Question on the nature of belief.

[Deep13]

Can we agree that when someone believes something, that person has mentally concluded that something is an accurate reflection of reality. That is to say, if someone believes that Barrack Obama was born in Hawaii, it is not a matter of ethics or morality or philosophy, but rather the acceptance that when giving birth to her baby, Obama's mother was physically located on one of the Hawaiian islands. There is only one reality and if we are right, the birthers are 100% completely wrong. They do not have an equally valid belief about where Obama was born. We accept that saying that Hawaii is just a metaphor for the hope and promise of the future that a newborn brings dodges the issue. It would be like the "Yes, Virginia" letter: an evasion and non-answer disguised as an affirmation.

So, "I believe in X" means at minimum you accept the fact that X exists as a matter of objective reality. If we believe the sun is the center of the solar system, it means we think there is an actual star at the physical center of the planetary and other orbits. It excludes the possibility that the earth is the center of the solar system.

Now here is my point. If you believe in a god, at minimum you accept the existence of a god as an objective reality. The existence of a god excludes the possibility that there is no god. As a point of fact, you would be right and I would be wrong. Now, you may attach other beliefs to the declaration, "I believe in god," but at a minimum, a believer accepts as a fact that a supernatural being who fits the description of god actually exists. It does NOT mean that you think there are benefits to believing in god or that god is a metaphor for the physical universe or something else. It means that said god is simply a fact of life like gravity or plywood. If you believe in Jesus, that means at a minimum you except that Jesus once walked the earth.

So whether or not religion is good for society or bad for it and whether or not a lack of belief is good or harmful is irrelevant to whether or not god is real. If there is a god, then that is a fact regardless of its repercussions. If not, then THAT is a fact regardless of whether or not lack of belief caused Stalin.

Can we agree that this is what belief means?

[Angry Dragon]

1. Sure

[Jim__]

2. Do you really believe that the sun is at the center of the solar system?

That's actually a metaphor.

[Silent3]

3. Well, the barycenter of our solar system...

...is at the gravitational center of our solar system (by definition), and the barycenter is always within at least the corona of the sun, if not always within the photosphere. That places some part of the extended body of the sun, when you include the corona, at the center of the solar system.

This might not hold true for the distant past, distance future, or even the near future if something like a rouge black hole comes wandering through to muck things up.

If you want to get really picky about it. :)

[Deep13]

6. A metaphor for what? nt

[Jim__]

7. An (approximate) focus point. - n/t

[cleanhippie]

22. So you are saying that the sun is NOT at the center of the solar system?

Maybe I'm just not following....

[rrneck]

4. Anybody that believes in a god

that exists anywhere but in their own minds is, at best, mistaken.

If you believe in an actual empirically provable god what you probably believe in is a product distributed by some corporation cleverly disguised as a religion. After all, they have to at least pretend to sell you something.

If you make up a god in your head, and ponder the ramifications of what such a critter might do under various circumstances you are just being human, and there's nothing crazy or foolish about that. That's how all those novels get written.

Offhand I'd say belief is proof of belief. And that's enough.

[Deep13]

5. That's not what belief is.

That's my point. Belief that there is a god means belief in a real god. I'm not asking about what's crazy or foolish. I'm only asking what constitutes "belief." The common sense of the term means that one holds something to be true.

And the reason I am wondering is because it seems like a lot of the arguments from both sides, but especially from the religious side, focus on the effects of belief or none belief and side-step any discussion about whether or not what they believe is actually true. If someone says that atheists are empty, unpleasant and unhappy people, even if that's true it is irrelevant to whether or not god is real. I am suggesting that a religious person believes in god because that person is convinced that god is real and would be real regardless of what she believes.

[rrneck]

9. It's entirely possible to believe in something that is completely imaginary.

One can believe in Gandalf if they become immersed in the book or the movie. One can believe in one's feelings, which as far as I know defy empirical evidence. It seems to me that belief in a deity is not an intellectual, but an emotional experience. As is the practice of religion.

