The Heart of Reality: The Mysteries of Life

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
No, I'm saying it's what's "within" the cell that makes it alive. And, while the exterior is the means by which to keep it alive, "the life" of the cell exists within.

Originally posted by Mentat
So are you saying that the fluids, that flow within me, are worth more than the skin that covers over them? This doesn't seem logical. If they were not held in, they would spill out everywhere, and they wouldn't be of much use to me then, would they?

Why build a house if it wasn't for the sake of protecting your wife and children? Which is more important? The house or your family?

Granted that the house is important, but only to the extent that there's something to protect ... i.e., the "life within."

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Touch smell etc are sensations. Rather, my use of sensation here is rather broad. Basically anything that deals with sensed notions and inductive reasoning is a product of what you refer to as the "heart".

Please refer to the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1719" ...

I am being figurative... By brain I really refer to the processing side of the mind. By this I mean the find that does not create data, but merely transforms it. Ok, objective is the wrong word.[/color] But basically, this system processes the data, that is supplied as abstractions. It is linked to the real world via the irrational mind. It uses only deduction... not induction. Our understanding of the concrete can only come through the abstraction data. Only by creating the ideals and glossing over the details we do not know can we come to a conclusion. As an analogy, let me use the example of using analogies in discussions. The analogy itself is always simply a hypothetical scenario, that probably does not exist. But it is useful in furthering understanding. In the same way, the deductive mind can only deal with concepts and if thens. The data can only be taken in virtual form - plugging the photon impacts on the retina directly onto the cortex does not achieve useful results, as neuroscientists can tell us.

Does that mean objectivity doesn't exist then? Or, does it only exist with respect to what is subjective? But then again if you can view them in terms of form (outer dimension) and the space within form (inner dimension), then maybe it isn't such a difficult idea to grasp? In fact one might say one is capable of being objective if one could see the form (three dimensional) of anything, even if it occurs within "the form" of our brain? Much like picking up an apple and looking at it round abouts and "observing" its form (as an object). Hmm ... Is this a valid means to prove that objectivity exists? Of course you would have to be able to look at it in the "ideal sense."

Indeed, the brain may not be actually separated in the way I imagine. But I think the evidence points to the idea that it carries out these two distinct functions. Just excuse me when I heinously misuse rational and irrational again...[/color]

Well excuse you and everybody else!

 

[FZ+]

Does that mean objectivity doesn't exist then? Or, does it only exist with respect to what is subjective? But then again if you can view them in terms of form (outer dimension) and the space within form (inner dimension), then maybe it isn't such a difficult idea to grasp?

No. This means objective understanding of reality cannot be acheived. This means objective conclusions cannot be reached. But I assume here that the part of the brain that simply processes the data - what I call the rational, is wholly objective. It reaches subjective conclusions because it is fed subjective data. It's an objective process, but the input and output are both subjective.

Yeah, this is a concept I have formed. I have some evidence that supports this, and I think it is right. But I challenge you to disprove, or at least discredit it! Hmm... maybe start new thread.

In fact one might say one is capable of being objective if one could see the form (three dimensional) of anything, even if it occurs within "the form" of our brain?

My point is that this is not possible. Because "seeing" itself is a subjective process. Rather, deductive logic only deals with ideal concepts. If you have the form of the apple, it is meaningless without understanding, probably from other data and personal experimentation. If you saw the apple as just a cluster of atoms, then you will be incapable to act rationally with it. Rather, when you see an apple, you must see it's essence - that it tastes good, for example. This "taste good" is not present in reality. Even when you observe the apple, you are taking in the essence of its shape, not its real, staggeringly complex form. Do you know every atom, every photon of energy? Then, without such real input to your deduction, you cannot make an objective conclusion.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
No. This means objective understanding of reality cannot be acheived. This means objective conclusions cannot be reached. But I assume here that the part of the brain that simply processes the data - what I call the rational, is wholly objective.[/color] It reaches subjective conclusions because it is fed subjective data. It's an objective process, but the input and output are both subjective.

Yeah, this is a concept I have formed. I have some evidence that supports this, and I think it is right. But I challenge you to disprove, or at least discredit it! Hmm... maybe start new thread.

