Agreed.
But if you agree to the above, why are you so insistence there are objects independent of subjects in the absolute sense?
Note this pic,
Point here is ‘the subject in object’ while simultaneously ‘the object is in the subject’ and the complementariness of the two enable reality-as-it-is to emerge.
You cannot make a standalone claim, the object is independent of the object absolutely.
Inter subjectivity is as close as we can get to objectivity and so there will always be a gap between them
It cannot be objectivity as such because of the problem of induction and the finite limitation of knowledge
As I have already explained this is just simply part of a working model of what I think reality is
I make a distinction between objects and subjects and treat them as entirely separate entities
It is based upon my own subjective interpretation of what those words specifically mean to me
The important thing is to have a degree of rigour without it ever becoming unnecessarily dogmatic
You need some axioms upon which to build a knowledge base from even if they are only approximations and subject to revision over time
The alternative is to have no thoughts at all about the nature of reality and to just live your life as a biological organism and nothing else
So using the tools of empiricism / logic / philosophy my mind thinks the following are either true or probably true and constitute my basic world view :
[b]All knowledge is mind dependent and limited
Physical reality exists independently of minds
Solipsism is false even though it cannot be disproven
Subjective interpretation of reality and reality are not the same
Existence and change are the only things that are truly eternal / infinite
Science / math are the best means for understanding the reality that we experience
Death is merely a transformation from consciousness to non consciousness / no more no less
Nothing truly matters in the grand scheme of things including our own existence both collectively / individually[/b]
Sounds like a religion praising ignorance more than anything else.
Strive not for answers.
You can never know anything.
Insignificant mortals.
Bow before the gods of doubt and uncertainty.
[-o<
Beings are not necessary to be a subject. You guys keep confusing that. I went over that in the OP and then over several more pages. I’m out of ideas for how to convey it.
Sure, and if I want to massacre those reducing massacre into chocolate/vanilla, then it’s chocolate/vanilla. Those who see it my way will join me and whoever has the numbers will win. It’s pragmatic.
I see nothing to concede, except your self-admitted arrogance that you think is so charming.
What did I miss? The only point you made was erroneous: that gravity should be regarded as eternal law based on limited sample-set.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
That’s a statement about you, not me. You present fallacy as if it were truth and regard truth as if it were fallacy and your arrogance makes correction as mechanically impossible as administering medicine to a dead horse.
Trolls have an easy job: all they must do is disrupt by rehashing the same nonsense repetitively; it’s neuroglycemially cheap, like spam.
Then go congratulate yourself. Somewhere a mirror beckons.
Ping me when you come up with a point relative to the topic. If you wish to discuss me, unfortunately the Brownshirt Serendipper thread has been locked, but you’re welcome to start a new one.
Relative objectivity? What’s that?
The problem here is you’re differentiating what electrons regard as true from what humans regard as true while humans are made of the electrons themselves. You’re positing a line separating life from nonlife and this will cause you eternal struggle in philosophy. It’s much easier if you remove the line.
“Physical reality exists independently of minds” is the same as saying chemistry exists even though the molecule has been dissolved.
And this one is false: “Subjective interpretation of reality and reality are not the same.” There is no reality outside of subjective interpretation, but what’s confusing everyone is they’re hungup on equating subjective interpretation to mean “opinion” when it means nothing of the kind, except to the extent that opinion is merely a chemical reaction.
I agree with the procedure… so far there’s nothing but agreement between us.
The one cautionary tale is that if we find a proximal axiom or foundation that has served us well we can grow compliant in it’s refinement, accepting the few errors of navigation as “close enough” and as we build on those axioms the resistance to revision grows, as that much more work would have to be redone, but the margin of error grows as you extend it’s utility to new horizons, so we make corrections that contradict our axioms to patch the holes… resulting in mental dissonance, analysis paralysis and a host of other issues.
