I don't really get it.

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Valiya's picture
Travis

Travis

"Just because perception is subjective does not make it necessarily false, and there are ways of lowering your chances of being wrong. We may not be able to see all of objective reality through that subjective lens, but we can see some of it, and increase our field of vision using tested methods that work.”

You seem to be unable to take a decision on the subjectivity of objective reality. Now you seem to be dabbling with the degree of subjectivity… the lesser the chances of you being wrong… more objective your understanding becomes… so then on what level are you currently on… who decides this level?

“Are you really arguing that I can't know that drinking batter acid would be bad for the survival of my loved ones and myself? That is the equivalent of what you have said here. There are, as a matter of fact, things that do appear to be very bad for the survival of the ones we love and ourselves. I am not quite sure what you are saying here.”

You are contradicting yourself only… you are the one who said everything is subjective… and now you are asking me about this batter acid? SO, you tell me… can objective reality be understood objectively or not? Make up your mind…

“You argued that since people used to think slavery was alright, that means that morality is somehow relative. That is no different from someone saying that since people used to think the Earth was flat, a round Earth is relative.”

This is not my statement… this is what I think your notions will lead you to say… if you say objective truth can only be understood using subjective means… you will have to accept both the above propositions on slavery and flat earth…

And it’s precisely to escape this conundrum that I rely on a non-subjective moral standard… (may be the way I have reached there is subjective… like your assumption that objective reality exists… but once I am there… my moral standard is stable)… as for the objective reality of the shape of the earth… well, I agree with you that as knowledge grows our perceptions change… and there’s nothing we can do about it… but it bears no consequence on my morality.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"You seem to be unable to

"You seem to be unable to take a decision on the subjectivity of objective reality. Now you seem to be dabbling with the degree of subjectivity… the lesser the chances of you being wrong… more objective your understanding becomes… so then on what level are you currently on… who decides this level?"

No, you seem to misunderstand what I said, yet again. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't comport with the actual objective reality that exists, unless you think that is impossible to arrive at any kind of truth that actually comports with reality using only subjective experience and perception. My subjective experience and perception leads me to believe that a knife to the heart would bad for my health, and I think we would probably both agree on that, but if you don't then we can start a comparative assessment of our experiences and that of others to determine which is most likely correct.

"You are contradicting yourself only… you are the one who said everything is subjective…"

EVERYTHING? No, don't put words in my mouth, I only said our perception is necessarily subjective, not everything in the universe.

"and now you are asking me about this batter acid?"

Typo, I meant battery acid.

"SO, you tell me… can objective reality be understood objectively or not?"

If you had been following along, and understood what I said, you would never have asked such an ill-formed question. Understanding is based on perception. Perception is necessarily subjective. That means understanding will be subjective too. Subjective doesn't mean false, and despite what people seem to think, subjectivity isn't actually a bad thing. The only thing that it really means is that we have to constantly check our perception and understanding against the reality that we and others observe, and comparatively assess them, to make sure that they best comport with the reality we inhabit.

"Make up your mind…"

I did, you just don't seem to understand it.

"This is not my statement…"

Yes it is, should I quote what you said?

"this is what I think your notions will lead you to say…"

No, my notions will never deny progress in both fields simply because we have the capacity to discover and learn, that is precisely what yours would do. My entire system DEPENDS on an ability to discover and learn new things about our reality, yours merely depends on dictation from holy text, no ability needed.

"if you say objective truth can only be understood using subjective means… you will have to accept both the above propositions on slavery and flat earth…"

No, I don't. I have outlined the reason for this multiple times, and you either don't understand it, or refuse to accept it. If you want to pretend that the conclusions that were made before mankind could find its ass with both hands and a flashlight, are somehow equal to the conclusions we have now, be my guest, but you won't be doing yourself any favors. We used to think bloodletting and Trepanation were valid medical practices, then we learned better, and to pretend our current knowledge is somehow no better than it was then is simply silly.

"And it’s precisely to escape this conundrum that I rely on a non-subjective moral standard… (may be the way I have reached there is subjective… like your assumption that objective reality exists… but once I am there… my moral standard is stable)…"

Except that your supposed god would also be basing his commands on his subjective perception and desires, making its moral dictates no more objective or absolute than those of anyone else.

"as for the objective reality of the shape of the earth… well, I agree with you that as knowledge grows our perceptions change… and there’s nothing we can do about it… but it bears no consequence on my morality. "

And that is where we will differ, my understanding of morality will grow as our knowledge does, while yours will remain forever trapped in the seventh century.

Valiya's picture
Travis

Travis

As the post is getting long again… I am keeping it short.

You said: “Just because something is subjective doesn't mean that it doesn't comport with the actual objective reality that exists”

Yes, it doesn’t mean so… but it also doesn’t mean that it has to comport with it… that’s precisely why it is subjective…

“My subjective experience and perception leads me to believe that a knife to the heart would bad for my health, and I think we would probably both agree on that.”

I agree with you. That’s the reason I have been arguing from the beginning that morality and objective reality are two different things… sticking a knife into a person is of course bad as it will harm him… but is it morally right or wrong… the answer depends on who you ask? That is why questions like death penalty are hotly debated topics…all the rationally thinking people in the world do not agree on this. Forget religionists.., just take atheists, and you will see them differing on this.

