Okay, thanks for clarifying. "Is Real" = exists objectively. "Exists" may be subjective or objective. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The first part is concise. I think the second part should be "Exists" = is either subjective or objective, unless you clarify why you used "may".

Yes, I knew you were having that discussion with Bob Ross, and it was confusing me because I didn't understand your terms. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Ok, I hope we are on the same page right now, regarding the definitions.

Appearance of bear when there is no bear: subjective. In your terms: exists, but not real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

The confusion is real in the sense that it affects you somehow. But I distinguish between this real and the real in my first comment. All our experiences are real in this sense.

Imagining a unicorn: ditto — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Imagining a unicorn is another activity.

Seeing the bear which is really in the woods: objective. In your terms: exists, and is real. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, the bear exists and is real, given the definition of "exists" and "is real" in my first comment.

I hope I've got that straight! — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Please let me know if you are happy with what I said. Otherwise, let me know.

This is disanalogous to allowing evil. An analogous version of your example would be: “Would you make a car that works fine but you knew someone else could come and mess it up?”. — Bob Ross

Are you referring to the story of Adam and Eve? This story is nonsense! The God you are defending is out of discussion since He is less than you. Adam and Eve were put in a sinful situation in which God knew in advance that they would sin! They were also lied to by the snake/Satan! And people are here, part of them suffering for no rational reason. What are their faults? Why should they be held here for the sin that the Parents did? Does any of these make any sense to you?

Yes, but this doesn’t mean that those things are not subject to change. — Bob Ross

Yes, but in a perfect creation, all changes are perfect as well. So there could be a creation in which wrongdoing/sin does not exist within. Our universe is not perfect. A perfect God does not make such a thing.

But this makes your argument weaker; because then perfection isn’t about goodness necessarily, since God could create being without pain or pleasure—e.g., a rock. — Bob Ross

Yes, perfection is not about goodness or evilness. It is about doing things always right, whether good, evil, or neutral.

A masochist doesn’t prefer evil; they does mis-hierarchize or misunderstand the goods. — Bob Ross

No, they just like pain in a certain part of their body. And, they don't misunderstand the good.

Specifically, they will in accord with getting a euphoric high where pain is the means and not the end. To truly prefer evil, is to will it as an end. — Bob Ross

A masochist is not a perfect evil creature.

well, the brain builds only a model, a representation of the object "reality". — Ulthien

I think that the brain is the infrastructure that mainly allows minds to interact with each other. There is also the object between the brain and the mind.

We have an interface that represents the outer world in the mind, so it is always only subjective. — Ulthien

We have the mind. The mind, however, has only direct access to experience.

U2 - Endless Deep



U2 - Where The Streets Have No Name

well one can be a dualist, but it's better to be a trialist:

matter-brain
energy-EM field of it
mind-reflective inner property of the energy field in conjunction with the neural antennae :) — Ulthien

Yes, there are more substances involved in creatures that can think. We need three substances for perception and causation, so-called: the brain, the object, and the mind. The mind does not directly perceive neural processes in the brain, but the object. The result of the perception of the object by the mind is what we call experience. Creating a new idea, by the new idea I mean the spark created by the mind, is the main duty of the mind. The idea then translates to thoughts, then the language, and then the result is reported to other minds. I think that the subconscious minds are also involved in our daily activities, including thinking.

the 3 levels are intricately woven into the same machine. Akin to mobile telephony where we have hardware, air protocols (in the field!) and programs-software :) — Ulthien

Yes, three substances are minimal for each individual! There could be more.

i would say that thoughts are a sequence of qualia (feels of concepts) that follow in quick succession. — Ulthien

Correct.

On brain scans, we can follow these for a few seconds, and then the brain rests for a few - evaluating "the feel of it" & then it triggers another thought. — Ulthien

Yes, the brain is involved. We, however, should not forget the contribution of the mind, since that is the mind which causes change in the object. It is also influenced by the content of the brain, referred to as experience.

This cycle never ends :) — Ulthien

How do you know? Do you believe that knowledge is endless?

That is how our cybernetics modelling regulator - the brain, works. — Ulthien

That is one of my main struggles right now: How does a human think?

Patanjali in his Yogasutras calls this Cittavrti aka mind-spinning. — Ulthien

I don't understand what that means. I am a substance dualist.

