On Hell and Forgiveness

[Amarok]

It's not really an issue of admission, though.  It's clear that he want's to express an answer in the affirmative.  I'm not saying that he can't or that there isn't a sufficient answer...only that an invocation of belief falls directly under the header of what jorg takes (and what can be sensibly described) as ontological subjectivity.  

The things that exist inside of our minds and pertain to our minds, not (necessarily) apart or outside of them.  Same as the figure-background distinction.  Which is which?  Well, you'd have to ask the designator.  There's nothing obvious about the universe that determines that.

Fair enough

[SteveII]

The problem continues to be that you can't really talk about anything outside of math or science and concepts such as objective are difficult to grasp. Your examples illustrate this clearly. There is not a person in the world that would agree that the number 4 is subjective. This is why RR asked your age. It's like discussing things with a college student who has had a couple of classes and all the sudden thinks they have a grasp on knowledge and if it wasn't covered in class, it is not worth knowing.

On the contrary, I have studied these things most of my adult life (and i am 55 years old). You are simply wrong in claiming that no rational person sees the number 4 as subjective.

Let's ask this: are language constructs 'objective' under your definition? It seems that they are, which in turn says that your definition is faulty. Language constructs certainly *shouldn't* be objective, even if they are independent of any particular person.

Language is subjective. The concept of 4 objects is the very opposite of subjective. It is more than three and less than 5. Never any different. Would have the same meaning in all possible languages, all corners of the universe and would have the same meaning in all possible worlds (as in possible world semantics used in modal logic claims). If these facts are true, it follows necessarily that the concept of 4 objects is not just a language construct and has an entirely separate ontological status. 

Nope. The "I" in "I will do such and such" or "I wish that..." is not understood AT ALL by scientist. Of course there is no clean separation between mental events and physical events because the mental relies on physical. The problem is that consciousness CLEARLY appears to be more than the sum of its parts. Therefore we have something that is not just physical (a cause) having a physical effect. So your claim that anything that affects the physical must be physical is in fact wrong. According the the rules, you have the burden of proof. There is no proof to produce. You lost this point as well. It is definitely coherent that the nonphysical can have an effect on the physical. 

The problem comes when you attempt to define what it means to be 'physical'. Are photons physical? Are neutrinos? How about dark matter? Dark energy? In all cases, I would say definitely yes, they are physical. But why? The only separating property is that they interact with things we previously accepted as physical. This is what allows them to be measured and analyzed. And that is what makes them physical.

The mind being physical just goes along with this realization. But, we can go much, much farther. No new physics is required to explain the workings of the mind. EVERYTHING is based on patterns of neural firing. That much is quite clear from what we have learned about the brain and the mind. In the exact same way that a running compute rprogram is a physical process, the mind is a physical process of the brain.

Define physical? objects subject to the laws of nature (deterministic). Conscious reasoning and a decision to act seem the very opposite of deterministic. Non-physical consciousness is not only plausible, it is quite intuitive. We experience the thing every minute that you are denying. A computer program is a bad analogy because computer programs do not think about something and then decide something based on preference or altruism or aesthetics or moral concerns or moods or all of these or none of these. Your conclusion that there is nothing non-physical in the universe is not only unproven, but may actually be unlikely. 

Not at all. Causality is a metaphysical concept and CERTAINLY not a scientific one. Science PRESUPPOSES that causality is an objective feature of reality. Read more here.  You really really should have taken that philosophy class in college. 

Sorry, but htis is simply wrong. Science is quite possible without a notion of causality. All that is required is correlation and observation of such as patterns.

Wow. Do you realize that reality would not even hold together without what we call 'causality.' You cannot even conceive of a world without the causal principle if you tried. Stating that science does not need a notion of causality is...just...wow. Do you understand that in order to interpret reality, you need a metaphysical system in which to process the inputs. Perhaps this will help:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the essence of a thing. This includes questions of being, becoming, existence, and reality.[1] The word "metaphysics" comes from the Greek words that literally mean "beyond nature". "Nature" in this sense refers to the nature of a thing, such as its cause and purpose. Metaphysics then studies questions of a thing beyond or above questions of its nature, in particular its essence or its qualities of being. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in a "suitably abstract and fully general manner", the questions:[2]

1. What is there?
   
   
2. And what is it like?
   

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.