“EVERYTHING? No, don't put words in my mouth, I only said our perception is necessarily subjective, not everything in the universe.”

If perception is the only way you can understand everything in the universe…and that perception is subjective…then everything by logic must be subjective.

"Subjective doesn't mean false, and despite what people seem to think, subjectivity isn't actually a bad thing. The only thing that it really means is that we have to constantly check our perception.”

Fine. But the problem is you never know how long you will have to check perceptions before we take a decision… didn’t we practice slavery for hundreds of years…didn’t we deny women right to vote for decades… didn’t we illegalize homosexuality for hundreds of years…and now you say all these are wrong…and who knows how many more hundreds of years before you change you stance yet again!

"We used to think bloodletting and Trepanation were valid medical practices, then we learned better, and to pretend our current knowledge is somehow no better than it was then is simply silly.”

What guarantee do you have that 500 years later our medical practices will not be critiqued in the same manner that we now critique blood-letting? We are always smarter in hindsight… who knows we might even return to some age-old practices… there is already a heightened interest in natural remedies as practiced by some of our ancients… yoga is millennia old.

“And that is where we will differ, my understanding of morality will grow as our knowledge does, while yours will remain forever trapped in the seventh century.”

But your understanding will never stop growing…and therefore in hindsight it is always a dwarf…

And here is the most important point to remember: this kind of growing of knowledge is okay as far as medical remedies and such things are concerned…because we apply it out of necessity…whether it’s good or bad.

Whereas morality is quite different…morality, if you look closely, involves a sacrifice for the benefit of others… Example: eating good food is good for health, but it is not a moral act. Whereas, when you share that food with a hungry person, you are doing a moral act.

Therefore, if you base your morality on growing knowledge, and are never sure if things wouldn’t change again tomorrow… then there is really no drive to do this moral act… because you anyways don’t have any benefit in it for you…

Or morality involves withholding a perceived benefit for the good of others…if you kill your uncle you may inherit his wealth…why shouldn’t you do it for the sake of a moral code that you are not sure will stay the same 10 years later?

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Yes, it doesn’t mean so… but

"Yes, it doesn’t mean so… but it also doesn’t mean that it has to comport with it… that’s precisely why it is subjective…"

We do have tools that help determine if something appears to comport with it, and those tools do not solely rely on our subjective perception.

"I agree with you. That’s the reason I have been arguing from the beginning that morality and objective reality are two different things… sticking a knife into a person is of course bad as it will harm him…"

We have come to this conclusion using the same tools we use to determine if something comports with reality.

"but is it morally right or wrong… the answer depends on who you ask?"

Actually, applying the aforementioned tools will give you an answer.

"That is why questions like death penalty are hotly debated topics…all the rationally thinking people in the world do not agree on this. Forget religionists.., just take atheists, and you will see them differing on this."

People not agreeing about something does not mean that there isn't a right answer, it just means we have yet to discover and support it sufficiently.

"If perception is the only way you can understand everything in the universe…and that perception is subjective…then everything by logic must be subjective."

If perception is the only way we can experience and apple, and perception is subjective, then the existence of apples is subjective to our experience of them? No. The fact that our perception of a thing is subjective does not make the thing itself subjective. Two people locked in a room may percieve time differently, because our perception is subjective, does that mean that the actual amount of time that has passed is subjective?

"Fine. But the problem is you never know how long you will have to check perceptions before we take a decision…"

We are forced to make moral decisions, often on insufficient information, and manage to come to conclusions in everyday life. Does that mean we should stop checking them? No. Should we ever stop checking them? Not if we want to be as moral as we can be.

"didn’t we practice slavery for hundreds of years…didn’t we deny women right to vote for decades… didn’t we illegalize homosexuality for hundreds of years…"

Just like we used to think the world was flat, we used to think illness was caused by demonic possession, and that birth defects were punishment by god. We learned better.

"and now you say all these are wrong…"

Much like I can say that the Earth is round, that illness is caused by pathogens and physiological phenomena, and that birth defects are caused by genetics.

"and who knows how many more hundreds of years before you change you stance yet again!"

Unless something really apocalyptic and wonky happens, we are as likely to reverse positions on these issues as we are a flat Earth. Once knowledge is gained, it isn't erased, but added to. The fact that our scientific and moral understanding progresses, and gets better, is the STRENGTH of the system.

"What guarantee do you have that 500 years later our medical practices will not be critiqued in the same manner that we now critique blood-letting?"

Oh, I have little doubt that many of our current practices may well seem primitive and barbaric to people living 500 years from now, how does that make our current knowledge and understanding worthless? Without our current progress, society 500 years from now would have nothing to work with or add upon, meaning our current knowledge and progress is actually ESSENTIAL.

"We are always smarter in hindsight… who knows we might even return to some age-old practices… there is already a heightened interest in natural remedies as practiced by some of our ancients… yoga is millennia old."

Mystical woo aside, many doctors do actually recommend yoga as a healty low-impact aerobic exercise, and such exercise has demonstrable benefit. However, your larger claim that society might revert back to ancient practices, that only seems to be the case for religion.

