(March 2, 2020 at 8:08 pm)Objectivist Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 2:40 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: Indeed in fact believers like to move around what god means to please themselves. So my first task for any theist is to define god.
Often they seem aghast as though the concept is crystal clear and not as I find it as clear as mud. I
 don't know what a god is supposed to be, how one is supposed to have come into existence or how its supposed to do what they say it does.

Its like saying Brexit means Brexit, a nonsense and people believed it.

---

If people wanted us to respect their beliefs they'd stop having such silly beliefs.

I reject the whole notion of a definition of God.  We don't define concretes.  Definitions apply to concepts.  What we are actually getting from theists is descriptions of the god they are imagining.  We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.  Similarly, God is supposed to be a real existing thing and unique so the notion of defining God is a misapplication of the concept "definition".  We don't define a single shell that we pick up on the beach.  We identify it as a member of the class "shell" and we might describe this particular member of the class "shell" by its color, size, etc., but we don't form a definition of it.  We define the concept "shell".  We don't form concepts of single one-off things.  A concept is a mental integration of two or more similar things with their particular measurements omitted.  So anyone who offers a definition for God does not understand how concepts and definitions work.  There is no need for the concept "God" if there's only one.  That would negate the whole purpose of concepts in the first place.  The only way that "God" could be a concept is in the way that some writer comes up with a concept for a character in a story like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars.  The pupose of a definition is to name the things a concept subsumes, its units, and to condense that to essential characteristics.  A definition does not name every attribute of a unit but it implies them and only lists the essentials.  Another role of definitions is to differentiate a concept from other concepts in the mind, to keep them separate and to organize them.  

The "concept" "God" is actually an anti-concept.  If the purpose of a concept is to make cognition possible, an anti-concept renders it impossible.  They are cognitively useless and meaningless.  They can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.  After two thousand years, the "definition" of God is still not clear.  While the definition of the concept "apple" is.  That's because the concept "apple" is a legitimate concept with real cognitive usefulness.

I've said more or less the same thing frequently.  There may be plenty of 'definitions' of God, but that's exactly the trouble: plenty of definitions.  No one defines an apple as 'a small aquatic bird' or 'the Earth's primary natural satellite' or 'a savoury pie made with minced beef and onions.'  We can all agree on what an apple is.  Agreeing on what God is has caused no end of unpleasantness.

Boru

(March 2, 2020 at 8:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 8:09 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: So.... you're a thiest, then?    

Not at work.

How does that follow? 

If I say: "I have heard this political justification many times from Americans," does this tell you that I'm not American? Or does it just say that Americans often say that thing (whereas, perhaps, Japanese people don't)?

Actually... given the way reading writen words works in English, yes.

Since we have no way of knowing the innitial writer's origins.... such a comment would leave the reader with the inclination that said writer was NOT American simply due to the phrasing.

As a non American, I would definately write such a sentence.

There would normally be other, defining words added to the sentence such as 'Other'.

*Note I am comming from a totally germaine, coloquial and uneducated back ground with respect to my understanding of my own 'native' language.

However, even given the above, you can directly see how I am using the language in regards to my self to illustrate my point.

Again, perhaps, it is your time spent within a completely different thought sphere which is shifting your 'Automatic' use of the Enlish language into which you were raised innitially?

Cheers.

Not at work.

---

(March 2, 2020 at 8:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

---

(March 2, 2020 at 8:08 pm)Objectivist Wrote: We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.

I'm pretty sure that geologists and plant biologists can define these things.

No Bel.

That's a completly different thing/phrase.

Geologists and Horoculturalists can define things that way because there are litterally things in existance to define.

Language is descripitve.

If there's nothing 'There' to descirbe?
You're effectivly either creating sounds/letter structures that mean nothing... Or you're using established, agreed upon (But still, in essence 'Random') words/phrases to wrap a 'Non-thing' in.

If I now type the word "Vorpal".

People on the forum can either look said word up to seek its meaning or they may actully already know know the origins, etymology and meaning of said word.

That the word, innitially, was 'Meaningless' now doesn't matter. It's entered coloquial parlance and so typing the word will produce meaningful results.

It still doesn't make the concept behind the word any more 'Real'.

EDIT: Also, see the above post by downbeatplumb... I think...