Epistemological foundation[edit]

Like mathematics, metaphysics is a non-empirical study which is conducted using analytical thought alone. Like foundational mathematics (which is sometimes considered a special case of metaphysics applied to the existence of number), it tries to give a coherent account of the structure of the world, capable of explaining our everyday and scientific perception of the world, and being free from contradictions. In mathematics, there are many different ways to define numbers; similarly in metaphysics there are many different ways to define objects, properties, concepts, and other entities which are claimed to make up the world. While metaphysics may, as a special case, study the entities postulated by fundamental science such as atoms and superstrings, its core topic is the set of categories such as object, property and causality which those scientific theories assume. For example: claiming that "electrons have charge" is a scientific theory; while exploring what it means for electrons to be (or at least, to be perceived as) "objects", charge to be a "property", and for both to exist in a topological entity called "space" is the task of metaphysics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

While everything I pasted is very important, note the underlined section and the example that follows it. You not only blur the lines between science and metaphysics, you seem to just deny the function of metaphysics. 

What effect can be measured at the macroscopic level?

You are drinking someone's coolaid. Cause/effect are not scientific concepts (as established in the above link). As such, any sub atomic particle theories that have no effect above that level really have no bearing on it. Classical causality lives on!

Classical causality is the averaging of the underlying randomness. When you have Avagadro's number of molecules adding their randomness together, it tends to average out.

That seems to be more of a footnote to the metaphysical principle of causality than some earth shattering change that reshapes our thinking. The principle for everyone except the quantum mechanic scientist is still the same.

[The Grand Nudger]

Define physical? objects subject to the laws of nature (deterministic). Conscious reasoning and a decision to act seem the very opposite of deterministic.

Why?  What are logical forms and means of inference if not a description of deterministic relationships between knowledge statements?

If, then.  If, and if, then, therefore. If some x meets conditions a, and then meets condition b, then outcome c. If not, then not outcome c.

Non-physical consciousness is not only plausible, it is quite intuitive.

Is it?

We experience the thing every minute that you are denying.

Do we?

A computer program is a bad analogy because computer programs do not think about something and then decide something based on preference or altruism or aesthetics or moral concerns or moods or all of these or none of these. Your conclusion that there is nothing non-physical in the universe is not only unproven, but may actually be unlikely. 

Can you demonstrate that, or..conversely, can you demonstrate that we do those things a fundamentally or meaningfully different way than a computer does some other thing?

[Amarok]

I don't he can show it's different

[SteveII]

Define physical? objects subject to the laws of nature (deterministic). Conscious reasoning and a decision to act seem the very opposite of deterministic.

Why?  What are logical forms and means of inference if not a description of deterministic relationships between knowledge statements?

If, then.  If, and if, then, therefore.  If some x meets conditions a, and then meets condition b, then outcome c.  If not, then not outcome c.

What are you talking about? Logical forms are subject to the rules of logic--not nature. Gravity, conservation of energy, and weak nuclear forces have no effect on them. 

Non-physical consciousness is not only plausible, it is quite intuitive.

Is it?

We experience the thing every minute that you are denying.

Do we?

A computer program is a bad analogy because computer programs do not think about something and then decide something based on preference or altruism or aesthetics or moral concerns or moods or all of these or none of these. Your conclusion that there is nothing non-physical in the universe is not only unproven, but may actually be unlikely. 

Can you demonstrate that, or..conversely, can you demonstrate that we do those things a fundamentally or meaningfully different way than a computer does some other thing?

Yes. We hold people responsible for their actions and we don't hold computer programs responsible. We act like we are fundamentally different within our mind and in relation to one another. That meaningful enough for you?

[The Grand Nudger]

Why?  What are logical forms and means of inference if not a description of deterministic relationships between knowledge statements?

If, then.  If, and if, then, therefore.  If some x meets conditions a, and then meets condition b, then outcome c.  If not, then not outcome c.

What are you talking about? Logical forms are subject to the rules of logic--not nature. Gravity, conservation of energy, and weak nuclear forces have no effect on them. 