"But your understanding will never stop growing…and therefore in hindsight it is always a dwarf…"

Our understanding of physics will never stop growing, and will be greater than it is now, how does that demean or destroy the understanding we have now?

"And here is the most important point to remember: this kind of growing of knowledge is okay as far as medical remedies and such things are concerned…because we apply it out of necessity…whether it’s good or bad."

If we applied unsound medical procedures out of urgency, it would still be bad. Urgency does not make right.

"Whereas morality is quite different…morality, if you look closely, involves a sacrifice for the benefit of others…"

Not in every case, morality is quite diverse, and covers a broad range of interaction.

"Example: eating good food is good for health, but it is not a moral act."

Weird, because eating something so bad for you that it would kill you immediately is often considered an immoral act, and yet the opposite mysteriously has NO moral value whatsoever. How strange.

"Whereas, when you share that food with a hungry person, you are doing a moral act."

I would consider that a moral act, for reasons I have perviously described.

"Therefore, if you base your morality on growing knowledge, and are never sure if things wouldn’t change again tomorrow…"

Here you go pretending that our gained understanding could reverse itself in a minute, do you have any idea how silly that sounds. That is like saying that because science is based on our growing knowledge, you never know if it wouldn't revert tommorow.

"then there is really no drive to do this moral act… because you anyways don’t have any benefit in it for you…"

If the only reason you are doing a moral act is to simply benefit yourself, then is it actually moral?

"Or morality involves withholding a perceived benefit for the good of others…if you kill your uncle you may inherit his wealth…why shouldn’t you do it for the sake of a moral code that you are not sure will stay the same 10 years later?"

Really? Another utterly vapid argument that attempt to strawman and ignore the last two days of conversation? I honestly don't know why I bother anymore.

Valiya's picture
sorry... the post got long

sorry... the post got long again

Valiya's picture
TRAVIS

TRAVIS
Let me start from the end… I can understand your exasperation, because it’s mutual. When two people with strong opinions clash…this is bound to happen… I don’t wish to go over the grind again and again… but here are some quick responses.

What is your definition of morality? Do you say anything that is good for a person is moral? Is eating good food an act of morality? Please define it for me.

As for your “apple” example… so you are saying that our perception is objective, is it? Or are you saying that in some instances it is objective and in some instances it is subjective? I don’t understand your stance. If perception is subjective (AS per what you said), then seeing an apple should be a subjective experience. Or you will have to correct your statement about perception. That’s why I said, make up your mind.

Your tools will suffer from the same problem, because we use perception even to analyze the tools. But, I am not pressing that point too much. Just demonstrate to how by using your “tools” you can find a solution to this question: “Is it good to allow suicide or not?”

Travis Hedglin's picture
"What is your definition of

"What is your definition of morality?"

Morality is the system we derive from assessing actions and behaviors in regard to intent, circumstance, and consequences.

"Do you say anything that is good for a person is moral?"

It depends on intent, circumstance, and consequences.

"Is eating good food an act of morality?"

If you are doing it to stay healthy, and provide a healthy example to people who may view you as a role model, sure.

"As for your “apple” example… so you are saying that our perception is objective, is it?"

No, I did not, I said that while our perception may be subjective, the thing we are percieving is NOT. There exists a objective reality, and while all of our perception of it may be subjective, we should not confuse our subjectivity with the objectivity of reality. There is apparently and object in the universe we call an "apple", we all may percieve this object in subtley different ways, but that doesn't translate to the object existence being subjective. That would be a fallacy.

"Or are you saying that in some instances it is objective and in some instances it is subjective?"

No.

"I don’t understand your stance."

Obviously, because you continue to misrepresent it.

"If perception is subjective (AS per what you said), then seeing an apple should be a subjective experience."

The fact that our experience of the apple is subjective, in no way makes the apple itself subjective. Our perceptions and experiences are subjective, the things we happen to be expereincing and percieving aren't necessarily subjective.

"Or you will have to correct your statement about perception. That’s why I said, make up your mind."

No, I won't. I corrected you, when you tried to state that everything in the universe MUST be subjective because our perception of it is, which is literally stating that objective reality is subjective to our experience of it. Your statement is nonsensical.

"Your tools will suffer from the same problem, because we use perception even to analyze the tools. But, I am not pressing that point too much."

Methods ARE subjective, that is why we judge them by their results, not simply their foundation. If a tool or method proves to be reliable based upon its results, then we use it.

"Just demonstrate to how by using your “tools” you can find a solution to this question: “Is it good to allow suicide or not?”

It depends on intent, circumstance, and consequence. Morality cannot be divorced from all context and circumstance with blanket statements, this has been show over and over again, yet you still choose to see in monochrome when morality is grayscale.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Valiya,

Valiya,

Headed to bed, I have work in the morning, but I promise to get back you you when I can.

Valiya's picture
Before I begin, let me make a

Before I begin, let me make a point clear. I am not holding to your positions about the subjectivity of perception. However, whether it is subjective or objective is quite inconsequential to me on the topic of morality. I am only critiquing it to expose the weakness in your moral paradigm. So, here we go.

“Morality is the system we derive from assessing actions and behaviors in regard to intent, circumstance, and consequences.”

So you need to assess intent, circumstance and consequences to derive morality. Are these things like an “apple.” As in can you ascertain these things with as much objective certainty as in the case of an apple? I think you would say NO. which means that three of your main pillars to derive morality are standing on extremely subjective grounds.

"No, I did not, I said that while our perception may be subjective, the thing we are percieving is NOT. There exists a objective reality, and while all of our perception of it may be subjective, we should not confuse our subjectivity with the objectivity of reality. There is apparently and object in the universe we call an "apple", we all may percieve this object in subtley different ways, but that doesn't translate to the object existence being subjective. That would be a fallacy.”

Say you have a lens that makes things look distorted. The only way to look at the world for you is this lens. So, anything you look at is distorted. You know that the object you are looking at has a definite shape that is different from the way it appears through your lens… but how in the world will you ever know the actual shape of the object? You can only guess. This is the case of your subjective perception. If you agree that perception is subjective…there is no way in the world you can ever be certain about the apple… I may be sounding crazy… but actually we are skirting with quantum physics here…this is not a discussion that’s wholly outside of science.

“The fact that our experience of the apple is subjective, in no way makes the apple itself subjective. Our perceptions and experiences are subjective, the things we happen to be expereincing and percieving aren't necessarily subjective.”

Look at the last sentence you said and you will know how you are contradicting yourself. You earlier stated categorically that perception is subjective. And here you are saying “experiencing” and ‘perceiving’ aren’t necessarily subjective. Experience and perceiving is what we call perception. Make up your mind.

"Methods ARE subjective, that is why we judge them by their results, not simply their foundation. If a tool or method proves to be reliable based upon its results, then we use it.”

Once again… a subjective method cannot yield objective proof. No matter how much you pretend otherwise.

“It depends on intent, circumstance, and consequence. Morality cannot be divorced from all context and circumstance with blanket statements, this has been show over and over again, yet you still choose to see in monochrome when morality is grayscale.”

Why should any one shade of grey be right, and the other wrong? Moreover my question was: “Is it good to allow suicide or not?” If a person says he wants to commit suicide…and explains his intent… how can you measure the truthfulness of that intent to let him go ahead or stop him? See, how steeply your method falls into a subjective vortex.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "If you agree that

Valiya - "If you agree that perception is subjective…there is no way in the world you can ever be certain about the apple"

Yep. I can never be certain that the hot stove I see in front of me is really there; however, I have found that life tends to work out better if I assume it is in fact there. The people who couldn't make this connection have been eliminated from failing to assume the on-coming cars were real while crossing the street.

Valiya's picture
I know this is getting a

I know this is getting a little too far... but i want to humor you nevertheless Nyarlathotep...therefore, if cars are not real...and the people are not... then of why bother about life and death! (BTW you got to ask this not to me but to TRAVIS... I have constantly reasserted, that subjectivity of perception is not my assertion... it is Travis who said it, and has been contradicting when faced with pointed questions

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "...therefore, if

Valiya - "...therefore, if cars are not real..."

I didn't say cars are not real. Sigh...

Travis Hedglin's picture
I am going to trim it down a

I am going to trim it down a bit, as I don't want to have it get too long again, just let me know if I pruned something you thought was important.

"However, whether it is subjective or objective is quite inconsequential to me on the topic of morality."

Strange, because that would also mean your morality would be just as subjective as your perception, I am not sure how it wouldn't be consequential.

"So you need to assess intent, circumstance and consequences to derive morality. Are these things like an “apple.” As in can you ascertain these things with as much objective certainty as in the case of an apple?"

Detectives and investigators look for motive(intent), means(part of circumstance), and opportunity(also part of circumstance) to determine who could have committed a crime, and the degree to which they should be prosecuted. While it may not be quite as obvious as an apple, evidence can still be used to determine such things, because evidence does NOT rely on any individuals perception.

"You know that the object you are looking at has a definite shape that is different from the way it appears through your lens…"

No, unfortunately, I can't even be certain that it is even different. It is NOT a simple case of knowing that what you perceive is inaccurate, but the worse case of not even knowing if it is accurate or not at all. That is why we operate under the assumption that other entities exist, and attempt to calibrate our perception using the perceptions of others, that is how we learn in the first place. It is also the reason we create methods with strict rules, like logic and math, which relies on no singular individuals perception.

"but how in the world will you ever know the actual shape of the object? You can only guess."

We attempt to derive it the best we can using methods that do not rely on our own perception, like logic and math, and even the review of many other people. We call this process science.

"I may be sounding crazy… but actually we are skirting with quantum physics here…this is not a discussion that’s wholly outside of science."

Certainly not, we are skirting it. But I am not really courting it because I don't think I have the time to do so, and I only studied it passively in my college physics course. I only took the one, so my knowledge is hardly complete, and I would hate to misinform or mistake some basic information.

Me-Our perceptions and experiences are subjective, the things we happen to be experiencing and perceiving aren't necessarily subjective.
"Look at the last sentence you said and you will know how you are contradicting yourself."

Nope.

"And here you are saying “experiencing” and ‘perceiving’ aren’t necessarily subjective."

Once again you are conflating the object with our perception of it.

Our perception of an object: Subjective

The actual object: Not necessarily subjective.

"Once again… a subjective method cannot yield objective proof."

That is fine, science never claimed to absolute, only religion does. Science attempts to make the best approximation of the reality we inhabit, religion attempts to declare the reality we inhabit, and so far science is winning.

"Why should any one shade of grey be right, and the other wrong?"

Because that is the world we live in, one of greys, not monochrome.

"Is it good to allow suicide or not?”

This question is next to useless, it tells us literally nothing of the circumstance.

If someone is dying of a terribly painful and horrible incurable disease? Perhaps it should be permissible.

If someone is depressed and despondent because their spouse of 60+ years has died? Not as permissible perhaps, but completely understandable.

If someone is sad because they got in an argument with their girlfriend/boyfriend? Not as permissible, and not as understandable, is it?

These things are NOT as cut and dry, or black and white as you wish to paint them, and until we get past this hurdle I don't really see this going very far.

Valiya's picture
PRAGMATIC... i am posting

PRAGMATIC... i am posting replies here as that thread is getting narrow

“This is, unfortunately, starting to become bickering instead of debating. :(“

I am not talking about any statement… I am only talking about accusation… the one bringing the charge is the one to bring proof… but if I say, “there is God” then I agree I have to provide proof… got the difference?

“I don't think you have explained it, because you are making unjustified assumptions, and call in "commonsensical".”

So are you saying that specified complexity can arise without an intelligent agency? Is that commonsense to you? If I showed you a watch and said my 5 year old daughter made it, will you believe me? Of course not. Because it’s very easy to deduct that a specified complexity of that order requires far greater intelligence than a 5 year old’s. This is commonsense.

“If the text hade actually stated that "it" cannot be analysed in any way, then perhaps I would agree.”

Oh… thanks you didn’t demand that the text should have spelt that “God is not subject to empirical experimentation” in so many words. When a text is meant for people of all times, the concepts will be pronounced in simplistic terms.

“We can find proof of and analyse that which can not be seen or heard all the time. Like gravity, time, objects that are too small to see, and so on.”

But here we are talking about a reality outside of space-time continuum. Do you think science has any pretensions that it can explore such an object?

Okay. But you say this as a response to my comment that you are "trying to exonerate god (and all his actions as well) from being subject to empirical proof."

I said this as a response to you argument that (if I understood you right) why is not an omnipotent god able to be in this universe!!! Is that not what you meant?

“But in Islam, again, does not god interact with this universe, especially earth and humans all the time?”

Yes… but how He does that is beyond our understanding… as I said, how can we understand an extra-universal entity?

“But as your position is Islam, I say that even if god resides outside of our universe, every interaction god has with this universe has a possibility to be the subject of empirical evidence. Like for instance, making large objective studies to see if prayer works.”

In fact in Islam we believe this is possible, but not in the manner that you say… and that is the study of nature… Quran repeatedly calls the believers to ponder over nature (creation)…and asks to think how it all came about.

“I might watch the documentary you linked to, but come on man! 3 hours long!? Isn't there a shorter version or a trailer I can watch instead? :)”

I will see if I can find something short… but I suggested that because it’s a BBC documentary…and not what some Muslim groups produced…so I thought it will have more currency with you. But if you have time, please watch it… if for nothing, at least for the production quality.

“Where in this scentence is there a wrong assumption? "It is because of the evidence and explanations that so many has accepted the theory of evolution."

I said wrong assumption about your assumption that when a majority of scientists accept something it should be true.

“Where are you going with this? You are grasping for straws here, trying to justify you viewpoint.”

I said about Newtonian physics to show how a majority in the past was wrong.

“And these theories doesn't so much replace each other as build upon each other, correcting and refining as science progresses.”

That’s not always the case… Einstein’s physics doesn’t simply add to Newton’s physics…but it totally replaces it from bottom up.

“Okay, who are they? I would like to read about it.”

Check this link… you will 100 names at least.
http://www.reviewevolution.com/press/pressRelease_100Scientists.php

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "So are you saying

Valiya - "So are you saying that specified complexity can arise without an intelligent agency? Is that commonsense to you? If I showed you a watch and said my 5 year old daughter made it, will you believe me? Of course not. Because it’s very easy to deduct that a specified complexity of that order requires far greater intelligence than a 5 year old’s."

The term "specified complexity" and it's retard cousin "irreducible complexity" are considered bs in mathematics. They are generally known as "pseudomathematics" (similar to pseudoscience): http://educ.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/sewell.pdf

This is why I keep asking you to give us the units and methods of measuring/calculating complexity, because I'm pretty sure you can't, and if try it will be even funnier.

Valiya's picture
If it told you that an

If it told you that an airplane is more complex design than a bicycle... would you say i am crapping because i didn't give you the measurements... you are ducking the question behind jargons...when the truth is all too obvious...and may i ask you... why was it you were giving me your definitions of complexity in our last argument if it was all so pseudo???

Nyarlathotep's picture
If you read what I wrote, you

If you read what I wrote, you'll notice I said "specified complexity" and "irreducible complexity" are pseudomathematics.

