Villain

Care to explain why this is ridiculous?

 

It doesn't make sense.

 

What facts does religion disregard?

 

What is a theory or hypothesis if not a belief?

 

Religion is about belief, regardless of the facts and science is about the facts, regardless of belief. Since there is no credible science to conclude that a soul exists at all then this seems to be more about belief in one and religion seems an appropriate category.

 

Please stop making this ridiculous statement.

 

 

The mind is the product of the brain, easy to show this is true, but the experiment is a bit permanent...

 

There is absolutely no evidence that the mind is a product of the brain. Killing someone or inflicting brain damage is not evidence since the mind is subjective and your objective observation of someone else's 'mind' does not equal evidence.

 

Why do so many religions treat their teachings as Truth? Christianity even went so far as a branding campaign, making scripture synonymous with it ("The Gospel Truth!"). This alone has caused many science-minded people to avoid it.

 

 

Many people/religions/insert whatever might claim to have a belief that they have truth but evidence of truth as dog put it is clearly not possible within the constrains of being human.

 

That's like saying popular myths are not myths because they are popular. Popularity IS NOT evidence of truth!

 

Why must religion live up to truth, what, besides deduction, is truth bound?

How two differing groups can have discussion about x1 (an existing entity) and x2 (a non-existing entity) as if they are both talking about a meaningful x is the real brain teaser. The definition of x is different and therefore the conversation is illogical, you just can't compare apples and pears (no pun intended).

 

I would, but it doesn't work well when you're there.

 

I believe the correct response is:

 

Photos or it didn't happen

And for those who have a scientific approach to life, there is at least one place on the web you can go to discuss religion using rational and reasonable methodology.

 

 

 

That sounds awesome, can you share the link to that place please?

So if reason is defined as "capable of using reason and rationality to explain natural phenomena" doesn't that preclude religion by definition? So what is the point of having a religion section?

 

Not undermining anything else that you've written in this thread but you got it right when you said:

 

 

 

I won't be able to convince you otherwise and I've already wasted enough hours of my life in this discussion.

 

I see your confusion. It is ridiculous to conflate "I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech" with "a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words". Good job catching your own strawman argument.

 

Oh so you were suggesting that those people start swearing for that reason in particular then? Lucky for them, they manage to avoid the reasons why everyone else starts swearing in order to fulfil this. Sorry for the conflation, I had no idea that you had such an amazing incite into these people. My mistake

 

It wasn't meant to confuse anyone, but obviously failed.

 

It just seemed so ridiculous to suggest that a portion of the current US population invented the use of sexual swear words.

 

I'll be clearer then. I think much of the religious right in the US has an unhealthy attitude towards sexual relationships, especially ones they can't control, or that run contrary to the way they interpret their religious documents. I think they quite literally see sexual enjoyment as a sin (sometimes, even if they're married). I could see where this might lead some to start using sexual terminology as a form of hate speech.

 

 

Is this meant as a joke?

Villian,

 

I am thinking that the Oak tree is a real thing, existent in the waking world. My memory of the Oak tree can be recalled, by my focus on it, or a chemical combination, or a possible electrical stimulus, but I doubt the particular combination of form and color, depth and relationship, that makes a "real" Oak, can be found in the word "Oak".

 

I had a "visual migraine" one time at work. I was sitting there, looking at my computer screen, and hands, and keyboard, and I "really" saw distortions and fringes occuring "in front" of my eyes. I knew I was "seeing" things, and those distortions where not "really" happening, even though they were EXACTLY as real things appear to me. The same "mechanisms" that brought reality solidly and consistently to me, where having a "little" problem. Everything was not "right". I was still "aware" of the consistency of the things I was viewing, and counted on, and soon received, a "return" to normalcy, where everything "looked" right.

 

Point is, that the "things" I was looking at, can be counted on to be as they are, whether I am seeing them right, or my eyes are closed, or indeed if I leave the room. The Oak tree stands, regardless of our perception of it, or memory of it, and is available to others to percieve and remember, in any fashion they chose, consistent with workings of their eyes and brain.

 

That whatever we sense and percieve of it is enough to call it an Oak, establishes it as a referrent for us both. I doubt we could "think up" such a solid thing.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

In your original post you cite three idealism philosophers but seem to be mixing in realism now, I'm not sure why you mention them in the first post if you're going to insist that things are completely independent of human perception.

Consider the thought experiment of applying a current to a certain part of your brain which produces pleasure, now take it a bit further and you manage to stimulate the part which creates the image of the oak tree. Is that a real experience of an oak tree? And if one had never seen an oak tree would it be possible to create the same experience?

Villian,

 

Imperfect meaning, but commonly understood meaning, none the less. The existence of the ideal tree is somewhat in doubt, but the existence of a tree, a particular tree, is beyond doubt. It is my awareness of a tree, that establishes it as real, and likewise establishes me as a viewer of it. The tree in my mind is not grounded, not as securely as the one with its roots in the Earth I am standing on. And I can tell you this, and you have no doubt that not only are you standing on the same Earth as I am, but you know of a tree, that has its roots in the same Earth, and you know what I mean, by talking about a tree. In fact, if you would come to my house, and put your hand on the particular tree, I am talking about, you would agree completely, with no doubt, that that indeed is a tree. An Oak, in this instance.

 

It matters not whether a person calls a tree by its Japanese name, or its Russian name, or describe it by its scientific classification name. If its the Oak, standing in my backyard, the meaning is the same.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

There is of course a difference when speaking of a specific tree that we both have experience of, but what makes the Oak an Oak tree, since no Oak tree is the same as another Oak tree but there is a certain Oakness which makes them both Oak. Plato suggests that it's this Oakness that is contained in the ideal Oak which the others measure to but don't meet.

 

I would say that both trees are in our mind, with regards to the particular tree and the ideal tree.

Was reading the Wiki article on Schopenhauer and was particulary taken with his critique of Kant.

 

When disussing the establishment of phenomena and nomena and their roles and existence in relation to each other, it occurred to me strongly, that abstraction and understanding of the outside world, is done, primarily in terms of what one can say about it.

 

It is hardly coincidental that the same language we use to form ideas is the one we use to communicate our ideas to others.

 

And if we translate our personal abstractions into a common language, understood by others, and understand the words another says to us, the mere fact of the communication, establishes the speaker as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is" to the listener, and establishes the listener as a "true" representative of the "thing as it is", to the speaker.

 

The "ideals" of Plato, thusly become abstractions indeed, shadows of reality, but commonly held ideas, between two instances of "the thing as it is".

 

Thusly the arguments between philosophers about who has a better grasp of the reality of the situation are somewhat mute, since they have already used each other to base themselves.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

The Theory of Forms (ideas) is a nice way to conclude that language passes understanding between individuals, but has a lot of problems in it's own right e.g. reconciliation of the Platonic form of tree (the ideal tree) with a 'reality' tree, which misses the fullness of tree but yet is still tree. If we are communicating in the Platonic form, then it is necessary that perfect meaning to transferred through language, by definition.

 

If however we don't communicate through prefect terms, meaning is almost guaranteed to be lost in translation.

At best, one could show there is neural activity when one claims a subjective experience, but to claim the individual's description of the experience is anything more than subjective or hallucination they would need to offer some objective corroborating evidence.

 

...so that the other/s could have a neural activity?

Maybe it does you at a personal level, but we know that religous views have, for example, hampered stem cell research.

 

Umm...what? Please don't confuse ethics and religion.

Agreed, and when they decide to actively believe in self-evidently ludicrous things it becomes clear that their decision making process... their rationality... their critical thinking... are flawed and broken.

 

These same people don't tend to believe in self-evidently ludicrous things in other aspects of their lives... They don't believe that cars are powered by trimmed nostril hairs... They don't believe that the farts of pink leprechauns cause erections in leprechauns... so they are breaking from their normal style of thinking and using a double standard when making decisions about god(s).

 

The word "broken" might make you personally uncomfortable, but that doesn't change its appropriateness in describing what is happening here.

 

You seem to be so caught up in your own metaphysical position that you can't see that you're in a glass house throwing stones.

But they are. They believe something only because someone else told them so. Something there is no evidence for. Something on faith with no skepticism. Their rationality is fractured.

 

How did you come to know what 'they' believe?

Oh, yes. Yes!

 

I tired to type out some kind of agreement. I tried to agree in words, but it's too much to agree with. You said exactly what I meant and quoted Bertrand Russel in the process, whom I absolutely love.

 

yes. YES!

 

stick around, please. I couldn't read enough of what you have to say.

 

Wow....get a room, so many yes' don't belong outside one .

Nor is someone "without any previous knowledge "

So, what predictions could either make?

Indeed, about what could they make predictions? They don't know anything.

 

You seem to have misread 'any previous knowledge of experience' as 'any previous knowledge'.

"By concious awareness I mean that which would exist if you woke up from a coma without any previous knowledge of experience but capable of thought."

That looks to me like the state in which we are all born. Can we ask a newborn baby to come up with an answer to the OP's question?

A new born baby is unlikely to be capable of mathematics, logic or reason.

 

Nonetheless why would you say it's metaphysical?

 

It's not in itself metaphysical, it's merely the starting position from which we create a metaphysical position if we break things down to their most basic. From such a position we ask what is reality or real on the assumption/intuition that we ourselves (mind) are real. From there we find numerous problems that are not testable but that is not metaphysics' fault, but the nature of reality and being (humaness). Even though it doesn't lead to definite answers it can still impact and does impact our understanding of other areas.

You seem to be saying that conscious awareness is metaphysical, I see no reason to assume that...

By concious awareness I mean that which would exist if you woke up from a coma without any previous knowledge of experience but capable of thought.