Logicboy03:



lol....something to do with creationism (the pic of the rock) and god being the mind (pic of the brain)

Interesting. But that is not quite just what I had in mind. Does it not occur to you what both the rock and the brain share in common?

@deepsight, did you notice when Josh highlighted Plaetton's post where he talked about his evolutionary point of view? That is the sort of argument this thread will generate.

Nevertheless, you are building a strawman by asserting that because we think that this exercise is subjective, therefore no subject on earth can be discussed objectively. In fact, in any debate people come to the table with their own subjective notions of what is to be discussed and try to come to an objective understanding after all points have been heard.

I could comment on each of these pictures but i would do it coloured with my own particular world view. For example, the stone and brain. . . The only objective thing there is that it is a picture of a rock and a drawing of a brain. Whatever else we would say about it can only come from our subjective worldview. I hope you get my point now. . .

Deep Sight:

Interesting. But that is not quite just what I had in mind. Does it not occur to you what both the rock and the brain share in common?

Exactly my point. Now you're trying to suggest to us. . .

Mr Troll:

I could comment on each of these pictures but i would do it coloured with my own particular world view.

Well it is your subjective views and thoughts that interest me.

For example, the stone and brain. . . The only objective thing there is that it is a picture of a rock and a drawing of a brain. Whatever else we would say about it can only come from our subjective worldview. I hope you get my point now. . .

We could start a thought development by wondering what the two pictures have in common.

Mr Troll: Exactly my point. Now you're trying to suggest to us. . .

O it is a given that everyone's view is a suggestion to others. Nevertheless LB had assumed that he had exactly my thoughts when he viewed those pictures. I was only saying to him, that in fact, he had not quite grasped my thoughts. Just showing him he was presuming when he says he has "seen through the BS"... BS it may be, but I am not sure that he has seen through it...

Mr Troll:
Nevertheless, you are building a strawman by asserting that because we think that this exercise is subjective, therefore no subject on earth can be discussed objectively.

No: absolutely I am not - go and read Plaetton's post again - and you will see that that is the very direct implication of his position.

That is effectively his position, not mine.

Deep Sight:

No: absolutely I am not - go and read Plaetton's post again - and you will see that that is the very direct implication of his position.

That is effectively his position, not mine.

Or maybe that is what you understood by what he said, because that is not what i got from reading his post. Maybe we will have to ask him to tell us the direct implication of what he meant?
see the point i'm making?


Nevertheless, i will comment on the OP subsequently. Make we play small. . .

Deep Sight: ?

PICTURE OF THE THINKING MAN

A thinking man. Evidently a more highly evolved specie from his ancestors. This evolutionary gift of a bigger brain has enabled him not only to manipulate his environment to suit himself but also furnish him with the ability of contemplating his ontological position in the context of the vast universe he finds himself in. . .blah blah blah.

Mr Troll: A thinking man. Evidently a more highly evolved specie from his ancestors. This evolutionary gift of a bigger brain has enabled him not only to manipulate his environment to suit himself but also furnish him with the ability of contemplating his ontological position in the context of the vast universe he finds himself in. . .blah blah blah.

genn gennn........the creationist vs evolunist debate begins....Deepsight, you were warned

Deep Sight: These two to be taken together - - ->

PICTURE OF THE ROCK AND THE BRAIN.

At the very fundamental level, they are both made of the same ingredients(atoms etc)

it seems quite incredulous that both may once have been the same thing in the distant past but whatever we may want to fantasize, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the rock may have evolved while the brain was designed(with what? Same materials i guess).

Nevertheless, the brain is a wonder, just as it a wonder that we share 70% of our DNA with a slug yet we are so vastly different. . .

Mr Troll: A thinking man. Evidently a more highly evolved specie from his ancestors. This evolutionary gift of a bigger brain has enabled him not only to manipulate his environment to suit himself but also furnish him with the ability of contemplating his ontological position in the context of the vast universe he finds himself in. . .blah blah blah.

