (objective reality), but would no longer be fast (subjective perception). Even if the car were capable of driving itself (i.e., a robotic car), “fast” is a relative term which implies that a mind is contemplating its speed in comparison to some predetermined standard (i.e., a car traveling at 100 mph is fast compared to a turtle, but slow compared to a jet). Naturally, I am aware that you also recognize these distinctions, so I am just posting this to clarify that I make (and accept) these distinctions as well.

Unless we agree on this most basic of points, we’re not going to get much further, so tell me whether or not you agree with the above.

As usual, we continue to differ in whether or not quantity exists as an essential aspect of objective reality. Is it just as essential to the existence of something as is, say, matter (as I propose)? Or is it just a concept created in the mind? After all that has been said, I’m simply not seeing how the map vs. the territory argument refutes my proposal. But maybe that’s just me. So, to answer your question, it (unfortunately) does not look like we are going to get much further with this topic. Nevertheless, I appreciate the dialog on this, as I have found it to be an intriguing subject, and I will continue to ponder both sides. I’ll continue to hash this out with Touchstone, at least for now, in case he has any other perspectives to consider.

 

[Touchstone]

Oh, I missed the exchange between EricFilmer and Touchstone on the last page – amusingly enough, Touchstone used the exact same map and territory language that I did.

Sorry. I paypalled you your royalty fee.

-TS

 

[AntiTheist]

Sorry. I paypalled you your royalty fee.

Ahahaha. No, I wasn’t looking for credit – I was just impressed that we both independently saw the same error and expressed it in the same language. Good stuff! I have really enjoyed your posts lately.

Eric:

However, objectively speaking, regardless of the exercise chosen, there is still a finite number of apples in the universe.

“Apple” is a concept. We can choose to see what’s in front of us as “one apple,” or we can see it as skin and seeds and core and stem and pulp. Neither of those perspectives is the “objective” truth of the matter – it’s not that what’s in front of us is “really” an apple and the other perspective is wrong, nor is it that what’s in front of us is “really” skin and seeds and stem and pulp and the other perspective is wrong.

It’s just stuff. Finite stuff that we can label and look at in different ways.

We can, indeed, use one particular label (“An apple”) to count the number of things that fall into that label. But doing so does not make the number that we count anything more than another concept that exists in our heads (“one thousand”). Sure, that concept has a relationship with other concepts in our heads – as all concepts do – but the concept doesn’t exist apart from our minds. The stuff labeled by the concept does exist outside of our minds, but the concept does not.

There are a thousand apples outside of my head. If all human minds disappeared from the universe, all the stuff that we label with the phrase “a thousand apples” would still exist, but what wouldn’t exist are the concepts. There would be a universe entirely without the concept of an apple, without the concept of a thousand.

The problem you’re probably having is that when you imagine this hypothetical universe without any minds, you still think there will be concepts because you forget that you’re “looking” with your mind. You have to imagine this hypothetical universe without any minds.

I really don’t know if I can make it any clearer.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

There are a thousand apples outside of my head. If all human minds disappeared from the universe, all the stuff that we label with the phrase “a thousand apples” would still exist, but what wouldn’t exist are the concepts. There would be a universe entirely without the concept of an apple, without the concept of a thousand.

I really don’t know if I can make it any clearer.

Me and you seem to disagree a lot but that is fine. No hostility is always nice though. You are being very clear by the way.

The concept would still be there. Maybe not in the form that we put it with a t, an h, an o, etc… but it will still be there. Light will travel at a velocity (concept) equivalent to when we did exist. The concept of an apple exists whether or not we exist. The concept is still there. If you are talking about words, sure the word would not exist but the concept of “concept” would still exist. We gather concepts from the intelligibility of our world. We call it “discover”, and not “creating a new concept by a mind.” We label the concept but the concept is there.

 

[AntiTheist]

Let me run with the apple example, because I think that if I seize on this “objectively speaking” in Eric’s quote, we can clear this whole thing up.

We’ve got stuff on a table. My mind leads me to perceive it as “one apple,” though I could just as easily perceive it as “skin, seeds, pulp, stem, core.” But in each case, it’s a concept or bunch of concepts, a function of my perceptive faculty.

