Logic VS, Faith

[PureX]

I would suggest that we are all interested in understanding how all this came about. However, most have been indoctrinated from birth to fear the unknown, to think badly of themselves (sinful), and that praying to an imaginary entity gives them actual control over random events.

Humans aren't indoctrinated to fear the unknown. It is the natural consequence of being an animal that survives by understanding the mechanics of it's environment, and being able to manipulate it to their own advantage. Not understanding what's 'going on' makes us vulnerable. And we don't like it. So we look for ways of mitigating that vulnerability.

Also, you keep using the term "imaginary" as if imagination is somehow frivolous, and 'unreal'. When reality, itself, is an imagined state of being. So is 'knowledge' for that matter. Without imagination we couldn't think at all. So imagining the unknown as a way of trying to understand (and control) it is completely normal and natural for we humans. Which is why we have been doing it since the dawn of man.

Isn't it healthier to teach children not to fear the unknown, teach them how to be resilient and able to face bad times and persevere.

No. Fear of the unknown is innate to humans, and for good reason. Better to teach caution and skepticism in the face of the unknown.

Shouldn't we teach them that this life is the only one we have and should honor and cherish it, along with the life of everyone else?

No, because we don't know this to be the case. Better to teach them to be honest about what we can and cannot know, than to teach them the arrogance of blind presumption.

Shouldn't we teach them that we are all the same; to show them how to ignore tribal instincts, so that we can all work together to make this planet better for everyone?

No, as we are not all the same. We are all similar, and yet we are all different. We are all clever, and yet we are all profoundly ignorant. We are all of the same 'tribe', and yet we cannot trust that everyone else feels the same way.

If raised this way, there would be no need for an artificial construct. They would have been shown by example that the unknown is not to be feared, but rather explored and discovered.

Thought, itself, is an 'artificial construct'. Somehow, you need to accept this if you wish to ever understand humanity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Thought, itself, is an 'artificial construct'. Somehow, you need to accept this if you wish to ever understand humanity.

What some people don't get, is that: We should only use evidence as per observation for everything we do. - is itself an artificial construct, because you can't observe it and it is a thought based rule of behavior.
They build a whole normative system based on in effect a self-refencing claim, that is not valid according to itself.
In other words they do a weird form of fallacy of reification.

Yes, @MikeF that includes you.

 

[MikeF]

What some people don't get, is that: We should only use evidence as per observation for everything we do. - is itself an artificial construct, because you can't observe it and it is a thought based rule of behavior.
They build a whole normative system based on in effect a self-refencing claim, that is not valid according to itself.
In other words they do a weird form of fallacy of reification.

Yes, @MikeF that includes you.

Thought is not a construct, but a set of algorithms based on the biological hardware of the central nervous system. The ability of these biologically base algorithmic circuits to provide useful analysis of perceived data is limited in all the many ways I have described. The methods I have described to evaluate and provide quality control on analytic conclusion produced by the central nervous system of an individual are not self-referencing, but instead reference the analytic conclusions of billions of people, all throughout history, to enable us to evaluate which conclusions have the highest correlation over the whole set and provide higher confidence in their validity.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thought is not a construct, but a set of algorithms based on the biological hardware of the central nervous system. The ability of these biologically base algorithmic circuits to provide useful analysis of perceived data is limited in all the many ways I have described. The methods I have described to evaluate and provide quality control on analytic conclusion produced by the central nervous system of an individual are not self-referencing, but instead reference the analytic conclusions of billions of people, all throughout history, to enable us to evaluate which conclusions have the highest correlation over the whole set and provide higher confidence in their validity.

Now that is better, right? Well, you can't see or otherwise observe all of the words as for what they reference. They are in your mind as first person cognition and they are not objective or concrete.
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations. I.e that, the whole set of everything is nothing but based on observations, is a personal interpretation in you.
-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. I.e. your normative rule of everything should be based on observations is not independent of your individual thought.
-having reality independent of the mind. E.g. validity is not concrete like say a stone as a piece of rock. It has no existence independent of your mind and is thus not real and doesn't exist objectively. You in effect image that validity is important. Important is also such a word.

