Materialists......

[I less than three logic]

Science us out the answer to "Should we nuke Iran into a smouldering wasteland?".

That is still an empirical question hammegk. The answer relies on a cost/benefit analysis. Each cost or benefit can be empirically supported.

It is verifiable through observation that nuking a country kills its inhabitance. It is also verifiable that dead people seem less capable of posing a threat to others than the alive variety. Those are some empirical benefits of nuking the country.

It is verifiable that nuclear weapons cause lingering environmental and health risks. Another observation includes other countries opinions and reactions to the idea of killing millions of people.

The list could become quite long if you put some thought into it, but it is still an empirical question.

 

[LW]

But you also claim that subjective and objective are not binary oppositions. On what grounds?

Oh, I don't claim that. I'm just saying that you haven't proved that they are.

I'm not trying to prove any metaphysical position true or false. Because that is a pointless activity: it can't be done.

 

[I less than three logic]

Oh, I don't claim that. I'm just saying that you haven't proved that they are.

I'm not trying to prove any metaphysical position true or false. Because that is a pointless activity: it can't be done.

Finally, someone said something that makes sense.

 

[Tricky]

This is totally incoherent:

"Is up, down? Yes, up is down from the perspective of up"

I don't think so.

Then try thinking outside the box. What does "up" mean? It means away from the center of gravity of a celestial body. you cannot define a vector for "up", because it would be different if you were in China, and much different if you were on Mars. So yes, "up" is most definitely a question of perspective. Thank you for pointing out this example.

Neither are up/down, left/right, high/low, black/white, fast/slow, inner/outer......

These are binary or polar oppositions. Do I now have two materialists trying to tell me that subjective/objective isn't another one of these? Seriously.

Seriously, they are all relative. The same is true of subjective/objective. Something can be more objective than another thing, meaning that it incorporates a greater number of viewpoints, but it is impossible to be perfectly objective, or perfectly anything, for that matter. There are even shades of black and white.

DreadNik wanted to know what the problem was. The problem is people getting things very confused - like trying to claim that subjective and objective are not opposites. Which is of course, silly.

No it is not silly, and I have given you several examples of why. But it isn't even a case of "I'm right and you're wrong". You can be right from a certain perspective and I can be right from a different perspective. It is this kind of dichotomous thinking that restricts our ability to understand the many subtle shades of reality.

 

[Tricky]

Well actually the answer to your question, hammy, is the same answer to "can oil and natural resources be extracted safely from a smoldering wasteland?" -- which is a very scientific question. Unfortunately, I think the answer is "no," so the Iranians are safe for now. But they just got lucky, if they lived in Antarctica they would be toast!

Actually, there is some oil in Antarctica, but it's too much trouble for not enough oil. Antarctica wasn't always at the south pole.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Subjective simply means "from the point of view of mind" or "mind dependent". Objective simply means "NOT from the point of view of the mind" or "mind independent".

But that's not how we use the terms. In particular, if objective really meant "mind independent," then we couldn't use the term at all, because everything we know is dependent on our perceptions. Objective really means something like "observed and agreed upon by some people." And one of those people might be the person whose subjective experiences are being analyzed, so his objective agreement is more subjective.

Anyway, who cares?

~~ Paul

 

[I less than three logic]

So yes, "up" is most definitely a question of perspective. Thank you for pointing out this example.

It is funny this should come up, because I’ve been having a fun experience on the perspective of “up” over last few days. I developed an inner ear infection around Wednesday this week, and due to the infection my brain has been receiving some faulty sensory input. Gravity has informed me a few times that my subjective perspective of “up” has little meaning.

 

[hammegk]

Well actually the answer to your question, hammy, is the same answer to "can oil and natural resources be extracted safely from a smoldering wasteland?" -- which is a very scientific question. Unfortunately, I think the answer is "no," so the Iranians are safe for now. But they just got lucky, if they lived in Antarctica they would be toast!

Er, yes. Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Which is worth more on the open market of ideas and behaviors of your 6 billion plus co-inhabitants, that, or a cup of warm spit?

That is still an empirical question hammegk. The answer relies on a cost/benefit analysis. Each cost or benefit can be empirically supported.

Implementation is the problem. As to value of "human life"???

How many history making events were, and more to the point will be, based on empiricism. Hmm, would I be better off if that bunch were dead, or, which control electrode would be worth implanting that would give them value to me alive?

 

[Belz...]

Who am I?
What am I?
Does life have a meaning?
Why does the Universe exist?
How does something come from nothing?
Is there anything like a God?
Why is the world the way it is? Does it have to be this way?
Do I have free will?

Who you are
Human
No
Uncaused
Singularity
Nope
Uncaused
No

 

[Belz...]

This cannot and will not be allowed to stand unchallenged, because it is completely absurd and the sort of people posting on this site really should know better. Everybody here knows exactly what is meant by "the experience of seeing red". They also know exactly what is meant by "physical brain". All I wanted this materialist to accept, for the purposes of the original thread, was that there are certain things that are inherently subjective, like my experience of red. This claim was rejected.

Sensitive enough neural "sensors" could certainly tell us that someone is "experiencing red", making the experience suddenly objective, though perhaps not in the sense that you think it should mean.

I was asked at the JREF to believe that there is no discernable difference between the experience of seeing red and processes in a physical brain. It is blatantly ridiculous to claim that one basket of fishes can feed five thousand. It is no less blatantly ridiculous to claim that one cannot tell the difference between a physical process in a brain and the inherently subjective experience of seeing red.

I'm not sure I can say that my "experience" is distinguishable from the physical process, and I find that people who claim this are rarely able to support that claim. There are a great number of things that can make one "experience red" although no red is present to be experienced. It's all brain-matter stuff.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Who you are
Human
No
Uncaused
Singularity
Nope
Uncaused
No

Did you use science (only) to answer these questions?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

OK, I give up.

The pretty-much-agreed position of the materialists on this board is that subjective and objective are not opposites. Also, up and down aren't opposites and neither are black and white.

Phew! Glad we got that one sorted out.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Just as a matter of interest....

Is anything the opposite of anything?

Can I have some examples, please? I seem to remember learning at school when I was six that up was actually the opposite of down. I must have remembered wrong, though, because there are so many intelligent people here that they couldn't possibly all be saying something really, really silly, could they?

 

[I less than three logic]

Who am I?
What am I?
Is there anything like a God?
Do I have free will?

Answers are personal definitions and semantics. They are therefore irrelevant.

Does life have a meaning?
Why does the Universe exist?
Why is the world the way it is? Does it have to be this way?

These beg the question. They assume there is a reason or purpose that could only have been imposed by a Creator of some form, then ask what the reason or purpose is.

How does something come from nothing?

Science is working on this. In fact, according to my limited understanding of QM and some of the theories posed by Hawking, something is being created from nothing constantly everywhere.

 

[Piscivore]

I seem to remember learning at school when I was six that up was actually the opposite of down.

Maybe you shouldn't have stopped there.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

These beg the question.

Only if you have no idea what "beg the question" means.

"Begging the question" is to assume ones answer. Asking "Does life have a meaning?" cannot possibly be begging the question.

You less than three logic, yes.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

In fact, according to my limited understanding of QM and some of the theories posed by Hawking, something is being created from nothing constantly everywhere.

Keep going...you're getting there......

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Maybe you shouldn't have stopped there.

Do you think my life would have been any easier if I had?

 

[Tricky]

Just as a matter of interest....

Is anything the opposite of anything?

Can I have some examples, please? I seem to remember learning at school when I was six that up was actually the opposite of down.

Yes, they teach that to six-year-olds who aren't quite ready for difficult concepts like center of gravity. You learn those things later.

While we speak of words as opposites, like "hot" and "cold", any reasonable person knows that they are only spoken of in a relative sense. Is an ice cube cold? Compared to liquid nitrogen, it is damned hot. If you drop an ice cube in liquid nitrogen, it will cause the nitrogen to boil. You might tell a child with a fever that his forehead is hot, but that doesn't mean you could melt lead on it.

So in a sense the opposites you speak of are really just opposite directions on a sliding scale. Hot is in the direction of increasing temperature, cold is in the direction of decreasing temperature. Up is increasingly distant from the center of gravity of the earth (or whatever large celestial body you are standing on), Down is decreasingly distant. Subjective is in the direction of fewer points of observation. Objective is in the direction of more points of observation.

Do you remember Iacchus? He used to prattle on about the existence of "absolutes" by which everything was measured. His notions were easily shown to be self-contradictory.

So if it helps, you can assume that when I say something is "subjective", I mean that it is more subjective that whatever it is I am comparing it to. For example, metaphysics is more subjective than science, but since some people independantly arrive at the same metaphysical beliefs, you cannot say that it is totally subjective. So don't give up.

I must have remembered wrong, though, because there are so many intelligent people here that they couldn't possibly all be saying something really, really silly, could they?

They just have a different way of looking at them than you. It might even be possible for you to consider their perspective. You might even come to an understanding of it. Then you wouldn't have to call everyone "silly" or worse.

 

[Piscivore]

Do you think my life would have been any easier if I had?

No, if anything, further education complicates things. Which is why most believers and philosophers usually try to excessively simplify things... like boiling complex relationships down to elementary-school "opposites."

But going beyond what Ms. Othmar taught you at PS 742 would have given you the tools you need to understand why "subjective" and "objective" are not "opposites."

And why sometimes black and white, up and down, or apples and oranges aren't either.