secularmerlin

You tell me. You are the one claiming to know things about this ultimate truth. If knowledge has nothing to do with it why claim to know that the ultimate reality must be apologized too and asked forgiveness of? And what would any of that have to do with the possibly existent (and possibly fictional) human Jesus of Nazareth and his ministry (which seem on the surface at least to consider this ultimate truth as a conscious and judgemental foreskin hating being that finds cloth of mixed fibers more detestable than slavery).

Secularmerlin: I have never mentioned self righteousness.

Ok well that is different than saying that I speak of self righteousness. Also self righteous is a subjective opinion and is not a quantifiable measurable fact. In a debate setting I would prefer to stick to the facts. 

I do not deny that there are true things and untrue things. You are not talking about what is true you are discussing an unknowable element. That which is ultimately true. We can only guess at what is ultimately true and yet you claim knowledge with absolute certainty about many of the attributes this ultimately true truth must have.

Mopac we are not arguing about whether there is/can be truth. We are arguing about what that truth is and whether certain beliefs about it are supportable under our current understanding of the universe and as a side conversation if our understanding of the universe can ultimately even lead to any objective truth or only observable truth which is subjective by its very nature.

What does belief have to do with knowledge? 

I have never mentioned self righteousness. I think it is a subjective term in any case. Perhaps you are confusing me with another poster.

I am willing to consider the idea for the purposes of this conversation. Do you have an example?

Perhaps we have a different definition of faith. Faith would seem to me from the claims of theists to be the reason one gives for believing in something one cannot or will not prove. In any discussion about knowledge (a discussion about scientific principles for example) the word is not generally used whatever. It is only in discussions about untestable hypothesis that the word faith begins to be used.

It is not a claim it is an observation. You do not need faith if you know something.

Knowledge actually precludes faith. If you know something then faith is unnecessary.

Faith is not knowledge either.

You can absolutely believe something with no way to know if you are right. Believing and knowing are not the same thing.

By all means. Take some time... get some perspective... contemplate the difference between knowing and believing

Then why do you do it?

That qualia is subjective does not make quanta subjective. We can make objective statements about quanta. If we decide what quantifiable measurement to base our subjective standards on we can make objective statements based on those standards. This is only possible of course if the standard being used is observable and measurable.

All standards are subjective and yet you manage to take yourself quite seriously.

I'm not certain you even understand what I am trying to say. You have given no indication that you do.

That extreme heat and sulphur fumes will tend to do harm to humans is quanta. It is just data until their is an observer to feel horrified at the agony being experienced by itself or another being. Horror is qualia. It has meaning but is ultimately just a mental state and so likely and certainly currently immeasurable. Horror is subjective.

If my perceptions accurately reflect reality then molten lava will certanly kill me.given long enough exposure, the problem with your argument is that it contradicts your argument that my perceptions do not accurately reflect reality. 

Which is it Mopac? Make up your mind. Are my perceptions true to reality or is there no way of knowing that lava kills people or even if there are any other people that are not figment of my imagination?

Do you wish to regard physics evidence admissible in this discussion?

I will allow it provisionally if you do but I thought your whole argument hinges on our reality being less real than ultimately real.

If by truth you mean noumana that is unknowable and so is not a standard we can make judgements by. If not then you are talking about qualia (the judgements made by the observer(s). Quanta/observable facts are meaningless on their own they are nothing but cold hard data.

Also not necessarily ten dollars any ten money will do

It's the principle of the thing ebuc. Just don't want to think you are a welsher.

Nothing particularly comes to mind

All standards are subjective including whatever standards you hold.

I honestly don't no.

Not a ten spot. Ten money. Virtual/fake wealth (which is the same as saying not really valuable).

32 degrees is just a number it is not meaningful on its own. We assign a value to it when we call it freezing. All objects have a freezing/melting point but we call 32 degrees Fahrenheit freezing. We assign the meaning.

Water freezes at thirty two degrees Fahrenheit (quanta/fact)

Snow is pretty (qualia/value judgement)

All standards are qualia. Qualia is subjective. All standards/qualia are subjetive. Your standards/qualia are subjective. If that means an assessment is worthless then your assessments are worthless too. I disagree though. You see quanta/facts are meaningless and we assign them meaning/quanta. One is useless to us without the other.

Quanta/facts are meaningless 

Qualia/value judgements are subjective 

Noumana/the objectively real is unknowable

Oh they may be money but money doesn't have intrinsic value. It only has the value of whatever it represents or the value we agree it has. So you owe me ten money. But the link was awesome.

I would go as far as to say that to claim such a thing violates human epistemology.

Yes arbitrary. I did not say there is anything wrong with that only that your standards are not any more objective.

I have personal standards. I do not base my standards on unknowables.

Ultimate reality (the noumana) is unknowable. You cannot say what is good using it as a standard if you cannot know anything about that standard. 

Good and bad are qualia not quanta. Something can only be said to be good or bad in relation to something else. Good for your health bad for the environment good for the company bad for the poor. These are all arbitrary standards. I have no reason to think that the ultimate reality is capable of assigning judgements based on any standards arbitrary or otherwise. I do not accept any claim that it can.

Thank you so much the link about Sumerian economics is positively fascinating. I look forward to checking out the sources in the bibliography.

I agree. We can only guess.

Not all theists make that argument but I have heard it made. It would be very convenient for Yahweh in particular if he were considered good by fiat rather than being judged by his actions as described in the bible.

And how do we determine whether or not some other entity or force possesses these qualities?

What is your preferred definition of conciousness?

I'm sorry do not accept. I tried to explain what I mean by reject but since you could not understand allow me to amend my statement. I do not accept any claim about the existence or non existence of freewill especially if the term is not well defined.

Is it possible that making decisions rewuires only external stimuli and an internal state?

Can you give me an example of starfish freewill?

And human action isn't computed?

Why would an impetus necessitate freewill? Does a sea star have freewill? It does seem to have the impetus to survive and must decide (for lack of a better word) what to do next. It also lacks a brain.

An adaptation need only make an organism more survivable than pure random chance to be passed on more often than not. Whatever thinking and feeling are they clearly contribute to human survival. Also why couldn't a robot be programmed to think and feel if it were advanced enough to be?

Would you prefer the word compelled? That is perhaps closer to my actual meaning anyway. We are compelled to.certain behaviors by our feelings. 

I'm not sure what you mean. I experience "feelings" whatever they actually are and I presume you do as well ased on the fact that we are similar beinhs though I cannot actually know if you do.

What does choice have to do with provocation? Indeed provocation would be the cause in the cause and effect in this case.

They provoke particular behaviors such as cooperation which contribute to species survival.

Did I somehow give the impression that I was not one of the people that will hold me accountable? That I am incapable of judging myself? What does that have to so with freewill or the lack thereof?

That doesn't answer how one would feel different from the other from my perspective. Thoughts are often accompanied by feelings and vice versa.