Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 02:27 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 08:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:17 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Well to get into that would involve getting into the philosophy of language. Whether you think words are significant, labels are significant, or meanings are just described by them. Whether or not there is something more than just agreed conceptions to words or they have an understanding more universal when spoken of.
One of the prominent 20th century philosophers on the subject of language just died a couple days ago. Hiliary Putnam.

How about famous three dimensional triangles in the northeast country of the continent of Africa? How about, the lasting structures of the ancient 7 wonders of the world? ...there are dozens of ways you can describe things. There is also more than one way to DEFINE things. A dictionary definition is just a consideration of how people talk about it, not a marker for what is the defining elements of it.

This goes to what you think the meaning of a thing is.. is it the thing or is it a "description" or "label" and you seem to defer to the "labels" constantly over the essences. In so much that you often wont even describe the label you use at all, such as mine and several others non-understanding of what you mean by cautious
I am making an observation between the accuracy of objective reality vs subjective reality.
I am making a distinction between them.
Essences would fall under objective reality and it would appear they are not subject to change.
Labels fall under subjective reality and it would appear they are subject to change.

Wave lengths resulting from an object can be scientifically tested and the results do not vary based on perception amongst other things. Hence it belongs to objective reality.
The color blue resulting from an object can be scientifically tested but the results vary based on perception. Hence It belongs to subjective reality.

The pyramids of Egypt can be objectively defined but the color blue cannot.

I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

Various peoples perception of the pyramids could be varied as well... even up close "personal experience" with it.

I again am not understanding where the supposed distinctions are in your different concepts. It just doesn't seem that the logic is consistent at all.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:13 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 11:20 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 10:17 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It's also strictly defined as electro-magnetic radiation within a specific range.
Some brains do not perceive it as "blue". That changes nothing.
What are we supposedly changing?

Your diapers.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2016, 05:15 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(22-03-2016 02:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am making an observation between the accuracy of objective reality vs subjective reality.
I am making a distinction between them.
Essences would fall under objective reality and it would appear they are not subject to change.
Labels fall under subjective reality and it would appear they are subject to change.

Wave lengths resulting from an object can be scientifically tested and the results do not vary based on perception amongst other things. Hence it belongs to objective reality.
The color blue resulting from an object can be scientifically tested but the results vary based on perception. Hence It belongs to subjective reality.

The pyramids of Egypt can be objectively defined but the color blue cannot.

I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

Various peoples perception of the pyramids could be varied as well... even up close "personal experience" with it.

I again am not understanding where the supposed distinctions are in your different concepts. It just doesn't seem that the logic is consistent at all.

Which random word in your response will Agnostic Shane choose to focus on next, I wonder, rather than addressing the content of the reply?

Anybody want to make a bet?

At some point I am anticipating pasted Wiki definitions of "a" and "the."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
22-03-2016, 05:38 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(22-03-2016 02:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:38 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am making an observation between the accuracy of objective reality vs subjective reality.
I am making a distinction between them.
Essences would fall under objective reality and it would appear they are not subject to change.
Labels fall under subjective reality and it would appear they are subject to change.

Wave lengths resulting from an object can be scientifically tested and the results do not vary based on perception amongst other things. Hence it belongs to objective reality.
The color blue resulting from an object can be scientifically tested but the results vary based on perception. Hence It belongs to subjective reality.

The pyramids of Egypt can be objectively defined but the color blue cannot.

I maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

Various peoples perception of the pyramids could be varied as well... even up close "personal experience" with it.

I again am not understanding where the supposed distinctions are in your different concepts. It just doesn't seem that the logic is consistent at all.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I did not intend to make a distinction between the Pyramids and the color blue.
This is what I should have wrote:
"The pyramids of Egypt can be objectively defined and the color blue cannot."

