Is there Objective Morality?

[Kylie]

Actually science doesn't claim anything is true, but rather the best idea that fits the observations. The problem is all the ideas that try to explain the universe, its beginning and beyond appeal to ideas that step beyond and into dimensions that well seem like science fiction and can never be verified.

Some of these ideas are M Theory, Multiverse theory, The Hologram Principle which stems from String theory, quantum field theory, Simulation theory, Panpsychism, QBism and the Mental universe to name a few.

So if science never even says that they are facts, what exactly is your problem with them?

First the Bible is also an historical book on its own about our history without the supernatural claims. It describes the archeology finds, including the places, people and artifacts of that time. It often reveals new knowledge and insight into our past and substantiates the Bible.

But even if we excluded the bible then we would have all these archeological finds and historical texts from other sources outside the bible talking about the same things in the bible except there would be no bible. But when we bring these two together we find each lends weight to their authenticity.

Then why is it that what we find of history in the real world so often contradicts when is said in the Bible? The Exodus from Egypt, for example? Why is there no record of this from the real world?

I think that perception is about our senses. We can be deceived by out sense. For example a stick half in the water looks bent. Light can affect the illumination of objects and people will see things different depending on their vantage point. In fact there are many factors that can cause our perception to trick us. So what we perceive is not an objective fact.

But we can take that into account and make corrects for it. These corrections can then be tested to make sure they are accurate.

Whereas conscious experience is a different kettle of fish to any mechanical or material thing. Its qualia which is a different phenomena to the material view. Its hard to explain but it transcends the material world so we cannot even measure it with science. Its the sensation (how do you measure sensation) of pain, or eating ice-cream or being taken away in awe at the night sky on a clear night.

The point I am making is which is more real, the objective world or our conscious experience.

Our conscious experience can be deceived, as you just so wonderfully demonstrated with you stick in the water example.

And I have no idea how you think a question can be the point you are trying to make.

Though magenta is made up by the brain it is a real colour at least in nature. But that is different to our experience of colours. We experience colours and the world regardless of how it came to be or is measured.

How can you say that magenta is made up by the brain (meaning it is subjective) but is also a real colour that exists in the real world (meaning it is objective)? You appear to be contradicting itself.

A good example is how a colour blind person can learn everything there is to know about the mechanical processes of eyes, light and the brain they still wouldn't know what having an experience is with colours. If they suddenly were able to see colours again then we could say there experience of red is something new they have come to know about reality.

You do know that for the most part colour blind people don't actually see in black and white, right? They can see colours, it's just that some colours appear to be the same for them, even though they look different to most people.

I am not taking anything to extreme or trying to ridicule.

You went to the extreme when you started questioning the existence of what we consider to be reality.

When I say the only thing we can rely on is our conscious experience I mean its the first filter we have for everything even the physical world.

And yet that experience is subjective.

To to say that conscious experience is subjective is to then bring into question everything about what we think reality is even the physical world and how we measures it. This has been postulated by many theoretical physicists and philosophers that reality may not be what we think it is.

And yet when we look at reality, we can find many things for which everyone reaches the same conclusion and which can be demonstrated to anyone at all. How many corners are in a square, for example. And we can also find many things for which this does not hold. Whether strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream, for example. So how about we go from that point and not the extreme "Reality may not even exist so everything might be as subjective as anything else" idea, okay?

I understand your point that conscious experience is subjective. But I am trying to explain that making consciousness subjective or objective is the wrong way to even measure it. I don't think we can measure it. Certainly science cannot even understand what it is to even get to measure it.

Who's trying to measure consciousness? Once again, you seem to be taking things to absurd extremes.

 

[stevevw]

There are no scientific theories that we know can never be verified. There are some scientific theories that we currently don't know how to verify them. You're making an argument from ignorance.

As far as I understand ideas like String theory, M theory and Supersymmetry cannot be tested and verified directly. The LHC has not produced any evidence and in fact hasn't found any predicted particles beyond the standard model. To even attempt to find these we would have to build a particle collider bigger than our planet which is impossible and even if we did that still doesn't verify these ideas.

These theories are just theoretical and scientists have been trying to support them for decades. Many are now saying that these ideas are wrong so that would leave us with nothing to even explain what we are finding.

 

[stevevw]

Consciousness refers to an ability one has, it isn’t something that can be measured; like material.

Yet its still a real thing. So this is an example of something that is not material yet real that it affects reality.

Just because they were wrong concerning this issue doesn’t mean they will not be able to survive

That's not the point. Your saying the majority of people are wrong, deluded and living a lie. Your discounting all the research and studies which support spirituality and consciousness as something real. The point is the scientific method has no way of even proving consciousness and spirituality is false let alone claiming that.