Let’s pretend that all human minds vanish from the universe. What is – objectively speaking – on that table? We can’t say it’s “one apple,” because without a person perceiving and drawing the boundaries and labeling, we can’t call it that. We can’t say it’s “skin, seeds, pulp, stem, core” because without a person perceiving and drawing the boundaries and labeling, we can’t call those things that.

It’s the same universe – except it’s a universe without the labels, without the concepts. That’s what the universe is, “objectively speaking.”

 

[AntiTheist]

The concept of an apple exists whether or not we exist.

Well, I have to take issue with this, if only because you seem to be using the word “concept” in strange new ways.

“Concepts” and “conceptual” are words that refer to our thoughts. When I look at – for example – the coffee cup in front of me, I label my experience according to the epistemic categories that my culture has conditioned me to use: “coffee cup.”

There are two things here: there’s the physical stuff, and then there’s the mental concept of the physical stuff. The concept is a tool for talking about the physical stuff, but it’s not the physical stuff.

I could just as easily switch gears and label the stuff in front of me with the concepts, “handle, round thing, illustration, hot brown liquid.” The stuff hasn’t changed – my conception of that stuff has. I’m no longer perceiving it as “one thing” but as many parts, and I could – if I wanted – break those parts down further.

We don’t go around “discovering” concepts because – as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly now – we can relabel the same stuff with different concepts. Concepts are tools of the mind that we use to label stuff. They are not the stuff.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

It’s the same universe – except it’s a universe without the labels, without the concepts. That’s what the universe is, “objectively speaking.”

I disagree that this is even objective. I do agree with the first half of it (the bold statement) but not with the second half. The labels will be gone because we have labelled the concepts in our minds. But it has to be outside of us in order to get it, material and immaterial. We gather information with our eyes from outside of us and make it an image OF what is there. We here external sounds. We touch external things. We smell external smells. We taste external things. We grasp with the mind what is external to us and label them in order to obtain the knowledge. Animals do this all the time, albeit in an inferior way to us (a moot point I suppose). They grasp externally that bad weather is coming days in advance (sometimes weeks) and move someplace else.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Anti-Theist

Let’s pretend that all human minds vanish from the universe. What is – objectively speaking – on that table? We can’t say it’s “one apple,” because without a person perceiving and drawing the boundaries and labeling, we can’t call it that. We can’t say it’s “skin, seeds, pulp, stem, core” because without a person perceiving and drawing the boundaries and labeling, we can’t call those things that.

Your logic only holds if there is no God. If there were no people, the apples would still exist in the mind of God who made them. It is because God made us in his image and likeness that we can conceptualize apples, and even how to grow them and use them for apple pie and such. Because God made us in his image and likeness, we can conceptualize almost anything, even God.

 

[EricFilmer]

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…

First of all, when I addressed numbers and math as being a universal absolute earlier in this thread, I pointed out that as such it is the same and works the same despite cultures, despite location and despite time. Ancient civilizations created the exact same math independent of one another. Language, on the other hand, is not a universal absolute. Different cultures have different languages, and a language has limitations and errors, and a language changes over time.

Yes, there is a subjective quality to math because language factors into our understanding of it. We fashion different words to represent the numbers and mathematical processes, but that is as far as it goes. Other than this, math works the same way for everyone. Therefore, it is a very big leap to consider that and then simply conclude that because one tiny aspect of our understanding of math is subjective, then the rest of it must be subjective as well.

Secondly, your use of the term “extramental reality which just is what it is” is simply another way of saying that there is an objective reality. The question at hand is whether or not quantity is a characteristic of objective reality or a characteristic solely of subjective perception. To address that I will cut & paste what I posted to AT previously:

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.

and epistemically, there’s no “quantity” that exists in the terms you used above – in space in a finite quantity.

Exactly how many uses of the term “quantity” are there? Is there a finite number of particles of particles in the universe today? Yes. Does nature distinguish these particles from one another in terms of properties such as motion, gravity, space, etc.? Yes. If all minds ceased to exist today, would either of these facts change? No.