The Pic will not show when you quote, so perhaps you should caption your comment such as "Picture of X'X'X" - then comment on it.

Thanks for the comment. Much appreciated. It seems that we agree in common that the image discloses thought. A thinking being, a being able to contemplate the abstract. This is an important plank in our thought development, I think.

Deep Sight:

The Pic will not show when you quote, so perhaps you should caption your comment such as "Picture of Bleep" - then comment on it.

ok. I'll edit them now. . .

NL funny sha, X'X'X is even censored. Hehehehehehe

Teacher: Here is the image of a naked adult female.

Student: We cannot discuss this matter because we all see the image subjectively.

Teacher: Tell me what you see.

Student: It does not matter because what I see is subjective to me and may not be objective truth.

Class over.

And I repeat: The above will equally serve as answer to EVERY THOUGHT, EVERY IDEA, EVERY OBSERVATION, EVERY DISCUSSION, EVERY DEBATE AND EVERY DISCOVERY THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND FOREVER INTO THE FUTURE.

If held fast and true, there should be no schools, no education, no discussions, no observations ever made by human beings. We should all remain quiet and mute: and simply do that which we wish to do to survive - or not - for everything is only a subjective reality in our individual minds.

Deep Sight:

Maybe you can read again his words -

He wrote -

"My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see.
Indeed, If the mind was naturally or divinely imbued with absolute truth, then all minds should be able to have the same interpretations of one image, one dream, one epiphany.
We know that it has never been so.
Every mind interprets one visual image, such as yours above, in many different ways.
Thus, everyone has his own inner truth."

This eliminates any and every possibility of establishing an objective truth.

I will show you what this simply looks like. It looks like a teacher in a classroom who wishes to give a lecture on the nature of womanhood. The teacher brings into this class, a statue of a naked woman to discuss her parts. The teacher is interrupted by a student.

Teacher: Here is the image of a naked adult female.

Student: We cannot discuss this matter because we all see the image subjectively.

Teacher: Tell me what you see.

Student: It does not matter because what I see is subjective to me and may not be objective truth.

Class over.

hehehehe. Oga don't do an Anonyism here. The key word there is interpretation. The student cannot deny that what he is seeing is a naked woman but the response the teacher might want from him will be subjective based on. . .his preconceived notions.

I can look at the vagina or breast of a woman at work and not have an erection but i can look at the same woman at 9pm in my bedroom and have a massive erection and urge to Bleep. It is the same woman, same private parts but different body responses and action.

Deep Sight:

And I repeat: The above will equally serve as answer to EVERY THOUGHT, EVERY IDEA, EVERY OBSERVATION, EVERY DISCUSSION, EVERY DEBATE AND EVERY DISCOVERY THROUGHOUT HISTORY AND FOREVER INTO THE FUTURE.

If held fast and true, there should be no schools, no education, no discussions, no observations ever made by human beings. We should all remain quiet and mute: and simply do that which we wish to do to survive - or not - for everything is only a subjective reality in our individual minds.

No. I disagree. Objective truths need not come from our mind. Physical evidence and proof will suffice. THAT is why we need schools, to dispel our erroneous preconceived notions through the shining light of irrefutable evidence and solid proofs.

Mr Troll: PICTURE OF THE ROCK AND THE BRAIN.

At the very fundamental level, they are both made of the same ingredients(atoms etc)

it seems quite incredulous that both may once have been the same thing in the distant past but whatever we may want to fantasize, there is simply no evidence to suggest that the rock may have evolved while the brain was designed(with what? Same materials i guess).

Nevertheless, the brain is a wonder, just as it a wonder that we share 70% of our DNA with a slug yet we are so vastly different. . .

Thanks for the comment. Very interesting.

As an aside, let me say that I purposely hunted for a picture of a brain which would show the connections to the eyeballs right in front of it.

You are indeed right in striking upon the similarity between the rock and the brain - both are matter, or are said to be composed of matter.

