Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Commoner]

Well, I won't argue further with such firmly set ideas.

Well, I'm sorry, I guess I just didn't get your point.

 

[Commoner]

What does it "really mean" apart from a measure of kenetic energy --and whether the measure is in averaged terms of degrees, in relative terms like "hot" and "cold", or in some other more precise unit of measure, is there that much difference to the person observing it?

The only way you can effectively say "objectively true" (or anything) about anything is that you've defined it as such.

Ah, ok - I think I know what you meant. That what we consider as "measure of temperature" is not really anything objective. Well, in that, I agree. Whether it's degrees of Celsius, Kelvin, or simply "hot" and "cold" is pretty much arbitrary, sure. But there is still a distinction between the methods that are impartial and those that are not, don't you agree?

It's not that "hot" and "cold" couldn't be used as a measure of temperature because they are not precise or absolute (if they measured temperature in the first place, which they don't). In a certain way they could be considered objective, if only our senses were reliable enough to tell us if something is "hotter" or "colder" than us. But we can't even tell that - we can't even distinguish "very cold" from "very hot". And if we could - they would be objective only relative to us - we could tell if something is colder than us or hotter than us. But if we had, for instance, two objects that were hotter than us but not of the same temperature, we could not accurately establish which one is hotter(unless maybe if they were made of exactly the same material).

So, to a degree, "hot" and "cold" could be objective, if we were able to accurately distinguish things that are hotter than us from things that are colder than us. But they would only mean that - of a higher/lower temperature than us. They would be meaningless to anyone else.

 

[Copernicus]

What does it "really mean" apart from a measure of kenetic energy --and whether the measure is in averaged terms of degrees, in relative terms like "hot" and "cold", or in some other more precise unit of measure, is there that much difference to the person observing it?

Terms like "hot" and "cold" refer objectively to sensations, not temperatures. It is possible to feel heat when there is no heat at all. We associate "hot" and "cold" with measures of temperature, because certain temperatures in the proximity of skin normally produce the sensation. We can assign temperatures the value of "hot" or "cold" on the basis of our experiences, but such assignments are called "subjective", because the actual sensation produced by them can vary with context and experiencer.

The only way you can effectively say "objectively true" (or anything) about anything is that you've defined it as such.

This statement makes no sense to me. Something is objectively "hot" if it produces the sensation of "hotness" regardless of its measure of physical temperature. The truth, in this case, depends on a sensation produced, not the real physical temperature.

The idea that equates "objective" with the material world is a fallacy. Ideas can be objective. Concepts --especially concepts --can be objective.

I think that you are a little confused about the meaning of the word "objective". Objectivity connotes neutrality of perspective, not necessarily association with the material world. Because we believe that the real world is always the same from a neutral perspective, reality can be considered "objective". But sensations are also "objective" in the sense that feelings are real regardless of what causes them. It is only when we compare our feelings to those of others that the question of a neutral ("objective" vs. "subjective") perspective comes up. From a scientific perspective, the same stimulus can produce different sensations in different subjects. It is only in that sense that "hot" and "cold" can be considered "subjective".

Everything that is a noun is objective.

I cannot fathom what you mean by such a statement. Nouns are just parts of speech. Are the other parts of speech not "objective"?

The idea that equates "objective" with the material world removes, separates and distinguishes a world of "idea" from reality (implying, of course, that nothing in the world of idea is real, and even that "we" as thinking being are not real).

Again, the word "objective" here refers to neutrality of perspective. Ideas are not concrete objects. They do not "exist" in the same categorical sense that physical objects do. You keep sliding into a reification error every time you try to defend this idea.

 

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Willamena
The idea that equates "objective" with the material world is a fallacy. Ideas can be objective. Concepts --especially concepts --can be objective.

I think that you are a little confused about the meaning of the word "objective". Objectivity connotes neutrality of perspective, not necessarily association with the material world.

Such is my argument. It's only confusing when I say it, not when you do.

