Atheism and nihilism

[Ken-1122]

Different minds 'experience' things slightly differently. My evidence for that, are the conversations going on here, in this thread. People construct different 'models' from the same observations all the time.
Why makes you think everyone will always experience a tree in exactly the same way you do?

Their subjective view of the tree might differ (they might find the tree ugly unlike me) but they will still see it as a tree like me.

The only thing you'll be testing there will be your description of, (or what you mean by), 'tree'. When you describe that meaning, you will be using your own mind. When you use your mind, you will not be demonstrating the mind independence, of a tree will you?

What does it mean to demonstrate the mind independence of a tree?

Reality is a word, can you describe what you mean by that word and how you came by that meaning, (seeing as 'reality' is now your basis for establishing consistency with 'true')?

The word reality has a specific meaning in the English language. When I became familiar with the english language, I adopted it’s meaning for the word reality.

Really?
And so you think knowledge now exists independently from any human mind, (all of them), including scientists' minds then?
That would have to be as close a way I can think of, as being a miraculous way!

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. What do you mean by “existing independent of the human mind”?

Ahh .. you're choosing to hide behind dictionary definitions .. which are always couched in contextually generalised ways.

OK here's a context: every definition (or description) used in producing science's 'objective reality' (ie: what 'exists' in science - eg: atoms, electrons, photons, electricity, gravity, time, quarks etc, have either been tested, or are objectively testable in principle .. with no exceptions. These definitions (descriptions) are thus all based on idealised models

What do you mean by “idealised models”?

which are about as far as it gets from being 'mind independent things ... which (somehow) just simply exist'!

Again what are mind independent things?

Otherwise, perhaps you can show us the way idealised models can be idealised by not using a human mind?
If you don't agree that they are idealised mind dependent models, then why have all of those examples changed so radically, since scientists started using them? How could that happen if they were always just mind independent 'things' .. sort of floating around in space waiting for us to grab them?

Science has never tested (nor ever tests) anything truly independent from a human mind. It may someday .. but not so far yet.

You are using terms I am unfamiliar with, you will need to define how you are using those terms before I can answer the rest of your questions.

 

[Ken-1122]

.. and yet that 'thing' is objectively untestable in science.
So, specifically what test/data/results (or other) enable the rejection?
(.. or: What is the basis of rejection?)

You don't need a test to reject claims, testing is needed to make claims.

 

[Ken-1122]

Secondly, (sorry .. I know you're well aware of this .. so, this is more for any readers): 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'.

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it is definitely a legitimate reason to reject a claim.

 

[Leaf473]

And this is one of the problems I have with Wikipedia; anybody can post there. I went to the second paragraph, where they mention existential nihilism, and the word is underlined, and when you click on the underlined word it gives the accurate definition of the word and this definition does not mention objective meaning, it mentions intrinsic meaning. It’s like the person who wrote this got it wrong.

I’ve voiced my objection before; perhaps just not with you. But to answer your question, because now is when they put something down I disagree with. (In my previous reply I mention how it seems they got it wrong)

I believe I put it in one of my very first posts to you.

Atheism and nihilism

the issue is I have pieces in my memory of all the various things I wrote to you based on the assumption that you accepted that definition.

if it turns out you do not, I don't think I can "re-tool" my memory of those posts.

I believe I recently wrote to you a set of questions related to people having the same consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.
I believe you responded that you didn't have an answer to those questions.
since I believe your answers to those questions are important, perhaps it would be best if we put the discussion on hold until you reach a position on those issues.

it's fine if you want to wait for the scientists to reach a conclusion on those questions, as I believe you talk about in the next post.

please let me know when you arrive at answers you are happy with.

Welcome back, and I hope things work out best for your mom

thank you!

 

[SelfSim]

Their subjective view of the tree might differ (they might find the tree ugly unlike me) but they will still see it as a tree like me.

A good example of what I'm saying here, comes from 'hardcore' geometry and is illustrated by the Coastline paradox. Paradoxically, it turns out that there is no accurate answer for: 'How long is the coastline of England?' I offer this as an analogy to your tree scenario, as surely geometry would initially appear to remove subjectiveness, as being a concern(?) However, even in the well-hardened realm of geometry, different minds are legitimately not able to come up with an accurate answer to this most basic question.

Different minds perceive 'things' differently .. (even when the perceptions come from geometric measurements).

The good news is there is also evidence for an overlap of commonality in perceptions of a tree (or the coastline above), which I'm saying is because we all share in a common mind type (human) and common meanings conveyed in our language, which we use to express those perceptions. All of that is evidence for a mind doing what it does .. and exactly zip evidence for some intelligence which exists independently from our minds (eg: a deity's mind or the commonly referred to, so-called 'physical' universe). There is no objective evidence that such things absolutely exist independently from our perceptions of these 'things'. All we have is our own perceptions.

The purpose of this discussion is to dispense with all references to 'physical' (mind independent) 'things' existing, (and so-called supporting test evidence), as the sole basis for arguing down believers. Its a fallacy that such things are supported by results from science's objective testing. Science should never be presented as 'the authority' for such a demonstrably inconsistent position.
Please understand, I'm not necessarily saying you do this .. but Atheism tends to frequently lurk around, presenting demands for 'physical', or 'objective' scientific evidence, without its proponents understanding what science actually means by those terms .. and its not what those folk think it means.

What does it mean to demonstrate the mind independence of a tree?

Well if you're asking me there, the answer would be, (obviously .. I hope), that such a demonstration (or objectively executed test) would invariably require a human mind, which then refutes the whole concept of a mind independent demonstration.
My use of the term 'mind independent' there, means existing completely separately, or not subject to or influenced in some way, by any human mind .. whatsoever.
I could only conclude that such a concept is a belief, (or an untestable model held in mind).

The word reality has a specific meaning in the English language. When I became familiar with the english language, I adopted it’s meaning for the word reality.

I have not yet seen an adequate definition of the concept of reality in a dictionary .. so, if that is the source of your working definition, there's a lot more (mental) work ahead. Philosophers have wrestled with it for decades and decades (a century?) and still have troubles with it.

Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. What do you mean by “existing independent of the human mind”?

A misunderstanding is still quite possible from my vantage point .. as I mentioned some posts ago(?)

So what I mean by that term is given above: 'My use of the term ' mind independent' there, means existing completely separately (or not subject to) any human mind whatsoever'.

What do you mean by “idealised models”?

Mental concepts (roughly speaking).

Again what are mind independent things?

Good question .. Beliefs mostly.

You are using terms I am unfamiliar with, you will need to define how you are using those terms before I can answer the rest of your questions.

The context is how we assign meaning to the term reality (or existence).

 

[SelfSim]

You don't need a test to reject claims, testing is needed to make claims.

In who's mind? A believer's?

 

[SelfSim]

Absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but it is definitely a legitimate reason to reject a claim.

Only when logic is the context. But consistent logic only ever upholds the truth values of its initial 'going-in' posits. Those posits have to be objectively testable, and objectively tested, before the outcome of the logical argument can be claimed as existing in 'physical' (I prefer the term 'objective') reality.
Science has to underwrite the posits with test results. Logic alone cannot underwrite claims of 'physical' (objective) reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe I put it in one of my very first posts to you.

Atheism and nihilism

In that post you made the mistake of assuming if a person doesn’t believe in God, it must be because they accept the scientific method for knowledge. My response to you was just because someone is skeptical of God doesn't mean they aren’t just as skeptical of science as well.

the issue is I have pieces in my memory of all the various things I wrote to you based on the assumption that you accepted that definition.

I have no idea what I might have said that gave you the impression I accepted that definition; perhaps you’ve mistaken me for someone else; either that or you misunderstood what I’ve said.

if it turns out you do not, I don't think I can "re-tool" my memory of those posts.

I believe I recently wrote to you a set of questions related to people having the same consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.

What do you mean by “same consciousness” and “evolution of consciousness”?

I believe you responded that you didn't have an answer to those questions.
since I believe your answers to those questions are important, perhaps it would be best if we put the discussion on hold until you reach a position on those issues.

it's fine if you want to wait for the scientists to reach a conclusion on those questions, as I believe you talk about in the next post.

please let me know when you arrive at answers you are happy with.

Explain what you mean by those terms, perhaps I can give you an answer; if not, perhaps we’re done.

 

[Ken-1122]

A good example of what I'm saying here, comes from 'hardcore' geometry and is illustrated by the Coastline paradox. Paradoxically, it turns out that there is no accurate answer for: 'How long is the coastline of England?'

Why?