Then would this be your "ojbective opinion?" I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways ... And what's the difference between what you're saying here, and what I've said before? That the ability to acknowledge truth "must" be inborn (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human), otherwise you will "never" know anything?

My point is that this is not possible. Because "seeing" itself is a subjective process. Rather, deductive logic only deals with ideal concepts. If you have the form of the apple, it is meaningless without understanding, probably from other data and personal experimentation. If you saw the apple as just a cluster of atoms, then you will be incapable to act rationally with it. Rather, when you see an apple, you must see it's essence - that it tastes good, for example.[/color] This "taste good" is not present in reality. Even when you observe the apple, you are taking in the essence of its shape, not its real, staggeringly complex form. Do you know every atom, every photon of energy? Then, without such real input to your deduction, you cannot make an objective conclusion.

And why can't you observe the "form" of an apple without "experiencing" its essence, except perhaps the essence of its "exterior color" or, possibly its smell?

 

[FZ+]

Then would this be your "ojbective opinion?" I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways ... And what's the difference between what you're saying here, and what I've said before? That the ability to acknowledge truth "must" be inborn (i.e., inherent with the faculty of being human), otherwise you will "never" know anything?

This would be my subjective opinion, based on objective consideration of the subjective experiences I have.

The difference here is the idea of finding personal trueness instead of knowing universal truth. Do you want me to explain what I mean by this?

And why can't you observe the "form" of an apple without "experiencing" its essence, except perhaps the essence of its "exterior color" or, possibly its smell?

Because our experiences are not in the form of atoms, but instead as encoded information in electrical impulses. There are no apples in the brain, but electrical impulses that say - this is an apple. So, this is an image, not a concrete actuality. An idea of essence, not of material form.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
This would be my subjective opinion, based on objective consideration of the subjective experiences I have.

The difference here is the idea of finding personal trueness instead of knowing universal truth. Do you want me to explain what I mean by this?

I'm still not sure that what you're saying here is altogther different from what I'm saying? Did you notice I said the "ability" to acknowledge truth? Truth is truth, whether it be the truth about life on venus or, whether or not I forgot to brush my teeth today. I don't see how you can possibly say anything different?

Obviously reality "must" be real but, does that mean we can experience it in the "ultimate sense," well that's another story.

Because our experiences are not in the form of atoms, but instead as encoded information in electrical impulses. There are no apples in the brain, but electrical impulses that say - this is an apple. So, this is an image, not a concrete actuality. An idea of essence, not of material form.

When I obseve the apple am I not observing the "truth" about the color of the apple, as well as the "truth" about its form or, shape?

 

[FZ+]

I'm still not sure that what you're saying here is altogther different from what I'm saying?

Yeah...
I think of two kinds of truth - objective truth, which is real regardless of observer, and subjective "truth", which is at least partially based on the observer's mind. In an ideal world, subjective truth would = objective truth. But that is not the case. Instead, we have each person having what they themselves consider as true - ie. subjective truth, which may or may not have a ration to the real objective truth. So, you can say the self-declaration of "truth" is a natural element of the mind. But that isn't "known" truth, knowing implying a discovered truth that exists independently.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Yeah...
I think of two kinds of truth - objective truth, which is real regardless of observer, and subjective "truth", which is at least partially based on the observer's mind. In an ideal world, subjective truth would = objective truth. But that is not the case. Instead, we have each person having what they themselves consider as true - ie. subjective truth, which may or may not have a ration to the real objective truth. So, you can say the self-declaration of "truth" is a natural element of the mind. But that isn't "known" truth, knowing implying a discovered truth that exists independently.

Sounds like you're making it a lot more complicated than you need to. Are talking about the difference been an "observable fact" versus somebody's opinion? Say like somebody has a certain preference for a particular brand of corn flakes, and they say, "That's the best!" That's fair enough.

But wouldn't it also be fair to say that the acknowledgment of truth is the acknowledgment of "any observable" element of reality? Say like being a "witness" to the glass which sits on the table? This is not what you mean by "subjective" now is it? Because the glass does actually exist, whether or not I may be the only one privy to it. Meaning if somebody else came along and saw the glass then they too would be a "witness" to the fact (truth) that it exists. Does that make any sense?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Why build a house if it wasn't for the sake of protecting your wife and children? Which is more important? The house or your family?

Granted that the house is important, but only to the extent that there's something to protect ... i.e., the "life within."

This is an utterly inapplicable illustration. There are no people living within me. I'm not protecting anything, that is more alive than the external, inside of me.

 

[FZ+]

Sounds like you're making it a lot more complicated than you need to. Are talking about the difference been an "observable fact" versus somebody's opinion? Say like somebody has a certain preference for a particular brand of corn flakes, and they say, "That's the best!" That's fair enough.

Maybe I am. What I mean is to say that all observed facts do share something in common with opinion, or the state of the mind. Perception, experiencing the universe is subjective, and hence nothing we see can be absolute. I discussed this before in fact vs value. Hence, observed "facts" cannot equate to absolute facts, which lie outside the mind.

But wouldn't it also be fair to say that the acknowledgment of truth is the acknowledgment of "any observable" element of reality? Say like being a "witness" to the glass which sits on the table? This is not what you mean by "subjective" now is it? Because the glass does actually exist, whether or not I may be the only one privy to it. Meaning if somebody else came along and saw the glass then they too would be a "witness" to the fact (truth) that it exists. Does that make any sense?

Hmm... Here you can see my two level definition of truth and facts. The idea that the glass is on the table is, to the observer a truth. But this doesn't mean that it is an absolute truth - the act of observation still forces it to be subjective. Rather, it is more probable to the witness that it is true than it is not. Another witness may confirm the sighting, but it is still not absolutely truth. What if three more witnesses appear to say the glass is not on the table? It seems that what is regarded as true by observation may not be in fact the truth - meaning that you can declare and define your own sense of truth, but it is impossible to acknowledge any absolute truth itself.
Does that vaguely make sense?

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Hmm... Here you can see my two level definition of truth and facts. The idea that the glass is on the table is, to the observer a truth. But this doesn't mean that it is an absolute truth - the act of observation still forces it to be subjective. Rather, it is more probable to the witness that it is true than it is not. Another witness may confirm the sighting, but it is still not absolutely truth. What if three more witnesses appear to say the glass is not on the table? It seems that what is regarded as true by observation may not be in fact the truth - meaning that you can declare and define your own sense of truth, but it is impossible to acknowledge any absolute truth itself.
Does that vaguely make sense?

Wow! It sounds like everything's up for grabs! Why don't we just declare it the end of the world and go on a looting rampage then!

And what do you mean by subjective? Isn't the word "object" derived from "objective?" Meaning if you looked at something in terms of it being "an object," then aren't you looking at it objectively? Whereas the object then becomes subjective, but only to the "objective view," which occurs through you (field of view). In other words isn't objectivity basically the process of observation?

Aren't we in fact speaking about that which is observable from the outside (objectivity) versus that which is "experienced" on the inside (subjectivity) and is not readily observable from without?

 

[FZ+]

I probably should be stricter about my word use.

From my dictionary:
Subjective:
1. influenced by personal feelings (and therefore perhaps unfair).
2. existing only in the mind.
3. (tech grammar) of the subject.

Objective:
1. existing outside the mind.
2. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3. (tech grammar) of the object.

So I seem right...
That reminds me... must raise to LG sooner or later about his gross abuse of the word objective in his mind hypothesis...

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
I probably should be stricter about my word use.

From my dictionary:
Subjective:
1. influenced by personal feelings (and therefore perhaps unfair).
2. existing only in the mind.
3. (tech grammar) of the subject.

Objective:
1. existing outside the mind.
2. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.
3. (tech grammar) of the object.

So I seem right...
That reminds me... must raise to LG sooner or later about his gross abuse of the word objective in his mind hypothesis...

When I gave the example of the glass, that's what it means by being objective, because it exists outside of my mind, I can clearly see what it is, and it doesn't involve my personal feelings to acknowledge it. Otherwise your idea of objectivity is virtually unobtainable. Who is capable of objectivity then if it has to rely on an external source outside of the mind? We still have to rely on our abstract brains to interpret the information.

 

[FZ+]

Otherwise your idea of objectivity is virtually unobtainable.

Precisely! That is the heart of my argument. Total objectivity, absolute truth are hence unobtainable!

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Precisely! That is the heart of my argument. Total objectivity, absolute truth are hence unobtainable!

Then what is the point of being objective, if not to strive for the truth? ... Then you obviously aren't denying that total objectivity and absolute truth does not exist, just that it can't be experienced in human terms. Right?

Yet the quality of truth is ascertainable by virtue of the capacity of humans to experience objectivity, at least to some degree, and, as evidenced by the high regard we place on our ability to to this, then it must be regarded as highly desirable indeed.

So what does that speak about the Universe as a whole, since it seems to have an inherent need (through us) to establish cognizance and objectivity? Is it possible that there is someone or something that is capable of viewing the whole picture at a glance? You know, something there to spur us on to be creative as well. Why not? And why don't we seem to have much trouble conceiving of the whole Universe in our own minds? ... Yet how could that be, with something so finite as ourselves? Perhaps becasue we're not speaking about what is finite, but what is infinite instead?

 

[FZ+]

Then what is the point of being objective, if not to strive for the truth? ... Then you obviously aren't denying that total objectivity and absolute truth does not exist, just that it can't be experienced in human terms. Right?

Correct. But absolute understanding of truth is unreachable. That's my point.

Yet the quality of truth is ascertainable by virtue of the capacity of humans to experience objectivity, at least to some degree, and, as evidenced by the high regard we place on our ability to to this, then it must be regarded as highly desirable indeed.

Yes, truth is desirable. But you cannot measure the degree to which man does experience objectivity.

So what does that speak about the Universe as a whole, since it seems to have an inherent need (through us) to establish cognizance and objectivity?

Ah, now you have made a logical jump. Why must the curiosity of man, a survival value that made us so successful fit into an overarching pattern in the universe? Why do you consider humans so significant? Why can you transpose human values onto the universe? I have repeated that we do not establish objectivity, by rather by establishing cognizance we attempt to internalise objectivity. Going back to the first point, I assume total objectivity does exist, and if it exists, it must exist outside of us.

Is it possible that there is someone or something that is capable of viewing the whole picture at a glance?

Only if the universe itself is conscious, but of course in a different way from us. An awareness without a mind to lend subjectivity. Which is a possibility, but without any evidence, not a plausibility.

You know, something there to spur us on to be creative as well. Why not? And why don't we seem to have much trouble conceiving of the whole Universe in our own minds?

Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

 

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ah, now you have made a logical jump. Why must the curiosity of man, a survival value that made us so successful fit into an overarching pattern in the universe? Why do you consider humans so significant? Why can you transpose human values onto the universe?[/color] I have repeated that we do not establish objectivity, by rather by establishing cognizance we attempt to internalise objectivity. Going back to the first point, I assume total objectivity does exist, and if it exists, it must exist outside of us.

But we do it all the time, which is why I believe we are now coming into conflict with the environment.

Only if the universe itself is conscious, but of course in a different way from us. An awareness without a mind to lend subjectivity. Which is a possibility, but without any evidence, not a plausibility.

Well let's just say there were a creator, would there be a need for Him to be objective? Then again I guess He couldn't be anything but "wholly objective," in that the whole of Creation would be "subject to" Him.

Let me ask you this. Is the idea of God considered by science to be absolute? (if it were true). If so, then would the "absence of God" be considered an absolute as well? The reason why I'm asking this is because I don't believe it's possible to accept it either way, accept by putting the bits and pieces together and see if they add up. In which case science seems to be in favor of the "absence of God." And yet I think the problem of God is solvable, although I think it requires the need for a "different approach."

Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds.[/color] We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

But still the notion of it exists, and it isn't that difficult to imagine once we grasp the initial idea.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by FZ+
Because we do not conceive the whole universe in our own minds. We conceive what we know. Do you know the entire infinite series of pi? No. You conceive only the approximation, or the conceptual value.

I do not know the entire infinite series of pi, but still I can conjecture knowledge about the infinite series. For instance I can conjecture that this infinite series contains somewhere a series of 1000 successives digits of '0'. I don't know what place that series would start, but I do know, it exists.