Behaviour report by the London school of economics

lemonjelly

The_White_Horse wrote: »

what if half the world had a similar condition to colour blindness and saw red as green. so they have no concept of red, only green. If you put a ball down that one half sees as red, but the other half see as green, is it red or is it green?

Technically speaking, the colour is a property of the light wave reflecting off the ball & hitting your eye. In reality/truth, objects don't have colours.;)

However, in the case described, the ball is still red even if it is percieved as green, or it is still green even if it is percieved as red. The truth is that the colour of the ball remains the same & is true, regardless of how it is percieved.:)

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Actually, I agree that faith should be kept out of state schools, but for me that includes allowing access to opinion other than mainstream scientific one. I also think there is a caveat in my agreement that faith should be kept out, in that I think faithS shouldn't. Understanding the people we live with is part of social education IMO. Parents are not always the best people to teach this. I find the bigotry equal in those who think one truth should be taught...what ever the ''truth'' they know to be.

i think teaching about religious beliefs but where no particular belief is presented as the correct one is a useful subject to teach children. unfortunately we didn't learn about other religions when we were at school (although i didn't do RE as an 'option'). certainly at my C of E primary school we were taught to pray and had stories read from the bible and no one discussed that jesus might not have been the son of god. i used to pray. i also used to believe in father christmas. although at least when you get older you are allowed to see the latter as the bit of fun that it is. no one ever says, jesus isn't the messiah but don't tell the children.....

lemonjelly

lostinrates wrote: »

Who knows which truth is true.....

the only thing I am 100% sure of is fallibility....but I may be wrong....

lostinrates I can't allow you to go down the relativist arguement.

It is self defeating. To say each arguement is as relevant as the rest means that no arguement/viewpoint will ever have more truth in it than any other. This is simply not true!

ninky_2

lemonjelly wrote: »

lostinrates I can't allow you to go down the relativist arguement.

It is self defeating. To say each arguement is as relevant as the rest means that no arguement/viewpoint will ever have more truth in it than any other. This is simply not true!

i think it's this belief that makes lir so "reasonable" most of the time and yet so inconclusive.:D

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i think teaching about religious beliefs but where no particular belief is presented as the correct one is a useful subject to teach children. unfortunately we didn't learn about other religions when we were at school (although i didn't do RE as an 'option'). certainly at my C of E primary school we were taught to pray and had stories read from the bible and no one discussed that jesus might not have been the son of god. i used to pray. i also used to believe in father christmas. although at least when you get older you are allowed to see the latter as the bit of fun that it is. no one ever says, jesus isn't the messiah but don't tell the children.....

Yes, we ''prayed''...when I made my feelings known the priest and mother superior made it clear to me they felt a productive use of this time was to mediate or think. I was encouraged, but not forced, to attend with my peers (we had many non cathlics at the school too ) and be part of things. Funnily enough I think I used the chapel mre after that. We also had religious education into other faiths, and the absence of faith. It seems my nuns were more open than many non-faith school might have been!

lemonjelly

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

The pain is caused by damage to your finger (probably visible on a cellular if not tissue level), which results in a rapid reaction through your CNS (also visible with the right equipment) to create the appropriate response; reflex action to remove it from the source of pain if necessary, sucking it, massaging it etc. "Pain" is a neurological communication between the brain and the rest of the body to alert you to something being wrong. Can't be put in a test tube, but can be clearly identified.

Dang you! are you my nemises?;)

My dissertation was on the philosophy of mind, & the concept of pain was always an interesting one for me. I value your response here.

However, from my perspective, the things you are describing are responses to pain (reflax, massaging etc) as opposed to the pain itself. eg you can see a cut, the swelling, inflammation, bleeding, damage to tissues/nerves. I'd argue it is impossible to quantify (& therefore "see") pain itself directly.

However I'm sure none of us would doubt its existence, in spite of this.

lostinrates

lemonjelly wrote: »

lostinrates I can't allow you to go down the relativist arguement.

It is self defeating. To say each arguement is as relevant as the rest means that no arguement/viewpoint will ever have more truth in it than any other. This is simply not true!

No it doesn't...of course its possible, IMO, to say so,e viewpoints are more likely to be true than others.....its possible to say the evidence is wholy supportive of one currently known ''truth''...doesn't mean another won't come along in the future.

edit: also worth remember things don't always go how they are statistically most likely too....there probably are scientific reasons, some unknown yet...

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

i think it's this belief that makes lir so "reasonable" most of the time and yet so inconclusive.:D

I think I am fairly reasonable. I'm not terribly inconclusive: I just believe my conclusions are appropriate to me and not to others.....thus they are mine alone. I also find it possible to believe to seemingly opposed things at different times and circumstances. But thats not inconclusive, thats flexible....:D

Sir_Humphrey

lemonjelly wrote: »

Technically speaking, the colour is a property of the light wave reflecting off the ball & hitting your eye. In reality/truth, objects don't have colours.;)

However, in the case described, the ball is still red even if it is percieved as green, or it is still green even if it is percieved as red. The truth is that the colour of the ball remains the same & is true, regardless of how it is percieved.:)

My actual dislike of militant atheism stems not so much from the fact that I disagree with them, but more that fact that I have always found Daniel Dennett (who I studied as part of my degree) to supercilious as well as misguided. I mean, naming a moverment "brights" implying that people who disagree with you are dim. Breathtakingly arrogant. If they want to call themselves brights, they should come up with more convincing arguments.

Lemonjelly - the "redness" or "greenness" you are grappling with is called "qualia". Realising that science provided no explanation of this (or indeed concepts such as consciousness), Dennett and his ilk prefer to either explain them away, or pretend they do not matter. I have read his arguments, and my perception of colour and consciousness has not disappeared in a puff of logic.

Qualia introduces interesting issues. For example, if you look inside an enclosed box with a light bulb, how do you know that box is a box with a white interior and a red lightbulb, or a red box with a white lightbulb?

Some issues are beyond the remit of science, and trying to use science to explain them risks reducing science to the status of a religion.

ninky_2

i've never heard of daniel dennett or qualia. learnt something new today.:T