 

[Copernicus]

Such is my argument. It's only confusing when I say it, not when you do.

It is your argument only if it did not include that rather glaring reification fallacy that you keep espousing. Ideas are not "objective" in the same sense that physical objects are. And you have pointedly ignored my question of what you mean by calling all nouns "objective".

 

[Willamena]

Ah, ok - I think I know what you meant. That what we consider as "measure of temperature" is not really anything objective. Well, in that, I agree. Whether it's degrees of Celsius, Kelvin, or simply "hot" and "cold" is pretty much arbitrary, sure. But there is still a distinction between the methods that are impartial and those that are not, don't you agree?

Are the methods significant to whether or not it is objective/subjective? Both require an observer.

If I say it's hot and you say it's not, then we have subjective assessments. If I say it's hot and you agree, whoo-doggie, then do we have an objective assessment? Is that not just an accordance of subjective assessments? If I say it's 23.5°C and you look at the same reading and agree, have we done something method-wise significantly different?
:no:

It's not that "hot" and "cold" couldn't be used as a measure of temperature because they are not precise or absolute (if they measured temperature in the first place, which they don't). In a certain way they could be considered objective, if only our senses were reliable enough to tell us if something is "hotter" or "colder" than us. But we can't even tell that - we can't even distinguish "very cold" from "very hot". And if we could - they would be objective only relative to us - we could tell if something is colder than us or hotter than us. But if we had, for instance, two objects that were hotter than us but not of the same temperature, we could not accurately establish which one is hotter(unless maybe if they were made of exactly the same material).

So, to a degree, "hot" and "cold" could be objective, if we were able to accurately distinguish things that are hotter than us from things that are colder than us. But they would only mean that - of a higher/lower temperature than us. They would be meaningless to anyone else.

What degree of accuracy would determine that we've achieved "objective"? What degree of accuracy determines that our machines are "objective" (in that sense)?

 

[Willamena]

It is your argument only if it did not include that rather glaring reification fallacy that you keep espousing. Ideas are not "objective" in the same sense that physical objects are. And you have pointedly ignored my question of what you mean by calling all nouns "objective".

So... objective in the other sense is the material world of physical objects?

 

[Commoner]

Are the methods significant to whether or not it is objective/subjective? Both require an observer.

If I say it's hot and you say it's not, then we have subjective assessments. If I say it's hot and you agree, whoo-doggie, then do we have an objective assessment? Is that not just an accordance of subjective assessments? If I say it's 23.5°C and you look at the same reading and agree, have we done something method-wise significantly different?
:no:

What degree of accuracy would determine that we've achieved "objective"? What degree of accuracy determines that our machines are "objective" (in that sense)?

"Objective" doesn't necessarily mean "free of errors". Even if we had a perfect termometer, we could still misread it. Or we could place it in the wrong "test tube". There is no infallible system (in practice) - just methods that produce consistent results and methods that don't. Results which can be tested and re-tested using different methods by different people. In order for a method to be considered objective, the results it provides must be independent of the particular subject who uses it, to the highest possible degree. Any method is only "absolutely objective" in theory.

But some methods can't even be considered objective in theory - as with "hot&cold", since they represent pretty much the opposite of what "objective" means. I'm a bit stumped that you would even argue this.

 

[Willamena]

"Objective" doesn't necessarily mean "free of errors". Even if we had a perfect termometer, we could still misread it. Or we could place it in the wrong "test tube". There is no infallible system (in practice) - just methods that produce consistent results and methods that don't. Results which can be tested and re-tested using different methods by different people. In order for a method to be considered objective, the results it provides must be independent of the particular subject who uses it, to the highest possible degree. Any method is only "absolutely objective" in theory.

But some methods can't even be considered objective in theory - as with "hot&cold", since they represent pretty much the opposite of what "objective" means. I'm a bit stumped that you would even argue this.

I think (rather) that the scientific method is required to be objective in the same sense that it's required of journalists: results must look at the data only, and leave opinion behind. The actuality of being able to test and retest an idea --to the certainty of its truth independent of any subject --isn't what makes for "objective" science.

I think the essence of objectivity is simply in recognition of "of or relating to the object" that we each define to ourselves, and can communicate to others. All other "senses" of objectivity stem from this idea.

 

[Commoner]

I think (rather) that the scientific method is required to be objective in the same sense that it's required of journalists: results must look at the data only, and leave opinion behind. The actuality of being able to test and retest an idea --to the certainty of its truth independent of any subject --isn't what makes for "objective" science.

I think the essence of objectivity is simply in recognition of "of or relating to the object" that we each define to ourselves, and can communicate to others. All other "senses" of objectivity stem from this idea.

Hmmm...ok, but then I would have to ask, of what is "hot" an objective measure?

Even if you take the stance that "objective" is simply "relating to other objects", can you really say that the relationship "hot" represents is "temperature"? Or is it a "standalone" relationship. In that sense it could be considered objective - but then so could opinion. This doesn't really jive with what objectivity means in science.

Furthermore, what good would such a measure be in practice? The only thing you could establish would be the relationship between you and something else, not the relationship between two other things. And if you changed, the relationship would change. One moment something could be "hot", the next moment it could be "cold" without its temperature changing at all. I mean, even if we forgo the "objective" label, how is this useful? And how would what you communicate to someone else regarding the subject be meaningful in any way? Since there is no way to always establish the relative relationships between more than two objects/subjects, there are situations in which the person can do absolutely nothing with that information.* This is why it's important that the result is independent of the subject, that's what makes it objective, that's what adds value to the information. Otherwise your "objective" is meaningless outside the scope of your mind.

*Imagine that you're holding a hot object. The person next to you touches your hand and establishes that you're cold. You communicate to the person that the object you're holding is hot. What information have you communicated? The other person still doesn't know whether the object is hot or cold.

The definition of objective you're using is not what any of us objecting to PureX's evidence are using. So, in a way, you're "tilting at windmills". And you can't simply redefine what "objective" means in science, just because "objective" in philosophy can mean something else.

 

[PureX]

We're not saying that they're not "real" as in that they don't exist at all, we're saying they're "real" as in that they only exist as a concept and nothing more, that they are not objective. Oh right can't use that word with you...

But that's not true. Every idea is imagined, and then held as true if it works. The more regularly and predictively it works, the more true it becomes for us. The idea of God, works for people. The more predictively and regularly it works for them, the more true it becomes to them. Same as any other idea. The fact that it's objective or subjective phenomena is irrelevant to the fact of it's existence. Subjective phenomena doesn't exist "only in the mind" any more than objective phenomena exists "only in the external world". This subjective/objective argument is being presented as a false criteria because ultimately, it ALL has to come to us, through us: through our minds. Whatever we can know about any of these phenomena comes to us through our limited abilities to experience them. And that experience happens in our minds. Seeing doesn't happen in the eyes. It happens in the brain. Smelling doesn't happen in the nose, it happens in the brain. Recognition happens in the brain. Conceptualization happens in the brain. And 'knowing' happens in the brain.

 

[Willamena]

Hmmm...ok, but then I would have to ask, of what is "hot" an objective measure?

Even if you take the stance that "objective" is simply "relating to other objects", can you really say that the relationship "hot" represents is "temperature"? Or is it a "standalone" relationship. In that sense it could be considered objective - but then so could opinion. This doesn't really jive with what objectivity means in science.

That's because it's about what objectivity means in grammar. Look, there are numerous ways to approach objectivity/subjectivity (hence numerous arguments to support the idea that things are both). The subjectivity/objectivity found in the scientific method is the one of grammar, in the presentation of results. In each way, it's true that things are not objective when they are subjective (rule of thumb), but it's equally true that things can be presented as either, alternately, and hence are inherently both.