So, it seems possible to believe in something that doesn't really exist except in one's own mind. One can believe in a figment of one's imagination.

[Deep13]

11. That's true.

My point is that if someone believes in something imaginary--Bigfoot for example--that person still regards Bigfoot as something that exists in the real world. So if god is imaginary and someone believes in said god anyway, that person accepts that god has a real existence apart from that person's imagination.

[rrneck]

15. Yes. Transferring one's imaginary world

to the real world to excess is a sign of mental illness.

People who believe they can fly should avoid rooftops.

Humans have a highly developed theory of mind and we can speculate on what others may think, even people we make up. But we should never confuse imaginary people for real people.

Why are furries, LARPers and trekkies considered on the fringe of society, but Pentecostals are solid god fearing Americans? It doesn't seem fair. There's a reason actors are not known to be the most stable of people. The performing arts is hard work.

[Jim__]

12. Do you believe that people's feelings are completely imaginary because there is no empirical ...

evidence for them?

[rrneck]

14. No. I think emotions are an actual phonomonea.

It seems that the only person that is able to report on them with any meaning is the person experiencing them. As I recall, an old psychiatrists axiom goes, "You can't tell people how they feel".

[Jim__]

16. I agree. Just because there is no objective empirical evidence for something ...

... does not mean that it is not real.

[Deep13]

20. But you can't assume something is real without evidence.

As I noted in my other post, I dispute the assertion that there is no evidence for feelings. There is actually quite a bit.

[Deep13]

19. Um, there's a shitload of empirical evidence for feelings.

A Hallmark store offers quite a bit. Then there's all the writings that people have done about their feelings. There are the physical manifestations of emotions. There are the things people do that have no real purpose besides making them feel good. There are changes in bodily chemistry that coincide with different emotions. Sophisticated medical imaging can actually reveal different emotions by looking at the activity of the brain.

[Jim__]

24. Um, no, actually there isn't.

Actually, there is no empirical evidence for feelings.

First, to establish what we're discussing, from post #9: One can believe in one's feelings, which as far as I know defy empirical evidence. And, from Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine: the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.

And, no, we do not have any empirical evidence for our private, mental experiences. What we do have is the belief that we share these feelings with others.

[darkstar3]

25. I say again: fMRI.

We have studies done with this machine which show which areas of the brain are stimulated during specific emotional states. When someone hooked up to an fMRI machine tells us that they feel happy, we can see it, and compare it to the "happy" feelings of others, and find that there are indeed marked similarities.

In point of fact, there is clear evidence of the type of brain activity that occurs during various emotional states, but more importantly there is clear evidence that various emotional states are related directly TO brain activity, providing empirical evidence for their existence and source.

Split the hair between feeling and emotion all you like, but the bottom line is that with emerging technologies we have the ability to empirically prove a whole lot more about the human mind than we once did.

[Jim__]

27. fMRI is not measuring private feelings.

Feelings are a subset of an emotional state. Emotion covers a wide range of physiological, mental and conscious processes. Clear language allows us to differentiate between these processes. If you think that is splitting hairs, you're confused.

[darkstar3]

29. Can feelings exist without emotion?

You said yourself they are a SUBSET of emotional states. Therefore if we can prove emotional states exist in the brain and measure them with fMRI, it logically follows that this serves as empirical evidence for the existence of feelings. Their exact nature may be as yet unknown, but their existence is certainly proven.

[Jim__]

34. Can a human being exist without emotion?

In a vegetative state, probably; but outside of that? But, if feelings are private mental phenomena, then the only evidence that they exist are the subjective declarations of people who've experienced feelings. So, do we want to accept subjective declarations as empirical evidence? It does not fit the definition of empirical evidence that I am familar with.

[darkstar3]

36. Wiggle all you want.

Are you, or are you not reversing your prior statement that feelings are subsets of emotions?

[Jim__]

38. Wiggle? I'm not reversing any prior statement.

Care to responsd to the question: do we want to accept subjective declarations as empirical evidence?

[darkstar3]

41. I don't have to.

It's your attempt to wiggle out of the hole you dug for yourself, and it has no bearing on the point at hand.

Feelings are subsets of emotions. Emotions have been empirically proven to exist via fMRI. Feelings therefore exist. Unless you'd like to reverse your prior statement (which is true, BTW) that such feelings are subsets of emotions.

[Jim__]

47. How do we know feelings are subsets of emotions?

Personal experience and subjective declarations from other people. That's the basis for saying that feelings are subsets of emotions. I accept that as valid; I don't accept it as empirical evidence. Is there any empirical evidence for this? If you have any empirical evidence for this, feel free to present it.

[darkstar3]

49. So you're not retracting your statement, you just won't stand by it.

What is it with you and fencesitting? You've taken it beyond hobby to art.

Let's walk back up this subthread a bit and investigate what's happened here. You first made an arbitrary distinction between emotions and feelings. Then you put them back together under the same umbrella. Now, because that umbrella doesn't fit your premise, you're breaking out the arbitrary distinction again. And before you get all huffy on the word "arbitrary", bear in mind that it is so. Your chosen quote from Demasio is merely an example of you finding anyone with a pedigree to support your premise, otherwise known as an argument from authority. Global warming deniers are good at that, too, but it doesn't make them right or their arguments logically sound.

Under any definition accepted by psychiatry or science in general, emotions and "feelings" are linked inextricably together, and the words are often used interchangeably. In fact, even Demasio can't talk about feelings without mentioning emotions, as the root cause, so your hair-splitting is just so much vacuous nonsense. It is merely another example of you attempting to manufacture a split or a middle ground where there is none, so that you'll have a chance to make yourself look good. It is sophism, and it's beginning to bore the ever-living fuck out of me.

[Jim__]

50. Point specifically to where I retracted anything. Point to the original post, then the post ...

... where I retracted what I said.

My original statement - post # 24: And, from Antonio Damasio, Distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the University of Iowa College of Medicine: the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.

Post #27: Feelings are a subset of an emotional state. Emotion covers a wide range of physiological, mental and conscious processes. Clear language allows us to differentiate between these processes.

Post #47: Personal experience and subjective declarations from other people. That's the basis for saying that feelings are subsets of emotions.

You're fond of obfuscating bullshit. Time to put up or shut up. Give me the original post and then the retraction.

[darkstar3]

51. More sophistry. Go back and read. I didn't accuse you of retracting anything.

[Jim__]

53. Where have I refused to stand by what I said? Give me the post number not more bullshit.

[darkstar3]

54. Compare #27 to #47,

then get off your huffy bike.

[Jim__]

56. I already made the comparison in post #50. But, since you've joined this has degenrated into ..

"did too" / "did not". It's what you're discussions amount to; nothing substantive.

Post #27: Feelings are a subset of an emotional state. Emotion covers a wide range of physiological, mental and conscious processes. Clear language allows us to differentiate between these processes.

Post #47: Personal experience and subjective declarations from other people. That's the basis for saying that feelings are subsets of emotions.

[darkstar3]

57. Ooh, ooh, can I shout "context!" now?

You made a clear statement about the nature of feelings in #27, then you backed off that statement in #47 by trying to qualify it and distance yourself from it, but of course that was only after you'd stuck your foot in the bear trap.

What's funny about your tactic now is that you accuse me of obfuscatory bullshit, while you're the one engaging in this sophistic "prove I said X" exercise while completely ignoring the rest of the points I made in #49. Until and unless you are willing to admit that you have engaged in fallacious reasoning and that even Demasio's quote doesn't really support your premise, I really don't have anything else to say in this subthread.

[Jim__]

59. Here's the context:

Post #24: there is no empirical evidence for feelings.

Post #27: fMRI is not measuring private feelings. Feelings are a subset of an emotional state. Emotion covers a wide range of physiological, mental and conscious processes.

