Is belief in the unseen irrational?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-03-2016, 10:32 PM (This post was last modified: 25-03-2016 10:42 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 10:25 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 10:06 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Get ready fool.


blue
[bloo]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
the pure color of a clear sky; the primary color between green and violet in the visible spectrum, an effect of light with a wavelength between 450 and 500 nm.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blue

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...glish/blue
NOUN

1Blue color or pigment:
she was dressed in blue
the dark blue of his eyes
armchairs in pastel blues and greens
More example sentences
1.1Blue clothes or material:
Susan wore blue
More example sentences
1.2 (usually Blue) The Union army in the Civil War, or a member of that army.
Because Union soldiers wore blue uniforms
1.3 another term for bluing.
Example sentences
1.4A blue ball, piece, etc., in a game or sport.
Example sentences
1.5 (the blue) literary The sky or sea; the unknown:
a lark went trilling up, up into the blue






I'm speaking about the color blue, not the word blue.
Ideas are also nouns but they don't exist in objective reality.
Words are also nouns but they don't exist in objective reality.
Only things can exist in objective reality

Still you did find it in the dictionary although totally out of context so:
"I'm an idiot" for not specifying the color blue

Wrong again. Words exist in objective reality.

Real ALL the definitions. It says "the effect" etc. I know you know no science, but that means a sensory experience. A specific one.

The color blue is a word which specifies a specific sensory experience (which can be seen on imaging studies) that normal (YOU used the word "normal" so guess what ? YOU must accept its use), eyes see when light in a specific range strike the retina.

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
26-03-2016, 04:17 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
This wouldn't be ongoing if Shane didn't have some constant attachments to labels being significant. Or just like them or whatever it is. When a person goes out asking to be labeled and talks of them so rigidly it's going to be a thing others can notice about someone.

What the labeling of blue isn't significant. If it was grue or bleen and T hasn't happened yet for 1 person looking at a bleen object but has for another looking at a bleen object is that blue?

You want to talk about it, get into the philosophy of it then. Go to that riddle of induction or read philosophy of language and define what you think makes a word or a label what it is.

To say, no that view of that label is argument ad populum... then what the Faulkner do you think a word meaning or label is defined by? Are you believing or pushing for openness in there being a inherent or significant meaning in a word beyond what it agreed to called?

Blue is seemingly defined by most here as the wavelength of 450-500. If they in mass around decided to change the label to green, grue, farfuntile, etc. It wouldn't make it any less 450-500 wavelength. It's just now under a different word because words are labels for creating agreed understandings.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-03-2016, 04:32 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2016 04:58 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(25-03-2016 10:32 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-03-2016 10:25 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm speaking about the color blue, not the word blue.
Ideas are also nouns but they don't exist in objective reality.
Words are also nouns but they don't exist in objective reality.
Only things can exist in objective reality

Still you did find it in the dictionary although totally out of context so:
"I'm an idiot" for not specifying the color blue

Wrong again. Words exist in objective reality.

Real ALL the definitions. It says "the effect" etc. I know you know no science, but that means a sensory experience. A specific one.

The color blue is a word which specifies a specific sensory experience (which can be seen on imaging studies) that normal (YOU used the word "normal" so guess what ? YOU must accept its use), eyes see when light in a specific range strike the retina.
It's a feeling, a subjectively abstract concept. You are claiming perception is objective. There is a clear distinction.
The concepts of colors, bitterness, loudness, hardness, smelliness, love, hate, anger are all feelings.
Feelings can only be proven based on human emotions which makes it subjective.

No one is saying that feelings don't exist.
I am saying they fall under the category of subjective and not objective.

You are continuously doing this:
You say it can be proven to exist by examining the subjective human thought process and that makes it objective.

The problem is if I use this logic there is no difference between subjective things and objective things.
Name one example of a subjective thing that can't be objective using your own logic.