"Hot" is a relationship, as you've identified, a unit of measure, however imprecise (as with temperature), a quality, a characteristic/trait, and any number of other things we make it out to be in order to communicate something (could be a compliment, an exaggeration, an expression of warning, just to think of a few). As each of those things, it can represent a fact (a declaration of truth) as much as opinion (a declaration of belief) --i.e. the way things are vs. the way we think and feel about them. Fact and opinion do not reside in the objects, they reside in us and the use we make of the words.

The association of objective with the fact and subjective with the opinion is valid --it has become a part of our language. However, its validity depends upon holding a particular philosophical outlook up as uniquely descriptive of the universe, namely the one with the firm schism between body and mind combined with a materialism or physicalism. The dependence of that association on this particular set of ideas should be our first clue that there are other ways of looking at and approaching the issue.

Furthermore, what good would such a measure be in practice? The only thing you could establish would be the relationship between you and something else, not the relationship between two other things. And if you changed, the relationship would change. One moment something could be "hot", the next moment it could be "cold" without its temperature changing at all. I mean, even if we forgo the "objective" label, how is this useful? And how would what you communicate to someone else regarding the subject be meaningful in any way? Since there is no way to always establish the relative relationships between more than two objects/subjects, there are situations in which the person can do absolutely nothing with that information.* This is why it's important that the result is independent of the subject, that's what makes it objective, that's what adds value to the information. Otherwise your "objective" is meaningless outside the scope of your mind.

*Imagine that you're holding a hot object. The person next to you touches your hand and establishes that you're cold. You communicate to the person that the object you're holding is hot. What information have you communicated? The other person still doesn't know whether the object is hot or cold.

How is a relationship described between objects not useful and meaningful? If someone tells me it's freakin' cold out, I can dress more warmly. If someone tells me something is hot and I experience it as cold, I could suspect one of us has a fever.

Objective is meaningless outside the scope of the mind (as shown by the odd thing you just said ). "Object" means object of the mind.
object: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

The definition of objective you're using is not what any of us objecting to PureX's evidence are using. So, in a way, you're "tilting at windmills". And you can't simply redefine what "objective" means in science, just because "objective" in philosophy can mean something else.

I do apologize if I've butted in on a discussion between you two, to offer a perspective that is ultimately derailing. I sometimes do that. The way I see it, objective in science, philosophy and grammar are ultimately the same concept.

Thanks for indulging me.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

I'm just asking for clairification PureX becuase that's exactly what you're not doing, clarifying.

But that's not true. Every idea is imagined, and then held as true if it works. The more regularly and predictively it works, the more true it becomes for us. The idea of God, works for people. The more predictively and regularly it works for them, the more true it becomes to them.

That has nothing to do with what my argument was, but I'm glad you call god and idea because that's what many on this thread, including me, were getting to. Is god a mental concept or is god outside of the human mind? Until you can define god how can you provide evidence? (as to which you haven't.)

 

[PureX]

I'm just asking for clairification PureX becuase that's exactly what you're not doing, clarifying.

That has nothing to do with what my argument was, but I'm glad you call god and idea because that's what many on this thread, including me, were getting to. Is god a mental concept or is god outside of the human mind?

Everything is a mental concept. To us. Your question implies a knowledge that we can't possess. We don't know what lies outside the human mind, because we have to use the human mind to know anything. This is why your subjective/objective argument isn't getting anywhere.

Until you can define god how can you provide evidence?

I have expressed many characteristics of "God". And the evidence is that they work for people, when tried.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Well, I'm sorry, I guess I just didn't get your point.

Not getting her point is not the issue. You failed to AGREE with her point.

 

[Nois Forme]

Forgive this belated response, as I've only recently arrived, but this struck me.

...when we come to that end of the line, and we have no "God", we are stuck.

You, may have been stuck, not we. That's rather presumptuous.

...a way to move forward that we did not have and will never get from logic and reason, alone.

Again, not we, as logic and reason work quite well for many.

...perhaps it's because you have not been so in need of it as they have. Or perhaps you have never felt that completely trapped by your own weakness.

Former falling down drunk myself, friend. Lost the home, the fam and friends, the job, sick as all hell and sitting in a jail sell (again) with a demolished automobile (again). The end was nigh, as it were. Know what didn't help me then? God.

No god then, no god now. That was 17 years ago. June of '92 for me. No god required, even in such dire circumstances as you've described. I am living proof of this.

Regardless, glad you made it out (genuinely!).

peace

 

[theosopher]

I will begin the discussion with a few posts from these other threads:


Sure ...

1. The idea of God works for most people most of the time. Ideas that work for us on a regular basis tend to be taken as accurate.

2. The ordered nature of existence forces us to consider the reality of a "God". Existence is not random. How do we explain this? What is responsible for the order? And why? The answers to these questions are a mystery, and we have named this mystery "God".

3. Energy can express itself as consciousness (take ourselves as an example), again, forcing us to consider that a consciousness could in turn express itself as energy (in much the same way as matter and energy are interchangeable). If so, all of existence could well be the "mind of God, expressed", just as the ancients claimed.

moved by god

 

[PureX]

Forgive this belated response, as I've only recently arrived, but this struck me.


You, may have been stuck, not we. That's rather presumptuous.

Everyone's rope has an end. When the logic and reason that you rely on can't give you the solutions you need, you will have to look elsewhere. Just because that has not yet happened to you doesn't mean that it won't. Or that it couldn't.

Former falling down drunk myself, friend. Lost the home, the fam and friends, the job, sick as all hell and sitting in a jail sell (again) with a demolished automobile (again). The end was nigh, as it were. Know what didn't help me then? God.

How do you know that God didn't help you?

 

[Nois Forme]

Everyone's rope has an end.

I would agree. Though everyone's bottom is different I certainly found mine, and decided to make a change. I reached the end of my rope, and there was no god there, only me dangling over...well, death.

When the logic and reason that you rely on can't give you the solutions you need, you will have to look elsewhere.

And what of the person that reaches their bottom, does not seek or rely on god (or anything else external for that matter), and manages their way out of the hole as I have done? This is simply inconceivable to you, yes? It seems to be. It happens every day.

People pull themselves out of some very dark holes all by their lonesome, because they realize that no one (or no thing) else is going to do it for them. When you realize you are all you have, 'you' will simply have to suffice, or you will fall. Entirely up to you in the end.

Certainly logic and reason were helpful (without which I might add, you would never have made it to the tables in the first place - you couldn't cross the street without these basic tools at which you scoff), but other tools are available to us without calling on this 'higher power' that AA is so fond of not-so-cleverly disguising (couldn't help but notice that they capitalize the 'P' in higher power ).

One can express empathy, compassion and gratitude without any concept of god for example. I found those to be indispensable among an arsenal of other tools naturally and innately available to us all. One needn't call upon any sort of magic. Sobriety, and indeed serenity, are quite attainable without any god concept.

Just because that has not yet happened to you doesn't mean that it won't.

I've little idea what you mean by this. Are you presuming that I'm on my way back out to drink at some point? That then I'll find an even lower bottom and need to call upon your god? That seems to be the implication, but I may well be wrong. Was my bottom not quite low enough for your approval? Was I not a 'true alcoholic'? The arrogance here is astounding if I'm reading it correctly.

I can only say that I was perilously close to death more times than I can count 'out there', and a man can't fall much lower without leaving this life. No god manifested in any way at any point along my path, and I had no requirement for such an entity to change my life. That you did, says nothing of some ultimately reality, but only speaks of your own state of mind in a crisis.
It was only when I completely dispensed with such notions that I gained the courage to actually do something about my situation. I had to pull my self up, and did so.

That 'transformative power' theists speak of is within us, not without. I am living testimony to this fact.

