Apples and Oranges
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-04-2012, 01:30 AM (This post was last modified: 26-04-2012 01:43 AM by wtfbbq.)
RE: Apples and Oranges
(26-04-2012 01:04 AM)nach_in Wrote:  this can be extrapolated to a lot of things, but shapes are complicated, when we describe a shape it has a quantifiable amount of angles in your example, so it would be hard for someone else to perceive a square as a triangle without having problems, because he would have an extra angle
Where would the extra angle come from? Maybe this might clarify:

Lets assume you and I have the same experience of a triangle. Call this experience (T1). When you and I describe T1, we use certain terms to describe the sides: they're straight, there's 3 of them, and they meet in 3 places. Likewise, we experience S1 when we imagine squares.

Now suppose Bubba experiences S1 in every situation in which we experience T1. When Bubba describes S1, he describes what we describe when we see T1. That is, he uses these terms: they're straight, there's 3 of them, and they meet in 3 places. But he actually experiences S1; he just has no way of knowing that we would only experiencing S1 when we see a square.

Think of it this way: Suppose you have 2 identical computers running identical operating systems with a say, 8 bit hard drive (The OS magically takes 0 space). The physical memory spaces are [0, 1, .... 7]. However, one of the computers was broken so that it accesses memory backwards, so that whenever a program running on it calls for accessing the nth space, it accesses the nth from the end (it's treating it as being [7, 6, ... 0]). These computers would act identically to each other from any outside input/output perspective.

(26-04-2012 01:15 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Okay I do understand where you're going with this. We cannot see what they see so how do we know what they saw they did actually see when we didn't see what they saw.
BUT, if you say you saw a rainbow colored unicorn yesterday on the way to work I can be 100% guaranteed that you are full of crap. a) because we know for certain that unicorns don't exists and b) everybody knows unicorns are white.
See what I'm saying?
And no "but you don't know for sure he didn't see a unicorn because you didn't see what he saw", because I don't need too. He was either high as a kite (most likely situation) or he was full of crap. And because we know there is no such thing as a rainbow colored unicorn we can safely lock him away in a foam covered room.
Well, he could have seen a diseased rhino; not knowing that a rhino's distinct from a unicorn doesn't make him insane. And if this is the case, what would that make us be for condemning him without caring enough to even figure out what made him think he saw a unicorn?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 01:41 AM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(26-04-2012 01:30 AM)wtfbbq Wrote:  
(26-04-2012 01:04 AM)nach_in Wrote:  this can be extrapolated to a lot of things, but shapes are complicated, when we describe a shape it has a quantifiable amount of angles in your example, so it would be hard for someone else to perceive a square as a triangle without having problems, because he would have an extra angle
Where would the extra angle come from? Maybe this might clarify:

Lets assume you and I have the same experience of a triangle. Call this experience (T1). When you and I describe T1, we use certain terms to describe the sides: they're straight, there's 3 of them, and they meet in 3 places. Likewise, we experience S1 when we imagine squares.

Now suppose Bubba experiences S1 in every situation in which we experience T1. When Bubba describes S1, he describes what we describe when we see T1. That is, he uses these terms: they're straight, there's 3 of them, and they meet in 3 places. But he actually experiences S1; he just has no way of knowing that we would only experiencing S1 when we see a square.

Think of it this way: Suppose you have 2 identical computers running identical operating systems with a say, 8 bit hard drive (The OS magically takes 0 space). The physical memory spaces are [0, 1, .... 7]. However, one of the computers was broken so that it accesses memory backwards, so that whenever a program running on it calls for accessing the nth space, it accesses the nth from the end (it's treating it as being [7, 6, ... 0]). These computers would act identically to each other from any outside input/output perspective.



(26-04-2012 01:15 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Okay I do understand where you're going with this. We cannot see what they see so how do we know what they saw they did actually see when we didn't see what they saw.
Well, no, we're talking about qualia right now so we can agree with Quine that everything's a myth. That's a bit of a ways off though. We diverged a bit from the original posting which had to do with making sure that we're talking about the same thing in the first place. We should have asked how we even know about qualia in the first place if we wanted to get right to the point, but uh, meh. I'll leave that for you to think about next week when I'm not online.
that's why we need the peer review system, as there's no fundamental law or enough reason for everyone to perceive the same things, but for some reason we do, we all perceive triangles as T1 and squares as S1, more than that that's how we define them, so we can acquire knowledge from our inter-subjective experience, we consider scientific knowledge to be everything that can be proved to others always using the same terms, that way what we perceive as our external reality (anything outside our minds) is consistent with what others perceive no matter how each other perceive it, and when someone says that he perceives things in a different way referring to the same things (T1 as S1) then we say he's wrong in a scientific way, hence is not true for everyone, it may very well be true for them (that's why we have freedom of religion, maybe someone actually is hearing god) but if they cannot prove it then they cannot claim is an objective true, in the best case it's only a subjective perception.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 01:53 AM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(26-04-2012 01:41 AM)nach_in Wrote:  that's why we need the peer review system, as there's no fundamental law or enough reason for everyone to perceive the same things, but for some reason we do, we all perceive triangles as T1 and squares as S1, more than that that's how we define them, so we can acquire knowledge from our inter-subjective experience, we consider scientific knowledge to be everything that can be proved to others always using the same terms, that way what we perceive as our external reality (anything outside our minds) is consistent with what others perceive no matter how each other perceive it, and when someone says that he perceives things in a different way referring to the same things (T1 as S1) then we say he's wrong in a scientific way, hence is not true for everyone, it may very well be true for them (that's why we have freedom of religion, maybe someone actually is hearing god) but if they cannot prove it then they cannot claim is an objective true, in the best case it's only a subjective perception.
This makes me sleepy, im going to bed. Plane in morning. Will check to see if anyone figured this out next week or so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 07:55 AM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(25-04-2012 08:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 01:07 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  11) I don't want to go into the long drawn out story of my conversation. I didn't believe in God, and in an instant, that all changed... nothing drastic happened - no life altering event - just God changing my heart and who I was. I didn't understand who this "God" was until I read certain parts of the Bible.
That's cheating isn't it? "certain parts of the bible". I was under the impression it was accept the whole thing, that includes a giant flood, a giant, human kind is just on one big time out after eating an apple etc..., or go home sort of book.
Well no, you misunderstand. I was trying to find a reason as to why I converted and started believing in a God by no choice of my own. I searched other religions and couldn't find the answer. It wasn't until I read parts of the New Testament that explained the concept of predestination to me. It's not that I'm picking and choosing parts of the Bible, it's that I used parts of the Bible to explain what had happened to me.

And Erxomai, I don't don't gymnastics. My interpretations are very grounded, logical, and reconciled.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 10:32 AM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(26-04-2012 07:55 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(25-04-2012 08:17 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  That's cheating isn't it? "certain parts of the bible". I was under the impression it was accept the whole thing, that includes a giant flood, a giant, human kind is just on one big time out after eating an apple etc..., or go home sort of book.
Well no, you misunderstand. I was trying to find a reason as to why I converted and started believing in a God by no choice of my own. I searched other religions and couldn't find the answer. It wasn't until I read parts of the New Testament that explained the concept of predestination to me. It's not that I'm picking and choosing parts of the Bible, it's that I used parts of the Bible to explain what had happened to me.

And Erxomai, I don't don't gymnastics. My interpretations are very grounded, logical, and reconciled.
When you don't take something at face value, then you're playing with the text. You can call it "reconciled" if that makes you feel better, but (without pointing to a specific example of what I mean) that's not what the text says. And a 1,000 other Christians will claim their variant views are very grounded, logical, and reconciled. Calling something so doesn't make it so.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 10:43 AM
RE: Apples and Oranges
This something I never understood and would also like more clarification on. Who gets to say what is metaphor and what isn't when following the bible? The bible doesn't have footnotes telling you what is and is not litteral.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 11:22 AM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(26-04-2012 10:43 AM)arbmouser Wrote:  This something I never understood and would also like more clarification on. Who gets to say what is metaphor and what isn't when following the bible? The bible doesn't have footnotes telling you what is and is not litteral.
KC will be happy to fill you in. Big Grin

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 01:22 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Konichiwa, bitches!

Bucky Wrote:More and more, I also have become aware of how many "fence sitters" there probably really are out there, reading our stuff.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the prevailing notion around here that only Theists that have taken a position on God and Atheists that have taken a position of God are worth anything and that everyone else, the so-called "fence sitters" are human shit.

Fuck your apples and oranges. There's pears too y'know. And kiwis. And even the odd kumquat!!!

---

Bravo KC and wtfbbq. Good conversation.

Sup, KC?

As a cultural relativist, I feel your frustration.

PEARS OF THE WORLD UNITE AGAINST THE APPLE-ORANGE OVERLORDS!!!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-04-2012, 01:27 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
(26-04-2012 01:22 PM)Ghost Wrote:  AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Konichiwa, bitches!

Bucky Wrote:More and more, I also have become aware of how many "fence sitters" there probably really are out there, reading our stuff.

I'm sick and fucking tired of the prevailing notion around here that only Theists that have taken a position on God and Atheists that have taken a position of God are worth anything and that everyone else, the so-called "fence sitters" are human shit.

Fuck your apples and oranges. There's pears too y'know. And kiwis. And even the odd kumquat!!!

---

Bravo KC and wtfbbq. Good conversation.

Sup, KC?

As a cultural relativist, I feel your frustration.

PEARS OF THE WORLD UNITE AGAINST THE APPLE-ORANGE OVERLORDS!!!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Konichiwa, Ghost...

Agnostics aren't human shit...they're just a little more educated than Theists and less enlightened than Atheists.

Although an occasional pear can be a tasty snack.
Big Grin

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
26-04-2012, 04:51 PM
RE: Apples and Oranges
no honest atheist is completely an atheist, as asserting there is no god is a faithful claim. A very strong agnostic (I don't know but I don't find anything that indicates a god) is as far as anyone can go without being incoherent.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: