God? It is Only in the Brain

[LuckyR]

Why do you believe in objective identities?

I don't. You can call an apple anything you want (as long as you accept the communication implications of your choice).

Well, the implication of your assertion is that an apple is an apple is an apple.

Even if we, people, believe it to be, and call it a horse.

Communication is not going to be affected in any way - we will all call it a "horse" and everybody will understand what we mean.

But ultimately, the implication of your claim is that we are mistaken about the identity of the object. We believe it to be a horse. We call it a horse. But it's not a horse - it's an apple.

Not here to debate human labels. My post isn't on that topic. The "implication" you're detecting, isn't there, I apologize for being difficult to understand.

[Skepdick]

Not here to debate human labels. My post isn't on that topic. The "implication" you're detecting, isn't there, I apologize for being difficult to understand.

We aren't debating labels. We are debating identities. The implication is there - you made it explicit. Twice.

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not. I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

If the point is going over your head then let me give you another example.

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar whether people believe it's a dollar or not.

This is a dollar. And people would pay $3000 to $500000 for it.

So is it a dollar; or isn't it a dollar?

[LuckyR]

Not here to debate human labels. My post isn't on that topic. The "implication" you're detecting, isn't there, I apologize for being difficult to understand.

We aren't debating labels. We are debating identities. The implication is there - you made it explicit. Twice.

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not. I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

If the point is going over your head then let me give you another example.

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar whether people believe it's a dollar or not.

This is a dollar. And people would pay $3000 to $500000 for it.

So is it a dollar; or isn't it a dollar?

It seems my point is going over your head.

My point is that dollar values are NOT in fact static (ie. "A dollar is a dollar is a dollar"), therefore your example of a $1 coin having $3000 value due to differing human beliefs makes my point. Thanks for that. Just as the example of the inability to purchase a penny candy with a Confederate dollar would be.

Apples, in contrast to a dollar's value, do NOT depend on human beliefs, as proven by the fact that apples existed before humans, regardless of having no human labels or human given "identities".

[Veritas Aequitas]

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not.
I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

WHO ARE YOU to be SO certain,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not."
Are you an omnipotent & omniscient God?

As demonstrated by Kant, there is no such thing as an apple-by-itself, apple-in-itself, thing-in-itself or X-in-itself existing absolutely independent of the human conditions i.e. human-mind-independent.

To a sole-sonar-bat or dolphin 'that apple is an apple' is merely an impermanent bundle of sonar images.
All other non-human living things will realize and perceive that bundle of particles relative to their realization and perception system.

Humans are more-animals than being more-human, thus very fallible and do not have the all-powerful knowledge to claim
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not" existing independent of the human conditions.

The most you can claim is,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not"
because we humans collectively [the majority] said so.
Thus ultimately "an apple is an apple" cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

There is no difference in the fundamental existence of an apple and that of a dollar, the difference is only in the degree of objectivity as conditioned by the human conditions and its specific human-based FSK.

Really? Sorry to burst your (overly pretentious) bubble, but apples were what they are long before there were people. True they weren't labeled "A.P.P.L.E.S.", but I wasn't describing labels, sorry if I confused you that I was.

QED??
It is not a problem of common sense which you are relying upon.

We are in a philosophical forum, thus it is a philosophical problem.
Wonder if you understand what the philosophical issue is all about.

Here is how Bertrand Russell view this basic philosophical problem; instead of an apple, he refer to a 'table' out there; [surely you will not claim you are smarter philosopher than Russell?]

In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe.

I believe that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true.
To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html

According to Russell even in the present moment with people around, from a certain perspective, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

As such, it will be more problematic, if there are no humans, it is definite, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

Do you understand this philosophical problem?
How do we resolve it?
The answer is in my earlier post which you assumed is a bubble.

[Skepdick]

Not here to debate human labels. My post isn't on that topic. The "implication" you're detecting, isn't there, I apologize for being difficult to understand.

We aren't debating labels. We are debating identities. The implication is there - you made it explicit. Twice.

An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not. I can trade a dollar for an apple if (and only if) enough people believe that the dollar is worth the value of an apple. Otherwise it is a piece of paper (while the apple is an apple).

If the point is going over your head then let me give you another example.

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar whether people believe it's a dollar or not.

This is a dollar. And people would pay $3000 to $500000 for it.

So is it a dollar; or isn't it a dollar?

It seems my point is going over your head.

My point is that dollar values are NOT in fact static (ie. "A dollar is a dollar is a dollar"), therefore your example of a $1 coin having $3000 value due to differing human beliefs makes my point. Thanks for that. Just as the example of the inability to purchase a penny candy with a Confederate dollar would be.

Apples, in contrast to a dollar's value, do NOT depend on human beliefs, as proven by the fact that apples existed before humans, regardless of having no human labels or human given "identities".