Post #47: How do we know feelings are subsets of emotions? Personal experience and subjective declarations from other people. That's the basis for saying that feelings are subsets of emotions. I accept that as valid; I don't accept it as empirical evidence. Is there any empirical evidence for this? If you have any empirical evidence for this, feel free to present it.

There is no backing away from anything.

But I post to exchange ideas with people. Your childish game of "did too" / "did not" is, remarkably enough, for children.

[darkstar3]

61. Why rewrite it when it's plain above?

Oh, that's right, to continue your sophistic game, which you now wish project onto me.

Your argument is fallacious, your source worthless, your premise flawed. This subthread is at an end not because of some childish sophistic game, but because you don't have a leg left to stand on. Now go ahead and tell me how adult you are by taking the last word.

[rrneck]

40. Would it be fair to say

that we react to our own feelings just as we may react to stimuli outside our bodies? Could we call that reaction emotion?

[Jim__]

48. I think you can.

I like Damasio's description because it eliminates some ambiguity.

[Deep13]

72. So the fact that eveyone claims to have feelings...

...in such a way as to make it clear that they exist and the measurable biological evidence of them counts as no empirical evidence. The case studies done on them that show people react similarly to similar things, the ability to alter them with chemicals or surgery, the medical imaging technology and the fact that some people have no feelings--all that has no empirical value? These are direct measurements of feelings. I think you are drawing a nonexistent semantic distinction.

[Jim__]

73. That's correct. Anecdotal claims do not count as empirical evidence.

And, there is no empirical way to measure or observe a conscious feeling. Of course, measurement of physiological reactions has value. However, the distinction between a person's conscious feeling and any measurement or observation is not a semantic distinction, it's a distinction imposed by the limitations of our current capabilities. Your belief that this is a semantic distinction is a reflection of sloppy language.

[Silent3]

8. One problem is that there is more than one definition...

...of belief, but people blur those definitions -- even, I think, when they're talking about their own beliefs, beliefs they should be able to categorize as one kind or another.

You can say, "I believe that...", and be talking about a mere opinion, sometimes loosely held opinion. The word "belief" can be used to express not certainty, but doubt:

Q: Are you absolutely sure you saw John get into that car?
A: Well, no, I'm not absolutely sure. I believe it was John. It was very dark, however.

You can say, "I believe in freedom of speech", and it's not a matter of the existence of free speech, you're stating that freedom of speech is an ideal you support, something that should exist, that people should strive to promote freedom of speech.

You can say, "I believe in evolution", and by that mean that you feel very certain that biological evolution has occurred, a strongly-held opinion taken to be provisional but fairly solid knowledge about the actual workings of the natural world, based on well-documented evidence.

You can also say, "I BELIEVE!" ("in God" optional), and be making a faith-based emphatic declaration that you KNOW for certain that there is a God. If you harbor any doubts, you don't want to admit them, perhaps even to yourself.

Sometimes when I hear people talk about religious beliefs, I get the feeling they shift from one meaning to another -- if they want to emphasize commitment to their religion, or stave off fear of death and the unknown, it's emphatic belief. If they want to emphasize tolerance, or at least getting tolerance from others for themselves, belief shifts more to being about ideals or opinions.

[Deep13]

10. Good points. nt

[GliderGuider]

13. No, I can't agree to that definition of belief.

At least, not without: a clear definition of "objective reality"; a solid proof that it exists; and proof that there's only one such beast.

I claim that the existence of a single objective reality is the unproven assumption upon which your whole logical edifice rests. It's a useful assumption, to be sure, but it's remarkably hard to prove. As a result I am tempted to simply say "Whatever" and go have a beer.

[rrneck]

17. If Helen Keller fell down in the woods

would she make any noise?

I think the real world exists apart from us, and doesn't require us at all. But we have an equally complex inner life that affects how we perceive reality and our place in it. The experience of the human condition is suspended somewhere between them.

That beer sounds pretty good.

[Deep13]

21. Yes, but she wouldn't hear it.

:evilgrin:

[Deep13]

18. I think the singularity of reality is pretty well established.

Nothing would be able to work if everything (which conceivably means every quark particle) existed in a separate reality. There would be no atoms because each sub-atomic particle would have its own conditions for existence.

