Hi there Sheldon 
I’d just like to ask if you can understand the Venn diagrams I’ve been using in this thread, the questions I’ve been asking and the points I’ve been making?
Thanks,
Walter
I really have to go out for a bit now, but I will try and get back to this later. Remind me with a PM if I forget.
Not quite, rat_spit.
We agree that you, me and Sheldon can communicate because we share something in common. In your parlance that would be… participating in the same rational order. In the wording of the diagram that would be… experiencing a common reality and a common truth via the agreed rules of language.
Where you and I seem to be disagreeing is the degree or extent language allows us to share and experience the subjective experiences of others.
Would that be a fair summary of our relative positions?
I think Ratty is referring to the term used to describe the motivating power behind creation, civilisation etc.
The Jesus figure was referred to as “The Word” by some early followers of “the Way” (also translated as “The Word”…
1 Like
If an experience is entirely subjective, then no one else can know what we experience, they can only speculate.
NB, it is an important distinction here, we may “know” that they experience something, as there may be objective markers or evidence, but we cannot know what they experience.
Also….Brian…he was not the Messiah, just a very very naughty boy.
I may have had too much wine…
1 Like
I agree Sheldon.
Btw, do my Venn diagrams adequately show this?
With you, me and rat_spit at first totally isolated from each other, each in own ‘bubbles’ of subjectivity?
Then with the three of us partially connected through language, but with our own subjective experiences still locked inside our own particular bubbles?
Language allowing each of us to ‘know’ that the others have experienced something, but not what they have experienced?
1 Like
Yes this is the point I have been trying to explain, and with each new example ratty presents he confirms this of course.
1 Like
Indeed.
But I suppose what you and I can’t know is if he can’t see it or if he can see it but won’t accept it.
I recall a Bible study where an argument developed between two deeply devout Christians about the meaning of 1 Corinthians 11 : 1, where the apostle Paul wrote, “Imitate me, just as I imitate Christ.”
One said that it meant the Christians in the church of Corinth should imitate Paul because they had seen him but that had never seen Christ. Therefore, they could not imitate someone they had never seen with their own eyes. Imitation of Christ through faith was impossible because faith relies on what is NOT seen, as per Hebrews 11 : 1, not what is seen. So, clearly 1 Corinthians 11 : 1 did not mean imitation by faith but imitation by actual observation - meaning that they should imitate Paul because they had seen him and not Christ.
The other Christian disagreed, saying that this gave a licence and precedent for Christians to imitate flawed and sinful people, when we should be seeking to imitate only Jesus Christ, who alone is perfect, sinless and who alone is worthy of imitation.
I stayed out of the disagreement, even though I could see both sides of the argument.
But the point I’m making here Sheldon was that this was a disagreement of understanding between two people of good faith, not arguing for their own personal interests but for the sake of a wider principle than themselves. They genuinely seemed unable to see each other’s viewpoints rather than seeing each other’s and then refusing to accept them.
Which brings me back to where you and I are. Do we think that rat_spit genuinely cannot see what we’ve been at pains to point out to him or do we think that he can but just won’t accept it? If it’s the former, then there’s hope that he can be shown what he currently cannot see. But if it’s the latter, then we are facing a barrier of the human will rather than a barrier of human comprehension. The first can be overcome with time and patience, but the second cannot be overcome, no matter how much time and patience we commit to the task.
What do you think about this? Where do you think we are with him?
Thank you,
Walter.
In my experience people can see what you’re saying but simply don’t accept it as valid.
And I would not say that it’s then hopeless; some of them will evolve or change due to life experiences and be more open to assessing their beliefs critically. They are just not ready.
I was told various things that I could not accept and later in life I remembered those things and reconsidered them. The example that is top of mind right now is a psychiatrist who warned me of what I was facing if I married my first wife (his patient). She was already diagnosed with severe mental illness. I was not ready to accept his warnings because, ya know, love conquers all, and God helps us if we dare to trust him, and so forth. After a few years of everything he predicted coming true, I reconsidered. So it goes.
Well, I appreciate your thoughts, recollections and input Mordant. But I suppose it’s my bad for not being more specific and making it clear that I was talking only in terms of this thread and this forum.
I’m proceeding from my knowledge of threads in Christianforums.com, which ran into hundreds of pages, with thousands of posts. Threads where the participants were locked in trials of strength of will with each other, determined to get the other to yield. I haven’t checked in there for a number of years so its quite possible that these marathon threads have been taken down. But they did exist.
