Poll: after life or oblivion
Oblivion duh
Reincarnation as human only
Resurrection only
I would be a ghost trolling humans
Reincarnation Hindu or Buddhist style
I dont know
heaven or hell and then resurrection
other
[Show Results]
 
afterlife or oblivion ?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-03-2016, 08:37 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 08:30 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 07:21 PM)Banjo Wrote:  Is Nagoda a sock puppet?

No I am quite real. Cando musos is a wonderful site, I'm on there myself. There's no need for insult or denigration.

It's just you remind me of another. That's all.

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
31-03-2016, 08:50 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you are arguing that objective means that there is something there that exists, I'll grant you that, and I'll recant my previous statement and modify it to this: we cannot speak of an objective reality beyond the fact that things exist.

...and that these things exhibit certain quantifiable, objectively verifiable qualities.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  What is real is based how we experience those things.

No. Real things are real regardless of how you experience them.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  That's what I'm asking here- if we can't determine what objective reality looks like, then we can't speak of it beyond the fact that it exists, but we don't know what "it" really is.

This is an incoherent statement.

"What is it really?" is a meaningless question. "Really" is not a magic word that you can slap onto a sentence to make it deep. There must be an actual circumstance that it refers to.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Thirdly, the question of where consciousness arises from is not solved

Yes, it is. Consciousness is brain activity.

Now, how precisely that works is open for debate, but there is no coherent argument whatsoever for consciousness being anything other than brain activity.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Finally, yes the Universe would exist if I wasn't around, I don't dispute that. But would it exist if there was no life at all inside it?

Yes.

I have snipped the rest of your post, as there is no point in replying to it. Aside from the fact that even the first comment on your initial article points out how terribly poor the research behind it was, quantum mechanics is not relevant to the point in hand - and even if it were, I can personally guarantee everyone in this thread that you are not in a position to discuss it accurately.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
31-03-2016, 09:24 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 08:50 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  If you are arguing that objective means that there is something there that exists, I'll grant you that, and I'll recant my previous statement and modify it to this: we cannot speak of an objective reality beyond the fact that things exist.

...and that these things exhibit certain quantifiable, objectively verifiable qualities.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  What is real is based how we experience those things.

No. Real things are real regardless of how you experience them.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  That's what I'm asking here- if we can't determine what objective reality looks like, then we can't speak of it beyond the fact that it exists, but we don't know what "it" really is.

This is an incoherent statement.

"What is it really?" is a meaningless question. "Really" is not a magic word that you can slap onto a sentence to make it deep. There must be an actual circumstance that it refers to.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Thirdly, the question of where consciousness arises from is not solved

Yes, it is. Consciousness is brain activity.

Now, how precisely that works is open for debate, but there is no coherent argument whatsoever for consciousness being anything other than brain activity.

(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Finally, yes the Universe would exist if I wasn't around, I don't dispute that. But would it exist if there was no life at all inside it?

Yes.

I have snipped the rest of your post, as there is no point in replying to it. Aside from the fact that even the first comment on your initial article points out how terribly poor the research behind it was, quantum mechanics is not relevant to the point in hand - and even if it were, I can personally guarantee everyone in this thread that you are not in a position to discuss it accurately.

We will have to agree to disagree on the objects existing containing certifiable, quantifiable objective qualities- I think those qualities are subjective because we are viewing them from a three dimensional perspective. Who the fuck knows what they look like beyond the third dimension? If life were found to exist in the fourth dimension or higher, can we honestly say and assume it would experience the same qualities in a three dimensional object that we do?

Ok, so, if consciousness is brain activity, what the hell does it mean when scientists continue to ask where consciousness "arises" from, where it comes from? I am confused, clarification would be nice. I saw a discussion between Krauss, Dawkins, Tyson, Nye and others and they were asking this very question. If consciousness is brain activity, how they are asking the question is awfully confusing to me.

Did not see the comment about the poor research, that's a good point. Fair point regarding my ability to speak on quantum mechanics as I do not possess a degree in it, but unless all of us have degrees in science/theology/biblical studies in this forum, I would guess most of us are "amateurs" and aren't qualified to be discussing most of the topics that are debated on this forum- although I do possess a degree in secular Biblical Studies. So if a good chunk of us aren't qualified to discuss the topics, should we really be discussing them and declaring that this is what's really going on?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-03-2016, 09:59 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 09:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  We will have to agree to disagree on the objects existing containing certifiable, quantifiable objective qualities- I think those qualities are subjective because we are viewing them from a three dimensional perspective. Who the fuck knows what they look like beyond the third dimension?

Once again, this is an incoherent question. What something "looks like beyond the third dimension" is gibberish. Even if it weren't, these entities still demonstrably have quantifiable and verifiable properties.

(31-03-2016 09:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Ok, so, if consciousness is brain activity, what the hell does it mean when scientists continue to ask where consciousness "arises" from, where it comes from?

Consciousness is brain activity. There is no serious debate on this point.

What specific components of brain activity are necessary for consciousness, what parts of the brain they require to operate properly, and so on are all still up in the air. Basically, the brain is a computer - and, before you say anything, I mean this absolutely literally, and it has been conclusively established for many, many years now, it is not up for debate - and is conscious. We know that the consciousness arises from one of the programs being run on the computer. We do not yet know which specific program.

That is an extreme simplification, but it is enough to get the point across.

(31-03-2016 09:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Fair point regarding my ability to speak on quantum mechanics as I do not possess a degree in it, but unless all of us have degrees in science/theology/biblical studies in this forum, I would guess most of us are "amateurs" and aren't qualified to be discussing most of the topics that are debated on this forum- although I do possess a degree in secular Biblical Studies. So if a good chunk of us aren't qualified to discuss the topics, should we really be discussing them and declaring that this is what's really going on?

Setting aside, for the moment, that many members of this forum actually are quite well-qualified to discuss such matters (I believe Mark Fulton is actually a published researcher in the field of Biblical history, for one, and I have formally studied both philosophy and formal logic), there is a difference in degrees of complexity and accessibility here. Trying to equate elementary logic and basic biology with quantum mechanics in terms of difficulty is rather silly.

I can teach logic. I could even, if called upon to do so, give a pretty solid overview of the basics of evolutionary biology. And, more importantly, these explanations could be understood. Facts could be checked. Mistakes could be made, but mistakes could also be pointed out.

No one here could teach quantum mechanics. No one here would understand it even if they could. I'd go into details on the reasons why, but it boils down to "it's bleeding-edge theoretical physics to the point that even the experts are basically making it up as they go along".

But it's all rather beside the point. Basically, no matter who you are, just never touch quantum mechanics in any discussion unless you have the absolute best reason in the world to do so. It is the fastest possible way to destroy any credibility you have.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
31-03-2016, 10:53 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 09:59 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 09:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  We will have to agree to disagree on the objects existing containing certifiable, quantifiable objective qualities- I think those qualities are subjective because we are viewing them from a three dimensional perspective. Who the fuck knows what they look like beyond the third dimension?

Once again, this is an incoherent question. What something "looks like beyond the third dimension" is gibberish. Even if it weren't, these entities still demonstrably have quantifiable and verifiable properties.

(31-03-2016 09:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Ok, so, if consciousness is brain activity, what the hell does it mean when scientists continue to ask where consciousness "arises" from, where it comes from?

Consciousness is brain activity. There is no serious debate on this point.

What specific components of brain activity are necessary for consciousness, what parts of the brain they require to operate properly, and so on are all still up in the air. Basically, the brain is a computer - and, before you say anything, I mean this absolutely literally, and it has been conclusively established for many, many years now, it is not up for debate - and is conscious. We know that the consciousness arises from one of the programs being run on the computer. We do not yet know which specific program.

