8 Year Olds, Free Will, and Baptism

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

So how does that work exactly?

They have been asking my daughter today on a scale of 1-10, what is her pain level and it is driving her crazy because it has no context for her. She has never felt the worst pain ever for herself yet and if course has no way of knowing how others’ pain compares to her, so how is she supposed to divide up the quality of her suffering in quantifiable measures?  And anything that can mean something to someone else. Every time I have seen this kind of thing being used, they have to attach an explanation to it anyway and the person says ‘well, I guess around....’.  The only real value it has, imo, is in comparison for the individual. ‘Is the pain better or worse than it was’ would work as well. 
 

And then there is Mom whose dementia has her calling any bad day these days “this is the worse day I have ever had!” and that is true for her because she has lost her context. 

Yep all meaning in language is contextual and I agree that those are major problems

But science says meaning is NOT contextual but the analysis of an "actual THING" out there in the world.

And that is the first part of the Rorty quote- of course we know there is a world out there- but all we can say about it is in contextual language, and truth and falsity only can exist about sentences and not about the world "out there" Because all we can know about the world out there is the qualia- what our mind sees and feels and creates.

Quote

" To say that the world is out there, that it is not our creation, is to say, with common sense, that most things in space and time are the effects of causes which do not include human mental states.

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see how rorty's comment even addresses the issues under discussion..  to say truth doesn't exist outside the human mind gives the same idea in the syllogism under discussion--consciousness doesn't exist except in the physical natural mind.  

Oh my,

If it's the same idea then your point is moot

Then we agree

Obviously it is not the same idea.  I think you need to be a little more precise and think this through.  Both tie "the mind" to our bodies.  Shoot someone in the head and I think you will figure that one out pretty quickly.

But qualia cannot be defined by physicalism.  Descriptions of chemical reactions are not descriptions or even statements about colors and feelings.

Clearly you understand that.

Next time you tell your significant other you love her/him just say "Chemicals abc and d are reacting at point xyz in my brain"

See how far that that gets you. 

When we speak we speak about qualia, not chemical reactions.

 

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

  I defy anyone to locate the bizarre feelings of restless legs disorder. Even when amputated, the feelings continues in the nonexistent limb.  No machine can measure the sensations.  There is no inflammation, no redness or rash, no injury,  no nerve triggering, nothing in the legs except the perception.  
 

They can only be described and there is a huge variety of experience....yet all (sorta) the same cause apparently (dopamine levels in the brain).

Agreed!  I have experienced tweaks occasionally myself, but they are not serious.

I can tell you what I find "helps": exercise, magnesium supplementation, Turmeric, massage and muscle stretching.  But no, I cannot explain how it feels.

And God is about "how it feels", not what chemicals are acting on my brain.

That is the epistemological insight here, and imo, the difference between atheists and believers. 

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I'm in awe.

I am that you are! 

At least somebody gets it!  😆

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

So how does that work exactly?

They have been asking my daughter today on a scale of 1-10, what is her pain level and it is driving her crazy because it has no context for her. She has never felt the worst pain ever for herself yet and of course has no way of knowing how others’ pain compares to her, so how is she supposed to divide up the quality of her suffering in quantifiable measures?  And anything that can mean something to someone else. Every time I have seen this kind of thing being used, they have to attach an explanation to it anyway and the person says ‘well, I guess around....’.  The only real value it has, imo, is in comparison for the individual. ‘Is the pain better or worse than it was’ would work as well. 
 

And then there is Mom whose dementia has her calling any bad day these days “this is the worse day I have ever had!” and that is true for her because she has lost her context. 

I"m sorry to hear of the pains people in your life are suffering.  Are you asking me how do we measure it?  Or how do individuals convey the degree of pain and suffering in their lives?  I don't know.  Sounds like you're saying any given individual can't really convey the degree of pain he/she has at any given moment very easily to another person, so that means we can't really measure one's physical health or mental health?  I'd say, I guess that falls in with my point.  We know there is something wrong physically or mentally with another.  We have a  scientific practice of medicine to help us achieve physical health and no one questions the scientific basis nor the attempted measures we have in place.  But if we dare take similar assumptions (its really just one main one, as I see it) in regards to the question of morality then suddenly there's no basis, no measures and everything is questioned.  Nah...we can see the cause and effect of what we do, how our minds are calibrated.  We can easily assume just like we assume with the question of physical health (there is a goal of being healthy) that there is a goal for well being, in terms of morality.  

