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 #: 58
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.)
Please allow me to use a less (multi variable example) to energy and gravity;

I hold a baseball in my hand and use all my energy and throw it straight upward into the air on a calm day. The energy I trust into the event was all I had yet I noticed the baseball to began to slow and then stop its upward path. The base ball still in the air was beginning a downward path to the origin of ground at a constant speed. Again, the energy of gravity had out balanced the energy I had given the ball flight as the ball returned to its origin of the ground.

If I talked to a scientist to explain the event, I wonder what he would respond?


Bill Van F.
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,916
From the Mind-Body Problem book:
But what is ]ess obvious is that both models can use the same word, that means something different depending upon the model in which it is being used, but without recognition of that difference by many people. There are some words that many people use with little awareness that such use is basically incorrect because of lack of awareness that there is such a difference in meaning, such word usage sometimes essentially being metaphoric.

The best example of all, I believe, is that of "energy." People have very little awareness that "energy" as used in describing the experience of being "full of energy" or of "lacking in energy" is not the same as the "energy" that the physicist is referring to when describing the energy coming from the sun or the energy being converted from potential energy to heat energy, or being released in nuclear reactions. "Energy beverages" are ones that contain caffeine, not ones that necessarily contain more calories (which might make a person sluggish or sleepy, and therefore less "energetic").
Your­ post is a good example of the inaccurate use of the word "energy." The scientist would say that he/she could not explain in a few sentences what it took him/her several courses in physics in order to understand, but that if your way of thinking about things was working for you, then he/she would understand your not taking those courses.

The more "force" you use to throw a ball, the faster it will go, right? (You put more energy into it, according to your lexicon.) And there is more force exerted on heavy objects than on light ones by gravity, right? So if you drop a heavy and a light object at the same time, the heavier one will be moved faster toward the ground than the lighter one, and will therefore arrive first, right? But Galileo long ago showed that you are wrong, that both travel at the same speed (with the same acceleration). So there must be something about your understanding of gravity that is not correct. (To really see this fact clearly, you need to drop them in a vacuum so that the presence of air will not slow down one object more than another.)
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 60

I did read your responses to my 2 discussions from yesterday but I think my 3rd post may have been lost in spacebiggrin Again, it can be a task to keep up with discussions on multiple posts and I am still working on getting the hang of meetup. The below posting per your request refers to the topic of this thread in fashion of 'copy/paste' from your book' for discussion which I have done in the below. Once you respond to this one, I can then respond to all 3. If you did respond to the below, I simply can't find it and ask for assistance. Thank you for understanding;

Posted 9/3/13 8:44 PM


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
: 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
: of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
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
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
: 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
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 factsmile
Bill Van F.
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,918
Todd, the following excerpted paragraph from the book, in the Preface, is exactly what is happening here.
I do wish, also, that the reader will read what I have written conscientiously, with an effort to understand everything that is written within the context in which it is written. I am well aware that it is possible for someone who is reading something to have a strong wish to demonstrate that there are flaws, and therefore to be prone to read superficially and thereby allow the words and sentences being read to mean something different than what they are actually meaning in the context in which they are written. Most of the words that I use in this book can have more than one meaning, and if a meaning other than what I am using is assigned to my words, I can be made to appear to be saying things that I am not saying and would not say. I have already had this experience in other things that I have written. The reader should indeed look for flaws in what he or she is reading, but the flaws should be with regard to the actual meanings of what is being written, rather than substituted meanings produced by using the words differently.
I am describing a new set of concepts, especially the Subjective Model and the Objective Model, that are specifically described in detail in the book, and you are saying that my use of "subjective" and "objective" are not as in the dictionary or as you have been accustomed to using the words. "Subjective Model" and "Objective Model" are my terms for my concepts that are new concepts. They are my contribution. So of course you can't find them used by other people. I am not reporting other people's ideas in the book, but instead giving everyone something new to think about. Are you reading the book to try to comprehend the new concepts that I am presenting? What are you trying to accomplish?

What would really help would be for you to start reading the book conscientiously and reporting the first sentence that seems either unclear or incorrect in the context in which it is written. Quoting the sentence in its paragraph, with perhaps one or two paragraphs on either side of it, and then describing why you think that it is unclear or inaccurate would be very helpful. The important question is whether you can understand what is written, not whether you can find some other meanings for the words that I use and that I define in the book for the purposes of the book.
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 61

Thanks for your responses.

My recent postings after I read your books was an exercise of gaining knowledge in Philosophy. I have accomplished this after your last post. Thank you for bearing with me as I have respected this boards ethics and not used my discussions to discredit your books or your belief in Humanianity, until now. As I prior mentioned, it took me a week to read the books and began posting to attempt to resolve my question or thoughts of your writing. I have yet to disrespect you or this group, just looking for answers per your request and have now completed what I was to accomplish.

This will be my last post as I have my answers and feel, due to no other posts from members in our threads that I my have disrupted the prior flow before I entered the discussion board yet I had to resolve my questions. I wish to stay a member of the group as I wish no disrespect and will check in time to time.

What did I accomplish in regards to your books and/or beliefs?

1- The author is subjective of 2 + 2 = 4, a first for me in my entire life.
2- The author is subjective as in what goes up, must come down where gravity exist, again a first for me in my entire life.
3- The author is subjective to what was created versus what is built and subjective to a creator and also subjective to the big bang. I have no premise of a person saying they created the chicken which leads me to believe the chicken just didn't fall out of the sky. If not I can only assume molecules and atoms built the chicken.
4- The author is subjective to an idea, thought, thing, object... prior to the existence of a idea, thought, thing, object including describing ideas, thoughts, things, objects that don't exist. I think there is a philologist word for this but it escapes me....

When one says "I do not believe in God", this sentence does not equal the above four statements. The one is aware and knows of the idea, thought, thing, object named God (objective). The one is aware of God "objective" then applies an "subjective" belief that that the one doesn't believe in God as the one has every right to their opinion of "anything". This is a sentence in order.

When one says "I do not believe or believe in "blank"", then one must question the statement. Per the sentence, the one states belief (subjective) to the "blank" (objective), thus a question arises in comparison that what is the "blank"? The blank must reside in that ones mind and only in that ones mind

In your above response you did confirm that your objective and subject models were in your mind, opinion, and only existed in your written books. The remaining 7 billion people know of such models therefore is the "blank" Illusion or fantasy only to you?

I leave you with this, The Mind Body Problem only exists in one of 7 billion people...

Wish you the best
Bill Van F.
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,919
I do not understand most of what you have said, but am willing to take the sentences one at a time and find out what you mean. You seem unwilling to engage in that kind of dialogue. I have requested that you do the same with what I have written. You seem unwilling to do that either. I do not have the impression that you conscientiously read the Mind-Body Problem book, for understanding, and you do not seem to wish to attain that understanding. You are walking away from the sharing and comparing of ideas, just as Chuck has. This is a phenomenon, I believe, that will bring about the destruction of our species, unless we learn to do otherwise. Watching the videos that Terry has just posted under the International Protests topic will I think be convincing that we have to be able to talk with each other when we have difference of opinion. When we don't, we ultimately kill each other. Developing the ability to share and compare opinions when they are different is ultimately life-saving. So I am sad to see you go. I hope that you will change your mind.
Bill Van F.
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,920
Well, Todd just left the CPDG, giving no explanation. So what was this whole Chuck and Todd phenomenon? What did they wish to accomplish? Why was it impossible to have genuine dialogue? Is what happened normal for our species? Is it actually impossible for us as a species to discuss difference of opinion in depth in certain basic areas of thought? They both appeared to be of some sort of Christian tradition. Christians, in my experience, are like Objectivists. They just walk away. Is the maintenance of a belief system of that great an importance? At least we are getting to where we don't kill each other (in this part of the world). But it is so, so important that we be able to examine all of our beliefs for accuracy, because we are going to be faced with increasingly big problems, I believe, and our mistakes can be really big.
A former member
Post #: 1
We appear to be some sort of Christian tradition, is that the best you have Bill?You speak of exchange, offer me any truths that you believe, any truths? We can then begin dialogue on that basis. Books were written in the past, let me know what you know today and I will speak about what we know today. Whatever it is that we don't know will take care of itself.
A former member
Post #: 4
Two more items, your comment on our mistakes can be really big is juvenile, our mistakes cause people to die. Secondly, your regard for Todd is disrespectful. He addressed you in good faith, looking for intelligence, all you offered was biased opinion, I would have expected better.

Your comment that someone is watching, yes I'm watching and growing tiresome. Man up Bill, this is not a chat room, the folks you are talking to are real, with all of the trappings that reality has to offer.

You in your sanctimonious regard would declare me to be anything is an insult. You would be money ahead to categorize yourself and let the rest of us fend for ourselves. I am who I have always been. And I would suggest old son, that you have been whom you have always been.
Bill Van F.
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,923
Chuck! You're back! You keep leaving and coming back. Well if we can have some meaningful dialogue after all, that will be great. I'll be working on a response to your posts.
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