So here is abstract: existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. E.g. validity is an abstract. Further your thoughts is a construct, because you construct based on your thoughts a normative system: We ought to only use evidence for everything we do.

In psychological term you appear unable to understand your own thinking of how we ought to behave as being abstract and not with concrete and objective evidence.
You apparently in effect can't catch, hold and examine your own abstract thinking as that and learn form it. You apparently hold your thoughts as concrete and based on that you "bash" all abstract thinking as "wrong".
You really apparently don't understand how this: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12 - also applies to you. Nobody so far has solved the is-ought problem or made an objective normative system. That include you and that you in effect take your own individual thinking for granted as with evidence, truth, real, existence and what not. Your normative system is nowhere but in your mind.

You are in effect an authoritative dangerous human, because you claim a normative authority over other humans that you don't have. That is as potentially dangerous as some religious claims are.
You try solve subjectivity by apparently denying that it is relevant to you. That makes you potentially dangerous, because you are in effect for your writing unable to understand, when you are subjective. Just like some religious people.

So stop playing psychology, unless you include yourself and admit, that you are as subjective as the rest of us.

 

[MikeF]

Humans aren't indoctrinated to fear the unknown. It is the natural consequence of being an animal that survives by understanding the mechanics of it's environment, and being able to manipulate it to their own advantage. Not understanding what's 'going on' makes us vulnerable. And we don't like it. So we look for ways of mitigating that vulnerability.

Also, you keep using the term "imaginary" as if imagination is somehow frivolous, and 'unreal'. When reality, itself, is an imagined state of being. So is 'knowledge' for that matter. Without imagination we couldn't think at all. So imagining the unknown as a way of trying to understand (and control) it is completely normal and natural for we humans. Which is why we have been doing it since the dawn of man.

The use of the word imaginary is used in the technical sense to distinguish between that which has high correlation to that which we can determine as real, and that which does not correlate to what can be determined to be real, therefore imaginary. Can something imagined, later be correlated to reality? Certainly, and then it is considered real. Until then, it is only imaginary.

As to the value of human imagination, speculation, and hypothesis, I am in 100% agreement with you. Not only does it allow us to expand our base of knowledge, it can create personal enjoyment. However, it is not considered real until it is corroborated as real and existent. Imagination is not frivolous, it is just not reality.

And again, reality is not an imagined state of being, it is real and verifiable. Our individual perception of reality is limited by our biology as we have discussed.

So imagining the unknown as a way of trying to understand (and control) it is completely normal and natural for we humans. Which is why we have been doing it since the dawn of man. ...
No. Fear of the unknown is innate to humans, and for good reason. Better to teach caution and skepticism in the face of the unknown.

Yes, this is instinctually natural, but does not mean that it is rational. We have lots of pre-wired instincts that we have inherited through the evolutionary process. Instincts that were selected for to enable primitive survival that did not depend on rational thought. We have the means to go beyond our ape precursors. We are the clever naked ape you so lovingly reference. It is irrational to assume the unknown is controllable. Sacrificing people and animals does not control or prevent bad events, or the unpredictability of weather. What we do rationally is take reasoned precaution based on past experience. Imagining giant sea serpents as a possible threat stymied exploration of the seas for centuries. We cannot let wild imagination trap us quivering in fear at every dark corner. We must use reason and experience to temper our animal instincts.

No, because we don't know this to be the case. Better to teach them to be honest about what we can and cannot know, than to teach them the arrogance of blind presumption.

And here you have made an error. Whether this is the only live we have, is a conclusion based on available evidence. It is not an arrogant presumption. To imagine an afterlife and insist on its reality is an arrogant blind presumption. Blind because there is no evidence to support the claim. Therefore, it is best to teach children as I have suggested.

No, as we are not all the same. We are all similar, and yet we are all different. We are all clever, and yet we are all profoundly ignorant. We are all of the same 'tribe', and yet we cannot trust that everyone else feels the same way.

And here, the sameness I am referring to is in the sense or your phrase "same tribe". Each individual is uniquely different from every other individual in a million different ways. The inherited animal instinct that drives us to form packs, like wolves and baboons, and drives us to have affinity for pack and exclusion of others, must be acknowledge and overcome. We must strive to teach our children that we are all in the same pack, the same tribe, the same overarching human condition.

