Oh right, I had something to say there but forgot what it was as I was going along.

People get upset when I break down their subjective view. I've also been told I should try to understand it so I guess people would be saying that they want me to know about it but not do anything with that knowledge.

Science has been aimed at the objective precisely because you can deconstruct it. With the subjective if they disagree that's it. Either you're forced to just say flat out "not everyone agrees" or throw out people's opinions. I haven't heard any good criteria for what opinions to throw out because nobody wants to admit they'd do that but opinions like "the holocaust didn't happen" probably deserve to be thrown out.

I solve the problem by not letting anyone's opinion weigh in. They're opinions and nothing more. If anybody has a case for their opinion they can make it and I'll weigh that but the opinion itself is exempt; I only evaluate the reasons behind it if anyone shares them, but that's objectivity so...

So why aren't we treating the eternal universe like a serious idea? It's sure a lot closer to what I've been talking about than "random nonsense."

Meow, how big an area are we talking? If I stood next to mew would there be design around there or not? Do we work like magnets that cancel each other out?

So about the question? How is the designer playing by rules before having made any rules?


Not in the context we've been using the word. "Random nonsense" and "not done with intention" are very different concepts. The definition doesn't say that things done without intention are random, that would be like saying that after you become a celebrity in Hollywood you must be a giant ball of gas undergoing nuclear fusion (star.)

Well I can only reply by saying that I think you are confusing what I am saying (a thing in and of itself) with things in your mind.

I freely accept that I have not made it clear enough for you to see. I have known from the beginning that that would be the likely outcome of my attempts, and I place no blame on you for that.

I was being silly, it's only Abra telling me that.

Yes, both are intended to describe the history of what happened, as best as the authors can make out. They didn't go into it trying to create a dramatic piece of fiction.

Hinduism sort of did. I haven't read the original language version so I missed out on a lot of poetry features in the Bhagavad Gita but the story as I read it went more or less like a story my grandfather would tell about some distant relative or other. It had a little less of the side notes he'd put in but the Gitas are formal writing so that's to be expected.

Well yes, over time don't you think we would learn how better to accomplish that in our writing? Around the birth of written language how could you expect people to already be as good at storytelling as we are after centuries of formal education and critique driving people to find better ways of using language?

You've been talking about yourself, sky, and abra as a group presenting a certain view. It's mostly because of what you've said that I'm mixing in the things those other two have said when I talk with you (and what you've said when I talk to them.)

Abra's been acting on his own and so I've kept you and sky mostly out of what I say to him. Go back and read to see it if you've got the time and inclination.

Any that you disagreed with?

Are we talking self as in individual humans or would humanity be the self and everything not-human be the other?

I would say other is only what allows you to tell when your subjective does not fit the objective.

But with your definition even if scientists were to focus on being subjective wouldn't that still be objective to you? Or are you saying they need to come knocking on your door personally and focus on your opinion to work out the nature of the universe?

I'm not entirely sure what you've described. Internal/external? Personal/impersonal?

Keeping all of the quotes separated into their own posts is showing me my face so much I feel like I'm being narcissistic or something.

Well personally, I was considering the “eternal” idea more seriously than the “unintended creation” idea. It’s just that it was not being discussed very much and I didn’t want to “muddy the waters”. But I actually consider the “eternal” explanation to be much more satisfactory than the “unintended creation”, since it does not exclude the possibility of “ongoing design”.

He makes up the rules and then plays by the rule she made up. Just like anyone who plays a game they made up.

Well then one or both of us misunderstood some context somewhere. I was depending on the context of Abra’s posts back somewhere around page 40 or so, from which I concluded that he meant “happenstance” in the sense of “unintended” as opposed to “random”. And as I think about it, he seemed to me to have used “happenstance” and “random” synonymously to refer to “unintended intention”. SO that’s the context I was operating on.

Yes, lots. But that doesn’t mean they’re completely useless. Understanding other’s opinions is can be very useful in predicting how they will act in a given situation.

Self as “a living thing” (human or not) would be the most accurate. However, self as “individual humans” is close enough for general purposes and easiest to work with since we have language which can express the ideas of subjective versus objective.

It’s not a matter of how the scientists should study so much as what they should study. They already know an incredible amount about how the objective affects the objective (i.e. the interactions between matter/energy and spacetime), and a little about how the objective affects the subjective (i.e. external events can actually alter one’s though processes). I’d just like to see more focus on how the subjective affects the objective. (With “how the subjective affects the subjective” a little farther down the line.)

The point being that we understand a lot about how “other” works, but virtually nothing about how “self” works, largely because mainstream science has defined self in terms of other, which I think is a grossly erroneous definition.

Internal/external is pretty close but lacks the concept of source/cause/creation. I think “self-originated/other-originated” may be the closest in terms of common word meanings. But you see my quandary.

JB and Sky too...





Without an observer, there can be no point. No argument there. That is beside the point though, and does nothing to provide any relevant substance to what is being discussed.

An object's actual intrinsic properties have no dependency upon an assessment for their existence. What it is - in and of itself - does not depend upon human observation and/or labels. Our labels simply identify those properties. That is why definitions have meaning. They identify the properties of things. Those things and their properties exist without our labels.

My smile and a cat's tail postured straight up mean the same thing. To say that we 'give' meaning to things observed is false. We label inherent meaning. We name it 'happiness'. It exists without that label, just like the moon is there whether or not your looking at it. Just like a tree falling in the forest makes a sound whether or not a creature is there to hear it. To think otherwise is contradictory to established fact, and does nothing but muddle the usefulness of written language and well-established meaning.

Words have meaning for a reason. Objects have properties with or without our labels. Thinking about objects can invoke memories/meaning which helps to determine what those objects mean to us. That is not the same thing as what the object is, in and of itself. Meaning in that sense is subjective, but it does not in any way affect what the object actually is - in and of itself.

An axe has objective properties which are inherent to it's being an axe. The idea of an axe may mean very different things to different people, because of the invoked memory. However, none of those meanings give the axe any more or less inherent properties then those which an axe has, a handle with a certain shape, a blade with a certain shape, and a wedge to secure the blade to the handle. Those are it's inherent properties. That is what makes it an axe.

The axe may invoke meanings within an individual which have nothing to do with it's inherent properties. When we discuss an axe in terms of what an axe is, what it means to someone is irrelevant. The universe and it's inherent properties are the same, for the same reasons, as is any other objective analysis.

The problem with your logic is that you changed "observer" to "human observer."

In science, even a particle is referred to as an 'observer.'
In my world view, an observer does not have to be a human or even have a physical existence at all. It could even be a hypothetical observer of any kind.

But that is where our thinking differs. You don't believe in spiritual non-physical beings and you don't speak in terms of hypothetical observers

You confine and define "observer" not only as a physical being, but a HUMAN PHYSICAL BEING.

Your "observer" must be physical, it must have human consciousness and be a human being.

If that is your premise and your rules, then your logic can work. Its very restricted and obvious, but it works. However if you are going to create such limitations and boundaries or rules, it would help to state them in the beginning.

While the three of us agree on a lot of things, we are separate individuals with separate ideas. We don't agree on everything and we don't make the same statements. Our philosophies are very unique and different from each other.

I don't really have time to go back and reread everything you have posted and try to sort out what you are saying to whom. Sorry.

If we feel there is meaning to things we observe, who then, besides us, have given or attributed that meaning?




"Happiness" is not an object. You cannot look at it and give it meaning. You can, however look at someone who appears to be happy and give that a meaning of happiness. Hence then you can "label" it.




The moon and a tree are things. You can give them meaning if you so choose, or they can be meaningless to you.

But the fact of the moon being there whether we look at it or not has nothing to do with whether or not we give the moon any meaning.

These are two different subjects.

**********

I am sure the moon exists, even if I am not looking at it.
But what does the moon mean to you?

I look at it and give it any meaning I feel I want to give it. The moon is a mystery. It is romantic. It is an alien spaceship. It is a light in the sky. It is spooky. Blue moon is lonely, Red moon is danger, ring around the moon means trouble coming.

This is what I mean by giving an object "meaning."

An apple is sweet. An apple is food. An apple a day keeps the doctor away. It is healthy to eat.

I understand what your saying, but I think you’re a little off the mark regarding “meaning”.

I my view, meanings are fundamentally compartive associations. A single thing by itself (i.e. an object, action or a property), has no intrinsic meaning. It must be compared/associated with something else for there to be meaning.

Properties, on the other hand, are just as you say. The exist regardless of whether they are observed, though about, or compared/associated with anything else.

Your smile and a cat’s tail straight up are not meanings, nor do they “have” intrinsic meanings. Neither does the state of “happiness” have any intrinsic meaning. It is only when the smile/cat’s tail is compared/associated with the state of “happiness” that meaning comes into being.

An good example is a word such as “better”. Its meaning is explicitly dependent on a comparison. Without a comparison of at least three things (two objects and a “rule” of some sort) , the word “better” cannot have any definite meaning.

And since the only thing that can do the comparing/associating is an observer, “meaning” is entirely dependent on an observer performing that action. Thus, we do “give meaning” by comparing/associating.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Well even with the random origin stuff we wouldn't technically be precluded from having some god notice that a place had started up and then stepping in with some divine intervention. JB talks about that sort of thing a bit without using the word god.

That's getting pretty far away from the apparent bad design.

I'm really disappointed with how he switches the meanings of his words so much. It's good for poetry and metaphor but not for science or philosophy. It turns into a terrible mess and doesn't support the points he's making.

So basically he's cheating.

Well yes, they make useful ammunition against someone else but I was asking if the opinions of others that you disagreed with ever useful for shaping your own world view.

Understandable. That's why I didn't just flat out tell you to do it.

wasn't referring to you bean. was referring to anybody who believes anything to be proven as fact. since you brought you up though, however you define proof, if you believe something to be proven or as you say i think, if you can get someone to agree with you that something is proven, then you and whoever agrees with you must not allow the possibility of an alternative answer. you've closed your mind to the issue. it's been proven as far as you're concerned.

Proven to two people perhaps.

I am old enough that I can remember (in the society where I grew up) that to express doubt of the existence of God was risky business. I spent most of my life keeping my mouth shut until I just got tired of the bull crap.

To tell someone that you are an atheist and see their jaws drop open was kind of liberating. (They then pretended to feel sorry for me because I was going to hell.) They would want to 'save' me or 'argue' with me, or frighten me into believing in their God.

I still see that today in the town where I live. Many radical Christians here calling me a heathen or a witch in league with the devil.

On this forum I am probably viewed as a "believer" because I argue that "intelligent design" is a possibility. That does not mean I believe in a creator God. It simply means that I see intelligence in the universe and in its creatures and I see what appears to be purpose and design.

No, I can't prove it, and nobody can prove otherwise or explain this reality's existence to my satisfaction, so I have assigned the role of "God" to each of us and take a more pantheistic view.

It still is in big portions of the country. It's nice that some places are more accepting now.

Well of course. If you don't know you need to fight the Devil there's no way you could resist him. Or look at star wars- that one officer guy didn't believe in the Force and then Vader used it to choke him to death!

...

Nobody is arguing that there aren't at least some intelligent humans so you really don't need to keep repeating that part. It's the purpose behind the design part people are picking at.

I say the efficient aspects of our physical forms come from the obvious fact that bodies that work well survive and stick around better than bodies that do not. With the way molecules act these different arrangements of things couldn't possibly be prohibited from taking place (and abra agrees but says God was responsible for making chemistry work that way.)


You haven't convinced me that you've understood my explanation so far.