|
ahh another thread disguised as religion bashing. op, you were quite sneaky in this one, but it was blatantly obvious the direction it was heading. for all those who partake in such behavior, i'd say, you should probably get yourself checked out if you feel so overly zealous in another's beliefs that have no relation to you. the fact it evokes this emotional rage online out of you, is laughable.
i don't personally partake in any side, as i will not argue a meaningless cause. what i will say is, there are alot of great varying view points on both sides by other posters who aren't the op. At the end of the day my answer is, i see no point in attacking another human being for what he believes is right, and his attempts to share what he thinks is truth. i'd say the deeper problem does not lie in religion vs science, i would say it's the interpretation that we make of it. i find such labels silly. most people take such course of thinking as taking sides, and then defining their life on it and put themselves in a box. rather than simple truth seekers who may or may not agree to varying view points in science that hold water at the current time which they believe is right. america has become a culture of defining themselves as believers or non believers, and then defining themselves through their sexuality. it's a joke. human relationships (which we all need, but we evolved and survived as a tribe) should be more about sharing and attemtping to find connection within that medium, but yet we've become a culture the opposite of such in which we are trained to find differences.
irrelevant to the issue of religion, here are some things i'd like to address that may not be obvious to all.
alot of so called "research" that's supposed to be testimony, and evidence is biased. there are also alot of "new agey" guru's of every industry who misinterpret or read the conclusions differently of the research. if you want to tackle an issue, here's one that's just as popular and widely accepted within the past i'd say decade? gays. the evidence for being gay is rather feasible. the common argument most will hear when challenged is, "well animals do it, a certain species, and within a good amount of species that partake in gay behavior" now at first glance, most will simply accept this. whats misleading here is that this is biased research, which is simply nitpicking and looking for that one behavior and justifying their own actions. if we were to adhere to the same method, we could also justify rape, abandonment of children, eating your own children, thievery, genocide, pedophilia, only to name a few that "animals partake in" some of them more than equally common as being gay. so where does the truth lie? alot of the so called "truths" that most used blindly as evidence is widely accepted due more to social norms and i'd argue, most posters who fear of disagreeing with the majority and to be painted in a negative light due to a unpopular belief of such.
this is not only true of psychology, but has been also for cancer research. most cancer research in the last 50 years were done very poorley where the conclusions made were from situations that cannot be recreated easily, if that.
most people here argue science like it's dogma, which is very unscientific. the real truth of science isn't as most spout, that we'll eventually be right, therefore you're wrong. it's you can never truly prove something, but what you can do is disprove all the possibilities that might argue the contrary until you fall upon 1 thing that can be possibly a solution. what most hold as truths now are only within the confines and limits of physical reality. most reading that answer, would say well, we only have those laws. i'd say no, space and the sea has shown us different laws apply to different species and we are simply attempting to operate on what we somewhat know of our reality on the ground. therefore you cannot truly prove anything, if anyone has read research, conclusions and truths can often times be interpreted 50/50 more so than people think.
quality of many research is also dependent on how strictly they can isolate variables obviously, but many are very sloppy at doing so thus leading to in accurate results and conclusions which are taken as truths. the quality of researches also depends on how much fund that is required to come to a decisive conclusion, and also how long it takes. on another note, billions upon billions of dollars have been poured into "research charities" on cancer, and yet there new results everyday, but how many of those results have you read in the past year have actually made it into being patented treatments? none.
So my argument would be, if we want to delve into the deep areas in which we should question that involves life, like science and religion, let's also tackle the medical institutes has allocated a large portion of of our economy, and why innovation and treatment is sparse despite supposedly quality research. it is not hard to look at the entertainment industry and the technological innovations that pop out every month and compare that to the speed of the progress in technology in the medical fields, one is 1000x quicker in development and output compared to the other. summary? there are outrages poured upon religion vs science, but none are looking in the backyard, in those who do endorse science.
i'd say the better cause to cause a commotion in are the very people who take your money, or the institutions you donate it to, if you do / the causes you support, religion and science alike. as there are many fingers that point flaws in religion, there aren't enough pointing at the institutes, academics and industries i would assume most of us partake in. for every corrupt thing that may happen in the vatican, which recently did happen, there is just as common corruption in every institute but there is no outburst. i'm just saying, there's bias in the commotion we make, that is largely influenced by a social construct, your own opinion may not be your own, but your agreement to a majority reaction by default, it is no different that a man believes another man who has written history, than a man who believes a professor who he's paid to attend a university. i would say half of you would not be as confident in the answers you have posted, had you read the research into the conclusions yourselves and came upon your own conclusions objectively.
|
It's official. This thread has gone off the deep end. lol
|
It started off with "what's is love? Baby don't hurt me (if you're in fact real and not a non-physical construct produced by chemicals in my head trying to make me breed and care for my progeny)" don't hurt me, no more", to "I am arbitrarily euphoric, not because of some phony gods blessing, but because dat brain electricity" to "no bro we NEED ghost busters" to staking Count Von Count through his cottony heart.