That is an extreme simplification, but it is enough to get the point across.

(31-03-2016 09:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Fair point regarding my ability to speak on quantum mechanics as I do not possess a degree in it, but unless all of us have degrees in science/theology/biblical studies in this forum, I would guess most of us are "amateurs" and aren't qualified to be discussing most of the topics that are debated on this forum- although I do possess a degree in secular Biblical Studies. So if a good chunk of us aren't qualified to discuss the topics, should we really be discussing them and declaring that this is what's really going on?

Setting aside, for the moment, that many members of this forum actually are quite well-qualified to discuss such matters (I believe Mark Fulton is actually a published researcher in the field of Biblical history, for one, and I have formally studied both philosophy and formal logic), there is a difference in degrees of complexity and accessibility here. Trying to equate elementary logic and basic biology with quantum mechanics in terms of difficulty is rather silly.

I can teach logic. I could even, if called upon to do so, give a pretty solid overview of the basics of evolutionary biology. And, more importantly, these explanations could be understood. Facts could be checked. Mistakes could be made, but mistakes could also be pointed out.

No one here could teach quantum mechanics. No one here would understand it even if they could. I'd go into details on the reasons why, but it boils down to "it's bleeding-edge theoretical physics to the point that even the experts are basically making it up as they go along".

But it's all rather beside the point. Basically, no matter who you are, just never touch quantum mechanics in any discussion unless you have the absolute best reason in the world to do so. It is the fastest possible way to destroy any credibility you have.

I will take your advice on quantum mechanics, thank you. I am still learning.

Can you explain to me why my statement is gibberish? and what these certifiable qualities are? what is meant by qualities? when i hear the word I think of stuff like "the surface is smooth, the colour of the chair is red, the shape of the object is square"- is this what you mean, or do you mean something else?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 12:39 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Few things Chas:

If you are arguing that objective means that there is something there that exists, I'll grant you that, and I'll recant my previous statement and modify it to this: we cannot speak of an objective reality beyond the fact that things exist.

Of course we can. Reality is measurable and quantifiable to a precise degree for anyone to determine and the results will agree with anyone else's results.
Elements have properties that do not vary according to who is looking at them.

Quote:What is real is based how we experience those things.

This is your fundamental error. You are conflating reality with perception.

Quote:If you want to argue that there's an objective reality where stuff exists, sure, I'll accept that, but as far as how it's seen, touched, smelt etc, which is what helps us define what's real for us most of the time, the details of what the thing is, are subjective.

Physical things have measurable properties that do not vary by observer.
Those details are not subjective.

Quote:Because our experiences are subjective to us and our species, can we really determine what that "objective reality" is other than it exists if our perspectives are skewed by our brains and our limitations in regards to how experience the universe as three dimensional beings? That's what I'm asking here- if we can't determine what objective reality looks like, then we can't speak of it beyond the fact that it exists, but we don't know what "it" really is.

All wrong based on your fundamental error.

Quote:Secondly, whether or not a definition of God is good or not is pure subjective opinion.

By 'good', I mean coherent, adequate, non-contradictory ones.

Quote:You can say that you believe there are no good definitions, but you cannot claim that there are none- you have a bias as an atheist that sets you against the very concept of God,

No, I don't. There is no evidence of any gods.

Quote:as do I: of course you're going to say there are no good definitions, you're biased against the thing being defined actually existing. We cannot make objective statements like this precisely because we have a bias.

No, I am not. I am open to evidence.

Quote:Thirdly, the question of where consciousness arises from is not solved, and it baffles scientists to this day.

Not quite true. We know it arises from the brain. We don't know exactly how.

Quote:We have no idea whatsoever where consciousness comes from,

Yes, we do. The brain. And there are several ideas about how. Read Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

Quote:at this point we can guess, and the debate is still going on. This is not a shut and closed case. You are interpreting the evidence towards a particular conclusion which you favour based on your individual bias.

I never said it was solved. I am open to evidence.

Quote:Finally, yes the Universe would exist if I wasn't around, I don't dispute that. But would it exist if there was no life at all inside it?

Yes, it would and it did. There is plenty of evidence of that.
If the universe did not exist before there was life, where did the life come from?

Quote: Consider the fact that recently scientists have found evidence that what happens to quantum particles in the past is determined by how we measure and observe them in the future. Until that point, reality for those particles is in an abstract no man's land and does not come into existence until the observation is made.

That is one interpretation of the experimental results, and not the best or most coherent.

Quote:If no life ever existed to observe said particles, or if all life we were wiped out in the universe at some point in the future, would reality and the universe continue to exist?

You misunderstand what 'observe' means. Simply observing does not affect it, it must be affected by measurement.

Quote:Now, this could be an illusion created by our limitations as three dimensional beings that doesn't allow us to see the whole picture as it were. That's definitely, possible, but it's also possible that it's not. I know you've said previously that effects on quantum particles don't come into effect in the macro world, but I'd like to bring something else to your attention. There's a new theory which seems to question whether not the big bang actually happened. To quote the article I linked to:

"In another proposal that harks back to a now-discarded theory, Das and Ali propose that the universe is filled with a quantum fluid made up of gravitons, particles that probably have no mass themselves but transmit gravity the way photons carry electromagnetism. The follow-up paper suggests that in the early universe these gravitons would have formed a Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles that display quantum phenomena at the macroscopic scale. Moreover, the paper argues that this condensate could cause the universe's expansion to accelerate, and so explain dark energy, and might one day be the only surviving component of the universe."

If those gravitons require an observer to observe them so they can effectively exist in the past, including going all the way back to the universe's creation, how can the Universe come to be if the observers' existence requires the universe to be created, but the universe's creation requires the observers to exist? If sentient life ceased to exist in the universe, would that cause the universe's creation to be wiped from existence and erase reality as we know it because the gravitons that created the universe would revert back to a state of 'limbo'?

Reality itself has become a chicken or the egg paradox if both those theories are true.

That is wild speculation with no real basis in evidence.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
01-04-2016, 01:11 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 12:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 08:24 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Few things Chas:

If you are arguing that objective means that there is something there that exists, I'll grant you that, and I'll recant my previous statement and modify it to this: we cannot speak of an objective reality beyond the fact that things exist.

Of course we can. Reality is measurable and quantifiable to a precise degree for anyone to determine and the results will agree with anyone else's results.
Elements have properties that do not vary according to who is looking at them.

Quote:What is real is based how we experience those things.

This is your fundamental error. You are conflating reality with perception.

Quote:If you want to argue that there's an objective reality where stuff exists, sure, I'll accept that, but as far as how it's seen, touched, smelt etc, which is what helps us define what's real for us most of the time, the details of what the thing is, are subjective.

Physical things have measurable properties that do not vary by observer.
Those details are not subjective.

Quote:Because our experiences are subjective to us and our species, can we really determine what that "objective reality" is other than it exists if our perspectives are skewed by our brains and our limitations in regards to how experience the universe as three dimensional beings? That's what I'm asking here- if we can't determine what objective reality looks like, then we can't speak of it beyond the fact that it exists, but we don't know what "it" really is.

All wrong based on your fundamental error.

Quote:Secondly, whether or not a definition of God is good or not is pure subjective opinion.

By 'good', I mean coherent, adequate, non-contradictory ones.

Quote:You can say that you believe there are no good definitions, but you cannot claim that there are none- you have a bias as an atheist that sets you against the very concept of God,

No, I don't. There is no evidence of any gods.

Quote:as do I: of course you're going to say there are no good definitions, you're biased against the thing being defined actually existing. We cannot make objective statements like this precisely because we have a bias.

No, I am not. I am open to evidence.

Quote:Thirdly, the question of where consciousness arises from is not solved, and it baffles scientists to this day.

Not quite true. We know it arises from the brain. We don't know exactly how.

Quote:We have no idea whatsoever where consciousness comes from,

Yes, we do. The brain. And there are several ideas about how. Read Daniel Dennett or Douglas Hofstadter.

Quote:at this point we can guess, and the debate is still going on. This is not a shut and closed case. You are interpreting the evidence towards a particular conclusion which you favour based on your individual bias.

I never said it was solved. I am open to evidence.

Quote:Finally, yes the Universe would exist if I wasn't around, I don't dispute that. But would it exist if there was no life at all inside it?

Yes, it would and it did. There is plenty of evidence of that.
If the universe did not exist before there was life, where did the life come from?

Quote: Consider the fact that recently scientists have found evidence that what happens to quantum particles in the past is determined by how we measure and observe them in the future. Until that point, reality for those particles is in an abstract no man's land and does not come into existence until the observation is made.

That is one interpretation of the experimental results, and not the best or most coherent.

Quote:If no life ever existed to observe said particles, or if all life we were wiped out in the universe at some point in the future, would reality and the universe continue to exist?

You misunderstand what 'observe' means. Simply observing does not affect it, it must be affected by measurement.

Quote:Now, this could be an illusion created by our limitations as three dimensional beings that doesn't allow us to see the whole picture as it were. That's definitely, possible, but it's also possible that it's not. I know you've said previously that effects on quantum particles don't come into effect in the macro world, but I'd like to bring something else to your attention. There's a new theory which seems to question whether not the big bang actually happened. To quote the article I linked to:

"In another proposal that harks back to a now-discarded theory, Das and Ali propose that the universe is filled with a quantum fluid made up of gravitons, particles that probably have no mass themselves but transmit gravity the way photons carry electromagnetism. The follow-up paper suggests that in the early universe these gravitons would have formed a Bose-Einstein condensate, a collection of particles that display quantum phenomena at the macroscopic scale. Moreover, the paper argues that this condensate could cause the universe's expansion to accelerate, and so explain dark energy, and might one day be the only surviving component of the universe."

If those gravitons require an observer to observe them so they can effectively exist in the past, including going all the way back to the universe's creation, how can the Universe come to be if the observers' existence requires the universe to be created, but the universe's creation requires the observers to exist? If sentient life ceased to exist in the universe, would that cause the universe's creation to be wiped from existence and erase reality as we know it because the gravitons that created the universe would revert back to a state of 'limbo'?

Reality itself has become a chicken or the egg paradox if both those theories are true.

That is wild speculation with no real basis in evidence.

Due to consistently bad argumentation on the part of theists, would you say that you are skeptical of new arguments for the existence of God because prior experience has proven such arguments to be particularly terrible? In other words, are you willing to take what the person has to say seriously, or because it's a theist making another argument, do you think "hoo boy, here we go again" and assume it's likely that they're going to fail based on past experience?

Everyone has a bias Chas, even atheists. You can be open to evidence, but that doesn't mean you're not biased in some ways, and this is true of your atheism and mine- every world view has a bias, there's no such thing as an unbiased position. I think because the free thought movement is based on the very idea of being open to evidence and weighing the facts, the very idea that atheists could be biased against religion is unconscionable because it's against the very openness we strive for. But if we're not critical of our own beliefs and our own practices, we loose our credibility.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 02:49 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 01:11 AM)Nagoda Wrote:  Due to consistently bad argumentation on the part of theists, would you say that you are skeptical of new arguments for the existence of God because prior experience has proven such arguments to be particularly terrible?

I'll let you know when I hear a new argument. Drinking Beverage

Quote:In other words, are you willing to take what the person has to say seriously, or because it's a theist making another argument, do you think "hoo boy, here we go again" and assume it's likely that they're going to fail based on past experience?

I dismiss all the previously debunked arguments. They are never accompanied by evidence.

