What is God?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Strongly Agree with this and everything else you have said Al.

As for 1=1, does the number "1" have an empirical existence? Outside of a reference? That is we can have one orange, one computer, one person but one by itself... one of what? Isn't the number one by itself an undefinable concept? an abstraction upon reality?

Personally I quite fond of the idea of Spinoza's God. However I agree that is indeed a concept beyond potential human understanding, at least using our historically and culturally developed tools (ie. science) to do so.

[Alcon]

As for 1=1, does the number "1" have an empirical existence? Outside of a reference? That is we can have one orange, one computer, one person but one by itself... one of what? Isn't the number one by itself an undefinable concept? an abstraction upon reality?

Err...the concept is something being itself, not anything to do with "1." 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

As for 1=1, does the number "1" have an empirical existence? Outside of a reference? That is we can have one orange, one computer, one person but one by itself... one of what? Isn't the number one by itself an undefinable concept? an abstraction upon reality?

The concept is something being itself, not anything to do with "1."

Ah okay, I was taking a purely numerical interpretation (perhaps if you said 2=2 it would be more clear). However I still think my argument stands, or rather what you are stating is nothing more than an abstract tautology on its own. The important thing here is define something being 'itself' (A chair is a chair.. but this chair may have features that separates it from other chairs.. like style, construction, material, etc). Yes I admit this is a detour.

[Alcon]

As for 1=1, does the number "1" have an empirical existence? Outside of a reference? That is we can have one orange, one computer, one person but one by itself... one of what? Isn't the number one by itself an undefinable concept? an abstraction upon reality?

The concept is something being itself, not anything to do with "1."

Ah okay, I was taking a purely numerical interpretation (perhaps if you said 2=2 it would be more clear). However I still think my argument stands, or rather what you are stating is nothing more than an abstract tautology on its own. The important thing here is define something being 'itself' (A chair is a chair.. but this chair may have features that separates it from other chairs.. like style, construction, material, etc). Yes I admit this is a detour.

My argument is that rationality's relevance as a human concept is limited in this case.  Yes, an empirical observation of the way reality exists is seen through a subjective lens.  But "rationality" shouldn't be besmirched like that.  I concede that a lot of "rational acts" are based on underlying axioms that relate to cultural values.  But there are more fundamental rationalities, which I feel no discomfort in assuming are objective (even if I cannot prove it, not being omniscient), that relate to operations of logic, etc.

I mean, those are not observed through any less faulty means, but the distinction is meaningful.  Would you, for instance, say that "an attempt to impose order on rationality" is an apt description for that separate class of rationality?  I wouldn't.  Moreover, I think it competes against the assertion that rationality probably lacks an objective existence, let alone that it concretely (or definitionally ) does.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But how can empirically prove whether an act/belief/whatever is truly rational not just a cultural value? Or for that matter and more radically, whether a priviledged something: an act/belief/whatever as rational and therefore good is itself a cultural value (why support the objective over the subjective?). Many - most societies - ideas of rationality would be alien to our. It was a 14th Century Theologian who invented Occam's Razor after all.

Or to take another example from Anthropology (An Anthropologist always has to deal with these questions..) there are many societies whose number system does not go up very high - some only up to 2 and no further - here I am usually talking about words and language, concepts are slightly different but usually there are alternative ways of expressing higher numbers though none very high, what use do hunter-gatherers have of the number 87? So for this group the equation 2+1=3 makes no sense whatsoever, it doesn't mean it can't learn it but sometimes it doesn't learn it... and isn't suspectibility towards mathematics a cultural value? (and if they can't express that 2+1=3 so much for complete human objectivity, it ain't objective to them...)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You are assuming that the human mind organizes reality and its experiences in a 'rational' way. But the historical record shows otherwise (think of many hunter-gatherer societies - not 'rational' from our POV, but this is a very different issue which I can talk about at some length...).

[Alcon]

But how can empirically prove whether an act/belief/whatever is truly rational nor just a cultural value? Or for that matter and more radically, whether a priviledged something: an act/belief/whatever as rational and therefore good is itself a cultural value (why support the objective over the subjective?). Many - most societies - ideas of rationality would be alien to our. It was a 14th Century Theologian who invented Occam's Razor after all.

o/t: You're suchhh of a sociologist. 

I'm confused about what part of that I did not answer in the quoted portion.

You are assuming that the human mind organizes reality and its experiences in a 'rational' way. But the historical record shows otherwise (think of many hunter-gatherer societies - not 'rational' from our POV, but this is a very different issue which I can talk about at some length...).

I don't see where I made any such assumption.  I think you may be radically misinterpreting my argument, probably as a result of me radically mispresenting it, but I'm not sure how...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been reading too much Levi-Strauss recently, that is never a good idea for this sort of thing. Plus I've been receiving the correct "sociological attitude" since I was like six (my mother is a sociologist) which I think explains my "OMG Everything must be put in historical-cultural context" attitude.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think I answered that question with the addition to my previous post. Mathematics is after all just another form of organization, not brought about by rational investigation itself (especially advanced mathematics, is game theory empirical?)

[Alcon]

I'm cool with that, and it's interesting (and unjustly undervalued in this kind of dialogue), but I feel that you're addressing the components of my analogy instead of how they relate.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm cool with that, and it's interesting (and unjustly undervalued in this kind of dialogue), but I feel that you're addressing the components of my analogy instead of how they relate.

Well then I must have missed something, or my brain isn't functioning. What be your analogy again?

[Alcon]

I'm cool with that, and it's interesting (and unjustly undervalued in this kind of dialogue), but I feel that you're addressing the components of my analogy instead of how they relate.

Well then I must have missed something, or my brain isn't functioning. What be your analogy again?

My analogy regarded tautologies and similar base logical operations.  My argument is that they aren't really prone to cultural relativism.  They could be, I suppose, but I see no justification against assuming they aren't.

(That's the short version because I am really, really, really sick right now and can't write anything smarter.  Sorry.  Later )

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm cool with that, and it's interesting (and unjustly undervalued in this kind of dialogue), but I feel that you're addressing the components of my analogy instead of how they relate.

Well then I must have missed something, or my brain isn't functioning. What be your analogy again?

My analogy regarded tautologies and similar base logical operations.  My argument is that they aren't really prone to cultural relativism.  They could be, I suppose, but I see no justification against assuming they aren't.

(That's the short version because I am really, really, really sick right now and can't write anything smarter.  Sorry.  Later )

The problem is that you can't state those tautologies regardless of their tautological-ness in anything other than language and/or mathematics, the statements themselves not being true but assumes that language has some kind of actual status to the real world independent of human thought and the symbols of language/mathematics themselves. (And anyway let's not forget with maths 1=2 sometimes, if you know the correct method).

I think you may have missed my point here:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Btw, while no doubt Ilikeverin will come in and explain that mathematics and language is a product of biological evolution, that is somewhat beside the point, because that does not explain the property of language itself. We assume that we can describe reality via language, this is not an empirical belief and the fact that scientists have to invent words for everything new they do suggests that we are constructing language as we go along (though this is not the place for a language/reality/cognitive relativism debate).

[Alcon]

woo, more zombie-mode posting.

I genuinely must be misunderstanding what you're saying, because how would the "symbols of language/mathematics themselves" be relevant in a tautology?

You're talking about some very interesting anthropological phenomena, but they are cultural limiting factors, not differences in the perception of reality.  The possible existence of greater than two objects is not defined by culture, even if it is not defined as such.  Much like that tribe in Brazil with no understanding of depth perception...

Unless, of course, you are arguing that our interpretation of tautology is a byproduct of cultural upbringing as much as theirs?  That is an argument I'm skeptical of

[Tetro Kornbluth]

woo, more zombie-mode posting.

I genuinely must be misunderstanding what you're saying, because how would the "symbols of language/mathematics themselves" be relevant in a tautology?

You're talking about some very interesting anthropological phenomena, but they are cultural limiting factors, not differences in the perception of reality.  The possible existence of greater than two objects is not defined by culture, even if it is not defined as such.  Much like that tribe in Brazil with no understanding of depth perception...

Unless, of course, you are arguing that our interpretation of tautology is a byproduct of cultural upbringing as much as theirs?  That is an argument I'm skeptical of

What I'm saying is that we use 'symbols' (language and maths) to describe things, including things we hold to be innately true (1=1, the red ball is a red ball) but that these symbols are products of human cognition which we then insert or project onto reality. The symbols themselves have no truth value (or if you want to invoke the language of linguistics, the relationship between the sign and the signified is completely arbitrary). Also as to a large extent logic is a product of language that means... in certain languages for instance, logical paradox is gramatically impossible as it isn't in English. Also tautological description is not the only way of describing anything.. the red ball may be the red ball, but it is other things as (such as having a position in time and space).

Of course there are truths that exist outside of human experience and thus culture, such as gravity, but it is quite clear that human beings were not designed to know these things. God, to get back on topic, might be one of these things. (note: when I refer to 'culture' I'm generally refering to all aspects of human existence with the outside world as it is lived, at least in a modern society, whether certain attributes of your self are determined by "nature" (genetics) or "culture" (social constructionism, development, etc) is not important here, all your day to day actions are cultural in a specific sense, even those that are innately human, like anything sexual.)

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I'm not even reading yall's conversation, and it's giving me a headache.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm not even reading yall's conversation, and it's giving me a headache.

We were discussing the nature of the categories of being, existence, cosmology, etc. I assume "god" (if he is 'there') is one of those.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The very concession that humans are unable to empirically observe a phenomenon means they are not omniscient,

I'm getting on for being the last person to imply that humans are omniscient in any respect

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are not just creatures of observation. Which is fortunate as half the time (at least) we aren't much use at it. Looking down the well and seeing our own faces and so on. Apologies for any weird tangents, it's a little late here, I've overworked myself the past two days and I can't sleep...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not sure if an empirical observation is even possible in this case (which is the point thou bist trying to make, I think), but I digress. The answer is that I know it to be true. Now, I'm a religious man and you aren't, so that obviously won't mean a thing to you and will probably seem like an extremely weak argument. And if it were an argument, it would be. But it isn't an argument, it isn't an intellectual position. It's a simple statement of what I believe. I'm not especially interested in converting others to my position(s) or with holding myself as being superior in anyway to people who do not feel this way.

Something else as well, which I suppose might count as an observation, is the thought that it is absurd that we, mere humans as we are, could ever hope to understand God in anything other than (relatively) utterly simple terms.

"Who are you to do this?" (and variations thereof) is always a good question, I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rock is indeed a rock, but that certainly isn't what I meant (and of course, the rock may be other things as well). I don't mean the objective facts of the material world, but the attempts to impose order upon them and on everything else. Rationality is all about imposing order on chaos; that's the whole point. It is an attempt to understand things which may often be objective, yes, but it is not objective itself. Humanity is flawed, utterly flawed*, and the very opposite of omniscient. This also goes for the structures of thought that it builds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And I wasn't arguing that anyone was doing that, so that's alright then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Everything gets special treatment.

*Now, by that I do not mean that we are utterly evil and wicked or whatever. Flawed, that's all. Not perfect.

[Alcon]

Just want to mention that I'm on tap to reply to both Gully's and your post, Al, when I'm clear-headed and not on OTC drugs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Just want to mention that I'm on tap to reply to both Gully's and your post, Al, when I'm clear-headed and not on OTC drugs.

Considering that I replaced at a quarter past three in the morning, I think it's only fair if you reply before the drugs leave your system.

[Alcon]

Just want to mention that I'm on tap to reply to both Gully's and your post, Al, when I'm clear-headed and not on OTC drugs.

Considering that I replaced at a quarter past three in the morning, I think it's only fair if you reply before the drugs leave your system.

I just wasted all of my energy yelling at BrandonRowan.  I wish I'd read your post first.  I mean, you even switched out "replied" for "replaced."  If that's emotional manipulation, it's brilliant.  If it's not, go the hell to bed.  I'm not going to get any more reply-y tonight. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Al, stop stealing my ideas and claiming them as your own, thx.

(Actually no, alot of that was what I was trying to say, but couldn't express it to well and also brought an anthropological perspective to it.)

[Alcon]

What I'm saying is that we use 'symbols' (language and maths) to describe things, including things we hold to be innately true (1=1, the red ball is a red ball) but that these symbols are products of human cognition which we then insert or project onto reality. The symbols themselves have no truth value (or if you want to invoke the language of linguistics, the relationship between the sign and the signified is completely arbitrary).

Define "truth value."  And for that matter, where are you reading into a claim that symbols aren't arbitrary cultural constructs?  That isn't relevant to the concept of tautology.

Also as to a large extent logic is a product of language that means... in certain languages for instance, logical paradox is gramatically impossible as it isn't in English. Also tautological description is not the only way of describing anything.. the red ball may be the red ball, but it is other things as (such as having a position in time and space).

...I'm not understanding the relevance of anything to my argument about the "thought mode" of faith.  Especially the last sentence.

Of course there are truths that exist outside of human experience and thus culture, such as gravity, but it is quite clear that human beings were not designed to know these things. God, to get back on topic, might be one of these things. (note: when I refer to 'culture' I'm generally refering to all aspects of human existence with the outside world as it is lived, at least in a modern society, whether certain attributes of your self are determined by "nature" (genetics) or "culture" (social constructionism, development, etc) is not important here, all your day to day actions are cultural in a specific sense, even those that are innately human, like anything sexual.)

I think you're kind of rambling.  Not that I mind, your stuff is always genuinely interesting, but it's making it hard to understand your central argument...

I think your argument is that the scientific method is a cultural byproduct as is the belief that the nature of the world can be derived through objective observation.  No?  That's an interesting argument, albeit an arguably self-defeating one   In fact, you're operating on the assumption that your culturally-impacted observation and methodology is valid in order to posit the argument itself.  So, you're conceding the weakness no less than I am.  I don't claim absolute, universal objectivity -- I would be insane to.  I am not, after all, God.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I aim to please. Actually no I do find it difficult to keep on topic some times, just the nature of me personally. (Btw, good to know people find my posts "genuinely interesting")

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Almost. I'm arguing that there is no a single "objectivity" or "rationality", these are just concepts or words we give to things that have "rational-ness" and "objective-ness" and are formed from cultural and historical assumptions. (Occasionally political as well, look at Francis Bacon's secular power worship or Newton's argument to the Royal society that the introduction of "the gravity hypothesis" would not effect the political status quo.).

Of course this is not to say that the scientific method and its likes are bad, actually they are great improvements on what went before, I don't think we would like to find ourselves living in the medieval period, just that they are human creations, can often have highly normative aspects (I'm reading alot on this at the moment actually, treatment of "mental illness" is the classic case. Can give more info if desired.) and are thus flawed instruments, occasionally enlivened by a genius or two. Truth too is a cultural conception, as you say "The Rock is a The Rock" but "the Rock" is also "that rock over there" which is different from "that rock over here" and "that other rock", "a rock I saw once" and "that the third rock from the sun". "Rock" is just a concept we give things which have "rock-ness", how we define that quality is more or less culturally and subjectively imposed.

Also I believe that you are falling into The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness vis-a-vis language. Language I don't think refers to anything real as such - we only think it does, however it only does refer to what our beliefs are about what is real: concepts such as "rock" (and what is the difference between a rock and a stone?) or "computer" (why does every new product need a new word?) or even "man". Ever seen man, not men, but man?

[Alcon]

I don't understand how I'm committing the fallacy if you aren't.  I understand that descriptions of reality can be subjective, and address "essences."  What makes a person the same person if they get amnesia?  All of our cells are replaced gradually, anyway.  Some fundamental concepts are culturally defined.

Again, "a rock is a rock" is not about what a "rock" is.  As I said before, the emphasis is on the tautology, not the description of a rock as having "rock" properties.  "Rock" properties are totally irrelevant to the tautology.  While it's an interesting tangent, it's therefore not pertinent to my original statement.  That is, a rock is not "a rock" because it has rock-like qualities; a rock is a rock because something is itself.

And if you are going to challenge that assumption on the basis of the Misplaced Concreteness fallacy, you've essentially misplaced concreteness in the fallacy's validity. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We agree, hurray. My misplaced concreteness comment was based on how you refer to language as refering in itself to reality (or at least my perception that it does) rather than how reality is perceived.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes it is, It is making a statement that it is a 'rock' and thus not a stone, a pebble, a turtle or anything else. This linguistic judgement is subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Tautology however is only possible with language. "The Rock is a rock", perhaps so, but to paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends on your definition of "is". It is also "that rock over there". Anyway tautologies are abstractions, the rock over there exists, "the rock" does not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A rock is something which we have defined as a "rock" (and thus not "a stone" and etc) thus talking about the properties of "rockness" or the thing which we have defined as a "rock" is a logical collarly to that. It is the definition.

I think the problem is here is that we both making some subtly different metaphysical assumption, but defining it is difficult.

[Alcon]

We agree, hurray. My misplaced concreteness comment was based on how you refer to language as refering in itself to reality (or at least my perception that it does) rather than how reality is perceived.

Yes it is, It is making a statement that it is a 'rock' and thus not a stone, a pebble, a turtle or anything else. This linguistic judgement is subjective.

How does it preclude it from being anything else? 

The idea I'm advancing is the reflexive property (x=x) and nothing else.  I don't think that is what you are responding to, considering "rockness" is an irrelevant property to reflexive logic.  The only cultural judgments I have to make in such a situation is that "something is itself."

Perhaps I can put it better this way, x being a specific property:  "if object is x, then object cannot also not be x."

My intent wasn't to drag in the frequent subjectiveness of x into the argument.  I think my original response (this may be another topic though, tbh) pertained to the idea that the logical operation of consistency is not a purely cultural construct.  Under such a scenario, "rockness" is taken as an axiom by both parties, so I don't think what you're arguing is for the most part situationally relevant.

I think the problem is here is that we both making some subtly different metaphysical assumption, but defining it is difficult.

Yeah, I don't think we disagree very much at all, if we do.  Which seems pretty inevitable in this sort of topic.