Atheists, smarter than religious people

Ironically Kosko (Fuzzy Sets) uses Franks example of "an apple" to show that such a concept IS dependent on particular perception of reality, which Frank is likely to call "a belief system".

Kosko asks "if one bite is taken out of an apple is it still "an apple"? If the answer is "yes" he asks "at what point does it cease to be "an apple" and become say "a core". He points out that this threshold is indeterminate and depends on the relationship between "the apple" and "the perceiver". The perceiver has "perceptual set"....he knows "what an apple is for him ". The conclusion is that all set boundaries involve social agreement as to their resolution for particular purposes.

Now if this is valid for "apples" try the argument on "God" !

It is from such simple epistemological exercises that lay concepts of "facts" can be exposed for what they are...dependent on the ideal of "objectivity" when all we have is "consensus".

0 Replies

Gelisgesti wrote:

Est autem fides credere quod nondum vides; cuius fidei merces est videre quod credis. Sententia nova
Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe.
(St. Augustine, Sermones)

Faith is believing in what you know isn't so.
Mark Twain

Science consists of an unbounded spectrum of conclusions of probability derived through the objective observation, recording, consideration, testing, and confirmation of empirical evidence. Agnosticism is scientific, science is agnostic.

Atheism consists of a single conclusion of certainty derived - whether objectively or otherwise - through consideration only of lack of empirical evidence.

Theism/Religion consists of a single conclusion of certainty derived subjectively and wholly through claim without any evidence whatsoever to consider.

0 Replies

...."objective observation".....a myth which died with Newtonian Physics.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
"Because God wants us to have free will" or "Faith is the ingredient you are missing."

These are insubstantial claims with no merit whatsoever.

Do you know that for a fact, or is just a guess?

If you had written that these are unsubstantiated claims...I would have agreed. But to suggest that they are insubstantial and of no merit means that you know there is no God that wants us to have free will...and that the lack of "faith" (whatever the hell that is to you) is not missing in you.

My reason for mentioning these items was to relate to your comment: "But ALL concepts are invented."and directed attention to the idea of bring up anythinganythingthat seems to justify a beliefwhether it truly is germane or not.

In any case, rather than getting mired down in this areasuppose you list the five most significant differences between the non-dualist perspective and that of the dualistsand let's discuss what is and what is not a belief from among them.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

...."objective observation".....a myth which died with Newtonian Physics.

Nonsense. Newtonian Physics was unable to discern that all observation is relative to the observer. Post Newtonian Physics objectively includes the observer within the variables pertaining to any observation; that's what Relativity is all about, that's why Heisenburg's Uncertainty exists. Its real.

0 Replies

To the intelligent man or woman, life appears infinitely mysterious. But the stupid have an answer for every question.

0 Replies

Timber

Quote:

In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer. This situation is represented by the wave function, a function in the complex domain that contains information about both the cosmos at large and the observer's apparent state of knowledge.

(Italics mine)

This is a random quote from google on "status of the observer". If you think this resurrects "objectivity" explain how.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

Don't fall for that game of Frank's in which he pays lip service to a "reasoned argument" by asking you to list items. You are likely to end up with his usual mouthful of expletives (as I did when I gave him a list)

The central issue raised by non-duality of observer and observed (as supported by modern physics) is that "facts" are consensual rather than "objective". (as coined by the phrase "state of apparent knowledge" in the quote above) This completely destroys Frank's cause celebre of "guesswork" and is thereby interpreted by Frank as an attack upon "himself". The non-dualistic viewpoint would imply that the only difference between "belief" and "fact" lies in degree of consensus between observers and confidence in future observations for a particular observer.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Timber

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer. This situation is represented by the wave function, a function in the complex domain that contains information about both the cosmos at large and the observer's apparent state of knowledge.

(Italics mine)

This is a random quote from google on "status of the observer". If you think this resurrects "objectivity" explain how.

Your "random quote" fails on precisely the word you emphasized - "mysteriously" - that merely is argument from incredulity, argumentum ad ignoratium. That which the author sees to be "mystery" is a function of uncertainty.

Objectivity requires that both observer and observation be taken into consideration, and further requires, as a consequence of the former, that probility, not certainty, must and will be the result of objective consideration. Probability may be determined to within an absurdly small aproximation of certainty, allowing for no other reasonable conclusion consistent with observation, however, objectivity still demands that only probability has been determined.

Heisenberg Uncertainty/Bell's Theorem=Probability

Objectively, we may hope only to reduce uncertainty, constrained always by the rules of probability. Of that, only that, may we be certain. There is no mystery to that; uncertainty is a fact of life whether one understands and acknowledges it or not.

0 Replies

Timber,

I won't labour the point but my interpretation of "mysterious " is a an abbreviation for Niels Bohr's own position:

" If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet." (together with his adoption of the Yin-Yang nonduality logo as his emblem)

I think we are on shaky ground if we accuse Bohr of ignorance ofhis own theory !

0 Replies

Perhaps we're simply approacing this from slightly differen philosophic perspectives, fresco (think "observer effect" :wink: ) - the way I see it, the Bohr comment you cite serves well to reinforce my interpretation. Uncertainty does not equate to mystery :cool:

0 Replies

Thanks for the concern, fresco. Truth to tell I don't know five things that separate non-dualist perspective from a dualist perspective. I only know of one.

Frank wrote:

In any case, rather than getting mired down in this areasuppose you list the five most significant differences between the non-dualist perspective and that of the dualistsand let's discuss what is and what is not a belief from among them.

As I said, I only know of one difference between a non-dualistic perspective and a dualistic perspective.

A dualistic perspective seeks to understand and explain the world by means of highlighting the differences between percieved counterparts of any given process, and determining how they work on eachother.

A non-dualistic perspective seeks to understand the world by highlighting the similarities, and putting emphasis on the fact that all counterparts are indeed precieved.

A dualistic approach to the problem of free will vs determinism, for example, is to debate with no end which of the proposed scenarios is the right one.

A non-dualistic approach is to acknowledge that both free will and determinism are percieved counterparts, in reality two sides of the same coin. One could not be without the other, as so it is useless to debate wether one or the other is true.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Thanks for the concern, fresco. Truth to tell I don't know five things that separate non-dualist perspective from a dualist perspective. I only know of one.

Frank wrote:
In any case, rather than getting mired down in this areasuppose you list the five most significant differences between the non-dualist perspective and that of the dualistsand let's discuss what is and what is not a belief from among them.

As I said, I only know of one difference between a non-dualistic perspective and a dualistic perspective.

A dualistic perspective seeks to understand and explain the world by means of highlighting the differences between percieved counterparts of any given process, and determining how they work on eachother.

A non-dualistic perspective seeks to understand the world by highlighting the similarities, and putting emphasis on the fact that all counterparts are indeed precieved.

A dualistic approach to the problem of free will vs determinism, for example, is to debate with no end which of the proposed scenarios is the right one.

A non-dualistic approach is to acknowledge that both free will and determinism are percieved counterparts, in reality two sides of the same coin. One could not be without the other, as so it is useless to debate wether one or the other is true.

Are you saying that because of that, you believe neither is the REALITYor that both are the REALITY?

How does approaching the problem from your perspective "help you to understand the world."

And so that I more correctly understand your stancewould you mind applying it to the proposition: There are no gods.

Please give me the non-dualist perspectiveexplain how it helps you understand the worldand explain, if you will, how it helps you understand whether or not there are gods involved in the REALITY of existence.

0 Replies

Dys wrote:

Quote:

To the intelligent man or woman, life appears infinitely mysterious. But the stupid have an answer for every question.

Indeed!

Cannot help but wonder why some people have so much trouble acknowledging that they are guessing when they are guessing.

Maybe it has something to do with egobut

In any case, we have Christians who KNOW there is a God

we have atheists who KNOW there are no gods

we have dualists and non-dualists who KNOW their take on the REALITY is correct

and who knows what other nonsense.

Why are things like this.

I know in our case, Dysit probably is less a problem because neither of us have the brains of a doorknobso it is less likely we would try to convince people that we KNOW some of the shyt these folks are trying to peddle. They'd see through us in a second.

0 Replies

Quote:

I know in our case, Dysit probably is less a problem because neither of us have the brains of a doorknobso it is less likely we would try to convince people that we KNOW some of the shyt these folks are trying to peddle. They'd see through us in a second.

Well said Frank.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Timber

Quote:
In quantum mechanics, the observer and the system being observed became mysteriously linked so that the results of any observation seemed to be determined in part by actual choices made by the observer. This situation is represented by the wave function, a function in the complex domain that contains information about both the cosmos at large and the observer's apparent state of knowledge.

(Italics mine)

This is a random quote from google on "status of the observer". If you think this resurrects "objectivity" explain how.

A random quote? You cited the exact same quote in another thread three years ago. And it was no more a repudiation of dualism then than it is today.

0 Replies

Frank wrote:

Are you saying that because of that, you believe neither is the REALITYor that both are the REALITY?

Neither is reality. Both are human constructs to help us explain reality in the interest of making a coherent picture. But a coherent picture isn't synonymous with an accurate picture.

Quote:

How does approaching the problem from your perspective "help you to understand the world."

It helps me eliminate problems that have risen based on false assumptions and premises, such as the proposition "there are no gods".

Quote:

And so that I more correctly understand your stancewould you mind applying it to the proposition: There are no gods.

Please give me the non-dualist perspectiveexplain how it helps you understand the worldand explain, if you will, how it helps you understand whether or not there are gods involved in the REALITY of existence.

As I said, I think that the problem of god is one we have no way of confirming, and therefore I think it is just as well to forget about it entirely.

Instead I like to focus on another idea, one as fleeting as the concept of god, and that is the concept of self.

The dualistic approach to this is to say that self is the counterpart of the world it percieves around it. In this model the self is something of substance, something fixed and constant.

A little pondering reveals that it is not. The I (or what we percieve as the self) changes continously.
Take the statment "I cannot move my arms" for instance. In the frame of mind where this statment makes sense we have removed the I from applying to the arms. In other scenarios the arms are part of the self, for example in the statement "I am wearing my gloves".

When we drive a car, we say "I turned left". The car turned, but in this scenario we consider the car as a part of the self.

Sometimes we say "I cannot get my thoughts in order". Then the dualism is self vs thoughts.

So we see that the self is nothing but a relationship, established ad hoc for any given scenario, and that is the non-dualistic approach to this problem. Self is relationship.

0 Replies

Okay, Cyracuz, let's take this one thing at a time.

Originally you wrote:

Quote:

A dualistic approach to the problem of free will vs determinism, for example, is to debate with no end which of the proposed scenarios is the right one. A non-dualistic approach is to acknowledge that both free will and determinism are percieved counterparts, in reality two sides of the same coin. One could not be without the other, as so it is useless to debate wether one or the other is true.

I call your attention to your comment: "One could not be without the other, as so it is useless to debate wether one or the other is true."

In response, I asked: "Are you saying that because of that, you believe neither is the REALITYor that both are the REALITY?"

Your answer now is: "Neither is reality. Both are human constructs to help us explain reality in the interest of making a coherent picture. But a coherent picture isn't synonymous with an accurate picture. "

I am not sure if you are playing with words here, Cyracuzor if there truly is something I am missing.

I concede that "the reality" can never be the wordsor the picture, if you will. But given that REALITYactually ISwhatever it happens to behow can you suggest that you are now possessed of a "better understanding of the world"when in fact, what you have done is to simply evade the question being contested.

I cannot see how that can be represented as "a better understanding of the world."

And the stipulation "a coherent picture isn't synonymous with an accurate picture" means absolutely nothing if your supposed non-belief non-dualism simply avoids dealing with the question.

I admit that using the illustration you chosefree will vs determinationleaves me coldand uninterested, mostly because it is an area that holds precious little interest for me.

But I do want to hear your comments on what I wrote herewhich may help me understand your position betterbefore moving on to the "there are no gods" issue.

Let me also say that most of this is a diversion...one I am willing to engage...but none of this goes to my original contention that non-dualism is a belief system. I want to go to that mumbo jumbo JL and Fresco deal with so often....and which you applaud. But each in its time.

0 Replies

Well, words are dualistic in nature. So we can never express non-dualism in words. We can only circle around the point with endless specifications and modifications of statements.

So your response; - "I am not sure if you are playing with words here, Cyracuzor if there truly is something I am missing." - is reasonable.

Quote:

And the stipulation "a coherent picture isn't synonymous with an accurate picture" means absolutely nothing if your supposed non-belief non-dualism simply avoids dealing with the question.

That's just it. The question is usually only relevant since it is a one sided perspective. When percieving both sides of a dualistic interplay the question tends to "evaporate", or lose it's relevance.

In japanese there is a word for this, "mu", which means something like "making the question unasked".

So the practice of non-dualism allows for a more harmonic existence since it is a way to percieve the world that is less problematic. One encounters fewer problems in understanding. Allthough I concede that that is an opinion.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

Well, words are dualistic in nature. So we can never express non-dualism in words. We can only circle around the point with endless specifications and modifications of statements.

So your response; - "I am not sure if you are playing with words here, Cyracuzor if there truly is something I am missing." - is reasonable.

Quote:
And the stipulation "a coherent picture isn't synonymous with an accurate picture" means absolutely nothing if your supposed non-belief non-dualism simply avoids dealing with the question.

That's just it. The question is usually only relevant since it is a one sided perspective. When percieving both sides of a dualistic interplay the question tends to "evaporate", or lose it's relevance.

In japanese there is a word for this, "mu", which means something like "making the question unasked".

So the practice of non-dualism allows for a more harmonic existence since it is a way to percieve the world that is less problematic. One encounters fewer problems in understanding. Allthough I concede that that is an opinion.

Perhaps my question should be: What is the difference between this approach...and what an ostrich appears to be doing when tending its eggs...if you get my drift?

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know