If the only way for you to prove that something exists is by examining human perception then it is automatically subjective in nature.
Please stop trying to prove objective reality by using subjective evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2016, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2016 05:32 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 04:17 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Blue is seemingly defined by most here as the wavelength of 450-500. If they in mass around decided to change the label to green, grue, farfuntile, etc. It wouldn't make it any less 450-500 wavelength. It's just now under a different word because words are labels for creating agreed understandings.
But it would make their description of 450-500 wavelength as, blue, green, grue, fsrfuntile, etc subjective.
Bucky is saying: No, it makes their description objective as well & I am objecting to that because of the definition of objective and subjective.

I am not objecting to the use of the label, I am objecting to the use of a subjective label by someone that thinks we should not use subjective labels. If he isn't objecting to subjective labels then i have no objections, but why then is he objecting to the subjective label of God?

450-500 wavelength is objective
If a description of that wavelength is variable then "the description" is subjective & it is not "the wavelength" that is subjective.

If we want to only believe in objective things and want people to only speak about objective things then why would we believe and speak about subjective things?
To keep this world view consistent we should never refer to 450-500 wavelength as blue, but rather we should refer to 450-500 wavelength as "450-500 wavelength"
If our expressed world view does not match our explanation it gives the appearance of hypocrisy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2016, 05:48 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 05:19 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To keep this world view consistent we should never refer to 450-500 wavelength as blue, but rather we should refer to 450-500 wavelength as "450-500 wavelength"
If our expressed world view does not match our explanation it gives the appearance of hypocrisy.

I don't grasp anyway your reasoning for this... just more false barriered distinctions that I don't see any actual distinction about you seem to think there is.

The description using wavelength number ranges is still using symbols, labels, and concepts to communicate something the same exact way "blue" does.

"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
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
26-03-2016, 05:49 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 05:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(26-03-2016 05:19 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To keep this world view consistent we should never refer to 450-500 wavelength as blue, but rather we should refer to 450-500 wavelength as "450-500 wavelength"
If our expressed world view does not match our explanation it gives the appearance of hypocrisy.

I don't grasp anyway your reasoning for this... just more false barriered distinctions that I don't see any actual distinction about you seem to think there is.

The description using wavelength number ranges is still using symbols, labels, and concepts to communicate something the same exact way "blue" does.

Clyde. A fool has more questions than a professor has answers.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2016, 06:41 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 05:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(26-03-2016 05:19 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To keep this world view consistent we should never refer to 450-500 wavelength as blue, but rather we should refer to 450-500 wavelength as "450-500 wavelength"
If our expressed world view does not match our explanation it gives the appearance of hypocrisy.

I don't grasp anyway your reasoning for this... just more false barriered distinctions that I don't see any actual distinction about you seem to think there is.

The description using wavelength number ranges is still using symbols, labels, and concepts to communicate something the same exact way "blue" does.
In that case subjectivity would supercede objectivity, since there is no way to describe a thing without the use of subjective words.
This is another type of world view that is based on the assumption that all things are subjective.

This is where you keep making the mistake: "your reasoning for this". It's not "my reasoning"
I have no reasoning of my own. I don't believe in truths or conclusions. I assume the reasoning of others and follow the logic to see if I can arrive at the same conclusion.

It would appear that Bucky believes objective and subjective reality are distinct concepts. This is his base premise. For the purpose of logical discussion I accept his belief and I follow the logic all the way to the conclusion.
The logic began to show inconsistencies when we arrived at belief in descriptive words.

It would appear that there is no distinction between objective and subjective reality because they are both rooted in perception. This further adds to my world view of unchainty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2016, 06:43 AM
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 05:49 AM)Banjo Wrote:  
(26-03-2016 05:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't grasp anyway your reasoning for this... just more false barriered distinctions that I don't see any actual distinction about you seem to think there is.

The description using wavelength number ranges is still using symbols, labels, and concepts to communicate something the same exact way "blue" does.

Clyde. A fool has more questions than a professor has answers.
A fool is he who believes the professor has all the answers to all the possible questions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-03-2016, 07:50 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2016 07:55 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 06:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(26-03-2016 05:48 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  I don't grasp anyway your reasoning for this... just more false barriered distinctions that I don't see any actual distinction about you seem to think there is.

