addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmediummessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahooyoutube

Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › HUMANIANITY: The Most Important Religion

HUMANIANITY: The Most Important Religion

Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 44
Bill,

Will do... I plan to do so because my history of my postings indicate I do ask a lot of questions and you have answered everyone of them. I do not have all the answers so questioning may in fact give me the answers I require and we may differ in opinions, but so is life. We may differ in opinion but so is life. I do strive to gain knowledge of the many Philosophy's and I think the only way to know the meanings is to ask questions.

Thanks for your understanding and willingness to helpsmile
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,895
And thank you for the same. Through a cooperative effort at understanding each other's viewpoints I believe we both will achieve more accurate beliefs (i.e., greater wisdom).

Maybe you could encourage Chuck to rejoin. He doesn't have to attend meetings in order to be a member, and hopefully his participating on this message board will enable him to think more deeply and contribute more successfully to the human project.

Edit: "Human project" - the effort of our species to pull itself up by its bootstraps to become far better than it has ever been so far, by virtue of making use of its new tools (first exponential change - language, and second exponential change - rules of logic and rules of evidence giving us science and technology) that allow us to do things no other species on this planet has been able to do to anywhere near the extent we do.
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,897
Todd,

I hope you are making progress with the Mind-Body Problem book. Please again let me know of the first sentence that seems either incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written. And there is a topic on this message board for such dialogue, that will be a better place than this topic to discuss those issues.

I just re-read the book and again became impressed with how difficult the issues are and how atypically one has to think in order to understand the problem, even though it is one of our most important problems, because it is embedded in our noteworthy difficulty in coming to agreement about very important ideas.

And BTW, you and maybe even Chuck should be really interested in this video, which is unusually clear (though certainly not understandable by you and me). It speaks a lot to the irrelevance of the feeling of certainty that is produced by some of our beliefs.


Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 46
I apologize for my absencesmile

Bill,

The above video is interesting due to the fact that I was not clear on the big bang prior and would like to offer my thoughts. I found your writings interesting and believe that communication may be centered around objective and subjective. It is also my opinion of the "Objective Model and Subjective Model". If allowed, I will start a new post for open discussion

My thoughts on "big bang" per video and your writings;
I agree in the video of the theory and hold it true.

My thoughts are that yes, the universe is in motion and continuously expanding via particles, elements, energy, gas from suns... Thus forth, can we agree the universe has, is and will continue this motion of expanding? If so, science has proved there was a big bang and the big bang had a beginning and continues which I believe true, correct? If agreed, has science proved that the big bang centuries from now will slow and/or stop this motion of expanding? If the answer is yes, what would cause this slowing or eventfully stopping of expansion? My thought of reason could be that the tremendous energy simply producing the expansion simply may begin to "run short energy via, gas" and eventfully "run out of energy via, gas" thus forth slowing then halt this expansion. If my thought has merit, the next event would become first a halt then a contraction of the universe would begin due to gravity back to the center (wherever that is). In other words if my thought holds, the expanded universe at this point has reached its final expansion from point of origin will no longer expand but begin a collapse of contraction. Again, with the fact the universe is in motion of expansion it may reach a point that it expand no longer but be cause the universe will always be in motion the question is where does it go at this point. The only conclusion I can draw is that if it is in motion, which I believe it is then it will always be in motion and in the universes case it must expand or contract. With that being said, the universe has only two motions - expanding or contracting, outward or inward.

If my opinion is in fact true then can we pose the following questions; is the universe expanding or contracting for the original big bang? If the universe motion is expanding due to the energy required, how long can it continue to expend? If contacting and the contraction completes due to the motion of energy, can it be said that when or if that energy has depleted will the universe default to all that is left (gravity) from the place of origin? Finally on the grandest scale if my opinion is entertained, how many times has this expanding and contracting of the universe occurred?

My Opinion

Groups thoughts?
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,903
Todd, great hearing from you again! (I just learned that, once again, Chuck has left our group. That is sad. I think he could learn things along with the rest of us, but for some people the feeling of certainty is too important, and that may be true of him. Then again, hopefully he will return again.)
I apologize for my absencesmile

Bill,

The above video is interesting due to the fact that I was not clear on the big bang prior and would like to offer my thoughts. I found your writings interesting and believe that communication may be centered around objective and subjective. It is also my opinion of the "Objective Model and Subjective Model". If allowed, I will start a new post for open discussion
Of course you can start a new topic, or put your posts in any of the existing topics.

I would like to offer a caveat, with your having mentioned the "Objective Model and Subjective Model," and that is that there is no way of understanding what those terms mean as they are used in the book without reading the book, and perhaps even “studying” it. Understanding the nature of the mind-body problem means thinking in new and difficult ways. It is very easy to use some popular meanings of the words “subjective” and “objective” when hearing those terms and assuming one knows what they mean without reading how those two terms, “Subjective Model” and “Objective Model,” are being used in the book, and why, for instance, they are capitalized.

My thoughts on "big bang" per video and your writings;
I agree in the video of the theory and hold it true.
But let us recognize that scientists do not “hold it true.” They say that the model that they have constructed, with the specific details (that are too technical for any of us to understand, unless we are highly educated in certain particular areas) that are included in that model, leads to a very great ability to predict what certain measurements will turn out to be if we (i.e., certain highly trained scientists) do certain experiments. But scientists are continuing to try to develop even more accurate (productive of accurate predictions) models, and there is no feeling of absolute certainty on the part of any of those scientists as to the question as to whether the most accurate model possible has been found and what it would or will turn out to be.

My thoughts are that yes, the universe is in motion and continuously expanding via particles, elements, energy, gas from suns...
Remember that the meaning to scientists of the word “energy” is drastically different than the meaning to the person in the street. I believe that the concept, as used in the physical sciences, is what would be called an “intervening variable.”
Thus forth, can we agree the universe has, is and will continue this motion of expanding? If so, science has proved there was a big bang and the big bang had a beginning and continues which I believe true, correct?
Remember, science does not “prove” things, but instead brings about increasing or decreasing confidence in the ability of certain models to yield predictions that turn out to be what actually happens. That is a different process than the demonstration that propositions within a logical system are true by virtue of the application of the rules of logic to a set of axioms (propositions assumed to be “true,” whatever that means, without any legitimization of such assumptions) and other propositions.
If agreed, has science proved that the big bang centuries from now will slow and/or stop this motion of expanding? If the answer is yes, what would cause this slowing or eventfully stopping of expansion? My thought of reason could be that the tremendous energy simply producing the expansion simply may begin to "run short energy via, gas" and eventfully "run out of energy via, gas" thus forth slowing then halt this expansion. If my thought has merit, the next event would become first a halt then a contraction of the universe would begin due to gravity back to the center (wherever that is).
Remember that the model most used includes that there is no center to the universe, even though it has a finite volume.
In other words if my thought holds, the expanded universe at this point has reached its final expansion from point of origin will no longer expand but begin a collapse of contraction. Again, with the fact the universe is in motion of expansion it may reach a point that it expand no longer but be cause the universe will always be in motion the question is where does it go at this point. The only conclusion I can draw is that if it is in motion, which I believe it is then it will always be in motion and in the universes case it must expand or contract. With that being said, the universe has only two motions - expanding or contracting, outward or inward.

If my opinion is in fact true then can we pose the following questions; is the universe expanding or contracting for the original big bang? If the universe motion is expanding due to the energy required, how long can it continue to expend? If contacting and the contraction completes due to the motion of energy, can it be said that when or if that energy has depleted will the universe default to all that is left (gravity) from the place of origin? Finally on the grandest scale if my opinion is entertained, how many times has this expanding and contracting of the universe occurred?

My Opinion

Groups thoughts?
Yes, these are some of the thoughts entertained by scientists, that is, possible models of the universe and what is going on in it. It is an extremely interesting area of knowledge, well beyond comprehension for most of us. My understanding is that “time” does not have the same meaning to physicists as it does to us. My understanding is that the model of the big bang includes that time began at that point. That is hard to conceptualize. Also, “gravity” means something different to theoretical physicists than it does to us.

One of the interesting (and important) questions that we can ask is what we are to do with the knowledge that we, almost all of us, are actually unable to understand these models, and instead have our own, necessarily incorrect, fantasies about what they consist of. Thus, each of us has some sort of model of the universe about which the best we can say is that we know it is not consistent with what the people at the frontier of such knowledge believe is rather likely. The more we can actually imagine what we believe, the more we can be assured that we are not correct! These issues are of course discussed in the Mind-Body Problem book.

Regarding that book, which I am pleased to hear you have read, I am still hoping you will report on the first sentence that seems either unclear or incorrect in the context in which it is written. Then we can explore what is unclear or incorrect. That should be a valuable exercise in thinking, and may, or may not, add to our own personal philosophies.
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 52
Thanks for the response.

My opinion of the below post;

"Remember that the meaning to scientists of the word “energy” is drastically different than the meaning to the person in the street. I believe that the concept, as used in the physical sciences, is what would be called an “intervening variable.”

As to the above "energy" including your comments on "gravity"smile

Given an example of a person on a street that resides very close to a airport such as the airport in Charlotte NC that watches jets fly in and out, with clear view of the non ending in and out traffic of flights. The person on the street decides to watch one particular jumbo jet in clear view as it begins its approach the runway and engages acceleration of its jet engines and begins flight at the end of the runway and thus forth departing from the ground. The Jumbo is now in the air and continues its acceleration as the jets destination is Atlanta GA.

The person on the street watches as the powerful jet engines continue to thrust the needed "energy" to remain in flight as it is in fact in a battle with "gravity". As he continues to watch this wonderful sight the person also notices that the jet in flight is at that moment no longer ascending upwards from the ground but has in fact began on a descending pattern. The person knows this is not a normal trajectory due to past viewing of countless flights and watches even closer due to the fact the jet in flight is still in the persons sight. "The person is unaware that the jet was unfortunately almost out of jet fuel "energy" at take-off and at this point, all of the jets fuel "energy" has been depleted." The jet was simply depleted the fuel necessary to create the required "energy" thus counter "gravity" to remain in flight.

At this point, "gravity" outweighed the required "energy" to sustain the jets expansion in the form of flight to destination Atlanta GA. The person on the street watched in amazement as the jet began a very rapid but constant decent back to the ground not many miles from where it had left the ground. The object could no longer expand it's flight due to the absence the required "energy" and the person watched "energy" lose the balance with "gravity" as the jet returned to it's origin - the ground.

Considering all of the universe is either expanding or contracting, the balance of the universe, "energy" and "gravity" I think applies to the above example.

Thoughts?
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,907
I posted a reply to a post on the "Infinity" topic here by mistake, but I have moved it now. (It is actually 3 posts.)
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 54
Understood...
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,913
Todd, I am not completely certain about what you have been trying to convey, but it seems to me that you are saying something like, “Well, I think I understand gravity and energy correctly, and understand what is meant by the expansion and contraction of the universe. The meaning of “energy” and “gravity” are fairly apparent just by watching that jumbo jet rise and fall.

I do know that almost everyone has a concept of “energy” and “gravity” that is satisfactory for their purposes. My point, however, is that what scientists mean by these terms is substantially different, and not at all easy to comprehend.

For instance, does your concept of “gravity” consist of it being a “curvature of space/time”? And does it consist of something that is conveyed in “packets” called “gravitons”? And does it travel at the speed of light?

And does your understanding of “energy” include how an object can have more “energy” simply because it has been moved, whereupon it has “potential energy” that it did not have before? And does your concept of “energy” consist of a single “thing” that can be manifested as either heat, or light, or sound, or momentum, or metabolism? And does it include that the amount of energy that an object has is dependent upon how fast you are moving with respect to it?

And does your understanding of the expansion of the universe include that there is no outer boundary of the universe, and no center of the universe out from which that expansion is occurring, the expansion occurring equally everywhere in the universe?

Unless we have a fairly extensive education in the physical sciences, I don’t think that we can expect of ourselves anymore to understand our world in the ways that those most knowledgeable about it understand it. And we can’t just regard them as having a different “opinion.” It is only they, and not we, that can get people to the moon and back, and perform other such miracles, some of which you and I are making use of as we continue our dialogue.

But I do think that we can understand our lack of understanding, and also derive some very basic ideas that are consistent with what science is coming up with. And that, to a great extent, is what the Mind-Body Problem book is about.

(And you say you have read it, but from what I went through in writing it, I would figure that you would need to read it several times. I really hope that you do read it slowly and post on the message board any parts of it that seem to need clarification. If you indeed have read the whole book and not only understand it but agree with everything that is in it, I will be very interested in knowing that! On the other hand, I did write the first part of it with the intention of making it what can be understood and agreed to by anyone who sufficiently conscientiously reads it. So I await whatever response you do have to what you have read, and I’m very grateful that you have done so.)
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 57
Bill,

Your objective model and subject model is what I have been struggling with yet I have been able to resolve the two models. Your models are the source of most interest to me as in the fact of puzzling. After much research of objective and subjective, I am now aware a the flaw of the models yet not of opinion, of fact. It is a small flaw but in the realm of your books as premise and truly supports your previous statement of "it is my opinion" and I do now believe you. A disclaimer of, your definition of "top down" and "bottom up" the same as all agree. Below is a copy and paste from your book;

""The Subjective Model is built from the bottom up (from subjective experience), whereas the Objective Model is to a great extent built from the top down (from being told things, in speech or writing, by others, and thus coming to believe them and therefore to act upon them, and only then with possible resulting confirmation or disconfirmation of the accuracy of those beliefs by virtue of experiencing the outcomes of those actions).""

In the above you state that the subjective model (subjective) is built from the "bottom up" yet by all definitions I found this is not the case as in "subjective" per Webster's is;

Definition of SUBJECTIVE
1
: of, relating to, or constituting a subject: as
a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness
b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially :NOMINATIVE
2
: of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3
a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL — compareOBJECTIVE 1b
b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4
a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL<subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident>
b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjectivesensations>
c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare OBJECTIVE 1c
5
: lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

In the above you also state that the objective model (objective) is built from the "top down" yet by all definitions I found this is not the case as in "objective" per Webster's is;

Definition of OBJECTIVE
1
a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence —used chiefly in medieval philosophy
b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries … are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world — Marvin Reznikoff> — compare SUBJECTIVE 3a
c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual — compare SUBJECTIVE 4c
d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objectiveawareness> <objective data>

With this being said and using the below example;

Using your words in the format of "Bottom Up" as in up is last and "Top Down" as in down is also last;

The object > a round handheld fruit

Subjective Model of the object;

Color (Orange) Bottom, handheld fruit (Object) up > Bottom Up

Objective Model of the object;

Handheld fruit (Object) Top, Color (Orange) down > Top Down

Subjective Model of the object describes the object prior to any known of the object.

Objective Model of the object per your writing is the process of confirmation or disconfirmation of the object prior to any known of the object.

My conclusion is that the two models can not be applied to any objects, ideas, beliefs ect..... My opinion and I am quite certain that there is no logical or reality in of applying subjectivity (opinion, description, belief....) without the knowing of the existence of the object or thing. This is referred to as Illusion and/or fantasy thought of no premise.

I have also googled Objective model and Subjective Model and the words only appear in your book. In other words the models only exist in your written books. Yet the words Objective and Subjection result in volumes of hits as I have googled them as well.

In this posting case, it's no longer my opinion but fact.

Thoughtssmile
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy