Basis of Belief

[John D. Brey]

Once again, I'm not arguing against usefulness. Our sensory mechanisms are designed to convince us that the car is yellow. Since it's not (the yellowness is added by our sensory mechanisms in such a manner as to make us think the car is yellow) we can speak factually concerning our lyin eyes.​

The yellow cab is yellow. And by "yellow" we mean the color we perceive trough our sensory mechanisms (eyes and brain) as yellow. That's the label we put for a visual property of light that is reflecting from the cab.

A bee might perceive the yellow cab as purple (and by "purple" I mean the color we perceive trough our sensory mechanisms as purple).

That doesn't mean that saying: the yellow cab is yellow, is a lie (or not true). Or that our eyes are lying.

In the context of the ideas proffered in the early part of this thread, the issue concerns the basis of what we believe to be true. The same sensory mechanisms that tell us a particular electromagnetic vibration is yellow, tell us the sun and the moon are the same size. And just as the sun and the moon are not the same size, the electromagnetic vibrations aren't yellow.

It's recognition that our sensory mechanisms are serving nature, natural selection, and not necessarily God, or a more fundamental knowledge of truth, that led the ancient religious priests (the first scientists) to begin to fight back against nature and the body nature designed to keep us in the dark, and nature on the throne.

The Copernican Revolution is an exaggerated example of the foregoing. When Copernicus told the world that it wasn't the center of the universe, nor even the center of the solar system, the corrupt priests and armchair scientists couldn't believe that their eyes and sensory perceptions would tell them such a giant fib.



John

 

[Sheldon]

I don't. But it seems to work.

Work how exactly, you were pretty vague on that?

 

[AppieB]

No, I use my feelings.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

Ah, your science disclaimer again. Don't worry, I understand the limitations of science so there is no need to give me this again.
But that was not what I was talking about. How do you make an assesment whether an action is doing good or bad? (Mind you, I'm not talking about what is good or bad, but what action affects reality in a way you consider is good or bad).
Just feelings? There is no way to assess a certain action objectively?

 

[`mud]

If it does no harm, it's good !

There's no arche for bad,

it's all in the seeing of the cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Work how exactly, you were pretty vague on that?

Well, you are a skeptic, right? So you know that all knowledge is contextual or in contexts. Well, the same with truth, valid and correct. They are in part context dependent.
So I as a global skeptic simply don't claim truth and all that anymore. I just believe that this is real and it apparently is.
It is a version of pragmatic truth. It is true, because it seems useful to me. And I then add deflationary truth and remove truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, your science disclaimer again. Don't worry, I understand the limitations of science so there is no need to give me this again.
But that was not what I was talking about. How do you make an assesment whether an action is doing good or bad? (Mind you, I'm not talking about what is good or bad, but what action affects reality in a way you consider is good or bad).
Just feelings? There is no way to assess a certain action objectively?

Okay, you see a dog. The dog has a black fur, since it is not hairless. There is a lot of experiences you can have with the dog and the dog has a lot of properties. You could even use scientific instruments on it. The dog is objective and thus your description of it entails a lot of objective properties.
Good or bad has no such properties and there are no scientific instruments that can be used on them.

So here is a version of a classical one in philosophy by David Hume made modern.
Imagine you could use all the instruments you wanted and you could film and directly observe the following: One human causes the death of another human. Now please describe how you would see as observe whether that is good or bad? Or what instruments you would use to measure whether it is good or bad?

 

[AppieB]

Okay, you see a dog. The dog has a black fur, since it is not hairless. There is a lot of experiences you can have with the dog and the dog has a lot of properties. You could even use scientific instruments on it. The dog is objective and thus your description of it entails a lot of objective properties.
Good or bad has no such properties and there are no scientific instruments that can be used on them.

So here is a version of a classical one in philosophy by David Hume made modern.
Imagine you could use all the instruments you wanted and you could film and directly observe the following: One human causes the death of another human. Now please describe how you would see as observe whether that is good or bad? Or what instruments you would use to measure whether it is good or bad?

Maybe I was not clear enough. I'm not saying we can objectively say what is good or bad. But once we establish what we mean by good or bad (for instance; good is something/some action that benefits human well being and bad is something/some action that is dentrimental to human well being) we can objectively assess if it's good or bad.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe I was not clear enough. I'm not saying we can objectively say what is good or bad. But once we establish what we mean by good or bad (for instance; good is something/some action that benefits human well being and bad is something/some action that is dentrimental to human well being) we can objectively assess if it's good or bad.

There is no objective "we". So all you are doing, is saying: Some people agree on good and bad. Then we can use that agreement to assess an action as good or bad.
Further what is good for you can be bad for me and so in reverse.
Sorry, it is basic 101 in ethics in philosophy. That some people agree, doesn't make it objective. It makes it intersubjectively agreed upon, that is all.

 

[AppieB]

There is no objective "we".
So all you are doing, is saying: Some people agree on good and bad. Then we can use that agreement to assess an action as good or bad.

Yes, that assessment is objective. It's not a matter of opinion or personal feelings. Killing a person is objectively dentrimental to that persons well being.

Further what is good for you can be bad for me and so in reverse.

That doesn't negate that there is an objective 'truth' (for lack of a better word) about what is beneficial for your well being and what is beneficial for my well being. True, those can be different for each person.

