27 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziThe way I always reach my reality (I have no other for the time being!) is by perceiving and experiencing it by means of my 6 senses alone; my products, and therefore my reality, are based on the events I happen to encounter. Some of these events I experienced them all alone, and some of them I shared them with other people. Unfortunately, until this very moment, I never encoutered a single event that could prompt me to speculate that the existence of the entity defined as "god" is factual.
and good for you. i am not trying to lessen your reality. i am trying to show you the way you reached your reality is in not much more logical than how i reached mine (the fact that god is real and is a pretty good guy)
Therefore, methinks the different products of our different subjective ways have a common birth root: they are products related strictly to our personal reality only, therefore they are merely projections of the mind. It's only Us
😵
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadyes, i don't agree with his idea that they share a mutual reality and both experience it in the same way.
In my experience relationships consist of two nearly independent micro universes and the two participants have very different beliefs about about what those universes consist of. It is sometimes easier to communicate your views to someone outside of the relationship than to your partner.
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetleyou do not seem to pay any mind to the meaning of objectivity.
Edit: “what you are doing here is murdering … …your senses to influence the experience of reality"”
How am I murdering language!? I explained you as briefly and clearly I could the essence of constructivism!
And what exactly is the difference when the (always different that any other, thus unique) observer is interacting with any object s/he observe ...[text shortened]... with this truth of mine is a question related solely to your own evaluation of the mind
😵
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
this is what objectivity means. you can make your own definition of course, only then you should use a different string of characters to designate that definition, different that this one. otherwise you return to the murdering of language.
like i said in my example, i can call crap(actual crap) beautiful. but then the beauty of a monet loses its meaning. how can a monet picture and a bull crap be beautiful in the same way? it must be a different kind of beautiful. therefore, language must either (a) adapt and use constructs like "beautiful as a monet" and "beautiful as a piece of crap" or (b) use a different word for "beautiful as a piece of crap". which is the logical course of action. the one we are striving for in order to better convey ideas, to communicate.
all things are objects. objects have actions exerted on them. how would it sound if i were to comunicate like this "Object action quantifier object object" instead of "i bought 10 apples from the grocer" . it is the same with your notions of "objective is subjective". Clearly describing a chemical reaction is a different action than listening to a beethoven symphony just as object "me" is different from object "apple" which is different from object "grocer".
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, this happens frequently.
In my experience relationships consist of two nearly independent micro universes and the two participants have very different beliefs about about what those universes consist of. It is sometimes easier to communicate your views to someone outside of the relationship than to your partner.
But we overcame our egoism and now we are working our views, our desires, our fears and our various evaluations so that both of us feel finally satisfied in full. Of course each one of us perceives our mutual micro-universe on the basis of her/ his subjectivity alone, but we are both aware of the fact that our common subjective reality is created by the two of us simultaneously because our aims remain always identical. If I was asked to offer an illustration, I would say that we are travelling with the same car to a mutually accepted destination; yes, sometimes both or one of us want to change the pace, the itinerary, the car and even the destination, and then we have to sort it out in full in order to proceed. But we always agree (until this very moment, that is) to continue this way or that way keeping in mind that our sole concern is the full satisfaction of the other. We are accomplishing this procedure rather easily once we concluded that egoism alone is the main agent that forces one to believe that there is nothing more valuable than one’s self and one’s opinions, so we decided that our behaviour and our actions should never hurt our partner. This is how we do it. Methinks anybody can do it of s/he really wants to avoid egoism.
Yes, sometimes we hurt each other but, as soon as we realise it, we back off on the spot and we try to learn and to avoid doing the same mistake.
Yes, sometimes our arguments are painfully long and exhaustive, but till now we always respected each other and thus we keep up going satisfied in full. And, twhitehead, you are right: sometimes it ‘s extremely hard to communicate our views to each other
😵
27 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziMy friend Zahlanzi, I understand your approach in full.
you do not seem to pay any mind to the meaning of objectivity.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective
a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>
this is what objectivity ...[text shortened]... "me" is different from object "apple" which is different from object "grocer".
I will stick with Kant though, and I will add that the world does not exist independent of people. The individual is the sole agent who makes reality out of interpreting the world. There is no other way. All the products of the World 3 (scientific laws, theories, hypotheses, Fine Arts, all the ideas) are merely tools we are using in order to conduct interpretations of the various phenomena. All our ideas are just a conceptual way to understand the world. Given that these tools are not separate entities of an objective world but concepts we utilize to construct a reality, objectivity to me is a delusion.
And so, a die hard Christian and a die hard miserable atheist are engaged in one of the oldest philosophical debates, oh the horror😵
28 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetle>>>The individual is the sole agent who makes reality out of interpreting the world. There is no other way. All the products of the World 3 (scientific laws, theories, hypotheses, Fine Arts, all the ideas) are merely tools we are using in order to conduct interpretations of the various phenomena. All our ideas are just a conceptual way to understand the world. Given that these tools are not separate entities of an objective world but concepts we utilize to construct a reality, objectivity to me is a delusion.<<<
My friend Zahlanzi, I understand your approach in full.
I will stick with Kant though, and I will add that the world does not exist independent of people. The individual is the sole agent who makes reality out of interpreting the world. There is no other way. All the products of the World 3 (scientific laws, theories, hypotheses, Fine Arts, all the ide ...[text shortened]... e hard miserable atheist are engaged in one of the oldest philosophical debates, oh the horror😵
PreCisely, the nightmare'd "dream" man has known Life to be, but is very far from being Life, until they AWAKE from this dream.
28 Oct 10
Reality is this go jump off of a tall building and see what happens!! There is no lala land per se only reality. No matter how much someone is in to fairytail BS lala. You can say oh my reality is this that I can fly like a bird. Ok try it and see what happens! You will fall to the earth. There is a concrete reality that is very real. People always want to believe in some mombojumbo but put that sh** to the test and see if they believe it !!
Manny
28 Oct 10
One would be very depressed or nuts to do as you have expressed, and that mindset obviously is away from intelligently acknowledging what is possible to begin with, as it clearly is not in such remembrance of one's capabilities, for if he/she were there would be no desire to try something, from KNOWING what they can do.
Christ walked on water and returned a ship that was out to shore, back TO shore, by just a return 180 in that direction, KNOWING of course the ship would be back to shore, rather than out as it was.
28 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceAgreed most people profess crazy beliefs but if put to the test they really don"t believe what they are saying. Like faith healers or whatever. They say sickness is because others don't have faith enough. Yet they have ailments and sickness so what's wrong with their faith?
One would be very depressed or nuts to do as you have expressed, and that mindset obviously is away from intelligently acknowledging what is possible to begin with, as it clearly is not in such remembrance of one's capabilities, for if he/she were there would be no desire to try something, from KNOWING what they can do.
Christ walked on water and r ...[text shortened]... n that direction, KNOWING of course the ship would be back to shore, rather than out as it was.
Manny
28 Oct 10
Originally posted by tacoandlettuceYou would probably change your mind for good regarding your supposed non-reality of the everyday reality after tasting a high-siding with a GP250😵
>>>The individual is the sole agent who makes reality out of interpreting the world. There is no other way. All the products of the World 3 (scientific laws, theories, hypotheses, Fine Arts, all the ideas) are merely tools we are using in order to conduct interpretations of the various phenomena. All our ideas are just a conceptual way to understand t ...[text shortened]... man has known Life to be, but is very far from being Life, until they AWAKE from this dream.
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetledude, you cannot say that objectivity to you is an illusion if you do not speak of the same concept as i do. and objectivity as you described it can never be attained. just because you need an observer to make observations doesn't mean that reality is subjective. we go back to the use of language. using the same word to designate 2 different concepts is worthless.
My friend Zahlanzi, I understand your approach in full.
I will stick with Kant though, and I will add that the world does not exist independent of people. The individual is the sole agent who makes reality out of interpreting the world. There is no other way. All the products of the World 3 (scientific laws, theories, hypotheses, Fine Arts, all the ide ...[text shortened]... e hard miserable atheist are engaged in one of the oldest philosophical debates, oh the horror😵
i am speaking about objectivity as a means to describe reality, through our senses which granted, can be deceived, without allowing outside factors to influence this reality. however even if our senses can be deceived we CAN perfect the means of observation towards getting more and more accurate representations of reality.
Another example of what i am saying would be
Objective: A black hole is an object in space which exerts a field of gravity so strong nothing can escape it's event horizon, not even light.
Subjective: A black hole is an evil evil entitity that eats up whole suns! and planets! with little babies on them! Omg it eats little babies who will be trapped for all eternity beyond the event horizon.
Clearly these modes of depicting reality are not similar. Why use the same term for them?
Objectivity exists. The real objectivity, the one that matters, that has applications in our daily lives. Matrix philosophy is very fun to argue but leads nowhere. Here is a quote from Alpha Centauri, a very fun tbs game:
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziHah! Reality is always subjective because there is no other way to perceive and interpret it but your own senses. There is no other way to perceive, experience and interpret reality. If there is other way, kindly please comment!
dude, you cannot say that objectivity to you is an illusion if you do not speak of the same concept as i do. and objectivity as you described it can never be attained. just because you need an observer to make observations doesn't mean that reality is subjective. we go back to the use of language. using the same word to designate 2 different concepts is wor ...[text shortened]... PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Now: by means of our subjective perception, experience and interpretation of reality, we are bringing up various theories of reality; some of them are accurate, some of them are false. However there is no such a thing as objectivity taking place at this stage too, because regardless if a theory is accurate is false it is again a purely subjective product that it is accepted subjectively by subjective individuals.
It doesn’t matter if a specific theory of reality is false or accurate, because this evaluation per se is again a product of subjectivism alone. Also, because of the same reason, it doesn’t matter if our senses are deceiving us or not -our evaluation is anytime, anywhere, anyhow subjective. Therefore, regarding your example about the black hole, I monitor solely a false and an accurate interpretation -but both of them are subjective. Therefore, these modes of describing reality are both of them subjective too.
Objectivity does not exist somewhere out of one’s mind. Imagine that I just left the fast lane with 240km/h and I ‘m heading straight to your vehicle: would you get out of my way or not? Methinks you would solely if you could understand that you ‘ld better do it. And how could you understand that you ‘ld better do it? By means of taking seriously your personal perceptions of this given reality in case you evaluate that this is the most viable reaction. Why so? Because, without the establishment of this basic cause-effect bond, you cannot validate the interaction of your inner world with the physical world by means of activating in full your cognitive apparatus. Of course, the establishment of this basic cause-effect bond I just described is possible solely by means of your perception, your experience and your evaluation via your 6 senses and thus it can be done strictly on a subjective basis
😵
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by black beetlei don't think you really understand what subjective means. you keep klinging to your incorrect definition.
Hah! Reality is always subjective because there is no other way to perceive and interpret it but your own senses. There is no other way to perceive, experience and interpret reality. If there is other way, kindly please comment!
Now: by means of our subjective perception, experience and interpretation of reality, we are bringing up various theories o ...[text shortened]... and your evaluation via your 6 senses and thus it can be done strictly on a subjective basis
😵
subjectivity isn't registering reality with your senses. like i said countless times before, if that were the case why would we need objective/subjective notions. furthermore why would you need a term to designate such a broad spectrum of subtleties? it is exactly as to designating all nouns objects. it is pointless and makes communication difficult nearing impossible.
subjectivity is allowing your feelings, preconceptions to alter your perceived reality, your interpretation of it.
this is similar as the "pluto is not a planet" debate. someone once defined planets in a certain way. then a dude came and decided a new category should be defined, and that pluto belongs to it. theoretically i can invent any definitions. i can say that a planet must be blue. therefore jupiter is not a planet. however you might have an objection to my definition. everything you say is logical. you define objectivity as something that can never be achieved. and subjective as everything else. if one accept your definition, everything following is perfectly logical. i don't accept your definition.
29 Oct 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziPluto is not a planet. If it is then it is many more, hundreds of them sharing the properties of Pluto. So the former definition of a planet was defective and obsolete with the new findings. Pluto is not a planet. Today we have 8 known planets according to the modern definition.
i don't think you really understand what subjective means. you keep klinging to your incorrect definition.
subjectivity isn't registering reality with your senses. like i said countless times before, if that were the case why would we need objective/subjective notions. furthermore why would you need a term to designate such a broad spectrum of subtleties ...[text shortened]... your definition, everything following is perfectly logical. i don't accept your definition.