• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are most scientists emotionally mature adults?

M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
Quintessence said:
I did what now?

Well, I'll grant you one thing. You certainly have a fantastic imagination. May you put that to better use in the future.
Click to expand...

You wrote previously:
Quintessence said:
I'm sorry, but your belief that I'm not being forthcoming doesn't change the fact that I am, actually, being pretty straight up with you here.
Click to expand...

The word fact made bold by me.

You make honesty into a factual issue. It is the same thing to discard a subjective term, as it is to make a subjective term into an objective term. In both cases the subjective term is gone. The other discarded the subjective term of the soul, you made honesty into an objective term. And your buddy Leibowde is going on arguing about how honesty is fact, and you don't oppose his argument. So what to make of it other than you are both together trying to destroy subjectivity?
 
picnic

picnic

Active Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
It was mostly already explained in post 1.

"In the details of it, subjectivity operates by choosing. It is equally valid to say the painting is beautiful, as it is to say the painting is ugly. The logical validity of an opinion just depends on that it is chosen. Expression of emotion with free will, thus choosing. The second detail is that all subjectivity is about agency of a decision. Saying the painting is beautiful, means to have a love for the way the painting looks. The love is agency of a decision. The existence of this love is then a matter of opinion as well. That means just as it is equally valid to say the the painting is ugly, as it is to say it is beautiful, it is also equally valid to say the love for the way the painting looks is real, as it is to say it is not real (or true love, or not true love)."

Agency is what makes a decision turn out the way it does. So if in a choice there are options A and B, and B is chosen, then the agency of the decision is what took care of it that the decision turned out B. And here you will use such terms as love, hate, soul, God, which are all terms of agency.

This is traditional and common discourse understanding how it works, not something I invented. For example religion focuses on faith, not fact. There is no evidence of the soul provided in religion. So to say the soul is defined as a subjective terms, same as beauty, love, are defined as subjective terms.

So if you consider the earth as chosen, then you are positing that in the past there was a possibility of the earth coming to be, and this possibility is made the present or not (that is what a decision is). The decision turned out that the possibility was made the present, hence there is the earth. And again, it does not matter much in terms of subjective needs, if it was one decision, or many decisions, if the decisions were independent or together, if many independent decisions came together coincedentally to form the whole eartth, at what time the decisions were made etc. etc. Simply if you conceive of the earth as being chosen, no matter which way it is chosen, then you can be subjective in regards to what the agency of those decisions is, and that's already enough room for subjectivity.

So you see that then the earth becomes to be same as expression of emotion. Same as you can say of a human being choosing something, say some dramatic life or death choice, where this person chose to save a life, where the other option was not to save it. Then you can be subjective in regards to the agency of the decision, what is in the heart, what is in the soul. You would then have to choose the answer to the question, what is in it, and regardless which answer you choose, it would be a logically valid answer.

So why was the life saved in stead of not, why is there the earth in stead of not, these are subjective issues because they are about the agency of decisions.
Click to expand...
Thanks, @Mohammad Nur Syamsu , I think I understand your idea much better now.

So we know at the particle level that there is a choice when the probability wave becomes a measurement. The agency of that choice might be a transcendent teenager operating a joystick in his new Sim Earth game, or it might be God, or it might be the emotion of that particle.

Here is where I'm not sure I agree. You say that all agencies of that choice are equally valid and therefore subjective.

(1) If there are an infinite number of agencies for a choice, is it really valid to select an individual agency? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that all agencies are equally invalid instead of equally valid?

(2) Aren't there ways of testing to reduce the credibility of some possible agencies? For example, if the agency is a God or a soul, aren't the choices of that personality non-random? Doesn't a personality need to have preferences that would become apparent after a large number of measurements? Maybe God likes the particle's measurements to be prime numbers? Shouldn't we see some clustering of measurements around the prime numbers? Obviously God's will is more complicated and harder to falsify, but shouldn't it be possible to falsify in theory?

Thanks again for elaborating what you meant. That's an interesting way of thinking about the issues. It's related to the question of free will (as you mentioned). Personally, I think people can make better decisions if they leave the unknowns as unknowns instead of speculating. Like if you are playing chess, are you better off to speculate about your opponent's strategy, or are you better off to assume that his/her strategy is uncertain?
 
Last edited:
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
You wrote previously:


The word fact made bold by me.

You make honesty into a factual issue. It is the same thing to discard a subjective term, as it is to make a subjective term into an objective term. In both cases the subjective term is gone. The other discarded the subjective term of the soul, you made honesty into an objective term. And your buddy Leibowde is going on arguing about how honesty is fact, and you don't oppose his argument. So what to make of it other than you are both together trying to destroy subjectivity?
Click to expand...
It is insane to claim that whether someone is being honest at a specific moment in time is not a factual issue. Either they are telling what they think to be the truth or they are not.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
picnic said:
Thanks, @Mohammad Nur Syamsu , I think I understand your idea much better now.

So we know at the particle level that there is a choice when the probability wave becomes a measurement. The agency of that choice might be a transcendent teenager operating a joystick in his new Sim Earth game, or it might be God, or it might be the emotion of that particle.

Here is where I'm not sure I agree. You say that all agencies of that choice are equally valid and therefore subjective.

(1) If there are an infinite number of agencies for a choice, is it really valid to select an individual agency? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that all agencies are equally invalid instead of equally valid?

(2) Aren't there ways of testing to reduce the credibility of some choices of agency? For example, if the agency is a God or a soul, aren't the choices of that personality non-random? Doesn't a personality need to have preferences that would become apparent after a large number of measurements? Maybe God likes the particle's measurements to be prime numbers? Shouldn't we see some clustering of measurements around the prime numbers? Obviously God's will is more complicated and harder to falsify, but shouldn't it be possible in theory?

That's an interesting way of thinking about the issues. It's related to the question of free will as you mentioned. Personally, I think people can make better decisions if they leave the unknowns as unknowns instead of speculating. Like if you are playing chess, are you better off to speculate about your opponent's strategy, or are you better off to assume that his strategy is uncertain?
Click to expand...

That subjectivity is valid, does not mean that objectivity is invalid. That a decision is made is a fact, not an opinion. Facts are copies / models. To say "there are 5 sheep in the meadow", in essence the sentence represents a model of the 5 sheep in the meadow. Facts are also fully valid, but they do not apply to agency. You cannot copy or make a model of love or hate.

The logical construct for facts is the way it is, and the logical construct for opinion is the way it is. If your model corresponds 1 to 1 to what it is that you are modelling, then you have a valid fact. If you choose the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, then it is a valid opinion.

Besides love and hate, "Oooooh" and, "aaaaaah", are also valid expressions in regards to what the agency of a decision is. The abundant variation in those expressions like oooh and aaah clearly indicates that subjectivity operates by free will.

With regards to 2. There are ways of reasonable judgement ofcourse. If first the opinion is maintained that life in general is "good", and if then it is shown that the universe is inhospitable to life, this then may lead to the opinion that the universe is not a good place. And that may weaken belief in God as beneficient. So to say, one opinion can support or detract from another, and this can become sophistcated. But in the end there is still the simple rule that the opinion must be chosen in some way.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
That subjectivity is valid, does not mean that objectivity is invalid. That a decision is made is a fact, not an opinion. Facts are copies / models. To say "there are 5 sheep in the meadow", in essence the sentence represents a model of the 5 sheep in the meadow. Facts are also fully valid, but they do not apply to agency. You cannot copy or make a model of love or hate.

The logical construct for facts is the way it is, and the logical construct for fact is the way it is. If your model corresponds 1 to 1 to what it is that you are modelling, then you have a valid fact. If you chose the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, then it is a valid opinion.

Besides love and hate, "Oooooh" and, "aaaaaah", are also valid expressions in regards to what the agency of a decision is. The abundant variation in those expressions like oooh and aaah clearly indicates that subjectivity operates by free will.