Quote:Everyone has a bias Chas, even atheists. You can be open to evidence, but that doesn't mean you're not biased in some ways,

Sure, but I am not biased in the way you have been implying.

Quote:and this is true of your atheism and mine- every world view has a bias, there's no such thing as an unbiased position.

Of course there are. A factual position is unbiased.

Quote:I think because the free thought movement is based on the very idea of being open to evidence and weighing the facts, the very idea that atheists could be biased against religion is unconscionable because it's against the very openness we strive for. But if we're not critical of our own beliefs and our own practices, we loose our credibility.

It's time for you to define what you mean by 'biased against religion'.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
01-04-2016, 08:57 AM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(31-03-2016 10:53 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Can you explain to me why my statement is gibberish?

It is the same problem as "really". You are attempting to argue that, in a certain framework, the characteristics of a given entity change in such a way that our understanding of it is no longer valid.

But you have not explained what that framework actually is. Things do not "look" anything in the fourth dimension; the fourth dimension is time, and our visual representations of objects are based on spatial characteristics. Even assuming that you meant "look" figuratively, an entity's description in one dimension does not in any way invalidate its description in another. At worst, your argument demonstrates that our understanding is incomplete, not incorrect.

And it still in no way provides any coherent objection to the idea of an external, objective reality.

Quote:and what these certifiable qualities are? what is meant by qualities? when i hear the word I think of stuff like "the surface is smooth, the colour of the chair is red, the shape of the object is square"- is this what you mean, or do you mean something else?

Essentially that, yes.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2016, 03:27 PM
RE: afterlife or oblivion ?
(01-04-2016 08:57 AM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(31-03-2016 10:53 PM)Nagoda Wrote:  Can you explain to me why my statement is gibberish?

It is the same problem as "really". You are attempting to argue that, in a certain framework, the characteristics of a given entity change in such a way that our understanding of it is no longer valid.

But you have not explained what that framework actually is. Things do not "look" anything in the fourth dimension; the fourth dimension is time, and our visual representations of objects are based on spatial characteristics. Even assuming that you meant "look" figuratively, an entity's description in one dimension does not in any way invalidate its description in another. At worst, your argument demonstrates that our understanding is incomplete, not incorrect.

And it still in no way provides any coherent objection to the idea of an external, objective reality.

Quote:and what these certifiable qualities are? what is meant by qualities? when i hear the word I think of stuff like "the surface is smooth, the colour of the chair is red, the shape of the object is square"- is this what you mean, or do you mean something else?

Essentially that, yes.

Fair enough re: fourth dimensional entities.

Ah ok and see here's where we run into problems regarding qualities: colour is a good example- some animals are colour blind, but we know that there are colours because they're seen by other animals and ourselves and we can (to a degree) measure the colour spectrum, but the problem is when animals can see more colours than we can- if we say a shirt is not only red, but say a particular shade of crimson, can we be sure that's what that shade actually looks like since we are unable to see parts of the colour spectrum? This is why I was talking about the qualities being subjective, but that's a poor way of putting it: it's better to say our perception of those qualities is subjective, am I right?

Touch taste and smell become more problematic: do we know if other species experience them in the same way we do? I think we've just assumed for the most part that they do- about the best we could do would be to communicate with gorillas in sign language and ask them what something feels, tastes, smells like to them, but because they're related to us there's a good chance their experiences may be the same or similar, so that might not be very helpful in this regard.

If scientists ever manage to get that system up and running where they can communicate with dolphins via translating their sounds and echo location into pictographs, that would be an interesting experiment to run, especially since we know that dolphins are capable of understanding and learning (basic) abstract concepts.

To conclude, I think at best we can say that there are objects that are objectively real, and that those objects contain certifiable objective qualities as they relate to human experience, or if you don't like that wording, our perception of them as human beings is subjective. Thank you for helping me to see my errors, it's been quite helpful.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: