Where did The Bible originate from?

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

So there is no distinction between an object and it's concept.

A fundamental category error.

Cyracuz wrote:

When I'm out driving and I'm hungry and looking forward to a hot dog, what appears to me as thoughts of a random hot dog I am going to buy in the near future is actually quantum measurements of the actual hot dog I will eat beginning the moment I make the choice to get one.

Absolute nonsense.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

There are two levels involved in the difference between "a concept" and an "object". At a lower level, the first describes a "potential observation event", and the second "an actual observation event." The word "describes" is important because all "events" are necessarily reported in words and hence are subject to a secondary level of "conceptualization".

Naive realism assumes independence of "subject" and "object" and also assumes "descriptions" relate to such independent entities. The second point is rejected by Wittgenstein in his later reaction his own attempts at such an analysis.

2 Replies

@fresco,

In the above, "observation event" might better be read as "interaction" .

0 Replies

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_TPaine.htm

1 Reply

@Amigo,

Amigo wrote:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistant that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

And humans are still carrying on in the ways you just described. Why hasn't that human behavior come to an end?
Because humans do what humans do and God does what he does to keep his plan in continuous motion.

1 Reply

@Philis,

That is a quote from Thomas Paine. I didn't write that.

What religion are you?

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

There are two levels involved in the difference between "a concept" and an "object". At a lower level, the first describes a "potential observation event", and the second "an actual observation event." The word "describes" is important because all "events" are necessarily reported in words and hence are subject to a secondary level of "conceptualization".

Naive realism assumes independence of "subject" and "object" and also assumes "descriptions" relate to such independent entities. The second point is rejected by Wittgenstein in his later reaction his own attempts at such an analysis.

Or, in other words, everything is filtered through a subjective analysis. That's about as trivial an observation as I can imagine.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Absolute nonsense if you don't see the statement according to the philosophical ideas that underly it. Not nonsense if you can relate to the idea of reality as waves and particles, involving "measurers" that are so entangled in the measurement that they are essentially inseperable from it in a process known to the them as consciousness.
I think it is a facinating idea that I am not done exploring.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Absolute nonsense if you don't see the statement according to the philosophical ideas that underly it.

I'm sure, but then religion is nonsense if you don't see it according to the ideas that underlie it. Yet somehow you have no problem challenging religious persons' beliefs in the bible.

Cyracuz wrote:

Not nonsense if you can relate to the idea of reality as waves and particles, involving "measurers" that are so entangled in the measurement that they are essentially inseperable from it in a process known to the them as consciousness.

Well, that's just nonsense as a matter of physics, not to mention philosophy.

Cyracuz wrote:

I think it is a facinating idea that I am not done exploring.

Knock yourself out.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Anything can seem nonsensical when it is removed from context and looked at through eyes of an alternate explanation. You are chosing to disregard even the possibility that there may be something to gain by this exploration of ideas, so it is nonsense in your reality. To me it makes up a conceptual framework I can use to organize ideas differently than I normally do. If you have no use for it that is fine, but I still think it is a matter of choice.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Anything can seem nonsensical when it is removed from context and looked at through eyes of an alternate explanation.

Some things more than others.

Cyracuz wrote:

You are chosing to disregard even the possibility that there may be something to gain by this exploration of ideas, so it is nonsense in your reality.

Bullshit. I have considered the possibility -- I just find it implausible. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I haven't taken your position seriously.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You are right. I was wrong to insinuate otherwise.
But I still say that your (and mine) conviction that what you think is the truth is ultimately a matter of personal preference. We are essentially free to choose.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

" Subjective analysis" is merely a reflection of the semantic field (language game) in which "naive realism" is embedded. Once more, reference to Wittgenstein reveals his deconstruction of such traditional dichotomies as "subjectivity-objectivity" , "idealism-materialism" etc.

1 Reply

@fresco,

It seems to me that a conceptual framework of consciousness that encompasses this would be very useful. A theory that explains the mechanics of our conceptual dualistic method as a function of a "higher" system.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The problem with "theories" (as W recognized) is that axioms can never be precisely formulated. Rather we judge viewpoints which are necessarily couched in language as "making sense" or not, by virtue of our empathy with the speaker.(W used the term "grammar" for this mutually structured semantic field).

Side stepping "consciousness" for the moment, as peripheral for this thread, there is no "argument" against theists whose mutual language game (grammar) is based on the bible as being "devinely inspired", by those (like me) who see it merely as a sociological artifact. The practical significance of the atheistic viewpoint only comes into play when the bible (or Koran) is cited as as source of "authority" for activities which I consider to adversely affect me (e.g fundamentalist constrictions).

Now it may be that we non-dualists seek to establish "consciousness" as some form of replacement for the "devine authority" of theists, hence our (grammatical) usage of the term "higher". However we need to bear in mind our conditioning within a theistic culture which may influence such thoughts in this matter. Other views of "consciousness" (e.g. Maturana's grammar) may have no place for transcendent concepts like "higher".

2 Replies

@fresco,

"Fundamentalist constrictions" eh.

Care to elaborate fresco?

0 Replies

@fresco,

I can see that problem.

But with "higher" I simply meant part of something more.
Our classical understanding of reality and consciousness is strongly conditioned by us having evolved in the environment we seek to explain.
But do our senses and brain operate on the macroscopic level, or are they more akin to quantum measurements?
It's probably neither, but can quantum mechanics explain consciousness and reality? It seems to me that if it could, the explanation should not conflict with what we understand of consciousness from our classical views.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I think the central issues are with the words "understand", and "explanation", and whether these are encompassed in a top-down or bottom-up manner. Classical (bottom-up) views imply that "consciousness" evolves at a latter stage of evolution in which the structure of the brain may or may not allow for processing at the quantum level (Ref Hameroff and Penrose). These can be contrasted with the top-down approach of Bohm, in which "consciousness" is the ultimate substrate of all "reality". Side-stepping both of these we have deflationary views of "consciousness" such as that of Maturana in which it is a complex form of the general "life process", or Dennett, in which it is an artifact of "language". But in the sense that "explanation" is conceived of as a search for "an ultimate origin", it will always be vulnerable to a "prime mover" argument.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Yes, the prime mover argument seems to be lurking close by as soon as you state that consciousness one of the key elements of reality. What I find interesting about a theory of consciousness derived from "quantum reality" doesn't seem to disprove any standing "truths" from our classical worldview beyond showing clearly that they are all a matter of choice.
The word choice, in this context, doesn't relate only to your desicion of what to eat for dinner. We can think of choice as the measured definite state of a system as opposed to the probabilistic predictions made beforehand.
It seems to me that the measurement problem is one of the main issues of quantum physics that some people feel relates directly to consciousness. I have read short descriptons of theories proposed by the people you mention, but I think Amit Goswami has some interesting ideas as well. But I think his approach can only be classified as philosophy.

0 Replies

@Amigo,

AMIGO
From Thomas Paine , yes, but you must identify with it because you posted it. I am a born again spiritual christian.

0 Replies

Where did The Bible originate from?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know