That's a very broad question. I think it comes down perhaps to evangelical zeal and praxis, although providence is another option!

But Christianity did a lot that was new, particularly through synthesis, including its understanding of the resurrection and judgement, and divine union. It just wasn't a totally new idea. Also, the OT leaves Sheol/Hades very ambiguous and my understanding is that there were vying interpretations in the Second Temple period. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the information!

Is there really no term or concept (even if it's not a simple one or two length word) synonymous with "Qualia". — Outlander

To me, Qualia are the texture of the experience. So it is the texture when it is applied to the experience.

It's an invented term, presumably because no word suited what whomever coined it presumes or otherwise postulates it describes. Is there really no single word synonymous beyond the definition? — Outlander

It is the texture.

Is it not "experience" (perhaps as it relates to the brain-mind model)? — Outlander

Experience, to me, is a mental event. Experience, to me, is the result of the mind perceiving a substance. I have a thread on substance dualism where I discussed this. Physicalism is out of discussion. I have a thread on "Physical cannot be the cause of its own change". Idealism is out of discussion as well, since it cannot answer why the ideas are coherent.

Sorry, our math contemplations do contain a lot of fine qualia that are not so maybe prominent as other stronger qualia, but can still very much be sensed: i.e. rapture, elation, insight, direction, similarity - all of these are qualia feels, too. :)

We could posit that basically ALL of the contents of the conscious aware process are different levels of qualia, actually... (?) — Ulthien

Very well said. I would say that thoughts are also a form of Qualia.

As you note, this is also present in what is often taken to be the latest book of the OT, Daniel (although some still argue for an earlier, exilic dating). There is also Ezekiel's vision of the Valley of Dry Bones coming back to life, which is almost always dated to the Babylonian Exile and thought to be the work of a single man for various textual reasons (593-571 BC). The idea of the resurrection shows up in some of the Septuagint texts, but the most relevant point is that Jewish belief (and lack of belief) in the resurrection of the dead was a hot issue by the time of Christ's ministry and Acts actually has Saint Paul playing different camps off against each other on this issue when he is hauled in for questioning.

"Platonism," broadly speaking, had also already worked its way into Judaism by this point. It's in the Old Testament wisdom literature, Sirach, but particularly The Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo, probably the most famous ancient Jewish Platonist, was writing when Jesus was young. So, Platonism (as a broad set of Middle Platonist ideas) has a doorway into Christian thought because it is already a potent force in the Roman Empire and within its Jewish communities, and because it is in some ways written right into OT and NT texts (e.g., Wisdom and John). — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the information! :up:

So, in your opinion, what was the reason that Christianity has been so successful? It didn't bring any new idea at all, or I am missing something!

Surely, artificial intelligence mimics reasoning — but does it actually reason? — Wayfarer

If by reasoning you mean the ability to think, then I have to say that we still don't know how humans think; therefore, we cannot build something with the ability to think until we understand how we think.

And the definition of exists depends on the definition of reality, so the combination is circular. — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Correct. So, I need to provide an example to illustrate what I mean by "exist". When something, such as a human, exists, it is a part of reality. By reality, I mean the set of all objects, whether mental or non-mental. Mental objects, such as experiencing the red color of a rose, and non-mental objects, such as a cup of tea. So, something can be unreal yet still exist, such as an experience. In the same manner, something can be real and exist, such as matter. Something that does not exist cannot be real. And eventually, nothing is defined as something that does not exist and is not real. I have to say, making the distinction between existence and real started from a post by me that from which Bob agreed that evil exists, but it is not real. The story is long, so please read the discussion if you are interested.

Is the distinction you're trying to make here between objective reality and merely subjective experience? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

Yes, that is a part of the discussion.

For example, I seem to be seeing a bear in the woods, but it is only a tree stump, or I am imagining a unicorn, both merely subjective; versus there really being a bear in the woods? — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

I don't understand how this example is proper to what you said before? Do you mind elaborating?

Good memory from my youth when I preferred love over peace!

Sonique - It Feels So Good

You conflated God doing wrong with allowing wrong. — Bob Ross

No. Let me give you an example: You are an engineer. Would you make a car that you are sure will not take you to the end of a long journey? No, you wouldn't. I didn't even consider you a perfect being in this example. A perfect engineer cannot make such a car. So it is not about 'wouldn't,' but 'cannot.'

