The importance of testing and problem of eyewitness testimony.

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, If I'm wrong, I'd like to think where you think I'm wrong. You've read the Manifesto, ok. I actually lived through it. But ok, you may have a deeper understanding .


There's a difference between wishing and asking. I didn't say that I've never asked it, but eventually I came to understanding the prayer to what it meant to be, and not what most Christians today see it as.



Sure, I don't dismiss that religious views have issues, but that goes for virtually any system that humans hold, be it secular, scientific or religious. It doesn't automatically invalidate some of the central premises that these systems may hold.



That's a rather odd perspective and statement. Facts are meaningless apart from interpretation. Fact - Christmas tree in my house is green. So what? . Fact, fire is hot. Facts are nominal description of reality. Science and religion attempt to explain the facts of reality. Religion attempt to explain the moral reality of being and origin of certain otherwise explainable facts. Religion is very much grounded in facts.

I don't mean to discount what you've lived through...but we're speaking of communism as envisioned by Marx correct? It's a place without tyrants like Stalin or anyone who followed him, it's without classes, ...in short it's a far cry from what was created by the USSR. If you're living under a tyrannical dictatorship which tells it's populace they live in a utopia....it's a bit silly to come somewhere else and tell them you lived in a utopia, isn't it? Communism, utopia, or whatever they claimed to be striving to achieve wasn't achieved, was it? I may not have lived there...but I don't have to live in N Korea either to understand what it is.

Facts are meaningless without someone to perceive them...but they aren't open to interpretation. 2+2=4 no matter who perceives it. Matter and energy cannot be destroyed regardless of who perceives it. The only facts i can think of which are completely open to interpretation are those which pertain entirely to you...how you feel, what you think, etc. Facts regarding your external reality simply are.

It is that external reality which religion lies about.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No... that's NOT the problem. I've explained it .

1) Sentient intelligent matter is different from non-intelligent one...(I'll extend it in terms of what the difference is) because of an arrangement that allows for matter to posses sentient qualities.

2) The problem is with explaining how non-sentient matter would self-assemble into a sentient one, when non-sentient matter doesn't posses such intelligence. It's not inherent and is not a part of the nature of matter.

I've never said that God is sentient matter. It's a higher order of being. Just like humans are higher order of being when we look at any intelligent human creations like computers.

Because scientifically it seems like there was some sort of the beginning to time/space/matter as we know it, and it's highly problematic that non-intelligent matter would self-assemble into an intelligent one, therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude that a higher-order of being is responsible... which we call God.

It's not that difficult to follow, and it's not something that I just now make up. Some of the greatest philosophers in history to who we owe quite a bit of our human development reached the same conclusion.

God has no sentience?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No... that's NOT the problem. I've explained it .

1) Sentient intelligent matter is different from non-intelligent one...(I'll extend it in terms of what the difference is) because of an arrangement that allows for matter to posses sentient qualities.

2) The problem is with explaining how non-sentient matter would self-assemble into a sentient one, when non-sentient matter doesn't posses such intelligence. It's not inherent and is not a part of the nature of matter.

I've never said that God is sentient matter. It's a higher order of being. Just like humans are higher order of being when we look at any intelligent human creations like computers.

Because scientifically it seems like there was some sort of the beginning to time/space/matter as we know it, and it's highly problematic that non-intelligent matter would self-assemble into an intelligent one, therefore it's not unreasonable to conclude that a higher-order of being is responsible... which we call God.

It's not that difficult to follow, and it's not something that I just now make up. Some of the greatest philosophers in history to who we owe quite a bit of our human development reached the same conclusion.

I don't think much of philosophers who use special pleading for their explanations of reality.

To an ant, I'm of a higher order...it's an irrelevant point. You don't believe god is made of matter...it's an irrelevant point.

You believe god is a thing, it has intelligence, and that intelligence is a part of its nature (it wasn't created by some other higher intelligence).

In effect, you do see how intelligence can be a part of something's nature (not created by some other higher intelligence)....you see this in god. Just because you don't see it in humans doesn't change that fact.

Special pleading isn't a means of logic my friend....your premises remain flawed.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

God is the reason for my existence and I believe that to be true. God is the truth that can explain everything I percieve.

So this means you have an explanation for everything?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's a rather odd perspective and statement. Facts are meaningless apart from interpretation. Fact - Christmas tree in my house is green. So what? . Fact, fire is hot. Facts are nominal description of reality. Science and religion attempt to explain the facts of reality. Religion attempt to explain the moral reality of being and origin of certain otherwise explainable facts. Religion is very much grounded in facts.