It seems my point is going over your head.

Identity is a value.

To identify an object (such as an apple) is to assign a value to its otherwise undetermined identity.

They aren’t apples. You merely value them as apples.

But you could also value it as pig food.
Or a source of vitamins.
Or as the reproductive organs of trees.
Or ingredients for vinegar.

Values aren’t static.
Identities are values,
Identities aren’t static.

To insist that an apple is an apple is an apple irrespective of the identity bestowed upon it by humans is to believe in objective identities.

And you said you don’t believe in those. So you are contradicting yourself.

[Iwannaplato]

Uummm... not quite what I was saying. I'm not arguing that a dollar doesn't have value. It obviously does, but that value is completely dependant on the belief that humans give it.

Right, and you couched this as meaning it does not have objective value. Now you seem to be, possibly, concedning that it does have objective value now, but this could change. Yes, it could change. It might lose this objective, real, value, in some future situation. But human beliefs and uses and behavior are objective parts of reality. You haven't addressed the issue I raised about value either. I am not sure objective value is coherent. But if it is coherent, then I don't see why money is ruled out. And I justified this above.

Not because it has inherent value. If a dollar had inherent value, it would have that value in the absence of humans "giving" it value. An apple is inherently a fruit even in the absence of a human to label it or categorize it.

Sure an apple is inherently a fruit in the absence...etc. But does it have objective value? How is this determined? The value that doesn't exist in minds.

Perhaps apple trees will evolve and fruits will not be the carriers of DNA for them. But they will have fruit anyway - cause animals come and poop near the trees and they get nutrients that way, or for some other reason - not that it's teleological, just that natural selection doesn't eliminate trees with fruit. So, there we have apples that no longer have seeds. So, they are sort of fruit sort of not. They no longer communicate via DNA the same things.

It seems you are saying that fruit has objective value and will without us. But it's objective value - whatever that is - may change.
Money becomes paper. Fruit becomes something not directly involved in passing on DNA.
Situations change.

How does that lead to the conclusion that one has objective value now and the other does not.

A fruit is a fruit in relation to soil, climate, water. It depends on these things to have it's life cycle and 'purpose'. Money is dependent on minds to do the objectively verifiable things it does now.

Both fruit and money change function, lose function, change roles in processes, dependent on other real things, whether minds or nutrients or sunlight or.......

Without certain other existant things, they no longer function as they have up until that time.

I suppose we could also look at display behaviors in animals. If the females, for example, stop having interest in certain dance moves and butt feathers, well those dance moves and butt feathers will no longer mean/be what they were. Could happen via natural selection, say.

[LuckyR]

WHO ARE YOU to be SO certain,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not."
Are you an omnipotent & omniscient God?

As demonstrated by Kant, there is no such thing as an apple-by-itself, apple-in-itself, thing-in-itself or X-in-itself existing absolutely independent of the human conditions i.e. human-mind-independent.

To a sole-sonar-bat or dolphin 'that apple is an apple' is merely an impermanent bundle of sonar images.
All other non-human living things will realize and perceive that bundle of particles relative to their realization and perception system.

Humans are more-animals than being more-human, thus very fallible and do not have the all-powerful knowledge to claim
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not" existing independent of the human conditions.

The most you can claim is,
"An apple is an apple whether people believe it is an apple or not"
because we humans collectively [the majority] said so.
Thus ultimately "an apple is an apple" cannot be absolutely mind-independent.

There is no difference in the fundamental existence of an apple and that of a dollar, the difference is only in the degree of objectivity as conditioned by the human conditions and its specific human-based FSK.

Really? Sorry to burst your (overly pretentious) bubble, but apples were what they are long before there were people. True they weren't labeled "A.P.P.L.E.S.", but I wasn't describing labels, sorry if I confused you that I was.

QED??
It is not a problem of common sense which you are relying upon.

We are in a philosophical forum, thus it is a philosophical problem.
Wonder if you understand what the philosophical issue is all about.

Here is how Bertrand Russell view this basic philosophical problem; instead of an apple, he refer to a 'table' out there; [surely you will not claim you are smarter philosopher than Russell?]

In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe.

I believe that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true.
To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html

According to Russell even in the present moment with people around, from a certain perspective, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

As such, it will be more problematic, if there are no humans, it is definite, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

Do you understand this philosophical problem?
How do we resolve it?
The answer is in my earlier post which you assumed is a bubble.

Your posting is internally consistent, I'll give you that. However, it suffers from a lack of considering different perspectives. Sure, if one is pondering whether simple physical (objective) objects exist, then upping the complexity ante to considering inter-subjectively entities, is a bridge too far and thus the two may blend together into various levels of uncertainty.

However, from the perspective of the universe, which supercedes and predates the brightest philosopher you can quote, let alone you and me, there is a fundamental difference between a physical object and a human construct.

[Atla]

According to Russell even in the present moment with people around, from a certain perspective, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

Don't lie to the newcomer, VA, Russell wasn't talking about perspectives, just possibilities.

And Russell is arguably wrong in claiming that the existence of the table can be "reasonably doubted", because it isn't likely that it's not there. Instead it can be UNreasonably doubted.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Really? Sorry to burst your (overly pretentious) bubble, but apples were what they are long before there were people. True they weren't labeled "A.P.P.L.E.S.", but I wasn't describing labels, sorry if I confused you that I was.

QED??
It is not a problem of common sense which you are relying upon.

We are in a philosophical forum, thus it is a philosophical problem.
Wonder if you understand what the philosophical issue is all about.

Here is how Bertrand Russell view this basic philosophical problem; instead of an apple, he refer to a 'table' out there; [surely you will not claim you are smarter philosopher than Russell?]

In daily life, we assume as certain many things which, on a closer scrutiny, are found to be so full of apparent contradictions that only a great amount of thought enables us to know what it is that we really may believe.

I believe that, if any other normal person comes into my room, he will see the same chairs and tables and books and papers as I see, and that the table which I see is the same as the table which I feel pressing against my arm. All this seems to be so evident as to be hardly worth stating, except in answer to a man who doubts whether I know anything. Yet all this may be reasonably doubted, and all of it requires much careful discussion before we can be sure that we have stated it in a form that is wholly true.
To make our difficulties plain, let us concentrate attention on the table.

Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true. Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities. The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems. Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture. Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
http://www.ditext.com/russell/rus1.html

According to Russell even in the present moment with people around, from a certain perspective, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

As such, it will be more problematic, if there are no humans, it is definite, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

Do you understand this philosophical problem?
How do we resolve it?
The answer is in my earlier post which you assumed is a bubble.

Your posting is internally consistent, I'll give you that. However, it suffers from a lack of considering different perspectives. Sure, if one is pondering whether simple physical (objective) objects exist, then upping the complexity ante to considering inter-subjectively entities, is a bridge too far and thus the two may blend together into various levels of uncertainty.

However, from the perspective of the universe, which supercedes and predates the brightest philosopher you can quote, let alone you and me, there is a fundamental difference between a physical object and a human construct.

Lack of perspective??

I have deliberated the issues in the common sense, conventional, scientific and various perspectives.
There is no question of uncertainty [not 100%] on the perspectives [models] I raised.
The various conclusions raised can be verified and justified as true and objective [subject to degrees] upon the conditions of the Qualified perspectives [Framework and System].

It is only within the common sense perspective that an apple is an apple .. is an apple and no other.
But within the science-chemistry, it is objective and true that 'apple' is a cluster of molecules, atom, particles, quarks.
Within QM, it is objective and true that 'apple' could be a bundle of waves or particles subject to the observers participation.

Within ANTI-philosophical_realism there is no philosophical_realism-objective-apple at all, there are only psychological perturbations in the brain.

It is also within ANTI-philosophical_realism there is no philosophical_realism-objective-God there are only psychological perturbations in the brain.

Reality is a human "construct".....note;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
There is no pre-existing things awaiting humans to "discover" them.

Why it is so important?
At least in one way, the above will convince theists (in particular Muslims) there is no objectively real God that had sent commands via a prophet to kill non-believers or giving sanction for Muslims to exterminate the human species.

[Veritas Aequitas]

According to Russell even in the present moment with people around, from a certain perspective, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

Don't lie to the newcomer, VA, Russell wasn't talking about perspectives, just possibilities.

And Russell is arguably wrong in claiming that the existence of the table can be "reasonably doubted", because it isn't likely that it's not there. Instead it can be UNreasonably doubted.

You are a philosophical gnat and ultracrepidarian trying to outsmart Russell.

You are too primal and emotional as driven by an evolutionary default to insist on the above grasping on your dogmatic philosophical realism which is grounded on an illusion.

Why are possibilities not perspectives?

Russell was concessionary in raising the issue as a 'possibility'.

Within ANTI-philosophical_realism it certain [99.9%] there is no philosophical_realism-objective-apple at all, there are only psychological perturbations in the brain with the emergence and realization of a human-based FSK objective apple.

[LuckyR]

QED??
It is not a problem of common sense which you are relying upon.

We are in a philosophical forum, thus it is a philosophical problem.
Wonder if you understand what the philosophical issue is all about.

Here is how Bertrand Russell view this basic philosophical problem; instead of an apple, he refer to a 'table' out there; [surely you will not claim you are smarter philosopher than Russell?]



According to Russell even in the present moment with people around, from a certain perspective, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

As such, it will be more problematic, if there are no humans, it is definite, there is no table at all, just if it is a apple, 'there is no apple at all'.

Do you understand this philosophical problem?
How do we resolve it?
The answer is in my earlier post which you assumed is a bubble.

Your posting is internally consistent, I'll give you that. However, it suffers from a lack of considering different perspectives. Sure, if one is pondering whether simple physical (objective) objects exist, then upping the complexity ante to considering inter-subjectively entities, is a bridge too far and thus the two may blend together into various levels of uncertainty.

However, from the perspective of the universe, which supercedes and predates the brightest philosopher you can quote, let alone you and me, there is a fundamental difference between a physical object and a human construct.

Lack of perspective??

I have deliberated the issues in the common sense, conventional, scientific and various perspectives.
There is no question of uncertainty [not 100%] on the perspectives [models] I raised.
The various conclusions raised can be verified and justified as true and objective [subject to degrees] upon the conditions of the Qualified perspectives [Framework and System].

It is only within the common sense perspective that an apple is an apple .. is an apple and no other.
But within the science-chemistry, it is objective and true that 'apple' is a cluster of molecules, atom, particles, quarks.
Within QM, it is objective and true that 'apple' could be a bundle of waves or particles subject to the observers participation.

Within ANTI-philosophical_realism there is no philosophical_realism-objective-apple at all, there are only psychological perturbations in the brain.

It is also within ANTI-philosophical_realism there is no philosophical_realism-objective-God there are only psychological perturbations in the brain.

Reality is a human "construct".....note;
Reality: Emergence & Realization Prior to Perceiving, Knowing & Describing
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40145
There is no pre-existing things awaiting humans to "discover" them.

Why it is so important?
At least in one way, the above will convince theists (in particular Muslims) there is no objectively real God that had sent commands via a prophet to kill non-believers or giving sanction for Muslims to exterminate the human species.

If you believe there is no philosophical difference between a physical object and a human construct (idea), then I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[Skepdick]

If you believe there is no philosophical difference between a physical object and a human construct (idea), then I'll guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

If you believe that physical objects, or the act of objectification is not a human doing; a human process.
If you believe that objects exist in isolation from the whole, and not as human cut-outs from the whole.

Then yeah...

You are way out in the philosophical woods.

[LuckyR]

We aren't debating labels. We are debating identities. The implication is there - you made it explicit. Twice.



If the point is going over your head then let me give you another example.

A dollar is a dollar is a dollar whether people believe it's a dollar or not.

This is a dollar. And people would pay $3000 to $500000 for it.

So is it a dollar; or isn't it a dollar?

It seems my point is going over your head.

My point is that dollar values are NOT in fact static (ie. "A dollar is a dollar is a dollar"), therefore your example of a $1 coin having $3000 value due to differing human beliefs makes my point. Thanks for that. Just as the example of the inability to purchase a penny candy with a Confederate dollar would be.

Apples, in contrast to a dollar's value, do NOT depend on human beliefs, as proven by the fact that apples existed before humans, regardless of having no human labels or human given "identities".

It seems my point is going over your head.

Identity is a value.

To identify an object (such as an apple) is to assign a value to its otherwise undetermined identity.

They aren’t apples. You merely value them as apples.

But you could also value it as pig food.
Or a source of vitamins.
Or as the reproductive organs of trees.
Or ingredients for vinegar.

Values aren’t static.
Identities are values,
Identities aren’t static.

To insist that an apple is an apple is an apple irrespective of the identity bestowed upon it by humans is to believe in objective identities.

And you said you don’t believe in those. So you are contradicting yourself.

An interesting topic. Not the point I was trying to make, but interesting.

I see where in my enthusiasm to illustrate the difference between a physical object (an apple) and an idea created by humans (money), I appear to have used some sloppy wording (an apple is an apple etc). While I agree with you (as I stated previously) that objective entities do not have objective identities, I can see where taking my aforementioned sloppily worded phrase and running with it, can make it seem otherwise.

Therefore I retract that phrasing and put forth the observation that an apple is physical and although coins and bills are also physical, they are merely the physical placeholders for a human created idea called money (which is not physical).

[Skepdick]

Therefore I retract that phrasing and put forth the observation that an apple is physical and although coins and bills are also physical, they are merely the physical placeholders for a human created idea called money (which is not physical).

"Physical" is only an idea. You are projecting it onto the apple.

There's nothing abot the apple that is its "physicality".

[LuckyR]

Therefore I retract that phrasing and put forth the observation that an apple is physical and although coins and bills are also physical, they are merely the physical placeholders for a human created idea called money (which is not physical).

"Physical" is only an idea. You are projecting it onto the apple.

There's nothing abot the apple that is its "physicality".

Well at a certain level everything is an idea that you and I talk about because from our perspective everything comes from our minds. However our's is not the only (or best) perspective.