The ability to experience something bigger than yourself does not equate to spirituality

Not according to most definitions.
What Is Spirituality?
Spirituality is a broad concept with room for many perspectives. In general, it includes a sense of connection to something bigger than ourselves, and it typically involves a search for meaning in life.
What Is Spirituality? | Taking Charge of Your Health & Wellbeing

Spirituality is based on your thoughts, it's all in your head; sorta like Santa Clause

That's not spirituality. Tell where exactly in the brain is spirituality. Have scientists found it in the brain. Spirituality like consciousness is not a material thing and cannot be traced back to chemical or electrical signals in the brain. Yet its real and been around thousands of years such as with Indigenous people. Are you saying that their spiritual beliefs are unreal and a fantasy.

I've said nothing about science or a scientific method, I’m saying according to human experience, nothing immaterial has been found to exist outside of some wild imagination

So we experience and are moves and stimulated by music, colours, beauty in nature. We can transcend ourselves beyond the physical world all of which are real. So how can this be imagination. But even so imagination is not some mystical thing. All science, arts, and abstract though began with imagination and led to real outcomes for our world.

Provide a mathematician that makes this claim

Well most of the theories we have come to know today are based on Math including Einsteins theory of relativity. But there are many scientists who think the universe is based on math. Theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner who won the Nobel Prize in Physics was one.
“The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol 13, p 1).
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-is-everything-made-of-numbers/#ixzz7W3y2W2xS

Then you have pioneers in Math like Pythagoras who thought reality is essentially numerical in nature. AS he said "all is numbers".
Pythagoras and the Mystery of Numbers

A modern day proponent id Max Tegmark
math does not just describe the universe, but makes the universe
Is the Universe Made of Math? [Excerpt]

Then you have others who say the Universe and reality is all Mental or the Mind or all information.

The mental Universe
The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
The mental Universe - Nature

Why a Mental Universe Is the “Real” Reality
Why a Mental Universe Is the “Real” Reality

Thoughts and imagination can help explain reality, but they are not real themselves.

That's seems strange. If the process to explain reality is not real then how can we rely on it to explain whats real. Imagination is as real as feelings. In fact imagination is the bedrock of science inquiry. You have to first imagine an idea beyond what is known to pose it as an idea to help explain reality. Imagination in art helps us abstract ideas and from this we can extract deeper insights into reality. In fact without imagination we would not have science.

"The mind that's afraid to toy with the ridiculous will never create the brilliantly original..."
Science IS imagination

I said nothing about “scientific method” that’s something you keep bringing into the conversation for some reason. What I said is there has never been any evidence for the claims of immaterial. Now if somebody were to make such a claim and provide evidence of it’s existence, science would be all over it

The reason I keep bringing it into the conversation is because you keep saying there's no evidence for the immaterial. But to claim there is "no evidence" you have to use science as the measuring stick because it is science that uses evidence to verify things.

If you don't want to bring science into things when it comes to whether the immaterial is real or not then you cannot use "evidence" as the measure because evidence is only used by empirical science. In other words your using a method that has already claimed there is no materialism to prove the immaterial.

So science will never find anything immaterial. Its an oxymoron to say that if there was evidence for the immaterial then science would be all over it because we cannot have scientific evidence of the immaterial in the first place. You would have to abandon scientific measure (methodological naturalism) and use some other neutral method that doesn't discount anything that may possibly be an influence on reality directly or indirectly like methodological neutralism.

I’ll respond to the rest later

No worries

 

[Moral Orel]

As far as I understand ideas like String theory, M theory and Supersymmetry cannot be tested and verified directly. The LHC has not produced any evidence and in fact hasn't found any predicted particles beyond the standard model. To even attempt to find these we would have to build a particle collider bigger than our planet which is impossible and even if we did that still doesn't verify these ideas.

These theories are just theoretical and scientists have been trying to support them for decades. Many are now saying that these ideas are wrong so that would leave us with nothing to even explain what we are finding.

You're doubling down on your Argument from Ignorance fallacy. For starters, M Theory is one specific version of String Theory. And the rest of your post is a bunch of "we don't know how to do this" and "we don't know the answer to that". That doesn't make the answers unattainable, it just makes them currently unknown.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yet its still a real thing. So this is an example of something that is not material yet real that it affects reality.

Consciousness is a description of a real thing. It does not have an actual existence by itself.

That's not the point. Your saying the majority of people are wrong, deluded and living a lie.

I am no more guilty of this than you are

Your discounting all the research and studies which support spirituality and consciousness as something real.

Show me the research that shows spiritual claims are real

Not according to most definitions.

Then point to an outside source that says only spiritual people are capable of realizing things bigger than they are.