Sorry, it is basic 101 in ethics in philosophy. That some people agree, doesn't make it objective. It makes it intersubjectively agreed upon, that is all.

I agree, and that was not what I was saying (or meant to say).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that assessment is objective. It's not a matter of opinion or personal feelings. Killing a person is objectively dentrimental to that persons well being.
...

Okay, I will be honest. You can use the word objective differently than me: Here is how I use it as for this exchange

• based on facts rather than feelings or opinions
• existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
• expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
• of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE
I don't consider well being objective as it doesn't meet any of these variants of objective. But that is just me.

 

[Trailblazer]

Are there more than one realities?

No, logically speaking, reality is one.

“The first principle Baha’u’llah urged was the independent investigation of truth. “Each individual,” He said, “is following the faith of his ancestors who themselves are lost in the maze of tradition. Reality is steeped in dogmas and doctrines. If each investigate for himself, he will find that Reality is one; does not admit of multiplicity; is not divisible. All will find the same foundation and all will be at peace.” – Abdu’l-Baha, Star of the West, Volume 3, p. 5.

 

[AppieB]

Okay, I will be honest. You can use the word objective differently than me: Here is how I use it as for this exchange

• based on facts rather than feelings or opinions
• existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
• expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
• of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind

Definition of OBJECTIVE
I don't consider well being objective as it doesn't meet any of these variants of objective. But that is just me.

Maybe it's because english is not my native language, but I think I'm pretty clear of what I'm trying to say. There is a difference between what you prefer as a person like human well being (subjective) and what we can say is beneficial/detrimental to that well being of that peson (objecitve: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions). Chopping a persons head of is clearly detrimental to that well being, whether that person prefers well being or not.

Well being is not objective, but the assessment whether it s beneficial/detrimental to that well being is.

Of course there are (trivial) differences what we personal prefer in life. I don't like coriander. Eating coriander would not enhance my well being, while my girlfriends loves it. She prefers coriander. It's a fact (objectively true) that she likes coriander.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe it's because english is not my native language, but I think I'm pretty clear of what I'm trying to say. There is a difference between what you prefer as a person like human well being (subjective) and what we can say is beneficial/detrimental to that well being of that peson (objecitve: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions). Chopping a persons head of is clearly detrimental to that well being, whether that person prefers well being or not.

Well being is not objective, but the assessment whether it s beneficial/detrimental to that well being is.

Of course there are (trivial) differences what we personal prefer in life. I don't like coriander. Eating coriander would not enhance my well being, while my girlfriends loves it. She prefers coriander. It's a fact (objectively true) that she likes coriander.

Beneficial/detrimental are not objective. They are personal interpretations.

 

[Sheldon]

Maybe it's because english is not my native language, but I think I'm pretty clear of what I'm trying to say. There is a difference between what you prefer as a person like human well being (subjective) and what we can say is beneficial/detrimental to that well being of that peson (objecitve: based on facts rather than feelings or opinions). Chopping a persons head of is clearly detrimental to that well being, whether that person prefers well being or not.

Well being is not objective, but the assessment whether it s beneficial/detrimental to that well being is.

Of course there are (trivial) differences what we personal prefer in life. I don't like coriander. Eating coriander would not enhance my well being, while my girlfriends loves it. She prefers coriander. It's a fact (objectively true) that she likes coriander.

I understand what you're saying perfectly, and it makes absolute sense to me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I understand what you're saying perfectly, and it makes absolute sense to me.

So how is "but the assessment whether it s beneficial/detrimental to that well being is." objective?

 

[Sheldon]

Beneficial/detrimental are not objective. They are personal interpretations.

Not necessarily, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate objective evidence that rape is detrimental to the victim, or that murder has a catastrophic and detrimental effect on the lives of people close to the victim, as well as ending the life of the victim. None of that is purely subjective. Coming home to find your car stolen or your house burgled can be objectively shown to be detrimental to one's wellbeing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not necessarily, it wouldn't be hard to demonstrate objective evidence that rape is detrimental to the victim, or that murder has a catastrophic and detrimental effect on the lives of people close to the victim, as well as ending the life of the victim. None of that is purely subjective. Coming home to find your car stolen or your house burgled can be objectively shown to be detrimental to one's wellbeing.

Now you have to explain what you mean by objective and subjective.

 

[Sheldon]

Now you have to explain what you mean by objective and subjective.

Are you saying there is no objective evidence that actions like rape and murder are a detriment to victims and their loved ones? I beg to differ. The only subjective moral assertions would be whether you care about the suffering or wellbeing of others, and I do. That part is subjective, while the rest is not, which I believe was the point AppieB was making.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Are you saying there is no objective evidence that actions like rape and murder are a detriment to victims and their loved ones? I beg to differ. The only subjective moral assertions would be whether you care about the suffering or wellbeing of others, and I do. That part is subjective, while the rest is not, which I believe was the point AppieB was making.

I still don't understand what you mean by objective in this context.
Here is a list of definitions of objective:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Which one(s) are you using?

 

[Sheldon]

I still don't understand what you mean by objective in this context.
Here is a list of definitions of objective:
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Which one(s) are you using?

Are rape victims traumatised? Is that just a matter of opinion, or is it supported by objective evidence?