Is Objectivity Realistic or a Human Illusion?

[quantumdude]

Back to the topic...

Originally posted by Kerrie
As the human race, we have identified what would be considered "objective"...

"Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually"
here is the definition i am referring to...

I would say even more than that. "Objective" also means "independent of my mind". In other words, when I pass away and cease to be conscious, I believe that "that which is objective" will persist without my knowledge of it.

yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

Can objectivity be unrealistic? I would turn that around: I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? Bah. I reject that because, as I review the contents of my mind (the only thing to which I really have access), I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.

And most of all, why do we believe there is an objective reality out there?

I gave one reason above: My seeming total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states (the height of subjectivity) is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors. For instance, when someone close to me dies (stimulus), I cry (behavior) because I am sad (mental state). When a person close to someone else dies (stimulus), that person cries (behavior). Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them[/color], despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.

Oh boy, if only Lifegazer were here...

Oh, yeah, he'd be a great help.

 

[maximus]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Aren't you aware of the fact that the sun is the very center of our existence (life on this planet), and that without out it, there would be no truth nor good to acknowledge, because we wouldn't be here to witness it?

first of all (a small techincal note) yes, without the sun humans wouldn't survive, but there are organisms not dependant on it.


now, the truth is that there is now goodness. or at least there is no universal goodness. no "goodness" property. humans percieve sunlight to be good becuase it is essential to our survival. it's a matter of evolution. evolution wouldn't have permited humans who hated sunlight to live; we need it. the universe doesn't give a care if we live or not, it will go through its cycles completely impersonally.

You see this is the relationship we need to understand (between good and truth) if we wish to understand what it means to be "fully human."

the relationship between good and truth is subjective and of no conciquence to the universe beyond earth. (humanity in particular)

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I'll say. You're taking a thread that is supposed to be about objectivity and turning it into a circus of metaphors.

No, I'm just trying to show the relationship between the "objective truth" and the "subjective good."

Whatever. All I'm saying is that in order for it to have the same "meaning" as written language, you have to get other people to agree with it, because agreement is where language derives its meaning from.

Acutally what I've spoken here was borrowed from someone else, in which case there are at least two people who can agree upon it. Whereas the "book itself" holds a fairly wide publication, in which case there must be a lot more than that who will agree.

There is only a correlation in the linguistic sense if other people agree on it and agree to use it in that sense. Otherwise, it's arbitrary.

Like I said ...

They might not have had as sophisticated understanding as we do today, but certainly people at that time knew the difference between the physical and the abstract. "Light" and "heat" are physical phenomena that are sensed. "Truth" and "good" are abstract ideas.

Then what does e=MC2 mean? This is abstract, and yet doesn't it belie something physical?

The rest of this post is just more word games. On to the next one...

Yes, you putting words into my mouth ...

Oh, I get it. If the sun weren't here, we wouldn't be here. If we weren't here, then there would be no such human things as "truth" or "goodness". And, the sun produces light and heat. Therefore, light is (objective) truth and heat is (subjective) goodness.

Put down the bong, son!

You got it! (except for the part about the bong i guess?). We see by the light of the sun (a correlative of truth), and are sustained by its warmth (a correlative of good). Or, another way of putting it is, we see by the light of His Truth, and are sustained by the warmth of His Love.

*yawn*

Do you have anything to say about objectivity?

Yes, that a relationship exists between what is objective and what is subjective, and the one can't exist without the other, not without being complete anyway.

I responded to you initially to clear up your misconception about it and to get this thread back on track, but you are carrying it into all manner of nonsense and vagueness.

Hey don't start yanking my chain if you don't want me to respond (as such). What I'm saying here is just as fundamental as the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, in fact it goes a long way to show what that difference is. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Well, I'd love to sit and chat, but I have to go (for now).

P.S. The last post I made was two days ago, and there have been others post made since, meaning my post was not directly responsible for the lack of interest in this thread. As a matter of fact I can see that I've got some fan mail from maximus here too. Hmm ...

 

[Kerrie]

Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

thank you tom for your input, i have a good deal of respect for what you have to say regarding this...

as for this, i think this makes a lot of logical objective sense

personally i feel that although as human beings we will never be purely objective, striving towards objectivity without denying our subjectivity is a true balance of understanding our reality...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I would say even more than that. "Objective" also means "independent of my mind". In other words, when I pass away and cease to be conscious, I believe that "that which is objective" will persist without my knowledge of it.

I can agree with that.

Can objectivity be unrealistic? I would turn that around: I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? Bah. I reject that because, as I review the contents of my mind (the only thing to which I really have access), I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.

I think it would be fair to say that reality is "fixed," and yet each one of us is going to perceive it differently, and react to it differently, and ultimately add something to it -- or subtract -- in which case you can say reality is also affected (or produced) by our minds.

I gave one reason above: My seeming total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

And yet what if you were but a newly born brain cell, born of an even "greater mind" -- i.e., the microcosm of the macrocosm? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? (as an analogy anyway).

A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states (the height of subjectivity) is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors. For instance, when someone close to me dies (stimulus), I cry (behavior) because I am sad (mental state). When a person close to someone else dies (stimulus), that person cries (behavior). Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them[/color], despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.

Isn't the mind itself "a collective" of smaller entities, called brain cells? And wouldn't it be possible for a brain cell to function on its own (under the proper conditions) if separated from the rest of the brain?

Oh, yeah, he'd be a great help.

Who knows? ...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Kerrie
personally i feel that although as human beings we will never be purely objective, striving towards objectivity without denying our subjectivity is a true balance of understanding our reality...

Thank you! This is really all I was trying to convey. That although it's important to strive for objectivity, we mustn't forsake the fact that we're "subjective beings" -- with a "personal life" -- for that would be akin to denying our own existence.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by maximus
first of all (a small techincal note) yes, without the sun humans wouldn't survive, but there are organisms not dependant on it.

And yet what are the two primary qualities about the sun which makes life possible on earth? Light and heat right? Or, to be more technical, the light and heat which are "radiated" from the sun. Whereas the qualities of the sun in our solar system aren't altogether different than the qualities of suns in other solar systems, so there must be something similar here or, perhaps even "universal."

now, the truth is that there is now goodness. or at least there is no universal goodness. no "goodness" property. humans percieve sunlight to be good becuase it is essential to our survival. it's a matter of evolution. evolution wouldn't have permited humans who hated sunlight to live; we need it. the universe doesn't give a care if we live or not, it will go through its cycles completely impersonally.

I think that was a typo. Are saying the truth is that there is "no" goodness? But people care don't they? Or, at least so it would seem ... And yet maybe the Universe does give a damn, by allowing us to give damn? By which we are then capable of acknowledging such a relationship exists.

the relationship between good and truth is subjective and of no conciquence to the universe beyond earth. (humanity in particular)

And yet what is the relationship between good and truth, if not the relationship between objectivity and subjectivity? And, while the idea may not click at first, what if I were to say good can only remain good so long as it remains "in context" with truth? Likewise, what good are our feelings, if not held within context of "rational thought?" ... And what are you denying your own existence here?

 

[quantumdude]

I’m going to have one more crack trying to straighten you out here.

Tom: I'll say. You're taking a thread that is supposed to be about objectivity and turning it into a circus of metaphors.

Iacchus32: No, I'm just trying to show the relationship between the "objective truth" and the "subjective good."

And you’re doing it in a whirlwind of meaningless metaphors! When people “show” things, they typically do it with some kind of reasoning. But not you. No, you try to do it with creative writing and illogic, going from light and heat to truth and goodness, respectively. The discussion of objective/subjective is only tacked on by you, by simply assigning objectiveness to truth and subjectiveness to goodness. There is no need to even bring up heat and light!

Tom: They might not have had as sophisticated understanding as we do today, but certainly people at that time knew the difference between the physical and the abstract. "Light" and "heat" are physical phenomena that are sensed. "Truth" and "good" are abstract ideas.

Iacchus32: Then what does e=MC2 mean? This is abstract, and yet doesn't it belie something physical?

For some reason, you seem to see a contradiction in these two ideas, when there quite obviously is none. If you have read any of my posts to Alexander about “causal math”, you will know that I regard mathematical relations (such as E=mc²) as a description of physical reality. Even if you had not read those posts, I think that point is fairly self-evident.

Tom: The rest of this post is just more word games. On to the next one...

Iacchus32: Yes, you putting words into my mouth ...

Stop being stupid. This is ad hominem, and a false one at that. The one and only time I paraphrased you, you responded with “You got it!”. By your own admission, I am not putting words into your mouth. Indeed, it would be quite difficult for me to put anything in your mouth, with your foot in there all the time.

Tom: Oh, I get it. If the sun weren't here, we wouldn't be here. If we weren't here, then there would be no such human things as "truth" or "goodness". And, the sun produces light and heat. Therefore, light is (objective) truth and heat is (subjective) goodness.

Put down the bong, son!

Iacchus32: You got it! (except for the part about the bong i guess?). We see by the light of the sun (a correlative of truth), and are sustained by its warmth (a correlative of good). Or, another way of putting it is, we see by the light of His Truth, and are sustained by the warmth of His Love.

Err…Actually, I posted that argument as, first of all a synopsis of your posts, and second an example of bad reasoning (hence, “Put down the bong, son!”). For crying out loud, you’re drawing a conclusion from a literary device! That is neither logic nor philosophy. In fact, it does not even rise to the level of religious opinion.

Tom: Do you have anything to say about objectivity?

Iacchus32: Yes, that a relationship exists between what is objective and what is subjective, and the one can't exist without the other, not without being complete anyway.

Finally, something that is on topic! I disagree, of course, but at least it’s something that actually has to do with the discussion.

Objective reality—by the very nature of what it means to be “objective”—can indeed exist without the subjective reality, but the converse is not true. In other words, the universe does not care if there exist conscious minds to experience it, but subjective realities depend on the existence of the objective.

Hey don't start yanking my chain if you don't want me to respond (as such). What I'm saying here is just as fundamental as the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, in fact it goes a long way to show what that difference is. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way.

Yanking your chain? No, dear boy, I am trying to reason with you and trying to get you to make some sense. And no, there is nothing profound about your loose, arbitrary connection between light/heat and truth/goodness. That’s the same level of philosophy as “Life is like a box of chocolates…”. I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.

edit: fixed a bracket and an omission

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I think it would be fair to say that reality is "fixed," and yet each one of us is going to perceive it differently, and react to it differently, and ultimately add something to it -- or subtract -- in which case you can say reality is also affected (or produced) by our minds.

That is one viewpoint, namely that of idealism, which places mind first and matter second. The problem with idealism is that it requires a god. In view of a total lack of evidence of a god, I go for the flipside: materialism, which places matter first and mind second. In that case, I say not that our minds create "reality", but that material reality creates our minds.

And yet what if you were but a newly born brain cell, born of an even "greater mind" -- i.e., the microcosm of the macrocosm? Doesn't that sound the least bit plausible? (as an analogy anyway).

No, it doesn't sound plausible at all. There is no evidence that a mind can exist without a brain.

Isn't the mind itself "a collective" of smaller entities, called brain cells? And wouldn't it be possible for a brain cell to function on its own (under the proper conditions) if separated from the rest of the brain?

What do you mean "function"? It would have cellular functions, but it certainly would not be able to think. Consciousness is a property that emerges from a distributed network, whose elements themselves are not conscious.

 

[Another God]

*agrees with Tom*

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
I’m going to have one more crack trying to straighten you out here.

Try to straighten me out huh?

And you’re doing it in a whirlwind of meaningless metaphors! When people “show” things, they typically do it with some kind of reasoning. But not you. No, you try to do it with creative writing and illogic, going from light and heat to truth and goodness, respectively. The discussion of objective/subjective is only tacked on by you, by simply assigning objectiveness to truth and subjectiveness to goodness. There is no need to even bring up heat and light!

I don't think you read the original thread very closely ...

Originally posted by kerrie
here is the definition i am referring to...yet, what i am wondering is, can objectivity be unrealistic because human beings are ultimately and absolutely subjective creatures when we observe, hear, think, feel, react and sense?

I don't see that this is anything other than a comparison between objectivity and subjectivity. And what did she get through saying in her last post? ...

Originally posted by kerrie
personally i feel that although as human beings we will never be purely objective, striving towards objectivity without denying our subjectivity is a true balance of understanding our reality...

Can't you see that this is what she's talking about?

For some reason, you seem to see a contradiction in these two ideas, when there quite obviously is none. If you have read any of my posts to Alexander about “causal math”, you will know that I regard mathematical relations (such as E=mc²) as a description of physical reality. Even if you had not read those posts, I think that point is fairly self-evident.

But it sounds like what you're saying is that you can't use an abstract idea for analogy for something which is physical? And yet what is it about objectivity except to "see" the truth? And what is it about subjectivity except to experience "the good" of that truth?

Stop being stupid. This is ad hominem, and a false one at that. The one and only time I paraphrased you, you responded with “You got it!”. By your own admission, I am not putting words into your mouth. Indeed, it would be quite difficult for me to put anything in your mouth, with your foot in there all the time.

How does one define stupidity? An unwillingness to listen perhaps?

And don't you think it's about time you dropped the condescending attitude?

Err…Actually, I posted that argument as, first of all a synopsis of your posts, and second an example of bad reasoning (hence, “Put down the bong, son!”). For crying out loud, you’re drawing a conclusion from a literary device! That is neither logic nor philosophy. In fact, it does not even rise to the level of religious opinion.

How about a "hybrid idea," you know, where the one balances out the other?

Finally, something that is on topic! I disagree, of course, but at least it’s something that actually has to do with the discussion.

I think that's the whole problem here. Just because you can't with agree with the basis of what I'm trying to say (hence the basis for what I almost always try to say), doesn't mean you have any business tossing out the rest of it. That's called rail-roading somebody.

Objective reality—by the very nature of what it means to be “objective”—can indeed exist without the subjective reality, but the converse is not true. In other words, the universe does not care if there exist conscious minds to experience it, but subjective realities

And a cold bleek universe it would be ... bereft of any life.

Yanking your chain? No, dear boy, I am trying to reason with you and trying to get you to make some sense. And no, there is nothing profound about your loose, arbitrary connection between light/heat and truth/goodness. That’s the same level of philosophy as “Life is like a box of chocolates…”. I’m sorry if you don’t see it that way.

Actually, if anything, I think you owe me an apology, "dude."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Tom
That is one viewpoint, namely that of idealism, which places mind first and matter second. The problem with idealism is that it requires a god. In view of a total lack of evidence of a god, I go for the flipside: materialism, which places matter first and mind second. In that case, I say not that our minds create "reality", but that material reality creates our minds.

No, it's not idealism, it's a "hybrid," meaning it incorporates both sides, because no issue can only have one side -- which, is what it sounds like you're trying tell me ... Or coerce?

No, it doesn't sound plausible at all. There is no evidence that a mind can exist without a brain.

Then perhaps you better read it again. What I'm saying is isn't it possible that we, as human beings, can be viewed as individual brain cells of the "greater mind" as whole?

What do you mean "function"? It would have cellular functions, but it certainly would not be able to think. Consciousness is a property that emerges from a distributed network, whose elements themselves are not conscious.

Yet that's the whole thing, because we are not conscious of the "greater mind," i.e., the greater mind which is "consciousness itself."

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
I don't think you read the original thread very closely ...

LOL

No, Iacchus, you're confusing me with yourself. I commented on the original thread, and Kerrie thought my remarks were right on.

Can't you see that this is what she's talking about?

I know exactly what she is talking about, and it has nothing to do with sunlight or any other metaphor, which is what I have been trying to tell you all along.

But it sounds like what you're saying is that you can't use an abstract idea for analogy for something which is physical? And yet what is it about objectivity except to "see" the truth? And what is it about subjectivity except to experience "the good" of that truth?

What I have been saying is that abstract ideas can be used to represent physical reality.

How does one define stupidity? An unwillingness to listen perhaps?

No, an unwillingness to listen is more like "stubborness" than "stupidity". "Stupidity" is a relcuctance or inability to think logically.

And don't you think it's about time you dropped the condescending attitude?

Don't you think it's about time to stop posting gibberish?

How about a "hybrid idea," you know, where the one balances out the other?

Sorry, but a hybrid of "illogic" and "metaphor" doesn't bring about anything.

I think that's the whole problem here. Just because you can't with agree with the basis of what I'm trying to say (hence the basis for what I almost always try to say), doesn't mean you have any business tossing out the rest of it. That's called rail-roading somebody.

I am not "rail-roading" you, nor am I dismissing what you say out of hand. I have expounded upon all my objections.

Actually, if anything, I think you owe me an apology, "dude."

Don't hold your breath. When you post nonsense, I am within bounds to call it nonsense. My comments are directed at your ideas, not at you (except my response to your ad hominem).

edit: typo

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, it's not idealism, it's a "hybrid," meaning it incorporates both sides, because no issue can only have one side -- which, is what it sounds like you're trying tell me ...

So you are talking dualism then?

Or coerce?

?

Then perhaps you better read it again. What I'm saying is isn't it possible that we, as human beings, can be viewed as individual brain cells of the "greater mind" as whole?

Oh. Well, that makes even less sense. This is just wild speculation on your part, and without some justification for that viewpoint I really have no desire to get into it.

 

[Another God]

I just wrote a whole essay on Nagel and Chalmers and how science can go about identifying subjectivity, and what it is etc...

This topic can get a little tedious.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Another God
I just wrote a whole essay on Nagel and Chalmers and how science can go about identifying subjectivity, and what it is etc...

Well...?

This topic can get a little tedious.

It's already tedious. It may as well be tediously on-topic. Out with it, man!

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Tom
Can objectivity be unrealistic? I would turn that around: I think that a lack of belief in objective reality is unrealistic. It is true that I can only prove to myself that I am conscious. Perhaps that all of reality only exists as my mental states? Bah. I reject that because, as I review the contents of my mind (the only thing to which I really have access), I see no overall blueprint of the universe. I was not born endowed with a knowledge or understanding of the laws of nature. And yet, in order to deny objective reality, I have to say that the blueprint is there, because without objective reality, all of reality is created by my mind.
...
I gave one reason above: My seeming total lack of a priori knowledge of the universe. Again, if the universe is a creation of my mind, then I must have a complete knowledge of its workings prior to observing it. But I do not have such knowledge. Therefore, the universe is not a creation of my mind. It follows that there must be an objective reality of which my mind is merely a part.

That is ridiculous, no offense. What kind of a blueprint
do you want ? And if there was something like this - would
you not need a blueprint for that something, too ?
You are trying to reason of existence - all obsevation
through parts of itself. That makes no sense because a proof
of any kind has to be based on an independent reason(as far
as we've done it so far, at least).

Originally posted by Tom
A second reason, which is related to the first, is the problem of other minds. The notion that my mental states are the only mental states (the height of subjectivity) is untenable when faced with the evidence that other bodies that look similar to mine exhibit behaviors similar to mine under the same stimuli/stressors. For instance, when someone close to me dies (stimulus), I cry (behavior) because I am sad (mental state). When a person close to someone else dies (stimulus), that person cries (behavior). Given the frequency and plurality of these stimuli-behavior correlations, and the similarity to my own similar behavior under the same stimuli, I cannot help but conclude that the bodies I observe have mental states associated with them[/color], despite the fact that I do not have access to any mental states other than my own.

Ridiculous, no offense, for the same reason. You wish
to define the whole using constituents and yet the constituents
are also defined by the whole. These are just self-referential
"reasons". I could think of many other such "arguments"
but they are just irrelevant from the start because the
very reasoning I, apparently, use to produce them is
self-referential in terms of the same whole I'm trying to
reason about.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[Royce]

Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.
We start with, "I am." The ulitmate self referential statement.

The next question to ask; "Is are there any other 'I's?"
This is one step from being self referentioal; but, since we have only established the "I am.", We are still restricted to self referential statements because that is all the we have.

Beyound these, we can step by step deduce the universe and objective reality, all through subjective self referential reasoning that gradually gives way to more and more objective reasoning, experiment and evidence.

Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

If we deny the existence of subjectivity are we not denying our own existence?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by kerrie
Oh boy, if only Lifegazer were here...

Hmm ... I wonder why kerrie brought this up in the first place? After clearly stating we were "subjective beings" -- which we are -- and asking how unrealistic objectivity was? So I somehow sensed the discussion was about objectivity versus subjectivity -- as most everyone else did by their replies -- and that the discussion was open to comments on "spirituality."

Originally posted by Kerrie
it is the scientific way to claim there is an objective reality because of what we observe outside ourselves, but ultimately that reality is being filtered through 5 (maybe 6 for some ) subjective senses that are affected by personal experiences...

Doesn't this sound like she might want to talk about "subjective experiences," just a little? ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
So what you're saying is that realiy can only be interpreted "from within." Which to me belies the fact that there's a "spiritual reality" as well.

And here is my reply ...

Originally posted by Kerrie
logically that would be correct if you believe spirituality is not within you...i see spirituality within me...

And how can I possibly not reply to this to add clarification, because this is obviously not what I meant. And doesn't it look like she was open to a "spiritual discussion?" In which case I wouldn't have bothered with the following reply ...

No, what I'm saying is that if reality can only be perceived from within, then the understanding of that reality, and hence the understanding of ourselves, ultimately entails the "journey within," and so alludes to a greater "Spiritual Reality."

Whereas the form (truth) is external and the essence (life itself or good) is internal. Which is to say, the internal reality is far greater than the external reality -- or perhaps not while we're of "this world?" -- because it entails the "life within."

Do you think this is what it possibly means when the scriptures say, "The love of the world (external reality) puts you at emnity with God" (internal reality)?

Wow! This is it isn't it? I didn't realize I had put it so succinctly until I did the cut & paste just now. Almost a direct confrontation to those who have an aversion to such notions as an "inner-world."

So it's really not me is it? It's what I'm saying (at least in this instance) that's getting "some" people up in arms. Perhaps I'm not the one who should take offense then?

Anyway, I was going to say I couldn't understand why Tom was ragging on me so much about something which obviously wasn't out of line, but perhaps that isn't necessary now? For indeed, The Truth has been known to have this kind of effect on people.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.

Indeed.
However, the line between science and the greater whole -
philosophy is between "closed-loop" reasoning - a certain
accepted reasoning and observation - one leads to the other and
back and provides mutual answers, and the "open-loop" reasoning
which tries to be "a reasoning without reasoning".

This is rather like trying to pull yourself (and your horse )
out of a swamp by pulling on your own hair.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.
We start with, "I am." The ulitmate self referential statement.

The next question to ask; "Is are there any other 'I's?"
This is one step from being self referentioal; but, since we have only established the "I am.", We are still restricted to self referential statements because that is all the we have.

Beyound these, we can step by step deduce the universe and objective reality, all through subjective self referential reasoning that gradually gives way to more and more objective reasoning, experiment and evidence.

Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

If we deny the existence of subjectivity are we not denying our own existence?

Are you trying to tell me you have an external reference point outside of yourself? How can that be? Then by all means jump out of your skin and tell me how it feels!

I don't think so, you would be dead! Unless of course you're one of those people who practices "out of the body experiences," but that only belies the fact that we have a soul. Which is also "self-referential."

Originally posted by Royce
Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

If we deny the existence of subjectivity are we not denying our own existence?

Ooops! Sorry, I didn't catch the last couple of lines there.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Royce
Once we have reached this point, ie. objective reality via subjective self referential reasoning, why do we then deny the reality of the subjective, self referential? Is this not a contradiction in reasoning?

Nope, this is a contradiction OF reasoning.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by drag
That is ridiculous, no offense. What kind of a blueprint
do you want ? And if there was something like this - would
you not need a blueprint for that something, too ?

Let’s break the argument down more simply.

Assume that the universe is created by my mind. I observe that the universe behaves in an orderly, predictable manner according to identifiable laws (which are approximations, but they are very good ones). If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow. But when I examine the contents of my mind, they aren’t there. So I conclude that my original assumption was false: The universe is not created by my mind.

Originally posted by drag
You are trying to reason of existence - all obsevation
through parts of itself. That makes no sense because a proof
of any kind has to be based on an independent reason(as far
as we've done it so far, at least).

No. The conclusion I reached was not used as a premise.

Originally posted by drag
Ridiculous, no offense, for the same reason. You wish
to define the whole using constituents and yet the constituents
are also defined by the whole.

?

No. This is an inductive argument based on observation. If one accepts the first argument, then the suggestion that the other people I observe are not creations of my mind, but are real bodies moving around “out there”.

Originally posted by drag
These are just self-referential
"reasons
(snip)

Originally posted by Royce
Agreed that the reasons and reasoning Tom gives are self referential;
but, at this level of reasoning it is all that is available.
We start with, "I am." The ulitmate self referential statement.

Obviously, neither of you knows what “self-referential” means. Perhaps you mean “circular”? If so, you are still wrong, because I did not use a circular argument. My first argument is deductively valid, and my second argument is a strong inductive argument.

The point that is most vulnerable to redress is my premise from the first argument:

If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow.

If you want to go into that further, then we can, but please no more of this nonsense about how my argument is “self-referential”. At least learn what the term means before you throw it at me.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Tom
Let’s break the argument down more simply.

Let's do that.

Originally posted by Tom
Assume that the universe is created by my mind.

O.K.

Originally posted by Tom
I observe that the universe behaves in an orderly,
predictable manner according to identifiable laws (which are approximations, but they are very good ones).

Please, define "orderly and predictable".

Originally posted by Tom
If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws
should be in my mind somehow. But when I examine the contents of my mind, they aren’t there.

How do you "examine the contents of a mind" ?

Not to mention that you're making a number of additional assumptions: that you - the mind is conscious, that the "mind" has "contents", that you can examine it, that you observe - able to process
and more.

Originally posted by Tom
So I conclude that my original assumption was false: The
universe is not created by my mind.

In short, you took an assumption and then applied YOUR
reasoning to it and arrived at a conclusion that the
Universe is not just in your mind.
Congratulations !

That means you are a materialist and your position is as
unbased and seemingly unprovable as the opposite mind hypothesys.

Originally posted by Tom
No. This is an inductive argument based on observation. If one accepts the first argument, then the suggestion that the other people I observe are not creations of my mind, but are real bodies moving around “out there”.

Why should I accept any arguments ?

Originally posted by Tom
Obviously, neither of you knows what “self-referential” means. Perhaps you mean “circular”? If so, you are still wrong, because I did not use a circular argument. My first argument is deductively valid, and my second argument is a strong inductive argument.

Deductivly valid ?!

Originally posted by Tom
The point that is most vulnerable to redress is my premise
from the first argument:

If my mind is the source of the universe, then those laws should be in my mind somehow.

But, they ARE in your mind ! They are what you observe -
and that is your mind according to the enitial assumption.

Are you assuming a sort of frame for the observation = Universe
to shape itself according to if it's all in the mind ?
If so what's the frame for that frame ?
Also, why should you ask such a question in the first place ?
Why do you assume causality ?

Originally posted by Tom
If you want to go into that further, then we can, but please no more of this nonsense about how my argument is “self-referential”. At least learn what the term means before you throw it at me.

Well, I would not presume to misuse complicated terms
that I have a difficulty of understanding. My objections
are very simple and basic and do not require complicated
terms. Please, let me know if I can rephrase self-referential
and the other similar terms into simpler ones that I will
be able to properly reason with on my low level.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[Royce]

Tom, "Self-referential" means referring to self. This is an invalid form of logic and in etymology. It does not mean circlular reasoning. It means to definine something by using itself in the definition.

I was, and am, supporting your argument.

I then carried it a bit further to point out that by using the subjective to validate the objective we then validate the subjective also. To do otherwise is a contradiction.

1. I or you use the subjective and self-referential (A) to
eventually, using you perfectly logical and valid argument,
prove the existence of objective reality (B).

2. If A is true then B is true.

3. This includes the reverse, If B is true, A is true.

4. By the same logic if A is untrue, B is untrue.

In otherwords by your reasoning if objective reality exists then subjective reality must also be true.

Iacchus, No, in this line of reasoning there is no external point of reference, nor is there any need for one.

Drag, Yes that is excactly what this line of reasoning is, pulling oneself up by ones bootstrap. That is why it is called bootstrapping in computer jargon. It is however the only way to proceed beyound the one absolute given starting point in philosophy and logic, ie "I am."

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by drag
Please, define "orderly and predictable".

I mean that the phenomena I observe can be predicted accurately using the laws of nature as codified by science.

How do you "examine the contents of a mind" ?

One does it by mentally reviewing one’s knowledge.

Not to mention that you're making a number of additional assumptions: that you - the mind is conscious,
that the "mind" has "contents", that you can examine it, that you observe - able to process
and more.

So what? These are the most basic assumptions a person can make. I know I am conscious, because I am thinking and feeling. I know my mind has contents, because I know things. I know I can review those contents, because I can think about the things I have learned. I know that my mind is able to process, because I can deduce things from what I know, and the deductions also conform to my observations.

What’s more, you know that these things are true of yourself.

In short, you took an assumption and then applied YOUR
reasoning to it and arrived at a conclusion that the
Universe is not just in your mind.
Congratulations !

Yes, that’s right. There is no such thing as proving things in reality absolutely. Assumptions always have to be made. The best anyone can do is assume the premises that are more reasonable than their negations. I assume the negation of the premise, “the laws of nature are stored in my mind”, because when I consider all that I know, those laws are not there. I have to learn them by taking physics classes!

That means you are a materialist and your position is as
unbased and seemingly unprovable as the opposite mind hypothesys.

Both are unprovable, but that does not mean that solipsism is as plausible as materialism. For instance, to accept solipsism I have to accept that I have an innate knowledge of the workings of the universe, because solipsism says that the universe is a creation of my mind. But the fact is that I do not have such knowledge. My “innate understanding” of the workings of the universe pretty much conforms to Newtonian mechanics, because that is an accurate description of everyday experience. Since my “common-sensical” understanding of how the universe works is shaped by everyday experience, and that understanding is fundamentally flawed, that suggests to me that it was shaped by input from an external universe, rather than coming from within.

Why should I accept any arguments ?

If the premises are reasonably well established, and the logic is valid, then you have reason to accept an argument. Is that not obvious?

Deductivly valid ?!

*sigh*

Drag, I am not going to run around in circles with you over this. Deductive validity is not a matter of opinion. It is just as certain as 2+2=4. Either you accept the propositional calculus, or you do not.

I’ll explain it once. My first argument proceeded as follows:

Here are the statements:
p: An orderly, predictable universe was created by my mind.
q: My mind must have innate knowledge of the workings of that universe.

Here is the argument:
1. p (Premise)
2. p-->q (Premise)
3. ~q (Premise)
4. Therefore, ~p (Conclusion)

It’s a simple reductio ad absurdum argument,and it is deductively valid.

But, they ARE in your mind ! They are what you observe –

As I already explained, I have reasons for rejecting that the universe is only in my mind. I find it more reasonable to accept “p-->q” above than “~(p-->q)”.

and that is your mind according to the enitial assumption.

As I said, I am working via reductio ad absurdum. Surely you have done indirect proofs in your math courses?

Well, I would not presume to misuse complicated terms
that I have a difficulty of understanding. My objections
are very simple and basic and do not require complicated
terms. Please, let me know if I can rephrase self-referential
and the other similar terms into simpler ones that I will
be able to properly reason with on my low level.

FYI, “self-referential” has nothing to do with this discussion. That is a term that applies to formal systems, not the universe.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
Tom, "Self-referential" means referring to self. This is an invalid form of logic and in etymology.

Definition: A collection of statements is self-referential if it refers to the truth values of the constituent statements.

Example 1:
This sentence is false.

Example 2:
The sentence below is true.
The sentence above is false.

It does not mean circlular reasoning.

I know that, but since I did not use any self-referential statements, I was at a loss for what you two meant.

 

[drag]

Greetings Royce !

Originally posted by Royce
Drag, Yes that is excactly what this line of reasoning is, pulling oneself up by ones bootstrap. That is why it is called bootstrapping in computer jargon. It is however the only way to proceed...

?!?!?
BS !
(No offense. But com'mon ! )

Let me try this:
"I assume that everything is in my mind.

I see that I am able to reason with what I see.

If I am able to reason with what I see then clearly
I know the rules and laws in some basic form or else
why should I be making any sense of it all.

If I have this fundumental basis then all must be in my mind."

Case closed.
(NOTE: In NO WAY, is the above really considered by myself to
make any real sense. But, it sure sounds better than Tom's
argument, doesn't it ? )

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[quantumdude]

Originally posted by Royce
1. I or you use the subjective and self-referential (A) to
eventually, using you perfectly logical and valid argument,
prove the existence of objective reality (B).

2. If A is true then B is true.

3. This includes the reverse, If B is true, A is true.

No, #3 is wrong. As I said in my post to drag, one of my premises has the form:

p-->q.

This does not entail

q-->p.

4. By the same logic if A is untrue, B is untrue.

Again, no. p-->q entails ~q-->~p, not ~p-->~q.

Drag, Yes that is excactly what this line of reasoning is, pulling oneself up by ones bootstrap. That is why it is called bootstrapping in computer jargon. It is however the only way to proceed beyound the one absolute given starting point in philosophy and logic, ie "I am."

Hopefully you can now see that that is not what I did.

 

[quantumdude]

Drag, you obviously aren't even trying to put any thought into this.

Originally posted by drag
Let me try this:
"I assume that everything is in my mind.

I see that I am able to reason with what I see.

If I am able to reason with what I see then clearly
I know the rules and laws in some basic form or else
why should I be making any sense of it all.

If I have this fundumental basis then all must be in my mind."

Your argument goes like this:

The statements:
p: Everything is in my mind.
q: I am able to reason based on what I see.
r: I know the rules (of what? of nature?).

The argument:
1. q (Premise)
2. q-->r (Premise)
3. Therefore, p (Conclusion)

The conclusion is just tacked onto the end of the argument! This is a simple non-sequitur.

Case closed.

Pffft.

(NOTE: In NO WAY, is the above really considered by myself to
make any real sense. But, it sure sounds better than Tom's
argument, doesn't it ? )

Of course not. My argument is at least deductively valid. Of course, sincere people can disagree with my premises, but to compare the garbage you have written above with the logic of my argument is simply insulting.

Drag, I stepped into this thread because Iacchus was taking it off course, and I thought the topic was worth discussing seriously. Now, here you are doing the same thing. Do us all a favor and either get serious, or go clown around somewhere else.