Not at work.

(March 2, 2020 at 8:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 8:09 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: So.... you're a thiest, then?    

Not at work.

How does that follow? 

If I say: "I have heard this political justification many times from Americans," does this tell you that I'm not American? Or does it just say that Americans often say that thing (whereas, perhaps, Japanese people don't)?

---

(March 2, 2020 at 8:08 pm)Objectivist Wrote: We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.

I'm pretty sure that geologists and plant biologists can define these things.

They define the concept "tree" and "rock" not each and every tree and rock.  Again, the role of a concept in cognition is to condense a huge number of units into one.  A unit is one of a group of similar things.  similar things vary only in their specific measurements.  The concept tree subsumes all trees that exist now, have existed, or will ever exist. We don't define each individual tree just as we don't define every unit of the concept "man".  We don't have a definition of Sally or Rob or John because these are not abstractions.  concretes have descriptions, abstractions have definitions.  If we defined every concrete we come upon that would defeat the purpose of definitions, which is the final step in concept formation.  Think of a concept as a file folder, a word as the label on the file folder and a definition as a shorthand description of what's in the folder, enough to let you know what's in there and to differentiate the contents of one folder from another.  Unit economy is the name of the game in cognition.

---

(March 2, 2020 at 8:16 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 8:08 pm)Objectivist Wrote: I reject the whole notion of a definition of God.  We don't define concretes.  Definitions apply to concepts.  What we are actually getting from theists is descriptions of the god they are imagining.  We don't define a rock or a tree because these things are concrete.  Similarly, God is supposed to be a real existing thing and unique so the notion of defining God is a misapplication of the concept "definition".  We don't define a single shell that we pick up on the beach.  We identify it as a member of the class "shell" and we might describe this particular member of the class "shell" by its color, size, etc., but we don't form a definition of it.  We define the concept "shell".  We don't form concepts of single one-off things.  A concept is a mental integration of two or more similar things with their particular measurements omitted.  So anyone who offers a definition for God does not understand how concepts and definitions work.  There is no need for the concept "God" if there's only one.  That would negate the whole purpose of concepts in the first place.  The only way that "God" could be a concept is in the way that some writer comes up with a concept for a character in a story like Luke Skywalker in Star Wars.  The pupose of a definition is to name the things a concept subsumes, its units, and to condense that to essential characteristics.  A definition does not name every attribute of a unit but it implies them and only lists the essentials.  Another role of definitions is to differentiate a concept from other concepts in the mind, to keep them separate and to organize them.  

The "concept" "God" is actually an anti-concept.  If the purpose of a concept is to make cognition possible, an anti-concept renders it impossible.  They are cognitively useless and meaningless.  They can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.  After two thousand years, the "definition" of God is still not clear.  While the definition of the concept "apple" is.  That's because the concept "apple" is a legitimate concept with real cognitive usefulness.

I've said more or less the same thing frequently.  There may be plenty of 'definitions' of God, but that's exactly the trouble: plenty of definitions.  No one defines an apple as 'a small aquatic bird' or 'the Earth's primary natural satellite' or 'a savoury pie made with minced beef and onions.'  We can all agree on what an apple is.  Agreeing on what God is has caused no end of unpleasantness.

Boru

Aye, unpleasantness.  Up to and including massive wars.

---

(March 2, 2020 at 8:21 pm)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 8:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote: How does that follow? 

If I say: "I have heard this political justification many times from Americans," does this tell you that I'm not American? Or does it just say that Americans often say that thing (whereas, perhaps, Japanese people don't)?

Actually... given the way reading writen words works in English, yes.

Since we have no way of knowing the innitial writer's origins.... such a comment would leave the reader with the inclination that said writer was NOT American simply due to the phrasing.

As a non American, I would definately write such a sentence.

There would normally be other, defining words added to the sentence such as 'Other'.

*Note I am comming from a totally germaine, coloquial and uneducated back ground with respect to my understanding of my own 'native' language.

However, even given the above, you can directly see how I am using the language in regards to my self to illustrate my point.

Again, perhaps, it is your time spent within a completely different thought sphere which is shifting your 'Automatic' use of the Enlish language into which you were raised innitially?

Cheers.

Not at work.

---

(March 2, 2020 at 8:13 pm)Belacqua Wrote:

---

I'm pretty sure that geologists and plant biologists can define these things.

No Bel.

That's a completly different thing/phrase.

Geologists and Horoculturalists can define things that way because there are litterally things in existance to define.

Language is descripitve.

If there's nothing 'There' to descirbe?
You're effectivly either creating sounds/letter structures that mean nothing... Or you're using established, agreed upon (But still, in essence 'Random') words/phrases to wrap a 'Non-thing' in.

If I now type the word "Vorpal".

People on the forum can either look said word up to seek its meaning or they may actully already know know the origins, etymology and meaning of said word.

That the word, innitially, was 'Meaningless' now doesn't matter. It's entered coloquial parlance and so typing the word will produce meaningful results.

It still doesn't make the concept behind the word any more 'Real'.

EDIT: Also, see the above post by downbeatplumb... I think...

Not at work.

Welcome to the A.S.S. Vorpal Blade.  Let's see if anyone knows that reference.  Are there any SF fans here?

(March 2, 2020 at 8:47 pm)Objectivist Wrote: They define the concept "tree" and "rock" not each and every tree and rock.  Again, the role of a concept in cognition is to condense a huge number of units into one.  A unit is one of a group of similar things.  similar things vary only in their specific measurements.  The concept tree subsumes all trees that exist now, have existed, or will ever exist. We don't define each individual tree just as we don't define every unit of the concept "man".  We don't have a definition of Sally or Rob or John because these are not abstractions.  concretes have descriptions, abstractions have definitions.  If we defined every concrete we come upon that would defeat the purpose of definitions, which is the final step in concept formation.  Think of a concept as a file folder, a word as the label on the file folder and a definition as a shorthand description of what's in the folder, enough to let you know what's in there and to differentiate the contents of one folder from another.  Unit economy is the name of the game in cognition.

Right. We form concepts based on our experience. We have direct experience of a number of different things, and abstract these into an abstract concept in the mind. 

As the man said in the 13th century: there is nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses. (I'm not completely sure this is true, but we can go with it for now.) And as the same guy was careful to point out, the kind of thing we can sense depends on the kind of bodies we have, and the kind of animals we are. We obviously can't sense some things that other animals can sense, and there's no way we can even comment on what aliens might sense. 

So concepts are abstractions derived from concrete examples. 

And since we can't sense many things, it's almost certain that there are things in the universe we can't conceive of. The apophatic theologians are at pains to remind us that, in their opinion, some things about God are this way. Can't be sensed, and can't be conceived of. Therefore, in their view, although natural theology demonstrates the existence of God, there is still much about him that can't be conceived of by people. But the fact that we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's not there. 

In addition, human beings have the ability to form new concepts by recombining elements of previous concepts. You can conceive of an imaginary animal, for example, though you've never seen it, by combining portions of different animals. I have experienced things that were unique, or at least seemed so to me, so I have a concept of uniqueness, and now I can imagine things that don't really exist that are unique -- that is, not members of existing groups.

We can also conceive of things that are probably impossible according to the laws of nature. For example, faster than light travel. I've never gone faster than light, but I can imagine going really fast. It appears that at least two popular movie franchises depend on our ability to conceive of this impossible thing. 

I have a concept of the Christian God in my mind. It has a clear definition: the Ground of Being. The fact that I have this concept in no way proves that it is a real thing. Nonetheless, it is a concept invented by people by combining known things in the imagination, and has a clear definition.

Quote:Welcome to the A.S.S. Vorpal Blade.  Let's see if anyone knows that reference.  Are there any SF fans here?

Well, I'm familiar with the term 'vorpal blade' - it's from Carroll's 'Jabberwocky'.  But I've got a feeling that's not what you had in mind. 

Boru

(March 2, 2020 at 8:47 pm)Objectivist Wrote: Welcome to the A.S.S. Vorpal Blade.  Let's see if anyone knows that reference.  Are there any SF fans here?

Am guessing it's a "Culture" ship?

Not at work.

(March 3, 2020 at 7:34 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 8:47 pm)Objectivist Wrote: Welcome to the A.S.S. Vorpal Blade.  Let's see if anyone knows that reference.  Are there any SF fans here?

Am guessing it's a "Culture" ship?

Not at work.

Nope, it's from a fairly recent SF book by John Ringo.  From the Looking Glass series.  One of my favorite authors.  I highly recommend.

Into The Looking Glass
Vorpal Blade 
Manxome Foe
Claws That Catch.

(March 3, 2020 at 11:15 am)Objectivist Wrote:

(March 3, 2020 at 7:34 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Am guessing it's a "Culture" ship?

Not at work.

Nope, it's from a fairly recent SF book by John Ringo.  From the Looking Glass series.  One of my favorite authors.  I highly recommend.

Into The Looking Glass
Vorpal Blade 
Manxome Foe
Claws That Catch.

Ah.

I picked up "The Emerald Sea" in a 2nd hand shop.

Nice cover...... Sorry, wasn't impressed by the fellow's 'Style'.

Might look into those and see if his form is diffeent/better.

Not at work.

(March 3, 2020 at 2:13 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(March 2, 2020 at 8:47 pm)Objectivist Wrote: They define the concept "tree" and "rock" not each and every tree and rock.  Again, the role of a concept in cognition is to condense a huge number of units into one.  A unit is one of a group of similar things.  similar things vary only in their specific measurements.  The concept tree subsumes all trees that exist now, have existed, or will ever exist. We don't define each individual tree just as we don't define every unit of the concept "man".  We don't have a definition of Sally or Rob or John because these are not abstractions.  concretes have descriptions, abstractions have definitions.  If we defined every concrete we come upon that would defeat the purpose of definitions, which is the final step in concept formation.  Think of a concept as a file folder, a word as the label on the file folder and a definition as a shorthand description of what's in the folder, enough to let you know what's in there and to differentiate the contents of one folder from another.  Unit economy is the name of the game in cognition.

Right. We form concepts based on our experience. We have direct experience of a number of different things, and abstract these into an abstract concept in the mind. 

As the man said in the 13th century: there is nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses. (I'm not completely sure this is true, but we can go with it for now.) And as the same guy was careful to point out, the kind of thing we can sense depends on the kind of bodies we have, and the kind of animals we are. We obviously can't sense some things that other animals can sense, and there's no way we can even comment on what aliens might sense. 

So concepts are abstractions derived from concrete examples. 

And since we can't sense many things, it's almost certain that there are things in the universe we can't conceive of. The apophatic theologians are at pains to remind us that, in their opinion, some things about God are this way. Can't be sensed, and can't be conceived of. Therefore, in their view, although natural theology demonstrates the existence of God, there is still much about him that can't be conceived of by people. But the fact that we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's not there. 

In addition, human beings have the ability to form new concepts by recombining elements of previous concepts. You can conceive of an imaginary animal, for example, though you've never seen it, by combining portions of different animals. I have experienced things that were unique, or at least seemed so to me, so I have a concept of uniqueness, and now I can imagine things that don't really exist that are unique -- that is, not members of existing groups.

We can also conceive of things that are probably impossible according to the laws of nature. For example, faster than light travel. I've never gone faster than light, but I can imagine going really fast. It appears that at least two popular movie franchises depend on our ability to conceive of this impossible thing. 

I have a concept of the Christian God in my mind. It has a clear definition: the Ground of Being. The fact that I have this concept in no way proves that it is a real thing. Nonetheless, it is a concept invented by people by combining known things in the imagination, and has a clear definition.

I agree with everything you've said here except that imagining something is fundamentally different from concept formation. When we imagine, we are selectively rearranging things we've previously perceived into a new combination that does not exist in reality.  Even if I were to imagine something that exists, like a Pear, the product of that process is not an abstraction but the mental equivalent of a concrete.  I'm unable to imagine an abstract pear.  I've got to give my imaginary pear specific measurements.  It has a specific size, shape, color.  If there's no measurement ommission, then there's no abstraction.  If there's no abstraction then there's no definition.  Instead there is a description.  My imaginary pear is 6 inches long, has yellowish green skin with a red blush on one side. It tastes sweet and slightly tart and it has a grainy texture.  I am unable to imagine a Pear with no specific color, weight, size, etc.

Here's how you can tell if something is imaginary vs. real.  When you think of an imaginary thing being different, then it's different.  Now it is red or purple because I imagined that it changed color.  But when I think of something real changing to something else, it remains exactly what it is.  

This is exactly what happens with a god.  If I imagine it as an old man then God is an old man.  If I imagine it as a cloud of energy, then it's a cloud of energy.  If I imagine it being omniscient, then it's omniscient. That's because if I want to apprehend God, then I have no alternative but to use my imagination.  One can can ascribe any quality or characteristic to something that is imaginary including the quality that some things about it are unknowable. And this is why there are thousands upon thousands and even millions of "definitions" of God.

---

(March 3, 2020 at 12:03 pm)Objectivist Wrote:

(March 3, 2020 at 2:13 am)Belacqua Wrote: Right. We form concepts based on our experience. We have direct experience of a number of different things, and abstract these into an abstract concept in the mind. 

As the man said in the 13th century: there is nothing in the mind that wasn't first in the senses. (I'm not completely sure this is true, but we can go with it for now.) And as the same guy was careful to point out, the kind of thing we can sense depends on the kind of bodies we have, and the kind of animals we are. We obviously can't sense some things that other animals can sense, and there's no way we can even comment on what aliens might sense. 

So concepts are abstractions derived from concrete examples. 

And since we can't sense many things, it's almost certain that there are things in the universe we can't conceive of. The apophatic theologians are at pains to remind us that, in their opinion, some things about God are this way. Can't be sensed, and can't be conceived of. Therefore, in their view, although natural theology demonstrates the existence of God, there is still much about him that can't be conceived of by people. But the fact that we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it's not there. 

In addition, human beings have the ability to form new concepts by recombining elements of previous concepts. You can conceive of an imaginary animal, for example, though you've never seen it, by combining portions of different animals. I have experienced things that were unique, or at least seemed so to me, so I have a concept of uniqueness, and now I can imagine things that don't really exist that are unique -- that is, not members of existing groups.

We can also conceive of things that are probably impossible according to the laws of nature. For example, faster than light travel. I've never gone faster than light, but I can imagine going really fast. It appears that at least two popular movie franchises depend on our ability to conceive of this impossible thing. 

I have a concept of the Christian God in my mind. It has a clear definition: the Ground of Being. The fact that I have this concept in no way proves that it is a real thing. Nonetheless, it is a concept invented by people by combining known things in the imagination, and has a clear definition.

I agree with everything you've said here except that imagining something is fundamentally different from concept formation. When we imagine, we are selectively rearranging things we've previously perceived into a new combination that does not exist in reality.  Even if I were to imagine something that exists, like a Pear, the product of that process is not an abstraction but the mental equivalent of a concrete.  I'm unable to imagine an abstract pear.  I've got to give my imaginary pear specific measurements.  It has a specific size, shape, color.  If there's no measurement ommission, then there's no abstraction.  If there's no abstraction then there's no definition.  Instead there is a description.  My imaginary pear is 6 inches long, has yellowish green skin with a red blush on one side. It tastes sweet and slightly tart and it has a grainy texture.  I am unable to imagine a Pear with no specific color, weight, size, etc.

Here's how you can tell if something is imaginary vs. real.  When you think of an imaginary thing being different, then it's different.  Now it is red or purple because I imagined that it changed color.  But when I think of something real changing to something else, it remains exactly what it is.  

This is exactly what happens with a god.  If I imagine it as an old man then God is an old man.  If I imagine it as a cloud of energy, then it's a cloud of energy.  If I imagine it being omniscient, then it's omniscient. That's because if I want to apprehend God, then I have no alternative but to use my imagination.  One can can ascribe any quality or characteristic to something that is imaginary including the quality that some things about it are unknowable. And this is why there are thousands upon thousands and even millions of "definitions" of God.

(March 3, 2020 at 11:15 am)Objectivist Wrote:

(March 3, 2020 at 7:34 am)Peebo-Thuhlu Wrote: Am guessing it's a "Culture" ship?

Not at work.

Nope, it's from a fairly recent SF book by John Ringo.  From the Looking Glass series.  One of my favorite authors.  I highly recommend.

Into The Looking Glass
Vorpal Blade 
Manxome Foe
Claws That Catch.

Sounds as if he’s going through the entire poem. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Boru