I’ve no wish to inflict that kind of selfishness on this forum if the current impasse in this thread is a matter of will not accept rather than cannot see.
Which is why I await Sheldon’s thoughts on this. But I do thank you anyway.
Walter.
Anything that doesn’t involve numbers and a measured unit is kind of subjective, imo.
I don’t think you comprehend my understanding of language. I’ve explained it to you a few times now. Language is capable of describing any experience. The degree to which two or more people will agree on any commonality is a function of shared experience. For example, and again I’m repeating myself. Two people who’ve experienced ego annihilation will be able to agree on the nature of the experience by use of language in spite of the fact that it is a concept and phenomenon which is extremely difficult to put into words. For someone who has never experienced the phenomenon, no amount of linguistic translation will transmit knowledge. That is my stance.
That’s partially my point. In the gospel, Jesus is this transcendent phenomenon of the “Word” - pointing back to the Creation story where God said “Let there be light” and there was. So yes, this is emblematic of what I mean. But more precisely I am referring to the fact that language transcends the chasm of experience which separates all beings from other beings. Although we are phenomenally “alone” in the universe we are also “not” because we can communicate.
We can absolutely know one hundred percent. I’ve used the ego annihilation as a very clear example. I don’t know where your doubt stems from. Or how me and my friend are not 100% able to agree on the nature of ego annihilation - even though it’s an entirely subjective experience. What is stopping us from agreeing? Why would I even entertain a semblance of doubt?
While you’re dreaming you gather objective evidence to prove it is not real? What kind of weird dreams are you having, Sheldon?
And yet you’re absolutely certain while in a dream that it is your reality. All of the objects in the dream can be interacted with. The dream is even more real in the sense that it seems to have a trajectory in terms of sequences of events. In other words, you don’t know it’s quote unquote “unreal” until you wake up. In fact, you’re under the conviction that it is “real” while absorbed in it. And if you were to say, die - while in a dream: you would have no other impression of reality as having consisted of anything other than the reality of a dream. So, for you to say that waking reality is somehow more “objectively real” than dreaming reality is really just a form of bias on your part.
If you’re able to prove that there is some brain state which correlates directly to the dream state I’d be happy to see the evidence. For the time being, it’s fair to say that you do not know what a dream is and the label you give it of being “subjective” is product of your ignorance. If, for example, we developed technology which would allow other people to view the contents of another persons dream it would cease to be subjective.
Sure it does. If that is the realm of experience in which they function, then that is the realm of reality in which they function. Dreams and revelations have rules, order, meaning - which are all properties of things which exist according to objective metrics. It’s almost as if you want to get away with lumping dreams and revelations together with categories like those which Santaclaus and the tooth fairy are in.
They exists in relation to what appear to be well ordered laws and principles. We do not currently understand the nature of those laws and principles so we cannot predict or measure how things which exist exclusively in the mind tend to operate. But it is evident that “subjecive” experiences operate according to “objective” principles. And in that sense they are “real”. After all things are only real because they present themselves in well ordered, predictable, and repeatable ways. This is the ordinance of scientific measurement - that a thing which is measured remains the same upon further measurement.
As I’ve explained above a thing is not “unreal” because it is entirely “subjective”. If my mind is the plane of existence where revelation and dreams, for example, happen according to objectively measurable metrics, then so be it. That is where they happen. And to the extent that they do occur in the mind, faithfully and according to measurable principles - they are entirely real.
Perhaps you live to much in the world of the seen. Perhaps it would do you well to live for a while in the world of the unseen?
What’s your point? I will not dismiss it out of pure skepticism. I will dismiss it when and if I get a chance to investigate the claim.
Except that concepts like “mermaids” are pure fiction. When we say “mermaids are not real” that is entirely different than saying “dreams are not real” or “revelations are not real”. Mermaids in fact do not happen. That is the sense in which they “are not real”. Dreams and revelations do in fact happen and they happen in predictable ways. To that extent they have objectively measurable properties and they are real to the same extent that anything which can happen in the mind is real.
Well, I can’t convince you in any objective sense that my revelation was from a deity. In fact, you would also have to have had a revelation. Of course, not the same one - but an actual revelation. In this case we could speak about it in real terms and agree upon various features of the deity. As such we could agree between ourselves that the deity is in fact real. To that extent there are ways to talk objectively about the deity.
I didn’t cite “string theory”. I cited the measurement paradox which is hard scientific fact produced by basic quantum mechanics. The outcome of the measurement paradox clearly is at odds with objective reality and yet we accept it as true. In fact the measurement paradox suggests that the very things we call “objects” are in fact not “objects” at all. They are only “objective” when they are being measured. When they are not being measured they are “probable” and “undefined”.
The point I was making was that you’re concept of reality as described by the metric of “objectivity” is a flimsy one - even according to the very methods which you claim are in place to remove bias. That being said, the nature of unobserved reality is far stranger than your so called “methods of objective measurement” can account for. And given this is the case, it shouldn’t surprise you that there is another realm of reality in which supernatural phenomena are capable of existing - and not by mere appearance - according also to well established rules and principles.
Again, your insistence on the “objective” nature of reality is fallible. Your own metrics of measurement have established that reality is only “objective” when it is being measured. Your bias is measurement itself. The very thing that you suppose grants you assurance in your belief is also that which imposes the nature of your belief. There is an entirely different set of principles which operate outside of the realm of “measurable objects”.
No. Of course I will not accept mistaken claims about non-existent objects as pertaining in any way to reality. That of course has nothing to do with a revelation, which is closer to the reality or a dream than it is to the reality of a fictitious object. The comparison is a false equivalence on your part.
The comparison doesn’t hold up. Mermaids are the subject of complete fiction and are not products of “bias” - in fact, they are “mistaken”. A revelation or a dream (for that matter) rest on reliable and repeatable principles. You can say that a mermaid and a revelation are both products of the mind. But you cannot say that a compelled fictitious thing like a mermaid is comparable to a well ordered and principled phenomena like a revelation from a deity.
It really doesn’t matter. Your own reality doesn’t even “exist physically” according to the best science and tools of measurement available to you. In such a case, why would I have to justify the existence of mind made realities as being any less “real” than the ones you observe in your waking hours?
My whole case has rested on the observable appearance of the revelation. I have argued that an act of disclosure by a deity which is in the form of a supreme demonstration that appears in relationship to the five senses are reliable sources of knowledge. I will concede that such demonstrations are subjective in the sense that they occur to individuals in their mind. But as for the “reality” and thus the “truth” of these demonstrations, I will refer you again to your own definition of “real” which cannot hold any water. Your definition of real applies only when you intend for it to be real. My definition of real, as in the content and structure of a dream or a revelation - need not be personally intended and in fact seems to operate best when the element of applied measurement is not in place.
Which is a ridiculous line of reasoning based on the underlying assumption that the future has already happened.
If the state of affairs are such that the future is in fact a set of possibilities which have not yet happened then to be omniscient would be to simultaneously know all of the possible states of future existences without ever having to settle on any one of them. That definition seems in fact to make Him even more powerful than a being who merely can see events that have yet to happen but most certainly will happen.
Since possibilities exist also as probabilities, it is far more accurate to label a being as “omniscient” who can hold all of the possibilities in his mind (without ever needing to see a single predetermined moment). It’s a laughable feature of a limited being who assumes that an all knowing being would be limited to defining future realities.
An all knowing being would be able to see all possibilities at once. An all powerful being would be able to arbitrarily choose from any of those possibilities. An all powerful being would also be able to change those possibilities arbitrarily.
Thus the future would never have to be “defined” in any sense. And an all knowing all powerful being could both know and alter the future according to its nature or existence which, by the way, is also “omnibenevolent” - in other word - “all wise” - desiring the greatest possible good for all beings.
And such an omniscience is a “present-state” knowledge. To understand all future possibilities in a single moment is an infinite state of being. Since that momentary state of being was shared with me and I am in fact merely a limited being who measures time by limited ideas of cause and effect (as well as by concepts of “then and now”) it is fair to conclude that the subject matter of my revelations must point to the existence of a deity - since I am not personally capable of being omniscient on my own - and “omniscience” was “shared” with me by the simple virtue of having encountered it. The mere fact that I can give an explanation of omniscience which doesn’t contradict itself (whereas your limited understanding cannot) is evidence that I have really encountered it - and - in fact - have encountered it by way of contact with the deity.
Yes, I agree. I don’t comprehend your understanding of language.
But that’s only because your understanding is atypical and anomalous, possibly to the point of being flawed and faulty. You’ve levelled the accusation of blindness at me and in response to that I asked Sheldon if he could understand what I’ve been saying and he replied in the affirmative. Mordant understands me too. So, are they blind as well? Or is it more likely your understanding and usage of language is the problem here? That you are the outlier and most of us represent the median?
The rules and conventions of language follow the median and not the outlying positions. Things are best understood between people when the maximum number all agree upon what those rules and conventions are. But when some people flout them and go off on their own personal journeys of meaning and understanding, then problems arise.
Ok, there are some individuals who chafe at being constrained by the rules and standards of the general populace. But if they really want to communicate better with others then the onus is upon them to conform to the median. Not for them to expect the bulk of population to conform to their idiosyncrasies and unique understanding. Language is a joint enterprise, after all and not solo activity.
Now to your stance.
Your stance is that any two people who have undergone the subjective experience of ego death will be able to successfully communicate that fact to each other, because they have a shared experience. That is your claim.
But the very logic and wording of claim means that your claim cannot be verified in this forum until such time as another member of this forum has experienced ego for themselves. Then and only then would you and they be able to successfully communicate this fact between yourselves.
Therefore, by your own words your claim (stance) cannot currently be substantiated in this forum.
Yet you persist in making this claim, even in the knowledge that no unsubstantiated claims are ever accepted in this forum of sceptics. Knowing this, why would a reasonable and rational person continue in doing something that they themselves know cannot succeed?
I don’t know the answer to this question. Do you?
Ego annihilation is an entirely subjective idea, that two (or more) people imagine the same thing doesn’t make it any less subjective. I have explained to point of tedium why I doubt claims that are entirely subjective, lets spare everyone a needless repetition here.
Well you have switched from a hypothetical revelation to a dream now, but either way, if anything I imagine is unsupported by any objective evidence, then I would remain dubious about claims it was real.
No, of course I am not, we don’t each have our own objective reality, and dreams are by definition entirely subjective.
I never said this or anything like. Dreams, are entirely subjective by definition. There is no bias in this assertion, none.
Subjective OED
Based on personal opinions, feelings, or interpretations, rather than being grounded in external, verifiable facts. It pertains to the mind of the individual rather than the physical reality.
No it is not “fair to say” any such thing, by definition dreams remain an entirely subjective experience to anyone who can read a dictionary. Your claims are at odds with the OED definition of subjective, how is that bias on your part indicative of bias by me?
Real (Merriam Webster)
Anything that has objective, independent existence in the physical world and is not artificial, fraudulent, or imaginary. It describes facts, objects, or states of being that act upon actuality rather than simply existing as an idea or within the imagination.
So again by definition something that only exists in the imagination is not real.
No it is not evident at all, quite the opposite is true of some things we imagine, whether what we imagine is true depends on whether it can be objectively evidenced, if not and it exists only in our imagination then it is entirely subjective. real things are part of objective reality, by definition.
They are mutually exclusive concepts, so either you are wrong or the Oxford English dictionary is wrong, I don’t believe the OED has wrongly defined the words subjective or real, ipso facto…you are wrong. Occam’s razor applied.
They are not reliable, since such experiences vary, and you yourself have admitted all the people who imagine countless deities that are not the one you imagine are probably confused, that is the opposite of reliable.
That was clearly not the concept that I was pointing out, as anyone can see above, I was pointing out the entirely subjective nature of claims to have seen a mermaid, and to have experienced a deity. Neither claim can be objectively verified in any way, that’s the point I was making.
I know, and believing one claim for divine revelation would leave no unbiased reason to deny all the other claims for revelation for all the countless deities humans have imagined.
We could both agree mermaids have tails and scales, and that unicorns have horns, do you really imagine this lends any credence to them being real? Nor would such comparisons be objective, that people imagine things that seem similar, does not make them objectively real.
My Apologies, either way there is no scientific evidence for any deity, just flip on any news channel to see this much.
You mean it seems to be at odds with our understanding of reality, that is not the same claim, since it involves an as yet unsolved scientific idea. Clearly methods like science that remove as much subjective bias as possible and use objectively verifiable evidence are exponentially more reliable than entirely subjective ideas, pointing out that methods like science are not infallible and still leave much unknown rather misses this point, since no one is claiming that science or any human method is or can be infallible.
no I would not call it flimsy at all, since science has been exponentially more successful at understanding reality than any other method.
And of course if we had no method any better than unevidenced assumptions based subjective experience, this wouldn’t make them or the claims derived remotely reliable at all, you seem to be playing at whataboutism.
An appeal to mystery, yes theistic apologists seem to love these, but you and I are aware of the flaw in any argument that uses argumentum ad ignorantiam rationale.
Yet it remains exponentially more reliable than entirely subjective beliefs,
I never claimed they were equivalent, so there is no fallacy? The comparison was solely that the two claims have zero objective evidence to support them, and both rely on entirely subjective experience. That one is widely accepted as fictitious, and the other widely held subjective religious belief is irrelevant to that point.
Yes it absolutely does, if the comparison is that they are both entirely subjective claims, unsupported by any objective evidence. Why wouldn’t this fact be relevant to how reliable the claims are? People imagine they have experienced mermaids, people imagine they have experienced deities, in the absence of any corroborating objective evidence only bias could separate those claims.
I think it matter a great deal. If someone chose to define deities as fictitious, would accept this arbitrary definition? It’d certainly shorten the debate.
I don’t have my own reality, and of course you’re using whataboutism now, but even if you could tear down objective reality, and I am dubious, this does not evidence anything, all you’d do is make other methods as unreliable as basing belief on entirely subjective personal experience.
Just as the mermaid sightings do, but on nothing that is objectively verifiable.
If they’re reliable why do they arrive at wildly differing deities and religions, and why did you claim anyone who used this and imagined a deity different to yours was confused? That doesn’t sound reliable to me.
On the other hand Muslims don’t have different scientific facts to Hindus, anymore than Jews do to Christians, that’s the difference.
I don’t have my own definition, it’s in the dictionary, which reflects common usage. So I have no idea what straw man you’re about to claim doesn’t hold water, but it’s not relevant.
I made no such assumption? read it again more carefully.
So it would not know everything then, in my example the deity imagined was claimed to literally know everything, of course people imagine different deities.
It’s not all knowing if it doesn’t know, exactly which one will happen. If it does then any autonomy of choice for it or us would be an illusion.
It wasn’t my understanding, it was the way the concept was presented to me by a religious apologist, and no, imagining something so that it doesn’t violate a law of logic, is not evidence that what you’ve imagined is real.
Actually, it is an area of clinical research: Finding the self by losing the self: Neural correlates of ego‐dissolution under psilocybin
While the semantics may vary, as in ego annihilation\death\dissolution is a very real, scientifically documented psychological phenomenon.
Now, how two different people explain the experience is likely to vary wildly.
It would be similar to the same problem police and prosecutors experience when faced with an influx of witnesses. The layers of psychological noise, conflicting data, and systemic bias introduces “evidentiary inflation.”
I believe ratty was referring to a religious experience of course, given the context and the lack of any corroborating evidence, but this is a great example of an objectively verifiable phenomenon, as opposed to an entirely subjective one.
We (ratty and I) had a lengthy discussion once, hell they’re all lengthy, about the subjective nature of pain, and why I believed pain was real if it was a subjective experience etc etc, again it was the case that there are objective markers or indicators that someone is experiencing pain, but the actual experience of pain is subjective.
I’ve done a some digging on ego death / annihilation too, cynical1.
It may well exist.
But rat_spit has shot himself in the foot when it comes to presenting objective evidence for it.
According to his own words, another person in this forum would also need to have experienced it for the two of them to agree that they had both experienced the same thing.
So, until another member of this forum steps forward for rat_spit to compare notes with, his claims that two people would agree about it cannot be tested. This is a rod that he’s made for his own back.
When it comes to the reality of ego death / annihilation, it could be a real thing. But its on the same footing as me suffering from toothache as I write these words. Both ego death and toothache are entirely subjective experiences for the person experiencing them.
There’s no way, just using the words that appear on your computer that I could present sufficient objective evidence to convince you that I’ve got toothache. The same limitation applies to rat_spit. There’s no way he could present convincing objective of his ego death any more than I can do so for my toothache.
Think about it for a minute. To you I’m not a real person at all. I’m a series of words appearing on your computer. Using only these words, how could you possibly know if I’ve got toothache?
The simple answer is that you can’t. It’s impossible. But somehow rat_spit can’t accept that or won’t accept that.
Thank you,
Walter.
1 Like