Irrelevant. You claimed that conscious reasoning seemed like the opposite of deterministic.

Is it?

Do we?

Can you demonstrate that, or..conversely, can you demonstrate that we do those things a fundamentally or meaningfully different way than a computer does some other thing?

Yes. We hold people responsible for their actions and we don't hold computer programs responsible.

If we couldn't identify which computer was responsible for some piece of work then we wouldn't know that this was your post, Steve.  If some computer does some terrible thing..we repair it, replace it, or destroy it. Amusingly, this is what we do with people who do the same. Look at the question above though.....

We act like we are fundamentally different within our mind and in relation to one another. That meaningful enough for you?

It was quite a bit short of what would be required. "We act like we're different"...well..no, not really, but even if we did act like we were different that wouldn't speak to us actually being different or doing things a different way. Not only did you fail to address the questions asked, you failed to present a meaningful difference in your irrelevant asides. There was nothing in your statements to support the claims I questioned, and I'm not sure that you even tried.

[polymath257]

On the contrary, I have studied these things most of my adult life (and i am 55 years old). You are simply wrong in claiming that no rational person sees the number 4 as subjective.

Let's ask this: are language constructs 'objective' under your definition? It seems that they are, which in turn says that your definition is faulty. Language constructs certainly *shouldn't* be objective, even if they are independent of any particular person.

Language is subjective. The concept of 4 objects is the very opposite of subjective. It is more than three and less than 5. Never any different. Would have the same meaning in all possible languages, all corners of the universe and would have the same meaning in all possible worlds (as in possible world semantics used in modal logic claims). If these facts are true, it follows necessarily that the concept of 4 objects is not just a language construct and has an entirely separate ontological status. 

And once again, and for the reasons I gave, I disagree. The number 4 as it appears in the positive integers is not the same as that for real numbers, and is not the same as what can be applied to certain aspects of the real world.

The number 4 is ultimately a language construct. It is part of a formal language, say Peano arithmetic.

The problem comes when you attempt to define what it means to be 'physical'. Are photons physical? Are neutrinos? How about dark matter? Dark energy? In all cases, I would say definitely yes, they are physical. But why? The only separating property is that they interact with things we previously accepted as physical. This is what allows them to be measured and analyzed. And that is what makes them physical.

The mind being physical just goes along with this realization. But, we can go much, much farther. No new physics is required to explain the workings of the mind. EVERYTHING is based on patterns of neural firing. That much is quite clear from what we have learned about the brain and the mind. In the exact same way that a running compute rprogram is a physical process, the mind is a physical process of the brain.

Define physical? objects subject to the laws of nature (deterministic). Conscious reasoning and a decision to act seem the very opposite of deterministic. Non-physical consciousness is not only plausible, it is quite intuitive. We experience the thing every minute that you are denying. A computer program is a bad analogy because computer programs do not think about something and then decide something based on preference or altruism or aesthetics or moral concerns or moods or all of these or none of these. Your conclusion that there is nothing non-physical in the universe is not only unproven, but may actually be unlikely. 

First, you will get into circularity problems when you then attempt to define what it means to be a 'law of nature'. Not all laws of nature, for example, are deterministic. Again, quantum mechanics provides the best counter-example.

And from what we have found from our studies of the brain, the computer analogy is quite good. The 'experience' is that of the brain systems, pure and simple.

Sorry, but htis is simply wrong. Science is quite possible without a notion of causality. All that is required is correlation and observation of such as patterns.

Wow. Do you realize that reality would not even hold together without what we call 'causality.' You cannot even conceive of a world without the causal principle if you tried. Stating that science does not need a notion of causality is...just...wow. Do you understand that in order to interpret reality, you need a metaphysical system in which to process the inputs. Perhaps this will help:

Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that studies the essence of a thing. This includes questions of being, becoming, existence, and reality.[1] The word "metaphysics" comes from the Greek words that literally mean "beyond nature". "Nature" in this sense refers to the nature of a thing, such as its cause and purpose. Metaphysics then studies questions of a thing beyond or above questions of its nature, in particular its essence or its qualities of being. Metaphysics seeks to answer, in a "suitably abstract and fully general manner", the questions:[2]

1. What is there?
   
   
2. And what is it like?
   

Topics of metaphysical investigation include existence, objects and their properties, space and time, cause and effect, and possibility.

Epistemological foundation[edit]

Like mathematics, metaphysics is a non-empirical study which is conducted using analytical thought alone. Like foundational mathematics (which is sometimes considered a special case of metaphysics applied to the existence of number), it tries to give a coherent account of the structure of the world, capable of explaining our everyday and scientific perception of the world, and being free from contradictions. In mathematics, there are many different ways to define numbers; similarly in metaphysics there are many different ways to define objects, properties, concepts, and other entities which are claimed to make up the world. While metaphysics may, as a special case, study the entities postulated by fundamental science such as atoms and superstrings, its core topic is the set of categories such as object, property and causality which those scientific theories assume. For example: claiming that "electrons have charge" is a scientific theory; while exploring what it means for electrons to be (or at least, to be perceived as) "objects", charge to be a "property", and for both to exist in a topological entity called "space" is the task of metaphysics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

While everything I pasted is very important, note the underlined section and the example that follows it. You not only blur the lines between science and metaphysics, you seem to just deny the function of metaphysics. 

Which, I might add, is why metaphysics tends to be *absolutely useless* for understanding anything about the real world. In order to get anything approaching real knowledge, you need to actually do observations. Just sitting and thinking isn't going to be close to enough. So, what tends to happen is that philosophers convince themselves they are doing something deep when they are actually doing non-sense.

Math, like I said, is a *language* and has enough expressibility to help us make models of our observations.

But I reject wholeheartedly that knowledge can be gained without observation. At best, you can get arbitrary definitions, but that doesn't lead to knowledge.

In NO way is metaphysics knowledge.

Classical causality is the averaging of the underlying randomness. When you have Avagadro's number of molecules adding their randomness together, it tends to average out.

That seems to be more of a footnote to the metaphysical principle of causality than some earth shattering change that reshapes our thinking. The principle for everyone except the quantum mechanic scientist is still the same.

[/quote]

And that is enough to destroy the principle. The universe is ultimately quantum mechanical in nature. Whatever classical causality you see is because of the average of the quantum randomness.

And again, any *metaphysical* notion of causality is meaningless: without actual observation and testing it has no bearing on reality.

[RoadRunner79]

My observation as an engineer, is that numbers are anything but subjective.  They represent something outside of the person, and are not dependent on the individual.  My Mexican friend may call them something else, but we both need to be referring to the same thing.  I often do unit conversions or in a programmable controllers it may simply be a count representation of a number (which is really just changing units).  One could argue that 25.4 mm equals 1 inch.   But those numbers are not merely abstractions, which can change based on the subject.   You can't have a different truth for you, than me, and be talking about reality.

   work with numbers all the time, and if they where subjective I couldn't do my job.  When working with numbers, there is also the matter of precision and accuracy.  So when talking about 4 vs 4.000 we are talking about precision.   The latter is more accurate, but they are equal. (you could also look at this as different units)   Perhaps this is different in academia, and they don't deal with reality.   However you can usually tell a green engineer, that has no experience outside of the class room.  Their stuff often doesn't work.   There is the argument, that any unit of measure is just a convention, an inch could refer to something else, and we agreed, to call an inch a certain distance defined by a standard. However when referring to a quantity of that standard length, it doesn't and cannot change from person to person. My Spanish speaking friend may call a pulgada; but, we are still talking about the same thing, that exists outside of either one of us. 

If I was teaching and someone was arguing for numbers being subjective, I would give them a failing grade, and watch how quickly they switch to arguing that numbers are objective, and that they didn't get the grade I gave them.     This reminds me of the Star Trek TNG episode, where part of the of the breaking down of Picard was to get him to say that there where a different number of lights, than their actually was.

[polymath257]

Let me put it this way. If everyone agrees what it is to be the number 4, what is it, precisely?

[RoadRunner79]

Let me put it this way. If everyone agrees what it is to be the number 4, what is it, precisely?

You seem to be talking about the nature of language here. If everyone agrees what a tree is, then what is it? It would seem ridiculous to say that trees don’t exist that they are subjective, because we agree to call them trees.