Suppose in my mind I have the concept of something that I know as “cup”.

Suppose I perceive in my senses a single instantiation of this concept. — RussellA

Where does you concept of "cup" come from? How does your internal concept of "cup" instantiates in the external world?

I am not sure where you are quoting your claims from. It sounds like some AI or internet information. I am totally relying on my own reasoning on these concepts to come to the definitions.

From my reasoning, you are not just wrong, but also you sound like you are relying on the doctrine of authority or popular media.

Sorry mate, your claim is not accepted.

It only makes sense that the direct object of our perception and cognition exists in our mind, — RussellA

Does it mean when you see a cup on the table, the cup exists on the table, and it also exists in your mind?

So are you saying this is your interpretation of what you saw? Or are you saying that your church members and church leaders also aimed to provide false promises or illusions? — Tom Storm

It was obvious from the observations, many members were there for increasing their business, making more contacts preferably richer older folks, and they were told to bring more friends or whoever into the church, and they will have more blessing from God. Some were attending the church because they were lonely, and wanted to find partner. Of course, it wouldn't be all 100% of them were like that, but quite a lot of them were like that.

You don't say a corpse with no biological function, a biological body. It is just nonsense. Please understand that Logic and Semantic are closely related, if not the same.

I have no time to argue with you on the point which is not even main issue with this thread. Enjoy your poetry mate.

No, it isn’t different wording; it’s a fundamentally different lens. Your example is a common secular view of religion that uses pejorative language to describe aims. See below. — Tom Storm

My points were from my experience of observing the church members when attending the churches in my teens.

I'd say religions aims for truth not false promises or illusions. What you are describing is not the aim of religion but a skeptic's view of religions aims. — Tom Storm

There are many different types and sectors in religions. They may operate and behave all differently. Not saying your points are wrong.

You can extract DNA from rocks. Dead body is not biological body. It is a corpse.
Biological body means a body with the biological functions.

Yes, we seem to be talking in different planets for sure. I can tell you are into poetry.

Isn't the measurement (of time) objective? — Corvus


It is. If you read the OP as saying it isn’t, then you’re not reading it right. — Wayfarer

My point was measurements of time has to be objective to be meaningful for science or practical life. But time itself doesn't exist in the world. Only thing we see is the duration of the movements, changes and successions of objects.

Kant said time is intuition, and precondition of perception. That sounds like time is subjective and internal in the mind, which is innate.

If it is true, then what would be the content of the intuition? What is the nature of the precondition? I am still not seeing time as something that I can understand what it is.

We see objects changing - sun rising and setting, birds flying, cars passing, people walking, but where is time itself? I recall what happened yesterday, and it is today. But where is actual time itself?

If time is intuition, I should be able to know what time it is without looking at the clock, but I can't. I must rely on watching the clock for telling time. If it is precondition of perception, then why I can perceive the cup in front me, but not time itself?

and an infinite number of those infinities, and... (infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and that infinitely times. and...) continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and that continues forever. and.....(…)… — an-salad

Infinity is a concept saying that there is no end in counting (in math), or final point (in physics or the material word or movement). If there were the end point of counting or movement is reached, then it wouldn't be infinity. Hence it is just an abstract concept, which doesn't exist in the real world.

Trying to count or prove infnity using math formulas or functions on the concept sounds silly and obtuse.

But in essence, most religion works to build community around a shared notion of the transcendent. — Tom Storm

Building community sounds like recruiting the disciples and converting folks. but in different wordings.

they reviewed their beliefs and felt God lacking real traction. — Tom Storm

I read the opposite stories - Please have a read on the life of A. J. Ayer his final days.

Below is a video I made (less than 10 minutes) about why religions have failed to find the truth.
In short, religions disagree about what happens when I die, how to be saved, etc. Religions have had thousands of years to find the truth and have failed. The video show why. Comments (here or on YouTube) appreciated. — Art48

We need to think about what religions try to achieve. If we agree that religions aim to achieve converting the ordinary folks in the streets into their cults and sectors giving false promise and illusion for afterlife and reincarnation, then they have been successful, because there are many believers in the teachings.

If the would-be followers turn to sceptic on the religions doubting if the teachings are true, the religions still succeed, because then the sceptic will turn to a philosopher reading philosophy of religion not quite committing himself to the teachings, but still thinking about and going over the teachings.

And sooner or later, the non-belivers and agnostics tend to turn to religions when they get older.

Whether religions actually offer the real afterlife or reincarnation remains mystery, which belong to the realm of faith.

The biological body does not cease to exist at death. — AmadeusD

Dead body is not a biological body. It is a body. It is about logic.

Corvus was saying that (1) there is something, namely the state of being dead, which lasts forever; — Gregory of the Beard of Ockham

When a death occurs, the biological body ceases to exist. The fact the death has occurred will exist and remain forever. Death is not the biological body. Death is a fact.

How would you determine the numeric value of anything without comparison to a scale? That's what the instrument does, it applies the scale to the item and makes a comparison. Think of the tape measure example, a thermometer, a clock, any sort of instrument of measure. — Metaphysician Undercover

Comparison to what? Do instruments know what to compare with? The instruments read what they are designed to read, and display the figures in numeric value, which are read by humans or intelligent devices for further actions.

If you recall the point of our discussion here, my point was the read figures must be objective value. If they are not objective, then measurement will be useless for practical purpose.

there is a huge difference, since Your perception of the world is not the same. — bizso09

Does that mean that the world is fundamentally self-contradictory? — bizso09

Difference is not self-contradiction. Contradiction means true and false at the same time. Experiences are meant to be different, and it is the nature of experience, not self-contradiction.

From What I can tell, all of it. Nothing is direct description or argument for anything - it's just (admittedly, very nice and enjoyable) ways to describe your position. That's fine, btu does nothing for hte things I've put forward. — AmadeusD

I have no idea what you are havering about.

I don't have a definition. But I can tell you that flowery, interesting ways to put forward ones opinion isn't doing philosophy. I'm sure you'd agree (acknowledging you doin't think you've done this - fine). — AmadeusD

I don't agree with you.

Actually, measurement in its basic form, is simply comparison. So no "instrument" is required for basic measurements. If Jim is short, and Tom is judged as taller, that is a form of measurement. The tools, standard scales, and instruments, just allow for more precision and complexity, for what is fundamentally just comparison. — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't agree. Measurement is not comparison. Measurement is finding the numeric value of the measured objects or movements.

We're talking about measurement, not taking pictures of the measured thing. The radar instrument, with the integrated computer analysis is what measures the speed. The camera does not, it takes a picture of the speeding car, to be sent to the owner. That's why it's called "photo radar", the radar machine measures, and the photo machine pictures what was measured. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true. Radar is not involved in the machine. There is no such a thing called photo radar.

So I asked you, if duration is measured, and it has no physical existence, then what is it? It must be something real, if we can measure it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I have explained this to you already. Please read my previous reply on this point.

I gave you a couple of examples of measuring instruments, in my examples. I used a tape measure, keeping things nice and simple so as to avoid unnecessary complications. And in the case of measuring time I used a clock. What more are you asking for? — Metaphysician Undercover

I am not asking for anything. I am just stating that any act of reading measurements is involved with some sort of measuring tools. You cannot read size, weight or time with no instruments or measuring tools. The measuring instruments or tools become the part of reading measurements. You cannot separate them.

I wouldn't use a "speed detection machine" as an example, because I really don't know exactly how it works. I do however know that it works by radar, not "camera vision". So you are just continuing to demonstrate how wrong you are. — Metaphysician Undercover

A speed detecting machine is a good example for this case, because it integrates many different technical modules for measuring, reading and also decision making and processing in the device.