That being said, we seem to have come to many of the same conclusions:
All knowledge is mind dependent and limited - check
Physical reality exists independently of minds - check
Solipsism is false even though it cannot be disproven - check, though I would have worded that differently
Subjective interpretation of reality and reality are not the same - check
Existence and change are the only things that are truly eternal / infinite - check.
Science / math are the best means for understanding the reality that we experience - check
Death is merely a transformation from consciousness to non consciousness / no more no less - check
Nothing truly matters in the grand scheme of things including our own existence both collectively / individually - this one… I wanna talk about this one as we have come to wildly different conclusions on this.
I would say what “truly” matters is our qualitative experience… it is the ONLY thing that matters and the moment you abandon it as the source of your valuing you fall into nihilism, because nothing else CAN matter.
Even if we could imagine ourselves in relation to a divine being with a cosmic plan, the plan can only be evaluated through our own qualitative experience…
“hell sound like a bad place, heaven sounds amazing… let’s navigate towards heaven” or a less selfish version could be “I like this god character, I hope he gets what he wants in the end, even if I’m not around to see it”
The moment you decouple that from your own qualitative experience, none of it matters…
In norse mythology Odin would gather the greatest warriors in valhalla to fight and die over and over in training, so that when ragnarok came, where all was fated to end and Odin was fated to die, he could put up the most spectacular fight possible. Now one might look at that story and imagine him mad, he knows he can’t win… what’s the point in fighting, it’s all going to end the same way regardless. But that will to fight, not to win, but to fight is what it means to be alive.
We don’t easily attach to inanimate matter, we don’t wish the universe a happy existence after our departure because we don’t think it capable… but we CAN care about people and we do believe they persist after our death and we may find meaning in fighting for them and to have been part of the grand battle… I think I know how that ends, but I want an awesome fight before that end… and that’s what “truly” matters.
Their “proof” will consist of the conclusions that they draw from the assumptions that they make about abortion.
Thus the conclusion of the anti-abortion camp is based on the assumption that a human baby [from the point of conception for some] has the natural right to life. While the conclusion of the pro-choice camp is based on the assumption that women have the political right to abort that which many do not even construe to be a human being.
Then what?
And, sure, of course, all of this is predicated on the actual existence of human beings able to conceive a new life given the objective parameters of human biology and human sexuality.
Well, demonstrate to us how you do know that there is no objective morality. My point is that the objectivists engage arguments which they insist are true because they insist in turn that the underlying assumptions/premises are true.
By definition as it were. Just like you.
My bottom line then is that neither you nor they are actually able to demonstrate the whole truth here one way or another. If only because the whole truth would seem to be necessarily embedded in the definitive understanding of existence itself.
Not that I can demonstrate that you or others are not in possession of this understanding.
Again, another assertion. And then any number of determinists will assert that you were never able not to assert it.
Here, again, I have no real understanding of what this means. As it relates to any particular choice you might make in any particular context. What seems true to you is one thing, what can be demonstrated to in fact actually be true objectively, something else.
Instead, you take your leap to a particular frame of mind that you may or may not have had the option not to.
Hopelessly abstract, but, sure, that might be the explanation that all rational men and women are obligated to share.
It’s just that to others it is imagined that in a wholly ordered universe human subjectively itself is just an illusion. Any particular “I” could not but observe only that object which it is compelled to observe.
What becomes extraordinary is explaining how matter as mind or mind as matter is actually able to do this!
If it is doing this at all.
Bring this down to earth please.
This is the crunch of the matter, i.e. close the gap regardless of the fact and rigor.
It is also the principles re Hume’s problem of induction that we cannot close the gap, in reality or rationally.
According to Hume we cannot claim there is a direct link between cause and effect. The reason why there is an acceptable principle of cause and effect is due to intersubjective consensus based on customs, habits upon constant conjunction leveraged on human experience. Thus the basis is psychological. Why? - a long story.
It is the same when you close the gap between the intersubjective objectivity [say 90%] and perfect absolute objectivity [100%]. You are assuming there is a final state of objectivity, i.e. 100% perfect absolute objectivity.
Btw, you and all are merely fallible human beings, there is no way you & all can infer there is a 100% perfect absolute objectivity.
Therefore you and all MUST suspend judgment on this and as Wittgenstein advised,
“Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”
Note Meno’s Paradox,
How do you know what it [100% objectivity] is when you do not what it is in the first place. Thus again,
“Whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent”
The above is precisely what theists are doing, i.e. assume there is a final cause and close the gap between reality-as-it-is with the God-of-the-Gap. Note Russell again,
Uncertainty and suspension of judgment is painful and must be endured.
However, subliminally you as a pure objectivist and like the theists cannot endure thus jumped the GAP to conclude on 100% pure absolute objectivity and absolute GOD respectively.
Why humans [fallible] insist [subliminally] on the certainty of a final objectivity or OBJECTIVITY [i.e. GOD] is due to psychological as indicated by Hume.
We can can experiment to experience that internal desperation. See my OP on Breath and Spirituality.
Not wanting to know and not being able to know are not the same
Knowledge of the observable world comes from science not philosophy
This is a very mind centric view which is demonstrably false given that reality has existed for much longer than minds have
And also reality created minds and it will carry on existing long after the last mind ceases to be and can no longer function
It matters but only in the here and now in the incredibly short period between birth and death
But in the eternity before birth and the eternity after death however it does not matter at all
Your period of conscious existence is completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things
We give purpose or meaning to our lives but on the cosmic scale it has no importance at all
It may be nihilistic to think as such but death is the end of all suffering so no nihilism there
Accept human fallibility and the problem of induction and there will be no pain
Omniscience is not actually possible and so any desire for it should be discarded
So you want to know something that can’t be known. What’s the word for that ? Ridiculous, futile, absurd?
The observable world is the world of objective reality. And your point is that you can’t get knowledge of it … not real real absolute absolute knowledge … even if you use science.
So what can you get? A collective inter-subjective illusion?
And you never have any idea about how close you are to the reality. You never know how big the gap is. Right? 
He has already covered that objection. Everything is doing subjective interpretation … rocks, sticks, atoms, you name it. 
Right. Their proof would be subject to __________.
I don’t know. Either it becomes a popularity contest or a sensibility contest or somehow one party defeats the other. Does the lion catch the deer so the lion can go on living or does the deer get away so that the deer can go on living? Why should the universe care?
Right. It’s definitional.
We have a subject and object, so what ought subjectivity and objectivity mean? Well, subjectivity is the viewpoint of the subject. Makes sense, right? So is objectivity the viewpoint of the object? Well, that’s just swapping their names, so it’s still subjectivity where the object becomes the subject. So then what is objectivity? Well, if (S → O) and (O → S) are both subjectivity, then the only remaining option is (O) without the subject. What else could it be?
So subjectivity is the object in context of the subject and objectivity is the object without a context.
So subjectivity says abortion is right or wrong depending on the context and objectivity says it’s wrong regardless of any contexts.
My view is the contextless thing cannot exist and that’s subject to the fact that I cannot conceptualize existence outside of context and those who assert the existence of the contextless are overstepping their authority in arrogance.
Obviously I can’t demonstrate objective truth, but I can demonstrate subjective truth and whether or not such truth is popular.
It’s the most substantiated assertion in all of science. Either there are no local variables determining outcomes, which means events are causeless; or information can travel faster than light, which means effects can precede causes. Pick which nonsense you prefer, but there is no experimental evidence to underpin determinism, which relegates it to not only being conjecture, but also in the face of contrary evidence.
I’ve told you this, like, 5 times now. Is it that you don’t believe me? Are you not understanding? What’s going on?
What exists to you is subject to your ability to behold it.
How do you define illusion?
Right.
Bring the concept of “bringing it down to earth” down to earth please 