I don't know whether the thread should be closed or allowed to reach its logical conclusion, whether turtle power is a social construct, or heroes in a half shell are a byproduct of evolution telling us to defend ourselves against the apex ninja predators.
|
|
|
On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote:On July 08 2013 06:21 Roe wrote:
If something is non-physical how can you detect it with physical apparatus? It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known. It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4.
The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...
|
On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote:On July 08 2013 06:21 Roe wrote:
If something is non-physical how can you detect it with physical apparatus? It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known. It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess...
Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.
|
On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote:
[quote]
It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known. It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented.
I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.
|
On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote:
[quote]
It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented. I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate.
But its also not a truism in the strictest sense of the word. There is a reason mathematicians still argue about whether or not we simply observe numbers or if we conceive numbers. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."
To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it. To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.
In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.
In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.
|
On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented. I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness."
I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists.
To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it.
It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property.
To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it.
Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness.
In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived.
What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation).
In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it.
Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible.
As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.
|
On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented. I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness." I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists. Show nested quote +To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it. It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property. Show nested quote + To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it. Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness. Show nested quote +In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived. What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation). Show nested quote +In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it. Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible. As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.
Gotcha, that makes sense. In the end, its all very "tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it" type deal.
|
On July 09 2013 02:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.
I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.
(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented. I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness." I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists. To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it. It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property. To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it. Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness. In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived. What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation). In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it. Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible. As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else. Gotcha, that makes sense. In the end, its all very "tree falls in the woods with no one to hear it" type deal.
Indeed (at least that was my perspective). And I was trying to argue the point that both love and '4', and all other ideas are simply notions of our understanding of the world, and thus dependent on the mind (I wasn't really thinking about brain chemistry). I don't think it's possible to know if PT would be true without humans, but I'm probably too deep into empirical waters here.
|
awareness is of the brain but resides outside it.
an analogy:
- the environment is the environment (the difference between those (if it exists) would be argued based on faith or induction; it could also be argued that the brain + awareness can create their own environment/projection but would not be consistent with reality.)
- the brain is the eyeball, it's biologic
- the awareness is the light/photon; the means (a medium) by which the brain perceives/sees/creates said environment.
+ Show Spoiler +light reflects of environment and the eye perceives it. || awareness reflects of environment and the brain experiences it.
when the eye is damaged, the way the environment is seen changes (myopia for example, causes the environment to be seen somewhat foggy; a mention here, the environment doesn't change, only the eyes perception of it). || different brain affections might lead one to see things foggy but he will still be able to perceive them.
when rod and cone degeneration or dysfunction is present, it still allows the eye to detect brightness changes, to perceive shades(to see the light so to speak). || semi dead brains could (or can) perceive awareness.
( || = parallel)
note: don't take the wording at face value, understanding the basic idea is more important then semantics.
|
On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 09:39 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Not sure what your point is The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented. I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness." I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists. Show nested quote +To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it. It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property. Show nested quote + To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it. Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness. Show nested quote +In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived. What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation). Show nested quote +In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it. Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible. As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else.
Then again wouldn't that mean that anything that could ever be conceived of would 'exist' in that sense. That's quite a densely populated world. Understanding love as an abstract concept leaves much to be accounted for I would suggest and that's why I think the analogy with mathematical constructs fails. There is no feeling 'fourness' for instance. Surely if both exist they do exist in substantially different ways. Would you agree?
|
On July 02 2013 07:57 politik wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 07:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 02 2013 07:34 kwantumszuperpozishn wrote:
The good thing about being human is that we are intelligent and that our knowledge keeps increasing that we are outdating and rejecting previous ideas and beliefs that seemed to adequately explain natural and social phenomena when human knowledge was not yet fully developed.
Chief among this is religion. It is getting the most heat because among other human institutions, it has been the most influential and even abusive and continues to control and influence some human relations. If, then, we are willing to go down this path and be consistent about it, why not go the full extent and interrogate all other abstract and arbitrary human constructs?
Chief among this is love. Outside religion, love seems the one concept which people would cling to and defend their lives. If we declare love just as one of the arbitrary human concepts, then we would eliminate many of the old fashioned and nonsense things that we tie ourselves into as humans - dating, marriage, long term relationship, etc. Think about it, if we start to reject the idea of love, and treat it as nothing more than socially reinforced concept that we evolved, and instead just have a transactional relationship in the sense that is built around trust, companionship, friendship, communication, etc, then we can free ourselves from the tyranny of love.
What do you think? Why do we still value these other arbitrary constructs? All religions starts on the basis of a witness testifying a hallucination and writing it down in record for people throughout history to know this truth.
every fact starts on the basis of a perception of a subjected reality, and writing it down in record for people to know the truth.
why is there something, when there could have been nothing? no facts for example.
all facts have a certain amount of faith, even things like 1+1=2.
|
On July 09 2013 17:44 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2013 02:26 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 01:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 01:30 Shiori wrote:On July 09 2013 00:20 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 09 2013 00:15 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 13:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote:On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote:
[quote]
The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular.
I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things.