[stemelbow]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

The experience of God can be seen as a quale,  an ineffable feeling in reality and a testimony of the church is made up of qualia.

Where else is your feeling of God or anything else if not "in your head"?

Can I pull out a microscope and look at your brain and see your testimony?

Where is the itch in a mosquito bite?

Does red "exist"? 

Can you please tie this into what we're talking about?  It feels like you want me to read the implication here.  I may have it, but I can't be sure.  You haven't explained yourself.  I presented a syllogism for argument and consideration.  THe only attempt to address it seemed to completely miss what the syllogism said.  I presented a couple of links and no one has addressed them.  Instead I get some weird rabbit trails arguing there's a difference between an experience and what's really happening in your head.  I question whether it's even relevant to the issue.  If we can possibly measure, through brain scanning, the effects of certain things you do, determining whether those actions are pushing one or anyone to a goal of well being then as a result we can gather data and start to figure out what actions, what ideas, what thoughts, get us closer to well being and which do not.  I'm not saying this works us perfectly to some utopia of perfection.  I'm saying, just like in medicine, there are actually scientific works available to further us to a goal--we assume physical health is the ought.  If we take the assumption of physically healthy as a goal, such as we do with the practice of medicine, and stretch the same type of assumption to morality, we'll call that well being, then we have a goal in place.  Perfect physical health may not be easily defined, neither does perfect well being.  IT's a great comparison.   Why should we question a goal of well being?  It's there, we can imagine it.  We each have it in us.  It's similar for physical health.  We can imagine it.  We each have it in us.  

 

[pogi]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

The premise is not that everyone has a subjective view of well being.  It's that every person experiences well being or suffering on a scale.

Here is the direct quote:

Quote

and specifically, on that fact that various minds can experience various forms of well being and suffering in the universe

He did not say we experience well-being in different degrees or levels on a scale.  He said we experience different "forms" from each other.  That is very, very different from what you claim he said and makes it subjective to the individual without any objective way to measure it.  Well-being is not an objectively monolithic/monadic experience identical for each individual with the only difference being the degree or level of well-being measured on a scale.  No, no, no, well-being is a subjective conglomerate of different forms and quale, with no two people being alike.  What promotes well-being for one, might promote suffering for another (such as small talk at a party, or the taste of durian fruit).  It is entirely subjective in more ways than can be measured and is entirely reliant on subjective and biased opinion, which is in no way can be objectively measured and qualified.

Quote

   Since the conscious minds and their states are and are a result found in nature, then (assuming well being is the goal)  there are good values (furthering well being)  and not.  

An assumption based on soft science with a value based judgment and goal.  Good and bad are value judgments.  Value judgments don't belong in hard science. It would effectively destroy hard science as we know it once value judgments are allowed to creep in.  Hard science can be built around value judgments, but in no way does that make the value judgment an objective fact of natural science (hard science).  For example, we can use hard science to create medicine to treat pain based on the value judgment that pain is bad.  But the value judgment of "pain is bad" is not an objective scientific fact.  Do you see the difference? 

Quote

I"m sorry to hear of the pains people in your life are suffering.  Are you asking me how do we measure it?  Or how do individuals convey the degree of pain and suffering in their lives?  I don't know.  Sounds like you're saying any given individual can't really convey the degree of pain he/she has at any given moment very easily to another person, so that means we can't really measure one's physical health or mental health?  I'd say, I guess that falls in with my point.  We know there is something wrong physically or mentally with another.  We have a  scientific practice of medicine to help us achieve physical health and no one questions the scientific basis nor the attempted measures we have in place.  But if we dare take similar assumptions (its really just one main one, as I see it) in regards to the question of morality then suddenly there's no basis, no measures and everything is questioned.  Nah...we can see the cause and effect of what we do, how our minds are calibrated.  We can easily assume just like we assume with the question of physical health (there is a goal of being healthy) that there is a goal for well being, in terms of morality.

Here is the problem as I see it.  Neither you or Harris are distinguishing between soft science and hard science.  What Harris is promoting is already being employed by practitioners in every field.  Doctors, nurses, therapists, psychologists, social sciences, etc are all employing soft science and making value judgments which are not based on hard science and measurable objective fact.  These all have the same goal of promoting well-being.  It is already being employed in practice in the soft sciences, so why the heck is Harris trying to manipulate our understanding of hard science vs soft science and re-invent the wheel that is already turning just fine?   By introducing value judgments where we can't establish objectively measured criteria, then we water down the unbiased rigor of the hard natural sciences. Hard science will loose its unbiased edge - which will be it's downfall.  There will be no distinction whatsoever between hard science and soft science. 

You say that "no one questions the scientific basis for the attempted measures we have in place".   That is because no one is pretending that those measures are hard science that measure objective truth.  If someone did make that claim, you bet people would be questioning.     We acknowledge that it is a value judgment and is entirely subjective.  We are ok with that.  We don't need to pretend that it is a hard science to employ it.  We are ok with making value judgments and distinguishing it from the natural sciences (as it should be, to protect the integrity of hard science). If you think asking someone what their pain is on a scale of 1 to 10 is practicing hard science - that is beyond me. 

For clarity, 

Hard science: "Any of the natural or physical sciences, as chemistry, biology, physics, or astronomy".  These hard sciences rely on objectivity and are not based on subjective value judgments.

Soft science: "Any of the specialized fields or disciplines, as psychology, sociology, anthropology, or political science, that interpret human behavior, institutions, society, etc., on the basis of scientific investigations for which it may be difficult to establish strictly measurable criteria".  These soft sciences can also be rigorous but are largely dependent upon subjective value judgments which are not considered objective facts.  

Edited August 27, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

Let me boil the problem down in as simply as I can.

Hard Science starts with an assumption and rigorously and objectively tests the assumption to determine if it is "true" or "scientific fact".  Once this sturdy foundation is proven, then science can further build upon this sturdy foundation.

Sam Harris, on the other hand, starts with an assumption, he doesn't/can't objectively test the assumption, then he claims every conclusion based on the untested assumption is "true" or "scientific fact".  The problem is that a house is only as solid/true as its foundation.

The assumption is entirely arbitrary with no scientific reason to make it the foundation of morality.  I could just as easily make the arbitrary assumption that anything which promotes the homeostasis of spinach = morality.  Anyone who therefore eats spinach is immoral.  That is now a scientific fact!  Given naturalism as a foundation, anthropocentrism (which is really what Harris is proposing as a basis for morality) just feels so...wrong.  There is no scientific basis for it.

The wise man built his house upon a rock , but Harris is trying to convince science to build its house upon sand. It is a disservice to science and weakens its foundation of objectivity.  It is a slippery slope from there once you allow the foundation to be weakened. It will forever destabilize science.  

One could say the difference between hard science and soft science is the foundation it is built upon - "hard" foundation (rock/proven assumption) vs. "soft" foundation (sand/unproven assumption).  I have no problem calling Harris's approach a soft science.  But we can't pretend that it is based on hard objective scientific fact. 

Edited August 27, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

Nevermind.

Edited August 27, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Let me bold the problem down in as simple a way as I can.

Hard Science starts with an assumption... strike one, it's never a good idea to assume anything

...and rigorously and objectively tests the assumption to determine if it is "true" scientific fact".. well, okay, at least there is some research involved to determine whether or not the assumption is true or a scientific fact.

The CHEERS approach is better because it just avoids making any assumptions.

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Once this sturdy foundation is proven, then science can further build upon this sturdy foundation.

Sam Harris, on the other hand, starts with an assumption, he doesn't/can't objectively test the assumption, then he claims every conclusion based on the untested assumption is "true" or "scientific fact".  The problem is that a house is only as solid/true as its foundation.  

The assumption is entirely arbitrary. subjective, and not based in objectivity.  I could just as easily make the assumption that anything which promotes the well-being of spinach = morality.  Anyone who therefore eats spinach is immoral.  Given naturalism, anthropocentrism (which is really what Harris is proposing) just feels so...immoral.

The wise man built his house upon a rock , but Harris is trying to convince science to build its house upon sand. It is a disservice to science and weakens its foundation of objectivity.  It is a slippery slope from there once you allow the foundation to be weakened. It will forever destabilize science.  

Objectivity is often an illusion because once we start to work with any idea, even just to try to understand it, the idea is then subjective to what the person with the idea thinks about it. 

Think about it.  Think about anything.  Whatever you are thinking about is your subjective opinion.  Now try to communicate to another person what you think objectivity is.

[pogi]

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The CHEERS approach is better because it just avoids making any assumptions.

What the heck do you think the 'H' in CHEERS represents?  An assumption (hypothesis)!  Science always starts with an assumption and tests to see if it is accurate.

Quote

"A hypothesis is an assumption..."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hypothesis#:~:text=law of gravitation-,The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory,from a basic background review.

37 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Objectivity is often an illusion because once we start to work with any idea, even just to try to understand it, the idea is then subjective to what the person with the idea thinks about it. 

Think about it.  Think about anything.  Whatever you are thinking about is your subjective opinion.  Now try to communicate to another person what you think objectivity is.

Scientific objectivity is simply an ideal and method of testing the reliability of a particular subjective perspective.

Edited August 27, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

What the heck do you think the 'H' in CHEERS represents?  An assumption (hypothesis)!  Science always starts with an assumption and tests to see if it is accurate.

Semantics issue.  A hypothesis is a possible explanation and an assumption is an expected conclusion.  If I were to assume you will agree with me about this then I would be a bit surprised if you don't, so instead I will just think it is possible that you might.

44 minutes ago, pogi said:

Scientific objectivity is simply an ideal and method of testing the reliability of a particular subjective perspective.

An ideal that is often not in agreement with reality.  And still all you gave me was what you think objectivity is.

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Semantics issue.  A hypothesis is a possible explanation and an assumption is an expected conclusion.  If I were to assume you will agree with me about this then I would be a bit surprised if you don't, so instead I will just think it is possible that you might.

An ideal that is often not in agreement with reality.  And still all you gave me was what you think objectivity is.

My semantics are right and your semantics are wrong.  Is that your game?

This is easy.

The dictionary is not good enough for you?  You are going to argue against it now?  Have fun!  I am done.

Edited August 27, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

My semantics are right and your semantics are wrong.  Is that your game?

This is easy.

The dictionary is not good enough for you?  You are going to argue against it now?  Have fun!  I am done.

Dictionaries have multiple definitions for words so you should allow for the possibility that someone will use a different definition of a word than you will.  When I hinted that our discussion involved a semantics issue I was simply trying to point that out to you.

[pogi]

16 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Dictionaries have multiple definitions for words so you should allow for the possibility that someone will use a different definition of a word than you will.  

Amen!

You were just assuming that you know how I was using the word "assumption", when you didn't.  Who was it that said "it's never a good idea to assume anything"? Hmmm...

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by pogi

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

Amen!

You are just assuming that you know how I am using the word, when you don't.  Who was it that said "it's never a good idea to assume anything"? Hmmm...

 

No, I just avoid intentionally using any form of the word "assumption" and advise others to do the same.  Thinking that I understand what a person  means when that person says something is not what I think of as an assumption.

[pogi]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, I just avoid intentionally using any form of the word "assumption" and advise others to do the same.  

Do you?

Quote

The CHEERS approach is better because it just avoids making any assumptions.

Quote

strike one, it's never a good idea to assume anything

That is weird to want to avoid using the word, but to each his own. 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you?

That is weird to want to avoid using the word, but to each his own. 

Okay, I meant using the word as in saying I am assuming something, while also advising others to avoid making assumptions.  Coming up with possible explanations is better than making assumptions, whether subjectively or objectively.

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Can you please tie this into what we're talking about?  It feels like you want me to read the implication here.  I may have it, but I can't be sure.  You haven't explained yourself.  I presented a syllogism for argument and consideration.  THe only attempt to address it seemed to completely miss what the syllogism said.  I presented a couple of links and no one has addressed them.  Instead I get some weird rabbit trails arguing there's a difference between an experience and what's really happening in your head.  I question whether it's even relevant to the issue.  If we can possibly measure, through brain scanning, the effects of certain things you do, determining whether those actions are pushing one or anyone to a goal of well being then as a result we can gather data and start to figure out what actions, what ideas, what thoughts, get us closer to well being and which do not.  I'm not saying this works us perfectly to some utopia of perfection.  I'm saying, just like in medicine, there are actually scientific works available to further us to a goal--we assume physical health is the ought.  If we take the assumption of physically healthy as a goal, such as we do with the practice of medicine, and stretch the same type of assumption to morality, we'll call that well being, then we have a goal in place.  Perfect physical health may not be easily defined, neither does perfect well being.  IT's a great comparison.   Why should we question a goal of well being?  It's there, we can imagine it.  We each have it in us.  It's similar for physical health.  We can imagine it.  We each have it in us.  

 

Do you understand that brain scans are just as much qualia to be interpreted as anything else?

Yest they are useful in creating paradigms in brain mechanics, but like automotive mechanics, they are about how things work.

Do you go to you car mechanic with questions about the meaning of your life?

Your brain is your car. It gets you around in this world. But there are important things to be thinking about.

Yes they are qualia or sense perceptions all the way down but some are very important in our lives. Some like love, and paradigms that give our life meaning are extremely important to us personally. But your brain is just part of the mechanics of what makes up you. It's important to know that but you don't go there for the heavy questions.

You don't need to think about some gizmo under your hood when you're trying to get to the store for medication that your child needs.

At that time you were driven by a Paradigm you consider more important the importance of your child's life.

Neuroscience is the last thing you would think about.

Everything that we know is made of verbal interpretations of someone else's paradigm, or part of our bodies learned responses.

Neuroscience is great but I leave that to the mechanics to figure out for me.

If I have a problem maybe someday they can fix it.  Same thing with medical science. Those mechanics have fixed me plenty of times.

But I sure don't go to them to interpret the feelings I have in my heart.

[mfbukowski]

Error- 

 

Edited August 27, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Evolution pushes us toward well being and of course you are right.

And yes, innocence having Joy is having have a joy is having well being.

 But that doesn't just include mechanics and includes what we feel in our hearts.

 

I think you need a qualia tune-up if you've got a feeling that something called evolution is pushing you toward well being. The fall of Adam and Eve required a miracle to restore them and their posterity to their former glory and from that day of the fall we have been devolving, not evolving, and your qualia should indicate that.

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think you need a qualia tune-up if you've got a feeling that something called evolution is pushing you toward well being. The fall of Adam and Eve required a miracle to restore them and their posterity to their former glory and from that day of the fall we have been devolving, not evolving, and your qualia should indicate that.

I shall make this declaration unto Ahab, in a manner of language like unto his own. 

God is one name for it, evolution is another.  Two paradigms thought to be conflicting but very easily combined.  God made us that way, to seek well being and joy.

Heretofore I was speaking to the gentile majority who do not believe in God, yea I was speaking to them in their language that they might understand my words.  But now I speak unto thee my brother Ahab that I might be understood in thy tongue.

The interpretation of the spiritual impresions/ qualia I receive allow me to believe that the church was restored and some beautiful day ahead, because of the Fall of A&E we stupid humans would get our act together after running around naked and figure out what works best for us - like clothes and houses and medical care- which is what well- being really is, and find joy in our posterity and establish Zion.  That can only be done by following the impressions- oh sorry- qualia - God presents to us in our hearts.

I think you have some of that Catholic guilt hanging you up.  Get rid of it- you are in THE Church of Jesus Christ!

I have read the end of the story and it says that the good triumphs eventually.  It's quite an inspiring story

And this then is the epistle I send unto my dear brother Ahab, that he might understand my words better.

And now it  will soon come to pass that I hit the save button.

 

Sorry dude- you like to correct folks and I do not.  Ordinarily I would not do it, but this time I hope you learn not to correct people, and not tell them what they "should" or should not do.

That is called "rudeness"

Edited August 27, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I shall make this declaration unto Ahab, in a manner of language like unto his own. 

God is one name for it, evolution is another.  Two paradigms thought to be conflicting but very easily combined.  God made us that way, to seek well being and joy.

Heretofore I was speaking to the gentile majority who do not believe in God, yea I was speaking to them in their language that they might understand my words.  But now I speak unto thee my brother Ahab that I might be understood in thy tongue.

The interpretation of the spiritual impresions/ qualia I receive allow me to believe that the church was restored and some beautiful day ahead, because of the Fall of A&E we stupid humans would get our act together after running around naked and figure out what works best for us - like clothes and houses and medical care- which is what well- being really is, and find joy in our posterity and establish Zion.  That can only be done by following the impressions- oh sorry- qualia - God presents to us in our hearts.

I think you have some of that Catholic guilt hanging you up.  Get rid of it- you are in THE Church of Jesus Christ!

I have read the end of the story and it says that the good triumphs eventually.  It's quite an inspiring story

And this then is the epistle I send unto my dear brother Ahab, that he might understand my words better.

And now it  will soon come to pass that I hit the save button.

 

Sorry dude- you like to correct folks and I do not.  Ordinarily I would not do it, but this time I hope you learn not to correct people, and not tell them what they "should" or should not do.

That is called "rudeness"

Good.  I'm glad you're trying to communicate better with me now. And if by rudeness you mean crudeness as in simplified and non-politically-correct-speech talk, then the closer we can get to a pure and undefiled language the better, so bring more of it on.

I still take issue with your use of the word evolution to refer to God helping us become better quality people, but if that's what you meant, I wish you had just said so.  That's kind of like using the word midichlorians to refer to the power of the Holy Spirit we can have within us.

You should practice correcting people more so that you might get to be better at it.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Do you understand that brain scans are just as much qualia to be interpreted as anything else?

Yest they are useful in creating paradigms in brain mechanics, but like automotive mechanics, they are about how things work.

Do you go to you car mechanic with questions about the meaning of your life?

Your brain is your car. It gets you around in this world. But there are important things to be thinking about.

Yes they are qualia or sense perceptions all the way down but some are very important in our lives. Some like love, and paradigms that give our life meaning are extremely important to us personally. But your brain is just part of the mechanics of what makes up you. It's important to know that but you don't go there for the heavy questions.

You don't need to think about some gizmo under your hood when you're trying to get to the store for medication that your child needs.

At that time you were driven by a Paradigm you consider more important the importance of your child's life.

Neuroscience is the last thing you would think about.

Everything that we know is made of verbal interpretations of someone else's paradigm, or part of our bodies learned responses.

Neuroscience is great but I leave that to the mechanics to figure out for me.

If I have a problem maybe someday they can fix it.  Same thing with medical science. Those mechanics have fixed me plenty of times.

But I sure don't go to them to interpret the feelings I have in my heart.

I agree.  I'm not sure how this is not in agreement.  

[mfbukowski]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

And if by rudeness you mean crudeness as in simplified and non-politically-correct-speech talk, then the closer we can get to a pure and undefiled language the better, so bring more of it on.

Nope I am talking about rudeness that offends people and then they think you are a troll and ignore everything you say.   If you like that role here, go forward my good brother.  You want it plain and straight up- then that is what I will give you.  People think you are a jerk, so anything valid you have to say gets ignored.

If that's your path, stick to it.