Yes, religions offer attempts at explanation. What is the track record of those explanations? What often happens when such explanations are shown to be wrong? Are they readily abandoned or are they shielded from scrutiny by means of faith?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Likewise, perpetuating falsehoods is not a uniquely religious problem. It's largely problem with ignorance, which is inherently human problem of limited awareness. It's not unique to religion, neither it's more prevalent in religious setting when you compare apples to apples.

It's not a uniquely religious problem, but religion provides the most fertile soil for it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm not interested in labeling things as irrational. I'm interested in actually following your flow of thoughts as to why you think it is irrational.

You would have to provide some more rational alternative in order to claim that it's not rational to believe such axiom which is derived from a rather streightforward and rational observation:

1) There's a distinct difference between conscious sentience and non-conscious matter
2) I don't see any more rationally explainable means of going from non-sentient matter to sentience other than a mechanism of intelligent design.

1. Sure. Sentience is one of the things that matter does. A process and an object are two different things. I'm not sure I see that as being earth shattering, though. There's a distinct difference between running and the physical legs which do the running, but that doesn't mean that there's something supernatural involved.
2. That's not an observation. That's a statement of belief, or maybe one of a lack of imagination or ignorance. And doesn't that lead to infinite regress? To get intelligence you need intelligence, and to get that intelligence you need intelligence.

 

[Dre Khipov]

So this means you have an explanation for everything?

No, of course not.

Yes, religions offer attempts at explanation. What is the track record of those explanations? What often happens when such explanations are shown to be wrong? Are they readily abandoned or are they shielded from scrutiny by means of faith?

Religion, just like theoretical science, provides propositional truths. I think that it's fairly obvious that both science, religion and philosophy went through numerous overhauls. All got more sophisticated and weeded out less likely propositions.

I seems like you are implying that plenty of religious people hold on to obviously false propositions. Sure. That's not merely the case for religious. Science of course would get more things right, mainly because it deals with realm of immediately available , repeatable and more easily falsifiable. Religion and philosophy tend to deal with explaining things that science doesn't attempt to explain.

It's not a uniquely religious problem, but religion provides the most fertile soil for it.

Sure. Religion and philosophy take a lot more risks when it comes to certain axiomatic assumptions. Obviously the amount of probable truths that would be closer to reality would likewise be minimized. By itself it doesn't invalidate the central premise of most religions, which deals with being we call God.

 

[Dre Khipov]

1. Sure. Sentience is one of the things that matter does. A process and an object are two different things. I'm not sure I see that as being earth shattering, though. There's a distinct difference between running and the physical legs which do the running, but that doesn't mean that there's something supernatural involved.

It's like saying the object and its attributes are two separate things. It doesn't work out really well. Functional description is derivative of properties of any given arrangement. It doesn't exist as some "separate thing". It doesn't even make any sense. How can you have a process without the agent of that process?

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say here?

2. That's not an observation. That's a statement of belief, or maybe one of a lack of imagination or ignorance. And doesn't that lead to infinite regress? To get intelligence you need intelligence, and to get that intelligence you need intelligence.

Everything you say is a statement of belief . Likewise, calling it a lack of imagination or ignorance doesn't really contribute to this discussion in any positive manner. It's an attack on idea without demonstrating why you think it's false. It's just lazy and incredulous (see... that type of thing doesn't really accomplish anything ).

And no. It's NOT the premise. I'm not sure why you end up reducing it to "To get intelligence, you need intelligence" and then necessitating regression. There's a part of the hierarchy of order that you neglect.

If we approach science with your preconditions, then we can't really do theoretical science.

For example, with QM we can assume some sort of discrete "minimal", and still see the necessity for the larger particles to be explained by the causal factors of the smaller particles that are theorized to be responsible. We don't run into "but... but... if we think that larger particles are comprised of the smaller ones, therefore.... infinite regress".

There's no issue with infinite regress at that level, if we axiomatically presuppose discreteness of space and matter as a necessary precondition to do scientific research. We could make that assumption without actually knowing what the true nature of the fabric of space is.

It's the same issue here. There's nothing wrong with axiomatically presupposing certain necessity of the "discrete causation" so to speak, where we end up with an ultimate cause instead of infinite regress. It's not a fallacy. Our observation is limited, therefore we are bound to make educated guesses. That's the nature of theoretical science, philosophy, and religion. There are plenty of falsifiable crackpottery in all three, but it doesn't automatically invalidate all three, or any of these, as viable means to derive some functional understanding of our reality.

 

[KCfromNC]

It's like saying the object and its attributes are two separate things.

Huh?

It doesn't work out really well. Functional description is derivative of properties of any given arrangement. It doesn't exist as some "separate thing". It doesn't even make any sense. How can you have a process without the agent of that process?

You tell me. I didn't say anything like what you're trying to pin on me here.

Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say here?

Yep. I don't even have any idea how to correct you since I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.

Everything you say is a statement of belief . Likewise, calling it a lack of imagination or ignorance doesn't really contribute to this discussion in any positive manner. It's an attack on idea without demonstrating why you think it's false.

I think you are correctly reporting your belief. You've just given me no reason to think that belief is correctly describing reality.

And no. It's NOT the premise. I'm not sure why you end up reducing it to "To get intelligence, you need intelligence" and then necessitating regression.

Because you said that sentience requires intelligent design. That is, you need intelligence to get intelligence.

It's the same issue here. There's nothing wrong with axiomatically presupposing certain necessity of the "discrete causation" so to speak, where we end up with an ultimate cause instead of infinite regress.

You'll have to be more specific here. Start by describing how the intelligence you're proposing that designed our intelligence is "discrete", whatever that's supposed to mean in this context.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is just a anecdote,the other topic got me thinking about this, probably one of the reasons why I'm very careful about just accepting blind eyewitness testimony because no matter how sincere, or truthful someone can be, they can also be wrong.

The same is true of test results and how you interpret them.

"There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies and statistics."
- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography:

 

[Dre Khipov]

Huh? You tell me. I didn't say anything like what you're trying to pin on me here.

Well... You've said that ... A process and an object are two different things.

It's a nonsensical statement. A process is not a thing. I hope you see where I'm going with this, so that I save some typing time.

Yep. I don't even have any idea how to correct you since I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.

Again, a process is not a thing. Running is not a thing. It's a concept. Consciousness is not merely "matter". It's a matter in a specific arrangement.

I think you are correctly reporting your belief. You've just given me no reason to think that belief is correctly describing reality.

As I've mentioned. Everything is a belief. Knowledge would be a form of justified belief which is provisionally true. That's the basis for the philosophy we use to do science.

Because you said that sentience requires intelligent design. That is, you need intelligence to get intelligence.

Sentience doesn't merely require any "intelligent design". We as intelligent beings are not yet able to create sentient creations. Sentience would appear to require an intelligence that transcends (superior) to our own.

You'll have to be more specific here. Start by describing how the intelligence you're proposing that designed our intelligence is "discrete", whatever that's supposed to mean in this context.

You seem to misunderstand. In physics we can make two basic assuptions...

1) Space and time is discrete
2) Space and time is continuous

We wouldn't make them based on any experimental data. To some degree it would be axiomatic. Some physicists prefer the view of space and time being discrete to avoid the regression problem. Some view it as continuous and don't see the issue with regression, because we are talking about fundamental fabric of reality, and our login resides in the bounds of time-dependent concepts.

When I've made the comparison to "discrete" reality of God, I'm really talking about similar issue here. There's no paradox, because we are stepping into the "fundamental reality" that would by extent ion create and fuel ours in some way.

You demand some specifics, but that would be like demanding specifics about nature of reality beyond the quantum realm. What's it like? Scientists propose a string theory, and it's purely speculative. They hope that if the math works out, then there's no need for experimental validation. Well, it didn't work out too well, but it just shows that science doesn't always work in deductive manner. It can be inductive.

God proposition is an inductive one. It doesn't just drop out there as an insane idea. By extension, that would make overwhelming majority of this world insane.

What I'm pointing out is that there's a rational basis for such belief, and that when we try to work out axiomatic assumptions about the nature of something that we can't access in reality, all we have to work with is inductive logic.

 

[Chriliman]

Well... You've said that ... A process and an object are two different things.

It's a nonsensical statement. A process is not a thing. I hope you see where I'm going with this, so that I save some typing time.



Again, a process is not a thing. Running is not a thing. It's a concept. Consciousness is not merely "matter". It's a matter in a specific arrangement.



As I've mentioned. Everything is a belief. Knowledge would be a form of justified belief which is provisionally true. That's the basis for the philosophy we use to do science.



Sentience doesn't merely require any "intelligent design". We as intelligent beings are not yet able to create sentient creations. Sentience would appear to require an intelligence that transcends (superior) to our own.



You seem to misunderstand. In physics we can make two basic assuptions...

1) Space and time is discrete
2) Space and time is continuous

We wouldn't make them based on any experimental data. To some degree it would be axiomatic. Some physicists prefer the view of space and time being discrete to avoid the regression problem. Some view it as continuous and don't see the issue with regression, because we are talking about fundamental fabric of reality, and our login resides in the bounds of time-dependent concepts.

When I've made the comparison to "discrete" reality of God, I'm really talking about similar issue here. There's no paradox, because we are stepping into the "fundamental reality" that would by extent ion create and fuel ours in some way.

You demand some specifics, but that would be like demanding specifics about nature of reality beyond the quantum realm. What's it like? Scientists propose a string theory, and it's purely speculative. They hope that if the math works out, then there's no need for experimental validation. Well, it didn't work out too well, but it just shows that science doesn't always work in deductive manner. It can be inductive.

God proposition is an inductive one. It doesn't just drop out there as an insane idea. By extension, that would make overwhelming majority of this world insane.

What I'm pointing out is that there's a rational basis for such belief, and that when we try to work out axiomatic assumptions about the nature of something that we can't access in reality, all we have to work with is inductive logic.

Thank you for your insight and explanations, they are very helpful

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, of course not.

That question was directed at Chriliman.

Religion, just like theoretical science, provides propositional truths. I think that it's fairly obvious that both science, religion and philosophy went through numerous overhauls. All got more sophisticated and weeded out less likely propositions.

I do think that progress in theology is possible, but such progress is characterised principally by erosion rather than elaboration.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I don't mean to discount what you've lived through...but we're speaking of communism as envisioned by Marx correct? It's a place without tyrants like Stalin or anyone who followed him, it's without classes, ...in short it's a far cry from what was created by the USSR.

It is that external reality which religion lies about.

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. My point was that your dictionary definition of religion could accommodate a lot of ideologies, like Communism, that are not inherently religious.

If you're living under a tyrannical dictatorship which tells it's populace they live in a utopia....it's a bit silly to come somewhere else and tell them you lived in a utopia, isn't it? Communism, utopia, or whatever they claimed to be striving to achieve wasn't achieved, was it? I may not have lived there...but I don't have to live in N Korea either to understand what it is.

It was far from utopia. Most of the people who lived there never thought that it was. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I wouldn't have left if I liked it or agreed with ideology.

Nevertheless, I find it a tid bit impudent to presume that you can read a book or an article and understand things on the par of people actually going through these things. These are two different types of understanding.

Facts are meaningless without someone to perceive them...but they aren't open to interpretation. 2+2=4 no matter who perceives it. Matter and energy cannot be destroyed regardless of who perceives it. The only facts i can think of which are completely open to interpretation are those which pertain entirely to you...how you feel, what you think, etc. Facts regarding your external reality simply are.

There's a difference between a direct experience, and reading about something. I got to both experience and read both sides of the story. But that's besides the point and quite a bit off topic. I hope I've clarified above as to why I was bringing it up as an example.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not quite sure what you are getting at here. My point was that your dictionary definition of religion could accommodate a lot of ideologies, like Communism, that are not inherently religious.



It was far from utopia. Most of the people who lived there never thought that it was. I'm not sure where you are getting that from. I wouldn't have left if I liked it or agreed with ideology.

Nevertheless, I find it a tid bit impudent to presume that you can read a book or an article and understand things on the par of people actually going through these things. These are two different types of understanding.



There's a difference between a direct experience, and reading about something. I got to both experience and read both sides of the story. But that's besides the point and quite a bit off topic. I hope I've clarified above as to why I was bringing it up as an example.

You've clarified it...you're still wrong, but you've clarified it.

Since you want to keep going with this though, let's keep going with it.

Exactly when in the USSR did all industry pass into the control of the workers? I know much of the industrial sector was seized by the state...but I missed the part where it went under direct democratic control of the workers. It's probably the most central tenet of communism and without that, you aren't living under communism.

The final stages of communism are most commonly described as stateless and classless. Again, since you lived in a communist country...go ahead and tell me when the dissolution of the ruling class/parties occurred and a classless society was achieved.

As you said yourself, communism is an ideology...not a religion. It doesn't fit the definition I gave and no amount of semantic word games will change that.

 

[KCfromNC]

Well... You've said that ... A process and an object are two different things.

It's a nonsensical statement. A process is not a thing.

Oh god, pointless word games. I had hoped for actual substance. I don't have time or patience to debate what the definition of thing happens to be to try and score rhetorical points. Oh well.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Oh god, pointless word games. I had hoped for actual substance. I don't have time or patience to debate what the definition of thing happens to be to try and score rhetorical points. Oh well.

We can't get to actual substance when you are talking a language that doesn't reflect reality . I've made a number of point beyond this one in my reply, and it seems like that's the one you choose to focus on.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Exactly when in the USSR did all industry pass into the control of the workers? I know much of the industrial sector was seized by the state...but I missed the part where it went under direct democratic control of the workers. It's probably the most central tenet of communism and without that, you aren't living under communism.

You are making the same mistake with the term "Communism" as you are making with the term "Religion". There are a wide variety of permutations in communism, but it doesn't imply and necessitate the direct control and ownership and means of production. That ownership in either case is a government-moderated ownership, be it central state government, or some sort of Factory Committee.

To say that USSR was not a form of Communism, while most historians and sociologists say that it was... is somewhat misguided IMO.

The final stages of communism are most commonly described as stateless and classless. Again, since you lived in a communist country...go ahead and tell me when the dissolution of the ruling class/parties occurred and a classless society was achieved.

So, because that form of Communism didn't achieve that, it means it wasn't "true Communism"? You have a continuum fallacy brewing here, and I'm not exactly following what your point is... I'm not sure I'd like to know at this point, because it's trivial really to the original point I was making.

As you said yourself, communism is an ideology...not a religion. It doesn't fit the definition I gave and no amount of semantic word games will change that.

My original point in this, with you going in some very bizarre tangent here, is:

1) The definition of the religion you've provided was very broad
2) Then you smash that enormous ball of things you define as religion, and say all of it is false, and you name things like "prayer" and etc, etc, as some odd evidence for why you think all of the religion is false

It's sort of like saying "Science is wrong!", because scientists in the past made false assumptions. Well, that's sort of the point of science. Religion is a "science" of sort. People try to explain. Religion provides some provisional answers. When it's falsified, it reforms and moves on.

Overwhelming majority of philosophy we have today comes from the background of religion as a starting point. Philosophy gave grounding to science that we have today.

Saying that religion is false is somewhat misguided in a sense that religion is not there to provide you with proof for "magical beings". It's there to set a workable context of reality that's inaccessible to scientific method.

In that, there will be plenty of false premises in religion, just like there were plenty of false premises in science. The difference is that religion tends to be a form of traditional mindset which is slow to change and reform, thus there will always be some generational cognitive dissonance when it comes to getting rid of things that can be shown false.

 

[Chriliman]

You are making the same mistake with the term "Communism" as you are making with the term "Religion". There are a wide variety of permutations in communism, but it doesn't imply and necessitate the direct control and ownership and means of production. That ownership in either case is a government-moderated ownership, be it central state government, or some sort of Factory Committee.

To say that USSR was not a form of Communism, while most historians and sociologists say that it was... is somewhat misguided IMO.



So, because that form of Communism didn't achieve that, it means it wasn't "true Communism"? You have a continuum fallacy brewing here, and I'm not exactly following what your point is... I'm not sure I'd like to know at this point, because it's trivial really to the original point I was making.



My original point in this, with you going in some very bizarre tangent here, is:

1) The definition of the religion you've provided was very broad
2) Then you smash that enormous ball of things you define as religion, and say all of it is false, and you name things like "prayer" and etc, etc, as some odd evidence for why you think all of the religion is false

It's sort of like saying "Science is wrong!", because scientists in the past made false assumptions. Well, that's sort of the point of science. Religion is a "science" of sort. People try to explain. Religion provides some provisional answers. When it's falsified, it reforms and moves on.

Overwhelming majority of philosophy we have today comes from the background of religion as a starting point. Philosophy gave grounding to science that we have today.

Saying that religion is false is somewhat misguided in a sense that religion is not there to provide you with proof for "magical beings". It's there to set a workable context of reality that's inaccessible to scientific method.

In that, there will be plenty of false premises in religion, just like there were plenty of false premises in science. The difference is that religion tends to be a form of traditional mindset which is slow to change and reform, thus there will always be some generational cognitive dissonance when it comes to getting rid of things that can be shown false.

This is the kind of explanation that I'm not smart enough to put into words, but it makes complete sense to me, so thank you again!

Keep bringing sense to these forums and maybe people will start thinking in new ways, that's my hope at least