At some point in the history of the earth in its solar system, all the matter that existed were lifeless matter - such as the rock, as an example. There would be solid, liquid and gaseous matter, but all lifeless matter all the same. Somehow, over time, this lifeless matter is said to have combined, grown, evolved and coalesced in such a manner as to produce, not just life, but also the highest form of life known, the human brain.

Choosing to show the brain from that perspective showing the connection to the eyes, was because of the thought that there is, in that coagulation of matter which has become living, there is something there that has a need for sight. A need to see. A need to look around the world around it. It will be interesting to discuss this point and what that thing is. What is that thing. I think we can discuss this further.

Mr Troll: No. I disagree. Objective truths need not come from our mind. Physical evidence and proof will suffice. THAT is why we need schools, to dispel our erroneous preconceived notions through the shining light of irrefutable evidence and solid proofs.

That is actually contrary to what Plaetton has alluded to.

His words -

"In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see."

- - - > Suggest therefore that it is actually these schools, and the other "psycological reinforcement mechanisms" which he mentioned, that now influence the mind into thinking this or that. See the bold above - he said, "no absolute truths except that which it has been conditioned to see."

Thus he is saying that everything that one sees is just what one is conditioned to see and is no objective truth.

If I look at my television, and state that it is a television, I could equally be told that I only say that because that is what I have been conditioned to see. Someone else somewhere else may be conditioned to see it as a large picture frame. And this remains true. But in a discussion seeking to unravel the nature of the television, anyone can halt the discussion through Plaetton's statement. No objective truth about the television set can be known because we only see what we are conditioned to see.

And taken to the extreme, even where ten different people see the television set as a television set, it can be argued that each person has been conditioned to see the other nine people agreeing with him, and it may in fact not be the objective truth that they are agreeing with him.

As I said before, all existence collapses into meaninglessness.

Deep Sight:
As an aside, let me say that I purposely hunted for a picture of a brain which would show the connections to the eyeballs right in front of it.

Ok. Interesting. Didn't see it from that perspective.

You are indeed right in striking upon the similarity between the rock and the brain - both are matter, or are said to be composed of matter.

At some point in the history of the earth in its solar system, all the matter that existed were lifeless matter - such as the rock, as an example. There would be solid, liquid and gaseous matter, but all lifeless matter all the same. Somehow, over time, this lifeless matter is said to have combined, grown, evolved and coalesced in such a manner as to produce, not just life, but also the highest form of life known, the human brain.

I would like to point out here that not all the mechanism of how it happened is fully known but the evidence around for now all point towards the conclusion. . .

Choosing to show the brain from that perspective showing the connection to the eyes, was because of the thought that there is, in that coagulation of matter which has become living, there is something there that has a need for sight. A need to see. A need to look around the world around it. It will be interesting to discuss this point and what that thing is. What is that thing. I think we can discuss this further.

Technically, the eye does not see. It is the brain that sees. The eye is simply a conduit for light waves. . .

This connection you have shown is not limited to humans alone, i hope you know that and whatever the need is to see, it definitely is not limited to humans and their larger brains alone.

Mr Troll: Ok. Interesting. Didn't see it from that perspective.
Technically, the eye does not see. It is the brain that sees. The eye is simply a conduit for light waves. . .

Yes indeed, we know this. And yet the point remains the same: that in that coagulation of matter, there is something there that needs to see. That needs those receptors to see an outside world.

This connection you have shown is not limited to humans alone, i hope you know that and whatever the need is to see, it definitely is not limited to humans and their larger brains alone.

Of course, it extends to the generality of creatures: and the question still remains the same.

We should therefore discuss - the need to see - and what is seeing, and who is seeing, and things that see.

Deep Sight:

That is actually contrary to what Plaetton has alluded to.

His words -

"In other words, a person's reality can be accessed, interfered with, influenced and deliberately reshaped.

Social evolution and it's modern adjunct form, social engineering, depends largely on the ability of one or a few to influence and shape the reality of the many through a variety of psychological re-inforcement mechanisms such as religion, political ideology, military conquest or economic hegemony.

