BF2S Forums A Conversation between a Darwinist and a Creationist

RAIMIUS wrote:

Topal makes some excellent logical points.  However, the theory of evolution is exactly that, a THEORY.  He makes a good number of scientific and logical arguments, but throws them all out the window in his first post! 

Evolutionary theory has a lot of evidence for it, but still has some large gaps to be filled.

lol creationism is a huge gap itself, no physical proof at all. hence

Evolution : 1
Creationism: 0

Spark wrote:

Hang on... are you saying the mind-created reality is an illusion, or a reality separate from the reality inside our mind?

"Illusion of reality" is just a label for an idea: that we don't fully experience reality in-mind.

Think about it for a minute...???

There is reality - that is something: a total; or rather a totality; that the mind can't really apprehend (in perfect detail & immense scope - together with the possible unknowable parts). That includes the infinite (all scales up!) and the infinitesimal (all scales down!). That would be the part that is: reality separate from the (subjective - what we think) reality (is - as it is modeled; and thought about) inside our mind.

But the label "illusion of reality" is just a label, for the fact that we don't ever experience the ultimate source of any effect (or the totality of it). In that sense it really just indicates a limit to know-ability (or current know-ability). It also means that certain things can be conceived of in a way that gives the appearance of something being there that isn't really there - like an "illusion."

The common concept of solid is basically conceived of subjectively in this way. Solid (at the meta; or macro level; when talking about a ball; a rock; etc) is an illusion. There is the state of matter - called solid (a term for how as an element they are pack together at the electron-shell level) - but it isn't really solid. Solid is a meta; or macro-effect (many atoms are involved, billions-etc).

You can experience the effect of electromagnetism (when you strike an object; or the pavement) but you don't think about it as it really is; at the electron shell level (forces of the proton-electron charges). We think of the object being made of something solid. But we know at the atomic level; there is a great deal of space between the electron and the nucleus (the energy parts). In fact there is mostly SPACE! And the energy parts (particles) those can't be called solid either; as energy does not imply the concept "solid" in any way. We experience electromagnetism – on a macro-world scale - and call that sensation "solid."

There is a lot of space; energy at the nucleus; energy at the orbiting electrons. There is a force (electromagnetism; an effect) that you can certainly feel; sense (it is real). But that can lead one astray (subjectively) to an "illusion of reality," if you let the (real) experience be misapplied when forming a subjective in-mind model of reality. "Solid" is just a label for the macro-world (meta-effect), but there is nothing in reality that is actually solid. What there really is – is a lot of space – and tiny bits of energy in motion.

Consider this:
A solid lead wall, you know particles even pass through this, and instruments can detect cosmic rays after they pass through a solid wall. If you throw a ball at that same lead wall it does not pass through, but rather it bounces off. But, there is nothing preventing the ball from passing through the lead wall – except the electromagnetic force, but even that as a probability is not disallowed by quantum-mechanics. While it is statistically improbable that the state of matter/energy at the quantum level would ever be in a way; that billions of quantum-states would be in correspondence; for the ball; so that it could just pass through – yet it is still possible. You could probably spend an eternity bouncing that ball off that lead wall, and it would never pass through though. But as you reduce the number of atoms (quantum states) the probability that matter will pass through a lead wall goes up. At the cosmic-ray level; energized particles; matter passing through walls -

At the macro level – "solid" seems like an ordinary common sense idea (to the subjective experiences of the electromagnetic force of macro-world objects). And the subjective experience of solid is consistent (more or less from time to time and place to place) at this macro-world level.

At the quantum level – it is counterintuitive and strange (and solid is non-existent).
_________

a.) There is reality; external & independent of our in-mind creations; as a totality we simply do not apprehend.

b.) There is what we think reality is – this is the subjective in-mind perception of reality. The subjective experience has been called an "illusion of reality" because you don't really experience the totality of the experience (reality) or the ultimate source of all effects. Calling the subjective experience an "illusion of reality" has its downfalls as an idea/concept though. It is helpful at indicating that what you might be thinking; or experiencing is just topical or superficial (that there is more beneath the surface), but that could easily be called "appearance of reality" or "experience of reality" or "the surface of things," etc. As an idea I would not get hung/stuck on the idea of "illusion of reality" it is just a label for an appearance that might be deceiving at first glance (or based upon topical inspection thought). And, it just indicates a level to know-ability (or current know-ability).

c.) Some subjective creations of mind are far more objective than others, as they are not discordant with the perceivable effects (that the senses or instruments can detect). And, those effects have demonstrated themselves to be consistent over time; and in discrete ways. This pertains, of course, to the thread topic. That (in-mind) subjective faith in myth (almost entirely subjective; not empirical) is NOT comparable to (in-mind) subjective creations of the scientific-method (not so subjective; more objective; as it depends upon a relationship to the real; the empirical; it has a direct relationship to the effects we can perceive/detect).

I edited the post [above], and added this, does it help explain the use of concept in this discussion?

1.) **Illusion of reality is in many ways interchangeable with the shorter form: reality. A person, a diamond, a tree, an ant, a shrimp, a planet, a galaxy, are all macro-world experiences (real; from reality). The fact that there is more to it than meets the eye - does not alter the reality of the experience. It only limits the value of it in scope. The experience is real, what you do with that subjectively is another story. The macro-world experience of the spoon - is real. The macro-world experience of solid is real. Extending that experience (of solid) subjectively to matter (a layer of reality); is an error; and an example when experience subjectively becomes an "illusion."

2.) **Illusion of reality: is a limited concept, it can easily be interchanged with similar ideas (as it connotes a few different meanings, when used in different contexts): appearance of reality; the surface of things; limit of know-ability; limit of subjective ideas; etc.

Here is a few different ways to use the concepts - and they generally mean the same thing:
a.) Then Einstein's theory of relativity came along and shattered our illusions of reality - as to what is time and matter. Time being an absolute was shattered, and matter became interchangeable with energy.

b.) Quantum Theory challenges our common sense notions of what is real and what is not. There is a limit to subjective ideas - like the common sense notions of solid.

c.) If one were forced to think about the reality of a person standing before him; or her; self, it might take an eternity to apprehend the total scope of information contained in a person. If one had to understand nearly everything knowable (to experience a person); that lies beneath the surface of things, it would boggle the mind; to consider the DNA, the Evolutionary history of the DNA, the relationship of life to the chemical - the elemental aspects; the energy interactions at the electron shell; the multitude of whizzing energy; and billion upon billions upon billions of quantum states; the wave-vibrations beneath that level. . . the shear volume of things occurring beneath the surface of things, challenges our general perceptions of reality.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-19 08:19:27)

Interesting, I get two fairly different answers to the same question...

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

And your question, though confusing, gets to the heart of where Topal and I differ in opinion - the 'reality' of our 'mind-created reality'.

It is not disputed, in any way, that subjective creations of mind - really - affect the you existing in reality. Your overall worldview; that being your own in-mind collection of:

Memories, personal opinions, feelings, knowledge (error-ridden; error-free; fuzzy concepts, generalizations, etc), procedural knowledge (math, walking, riding a bike, etc), emotional connections to others, religious beliefs, superstitions, fears, natural fears, emotional make-up, etc, etc, etc.

… This is most certainly going to affect you in a real (& personal; individual) way. Knowledge and the limit of the construct upon/in which it exists (the brain) is most certainly going to affect any individual in a real way. But I think we are drifting here, away from thread topic and the general premise - which I think I have reasonably demonstrated to be an error (a subjective one, of course).

The subjective form of faith (in religion/religious myth) is not a reality (or rather known to be reality), nor is it similar/comparable in form...

To

The objective knowledge gleaned from the scientific method (in which a different form of faith/confidence is used, as it is based upon a direct relationship to inputs; it is empirical & objective). And subjective models of reality created in relation to a scientific model are not reality either.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

. . . Reality is the underlying true nature and most elemental material of the universe. It is not constructed from galaxies and planets, molecules and atoms, protons, electrons, or quarks. It is the universal sub-quantum probabilistic energy-field that is the time-space continuum.

I have eliminated the word: objective as it is unnecessary, after that I agree, more or less, except that space-time (as a mental construct) might be an error of mind and as far as you and I know. Space-time is a scientific paradigm. There may be absolutely no reality to it (as an undetectable, inferred medium, it simply might not exist). Also there is not a single reason, to assume that the regression problem does not continue - ad infinitum (down or up), irregardless of the fact that we observe, a certain, uniformity to particles throughout the known; or visible; Universe (particles: discrete states of energy/energy change).

Reality (independent of my mind, external of my thoughts about it) is a sufficient term, economically it is more precise. I would say appending the term objective leads to confusion, and error, rather than clarification.

Here is why I think so (it is related to the thread premise/argument):
The word/concept of being objective relates to how we think, whether or not we can distance ourselves from our preconceived notions, beliefs, feelings - when examining something. It is an ideal we pursue as a detachment to our own personal notions; valuations; of “what is” or “what is reality.” It is an attempt to reduce personal bias in inquiry. And the funny contradiction; erroneous argument; is when someone claims that being objective/detached is a bias - against the possibility of God/myth of God (or Gods).

Let’s face it - being objective is a subjective method. It is an attempt to make subjective inquiry, well less biased towards preconceived notions, beliefs, feelings, etc, as those can interfere with the inquiry/investigation (it interferes with the scientific method). And that simply gets condensed to: being objective.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Subjective reality is not a pure, unadulterated, model of … reality.

I totally agree (minus the word: objective), and I have said this, more or less, in another way.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Subjective reality… In fact it is both more and less than … reality.

Um, that is a bold statement. And I totally disagree. Subjective reality, the totality of that, does not even reside in your individual mind (brain). Your personal subjective reality is quantifiably; demonstrably; less than the total knowledge available to you personally. The vast majority of the total human knowledge-base (knowledge, methods, subjective thoughts of others, objective inquiry): history, myth, anthropology, biography, literature, mathematics, physics, biology, medical science, psychology, engineering, etc - already exists awaiting for you and me to discoverer - well - what already has been discovered or what is already known; or has been thought before. And any part of it (that vast human knowledge-base) has the power to transform/alter your (real) thought patterns - and thus alter your subjective (living) experience of reality. You/me are personally not in possession of (all): consensus ideas/opinions that already exist about reality, nor are we in possession of the total scope of subjective thoughts that already exist about reality. All of this knowledge is greater than any single human mind (& its knowledge, worldview, contained therein - within mind/brain).

But there is no reality to a mind external of brain, as far as we know, so therefore there is no mind that is in possession of the total subjective human knowledge-base - that already exists. The (US) Library of Congress does not have a mind to process the totality of subjective thoughts contained therein (the vast books in its collection).

Also there is no way to make a value comparison of perception of reality to reality (independent of mind, external of thoughts about it) . This reminds my of St. Anselm’s so-called ontological proof of God. Which amounts to a series of grammar errors associated to the misuse of the terms: less & greater. I can’t even conceive of a purpose, or real meaning, if I were to say something like: . . . my views/ideas about reality are greater than reality. The valuation is meaningless.

Anyways the total human subjective knowledge base (and any personal individual knowledge-base) is less accurate, as a mere model of reality than reality is itself. It does not contain an explanation for all phenomenon (nor does it indicate the ultimate source of effects; the infinitesimal; all scales down; nor does it indicate the ultimate conclusion; infinity and all scales up). And, a value comparison is meaningless. Both are important to mind. The subjective experience is important to me, as I have one, to help cope with a reality I am utterly dependent upon else I would not be having a “subjective experience.”

I am dependent upon reality; not the other way around. In that sense reality is greater than I or any individual.

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Interesting, I get two fairly different answers to the same question...

And so we return (kind of) to the original topic of the thread...

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

This is our internal subjective reality. This is the reality in which our conscious selves live. Look around you - everything you see, hear, smell, taste and feel - that is subjective reality.

No way... man - no it is not. The subjective reality in mind is not real in the way you are indicating it is "real." This is not really just a matter of semantics/syntax/context either.

Just because Cro Magnum man did not conceive of calculus, quantum mechanics, space-time, etc, does not mean he reached the limit of his experience (this is a form of having experience; this type of subjective experience is not demeaned; by just being a different form of experience; I am not making any value judgments here). Stone tools, fire, cave paintings, burials, etc - were not the limit of his ability (mind); or rather the limit of his/our ability to subjectively-model reality. Seeing spirits/ghosts in rocks, trees, streams, animals, people, the wind (animism) is not an example of a limit either it is another example of form. Subjective experience alters how you interact with reality (in form); but it does not alter the fundamental nature of reality.

It is granted, a thought pattern is real ... but mind... is a product of natural brain (evolved in nature over time), mind is common to ants, bees, spiders, lizards, birds, dogs, apes, whales, elephants, etc & man. But each is a different limit. The limit of understanding; or the subjective experience; is restricted to the limit of the construct (the brain).

For (a relationship) example consider: the mental projection (in my mind) of a palm tree; this is not a self-created subjective creation. It is a relationship. There is a necessary relationship in this form of experience. Inputs are necessary to this experience. If I say, that tree is beautiful, I feel I have, in a way, eclipsed the reality of mere projection (based upon empirical inputs). The valuation as an aesthetic is something else altogether. You’re mixing ideas here.

All around me and in me is not subjective reality. All around me and in the biological me (& the energy that makes up me) is reality. My subjective experience called consciousness does not have any explanatory power either; as consciousness - as yet - is a truly undefined concept (“I think therefore I am” is not a definition of anything). The subjective aesthetic experience of reality - if anything can be called an “illusion of reality” - this is what potentially can be. This is not a negative-valuation of the aesthetic experience - as this is only capable of being/existing - because I have mind (as evolved dependent upon brain; dependent upon reality; dependent upon inputs).

I am quite happy that I have aesthetic experiences of reality, but they might not be real, or accurate, and they most certainly have a limit (they are dependent upon the construct in which the experience is known to happen: brain, they are limited by the construct). They do not necessarily exceed (eclipse) the limit of the construct either (a touchy feely statement: that subjective experience is greater than reality - is dubious at best). That itself, of course, is an aesthetic valuation as well - that cannot be quantified. Also consider the concept of negation in spiritual systems like Buddhism. In such a subjective system it is possible to disregard many aspects of the personal aesthetic experience(s)/valuations. 

But none of this alters the reality part of any experience. The necessary relationships - like inputs for certain experiences. A human egg requires a sperm to fertilize it - this also is a real-relationship independent of my subjective experience of reality. Ancient notions (as found in the Bible) of male seed contain a partially correct subjective interpretation of the real-relationship, that to conceive a child required male seed. But, it appears, they had no idea about the egg. That is why they associated it to the concept of “seed.” That when planted - germinated - it would grow on its own (more or less). This in an example of a subjective model - seeing a necessary relationship correctly - and due to lack of knowledge or insight - constructing a model of reality - that is in error and/or discordant with it.

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-18 13:35:19)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

topal63 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

This is our internal subjective reality. This is the reality in which our conscious selves live. Look around you - everything you see, hear, smell, taste and feel - that is subjective reality.

No way... man - no it is not. The subjective reality in mind is not real in the way you are indicating it is "real." This is not really just a matter of semantics/syntax/context either.

Yes way... man - yes it is.

Suggested reading:

How the Mind Works - Steven Pinker

The broad scientific field(s) of 'neuro-psychology and physiology' - particularly in the area of consciousness research and specifically the works of Susan Greenfield and Susan Blackmore.

The works of Robert Anton Wilson - particularly the references I PM'd to you.

I am not some uninitiated noob, who does not understand things, and I have read other material similar to what you've read. And I am not going to suggest you go read what I've read - I am not even going to go there... But thanks again for thinking it.

Look I am not smarter than you. You might be smarter than I! I don't know and I don't care. I may even be ignorant - in fact I must be. But none of this has anything to do with the premise of the thread.

I have attempted to explain to you in detail what is wrong with this type of thinking; and how it often rests on circular arguments, fuzzy concepts, undefined concepts, things discordant with known relationships, word meanings that suggest something else when used in context...

This thread premise is simply wrong, I have done, more than enough to demonstrate this.

The subjective form of faith (in religion/religious myth) is not a reality (or rather known to be reality), nor is it similar/comparable in form...

To

The objective knowledge gleaned from the scientific method (in which a different form of faith/confidence is used, as it is based upon a direct relationship to inputs; it is empirical & objective). And subjective models of reality created in relation to a scientific model are not reality either.

Here are some questions about subjective thought...

Ancient notions (as found in the Bible) of male seed contain a partially correct subjective interpretation of the real-relationship, that to conceive a child required male seed. But, it appears, they had no idea about the egg. That is why they associated it to the concept of “seed.” That when planted - germinated - it would grow on its own (more or less). This in an example of a subjective model - seeing a necessary relationship correctly - and due to lack of knowledge or insight - constructing a model of reality - that is in error and/or discordant with it.

a.) Is the concept of "male seed" being solely responsible for the formation germination of a child. Correct or incorrect?

b.) And if you are going determine if that is correct or incorrect how objectively are you going to do it; or what are you going to base a determination upon?

c.) Consider your simulation of reality scenario, what if a being therein that type of reality acquires a method for determining that he is part of a simulation. Was his prior ignorance of the simulation proof his previous worldview : subjective reality - was valid or correct?

d.) You do realize that you're saying: to the mind reality is everything that the mind knows. And to that mind - a man is what he believes - and reality is what he believes it to be. You do realize this and that the error lies in comparing forms (context use) - that differing forms (contexts) should not be compared - this is common to language. This is not a unique idea... so the question remains: can you call a "model of reality" - reality?

e.) And cannot that model of reality be utterly wrong?

_____

P.S. You do realize you're committing a argumentative fallacy? By suggesting,"if you only knew what I knew," or "if you only read what I've read,"... (it's a form of the Appeal to Authority - fallacy).

Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-19 08:08:46)

I'm not saying you are any of those things. And I'm not saying I'm any more intelligent than you.

The 'reality' of 'subjective reality' does in fact have a lot to do with the topic of this thread.

And in a way, you're proving my point for me.

The validity of the 'scientific method' is unprovable. All knowledge is unprovable. Ultimately, all we can ever truely say is "that we believe 'some statement' to be true".

For you, within your subjective reality tunnel, the 'scientific method' is an axiomatic truth - it is your 'god' - an article in which you put your faith.

The world, to you, is what you believe it to be.

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-04-19 21:03:40)

Now you're falsely attributing opinions onto me. Have I said that I believe in Creationism? No I have not.

Spark wrote:

Is this a creationism debate or an epistemology/metaphysics debate?

A creationism debate can only be a epistemology/metaphysics debate.

topal63 wrote:

a.) Just having a little fun with the word "subjective" - what is so wrong with that?

topal63 wrote:

More subjective perceptions existing in reality - for you to subjectively agree with!
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=70774

b.) LOL . . . but, uh, science is not my ‘God.’ 

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

For you, within your subjective reality tunnel, the 'scientific method' is an axiomatic truth - it is your 'god' - an article in which you put your faith.

c.)

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Now you're falsely attributing opinions onto me. Have I said that I believe in Creationism? No I have not.

Hmm… not really - but I am having a little fun with your statements.

(a) Is like (b); and as if you ascribing (b) to me - isn’t like (a), but it is!  The same as what is described in (c) what you’ve stated - is what you've done - in (b).

Yeah, the irony of the statement was partly intended - well, put it this way, when I realised the irony of it I thought about changing/deleting it, but didn't...

topal63 wrote:

You're problem is you simply don't have enough time to put in more effort into this echange of ideas. True or not true? No biggie...

Anyhoo... yeah... I tend to drop onto bf2s in the odd ½hour or so I have, here and there, between working on the next version of my website, so I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to this discussion.

Oh, and, btw, I said "the 'scientific method'", not "science" and 'god' as in "an article in which you put your faith"...

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2007-04-23 18:27:27)