[Kentl]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I find two aliens. I put them on an MRI and scan their brains. They don't match.

How do I tell which is "good" and which is "evil" from that scan?

simple you seee what nomal is

for inctsnce usely anythjing below 95 in tempture is bad
some pepole are bwon witht heir body tepmture lower then avrege but thanks to Sscien you can tell what their normal for them is

same thign for aleins

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You do know that I have no religious faith don't you? You seem to not realize that.

The same way I know that dolphins like sleeping in igloos.

But to answer from a Christian perspective: because "wrong" has been defined as "against God's will" and because the Bible, which has been defined as the expression of God's will indicates that God doesn't want us to.

so by crhstins it is defirned as what god says

for scicen it is define as a efect the mind sets when doing somehting ie
if you have guilt

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So you are saying there's a scientific model for God's will and tests we can perform to establish or disprove the model? Do tell me what this model is... because none of what you've talked about relates to such a model.

never said there was just saying following god is as crazy as following scncien

Originally Posted by JerryLove

You seem to be repeating over and over the fact that emotional and cognitive states in a person can be read via a machine (such as a FMRI), and that sensory input affects mood and thought.

we can
when you get angrey parts of the brain "light up"
becusae those parts are the ones that trgier emotions

fear hope love scared happy guilt porud

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK. I agree with both of those facts... but they have nothing to do with whether something is right or wrong; moral or amoral... at most it means we can test to see if some individual has a reaction to stimuli consistent with a labeled emotion (such as guilt)... this does not affect the question itself at all.

by the own persons words guilt is bad

they say it
they dont like it
thats what makes it bad
becuse the person dose not like it and will try to avoid it


so by scicne propective
wrong is when you get a fealing that is not good and that EVREY one (huamns)
hate

no one likes fealing guilty
no one likes fealing mad
no one likes fealing sad

these fealings are made so we know that we should not do this or that

or mind dose not like when we do what ever made us feel guilt
we feel bad about it

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Kentl

so by scicne propective
wrong is when you get a fealing that is not good and that EVREY one (huamns)
hate

That's a philosophical statement. It is not a scientific statement.


I think you are describing the scientific principles of Operant Conditioning, which no scientist would apply to morality.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

It's relative because it's subjective in the sense that the frame of reference of the subject matters in regards to describing the truth of a fact. If it didn't there would be nothing relative about it. It would be an absolute matter.

You are certainly using a different definition of "subjective" than I am and, I believe, a technically inaccurate one. You appear to have made "subjective" and "relative" exactly the same word, and in doing so left yourself with no word which describes the individual emotional perception as differentiated from the objective, but relative reality.

In doing so, you've also made objective and subjective synonymous. The measurement of the train, whether from within the train or within the barn, is objective. It is also relative to the frame of the observer. If I accept your definition, I must see measuring the length of a train as "subjective" (and objective at the same time).

Yes. But that's an entirely private matter in the sense that if you say you dislike pizza I just have to take your word for it. That's not really how I'm using the word.

But I believe that's how the word exists in the language... and the only way it makes sense relative to the other words and concepts involved.

Still, this moves into semantics. When I say "subjective", I do not mean what you are using it to mean. More, you risk equivocating when you then use it elsewhere.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Kentl

simple you seee what nomal is

for inctsnce usely anythjing below 95 in tempture is bad
some pepole are bwon witht heir body tepmture lower then avrege but thanks to Sscien you can tell what their normal for them is

OK. One alien is 112 degrees and the other is 120 degrees. Which one is normal?

If I go to an insane asylum, I might find that the doctors are abnormal (different from the majority). So the doctors would be the insane people?

for scicen it is define as a efect the mind sets when doing somehting ie if you have guilt

Science does not define words, though a given theory may.

The problem there is that you are taking existing words and redefining them to mean something different. In discussions this is called "equivocation", and it is a false argument.

never said there was just saying following god is as crazy as following scncien

Ok. So you don't believe you can test to see if something is moral or not as defined by Christianity?

by the own persons words guilt is bad

they say it
they dont like it
thats what makes it bad
becuse the person dose not like it and will try to avoid it

So things people avoid are immoral now? Like snakes or rotten eggs.

so by scicne propective
wrong is when you get a fealing that is not good and that EVREY one (huamns)
hate

no one likes fealing guilty
no one likes fealing mad
no one likes fealing sad

I kind of enjoy anger... and I don't seem to avoid guilt.

Wow, none of your claims is turning out even true: much less useful to your premise

I may feel differently tomorrow, but I think I'm gonna call it quits with you. Your posts are too incoherent. I guess that makes them "scientifically bad".

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

OK. One alien is 112 degrees and the other is 120 degrees. Which one is normal?

be like if two humans who have defeint leveals of enter thing here


docrots know when its nomla for that person becuse they study them

Originally Posted by JerryLove

If I go to an insane asylum, I might find that the doctors are abnormal (different from the majority). So the doctors would be the insane people?

dont put words in my mouth i never said anything like this


all i said was doctors (pch)
can tell when someone is insane not by philosply but by scncien

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Science does not define words, though a given theory may.

The problem there is that you are taking existing words and redefining them to mean something different. In discussions this is called "equivocation", and it is a false argument.

how so?
what words am i twsiting?
bad?
its not twisting bad is labled by defnition (along with many others) as something you dont like

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Ok. So you don't believe you can test to see if something is moral or not as defined by Christianity?

yes and no

i belive some parts of christiny
(a wife leaving a absuic hsband)
is wrong

but killing inceont and what not yues

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So things people avoid are immoral now? Like snakes or rotten eggs.

one of the many jobs of emotions is to tell you not to do something
ie jump in fornt of a car
step on a snake
kill someone
ect

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I kind of enjoy anger... and I don't seem to avoid guilt.

you like anger?
i hate it more then anything

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Wow, none of your claims is turning out even true: much less useful to your premise

I may feel differently tomorrow, but I think I'm gonna call it quits with you. Your posts are too incoherent. I guess that makes them "scientifically bad".

wow, that toatly did not come off mean

in fact i keep talking about my veiw and you say "wrong wrong wrong"

yet when you guys point your views i say somethign about it
i need to stop agruing


all i did was post my ophion belive what you want


dont keep replying if you dont want to talk about it

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The measurement of the train, whether from within the train or within the barn, is objective. It is also relative to the frame of the observer. If I accept your definition, I must see measuring the length of a train as "subjective" (and objective at the same time).

To say it is relative is to say it is dependent upon the observer. To say something is dependent upon the observer is to say it is subjective—dependent on the perception of the particular subject. So there is an extent to which this is subjective because there is no objective basis for preferring one account of the facts over another. That is to say, independent of a particular mind there is no truth of whether A happened before B or whether they occurred at the same time.

[mulletman]

Originally Posted by Kentl

i belive some parts of christiny
(a wife leaving a absuic hsband)
is wrong

I'm curious as to what you mean by this. Can you elaborate? PM if you don't want to de-rail the thread topic.....

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by slap_j

To say something is dependent upon the observer is to say it is subjective—dependent on the perception of the particular subject.

But that's not the common definition of "subjective". There is no case in which empirical observation can be considered "subjective" by any dictionary definition of the word. Subjective and objective are antonyms in all cases.

sub·jec·tive   [suhb-jek-tiv]
–adjective
1.
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.
pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3.
placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
4.
Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5.
relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.
6.
pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.
7.
Grammar .
a.
pertaining to or constituting the subject of a sentence.
b.
(in English and certain other languages) noting a case specialized for that use, as He in He hit the ball.
c.
similar to such a case in meaning. Compare nominative.
8.
Obsolete . characteristic of a political subject; submissive.




lol. semantics.

That is to say, independent of a particular mind there is no truth of whether A happened before B or whether they occurred at the same time.

I'd probably rephrase that as " independent of a particular point of perspective there is no truth of whether A happened before B or whether they occurred at the same time."

Because the perspective itself is also independent of the mind.

[Rainer.]

Originally Posted by Kentl

what words am i twsiting?

"Philosophy".

At least your claims that all your philosophical statements are not philosophical are akin to saying that a duck isn't a duck.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

But that's not the common definition of "subjective".

I'm using it to mean dependent upon the mind or individual perception. How is that so odd?

There is no case in which empirical observation can be considered "subjective" by any dictionary definition of the word.

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

If I smack you in the knee with a hammer and you report having pain is that not an empirical observation on your part? And it's entirely subjective. I cannot, as a third party, investigate whether you're feeling pain or not.

Because the perspective itself is also independent of the mind.

You're saying there are disembodied, objective frames of reference floating around in the world out there? How do you have a perspective without some sort of observational apparatus?

[Kentl]

Originally Posted by Rainer.

"Philosophy".

At least your claims that all your philosophical statements are not philosophical are akin to saying that a duck isn't a duck.

tell me in your own words what is Philosophy?
since you seem to miss the point

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

To say it is relative is to say it is dependent upon the observer. To say something is dependent upon the observer is to say it is subjective—dependent on the perception of the particular subject. So there is an extent to which this is subjective because there is no objective basis for preferring one account of the facts over another. That is to say, independent of a particular mind there is no truth of whether A happened before B or whether they occurred at the same time.

This, to me, shows a deeply flawed understanding of either relativity, the words involved, or both.

An robot with a ruler can pace up an down a train moving at 99% c and tell you it's length. It's *objective*. It is *not* subjective. It is, however, relative.

"Relative" is not dependent on the observer... relative is dependent upon the reference. Relative things are still objective, not subjective.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

I'm using it to mean dependent upon the mind or individual perception. How is that so odd?

Does the train moving at 99%c exist in the mind (subjective) or in the universe (objective).

Of course, it exists in the universe. It is therefore objective and not subjective.

Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

If I smack you in the knee with a hammer and you report having pain is that not an empirical observation on your part? And it's entirely subjective. I cannot, as a third party, investigate whether you're feeling pain or not.

So you are saying that because there are objective events occurring at the same time as subjective experience of those events that the two are the same?

Poppycock.

You're saying there are disembodied, objective frames of reference floating around in the world out there? How do you have a perspective without some sort of observational apparatus?

Observed is objective. It's not a coincidence that they begin with the same sounds. Subjective is not observed.

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

An robot with a ruler can pace up an down a train moving at 99% c and tell you it's length. It's *objective*. It is *not* subjective. It is, however, relative.

The train itself is exists independently of any observer. But the simultaneity of events is observer-dependent. If subjective is too ticklish a word for that, fine.

So you are saying that because there are objective events occurring at the same time as subjective experience of those events that the two are the same?

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm saying that Jon's hypothetical knee pain is subjective, at least in an ontological sense. But that doesn't mean it can't also be objective in some other sense. For instance, as an event in history Jon's knee pain is objective.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by slap_j

The train itself is exists independently of any observer. But the simultaneity of events is observer-dependent. If subjective is too ticklish a word for that, fine.

Both cannot be true.

What is the objective length of the train? What is the objective speed of the train? What is the difference between "subjective" and "relative" in your vocabulary.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I'm saying that Jon's hypothetical knee pain is subjective, at least in an ontological sense. But that doesn't mean it can't also be objective in some other sense. For instance, as an event in history Jon's knee pain is objective.

No and no. The reactions that occurred in his knee, and brain are objective. His perceptive experience... how he views the experience. That is subjective.