I offer this as an analogy to your tree scenario, as surely geometry would initially appear to remove subjectiveness, as being a concern(?) However, even in the well-hardened realm of geometry, different minds are legitimately not able to come up with an accurate answer to this most basic question.

Different minds perceive 'things' differently .. (even when the perceptions come from geometric measurements).

I’m not talking about Geometry here; I’m talking about something with a physical existence.

My use of the term 'mind independent' there, means existing completely separately, or not subject to or influenced in some way, by any human mind .. whatsoever.

Okay to answer your question, when I experience the existence of the tree in my front yard, I have no reason to demonstrate the mind independent of the tree. When I experience something via my 5 senses and everybody else experience using their 5 senses the same as I, I have no reason to believe everybody is sharing the same delusion as I, I have no reason to believe what I am experiencing is not real.

I have not yet seen an adequate definition of the concept of reality in a dictionary

Definition of real | Dictionary.com
There ya go!

So what I mean by that term is given above: 'My use of the term ' mind independent' there, means existing completely separately (or not subject to) any human mind whatsoever'.

Okay. To answer your question; Do I believe people/scientists have knowledge about the physical world that is mind independent (not subject to the human mind)? Yes!

 

[Ken-1122]

Only when logic is the context. But consistent logic only ever upholds the truth values of its initial 'going-in' posits.

Only in its initial "going-in posits"? Perhaps you can give an example where logic does not uphold truth values.

In who's mind? A believer's?

In the mind of the person making the claim regardless if he is a believer or not.

 

[Leaf473]

In that post you made the mistake of assuming if a person doesn’t believe in God, it must be because they accept the scientific method for knowledge.

no, that's not what I said.

My response to you was just because someone is skeptical of God doesn't mean they aren’t just as skeptical of science as well.

I have no idea what I might have said that gave you the impression I accepted that definition; perhaps you’ve mistaken me for someone else; either that or you misunderstood what I’ve said.

imo, if you rejected the definition, the time to say so is in your response to that post, or very shortly thereafter.

What do you mean by “same consciousness” and “evolution of consciousness”?

Explain what you mean by those terms, perhaps I can give you an answer; if not, perhaps we’re done.

well, in the post I quote below I asked you a series of questions about consciousness.
that's what I'm referring to as the set of questions related to people having the same consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.
I believe you responded by saying,
"I don’t have answers to those questions...".
that you could say that you didn't have answers implies to me that you had some understanding of the questions.
you may wish, then, to take some time and ponder those questions,
and let me know when you have answers you are happy with.

and if I don't hear from you for a while, thank you for the interesting discussion and have a great life!

does everybody experience consciousness the same way?
is all consciousness of the same type?
if color blind people perceive, or experience, color differently than others, does it not seem reasonable that people would experience consciousness differently?

imo, the idea that all humans are "the same inside" comes from the Judeo Christian idea of all people being created with the same kind of soul or spirit.
not saying that's wrong, just saying I don't think it comes from science.

if our brains are the product of evolution, was there not a time when our ape ancestors were not conscious, and then at some point, they were?
but given that brain size grew over time, doesn't it seen reasonable that the consciousness of our ancestors half a million years ago was a different from what ours is today?

if the change occurred over thousands of generations, even if it could not be measured, it seems to me that the average consciousness of each generation would be slightly different than the one before.

 

[Ken-1122]

imo, if you rejected the definition, the time to say so is in your response to that post, or very shortly thereafter.

You claim I previously said something that I now say goes against what I believe, yet you are unable to provide evidence that I actually said it? I suspect you misunderstood me.

well, in the post I quote below I asked you a series of questions about consciousness.
that's what I'm referring to as the set of questions related to people having the same consciousness and the evolution of consciousness.
I believe you responded by saying,
"I don’t have answers to those questions...".
that you could say that you didn't have answers implies to me that you had some understanding of the questions.
you may wish, then, to take some time and ponder those questions,
and let me know when you have answers you are happy with.

and if I don't hear from you for a while, thank you for the interesting discussion and have a great life!

There are lots of questions I don’t have answers to; nobody knows everything. All I can tell you is what I believe to be true or not true. Perhaps we are done.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So it seems to me that your arguments would be a lot better if you actually made it clear what you were talking about rather than just introducing some concept, not explaining it, and hoping the other person can figure out the way you meant it.

I understand that I could work on making my arguments clearer, but I actually feel that it's not in the best interest of using my time to do homework for other people. Seriously, very seriously, I really don't feel I should have to do what others on some level should be responsibly learning to do for themselves. And that is one reason why I don't attempt to "just hand over the goods."

Maybe other people need to work on their listening and learning skills too, maybe not. But the fact remains that you should be doing everything you can to make sure your message is as clear as possible.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I'd first have to ascertain the degree of motivation that another person actually has to fully engage what I'm saying along with any sources I might offer. If I sense they're hedging and wanting a discussion to be uni-lateral, with all engagement going in only their direction with nothing bilaterally given back in my direction, then I'll refrain from "doing everything in my power to make sure the other person understands."

I come up with an idea based on an observation of the real world. I come up with a way to test it - not just verify as working in a particular situation, but also finding situations where it could fail if the idea is wrong to see if it does so. If the idea provides accurate results, and does not fail in the cases it would fail if it was wrong, then I accept that idea as correct.

That's all fine, but surely you recognize that simply coming up with "a way to test" some idea isn't necessarily to then indeed begin a process where you indeed are testing that idea. The so-called scientific practice is fraught with complications that might at times upend one's preconceived notions about testing some idea thought to be manifested in the real world.

Then perhaps you shouldn't say things if they were not relevant. By mentioning them, you gave the impression that they were relevant.

And maybe you shouldn't assume you have all of the information by which to make any more than just an approximate evaluation when interpreting someone else's statements. [This is where the field and science of Hermeneutics comes into play ]

No, but it does show that there are insufficient protocols in place to keep the worm-infested apples out of the barrels. While it doesn't prove that all the other apples are infested, it DOES show that the apples could have worms, and we should check them first to make sure they are free of worms.

I'm not so sure you can simply surmise about absences of protocols when the hypothetical apples in a barrel scenario is so generically given as I have given it. However, I do agree with you that if we recognize that one apple is tainted, those of us who are rational will understand that there is a need to sift through the rest of the barrel of apples (again, simplistically and hypothetically speaking).

No it's not.

I disagree.

Moreover, I have to wonder about the consistency between the principle that:

1) One shouldn't attempt to change another person's worldview​

and

2) Coming onto a public forum that is anti-thetical to one's one worldview a priori, before any discussion has yet ensued with a one of various individuals.​

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I thought I already told you; my beliefs are based on what makes sense to me. it's based on the best information I have at the moment

I can appreciate that your beliefs are 'based' {...Foundationalist term there, Ken!} on what makes sense to you, but the problem is, a schizophrenic could say the same thing. So, one needs to express (or even briefly explain) 'how' he or she tries to make sense of some idea or phenomenon.

 

[Ken-1122]

I can appreciate that your beliefs are 'based' {...Foundationalist term there, Ken!} on what makes sense to you, but the problem is, a schizophrenic could say the same thing. So, one needs to express (or even briefly explain) 'how' he or she tries to make sense of some idea or phenomenon.

Give me an example of an idea, phenomenon, moral delima, or scenario and I will explain why or why it doesn’t make sense to me

 

[Ken-1122]

I can appreciate that your beliefs are 'based' {...Foundationalist term there, Ken!} on what makes sense to you, but the problem is, a schizophrenic could say the same thing. So, one needs to express (or even briefly explain) 'how' he or she tries to make sense of some idea or phenomenon.

Give me an example of an idea, phenomenon, moral delima, or scenario and I will explain why or why it doesn’t make sense to me

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Give me an example of an idea, phenomenon, moral delima, or scenario and I will explain why or why it doesn’t make sense to me

... the problem here is that epistemology has less to do with what makes sense to you alone and more to do with what can make sense to a larger number of people. In other words, how you 'justify' your statements and conclusions is something that needs to be demonstrated, explained and analyzed in order to be of worth to other people.

But if you want an example, let's talk about something controversial like: homosexuality, pedophilia, communism, atheism, e.s.p, or human rights? Why should anyone care what you think and how you make sense of these things IF (let's say) you approve of any of these things?

 

[SelfSim]

Why?

Read the link.

I’m not talking about Geometry here; I’m talking about something with a physical existence.

.. and the objective demonstrable point is that your notion of 'physical existence' is no more or less of a model than the coastline of England is.

Okay to answer your question, when I experience the existence of the tree in my front yard, I have no reason to demonstrate the mind independent of the tree. When I experience something via my 5 senses and everybody else experience using their 5 senses the same as I, I have no reason to believe everybody is sharing the same delusion as I, I have no reason to believe what I am experiencing is not real.

I'll give you a testable reason then. That reason is that everyone shares in the same type of sensory organs and a human brain and therefore we all perceive commonalities with some differences.

Definition of real | Dictionary.com
There ya go!

As I said: 'I have not yet seen an adequate definition of the concept of reality in a dictionary .. so, if that is the source of your working definition, there's a lot more (mental) work ahead.' .. and that reference hasn't changed anything about what I've been talking about.

Okay. To answer your question; Do I believe people/scientists have knowledge about the physical world that is mind independent (not subject to the human mind)? Yes!

Thank you for sharing your belief .. It now sits alongside a huge pile of the rest of 'em .. in this case, under the heading of: 'Miracles' and you have also provided evidence that your learning style is by way of beliefs. (Ie: the same as any other religious folk .. which also supports the idea that your version of Atheism is also based on belief).

You are not thinking scientifically, yourself, when you choose to believe that scientists have knowledge that is mind independent, but I respect your choice to believe that. That belief makes precisely zero difference to the science they perform .. ie: where either you, or they, choose to hold such beliefs ... because science isn't based on such untestable beliefs, and there is abundant objective evidence that scientific knowledge is in fact, the accumulated thinking of many hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of human minds.
Unless you have some way of discounting that huge amount of objectively sourced evidence, your belief is a very feeble one indeed.

 

[Kylie]

I understand that I could work on making my arguments clearer, but I actually feel that it's not in the best interest of using my time to do homework for other people. Seriously, very seriously, I really don't feel I should have to do what others on some level should be responsibly learning to do for themselves. And that is one reason why I don't attempt to "just hand over the goods."

If you want to communicate and idea to others, then you bear the responsibility of making sure that idea is clearly communicated. If you don't make it easy to understand, then people will conclude you are wasting their time.

I'm not sure that I agree with that. I'd first have to ascertain the degree of motivation that another person actually has to fully engage what I'm saying along with any sources I might offer. If I sense they're hedging and wanting a discussion to be uni-lateral, with all engagement going in only their direction with nothing bilaterally given back in my direction, then I'll refrain from "doing everything in my power to make sure the other person understands."

If you make it hard for the other person to comprehend an argument they suspect is going to disagree with them, they'll decide it's not worth their time and just ignore it. Making your arguments clear and easy to understand will only benefit you.

That's all fine, but surely you recognize that simply coming up with "a way to test" some idea isn't necessarily to then indeed begin a process where you indeed are testing that idea. The so-called scientific practice is fraught with complications that might at times upend one's preconceived notions about testing some idea thought to be manifested in the real world.

But what's the point of it if the ideas are NOT tested? Then they remain nothing but ideas, and they can tell us nothing real about the world.

And maybe you shouldn't assume you have all of the information by which to make any more than just an approximate evaluation when interpreting someone else's statements. [This is where the field and science of Hermeneutics comes into play ]

I don't assume I have all the information. I fully expect that others have information that I don't have. But if you come in, tell me you have information that proves me wrong, but then make it difficult for me to get that information by being unclear, ambiguous, or otherwise hard to understand, then I'm going to say, "well then, forget about it."

I'm not so sure you can simply surmise about absences of protocols when the hypothetical apples in a barrel scenario is so generically given as I have given it. However, I do agree with you that if we recognize that one apple is tainted, those of us who are rational will understand that there is a need to sift through the rest of the barrel of apples (again, simplistically and hypothetically speaking).

But it still applies to the idea of a source being accurate, which you tried to disprove with the apple/barrell analogy.

I disagree.

I disagree with your disagreement.

Moreover, I have to wonder about the consistency between the principle that:

1) One shouldn't attempt to change another person's worldview​

and

2) Coming onto a public forum that is anti-thetical to one's one worldview a priori, before any discussion has yet ensued with a one of various individuals.​

One shouldn't try to force a change in another person's worldview, but there's nothing wrong with discussing different worldviews with people who willingly go into a forum where such discussions take place.

 

[SelfSim]

If you make it hard for the other person to comprehend an argument they suspect is going to disagree with them, they'll decide it's not worth their time and just ignore it. Making your arguments clear and easy to understand will only benefit you

.. but nonetheless is still unlikely to succeed, when the other suspects that idea is going to disagree with their beliefs ..