My point in all this is that mind does not have any absolute truths of it's own except that which it has been conditioned to see."

- - - > Suggest therefore that it is actually these schools, and the other "psycological reinforcement mechanisms" which he mentioned, that now influence the mind into thinking this or that. See the bold above - he said, "no absolute truths except that which it has been conditioned to see."

Thus he is saying that everything that one sees is just what one is conditioned to see and is no objective truth.

If I look at my television, and state that it is a television, I could equally be told that I only say that because that is what I have been conditioned to see. Someone else somewhere else may be conditioned to see it as a large picture frame. And this remains true. But in a discussion seeking to unravel the nature of the television, anyone can halt the discussion through Plaetton's statement. No objective truth about the television set can be known because we only see what we are conditioned to see.

And taken to the extreme, even where ten different people see the television set as a television set, it can be argued that each person has been conditioned to see the other nine people agreeing with him, and it may in fact not be the objective truth that they are agreeing with him.

As I said before, all existence collapses into meaninglessness.

Actually he is right, albeit in the most fundamental way for all you know Deepsight is what you have been taught right from childhood up till this moment etc.

In order to resolve this seeming contradiction in our statement, i say that what we consider objective truth is what the larger society as a whole has agreed upon despite what our individual minds may imagine. For example, a TV is a TV because the society has agreed to call it that. A child who grew up in isolation might have no idea what it is until is told/suggested to him that that is a TV. This is precisely why we say that some people are colour blind, simply because they don't see colour the way the larger society has decided that it is to be seen. . .

Mr Troll: Actually he is right, albeit in the most fundamental way for all you know Deepsight is what you have been taught right from childhood up till this moment etc.

I will say two things here: firstly you will notice that I never said that he is wrong! I said that it is an escapist, meaningless and empty response: and it most certainly is - because it can be said in response to any statement that has even been made since the dawn of time and any statement that will ever be made till eternity.

Secondly I say that it is not true that all I know are the things I have been taught. Certainly not. Because there are many things I know which I was not taught. Things which I saw and observed myself. In this regard, I have to go further to say that even those who taught us, did not derive the teaching from the air. They either got it from experience or observation or it was taught to them by others who had experience and observation. Again, if all we know is what we have been taught, then there world be no developments in science and the world: because we would be static at what we have been taught. Rather we probe and observe and experience and develop new ideas and frontiers every day, beyond the scope of what we had been taught.

It is therefore simply untrue that all we know is what we have been taught or conditioned to see.

The simple fact that we come up with new ideas, which we were not taught, debunks this.

Was Charles Darwin taught evolution in school? Was Albert Einstein taught the theory of relativity in school?

By themselves, they could observe, reason, experiment, and decipher a truth previously unknown, no?

Of what good would it have been to any of their efforts, if someone had stopped them, asking them not to waste their energies, in light of the fact that everything which they observe is subjective only, and not objective truth?

In order to resolve this seeming contradiction in our statement, i say that what we consider objective truth is what the larger society as a whole has agreed upon despite what our individual minds may imagine. For example, a TV is a TV because the society has agreed to call it that.

And this shows up the complete escapism inherent in Plaetton's post, because there is not one image in my OP that we all are ignorant of. We can discuss the stone, because we have all agreed that it is a stone. We even have detailed common understanding of what it is - solid matter. Our common understanding even extends to its microscopic composition.

In light of this, it is very escapist and cowardly to avert the discussion by stating that we all see it subjectively and as such no objective truth may be known or inferred about it ! ! !

Deep Sight:

The simple fact that we come up with new ideas, which we were not taught, debunks this.

Was Charles Darwin taught evolution in school? Was Albert Einstein taught the theory of relativity in school?

By themselves, they could observe, reason, experiment, and decipher a truth previously unknown, no?

I rest my case on the bold words above: it is possible to observe your environment and decipher a truth therein.

Otherwise there should exist nothing like science.