I already stated my belief is: my logic is always based on an assumption, because I do not believe in absolutes. I reciprocate assumptions when communicating for the purpose of logical discussion & not to make any claims to truth. These assumptions can be mine or someone else's. If we don't share the same assumption the logic will most likely not reach the same conclusion.
When I speak to someone that says God will forgive my sins I am faced with the choice of assuming many things before attempting to understand the logic of how God can forgive my sins. Such as:
1. God exists
2. Sins exist
3. God can forgive sins
4. Etc.

This is my assumption:
If I am to explain where lies the color blue on the spectrum of reality I must first find something to compare it with. If this assumption does not appeal to you then the remainder of my explanation will not validate my conclusion and I will end up with a statement that is illogical in your eyes.

If you are willing to temporarily accept my assumption for whatever reason then read on:

As pointed out earlier the frequency of a wave helps determine it's color, but it is not the only thing required to define the color. This is another assumption based on the definition of the word color. The definition requires both frequency and also intensity based on the observing eye in order to determine what color the eye sees. The results vary based on the observing eye.
If you do not agree with the above assumptions then the logic will not follow.

Communication requires assumptions as to the meaning of words. If we don't share the same meaning we will most likely not share the same understanding & the process of communication breaks down.
In every sentence lies the assumption that the listener understands the words we are saying clearly, but it is not necessarily the case.

It is quite possible my understanding of subjective and objective reality does not share the same understanding you have of objective and subjective reality and thus you are unable to accept my explanation.

I assume that color is lower on the spectrum of true reality than waves and thus is more likely to be an illusion than waves. I could be wrong.
I do not assume that waves are on the highest end of the spectrum of true reality but I still assume it is higher on the spectrum of reality than color, thus closer to truth & further from false than color. I could be wrong.

As for the statement "the pyramids can be objectively defined"

If the Pyramids are described with (assumed) subjective words, like color, it will be lower on the spectrum of true reality than a pyramid that is described with (assumed) objective words like waves. This is my assumption and as always, I could be wrong.

Thus it "can be" objectively define by not using subjective words. Also another assumption.

The choice is yours to agree with my assumptions or not.

I would like you to consider that , even I, don't fully believe my assumption is absolutely true, although I still believe it is closer on the spectrum of truth than any other explanation I could come up with.

You would be justified in stating I am wrong if you come up with an better explanation of the subjective/objective nature of the color blue.

It is your logic I seek and not an absolute truth.
It is possible this is not normal for people, but I never said I was normal.

Absolute truth is an illusion, but i maintain the fact that I could be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:57 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(22-03-2016 05:38 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 02:27 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Various peoples perception of the pyramids could be varied as well... even up close "personal experience" with it.

I again am not understanding where the supposed distinctions are in your different concepts. It just doesn't seem that the logic is consistent at all.
My apologies for the misunderstanding.
I did not intend to make a distinction between the Pyramids and the color blue.
This is what I should have wrote:
"The pyramids of Egypt can be objectively defined and the color blue cannot."

I already stated my belief is: my logic is always based on an assumption, because I do not believe in absolutes. I reciprocate assumptions when communicating for the purpose of logical discussion & not to make any claims to truth. These assumptions can be mine or someone else's. If we don't share the same assumption the logic will most likely not reach the same conclusion.
When I speak to someone that says God will forgive my sins I am faced with the choice of assuming many things before attempting to understand the logic of how God can forgive my sins. Such as:
1. God exists
2. Sins exist
3. God can forgive sins
4. Etc.

This is my assumption:
If I am to explain where lies the color blue on the spectrum of reality I must first find something to compare it with. If this assumption does not appeal to you then the remainder of my explanation will not validate my conclusion and I will end up with a statement that is illogical in your eyes.

If you are willing to temporarily accept my assumption for whatever reason then read on:

As pointed out earlier the frequency of a wave helps determine it's color, but it is not the only thing required to define the color. This is another assumption based on the definition of the word color. The definition requires both frequency and also intensity based on the observing eye in order to determine what color the eye sees. The results vary based on the observing eye.
If you do not agree with the above assumptions then the logic will not follow.

Communication requires assumptions as to the meaning of words. If we don't share the same meaning we will most likely not share the same understanding & the process of communication breaks down.
In every sentence lies the assumption that the listener understands the words we are saying clearly, but it is not necessarily the case.

It is quite possible my understanding of subjective and objective reality does not share the same understanding you have of objective and subjective reality and thus you are unable to accept my explanation.

I assume that color is lower on the spectrum of true reality than waves and thus is more likely to be an illusion than waves. I could be wrong.
I do not assume that waves are on the highest end of the spectrum of true reality but I still assume it is higher on the spectrum of reality than color, thus closer to truth & further from false than color. I could be wrong.

As for the statement "the pyramids can be objectively defined"

If the Pyramids are described with (assumed) subjective words, like color, it will be lower on the spectrum of true reality than a pyramid that is described with (assumed) objective words like waves. This is my assumption and as always, I could be wrong.

Thus it "can be" objectively define by not using subjective words. Also another assumption.

The choice is yours to agree with my assumptions or not.

I would like you to consider that , even I, don't fully believe my assumption is absolutely true, although I still believe it is closer on the spectrum of truth than any other explanation I could come up with.

You would be justified in stating I am wrong if you come up with an better explanation of the subjective/objective nature of the color blue.

It is your logic I seek and not an absolute truth.
It is possible this is not normal for people, but I never said I was normal.

Absolute truth is an illusion, but i maintain the fact that I could be wrong.

Like I was saying with this becoming philosophical theory of language territory.

What defines the plot blue? The descriptions of it? The label people use? The scientific understanding of what created the essence..or something else?

I'm just not sure why there's this contrast to where a color lies in description vs objects like a pyramid. Where shapes, directions, wavelengths of light, and such. They seem both questionable on the same grounds to me

I'm not sure absolute truth is an illusion. Seems closely absolute to say it is. Makes me think of Obi Wan when he shouts back at Anakin that "only a sith deals in absolutes" and that just sounds quite foolish.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:03 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(22-03-2016 05:57 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Like I was saying with this becoming philosophical theory of language territory.

What defines the plot blue? The descriptions of it? The label people use? The scientific understanding of what created the essence..or something else?

I'm just not sure why there's this contrast to where a color lies in description vs objects like a pyramid. Where shapes, directions, wavelengths of light, and such. They seem both questionable on the same grounds to me

I'm not sure absolute truth is an illusion. Seems closely absolute to say it is. Makes me think of Obi Wan when he shouts back at Anakin that "only a sith deals in absolutes" and that just sounds quite foolish.

The problem is that 'A' pyramid is something which comes out of geometry.. which comes from mathematics. I.E. the shape that is a pyramid.

So... 'A' pyramid is not really subjective.

'The' Pyramids are party kind of an extension of that. The piles of stone are a particular shape, hence they 'are' pyramids because geometry 'Is' that shape.

Similarly, as other have pointed out, what the 'colour' blue is is more determined by the spectrum of the electromagnetic wave length that is being measured more than the particular label I.E. 'Blue' that's being applied to that part.

I believe some one even gave a rough figure from memory of what the wave length's measurement was.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 08:06 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(21-03-2016 09:49 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 08:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  The perception of the color is not the color. The range labelled as 'blue' is definitional, not subjective.
Links?
Any supporting evidence?
Where is the logic behind your claim?

What people call 'blue' is simply a label for a range of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation.

You are confused between perception and the objective reality.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Chas's post
22-03-2016, 03:53 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
It's more than obvious that Shane has no real understanding of the propagation and/or perception of the electromagnetic radiation we call visible light. The endless nonsense about the colour blue being subjective or objective or whatever proves this. And he certainly confirms the old adage that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing". In spades. Big Grin

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
22-03-2016, 05:17 PM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Blue...



Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
23-03-2016, 06:39 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
SmileSmileSmileSmileSmileSmile


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: