Need help -- from science types, editor types and philospher types

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I posted the following on another thread, and I think it contains the germ of something really important. But (as you will read) I handled/wrote it badly. I've never been able to edit myself (my long post in "Why I Am an Atheist" took me 4 hours to write, 3 months to edit).

But if I could gather a sort of working group of people with the skills in the thread title, I think we could come up with something that helps everybody understand how objective reality interracts with our subjective experience. I think that would be a useful exercise.

The thought that I was responding to was as follows:

"In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself."

So here's what I wrote:

"You are really missing something important, because you insist upon equating our subjective experience with reality, and at the same trying to prove that the two can't be reconciled. But I do not believe this to be so.

Consider a flower -- let's make it one that I perceive as purple. I'm going to make a lot of observations about this:

• I say "I perceive as purple" because you have brought up the fact that this is only my own perception, and I have no idea what you perceive. Also you mention the colour-blind, who could not distinguish that purple from brown. But I put it to you, that for all those (the very large majority) who are not colour-blind, if you simply ask them (no prompting, now!) what colour is the flower, they will all respond "purple." So already we know something is happening.
• We know that bees (among other insects) perceive that flower quite differently, because they are seeing in a different section of the spectrum than we are. And we also know, if we adjust our cameras to "see" in that same spectral section, we can get an idea of what the bee sees -- and it really is quite different from what we see.
• We know that neither I, you nor the bee can see what we need to when there is insufficient light. Under moonlight or other dim light, for example, the bee doesn't see the flower's hints as to where the nectar is, nor can we identify the colour -- we see it just as the colour-blind individual does.
• We know that what we see -- and what the bee sees -- is a consequence of light being reflected and not reflected from that flower, and that it is that reflected light that we see. Everything reflects and absorbs different combinations of wavelengths, and that is what gives us the perceptions, subjective as they might be, that we have. Same for the bee.
• Both you, I and the bee, though we may have different goals with respect to this flower, are all able, using only the radiation that the flower reflects/absorbs, to obtain our individual objectives with respect to that flower. Me, to decorate my table, you to woo someone, the bee to collect nectar --------- and the flower! to get the bee to help it reproduce, and you and I and the birds and animals and winds to spread its seeds to where there will be an opportunity for its genes to live on and reproduce again!

AND ALL OF THAT describes the actual reality. Not my subjective reality, nor yours, nor the bee's, nor the birds' and animals' that distribute seeds subjective realities either. But the one thing that it does admit of is this: that there is a flower, and there is a light spectrum that it reflects/absorbs -- and that is the reality. And, of course, that there are also you, me, the bees birds and animals, to perceive it -- each in our own way."

So, anybody want to volunteer to help me (us) make it better and more coherent?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I posted the following on another thread, and I think it contains the germ of something really important. But (as you will read) I handled/wrote it badly. I've never been able to edit myself (my long post in "Why I Am an Atheist" took me 4 hours to write, 3 months to edit).

But if I could gather a sort of working group of people with the skills in the thread title, I think we could come up with something that helps everybody understand how objective reality interracts with our subjective experience. I think that would be a useful exercise.

The thought that I was responding to was as follows:

"In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself."

So here's what I wrote:

"You are really missing something important, because you insist upon equating our subjective experience with reality, and at the same trying to prove that the two can't be reconciled. But I do not believe this to be so.

Consider a flower -- let's make it one that I perceive as purple. I'm going to make a lot of observations about this:

• I say "I perceive as purple" because you have brought up the fact that this is only my own perception, and I have no idea what you perceive. Also you mention the colour-blind, who could not distinguish that purple from brown. But I put it to you, that for all those (the very large majority) who are not colour-blind, if you simply ask them (no prompting, now!) what colour is the flower, they will all respond "purple." So already we know something is happening.
• We know that bees (among other insects) perceive that flower quite differently, because they are seeing in a different section of the spectrum than we are. And we also know, if we adjust our cameras to "see" in that same spectral section, we can get an idea of what the bee sees -- and it really is quite different from what we see.
• We know that neither I, you nor the bee can see what we need to when there is insufficient light. Under moonlight or other dim light, for example, the bee doesn't see the flower's hints as to where the nectar is, nor can we identify the colour -- we see it just as the colour-blind individual does.
• We know that what we see -- and what the bee sees -- is a consequence of light being reflected and not reflected from that flower, and that it is that reflected light that we see. Everything reflects and absorbs different combinations of wavelengths, and that is what gives us the perceptions, subjective as they might be, that we have. Same for the bee.
• Both you, I and the bee, though we may have different goals with respect to this flower, are all able, using only the radiation that the flower reflects/absorbs, to obtain our individual objectives with respect to that flower. Me, to decorate my table, you to woo someone, the bee to collect nectar --------- and the flower! to get the bee to help it reproduce, and you and I and the birds and animals and winds to spread its seeds to where there will be an opportunity for its genes to live on and reproduce again!

AND ALL OF THAT describes the actual reality. Not my subjective reality, nor yours, nor the bee's, nor the birds' and animals' that distribute seeds subjective realities either. But the one thing that it does admit of is this: that there is a flower, and there is a light spectrum that it reflects/absorbs -- and that is the reality. And, of course, that there are also you, me, the bees birds and animals, to perceive it -- each in our own way."

So, anybody want to volunteer to help me (us) make it better and more coherent?

Seems good to me.

 

[cladking]

Seems good to me.

Reality exists. Reality is real.

But that isn't evidence for or against the existence of "God".

You have to be careful with the concept of "reality" since all concepts preferentially support "God".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Reality exists. Reality is real.

But that isn't evidence for or against the existence of "God".

You have to be careful with the concept of "reality" since all concepts preferentially support "God".

Plenty of concepts do not support a god.

 

[cladking]

Plenty of concepts do not support a god.

I would define "concept" as a result of inductive reasoning. While every concept might not support "god" there are some (many?) that do and none support a disbelief in God.

Certainly there are facts and logic that can support the idea that no "God" exists but "concepts" generally do not.


The real problem with "reality" is that it is beyond metaphysics. There need be no reality for science to work merely the replicability of experiment. Many scientists believe in reality but no one can prove its existence using our science. One could almost say that it is as elusive to define as God, as ephemeral as God, and as unnecessary as God. But it is also principally a concept as is "God".

I'm not in agreement with all this but then I don't believe in anything... ...or at least I try not to. I'm perfectly content to have no answers and many questions.

I'd be interested to hear a concept that supports the non-existence of God.

 

[McBell]

I would define "concept" as a result of inductive reasoning. While every concept might not support "god" there are some (many?) that do and none support a disbelief in God.

Certainly there are facts and logic that can support the idea that no "God" exists but "concepts" generally do not.


The real problem with "reality" is that it is beyond metaphysics. There need be no reality for science to work merely the replicability of experiment. Many scientists believe in reality but no one can prove its existence using our science. One could almost say that it is as elusive to define as God, as ephemeral as God, and as unnecessary as God. But it is also principally a concept as is "God".

I'm not in agreement with all this but then I don't believe in anything... ...or at least I try not to. I'm perfectly content to have no answers and many questions.

I'd be interested to hear a concept that supports the non-existence of God.

define existence.
Do ideas exist?
What about these "concepts" of which you speak, do they "exist"?
Though, to be honest, you really should define "concept"...

please lead us through the "inductive reasoning" for the unicorn concept?

Is not lacking a belief in "god" a concept?
I suppose we will have to wait for your definition of concept first.
Not to mention your definition of god....

 

[McBell]

"In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself."

What, exactly, is god being compared to here?
The "experience" of color or to color itself?

Seems to me it starts out comparing god to the "experience" of color and then switches it to comparing god to "color" itself.

So here's what I wrote:

"You are really missing something important, because you insist upon equating our subjective experience with reality, and at the same trying to prove that the two can't be reconciled. But I do not believe this to be so.