 

[MikeF]

So stop playing psychology, unless you include yourself and admit, that you are as subjective as the rest of us.

This is bordering on silly. I expressly, and repeatedly, acknowledge that I am just as limited in perception and reason as every single other person. That is exactly my point. I have been describing how we mitigate these limitations of the individual, to get beyond what you call the "subjective self", and compare and analyze the observation and analytic conclusions of billions of individuals, throughout history. That is how you sort out that which is real as opposed to that which is imaginary. The methods I describe are verifiable and have an incredible track record of success. As a Secular Humanist, I though you would have a basic understanding of this by now.

And for Pete's sake, I have expressly told you not to take my word for it. I have repeatedly suggest to you that you should get out of your head, leave all your classic philosophy on the shelf, and actually learn about how we and the universe works. You need to draw conclusion from all the available information. All that I have described is verifiable, up for discussion and debate, and open to refutation based on the evidence.

You cling to a dead philosophy that is not supported by all the available data. The only thing that is dangerous is holding a belief in spite of evidence to the contrary.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... Not only does it allow us to expand our base of knowledge, it can create personal enjoyment. However, it is not considered real until it is corroborated as real and existent. Imagination is not frivolous, it is just not reality.
...

You really don't get that the bold word is not real and existent as objective and with evidence. That you can consider something real and existent, is subjective in your mind.
You in effect as unreal and not existent in your thoughts in effect for the word consider only the objective real, true and existent. That is your metaphysics, and you don't understand that. You really don't get, when you are subjective, right?
I subjectively consider the subjective real and existent. Just as the objective.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is bordering on silly. I expressly, and repeatedly, acknowledge that I am just as limited in perception and reason as every single other person. That is exactly my point. I have been describing how we mitigate these limitations of the individual, to get beyond what you call the "subjective self", and compare and analyze the observation and analytic conclusions of billions of individuals, throughout history. That is how you sort out that which is real as opposed to that which is imaginary. As a Secular Humanist, I though you would have a basic understanding of this by now

Real is subjective as in effect a belief in you. I don't believe in real like you do. As long as you can't understand that real is not concrete, but imagined and it has no objective referent, then it is indeed silly.
You again don't get your own subjectivity when it comes to your use of real, existent, true and what not. Those are all imagine in your mind.

 

[MikeF]

Real is subjective as in effect a belief in you. I don't believe in real like you do. As long as you can't understand that real is not concrete, but imagined and it has no objective referent, then it is indeed silly.
You again don't get your own subjectivity when it comes to your use of real, existent, true and what not. Those are all imagine in your mind.

I was adding more to my post that you referenced when you posted this. I apologize that it was not complete for your response.

All I can say is we are in agreement on the limits of the individual. But you need to let go of your fixation on the individual and at least consider what I am suggesting to you. Is there value in comparing the observations of all individuals. If one looks at the historical record and compares advancement in knowledge that relies on the conclusions of an individual, and that which relies on comparing the conclusions of everyone, and additionally, continues to reevaluate and question conclusion to ensure their validity, the latter model clearly expands our collective knowledge beyond that attainable by the individual alone.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was adding more to my post that you referenced when you posted this. I apologize that it was not complete for your response.

All I can say is we are in agreement on the limits of the individual. But you need to let go of your fixation on the individual and at least consider what I am suggesting to you. Is there value in comparing the observations of all individuals. If one looks at the historical record and compares advancement in knowledge that relies on the conclusions of an individual, and that which relies on comparing the conclusions of everyone, and additionally, continues to reevaluate and question conclusion to ensure their validity, the latter model clearly expands our collective knowledge beyond that attainable by the individual alone.

Yes, for the bold one. Just that there is subjective value in it in regards to the objective. There is no value in trying to be objective with evidence, if what is going on is subjective.
You can't do this objectively just as science can't:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In effect, you subjectively evaluate the "we" of yours differently than me. I aspect a "we" if relevant. You individually and subjective try to make everything about that "we".
You in effect subjectively believe in another "we" than me. That is it.