Just to take a simplistic example, how could a car work if the laws of physics that described the processes that make it work were totally subjective? Friction means something different for you than it does to me. In my reality, steel is made of soap bubbles. How do I know my senses are accurately showing me an objective reality and not just some kind of illusion where everything works? Darwinism. If my senses did not at least approximate the real world, I would have starved or walked into a swamp long ago. If fact, our ancestors would have had the same problem, so we would never have existed.

[GliderGuider]

26. As I said, it's a very useful assumption.

Utility doesn't necessarily imply Truth, though. Just ask Newton.

I'm not asking anyone else to suspend their belief in objective reality, I'm just saying that I'm personally keeping an open mind on the subject. I don't think all the data is in yet.

[darkstar3]

23. The entire realm of science,

including physics, biology, chemistry, astronomy and astrophysics, and every division therein, is based on and continually verifies the concept of an objective reality. You may reject that, but that doesn't make anything "your reality."

[GliderGuider]

28. Didn't you leave out one discipline?

The idea of objective reality is a very useful approximation, no question about it. Gödel might advise caution when claiming absolute certainty on the subject, though.

[darkstar3]

30. Which one?

Mathematics? I'm sorry to tell you this, but pure mathematics are not science. Mathematics and number theory are APPLIED in science quite frequently, but they themselves are not science, which is why we make the distinction in the first place and refer to them with very different names.

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has much more limited applicability than what you are giving it. It applies to the set of natural numbers, and the ways in which we describe them. It has no bearing whatsoever on the concept of objective reality. You are once again engaging in solipsism, and hiding behind poor interpretations of the work of others in order to do it. Will you next tell me that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle shows that there is no objective reality? How many giants in the fields of mathematics and science will you piss on before you give up this pointless fight about the existence of objectivity and a shared reality?

[GliderGuider]

31. Who's fighting?

I'm just saying that we should all try to keep one corner of our minds open. Reality has this wonderful ability to throw curve balls, after all. I prefer to delight in uncertainty rather than closing myself down inside some fortress of absolutism, but that's just me. What I think about the nature of reality makes no difference to any reality except my own. You don't need to buy a single thing I say, especially since I'm not selling anything. I'm not out here teaching physics or philosophy, I'm just some random guy trying to make my limited time here interesting.

[darkstar3]

35. You are.

When you talk to others about "your reality" or "my reality", you are engaging in pseudoscience, and more importantly perpetuating a dangerous narrative that is used by many snake-oil salesmen. There is one reality, and whether you accept or reject it makes no difference to its existence, or its necessity.

You are fighting science with pseudoscience and flat-out woo, and frankly you should have expected some blowback to that on the internet.

As for your superiority complex regarding open-mindedness and absolutism, you really should have read that recent XKCD comic posted here. You should also research the concept of solipsism, and look at how closely your views on reality resemble this failed logical position. You should also factor into your calculations (hehe) that my mind is far more open than you might believe. I am open to a world of possibilities the likes of which would stagger the minds of many die-hard believers, but I am NOT open to the possibility that there is nothing objective, that there is no shared reality. Just as I am not open to the possibility that dragons will fly out of my ass tomorrow.

[GliderGuider]

37. Where did I say there was nothing objective?

I say it's hard, and perhaps impossible to prove conclusively that there is a single objective reality, not that there isn't one. I also think that there is something that looks an awful lot like one, and that believing that there is one and only one observer-independent reality is useful. I'm not sure why you think beliefs like that might be "dangerous".

On the question of solipsism, I'm a nondualist rather than a solipsist, but a lot of people confuse the two positions.