To take photos of the speeding cars, it uses camera vision, not the radars. Radars are used for mostly flying objects in the sky and aeronautical or military applications, not for the speed traffic detection.

Why and how does your ignorance on the technology proves that I am wrong?

Then what does "duration" as the thing measured, refer to, if not a length of time? And if it does refer to a length of time, how can there be a "length" of something which has no physical existence? — Metaphysician Undercover

This is a good question. Measurement of time is always on change. That is, the changes of movement of objects. It is not physical length. It is measurement of the duration on the start and end of movement the measured objects.

Think of the measurement for a day. It is the duration of the earth rotating once to the starting measurement geographical point. It takes 24 hours. Think of the length of a year. It is the set point where the earth rotates around the sun fully, and returns to the set point, which the duration of the movement is 365 days.

Think of your age. If you are X years old now, it must have counted from the day and year you were born until this day. For this measurement, you don't need any instruments, because it doesn't require the strict accuracy of the reading / counting. However, strictly speaking, we could say that your brain is the instrument for the reading.

1. The person using the instrument reads the number from the instrument.
2. The instrument does not read anything from the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

If you could think of some measuring instrument, you will change your mind I am sure. Think of the speed detection machine for detecting cars driving over the speed limit on the road.

The machine monitors the road via the camera vision, and reads the speed of every passing cars. When it detects cars driving over the set speed limit in the machine, it will take photo of the car's number plate, and sends it to the traffic control authorities, from which they will issue a fine and warning letter with the offense points to the speeding driver.

If you think only humans can read, but machines and instruments cannot, then your reasoning seems in fault.

3. As I already explained, it is not "the value" of the object itself which is determined by the measurement, but the value of a specific measurement parameter, which we might call a property of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Here, I feel that you seem to be trying to complicate the issue unnecessarily for some strange reason. This is a simple issue. Time doesn't have physical existence itself. It is measurement of perceived duration. Human mind perceives duration, but it lacks accuracy of the readings to be any use for science or even daily routine in the society, hence they must rely on the accurate time reading instruments. That is, right you guessed it I hope, clocks and watches.

All I can say, is that what "measurement" means to you is nothing like what it means to me. And since what you said looks nonsensical to me, I can tell you with a high degree of confidence, that you will never be able to make me understand what measurement means — Metaphysician Undercover

It is such a simple explanation to understand for anyone. But you seem to be determined refusing to see it. Why is it so difficult to see it? Why do you bring in such a bizarre ideas of "measurement" (property of property?) of time into the discussion?

I'm sorry Corvus, but this line, ("It is reading of the objects in number") makes no sense to me at all. How could a person read an object, unless it was written language like a book. Are you suggesting that you, or an instrument, could look at an object and see numerals printed on it, and interpreting these numerals forms a measurement? That's craziness. — Metaphysician Undercover

It sounds crazy to me if someone cannot read numbers on the speedo meter or watch. Do you mean you can only read English words, but not numbers?

Yikes! You seem to believe in that craziness. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was trying to make you understand what measurement means. But it seems not going well. Well is it time to go to sleep?

The point I made is that if we adhere to a strict definition of "objective", meaning of the object, then measurement is not objective. This is because measurement assigns a value to a specified property, it does not say anything about the object itself. Assigning the property to the object says something about the object, but assigning a value to the property says something about the property. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your confusion seems to be coming from the fact that you misunderstands the idea of "measurement". Please read the proper definition from my previous post. It is not property of property. Measurement is always in numeric value of the objects read by the instruments.

So measurement is twice removed from the object. It is not a property of the object, but a property of the property. It is an idea applied to an idea, therefore subjective. — Metaphysician Undercover

Measurement is not idea. It is reading of the objects in number. Numeric value read by the instruments i.e in case of time or duration, it would be stop watch or clock. The instruments are set for the universal reading methods in numeric value, which is objective knowledge on the objects.

Well, "objective" has many meanings. Here, you imply that if two people agree, then it is "objective". That would imply a meaning of "objective" which is based in intersubjectivity. So, when I said the measurement is "subjective", this is not inconsistent, or contrary to your use of "objective" here. — Metaphysician Undercover

You misunderstood my point. I never said or implied, just 2 folks agreeing on something is objective. My idea of objectivity means - widely or officially accepted by scientific tradition or customs in the world.

You ignored the point I made. "Size", "weight", etc., are not "the object", those terms refer to a specific feature, a property of the supposed object, and strictly speaking it is that specific property which is measured, not the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Size, weight, distance and duration has no meaning without measurements for them. I have never said they are objects. Again you seem to have misunderstood my points.

Alas, "cuz I said so", isn't good Philosophy. — LuckyR

You seem to be taking things too personally, not reading the post properly. What I said was, copying and pasting internet definitions with no reflection and thoughts into the forum posts, and blindly worshiping the information as some biblical truth, is not philosophy. Nothing to do with because LuckyR said. I don't care who said what.

And moreover, if your read OP carefully, this thread is not about extending or hastening someone's life. It is about arguments against suicide.

But I believe that no one should control other people's life. Only thing a decent human being must do, is to help other human being's life by caring and saving them making better, if they can, no matter under what circumstances.

The measurement is never objective, because it is always entirely conceptual, property of the subject. Nor is the measurement something we say about the object itself, because measurement is applied to a specific parameter (property) of the object. — Metaphysician Undercover

Measurement is agreed way of setting and counting the figures of objects, be it size, weight or time. If it is not objective, then everyone will have different way of measurement on days, hours, minutes, distance, size, weight etc, which will make Science and daily life chaotic?

Uummm... okay, except that isn't the common definition of life. In fact my review of the 20 definitions in Websters, doesn't find that particular nuance. — LuckyR

I wouldn't be impressed with anyone just copying over the common definitions from the internet, and pastes to forum posts. No. That is not Philosophy.

My definition of life is a reflected and meditated points from the common definitions, which is not grossly strange, weird, disagreeable or meaningless. Anyone with common sense would agree with my definition of life. If one cannot find any agreement or understanding from my definition of human life, I would find the person with a very peculiar set of mind, or must be some sort of internet information worshiper.

Then the measurement, which is subjective, is taken to be "time". — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't the measurement objective? The feel, knowing and perception of time is subjective, but any measurements are objective i.e. by watch or clock, isn't it? Your 1 hour must be same as my 1 hour, and for the folks in the down under, and the folks in the whole world.

It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination. — unimportant

If Buddhism is a religion, then without the supernatural and religious elements, it wouldn't be a religion.
The supernaturals and religious elements can be taken in as symbolic phenomenon for beliefs and interpretations. Sufferings too, can be symbolic.

For a billionaire, not having another 100 billions could be felt as suffering. Some folks believe they are reincarnating every morning when they wake up from sleep.

And if we accept that there are many things which has no explanation, for example, your own birth (how were you born as you, not Socrates?), then we could accept we don't know anything about death and reincarnation, and all the supernatural stories?

Put another way, if you believe that the colour red exists in the external world outside the mind, then how do you know that a burning pain does not exist in the external world outside the mind? — RussellA

You know this by your instinct. It is obvious. The red is in the traffic light out in the street. The burning pain is on your body, and you feel the pain in your brain.

Are you saying that when you see the colour red you have to think about it for a while and then make the judgement that you are seeing red rather than green, for example. — RussellA

Judgement can be made instantly when seeing the red. You don't require thinking to make the judgement. There are different types of judgements. If you are a judge for dancing competition, maybe you need time to think to judge who was the best competitor.

However, if you are seeing the red from the traffic light, then you don't need thought to judge it is red, hence you must stop. This type of judgement is made instantly, because it is a judgement on the simplest direct perception which you have been accustomed to for many years.

You don’t think that the burning pain exists outside of a mind. Why do you think that the colour red exists outside of a mind? — RussellA

The burning pain and colour red are totally different things. The pain is your feeling, but the colour red is in the space out there. The perception of the colour red in your mind is your judgement, nothing to do with the colour red out there in the space.

How do you know that I am telling the truth? How do you know what is in my mind? — RussellA

I don't know what is in your mind, but I can understand what you are saying. You are seeing the red. You are feeling a burning pain. It could be true or it could be a lie. But that is a different topic.

The meaning of a symbol has to be learnt. — RussellA

Yes, we have learnt our language from the early age, and can communicate our minds with others. That is all we have. We don't have access to any others' mind apart from our own. I know you are seeing red, because you said you are seeing red. What type of red, or how bright or dark red, I don't know. I could listen to your further explanation on what type of red you are seeing, and try to imagine what you are seeing. But it would be my own imagination of red I will be seeing in my mind, not yours ever.

The Indirect Realist can make judgments about a mind-external world using “inference to the best explanation” within Epistemic Structural Realism. — RussellA

It sounds like Indirect Realists are imagining that because they are IRists, things must exist inside their minds, when it is just memory, imagination and thinking about the objects in their head. The external objects such as chairs, tables, cars and postbox and colour of reds don't exist in your mind. You are just thinking, imagining and remembering about them.

I am not sure if Indirect Realism is a meaningful thing. We see the real objects in front of us, and interact with, access and use them. When we think, imagine and remember them, when the objects are not present in front of us, we are just imagining, remembering and thinking about them.

In Structural Realism, the Indirect Realist makes judgements as much from relata as from relatum. — RussellA

Seeing red from the traffic light, and stopping is a similar type of perception and judgment / action, as getting pinched on your cheek by your wife, and screaming "ouch" from the pain. It doesn't involve any thought process, reasoning or relationships.

admittedly rare, cases where a logical argument can be made that it could be a reasonable choice. — LuckyR

If we define life as the most precious and unique experience for the individual who is living, and also life can be suffering, then ending it abruptly by own choice or others' recommendation due to some suffering or any other whatever reasons sounds utterly irrational and deranged act committed out of some sort of illusion.

In a traffic light what is important is as much the relationship between the lights, top, middle, bottom, as the colours of the lights, red, amber, green. The rule to stop if the top light is on is as useful to the driver as the rule to stop when the red light is on. Perhaps more useful, as even if some people may not be able to distinguish red from green they are unlikely not to be able to distinguish top from bottom. — RussellA

We are only discussing driving license and traffic lights because you seem to think sometimes red colour exists in your mind. Hence I gave inductive reason how the license is issued to only to people who have normal mind set and normal perception. If the DVLC doubts that the person has not normal perception capability and normal mind, then they will not issue the license.

For traffic lights, people must be able to perceive red light as red, and green light as green. It must be direct perception. You don't have time to judge going through the relationship between the lights, and figure out which light must be top or bottom of which light.

Judgement to drive or stop the car can be made instantly from direct perception of the colour of the lights and reflex system in the brain with no thought process involved.

Doesn’t the fact that a driving licence makes no reference to the driver’s belief in either Indirect or Direct Realism show that an Indirect Realist (phenomenal experience is indirectly determined by mind-external objects) can function in ordinary life just as well as a Direct Realist (phenomenal experience is directly determined by mind-external objects). — RussellA

Driving licenses are issued under the untold presumption that the drivers will think the colours of the traffic lights are in the traffic lights, not in the drivers mind. Indirect or Direct realism doesn't come to the issue.

The traffic light system will successfully operate regardless of whether the driver is an Indirect or Direct Realist. — RussellA

It won't work at all, if the driver thinks that the red colour is in his mind, not in the traffic light. Because he thinks that the red colour is in his mind, he will not stop causing tragic accident.

The red light is always in the traffic light, not in the drivers' mind in reality. Hence indirect realists are wrong, and shouldn't be allowed to drive? :D