There is no possible world where a perfect being can exist that is not God; which you may use this to argue God shouldn’t create anything then. — Bob Ross

Perfect God can only create perfect things. So, if the creation of a perfect creation is impossible, then there is no creation. There is an imperfect creation. So, either we are blind and cannot see that the creation is perfect, or God is imperfect. Which one do you pick?

However, many people like myself would say that there is nothing wrong with allowing evil if the creation is properly ordered to what is perfectly good. Remember, by evil I am taking a privation theory position. Evil is a lack of goodness: it is not a real property of things but a privation of the real property of goodness. God cannot will for a privation to happen; but He can will things that are good and privations happen somewhere in the interactions between those things.

I think you also might be claiming that if God willed the creation of only good things then they would never be deprived of goodness; but that’s not true. For starters, person’s have free will to will the deprivation of goodness. — Bob Ross

Here, you are talking about an imperfect God.

What I meant to say is that God only wills what is good; and badness is a privation of that good which can occur afterwards. — Bob Ross

Same here. You are talking about an imperfect God.

Goodness as a property is not identical to “pleasurableness”; nor is badness identical to “sufferingness”. Pleasure is good all else being equal and suffering is bad — Bob Ross

In my dictionary, which present my word view, good is related to pleasure and evil is related to pain. Good creatures, like you, prefer good, there are evil creatures who prefer evil too, like masochists. Are you saying that a masochist is bad!? Likeing pain is his part of his nature.

The Cranberries - Zombie

Why? — Bob Ross

I have an argument for that:

P1) Perfect Being, like God, cannot do wrong/sin
P2) Imperfect beings, like creatures, can do wrong/sin
C1) So, there would eventually be sin in an imperfect creation
C2) So, creating an imperfect creation is wrong
C3) Therefore, a perfect God cannot create an imperfect creation (from P1 and C2)

Please note that I did not mention good and evil in my argument. I don't equate good with right and evil with wrong. I already defined good and evil in one of my threads, "From morality to equality". Please find the thread here if you are interested.

Evil is a privation of the good that God always wills. — Bob Ross

I don't understand you! Good God can only will good.

Given your previous elaboration that I didn’t understand — Bob Ross

Which elaboration didn't you understand? I would be happy to provide further explanation.

I don’t think you are talking about good and evil in the classical sense: it seems like you are talking about happiness and suffering. — Bob Ross

Please find my definition of good and evil in my thread that I mentioned in this post.

Allowing for evil is necessary when creating a good world. — Bob Ross

A good God is not allowed to allow evil in His creation. The God of the Old Testament allows evil and good in His creation, though. Good and evil are fundamental features of our experiences. We do things for a reason, which could be pleasure or pain. Therefore, the God of the Old Testament is right since something is missing in a creation without good or evil! Of course, if His intention is to create a universe in which you could find good and evil!

The Cranberries - In The End



Very true:

Ain't it strange
When everything you wanted
Was nothing that you wanted
In the end
Ain't it strange
When everything you dreamt of
Was nothing that you dreamt of
In the end
Take my house, take the car, take the clothes
But you can't take the spirit, take the spirit, take the spirit
But you can't
Ain't it strange
When everything you wanted
Was nothing that you wanted
In the end
Ain't it strange
When everything you dreamt of
Was nothing that you dreamt of
In the end
Take my house, take the car, take the clothes
But you can't take the spirit, take the spirit, take the spirit
But you can't
Take the spirit, take the spirit, take the spirit
Ain't it strange
When everything you wanted
Was nothing that you wanted
In the end

I was suggesting some ways in which God can be the creator of universes, or worlds while not being fully aware (ignorant) of what he was doing. — Punshhh

Wasn't the creation medium necessary? How could an ignorant God create the medium first if He didn't know that the medium was necessary for the creation of the rest?

Yes, so your argument is from Divine Hiddenness. This assumes that it is better for God to reveal Himself constantly to people throughout history than for them to come to know Him from His effects/creation; and I am not so sure that is true, although I get the appeal. — Bob Ross

Why are you unsure Bob? It is obvious that Humans cannot handle the situation well, given all the prophecies, inventions, etc. There is injustice everywhere. I am sure that you are not in favor of war, but there are people suffering from it in certain places. This is God's creation. Would you do the same if you were God? Let's create and let injustice be in it!

I am saying that some things exist but are not real: do you agree with that in principle? — Bob Ross

The experience is the only thing that we have direct access to so we are sure that experience exists but not real (please see the following). The trueness of resst of things is the subject of discussion, for example, external reality. There aree two scenarios available here: 1) You are Omnipresent and 2) You are not omnipresent. In the first case, you are certain about the existence of other things since you experience them all. In the second case, you don't have direct access to things. There is no solid argument for the existence or non-existence of reality as well. So we cannot tell for sure.

There are four combinations that you can make with the two words existence and real by adding the prefix un, including the first case that there is any prefix un: 1) Existence and real, 2) unexistence and unreal, 3) unexistence and real, and 4) existence and unreal. Real is defined as: actually existing as a thing. Existence is defined as: The state of having objective reality. So the definition of real depends on the definition of existence. Please consider the order in these combinations. Given this, (1) is the correct combination, since it refers to the state of affairs that something that exists and is real, like the mind. (2) is a correct combination as well. (3) is definitely a wrong combination. (4) is also a correct combination, like experience. So we are left with the mind and experience. I think you are arguing that goodess and the mind are somehow related. I see no relation between them at all. Good and evil to me are features of our experiences only.

I don't understand how this response could be a proper answer to my question.

The person who says that being killed in the hand of a God who is Just and All Wise is wrong is wrong! Of course, after accepting that such a God exists.

Why would enjoying pain that is caused to you be evil? — MrLiminal

I change your question slightly: Why would liking pain that is caused to you be evil? I distinguish between enjoying and liking. By liking, I mean you prefer something.

Sadists and masochists come to mind. Or the mixed feelings of things like nostalgia. I think you are oversimplifying human emotional range. — MrLiminal

A masochist, for example, is an evil creature. S/he likes evil. What do you mean by mixed feelings? To experience both good and evil? The basic ingredients of such a state are good and evil.

Why do you think that God created us curious? There would be no humanity without curiosity.

What if a person derives pleasure from suffering or suffering from pleasure? — MrLiminal

Can you? The only thing that I am aware of is my mood change, from anger to happiness, for example. I am not denying that moods cannot be interrelated.

I'm not sure this is complex enough a theory to account for the human condition. — MrLiminal

I think it is.

Weezer - Hash Pipe

Long past is gone! Are you saying that we cannot get rid of this habit, you are my enemy at all?

What you get from weapons with which you can kill humans results in human corpses, which we then cry over, and the destruction of what we built, which means burning wealth. To me, it is absurd to use the wealth to burn the wealth! Or do you see any logic behind this that I am not aware of?

I don't see any rationale behind making weapons with which you can kill humans.

I could toss a coin and let you know the result. — Punshhh

Yet the medium was the first creation of God, created among many other things that God could create out of ignorance!?

Or I John 3:2 — "Beloved, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. What we do know is this: when he is revealed, we will be like him, for we will see him as he is." — Count Timothy von Icarus

So why didn't God reveal Himself to Adam and Eve to solve all problems, and instead put them in a sinful situation? What is the purpose of the Tree of Knowledge?

God either created out of ignorance or not. Which one do you pick?

I don’t see why that would be the case. Although maybe you are getting at a divine hiddenness objection. — Bob Ross

We are talking about a God who is Omnipresent, Omniscient, and Omnipotent. Such a God, for example, could present Himself to individuals, so there would be no doubt, and teach the correct way to live life, so there would be nothing wrong. Why does God hide from us? Prophecies have all failed!

I distinguish between being and reality; and you don’t. — Bob Ross

I do.

something is real if and only if it is a member of reality. — Bob Ross

That says nothing to me. To me, real means actually existing as a thing, whether it is different modes of experience or beings.

For example, the color orange that I see, phenomenally, has being but is not a member of reality—so it exists but is not real. — Bob Ross

I cannot see how this follows given my definition of real.

Precisely; this gets highlighted a lot in theology or in "the Bible as literature." Adam and Eve have the right goal, "becoming like onto God," but have approached it in the wrong way. It's an attempt to be like God by turning away from God, which is not how one becomes like God. God alone is subsistent being, "in whom we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:28), so this is also in a sense a turn towards nothingness/mere potentiality, and away from the full actualization of the human being. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I don't recall any verse from the Bible that proposes an alternative way to become Godly.

Well, from the orthodox Christian perspective, they are the same God (Isaiah 45:7 is read in various ways here, often as the text speaking about creating "evil" from the perspective of the wicked, i.e., the wicked see just punishment as "evil"). Most, but certainly not all Christian theology follows a privation theory of evil. Evil has no positive essence. Evil is merely the absence of good. Sickness is just the absence of health, evil an absence of properly actualized virtue/perfection. There is a gradation of goodness in creation, but creation itself is an ordered whole. Hence, God does not create evil. However, since creation is free, it is also capable of turning away from God, the "Fall," and this is how evil, as a privation, emerges. This includes the fall of man, but also the rebellious archons and principalities, Satan as the "prince of this world," and the idea that the entire cosmos has been subjected to decay and futility. — Count Timothy von Icarus

To me, good and evil are the main dual features of reality. Such as a good experience or an evil experience. There is neutral too, which resides between Good and Evil. Of there is no good when we are dealing with evil and vice versa!

1) I mean, I agree that it is very easy to read God's actions as toxic and abusive from the outside; the Christian narrative only really works if you start at the assumption that God is good and correct. Internally though, they would likely attribute injustice and evil to people not obeying God's will. — MrLiminal

That is God's fault when it comes to sin if we accept that the creation is imperfect. What do you expect? An imperfect creation is subject to sin!

2) That sounds like a personal preference, but I see where you're coming from. Again, it makes more sense though when you start from the assumption that God is perfect and good. It doesn't really work otherwise as written, unless you want to start getting into the more obscure stuff like gnosticism. — MrLiminal

The question is, why should I go to Hell? Love God or Go to Hell!

Not necessarily, we can’t assume that God knows any particular thing. — Punshhh

If God created the medium, then He should know what a medium is. You cannot act from pure ignorance!

1) Because he made us and loves us (he's called "the Father" very intentionally) — MrLiminal

This argument makes no sense to me. A Lovely Father who is perfect does not leave humans in an unjust situation. Why should we return the same? Don't you see injustice on Earth, which is the result of ignorance and imperfection in humans? We are creatures, so we are not responsible for our imperfections. Shouldn't we hate the main cause of the injustice?

2)
They would say love without choice is not love. Supposedly God let all that happen because he didnt want to force us to love him. Whether or not that's right or ethical is typically a foregone conclusion, because God is usually interpreted of being all good if not the actual personification of good. — MrLiminal

No, please, I don't want to love anything to such an extreme as is common in Christianity! I always have room for a little hate as well. I prefer to find myself in the state of peace as quickly as possible. So no extreme, please!

Given Jesus failed to address the OT’s mistakes and given him referring to himself as the messiah and that the OT is errant, it follows that Jesus probably wasn’t God. — Bob Ross

Probably or certainly!? If God fails to convey His message, then He is not God.

Goodness is the equality of essence and esse; so it follows that badness is the privation (inequality) of essence and esse. So badness to goodness is like darkness to light.

You would have to provide a different account of goodness to make it work with your view that evil is some positive, real thing out there. My point was that I am a privation theorist about evil; so I do no think it is just as unreal as darkness. — Bob Ross

I would like to bring you to the crux of our discussion: You mentioned that evil exists, but it is not real. Don't you see a problem in this statement? I am afraid that you need to read through our discussion to see why we reached such a crux.

There are many different responses here, but in general, Christianity embraces realism re morality and value. If God is truly best, it would seem that we ought to love what is better and more worthy, as opposed to what is worse and less worthy. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It is right to embrace a better quality of course. It is also right to achieve a better quality as well. So, becoming Godly is the final goal, and it is all right, too. Adam and Eve just wanted to look Godly. What is wrong with that?

As an aside, a criticism of the latter view, which is what resulted in the development of first one, is that this makes God less then wholly omnipotent, because God is constrained by what is good. I think this is a misunderstanding, but it's a hotly contested issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

And there is the problem of evil too, for a perfect good God who can only create a good creation. To my understanding God of the Old Testament is closer to being true since He accepted to be the source of good and evil.