That's not spirituality. Tell where exactly in the brain is spirituality. Have scientists found it in the brain. Spirituality like consciousness is not a material thing and cannot be traced back to chemical or electrical signals in the brain.

I never said spirituality is found in the brain, I said it is a part of your thoughts.

So we experience and are moves and stimulated by music, colours, beauty in nature. We can transcend ourselves beyond the physical world all of which are real. So how can this be imagination.

Give an example of someone transcending themselves beyond the physical world.

Well most of the theories we have come to know today are based on Math including Einsteins theory of relativity. But there are many scientists who think the universe is based on math. Theoretical physicist Eugene Wigner who won the Nobel Prize in Physics was one.
“The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences” (Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol 13, p 1).
Reality: Is everything made of numbers? | New Scientist

Then you have pioneers in Math like Pythagoras who thought reality is essentially numerical in nature. AS he said "all is numbers".
Pythagoras and the Mystery of Numbers

A modern day proponent id Max Tegmark
math does not just describe the universe, but makes the universe
Is the Universe Made of Math? [Excerpt]

Then you have others who say the Universe and reality is all Mental or the Mind or all information.

The mental Universe
The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.
The mental Universe - Nature

Why a Mental Universe Is the “Real” Reality
Why a Mental Universe Is the “Real” Reality

Show me the part that says the Universe is made of math rather than material.

That's seems strange. If the process to explain reality is not real then how can we rely on it to explain whats real.

The system in place does not have an actual existence by itself, but when implemented, will have an affect on what it was designed for.

The reason I keep bringing it into the conversation is because you keep saying there's no evidence for the immaterial. But to claim there is "no evidence" you have to use science as the measuring stick because it is science that uses evidence to verify things.

Science is not the only measuring stick used to verify that which is real ya know. I prefer using my 5 senses; taste, touch, hearing, sight, and smell.

 

[stevevw]

You're doubling down on your Argument from Ignorance fallacy. For starters, M Theory is one specific version of String Theory. And the rest of your post is a bunch of "we don't know how to do this" and "we don't know the answer to that". That doesn't make the answers unattainable, it just makes them currently unknown.

The silly thing about that though is we could say that about anything. In fact the more the standard model is not supported the more alternative ideas like consciousness become more relevant.

 

[Moral Orel]

The silly thing about that though is we could say that about anything.

What can be said about "anything"? What specifically did I say that can be said about "anything"?

 

[stevevw]

So if science never even says that they are facts, what exactly is your problem with them?

The problem is there is a short step from methodological naturalism to metaphysical naturalism so what happens is that scientific findings are made into an ontological claim which is beyond what science can claim.

Then why is it that what we find of history in the real world so often contradicts when is said in the Bible? The Exodus from Egypt, for example? Why is there no record of this from the real world?

No evidence is not absence of evidence. Finding archeological evidence for the Israelite's in a specific area that's covered with 100 feet of sand is pretty remote especially for a nomadic tribe that did not lay down any foundations. There are several similar non-biblical examples where we accept the history and there's no archeological evidence.

But there is evidence for the Israelite's being slaves in Egypt and of them migrating to the promise land. Exodus also gets a lot right about the topography, people, places and artifacts for that time. For example Exodus mentions the Israelite's decided not to take the Sinai peninsula route to the promised land because it was militarized. Archeologists have found heavy fortification along the Sinai coast for that period.

So we have evidence that they were in Egypt as slaves, were planning a route to Israel and arrived there around the right time. If there was that much evidence for any non-biblical event there would be no objections.

But we can take that into account and make corrects for it. These corrections can then be tested to make sure they are accurate.

The point was who says that getting the correct measure for physical stuff right is also the correct measure of reality. Being able to explain physical objects in space doesn't explain how they came to be, what they represent in reality. All it does is give a quantitative dimension to reality. There is a whole lot more going on besides that as we know from our experience of the objective world which influences reality.

Our conscious experience can be deceived, as you just so wonderfully demonstrated with you stick in the water example.

Perceiving a diffracted stick in the water is not about consciousness but rather sense perception. Consciousness is not about determining what is quantitatively correct or not but rather a qualitative experience. You cannot measure consciousness as being right or wrong, deceptive or not or the result of anything material as its just about our inner world rather than the outer world. Our inhabiting the physical world, becoming part of it and moving beyond it.

Seeing reality as only Material literally denies the reality of our own minds and personal experiences as being an illusion. We are literally denying our own existence.

And I have no idea how you think a question can be the point you are trying to make.

Why, I posed this as an open question rather than claim its one way or the other. Is reality the physical world we sense or is it something beyond that which we help create. This is a serious philosophical question asked by many across all domains of science, psychology, philosophy and behavioral sciences.

