The Philosophy Thread

[Zatamon]

But we are not assigning "objective reality" to a person - indeed - it is the reality in the absence of a detector of it.



this falls under the umbrella of subjective, not objective, reality.

Subjective reality is all we are ever going to have if we accept the definition I quoted before. As you correctly stated, we have our senses, we have our brains and the rest is only assumptions and interpretation. We will never be sure of what 'it' actually is.
As I wrote in my Physics book on Truth and Reality: "Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded."

 

[Louanne Learning]

"Truth is an observation or a plausible theory that has not [yet] been contradicted by the accumulated knowledge available to us. The very instant an irrefutable contradiction is demonstrated, the theory becomes false and needs to be modified or discarded."

I was always taught that scientists do not use the word "truth" when referring to a theory, but rather that a theory is either supported or rejected based on the evidence to support or refute it.

 

[Zatamon]

I was always taught that scientists do not use the word "truth" when referring to a theory, but rather that a theory is either supported or rejected based on the evidence to support or refute it.

I know, but I have a tendency of calling spades 'spade'. In my writings I always had religion to contend with. Religion insists on using Truth, so I do too.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Religion insists on using Truth, so I do too.

But "truth" is an end point - wraps it all up in a ribbon with a bow - and that's not how science works.

I also wonder if it is contradictory to on the one hand question an objective reality while insisting there is a "truth"?

 

[Zatamon]

But "truth" is an end point - wraps it all up in a ribbon with a bow - and that's not how science works.

I used the word 'truth' to counter the popular use by laymen and religion. I know how science works. In my own definition of 'Truth" (see above) I explained exactly how science works.

I also wonder if it is contradictory to on the one hand question an objective reality while insisting there is a "truth"?

I am not questioning the existence of "objective" reality" outside my mind, only stating that is outside, so open to assumptions and interpretation.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I know how science works.

Then you know that the provisional nature of science precludes absolute truth.

 

[Zatamon]

Then you know that the provisional nature of science precludes absolute truth.

Absolutely true (pun intended).

 

[Louanne Learning]

With science, the best we can say is that it is the "best explanation we have based on the available evidence."

With religion - well that is wholly subjective truth based on belief

 

[Zatamon]

With science, the best we can say is that it is the "best explanation we have based on the available evidence."

With religion - well that is wholly subjective truth based on belief

Belief without supporting evidence is nothing but self-delusion. Some children believe in the Santa Claus. Adults should know better.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Belief without supporting evidence is nothing but self-delusion. Some children believe in the Santa Claus. Adults should know better.

I think, too, there is a very strong community factor at work here, too, so it's more of a mass delusion. And if you don't go along with the delusion, you are out of the group.

 

[Zatamon]

I think, too, there is a very strong community factor at work here, too, so it's more of a mass delusion. And if you don't go along with the delusion, you are out of the group.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Seeing this cartoon this morning:



Reminded me of this one:

 

[Louanne Learning]

In elementary school - I was I think in about grade 2 (about 7 years old) - the teacher drew a large oval shape on the blackboard. "This is your soul," she said. (Yes, I went to a Catholic school.)

Then she used the chalk to make some blotches on the soul. "This is sin on your soul," she said.

Then she used the blackboard eraser to wipe the sins off. "This is what happens when you are forgiven for your sins," she said.

For some reason, that lesson really stuck with me.

But is a soul only used to record sin?

Often, I feel like I do have a soul, especially in my connection with my husband who died. I still feel very connected to him. Clearly, physically, I am not. But what part of me feels so strongly that he is still with me?

WTF is a soul, anyway?

 

[Zatamon]

In elementary school - I was I think in about grade 2 (about 7 years old) - the teacher drew a large oval shape on the blackboard. "This is your soul," she said. (Yes, I went to a Catholic school.)

Then she used the chalk to make some blotches on the soul. "This is sin on your soul," she said.

Then she used the blackboard eraser to wipe the sins off. "This is what happens when you are forgiven for your sins," she said.

For some reason, that lesson really stuck with me.

But is a soul only used to record sin?

Often, I feel like I do have a soul, especially in my connection with my husband who died. I still feel very connected to him. Clearly, physically, I am not. But what part of me feels so strongly that he is still with me?

WTF is a soul, anyway?

My wife of 45 years died 6 weeks ago. I still have long conversations with her in my mind every day. I wrote "in my mind", not "in my soul" - both are just words, referring to our consciousness that science still cannot define. I have a book written by D.F.Swaab, a neuroscientist: "We are our Brains" - very well written, very convincing. The word 'soul' implies life after death, but there is no evidence of such a thing. My take on death was summarized in a short essay I wrote a while ago.

"What intrigues me is that my death will be a unique event in the universe. It has never happened before, and it will only happen once. The fact that billions of human beings have died during history and a lot more will, every day, is not really relevant. My death will still be a unique event. In a way, when I die, the world will die too. My world. The only one that exists for me. The one that started when I was born and will end with me. All the stars will wink out, all the people, cities, buildings, mountains, oceans will be gone too. Cats, dogs, butterflies, squirrels, deer, raccoons, roses, sunflowers all disappear. I was totally convinced about oblivion after surgery. I remember the doctor talking to me and then, in an eye-blink, talking to me again – except that was 3 hours later. I had total oblivion for 3 hours. If that can happen for 3 hours, it can happen for eternity. "

 

[Louanne Learning]

My wife of 45 years died 6 weeks ago.

My condolences. For me, it was like losing the most important part of me. We go on, and we can still find joy, but with a little bit of emptiness that we learn to live with. At least, that has been my experience. I hope you're finding comfort to help with your loss.

I wrote "in my mind", not "in my soul" - both are just words, referring to our consciousness that science still cannot define.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. I have always been one to say that all of what we experience - our reality, our consciousness - originates by the functioning of our brains. It's a bit of comfort to believe there is something else. But, on the other hand, the connection with my husband seems to transcend mere physical means. I'm open to possibilities.

"What intrigues me is that my death will be a unique event in the universe. It has never happened before, and it will only happen once. The fact that billions of human beings have died during history and a lot more will, every day, is not really relevant. My death will still be a unique event. In a way, when I die, the world will die too. My world. The only one that exists for me. The one that started when I was born and will end with me. All the stars will wink out, all the people, cities, buildings, mountains, oceans will be gone too. Cats, dogs, butterflies, squirrels, deer, raccoons, roses, sunflowers all disappear. I was totally convinced about oblivion after surgery. I remember the doctor talking to me and then, in an eye-blink, talking to me again – except that was 3 hours later. I had total oblivion for 3 hours. If that can happen for 3 hours, it can happen for eternity. "

That's beautifully written, thanks for sharing.

My rational brain tells me the same thing, that once you die, that's it, and it's all over. Nothing supernatural about us.

My human brain tells me I'll be with my husband again.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Is the difference between evil and bad always intent? And then, should we only make moral judgements based on intent?

 

[Rath Darkblade]

"Evil" is a moral judgment in itself, since the word "evil" stems from religion. "Bad" can mean anything, even simply an expired fruit.

Calling someone "evil" rather than "bad" is only possible after having seen proof of evil acts (e.g. a video of a person killing another). Even then, intent is important:

- Person A walking up to Person B and shooting them without provocation is evil.
- Person A shooting Person B in self-defense (e.g. if Person B invades Person A's home) is less so.
- Person A shooting Person B when Person B has invaded Person A's country (i.e. in the heat of battle) is ... debatable.

Strictly speaking, killing is murder, and ought to be punished. But as Paine's "The American Crisis" reminds us: "... if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it ... am I to suffer it?"

 

[Louanne Learning]

- Person A walking up to Person B and shooting them without provocation is evil.
- Person A shooting Person B in self-defense (e.g. if Person B invades Person A's home) is less so.
- Person A shooting Person B when Person B has invaded Person A's country (i.e. in the heat of battle) is ... debatable.

I think it's noteworthy that here you describe "the act" as evil, not the person.

To say that a person is evil, is to use "evil" as a noun - as some bad force that exists in that person.

"Don't let evil in." - As if it is something that exists separately from humanity.

To call a behavior evil, is to use "evil" as an adjective. I think behavior can be evil, but it's not because of something that possesses the person, but by however their mind developed, usually in a dysfunctional way.

"Evil" is not an entity unto itself.