Meeting with Bishop: Faith is a Choice

[_Ceeboo]

While you may know very little about these subjects, that doesn't mean that others don't know quite a lot about them ;)

OK.


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Hoops]

YOu can stipulate what you wish

Well, in fact I was trying to guess what conditions YOU had in mind when you suggested that someone might look at a cup, say 'that cup is blue', and be wrong about it. If you won't specify the conditions, your statement that

As I wrote before, I'll let you specifiy whatever conditions you wish. The conditions you stipulate are rather inconsequential to this discussion because no matter how you frame it, you are still left with the same problem.

Just because you and ten of your friends see a blue cup on the table doesn't mean the cup is actually blue. Blue may only exist in your perception of it.

is pretty meaningless.

But when you say this:

Independently, these wavelengths may be yellow.

Exactly

A wavelength is no more colored than a number can be salty or sweet. The only way wavelengths of electromagnetic waves get associated with colors is because you direct them into people's eyes, and then listen to what color name they utter. There is no other way of finding out. The idea that a wavelength that elicits the name 'blue' from all people with a normal complement of retinal cone cells is 'really' some other color is simply meaningless.

It is indeed. Now you're getting it.

[_Hoops]

Ahhh Yes, the old "make the silly believer answer the global flood/age of the earth" question so we can illustrate, to each other, how dumb their total position really is. Ha- ha- ha- ha.

I would suggest that we (all of us) should at least consider the magnitude of how much we really do not know (while offering with complete certainty that we "know").

Ceeboo will be happy to answer the question: :)

I do not discard the global flood

I do not discard the YEC's stance that the age of the earth is 6,000-7,000 years.

I do not discard a literal account of Genesis

I do not discard those who subscribe to "yom" (day) being a period of time.

I do not discard those who debate that the literal 24 hour day did not begin until the sun and moon were created (day 3) thus giving the means and method by which to govern these 24 hour cycles.

While I know very, very little, I believe that there is a Creator/God that is behind it all and some day we all might have answers to the many, many mysterious questions we are all forced to ponder.

Did I answer the question?

Peace,
Ceeboo

You will note that Ceeboo is considerably more magnaminous and gracious than I am. I'm working on it, but I'm a long way from him.

Thank you, Ceeboo, for once again modeling how I should act, and not criticizing me for how I do act.

[_Chap]

Now you're getting it.

Getting what?

Kindly state your position on the epistemology of color vision clearly and unambiguously. That implies saying clearly and fully what the situation you are envisaging is, and then saying something definite about it. That you have so far failed to do.

[_Themis]

I would suggest that we (all of us) should at least consider the magnitude of how much we really do not know (while offering with complete certainty that we "know").

The problem ATM is that Hoops is arguing that we can't know with absolute certainty that what we expereince with our 5 senses is real. Hoops denies this, but I think everyone else can see that is what he is arguing. No one is suggesting we can know with absolute certainty, but this is the game he wants to play in order to create a false level playing field for spiritual expereinces. Hoops also does not get that our expereinces with these senses is the evidence. Even spiritual expereinces come from sensory input and are also evidence. We take the evidence and assign meaning to it. IF it works and consistently we generally think it may be reality. If it doesn't then it may not. Seems simple for most people to understand. This does not mean we are saying it is reality in a absolute way. It is easy to see that the 5 senses do better then internal senses(if that's the right word) like feelings, intuition, etc. Even the 5 senses do not have equal track records in what works. Sense of smell tends to be wrong much more often then sight.

Ceeboo will be happy to answer the question: :)

I do not discard the global flood

I do not discard the YEC's stance that the age of the earth is 6,000-7,000 years.

I do not discard a literal account of Genesis

I do not discard those who subscribe to "yom" (day) being a period of time.

I do not discard those who debate that the literal 24 hour day did not begin until the sun and moon were created (day 3) thus giving the means and method by which to govern these 24 hour cycles.

While I know very, very little, I believe that there is a Creator/God that is behind it all and some day we all might have answers to the many, many mysterious questions we are all forced to ponder.

Did I answer the question?

Peace,
Ceeboo

That's fine, but many if not most Christians today do not believe in a Global flood or young earth. I guess hoops will think of them as Empiricists.

[_Themis]

You will note that Ceeboo is considerably more magnaminous and gracious than I am. I'm working on it, but I'm a long way from him.

Thank you, Ceeboo, for once again modeling how I should act, and not criticizing me for how I do act.

You will note that criticizing someones argument is what is going on with me. I have made suggesting that you are playing a game, which I think is also true and as such appropriate.

[_Themis]

A wavelength is no more colored than a number can be salty or sweet. The only way wavelengths of electromagnetic waves get associated with colors is because you direct them into people's eyes, and then listen to what color name they utter. There is no other way of finding out. The idea that a wavelength that elicits the name 'blue' from all people with a normal complement of retinal cone cells is 'really' some other color is simply meaningless.

The other problem is that humans define what we expereince. Humans have defined what is blue, and is therefore blue because that is what we expereince and have defined as blue(not yellow). Hoops does seem to get it, but then I am not the best at explaining things. :)

[_Hoops]

Now you're getting it.

Getting what?

Kindly state your position on the epistemology of color vision clearly and unambiguously. That implies saying clearly and fully what the situation you are envisaging is, and then saying something definite about it. That you have so far failed to do.

Sure. I'm not talking about arbitrarily defining something as blue. We've identified the wavelengths that we perceive to be blue. But those wavelengths - or whatever causes our perciption to register as blue - do necessarily equate to being blue. Is the cup blue independent of our perception of it? How do you know?

I'll try another way: the only way you can perceive a blue cup is with your internal mechanisms that tell you it's blue. Because all of us perceive the cup is blue does not mean it is in reality blue because we all have the same mechanism by which we interact with this thing. Until we can independently confirm this thing is blue, our seeing it as blue is meaningless.

Another: we all see the same way. We all internalize or perceive things using the same mechanisms. So of course we will come to the same conclusions. But employing these mechanisms do not necessarily mean we have access to all of reality. It's illogical to assume that we do.

Another: I'm not proposing anything yet. I'm simply stating that -- because you call something blue and the evidence you use to support this argument tells all of us that it is blue does not make it blue. The cup may indeed by yellow, but your mechanism tells you it's blue because of its wavelengths and the way these interact/or act upon your internal mechanism by which you determine blue-ness. Until you can independently determine that it is blue - independent of your mechanisms acting upon it - then you have no logical reason to assume it is blue.

[_Hoops]

A wavelength is no more colored than a number can be salty or sweet. The only way wavelengths of electromagnetic waves get associated with colors is because you direct them into people's eyes, and then listen to what color name they utter. There is no other way of finding out. The idea that a wavelength that elicits the name 'blue' from all people with a normal complement of retinal cone cells is 'really' some other color is simply meaningless.

The other problem is that humans define what we expereince. Humans have defined what is blue, and is therefore blue because that is what we expereince and have defined as blue(not yellow). Hoops does seem to get it, but then I am not the best at explaining things. :)

Yep, we define what we experience. Are you telling me that all of reality is encompassed in your experience? And then isn't your experience defining your empiricism?

[_Themis]

Yep, we define what we experience. Are you telling me that all of reality is encompassed in your experience?

Some may, but I don't know how you got there based on anything I have said. Try reading it again.

And then isn't your experience defining your empiricism?

I am not aware that I am an empiricist. I have focused on what works, which is all that we can really worry to much about.