Deep Sight:

I rest my case on the bold words above: it is possible to observe your environment and decipher a truth therein.

Otherwise there should exist nothing like science.

Yes, you're generally correct but then they had education and a basic knowledge on how to think and probe, do good research and come up with new facts. THIS they were taught.

Note that we did(or at least I) not say that no objective truth can be gotten from any subject. I only said that what we call objective truth are what the larger society has agreed on, probably because a vast majority(not everyone) see it the same way.
So, your post in red is a strawman. At least concerning what i have been stating.

By the way, i do not see Plaetton's response as escapist especially if you are agreeing with it. Simply saying and insisting it is so does not make it so

The first cuts the picture of a man assuming a skeptical attitude towards religion.

The second remunds me of the church. Pressed down over time from a multitude and into a glibal heirarchy united by a common belief but split as to its applications. On a more personal note, it evokes how hard-hearted some Christians are to questioning their cherished beliefs.

The third to me is a picture atheists like to use. We are all about science but then I am NOT saying religious people are stupid.

The fourth is the love found in humanity. I think it Christianity's bane because a parent and its love is visible to the child not just leaving material things for the child to infer its love. Can the same be said of God as seen in the pic ? Not so.

The fifth I'll take as the mundane things in life that will be shed. Religion being mundane in this case.

The sixth is the life and youth a thing I believe both worldviews I appreciate. I don't want to cut a contrast here.

Mr Troll: Yes, you're generally correct but then they had education and a basic knowledge on how to think and probe, do good research and come up with new facts. THIS they were taught.

Note that we did(or at least I) not say that no objective truth can be gotten from any subject. I only said that what we call objective truth are what the larger society has agreed on, probably because a vast majority(not everyone) see it the same way.
So, your post in red is a strawman. At least concerning what i have been stating.

By the way, i do not see Plaetton's response as escapist especially if you are agreeing with it. Simply saying and insisting it is so does not make it so

It is not escapist to say that you cannot have a philosophical discussion on an image of a stone, because we all see the stone subjectively and "every mind interpretes every image in different ways"?

The same principle should halt all scientific inquiry and all reasoned discussions.

In addition, given Mr Troll's post, I'd say the stone and the brain captures 'the hard problem of consciousness'.

Uyi Iredia: In addition, given Mr Troll's post, I'd say the stone and the brain captures 'the hard problem of consciousness'.

Elaborate on the hard problem of consciousness please. Do you mean to say that conssciousness cannot be the product of matter alone?

WTF is going on here? Carry your filthy sane discussions elsewhere...

wiegraf: WTF is going on here? Carry your filthy sane discussions elsewhere...

Lol. Long time wiegraf. I have missed your incomparable randomness.

Deep Sight:

It is not escapist to say that you cannot have a philosophical discussion on an image of a stone, because we all see the stone subjectively and "every mind interpretes every image in different ways"?

The same principle should halt all scientific inquiry and all reasoned discussions.

No na. I don't think thats what Plaetton meant(again, we're back to subjective understanding). Considering the fact that he knows your worldview, you know his and then this thread is a philosophical matter concerning theist-atheist worldviews, it simply means that however we may want to interpret it will be relation to our specific worldview and cannot therefore be objective. That is what i got from his post, still it doesn't stop him from contributing. At least i did na, abi?

Deep Sight:

Lol. Long time wiegraf. I have missed your incomparable randomness.

Good ser, I salute! We have missed your erudition and delivery more.



[s]Though I'm a bit weary, you're one of the few that could genuinely leave me speechless [/s]

I shall contribute if something good comes to mind, if you don't mind

Deep Sight:

Elaborate on the hard problem of consciousness please. Do you mean to say that conssciousness cannot be the product of matter alone?

That's what's called the hard problem of consciousness: how does one go from neurns moving to conscious experience ?

Uyi Iredia:

That's what's called the hard problem of consciousness: how does one go from neurns moving to conscious experience ?

evolution of course. We can evolve a mind. All other answers are foolish and not to be taken seriously.