(I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. The number 4 is not "hinged" on reality. It's a property that hypothetical sets can possess. Whether or not there actually exist sets with such a property doesn't matter. The universe could end tomorrow and "fourness" would still make sense from the point of view of logical construction of predicates that subjects can or can't possess... Yes, it's a logical construct. Which is why Roe said the brain "creates" love and you said that the brain "creates" the number 4. Because to the two of you, both "love" and "4" are conceived ideas and not perceived objects. They are deduced by logic, and created by the mind, not simply observed and documented. I was attempting to draw an analogy by absurdity. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4. Whether or not any mind had thought of it, the predicate to which "fourness" refers would still be a coherent possible predicate. You seem to think that "fourness" is this object in the world that is either perceived or not perceived; which is different from conceiving "fourness." I definitely do not think that fourness is an object "in the world." It's an abstract object which necessarily exists in all possible worlds, because "fourness' is just a description of a quality of a set which doesn't depend on whether such a set actually exists. To "conceive fourness" would mean that there is an absence of 4 in the world; and hence why we need to create/conceive of it in order to discuss it. It depends what you mean by "in the world." There are clearly sets in our world that possess the property of having four elements i.e. they have fourness. But that doesn't imply that fourness is contingent on the existence of sets which have that property. To perceive fourness is to see fourness in the world, and to treat it as real because we have observed it. Again, true in a sense, but not in another. Obviously there are instances in which we perceive and conceive of fourness, but I'm talking about the ontological character of fourness. In the subject of Love, the discussion Billy and Roe had was on whether love is perceived or whether it is conceived. You attempted to suggest that it is similar to the number 4 as if it was a conclusive statement when it isn't. Mathematicians are still arguing over whether numbers are perceived or whether they are conceived. What I meant was that whether or not fourness is perceive or conceived of, it seemed that Roe was suggesting that love is a sort of chemical, emotional trick that the chemistry of the brain plays on the rational element of the brain. While I don't dispute the physicality of the brain, and so his point of view is (trivially) true, I think that love is a rational decision, not an emotional impulse (the emotional component I would characterize as infatuation). In other words, does love exist if we were not here to see it as you suggest that 4 is here whether or not there is someone to perceive it. Love is a property that interpersonal relationships can possess. If all agents (i.e. those capable of forming interpersonal relationships) ceased to exist, the notion of love would still make counterfactual sense, and that's because it's merely a description of a state of affairs and doesn't require the actual realization of that state of affairs to be, strictly speaking, sensible. As another example, the Pythagorean Theorem is true in Euclidean space even if no human beings are around to think about it. If all thinking creatures were to die, it wouldn't suddenly be the case that right triangles violating the PT would start popping into existence, or square circles, or anything else. Then again wouldn't that mean that anything that could ever be conceived of would 'exist' in that sense. That's quite a densely populated world. Understanding love as an abstract concept leaves much to be accounted for I would suggest and that's why I think the analogy with mathematical constructs fails. There is no feeling 'fourness' for instance. Surely if both exist they do exist in substantially different ways. Would you agree?
I think of love in the philosophical sense; the feeling, to me, is just a transitory and emotional thing. What we refer to as "feeling love" doesn't differ in any practical way from infatuation in terms of character; the chief difference is that one of them is characterized as much more intense and important than the other. I'd argue that, in many cases, love is just a term used to describe a persistent and powerful infatuation, rather than any sort of altogether different thing. To me, though, love (properly understood) is not a feeling at all; it's a choice which requires agency, knowledge (i.e. honesty) and determination to uphold.
Of course, I don't expect my definition of love to take in the popular sphere (since it would entail that, aside from death, it is impossible to love someone and stop loving them afterward) but then I don't want it to. I just meant to point out that my understanding of love is a set of conditions which underpin a particular kind of internal decision/volition/resolve and, as such, is just a principle/idealized decision rather than any sort of feeling.
Also, I don't want to debate about the definition of love, haha. I just wanted to show how my definition of it is consistent with what I stated earlier.
|
Seriously what is this?
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On July 09 2013 17:19 xM(Z wrote:awareness is of the brain but resides outside it. an analogy: - the environment is the environment (the difference between those (if it exists) would be argued based on faith or induction; it could also be argued that the brain + awareness can create their own environment/projection but would not be consistent with reality.) - the brain is the eyeball, it's biologic - the awareness is the light/photon; the means (a medium) by which the brain perceives/sees/creates said environment. + Show Spoiler +light reflects of environment and the eye perceives it. || awareness reflects of environment and the brain experiences it.
when the eye is damaged, the way the environment is seen changes (myopia for example, causes the environment to be seen somewhat foggy; a mention here, the environment doesn't change, only the eyes perception of it). || different brain affections might lead one to see things foggy but he will still be able to perceive them.
when rod and cone degeneration or dysfunction is present, it still allows the eye to detect brightness changes, to perceive shades(to see the light so to speak). || semi dead brains could (or can) perceive awareness.
( || = parallel) note: don't take the wording at face value, understanding the basic idea is more important then semantics.
I have a hard time taking this as anything but nonsensical analogies you made up that sound good. How is "awareness" like a photon entering the eye? Should the "photon" of the brain be the signals from the parts of the body that create the 5 senses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
