What is Your Disbelief?

[Tomef]

Now if you can show with evidence that all of the everyday world is objective,

How would you address that question:

1) Scientifically
2) Philosophically
3) Religiously

Are you claiming that your approach in all 3 instances would be the same?

What difference do you think it would make if the world is not ‘objectively real’ in how you applied the 3 approaches?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Mikkel, the answer to what’s different between one thing and another isn’t ’are they real?’. That has nothing to do with the question.

No, it is if the process is objective, inter-subjective or subjective. And to understand the limit of even science as well as religion and philosophy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How would you address that question:

1) Scientifically
2) Philosophically
3) Religiously

Are you claiming that your approach in all 3 instances would be the same?

What difference do you think it would make if the world is not ‘objectively real’ in how you applied the 3 approaches?

I differentiate and use different assumptions for the objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
I use science as relevant just as the 2 other ones.

As for real, that is philosophy as I do it and I solved that with my religious belief that objective reality is in a non-personal way real, fair, orderly and knowable.

 

[Tomef]

The bold one is a first person subjective evalution without evidence.

No, it isn’t. You appear to think the only possible categories are subjective and not objective in some absolute sense. That isn’t the case at all. Experience is a very reliable measure, that it cannot 100% prove anything is in itself as close as you can get to objective. If I drop a heavy weight on my foot every 5 minutes in the expectation that on one of the drops it will miraculously heal my foot instead of crushing it, that would be daft. I mean, maybe, it’s possible, afaik that some multi-dimensional god being or some other divine creature might decide to intervene and make that happen, but I’d be pretty stupid - with my experience being the yardstick - to rely on that. That is no different to imagining that because someone wrote a book with gods in it then those gods just exist. Whether or not my experience of crushing my foot corresponds to something objectively real, ot a digital simulation, ot anything else, has nothing to do with it.

 

[Tomef]

No, it is if the process is objective, inter-subjective or subjective. And to understand the limit of even science as well as religion and philosophy.

Those are different questions. That’s your issue, you’re not understanding that questions about the ultimate reality of the universe are different to questions about how things differ from one another within that universe. What is the difference between a moon and a planet? How do you know? In terms of how you understand the difference, how would that change if they were physical objects or a projection of your mind?

 

[Tomef]

I differentiate and use different assumptions for the objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
I use science as relevant just as the 2 other ones.

You’re not answering the question. How would your approach in each instance be different, and why?

 

[Tomef]

I differentiate and use different assumptions for the objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
I use science as relevant just as the 2 other ones.

As for real, that is philosophy as I do it and I solved that with my religious belief that objective reality is in a non-personal way real, fair, orderly and knowable.

A better question, but one you wouldn’t answer when I asked you several times before , is this. What is the difference between 1 and 2 below, and how do you know what that difference is?

1) The cat sat on the mat

2) heiwiijbrbbbfbfbjdjfkfkdbndbdndnd

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those are different questions. That’s your issue, you’re not understanding that questions about the ultimate reality of the universe are different to questions about how things differ from one another within that universe. What is the difference between a moon and a planet? How do you know? In terms of how you understand the difference, how would that change if they were physical objects or a projection of your mind?

Well, you use a different cognitve schemata than me.
But in effect if there are no difference for the 2 cases, then you use coherence in your reasoning and not correspondence. Because for the one of them there are no physical things.
So the difference is in effect between 2 universes. Boltzmann Brain and not so.

So are your understanding in the end internal and there is no difference as at between between naturalism and solipsism? Is that it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A better question, but one you wouldn’t answer when I asked you several times before , is this. What is the difference between 1 and 2 below, and how do you know what that difference is?

1) The cat sat on the mat

2) heiwiijbrbbbfbfbjdjfkfkdbndbdndnd

The one assumues knowledge of in effect objective reality. The other is a string of letters without any meaning to me.
And I know this in my mind, because it makes different sense to me.

 

[Tomef]

The one assumues knowledge of in effect objective reality. The other is a string of letters without any meaning to me.
And I know this in my mind, because it makes different sense to me.

That’s a pretty evasive answer.

Why does it make difference sense to you? On what basis?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That’s a pretty evasive answer.

Why does it make difference sense to you? On what basis?

It makes different sense because it maps different to different past experinces and cognition.

The first one I treat as a claim about in the end a part of objective reality. The other one is an internal cognitive process of understanding signs as their meaning and not referent.

 

[Tomef]

understanding signs as their meaning

Meaning based on what?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Meaning based on what?

Well, as far as I can tell, meaning is tied to first person cognition and/or emotions.
For a sign it has a meannig and a referent.

Here are some different signs with different meanings from some of your posts:
"But imagining that being would just happen to correspond to one of the fictional gods humans have created is daft."
"The cat sat on the mat"
"heiwiijbrbbbfbfbjdjfkfkdbndbdndnd"

Now according to your model and example the last one is meaningless and the 2 other ones are the same as they are both about an objective state of physical objects and the properties, right?

So "... is daft" is the property of an objectively independent physical object, right? The world is either meaningfull in only one sense as per science and your other examples or meaningless as per "heiwiijbrbbbfbfbjdjfkfkdbndbdndnd".

 

[Tomef]

they are both about an objective state of physical objects and the properties, right?

No, where do you get that idea from? Are you telling me here that you are literally unable to separate this notion about things being objectively real from different questions?

 

[Tomef]

Well, as far as I can tell, meaning is tied to first person cognition and/or emotions.
For a sign it has a meannig and a referent.

Here are some different signs with different meanings from some of your posts:
"But imagining that being would just happen to correspond to one of the fictional gods humans have created is daft."
"The cat sat on the mat"
"heiwiijbrbbbfbfbjdjfkfkdbndbdndnd"

Now according to your model and example the last one is meaningless and the 2 other ones are the same as they are both about an objective state of physical objects and the properties, right?

So "... is daft" is the property of an objectively independent physical object, right? The world is either meaningfull in only one sense as per science and your other examples or meaningless as per "heiwiijbrbbbfbfbjdjfkfkdbndbdndnd".

Just try and answer the questions.

1 is a sentence. As defined for English, that means it has at minimum a subject and a verb, explicit or otherwise. The words are formed using letters in a particular arrangement. In short, we recognise it as a sentence because we are familiar with the symbols and their arrangement, and the rules by which that arrangement functions.

Now, given enough time, resources, and simulated (or not simulated) people/brains to work with, with all the assistance you need from linguists and other relevant specialists, could you create a fully functioning language for use in a video game?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, where do you get that idea from? Are you telling me here that you are literally unable to separate this notion about things being objectively real from different questions?

No, but I can't see difference as objective in the end. So I have a world view who is not just made up of empirical facts.

Just try and answer the questions.

1 is a sentence. As defined for English, that means it has at minimum a subject and a verb, explicit or otherwise. The words are formed using letters in a particular arrangement. In short, we recognise it as a sentence because we are familiar with the symbols and their arrangement, and the rules by which that arrangement functions.

Now, given enough time, resources, and simulated (or not simulated) people/brains to work with, with all the assistance you need from linguists and other relevant specialists, could you create a fully functioning language for use in a video game?

Yeah, now please state the referents of cat versus daft and how you know these 2? I don't what their meaning or defintion. I want their referent.

 

[Tomef]

No, but I can't see difference as objective in the end. So I have a world view who is not just made up of empirical facts.

Who does? You seem to be utterly confused over this distinction. Not every comparison involves ‘empirical facts’ and ‘not empirical facts’.

 

[Tomef]

No, but I can't see difference as objective in the end. So I have a world view who is not just made up of empirical facts.


Yeah, now please state the referents of cat versus daft and how you know these 2? I don't what their meaning or defintion. I want their referent.

Just answer the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Just answer the question.

No, you frame it in a certain way. In the end I understand religion differently than you.

Who does? You seem to be utterly confused over this distinction. Not every comparison involves ‘empirical facts’ and ‘not empirical facts’.

My point is that nobody do their life only using science. And that you understand religion differently than me, can't be setlled using science.
In the end it(religion) as a description of human behavior can't be used in end strong objective sense as it is different personal ways of understanding.

So the cat sat on the mat is a fact. That religion is supernatural is not a fact.
That is all.
And words are signs, have inter-subjective meanings and have referents. But not all referents are indepedent of thoughts and feelings in brains.

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

I think that the one common interfaith disbelief is that there is no coincidence.