Or that it couldn't.

This I'll grant you, however unlikely I think it may be. I am not prepared to say that I could never delude myself into believing something simply to make myself feel better. It happens in small ways every day I've no doubt. But on the grand scale of 'god' - exceedingly unlikely. Only in the folly of my youth.

How do you know that God didn't help you?

That question borders on solipsism, if not plunges right into its abyss. I find that type of thinking pretty useless. I might well ask 'how do I really know that I'm typing this right now?'. But I'll elucidate for the sake of argument, because there is another answer that I touched on above, and I find it interesting and quite on topic.

The beginning of my sobriety was also, not coincidentally, the end of my spiritual quest as it were. I'd spent the first half of my life (which was at that point my entire life) searching for that proverbial meaning, anything supernatural, spiritual, etc. I attempted through prayer and meditation to achieve contact with this god, whatever it may be, when in somewhat less desperate times. I found absolutely nothing. There was no indication whatsoever of anything beyond this natural world.

When I decided to change my life, to end the self deceit that comes with being an addict, that meant chucking all of the self deceit that comes with believing (or attempting to believe) in something other when there clearly was nothing. Those occurred nearly simultaneously, by my design.

Considering this, this god of yours would also have to be omni-ironic if it exists. I know that my transformation had nothing to do with god as much as I can know anything in my life. If this god existed, they made quite certain that I could not possibly believe in it due to the way my transformation occurred. Mysterious ways indeed!

Sorry to have hijacked this thread, but it seems likely to me that your faith and your sobriety are intimately linked, so I figured it fair game to discuss the sobriety aspect of it all. Seems to me your evidence is ultimately tied to your getting sober, which I do understand believe it or not. I could be wrong?
Understand that my evidence to the contrary came about by doing precisely the opposite of you (giving up on 'faith'), and achieving the same results (sobriety). Only by completely rejecting any notion of god and the supernatural was I able to change my life for the better. So far, so good. I'm sober today, again.

peace

 

[Willamena]

Wouldn't it be the same to argue that a chair can be subjective because the "feeling" touching it produces is subjective? Maybe I've completely misunderstood this but wasn't the whole point to say that something can be both subjective and objective at the same time?

The "feeling" of touch has an idea form in the mental "image" that "touch" provides us, the part we know and can recognize. That mental image is a distinct thing from the actual experienced touch, but the mental image is all we know of "touch". Without it, touch is experience-less. Our experience of a thing resides in the mental image of it provided of it.

Most people are comfortable with the idea that the "mind", while a different thing, is a not a separate or distinct thing from the body that is its operator. In the same vein, the "mind" is not a separate thing from the world it perceives. The sensation of "solidity" of ground under our feet, the perception of "distance" to a visible destination, the "sound" of a friend's voice and the "sight" of a friend's face are all idea-form: mental images. The world, as we each know it, is the world as we each know it. It has the form and shape of the mental images our brains provide it in perception and understanding. The sum of those mental images, at any given moment, is "mind".

To suggest that there is an idea world and a really-real world separate from each other --two distinct realities full of distinct entities: idea objects vs actual objects --as many do is illusory in upholding a "mind" distinct and separate from the body, and hence from the world. It allows for fallacious ideas like solipsism, the idea that the individual is the only reality. The alternative is a "mind" that is very much a part of and integral to the world. One reality. For some it involves a process they recognize as "eliminating the subject/object divide" that keeps mind's idea-objects separate and distinct from actual, really-real, objects (though for me it's more like putting the divide in its proper perspective).

From the perspective of a mind that is integral to the world, there is no significant distinction to be made between the idea of a thing and the thing itself, as the idea was produced in perception of the thing itself. The inverse is also true, that the thing itself, for us, is the idea of the thing. For some to think that suggests a really-real world that is "not real" is a clear indication that they hold an image of the reality that is of the two realities variety, not one.

Just some thoughts.