The description using wavelength number ranges is still using symbols, labels, and concepts to communicate something the same exact way "blue" does.
In that case subjectivity would supercede objectivity, since there is no way to describe a thing without the use of subjective words.
This is another type of world view that is based on the assumption that all things are subjective.

This is where you keep making the mistake: "your reasoning for this". It's not "my reasoning"
I have no reasoning of my own. I don't believe in truths or conclusions. I assume the reasoning of others and follow the logic to see if I can arrive at the same conclusion.

It would appear that Bucky believes objective and subjective reality are distinct concepts. This is his base premise. For the purpose of logical discussion I accept his belief and I follow the logic all the way to the conclusion.
The logic began to show inconsistencies when we arrived at belief in descriptive words.

It would appear that there is no distinction between objective and subjective reality because they are both rooted in perception. This further adds to my world view of unchainty.

That's what I am talking about when I say YOUR reasoning... I've done this 3 or so times to this same response and tried to say it clearer. I'm criticizing the presumptions you are making to indicate that this is what is thought and this is what is accepted, etc.

I don't know why you willingly assume things all the time. That is the idea thats contrasting to everything else you seem to indicate. You go on about your skeptical approach to not accept things then you make abundant assumptions... or you go around to desire labels. Then there is plenty of things you do and say that don't at all confirm to your claims.

Either way, a label is just a label. It's an idea agreed upon for it to mean anything to you otherwise if I say I have a tycublite it doesn't mean much of anything.So there is no thing such as an argument of popularity here... that's how words & labels work. You do like to quote the dictionary definitions a lot but those aren't arbiters of truth of a word.

"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
[+] 2 users Like ClydeLee's post
26-03-2016, 11:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-03-2016 11:47 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Is belief in the unseen irrational?
(26-03-2016 07:50 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(26-03-2016 06:41 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  In that case subjectivity would supercede objectivity, since there is no way to describe a thing without the use of subjective words.
This is another type of world view that is based on the assumption that all things are subjective.

This is where you keep making the mistake: "your reasoning for this". It's not "my reasoning"
I have no reasoning of my own. I don't believe in truths or conclusions. I assume the reasoning of others and follow the logic to see if I can arrive at the same conclusion.

It would appear that Bucky believes objective and subjective reality are distinct concepts. This is his base premise. For the purpose of logical discussion I accept his belief and I follow the logic all the way to the conclusion.
The logic began to show inconsistencies when we arrived at belief in descriptive words.

It would appear that there is no distinction between objective and subjective reality because they are both rooted in perception. This further adds to my world view of unchainty.

That's what I am talking about when I say YOUR reasoning... I've done this 3 or so times to this same response and tried to say it clearer. I'm criticizing the presumptions you are making to indicate that this is what is thought and this is what is accepted, etc.

I don't know why you willingly assume things all the time. That is the idea thats contrasting to everything else you seem to indicate. You go on about your skeptical approach to not accept things then you make abundant assumptions... or you go around to desire labels. Then there is plenty of things you do and say that don't at all confirm to your claims.

Either way, a label is just a label. It's an idea agreed upon for it to mean anything to you otherwise if I say I have a tycublite it doesn't mean much of anything.So there is no thing such as an argument of popularity here... that's how words & labels work. You do like to quote the dictionary definitions a lot but those aren't arbiters of truth of a word.
Why should I accept anything? I don't really believe in anything. I am an extreme skeptic & no my uncertainty does not necessarily affect my life decisions because it could just as likely be instinctive decisions and not cognitive ones.
I desire to communicate. To do this I have to assume, but not necessarily believe what people say are true.
If a prerequisite for me to communicate is that I must believe what certain people say are true then certain people need not communicate with me.

It didn't choose to not believe in anything. I am simply stating that I don't believe in absolute truths.

If I don't know it's because I just don't know.

It would appear people are opposed to people that do not share their beliefs, but that is not a good reason for me to dishonestly change my stance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: