- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleI think if there is any such thing as an objective fact, then one objective fact is that humans have hearing and another one is that humans have morality (recognizing that not all humans have hearing or morality).
The same way the differ realities that are perceived from the differ species are purely subjective and empty (without inherent existence), morality is an empty plexus of systems that are designed for the well being of the people that created them. I cannot see the slightest trace of “objectivity” neither in the differ realities, nor in morality😵
So hearing and morality can be studied, we can determine what functions they serve, and we can determine the degree to which they serve well, and we can study how to improve hearing and morality that is not serving well.
But it does require intersubjective agreement on what "well" means. Does it mean that the individual (and/or the society) benefits? What are the correct measures of benefiting? That is where the subjectivity comes in, and it stays.
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357It seems to me that the agent that make us agree or disagree on whatever, is the fact that the products of our cognizance as regards a specific epistemic object are identical or different respectively.
I think if there is any such thing as an objective fact, then one objective fact is that humans have hearing and another one is that humans have morality (recognizing that not all humans have hearing or morality).
So hearing and morality can be studied, we can determine what functions they serve, and we can determine the degree to which they serve well, and ...[text shortened]... are the correct measures of benefiting? That is where the subjectivity comes in, and it stays.
Methinks objectivity is non-existent as regards specific events either😵
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
22 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleSo we are back once again to Lily Tomlin: "Reality is a collective hunch."
It seems to me that the agent that make us agree or disagree on whatever, is the fact that the products of our cognizance as regards a specific epistemic object are identical or different respectively.
Methinks objectivity is non-existent as regards specific events either😵
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleI still don't see how you can go there!? If I think about radio signals, I do not hear
The same way the differ realities that are perceived from the differ species are purely subjective and empty (without inherent existence), morality is an empty plexus of systems that are designed for the well being of the people that created them. I cannot see the slightest trace of “objectivity” neither in the differ realities, nor in morality😵
them unless they are picked up by a piece of equipment (radio) that allows me to
hear the conversations or music on them. The fact that some don't hear them does
not at all turn them into something less than with respect to reality, they are there
if I hear them or not. Having a dog hear things I cannot does not void that sound
from reality, it only shows that I'm limited in my ability to grasp all that is around
me. So morals if there is a standard we see badly does not void the standard it
only shows us that we don't see it just like we don't hear everything that makes a
sound.
PS, glad you cleared up the different universes.
Kelly
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayOK Kelly,
I still don't see how you can go there!? If I think about radio signals, I do not hear
them unless they are picked up by a piece of equipment (radio) that allows me to
hear the conversations or music on them. The fact that some don't hear them does
not at all turn them into something less than with respect to reality, they are there
if I hear them or no ...[text shortened]... everything that makes a
sound.
PS, glad you cleared up the different universes.
Kelly
For the sake of the conversation let’s say that the colours have inherent existence and hence they are completely separate, self-enclosed and independent of each other and of any other observer of the observer universe.
Now let’s suppose that we both admire a specific red Ferrari.
Methinks we cannot say that the red colour we are observing is objectively true regardless of the conditions that cause the existence of its redness. You see, redness is existent solely to the observers with a cognitive apparatus capable of decoding this colour under specific circumstances. For one, I see nothing objective per se as regards redness; and for two, redness itself lacks of inherent existence. Redness is existent solely to the sentient beings that can decode a fractal of reality so that redness is unveiled, and as such it lacks of inherent existence, it is purely mind-dependend and it is a specific product of the interaction of specific observers and a specific cognizant apparatus.
As regards morality, is really morality a discovery (of something “objective” out there that exists in separation from our own mind) about “how to get along together”, or is it a rational way we made up (we invented) in order to “get along together”? Morality to me is just another mapping. And mapping is whatever we invent for our convenience when we decode into apprehension, hence into “Meaning” whatever we perceive, think of and evaluate😵
23 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleI agree with that to a point, and I believe I have been agreeing with that to a
OK Kelly,
For the sake of the conversation let’s say that the colours have inherent existence and hence they are completely separate, self-enclosed and independent of each other and of any other observer of the observer universe.
Now let’s suppose that we both admire a specific red Ferrari.
Methinks we cannot say that the red colour we are observ ...[text shortened]... we decode into apprehension, hence into “Meaning” whatever we perceive, think of and evaluate😵
point. Since I've been saying all along that we see color, but see it badly, or
as through a glass darkly. The point I've been making is that it is there with
or without my being able to see it, so my perspective with respect to the color
isn't anything other than that, perspective. I acknowledge color because of my
ability to know it’s there to the degree I am able, making it very real with or
without my perspective. The same thing goes with morality, it is right to keep
a promise even if I'm not making one, there should be cause to not keep it as
well. Perspective only leads to my interaction with the truth not sole creation
of it.
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayI have a question or two for whever is interested.
I agree with that to a point, and I believe I have been agreeing with that to a
point. Since I've been saying all along that we see color, but see it badly, or
as through a glass darkly. The point I've been making is that it is there with
or without my being able to see it, so my perspective with respect to the color
isn't anything other than that, pers ...[text shortened]... ll. Perspective only leads to my interaction with the truth not sole creation
of it.
Kelly
Is the flavor of a mint present in say a mint?
WE have a tea whose aftertaste flavor I consider "rustic" and my wife considers "bitter." I know what bitter tastes like to me and it's not. Are the bitter and rustic flavors both in the tea?
24 Feb 13
3 edits
Originally posted by JS357Yes. The underlying flavorants are present, though the perception of the inherent flavors vary widely amongst humans.
I have a question or two for whever is interested.
Is the flavor of a mint present in say a mint?
WE have a tea whose aftertaste flavor I consider "rustic" and my wife considers "bitter." I know what bitter tastes like to me and it's not. Are the bitter and rustic flavors both in the tea?
You should find the following article enlightening. Here's an excerpt:
Given the many different forms of each receptor discovered, it is clear that each person is endowed with an almost unique set of bitter-sensing abilities. In addition, for some bitter receptors, different forms are found to be present at higher frequencies in different populations...These findings reveal how inherited factors affect taste perception and food preferences in different individuals.
http://www.nidcd.nih.gov/research/stories/archives/06/pages/10_01_06.aspx
24 Feb 13
Originally posted by KellyJayEdit: “The point I've been making is that it is there with or without my being able to see it, so my perspective with respect to the color isn't anything other than that, perspective. I acknowledge color because of my ability to know it’s there to the degree I am able, making it very real with or without my perspective.”
I agree with that to a point, and I believe I have been agreeing with that to a
point. Since I've been saying all along that we see color, but see it badly, or
as through a glass darkly. The point I've been making is that it is there with
or without my being able to see it, so my perspective with respect to the color
isn't anything other than that, pers ...[text shortened]... ll. Perspective only leads to my interaction with the truth not sole creation
of it.
Kelly
Yet at the same time this perspective of yours is real. You see the green light and you accelerate even when it is falsely positioned on the traffic light or on a dragster Xmas Tree: Your macroscopic perspective must be taken seriously! However that very green ligh is not real to you and thus is non-existent to you if you cannot see it.
Methinks the experiential fields of the differ colours, tastes etc. are a result of specific psychophysical embodiment. Prior to a specific interaction of ours with the physical world, there is nothing we can define the way we define it when we have something observed. We are sure that the colours, tastes etc. are existent solely because we observed them and we became dead sure of their Existence To Us.
Our false conclusions begin when we falsely believe that the seeming, classical appearances of the macroscopic physical world is really a plexus of separate, self-enclosed and independently existent objects and processes. But within the observer universe there is no phenomenon, no observer, nothing that has inherent existence since everything is a phenomenon in flux that lacks of immutability, lacks of separateness, lacks of a specific self-enclosed existence, lacks of an inherently existence of self-identity.
Without our body and its sensation of objects we cannot be aware of the differ forms, and therefore these potentially existent forms are to us non-existent although they are not non-existent for the sentient beings that are able to interact with the physical world so that these forms can be perceived and defined. Anyway, these forms are not objectively existent, they are empty of inherent existence.
Without the reactive attribution of pleasantness, unpleasentness, neutrality etc. there are no feelings.
Without the apprehension of the differ features of the differ phenomena, there is no discrimination.
Without the mental dispositions of perception and action, there are no volitional dispositions.
Without consciousness there is no sense and mental functioning.
It follows that these five categories of experience trigger into existence the differ experiential fields of our psychophysical embodiment. Our specific psychophysical embodiment is the sole reality we have, and this reality is neither holistic nor objective.
1 Corinthians 13:12 holds😵
24 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357First observe the mint and its flavor, then use your subjectivity and comment, then cross-check your comments with the comments that are the product of our collective subjectivity. Then prove that the mint keeps its flavor under all circumstances and show that its flavor is objectively existent and self-enclosed instead of being a product of specific interactions in a specific experiential field😵
I have a question or two for whever is interested.
Is the flavor of a mint present in say a mint?
WE have a tea whose aftertaste flavor I consider "rustic" and my wife considers "bitter." I know what bitter tastes like to me and it's not. Are the bitter and rustic flavors both in the tea?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
24 Feb 13
Originally posted by black beetleUnder what circumstances do the terms "objective" and "subjective" have utility and how did the differentiation arise? Is their utility ultimately political; a means of control by elevation of certain claims of the privileged, to the exalted status of "objective?"
First observe the mint and its flavor, then use your subjectivity and comment, then cross-check your comments with the comments that are the product of our collective subjectivity. Then prove that the mint keeps its flavor under all circumstances and show that its flavor is objectively existent and self-enclosed instead of being a product of specific interactions in a specific experiential field😵
If all is subjective, do we not still have to deal with the subjective issues raised by the stubbing of a toe? Do we approach those issues differently because it is subjective, than if it is objective? In a world where all is recognized to be subjective, will there become "varieties" if subjectivity, such that some of them are what we used to call objective?
I have heard it said that a so-called explanation which explains everything, explains nothing. It is neither predictive, nor falsifiable. It may be that considering everything as subjective (including morality), is an example of this.
24 Feb 13
Originally posted by JS357I reject the dualistic approach “objectivity/ subjectivity”. I am not a dualist and I argue that every theory of reality is purely subjective. Objectivity to me is a delusion. And subjectivity is not some kind of “absolute truth” that exists inherently, but the root essence of the nature of our perceptions as regards the experiential reality we perceive. As such, once understood this notion must be discarded since it is just another mapping.
Under what circumstances do the terms "objective" and "subjective" have utility and how did the differentiation arise? Is their utility ultimately political; a means of control by elevation of certain claims of the privileged, to the exalted status of "objective?"
If all is subjective, do we not still have to deal with the subjective issues raised by the ...[text shortened]... e that considering everything as subjective (including morality), is an example of this.
The so called “Objective Reality” (the reality of the Physical World as we perceive it, in which an inherent existence is falsely imputed to each phenomenon and to each observer) is in my opinion a delusion too, because we can neither perceive Reality holistically, nor generalize it in a way that all the sentient beings can have the same perception about it. Phenomena as they appear and resound are neither established nor real due to the fact that they keep up changing in all possible manners. Everything that we can observe is a phenomenon in flux and as such it lacks of inherent existence. Therefore, if for example you have the belief that you have an inherently existent “Self” that somehow controls the specific psychophysical complex that constitutes Your Person as a Human Individual, this feeling does not hold. If you believe that something, whatever, has inherent existence, this belief does not hold. Feel free to choose any observer you like; we will analyse this observer thoroughly and we will end up to the conclusion that its ultimate nature belongs to the quantum realm; since the quantum realm is the sole “objective” aspect of the ultimate nature of all the observers, the Observer Universe included, the imputed feature of inherent existence is non-existent.
It follows that the dualism “objectivity/ subjectivity” lacks of inherent existence to. My theory of reality is purely subjective and is fully dependent on the interaction of my cognizant apparatus and the physical world, because I simply have nothing else to use in order to perceive both the physical world and my inner world. The “stuff of reality” I perceive when I am dreaming and when I am not dreaming, is the same.
Methinks the sentient beings perceive fractals of the Unique Reality of the (epiontic) observer Universe that surrounds us, trying to create “Meaning” during their struggle to embrace Chaos. Your reality will be ad infinitum different than dolphins’ or ants’ reality, and these three different realities will be ad infinitum all as real as it gets (to the cognitive apparatus of these three different sentient beings respectively). In my opinion, each perception of reality of each sentient being, is strictly related to its cognitive apparatus alone. This is the reason why from times to times I ‘m talking about a Unique Reality (not about an Objective Reality) that is in fact partly perceived and understood differently by each different sentient being.
Edit: “If all is subjective, do we not still have to deal with the subjective issues raised by the stubbing of a toe? Do we approach those issues differently because it is subjective, than if it is objective? In a world where all is recognized to be subjective, will there become “varieties” if subjectivity, such that some of them are what we used to call objective?”
All is subjective (everything we perceive is a product of our personal and of our collective subjectivity, that is). Your Self does not exist inherently, however you experience things and situations that seem to be so real! Well, I argue that the stuff of the reality of your experience of a stubbing of a toe is identical to the one you would have during the experience of a dream of yours with this motif. Both of your experiences are at the same time neither real, nor not real, nor both, nor neither. Whatever we experience in the Physical World is an illusion that must be taken seriously, so the dualism “objective/ subjective” leads nowhere and is in fact a trap: At a given spacetime we simply observe events and we have to react according to our cognizant apparatus alone. Our reaction brings up chain reactions ad infinitum.
“Subjectivity” is a term I used solely in order to make clear my thoughts to you, and as such it lacks of inherent existence. Just another case where at a given spacetime we reacted with a specific product of our mind, is the invention of morality. Since we invented it, morality is simply a product of our cognitive apparatus alone and thus a product of our personal and our collective subjectivity😵
24 Feb 13
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetle"However that very green ligh is not real to you and thus is non-existent to you if you cannot see it. "
Edit: “The point I've been making is that it is there with or without my being able to see it, so my perspective with respect to the color isn't anything other than that, perspective. I acknowledge color because of my ability to know it’s there to the degree I am able, making it very real with or without my perspective.”
Yet at the same time this per ...[text shortened]... lity we have, and this reality is neither holistic nor objective.
1 Corinthians 13:12 holds😵
You seem to keep going back to nothing is real unless I'm experiencing it, I'm
not that important that reality is only what I make it as I experience it. I will
say my perspective is like that, but not reality. Things occurred before I got
here and will go on after I die, it does not stop due to me. Am I getting your
point or am I missing something?
Kelly
24 Feb 13
1 edit
What is truth? Truth to me is the "real world" verses what you percieve it to be. It is only when you perceive that this "truth" conflicts with your own views is some way that you are forced to come to terms with such truth.
However, if you are not subject to this truth, if you had the power to alter such truth, then you would never have to come to terms with it. You simply become the truth.