Consider a flower -- let's make it one that I perceive as purple. I'm going to make a lot of observations about this:

• I say "I perceive as purple" because you have brought up the fact that this is only my own perception, and I have no idea what you perceive. Also you mention the colour-blind, who could not distinguish that purple from brown. But I put it to you, that for all those (the very large majority) who are not colour-blind, if you simply ask them (no prompting, now!) what colour is the flower, they will all respond "purple." So already we know something is happening.
• We know that bees (among other insects) perceive that flower quite differently, because they are seeing in a different section of the spectrum than we are. And we also know, if we adjust our cameras to "see" in that same spectral section, we can get an idea of what the bee sees -- and it really is quite different from what we see.
• We know that neither I, you nor the bee can see what we need to when there is insufficient light. Under moonlight or other dim light, for example, the bee doesn't see the flower's hints as to where the nectar is, nor can we identify the colour -- we see it just as the colour-blind individual does.
• We know that what we see -- and what the bee sees -- is a consequence of light being reflected and not reflected from that flower, and that it is that reflected light that we see. Everything reflects and absorbs different combinations of wavelengths, and that is what gives us the perceptions, subjective as they might be, that we have. Same for the bee.
• Both you, I and the bee, though we may have different goals with respect to this flower, are all able, using only the radiation that the flower reflects/absorbs, to obtain our individual objectives with respect to that flower. Me, to decorate my table, you to woo someone, the bee to collect nectar --------- and the flower! to get the bee to help it reproduce, and you and I and the birds and animals and winds to spread its seeds to where there will be an opportunity for its genes to live on and reproduce again!

AND ALL OF THAT describes the actual reality. Not my subjective reality, nor yours, nor the bee's, nor the birds' and animals' that distribute seeds subjective realities either. But the one thing that it does admit of is this: that there is a flower, and there is a light spectrum that it reflects/absorbs -- and that is the reality. And, of course, that there are also you, me, the bees birds and animals, to perceive it -- each in our own way."

So, anybody want to volunteer to help me (us) make it better and more coherent?

Seems to me one needs to figure out what it is that is being compared to god first....

 

[Heyo]

But if I could gather a sort of working group of people with the skills in the thread title, I think we could come up with something that helps everybody understand how objective reality interracts with our subjective experience. I think that would be a useful exercise.

This is what got you the "Optimistic" rating.
I am totally with you and I was as optimistic as you are. Now I am an optimist with experience (a.k.a. a pessimist).

I do offer my help if you want it. (I think I'm good at getting to the point of a discussion but not many seem to share that opinion. Whenever I think I laid out the topic comprehensively and gave my opinion, everybody stopped talking to me.)

But I have a suspicion our work wouldn't be appreciated. Reality puts restrictions on ideas. Most people don't like reality.

 

[exchemist]

I posted the following on another thread, and I think it contains the germ of something really important. But (as you will read) I handled/wrote it badly. I've never been able to edit myself (my long post in "Why I Am an Atheist" took me 4 hours to write, 3 months to edit).

But if I could gather a sort of working group of people with the skills in the thread title, I think we could come up with something that helps everybody understand how objective reality interracts with our subjective experience. I think that would be a useful exercise.

The thought that I was responding to was as follows:

"In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself."

So here's what I wrote:

"You are really missing something important, because you insist upon equating our subjective experience with reality, and at the same trying to prove that the two can't be reconciled. But I do not believe this to be so.

Consider a flower -- let's make it one that I perceive as purple. I'm going to make a lot of observations about this:

• I say "I perceive as purple" because you have brought up the fact that this is only my own perception, and I have no idea what you perceive. Also you mention the colour-blind, who could not distinguish that purple from brown. But I put it to you, that for all those (the very large majority) who are not colour-blind, if you simply ask them (no prompting, now!) what colour is the flower, they will all respond "purple." So already we know something is happening.
• We know that bees (among other insects) perceive that flower quite differently, because they are seeing in a different section of the spectrum than we are. And we also know, if we adjust our cameras to "see" in that same spectral section, we can get an idea of what the bee sees -- and it really is quite different from what we see.
• We know that neither I, you nor the bee can see what we need to when there is insufficient light. Under moonlight or other dim light, for example, the bee doesn't see the flower's hints as to where the nectar is, nor can we identify the colour -- we see it just as the colour-blind individual does.
• We know that what we see -- and what the bee sees -- is a consequence of light being reflected and not reflected from that flower, and that it is that reflected light that we see. Everything reflects and absorbs different combinations of wavelengths, and that is what gives us the perceptions, subjective as they might be, that we have. Same for the bee.
• Both you, I and the bee, though we may have different goals with respect to this flower, are all able, using only the radiation that the flower reflects/absorbs, to obtain our individual objectives with respect to that flower. Me, to decorate my table, you to woo someone, the bee to collect nectar --------- and the flower! to get the bee to help it reproduce, and you and I and the birds and animals and winds to spread its seeds to where there will be an opportunity for its genes to live on and reproduce again!

AND ALL OF THAT describes the actual reality. Not my subjective reality, nor yours, nor the bee's, nor the birds' and animals' that distribute seeds subjective realities either. But the one thing that it does admit of is this: that there is a flower, and there is a light spectrum that it reflects/absorbs -- and that is the reality. And, of course, that there are also you, me, the bees birds and animals, to perceive it -- each in our own way."

So, anybody want to volunteer to help me (us) make it better and more coherent?

So, if I try to summarise, you are pointing out that although all perception is subjective, our collective perception enables us to draw conclusions about an objective reality. Is that what your example is saying?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So, if I try to summarise, you are pointing out that although all perception is subjective, our collective perception enables us to draw conclusions about an objective reality. Is that what your example is saying?

Pretty much. The fact that multiple individuals (of multiple species) can agree that their subjective perceptions are in agreement with one another is a strong sign that there is a reality "out there" about which something can be said.

Why, it's even true that on those pretty flowers, dew will evaporate more slowly on a dark purple petal than it will on a white one. So colour isn't even subjective in that sense, since I do not accept that raindrops perceive.

 

[cladking]

define existence.

Reality manifest.

Do ideas exist?

Yes.

What about these "concepts" of which you speak, do they "exist"?

Yes.

please lead us through the "inductive reasoning" for the unicorn concept?

There's no such thing as a "unicorn concept". There is a fictional beast called a "unicorn" so it is more a word than an idea. It is a more a word than an object. It is a word with no known referent.

Everything anyone can make up is not really a "concept". Just because someone has already invented a word does no make it a "concept".

Is not lacking a belief in "god" a concept?

Yes.

But a belief there is no God is also a concept.

I suppose we will have to wait for your definition of concept first.

A "concept" is an abstraction invented to name or identify a person, place, or idea. It is defined by other abstractions held together by induction.

Not to mention your definition of god....

"God" as a concept, as a potential aspect of reality, is the Source. It is the origin of the initial cause.

Reality is composed of cause and effect and the logic that governs it. The nature of "God", or even the existence of God, is wholly unknowable with the current state of human knowledge. The belief there is or can be no God is nonsense of the highest order since our experience, nature, and every observation and experiment say that there was an initial cause to all things. The belief that God must exist is an issue of faith and a confusion of our natures and ancient knowledge. It is simply unknowable what the precipitating event or cause might have been. I do not believe universes can spring from nothing at all from no place at all any more than I believe in any specific concept of "God". Perhaps God did create the "big bang" but even if this is someday shown to be true it will always be an infinitesimal part of the entire picture.

 

[SilverAngel]

I posted the following on another thread, and I think it contains the germ of something really important. But (as you will read) I handled/wrote it badly. I've never been able to edit myself (my long post in "Why I Am an Atheist" took me 4 hours to write, 3 months to edit).

But if I could gather a sort of working group of people with the skills in the thread title, I think we could come up with something that helps everybody understand how objective reality interracts with our subjective experience. I think that would be a useful exercise.

The thought that I was responding to was as follows:

"In the true sense that there's nothing like the experience of color anywhere in the universe except in a brain, so too, and ironically, God doesn't exist anywhere in the universe except in a human brain. The brain that believes "color" exists "out there" while arguing that God doesn't, is living in an illusion from which it's incapable of freeing itself."

So here's what I wrote:

"You are really missing something important, because you insist upon equating our subjective experience with reality, and at the same trying to prove that the two can't be reconciled. But I do not believe this to be so.

Consider a flower -- let's make it one that I perceive as purple. I'm going to make a lot of observations about this:

• I say "I perceive as purple" because you have brought up the fact that this is only my own perception, and I have no idea what you perceive. Also you mention the colour-blind, who could not distinguish that purple from brown. But I put it to you, that for all those (the very large majority) who are not colour-blind, if you simply ask them (no prompting, now!) what colour is the flower, they will all respond "purple." So already we know something is happening.
• We know that bees (among other insects) perceive that flower quite differently, because they are seeing in a different section of the spectrum than we are. And we also know, if we adjust our cameras to "see" in that same spectral section, we can get an idea of what the bee sees -- and it really is quite different from what we see.
• We know that neither I, you nor the bee can see what we need to when there is insufficient light. Under moonlight or other dim light, for example, the bee doesn't see the flower's hints as to where the nectar is, nor can we identify the colour -- we see it just as the colour-blind individual does.
• We know that what we see -- and what the bee sees -- is a consequence of light being reflected and not reflected from that flower, and that it is that reflected light that we see. Everything reflects and absorbs different combinations of wavelengths, and that is what gives us the perceptions, subjective as they might be, that we have. Same for the bee.
• Both you, I and the bee, though we may have different goals with respect to this flower, are all able, using only the radiation that the flower reflects/absorbs, to obtain our individual objectives with respect to that flower. Me, to decorate my table, you to woo someone, the bee to collect nectar --------- and the flower! to get the bee to help it reproduce, and you and I and the birds and animals and winds to spread its seeds to where there will be an opportunity for its genes to live on and reproduce again!

AND ALL OF THAT describes the actual reality. Not my subjective reality, nor yours, nor the bee's, nor the birds' and animals' that distribute seeds subjective realities either. But the one thing that it does admit of is this: that there is a flower, and there is a light spectrum that it reflects/absorbs -- and that is the reality. And, of course, that there are also you, me, the bees birds and animals, to perceive it -- each in our own way."

So, anybody want to volunteer to help me (us) make it better and more coherent?

Too many words, what you need to do is say what you mean in one to three sentences maximum. Then you pretty much guarantee that it will all be read as it is short and concise.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Too many words, what you need to do is say what you mean in one to three sentences maximum. Then you pretty much guarantee that it will all be read as it is short and concise.

You simply cannot do philosophy like that. I'm not afraid to tackle a little reading, if I want to understand something in-depth. Reducing complex material to a couple of sentences renders it shallow and meaningless.

 

[SilverAngel]

You simply cannot do philosophy like that. I'm not afraid to tackle a little reading, if I want to understand something in-depth. Reducing complex material to a couple of sentences renders it shallow and meaningless.

You ask for help, all I got from what you wrote is something about purple, I do not even know what.

When you are Steven King you can write a book and expect it to be read

That said you are not King, so keep it short to be understood

Example

“Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Heyo]

You simply cannot do philosophy like that. I'm not afraid to tackle a little reading, if I want to understand something in-depth. Reducing complex material to a couple of sentences renders it shallow and meaningless.

It is the high art of efficient communication to be able to summarize a book into a witty quote.
Sapere aude! - Two words to explain a whole philosophical movement.
Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. - One sentence to summarize three books of moral philosophy.
42 - The answer to life, the universe and everything.

You may need a book or five to explain how you got to that summary so that others can follow your thinking but don't underestimate the importance of slogans.