Nondualism versus solipsism

Nondualism superficially resembles solipsism, but from a nondual perspective solipsism mistakenly fails to consider subjectivity itself. Upon careful examination of the referent of "I," i.e. one's status as a separate observer of the perceptual field, one finds that one must be in as much doubt about it, too, as solipsists are about the existence of other minds and the rest of "the external world." (One way to see this is to consider that, due to the conundrum posed by one's own subjectivity becoming a perceptual object to itself, there is no way to validate one's "self-existence" except through the eyes of others—the independent existence of which is already solipsistically suspect!) Nondualism ultimately suggests that the referent of "I" is in fact an artificial construct (merely the border separating "inner" from "outer," in a sense), the transcendence of which constitutes enlightenment.

[darkstar3]

39. All over the place, including here.

Nondualism requires the belief that everything is subjective, as you clearly show in your extract. It is more egocentric even than solipsism, and a staggeringly arrogant refutation of the ideas behind the scientific method.

[GliderGuider]

42. Just because all our experiences are by definition subjective

doesn't mean there is nothing objective. That's one of the delightful conundrums of nondualism.

Look, I'm not saying that Cartesian dualism and the notion of the independent observer are false, just that they're not the only way to look at the universe. If one wants to do science, then dualism is a very handy (and possibly essential) tool. But to say that because it's a useful framework in one domain of human activity it must by necessity reign supreme in all of them carries its own whiff of arrogance, wouldn't you agree? There is more to life than science, after all.

[GliderGuider]

45. Solipsism and nondualism both rest on a fundamental truth

Human beings (and indeed all living creatures), never experience the outside universe directly. Every external perception we have is translated by our sense organs. We directly "experience" only electrochemical reactions in the brain. This means that there is no qualitative difference between our perceptions of external events and purely internal ones. It also means that every perception that we interpret as coming from the external world is open to mediation and modulation by internally generated perceptions. Humanity has built very elaborate systems of logic to allow us to discriminate outer events from inner ones accurately and consistently.

Unfortunately, because the brain is so complex it's very difficult to maintain this discrimination at the margins of perception. I've had a lot of experience with this problem in the arena of sound reproduction, trying to answer the apparently simple question, "Does this stereo system sound more or less realistic than that one?"

Again, that doesn't mean that external realities don't exist, just that all our experiences are ultimately inner experiences. Once we accept that fact, it becomes easier to understand why some philosophers distrust the notion of objectivity.

[darkstar3]

46. The problem with that argument is the science of the senses.

You say that all external phenomena are perceived through senses and transformed into internal phenomena. Fine, that IS what senses do, but then you must admit that we have mapped and can predict exactly how senses do this. The manipulation of these electrochemical conversions and quirks in the senses are how we are able to create optical illusions, sound effects, animation, and much more.

Your eyes see the same external phenomena that mine do, and they process that information in the same way that mine do, with some minor exceptions that can be filtered out by sample size significance. That's the cornerstone of repeatability in results.

You are not talking about perception and some nebulous differences therein, you're talking about making value judgments on those perceptions. We all hear the same sound. The value judgments that we make with regard to that sound, is it good or bad, are entirely subjective. Value judgments are necessarily subjective, but the thing being judged need not be. Whether you find the sound good or bad doesn't change the mechanics of the sound or how every ear in the room converted that sound into an electrochemical reaction and nervous signal.

Let me put this another way. If I were to poke you in the arm with a needle, you would feel pain. If I were then to remove the needle, the pain would subside. Repeat the experiment 100 times in 100 different locations around your body, and you will find that each time you feel pain, and that the pain is localized to the point of contact with the needle. Therefore, I am manipulating your nervous system from outside, meaning it is not a closed system, nor is it entirely internal.

[GliderGuider]

55. There is always the problem of the intepretation of perception

One counter to your needle example is the existence of phantom limb pain. Another is the perception of the stimulus as pain - many people perceive piercings as either pleasurable or painful depending on their psychological state.

I agree that the interpretation of perception is a more problematic area than the question of the existence of an external world. It's entirely reasonable to assume that reality isn't entirely internal, but it's also problematic to assume that's it's entirely external. Most of us agree that external reality exists and what it's like, at least to some extent -- otherwise we wouldn't survive long. Once we get past (or set aside) the question of the simple existence of an outside world though, the finer points of it become fuzzy and subjective very quickly.

[darkstar3]

60. The finer points are what objective observation and science are all about.

I see that you have finally accepted the idea that an objective reality exists. Perhaps one day you will leave "the cave" and realize how easy it is to participate in and understand it, if you use the right tools. Of course, I won't hold my breath, k?

[GliderGuider]

62. That's a bit ad hom, isn't it?

I've never denied that an objective reality exists. I'm perfectly aware of how and why science works - I've been immersed in science both in my family life and career for almost 60 years. I now find it's more enjoyable to broaden my perspective on these questions, especially since I no longer feel such a compulsion to play zero-sum games with something as personal as belief.

It was an interesting debate, thanks.

[darkstar3]

63. Don't mistake derision for ad hom.

Maybe you didn't get the multi-layered reference...maybe I don't care. What I do care about is that now you're changing your tune. In your earlier contributions to this thread, you called the "idea of objective reality" an approximation. That sounds like a denial of its real existence to me.

Broaden your perspective all you like, because I actually think that's a good thing, but don't drag the scientific method through the mud in the process. That's how we end up with Juice+...

[GliderGuider]

64. You mean your Platonic reference?

Of course I got it. I don't think I'm in a cave, but then of course I would think that, wouldn't I?

Newtonian mechanics is just an approximation, but buses still exist and it still hurts to get hit by one.

No idea is sacred, and that includes the scientific method. As long as it stays confined to science I'm content to let it be. Science isn't God either, right?

[darkstar3]

65. No, science is not God, but then you're venturing awfully close to another failed argument,

the Non-Overlapping Magesteria Argument first put forward by Gould.

Newtonian mechanics is an approximation, but that doesn't make objective reality one.

[GliderGuider]

67. Where on earth do you get NOMA from what I said?

When I said, "Science is not God", I meant simply that no idea is sacred. The scientific method is not dogma, it's not above criticism, and IMO it should not be held to be transcendent over all human endeavor. That's all.

[darkstar3]

68. "As long as it stays confined to science I'm content to let it be."

That's where.

[GliderGuider]

69. My understanding of NOMA is that religion has to be involved somewhere

I'm not talking about religion vs science here. I'm talking about using the appropriate tool for the job. I don't think the scientific method is the right tool for every aspect of the human endeavour. I would hesitate, for example, to use the scientific method to enhance my love relationship with my partner.

[darkstar3]

70. Actually, in some cases, you might.

Question: How can I improve my relationship with my wife?
Background research: My wife likes gifts.
Hypothesis: If I buy my wife flowers, it will enhance our relationship.
Test; I buy my wife flowers and give them to her.
Result: I'm sleeping on the couch because I forgot my wife has allergies and hates flowers.
Analysis: Flowers do not make my wife happy, and did not enhance our relationship. Therefore, the hypothesis is invalid.
New Hypothesis: If I buy my wife jewelry, it may make up for buying her flowers...

This could go on for a while. :)

I brought up NOMA by saying you were venturing close to it because you are. Too many people are far too willing to put science in a sandbox and assume that their own premise or hypothesis can exist outside that sandbox. It very often doesn't work that way, and that's the point I was trying to make.

[GliderGuider]

74. The Scientific Method™ requires

that the experiment can be replicated by another experimenter for validation. What you're proposing isn't Science™ it's just testing hypotheses, an anecdotal technique that has been around since the beginning of consciousness.

For example, I can say that if anyone meditates long enough they are likely to attain a sense of oneness with the universe, but I don't think either of us would confuse "trying it to see if it works" with Science™ -- even if it worked a good percentage of the time.

On the question of love, let's say my hypothesis is, "By spending all my worldly savings on my relationship then my sense of love will be enhanced and in the end the price will have been worth it." I don't think there's an experiment in the world that could prove or disprove the truth of such proposition.

There are still some important corners of the human spirit into which scientific materialism can't profitably venture. I like that idea.

[darkstar3]

75. And you think people aren't testing these hypotheses?

That's funny.

[GliderGuider]

76. Of course they are.

The problem is that for hypotheses like these there's no way to control the experiment. As a result, all results are anecdotal. That may be OK for woo, but not for science.

[darkstar3]

77. And the joke comes full circle.

;)

[Silent3]

32. Objective reality is implicit in the act of communication

You'd be correct is saying there's no way to absolutely prove the existence of an objective reality, but as long as you aren't seriously entertaining solipsism, if you think that when you talk to people you aren't just conversing with illusions or figments of your own imagination, there is an implicit objective reality required for there to be any hope for finding and sharing common meanings.

[GliderGuider]

33. Do you mean that as long as we all believe there is an objective reality , then there is one?

My real problem with most of these discussions is that "belief" is an inherently subjective concept, and cannot be otherwise as far as I can tell. Applying a subjective framework to a purportedly objective reality and then sharing one's conclusion with someone else seems to me like asking someone whether they agree that the Supreme Court tastes gold.

[Silent3]

43. The word "reality" doesn't have much utility...

...unless it's tied to the concept of objectivity. Yes, you can use a phrase like "subjective reality", but does that really mean much more than personal perspective? Non-objective reality is pretty damn near an oxymoron.

In fact, I'd define "reality" as the set of things which are objectively true. All else is either error or personal perspective.

None of that, of course, assures that there is an objective reality. The existence of an objective reality, further, would not guarantee that we are accurately perceiving or assessing that reality -- any one of us probably has, at best, a very limited and to some degree flawed conception of any objective reality that might exist.

As long as I'm going to bother talking to you, however, as if you are an independent being from myself, sharing at least some things in common with me about which we can communicate, things which are reliable common touchstones, things which are objective, "reality" is the setting for that act of communication, the stage upon which those common touchstones can be found.

[GliderGuider]

44. Can my personal perspective be considered "real" then?

It's real to me, and it governs the actions I take.

The problem is that the thread started off as a discussion of the nature of belief. Whenever I hear the words "belief" and "reality" in the same sentence I hear the sound of wheels spinning in the mud. For instance, I believe that you and I have the same understanding of large portions of what we believe to be an objective reality, and I believe we are communicating fairly effectively as a result...

[Silent3]

52. You personal perspective is merely an aspect of reality.

If GliderGuider enjoys anchovies and Silent3 does not, which is a more useful conception of reality?

(1) GliderGuider and Silent3 exist it two separate realities. In one reality "anchovies are delicious" in an absolute truth, in the other "anchovies are disgusting" is an indisputable fact.

(2) GliderGuider and Silent3 exist in the same reality, each person simply reacts differently to anchovies, according to differences which can, at least in theory, be worked out as matters of biochemistry, experience, or a combination of the two.

Why bother having the word "reality" at all if you're going to use it the first way? It's superfluous used that way, essentially a synonym for perspective.

[GliderGuider]

58. "More useful" to who?

If we're talking about usefulness to the person with the perception, the first interpretation works just fine. If we're talking about utility to a third party or to the interaction between GG and S3 then obviously the second interpretation is more helpful.

Again, I'm not saying that reality is solely a personal construct. I'm saying that it's very hard to prove that it's entirely impersonal. If I'm trying to figure out the age of the universe using astrophysical tools its very helpful to assume that reality is impersonal. OTOH if I'm trying to help someone to figure out why they're suffering psychologically I'd be foolish to take only impersonal factors into account.

[Silent3]

66. More useful for someone whose aim is clarity...

...and not unnecessary obfuscation.

Where would anything I've said about reality lead "tak(ing) only impersonal factors into account"? You think the only way to take a "factor" into account is to assign it its own independent reality to dwell within? Are you determined to define "personal" as part of a different "reality"?

[skepticscott]

71. I think some of your examples

confuse "believing" in something with being convinced of something by actual evidence. I don't "believe" in the heliocentric version of the solar system. I am convinced that that is the best explanation for what we observe in the real world.