How can you say that magenta is made up by the brain (meaning it is subjective) but is also a real colour that exists in the real world (meaning it is objective)? You appear to be contradicting itself.

It depends what you mean by subjective. Subjective tastes or views ect are individual and there can be as many different subjective views as people. So there is an element of choice in what is subjective.

But magenta and other colours that are not on the colour spectrum that we see in nature are all the same for everyone and not a subjective choice. You and I and everyone will see a magenta or yellow coloured flower and no one can claim they subjectively view the same flower as being blue or white.

You do know that for the most part colour blind people don't actually see in black and white, right? They can see colours, it's just that some colours appear to be the same for them, even though they look different to most people.

I think you know what I mean. The person who sees black and white or who cannot distinguish colours doesn't see definite colours vividly enough which would be required to experience colours.

So if these people were able to see red for example vividly and distinctly they would experience that colour. We could use the other senses like hearing, feeling or tasting. Those who don't have these senses cannot experience things without them. Yet if they regained those specific senses and can experience the world we could say they have come to know something new about reality that they once did not know.

You went to the extreme when you started questioning the existence of what we consider to be reality.

How is that extreme when its a questioned posed by most domains of science, philosophy and psychology. The fact is whatever reality is its 96% obscure dark matter and 99.99% of actual matter is empty space so there's very little actual matter involved in reality.

Its one of the questions posed by the interpretation of quantum physics and has brought about many ideas about what reality is. In fact as far as I understand the idea that there is no physical reality or that reality is what we make it has been supported by science.

And yet that experience is subjective.

So therefore wouldn't that make everything subjective even our experience of the physical world and the way we measure it.

And yet when we look at reality, we can find many things for which everyone reaches the same conclusion and which can be demonstrated to anyone at all. How many corners are in a square, for example.

But this is just a quantitative aspect of things. It doesn't mean that the quantitative realm is reality. It doesn't give objectives any creative ability. If science is just a measure of one aspect of reality then who says that this is how reality is. Can science verify itself.

And we can also find many things for which this does not hold. Whether strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate ice cream, for example. So how about we go from that point and not the extreme "Reality may not even exist so everything might be as subjective as anything else" idea, okay?

Who says this view is an extreme. It seems to be widely supported in one way or another even by science. Like I said who says that the the measurement of objects is reality.

The only thing we can be confident about is our experience of the world because that's all we have. Anything else is skewed by our experience of it. How do we know we are not biased or affecting the way we see the objective world.

Massive neutrino experiment undermines our sense of reality
Science | AAAS
Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html
A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question
A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question

Who's trying to measure consciousness? Once again, you seem to be taking things to absurd extremes.

Then how can you claim that consciousness is subjective without measuring it somehow.

 

[stevevw]

What can be said about "anything"? What specifically did I say that can be said about "anything"?

I am saying we can use the argument from ignorance for other ideas about what makes reality. So anyone who makes objections about consciousness or God or spirituality being false is making an argument from ignorance as well.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The silly thing about that though is we could say that about anything. In fact the more the standard model is not supported the more alternative ideas like consciousness become more relevant.

I don't know what you are talking about. The Standard Model (of Particle Physics) is very well supported by experimental evidence. (Inconveniently for those looking for unification, it has too *few* anomalies to give hints about possible superseding theories like String Theory.)

This is also quite a few layers from consciousness, which is *definitely* not a feature of the Standard Model or String Theory.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No evidence is not absence of evidence. Finding archeological evidence for the Israelite's in a specific area that's covered with 100 feet of sand is pretty remote especially for a nomadic tribe that did not lay down any foundations. There are several similar non-biblical examples where we accept the history and there's no archeological evidence.

But there is evidence for the Israelite's being slaves in Egypt and of them migrating to the promise land. Exodus also gets a lot right about the topography, people, places and artifacts for that time. For example Exodus mentions the Israelite's decided not to take the Sinai peninsula route to the promised land because it was militarized. Archeologists have found heavy fortification along the Sinai coast for that period.

So we have evidence that they were in Egypt as slaves, were planning a route to Israel and arrived there around the right time. If there was that much evidence for any non-biblical event there would be no objections.

Only about 10% of the Sinai peninsula (all near the Med) are covered in dunes, the rest is not. There is plenty of archeological evidence over a variety of periods from nomads and settlements throughout the rest of the Sinai and no Israelite exodus. Sorry, but that's what the professionals tell us.

None of that has anything to do with the notion of "objective morality" in the slightest. (There are some moral and ethical issues in the book of Exodus, but this isn't really the thread, now is it.)

 

[Moral Orel]

I am saying we can use the argument from ignorance for other ideas about what makes reality.