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.

So let me get this straight. Basically you’re saying that what you are posting will make perfect sense to me, provided that I first divorce my mind from reality. You’ll pardon me if I don’t find accept that particular proposition convincing.

Yes, sure, but that’s physics. You’re confusing language with physical stuff being physical.

Actually, that’s exactly what I see you doing…
(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

“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.

As you can see, I have already presented a case above for quantity being an aspect of objective reality. If it is still your position to debate this, then I will submit to you the same task I proposed to AT in Post #382. I will now cut & paste it:

I have an experiment that could possibly be used to demonstrate my position that the number one is not only something that is an aspect of the human mind. This experiment involves creating a definition of the number one within a certain set of reasonable parameters.

1. As we all learned in school, it is not proper to define something by using it in the definition. Therefore, the challenge is to define the number one without using “one” or simply substituting “one” with a synonym (i.e., “single”).
2. Because we are examining the idea of the existence of one, the task at hand is to define the number one without presupposing its existence. This rules out the use of other numbers or mathematical equations in the definition, because (as I demonstrated above) the use of such things presume that the number one exists to begin with.
   My position in this challenge is that if the number one is only a product of the human mind, then the human mind likewise ought to be able to give a definition of the number one based on the guidelines I set above.

For the record, I am not saying that there is not an acceptable definition out there, and I have no guarantees or predictions as to outcome of this experiment if the challenge is undertaken by you are someone else. But if, after having read my above post, it is still your position that the number one does not exist independent of the mind then I ask you demonstrate it by taking on this task.

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’.

Quite frankly, I fail to see how anyone could read my description of “Nebraska” and then ask what I meant by the term “actual.” “Nebraska” is a word crafted within the English language to correspond with an artificial set of boundaries on the North American continent. It could have been called something else. But if there is a finite number of something in objective reality then that is a fixed quantity. You can call the quantity by different words if you want, but the objective reality remains fixed.

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.

Your example using topo lines is just another attempt to represent quantity and math as simply another kind of language. In language, we see an aspect of objective reality and fashion a word for it. In terms of a map with topo lines we see an aspect of objective reality and draw it. One system uses words and the others uses symbols. But land exists independent of the words like “Nebraska” and land has different degrees of elevation independent of topo lines.

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.

Once again, you are describing objective reality, although for some reason you seem to want to avoid the term. But the essence of what we are debating is what belongs to objective reality.

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.

You already admitted in a past post (#411) that objective reality (however you want to use the term) “is just space/time/energy/mass.” But unless you can demonstrate that the materials therein are infinite then you have to recognize that they are finite. This leads back to quantity as being a part of objective reality, as I stated earlier.

(Continued in my next post)

 

[AntiTheist]

The labels will be gone because we have labelled the concepts in our minds. But it has to be outside of us in order to get it, material and immaterial.

I’m saying that there’s a material world outside of you, but the immaterial concepts are the creations of your mind. And you know that this is true because you can create new conceptions and shift the way you conceive things.

We gather information with our eyes from outside of us and make it an image OF what is there. We here external sounds. We touch external things. We smell external smells. We taste external things. We grasp with the mind what is external to us and label them in order to obtain the knowledge. Animals do this all the time, albeit in an inferior way to us (a moot point I suppose). They grasp externally that bad weather is coming days in advance (sometimes weeks) and move someplace else.

Yes, of course. There is a physical world out there. My only point is that the concepts we use to label the things we experience are just that – concepts, constructions of the mind.

Charlemagne:

Your logic only holds if there is no God. If there were no people, the apples would still exist in the mind of God who made them.

Maybe, but the existence of god isn’t something we all agree on here – you guys are trying to establish this, and you can’t start out assuming that it’s true if you want to construct a logical argument that it’s true. That’s the definition of a circular argument.

It is because God made us in his image and likeness that we can conceptualize apples, and even how to grow them and use them for apple pie and such.

Is it? Animals, for example, are known to use tools and exercise a type of rudimentary thinking to solve problems, so it seems clear that me that they’re capable of conceptualizing the world, though probably in a different way than we do. Even in the context of your beliefs, I don’t think that you can claim that humans have the ability to conceptualize simply because they were made in god’s image – there appear to be other creatures capable of the same feat.

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued)

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.

“Oy”, indeed!
My previously stated definition of validity (which you claim is not scientific): “A tool has validity if it actually measures that which it is claimed to measure.”

Answers.com: From its definition of “Validity” within the category of “Sports, Science and Medicine”: “The extent to which a test, measurement, or other method of investigation possesses the property of actually doing what it has been designed to do.”
answers.com/topic/validity

Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias: From its definition of “Validity (statistics)”: “the degree to which a test measures what it was designed to measure.”
en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/150346

Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement (from Chapter 6, which, incidentally, is devoted entirely to the concept of validity): “Stated succinctly, the word validity as applied to a test refers to a judgment concerning how well a test does in fact measure what it purports to measure.” (Ronald Jay Cohen, Mark E. Swerdlik & Suzanne M. Phillips, Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement, 3rd Edition (Mayfield Publishing Company: Mountain View, California, 1988), pg. 174).

Scotty: “The right tools for the right job!” (Star Trek)

So the definition I used for validity was scientific terminology, not religious. But if you still object then I ask you to examine Scotty’s proclamation and then give me the proper scientific term that represents it, and then that will be my definition, too. I’m all about compromise.

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.

Well, you certainly put more thought into selecting a measuring cup than I ever did. I accepted that my measuring cup was “a consistent, practical tool for measuring volumes” because I went to Wal-Mart and bought the thing that had the word “measuring cup” stuck on it. Admittedly, my actions were not the best manifestation of proper critical thinking.

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.

“Looks pathetic” does not equal “untrue.”

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.

Ok, so you “don’t rule out the possibility of other methods of determining truth”, but they just happen to be “bogus.”

(Continued in my next post)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued…)

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.

What I specifically meant is that certain ancient Greek philosophers conceived numbers as existing independent of the human mind. This tied into the concept of there being a transcendent world of perfect forms, and our world contained imperfect copies of them. They believed that numbers were the exception, because (for example) our conception of “one” is perfect, and therefore is the same as the “one” within the world of forms. I don’t support every aspect of this, but I am simply pointing this out to show that the idea of numbers existing independent from the human mind is not innovative or new.

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.

Ok, let’s examine this in light of your statement “all that obtains as a function of cognition, as a matter of thinking and language, the product of minds”. That’s another way of saying, “Because math is a kind of language, and language is a product of the mind, math is a product of the mind.” But as I have pointed out in my discussions, even though we express mathematic concepts with language, it does not necessarily follow that math is language. Once again, the wide degree of variation found within language, and the timeless universal consistency of math, argues strongly against the very idea of math simply being another kind of language people fabricated.

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”.

And yet many (if not most) of our current scientific models were formulated by religious people. Whatever inconsistency you envision has not actually been a hindrance for the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., who have made valuable contributions to science over the centuries.

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 of the chaos theory, the water I am measuring in my cup might just be wine due to human error. For example, I accidentally picked up the wrong bottle. Obviously this does not invalidate the model, or the further use of it.

…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.

Beings which exist can affect nature to the degree that it is possible for them. God acting as a part of nature is not necessarily create a contradiction within nature. It only means that, theoretically, he can affect nature in ways greater than me. But compared to an ant, I am capable of affecting nature in ways that it can’t. But there is no contradiction at hand within nature as a result.

(Continued - one more time…)

 

[EricFilmer]

(Continued, and the end is near….at least in terms of the current avalanche of posts from me….)

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.

First of all, although AntiTheist is not the author of this definition, it seems like a good idea for me to continue to refer to it as “his” definition simply for ease of conversation. So when I say, AntiTheist’s definition, what I mean is, “the definition that AntiTheist intends to use.”

Secondly, it is my desire to test the validity of this definition. I asked you if I was being unreasonable in having such a desire, but you did not answer that particular question. You state it is “not an opinion” but at the same time it seems that this proposition has never been tested. Rather, you seem to root its validity in the fact that lots of atheists like it, and that it has a very practical application (i.e., it performs exceptionally well as a model). I agree that it is very practical. But the matter at hand is whether or not it is the “only” means for determining what evidence is authentic and what is not. Therefore, “highly practical method” does not equal “only method.”

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.

For the record, all humans tend to do some “gerrymandering” here and there, including atheists.

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.

Premise: The scientific method is the only means for examining that which exists.
Test: Can the scientific method be used to prove the premise? No.
Conclusion: The premise fails its own test. The premise is contradictory and, therefore, cannot be true.
Insistence on regarding the scientific method as the only means for examining that which exists: Gerrymandering.

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.

And yet is there not also a danger of self-deception to presume that there is a single model out there for discerning all existence? Or for even simply examining the various aspects of the human experience?

 

[AntiTheist]

For the record, all humans tend to do some “gerrymandering” here and there, including atheists.

Sure, but the difference between a skeptic and a non-skeptic is that a skeptic tries to identify the times when he is gerrymandering so that he can believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.

EDIT: Oh, brother. I just noticed this trash:

Premise: The scientific method is the only means for examining that which exists.
Test: Can the scientific method be used to prove the premise? No.
Conclusion: The premise fails its own test. The premise is contradictory and, therefore, cannot be true.
Insistence on regarding the scientific method as the only means for examining that which exists: Gerrymandering.

I for one don’t presume that “The scientific method is the only means for examining that which exists.” I am perfectly capable of, for example, examining my coffee cup without using the scientific method, and I can adequately confirm that my coffee cup exists without the scientific method.

What I use is evidence, which does not have to be purely scientific. The more evidence there is for something, the more likely it is to exist.

 

[Touchstone]

First of all, when I addressed numbers and math as being a universal absolute earlier in this thread, I pointed out that as such it is the same and works the same despite cultures, despite location and despite time. Ancient civilizations created the exact same math independent of one another. Language, on the other hand, is not a universal absolute. Different cultures have different languages, and a language has limitations and errors, and a language changes over time.

I don’t know what a “universal absolute” is. I am thinking of the speed of light, c, that is, so far as we know, a constant across all space/time, although there is some evidence from research in past years that even that may “wiggle” by a small amount.

But we say that is universal because a million different measurements now align with *c *being isotropic, everywhere, under all conditions. It’s an empirical conclusion that supports “universal” as scope.

Numbers, though, are something different. I understand it’s hard to use the mind to separate the mind from the non-mind, but this is the glory of the human meta-representational brain, to be able to “stand above” and idea and consider it provisionally. If you do that with numbers, it turns out that “humans” or “minds” (perhaps chimps think in terms of numbers, too, for example) are the limits of our scope. Numbers are not extended in space/time, they do not have physical effects or dynamics. If we eliminate all minds from the universe, we would expect numbers to be a perfect nothing, not even a false concept, because there are no concepts at that point.

So, I think your ‘universal absolute’ is quite small, and limited to the “universe” of minds. Numbers certainly are real features of natural minds, but beyond that, they are an utter nothing in the universe. To say that pi is a number is to confuse, map and territory, to say that the representation of the physical property is physical property.

Yes, there is a subjective quality to math because language factors into our understanding of it. We fashion different words to represent the numbers and mathematical processes, but that is as far as it goes. Other than this, math works the same way for everyone. Therefore, it is a very big leap to consider that and then simply conclude that because one tiny aspect of our understanding of math is subjective, then the rest of it must be subjective as well.

I don’t need any of the subjectivity of language to make my point. If humans could communicate “telepathically”, somehow, without explicit languaguage, just exchanging infra-linguistic concepts between one another, all this would work out the same way. It is the concept which is ephemeral, natural, transitory, mental. It is the cognitive construct that places subjects and objects in relation to each other – and this process subsumes the whole of math – that “subjectifies” math, along with all other concepts. Those concepts may be very good models for objective reality, but they are, finally, concepts and models, parts of the map, not the territory.

Language is not the basis for the subjectivity of math. The underlying concepts are the basis.

Secondly, your use of the term “extramental reality which just is what it is” is simply another way of saying that there is an objective reality. The question at hand is whether or not quantity is a characteristic of objective reality or a characteristic solely of subjective perception. To address that I will cut & paste what I posted to AT previously:

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.

That’s not clear. Time, for example, is considered to be infinite in the forward direction. Our universe, according to our best performing models, will expand forever, for an infinite amount of time. But no matter, that – these are still map features we are talking about. The territory admits of no such feature. It is what it is, and “finite” is a mental construct we apply.

Did the Big Bang start with an infinite amount of material? No.

Unknown. The physics model makes for a singularity – mathematically – in which energy/mass become infinite, because energy and mass are dynamically related to space/time which is posited to have been infinitely small. But that’s a good example of the value of distinguishing map and territory. That may be something we can accurately model mathematically, but most physicists I read regard that as a boundary problem, where the size isn’t actually zero and the energy isn’t infinite. But this remains an unknown.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

Eric Fillmer:

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.

Look at the language you are using: “indicates a quantity”. That’s a concept for minds – indicates. The universe doesn’t “indicate” anything in and of itself. It just is what it is. There is no “quantity” or “finitude” or “infinity” that obtains in the universe itself. These are just artifacts of how humans conceive of the world around us. If you consider another universe like ours, except completely devoid of minds, there is no “indicating” and no “quantities” qua quantities. Nothing is counted, nothing is observed, nothing is conceived, as these are features of mind, and this universe has none.

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.

Yes, but again, look at your language: contradiction. “To say against”. You are projecting your map onto the territory and confusing it with the territory. We might talk about “spin” as being a feature of a particle, and that is using language to comprehend reality, but the physical feature we call “spin” exists in a physical, extensive, objective sense, totally apart from minds or language. “Spin” is just a way to talk about it. But “quantity” is not such a feature of anything physical, like “spin” or “mass” is for a particle. “Quantity” is fundamentally different, and fundamentally subjective, a construct we create that’s useful for our minds and language, but a perfect nothing physically outside of minds.

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.

It’s not. See above. “Mass” and “spin” are concepts that point to an intrinsic feature of a particle. “Quantity” is just a way of speaking for minds. If you don’t this, go try to find “quantity” in a physics formula. It’s not endemic, it’s just descriptive. The measurements we plug in for “mass” are constructs that enable our other constructs – formulae – to proceed. The mass of the object we are considering is what is.

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.

No, that’s a mistake. As above, you can strip out language completely. It’s the conceptuality that makes [the concept pointed to by the word “one”] subjective.

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.

I think you have just talked yourself to the reverse side of your argument! In pointing to this as a “simplest example”, you are underscoring (it’s pedagogy!) the subjective, conceptual nature of “one”. You haven’t connected it with any intrinsic feature of physical world itself. Gravity acts on mass, not quantity.

Exactly how many uses of the term “quantity” are there? Is there a finite number of particles of particles in the universe today? Yes. Does nature distinguish these particles from one another in terms of properties such as motion, gravity, space, etc.? Yes.

It does? How does physical law distinguish “finite” or “infinite” or any quantity at all. I suggest the answer to this is “no”.

If all minds ceased to exist today, would either of these facts change? No.

That’s correct, and I do applaud the clarity you bring to applying the principle of objectivity, here, the dependence (or not) on mind as the basis for distinguishing subjective from objective. But I think you have your facts wrong, above; Nature doesn’t “count” or “tally” or “distinguish”. These are features of mind. If you can show nature doing any of these things, you will have “mentalized” nature.

So let me get this straight. Basically you’re saying that what you are posting will make perfect sense to me, provided that I first divorce my mind from reality.

No, what I’m advocating I suggest will bring your mind forward in apprehending reality with clarity. I’m not suggesting you divorce your mind from reality, but rather to understand that your mind is not synonymous with it. If you can separate your map, conceptually, from the territory, you will gain good and valuable insight into reality, and apprehend it more fully, and be less confused about it. Your intuition is not normative on reality.

You’ll pardon me if I don’t find accept that particular proposition convincing.

As you have it, neither would I, but that wasn’t my position.

-TS