I think my brain matter is about to explode after reading all this. Does it matter? I don't think so. I choose to put my matters into different forum sections. Truly, what is the matter with atoms? They get so close, and yet under closer examination (if we were to have a strong anough microscope - which I don't believe we do) they are so far apart. Does this matter - or is this another matter altogether.
Yet what is objectivity except knowing of something "other" than oneself? Now I never said that one is capable of 100% objectivity, I don't believe this either ... albeit to the degree that one admits this, one gets that much closer.
Also, to the degree that you become aware of something, no matter what that is, even if only an image in your mind, it still becomes an "objective fact."Which is to say, you are trying to make an objective assessment of what you experience.
No, I don't think it matters that much to your brain. But, to the thoughts that interact with your brain, yes, I think it does.
Why, do you claim to have the handle on objectivity?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Yet what is objectivity except knowing of something "other" than oneself? Now I never said that one is capable of 100% objectivity, I don't believe this either ... albeit to the degree that one admits this, one gets that much closer.
You are redefining again. Bad habit. Go back to the dictionary.
I'm always trying to do that. It's good excercise. You should give it a try too.
Why do you have to agree with "other" minds to know that if you stick your hand on a hot stove you will most likely get burned?
And you are quite simply incapable of seeing things for yourself.
And have you not heard me refer to it as the "space" between your ears?
Last edited:
A fact is a fact. And when you become aware of something, regardless of what that is or, whether you understand what it is, it still becomes a known phenomenon or, a fact.
I always strive to be aware of myself in the moment. This is the means by which I am able to discern the facts.
It really helps to be concise, as well as cite sources here, off the bat. You are attempting to merge philosophical existentialism with a peculiar theory by rationalizing the two. Philosophical topics are by nature, ambiguous, you'd have a better shot at unifying Einstein's GR/SR with QT than trying to link meaningful philosophy with a science.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
The fact is that the fact is that the fact is that you are misunderstanding the meaning of the word "objectivity" if you decide that it simply means awareness of something other than oneself. It seems that for your concept of objectivity and your new and improved definition of the word "fact" there can be no untruth, no lie, no error, hallucination or madness. The customary definition for the word "fact" involves the basic conception that some things can be true and proven so, as opposed to things which are false, such as lies, or putative, such as opinions. You have conveniently redefined facts to mean whatever crosses your mind, thus robbing the word of any useful meaning.
That is not objectivity, or even an approach to the road to the ramp to the door to objectivity. That is subjectivity.
Um...Iacchus? The definition you quoted does not support you.
Just thought you'd like to know.
Bone_Vulture
Appealing and hollow
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 499
How else can one be certain on whether the stove indeed is hot, and not just a personal hallucination?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Definition one requires that you acknowledge the existence of a material object, and the actual existence or reality of it. You have spent the last 20-odd pages arguing that this is not possible.
Definition two requires that phenomena be observable, presented factually, and appraised, not just felt. Granted that it is not explicit here, but I think you'll find that "observable" in this context would be expected to exclude internal events which are not, in the usual sense of the word, observed at all. The second part of the defnition requires the exercise of judgment, and denotes a meaning that differentiates objectivity from any kind of sensory immediacy.
I will concede that there are potential usages of the term "objective" that come at least close to yours, in particular the differentiation between subjective and objective used by some scholastic philosophers to distinguish between consideration of phenomena and things in themselves, in which our vernacular sense of the terms is reversed, such that "subjective" refers to the things themselves as apart from all perception, and "objective" refers to their role as phenomena, or objects of perception.
I would say that what you call "objective" comes much closer to defnitions 3 and 4 in the Oxford English Dictionary:
3: Relating to the thinking subject, proceeding or taking place within the subject; having its source in the mind; (in the widest sense) belonging to the conscious life.
4: Pertaining or peculiar to an individual subject or his mental operations; depending on one's individuality or idiosyncrasy; personal, individual
Unfortunately, those two definitions come under the head of "subjective" in that dictionary.
This is the song that doesn't end
Oh yes it goes round and round my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever
Just because...This is the song that doesn't end
Oh yes it goes round and round my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever
Just because...This is the song that doesn't end
Oh yes it goes round and round my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever
Just because...
Seriously, back to the "topic" at hand. Iacchus, please try to sum up your original point in a nutshell, in 100 words or less as well as why you think such is a valid point of view. Arguing from implication is fine, but a tangible connection is needed, otherwise it can only be ruled as subjective thinking (just your opinion). The JREF forums revolve around making objective sense of common subjective topics, and you are just going to frustrate others making any other kind of argument here.
Oh yes it goes round and round my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever
Just because...This is the song that doesn't end
Oh yes it goes round and round my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever
Just because...This is the song that doesn't end
Oh yes it goes round and round my friend
Some people started singing it not knowing what it was
And they'll continue singing it forever
Just because...
Seriously, back to the "topic" at hand. Iacchus, please try to sum up your original point in a nutshell, in 100 words or less as well as why you think such is a valid point of view. Arguing from implication is fine, but a tangible connection is needed, otherwise it can only be ruled as subjective thinking (just your opinion). The JREF forums revolve around making objective sense of common subjective topics, and you are just going to frustrate others making any other kind of argument here.
Without a mind, I doubt very much that you will be able to tell the difference.How else can one be certain on whether the stove indeed is hot, and not just a personal hallucination?
Bone_Vulture
Appealing and hollow
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 499
A hallucination is an experience where your mind cannot tell the difference. The only way to establish certainty (we're assuming there's a basis for uncertainty here) is to gather other minds to evaluate whether the phenomenon is a hallucination or not. More importantly, the amount of additional minds must exceed the observing mind's capacity for creating hallucinations of other observing minds.
What is you opinion, Iacchus - are there other minds in existence, or are you just hallucinating all of this?
Belz...
Fiend God
Iacchus said:
So... you won't read things or listen to things if they don't ADD to the fact that you are conscious ? That's another way to say that you're aggressively ignorant.
Iacchus said:
That's ridiculous. You don't even know what objective is. Until you do, this particular argument with you is pointless. Learn your language, and we'll speak of this again.
Iacchus said:
Nice. Just because people disagree with your crazy theories, you conclude that they don't use their minds ? So, what do they think with ? Their uterus ? Sheesh.
Again, an AI could do it. And we can agree it doesn't have a mind in the sense you understand.
But that's beside the point. MY point was, if "God" or the "spirit" is outside the universe, IT CANNOT OBSERVE IT because it doesn't INTERACT with it (specifically, because it is OUTSIDE OF IT.) We're not talking physical, spatial "outside" in which case you're still within the same physical parameters... we're talking OUTSIDE TIME AND SPACE, in which case NOTHING can affect you and therefore no stimuli can REACH YOU.
Last edited:
Belz...
Fiend God
Iacchus said:
Only because you invent the definitions :
Iacchus said:
That's not it at all. Learn the WORD.
Let's see another example. How about if I see a ghost ? Should I believe ghosts exist only because I saw one ?
Oh, I can. Only I don't necessarily think that things I imagine are true.