The argument from ignorance is fallacious. It's bad logic. You made the claim that "These are things that can't be tested" and you have no idea whether that's true or not. The only accurate claim you can make is "We don't know how to test these things".

So anyone who makes objections about consciousness or God or spirituality being false is making an argument from ignorance as well.

Wrong. The argument from ignorance is a specific formulation of a poor argument. I see you still refuse to admit your mistakes so I'm dropping this conversation.

 

[Kylie]

No evidence is not absence of evidence. Finding archeological evidence for the Israelite's in a specific area that's covered with 100 feet of sand is pretty remote especially for a nomadic tribe that did not lay down any foundations. There are several similar non-biblical examples where we accept the history and there's no archeological evidence.

Lack of evidence is evidence of lack if that evidence SHOULD be there and yet it is not.

But there is evidence for the Israelite's being slaves in Egypt and of them migrating to the promise land. Exodus also gets a lot right about the topography, people, places and artifacts for that time. For example Exodus mentions the Israelite's decided not to take the Sinai peninsula route to the promised land because it was militarized. Archeologists have found heavy fortification along the Sinai coast for that period.

Would you care to share this evidence that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt?

So we have evidence that they were in Egypt as slaves, were planning a route to Israel and arrived there around the right time. If there was that much evidence for any non-biblical event there would be no objections.

No, I have nothing but your claim. If you have evidence, you have decided not to share it with anyone else.

The point was who says that getting the correct measure for physical stuff right is also the correct measure of reality. Being able to explain physical objects in space doesn't explain how they came to be, what they represent in reality. All it does is give a quantitative dimension to reality. There is a whole lot more going on besides that as we know from our experience of the objective world which influences reality.

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I was talking about.

Perceiving a diffracted stick in the water is not about consciousness but rather sense perception.

The diffracted stick does indeed affect our conscious experience.

Consciousness is not about determining what is quantitatively correct or not but rather a qualitative experience. You cannot measure consciousness as being right or wrong, deceptive or not or the result of anything material as its just about our inner world rather than the outer world. Our inhabiting the physical world, becoming part of it and moving beyond it.

Seeing reality as only Material literally denies the reality of our own minds and personal experiences as being an illusion. We are literally denying our own existence.

This seems awfully circular. You make a claim and then say that viewing it in other other way would mean your claim is wrong, and so your claim must be correct.

Why, I posed this as an open question rather than claim its one way or the other. Is reality the physical world we sense or is it something beyond that which we help create. This is a serious philosophical question asked by many across all domains of science, psychology, philosophy and behavioral sciences.

Yeah, you still didn't answer my question though, did you?

It depends what you mean by subjective. Subjective tastes or views ect are individual and there can be as many different subjective views as people. So there is an element of choice in what is subjective.

If you don't know what subjective means, you may not be ready to have this discussion. I suggest you consult a dictionary before continuing.

But magenta and other colours that are not on the colour spectrum that we see in nature are all the same for everyone and not a subjective choice. You and I and everyone will see a magenta or yellow coloured flower and no one can claim they subjectively view the same flower as being blue or white.

Prove to me that what you perceive as magenta is identical to what I perceive as magenta.

I think you know what I mean. The person who sees black and white or who cannot distinguish colours doesn't see definite colours vividly enough which would be required to experience colours.

So if these people were able to see red for example vividly and distinctly they would experience that colour. We could use the other senses like hearing, feeling or tasting. Those who don't have these senses cannot experience things without them. Yet if they regained those specific senses and can experience the world we could say they have come to know something new about reality that they once did not know.

So you are saying that knowledge is not the same thing as experience. Okay. And your point with this is... What?

How is that extreme when its a questioned posed by most domains of science, philosophy and psychology. The fact is whatever reality is its 96% obscure dark matter and 99.99% of actual matter is empty space so there's very little actual matter involved in reality.

If you can't see how "Does reality exist?" is not taking this to an extreme, then I don't know what to tell you.

So therefore wouldn't that make everything subjective even our experience of the physical world and the way we measure it.

Possibly.

But if everyone measures the height of a building and they get the same result, that's a pretty good indication that what they are measuring exists in some kind of reality that is external to themselves, and is thus objective.

But this is just a quantitative aspect of things. It doesn't mean that the quantitative realm is reality.

How could things have a quantitative aspect if there was no quantitative part to reality?

It doesn't give objectives any creative ability.

What in the world does this mean?

If science is just a measure of one aspect of reality then who says that this is how reality is.

Science is the study of every measurable aspect of reality. If it can be measured, then science can study it. If it can not be measured, then how can it be shown to have any influence at all?

Can science verify itself.

Yes. Study the same thing in a different way. I'm reminded of the story about the exam question about measuring the height of a building with a barometer. The Barometer Story

The only thing we can be confident about is our experience of the world because that's all we have. Anything else is skewed by our experience of it. How do we know we are not biased or affecting the way we see the objective world.

