"Ok, so do you view gravity as subjective? - J." As a word and a concept, of course!
On Oct 28, 7:49 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Ok, so do you view gravity as subjective? > > J. > > “Red is a word used to refer to a light wavelength of about 650 nm. > Whether you can see it or not or whether it looks purple to you does > not change the wavelength. We use different words to refer to > different wavelengths for simplicity sake. Red is red regardless of > ones perception of it.” - J. > > Apparently you are using a limited and pseudoscientific epistemology. > ‘We’ don’t even know what waves nor light are. Tell me you don’t > accept the uncertainty principle. You further suggest that ‘we’ know > what a color is even if we can’t see it and don’t use a word for it. A > strange view indeed! Earlier the notion of scientific dogma arose. > Please tell me it ain’t so Joe! > > And, of course, your belief about what red is certainly ‘works’, > similar to how those who thought the world was flat found that model > to work too. Seen any gravitons recently? Oh, and those who followed > relativism thought that matched ‘reality’ for a while too. Now some > are crunching mathematical formulas from the 1800’s and proposing such > mental machinations tell us what ‘reality’ is…as in M-branes, etc. In > the future, these ontological views will become relegated to the same > bin as voodoo. Oh, wait, that system still exists and is at the center > of different groups of human being’s ontology today! > > “Sure you don't mean "perspective"? If red looks gray to you it is > because of your perspective. It is still a wavelength of 650 nm > regardless of perspective or perception. The lord invented the > oscilloscope so that the color > blind can know the color red in a mathematical way.” - J. > > No, I would have used the term ‘perspective’ if I had meant it. And, > of course red is not “a wavelength of 650 nm” at all. One can use > devices to measure what may appear to be waves and find a specific > measurement, one that is relative too, and say that is what light is. > It isn’t. It is a measurement of an appearance and nothing more. For > some, it is found to be a useful belief to hold in that it can result > in some predictable outcomes. So, this is all fine. It isn’t what > light is. > > “…so that the color blind can know the color red in a mathematical > way…”???? Well, yes, you can give the association of what can be seen > in a measuring device, by those with eyes as being something that > furthers knowledge. However, again, it is not what light is. Any > scientist will tell you this. Your words even tell us that it is not > what ‘is’. It is a knowing “in a mathematical way”, whatever that is. > We all know that analogies are analogies. An analysis is an analysis. > As useful as these methods are, they do not tell us ‘what is’. > > For once I would appreciate the materialists to look at their own > words: > > “Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, > observable, testable with instrumentation.” – humanism > > While a bit of the semantics can obfuscate, in the context of my > original posting, any concept is subjective/relative by definition. > ‘Black’ is a concept. Red is one too. Even the phrase “Black is not > red.”, being composed of words, is subjective. One can believe that > they know this to be true, thus hold to a dogma about notions of the > day, imposed or accepted, it makes little difference. And, when tools > are brought in and observed by humans, whether repeatable or not, the > result, while perhaps ‘true’, as I’ve already said, such testing, > based on learned methods, measurements and generally quaint > epistemological views, is subjective/relative in nature. All such > notions/beliefs are dependent upon other notions. Being dependent, > they have no inherent existence of their own. This is a very old yet > tried and true understanding of what appearances are. > > Only the absolute (a noun) is objective. How else could it be in any > ultimate sense? > > On Oct 27, 9:44 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > Sure you don't mean "perspective"? If red looks gray to you it is > because of > > your perspective. It is still a wavelength of 650 nm regardless of > > perspective or perception. The lord invented the oscilloscope so that > the color > > blind can know the color red in a mathematical way. > > > J. > > > In a message dated 10/27/2008 11:28:07 P.M. Central Daylight Time, > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > “Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, > > observable, testable with instrumentation.” – humanism > > > The topic was truth. I merely gave an example of something that is > > ‘true’, but since it is relative, it is subjective. The very term red > > is a learned concept. It is a word and as such is relative/subjective. > > It is not objective. We are not born with it. Some people are born > > with no sight. For them, the notion of red is meaningless. Those who > > are red/green blind have similar issues, even though they can see > > something, they do not see what you see as being ‘red’. This is what I > > mean by subjective. The notion is dependent upon something else. It is > > relative. Like you choose to define ‘objective’ in a different way > > than I have used it and the result is a disagreement based upon each > > of our differing thoughts. Subjective. > > > This, by the way is also true. : - ) > > > On Oct 27, 6:40 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Black is not red is not subjective it is objective, measurable, > > observable, > > > testable with instrumentation. > > > > J. > > > > “…Is truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing?…” – Stem > > > > No. > > > > There are subjective truths…including things like black is not red. > > > Truths based upon at least one person's apprehension of appearances is > > > another way of saying this. For the above example, a blind person > > > would not agree that black is not red is a truth, unless one is only > > > talking about the words/concepts and not the thing itself. > > > > There are ultimate truths. Truths having to do with the absolute are > > > in this category. Things like, all is one. > > > > On Oct 27, 1:20 PM, stem cell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Oran. said this >>> ultimate truth <<< > > > > > How is that different from omega-truth? A smidgen of truth? etc.? > Is > > > > truth not truth? Is it not all or nothing? How can a woman be a > > > > little pregnant? > > > > > stem cell > > > > > by the way, truthfully, great thread. :-) > > > > > On Oct 27, 11:40 am, ornamental mind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > “Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean > that > > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we > will > > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's > left > > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific theories > > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > > occurring forever.” – Taylor > > > > > > A few observations here Taylor. First, I'm not sure which ‘truth’ > you > > > > > are talking about when associating the term with science. Is it > some > > > > > sort of ultimate truth? A unified theory? Perhaps you have addressed > > > > > this elsewhere, but in context your intention is not clear to me. It’ > s > > > > > almost a tautology. > > > > > > As to your apparently rhetorical question about an ontology based > on > > > > > possibilities, perhaps anything at all is ‘possible’? Not > wishing to > > > > > enter into a formal debate here, but it would seem that numerous > > > > > fallacies are included within that notion. > > > > > > As to your last speculation, while, again, perhaps anything is > > > > > ‘possible’, in this context, the reverse is more probable, being > the > > > > > simplest ‘answer’. Perhaps it is a similar thing to one of Zen’s > > > > > paradoxes? > > > > > > All of this said, I do appreciate your candor and openness in this > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > On Oct 27, 7:56 am, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > <<OK. But Popper?>> > > > > > > > Quote mining. > > > > > > > Science is certainly a quest for truth, but that doesn't mean > that > > > > > > truth can never be achieved. Isn't it possible that someday we > will > > > > > > have explained every observable aspect of nature, and all that's > > left > > > > > > is engineering? The fact that we keep replacing scientific > theories > > > > > > with new ones that are better doesn't mean that this will keep > > > > > > occurring forever.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your > > favorites, > > > no registration required and great graphics – check it out! > > > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?red... > > Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your > favorites, > > no registration required and great graphics – check it out! > > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?red... Hide > quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > **************Play online games for FREE at Games.com! All of your favorites, > no registration required and great graphics – check it out! > (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1211202682x1200689022/aol?redir=http://www.games.com?ncid=emlcntusgame00000001)- > Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