There are ways to define complexity; however, you have not done so. I suspect you haven't done so because it would be shooting yourself in the foot. The instant you give that info, you won't be able to just claim that X is too complex, or that Y is more complex than X; because we will have a method available to evaluate that claim. This is probably why you won't even tell us the dimensions of complexity. It would be easy for me to claim that the floobie index of a bicycle is greater than the floobie index of a plane, if I refuse to tell you how to measure floobie index, or even what dimensions floobie index is in. Why won't you just tell us?!?

Valiya's picture
ABKDEIFASIL is complex

ABKDEIFASIL is complex because it is made through an arrangement of basic components (letters). However, it is not not specific, because generates no meaning.

HOW ARE YOU? is complex and specific as it generates meaning. The more letters you put together to increase meaning, the more the specified complexity.

That's simply it.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiya - "ABKDEIFASIL is

Valiya - "ABKDEIFASIL is complex..."

How complex is it?

Valiya "'HOW ARE YOU?' is complex and specific

How complex is it, how specific is it?

Valiya's picture
but do you agree there is

but do you agree there is some degree of complexity and specificity in it???? if yes, then at least specified complexity is not pseudo as you just claimed

Nyarlathotep's picture
No, not at all. For all we

No, not at all. For all we know, what you mean by those terms is how much mustard or ketchup they contain, SINCE YOU WON'T TELL US.

Nyarlathotep's picture
The problem is I have never

The problem is I have never seen complexity defined in the way that you are using it. And I have never seen specificity define, ever! So no, until you tell us, I can't say your examples have any amount of either.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Well I take that back,

Well I take that back, specificity is defined in statistics, but again, not in the way you are using it... You might as well just say ketchups and mustard since it makes as much sense.

ThePragmatic's picture
- "i am posting replies here

- "i am posting replies here as that thread is getting narrow"
Good idea. :)

I'd like to sum up in a few points...

1. Commonsense (common sense?)

You are using the term "commonsense" all the time, but you seem to have re-defined it to mean "god did it".
What I mean with common sense is to use sound practical rationality when looking at reality, and from that deduce conclusions. The keyword here is Reality.

2. God is exonerated from being subject to objective analysis and empirical evidence

You claim, that god exists beyond this universe, outside of space-time continuum and is therefore beyond objective analysis and empirical evidence. And, even though he is continuously interacting with our world, all these interactions are also beyond objective analysis and empirical evidence.

I am saying that, if god is interacting with our world, in our universe, in our time, and humans can perceive this, we are definitely not talking about "a reality outside of space-time continuum". I am referring to real time events, often physical interactions with our world.

Like for example:
Angels, magic, miracles (like food magically appearing, people getting new abilities, healing, gods name written in clouds, fruit, meat, plants, etc), god listening to prayers and sometimes granting them.

- "how He does that is beyond our understanding"

You can claim that "how" is beyond our understanding, but even so the results of those actions can still be perceived by humans.
So what I am talking about is...
...not beyond this universe
...not outside of space-time continuum.
...real time events, that humans can perceive and often with some physical nature.

The scientific methods for gathering of empirical evidence, goes far beyond the capabilities of the five senses of humans. And if humans can perceive gods interactions, gathering empirical evidence of those interactions is possible. Maybe not all kinds of all events, but some.

So I say, that god (and his actions) is NOT exonerated from being subject to objective analysis and empirical evidence.

2. Complexity infers an intelligent designer

-"So are you saying that specified complexity can arise without an intelligent agency?"
Yes, if you by the creationist term "specified complexity" are referring to animals (humans too), plants and planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.

- "Is that commonsense to you?"
Yes. But not in the way you seem to define "common sense".

Your examples, like the watch made by a 5-year old and the newspaper cuttings blowing in the wind, sounds like bad examples from a poorly written creationist website, and frankly they seem juvenile. I'm actually surprised that you would use such crude comparisons. The watchmaker analogy is old and washed out. A watch can in no way be compared with living, growing, biological creatures that can reproduce.

3. Being in majority is no evidence for the validity of a theory

No, technically 100% can believe a scientific theory and it could still be wrong. The fact that theories and evidence is constantly questioned and scrutinized is good. Nothing and no one is above scrutiny.
But somewhere there is a practical line, where those who stay on the other side, are either ignorant, in denial or have an agenda.
There are those who still maintain that the Earth is flat, and theoretically they could be right. Perhaps it is all a giant global conspiration.

About the link to "100 Scientists, National Poll Challenge Darwinism":
I don't mind their critique of Evolution in the way is presented.
"I am skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Being sceptical is good, more of that is what the world needs. Then we would have a lot less religion today.

But I find it strange that a Muslim creationist, would use pure christian creationist drivel to make his case. The organisation behind that information is the Discovery Institute. With few exceptions, it seems to be comprised by old white republican right wing christian men, with a christian creationists agenda.
When I try to find any "scientific evidence against evolution" that they mention all the time, I don't find anything apart from the ordinary creationist nonsense claims:
* Lack of observation - People who believe i an invisible man in the sky, apparently can't belive in evolution if they can't see it happening, they require proof. (Ohhh, the irony is so thick I can't breath...)
* Unreliable evidence - Due to frauds and hoaxes (that have been refuted) or that certain types of evidence are inconsistent and dubious.
* Unreliable chronology - Carbon dating is unreliable! Even though independent methods have confirmed its reliability.
* Improbability - The watchmaker analogy, etc.
* Creation of information - Mutation cannot generate new information. (Have been widely rejected.)
* Violation of the second law of thermodynamics - Evolution violates this physical law by requiring a decrease in entropy. (Disproved.)
* Moral decay - Ridiculous, and has no bearing on the truth claim on evolution.
* Fear of atheism - Ridiculous, and has no bearing on the truth claim on evolution.

Very little here has any credibility, and the rest...
Nonsense, drivel, desperation - all driven by fear of letting go of childish beliefs, and probably in some cases just pure greed because they make money of it.

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

- “You are using the term "commonsense" all the time, but you seem to have re-defined it to mean "god did it".”

Not at all. I am using common sense just to mean a commonly used method to appreciate things in the world. And precisely for that reason my watch example is valid. Why wouldn’t you believe that a small child can build a watch…because the specified complexity in it requires higher intelligence. This is a deduction any commoner or philosopher would easily make…that’s why it’s called common sense. And please note, I didn’t say “god did it” here.

- “What I mean with common sense is to use sound practical rationality when looking at reality, and from that deduce conclusions. The keyword here is Reality.”

Practical rationality is a good term to use, I guess. I don’t think by using practical rationality you would come up with a different deduction for the watch example.

“I am saying that, if god is interacting with our world, in our universe, in our time, and humans can perceive this, we are definitely not talking about "a reality outside of space-time continuum". I am referring to real time events, often physical interactions with our world.”

Why not? Even in our world governed by physical laws we know how forces can act at a distance, like a remote control operating a TV. But, yes, I know this is not an apt example, because we can only think of examples from within the universe…nothing from outside of it. The point to note here is this: God is an entity outside of the universe. His powers act in the universe though. But because he is outside of time-space, there is no way we can study him even to understand how His powers can act in our dimension. Therefore, no matter how much you question, the answer is simply “we will never know.” But that’s not a cop out, because science has no clue about realities outside of time-space.

- “You can claim that "how" is beyond our understanding, but even so the results of those actions can still be perceived by humans.”

Answer above.

- “Yes, if you by the creationist term "specified complexity" are referring to animals (humans too), plants and planets, stars, solar systems and galaxies.”

By specified complexity I don’t mean just nature… I mean any arrangement of primitive components that enable a function… (please don’t take this as a definition, but take it as an ad hoc description)… take a cycle for example… the wheels, the chain, the bars, the brakes and so on…these are parts that have been arranged in a manner to enable mobility. This is specified complexity to me. The more parts that combine to fulfill greater functions…the more the specified complexity is.

This is what I say is a sign of intelligence. Apply this to nature and you will find that it has far more specified complexity than the most complex machines made by man after years and years of research and computation.

And when I apply my commonsense understanding of the world…my immediate conclusion is there is an intelligence behind this nature.

-“Your examples, like the watch made by a 5-year old and the newspaper cuttings blowing in the wind, sounds like bad examples from a poorly written creationist website, and frankly they seem juvenile.”

I quoted these examples to demonstrate how we certainly attribute to intelligence to even these minor designs (specified complexity)…will you not attribute intelligence to these designs? If you will, then I think my examples hold water.

-“But somewhere there is a practical line, where those who stay on the other side, are either ignorant, in denial or have an agenda.”

How can you say so…what agenda did Einstein have NOT to accept quantum physics… I can quote tons of examples where scientists have differed vehemently…will you go on attributing ulterior motives to all of them…there could be a variety of reasons behind the denial…yes, there could be blind bias…but there could also be others too… so this is not a sound argument.

“But I find it strange that a Muslim creationist, would use pure christian creationist drivel to make his case. The organisation behind that information is the Discovery Institute. With few exceptions, it seems to be comprised by old white republican right wing christian men, with a christian creationists agenda.”

The thing is these are all men of very high academic qualifications…whose opinion carries a lot of weight…now, if you choose to, you can dismiss them as being blinded by prejudice…I was giving this list because you wanted a list of scientists who were skeptical of evolution… and I gave you one… so you want a list of scientists who are not Christians, or belonging to any religion???

But as far as I am concerned… the numbers don’t really matter…the reasons matter.

“When I try to find any "scientific evidence against evolution" that they mention all the time, I don't find anything apart from the ordinary creationist nonsense claims:…”

And each of the points you mentioned need careful examination…however, here are my two main concerns regarding evolution…

1. Unsupported by fossil evidence
2. Lack of evidence for informational increase through mutation

I know you will have your proofs…may be we can look at them when you present it.

ThePragmatic's picture
Excuse me while I pick up my

Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor...

Even though god interacts with the world and humans can perceive it or the results of it, you still claim that it is outside the space-time continuum and therefore beyond empirical evidence?

So...
...if god gave food to someone through a miracle, that food would be outside the space-time continuum? Sounds like empty calories to me?
...if god granted someones prayer, the result would be outside the space-time continuum. What good will that do?

Can you not graps your own denial? You are trying to do a logical Houdini!

And the watchmaker again...
No, your example is not valid. No, it is not common sense.

Have you ever seen a watch be born? Seen it grow, and learn how to tell time?
No? Why not?

Have you ever seen the parts of an animal getting assembled into a complete animal? Then get started up?
No? Why not?

Just because both are complex, they cannot be compared like you are doing.
There is a major diffrence between something that grows and somthing that is assembled in parts.

Can you seriously not see that?

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

"Excuse me while I pick up my jaw from the floor..."

:D

“...if god gave food to someone through a miracle, that food would be outside the space-time continuum? Sounds like empty calories to me?”

Are you saying that if the things that God does is subject to the laws of this universe, even God should be? Is your train of logic something like this: God gives food to us… we experience that food…therefore god should also be amenable to our experience?

If that’s what you are saying, I want to ask you based on what are you making this claim. Science has no idea about realities outside of time space…therefore we will not be able to know anything about those realities…not even whether such a reality can interact with our universe or not…not even whether such an interaction should be subject to our experience or not…then how can you make your assertions?

“Have you ever seen a watch be born? Seen it grow, and learn how to tell time?
No? Why not?”

Okay… first things first.. you accept there is complexity in nature… I want to thank you for that, because some people were even trying to deny that.

But you are rejecting intelligence behind the complexity in nature because you see it getting born and growing etc.

But for me this is proof of greater complexity in design…

In the olden times we did not have machines… later automation came about…and then we had machines moving on their own…and then computerization came, and then we had designs that did calculations… and today they interact with humans and so forth…

So all along, you see how man-made designs have been progressively mimicking designs in nature…and who knows at some point in time we may also have a watch that gives birth…

Would not it be great if watches can repair damages on their own…and give birth to new ones when they get worn out and so on… and what makes you think this would not be possible???

And if such a thing happens it would surely get celebrated as a marvel of human intelligence… because standing where we are today, even to think of it seems too fantastic…however, when we find it in nature, we say it came about through some accidents without any intelligent agency…

Therefore, getting born and growing and learning are all marvels in design…which is a stronger proof of intelligence.

-“Have you ever seen the parts of an animal getting assembled into a complete animal? Then get started up?
No? Why not?”

If animal parts had to be assembled…then why would I believe in god… I would have believed in the guy doing the assembly… but when I see the animal being more perfect in design than any machine assembled by man… I can’t help getting amazed by the intelligence behind it.

-“Just because both are complex, they cannot be compared like you are doing.
There is a major diffrence between something that grows and somthing that is assembled in parts.”

True the two can’t be compared…but not in the sense you say…the design in nature is far too complex and far too perfect to be compared to things produced by human intelligence…the intelligence behind nature is far superior.”

Can’t you see that seriously!!!!

CyberLN's picture
Butting in for a moment...

Butting in for a moment...

"but when I see the animal being more perfect in design than any machine assembled by man..."

1. Define 'more perfect'
2. Quantify 'more perfect'

Those two words undermine your argument. They are opinion at best. From where I sit, there are many, many qualifications for some machines to be considered 'more perfect' and superior to things found in nature.

ThePragmatic's picture
- "Are you saying that if the

- "Are you saying that if the things that God does is subject to the laws of this universe, even God should be?"

No, that’s NOT what I am saying.
It feels like you are deliberately trying to misunderstand, to avoid the issue.

The question is quite clear:
"If god gave food to someone through a miracle, that food would be outside the space-time continuum?"
Not god, the "food". Would that food be outside the space-time continuum?

If it is, how could a human perceive that food, let alone eat it?

ThePragmatic's picture
Since the food has to be

Since the food has to be inside the space-time continuum in the given example, I will continue:

Just like it would be possible to collect empirical evidence of a particle you cannot see, by the traces it leaves in its surrounding environment; there would be ample opportunities to secure empirical evidence from the effects of the actions of the god you have defined.

Yet no evidence has ever been found.

Apart from trying to make you see that your reasoning is flawed (although very well thought through compared to many theists), my point is this:

Within the context of your own mind, you can feel that you know and that you have made sure of the existence of your god and his good intentions.

But when debating with others, claiming that you "know" requires some kind of proof to base your claim on.
When you are talking about your faith, it is dishonest to say that "you know" and that "you have made sure" (unless you actually add 'in my mind'). Because all you have to go on in reality, is your own feelings and your opinions.

- "Nature very strongly points to an intelligent designer."
- "This convinces me of the existence of a creator."

This is your feeling, your opinion, your leap of faith and by no means evidence of any kind.

"There is a difference between a phenomenon and a cause for the phenomenon, so, I don't know how you can possibly demonstrate, rationally, a supernatural cause for some observed phenomena." - Matt Dillahunty

- "...convinces me..."

It convinces you. Without any kind of evidence to back it up, you are convinced. Your feelings and opinions within the context of your own mind, leads you to find this to be an acceptable explanation.

And that is fine by me.

But please stop claiming that you know or that you have made sure. Because outside the context of your own mind, you don't know, you can not now.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.