With regards to 2. There are ways of reasonable judgement ofcourse. If first the opinion is maintained that life in general is "good", and if then it is shown that the universe is inhospitable to life, this then may lead to the opinion that the universe is not a good place. And that may weaken belief in God as beneficient. So to say, one opinion can support or detract from another, and this can become sophistcated. But in the end there is still the simple rule that the opinion must be chosen in some way.
Click to expand...
You consistently accuse anyone who rejects even the slightest subjectivity in the name of objectivity as rejecting subjectivity completely/absolutely.
 
M

Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
It is insane to claim that whether someone is being honest at a specific moment in time is not a factual issue. Either they are telling what they think to be the truth or they are not.
Click to expand...

It's absolute nonsense. It can be judged a very wicked lack of forgiveness to call somebody dishonest even when they did not say what they thought was the truth.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
I see that you pick words which are obviously also used in an objective sense. You could have picked good and evil, the word evil is most never used in an objective sense.

And that they are subjective means what?
Click to expand...
"Good" and "evil" are great examples too. It means that there are no absolutes in those contexts, and those notions are can change from person to person. What one considers "evil" might be different to another mind.
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
This thread is much like watching the water go down the drain in the bathtub. (and about as enlightening...)
 
picnic

picnic

Active Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
That subjectivity is valid, does not mean that objectivity is invalid. That a decision is made is a fact, not an opinion. Facts are copies / models. To say "there are 5 sheep in the meadow", in essence the sentence represents a model of the 5 sheep in the meadow. Facts are also fully valid, but they do not apply to agency. You cannot copy or make a model of love or hate.

The logical construct for facts is the way it is, and the logical construct for opinion is the way it is. If your model corresponds 1 to 1 to what it is that you are modelling, then you have a valid fact. If you choose the conclusion about what the agency of a decision is, then it is a valid opinion.

Besides love and hate, "Oooooh" and, "aaaaaah", are also valid expressions in regards to what the agency of a decision is. The abundant variation in those expressions like oooh and aaah clearly indicates that subjectivity operates by free will.

With regards to 2. There are ways of reasonable judgement ofcourse. If first the opinion is maintained that life in general is "good", and if then it is shown that the universe is inhospitable to life, this then may lead to the opinion that the universe is not a good place. And that may weaken belief in God as beneficient. So to say, one opinion can support or detract from another, and this can become sophistcated. But in the end there is still the simple rule that the opinion must be chosen in some way.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that went over my head again. LOL :)
I suspect I would be able to follow it better if I knew something about philosophy.
 
Quintessence

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Mohammad Nur Syamsu said:
The word fact made bold by me.

You make honesty into a factual issue. It is the same thing to discard a subjective term, as it is to make a subjective term into an objective term. In both cases the subjective term is gone. The other discarded the subjective term of the soul, you made honesty into an objective term. And your buddy Leibowde is going on arguing about how honesty is fact, and you don't oppose his argument. So what to make of it other than you are both together trying to destroy subjectivity?
Click to expand...

Typically, when a person fixates on a single word from an entire sentence, they overemphasize its importance and misunderstand the meaning intended by the writer. The same thing happens when a person pulls sentences from a paragraph out of context. You seem to be doing both of these things quite often, and arriving at a lot of rather remarkable misconstructions of this writer's intent. Please don't take this the wrong way, but it doesn't seem that English is your first language, and that's causing a lot of problems with communication. Regardless, I would highly recommend taking a workshop on active listening whether you are ESL or not. And maybe learn how to not toss out so many red herrings, though I must say your ability to completely smoke-and-mirror around everything of substance I've actually said is truly remarkable.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
YmirGF said:
This thread is much like watching the water go down the drain in the bathtub. (and about as enlightening...)
Click to expand...
Nah. More like something you know you shouldn't watch because it's a total waste of time, but for some reason you keep finding your eyes on it. Like some of the conspiracy theory stuff I watch. There's a secret alien base on the moon, after all, with a huge alien beam weapon pointed right at us.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top