 

[MikeF]

Yes, for the bold one. Just that there is subjective value in it in regards to the objective. There is no value in trying to be objective with evidence, if what is going on is subjective.
You can't do this objectively just as science can't:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

In effect, you subjectively evaluate the "we" of yours differently than me. I aspect a "we" if relevant. You individually and subjective try to make everything about that "we".
You in effect subjectively believe in another "we" than me. That is it.

And I have repeated agreed with you that anyone can believe whatever they want to believe about anything. However, simply believing does not make it so. The whole objective is to sort out which beliefs advance our understanding of the human condition and the cosmos in which we reside, and which beliefs stagnate and limit that understanding.

Stating that you believe differently then me, or even everyone if that is the case, still leaves us with the need to evaluate that believe, especially if you promote its adoption by others.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And I have repeated agreed with you that anyone can believe whatever they want to believe about anything. However, simply believing does not make it so. The whole objective is to sort out which beliefs advance our understanding of the human condition and the cosmos in which we reside, and which beliefs stagnate and limit that understanding.

Stating that you believe differently then me, or even everyone if that is the case, still leaves us with the need to evaluate that believe, especially if you promote its adoption by others.

Here is an example of objective versus subjective:
Imagine the following: You could witness the killing of one human by another by the use of a knife. Now imagine you had placed all the scientific instrument you find relevant. Now here is what you couldn't do using the objective. You can't observe if it is right or wrong in a moral sense. There is no observation possible nor any instrument reading, that can decide if it is either right or wrong.
None! So if you believe that it was wrong and you were a member that found it an unlawful murder, that is based on what you believe.
There is a lot of human behavior based on subjectivity including your belief in real, existent and truth as you believe in. That you are unable to understand when you are subjective and not objective, is not my problem, that is your problem.

So to the bone! Say a stone as a piece of rock has an objective referent for the word "stone". Real doesn't. Real is imagined in your mind and no where else. It depends on that you believe in it as you do.

So you want be to believe in real. I test it and find out that it is subjective and choose to believe differently when it comes to real.
Here it is for real: You can't see it as see it, you can't hold it or otherwise engage with it using your body as not your brain. It has no dimensions, color or is not a type of material. It is not concrete and there is no scientific measurement standard for real. Real is an abstract as existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence. You imagine real!!!

I reject your subjective induvial belief that you can speak for a "we" as you do here: The whole objective is to sort out which beliefs advance our understanding of the human condition and the cosmos in which we reside, and which beliefs stagnate and limit that understanding.
You can't speak for other humans, as long as you treat your individual subjectivity as special and that you deny it is subjective.

Science and objectivity don't apply to the total objective of being a human, because you can't use that on the subjective and individual as relevant.
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

That you don't understand that, is your problem!!! You are not a "we"!!!

 

[PureX]

The use of the word imaginary is used in the technical sense to distinguish between that which has high correlation to that which we can determine as real, and that which does not correlate to what can be determined to be real, therefore imaginary.

Yes, but the problem, here, is that "reality" is imagined. It is an abstract conception of what is being created in our brains based on our limited cognitive experience of it. It's not what is, it's what we think what is, is. And what we think what is, is, is certainly and significantly wrong. So that the term "real" refers to a relative and subjective opinion, not to an actual state of being, as you keep trying to imply.

It is irrational to assume the unknown is controllable.

Of course the unknown is uncontrollable if we don't know how to control it. Or how to control ourselves in anticipation of it. But we have to imagine the possibilities, and try them, to learn if and how we can control the unknown.

Sacrificing people and animals does not control or prevent bad events, or the unpredictability of weather. What we do rationally is take reasoned precaution based on past experience. Imagining giant sea serpents as a possible threat stymied exploration of the seas for centuries. We cannot let wild imagination trap us quivering in fear at every dark corner. We must use reason and experience to temper our animal instincts.

This is a very narrow view of how humans use imagination.

Whether this is the only live we have, is a conclusion based on available evidence.

But what you're calling "evidence" is both biased and subjective. Billions of your fellow humans have seen the same "evidence", and come to a different conclusion. Yet you're dismissing theirs in favor of yours based on ... yours.

To imagine an afterlife and insist on its reality is an arrogant blind presumption.

To insist the evidence must be interpreted as you have interpreted it is the blind and arrogant presumption I'm seeing, here.