Massive neutrino experiment undermines our sense of reality
Science | AAAS
Quantum physics: Our study suggests objective reality doesn't exist
https://phys.org/news/2019-11-quantum-physics-reality-doesnt.html
A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question
A new quantum paradox throws the foundations of observed reality into question
Then how can you claim that consciousness is subjective without measuring it somehow.

Very well. You have convinced me there is no such thing as objective reality.

Since there is no objective reality, there can be no objective morality.

Therefore, all morality is subjective, which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

 

[stevevw]

What can be said about "anything"? What specifically did I say that can be said about "anything"?

I'm just applying the same thing to other ideas like consciousness, The Mental Universe, QBism and all that besides the ideas presented by physics and cosmology.

If we cannot use ignorance to defeat an idea in cosmology and physics then we cannot use it to defeat these other ideas. There may be some unknown aspect of consciousness we have yet to discover that may show that reality goes beyond the physical. There may be some paradigm shift needed in the future because the Standard model was inadequate to fully understand what reality is.

 

[stevevw]

The argument from ignorance is fallacious. It's bad logic. You made the claim that "These are things that can't be tested" and you have no idea whether that's true or not. The only accurate claim you can make is "We don't know how to test these things".

Yes and I was applying the same bad logic to when people say that there is no such thing as anything beyond the material. So as you say who knows. It comes down to metaphysics I think and that's why there is this debate going on in philosophical corners about consciousness and what at the fundamental level of reality. Is it mind or just matter or maybe a bit of both.

Wrong. The argument from ignorance is a specific formulation of a poor argument. I see you still refuse to admit your mistakes so I'm dropping this conversation.

OK fair enough. But I am not going to admit a mistake I believe I haven't made. I may be wrong but you would need to help me understand how that is so. In fact I think you misunderstood what I was saying or maybe I wasn't explaining it very well.

As I said above I was applying that same bad logic being used by those who shoot down any idea that doesn't conform to scientific materialist view.

 

[stevevw]

Only about 10% of the Sinai peninsula (all near the Med) are covered in dunes, the rest is not. There is plenty of archeological evidence over a variety of periods from nomads and settlements throughout the rest of the Sinai and no Israelite exodus. Sorry, but that's what the professionals tell us.

Unless 100% of the possible area has been sighted then it cannot be ruled out. Especially as there is much circumstantial evidence corroborating the Israelite's being slaves in Egypt, having knowledge of the area and arriving in Israel. They had to get there somehow.

Isn't that the fair and proper determination for anything. The ironic thing is there are other historical events where there is no direct archeological evidence of them even happening and yet we believe it really happened. I mentioned a couple of these.

None of that has anything to do with the notion of "objective morality" in the slightest. (There are some moral and ethical issues in the book of Exodus, but this isn't really the thread, now is it.)

Yeah its gone on a bit too long. The point I was trying to make is that there are other ways to determine what is truth or real. Testimony is an important part of that. WE live our lives trusting testimony and it seems to be a strong influence on things.

The other point that came out was how bias can influence a persons take on what is true or real. That's us, the observer getting in the way of things. So the subject can sometimes skew what is deemed true and real thus denying the truth and reality.

 

[stevevw]

Lack of evidence is evidence of lack if that evidence SHOULD be there and yet it is not.

But to be able to say the evidence is not there you have to be confident that you have searched all the possible locations to prove its not there.

Would you care to share this evidence that the Israelite's were slaves in Egypt?No, I have nothing but your claim. If you have evidence, you have decided not to share it with anyone else.

OK, but I think I will leave this sub topic for now as its becoming a thread of its own.

My point was what is regarded as truth and real can also be based on testimony and this doesn't always have clear direct evidence. So we have to make a value judgement without direct evidence. Sometimes our own biases get in the way of the truth. Its not always all about objective evidence.

Egyptian scribes of Ahmose I and Thutmoses III wrote boastfully of campaigns in the Levant, resulting in captured prisoners being enslaved in Egypt. Various descriptions perfectly match scenes in the Passover Haggadah.
A leather scroll dating to the time of Ramesses II (1303 BCE-1213 BCE) describes a close account of brick-making apparently by enslaved prisoners of the wars in Canaan and Syria, which sounds very much like the biblical account.
Other Egyptian papyruses (Anastasi III & IV) discuss using straws in mud bricks, as mentioned in Exodus 5:7: "
The tomb of vizier Rekhmire, ca. 1450 BCE, famously shows foreign slaves “making bricks for the workshop-store-place of the Temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes”. They are labeled "captures brought-off by His Majesty for work at the Temple of Amun". Semites and Nubians are shown fetching and mixing mud and water, striking out bricks from molds, leaving them to dry and measuring their amount, under the watchful eyes of Egyptian overseers, each with a rod. The images bear out descriptions in Ex. 1:11-14; 5:1-21.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news...gypt-yes/0000017f-f6ea-d47e-a37f-fffeebef0000

I don't see how this has anything to do with what I was talking about.

You were saying that we can measure, describe and verify objects in how they occupy space by size, substance, shape ect. I am saying knowing the description of something materially doesn't give the entire story of reality ontologically. It doesn't tell us what those objects represent in the overall scheme of things, their fundamental nature.

It has everything to do with what you are talking about. Your argument was we can measure the physical world and make corrections and then test them to check they are accurate. So are you saying that's the only way we can know reality by measuring the material world.

The diffracted stick does indeed affect our conscious experience.

How

This seems awfully circular. You make a claim and then say that viewing it in other other way would mean your claim is wrong, and so your claim must be correct.

Of course we can view things differently because well 'they are different' so its not circular reasoning. For example science and religion are understood differently. You cannot scientifically test belief.

What you are doing is the same. You want to scientifically test consciousness when its a completely different realm and if consciousness doesn't stand up to scientific testing then it must be false. I am saying we have to be open to other ways of knowing about reality besides a materialistic view. That means not assuming everything is material.

Yeah, you still didn't answer my question though, did you?

I did answer your question. You said that the diffracted stick example shows consciousness can fool us. I said that is not what consciousness is about.

In fact its more likely that our perception of the world fools us all the time. We don't go around measuring everything to get our sense of the world. We don't have time. There are influences we don't even know about subconsciously and even unconsciously that influence how we see the world. So there's a lot that we are deceived about perceptually and we don't even know it.

But consciousness is not about spacial measurement. Its about an experience beyond space so you can't use science to prove it right or wrong, deceptive or not as its a completely different thing.

If you don't know what subjective means, you may not be ready to have this discussion. I suggest you consult a dictionary before continuing.

I looked up the meaning in the Oxford dictionary and it says "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

That seems pretty spot on to what I said. Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice. So as I said “there are as many personal subjective tastes, feelings and opinions as individuals”. Whereas a biological or neurological response or reaction is involuntary.

Prove to me that what you perceive as magenta is identical to what I perceive as magenta.

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about different shades on magenta. If so different shades of magenta is not about a personal subjective choice because the shade of a colour depends on objective reasons such as level of illumination, the makeup of eye cones and our brain and not subjective thinking.

So you are saying that knowledge is not the same thing as experience. Okay. And your point with this is... What?

That when understood this way our experience may also be a fundamental aspect of reality and actually influence reality. I just explained that experiencing something can make a difference to reality and change reality for us.

If that's the case then the conscious observer is participating in creating reality. In fact we cannot separate ourselves from the perceived world we are experiencing so we are part of reality regardless of our perception and knowledge.

 

[stevevw]

If you can't see how "Does reality exist?" is not taking this to an extreme, then I don't know what to tell you.

Then you would have to say that many great minds are taking things to extreme because they pose the same question as a result of an interpretation of quantum physics and in explaining reality at a fundamental level. For example

Possibly.

So if that is possible wouldn't that support the idea of the observer (subject) creating reality to some degree. If everything is subjective including what we perceive as the physical world then what else would there be except mind and consciousness.

But if everyone measures the height of a building and they get the same result, that's a pretty good indication that what they are measuring exists in some kind of reality that is external to themselves, and is thus objective.

But that doesn't tell us anything about the fundamental nature of the building we are measuring. Also what if we are in a simulation and only think we are measuring a building and are actually living in some 2D hologram.

How could we tell because we cannot get outside the simulation to prove that what we are seeing is really a physical object in that sense. I mean what is a physical object when 99.99% is not physical.

The further quantum physicists peer into the nature of reality, the more evidence they are finding that everything is energy at the most fundamental levels. Electrons, muons, tauons, quarks,and gluons have no internal structure and no physical size, meaning that they are entirely illusory or put another way, made up of energy. They are zero-dimensional and more like events than things.
http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/...verything-is-Energy-and-Reality-Isnt-Real.pdf

What in the world does this mean?

I am trying to see things on an ontological and metaphysical level. Not assume anything and ask what actually constitutes the fundamental nature of reality. What causes reality rather than assume its based on any description or measurement of the material/physical world.

Science is the study of every measurable aspect of reality. If it can be measured, then science can study it. If it can not be measured, then how can it be shown to have any influence at all?

But this is assuming that everything is physical/material to begin with. Of course its not going to find anything non-material.

Methodological naturalism has rigged the game in its favor. It assumes everything is material without any evidence and then creates a measuring method to confirms its own assumption. So its really a limited measure of all the possible influences that may make up reality.

Yes. Study the same thing in a different way. I'm reminded of the story about the exam question about measuring the height of a building with a barometer. The Barometer Story

Isn't that circular reasoning. You say the way we can verify the science method as the correct or true way to determine reality is to try and use another method to find that it cannot verify things the same as science. Your making methodological naturalism the sole measuring stick as well as the arbiter of what is reality of not.

Very well. You have convinced me there is no such thing as objective reality.

Since there is no objective reality, there can be no objective morality.

Therefore, all morality is subjective, which is exactly what I've been saying all along.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Lol, don't forget there would also be no free will, as there is no consciousness and we are all robots subject to the chemical reactions and electric signals our physical bodies give off. There is no meaning to life and any experience we have otherwise is just an illusion.

But seriously you obviously don't think there is anything beyond the material world. I don't just mean divine concepts but anything like consciousness or Mind being a fundamental part of reality.

 

[Moral Orel]

That seems pretty spot on to what I said. Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice.

People don't choose these things. We make choices based on these things, but we don't make conscious decisions to like or dislike things. I can't choose to dislike chocolate ice cream any more than I can choose to like Brussel sprouts.

 

[Kylie]

But to be able to say the evidence is not there you have to be confident that you have searched all the possible locations to prove its not there.

Not really.

My coffee cup can hold coffee in the entire volume of its interior. Yet I do not need to check the entire interior of it to determine if there is coffee in my coffee cup. All I need to do is check the very bottom of it. If there is no coffee there, I can be sure that there is no coffee above it.

OK, but I think I will leave this sub topic for now as its becoming a thread of its own.

Would you be interested in starting a thread for this discussion then?

You were saying that we can measure, describe and verify objects in how they occupy space by size, substance, shape ect. I am saying knowing the description of something materially doesn't give the entire story of reality ontologically. It doesn't tell us what those objects represent in the overall scheme of things, their fundamental nature.

It has everything to do with what you are talking about. Your argument was we can measure the physical world and make corrections and then test them to check they are accurate. So are you saying that's the only way we can know reality by measuring the material world.

Why does a real world object need to "represent" something?

You sound like an English teacher asking what the blue curtains in a story represent.

How

Because we experience it, and we are conscious of that experience.

Is that not obvious?

Of course we can view things differently because well 'they are different' so its not circular reasoning. For example science and religion are understood differently. You cannot scientifically test belief.

What you are doing is the same. You want to scientifically test consciousness when its a completely different realm and if consciousness doesn't stand up to scientific testing then it must be false. I am saying we have to be open to other ways of knowing about reality besides a materialistic view. That means not assuming everything is material.

Science has achieved a great deal when it comes to the study of consciousness. So I don't know what you're talking about here.

I did answer your question. You said that the diffracted stick example shows consciousness can fool us. I said that is not what consciousness is about.

In fact its more likely that our perception of the world fools us all the time. We don't go around measuring everything to get our sense of the world. We don't have time. There are influences we don't even know about subconsciously and even unconsciously that influence how we see the world. So there's a lot that we are deceived about perceptually and we don't even know it.

But consciousness is not about spacial measurement. Its about an experience beyond space so you can't use science to prove it right or wrong, deceptive or not as its a completely different thing.

I agree that consciousness can be fooled. Quite easily, in fact. But I don't see any justification for your position that it's some amazingly different way of viewing things that is akin to achieving transcendence or something.

I looked up the meaning in the Oxford dictionary and it says "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

That seems pretty spot on to what I said. Personal tastes, feelings and opinions are about the individual (the subject) choice. So as I said “there are as many personal subjective tastes, feelings and opinions as individuals”. Whereas a biological or neurological response or reaction is involuntary.

So a person's instincts are never subjective? They are always objective?

Not sure what you mean. Are you talking about different shades on magenta. If so different shades of magenta is not about a personal subjective choice because the shade of a colour depends on objective reasons such as level of illumination, the makeup of eye cones and our brain and not subjective thinking.

No, I'm talking about our experience of colour. You've said that our experiences are subjective, so on what basis can you claim our experience of colour is not subjective?

After all, you can not prove that the colour you perceive as Blue is the same as the colour I perceive as blue.

That when understood this way our experience may also be a fundamental aspect of reality and actually influence reality. I just explained that experiencing something can make a difference to reality and change reality for us.

If that's the case then the conscious observer is participating in creating reality. In fact we cannot separate ourselves from the perceived world we are experiencing so we are part of reality regardless of our perception and knowledge.

You've been watching too much Star Trek. Our experience creates reality?

How about you prove it by experiencing a few million dollars into my bank account, then?